Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Have Clinton and Obama really cleared the 2008 field?

Posted by Bob Geiger at 10:38 AM on December 24, 2006.


2008 Democratic nomination far from wrapped up

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

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.

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.

Digg!

Tagged as: 2008

Bob Geiger is a writer, activist and Democratic operative in Westchester County, NY. You can reach Bob at geiger.bob@gmail.com and read more from him at BobGeiger.com.


Hitler, Darwin and the Sasquatch
They're all inter-related, you know.
Post by General JC Christian. July 9, 2009.
After Casting Sole No Vote on Slavery Memorial, Rep. King Keeps Digging Deeper
This is one contorted excuse.
Post by Steve Benen. July 9, 2009.
Airing of Grievances: Right-Winger Incensed over 'Commie's' Jab at 'Saturday Night Fever'
Oh, and Pinochet was a good guy, damnit!
Post by Roy Edroso. July 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
About John Edwards
Posted by: Basenjis on Dec 24, 2006 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards is asking for the opinions and the concerns of everyone on his e-mail list. I fired off my concerns to him yesterday and any interested person can do the same. He wants to know what people are thinking and what are the most pressing concerns of Americans. He is running for president in 2008.

I told him quite frankly that my first choice for president would be Al Gore because he saw through the Republican war ruse from the very beginning, that he understands the way Washington works and that he sees clearly what we must do to save the planet from human plunder and misuse.

I added that since Gore says he's not running that my second choice would be
Dennis Kucinich, a man of character who has never wavered from his opposition to Bush's wars and with whose basic political philosophy I agree. However, because Kucinich lacks the physical appeal and personal charisma so important to Americans, unfortunately, he may not be acceptable to enough voters.

My third choice, I wrote, would be John Edwards who has intelligence, character and the charm and physical attractiveness so important to American voters, who lacks experience, but is a fast learner. He also has a great family and a wonderful partner in Elizabeth with her brains and personal warmth--a welcome change from the cool, lobotomized Laura.

I wrote that many people who voted to put Democrats in power in the November election feel the Pelosi-Reid team have misread the reasons for the rejection of so many Republicans. That is that (1) We want out of Iraq now, and (2) We want Bush-Cheney impeached now. They know Edwards' "Two Americas" first hand and know that the second America is growing larger every day and that the middle class is all but disappearing.

I am suggesting that, if you like John Edwards, that this is your opportunity to express yourself and to share your own concerns. If he is the kind of person I've been told he is by friends who know him personally, you will have his ear. Just check out his website and send that e-mail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I say 'Balz' to Balz' Pooh-poohing Edwards
Posted by: Phillosophia on Dec 24, 2006 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is organized. Edwards has IOUs coming his way. Edwards is a great campaigner. Edwards polls well against the Republicans. Edwards has a message. Obama is untested nationally and mostly says happy talk, though he is very bright and likeable. Clinton is a soulless triangulator.

John Edwards has not, in any way, shape, or form been cleared out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whoever, I hope the Demos can find a candidate again without killing each other.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 25, 2006 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although it was not enough to get Kerry elected last time, the fact that he had the candidacy wrapped up well before the Demo convention had improved his chances.

I still have painful memories of Ted Kennedy's savaging of Jimmy Carter in the race for the nomination before the loss in 1980. I don't know that anyone other than god, herself, could have beaten Ronnie the ray gun, but no Demo needs to be so beat up by his own party.

So "fight nice" folks, as the msm loves to parade even fluffing a punch line while telling a joke. The msm has clearly demonstrated how unliberal it has become, so I expect a persistent stubborn bias against whomever the Demos nominate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If not Gore, then Edwards
Posted by: JackieGiles on Dec 28, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote a long letter to Al Gore, urging him to run. We need a president who can step from the swearing-in to the Oval Office and begin governing immediately. Aside from being right about the environment and Iraq, he knows all the nooks and crannies, snares and pitfalls of the presidency.

As bright as he is, Obama would need considerable on-the-job training, which means that he would rely on Staff to be working "above grade", making decisions that should be the president's. I'd like to see Obama run as VP.

Edwards is in no way to blame for the 2000 loss, but he learned a lot, and has been forging friendships since then and doing his "homework". I believe he truly cares about working people and the future of the middle class, and that his populism is sincere without being doctrinaire. Elizabeth Edwards would be a great asset.

Al Gore should decide soon, since many who support him as their first choice will gravitate toward Edwards as months pass and will be reluctant to "jump ship", as I would be.

I do not want to see the same spectacle as 2004 when the other Democratic candidates, and the national media savaged Gov. Howard Dean for being against the war and for working people and civil unions. We can't afford another demonizing of a good man, making him out to be an extreme leftist and somehow "crazy" when they knew him to be a moderate as Gov. of Vermont. To Edwards' credit, he,along with Kucinich,was not as involved in the hatchet job on Howard, as were the others. We must not repeat the political "fratricide" of 2004, it will only help the Republicans.

So, Al Gore, please let us know sooner, not later, whether you'll run. I think there are millions of voters who would welcome the chance to "redeem" their mistaken Bush votes of 2000 and 2004 and RE-elect "President" Gore if given the opportunity. I urge Democrats who support a Gore candidacy to write to him and let him know your thoughts and urge him to announce his decision so we can be about electing a NON-DLC Democrat!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But as for Gore.....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Dec 28, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments thus far are succinctly on point BUT:
The Gore train came and left...if he couldn't ala AMLO
find the cojones to 'step to' the repug fascists in 2000
at least somewhat more that he did...then that man is
not Putin ready.....
Obama? ....Something just doesn't click here.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She runs, we lose.
Posted by: jjs on Dec 28, 2006 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Flat out--she can't win. Period. Anyway, Edwards has my campaign energies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]