Are there already parallels between '08 and '04?

[kevsand]

I'm talking primarily here about the various niches that will be filled by prospective dem candidates. I started thinking about this as I was reading some strong cases being made for Feingold in another thread, and it struck me that he might end up as 2008's Kucinich. That got me wondering about the other candidates, and how they will be perceived once we're actually in the think of it.

It only took me a minute or two to sketch out the short list below, and it kind of scared me. Are there natural gravitation points (or just plain slots) that candidates rise to fill? Can we really be looking at the broad strokes of a repeat of the 2004 primaries? Is it just me, or does the field look really lame at this point?

A couple of disclaimers, first. This is not a manifesto, or a chiseled in stone dogmatic opinion, so no flaming, please. I don't intend to defend any of these possible associations too strenuously. This was just a hasty, cocktail napkin type thought experiment. I focused on two things: ideology and public profile.

Kerry and Edwards supporters, yes, I know, they aren't on this 2008 list. No offense, but I was looking at the new blood for the comparisons. I reserved the right to keep Clark because, well, I'm a Clarkie, and it's my list, and I honestly can't think of anyone who does Clark better than Clark. No doubt fans of Kerry and Edwards feel exactly the same about their guys.

And while this sort of comparison can be fun (if we keep it civil), I'm interested most of all in whether y'all think it says anything larger about the nature of primaries in general, or the dynamics of the dem party in particular. Are there inevitable trends in this sort of process? Does history repeat itself so obviously?

So okay, here's the list:

2004 = 2008

Kerry = Biden
Edwards = Warner
Clark = Clark
Dean = Richardson
Lieberman = Bayh
Gephardt = Vilsack
Kucinich = Feingold
Sharpton = Walken
Braun = Clinton

Play nice...

[stray cat]

1. Feingold and Kucinich are not a good comparison

Feingold is strong on defence, fiscally quite conservate, an interesting blend of a moderate midwesterner and progressive. In many respects more a maverick independent than anything. He is more of a blend between Dean and the more measured responses of Clark.

Biden seems to speak more directly and succinctly than Kerry did but there beliefs may be similar. Warner has a great deal more governent experience than Edwards. I don't think Richardson to date has the flare and righteous anger of Dean.

I really don't see the same cast of characters as 2004. Although, candidates in primaries always run a general spectrum.

Also 2008 won't have a sitting president as the republican nominee - that plus 3 more years of incompetence I think will really change the character of 2008.

[kevsand]

2. Good points, all.

There are obvious differences between all of the matched pairs, and I don't want anyone for a minute to think that I'm suggesting that any of the 2008 folks are clones of 2004 counterparts. I was more interested in the similarities than the differences, and to be honest, many of these possible similarities are quite superficial:

Kerry and Biden are both northeast liberals who some might consider to be a little too smug.

Edwards and Warner are both really handsome southerners, and both one-termers.

Dean and Richardson are both governors who maybe wanted to be more populist than their state jobs allowed. (We know more about Dean because he's been through it once.)

Kucinich and Feingold are both letter perfect on most of the issues, but are perceived by many as unelectable nationwide.

A lot of what I'm comparing is how the public might react to these folks...

[stray cat]

5. Described that way I definitely see your point.

[AmericanDream]

8. Ummm....

Richardson doesn't have the fire of Dean. He is a career politician and knows well how to practice restrain, plus he has a lot of foreign policy experience... I don't find that comparable; they have two totally different styles. They can both be outspoken but Richardson doesn't have the populist streak to his personality or politics... he comes across more as a Gephardt type, only with a more personable personality.

Warner is not considered "really handsome" by anyone I know. And, he lacks the thing that made Edwards so strong: CHARISMA. Warner can be a very stiff talker and usually is, Edwards doesn't have a stiff bone in his body. Plus, Edwards' politics is miles apart from Warner. Warner is a true moderate; Edwards was/is a populist... he was the guy who brought up poverty, civil rights, justice, race, etc... you won't see Warner talking about these issues. Warner's politics is a lot like Bill Clinton's and not at all like Edwards'. I don't see any comparison between the two other than that they both won in red states. They both speak to two different demographics: Edwards was/is a true populist; Warner is a true "third way" democrat like Clinton.

