A couple of weeks ago, a veteran Democratic politico was in San Francisco. He noted that current estimates are that in 2008 it will cost at least $40 million to run as a Democratic presidential candidate. And, that sum takes you through the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. He said that only Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are likely to amass that much money before the opening 2008 contests.
If you want to stop here, run to the toilet, and toss your cookies, I’ll wait.
You heard right. The most likely 2008 Democratic presidential candidates are Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Before you touch those keys and fire off that angry email, please note that I am not suggesting they are the best the Dems have to offer. I’m merely pointing out what the word on the Democratic “street” is: Clinton and Kerry have the money and no one else does.
Go ahead, run to your window. Throw it open and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.”
Feel better? Then, consider this. In politics, as in much of American life, it’s money that matters. We’re unlikely to nominate the best Democratic candidates until there is real campaign finance reform. Until there are publicly financed elections at all levels of government, including the race for the Presidency.
Will this happen soon? Don’t hold your breath.
In the meantime, the best way to deal with the prospect that the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee will be either Hillary Clinton or John Kerry is to be clear about what they would have to do to be acceptable to the Dem rank-and-file.
Kerry is easy. He had his chance in 2004 and blew it. He’s not a fighter. Enough said.
Hillary is more complicated. As a Quaker I’ve had lots of experience with women in positions of leadership. That’s convinced me that it would be a good thing for the US to elect a female president. But, that’s not a sufficient reason to nominate Hillary.
The junior Senator from New York is pro-choice, pro-woman, and pro-family. I’m pro-choice too, in my own Quakerly fashion. My wife, daughters, and granddaughters make me aware that the Bush Administration has thwarted the movement for equal rights for women. They’ve given the American family the shaft. Once again, Hillary’s position on these issues is good, but not a sufficient reason for me to support her.
Hillary is smarter than George W. Bush. Duh. She's probably better on most issues than anyone the Republicans will nominate. She’s certainly preferable to John McClain, who is a social conservative and wants to send more troops into Iraq, among other crazy notions. And, the other likely Republican nominee is Bill Frist, who is an empty suit.
But, I have problems with Senator Clinton. They start with Iraq. I find her position incomprehensible. It seems to me that you either support Bush’s “stay until we win” position on Iraq or you are for some form of withdrawal. Clinton’s statements—‘we must have timetables for success,” “the President broke Iraq, he has to fix it”—seem to me to be deliberately evasive. They suggest that she’s waiting until the last minute, until definitive poll results are in, before taking a position. I don’t know what you call this where you live, but in Berkeley we say this is chicken shit politics.
If there were a Democratic Presidential primary today, in California, I would vote for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. I know where Feingold stands on the issues I care about, like Iraq. I admire him for taking a stand against The Patriot Act and against NSA warrantless eavesdropping, among other things.
It’s informative to compare Clinton and Feingold. Hillary has raised tons of money; every day seems to bring a new email from one of her minions—Ann Lewis, James Carville—asking for donations. Feingold seems not to care much about money; he champions campaign finance reform.
Hillary is evasive on issues like Iraq, national security, and morality in government. Feingold isn’t.
The smart money says that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in 2008; argues that Russ Feingold hasn’t got a prayer. Maybe that’s the case. But if I were Hillary, or one of her advisers, I’d pay attention to Feingold. I’d remember that no one gave Howard Dean a chance in 2004 and he came out of nowhere, raised a ton of money from unconventional sources, and got close to the nomination. A lot of us feel that, in retrospect, he would’ve been a hell of a lot better candidate than John Kerry. Dean is a fighter. So’s Russ Feingold.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
For years now, Mrs. Clinton has been travelling the nation raising vast sums of money, not only for her own war chest but for the benefit of other democrats as well. She has raised money so that she can call in markers at the convention and can run a campaign that is going to cost in excess of 100 million I suspect, thats what Bush spent in '04.
I , unlike the author of this well done piece, will never vote for her, period. I have become used to ineffective Democratic candidates I guess, having voted for neither Gore nor Kerry in two consecutive Presidential races now. Looks to me like its going to be three in a row.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 15, 2006 at 6:13:34 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
1 | 2
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
