I opined at RedBlueChristian.com:I still feel that Hillary Clinton will decide not to seek the presidency in 2008.And, when later pressed by Andrew Jackson, "if not Clinton, then who," I suggested:
The upcoming election represents a huge opportunity for the Democrats and irrespective of how much tacking toward the center–genuine or feigned–New York’s junior Senator may undertake, she is still the most polarizing current figure in US politics. (She routinely registers about 49% negative ratings and that’s before a single vote is cast.)
My guess is that she will look at numbers like those and decide that, at least for the time being, she’ll seek to emulate her Democratic predecessor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, conservative columnist George Will called the best senator in US history.
But even if Clinton doesn’t back out, I think that she’ll not be given the nomination. Democrats so hate George W. Bush and so want to replace him with one from their own party that, seeing how polarizing Clinton is, they’re more apt to go the moderate route. This makes a figure like [Indiana Senator Evan] Bayh [pictured at right] more appealing, especially since service as a governor is the gold standard of US presidential politics.
Of course, I should end this time at my crystal ball by saying, “Or not.” After all, I was the guy who thought that Mark Warner would be the 2008 nominee of the Democratic Party.
(I’m not so certain that McCain will be the Republican nominee, although by the usual thinking of Republicans, it is his turn.)
I think at this point Bayh is the likeliest nominee: former governor, moderate, Dem who wins in a red state.John Dickerson over at Slate seems to have had the same inklings I'd had about Warner and that now I have about Bayh:
Whether he had a shot, Warner would have been an interesting candidate to have in the race. He was running to Hillary's right and saying the kind of moderate things that would have picked a fight with the party's liberal activists. Party fights are good: They work things out, and the Democrats could use the debate. At one point, Warner said the finger-pointing about Bush misleading America into Iraq wasn't helpful and that the party needed to move on. He said tax cuts were not a universal evil and that when Democrats talk about taxing the rich, they offend those people who want to be rich themselves someday. He was not a fan of what he called the party's "class warfare" populism that many Democrats think is the key to winning back the White House.[UPDATE: Rob Harrington, an Indiana Democrat who supports Evan Bayh, reacts to the Warner withdrawal.]
Immediately after his announcement Thursday, Warner became very popular among candidates who were preparing to fight him in the primaries. Some called him to start the process of winning him to their side. Sens. Evan Bayh and John Kerry made their praise public. The most likely beneficiary of Warner's departure may be Bayh, who was competing for a similar sphere of donors and activists as a representative of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. As a former governor of Indiana, Bayh can claim executive experience, just as Warner could, and offer the same hope that as a favorite son he could turn a red state into one the Democrats could count on. Thursday, Warner said he wasn't dropping out of the process. His former rivals won't let him.
[THANKS TO: Spencer Troxell for linking to this post.]
8 comments:
The Democratic nominee will not be Hillary Clinton, and neither will it be either Al Gore or John Kerry.
Viable candidates include Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark and John Edwards, who is famously hankering for the nomination. In fact, some polls show John Edwards an early favorite in Iowa right now.
But "word" has it that Barack Obama may be reconsidering his decision to not run in 2008. If he gives the "go ahead," he will definitely be the Democratic nominee in 2008, and without question, he will have my support.
If not Obama,I believe there are many worthy Democratic possibilities. Edwards may not be one of them... Don't know much, yet, about Bayh, except that he's part of the moderate DLC.
I'll explore all this much (at my site) more after the Nov 2006 elections.
(By the way, I strongly believe that Warner would be the perfect VP for Obama. Obama/Warner. Has a nice ring.)
Deborah:
Although Richardson has a great resume, his silly and unnecessary bit of resume-inflation, claiming to have been drafted by the Cleveland Indians when he wasn't, has probabluy rendered him ineffectual as a presidential candidate at least for this next cycle. (This is a lot worse than Al Gore's passing claim to have invented the Internet, because Richardson has claimed this about himself repeatedly. Doing that gains him lifetime entry into the Leno-Letterman Zone.)
Edwards is the sort of populist who seems to play well in Iowa and a victory there would help him develop momentum. But I wonder whether a one-term senator--and that his only time in any public office--who, in 2008, will have been out of office for eight years, is going to have much traction over the long haul of a presidential campaign?
