Have Clinton and Obama Really Cleared The 2008 Field?

[Bob Geiger]

Though I disagree with his central thesis, Dan Balz has an excellent piece that's well worth reading in today's Washington Post in which he implies that, between Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) money and name recognition and Barack Obama's (D-IL) sheer star power, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary is all but over.

You can go here to read Balz's article, but I have to say that, while Clinton and Obama have clearly been defined by the media as the apparent front-runners, this is not all over by a long shot.

The fact is, nobody knows what's going to happen politically in 2007 and, at this stage of the process leading to the 1992 presidential election, all people thought about a certain Arkansas Governor was that he had given a long, boring speech at the 1988 Democratic convention -- and things seemed to work out just fine for him.

Evan Bayh (D-IN), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner have already removed themselves from contention. It truly saddened me when Feingold took his hat out of the ring as I believe he is one of the few national politicians who has shown guts and true leadership during the harrowing Bush years. As for Bayh, I had already penned a column called "Evan Who?" that I decided to kill after he dropped out, but it was predicated on how closely I watch the United States Senate and the fact that Bayh is so far off the legislative radar screen you need extreme Google dexterity to even find him in the Congressional Record.



But it's premature to wholly rule out the likes of John Edwards, Joe Biden (D-DE), John Kerry (D-MA), Governors Tom Vilsack (Iowa) and Bill Richardson (New Mexico), Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and, yes, even Al Gore.

Let's face it, Edwards has been quietly running for some time and, after years of the dark cloud that is George W. Bush, the former North Carolina Senator has the sunny countenance, intellect and ability to connect with voters that people will be starving for by the time this becomes a serious race.



I believe whether or not Biden will be a factor at all will be seen in the first few months of the year when, as the new Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Delaware Senator has already announced six weeks of oversight hearings on the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war. If Biden makes news every day with these hearings, uses his new power to turn over every rock used by Team Bush to hide their crimes and even uncovers fresh grounds for impeachment proceedings, he will suddenly become a major player in the Democratic primaries.

Gore has found a much more natural voice since being relieved of the burdens of elected office, has always been right about the environment, was against the Iraq fiasco from the beginning and brings to the table the belief on the part of millions of Americans that he got royally screwed in the 2000 presidential election.

Or, I could be wrong about all of this -- and that's exactly my point. A lot can happen in 2007 -- it's going to be a riveting year politically -- and we'll know far more about this landscape when even the first half of the new year plays out than we know from the comfort of our armchairs in December of 2006.

I think if there's one thing we've discovered about the American people, it's that they cast their presidential votes based far more on a gut-level impression of the candidates than the pure qualifications for the job.

And, hey, based on that, I like the looks of an Edwards-Obama ticket.

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Update: Just got a note from Jeffrey Hauser, a former staffer for General Wesley Clark, who correctly took me to task for not including General Clark in this column. Clark has been right about the Iraq war from the very beginning, has broader appeal than he is given credit for and neglecting to even mention him in this piece was a mistake on my part.

[pstans]

1. If Gore gets in, this is going to be a real fight

Gore has been polling well in Iowa (7%) and New Hampshire (10%) and he hasn't even made the first steps for a campaign.

[Vanje]

2. Leiberman had it all sewn up, this time 4 years ago...

According to pundits , press, and DNC, Leiberman was the undisputed frontrunner , going into the primaries of 2004.
Recall that the voting / caucusing Democrats of the early primary states, apparently didnt read the memo.

[Clark2008]

3. Hell, yeah! Just like Joe Lieberman did in 2004...

oops..

:blush:


P.S. You forgot Clark - but, then again, who doesn't. :eyes: Most of the people you named, other than Kerry and Biden and Gore, have NO FP experience and, with Iran on the horizon, that issue will trump poverty any day.

[napi21]

4. It's WAY roo early to make statements like "Cleared the field"!

First, we don't even know who all is going to run yet. Second, all the polls are National, and unfortunately that's not the way candidates are chosen. I don't mean that Iowa, NH, and SC make the final decisions, but they do weigh heavily on it.

