In reviewing the 2008 line-up of Democratic candidates, I relish the fact that Democratic primary voters will soon face a rich array of diversity in their choice. This occurrence is only the beginning of a trend that should continue forevermore… cause it is high time! But the question must be asked: Will this historical opportunity of multiple minority candidates vying for the same presidential office one day be seen as too much of a good thing?
As a minority myself, it’s not about what I want to see happen, but rather, what are the possible eventual scenarios as they connect to what is happening today? And so, I put on my electoral strategic cap and analyze the field:
before she wins one primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton has already accomplished a “first”: First former “First Lady” to run for president. She could later add to her list, first woman to win the Democratic nomination and, later still, First Woman President of one of two families to have alternated with one another for a potential 28 year rule. How’s that for “Firsts” to be recorded in the annals of American history?
Sen. Clinton is a tough, calculative and pragmatic politician. Her name recognition and the fact that she’ll be running “two Clintons for the price of one” is an offer that some will find hard to refuse. Her advantages include her understanding of the political back room games better than most and that she has shown herself, to date, to be a shrewd politician. She will be undeniably an outstanding political competitor in the money and media game.
Hillary's vote and continuing stance on the Iraq War is her Achilles heel, as is the fact that she is a woman. Her last name being Clinton is at the same time a disadvantage and an advantage. Disadvantageous due to the dynasty objection, and the polarizing affect she may have on the opposing side. However, most strategists believe that she can and will most likely garner a large chunk of the women vote, as well as that of the “four more years for William Jefferson Clinton” devotees. But will that be enough?
Sen. Barack Obama is young, fresh, intelligent, African-American, and skilled in oratory. Thus far, he’s about as smart as they come in the arena of politics. He appears to have an innate sense of good judgment, (he was against the Iraq War from the gate), sports a color-blind demeanor, and similar rhetoric, that beams out: Very acceptable “First Black President”.
Sen. Obama's lack of experience in foreign policy is minimized by those who say that his personal background mirrors the composition of the United Nations, and that is helpful. His work on causes for the poor dates back to his pre-political aspirations and evidences his earnest commitment to the issues he holds dear. The television cameras find that he can do no wrong, and the word from the press is that he has “It”.
Undoubtedly, Obama is destined to gain the lion’s share of Black voter support (anyone who says otherwise is delusional), the “Fresh face” vote, and the “About time for a Black President” politically correct liberal vote. There will be voters who will vote for another fearing his lack of experience; voters who won’t vote for him due to his race; and still more voters who will prophesy that he simply is unable to win, because there are too many that will not vote for a Black man, thus perpetuating their own theory.
John Edwards is the only outsider (although an insider until 2004) white southern male in the top contender bunch. His supporters cheerily admit that his classic youthful all-American good looks and his “Camelot” family image work to his favor.
Although as a senator, Edwards initially championed the Iraq War, co-sponsored the infamous Iraq War Resolution along with a cadre of conservative Senators, and stood stoically by his vote for three years, he eventually apologized for his mistake stating that he had been misled by the Bush administration. The corporate press has yet to highlight this earlier lack of judgment as a question of competence (considering their own collective misjudgment, they may not), and prefer to focus on his November 2005 apology, which some rationalize as enough to earn him a promotion to leader of the free world.
Edwards is more often lauded for his poverty stance which he has worked to his political advantage with progressive voters. However, one is hard-pressed to locate a single piece of poverty legislation (besides the standard fare of raising the minimum wage) that Edwards championed in his six years in the senate. Ever since his “Two America” speech was widely praised by the media during last primary season; the poverty issue has become synonymous with the failed ’04 Vice Presidential candidate from North Carolina.
By concentrating on cultivating organized labor, Edwards has enamored himself to voters who want to see the shrinking power of unions reversed. When the issue of his 2004 electoral loss (including his own southern state) comes up, his supporters quickly retort, “no one votes for Vice President”.
Add an outspoken and politically savvy wife by his side, a compelling personal story, and Edwards is a contender to be reckoned with. He can, at times, come off as an unauthentic smooth talker, and has himself admitted having to work at being real. He may get the “swoon” vote that Obama doesn’t get, the union vote, the populist vote, and the self-perpetuating “minorities can’t win, so I’ll vote for this white guy” vote. As the only southern candidate running, he’s also in line to receive a sizeable portion of the non-ethnic southern voters.
Gov. Bill Richardson’s resume makes the others’ pale in comparison. As a twice-elected Governor from New Mexico, his executive experience is vast, and unlike other candidates, his foreign policy is just as deep. His good balance of various elected and appointed offices, leaves him as most qualified on paper to be president. In addition to all of his domestic and foreign policy experience, he also happens to be of Hispanic origins while sporting an all-American name and coming from a southwestern swing state. His work on the immigration issue cuts both ways; he’s taken tough stances on immigration, while ironically some will distrust him as he is part of the very minority group blamed for the “problem” to begin with.
Bill Richardson is portly and jovial; he is moderate, measured and speaks rather clearly. He is a sure bet to win the largest growing voting bloc in America; the coveted Hispanic vote (those who say that, because he is Mexican, other Hispanics may not feel the need to vote for him are in for a shock). Also, due to the fact that Native Americans make up a large portion of New Mexico, one can also presume that many in the Native American community will also support Bill Richardson.
