With Vilsack dropping out of the race, the fundamental dynamics of the race for 2008 have changed. Vilsack was never a big player, but the fact that he was from Iowa had a chance of putting one of the three frontrunners in a devastating fourth place finish.

No longer is that possible. With Vilsack out, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards will surely each place in the top three, meaning Iowa is now a less decisive state, since no one will be eliminated or severely weakened by Iowa. The field will merely be sorted.

With Iowa and New Hampshire likely to each move up a week, Nevada actually becomes more important, and so do New Hampshire and South Carolina. If any of the top three win in Iowa, it may or may not give them momentum into New Hampshire, which will likely give Obama or Clinton a win. If Clinton were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, I think there is really no chance of preventing her steamroll to the nomination. But if Edwards or Obama wins in Iowa, and Obama wins in New Hampshire, Nevada becomes a contest between Obama and Edwards and South Carolina a contest between all three candidates. Even if Biden or Richardson or Dodd were to win second or third in any of these contests, the sheer number (approaching 20 now) of states with wealthy media markets on February 5th eliminate the chance of any of the second tier candidates winning without coming in first in one of the first four states. With the possibility that Florida could move up to the middle of January, that will probably boost Clinton, and give her a delegate lead heading into February 5th.

February 5th could, if Clinton wins the first four or five contests, be a coronation. If the top three split the first four or five states, I think you are likely to see Clinton emerge with a delegate lead but just barely, with Obama winning a huge chunk of delegates and Edwards taking a number of states himself.

With this split decision, each of the other second tier candidates will drop out and Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will split up the rest of February's winnings until the minnier Super Tuesday on March 6th.

That day will likely see Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland take center stage, and you can expect Obama and Edwards to do better than Clinton in those states.

We are then likely to see no candidate emerging with a majority of delegates and head into the August convention with no clear winner. There will be a convention fight and after one or two ballots, Edwards, who I think will come in third, will throw his support to Obama and give him the nomination over Clinton.

I know this seems biased, but I think that unless Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the situation that will play out. Tell me what you think.

read more...

With Tom Vilsack dropping out of the race, I have become dismayed. As a democratic moderate, I have seen candidate after candidate drop out of the race. First I volunteered for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who dropped out of the race for family reasons. Next came Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who dropped out probably because of a bleak future at fundraising. Finally, we've come to Mr. Vilsack, who was not as moderate as the other two, but nonetheless was in my opinion the only one who had sofar taken clear strong stances.

The need for a moderate candidate may not seem so obvious for more liberal-minded people, but this party is a very large part moderate now. We see candidates who regularly tote the party line, but I don't see a declared candidate who can stand a chance in states in the South, the Rockies, or the Prarie States to Republicans like McCain and Giuliani. Being in constant communication with people back home in Ohio (and from a very conservative 2nd district), the only democratic candidate that even sparks any interest is Senator Obama, but I doubt that his amazing rhetorical ability will be able to see him through to election.

As for the future, well, I only see one candidate that even peaks my interest. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be the best moderate candidate available. He's fiscally and economically smart, creating job growth and lowering unemployment, and began turning around a state that chronically lags behind in virtually every category, from health care to teacher's salaries. Even Steve Forbes, President and CEO of Forbes, inc., has lavished praise on Governor Richardson. His amazing foreign policy record doesn't hurt either (4 Nobel Peace Prize nominations and being former US Ambassador to the UN will give him more than enough credibility). But enough of my dreaming. He'll probably drop out too.

read more...

Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race for President today.

I was not a fan of Tom Vilsack, he was a good man, and I hear, from my Iowa sources, a good governor. But he was not particularly inspiring, and I never considered lending him my support.

But I do regret his decision to leave the race. Tom Vilsack was the only serious candidate advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of funding for the war by Congress. He was the only one committed to a carbon-neutral campaign for President, and the candidate with probably the most comprehensive understanding of energy policy, his pet policy.

He couldn't continue the race because of money. With more than two-thirds of the state either already moved up or planning to move up their primaries and caucuses to a six week window between January 1st and February 15th, you would need approximately $50 million cash on hand in January 2008 and probably having raised over $100 million by 2008 to be truly competitive for the nomination.

These are absurd amounts of money, and they rise exponentially each cycle, with the money increasingly going into television advertising that has been proven to have less and less effect on fewer and fewer voters each cycle.

This presidential race is a mess. We need to completely reform the way we run campaigns and hold elections in this country, and we need to do it now.