Obama has undeniable charisma and is clearly a star of the future. I could see him as a possible VP nominee in 2008. But to put him at the top of the ticket at this point would be a huge roll of the dice. It isn't that he's not an able guy; he clearly is. It's just that he needs more experience. Right now, it seems, Obama has become a favorite Democratic Rohrshach blot, a repositiory for all their favorite hopes and dreams with little public record on the part of the senator to validate any of them.
Clark can speak with some credibility on security issues, obviously. And that may be precisely what the Dems need to blunt the inevitable Republican arguments on what has been, for more than thirty years, the Democrats' Achilles Heel.
Bayh is an effective speaker, a moderate, a Blue who wins in a Red State, someone with gubernatorial and senatorial experience, and one who has exhibited independent thinking.
It seems to me that if the Democrats really want to give Republicans a race in 2008, to press the advantages they now enjoy, they could do a lot worse than nominating a ticket of Bayh-Clark.
Just some on-the-fly thoughts.
Mark
Bayh’s got all the credentials…
Was elected in 1986 to Indiana Secretary of State at the age of 30. Elected in 1988 as Governor of Indiana, first Democratic Governor in 20 years. Re-elected in 1992 with the largest margin in modern Indiana history. Elected to the Senate in 1998. Re-elected in 2004 with a higher percentage than GWB. All in a state that has voted twice since 1932 for a Democratic presidential candidate.
This man KNOWS how to win and what it takes to win.
I’d definately encourage you to strongly consider him…
For more information on Senator Bayh please visit:
All America PAC Senator Bayh’s PAC
BayhPartisan All things Sen Bayh
Americans For Bayh Grassroots Bayh 2008
Sen Bayh’s Facebook Profile
Rob:
I don't do endorsements around here. Mostly, I just study politics and history and talk about it. But Bayh would be a formidable candidate...and has been in Iowa and New Hampshire a lot lately.
Mark
I like Bayh, and would have no problem voting for him. He's a good guy. Unfortunately, this is the age of machismo and soundbites, and I have heard very little from Bayh that would please the check-out line voters that seem to swing elections.
Also--and this may seem frivolous--Bayh doesn't have a very strong sounding name, and it doesn't sound like it's spelled; I think there are plenty of people who will be put off about this when matched with his reasonable, well thought out stances, and the inevitable 'flip-flop' redux allegations that the republican noise machine is going to throw at him; They're going to paint him as another pansy wimp when we need something sturdier, and it will probably sell.
What we're going to need in a frontrunner is a lion without too many connections to the Clintonistas (probably from the south or Midwest), who can be passionate without acquiring that occassionally glazed-over look Howard Dean got when he was in the heat of the moment. I see no such contender yet, but I would gladly place Bayh as this mythological Democrat's running mate, if they ever materialize.
One thing that may hurt Bayh is that people are getting sick and tired of political dynasties.
We've had Bushes, Gores, Tafts, Clintons, Kennedys, and others. A last name doesn't mean that one is qualified. Evan Bayh's father established the Bayh-brand in Indiana--and beyond--during his years in the Senate. Even if Evan is qualified, people may decide that 2008 is the year they vote against dynasties. Just a thought.
Mark
PS: Thanks for your comments, Spencer.
Bayh is certinly helped by Warner's announcement. And a few years ago Bayh started creeping left to position himself for the 2008 primaries. But I still think he may be (correctly) perceived as too moderate to win the nomination. My guess is that the Lamont wing of the party will succeed in getting big Al nominated -- resulting in a substantial McCain victory in the general election.
But, you know, I'm a Republican, so I'm probably just trying to dream up a plausible path to the outcome I'd like. :)
Scurvy:
Interesting thoughts.
Whether "the Lamont wing," as you call it, would go for Al Gore, I don't know.
But if things go in Connecticut as I think they will next month, that wing may go into "rethink mode" about the sort of candidate they will want to nominate in 2008. Their history would indicate that their chances of capturing the White House are enhanced when they nominate moderates.
I think you're right to see John McCain as the likeliest Republican candidate. As long as he remains true to his traditional conservative principles and doesn't go neocon, he should have an excellent chance of winning the general election.
As always, I endorse nobody. Just observations.
Thanks for dropping by and for your comments.
Mark
Post a Comment