In my article yesterday, entitled “John Kerry for 2008?”, I discussed the possibility of Kerry running for President in 2008. It was my opinion that he couldn’t win, or at the very least, he’d have a very hard fight on his hands. I also discussed the possibility of three Republican candidates, plus Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean for the Democrats.
Now I’m going to take a look at several possible Democratic candidates. I tried to find four candidates that could win the Democratic nomination, though not necessarily the Presidency.
The first is General Wesley Clark. Clark ran an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination in the 2004 campaign. Clark was unsuccessful for several reasons. One, he started late. He was the last candidate to announce his intention to run for the nomination. This left him straggling on policy issues, although he later made up for this. Secondly, and probably more damaging, Clark seemed inexperienced with the media. He just couldn’t use the media effectively, and this, his supporters claimed, was the reason that he seemed indecisive about war issues. General Clark has had plenty of time to learn how to utilize the media since then. Still, I believe the impression of being indecisive about the war will haunt him. He will be fighting an uphill battle.
The second potential candidate is Barack Obama (junior Senator, Illinois). While he’s popular with Democrats, Obama is seen as too liberal by many Republicans, including moderate Republicans. And, as one commenter to my earlier article so clearly stated: "he’s only a Junior Senator." (Thanks uao, whoever you are.) He needs to prove himself. He has the potential to take the nomination at a later date, but I just don’t think he’s ready now.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Don't forget Al Gore. We know he wants the job, and has attained a folk-hero status in some parts of the party. It would be difficult for Gore or Kerry to win the nomination if they both entered, as they would draw attention only for being previous losers.
Gore would also cause problems for Lieberman, who could easily decide to run. Joe appeals to centrist Democrats and independents, which aren't great providers of primary money. But he's got name recognition, experience, and a good personal reputation.
I don't think Dean would try again. It'd look suspicious if he were still party head. He's got all those skeletons in his closet. Obama couldn't win the nomination, and would look like a gimmick in the number two slot. There's no better resume in the Democratic Party than Richardson's, so don't rule him out.
2 - Andy Marsh
Warner is actually a pretty decent guy. We have a local morning show with two maniacs on it and Warner used to call in and talk to them all the time. They actually put out a CD every year to raise money for a Christmas wish fund and Warner is on it debating with one of the shows made up characters. It's pretty funny too!
3 - Triniman
You said "Clark seemed inexperienced with the media." Interesting that it turned out that way, since he was part of the media, as a commentator on CNN.
4 - Michael J. West
Obama? No chance. I frankly think he is exactly what the next generation of Democrats should aspire to be...but the party knows, no matter how good a man he is, that a black man still cannot win a presidential election in this country.
I'd love to see Russ Feingold on the ballot. Unfortunately that'll never happen either; he's too much of a maverick for the DNC to put their weight and money behind him.
Warner is absolutely the best candidate. But he's an outgoing governor in the midterm...can he find a way to stay relevant until 2008?
5 - Dave Nalle
If a black man wants to win the white house he needs to run as a Republican - he'd get more party support and enthusiasm than you can imagine. The democratic party would never do something so empowering for african americans as to nominate one of them for the presidency. That would start giving their dependent, ethnic constituents the idea that they actually have some power without the liberal elite giving them handouts with one hand while holding them down in poverty with the other.
As for this proposed slate of 'candidates', it looks like a fine starting point if you want to make sure Republicans get another 8 years, but the sad thing is that I don't think the democrats can come up with anything better - though I do think Al Gore could outperform all of the ones you propose.
Dave
6 - Nancy
I'd like to see Powell run simply because he's a fine, upstanding, honest & honorable leader, so totally different from the scumbags currently inhabiting the Hill & the WH. His color/race have nothing to do with it. However, I don't think he ever will, because a) his wife won't let him, & b) being an honest & honorable man, he would probably be eaten alive (again) by all the political rats, just like he was as Sec. of State. It's a pity that in order to survive in Washington, a person has to sink to the lowest levels of political filth with the rest of the scum.
Dave, your comments on Democrat motives regarding minority candidates is a clear projection of GOP values (or lack thereof) onto other parties, and not the truth or the facts.
Oh, & BTW - Happy New Year, all.
7 - Michael Heumann
What about Bill Richardson?
8 - Joseph Johaneman
What about Bill Richardson?