We need to make some new laws that reform our system, but more importantly, we need to have politicans and political professionals change the way they do business. We need to stop using television advertising. We need to spread out the primary calendar, by having both parties agree to a new timeframe. We need to focus more on real debate, about real ideas and policies and stop having useless debates with time limits and rules.

We've lost our politics, and in a lot of ways, the American soul. If good guys like Tom Vilsack can't run for President because they can't raise the money, then we have a problem. McCain-Feingold was a disaster. We need a public financing system that requires candidates to use a limited amount of taxpayer money and reduces the costs of campaigns. If we need to pass a constitutional amendment to do it, then so be it, but we cannot keep doing what we're doing.

Fifty years ago, candidates for Congress could upset long-term incumbents with $50,000 in today's dollars. Now, you need at least $2 million bucks. That's not right.

The internet provides a new, low-cost method for candidates to use to get their message out. Candidates should use it more and rely on it more to promote themselves and use television less, considering that most people, because of TiVo or Cable or just a general tuning out of commercials really won't be affected by TV ads anymore. For God's sake, most people under the age of 30 barely watch actual television anymore, I know that I basically watch all my TV shows on the internet.

And I really hope that the Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden campaigns can mutually agree to raise and spend less than $50 million total over the next year. It's just not a fair fight when Clinton and Obama have $100 million and Edwards has $70 million dollars and Richardson, Biden, and Dodd have only $20 million. That's just not a contest anymore.

Give me your suggestions on how to fix the system.

read more...

Everyone asks me, why do I support Obama? It's a legitimate question to ask. After all, what has he done in the US Senate after only two years to warrant that he would be a great presidential candidate? I could list the list of bills he's sponsored, he's authored, he's passed. I could talk about his speech on faith, his speech at the DNC in 2004, how he has demonstrated tremendous leadership of example in his trips around the world and in the US.

But those aren't the reasons why I support him. In the end, people can make their own judgments about why a Presidential candidate should get their support. But for me, it's quite simple. I want a President who can analyze policy, synthesize complicated solutions, and articulate an argument to the Congress, the media, the American people, and the World about why it should be implemented.

Intelligence is a key ingredient for me in my selection of a Presidential candidate. I don't doubt that John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, or Tom Vilsack are intelligent or competent, they surely are. Some of them may even know more about particular policy issues that Senator Obama.

But Obama is the full package on intelligence. He reads voraciously, and he has very clearly studied great works of philosophy, literature, history, and theology. He understands the Constitution the way that a constitutional scholar would. He talks about foreign policy the way an analyst at the Defense Department would. He understands health care policy the way a hospital administrator would. He can talk about education the way a teacher or a principal can.

Obama said on an episode of Oprah in October that the most important quality that his mother impressed on him was empathy. She told Obama to constantly understand how other people felt, to step in their shoes, to look through their eyes, to understand what they feel, what they think, and why they act the way they do. Obama approaches every issue from that perspective, he understands people in a gut way, the way Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, and Franklin Roosevelt had the power of empathy.

I just finished a long argument with a friend of mine who is a conservative Republican, a Navy ROTC student, and a very smart kid. We talked about the surge in Iraq and what we thought the best solution to the situation would be. We didn't fight, we didn't yell, we talked calmly, and we didn't interrupt each other, something many of you probably thought I couldn't do.

But my friend and me spoke about American interests, about what we thought our nation really needed, about security in Baghdad, about terrorism, about regional catastrophe. We talked about soldiers on Haifa Street in Baghdad and how an Iraqi unit that was embedded with them accidentally fired on the Americans. We talked about cultural norms in Iraq, about increasing CIA personnel, about increasing the number of Arabic linguists in our Baghdad embassy. We discussed troop levels, but more importantly, we talked about command structure and strategic mission.

This was not a conversation I think most presidential candidates would have. Most would get too frustrated early on, give up, and stick to their position, and probably go over to another person who completely agrees with them and talk about how smart they are. They wouldn't argue, they would listen to the other side, they wouldn't challenge themselves to understand that what the other side has to say is legitimate and that we both just see things a little differently, but that when we listen and talk to one another, we may both come a little closer together in what we think.

