We have a rich presidential field this year. If the candidates don't start slicing little pieces off each other, we should wind up with a strong ticket. Ideally, that's what primaries do.
I don't see sharp differences between the candidates. Their voting records are similar. The big issue for me is, who can win? There is no way to know until it's too late, but we all have opinions.
That's what makes the jukebox play. I'll tell you what I think after the fold; what do you think?
Al Gore is the strongest candidate.
He has name recognition, ample and successful national campaign experience, and the ability to unify the party as no other.
John Kerry is second.
He's suffering from a bad case of "how can we miss you if you don't go away" right now, but he ran very strongly in 2004 and will do even better in a more propitious year with the experience of one campaign behind him.
Wesley Clark is third.
He rounds out this trio of Vietnam Vets, looks great on television, and has at least some of his rookie mistakes behind him.
John Edwards is fourth.
Like Obama, he's got the magic. Neither man would even be considered if he didn't have it. But Edwards has the advantage of campaign experience, without which you don't get the chance to govern. I believe he will be Hillary's biggest problem in the primaries unless Gore gets in.
Hillary Clinton is fifth.
We should be ready for a woman president, but maybe we're not. Gender bias is the only thing standing in her way. I am lukewarm to science experiments.
Barrack Obama and Bill Richardson are long shots.
Like Hillary, they must overcome prejudice, and unlike her, they do not have the advantage of a famous name. Obama is by far the most telegenic candidate in the race and the best orator.
Richardson is the "Mr. Resume" of this campaign--congressman, diplomat, cabinet official, and governor. If he were appointed, he could do a great job. But this is a tough field. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards look like mortal locks in the early primaries for either number one or number two. That really only leaves third place, and it's going to be a battle to get into it.
Vilsack is interesting candidate who could surprise.
But his residence in Iowa is more of a handicap for him than a help. He has to win Iowa AND do well somewhere else, and even the first may be asking too much.
I don't know what Chris Dodd and Joe Biden are doing in this race.
Like all Senators, they think they are experts on campaigning even if they haven't done much of it.
I do know what Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are doing--they want to get into the debates and raise hell.
I wish them both all of the best; they'll help move the center of gravity leftward. Gravel may turn out to be the most interesting and colorful candidate in either party.
My reasons for ranking the candidates in this order are two. First, who "looks" like a future commander-in-chief? Second, who has national campaign experience.
- George Bush really has made the world a much more dangerous place. As a result, terrorism and security will likely be very much on the minds of voters. Rudy Guiliani, who commanded New York's finest and comported himself very admirably while Bush was cowering in fear, can legitimately say he was on the front lines in the battle against terrorism. Moreover, in his career as a federal prosecutor, he proved that he doesn't lack for guts, sending the most frightening mobsters in America away for 99 year sentences. McCain, likewise, is a man of demonstrated courage, the son and grandson of war heroes, and the father of an 18-year-old marine. With luck, the crazy rightwing will keep one or both of these guys off the ballot, but we can't count on luck.
So I rank our trio of Vietnam Veterans--Gore,Kerry, and Clark--at the top. All three volunteered to go into that dirty, dangerous shithole of country and take their chances with the working class draftees who had no choice. Voters will feel confident if one of these men is our prospective commander-in-chief.
- All twelve candidates are good Democrats in my book. I want one who can win. Gore and Kerry both damn near won, and I can't think of any better measure of "electability" than that. Edwards and Clinton, too, have national campaign experience behind them. There is nothing like a presidential campaign, and we are blessed with four strong candidates who have been there, done that. Gen. Clark, too, has experience of at least the early days of a campaign.