Democratic Race Narrows to Two: Obama and Clinton
Let's get real, Democrats.
After eight excruciatingly long months of active campaigning, the 2008 race is now about only two candidates who have a strong shot at the Democratic nomination: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
(See Daunting Decision 2008: Obama or Clinton? Clinton or Obama? .)
John Edwards (See John Edwards - Cumulative Scorecard for the Debates )
John Edwards has well-reasoned, compellingly compassionate domestic policy proposals, particularly on health care, energy and environmental issues, and fair treatment of all Americans. But his foreign policy and national security experience is, at best, negligible. At worst, zilch. Zero. Nada. And that will play poorly in a national election.
While former Sen. Edwards could conceivably win the Iowa caucuses, he's not even a top-tier candidate in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, California or Florida. And without an Iowa victory, his 2008 candidacy is dead.
Bottom line: John Edwards has only a slim chance to win the 2008 Democratic nomination. Very, very slim.
Bill Richardson (See Bill Richardson - Cumulative Scorecard for the Debates )
Bill Richardson has made a couple dopey gaffes lately... gaffes that effectively killed his latter-stage momentum in most states. Explains Todd Beeton at MyDD:
"Richardson has a gaffe problem, whether it be his choice of Roe dissenter Justice Byron (Whizzer) White as a model Supreme Court Justice, his refusal to call for Gonzales's resignation because he was hispanic, to his response at the Logo/HRC forum that homosexuality is a choice, Richardson has demonstrated a keen ability to stick his foot in his mouth. "
And then, in Iowa two days ago, Richardson uttered this nutty remark:
"Iowa, for good reason, for constitutional reasons, for reasons related to the Lord, should be the first caucus and primary."
Bottom line : Gov. Bill Richardson, with his extensive foreign policy experience, is running a respectable 3rd to 4th place in polls for Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. He would make a solid Vice President for Obama or Clinton. But his 2008 presidential hopes are futile.
Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden
Despite non-stop campaigning for many months, none of these three candidates have registered more than 3% in any national or state-level polls.
Rep. Kucinich, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Biden are all highly valued members of Congress. Joe Biden, of course, is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Chris Dodd chairs the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee And Dennis Kucinich is an invaluable progressive voice of courage in the House on the Iraq War, health care legislation, electoral reform and other vital issues.
Bottom line: The candidacies of Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have added substantially to national discussion of the issues. All would be exceptional cabinet members for Clinton or Obama.
But they will not be president in 2008. And frankly, to continue to use valuable Democratic debate air time is to detract from the process. I hope to see at least Dodd and Biden to drop-out of the race in the next month or two.
Obama or Clinton? Clinton or Obama?
The race between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama is too close to call in September 2007. But it's fascinating to watch to watch their political dance.
Both are strong, heroic progressive voices and admirable presidential candidates. Both have great strengths and interesting, workable plans for the Iraq War, foreign policy, health care, education, energy policies and more.
And both have weaknesses as national candidates: Obama sometimes talks in vague terms and has logged scant time in D.C.; Clinton will never be supported by a big chunk of American voters.
I will, indeed, vote for one of these two candidates in California's February 5th Democratic primary. And like millions of Democrats across the nation, I have no idea which one...
Since January 2007, I've written innumerable columns about the Clinton-Obama race. Some of my words have (apparently) offended and infuriated... others have provoked and pushed. I hope they've also illuminated and clarified.
You can now find these columns and analysis in one hub, at Daunting Decision 2008: Obama or Clinton? Clinton or Obama? . Happy reading!
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Related Reading
Rating Hillary Clinton - Cumulative Scoreboard for the Democratic Debates
Rating Barack Obama - Cumulative Scoreboard for the Democratic Debates
Hillary Clinton - Fundraising Statistics & Donor Info
Barack Obama - Fundraising Statistics & Donor Info
New York Times, Sept 4, 2007: For Democrats, Primary Field Gives Confidence
Comments
This is a three-way race, not down to two as your post suggests. Your post omitted some facts:
Edwards has the endorsements of 3 unions, in which may translate into 2 million potential voters. It’s possible the members will break for other candidates, but this time they are looking for the most electable. Mrs. Clinton is considered an insider who won’t bring about change in Washington and Obama, as you suggest, is inexperienced and his campaign is all about his personality, not what he really stands for. He’s more on the VP ticket campaign.
Edwards leads by wider margins than his two opponents in head to head match ups with Republicans. See Rassmussen Reports link that tracks the match-ups.
The media find Mrs. Clinton and Obama more interesting stories given their gender and race since they are the most dynamic personalities in two decades. It helps that Oprah is giving lavish parties for Obama, and that’s more interesting than how to keep America and places around the world safe through multi-level initiatives against terrorists, as Edwards laid out on Friday in a speech at Pace University. This debunks the comment that Edwards has no foreign policy experience. He gained more of it since being in the Senate through the International Rescue Committee in visiting Uganda, a co-task force leader on Russian-US relations with Jack Kemp for the Council on Foreign Relations, and being invited to meet with top officials in Israel, Germany, China, UAE, and India. Edwards is a quick study and is not one to be underestimated. The frame is about working together and getting more to join the forces of good, not just through sheer brute force that Bush has done in the past 6 years.
Seems to this commenter that one should go back and re-read Edwards website to see where if he stands on many issues, including foreign policy, unless entertainment personalities are more interesting to the poster.
4) The media also is not interested in changing the status quo, and Edwards is. They have ignored the major stories about Edwards this year, instead focusing on FEC reporting mistakes, his personal wealth (although if he were a Republican, it would not be an issue), and his advocacy for the working poor, the first since RFK.
Lastly,