I heard someone on TV yesterday saying that Hillary was running 4th in the Iowa polls. I can't recall who the leaders were, but it makes you realize that all the National discussions don't mean a whole lot!

[longship]

5. There is no 2008 field to clear out. Not yet.

Give it a year.

What these people are saying now is totally meaningless.

[phillysuse]

6. Wes Clark

hasn't made his move yet.

[IndianaGreen]

7. No, you have John Edwards with strong poll numbers

so unless Gore jumps into the fracas, the top tier will have Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.

With all due respect to Kerry and Clark's followers, they need to move their poll numbers up, but they haven't done so. Clark is static, while Kerry is sinking.

[FrenchieCat]

8. You are asking for the paradoxical accomplishment from Wes Clark....

Asking that his supporters and he "Moves" his poll numbers up, when even here at DU, the OP writer chose not to mention him except for on rewrite...... :eyes:

Buzz is what creates higher Poll numbers....

Here we are fighting two wars, and the one expert in this arena is "forgotten"! That tells me that Democrats ain't learned a thing as of yet. :(

[IndianaGreen]

9. We have the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire

I am not opposed to Wes Clark, I am merely stating the obvious: being on the second tier is the kiss of death!

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Being in the second tier in December 2007 is a real problem, true

But that, for example, is where John Edwards was in December 2007. The last two Democrats who took office as President, Carter and Clinton, were very much second tier or worse at this point in their respective election cycles. There is not a single Democratic potential candidate at this point who has even named an exploratory committee. Only Gravel Vilsack and Kucinich have acutally announced that they are running.

Honestly, it still is early, and the media is still dictating stories to us for us to talk about.

[chimpymustgo]

12. Tom, I'm inclined to agree with you. Except '08 may differ from past races

insofar as the "heavyweight" factor that might exist. What if Clinton and Obama and Edwards all run? This thing could easily go to the Convention - like the good old days.

What if Gore gets in? ALL bets are off.

The thing is, politics is like war - you have to make sure you're not fighting the last battle. Learn from it - but don't expect the same dynamics or outcome.

[bigdarryl]

13. Yep there discounting Edwards for some reason if I were a .....

betting man I say he wins the primary's all together. these pundits get on my last nerve they don't even know if Obama and Clinton will run yet.

[Blue_In_AK]

10. I don't think so. A lot can happen in two years.

[karynnj]

14. I agree with Geiger

There is a lot that will or can happen in 2007. He mentioned hearings in the Seante Foreign Relations Committee and how this could put Biden in the news for weeks. In fact, it will not only be Biden, the chairman of that committee but the other members of the committee.

If the hearings are held and are as explosive as they might be they could show a number of potential 2008 candidates. On the Republican side - Hagel is on the committee. On the Democratic side, in addition to Biden, Kerry, Dodd, and Obama are there. (Boxer, Feingold and Lugar are not running but are interesting people as well.) From seeing the SFRC grill Rice and others, my bet for the best person interrogating people on the war is Kerry.

Biden is infuriating - often bringing up great points then going off into tangents, moments of self-aggrandisement. His 26 minute diversion into his being Irish and not having gone to Princeton. Dodd, because he is the least known may have the most to gain if he is able to use the hearings to become known in a positive way. Obama in questioning that I have seen has not been as tough or seemed as knowlegable as some of the others. It could either show Obama as a star or it could show one or more of the others as more experienced and knowledgable.

I am a known Kerry supporter, so it is no surprise that I see Kerry as the one likely to be the best here. The fact is that if there is any arena in which Kerry beats all comers - it is in the Kerry in the prosecutor mode. His ability to really listen to what is said, prosess it immediately with all he already knows, shift direction into interesting questions is beyond amazing. He is very agile on his feet on this. (This is in fact related to why he is such a good debater. He has so much information in his head, but it is his ability to hear what is said and focus on it immediately that is most unusual.) Also remember that it was Kerry who led the effort to get the Intelligence committee to do part 2 of the WMD study.

