Dear New Hampshire,
As you go to the polls tomorrow, and we're all waiting excitedly for the results, please think about what comes afterward. A very compressed primary calendar.
We test our candidates by fire through the primary season, in part to see how they'll hold up to the roaring inferno that is a Presidential race.
NH might well be the coronation of Barack Obama as our nominee, and believe me I say, I have nothing against Obama. I'm thrilled for his beautiful way with words, his passion and ability to inspire people and most importantly, to get them out to vote. (In the end, winning an election is about getting people to the polls. He did that in a hugely impressive way in Iowa.)
But I think, too, there should be more than one candidate left standing after NH, and the choices seem obvious. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. That choice is yours tomorrow.
I would argue that we need both an Heir to the nomination and a strong, fiery, impressive Spare.
Because things happen during the primaries. (Hopefully in the primaries rather than in the general election.) Candidates implode. The pressure is on, and they say or do something stupid. Or something comes up out of their past. Or we take a long look and want to rethink things.
We deserve a nice, long look at these candidates, and I don't think we've had that yet. Not with the kind of pressure on them that they'll be facing in the Presidential race.
Obama may well be everything he seems to be. He may win the nomination and bring out new voters, independents and Republicans in droves in November, along with Democrats, and win a landslide victory. And he may be a brilliant, inspiring President.
But if something goes wrong (look at Hillary Clinton post-Iowa to see just how wrong things can go for someone supposedly leading in the polls, the inevitability candidate) then where will we be?
Hopefully, we'll have a strong second candidate, battling it out with Obama for another few months, testing him, challenging him, showing us what he's made of.
And I'd argue that man should be John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton.
One of them will come in second in NH and live to fight another day.
People will argue that Hillary could survive for a long time after NH no matter what, but to me, she looks like a candidate in free-fall and a distant second in NH would cripple her.
Honestly, I'm convinced she's a better candidate and leader than any of us have seen in this campaign. She's gotten some very bad advice, or maybe she's just been doing what she considers playing it safe and smart and to win. But I think she's much better than she's shown us.
And still, I'd argue John Edwards is a better second candidate to be standing and fighting on after NH.
He is a fighter, and right now, I want a fighter. Because it's time to fight. Surely our Democratic leadership in Congress has shown us we desperately need to fight. Capitulation is not the answer. Double-talk and mixed voting on the Iraq war is not the answer.
And yes, I'd love to see Edwards win the nomination, but I will proudly and happily vote for Obama if he's the nominee.
I'm just saying... we're not ready for a coronation, are we? Not this soon.
We should still be testing these candidates, weighing our options, being sure of our choices, and for that, we need a strong second choice after NH.
Who do you think the best second-choice candidate should be?