There's a reason that I have no preference heading into the 2008 primary cycle. It's not that I don't like any of these guys -- I do. It's that none stands above the others. Like all humans, they have their strengths and weaknesses. And I'd rather sit back and 1) make them earn our support, and 2) see how they grow as candidates and as Democrats as the campaign progresses.
So here are my off-the-top-of-my-head quick notes on the top candidates in the current field, in no particular order.
Bill Richardson
I'm eager for a serious Latino candidate. It's time my people rose to the top of the political heap. He's bilingual. I dig his resume. Rather than talk about Darfur, he got his ass over there and brokered a cease fire, and that's on top of high-profile diplomatic missions all over the world, including places like North Korea. His resume is the strongest of any of the candidates. He had a strong reign at the top of the Democratic Governor's Association last year.
Then again, Democrats lost New Mexico in 2004 under his watch (after winning it in 2000), and they lost the state's marquee House race in 2006. A lack of coattails is a serious demerit in my book. Richardson could stand to lose some weight. Appearances matter. And his private life is the subject of -- how should I delicately put it? -- Clintonian rumors.
John Edwards
The sharpest voice in the race, he also has the best developed philosophical narrative for his run (the Two Americas). He is also shaping up as the most aggressive voice this cycle, not just targeting Republicans (the "McCain Doctrine"), but also in targeting meek Democrats who act as if there's little they could do to put the brakes on Bush's escalation. He proved in 2004 that he could run a smart race. He's already won a statewide campaign in a tough red state. He's good looking.
Then again, that "experience" thing hovers over him. I wonder if he'd been better served running for governor (NC has an open seat in 2008), setting himself up for that presidential bid with a bit more heft in his resume. I also like my politicians a little on the raw side (e.g. Dean, Tester, and Webb), and Edwards is very polished. Edwards also fails the "coattails" test. His Senate seat was taken by a Republican. And the Kerry/Edwards ticket failed to carry North Carolina (or any southern state, for that matter).
Barack Obama
The best orator in the field, he can craft gorgeous speeches. There is palpable excitement that Obama can't just make history, but he can radically change it. And given how desperate Republicans have been to break the color barrier (witness efforts to draft Rice and Powell), it'd be nice for us to get there first. Obama has proven he can win crowded Democratic primaries. The media loves him (in the same way they love McCain -- bordering on the irrational). He's got powerful friends like Oprah (and yes, that matters).
Then again, he's also thin on the "experience" thing (though he bests Edwards with an extra six-year term as a state senator). He failed the "coattail" test in his home state, with Democrats losing both serious challenges to Republican districts -- the Dan Seals and Tammy Duckworth races. Duckworth, in particular, was an Obama project. Like I said, he's the best orator in the field, but his stuff is strangely unsatisfying. It sounds great when you hear it, but an hour later, you wonder what the heck it was he was talking about. He's never had to run a competitive general election. And no, Alan Keyes doesn't count.
But my biggest knock on Obama is that he's yet to take a high-profile leadership role on a controversial issue. It's a political advantage to be a cipher, and it should serve him well in a potential general election matchup, but it won't get me excited and eager to jump on his bandwagon during the primary.
Hillary Clinton
By all measures she's been a great Senator. She's got a great "story", and has taken more shit from the Right than any other Democrat in existence (besting husband Bill by a longshot). She's a tough one. And really, while Republicans may talk about swiftboating her, is there anything left for them to hurl at her? Unlike what some naysayers say, she can absolutely win the general election. And it's well past time for this country to join the 20th century, much less the current one, and start feeling more comfortable electing women to the top offices.
Then again, Hillary would be a drag on races lower on the ballot. In fact, her potential nomination is already creating all sorts of headaches for Senate and House recruitment efforts in tough states and districts. This is a dynamic not at play with any of the other serious candidates. She is also the DLC candidate, literally. From Harold Ford's memo accepting the DLC chairmanship:
I assume there will be an effort to help Senator Clinton's campaign, and I would support such an effort.
At least Vilsack can say that he was sacked by the DLC. Hillary is the DLC's last chance at some measure of relevancy. She loses, they've got nothing left.
And Clinton didn't exhibit the sort of coattails that should've netted us several more House seats in New York. In fact, I'm bitter that more of her millions (and those of Spitzer, for that matter) didn't make their way into more down-ballot races at both the state and federal levels.
-----
Bottom line? I like these guys just fine. They would all win a general election in 2008. But there's little to motivate me to support one above any of the others. And thats why I'm neutral on the primary race.
And so concludes President Week. Next week, I'll spend most of my time looking at the Senate picture. I much prefer talking about that stuff.