| |
One election ends, and we barely get to catch our
breath before we begin talking about the next — the biggie — the
presidential election in 2008.
The Democrats will have to find a new whipping boy — and a new message — as president George W. Bush can’t run again.
That
becomes a little bit easier by virtue of them picking up the House and
Senate after the GOP gift wrapped them with a series of scandals,
errors in judgement and its own wedge issues.
Immigration anyone?
Those
pickups allow the Democrats to try and set the agenda for the nation,
and when their reforms fall short — or are vetoed by Bush — they can
play the obstructionist card.
The Democrats, even if they have a message, will still have to try and find a candidate that can win.
Two
have already come out and said they are going to make a dash for 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue — Iowa governor Tom Vilsack and Mike Gravel, former
senator from the frozen wasteland of Alaska.
That pair
certainly aren’t the headliners, but given the Democrats’ recent
history of sometimes nominating someone coming out of nowhere, it’s
hard to count either of them out.
Of course, given the fact that
Gravel would only be able to, maybe, deliver Alaska and its whopping
three electoral votes — he’s less appealing than someone who could
bring a state on board that would make a difference.
Vilsack’s
big leg up is the chance to win early because his home state of Iowa
opens the primary/caucus season and could provide momentum going
forward. The flip side is that a loss in your home state almost
assuredly ensures a quick and graceful exit from the race altogether.
It’s expected that John Kerry could make another run at the White House, as could his vice presidential candidate John Edwards.
Kerry’s
biggest advantage is that he has already been through the wringer and
will know what to expect. His biggest liability is that he’s already
lost and tends to say the worst thing at the worst possible time. He’s
just not very likeable.
Edwards’ biggest advantage is that he’s
not from the northeast and has good looks and charm. His liabilities
include that he was a personal injury lawyer. Americans like lawyers
even less than they like politicians. He can’t be branded a loser
because he can blame the 2004 failure on the guy at the head of the
ticket — Kerry.
You also have retired General Wesley Clark — who
picked up the coveted Madonna endorsement in 2004, and New Mexico
governor Bill Richardson along with a host of other well-known names
like Tom Daschle, Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. You also can’t rule
out the return of Al Gore — which would be an inconvenient problem for
many of the Democrats.
Of course, any conversation about the Democrats and their presidential aspirations has to begin with Hillary Clinton.
On
the positive side, she has phenomenal name recognition and is the type
of charismatic, dynamic personality that the party could use to
energize its base.
On the negative side, she has phenomenal name
recognition and is the type of charismatic, dynamic personality that
the party could use to energize its base — the Republican base.
While
many people would come out to vote for Hillary Clinton, an equal or
greater number would likely seize the chance to vote against her.
You
also can’t overstate the possibility of Clinton-Bush fatigue. By the
time the election is held, the last two decades will have had one or
the other in power. That’s a little too imperial for most Americans’
taste.
The wild card is Barak Obama — a dynamo who seems to gain
stature with every speech. He seems to have the type of charisma that
can cross party lines.
He’s also become a media darling, but that doesn’t always translate into wins.
Just ask Howard “Screaming” Dean.
Next week, a look at just where the GOP goes in the post-Bush era.
Looking ahead at 2008 for the Dems
