Primary 2008, Part I -- Democrats: When Inevitability Isn't So...Inevitable

Read Part II -- The Republicans: In Search of a Front Runner, here.

It seems like we've been involved in the presidential campaign for a year, probably because we have been involved with the presidential campaign for a year. A lot has happened, intriguingly, even though no one has even voted yet. In a previous column I looked at the Democrats and handicapped them. As we get very close to Iowa and New Hampshire -- the two main events -- let's re-examine each of the candidates.

Hillary Clinton -- I cringed when her chief strategist and my polling colleague, Mark Penn, wrote a 350-page memo several months ago declaring her to be inevitable as the next president of the United States. It was the wrong message for a number of reasons.

First, it raised expectations way too high, so she was left running against herself and, secondly, it sounded horribly arrogant, which I still think it was. Number three, it misunderstood -- then and now -- the genuine anger that voters feel and their willingness to take it out on some of the best-known candidates. Finally, one thing I know about Iowa voters is that they don't like to be told whom they're going to vote for. It is not over, but let me restate here what I've been suggesting in columns, speeches, and media appearances for a couple of months -- Sen. Clinton could come in third in Iowa. Thus, arguably the best-known presidential candidate in American history has a ceiling of 25% to 29% in Iowa. Not likely to bring those numbers up, she has tried to go negative at Obama to bring his numbers down. It seems to be backfiring on her.

Barack Obama -- Hope and change seem to be what Americans are looking for. They are troubled by Obama's lack of experience and youth, but so far of any of the Democratic candidates, he has the strongest appeal among moderates and Independents in both the primaries and the general election. Will he get lost in the back and forth with Clinton and get damaged in the process? So far it doesn't look like it. Right now he's the odds-on favorite in Iowa and several early states that follow and his numbers seem to improve every day. Also, he does better against any of the leading Republicans than any other Democrat. He can survive a second-place showing in Iowa...if the winner is Edwards.

John Edwards -- He could gain the most from the Hillary-Obama drama. We know that John Edwards has honed a very popular message. It worked well for him in 2004, the notion of "Two Americas" that includes an alienated, anxiety-ridden middle class as well. Edwards is the best natural stump speaker of the three candidates and his audiences are large, and they like him. His message at the moment of economic populism is probably too hot for the general election, but he can modulate that should he secure the nomination. His biggest problem is a lack of money. Others have suggested that his other problem may be just gaining attention, as Hillary and Obama suck up the oxygen. However, Edwards has maintained his support in the low 20s, he knows this caucus system, and he is a very popular second choice among supporters of also-ran candidates who will not meet the 15 percent "viability" standard. So this remains very much a three-way race. Edwards does not have as much money as Clinton and Obama, but a victory in Iowa could help him enormously in that regard. He also has one of the best Internet fund-raisers in Howard Dean's strategist, Joe Trippi. And for those north of the Mason-Dixon Line who doubt the sincerity of his Southern drawl, the same was said of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton -- the last three Democratic presidents.

Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel -- We're starting to see some evidence of interest in Joe Biden's candidacy as Clinton fades a little. If Biden can jump up to 15 percent, he could gain more attention than the number-three finisher and bill himself as the seasoned candidate who can go the distance. The same can be said for Bill Richardson. None of the other candidates, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel, show any promise whatsoever.

But it's been a topsy-turvy year. Look for a few more topsys and turveys.

Read Part II -- The Republicans: In Search of a Front Runner, here.

Comments

[JohnCP]

To give the people on this list, some idea how deceitful polling has become, I just saw a poll showing Clinton "15 points!" ahead of Obama and Edwards in "Iowa!" Is it this poll, or the other polls showing her behind or running even with Obama that are deceitful?
No candidate has been attacked as viciously and consistently as Hillary. I'm voting for her.

[RabbiOmar]

I'm closest on the issues to Joe Biden, then John Edwards but I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in November (could the Pennsylvania primary mean something this year?). Bottom line, I want to hear why a candidate state why she or he would make a good president rather than trashing their opponents.

[RAMHaiti]

O, the candidate of "Unity", is nothing, if not divisive.
He grins while kicking your legs under the table. At home we call that a "hypocrite".

[rikyrah]

Good post. Obama is no younger than when Bill Clinton won The Presidency as Governor of a state one-quarter in size of the state in which Obama was elected to the United States Senate. Who do you think had a harder road to tow towards victory?

Hillary Clinton is a one term Senator. So is John Edwards. That is the extent of their 'experience'. I don't considered being married to someone Executive Experience.

[Kane]

The Clinton strategy was to convince voters that she was the inevitable winner even before a vote was cast. The strategy is eerily reminiscent of "Mission Accomplished".

Now with less than two weeks before the Iowa caucus, the Clinton team has ordered staff to lower their expectations, and their talking about a second place finish.