I didn't walk away from my conversation with my friend agreeing with the idea of a surge, nor did he come away agreeing that we should redeploy to Iraq's perimeter and change our strategy. But we agreed that the President and the Democratic majorities in Congress should get off their asses and read details about what's happening there, that they should talk and agree together on what ideas are best for the situation in Iraq, that the State and Defense departments should get along for once, that we should try different political strategies in the reconciliation process. None of these ideas are certain to work, and we both agreed on that. But what I really got out of that conversation is an understanding of what my conservative friend thought and why he thought it.

He believed that security fundamentally comes first, and I believed that political reconciliation clearly precedes any advancement in security goals. He believed we had an interest in ending the Iraqi civil war, and I believed our interest lay in preventing a regional war. But we walked away from that conversation with a slightly different perspective, not exactly from each other's eyes, but closer than we had understood each other before.

I don't want our next President to dismiss the other point of view. I also don't want our next President to give in to the other side because it is politically expedient. I want our next President to believe in some strong, core principles and then talk to the other side, learn from them, step into their shoes, and come to an agreeable solution that can produce the smartest, most productive policy.

I've read Senator Obama's two books, I've listened to all of his major speeches, I subscribe to his podcast, and I read his bills. I've done the same for all of the other candidates. But what I see differently from Senator Obama and the other candidates is that the other candidates seem to not really agree with what they're saying. It's either written by a political operative, with views that are different from the views of the candidate, or by a policy wonk that seems to overwhelm the understanding that the candidate has about the issue.

When Senator Obama speaks or writes, he knows what he's talking about. He makes sure of it. He hungers for intellectual discourse, and wants to question his own beliefs constantly. He is an intellectual heavyweight. He wants to talk to the other side, he wants to be convinced of the best policy. He knows what his convictions are, but he's not beholden to a particular policy just because people are for it. He wants to go farther, he wants to be better, he wants to challenge the conventional wisdom and the talking points and delve deeper.

What else should we expect from the President of the United States?

You may not agree, you may think that I haven't provided sufficient information about why Obama is all of the things I just talked about. Maybe it is gut instinct, maybe it is real. But what I am sure of is that my gut, my heart, and my brain tell me that the other candidates, while great, are not the whole enchilada. Neither is Senator Obama, but I think he's closer to it than anyone I've seen in politics in my lifetime.

That's what I think, in all honesty and simplicity. Make up your own mind, but consider the standards you have for a candidate and truly evaluate them, and think, just a little bit, about when a crisis with a country arises, or when a Hurricane hits a major American city, how will that react? Will they rise above the politics, grasp the nation by the hand, inspire us, think deeply about what has happened, pursue alternatives, and choose the smartest policy there is, or will they give up and give in?

That is the test. Obama has passed mine.

read more...

As most of you know, I'm a big fan of Barack Obama. But as a political handicapper, I can be somewhat objective. I'll take the time now to predict the outcomes of the Presidential nominating fights on both sides.

Let's start with the Democrats. Assuming New Hampshire isn't a jerk, and Florida isn't stupid, the order of the primaries will be Iowa on January 14th, Nevada on January 19th, New Hampshire on January 22nd, and South Carolina on January 29th, with a barrage of states on February 5th, with California, New Jersey, Florida, and Michigan likely participating. That day will include more than a dozen contests, with possibly as many as a third of the Democratic convention's delegates at stake on that one day. At least that's the situation for the Democrats.

The Republicans will hold their Iowa and New Hampshire contests on the same day as the Democrats, but will hold South Carolina a few days after the Democrats do, but before February 5th. The February 5th national primary day will be the same for the Republicans.

So, this is where I think the race stands. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are competing for the top three spots in Iowa with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. None of the other candidates realistically think they have a shot in Iowa with those four in the race. Because Vilsack is from Iowa, he is in an impossible situation. He must come in first in Iowa just to be a viable candidate, but a win in Iowa is no guarantee he will be a factor anywhere else. If Vilsack comes in anything less than first, he will drop out of the race.

Edwards, because he is the Iowa frontrunner and came in a close second three years ago, he also must win the Iowa caucuses. A second place finish will not kill him, but he'll be sigificantly weakened. A third or fourth place finish would nearly end his campaign. Obama and Clinton, because of their national organizations and frontrunner status, can afford a second or third place finish without being significantly wounded. A first place finish would give either of them unstoppable momentum, but a fourth place finish for either would weaken them severely. The point is, one of those four will be nearly kicked out of the race from Iowa. Iowa is an eliminator.