I decided to stick to only four candidates for the article, but if I had gone to five, Bill Richardson would have been in there. I almost bumped Obama to put Richardson in, but changed my mind at the last minute. He has expressed interest in running. Somehow, though, I see him more as a vice-presidential candidate rather than a presidential one. I could be wrong, here, though. We've still got quite a ways to go until 2008.
9 - Joseph Johaneman
You said "Clark seemed inexperienced with the media." Interesting that it turned out that way, since he was part of the media, as a commentator on CNN.
Yeah, it is interesting. He just couldn't get a handle on the whole "soundbite" thing. The media doesn't want long winded explanations. They want a 30 second summary that they can plug into the six o'clock news. I never saw him on CNN, but I imagine that he probably was given a bunch of time as a commentator. Unfortunately, candidates don't have that luxury. Kind of a sad indictment of American media in general.
10 - Scott
I think Obama could be a candidate in 2012, if a Repub wins in '08 or if a Democrat wins and doesn't run for re-election, or 2016 if a Democrat or Republican is elected to two terms. As of now, he's just still too new and young to drop a Senate seat he's only had for one year and make a run for Pres. He'll be a force to contend with later on.
Out of all the Democrats on this list, Warner looks to be in the best shape thus far. Pair him with Evan Bayh and you have a strong centrist/moderate ticket with ties into the south and midwest. It changes the whole electoral landscape.
Of course, it's all contingent on the Republican nominee. Right now, that looks to be McCain.
11 - Jai
I wouldn't put money on Warner. He is a one term governor, albeit a competent one, but with no other experience in public office and no background in foreign policy or national defense. And before you jump on me with the argument that Bush had none when he took office, remember what a low bar you're setting, that the nation wasn't at war in 2000, and that the GOP trump card for the last 40 years has been that branding of all Democrats as weak on defense and unable to handle the threats to our nation. They're stoking that fire even now, with their "white flag" attack ads and "defeat and retreat" rhetoric.
But Warner's biggest problem will be that he weasels away from holding accountable Bush and the Repubs in Congress who rubber-stamp everything he does. He's a "can't we all just get along" DLC Democrat. That won't sit well with Democratic primary voters, and it really won't mean much of anything in the general election--may even invite a third party challenge from the left, if the GOP machine doesn't eat him alive first.
Warner's best hope is making a big enough splash to get somebody's VP nod, much as Edwards did last time around.
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
I for one like Warner as the Aught Eight candidate. Jai, good point about him not having foreign policy experience (I'll take your word for it) but all he has to do is take a page out of the Bush book and surround himself in people who know about it.
13 - Bing
Why is everyone wasting thier breath. We all know it's going to be that evil, commie, [Unnecessary expletive deleted by Comments Editor] Hillary for the Dems in 2008. She will win the Dem nomination and then lose to whoever the GOP runs unless she is assissanted first.
Either way I'm not losing any sleep.
14 - Scott
He's already proven he can raise money with ease and reach across the aisle to try and work out a deal. If it ain't Clinton (the Hillary one) that gets the nom, my money's on Warner.
15 - Andy Marsh
Jai - Warner was a one term governor because VA law says the gov can only hold office for one term!
16 - Dave Nalle
Dave, your comments on Democrat motives regarding minority candidates is a clear projection of GOP values (or lack thereof) onto other parties, and not the truth or the facts.
Come again? The Democratic party maintains its power base by keeping a whole segment of society poor and uneducated and dependent on the government and then promising them government handouts and increased benefits if they vote for democrats. The GOP does nothing of the kind.
Dave
17 - Nancy
You've been drinking again, haven't you? You've got to stop inhaling GOP propaganda whole & unquestioned.
18 - Jai
Oh yeah, Matthew. That worked so well for Bush. His much-vaunted foreign policy team really kept him out of trouble. Not.
Look, I have no doubts Warner would put together a better complement of advisors. But when push comes to shove, the President is the commander-in-chief. Moreover, he's the one who has to see thru the often-backstabbing in-fighting (as EVERY president experiences) among his cabinet members and call the shots.
I also don't doubt that Warner wouldn't do a better job of sorting out the conflict than Bush has too. But it would be helpful if he had a handle on the federal bureaucracy and the competing interests of the different agencies, not to mention the issues involved.
None of which has much to do with the main point I was making above. I was talking about electability, since that seemed to be the main Warner virtue extolled in the original blog.