Feingold has something that Kucinich did not: a presidential personality. Feingold can look as presidential as any of the other candidates; Kucinich's biggest weakness was that he was short and people did not view him as a leader due to the lack of a captivating physical presence, which led the media to reduce him to a joke. Feingold is taken very seriously by the media. The unelectability issue was not Kucinich's biggest liability, his biggest liability was his personality... people and the press take Feingold much more seriously. In fact, the media respects Feingold whereas Kucinich was the butt of the press jokes... and good press coverage is always a plus for running a successful campaign.

Bayh and Lieberman are the only two that I believe can be called analogous. They are both boring and teary, and their politics is too conservative for the primary voters.

From the last race, I believe that Edwards and Clark will both run again and be themselves; Warner, Bayh, Biden, Richardson, Hillary will fill the rest of the spots. Though Hillary and Biden both could be like Kerry a lot.... northeastern liberals who have a stiff talking style and can come across as arrogant. All in all, I think that the '08 bunch is filled with people who have very distinct personalities and politics... this race would be much more interesting than the '04 primaries...

[radio4progressives]

20. Has there been a nation wide polling on Feingold?

I missed that..

[kevsand]

23. I don't think you missed much.

While I'm sure that there have been national polls on Feingold (some by him, some by other prospective candidates), I doubt that very many of us at DU have been privy to them. About all we could have seen would be the periodic "beauty contest" polls that the national media run, and they are mostly driven by name recognition at this point. That's why Hillary blows away the rest of the field in them, much like Lieberman did for most of 2002 and 2003.

The speculation by many DUers that Feingold may not play nationally isn't based on polls, but on their personal assessments of his profile. While nearly everyone recognizes that he is one of the most progressive possibilities available, the agreement seems to stop there. Some think he has a winning personality; others think he's a little dweeby. There is also a fair amount of debate over whether anti-semitism or his two divorces would be a significant factor.

[Telly Savalas]

42. Feingold is fiscally responsible

Not "fiscally conservative".

Conservatives cut taxes for the wealthy and run defecits.

Let's stop using their code words.

[msongs]

3. yeah, the dems Inc are STILL not doing anything about e vote fraud

despite all the "evidence" real or imagined, the Democratic Party USA Inc still doing nothing about e vote fraud especially here in CA.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[1932]

4. Kerry -> Biden? Huh?

Biden is one of the most pro-corporate, pro-war Democrats in Congress. He's also not very smart.

Kerry may come off as a blue-blood statesman who looks like he jumped from the state department to the senate, but he's not an idiot and he's not a boot licker for corporate america and I certainly don't think he would invade countries to make Wall Street happy.

Lieberman -> Biden yes.

Kerry -> Biden no way.

As for Warner, who really knows enough about this guy's convictions to compare him to anyone. He can raise money and he can win in a blue state, but what more do we know about his politics? We're going to have to hear more from him before we can say he's like anyone.

[kevsand]

6. I could probably go back and dig up one or two votes by Kerry

that were distinctly pro-corporate, as opposed to pro-worker, but I'm not going to do that; partly because your general point about the differences between the two is probably mostly true, but mainly because that's not the direction I want to go in this thread.

What I'm really interested in is whether they fit any broad archetypes in the national consciousness. Try for a moment to forget all the pore-seized details that we know about because we're paying attention. Don't talk about the trees; look at the forest.

Step back and look at both men from about fifty yards away. Does the average voter see all the differences between them that you and I do? Or does Joe/Josephine Six-Pack in Florida or Ohio or Montana see them both as east coast "we know what's best for you" liberals?

As for Warner, just about everything you've described was also being said by many about Edwards in 2001 and 2002. We just have the benefit of having known Edwards longer, but Warner's profile so far is at least superficially similar to what Edwards' was at the time.

Does this all fit into any recurring story cycle? Have the stereotypes risen to the level of stylized conventions, like a classic horror film or some twisted version of political kabuki?

[AmericanDream]

9. Once again...

People don't vote based on profiles... Warner's profile is actually not too close to Edwards' except for that they are both one-timers. Edwards was not widely popular in his state; warner is. And that is because Edwards was too liberal for his state; Warner is just moderate enough for his state. In Bill Clinton's words, Edwards could "talk an owl out of a tree"; Warner can't do that. Edwards brought poverty on the national scene; Warner is more interested in talking about the middle class. So, two very different men with very different approach to public policy. Like I said earlier, their politics and personalities are poles apart and I have no clue what mythical similarities you see between the two.