So then we go to Nevada. Edwards, because of his union support, must get first or second here, anything less would be deadly to him. Bill Richardson, who is from the Southwest and is Latino, must also come in first or second in Nevada to have any relevance in the process whatsoever. Clinton and Obama must come in at least third place, or will be viewed as weak and won't be able to recover. Therefore, Nevada is an eliminator, as one candidate won't survive it.

Next is New Hampshire, where Clinton and Obama are viewed as strongest. This contest will be decisive, as both Obama and Clinton must win, and definitely not come in less than second. Chris Dodd has also staked his claim to the nomination on New Hampshire, since he is from New England. He must place at least third to remain in the game. An Edwards finish lower than fourth would also kill his campaign. Therefore, New Hampshire will eliminate a candidate or severely wound them as well.

Finally, South Carolina is a must win for both Obama and Edwards. Edwards, who won South Carolina in 2004, was born there, and is a son of the South. If he loses the primary, he will be finished. If Obama, who is black, loses a primary where almost 50% of the electorate will be African-American, he will also be finished. Clinton must, simply because of her status, get at least third here. Joe Biden has decided his strategy to the nomination runs through South Carolina, and therefore, a less than third place finish here will kill him.

So after these four contests, where seven candidates all must score in the top three at some point, at least four will be eliminated, and the contests will sort the remaining three in terms of strength. Therefore, our party goes into February 5th with no more than three candidates, with one or two probably stronger than the rest.

Therefore, February 5th has the power to decide the nominee or prolong the fight till early March, when another Super Tuesday will occur. The only people who will have the standing and the money to win on February 5th are Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, and if one of them is already eliminated before that day, it will be decisive. Unfortunately for Edwards, out of the four big states, New Jersey, Michigan, California, and Florida, that hold contests that day, he has no strength in any of them. Therefore, the outcome of that day could depend on whether Clinton or Obama win big on the 5th.

In the end, I think that Edwards will probably not do as well as expected (it's hard when you're the frontrunner in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina, you've got to place first in all three or look weak), and Clinton will probably place low in a number of the early contests, weakening her. I think all of the second tier candidates will all flounder, with maybe one exception, who will be eliminated after February 5th. On February 5th, Edwards, who will already be weak form the first few contests, will not do well, eliminating him. Obama and Clinton will probably pretty evenly split wins on February 5th, which will set up a contest leading up to the next Super Tuesday in March. Obama will probably do well in Ohio and some other states that day and Obama and Clinton will be neck and neck until the convention. In fact, I see a convention fight as likely in 2008. I know I'm out there in left field with this thinking, but I believe that Edwards will probably stick it out to the end, as a distant third place, and one of the lesser candidates will also have a sizable delegate count and will stick it out till the convention too. With Hillary and Obama nearly even in the delegate count and both with less than 50% of the delegates, I think we will see this fight go to a second ballot at the convention. The second ballot will probably see some of Edwards' votes go to Clinton and Obama pretty evenly, and Edwards will decide to endorse one or the other on the third ballot, and then we will have our nominee. I think Edwards is likely to endorse Obama, but who knows.

As for the Republicans, who I know a lot less about, I think Iowa will be very decisive. McCain is strong there, but Brownback and Huckabee might surprise some people. I think McCain may end up losing Iowa in an upset, and Brownback and Huckabee will be propelled into the top tier. New Hampshire will be a fight among McCain, Giuliani, and Romney for the country club Republican vote, which I think Rudy will win. We then go to South Carolina, where McCain, who will be weakened at this point, will square off against Gilmore, Hunter, Brownback, and Huckabee. The winner of that primary, and the second place finisher, will set up a contest between Rudy, McCain, and either Brownback or Huckabee. I do not think that Romney stands a chance, and I've spoken to evangelicals who tell me that Mormonism is going to really hurt him. We then will go to February 5th, where the conservative alternative, likely Huckabee or Brownback (all the former governors and congressmen in the race will have dropped out by now and Gingrich won't run) will not do very well. Rudy and McCain will clean up, and they will fight it out till March, when a bunch of Southern states will support the conservative alternative. I think, similarly to the Democrats, Republicans will have a brokered convention, where Giuliani and McCain will be roughly tied in the delegate count, and the conservative alternative will have a substantial 10%-20% of the vote. This will set up a second ballot that I think will escape from Rudy to McCain and the conservative and eventually Rudy will endorse McCain on the third ballot in exchange for a VP slot. McCain, in my opinion, will turn out as the nominee.

That's my view of the race, what's yours?

read more...

