Decision ‘08

A Half-Dozen Strong Candidates? The Democrats?

I join Tom Bevan in his amazement at Kevin Drum’s assertion:

[Just Say No] to whatever Kevin Drum was on when he wrote this about 2008:

“…[T]he Republican field is remarkably weak this cycle. Compared to Democrats, who have half a dozen genuinely strong contenders, John McCain (news, bio, voting record) is really the only high-profile candidate they’ve got, and even he’s hardly setting the world on fire. It’s pretty amazing, really. From being on top of the world a mere two years ago, Republicans are having trouble just treading water these days.”

Rudy Giuliani either slipped Kevin’s addled mind or isn’t high profile enough. And on the Democratic side, there is Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. That’s only half of a “half dozen.” Who are the three other “genuinely strong contenders” for the nomination? Joe Biden? Christopher Dodd? Please. At best you could say Bill Richardson has the potential to become a “genuinely strong contender,” but he certainly isn’t one right now.

I agree wholeheartedly, but I’ll grant Kevin one more: I’m sure he put Al Gore into the ’strong contender’ pile…

8 Responses to “A Half-Dozen Strong Candidates? The Democrats?”

1 Dennis Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I’d say at best, Edwards is the top of the second-tier guys like Dodd and Biden; he gets a little more credit because he is probably running for real, as opposed to a vanity project. But I think Hillary or Obama would wipe him out.

The Democrats and Republicans have two DC-establishment frontrunners who are probably the favorites, but nobody seems to love them (McCain and Clinton), two outsiders who seem to excite supporters, but who might not run anyway (Obama and Giuliani), and a bunch of also-rans hoping the bigfoots are caught kicking kittens (Edwards, Romney, etc.) That puts both parties fairly even in my book.

The one edge for the Democrats, as you say, Mark, is Gore. He’d certainly shake things up, but he’s no shoo-in. But judging from the commenters on Kevin Drum’s original post, there’s a heavy-duty echo chamber going on there, so I guess it’s natural for them to dismiss all opposition to the groupthink.

It really astounds me. In 2004, the Republicans won a narrow victory, and as a result you had triumphal Republican Internet posters acting like the Democrats would soon go extinct. Now the Democrats have won a narrow victory and triumphal Democratic Internet posters are doing the same thing. It’s like no one has ever heard that all glory is fleeting; they prefer to convince themselves that soon their political opponents will all disappear.
2 Sean P Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
This is yet another example of the Democrats treating their “rock star” candidate (Obama) as far more credible than the Republican version (Giuliani). Never mind the fact that Rudy leads most party primary polls, and never mind the fact that Obama trails Hillary by double digits in every national opinion poll taken since announcing his candidacy. Rudy is pro choice, so those backwards ‘thumpers from Jesusland will never nominate him, so we can just pretend he isn’t running. Honestly, part of me wants Rudy to win the nomination just to wipe the smug smirk off the face of the Kevin Drums out there.
3 Anonymous Liberal Says:
January 27th, 2007 at 12:02 am
I’ve got to agree with Drum on this one. By historic standards, the field of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Richardson, Clark, Biden, etc. is very strong. They’re all relatively big names. They are all pretty talented and successful politicians. Compare that to the candidates the Dems fielded in previous open primary years (’84, ‘88, ‘92, ‘04); this field is MUCH stronger and MUCH deeper by comparison.

On the Republican side, McCain is a real talent, but he’s old and his star seems to be fading. Romney has some potential, but it remains to be seen if he can overcome doubts that he’s a genuine conservative. Giuliani has star status but he also has more baggage than any major candidate in recent memory (messy divorces, affairs, corrupt associates, pictures in drag, very liberal stances on social issues, etc.). His political baggage makes Clinton’s pre-presidential history look tame by comparison. And the rest of the Republican field is a bunch of total nobodies.

That said, I think both McCain and Romney would be formidable general election candidates if the party rallies around them. The Dems may have a deeper bench this time around, but this isn’t a team sport. The side with the strongest candidate wins.
4 Mark Says:
January 27th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Giuliani is far, far stronger than you give him credit for…
5 too many steves Says:
January 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
It is a pretty loose “historical standard” if it classifies as very strong Richardson, Clark, Biden, Dodd, and, even, Edwards. I suppose people recognize their names and they are all national politicians but, sheesh, “very strong” is not how I would classify their candidacy in terms of their chances of winning - anything.
6 Aaron Says:
January 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Everyone other than Clinton, Obama, and Richardson have already run for, and lost, the presidency. You could say the same thing about Richardson that you did about Giuliani — I recall someone saying that his personal dealings make Bernie Kerik look like a choir boy — but Richardson has nowhere near the starpower that Giuliani does. Sure, he has an impressive list of jobs on his resume, but what did he do in those positions that distinguished him — other than being the first Latino/Hispanic to hold them?

Gore, Biden, and Clark are washed up has-beens. Clark was never even an “is.” Gore is the only one of them who even came close. If you’re going to include them in “depth” you should add Gingrich on the GOP side.

Edwards is a combination past loser-empty suit. He only has one speech and, based upon his recent announcement speech, he hasn’t come up with a new one yet. “Two Americas” didn’t get him the nomination in ‘04. Why should it work in ‘08. If the election had been a year and half ago, maybe, but the people have forgetten Katrina by now (at least outside of Louisiana where Blanco is trailing her challenger by double-digits).

When it comes to names that lots of people recognize and might vote for, there are really just two on each side.
7 Jim Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Okay. So coming out of the starting gate he’s not the prettiest horse. He’s too short, chunky, & bow-legged to look like a champion but he’s got the heart. All he needs is a chance. Judging at face value, his facial lines show he can laugh when things go wrong, and at himself too. He has a tell-tale nose that lights up when he overblows his own horn, and I’d swear it grows when he tries to pull one over on the public. A candidate who loses it when he tries to be over prentitous or deceitful: how bad is that? In foreign affairs, we don’t need Julius Caesar; right now it’s time for Francis of Assisi. We need a diplomat who respects his enemies and allows them to save face: a job everyone knows he can do. It’s time to show the War Admirals
out there what you’ve got. Go BILL!!
8 Jim Says:
February 15th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Sorry, that’s “overly pretentious” GoBILL !!