Having said that, I+óGé¼Gäóm going to add, it+óGé¼Gäós what we junkies do. We speculate, hope, wish and dream long before it+óGé¼Gäós sensible to so. It+óGé¼Gäós the nature of the particular substance we choose to abuse. So, on with the speculation.
I+óGé¼Gäóll stand by what I said in the comment+óGé¼Gäós section of Lowell+óGé¼Gäós post. I don+óGé¼Gäót believe that Gore is going to run again, ever again. It+óGé¼Gäós wishful thinking to assume that he will. He+óGé¼Gäós already run for national office three times +óGé¼GÇ£ most people forget or weren+óGé¼Gäót old enough to remember that the first time he ran for president was in +óGé¼Gäó88. He was an up and coming senator then who didn+óGé¼Gäót have a national reputation. He got favorable treatment in the press and nobody expected him to win, least of all him. Dukakis won the nomination and then got creamed in a landslide to Bush, Sr.
Gore, however, made a credible showing in +óGé¼Gäó88 and everybody understood that that race was for the name recognition. He would have been one of the frontrunners if he+óGé¼Gäód chosen to run in 1992. But none of the top tier wanted to risk challenging sitting President George HW Bush, who held a 90 percent approval rating at the time of the first primaries. So Bill Clinton, the long shot, won the Democratic nomination and made Gore his running mate.
The 2000 race was Gore+óGé¼Gäós second run for president, and I think his final one. Besides Gore+óGé¼Gäós inability to excite the base in 2002 (with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party being dissatisfied that he was too centrist), the press, for its own reasons, viciously vilified him. And his paid consultants seemed too busy arguing about which earth tones he should wear to let him define himself as a candidate.
When he lost that race, he discovered that there was life after elective office and it was fun. Gore had been the presumptive heir to his father+óGé¼Gäós legacy. Both Al, Sr., once a respected senator from Tennessee, and Gore+óGé¼Gäós mother, Pauline, had groomed their only son for presidential politics. But deep down I think that it was always an uneasy fit. Now that he+óGé¼Gäós discovered the freedom of being John Q. Public Citizen, he+óGé¼Gäós happy. He can finally say what he really believes without fear of the pollsters and the pundits. He never felt secure enough to do that before, which contributed mightily to the impression that he was stiff. He was. He ran for the Senate as a centrist Democrat from a conservative Southern state, Tennessee. Then he served as Vice President to the man who helped found, and once led, the Democratic Leadership Council +óGé¼GÇ£ also a centrist organization. But Gore always was a Washington liberal at heart. Now he can finally admit to it. And so can Tipper.
I also don+óGé¼Gäót think that Hillary will run. She+óGé¼Gäós a realist and she+óGé¼Gäós already been in the White House. She knows her baggage. She knows her negatives. I do think she+óGé¼Gäós shrewd enough to leverage the interest in her candidacy into the role of an effective and influential participant in the nominating process. Through her fundraising ability and the loyal support she+óGé¼Gäós earned, she+óGé¼Gäóll definitely be a player in helping to shape the party and pick the candidate. But it won+óGé¼Gäót be her.
I also don+óGé¼Gäót think it+óGé¼Gäós going to be Mark Warner. If he runs, I+óGé¼Gäóll support him as a favorite son. There is the hometown pride. And I like him. But I think his advisers who sold him a bill of goods that he shouldn+óGé¼Gäót run for the senate were dead wrong. The conventional wisdom was that governors win the White House and those who served in the Senate have too much baggage because of all the votes they+óGé¼Gäóve cast, the positions they+óGé¼Gäóve changed, and the compromises they+óGé¼Gäóve reached. Because of all that, they+óGé¼Gäóre too vulnerable to the charge of flip-flopping. It+óGé¼Gäós the paper trail.
However, governors leave a paper trail too. They leave positions they+óGé¼Gäóve taken, vetoes they+óGé¼Gäóve cast, budgets they+óGé¼Gäóve submitted and all the speeches they+óGé¼Gäóve made, not to mention the compromises they+óGé¼Gäóve had to make to get legislation passed too. And of course their records.
Warner has a great record. He was arguably one of the most effective governors, not just in Virginia, but nationwide. However, the dynamics that created the conventional wisdom have changed mightily. And Warner doesn+óGé¼Gäót look ready for prime time. The reason is that the debacle in Iraq, the intelligence screw-ups, and the complexity of foreign affairs have all turned the conventional wisdom on its head.