Zogby's Iowa Telephone Polling from January 15-16

DEMOCRATS

Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack 16%
Clinton 16%
Biden 3%
Kerry 3%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Not sure 13%

Read the entire article on the John Edwards blog:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/17/162741/659

read more...

Even though we’re more than two years out from the next presidential election, it’s no secret that campaigning is already well under way, with, by my count, around a dozen or so Democrats (give or take a few) contemplating White House runs. Several PACs (the embryonic stage of a presidential campaign) have already started to set up shop in key primary states, establishing field offices, hiring staff, and wooing influential local Dems in these crucial states.

Despite all the water cooler speculations—Will Iowa Gov. Vilsack, polling at an anemic 4th place in his home state, decide not to run? Will Obama decide to throw his hat into the ring? Does anybody besides Chris Dodd actually believe that Chris Dodd is going to be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee?—you may have missed an oft-overlooked, but no less important, aspect of the rapidly shaping 2008 race: the schedule of the primaries themselves.

Iowans and New Hampshirites (yes, that’s what they’re called—I looked it up) zealously guard their first-in-the-nation statuses with the paranoia of a Jewish grandmother on the streets of Harlem. And why wouldn’t they? Their outsize influence on the eventual nomination results cause otherwise-ordinary candidates to go crazy with Hawkeye/Granite state lovin’. Presidential hopefuls can’t seem to say enough good things about the discerning, informed, patriotic, dedicated (etc., etc… you get the gist) caucus- and primary- goers of IA and NH. They spend an disproportionate amount of time wooing “VIPs” the rest of us have never heard of, with their lips surgically attached the butts of precinct coordinators and county chairmen across the state. I kind of get the feeling that this every-four-years lovefest is the highlight of their otherwise boring lives.

This sense of entitlement that NH and IA primary voters have to being de facto kingmakers in picking the party’s nominee is totally uncalled for. The DNC is seriously considering moving the primary schedule around from ’04 (which produced a nominee in record time—barely three weeks—which isn’t even enough time for voters to get comfortable with the candidates, particularly in an uninterested media environment that reduces a substantive opportunity to debate the real issues in America to a mere horserace).

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which has jurisdiction over such issues, is currently considering several proposals. One option the Committee is considering is a proposal to add a caucus after Iowa but before New Hampshire, a compromise proposal that would enable New Hampshire to keep their coveted “first primary” status while introducing a bit of geographic diversity into the primary process. Ten states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Michigan) and the District have applied to be early-selection states. Rumor has it that the committee has all but decided on Nevada, but the committee won’t make an official recommendation until later this month, and the full DNC won’t vote on caucus/primary schedule until August.

New Hampshire Dems are throwing the political equivalent of a hissy fit at this prospect, with Gov. Lynch releasing a statement that said, in part, “Unfortunately, a small group of party insiders seems more intent on undermining a presidential nominating tradition that has worked well for 50 years - a tradition which ensures that the voices of ordinary citizens are heard. Even more unfortunate is that DNC Chairman Howard Dean - who never would have had the opportunity to be considered a serious presidential contender without the New Hampshire primary - is supporting their efforts.” Oh, snap!

He went on, declaring, “This fight isn't over. In the end, I am confident that New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation tradition will prevail. The DNC did not give New Hampshire its primary, and it will not take it away.” Lynch and Dem legislators have threatened to move the primary even earlier if things don’t go their way.

This leaves ’08-wannabes in a bit of a bind—those early primaries and caucuses are crucial to a primary victory. Most candidates seem to be taking the traditional route—Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, and John Edwards will all be in Iowa this week—but some are hedging their bets. Tom Daschle, another presidential contender, is scheduling time to visit Michigan, another possible early caucus state, but if you think Daschle, a man who couldn’t even win reelection in his own state, is going to be the nominee in 2008, then I’ve got a bridge in California I’d like to sell you…

But I digress. What I really want to bring your attention to is NH’s supposed “right” to their first-in-the-nation primary, a claim I believe to be wholly without merit.

The Democratic Party is supposed to represent America. And a state with such a crucial role in determining who will be the party’s candidate for president should reflect the demographics of the country as a whole, right? Well, then why does our nation—12.3% black—hold its first presidential primary in a state where blacks make up only 0.8% of the state’s population? (Iowa’s not much better—it’s 92.6% white.) This is completely absurd, and DNC members are correct in their desire to add a Southern or Western state with larger black and Hispanic presences to the early caucus calendar.

