I am tired of Democratic Presidential candidates who couldn't manage the local ice cream store. What does a law degree and service as a legislator teach you about effectively running a complex government? Nothing.
And creating a campaign from scratch is just like a startup business on steroids. So we need a candidate with experience running an organization bigger than a Senate staff.
Second - we need a candidate who can perform for the media. Sadly, today candidates are rated for their acting ability. They have to seem excited and energetic for the two hundredth presentation of their stump speech. Again, speaking in the Senate doesn't exactly teach you how to package your thoughts into compelling sound bites, as Kerry showed.
To find an effective candidate we have to ask...
... who out there has both executive experience (governor, military or private leadership) and is a good public speaker? Then do any of them have national or regional name recognition, and come from a swing part of country? Oh I guess it would help if they weren't dumber than a stump (yes, W, I'm thinking of you).
And they have to be able to raise buckets of cash. Hourly.
This is before we even consider where they stand on the issues.
So let's see:
Edwards? Nope (lawyer with one term in the Senate, no managerial experience. So he seems light. I'd be much happier if he'd been governor for a couple of terms. On the plus side has name recognition, comes from a swing state and experience with a national campaign. So he might win the nomination but would need a really good manager to run a successful campaign).
Clark? Maybe (executive leadership experience from the military, some name recognition, some national campaign experience. Not sure how polished he is on TV or with raising money.)
Ms. Clinton? Nope (lawyer with one term in the Senate. Some experience watching her husband govern. Good speaker. Can raise truckloads of money. Huge national name recognition but very high negatives. She needs to make a major effort to change her 'brand image' if she is to have a chance.)
Richardson? Maybe (governor, international negotiation expertise, some national name recognition. Okay speaker. Frankly a bit to chunky and rumpled to exude that Kennedyeque charisma the nation seems to want. Time to buff up. From a small obscure state. Not sure he can raise the dough. Probably wants to be Secretary of State.)
Gore? Maybe (former VP and Senator, not sure how much managing a VP gives, as opposed to watching the great leader perform. Name recognition but could seem like a retread. Getting better with the media but not a natural. Sort of from a border state - he actually grew up in D.C.. Can raise money. Does he have the fire in the belly to make the long run?)
Obama? Nope (not even one full term as a Senator. No executive experience. No national campaign exprience. Speaks well and looks good but that is not a reason to vote for him for President. Should be a governor for a couple of terms first.)
None of these excites me. And I don't have much faith that the convoluted nomination process for the Dems will pick a winner. But it will be entertaining.
Back to the 06 campaign...