Is It Hillary By Acclamation?
It sure will be if John Edwards is the toughest rival she faces. Michael Barone looks at the fallout from the Warner withdrawal:
Mark Warner announced this morning that he’s not running for president. As Prince Metternich asked when informed that the Russian ambassador had suddenly dropped dead, “What can have been his motive?” I suppose it was a calculation that he was just not going to overtake Hillary Rodham Clinton. And that the time, money, and effort required over the next 27 months or so were just not worth it. Warner has a fortune, made after he won a cellphone lottery, but not, I think, a big enough fortune to finance a presidential campaign.
A year ago I thought the Democratic field would pit Clinton against two little-known candidates, Mark Warner on her right and Russ Feingold on her left. Perhaps Warner calculated that there’s not enough room on the right to win a Democratic nomination. Certainly, Joe Lieberman’s fate in the 2004 race and then in last August’s Connecticut Democratic primary tends to support that conclusion. Jimmy Carter could win, in a multicandidate field, in 1976; Bill Clinton, with his spectacular political skills, could win, in a weak field, in 1992; but Mark Warner evidently feels he couldn’t win in 2008.
How does this leave the Democratic Party? Instead of Hillary versus two unknown but personally attractive candidates (at least that’s how I’d characterize Warner and Feingold), it’s looking more like Hillary versus various retreads: John Edwards, Al Gore, John Kerry. I’m inclined to think Kerry will win minimal support, but he seems determined to run. Gore’s bitter denunciations of Bush and the Iraq war are evidently popular on the Democratic left. (It’s interesting to remember that he ran as the moderate and hawkish Democratic candidate in 1988.)
Edwards seems to do better than Kerry in polls now, but it doesn’t seem certain to me that his stump speech is going to enchant the press in the ‘08 cycle as it did in ‘04. His shtick on how many Americans live in poverty is going to wear thin.
Indeed, I’ve said it before, and, since I’m an incurable bore, I’ll keep on saying it: John Edwards is a simply awful campaigner. One of the least dynamic ‘off-the-cuff’ speakers you’re likely to see, and I include George W. Bush in that judgement…
Color me unimpressed with Edward’s ‘04 VP run as well.
Still, Edwards is a better speaker than Hillary, his “two Americas” shtick is preaching to the choir, at least in the primaries, and he benefits from having positioned himself to Hillary’s left on Iraq and, at the same time, the perception that he is more moderate (and therefore, more electable). Given that at least 50% of Democrats think Hillary is either unelectable and/or insufficiently deranged with hatred for Bushitler, I’d say Edwards is well positioned to give Hillary a run for her money.
hrc v. feingold.
like to see that one. throw edwards in and you get the classic foreign policy porridge buffet.
one too hot, one too cold, and one that is ‘lukewarm’…
the most natural, becuase he will have the intellect and certitude of belief, will be feingold. in hindsight, if it had been feingold instead of dean leading the peaceniks in 04…maybe.
It seems strange to say with so long to go. But it seems like the field in both parties have narrowed to three:
GOP: Rudy, Romney, and McCain.
DEMS: Hillary, Edwards, and Al.
I still think that feingold can recapture the magic of dean, with a little more staying power, and lot fewer screams.
I disagree with him, but cannot deny his charisma.
I don’t think Feingold has a chance in hell of securing the nomination, because he has cast far too many votes that, while justified in principle, will play very poorly in a 30 second Democratic Primary campaign ad. Do you really think the Democratic Party will nominate a candidate who voted to confirm John Ashcroft for Attorney General AND John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Who voted against the motion to dismiss Bill Clinton’s impeachment and (apparently) told Christopher Hitchens that he felt the obstruction of justice count was justified?
Yes, he also voted his conscience on Iraq and the Patriot Act while Kerry and Edwards waited until both positions were clearly unpopular with the party base before opposing them, but his positions on these issues are already well known (and form the basis for his support within the party) while his deviations from party orthodoxy are not.
As a conservative Republican, I think the best candidate for the Democrats to nominate would be The Hillary. Robobitch would be sure to alienate the great middle ranks of undecided voters, because I think that most Americans can spot when they’re being conned. Why would she be best? Because it’s the best chance of us retaining the White House.
As for little Johnny Edwards “two nations” shtick, what is this? The Great Depression? Get real.
As for Tree Boy Al (I invented air) Gore, uh, enough said. He’s been tried and found wanting.
Russ Feingold, on the other hand, I respect. I don’t agree with him, but he has honor. But he, too, would fold like a cheap suit going up against McCain, Romney, or even Rudy of the Checkered Past.
in a hypotheticla match-up…dean v. feingold, feingold beats dean like a drum.
The democratic party just selected lamont over liebrmann in ct. I don’t think feingold could win the overall, bu the primary would be a lot better than kerry v. dean.