Leaving this aside, Edwards can get a lot of play with his announcement. The media does like him and NO will be a dramatic backdrop. The question is whether he has the strength and substance to withstand the focus the media would put on him if he were one of the stongest contenders. (The same goes for Obama.) Hillary has so far been the frontrunner and has been allowed to be vague on everything - the question is as we get closer to 2008 - she can't both be in the back ground and the frontrunner. Can she be front and center and correct an image (correct or incorrect) that she is cold?

In the next year, some of these people might back out. The media ejoys building people up, but then enjoys tearing them down just as much. The question also is are Americans becoming more aware of media spin - or will they be fooled again. (Here I'm not speaking a Democrat - both McCain and the disgusting Romney have had media building them up.)

The key is that it is too early to tell.

[talk hard]

15. On the Mc Laughlin group

they were talking about Kerry having killed his chance to run. Not because of the remark he made but because of the way he handled it. I kinda think it is wishful thinking to believe he has a chance against a strong field but you are welcome to it. Obama is the one to keep an eye on.

[karynnj]

16. They have also been very wrong in the past

The fact of the matter is that he was going to get hit by the Democrats no matter what he did in response.

Hillary said he was "inappropriate" in going after the RW which immediately mischaracterized the comment as against the troops. This took a huge amount of chutzpah. Kerry attacked the people - who knew he did not intend to say anything negative about the troops. The fact of the matter is that Kerry was right - both Bush and McCain as well as the RW echo chamber that went after this. Kerry also DID get the story out that he was not criticisizing the troops and many editorials said exactly that - before Hillary jumped on.

Now, only the month before Hillary praised her husband effusively for sticking his finger in Wallace's face when he asked him about the 911 movie. The fact was that was a current issue and the movie was a problem - the question could have been given a strong, angry but dignified answer. Kerry was far more in control of himself and was addressing the right people. If Bill deserved praise for fighting back when the entire party was already defending him - doesn't Kerry deserve the fight to defend a 30 plus year record of caring for the military?

Kerry then unselfishly left the stage - to avoid being an issue.

How did they want Kerry to handle it - he did explain in his statement - that he botched the joke, he explained what it was suppose to be and he lashed out at those turning it into what it wasn't. I think that those who think that this will get rid of Kerry are the same people who have been dismissing his chances for 2 years - notably Elenor Clift.

Remember that before the joke, there was "Heyjohn" that was designed to make it look like Hillary not Kerry was the one helping other candidaets in 2006 and to blame him (as Carville also tried against Dean) for not giving as much money as possible to 2006 candidates. This was a move straight out of Rove's book and it seemed to come fr4om Democrats - not Republicans.

Kerry can survive both the joke and the aftermath - as no one has really said how he could better handle it. It does not change who Kerry is or his character. (Unlike Hillary's joke that was perfectly given - where she thought it was funny to say - of Mohatmha Ghandi wasn't he a gasstation attendent in ST Louis - this is far more offensive than Kerry's joke.)

[talk hard]

23. you see it from a supporters point of view

Not the way it is seen by everyone else. He messed up. He only left the stage after reminding people that he has very bad timing in recovering from stuff like this. I dont' expect you to understand this because I think you are blinded by your support for him. You will see in due time.

[karynnj]

24. I see that it hurt him - but I also see that much of the damage

was caused by Hillary and the media piling on.

Seriously, without the media pile on this was a simple case of missreading a line that happens to every one. The media had te prepared text and knew what was said. Do you honestly think he should have said nothing - as the RW lied that he called the troops stupid.

How does this square with it being perfectly ok for Clinton to go off in a rage?

What this reflects is that Kerry had little or no media support in the 2004 primaries and general election and this hasn't changed. The media has repeatedly tried to destroy any recovered support Kerry gets. They have worked hard to even change the narative of how convincingly Kerry won the primaries in 2004.

