In the recent past, the Democratic candidates running for President have been more interesting than the Republicans. For your consideration, exhibits one – ten:
The List
1) The Democrats have three—count em—three A-list candidates. A fourth, Governor Bill Richardson is far behind in the polls, but with the pols his status is rising. The Republicans have, at best, two A-list candidates.
2) Two of the A-list candidates aim to be firsts, Clinton intends to be the first woman President and Obama the first African-American. The third A-lister, former Senator John Edwards, has an autobiography that is a heartwarming rags-to-riches story.
3) We’ve never seen anything like Obama before—never. Of course some of the elements of his campaign are derivative. Others (John Kennedy, FDR) have sought to minimize experience by speaking of dreams and a new generation of politics. Others (Howard Dean, Ross Perot) have appealed to many who for long have dropped out of politics. Many others (in election years GW Bush was very good at this) have elevated their candidacy by telling the best story. Others have used a gentle touch and a warm smile to break through the brittle prejudices that have so maligned the past. Many others have run as an outsider and sharpened the perception that one of their opponents (in this case, Hillary Clinton) is an insider. Others have invoked the Almighty in a way that is organic and even appealing to many who find such posturings self-aggrandizing and syrupy. Others have tied the various components of their campaigns together with the soft glue of idealism and the white hot passion charisma brings to any enterprise.
This provokes speculation about when Obama’s bubble will burst. This provokes speculation about what’s in the bubble—is it filled with charisma too? 0r, if he is lifted to his current level of attention by more than a bubble—and given America’s penchant for power—many are wondering why it took so long to find someone with whatever it is that Obama’s got.
4) The Democrats front runner is Clinton. She is ahead in most polls—though not in Iowa. She certainly is ahead in the race for the buckaroos sweepstakes. She has a large and talented staff. She has one of the best political minds in the country advising her—hubby Bill. She has shown herself to be a viable candidate. All that is good news for the junior senator from New York.
But she also is a candidate who has more problems than a US auto maker. She is not a powerful speaker a la Obama and Edwards. She brings new meaning to the phrase “high negatives.” As her recent comments in New Hampshire show, she refuses to say she made a mistake voting for the war in Iraq. To those who passionately hate the war, such actions shout she is obtuse. To others she simply looks silly and far too much like the President she is trying to replace. Many think she is over-calculating. Few find her warm. People support her, but there aren’t many who like her. She will not do well with the millions who look upon the presidential campaign as if it were a popularity contest. This is not to suggest that you have to be liked to be elected president—the landslide Nixon won in 68 proves that.
But the longer people look at Clinton, the more it is likely they will see a paradox. For the long term this may be yet another negative, for short term it makes her and her campaign more interesting.
5) You didn’t have to be in Springfield, Illinois shivering in ten degree weather on Saturday to know that when Obama speaks, he fills the air with a rich blend of effervescence, warmth, and high wattage electricity. Edwards always has been a dynamic and invigorating campaigner.
Though it is not one of the more accurate adages, many who follow politics closely like to think that the best campaigner will win most primaries. Kennedy, Reagan (in 80 and 84), and Bill Clinton give credence to this axiom. When Carter beat Ted Kennedy in 80, Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 80, and Mondale beat Hart for the nomination in 84, they provided ample evidence that disproved such maxims. But since Clinton is less than stellar campaigner and because she currently sits atop the heap . . . while two world class campaigners are in the number two and three spots in the polls—well this makes for very interesting politics.
6) Most crowded fields for a nomination quickly dwindle down to two. But if the Democrats three A-list candidates each have some stamina and staying power, the math becomes very complicated. To cite a very simple example. In a two candidate race, let’s say Candidate Red effectively hammers Candidate Blue. Red wins but his/her negatives go up. Given the same scenario and a three person race, Red’s negatives go up and Candidate White gains a significant tactical edge. Having three A-list candidates complicates the strategy a great deal—and makes the race much more interesting.
7) The Democrats have two veteran candidates waiting in the wings. Because the only cure for presidential ambition is embalming fluid—and even that is suspect . . . there are reports from a blog, fromtheotherside.com, that Nixon is still planning a comeback. Rumor has it he plans to balance the ticket with an “established Republican” who is also a longtime hunting partner of Dick Cheney (translation . . . he has nine lives). Those seeking proof of the afterlife or leaks about this rumor may seek out the oracle—some of Nancy Reagans’ letters in the Reagan Library—that Nixon and/or his ghost will make an appearance at the Comeback Diner in Paradise, California—about fifty miles north of Sacramento.
Rumors aside, there is always a chance that Kerry will think and hope (and pray) that people have forgotten his foray into standup . . . and he will attempt to return. But for Democrats, there is more bad news: Gore’s efforts on The Inconvenient Truth may yield an Oscar—another first for someone who was a major party nominee for the presidency. Whether or not the documentary wins the Oscar for best documentary, given the backbone replacement surgery Gore seems to have undergone, many will encourage him to return to the fray. Like the monster in the awful movie that refuses to die, the “Will-he-enter-the-race?” story probably will not go away for months.
8) The Republican front runners McCain and Giuliani have sided with the surge and so basically have placed their bets regarding Iraq. They now must wait and see if the surge works. They probably won’t bicker over Iraq—but the Democrats already are.
9) It appears to many that the pieces are coming together for significant work to be done regarding health care and global warming. These issues favor the Democrats. Add to this the mess Bush has made of the war in Iraq, the ricochets from the conservatives drive to make a great deal of noise about immigration that has alienated Hispanics, the echoes from the failure of the Bush Administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and you have a recipe that all but shouts that the Democrats should win Presidential election in 2008.
10) Most presidential elections are close, and because the Democrats have a knack for losing close elections—well that is just one more reason that for now the Democrats are more interesting than the Republicans.
American Politics and Denver Weather
Of course when it comes to politics, time follows different parameters than it does for most of us. Political winds are often a good deal like what the natives say about the weather in Denver. If you don’t like it, wait fifteen minutes. There are plenty of ways the Republicans could start soaking up a greater share of the spotlight. A McCain-Giuliani tiff could jump-start things nicely. But both candidates probably are too smart to attack so early in the campaign. Such confrontations would drive up an attacker’s negative ratings. Should Giuliani remain popular in the polls, the conservative wing of the party could rant, and if not rave, at least spend a lot of money and start some rich rumors. And there are the controversies Mitch Romney’s Mormonism brings—which could be a “story with legs” if he didn’t already have so many issues with the Christian Right.
But for a few spatters and burps, the staple of the media diet for a while probably will continue to be the Democrats.
Substance?
Which finally—thank goodness—brings us to something resembling substance, “Does this amount to a hill of beans?”
For the short term . . . No. It could work very much to the Republicans advantage to lay low, walk quietly, and prepare the big sticks that they will swing later. But if the Democrats continue to appear to be more interesting most of this year and next, then they will appear to . . . or might actually set the agenda. For the short term, sensible interest usually leads to good publicity. Good publicity leads to more good publicity which provides a fast-track to the money express. Money generates more real interest . . . as well as the opportunity to generate it synthetically should the need arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
