One Campaign Over, Another Begins
Jerome over at MyDD takes a look at Joe Trippi's analysis of the 2008 contenders on the D-side.
It seems like Trippi's resigned to Hillary and Barack being at the front of the herd. I'm not even remotely sure I can bring myself to anything approximating agreement over his analysis that John Edwards improved his standing in 2006. I still have yet to name a single good thing he accomplished in 2004 and I'm sorry to say that that matters ... a lot. This is a guy who thought he could beat Dick Cheney in a debate by out-smiling him. He's not ready for prime time. Not in 2004, not in 2006, and not in 2008. Hell of a Senator, but not anywhere close to Presidential.
Likewise, I'll disagree with Kerry. He's down and he's out. Forget about it.
Of course, Russ Feingold has announced he'll not be running. That's a shame. I'm not sure I could call Russ a lock at my own personal third choice, but I think he has a great way of forcing issues to the front and he could be the one candidate who forces an issue or two onto the national stage, ala Tsongas and deficits in 1992. Time will tell if Tom Vilsack has the capacity to do the same.
Wes Clark, I just have yet to be impressed by. Naturally, I take issue with those who think that anyone in a uniform will win an argument over Iraq's feasibility. I also point out that Wes Clark urged for an increase in troops in Iraq at a time when the online activists were hectoring for complete withdrawal as the only option worth considering. The kossacks and DD-heads will contort themselves to believe whatever they will about the General since he's the ultimate tabula rosa candidate for them. They should try reading his work sometime.
Greg-
From my perspective, only one person can unite the broad diversity of the party--ideologically, racially and regionally; can make a genuine case based on experience in foreign policy and domestic issues, was consistent and right on Iraq, and has been an intellectual visionary--the environment, technology, etc. ---GORE.
No one else mentioned by Trippi is even close. Who else could have KOS and the DLC's full support?
Jay -
What about Barack Obama?
I'll stick with what my 16 year old son said in early 2005: Bayh/Obama in '08, lack of geographic diversity be damned. I'd be open to a ticket run in either order (Bayh/Obama or Obama/Bayh). That said, I would still need to get over my senator-as-nominee phobia (my '04 case of "Joe-mentum" fever aside) when it comes to candidates.
I've never been a big fan of HRC, but I'm not that upset or worried about her in '08. She has shown she has the ability to "triangulate", has not walked away from the DLC, is disliked/feared by the Kossacks (although her embrace of Lamont ticked me off) and would have people around her in whom I have some faith. Further, I'm still not convinced that she doesn't walk away unless victory in the general election appears to be a lock. She has never struck me as someone willing to lose; not that there's anything wrong with that...
I am worried about the potential "retread" nominees who also happen to be current or former senators (double-jinxed). Over the past 100 years of Democratic tickets, only FDR has been a candidate on a losing Pres/VP ticket who later won. It is no great stretch to say that Gore, Kerry and Edwards are no FDR. I agree with Greg that Kerry, thankfully, is done. How great was it that he could prove both his stupidity and irrelevance at the same time!
Staying in a historical train of thought, if Obama does not run, could anyone see some traction for a losing senate candidate who is about to be unemployed? Could Harold Ford, Jr., who, like Lincoln, gained national recognition and prestige in a losing effort become a player in '08?