I realized BEFORE this attack and BEFORE the "HeyJohn" attack, before the Begala and Carville attack, that Kerry was a long shot - and that his biggest weakness was that the media that has fallen for far weaker characters doesn't want Kerry. I support him because he is an incredible person, who if elected is the only politician I trust to actually hold this country to its law and values - which may be why he is not supported by the powers that be. He is a true patriot.

[talk hard]

26. he caused it himself

it has nothing to do with anybody else and blaming other people for his screw-up is really lame

[karynnj]

28. He botched a joke period - it should have been a very minor deal

The prepared text was out BEFORE he spoke. No other person would have been crucified for simply misreading a joke prepared for them.

Even so,

Hillary's Ghandhi joke is more offensive.
McCain's Chelsea joke was more offensive than either

Hillary's "inappropriate" remark has moved me into the anbody but Hillary category. That remark was cruel and cold and absolutely unnecessary. Senator Kerry did not intentionally screw up a joke and worked as hard or harder than anyone else for 2006. His behavior was not in anyway "inappropriate", a word more appropriately used by some behavior of her own spouse which hurt the Democratic party for nearly a decade now.

What this does demonstrate is that Senator Kerry will never get the breaks routinely given to every other politician on both sides. No one is ever held to every word out of their mouth - with no chance to explain or correct - other than Kerry.

[JO999]

17. New here.. Needed to post this 'Clinton Admin.' reminder..

Of course - I am most tepidly happy over the election turnout in Congress..

But, I haven't heard or read 'anything' of Obama's stance on Civil Rights / Liberties.. Or if I have, there must be a reason why I can't remember.

Just remember 'who' the birth-fathers of the 'Zero-tolerance' and 'three-strikes law' were: Reform-2000

I didn't read the rest of this post thoroughly, but I couldn't post a new thread..

:blush:

[renie408]

18. WAYYYYY too early

This is just way to early to pay any attention to the 'people in the know'. Mostly they don't know shit. Somebody completely off the radar might get a chance to save the proverbial 'baby from a burning building' or Obama or Clinton might get caught doing or saying something politically suicidal between now and then (I think Hillary is less likely to do something like this. She is one slick, politically savvy woman.). I also tend to think that attention like this works AGAINST candidates, not for them.

[beachmom]

19. MSM claptrap. The press is lazy and doesn't feel like following,

researching, and writing about more than two candidates on either side of the aisle. They're usually wrong with this speculation, and they're wrong this time. I agree with your assessment. There is a big wide open field on the Democratic side. And it's more than two people.

[Radical Activist]

20. They did narrow the field.

I'm sure they had something to do with several candidates choosing not to run.

This race is completely different than 2004. Last time, it was difficult to find a strong canddiate. 2008 will be a clash of the titans if Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all run.

[renie408]

21. OMG! I think I just got a little tingle just from READING....

"2008 will be a clash of the titans if Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all run."

I think it would be AWESOME to have a strong field of candidates to choose from. To have a group where, no matter WHO wins, WE win!!

[Imagevision]

22. Repug spinmeister's have designated Hillary as the Dem choice, what bullshit!!

Edwards and Obama aren't as easy to smear as Hillary.

[Clarkie1]

25. Two things: 1. It's not over. 2. I don't see how Edwards competes with Obama's base. nt

[fujiyama]

27. Gore is the only one that can really change the race

but I don't this fight is just between Obama and Hillary. I think Edwards has a shot to really change the outcome as well.

I like Clark, but he's not showing up largely because he's receiving little coverage. He better decide soon, because if he wants to be competitive this time, he'll need to establish a stronger presence in IA earlier on.

[TayTay]

29. Consider this scenario:

Bush and his cronies decide to go for the surge of troops in Iraq.
The death toll rises considerably in Iraq, Bush's poll numbers plummet and the war continues on with no end in site.
Democrats begin to call for an end to the funding for this war.
'08 potentials begin to choose up sides, for and against the funding question.

We go into '08 with this hanging over the heads of the voters.

Who is the favorite in this scenario? Will anything that happened in Dec of '06 matter?