The only similarity is that in 02, the democratic consultants were lusting to work for Edwards; in 05, they are lusting to work for Warner. But their appeal is very different.

[kevsand]

13. A lot of people don't vote based on issues, either.

There were a couple of different studies in the eighties that measured voters' positions on issues and who they voted for. The majority of the people who voted for Reagan disagreed with him on the majority of the issues, but voted for him anyway. Why did they do that?

Apparently, a lot of people vote based on general impressions, even when those impressions are mistaken. That is why profiles become important.

You are absolutely correct about all the differences between Edwards and Warner. I never said they were twins. I was reaching for something larger, something more transcendent.

Most of the public still doesn't know squat about either man, except that they are from the south. Warner's actual birthplace is irrelevant in that context. I would venture to say that if I stopped 100 people on the street, at least fifty couldn't tell me who Kerry's running mate was, or the name of the immediate past governor of Virginia.

My question is: do they fulfill a common role in the collective public consciousness? In that respect, your choice of the phrase "mythical similarities" was more accurate than you perhaps intended.

[AmericanDream]

15. Yes and No...

I agree, that many people don't vote based on issues. In fact, most people don't vote based on issues. They vote based on a visceral sense - a vibe they get from the candidate, and that vibe might contain that candidate's resume as a component, or not. Let me explain: Edwards did not run on his senate term; he ran on the story of his life, he invoked his legal career, his rise from a son of a mill worker to a grishamesque lawyer more than he invoked his very short political career. The story with Warner is exactly the opposite: if you have seen his stump for now, you'll see him trumpet his achievements as a governor; Warner is running as a competent one-term red state governor; Edwards ran (and will again) as a champion of the underdog as a lawyer, poverty expert (he worked on poverty issues before getting into politics and is the head of the UNC poverty,work,opportunity center), and as a senator.

People voted for Reagan because of his personality - he radiated an optmistic, hopeful vision of America. They did not vote for Reagan because he was a two term governor of a liberal state called California. And, that is why I think you are wrong. The connection you are making is that Warner and Edwards are both from red states and they served one term in their respective public offices. Your contention is that this will make them look alike to the voters. But those voters who do not vote based on the issues, vote based on personalities and that is what is "something larger, something more transcendent." If you've heard Edwards and Warner talk, you'll realize why they give such different vibes - for those non-issue voters, Warner is the personable - but not terribly charismatic - moderate who was a competent governor from a conservative state; Edwards is a charismatic progressive with little experience but a lot of ideas and a passion to fight for them. Edwards gives a folksy, passionate vibe; Warner gives a more matter-of-fact but still likable vibe. And, I think they do fill two different slots.

I also think you are wrong that most people do not know squat about either man - Edwards has been to 35 states since the election, holding minimum wage increase rallies, poverty discussion rallies, candidate fundraisers, etc. Edwards doesn't get national coverage, but he is smart because he is going local. Even in '04, in the general, he didn't get much national coverage... but he stormed local newspapers and still gets glowing local coverage whereever he goes. After the '04 election, he had the highest favorable ratings of all four guys on the national ticket and he is still the most likable democrat around the country, followed by Bill Clinton (that in my opinion, is a huge achievement... that means people know him enough to like him.. you can check this at the polling report... he has about 73% favorable ratings).

And, that is being ignored by the washington media and consultants - edwards is going for the grassroots on this. He has been on a full scale campaign mode for the last few months (not full scale, but close)... warner on the other hand is an unknown quantity. And I think that come primary season, this is going to count a lot - Edwards will have ready contacts and activist support (he has teamed up with unions and ACORN and other progressive sources) in all states and he won't have to introduce himself to the people because they know him enough after a national campaign and thousands of local rallies; Warner won't, he'll have to spend the time building his network of support and introducing himself to the electorate.

Do they fulfill a common role in the collective public consciousness? NO. I think they have very different presentations. Edwards likes to exhort bigger themes and relies on narrative rhetoric as much as he does on substantive policies. Warner goes straight for just the policy - in that regards, Warner gives the impression of being more like Kerry, just less experienced and much more likable. Edwards on the other hand juxtaposes anecdotes with policy, which is a mix of Reagan and Clinton. So, after listening to both of them, let me tell you that they leave distinctly different impressions on the viewer/listener. And, most people (in the primaries) will at least listen to each of them once before casting their vote... the profiles that you talk about are cast much more by the themes and styles of each candidate's campaign than their past. And, the themes and styles of Edwards and Warner's appeal are very different... and the non-issue voters will have very different visceral reactions to both.


