Cattle Call 2008?
It's never too early, I suppose.
Chris Bowers gives the lowdown and it's pretty evenhanded. Naturally, I think if HRC runs, HRC wins. The details of how she plays in the purple states will have to be hammered out later, of course.
My own little window-into-soul rankings:
1. HRC - Hard to dismiss and poo-pooh a name you've just acknowledged as the prohibitive favorite. Naturally, Hillary gets a hearing in this quarter. There's plenty I'm not fond of, and plenty I am fond of. If I were to categorize the biggest question mark, I think its that I would need to gauge whether her political moderation is sincere or calculated. But then again, people have been trying to figure that one out for about 12 years now.
2. Biden - I like Biden a lot. But a lot of that like has to do with him as a Senator. Then again, I can understand the itch one gets after 30+ years in the Senate, telling oneself "I can do better than that" irregardless of who's in the White House. I suspect his odds are about as good as they were in 1987 ... not great. Lots to like about Joe, and I'd have a tough time not being supportive of the guy if he got in.
3. Warner - One advantage Warner has over the other two? He's a fresh face and he's got significant business experience. Both are pretty refreshing qualities to see in a Dem candidate. Unfortunately, if the War on Terror is still as prominent an issue as I suspect it will be, those may not be the issues that save him. I think any candidate that sets out talking in terms of political direction ends up losing and Warner makes a bit too much of "the center" than I think is salable within party circles.
4. Bayh - I'm still well into the "I like" range here, but I think where Warner has to tread cautiously with directional language, Bayh pretty much has his feet already shot off. I hope I'm wrong the most on Bayh, but till he gets a personality transplant, he's got a tough row to hoe.
5. Edwards - I'm starting to get into the "don't like" range here. Look for Edwards to try and incorporate the most of Howard Dean's net-appeal methods. If he sticks with the "fighter" routine, I suspect he's destined to sink.
6. Richardson - personality-wise, there's just some things that bother me with Richardson. Policy-wise, he's still an empty suit.
7. Clark - Clark? Yes, Clark. Not sure how real the interest is here, but if he gets in, I suspect that what trips him up is what tripped him up last time - lack of campaign skills. Ideologically, Wes is just fine, but the market will shift when 2008 comes around and the buying public will be a little less anti-Bush in their focus. Remember, this is an open seat then. What's Clark's unique selling proposition then?
8. Feingold - though far more liberal than myself, there's a great deal I still respect about Russ. If he's the only far-lefty in the pack, he's among the final three candidates.
9. Boxer - ... then again, if Barbara Boxer gets in the race, look for her and Russ to cannibalize each other.
10. Kerry - some people just need to know when their time has passed. I suspect as decision time gets nearer, Kerry will realize his has done just that.
All of this is academic if HRC gets in. I think the final three with HRC comes down to Warner and Feingold after the herd is thinned. Without, I think it's a bigger guess. Hunch is that Edwards could be among the final three, early bet maybe on Richardson and either Bayh or Warner.
But then again, there's what ... a zillion lifetimes between then and now?
Comments
Boy, this list really makes me suspect that the Democrats won't know how to win yet again in 2008.
Hillary's doing some very nice things, but she doesn't have the basic qualities you need in a compelling presidential candidate:
1. An ability to relate easily with the people.
2. Executive experience.
Quality #1, above, is sometimes called "charisma", "personality", or "emotional intelligence". Politics is generally an arena for these kinds of folks -- people who have an easy time relating to others. But the presidency calls for it even moreso. You really have to make some sort of distinct personal impression on the people. That was a fundamental problem for Gore and Kerry.
Quality #2 reflects a queasiness people feel with electing someone who hasn't run an organization of some kind in the past.
There are a lot of really good elected Democrats, but it's hard to find one that's "just right" for the presidential run. Warner or Bayh might be good. But I keep wanting to look at the other side of the aisle, at Republicans who have no chance of getting their own party's nomination. How about Christy Whitman? Colin Powell?
Powell is never going to run. Whitman could be convinced. And she's got all the things missing from this list -- likeability, confidence, comfort with decision-making, a sense of both ease and authority whenever she speaks on a topic.
That's what we need in a president -- someone with both talent and common sense. I can't quite fit anyone on your list into that space. I don't know, maybe Warner?
Posted by: William Swann | January 31, 2005 02:42 PM
Executive experience is key.
Biden--semi blue state in which he was caught plagarizing.
Warner--2008 senate run, I've heard this from a reliable source.
Bayh--He's my guy.
Posted by: Daniel | January 31, 2005 04:35 PM
I think charisma is the #1 issue.
Look back to 2000. Gore had the executive experience over Bush but lacked the charisma to relate to others. Bush leaned on Cheney for the federal experience.
So the combo of a charismatic with a veep with executive experience would work. A Edwards/Clark ticket, perhaps?
Posted by: EG | January 31, 2005 05:03 PM
I think executive experience is necessary, but not as much as might be thought.
The key thing you need in your presidential candidate is gravitas, and you only know it when you see it. Personality or likability are words that don't even begin to describe it. A person that walks into a room and is immediately the center of attention; that causes people to get up and follow him wherever. Democrats aren't going to go out and vote for whomever is listed with a D next to his name, they have to want it and want it bad. That's the candidate's job.
One of the biggest mistakes we've made is getting people who have been handled a lot politically over the years. That takes away from gravitas. Bill Clinton didn't seem to have too many handlers, he directed himself and people like him for it.
Posted by: Nate | January 31, 2005 06:47 PM
Gore was VP but Bush was Gov so they both had exec experience, well, in a way they did...
Posted by: Daniel | January 31, 2005 09:16 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Al Gore got in there somewhere, too.
Really, this is gonna be one of those mad-dash years, like 2004 or 1976.
Posted by: Jim D | February 1, 2005 02:41 AM
Warner has his Senate future to look after, which would distract him from the Presidency. But I wouldn't count him out.
I lost respect for Biden after his vote for Condi.
Gore -- I don't know, could be our Nixon, could be our William Jennings Bryan.
Evan Bayh, with a little cayenne pepper, would be a solid choice.
The New Democrat
Posted by: Max | February 1, 2005 11:17 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love Hillary, and should she win the nomination, i'll probably quit my job and do everything I can to help her beat McCain, or Frist, or Romney, or whomever the GOP manages to haul out of the smokey back room of some NoVa country club - but I just don't think she can win.
It's simple, they just hate her too much. Not a logical "I disagree with you" hatred, a "we think you killed Vince Foster with your bare hands" kind of inexplicable hatred.
Like someone above said - the reliance on HRC and JFK just points out that we still don't know how to win. We can't just run someone with all the right answers on the issues we care about. We need to run someone who can make a lot of the people those same issues, and can answer questions in simple five word sentences.
Posted by: Brew | February 1, 2005 10:17 PM