A really good case can be made that we are in this mess in Iraq because Bush, another Southern governor, had no foreign policy experience. He listened to bad advice and couldn+óGé¼Gäót discern good and accurate intelligence from a con job. After Bush+óGé¼Gäós abysmal incompetence, next time a candidate is going to need more than just one term as the governor of a relatively modest Southern state.
Ironically, the model of the ideal candidate, in terms of resume, would be someone like former Florida senator Bob Graham. He was a successful governor in the 80s, when Florida was in an economic slump and he led it out of the doldrums. He proved to be an able administrator who could govern a state effectively. Then, in the Senate, he chaired the Foreign Relations committee. He was also a leading critic of going into Iraq. He had the well- rounded resume that somebody running in 2008 is going to need. Unfortunately, he+óGé¼Gäós retired from elective office and probably just wants to enjoy his grandchildren. He+óGé¼Gäós entitled. So, don+óGé¼Gäót look for him to run again.
Somebody who looks promising to me is John Edwards. He has a credible shot at the nomination. He+óGé¼Gäós incredibly charismatic and anybody who tells you that that doesn+óGé¼Gäót matter is either very na+â-»ve about politics or is lying. His +óGé¼+ôtwo Americas+óGé¼-¥ message will resonate even more this time because the middle class has lost even more ground while the wealthy have continued to increase their wealth. The arrogance and cronyism of the rich has grown astoundingly blatant. Meanwhile, the average American is fearful of losing his job, his wages are flat, and he+óGé¼Gäós losing his pension and health care coverage.
Yet Edwards has more than an angry message. He has an optimistic vision. He doesn+óGé¼Gäót just whip up anger and demagoguery. Instead he appeals to what+óGé¼Gäós best in America, our idealism and ability to dream about being a better America for all.
And he now has the foreign affairs gravitas that he lacked a few years ago. I heard him on one of the Sunday morning talk shows a few weeks ago. He had come out against the war in Iraq and he was asked to explain why he had voted for it in the Senate. He came right out and said he had been wrong. He also said that, at the time, his vote was based on information that we all now know was inaccurate. But he insisted that it had been his mistake and that he had a moral obligation to take responsibility for it. That+óGé¼Gäós not a flip-flop. That+óGé¼Gäós having the integrity to be willing to be held accountable for his errors. However, he also strikes me as a man who learns from his mistakes and who doesn+óGé¼Gäót repeat them. So because he was lied to once, I doubt he+óGé¼Gäóll be as credulous again.
Now, I+óGé¼Gäóm going to go way out on a limb and pick a real long shot. And one that completely reverses everything I just said about the new dynamic not favoring governors. The one governor, if he indeed wins the governor+óGé¼Gäós race in 2006, who might make an interesting run for the presidency is Elliot Spitzer from New York.
I know, I know, it+óGé¼Gäós crazy. But I+óGé¼Gäóve been talking to relatives in states as diverse as Tennessee, Florida, Virginia, New Jersey and New York and one thing that comes across is that Spitzer is identified in the public mind with combating corporate crime and special interests. He+óGé¼Gäós viewed as the fighting prosecutor who is not afraid to take on the biggest boys. And most of the white-collar crime that he prosecutes is incredibly complex. To unwind the schemes, plots, and creative accounting designs takes an analytical mind, so even though he+óGé¼Gäós slim on foreign policy experience, he could still use that same incisive intellect to cut through the bullshit if he was given bad foreign intelligence. This is a man who has dealt with crooks and liars before. He could probably take on our CIA and FBI and figure out who was lying and who was giving him good solid evidence before he acted.
And I think he fits the fighting populist mold that may be popular in 2008. Again it+óGé¼Gäós part of the new dynamic. People are angry about the ground they+óGé¼Gäóve lost. They are looking for somebody to fight for their interests.
But again, that+óGé¼Gäós a major long shot and not without pitfalls. He still has to win in New York and he may not even want to make a run for national office only two years after that election. To do so could also get him pegged an opportunist fast. And of course, by 2008, that dynamic could change yet again.
