The Democratic Field

[question everything]

(the following is from Thursday, after Obama and before Clinton)

The Wall Street Journal

January 18, 2007

The Democratic Field
January 18, 2007; Page A16

(snip)

The race is between Hillary Rodham Clinton and everybody else. New York's junior Senator hasn't announced yet, but her troops have long been massing, ready to march on her orders. And what a political machine it is, starting with her husband, who has made it clear he is aching for her to run. Psychoanalyzing the Clintons is perilous, but we suspect the former President doesn't like the way his years in office ended, with impeachment, the Marc Rich pardon and Al Gore's failure to deliver a third symbolic term. A victory for his wife would be a kind of political redemption for him too. Mrs. Clinton brings her own considerable strengths, not least intelligence and self-discipline. She has performed far more smoothly in the Senate than many observers expected, and she hasn't been a polarizing figure in New York (winning 67% of the vote in November).

(snip)

From her national perch on the Armed Services Committee, Mrs. Clinton has so far also walked a remarkable tightrope on the Iraq war, only recently coming out for some sort of "cap" on the number of troops... Which brings up her biggest liability -- the fear in many Democratic hearts that she's not "electable." Mrs. Clinton carries much of the scandal baggage of her husband's tenure without much of his political charisma. If one potential Democratic theme is to run against the "divisive" Bush Republicans, Hillary is not your ideal "uniter." Perhaps American voters won't want to hear about Arkansas, et cetera, all over again, but then is that a risk Democrats want to take?

This is where Mr. Obama comes in, bidding to be the un-Hillary. At age 45, he's already managed the remarkable feat of writing his own autobiography, literally and politically. He's applauded for saying he's proud that he did inhale, and he has the virtue of being a genuinely fresh face. But campaigns have a way of filling in a candidate's resumes in ways other than they design, including their positions on actual issues. Mr. Obama is already moving left on national security -- which is dangerous ground for a political rookie amid what the Pentagon calls "the long war" on terror.

North Carolina's John Edwards is another vigorous contender, though the erstwhile Vice Presidential candidate failed to deliver his home state to John Kerry last time around. This time he's raising the decibels on his "two Americas" campaign theme, hoping to catch some of that Hubert Humphrey political magic. If he can sell this message as a millionaire trial lawyer, he'll have earned the nomination.

The rest of the Democratic field includes two governors -- Iowa's Tom Vilsack and New Mexico's Bill Richardson -- who have solid state records, and Mr. Richardson also has foreign-policy credentials. But both will have trouble breaking through the fund-raising barriers erected by the campaign-finance limits they themselves have supported. This is a shame, because both men have something to offer. And then there is the usual gaggle of Senators -- Dodd, Biden and even Kerry -- who are running because . . . well, because that seems to be what their DNA has programmed them to do.

(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116909207840579874.html (subscription)

[pat_k]

1. I wish more people would reject the chattering class's obsession with the "horserace". . .

. . .it's just a diversion from the reality of the present. And we desparately need to focus on the reality of the present if we are to break through the leadership's denial and irrational refusal to impeach Bush and Cheney.