[cloudy]

I'd really like to see, pursuant to a general comment I made earlier in this thread, Zogby take on mogulescu's argument, including his specific data, claiming Edwards to be the most election-worthy major Democratic candidate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/democrats-need-john-edwar_b_77468.html

[eshalom]

massimo1, the talk you refer to is the mindless ranting of a small group of uninformed people. When I've tried to communicate with any of this type, I've been stunned by the sheer irrational responses to my questions regarding what they base their opinions on. They come up with answers like, "I just don't like her." Or they repeat the stereotypical, chauvinistic garbage they pick up from disreputable news sources. Hillary haters are a minority, but are they ever loud! I usually just walk away.

[RaceCondition]

Dodd is only counted out amongst people who are too stupid to get their news somewhere other than Fox, are you kidding? With his moment in the sun on Monday, his campaign is gaining momentum.

[LeeFromVA]

I used to worry that Senator Clinton couldn't win the general election, now I worry that she could. I am so disappointed and angry with her that I am incapable of switching from HOPE in a greater America to stay-the-course with Hillary. If she manages to weasel and lie her way to the nomination, I will do something I have never done in my entire life: vote for a Republican. I will make it my personal mission to stop her from winning the presidency. The Obama sign in my yard will be replaced with one for Rudy, Mitt or Huck.

[Doofus]

As they round the first turn...

With absolutely NO PRIMARY voting behind us,
it's fair to say (or is it?) that the Demo
nominee will be Clinton or Obama, with John
Edwards the long shot. But each is qualified
for the job in their own way.

You have to wonder what it would take for
Biden or Richardson or Dodd to move up.
Biden & Dodd are quite comfortable in the
Senate, apparently, else why are they STILL
there? Richardson will make a fine VP nominee.

More interesting is, which Repo man will have
the privilege of taking on the Demo, for what
will p'rove to be a spirited, if not sporting,
contest next fall. Tally-ho! Remember, this is
only an exhibition, not a competition. Please, no wagering. ...

[tinkaboutit]

Clinton-marquee name-designated jerk-treated with lack of respect by media.

Obama-marquee name-treated with extremely suspicious deference by the media. His admitted cocaine use is reffered to simply as "self-admitted youthful indescretions". The fact he is black in an extremely racist society is NEVER mentioned. Always prominent headline coverage despite lack of experience.

Edwards-media blackout is in effect.

Biden-media blackout is in effect.

Dodd-media blackout is in effect.

Kucinich-media blackout is in effect.

Gravel-media blackout is in effect.

[RAMHaiti]

You can tell the Obama backers; they live in Fairy tale land.... I live in reality land and I need a President (Hillary) who knows what she's doing. The poseur won in 2000. Haven't we learned that poseurs "we 'ld like to drink a beer with" just aren't good enough at running the country?

[smheart78]

"Biden is the best qualified candidate"
Biden's campaign offers the best of everyone else’s campaign in one single package.

EDWARDS: Biden has consistently voted for campaign finance reform and has offered public financing of federal elections, thus, severely cutting off lobbyists influence. Though he has 35 years of tenure, he is considered one of the poorer senators in the Senate. We can trust he's not in it with lobbyists.
RICHARDSON: Biden has been to Iraq and the region more than any of other candidates combined. He is the CHAIRMAN of the Foreign Relations committee. He commands the respect of all the senators, which is why they overwhelmingly support Biden's exit plan for Iraq...not Richardson’s. The Iraqi leaders and other world leaders respect him and his plan as well. He helped end the genocide in Bosnia and owns any foreign policy conversation. People look to him for foreign policy answers, because, well, that’s his job.
OBAMA: Biden was considered the change candidate of hope back in '88. He still holds those views today and considers them even more prescient with 20 years more experience. He creates change against the tide as PROVEN with his Violence Against Women Act and having 75 senate votes for his Iraq plan. The whole reason he entered into to politics was for the civil rights movement and ,per the Des Moines debate, is 'the most pro civil rights candidate to ever run'....ever.
DODD: Biden shares a lengthy career providing civil work to our nation. He has the respect of his colleagues to chair not only the Foreign Relations Committee, but also the Judiciary Committee for over 15 years. I guess it is what kind of experience you have. Which leads me to the next candidate.
CLINTON: Biden has 35 years of actionable experience, with proven results. He has negotiated with world leaders (as resulted with the recent Musharraf and Bhutto incident in Pakistan). Biden has PROVEN he can work with the other side of the aisle and not polarize. He has worked and codified the domestic issues that she has used.

[tinkaboutit]

...ugh...

This analysis COMPLETELY ignores how the media treats each candidate differently:

-Hillary is ganged up on, second-guessed, harshly criticized and questioned. She's the designated a$$hole and is treated as such, with less respect than Bush deserves.

-Obama is treated with an extremely suspicious looking deference by the media. His cocaine use is always referred to as "past youthful indiscretions", and the fact that he's black and running in a deeply racist society is NEVER mentioned. He gets propped up with endless prominent front-page coverage, almost always positive.

-Edwards is subject to a media blackout.

-Richardson is subject to a media blackout.

-Biden is subject to a media blackout.

-Dodd is subject to a media blackout.

-Kucinich is subject to a media blackout.

-Gravel is subject to a media blackout.

[Countess]

Mrs. Clinton's dirty campaign is intended to boost edwards after destroying Obama. She has no faith that the people of Iowa will vote for her on her merits which is true.