Okay, time for my first analysis of the Democratic challengers for the White House in 2008. Yes, this is incredibly early and it's way too soon to know what could happen over the next three years, but, based on what we know right now, this is how I stack them up.
- Al Gore: He probably won't run anyway, but I think he'd automatically jump to the top if he did. Moreso that most of the candidates, liberals and moderates both see Gore policies that they agree with. Plus Gore is associated with the good economic times under Clinton without being associated with the scandals. Plus, many people still feel that he was the actual winner in 2000, and that will get him some sympathy votes. Some say he is charismatic enough, but the problem with that line of reasoning is that it really isn't true. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. That was part of the anti-Gore media story that was the dominant theme for the "liberal" media. I point out that I think Gore performed poorly in the first debate, he was superb in dismantling Ross Perot on Larry King (over NAFTA) and when he went on Letterman to explain the Reinventing Government initiative he headed up.
- Wesley Clark: He has everything security-wise that Bush does not and has the additional bonus of being quite liberal on the issues. He can win the liberals and the moderates and is the biggest winner on the national security issue. People may be turned off by his lack of a real history in the party, but I don't think that will be a significant turnoff to many voters at this point. He also had a huge online presence, although there may have been some tactical errors in dealing with that presence in 2004. He is also likely to lose the support he had before from the Clintons, which should hurt, but if he can make up for that financially elsewhere, he has to be one of the front-runners.
- John Edwards: He seems to already be in nearly full-campaign mode (appearing on Daily Show and now with an upcoming appearance at the Florida Democratic Party Convention). Like Clark, he has the benefit of not having a day job to distract him and he has a strong focus on the poor that will attract many new voters. Keep in mind that many in the past have talked about the idea that Edwards has the Clinton factor, meaning that, like Bill Clinton, he's shown an amazing ability to win over just about anyone in a face-to-face speech or conversation. Add to that his growing political experience, especially with the 2004 campaign, and Edwards is formidable. If he can get a jump start while others are doing their day jobs and can raise money, he may move to frontrunner status.
- Hillary Clinton: I think the CV on Hillary is off a bit. Everyone says that her entrance into the race would motivate the right-wingers to vote in higher numbers and give more money. How much more could they do than in 2004, where they set records for both? I think that is a nonfactor. I also think it is wrong to suggest that moderates hate Hillary. They don't and I've never seen any evidence they do. One thing that people often forget is that minorities love the Clintons and are likely to show up in much bigger numbers to vote Clinton and they would easily outweigh any increase on the right she would bring forth. Women would also vote in higher numbers and I doubt anyone who voted for Gore or Kerry would vote against Hillary, so I think she would have a legitimate chance of winning, particularly in the face of today's Republican Party. Now, most on the left dislike Hillary because of her political calculation and her recent apparent move to the right, but people forget that she was always more liberal than her husband and that's likely to still be the case.
- John Kerry: He got more votes than any Democrat in history and can certainly raise money, but people are going to be turned off by the problems his campaign had, particularly once the documentary on the campaign is seen by a wide audience. People are going to wonder why it is he couldn't beat such a corrupt and incompetent president in 2004 and will probably look elsewhere for who to vote for. But, he did get all those votes and all that money and can't be counted out as a potentially significant factor in the race.
- Mark Warner: He's got the benefit of being seen as the "it" Democrat these days (next to Obama) and he certainly has some momentum in his Southern home state. If he can translate those things into television time and fundraising ability, he may be the darkhorse, and if a significant number of the top names don't run or have major problems, he could make it to the White House. Now That's Progress predicts Warner will be the winner.
- Russ Feingold: Except for his recent divorce, he seems to hit all the right public relations requirements and he's one of the harder fighting Democrats in Congress. He isn't widely known enough yet and in a field this crowded, it'll be hard for him to stand out, but he's probably the lowest person on the list with any legitimate shot at winning. He isn't positioned for a run yet, but he's still got two years to go, so who knows. Again, if most of the people above choose not to run, he has a chance.
- Bill Richardson: He has good credentials and minority status, both of which can gain him a lot of votes, but he doesn't inspire people and he doesn't have much of a national presence.
- Evan Bayh: Not enough people know who he is and it is unlikely he can make much headway against the big names above without some kind of major change before 2007.
- Tom Vilsack: Lack of name recognition is a big deal, but he could quickly move up the rankings if he can make a name for himself among the crowded field.
- Brian Schweitzer: The average voter will say, "who?" and move on to vote for someone else.
- Joe Biden: He's too much of a corporate crony for most rank-and-file Democrats and very few people seem to like him all that much. He's too much of a Washington insider and a typical politician for a public looking for change.
- Tom Daschle: His association with the losses of 2000 and 2002 and an overall weak response to the president and the Republican Congress will doom any chances he might have. When people think of him, they think loser.
- Joe Lieberman: Liberals and even many moderates hate Lieberman and if he decides to run again, he'll find out quickly that he has no chance of getting through the primaries. He'd have more a chance of success running as a Republican.
Again, a whole lot of things could happen in the time before the election and I'm certain that at least half these people won't run and others will run who aren't on this list. That being said, my prediction is that Gore, Lieberman and Kerry won't run and it'll come down to a two-way race between Clark and Edwards, with the winner being the next president of the United States (probably Clark).
Kos has a list of candidates people are saying the definitely WON'T vote for. Clark, Gore and Kerry do the best under this confusing measurement, while Clinton and Edwards do the worst.