Over the last couple of weeks Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson have announced the formations of presidential exploratory committees as they begin their quests for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Each brings alot to the table. First and foremost is the fact that their name is not George W. Bush.
Even today, 22 whole months before we elect a new president, polling shows that 58% of American voters just want the Bush presidency to be over. And therein lays a tremendous opportunity for the Democrats. If they play their cards right.
At first blush, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama just don't fit the bill. Don't get me wrong. They are both much better choices for America than the folks running on the Republican side - and I think each of them has a good chance of winning. But they have a bit of baggage that I think will work against them come summer and autumn of 2008.
I really do believe Hillary would make a superb president. But, fair or not, her negatives with the American public are too high. If she were to win, we'd be in for another four years of the most divisive politics the country has ever seen. (And they're pretty damn divisive now.) The Republicans will spend their every minute trying to bring her down. After 16 years (8 with Clinton and 8 with Bush) I don't think the American psyche could handle another 4 to 8 years of that type of gridlock governance.
The junior senator from New York should keep working in the Senate. Majority Leader, maybe? Or, if a Democrat wins the White House, Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court?
Food for thought.
Sen. Obama is another story. It seems he would be the guy who could bring a much needed calming to the poisonous political waters. He has the amazing ability to bring the two extreme sides of each political party to the table. That ability to compromise is exactly what the United States needs at this point in its history. We need a president who is willing to tell his partisan base that they need to take a back seat for a while so that members of both parties can come together and focus on righting the tremendous wrongs President Bush has inflicted (and that's a tall order for whoever wins the presidency in 2008).
Iraq, the overall international fight against terrorism, and restoring America's reputation around the globe - not to mention putting our debt-ridden financial house in order - will all need to be put front and center in the next administration.
And therein, I think, lays the problem with Sen. Obama. Should he win his party's nomination next year he will go into the general election with only four years in the Senate under his belt.
I know, I know...George W. Bush had only 6 years in one of the weakest governor's offices in the country before becoming president. But look where that has led us. (Of course, Mr. Bush had failed at just about everything he had done up to that point. But that's an essay for another day.)
Normally this lack of experience wouldn't necessarily keep a candidate from winning a general election; and I think the junior senator from Illinois would surround himself with strong, competent, and able people. But the question remains...will American voters be willing to take a chance - in this day and age - with another novice.
Gov. Richardson has the resume. He was a staff member on the Senate foreign relations committee in the 70s, was elected to Congress in the 80s, and in the 90s served as President Clinton's United Nations ambassador and Energy Secretary. Moreover, he met with the North Koreans in 1994 and won the release of a U.S. helicopter pilot, and earlier this year he negotiated the release of U.S. journalist Paul Solopek from the Sudan. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.
On paper Richardson is the real deal. And, like Clinton and Obama, would make a superb president. But there are allegations of womanizing (although to a lesser extent that Mr. Clinton's) and of embelleshing his record as college baseball player (I could care less, but today's tabloid-esque 24-hour news media plays shit like that to the hilt).
If my Democratic primary ballot were to list only these three candidates (Clinton, Obama, Richardson), I'd have a hard time coming to a decision. Each candidate brings some definate strengths to the table. Each, however, also brings weaknesses that the Republican Party will pounce on 24/7 up to (and beyond) Election Day 2008.
(Obviously they won't be the only names on the ballot. Edwards, Dodd, Vilsack, and Biden - who is announcing his candidacy today - will have their names listed. But for the purposes of this post I focused on the three announced candidacies from last week.)
And so today - one whole year before the first nominating elections take place - I would like to officially throw my support behind another possible candidate. An elder-statesman who has the reputation needed to repair our global relationships. A candidate who can run the ultimate "I told you so" campaign. A man who, I believe, will have many Americans wishing he had been in the White House over the last eight years.
The man who won the national popular vote in 2000.
Former Vice-President Al Gore.
"Run, Al, Run" - Tim Dickinson outlines why Gore should run here.