And of course, in the end, I could be completely wrong and Gore could run. I don+óGé¼Gäót think he+óGé¼Gäód want to. I think the press would dog him again. But the truth is he+óGé¼Gäód make a great president. He+óGé¼Gäós had the experience in the White House, he knows the foreign policy terrain and he could put together a good domestic program that would bring jobs back and get our economy going and not just for the wealthiest one percent. In fact, if he just brought former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin back, I+óGé¼Gäód follow Gore through fire and over a cliff.
As I said in the comments section of Lowell+óGé¼Gäós post, if I see Peter Knight signing on to a Gore campaign, I+óGé¼Gäóm so outta here to help.
I was excited about Clark the last time. I still even get email from WesPAC. But for some reason, Clark was under the radar for me.
If he won the nomination, I'd certainly work for him and with enthusiasm. But I'm not sure he does have as good a shot as some others.
I'm not sure how recent this is, but people are unforgiving of presidential candidates who don't succeed the first time around. That might be a mistake considering how many candidates running in local races actually win on a second or even third try. But it seems that in presidential races we don't cut candidates much slack.
This year is the year of the veteran who runs against the Republican Establishment - especially the veteran of the Iraqi War. But I don't know if that will hold for 2008. And I'm not sure the buzz will be there for Clark. Also, I think it's hard for somebody who has never held elective office to run for president. Perhaps he should have run for a Senate seat first to prove that he could get elected.
I also don't see Kerry capturing much enthusiasm. I believe that he wants to run again. But it's generally conceded that he ran an abysmal campaign and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Given his attributes: great intellect, sophistication, and his war record, he should have been able to defeat Bush, even with "security moms."
Instead, he let his war record become the issue rather than Bush's lack thereof. And he tried to ignore the 500 pound gorilla - national security - to talk only about the economy. It didn't work. That and not answering the Swift Boat slander ads quickly enough did him in. I don't think Democratic activists will forgive him for that.
And the actual nominee could be somebody we are not even considering right now. There are many others who have gotten attention that I didn't include in my post. When my husband was in Iowa working for Gephart last time (there was a forward-looking choice), he was tremendously impressed by Iowa's governor, Tom Vilsack, and still believes he has a shot. I, however, still don't think the choice will be a governor next time, again, because of Bush's miserable failure at foreign policy. People will be wary of picking somebody who lacks some foreign policy and intelligence experience.
My first choice is Edwards. He has some of that experience. He's had to own up to making a mistake in voting for the war in Iraq and he's learned from it. He can discuss those issue credibly.
He's also telegenic. And more than just being a likeable, regular guy that you'd want to have a beer with, Edwards is tremendously charismatic. He's got a vision for America that can inspire people. It's been a long time since we've had that in a leader. Never understimate the power of real vision, leadership, inspiration and charisma (in the best sense of the word, what John F. Kennedy had - not what a rock star claims to have).
So, there's my pick. But I'd work for any of the others.
Unlike some of the other candidates from 2004, Edwards still strikes me as being a fresh face. Perhaps it's just my impression. Or maybe it's that he has charisma and that makes him appear to be a fresh face and an interesting choice.
Last time, much as I liked Edwards, I just didn't think he had the gravitas to run against a sitting president who had weathered a major terrorist attack and still had a great deal of public support for the way he handled it. And the country was still more divided over the war in Iraq. Half the country supported it and didn't want us to abandon Iraq. Now, more and more people are turning against the invasion and occupation and they realize that they were lied to about our reasons for being there. They also no longer have the same level of faith in Bush's ability to keep them safe. It's a huge turn around. In 2004, most people, even those who didn't like Bush's hard right rhetoric or his handling of the economy, still gave him high marks for national security. That's been eroding, especially since all the Administration missteps in New Orleans.
And Edwards has, in that time, picked up more credibility in dealing with precisely those issues that were his weak suit back in 2004. And in his case, his run was seen as that of a younger man who was still establishing name recognition, much the way Gore was viewed in 1988, where his unsuccessful candidacy didn't really hurt him.
I just don't see the excitement there for Wes Clark. But then, he's been behind the scenes. I was merely speculating. And as I said at the beginning, it's really too early. So much can happen. I could be totally wrong about Clark and even Edwards. He could stumble. And I repeat, I wouldn't write Warner off either. I just think he would have been better served by taking the risk and running for the Senate. Had he succeeded he would have launched his presidential campaign from a stronger position.
The best you can say now is that 2008 is wide open.