The post-presidency comes early because the candidates can’t wait
Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 2:47AM ARTICLE: “White House hopefuls, activists are stirring: Political teams assemble in key states,” by Susan Page and Jill Lawrence, USA Today, 8 February 2006, p. 5A.
Yikes! A sad list of candidates on both sides. Frankly, only Hillary, McCain and Kerry seem heavyweights.
Kerry is one simply because he returns. Clinton is clearly one. McCain is the only celebrity the GOP has.
But all come with such baggage. Meanwhile, the lightweights are truly lite!
My name-association responses (GOP):
George Allen: Puh-leaze!Sam Brownback: Impressive guy and amazingly practical given his intense faith, but I doubt an avowed evangelical can win even a nomination right now, despite the fact that Brownback would certainly rise above the designation.
Bill Frist: Zero excitement factor. As a Democrat, hard not to cheer him on.
Newt Gingrich: Smart as all get-out, but way too many enemies. I would expect to see him in a cabinet, though. Seriously.
Rudy Guliani: Possibly quite strong—as a Democrat. He’d lose the GOP base.
Chuck Hagel: You have to wonder here. Bit of a bridge-burner in his party. I find him off-putting and sort of arrogant, and yet I think he’s talented enough to overcome perceptions. Hard to dismiss, I guess, which is a strong sign this early.
Mike Huckabee: I have no idea how someone this unknown pulls it off. Running for something other than president, in my mind.
John McCain: The anger thing will be his downfall. Just a time bomb waiting to go off. Napoleonic complex since birth, so yeah, I’m saying he’s too short to be president.
George Pataki: Competent but too NY-ish. Just don’t see it. Tall, though.
Mitt Romney: Possibly quite strong. Big question on the Mormon thing. Hard to say, thus.
Now the Dems:
Evan Bayh: Needs to grow up quickly. First impressions do not impress me. Comes off as lightweight trying too hard to seem tough and commanding. If he’s so smart, he better start showing it more, and stop reading so obviously from scripts.Joseph Biden: So amazingly off-putting. Totally a vanity ride. Very depressing to consider him as SECSTATE.
Wes Clark: Zero excitement. Doesn’t have a political bone in his body. Confuses mastering the art of political general with that of general politics. Too smart in intellect, and he knows it. Being president is a people skill he does not have.
Hillary Clinton: I just wish Emma Thompson could play her in the presidency. That would seal the deal for me. Tough enough and smart enough to pull it off. Just such a weird story, and that alone makes it so American. She is the first candidate I have ever considered giving money to—seriously. I’m just excited to watch the ride, no matter how it works out.
John Edwards: I really think he won’t wear well, and the natural confusion between him and Bayh will cancel each other out. I don’t know why I have no sympathy for him. He’s really pretty good and a great campaigner, but I have low expectations. Just don’t see him as presidential enough for now and can’t imagine what changes that perception.
Russ Feingold: Just too off-putting. You’d think I’d cheer the Wisconsin guy, but for now, I find him very hard to warm up to. He may surprise in debates and other public performances, but I think he’s just too left to win the general election.
John Kerry: I continue to think he’s smart as hell. Will be very interesting to see Hillary and he go at it. Good for the party to have a tough regular season, I think. Just not sure what will light the fire under his ass this time that didn’t last time. Then again, the regret factor on Bush may do that for him in the eyes of enough voters.
Bill Richardson: Don’t see it happening, despite his obvious charisma. Think he is first Hispanic (okay, “half-Hispanic”) national candidate though—for VP.
Tom Vilsack: It would have to be a war of attrition and self-destruction among the Dems for this guy to emerge. Not impossible, but not likely.
Mark Warner: Intrigues many. May quickly surpass Bayh as “thinking man’s” favorite dark horse. He’s such a break from the fear and loathing atmosphere of current admin, with his Clinton-like focus on bright futures, that he may quickly emerge as alternative to whoever survives the Kerry-Clinton wars.
Whew! Fun and completely impressionistic. Like picking Oscar winners in August.
Gotta tell you, though. Feel better for Dems than GOP on basis of talent. Might actually balance the GOP’s usual edge in organization, although hard to get much closer than last two elections, yes? So the talent factor may be big.
Reader Comments (12)
Flash back for us, what would your impressions of W vs. Gore have been? Lightweight vs. Born & Bred? Dolt vs. Tin Man? How about Perot? Why am I always left thinking "This is the best we've got?" Hillary.. ugh... I'm afraid she looses 51 to 49 against a box of rocks.
i'm an independent who leans left. that being said, the Democrats won't win, barring a Bill Clinton-style candidate (i feel you pain. i'm like you, adulterous impulses and all), until they get in touch with the so-called 'fly-over' people. the Dems are probably 'smarter'. they might even be right-er (on some things). but until they connect with middle and southern america geographically and middle and lower america economically, they won't make any headway. i wish they would. we'd all be better off with a stiffer political compeition.
i like Hilary fine, but i'm pretty sure she's a non-starter. middle america has too many (i think irrational) reasons to fear/disdain her.
Sen. Clinton strikes me as un-Barnettian anyway, I'm surprised Tom is such a supporter.
Sen. Clinton Urges Democrats to Speak Up
"I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism and standing up for national homeland security," she said.
Speaking to an enthusiastic Democratic crowd that increasingly sees jobs moving overseas, Clinton said Thailand should not be granted access to the U.S. auto market.
