Sen. John F. Kerry's
concession speech Wednesday officially brought down the curtain on
the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign -- and raised it for
2008.
Though the next contest is, officially, four years
hence, the planning and maneuvering has begun, with Democrats and
Republicans both laying out potential ground games and identifying
tickets they believe will bring the White House home for their
respective parties.
For Democrats, the calculation appears
relatively simple. Party solons will likely not conclude, as they
did after George H.W. Bush defeated Massachusetts Gov. Michael
Dukakis in 1988, that the party had drifted hopelessly to the left
and needed to be recaptured by what consultant Dick Morris referred
to as the vital center. Whatever conclusions might be drawn from the
2004 election, the idea that Kerry's leftward agenda for the United
States damaged his hopes for winning the White House is likely not
one of them.
Kerry's agenda was embraced by the Democratic
Leadership Council, which vouched for its moderate nature. The
campaign between Bush and Kerry, given the closeness of the polls
once the campaign began in earnest after Labor Day, reinforces the
idea that the ideological tint of the issues mattered little in the
final calculation. Most people looking at the results, which showed
Bush winning the popular vote by roughly 2 million and the Electoral
College by a just few handfuls, will likely conclude that the
results were more a matter of political muscle -- of identifying
likely potential voters and getting them to the polls on both sides
-- rather than an effective campaign built on specific issues that
of themselves drove people out to vote.
If, therefore, the
focus is on the maximizing of the Democrats' vote in 2008, then the
logical choice for the party is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
D-N.Y.
The former first lady is, according to most polls, the
second-most popular figure in the party behind her husband, former
President Bill Clinton. In addition to the network her husband built
in his two successful runs for the White House, she has her own,
somewhat more liberal contacts in the political finance and activist
communities. When the two are married together, the product is a
political machine that would be unstoppable as far as the drive to
the nomination is concerned.
Should Clinton choose not to
run, or should she lose her bid to win re-election to the Senate in
2006, then the likely front-runner would be Sen. John B. Edwards,
D-N.C., who acquitted himself well in his role as Kerry's 2004
running mate.
Of all the potential Democratic candidates
other than Clinton, only Edwards has both the experience of having
run for president in a prior election and a national operation that
can be converted to his own. Edwards, unlike Kerry, has a legitimate
claim to the "thoughtful moderate" wing of the Democratic Party
because, as a candidate from the South, he has the innate cultural
awareness needed to sell the liberal agenda necessary to win his
party's nomination in the centrist manner required to stay
competitive in the general election.
On the Republican side,
the choice is, for the first time since 1948, far less clear. Dick
Cheney is the first vice president in several decades not to be
angling for the top job himself, meaning the field is, in a
comparative sense, wide open.
One Republican already believed
to be running is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who,
with 53 or 54 other Republicans behind him, now has a real chance to
demonstrate just what he is made of. As the leader of a solidly
Republican Senate, Frist is positioned to emerge as a leader on a
host of conservative causes from tax cuts to tort reform, healthcare
reform and the transformation of the federal courts. Beyond that,
Frist will be a formidable candidate because, the thinking goes,
Karl Rove, the architect of George W. Bush's two successful bids for
the White House, may be in his corner for 2008.
In addition
to Clinton, there are two other potential presidential candidates
from New York politics, although from the GOP side: Gov. George
Pataki and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani who, after Bush,
is the second-most popular Republican in the United States. Were
either man to challenge and defeat Clinton in 2006, the new senator
from New York would immediately move to the top of the list of
potential candidates.
Being from the same state, however,
creates problems for both men -- as they would be competing for
electoral support and financial resources from the same political
base. As governor, Pataki is well positioned to choke off the money
Giuliani would need to run nationally, while Giuliani's overwhelming
popularity and charisma and his reputation for strong and decisive
leadership would easily eclipse Pataki among party
activists.
A Frist candidacy would likely keep any other
Senate Republican from making a bid -- including John McCain,
R-Ariz., who came closer than some liked to knocking George W. Bush
out of the race in 2000. McCain's status as The New York Times'
favorite Republican is almost certainly a disqualifier in the
post-George W. Bush GOP.
Another name that is being quietly
discussed is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who many still
remember fondly as the architect of the 1994 GOP landslide upon
which succeeding electoral successes are built.
The
circumstances of Gingrich's departure from elective life are
considered by some to be a liability, but through his activities as
a commentator for Fox News Channel and his work on the modernization
of the U.S. healthcare system he has both softened and rebranded his
public image to a considerable degree. His first-rate mind, keen
understanding of U.S. political cycles and the national network of
contacts and financial supporters he first amassed as chairman of
the Republican GOPAC organization and burnished in his four years as
speaker would make him, from a tactical sense, a strong candidate
should he choose to make the race.
The most likely candidates
for the GOP nomination come from outside Washington among the
nation's governors. Names mentioned with some frequency include
Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who
both hail from states that play significant roles in the nominating
and general-election process and who have established records as
conservative reformers on a host of domestic issues.
A final
name that is worth a more considerable mention than on its face
might seem warranted is Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. There has
never been a president of the United States from the Deep South and
the state has just six electoral votes, hardly significant in the
grand scheme of things on the order of New York, Texas, Florida or
California. However, there is a broad consensus that, of all the
Republicans on the national scene, there are few who can talk about
the party's values and the GOP agenda in as appealing and welcoming
a way as Barbour. A master of the political language of the United
States, he is also a skilled political tactician, having worked in
the Reagan White House political office among other postings.
Barbour's tenure as chairman of the Republican National
Committee was highly successful; many of the committee's more
influential members remain friends and political allies and could,
if they chose, help him to assemble a national organization second
to none, and in very short order.
|
|
From New York to New Delhi,
nutritionists are sounding the alarm about the rising tide of
obesity, especially among children, and public health
officials worry about how, or even whether, to try and stop
it. (Click on photo for full story).
|
Breaking News
Tuesday 9th November,
2004
|
Have your say on this
story