New Hampshire voters argue that all of this is irrelevant; they say that they more than make up for their relative lack of diversity with a discerning sense of civic responsibility and political acumen that forces candidates to do “retail politics” and deal with voters one-on-one. While these are both true—rare is the New Hampshire voter who hasn’t met the man he’s voting for in person at least once—polling from 2004 shows that NH’s claims to “vetting” candidates are dubious, at best.

Kos did a story on this last week, and I’m borrowing his numbers here. Let’s take a look at polling from 2004:

Research 2000 for the Concord Monitor:
12/17-18, 2003
Dean 34
Clark 14
Kerry 13
Gephardt 7
Lieberman 7
Edwards 4

The Iowa caucuses were on January 19, 2004. The poll immediately following the caucuses, also by Research 2000, taken January 20-22, 2004:
Kerry 29 (up 16 points)
Dean 21 (down 13)
Clark 17 (+3)
Edwards 9 (+5)
Lieberman 5 (-2)

That’s some nice vetting there, New Hampshire. Kos writes, “In 2004, Iowa picked out nominee, and New Hampshire did nothing more than rubberstamp Iowa’s decision. No amount of “retail politics” on the ground in New Hampshire could overcome what Granite State voters saw in the Iowa results and Dean’s ‘scream’.”

I rarely agree with Markos Moulitsas on anything, but he’s nailed it on the head here. NH’s sense of entitlement is wholly without merit. While there are a lot of things about the primary schedule that I would like to see the DNC change—I think that the front-loaded primary schedule that generates a nominee in only a few weeks is a huge mistake, for instance—I think that NH’s status as first-in-the-nation, while a great tradition, is an idea that is past its prime. Unfortunately, nothing will change as long as candidates are too scared of alienating influential Granite State voters to stand up for what we already know—that New Hampshire’s primary is a privilege, not a right, and that it’s time to consider changing the primary schedule to reflect the reality of America.

read more...

I thought it would be good to take a look at the upcoming landscape for the 2008 Presidential race. I'll update this monthly and hopefully try to keep my personal preferences out of the objective analysis (I love Barack Obama and wish he gets into the race, I am also working for Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana). Here we go:

The Democratic Side

Clearly, Hillary Clinton dominates any analysis of the race, and each candidate in the race will have to work to take her down. In fact, Democratic candidates in this race has a doubly difficult effort -- take down Hillary Clinton and overcome all of the other candidates to look like the best alternative.

Hillary Clinton will start out with enormous advantages (money, establishment support, great staff, a brilliant husband, huge name recognition, rock star status, and a very talented political instinct). She, however, is vulnerable. Hillary's move to the right (actually, I think Senator Clinton has always been more conservative than her critics give her credit for, after all, this woman was a Goldwater girl in 1964, and she was President of the Wellesley College Republicans) will make her extremely vulnerable on the left of the party, among those who are looking for someone who will espouse traditionally liberal Democratic values.

But a candidate coming from the left won't do it alone. Democrats want it all in 2008; they want a Democrat with a spine, someone who will stand up to Republicans, a candidate who can win the general, who inspires, who will be an excellent President, who has experience, and who will leave the Democratic Party in better shape than he/she found it. A candidate who fits this profile will win the nomination.

John Kerry is seriously done with presidential politics. Though he is clearly running for President, he has zero chance of winning as he is registering at about 15% in national primary polls, even though he was our nominee in 2004 and has 100% name recognition. John Kerry, even though he has shown spine with his call for a troop withdrawal by the end of 2006, still cannot shake the flip-flop nature of his political persona.

Tom Daschle, while an exemplary public servant, has no chance of winning the Presidency (he is seriously considering it, as he has made numerous trips to Iowa.

Wesley Clark, a fantastic retired General, does not have the domestic or political credentials necessary to win the nomination.

Russ Feingold, once thought to be the challenge from the left that would give Senator Clinton a run for her money, has appeared recently to be a gadfly in the race. He has recently called for federal gay marriage (a position I wholeheartedly support), a position that will crush him in the general election. Senator Feingold no longer seems serious about being elected President, a sad change of affairs since he is so good at communicating progressive positions. His unelectability will kill him in the nomination fight, though he may gain some netroots support early on that may make him a force in New Hampshire.

