Handicapping the Democratic Presidential Hopefuls

I have been watching the national political scene for decades, and we have been probing the minds of the American electorate for well over a year on the 2008 race for the White House. As we head into the fall before the caucuses and primaries begin, I decided to stop and take a look at the landscape. In this posting, I focus on the Democrats. In another coming soon, I will write about the Republicans.

The Democrats

• Hillary Rodham Clinton: She is clearly the frontrunner and I have learned over the years to never bet against a Clinton. Based on solid historical data, I didn't think she could win in New York in 2000 and I have since learned that there are two political playbooks in the U.S. today: One marked "The Clintons" and the other, "We Mortals." On the pro side, Clinton has experience, the flexibility to sense where the firestorm of criticism may be coming from and to adjust her message and demeanor, her husband as both the sharpest political mind in the nation today and as a personality to rally the Democratic base, and considerable charm that wears well with her obvious intelligence. She has also neutralized to a great degree the doggedness and arrogance that led to the defeat of her health-care plan in 1994. As for cons, she is the lightning rod and can energize the other side to come out to vote against her. Questions abound among Democrats as to whether she can win. And perhaps most significantly, a 2008 voter will have to be at least 46 years of age to have cast a ballot in a presidential election where a Bush or a Clinton wasn't an option. So a campaign that argues for a fresh face and a different kind of experience might hurt her. (Likely scenario: She runs and wins two terms as president, then serves one term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, then converts to Catholicism and rides out her final years as Pope).
• Barack Obama: One of Clinton's great misfortunes this year is that she is vying for the nomination against both modern-day Jack and Bobby Kennedys. Obama is the new Jack Kennedy, voters tell us. On the pro side, he is electric, generates a message of hope that is particularly appealing to younger voters (who will vote in very large numbers in 2008), and has an ability to raise an enormous amount of money from tens of thousands of donors to match Clinton. He beams a message of change, presents a new face to the world and has opposed the war in Iraq more strongly than Clinton. Cons: You do have to wince when he cites his history as a community organizer in Chicago as an example for making tough decisions. (Full disclosure: I too was a community organizer and it was a wonderful experience, but I am not running for president).
• John Edwards: He is the modern-day Bobby Kennedy. Pros - he is very good at this. He draws good crowds, good endorsements, has a great stump speech that is meaningful to both the middle class and the working poor about "Two Americas," is running on the left, which could work well among Iowa and New Hampshire voters, and he has his wife, who is brilliant, articulate, and vulnerable. Together, they have Ann Coulter, who has helped them raise significant sums of money. As for cons, while he is right in the pack in Iowa, his national polls are drifting down and cast a shadow on his candidacy. He absolutely must win Iowa, or there is not a next day for him. Even if he does, would he get enough of the "Three M's" - Media, Money, and Momentum - to have enough to proceed into the next states? Remember states like Florida, New York, California and Michigan (plus many others) will hold primaries and caucuses by February 5 and lots of money for television will be needed.
• Bill Richardson: Pros - he has a rich and varied experience as a legislator, a Cabinet member, a diplomat and now a governor (of an important swing state). He has a strong record of cutting taxes in New Mexico and receives kudos from many Republicans. He is the only Hispanic candidate in a year when the Hispanic vote will grow in numbers again and should be a windfall for the Democrats. As for cons, while he is gaining ground in Iowa polls, he is still in fourth place and he is deeply disliked by his former colleagues in Congress who suggest privately that they might actively campaign against him.
• Joe Biden and Chris Dodd: These are two gifted, articulate and experienced U.S. senators. They in fact are the "turn-key" candidates, meaning they could easily walk into the White House in January 2009 and get right down to business. They could also cross the aisle and work with Republicans. But thus far they are both stuck in low single digits and it will be difficult for them to break away with Democrats giving so much support to the Big Three in the race.
• Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel: These are Movement candidates. Kucinich is out there to build a stronger left in the party and to use the opportunity to focus on issues close to the hearts of antiwar, pro-environment, labor and civil rights groups. If he can hit 10 percent in Iowa or New Hampshire, he will have made a point.
• Gravel, an impressive former senator best remembered for having read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record is the bona fide curmudgeon in the race and has gotten a few good one-liners in.
• Al Gore: He is not likely to enter, but if one of the main candidates fails this fall and Gore receives a Nobel Prize - to go along with an Oscar and Emmy - he is the one fresh face (how's that for irony) that can raise the money, project the global warming issue and be 100 percent pure on Iraq. He also has many years of experience in and out of government, is a successful businessman, and his hands are clean for the past seven years.

