My good friend Jack W. works for an environmental regulatory consulting firm in DC (no, I don’t have any idea what he does all day, but it sounds pretty fancy). And he’s a very astute political observer.
I asked him–as a “progressive Republican” (and a Vermonster, just like Howard Dean)–to comment on the Democratic Presidential frontrunners. His pithy, incisive response follows:
My Republican perspective probably isn’t much different from the average Democratic voter, if anything I have more objectivity because I could give (Ed.–expletive deleted) about who gets the nomination. But then I also consider myself a progressive Republican, so at the least I can understand where these guys are coming from.
I don’t know if I am ready to break down the stances of the individual Democratic nominees yet, because from the nine-person debates it is really hard to get an idea where each of them stand on certain issues. The debates are really not debates, they are more like caucuses where the candidates are trying to gauge what positions
they should take, which position draws the most applause, and who can slight Howard Dean the most.
I can comment on their standing and nomination chances, based on first impressions. First, you have the candidates with a legitimate shot, which means they have reliable ground operations set up in each state, a grassroots base of supporters, and decent name recognition amongst registered Democrats.
They are: Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, and Clark. The “show” candidates, those that are trying desperately to get a speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention are Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, and Kucinich. To some extent Kucinich serves to force the front runners further to the left (or balance center leaning Lieberman), while Sharpton and Braun are your token minority and female candidates–they stand to increase their political capital by endorsing one front runner in the late stages of the race, essentially sending that candidate all their votes (or delegates if they get any) once the nominee is chosen.
Out of the six legitimate challengers, Lieberman is too centrist (too Gore-ish if you will, plus he already lost last cycle), Edwards has the least name recognition (no message platform, weak base, and too much like Kerry), and Clark is too much of a political novice. The difference between Clark and Eisenhower (if we are comparing generals and NATO supreme commanders) is that Ike was someone to rally around (he won WWII). While Clark has got the perfect credentials, he is not well respected in the Pentagon, and really only won that piddly little war in Bosnia. He has an excellent resume and is extremely smart, however, as we witnessed in 2000, outright intelligence does not get you elected (it’s like book smart vs. street smarts).
According to Donnie Fowler, his campaign manager for the first three weeks of the campaign, Clark has also disconnected from his local support (the DraftClark folks,
local Arkansans, etc.) and taken on a bevy of Washington insiders to advise him. Wrong move–didn’t work for Gore in 2000 (even with his last ditch attempt at moving campaign headquarters to Tennessee). This disconnect will ultimately be his demise because voters like to be coddled in the primaries. It’s like your first couple dates with a girl… (Ed.–I’ve removed an analogy here that some of this Weblog’s readers might find offensive). Dean has practically adopted Iowa and New Hampshire as his base of operations and has spent so much time on the road, he is welcome in anyone’s bedroom.
So your legitimate front runners: Kerry, Gephardt, and Dean. Kerry has a shot, eloquent speaker, war hero, solid democratic ideals, plenty of money. But for some reason I can’t feel comfortable around him. Maybe its that his skin looks like it could fall off his face any minute, maybe its his wishy-washy stance on the war, maybe he is too Northeastern privileged liberal, I just don’t think he gets the nod.
If Gephardt wins Iowa and has a solid showing in New Hampshire, then things could steam roll for him. He’s got a great base in Iowa, and the Midwest (states with big electorals like Ohio, Illinois), great union support, and is an established democratic leader–I like his chances.
Dean, let’s call him the people’s candidate, brings the most energy to the campaign. The guy is a fireplug, not afraid to say anything and not afraid to stand up to Bush. All the candidates say they “disagree” with Bush on that, “disagree” with Bush on this. Dean says stuff like, I “hate” the way Bush is running the country, I “hate” Bush’s stance onthe war, implying that not only does he disagree, but that he actually
hates Bush himself and if the two were locked in a room together, punches would be thrown, not just ideals. His pre-campaign work was great, with the Internet rallies, the continuous road trips, and buzz generation. He has the most money due to this
effort, and if he can deny public funding, will increase his standing even further (a bold
step to take for any Democrat, considering Bush’s war chest).
It is a pretty amazing transformation from watching him in Vermont, it’s like he has grown another foot in stature and confidence (which could help, cause he is only 5’5″). Other Ds do not like him for some reason, probably because he doesn’t play nice and pisses off people in his own party. If he can withstand the wrath of his own party, then I think he has a shot. He polls well with voters, and that is who politicians are supposed to take their cues from, so maybe the party will come around and support him over the next few months. If that happens, Terry McAuliffe (DNC head) should start looking for a new job, probably getting an early start on the Hillary 2008 campaign.
That’s all I’ve got for now, check back in a few weeks and I’ll talk about decent vice-presidential candidates, and who they might match up with.