It's a somewhat slow news day, and there have been some diaries about 2008 today, so I thought I'd join the crowd.
The thing with 2008 is that the party (Dem or Rep) that can manage to nominate the most well known candidate is going to win.
For the Dems it's Hillary or Kerry or Gore, for the Repubs it's McCain or Giuliani.
Think about it. If McCain is nominated by the Republicans, he most likely wins the Presidency. Same thing for Giuliani. But the right wing of the Republican party hates both of them. So, they'll probably nominate a terrible candidate like Allen or Frist, in which case they will probably lose.
The Democratic party faces the same hurdle. If we can nominate Hillary or Kerry or Gore, they'll most likely win. The problem is that the left (including alot of Kossacks) hate Hillary, and think Kerry and Gore are losers, and are afraid of nominating a Senator.
If we want to win, we need to be sensible and pretend we're Republicans and we're choosing McCain over Frist.
So, how about we get over our Hillary hatred, and get over our bitterness towards Kerry and Gore.
Any of the 3 would be better than having McCain or Rudy or Allen or Frist in the White House, right?
The fact that Hillary, Kerry, Gore, McCain, and Rudy have already been in the national spotlight is a HUGE advantage. They've already been vetted. Their pasts are old news. There will be no Swift Boat attacks against any of those candidates. Sure, the opposition will try, but it won't have any traction because all that stuff is old news.
In 2008, will anybody care about Whitewater? Will anybody care about John Kerry's medals? Will anybody care about Al Gore inventing the internet?
No.
That is a good thing. It's what helps incumbents in every election cycle. And it would be prudent to remember that.
There are alot of exciting Dems out there that would be great to have as President: Clark, Edwards, Warner, Boxer, Obama, Feingold the list goes on.
But sorry folks, they are simply not ready for prime time. The public does not know them well enough yet, so the opposition will have no problem sliming them and slandering them, and planting doubt in the minds of the voters about their pasts. See John Kerry and the Swift Boat vets as Exhibit A. The reason why all that was so effective was because the public didn't know who John Kerry was until 5 months before the election. That will happen all over again if any of the lesser known Dems are nominated, and one again, it will be effective.
Now, I know, some lesser known Dems have won in the past: Bubba, Carter, Kennedy.
You know why?
The opposition self destructed. That's why. In 1992, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot split the Republican party. In 1976, Ronald Reagan challenged Ford and split the party. In 1960, Barry Goldwater challenged Nixon and split the party. That would be great if that happened to the Republicans in 2008, but that's not something we can count on.
So, all of those great Dems listed above. They still have a place in the dialogue. One of them should be chosen as the running mate. Because then, when we win, they can be given the role of VP, given the publicity that allows the public to get to know them so that when it's their turn, they have the advantage of incumbency all over again.
Clark, Edwards, Warner, Boxer, Obama, Feingold?
Their year is 2016.
Hillary, Kerry, and Gore are 2008.
