From One to Another: The Race for 2008 Begins, Part II: The Democrats
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published November 27, 2006, 12:53 pm in Voting & Partisanship.
This time, I want to talk about more Democratic candidates, for I don't feel strongly about any one of them. In my last introduction to the 2008 Presidential elections, I concentrated on Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain becuase I feel strongly about both of these candidates. When it comes to the Democrats, I'm really not even sure if they have a viable candidate.
One of the most important criteria for any Presidential candidate is name recognition, and most of the serious Democratic candidates don't have it. John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani definitely have it, but the only two Democratic candidates to file with the FEC are Tom Vilsack, the Governor of Iowa, and Mike Gravel, a former Senator of Alaska. Alaska and Iowa, for crying out loud! Alaska only became a state in 1958, 180 years after the first U.S. President. Iowa's got that beat by at least one President, Herbert Hoover. Not that he really counts. Does anything good come out of Iowa except potatoes? Or is that potatos?
Alright, alright. I'm being facetious here, but there's also some truth to it. Giuliani and McCain have already got a leg up on these guys by virtue of their visibility. Now it's true that many presidential candidates are unknown by the general public before they begin to vie for the nomination. Who had ever heard of John Edwards, for example? But these other more visible candidates already have an advantage that can't be matched through political debate.
But there are some very visible Democrats who are considering a run, too. I'm just not sure how great they are. There are some other fringe interests, such as Wesley Clark, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Joe Biden of Delaware, but these guys don't have nearly the visibility of the other three I want to talk about here. I'm not discounting them, though, for Bill Richardson and Joe Biden especially will warrant closer scrutiny in the coming months, mainly depending on which "architect" they get to run their campaigns. But for right now, let's talk about the three prime suspects.
These three possibilities are all media hounds; that's why we all recognize their names. Every chance they get, they're all over the television, kind of like Al Sharpton. Yes, that's right: I'm talking about Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama.
Hil and Nancy
Clinton (a.k.a. Hilary) and Pelosi can be discussed together because they have the same problems. They're both strong, successful women. That's a good thing when it comes to getting one's way, but a bad thing when it comes to presidential politics. It's a cliche, but there's truth to it. A strong, assertive man is simply that: strong and assertive. But a strong, assertive woman? Well, I can't say that term in polite company. Not that there's any polite company around, anyway.
Just what are you saying here, Chad? Are you implying that a woman doesn't have a chance for President? No, not really. Any person who runs for President must be strong and assertive, so any woman running has to have these qualities. But that woman is going to have a strike against her already, a chasm they will have to be breached before they can even be on the same level as the male candidate. And these women are not the ones to bridge the divide.
I know what I'm saying sounds sexist, but I don't mean for it to be. Dang, even that sounds sexist. Hey, I have a lot of feminist friends...Ah, forget it.
I appreciate both Pelosi and Clinton, and I would love to have either one of them for President. But pit either one against John McCain, and they will lose. If anything, these women will have to play supporting roles, possibly as Vice Presidents first and then becoming the presidential candidates after their President's term is up. That's just the reality.
Especially when it comes to these two women especially. If Elizabeth Dole was running (sometimes I think the Republicans picked the wrong Dole as their candidate!), she would have a chance. She's not a subservient type by any means, but she's not a divider like Pelosi and Clinton. Anyone who wants to win the presidency has to get the independent vote, and I don't think Clinton or Pelosi can do it. People love each of them, to be sure. Neither one will have any trouble getting reelected. But there's a reason why they are Senators in New York and California and not in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Most of the country can't stand people that liberal, especially not women that liberal.
What I would like to see is a double bill, a Pelosi/Clinton ticket. I'm not sure if they would have a chance, but Pelosi (the most senior) would make a great President, and then we could get Clinton in there the next time. What fun that would be. The conservatives would be up in arms, but I think enough women would maybe go for it. Nah, it'll never happen. At least not in 2008. I think each of these women need to wait until the next elections.
The Illinois Dream
Now Barack Obama, this guy's a real wild card. He served in the Illinois State Senate from 1996-2004, but he was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Even before he was elected, he gave the keynote address for the 2004 Democratic National Convention, which shows his status among the party. No one really knows what the guy is capable of in the U.S. Senate, for all of his experience has been in the State Senate. His term isn't even up until 2010!
So why all the fuss? Well, Obama is a bit of a rock star. He's young, he's charismatic, he can motivate, and the guy can write, too! His most recent book, The Audacity of Hope, has been the number one bestselling nonfiction book for a month now. Jimmy Carter's the only other guy who can do that.
Obama is all about coalition-building, too. He wants to get past our political divisions, or so he says. His co-sponsored bills have all been bi-partisan, which is a good sign when vieing for the presidency. And besides, people really get fired up about this guy.
But how can a junior Senator who has never completed one term seriously consider the Presidency? I'm not sure, but the guy could get more fire under him than Dean ever had. And it doesn't seem like he'll blow it with some screaming tirade like Dean did, either. He's a calm, decent guy. I like him, if you can't tell.
But in other ways, he's like Jimmy Carter. He's not really a politician. He's a social activist who's so charismatic that he naturally fell into politics. And I dig that. But I'm not sure if it will make for a viable candidate right now. We need to know a lot more about Obama before we can judge or elect him. Again, maybe he needs to wait...
Comments & Trackbacks
By Michael
December 8, 2006, 4:05 pm. PermaLink
Don't underestimate the power of Oprah. She really likes Obama and would support him enthusiastically. She already does.
And Iowa=corn, Idaho=potatos, or is that Idahoe=potatoes?
Leave a comment