Comments

[SONWABO MDA]

It should be clear to all by now that Hillary currently enjoys a solid lead way ahead of the rest of Democratic candidates. On a level of generality, one can surmise that the prevailing pro-Bill Clinton nolstagia has translated somewhat into a wave of national goodwill that has been an operative dynamic in favor of Hillary, even if it has not neutralized the detrimental aspects of her polarizing personality, as well as negative aspects of her husband's administration which remain the achilles' hills of her campaign. But her self-assured demeanor coupled with her command of issues conveys an image of readiness, experience and inevitability all of which have not been effectively challenged by any of the Democratic candidates, let alone the Republicans. She has been on an unending honey-moon whose termination remains inconceivable in the absence of a concerted, synchronized and subtly negative campaign designed to undercut her momentum, if not bring her down in the early primary states. With this in mind, however, her fellow candidates may be mindful of not inflicting on her such damage as to make it easy for Republicans to neutralize her once and for all.

As for Obama, he has everything going for him except what might be an entrenched public perception that, while he is such a captivating public speaker, as well as endowed with gravitas and a sound sense of judgment lacking in others, has zero experience quailfying him to be president of the U.S. in these bad times. On the contrary, he should have been able to amplify the indisputable fact that those who are presumed to be well experienced have sadly displayed--- at crucial moments for that matter---an utter lack of sound judgement as they have, through their political actions, driven America's son and daughters into the jaws of a protracted sectarian civil war with no end in sight. As a matter of realism, Obama's "inexperience" sanitizes him from the ways of Washington, and if utilized skilfully could be used to against the Washington political holdovers to burnish his narrative of "change"

[meta]

Hillary Clinton makes my nose bleed. I can barely stand the sound of her voice and her phony "message."

As much as I would love to see a woman president, she is nothing special. In fact, she is more of the same. More old school. How many of you who are voting for Hillary would still vote for her if she were a man? It's shocking to see how many are so impressed with her given her judgment about the war and her blatant pandering and incessant triangulation. Listen to her statements and realize that she didn't even read the intelligence. I'm growing weary of the media's obsession with her. Perhaps others will too. The thought of more Clinton years makes me weep.

[darker]

Oh, so H. Clinton's proposal of a sensible HEALTH CARE PLAN is okay if it's presented in a wussy, sheepish way.

But it's not okay for a woman to present it forcefully and be adamant about it?
What about MEN? Is it OK for guys to be forceful and adamant, to push their programs?
THE HYPOCRISY HERE IS GLARING.

Healthcare? Say what?
Well, DON'T TELL IT TO BUSH-CHENEY--
It will ruin their WAR PLANS!!!!!!!

US Public must be kept scared, powerless, cowering, and above all -- NEVER DEMAND PEACE.

Without WAR [INVASIONS] there won't be USTaxpayer money shoveled out of USTreasury into pockets of ultra-rich U.S.WAR PROFITEERS, the Bush-Cheney permanent "cottage industry".

Now that Bush-Cheney's USA = WELFARE STATE FOR THE RICH, everyone who is not a rich $$$$$$$$$$$$ political contributor can feel "royally screwed" on a permanent basis.

The policy changes and media brain-washing since Reagan in 1980 have pursued this course with a vengeance.

[aquarian]

Done that; read the book, saw her in person and have kept up with her web site. If she gets the nom. I switching to independent or Green. I do not trust her with my future.

[gerrylong]

Yes, we are a one-party society. It should be called the Big-Corporation Party. Hillary, Biden, Dodd, All the RepubliKKKan KKKandidates belong to it. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox, NY Times, Chicago Trib., Wash Post, etc., got us into this war.

The Big-Corp. candidates can't really become anti-war because they are afraid of big money deserting them.

Kucinich can't get recognized because he says he will shrink the defense (war department) budget. That scares the hell out of big corporations, because we have to maintain our 750 military bases around the world to protect the dictators who protect those same corporations overseas.

The vast majority of the public goes along because they're too naive and lazy to turn off the boob-tube and subscribe to a non-big-corporate magazine like Mother Jones, Nation Mag., Z-Mag., The Progressive, etc., to find out what is actually going on.

It's been down-hill ever since the corporate puppet, Ronald Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine, and made a hero out of a cultural moron like Rush Limbaugh.