My prediction is that Warner will be the moderate favorite followed by some support for Richardson, Edwards/Feingold will fight for the liberal/progressive base, Bayh will appeal to the conservative democrats. Hillary will run as the frontrunner and Biden/Clark are going to be the wildcards with foreign policy prowess.

[kevsand]

16. Okay, that's fair.

At least I think we're mostly talking about the same things now. A couple of folks in this thread still seem to be missing the thrust, but that could just as easily be because it's something I'm trying to sort out myself as we go.

You raise a very valid point about personal styles, because these form a large part of public impressions. There are clearly some major differences in style among the matched pairs I listed at the start of the thread, and I think that is more germane to my questions than any discussions of who supported what kinds of bills.

I said at the beginning that I wasn't going to waste too much time trying to defend the comparisons, and I'm trying to stick to that. Some of them were clearly tenuous to begin with. They were intended to encourage fresh thinking and speculation, rather than confine the debate to a predictable tunnel.

I'm still curious about the extent to which role playing affects the dynamic of the primaries. In the history of both myth making and story telling (which are mostly the same thing, after all), there have been certain conventions and characters that recur over and over, regardless of the media or the genre. There was an article here several months ago that talked about how framing wasn't enough; that we needed to tell better stories, by which the author meant stories that resonated with more voters. I'm wondering if our political story telling hasn't fallen into a counterproductive rut, and that was why I started asking about the parallels.

Your insights regarding the personal styles of candidates add a new dimension to how stories are perceived during the actual primaries. On the other hand, the thought occurs to me that the people who do most of the talking before the primaries even start may be relying more on the superficial resumes that I based many of my initial comparisons on.

I'm referring here to party analysts and hired gun consultants, both those in the media and those trying to find jobs with potential candidates. In other words, "Hey, two southern governors became dem presidents, let's find another one." Or "he's a solid centrist moderate" vs. "that guy's just another dino senator."

The weird thing about all this is that I seem to be heading towards the somewhat cynical conclusion that we need to be sophisticated and smart about our superficialities...

[1932]

11. Biden threw his medals over the fence? Biden captained a swift boat?

Biden is the most liberal senator according to the National Journal? Biden was at the same rally as Jane Fonda?

Biden and Kerry are VERY DIFFERENT politicians.

[kevsand]

14. Of course they are very different politicians.

I never said they weren't. In fact, I already repeatedly agreed with you regarding their differences.

[karynnj]

36. Yes, they can see the difference

Biden might seem like Kerry only to Biden in his dreams. There are similarities - both know a lot about foreign policy (but I far prefer Kerry's views), they are both intelligent and from the NE.

But having seen them together in bad times in the SFRC, when things get very angry - Biden ends up looking yelling and red faced. Kerry, while probably the toughest questioner remains very cool and LISTENS. He is great at picking up nuances in the administration person's answers and seems to effortlessly find the perfect question to ask. (Think of the debates versus anyone Kerry will be cool and Presidential, Biden could easily be pushed to anger (although not as easily as Bush).

It is also Kerry who often has made impassioned pleas for bi-partisanship and civility. There is a statesman like quality there that Biden doesn't have. Biden is great SOMETIMES with very good succinct answers - but then there are the times he goes off into his convoluted stories. Kerry CAN give short answers - but he will usually give a complete answer to a question rather than insult the questioner with a canned reply that ignores the full question.

Kerry also has an earnestness and a sincerity that can make him seem overly serious. Biden doesn't have those qualities - which can be pluses or minuses.

In life stories, Kerry is heroic, while Biden is not.

Not to mention one has hair, one has hair plugs

[kevsand]

40. All of that is true,

but I'm still not convinced that the general public sees everything that we do. A frighteningly large segment of the country saw no difference between Bush and Gore in 2000. And almost half the nation even today still believes that Saddam helped bin Laden to plan and execute 9-11.

We live in a world where too many people get their only news from a 30 second sound bite on the radio while they drive to work, if we're lucky. And how many politicians have had their careers effectively defined by Leno and Letterman?

That's why first impressions and general comfort levels with a candidate are so important, as others have noted in this thread. It is extremely difficult to explain the differences between candidates when so much of the public never even begins to hear what we're saying. Very often the thumbnail sketch is the best we can hope for.