In our post-9/11 world, a nominee has got to be able to convince American voters that he (or she) can keep them safe. Thanks to a whole lot of factors going back to Vietnam, Democrats start out with a severe confidence deficit in national security. Repubs are suffering on that front too, but we don't get to run against Bush/Cheney, and if we can't show we offer something better, the advantage will be temporary. Given the way the media gets manipulated, I see no reason to think it won't continue to be real hard for any of our potential candidates, with the probable exception of Clark if he can counter the inevitable swiftboating, to manage. I fear a young, aw-shucks-likable but grossly inexperienced and not particularly agressive governor won't be able to cut it. Especially if the Repubs run a tough old dog like McCain, Giuliani or Gingrich.
The other question about Warner is whether he can win our nomination at all. Our activist base that turns out big in primaries may end up dead-set against him. They can't necessarily get their guy in (see Dean and Kucinich), but they can make big problems for whomever they don't like (see Lieberman, the clear leader this early in the last cycle). I'm pretty much a moderate myself, but we need someone who can unite our factions, and I don't see a champion of DLC "traditional" politics as being the man who can keep us together. Which has a whole 'nother set of implications in the GE--we could be looking at a third-party candidate from the left, or a bunch of folks who just stay home. The GOP could run a pig and they'd probably still be able to get their base to turn out--their marketing and use of fear is that good.
19 - Jai
Andy, it doesn't matter why Warner is a one-term governor. It only matters that he is. And like Edwards in '04, he has NO prior government service to back it up.
Warner is young. Let him be a VP or senior cabinet member for a term or two. Or second choice, he could wait a turn and be governor again after Kaine, who will also only serve 4 years. I grew up in GA where there were term limits too and it wasn't uncommon at all for two Democrats to serve in tandem that way.
He could run for the Senate, of course, but that might kill his long-term potential for the Oval Office. Maybe one term wouldn't hurt too bad. Or maybe head a public foundation--he has the money and the corporate contacts to do some real good.
I like Warner, for what it's worth. I think he has a future and a lot to offer. But he ain't ready for prime-time now.
20 - Bing
Nancy what Dave said about the Democrats maintaining thier power base is the truth. They play the victim card.........if there are no longer any victims the dems lose thier appeal.
Sad but true.
21 - Southern-born Dem 06
There's been a lot of speculation about Mark Warner. I've often found it quite funny myself.
Obviously those people who think (or hope) that Warner might win the general election in 08 either 1) don't live in a red state or 2) would rather live in 1992.
Warner is a stock red state Dem. There are frankly better representatives of 'winning against the odds' and persuading red state voters to vote across party lines than Warner.
His lack of experience on foreign policy or national security issues makes him VP material, not presidential material. There's no way you can crib enough credentials from your VP running mate to overcome a fundamental lack of personal knowledge and experience (well, unless you subscribe to the Bush/Cheney model of government--and we all know how well THAT's turned out).
I'm tired of formulaic Democrats -- Warner's one of those.
22 - Bing
Southern born, you said there are better choices for the Dems to get Repubs and red staters to cross party lines at the polls.
I was just curious who you were thinking of. I'm a Northern Born Repub and the only Dem I could ever see myself voting for for president would be Joe Lieberman and that's only if my own party were running sopmeone like Jack Abramoff.
23 - Scott
"The Democratic party maintains its power base by keeping a whole segment of society poor and uneducated"
Yeah, and all the Republicans do is rail against abortion, gay marriage, no prayer in public school, evolution, stem cell research and all good and decent things to rally their base. Gosh, what a bunch of decent folks.
"The GOP does nothing of the kind."
Heartless bastards. Then again, why should they care about the poor? They're all rich, fat and happy so I'm sure they could give two shits about people in poverty as long as their mutual funds perform well.
24 - zingzing
The Republican party maintains its power base by keeping a whole segment of society poor and uneducated.
at least the democrats try to help. even if it doesn't have the effect it should, at least it's an attempt. the question of poverty and equal education has plagued this country through both democratic and republican leaderships.
but you know what? it's POLITICIANS that maintain their power base by keeping whole segments of society poor and uneducated. if we were all educated people with money, we'd have figured out that a two-party system just leads to infighting, and we would have figured out how to change it. it sounds so simple, yet how do you get it done?
25 - Bing
The poor and minorities have been voting Democrat for the past 40 years.
Where has it gotten them?