This brings us to the serious contenders in the race for President. Many believe that a red state governor is necessary to win the White House, a theory I think is speculative at best. Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh all fit this profile. However, many who have heard Tom Vilsack and Bill Richardson speak realize that their ability to communicate to big crowds is inadequate at best. Bill Richardson, a Latino governor of a red state in the Southwest, a swing region, who has enormous foreign policy credentials, would make a formidable Vice-Presidential candidate. Tom Vilsack won't win his home state of Iowa in the primaries, and he will drop out after that.

Mark Warner and Evan Bayh are different. Mark Warner, an extremely popular governor of a red state, has achieved star status in the progressive blogosphere, even though his positions on issues is less than progressive. He is a one-term governor, the only elective office he has ever held, and has no foreign policy experience, and has a very undeveloped understanding of foreign policy. But he is loaded, estimated to be worth $200 million, enough to go head to head with Senator Clinton's estimated fundraising ability.

Evan Bayh has a great story. He was elected five times statewide in a red state, a very red state, that hasn't voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslides. Bayh has won each election by huge margins and remains immensely popular. He was a popular two-term governor, who has a host of accomplishments to tout, and he has extensive foreign policy experience, being on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees in the Senate. He has a demonstrated fundraising ability; he has $10 million in his bank account now, the thrid highest among Democratic candidates (Kerry has $15 million and Clinton has $20 million). But he has problems, he is a virtual unknown throughout the country and is more likely to get confused with his father, Birch Bayh, who was also an Indiana Senator. He also has very centrist positions on most issues, including abortion, which has angered abortion rights activists. He will need to raise an enormous amount of money, campaign heavily in Iowa and New Hampshire to raise his name recognition, and prove to the left that he is a mainstream Democrat who cares about progressive Democratic values.

Then there is Joe Biden and John Edwards. Joe Biden is a great and brilliant Senator, but he lacks charisma and tends to go on speaking like a professor. He is very smart, understands his crowd extremely well, and can articulate a message better than most Democrats. But he lacks stature. He cannot muster the left or the center, he brings no state to the fold, he lacks executive experience, and he has low name recognition.

John Edwards is a force to be reckoned with. He has very high name i.d. He is a rock star in the Democratic party, registers high in Democratic primary polls, second only to Senator Clinton, is an impressive speaker with a great social justice, pro-labor, anti-poverty message, can raise impressive amounts of money from trial lawyers and labor, and has built up a network in Democratic politics, and has loyal supporters still in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is young and attractive, smart and charismatic, and has already done well in Iowa (he came in second to Kerry with 32% to Kerry's 38% in 2004). If he can raise money, convince Democrats that Senator Clinton is unelectable, and garner the support of the left, he will be a formidable candidate. However, he is a former Senator, and is running from no current office. His relative inexperience may hurt him, and he will need to work overtime to convince the entire party that he is the strongest general election candidate, the strongest liberal, the most courageous partisan, and the best President.

But this all depends on the fortune of Senator Clinton. Many say she is unelectable in the general election. But Senator Clinton is one of the smartest and most talented politicians around. She will no doubt barnstorm through Iowa and New Hampshire and galavanize women, African-Americans, and other Democratic groups. Unless most Demcrats are convinced Senator Clinton is entirely unelectable, not liberal enough, too politically calculating, and would not make a good President.

The only person I can see beating Senator Clinton with little difficulty isn't running. Barack Obama could definitely beat Senator Clinton, yes, but I was actually referring to another Clinton, first name Bill.

Republican nomination outlook coming up tomorrow.

read more...

I'd like to thank Or for his arguments in the last post. This is an important debate to have. We need to discuss these issues so that we can choose a nominee in 2008 that reflects our values and our hopes and who is able to lead not only our party to victory but our country into the future. I do not believe Senator Clinton is the person to do that. I have looked to the rest of the primary field and I fail to find an alternative either. Evan Bayh is too cautious, Mark Warner is severely inexperienced, John Kerry is old news, John Edwards lacks gravitas, Wesley Clark is too new to politics, Bill Richardson doesn't inspire, Tom Vilsack is too boring, Tom Daschle is nuts to run, Russ Feingold is creating a perception of radicalism, and Joe Biden has been in the Senate far too long. This does not mean I will not eventually throw my weight behind any of these candidates. One of them will probably be our next president, or at least our nominee; but I fear that we as a party have an opportunity, presented to us by the failed policies of the conservative movement, to do something more than win an election. We have the chance to win in the battleground of ideas. Let me elaborate further.