She's pandering to a frightened public's instinct to define the GWOT in America-centric terms, and to "protect" our economy by cutting off the Four Flows.
Bush's SOTU speech presented a vision which was closer to Barnett's than what Clinton's selling: we're foes to tyranny, we must remain world leaders, we must remain open to immigration. But, he's a "CEO post-president," so forget him.
The democratic candidates or the democratic party could publish a platform that shows clear-thinking analysis, as Tom's books do. The optimism in such a platform may answer the criticism of the dems not having one and draw folks to those ideas because of the optimism and simplicity in that platform. Tom shows how simple it is to have world peace and prosperity. The dems could show how simple it is to run a good government here that also shrinks the gap.
Are you kidding me? John Kerry smart as hell? Wow! Where were all his smarts during the 04 campain?
Where is Condi Rice on your list?
Most importantly, why are you still be a Democrat? They are the party of opposition right now. If the Democratic base had it their way, we'd bring home all of our troops across the globe. Most dems, including the elected officials, have no idea where they stand on foreign policy.
I also consider myself an Independent who leans left. I think Hillary would make a great candidate but have reservations that she could win, especially in the conservative south. Sean's comment about the Dems making a real connection is what I perceive to be a major hurdle they must overcome in order to win in '08. If Kerry runs again, he will definitely have to improve on that! He almost did it during his concession speech in '04, but anyway, I digress.
As for the Republicans, Frist may end up in hot water over the stock sale investigation, but then again, he may not. Hey, if he does, it could work to his advantage.....Just look at Martha Stewart! (Oh, never mind the Apprentice fiasco)
Surprised you don't like George Allen. Have you met with him? I suspect he's a TPNM fan. And he's going to win, so you might as well get to know him early on, before his calendar fills up.
Sam Brownback's a Catholic, albeit of an evangelical bent. Yet another convert of Fr. John McCloskey's.
I don't recall a time when a failed Democratic presidential candidate was called back next time. Wait, I do. The 1950s. Dewey? Stevenson? I doubt that we'll be seeing Kerry running in 2008, as much as he might want to.
If you think Wes Clark generates "zero excitement" you obviously haven't seen him in action over the last couple years. He may have seemed a little "stiff" in the first months of his '04 campaign, but has learned the art since and has become a veritable "rock star" in front of a crowd.
You're right that he's not political, i.e. partisan, by nature. He puts country over party. Personally, I find that refreshing and hope the American people are ready for it. Most people I know are sick to death of partisanship.
I think that I have a pretty good reason for disdain of Hillary Clinton. After paying way too much attention to her since 1992 I really don't think that she likes America or Americans all that much.
Maybe it is an irrational requirement on my part but I realy think that a preference for America over Europe is a requirement for the office. But hey, that's just me.
About Wes Clark, excitement and people skills -
From another first hand account from an event this past weekend:
One thing I remark on each time I see General Clark is his phenomenal reservoir of ENERGY and how he wisely spends it. Steady, even, always "present" and in the moment-- The General does not squander one kilowatt of his energy... an incredible study of how to burn slowly, and last longer. I have NEVER, in the chaos of the moment, seen him show ANY signs of "Oh, I wish we could just get this over with so I can get out of here" or "Why do I even have to talk to this dumb guy?" or the typical fake smiling moments of so many other candidates before and after him. He seamlessly works the room -- never frustrated, bored or anxious...always MEASURED. . .
I know the sapping drain that accompanies these events and endless photo posings. I study the man as he snakes his way across the floor - never overlooking one eager handshaker with a question, comment, or friend with a camera...and I never see that draining. Instead -- he seems to FEED off of the energy of the crowd. His battery literally charged by the personal connection to the people-- important or ordinary-- just the people. He's truly a man of the people, I marvel.
And from an event in a church earlier that day:
THE INTRODUCTION
Sincerely humbled by being chosen to introduce Wes, Stephanie [Miller] likened it to Carrot Top introducing Ghandi!
She rattles off his key resume points, at "Rhodes Scholar" she squeals "Oh, ME TOO!!", finishing with "candidate for President of the United States" bringing on huge applause and whistles...and she then says something about being in Church and prayer and, "Please God, make him run and get nominated" Well the room went wild here-- more whistling than at a Manhattan taxi stand. Woo Hooing like it was going out of style. Deafening screaming like at a rock concert. Out of control -- Dems want Wes.
She looks to Wes and flatly says-- "I don't know General....sounds like there's a groundswell to me..." Then she introduces him at last and again, the applause and shouting goes on forever....the crowd up on it's feet.
The entire essay called "The General Takes the Pulpit" is very much worth reading for a sense of the passion and deeply felt concern for the country that infuse Wes Clark's speeches and for his exceptional ability to touch those who hear him.
Tom, your analysis of the candidates reminded me of the way one of the Supply Department Heads I worked for did personnel inspections - at doubletime pace up and down the ranks.
Many of the folks you named bring something to the table, even Vilsack, Allen and Huckabee. I remember one Arkansas Governor bucking the odds & residing in the WH for 8 years. From personal experience, do not sell Sen Allen short. I know him from Virginia politics and he's both smart and down to earth.
Knowing geographical and political differences, at the present time I'd say the 2008 Presidential race will be Romney vs Warner, although Gen. Clark may still have a chance. Sen Clinton is as passe as that TV show Commander in Chief.
I understand why you remain a Democrat - someone a bit conservative other than Joe Lieberman has to keep the light on for common sense.