Now to be fair, the 15% or whatever that actually gets to vote in dem primaries is almost certainly paying closer attention than most of the country. Dem primary voters are by definition self-selecting, and self-motivated. But even there, I don't know that we can assume that all of them get as deeply into the analysis as we do here at DU.

Biden and Kerry are like night and day to us. When people are barely paying attention, it's all just a fog at dusk...

[karynnj]

41. The points I was making is that they would see the difference

because they are in partially in things they do see.

Kerry projects a sense of dignity, thoughtfulness and calmness. He is very Presidential.

Biden projects a far less polished image, is far more likely to show anger.

If you thought Kerry's answers were sometimes to detailed, wait for Biden's stories - they are very needlessly detailed and always self serving and not really funny.

[kevsand]

43. You're probably right about that.

These could very well be the sort of differences that the media would play up under the pretense of showing the "inner man." While Kerry was sometimes accused of not displaying enough passion, Biden might seem to have too much.

We want our candidates to care deeply and personify our righteous indignation when necessary, but there's a tightrope that candidates must walk in that respect. The line between a "gutsy fighter" and a "loose cannon" is sometimes very thin. Dean came close enough to that line for the media to be able to pretend that he had crossed it. Biden might very well do the same.

[formernaderite]

12. Warner won in a red state...but he ran as very moderate

democrat. He's also not a southerner or a virginian, he's from the midwest. He made alot of money with telecom business in virginia. I don't actually warm up to him at all...but I suppose he has DLC governorship written all over him.

[kevsand]

17. You're right about Warner's background,

but most of the public doesn't know that yet. They see him as one-term governor of Virginia (a southern "red" state) and a moderate.

In a similar fashion, Edwards was a one term senator from another red southern state, and was more conservative on a number of issues than some of the pure progressives last time. Gay marriage/civil unions and Iraq come immediately to mind. I was happy to see his public renunciation of his previous stand on Iraq. That took a lot of courage, and I respect and admire him for it. However, I'm mostly talking about positioning in the primaries for this comparison, and Edwards was a solid hawk at that time.

Several people above have pointed to the differences in the two men's personal styles, and there's no doubt that overall Edwards was more of a populist than Warner seems to be.

On the other hand, Edwards tried very hard to position himself as the only realistic alternative to Kerry, and there are a number of people now who seem to be looking to Warner to be the anti-Hillary. This is, of course, somewhat ironic, given the DLC tag that a lot of folks here are hanging on him...

[formernaderite]

30. Edwards should run for governor first

before another presidential try. He just doesn't have the public experience in the executive sense. I think "anyone" who's just been a senator is going to have a rough time at running for pres.

[kevsand]

32. It's funny you should say that.

I've seen a couple of posters elsewhere say they wished that Warner would run for the senate. I guess that would be sort of a reverse parallelism, but it might make them both more well rounded.

I think the main reason people are suggesting a senate run for Warner, though, isn't because they want him to get more experience, but because they think he could probably win, and bring us that much closer to taking it back.

Do you think Edwards could win a governor's race? I have no idea what state politics are like in Carolina.

[formernaderite]

33. N Carolina as well as many other southern states often elect

dems to the governorship. Local politics as opposed to federal, is less cut and dry. No doubt you have to support certain more "libertarian" positions...like gun rights, not get whacked out over ACLU religious issues etc.

Warner is helped by running for a senate seat, because he'll remain politically active..ie. in the news. Of course there is always the chance he could lose that bid, and that would likely finish off his presidential bid too.

[karynnj]

37. They have a Democratic Governor (Easley)

So unless his term is up and he's not running, this is not an option. Some NC people said he would have had a tough time winning re-election. I don't know if these people are Republican or Democrats.

[kevsand]

39. I also remember hearing that about Edwards' re-election chances.

But I have no idea where it came from.

[BlueIris]

22. 1932, I just want you to know that I think 1932s ROCK.

No, seriously, great post. Kerry most certainly does NOT equal Biden. I also don't get the Braun = Clinton comparison either, except as a slag on both Braun and Hillary.

[kevsand]

24. I probably shouldn't have used equal signs in the list.

Obviously, I don't mean to imply that any of the matched pairs are "equal." I don't even think they're equivalent. 1932's use of the transitive arrow comes closer to what I meant, but even that seems slightly inadequate. Is there a mathematical symbol for "analogous"?