Democrats are too timid. We lack a spine. There is no reason we shouldn't call for universal pre-school, universal college, universal health care, a balanced budget, and a concerted effort to eliminate poverty in our nation and around the world. Our policies are not unpopular with Americans; they're unpopular with corporations. I have not seen a single poll showing that the American people think that only the rich should get treatment for illness, that only the children of CEO's should go to college and pre-school, that only a few should have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

The reason I have called on Senator Obama to run is because he is the only person who I believe deeply cares about and understands these issues and the people affected by them, and the only person I believe has the ability to effectively communicate our values as a party. If this is too early, then maybe Senator Obama will fail. Maybe, like Ronald Reagan, who ran in 1968 after two years as governor, he will run again and again until he wins (Reagan ran again in 1976 and 1980 before being elected to the Presidency). But I am not calling for Senator Obama to run because I want him to eventually be President, I am asking him to run now because we need him to be our President.

Our country is in serious pain. I hear it on my dorm floor. Conservatives scream at me for wanting to kill babies, for destroying religious freedom by allowing deviant homosexuals to marry, for depressing the morale of our troops in Iraq by calling for them to come home, and for wanting to take away the "hard-earned money" of CEO's making $7 million bonuses so that poor kids can go to college. They call me a racist for supporting affirmative action simply as a temporary solution so minorities can seek their potential until we fix our broken educational and economic system. On race, religion, political affiliation, gender, age, sexual orientation, ideology, and nationality, there are enormous divisions in our country. It saddens me that we fail to look to the long-term and address dangerous problems like global warming, anti-Americanism in every continent, growing global poverty, HIV/AIDS, the financial insolvency of Medicare (while Social Security is very solvent for at least three generations, I will post on this later, Medicare will be insolvent in the next decade), the unnerving effects of globalization, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the problem of the uninsured and the undereducated. We need serious leaders committed to tackling these tough issues now, who have strong principles but who are willing to compromise to achieve good ends, who can challenge and inspire our nation to sacrifice a little self-interest for the common good, who will once again make the United States the moral and political leader of the free world, and who will debunk all the myths and lies about politics by demonstrating to the American people that our elected leadership genuinely cares about helping others and serving their communities.

Senator Obama is that man. He is the product of an interracial and international marriage (his father was Kenyan, his mother was Kansan). He used drugs as a teenager and got involved with gangs. But he also went to college (Columbia University) and law school (Harvard, where he was President of the Harvard Law Review, the first African-American in the position) because he worked hard, played by the rules, changed his life around, and believed in the American Dream. He was a practicing Muslim in his youth, and converted to Christianity, and is as devout as any evangelical. He moved to Chicago and New York after law school, not to seek big money, but to help the little guy by being a civil rights lawyer and then creating a voter registration initiative that registered 100,000 people in 1992 in Chicago. He has lived the lives of Americans from all walks of life and understands the issues that we all face. But through all the pain (his father left the country when he was two and Obama never saw him again), he never lost hope; even with a "funny name," this skinny kid is a United States Senator from the Land of Lincoln. In all the poverty that he has seen, he still believes that anyone in America can get ahead. With racism and intolerance subtly permeating every institution in our country, Senator Obama sees a world where African-Americans stop viewing intellectualism as "white" and where white people become better by working with and learning from their black friends. Senator Obama is the embodiment of the American character and the country needs him to lead.

Or makes good points about the political ramifications of Senator Obama's age and experience in comparison to other "lucky" Presidents like Wilson and Carter. But the winds are changing, and Senator Obama has only beaten the odds and pulled major upsets (he was running fourth in the Dmeocratic primary polls in Illinois until the primary and won a decisive majority in a large field). Senator Obama, even before the GOP changed candidates and the sex scandal with Jack Ryan came out, was ahead of his opponent by 22 points, before he was well-known. Senator Obama stuns people; he stuns me. I still believe in an America that challenges the conventional wisdom, embodied by Charlie Cook (whom I think is brilliant), and surprises the world. We have a choice in our party in 2008; do we want to win an election, do we want to defeat the Republicans, do we want to govern effectively, or do we want to change the world for the better? I want to do all of these things, and I strongly believe that there is no one in our party better suited than Senator Obama to accomplish them.

Maybe it is too early for Senator Obama, and maybe he will fail. But maybe he won't, and maybe we will see an America again that amazes us all, and makes us believe in miracles again.

read more...