Kiss the USA good-bye. It's over.

[daniel155]

I do not know that personally but the author states that Richardson may have made enemies while he was in Congress. I am just making the point that Richardson has a personality that could be irritating to colleagues.

As for his campaign, he has done well with what he has. Unfortunately John Edwards is serving as a firewall between the field and the top two candidates. Edwards does not have enough support to win but he has enough support to keep other alternatives to Clinton and Obama from emerging from the pack.

[Mariel]

It may depend on how bad the Repub candidate turns out to be. If he's really really bad we may vote for Hillary even if we don't want to. Maybe that's the ploy, since he two parties are arms of the same animal. Nominate Thompson, so that people will run in alarm to voting for Hillary.

If it's Thompson vs. Hillary, I will vote for whatever third party candidate seems acceptable, not believing he/she will win, but just to say "I don't buy the scam."

[Oragone]

Best Candidate.. Joe Biden or Chris Dodd
Likely Candidate.. Billary Clinton
Another lesser of two evils, especially if the Republicans nominatee Gouliani or Rumney

[mamacat]

I know he has little enough support, but please clarify a point.
Why would Gov. Richardson's former Congressional colleagues be upset with him?
Thank You.

[daniel155]

Someone mentioned that Zogby's analysis sounded like something that political junkies talk about around the water cooler. Good point. It does not take a political genius to figure out that Clinton has the advantage.

The author loses me with his comparison of Obama and Edwards to John and Bobby Kennedy. It is hard to imagine either Obama or Edwards having the same kind of detailed debate that JFK had with Nixon in 1960. It seems like they are both being kept under wraps by their handlers and it is an adventure any time they say something off the script. Edwards looked bad this week by having his wife be his mouthpiece on the Moveon.org Patreus-betray us ad.

I had not thought about it but Bill Richardson does come off as a know it all and it must have irritated his colleague in Congress and the Clinton administration. He has progress but not fast enough.

All of the other candidates are just going through the motions because they have little chance.

[leftLibertarian]

Once again, the Democrats have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent and without the backbone to stop the Iraq War and impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.
I'm urging my friends and family to vote libertarian or green party.
Both parties have principles and will end the Iraq war.

[nevadagirl]

That's interesting...I suppose the people of New York state who elected her for two terms are delusional and don't see her the same way you do.

[Danield]

While Al Gore is not seeking the nomination, he has also made it clear that he has not ruled out the possibility. Never before has America needed a leader of his stature, vision and experience more than now! If he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, I believe there will be a ground swell of support for him to run, similar to what happened in the 1950s and 1960s with Eisenhower and Goldwater. Its not too late. I believe that Al Gore will answer the call and become a candidate for president and will be elected.

[nevadagirl]

Joe Lieberman, Joe Lieberman, Joe lieberman. God, you people have a short memory.

[nevadagirl]

dad gummit,
Doesn't anyone remember that Al Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate? His movie was great, but he didn't even mention the environment during the 2000 campaign. He was so worried that baby Bush would call him "Ozone Man" that he let his handlers shut off all discussion of his favorite topic! He's doing far more to advance his cause as a private citizen.

[hauksdottir]

I'm a liberated feminist and I will NOT vote for Clinton.

I don't trust her. All she wants is power, and for what? Queen for a day? We are too close to a dictatorship to establish a ruling dynasty (even if the Clintons are smarter than the Bushes), and she has enabled the power grab.

We have other, better women in government: Boxer and Lee do a fine job of representing me and their concerns for the ISSUES are obvious. When we finally get a female President, I hope that it is someone who is in office for the sake of something other than pure ego.

Kucinich is by far the best candidate: anti-war, pro-environment, concerned with peace and stability in this world. Yet the media (owned by big corporations) scrunches him off to the side because big corporations have chosen Queen Hillary. The debate time clocks are most instructive of the bias against anybody who really has something to say.

I despise the echo chamber. The media has announced the front runners, based upon donations, and the donors commit to those anointed by the media.

Why should the likes of Murdoch choose our candidates?????

[nevadagirl]

You call yourself a feminist, yet you talk about a woman taking power as if that is a disgusting thought to you. maybe you could vote for a woman if she won America's Next Top Model.

[nevadagirl]

What makes you think you know Hillary Clinton personally? Your comment shows you are waiting for a condidate who is more like you. Maybe you should just run for president yourself. More sexist claptrap about Hillary!