Today is Friday, which means it's time for another edition of Chris Cillizza's (usually) interesting "Friday Line" in the Washington Post. Today, Cillizza ranks "the top five candidates who, at this point, have the best shot at their party's 2008 nomination." For the Democrats, it's Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Evan Bayh, and Virginia's own Mark Warner (yay!). No Wes Clark? No Russ Feingold? Or are those #6 and #7 on Chris Cillizza's list, since he mentions that the Democrats have "as many as seven or eight legitimate contenders?" I think both of those guys should be on there, no question.
For the Republicans, it's John McCain, Mitt Romney, and "Bored George" Allen as the clear Top 3, with Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee throw in there as well. Here's what Cillizza has to say about George Allen:
The last month has not been Allen's best. He continues to labor under the dual burden of running for reelection this November while also traveling the country to keep his presidential prospects alive. And the senator seemed to be caught off guard by a New Republic profile (link is subscription-only) that details his youthful fascination with the Confederate flag. In the midst of the controversy, Virginia state Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis (the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom Davis) said on a local radio show that "if Jim Webb is [Allen's] opponent, [he] is going to have a very challenging year, particularly in Northern Virginia." Not exactly what the Allen people needed as they were scrambling to get out from under the New Republic story. But as we stated above, Allen is one of three GOP candidates who has the political team, national fundraising chops and policy credentials to compete for the nomination in two years.
That's right, George Allen was cruising to re-election and a run at the White House. Then Jim Webb came along. Whoops! In addition, the New Republic revelations will most likely dog Allen throughout this campaign. So what's Plan B, Senator?
Turning to the Democrats, here's what Cillizza has to say about Mark Warner:
Mark Warner: After scanning through mounds of financial reports, we were amazed to find that Warner's Forward Together PAC had 23 employees at the end of March -- the second-largest staff maintained by a prospective Democratic presidential candidate other than Sen. Clinton's HILLPAC operation. And Warner's fundraising through the PAC -- $5 million since he began collecting cash for it last July -- is an extremely impressive total, especially considering that Warner never had to raise money under federal limits during his gubernatorial term. The story line of Warner as red-state governor has largely run its course; political insiders seem to be waiting for a new act from the Virginian. Given his past successes, we're pretty sure he'll have one.
That's some mighty fine fundraising for Warner, but the challenge for him has never really been money, but more how to stay visible during the gap period between the end of his term as Virginia governor and the start of the 2008 primary season. Alright, Governor Warner, I love ya so here's some unsolicited advice (I know you certainly don't need it, so please feel free to completely ignore!): stay visible by helping elect Jim Webb to the U.S. Senate this year. Play a significant role in knocking off George Allen, and you will be looked at with awe by national Democrats. Also, think about the potential of a Warner-Webb alliance! In my humble opinion, this could truly be something to behold.
Oh, and we get our first glimpse of it next Thursday in Rosslyn, where Mark Warner headlines a fundraiser for Webb. Stay tuned...
On the other hand, I also don't think, on the Republican side, that it'll be Giuliani. He may be the national hero of 9/11 to some but I think the halo effect of that will have faded by 2008 (it's already doing so). And he's pro-choice and pro gay rights. When his wife booted him out of Gracie Mansion for having an affair with another woman, he went and lived with a gay couple. And he has marched proudly in gay pride parades in New York. Honest, he's actually pretty cool for a Republican.
But the Republican base has already said he's too liberal. Pataki is a slight possibility. But he's also pro-choice and has grown more moderate, though he's trying to burnish some conservative credentials.
For the Democrats, Mark Warner's biggest challenge, as noted, is to remain visible. But it's also to get some credibility on foreign policy. The conventional wisdom is still that the successful nominee won't come from the Senate but will be a centrist governor. And that may be true.
But I think that the dynamic has changed considerably since Bill Clinton and George Bush both succeeded where their opponents, both senators, failed. Clinton was arguably one of the most successful presidents who quickly got a good grasp of foreign policy. George Bush, however, is a walking argument for why you don't want a governor from a backward Southern state to walk into the presidency unprepared. It could be argued that he listened to bad advice and had bad intelligence before he blundered into Iraq, botched Afghanistan and made the U.S. the hated laughingstock of the world.
However, it also could be argued that a leader with better grounding of foreign affairs to start with would have known whose advice to take and not been mislead so badly.
So, if Mark Warner wants to show he's serious, I think he's got to burnish those international credentials in some way. A run for the Senate on top of a successful administration as governor would have helped. But he made the decision not to run against Allen and done is done.
John Edwards looks promising to me. He doesn't get blamed for Kerry's lousy campaign last time. He has a compelling message, is extremely charismatic, and is both visible and actively enaging in foreign policy discussion as well as having a domestic agenda.
Right now though, who gets the nomination in either party and the direction of the country in 2008 are anybody's guess.
I think most Jews want a just peace. However, I have noticed a disturbing tendency among the extremist West Bank settlers, they all appear to have Brooklyn accents.
Ok seriously, a lot of the far right Israelis in the settlers movement come from among the ultra orthodox Jews who originally came from America. Most Israelis are secular. They don't want a Greater Biblical Israel. Just a secure border. I kinda support them on that. But I would like to see justice for Palestinians as well. But they've got to take some responsibility and come to a peace table with a willingness to compromise too. A rhetoric about driving Israel into the sea doesn't seem conducive to a peace process.
But the complications of that region are a good example, though by no means the only example, of why we're going to need a president who understands both foreign policy and economic policy. We need a multi-tasker here.
If Mark Warner burnishes the foreign policy credentials with trips to places like the Middle East, Europe, Africa, etc., and can speak knowledgeably about foreign policy, then he still has a very good chance. But I still believe that it was a tactical mistake for him not to take on George Allen in 2006. As much as I like Webb, I'm sorry that Warner didn't do it.
Giuliani does not stand a chance. Other than 9/11 he basically has no appeal for Republicans and could easily be picked apart for his past indiscretions. I don't know that he would get the nomination because he is not extreme enough; but, on the Republican side I think Mitt Romney would be their best candidate. He has the potential for wide appeal. He also suffers from some of the same setbacks as Mark Warner does.
I agree, the field is still wide open.