It Begins to Get Serious (2008.1)

The most notable event of the 2008 presidential pre-season was the 2006 announcement by former Virginia Governor Mark Warner that he would not be a candidate for president in 2008. This was truly a surprise because many political observers (myself included) had seen him not only as Senator Hillary Clinton's most serious challenger for the Democratic nomination, but also as the most formidable candidate against any Republican nominee if Warner were in fact chosen by his party as its standard bearer.

Not surprisingly, the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois suddenly then appeared like a comet hitherto unseen. I attribute this to the vacuum created by Warner's withdrawal, and to the intense desire by the Democratic Party rank-and-file to have an alternative to Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama had not appeared in the 2008 calculations previously except as a possible vice presidential candidate. This undoubtedly was because, in spite of his obvious personal political assets (usually shorthanded as "charisma"), Mr. Obama has only two years experience as a U.S. senator (and would have less than four years experience by the time the 2008 campaign was in full force). Even John F. Kennedy had six years in the U.S. House and eight years in the U.S. senate behind him when he ran, as a virtual, albeit charismatic, unknown in 1960.

Mrs. Clinton remains a serious contender. She has lots of cash, a serious organization and unique name recognition. Her chief political advisor is the most successful Democratic Party politician since Franklin Roosevelt, she has been a very good senator for the state of New York, and is now in her second term. But her "negatives" (as the parlance goes) are huge. As First Lady in the administration of her husband for eight years, she built extraordinary antipathy among most Republicans, many independents and some Democrats. Her quest to find a political identity of her own (and far from the very liberal image of her advocacy of single payer health care in the early 1990's) has led her apparently to dance toward the political center (where her husband thrived), and where she now antagonizes the resurgent left populists in her party. Representing New York, she has understandably been a staunch friend of Israel, but this is a position which is increasingly unpopular among populist Democrats who follow DNC chair Howard Dean.

The rest of the Democratic field has been so far lackluster. Senator Evan Bayh has withdrawn, and was wise to do so. Senator Joe Biden is now in the race, but some residual negatives from his earlier presidential race in 1988 remain, and although he is a much wiser and more mature politician than then, his intended confrontation with President Bush on foreign policy in the months ahead, like his confrontation with Robert Bork over his Supreme Court nomination in 1987, will provide only short-term benefit. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has an excellent resume and a valuable Hispanic heritage, but he has seemed very much a figure of the past, something illustrated by his very aggressive attempt to ingratiate himself with the party left when he publicly called on Senator Joe Lieberman to withdraw from the 2006 senate race.

Former Senator John Edwards was impressive in his quest for the Democratic nomination in 2004, but less than impressive when he campaigned as the vice presidential nominee with the hapless John Kerry. He does have communication skills, but has chosen to move further to the political left for his 2008 campaign. He could win the Iowa caucus and the new early South Carolina primary, but is less likely to do well in New Hampshire primary and the new early Nevada caucus. Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa trails in polls in his own state. He was an excellent governor, but may be overmatched by others in the presidential contest.

Al Gore? I don't think so.

Will Mark Warner reconsider?

On the Republican side of the contest, John McCain is now suffering what most early frontrunners go through (cf. Hillary Clinton), and his poll numbers are, for the time being, dropping. His gutsy support of more troops in Iraq could be a problem if the situation there continues to go badly. His age and his health are an issue, although he seems quite active and spry on the early campaign trails. His political image, furthermore, is unmatched in the 2008 campaign. If his recent efforts to woo his party¹s conservatives and President Bush¹s inner circle work, he would be unstoppable.

He has two major opponents. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the icon of September 11. He is a terrific communicator, and an outspoken moderate Republican. While the far right of his party took a beating in the 2006 elections, as did many moderate Republican officeholders, it is difficult to imagine how a strong pro-choice, anti-gun and social liberal as Mr. Giuliani is can be nominated. Like Mr. McCain, but less so, Mr. Giuliani is a strong November election candidate, likely to pick up independent voters. Mr. McCain, however, seems to have much more appeal among moderate Democrats, and is much more likely to hold the GOP conservative base.

The GOP dark horse this year is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Perhaps the most "charismatic" Republican in the race, he has solid credentials as the man who ran the successful 2002 winter Olympics in Utah, and as a governor after that. He has made some appeal to his party's conservative base, although his record on social issues is mixed. Again, the latter would appeal to general election voters, but not necessarily to GOP primary voters. He is a candidate to watch.

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is a favorite of the party's conservative and pro-life base, but has shown little of the skills necessary to overcome the likes of his better-known opponents for the nomination.

The three "H's" of (Mike) Huckabee, (Chuck) Hagel and (Duncan) Hunter each have constituencies, but will probably not survive the early primaries should they choose to run that far.

The "wild card" of 2008 will be Newt Gingrich. He seems determined to elevate the level of public discourse for the 2008 campaign (something I have publicly supported him for), but it remains to be seen how he wins his party's nomination. As a politician of ideas and public energy, he probably has no match in either party. His personal negatives, residual from his term as speaker of the House of Representatives, are redoubtable. He himself seems to accept this for now, saying he would support any Republican candidate who sews up the nomination early. Should there be a stalemate, however, who knows what could happen?

There are others who have expressed an interest in 2008, and perhaps one or two candidates not yet in the field. But the shape of the campaign is beginning to be formed. I have discussed the personalities, and very little of the issues of 2008. That is because we are evidently in a transformational period, following the results of November, 2006, and events in the Middle East and in the national and world economies. How these personalities, in both parties, fit into the new political landscape which will emerge later in 2007, and early in 2008, will be more valuable to determining winners and losers than any speculations today.

Happy New Year!