What I'm trying to ask is whether there are roles that various candidates play out as a result of the niche or slot that they aim for (or get assigned to, either by the pundits or the public consciousness). This role can (and often is) completely independent of where a candidate's position on the issues places them on the political spectrum. As some folks have noted above, a candidate's personal style and/or background is frequently more of a factor in how their campaign is received, and how their fortunes play out.

And yes, the Braun/Clinton matched pair was easily the most tenuous of the lot from the very outset. I really wasn't thinking of the fact that they are both women, per se. However, they are both unique in that they have played (or are about to play) a historically significant role as women. For Braun, it was the fact that she was the first black female ever in the senate. For Hillary, there is already her historic role in terms of the level of public responsibility she had in the west wing. In addition, she stands at least a decent chance of being the first female presidential nominee for either major party.

They are clearly worlds apart on the issues. For all her other faults, Braun remains a staunch progressive/liberal, and her positions were a breath of fresh air in the last primary. Hillary is a lot more DLC than is acceptable for a major chunk of DU.

I may have thrown them together in part because they were both somewhat difficult to categorize otherwise, and didn't fit neatly in with anyone else. When I was making the list, I arbitrarily (and probably unnecessarily) tried to set up one-to-one correlations, rather than doubling anyone up.

So yes, I knew when I put it up there that this was the biggest stretch in the analogies...

[karynnj]

38. They're both women - which is ridiculous

In positions, Clinton would be closest to Edwards or Lieberman, but neither is a good match for personality. She can't be Kerry because KERRY is KERRY and he is very unique - if Edwards and Clark get to stay so does Kerry. (If Kerry can't be Kerry, I hope Feingold will be Kerry )

[stray cat]

7. Typical stereotype groupings for elections:

at least based on media and republican portrayals: East coast elitist, good old southerner (must have southern accent, traditional governor, radical out of touch liberal, could pass for a moderate republican senator, war hero.

[kevsand]

18. There's a level on which this begins to sound like

the cast of a disaster movie. I don't mean that to imply anything about how the primaries will play out, or dem chances in '08. Rather, I'm talking about how in film after film, we see the same predictable caricatures among the potential victims.

Horror and disaster films are formulaic in the extreme, because they're mostly made by people who are interested in profits rather than art. That means that they avoid risks, and therefore stick with proven formats, and characters who can be instantly identified by the audience, and therefore identified with.

There is much of the same pressure in the mounting of a national political campaign. That may be one reason that parties tend to place both their own candidates and their opponents in shorthand, buzzword categories. It's the ultimate approach to defining the match-ups in what is, by necessity, a massive PR campaign.

And that, in turn, may be more of the reason for any perceived similarities or repetition of stories, regardless of how different the candidates may or may not actually be.

[Armstead]

10. Kerry =Clinton, Biden, Richardson,Warner

I think Feingold would be more mainstream that Kucinich, because of their differnt personal styles.

IMO, Edwards is moving more to the left, and Warner seems like a basic centrist.

[nickshepDEM]

27. So tell me. Why do you consider Warner to be a 'basic centrist'?

[politicasista]

19. See how this year plays out before thinking about 2008

Just a suggestion. We don't know what the political landscape will look like and a lot could happen between now and 08.

[kevsand]

29. It's my hope that by thinking in more general terms

about the process itself, and the way it seems to play out, that we might possibly gain valuable insights that could prove useful in every election, including 2006. In that respect, I'm not thinking about 2008 so much as the dynamic of all dem primaries.

I quite agree that it's too soon to be wallowing in the my guy/gal vs. your guy/gal ruts that seem to dominate some threads.

[fujiyama]

21. I would have to disagree on many points

This year's race will be very interesting..It will have a very interesting cast of characters and there is really no clear front runner. Sure many will say Hillary, but in time, I think her star will fall (or atleast I have hope that Dems in the primaries will realize what a disaster she'd be).

It looks like Feingold's popularity stems from his anti war stance, similar to Dean. But Feingold is definetely very different. It's hard to compare them though partly because the states they are elected from. Dean ended up being pegged as the 'angry' candidate. In '08 there will be no one person to attack in the primaries like Bush was last year. Sure, Bush will still be the target, but it won't feel as immediate like it did in '03-'04.

In the end, I think only Warner, Clark, Feingold, or Edwards have a chance to win. The rest have either been completely defined by the media in some way or the other, or just don't have a chance (Biden and Hillary are two that come to mind).