Add voters who want experience in foreign policy, or want executive office qualifications, who will see him as a highly favorable candidate. His experience makes it clear that he can attract voters that Obama cannot. However, there are some issues in Bill Richardson’s recent past that may lead women voters (even those who are Hispanic) to look elsewhere. Nevertheless, Richardson has several built-in constituencies; a quality that makes him formidable even without national name recognition. But will his mediocre charisma and noticeable self-promoting manner (I’ve done it all!), lacking the balance of an inspirational vision, make him less magnetic?
The other candidates running are either consummate politicians and/or vanity candidates. All are white, none are southern, and none are considered material to changing the outcome as it relates to the top contenders (they may make a tiny dent). Both Senator Joe Biden and Senator Chris Dodd are senators who also voted for the unpopular war and although both are considered experienced, neither is potentially impressive to the majority of progressive voters. Senator Biden, considered a Sunday morning news show fixture, is often denigrated for his too many appearances to so little effect.
Gov. Tom Vilsack was recently thrown into the mix as the bland DLC afterthought and former Governor of the first primary state, Iowa, the state which propelled both underdogs Kerry and Edwards in 2004. The Clinton and Obama camps hope Vilsack can bring Edwards, who has been parked in the state since ‘04, down a few notches.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich is fiery and “mad as hell”, but a non-starter due to his staunch pacifism, his lack of stature and gravitas, and his personal life story which lists two ex-wives and a beautiful new one half his age. He is what some term the “vanity” candidate for the “principled” left. The standard line from many progressive Democratic voters regarding “The Kuch” is that he speaks for them, but they at the same time admit that he stands no chance to win. Oddly enough, during the ’04 Iowa Democratic Caucus, the pacifist Kucinich ordered his votes to be given to (at the time) Iraq war-supporting Edwards, as opposed to war-opposing Howard Dean….so principles may be relative, politically speaking.
One could add Sen. John Kerry into the mix just for old time’s sake. I don’t see him as viable at this point due to his loser status just a couple of years ago, though he will most likely run. But I don’t see him making a large difference, and put him in the line up with the “others” at the sideline that I mentioned previously.
To date, we do not know if Gen. Wesley Clark will throw his hat into the ring this time around. Although he ran in 2004, he started late, didn’t contest Iowa, and was running in his first political election.
Interestingly enough, Wes Clark is the one who could dramatically change the current dynamics of the primary race. First and foremost, the situation in Iraq/Iran makes Clark once again a relevant candidate for the times. The General’s record of military success is unmatched by any other candidate, including Sen. Kerry, as Clark would be the only candidate who successfully planned, led and won a war, all the while negotiating with multiple heads of states. His intense knowledge of foreign policy stands to make a large dent in Richardson’s claim as the candidate best versed in the area. It is in fact Clark’s “early and often” detailed plans of reasonably securing Iraq while negotiating the U.S. out of the war that could neutralize Hillary, (as she and the Big Dog come as a pair), considering her documented hawkishness and lack of apologies on her Iraq vote.
Wesley Clark adds domestic national security to the national debate, something none of the other candidates offers. As the former director of Strategic Planning for the Joint Chiefs under Clinton, Clark as the “competent and credible national security” candidate could spotlight the issue of domestic terrorism. As an emergency preparedness expert (in partnership with former FEMA head James Lee Witt), Clark brings in disaster management (i.e., Katrina) as an important component to the national debate; an issue which would otherwise go missing and a debate unfortunately focused currently on personalities and charisma.
Wes Clark also disqualifies Obama as the only top contender who was right on Iraq. Not only did the General see the invasion as a bad idea as early as the summer of 2002, but he also foretold how events would unfold 98% accurately.
Clark is also a Southerner which would deprive John Edwards the sole mantel. Even Edwards’ claim to poverty and union issues (to which Obama is currently his only rival) become less potent, as General Clark has publicly come out with steps to combat not only poverty, but what Edwards seem to have forgotten, the middle class blues.
The General's call for the reasonably paced transition to a single-payer health system is revolutionary, and his proposal that labor unions regain lost strength via offering innovative nationwide services to the under- and unemployed sector of the population, makes good sense, according to many activists. Clark also brings the military families concerned with our current state of affairs to his side; a 10 million potential constituency that otherwise is left unrepresented. (I don’t believe John Kerry is capable of successfully staking claim to this constituency due to the botched joke debacle.)
And so getting back to the original question: Are multiple minority candidates too much of a good thing? The Cliff Note answer is that “could be”. In the past, minority voters might have migrated to one or two candidates, but this time around, each candidate will attract a reasonably predictable portion of his/her representative constituency. Without Clark in the race, the quantitative divisive math has John Edwards winning the contest by default.
In concluding the analysis of the possible Democratic candidates, if General Wes Clark chooses to run, the dynamics for all of the candidates change significantly. Wes Clark entering the race makes the primaries much more competitive for all of the contenders. Ironically, Clark is the key to leveling out the playing field so that each minority candidate remains a viable contender.
With Clark out, yes, it will be true, Democrats will have had too much of a good thing to have changed anything. In the kaleidoscope of candidates contesting the Democratic primaries, I welcome a larger number than that which most pundits estimate is enough.
And one last minor detail; Wes Clark’s entry into the race would prohibit the press from calling the Democratic line up “Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs”. That may be a minor thing to some, but I don’t relish hearing this Disney cartoon title day in, day out for the next year!
So jump on in, Wes Clark; you’re needed in the political forest ASAP!