I Cogitate

Hillary Clinton--remains the elephant in the Democratic living room. But despite her recent 'positioning' remarks on abortion, she remains the Democrat with the highest polling negatives and the one for whom the largest percentage of the electorate would never consider voting for her based on 1) being Hilary Clinton (fill in your own definition) and 2) being a woman. Right or wrong, the Democrats would be doomed to yet another presidential defeat if Hillary is nominated and nothing can be done about that. Please Hillary, do whatever you can to get the presidency and the Congress back in the hands of the Democrats so that you can become the new Ted Kennedy.

John Kerry--the less written the better. A good man who would have been a fine President of the United States but also one who still fails to realize or accept why he lost. His most recent appearance on the Don Imus radio show was most telling. Kerry responded to an Imus question with his usual 39 paragraph-8 sub part-5 footnote answer. Imus wouldn't or couldn't feign continued interest and said he was trying to learn how to operate his computer during Kerry's long-winded answer. Kerry then apologized for the length of his reply. John, game, set and match. Forget 2008.

John Edwards--he certainly is positioning himself for an '08 run with his various speeches and announcements but many Democrats wonder about his electability, what with his inability to help in North Carolina or various so-called swing states. His "Two Americas" position strongly appeals to me but two national concerns remain: 1) his national security cred--because that will remain a voter concern in 2008 and 2) his genuineness cred--does he come off as a touch too slick, too lawyer-like, to too many people? I do not disparage him for his failure to be a voter "magnet" for Kerry in 2004 because he was misused and underutilized by the Kerry campaign and received minimal media coverage as a result. Think about this: how often was Dick Cheney's name in the headlines versus Edward's during the campaign? Edwards would do well to reach out to the Democratic 'netroots' people and position himself as a reform-the-party candidate. Barring his wife's medical condition worsening, he is going to run.

Wesley Clark --  he was simply unprepared to run a presidential campaign in 2004 and if he is mitigating those weaknesses as I type, then he is doing it in stealth mode. His current skills set seems much more appropriate for the Secretary of Defense post or as a rep to the United Nations. Maybe he can turn it around but if he was the "Clinton" 2004 candidate and if Hillary decides to run in 2008, then where does that leave Clark? Wes, become an asset to whoever you think will likely become the 2008 Democratic nominee and see what the future brings.

Joe Biden--he almost jumped in during 2004 and apparently has told people he is definitely IN for 2008. Yeah, he "borrowed without attribution" speech material in the past but who in this country is going to care about that? He does possess foreign policy and national security gravitas but can he get beyond the label of northeast liberal Democrat and be packaged to sell in the South or the Midwest? Not likely. He would make a fine president but circumstances will prevent it.

Evan Bayh --  he is definitely going to be a candidate and an intriguing one at that. Able to win in a Republican-dominated state (indiana), Bayh has the centralist credentials that will certainly garner support from the Democratic Leadership Council types like Al From but also possibly appeal to the left. That will be his most important task: keeping his base happy while also drawing support from the Democratic Party's liberals. Look for him to be the darkhorse in this race, with a difficult coalition to assemble but, if successful in doing so, he will be the nominee. Like Edwards, Bayh would benefit from establishing himself as a reformer candidate but he would need to do so without alienating those presently comfortable with him. It's a difficult dance.

Bill Richardson--is fully expected to at least give it an initial go. His track record as Bill Clinton's Energy Secretary was marred with a few security "incidents" at Los Alamos and that will produce negative ads questioning his national security credentials. He is too much of an 'old-style Democrat for my taste but he is very popular as New Mexico's governor and is Hispanic. My problem is I don't see 'reformer' as his style. What I do see is a return to policy decisions emanating from smoke-filled backrooms. Ugh! Maybe a VP selection.

Russ Feingold--he is making noises and doing some initial exploring. Being Jewish will be a double-edged sword, helping with fundraising and improving chances of winning Florida's electoral votes but being dead-on-arrival in the South. He appears to be the kind of guy who may be the first choice of very few but a strong compromise candidate. His work on campaign contributions with John McCain should only be a plus.

Mark Warner--his ability to win as a Democrat in Virginia is remarkable. His ability to get a tax increase approved for educational and other uses was amazing. Very little is known about him nationally but he certainly seems in touch with what is needed for electorate approval in a conservative state and that makes him a viable presidential candidate on that basis alone.

 RSS feed