[kevsand]

25. You raise a couple of interesting issues.

I hope you're right about the next round being more interesting. When I look back, there actually was a pretty broad spectrum in the last primaries, from Braun and Sharpton and Kucinich at one end to Lieberman on the other, with everyone else somewhere in between. And there were definitely some live wire personalities in the bunch, what with Sharpton and Edwards and Clark. So why did they all seem so homogenized in the debates?

I think you may have touched on one reason when you talk about how they all were focused on Bush. As the incumbent in a polarized nation, that was inevitable, but it also made their various statements seem more repetitious than they might have otherwise. The lack of an incumbent may very well give the next crop a little more latitude to distinguish themselves from each other.

I also think that Iraq may have had something to do with it. At the time of the primaries, the war was still less than a year old, and a lot of the candidates were still fearful of appearing weak or un-American. Since it obviously was the gorilla in the room, it meant that on the most important issue of the day the dem candidates were divided into two roughly equal camps, instead of being able to stake out truly individual ground.

[nickshepDEM]

26. Warner and Edwards... No. Richardson and Dean...No.

Bayh = Lieberman is a good match though.

Overall, your list is not very accurate.

[kevsand]

28. It's not supposed to be accurate.

It's supposed to be evocative.

Forget about issues. Forget about ideology. Think about postures. What do the candidates "bring to the table", both personally and in geopolitical terms? Who are they trying to relate to, or appeal to? What is it that they want us to know about them, and what is it that they want us to think?

Think about what all the candidates have in common, and why. Doing that can sometimes make it easier to see the differences in their approaches.

What are the thumbnail sketches that are becoming the capsule reviews of each candidate? Are the ones you hear around the water cooler just the same as the ones on tv or in the paper? Or do the people have a different view from the pundits?

Finally, are any of the candidates already being stereotyped? Are they good stereotypes, or bad?

The list isn't the end of the process. It's just a springboard.

[Hyernel]

31. Either a 50 state Dem sweep, or America is a failed state.

Clark/Hyernel 08

[davsand]

34. Frankly the Walken - Sharpton pair up made me laugh out loud.

But then I found this website:

http://www.walkenforpres.com/

and it is titled

Christopher Walken 2008

LAMO.

------

I think you raise an interesting point about the perceptions that voters hold rather than the actuality of the candidate or even the positions of the candidate.

We ALL heard the comments last time around that the asswipe we have now was a guy that voters thought they'd like to sit and have a beer with (yeah right. I want to get drunk with obnoxious frat hog!) Or the ones about Kerry being too rich to ever understand what it is to work for a living or that Clark was out of touch with the real world because he'd spent his life on military bases.

If you stop and look at that list in the OP, you start to see the media spin already--you KNOW where it is headed. The big question is does the DNC realize it and will the party be able to control the inevitable spin?

Frankly, I think the Braun / Clinton pair up is dead on for a lot of reasons. Braun was under a microscope for a number of reasons--she was African American, she was female, she was a first. Clinton will be subjected to that same level of scrutiny simply because of who she is. Right or wrong--almost everyone has an opinion of Hilary.

Kucinich was viewed as that wacky liberal, and I dunno if Feingold will be dismissed as quickly. I think maybe he'll be given a bit more credibility that Kuinich ever got.

Gep / Vilasack do have that Midwest thing going on, but I seriously do not know if Vilasack will have the "street creds" with the labor unions that Gep had. It is an interesting question.

Holy Joe and Bayh--now THAT is an interesting pair. Both are too conservative for most DU members, but I do think that maybe Bayh(shudder) will play better with the more mainstream Dems. His lack of "ethnicity" will help him in the more redneck areas, but will be offset by the more open-minded voters in other places.

I do think that the DNC as a whole has GOT to do a better jo of getting the Dem candidates out there with a legitimate message (preferably populist, but now we know what Laura thinks...) rather than letting the media define them for us.





Laura

[kevsand]

35. I kept waiting for someone to ask about that...

What can I say? Sharpton was, well, unique. So is Chris. The Walken campaign is probably a hoax, but it's fun. ("More cowbell!")

Rev. Al was a lot of fun, too. He obviously had no chance of winning, but he served a vital role, nonetheless (if only to remind us of what the other candidates should have been saying).

There's really no comparison for him...