Opinion
New face needed in 2008 for Democrats
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Sarah Howard:
- Ethics dominate election year (October 6, 2006)
- Wisconsin students extend helping hand (September 20, 2005)
- Public TV rejects Greens (October 13, 2006)
- Fulfilling their constitutional duty (September 27, 2005)
- Grant boosts language (October 20, 2006)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
It's never too early to start thinking about 2008. Just ask political pundits who have already started speculating about the DFL presidential nominees. On multiple news stations and in plenty of newspapers, Americans can find talking heads who are eager to share their analysis of every political movement Democrats make, followed by an explanation of how each plays into their supposed future campaign. Whether criticizing the handling of Iraq, commenting on a Supreme Court nominee or discussing the detention protocol, high-profile Democrats are painted as posturing for the nomination.
This may be a result of the apparent breakdown of the current administration. Little has gone right for the president, his staff or his party since the start of his second term, and the strain of persisting failures is reflected in Mr. Bush's record-low polling numbers. Political commentators who recognize Mr. Bush's weakness, and are always happy to highlight the adversarial tone of Washington politics, are thus focusing their attention on Democrats they believe will seek the Oval Office in '08.
At the present time, they are directing their attention at some old favorites. Familiar names like John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Al Gore and even George McGovern pepper speculative political analysis. Although these politicians have not officially declared their candidacy, pundits seem to be honing in on an increasingly defined pool of presidential candidates. And given the current political climate, this could be cause for Democratic concern.
The country has signaled it is ready for a change. Democrats especially are hungry for new leadership and a strong candidate who can excite their base and the wider electorate. After hair-splitting defeats in 2000 and 2004, members of the Democratic Party want a victory, but they would prefer a landslide — and that is the problem with the old favorites.
Though Messrs. Edwards, Kerry, Gore and McGovern have proven viable in the past, it is unlikely they will prove victors in the future. These men are admirable public servants and experienced politicians, but they already failed to convince a sufficient number of voters that they are presidential material. And for desperate Democrats, there is no time for second chances. History has shown time and again that even when political conditions for the opposition party appear favorable, a strong and outstanding candidate must campaign hard to secure any public office.
Take the example of Walter Mondale in Minnesota's race for U.S. Senate in 2002. Following the tragic death of Paul Wellstone in a plane accident, Democrats were anxious, or more accurately desperate, to rally around his replacement. When Mondale agreed to run, the relief in the Democratic Party was palpable. Dems believed that Mondale, despite a crushing defeat in his presidential bid, had the name recognition and the lingering popularity to defeat now-Sen. Norm Coleman.
However, as the election results would show, Mondale failed to stir the necessary voters to secure the senatorial seat. Despite his familiarity and popularity, he could not fill the void left by the passionate Wellstone.
Then, because Election Day was so imminent, Democrats had few candidates to turn to. Now, with the media pushing an ever-earlier commencement of the campaign season, the Democratic Party has time for careful selection. Old mistakes and former campaigns must not be repeated.
Instead, Democrats should seek a fresh start by supporting a new face among their presidential hopefuls. Their past two presidential campaigns lacked the personality and passion that stirred Americans to vote for Bill Clinton, who remains popular despite the trauma of his second term. Old favorites come with comfortable campaign messages and nostalgic memories, but they lack the fervor Clinton inspired in voters. As the march toward 2008 continues, Democrats would be smart to push some of their boldest members to the frontlines of presidential contenders.
Govs. Mark Warner of Virginia and Bill Richardson of New Mexico are both rumored to be considering presidential campaigns. Here in Wisconsin, Sen. Russ Feingold is a particularly tempting option for a party in need of a new and courageous candidate.
The past five years have been difficult for Democrats and many in this country. Now is the time for Democrats to throw their support boldly, but wisely, behind a candidate who offers a true alternative to our current president and whatever successor emerges from his party. The political limelight — and the hopeful voters — are waiting.
Sarah Howard (smhoward@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and journalism.
11 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Warner's the best option, and the guy who, behind the scenes, the party is going to put all their power behind. Feingold is viewed (partially unfairly) as too liberal, and Richardson has the problem of being connected to Clinton.
Expect it to go like this: Hillary will be 2008's Howard Dean. She'll be the front runner early, with the plan to be for Warner to pass her up right before the Iowa Caucus.
By the way, what I learned from working in government and politics for a few years: While we do control which of the candidates we elect in November, the party decides who is going to represent them. It's either going to be Warner v. Frist or Warner v. McCain. If you're a Democrat, hope for Warner v. Frist. Warner is a moderate, Frist is pretty far conservative. The moderate almost always wins. If you want someone who you know will govern without all the right wing influences we have right now, hope for Warner v. McCain. We'll be fine either way, at least as far as our social freedoms go.
We want Feingold! We want Feingold! We want Feingold!
Maybe the Dems could find someone more intelligent than Bush? Not that it was the only reason Kerry lost, but it didn't help that he wasn't as smart as Bush. A sock puppet could have beat Bush last time - but a sock puppet wouldn't have said a thing.
was the editor asleep on the job last night? DFL presidential nominees?
About Mondale: "Despite his familiarity and popularity, he could not fill the void left by the passionate Wellstone."
Hmm, annialated in his presidential bid and forever branded as a loser for it. I would find it hard to call him "popular".
You forgot to mention, as hard as it is for you to admit, that the Dems might be losing because of their *political positions*. Just a thought.
You know, W isn't the greatest politico. He doesnt have the smoothness of slick Willy, the youth of John Edwards, and the media is constantly against him, but he still wins. What he does have is ideas that he believes in, and the majority of America believes in. After 2 elections and growing majorities in the Congress.
Let me pause for a moment to let this fact sink in.
Also strangely missing from an article about 2008 Dem presidential hopefuls: Hillary. Especially since you're talking about inspiring people (for lefties that is, though perhaps more inspirational for republicans to vote against), a realistic chance for a female president. She realizes, just like Bill, its about the ideas. She's not blasting the war like the rest of the idiotic Dem leadership, because she knows what the focus groups say. Her problem just like her hubby's, is they dont actually believe in the things they say, and they're more than willing to change to accomodate the majority side of the polls. That worked in the 90s, but as Kerry found out, now with everyone having the internet, and all political speechs and votes easily searchable and accessible, and the rise of more conservative talk radio and other alternative media sources, you get caught pretty easily changing your mind 5 times during an election.
Though I will agree that the Dems need a inspiring candidate. The few Dem presidents that have beeen elected in the last 100yrs were more passionate than their opponents. They will have to be moderate though to even have a chance.
Why not John McCain? McCain-Feingold in '08 would give the democrats that landslide they so sorely desire, no?
I urge you and the entire Democratic Party to start paying more attention to Wesley Clark. I campaigned for him in 2004 and was privileged to meet him and hear him speak several times. This man has vision, curiosity, and vast leadership qualities. As far as I am concerned, his intelligence and his other qualities are just what we need to get us out of our mess both internationally and domestically.
Nell Pryor
Norman, Oklahoma
The DFL exists only in Minnasohta, ya hoser.
"Though Messrs. Edwards, Kerry, Gore and McGovern have proven viable in the past, it is unlikely they will prove victors in the future. These men are admirable public servants and experienced politicians, but they already failed to convince a sufficient number of voters that they are presidential material."
Hi Sarah:
interesting argument although I am in disagreement.
In particular, I take some exception to your including Gore in the list above. Here are the reasons why:
1. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by 500K+ votes (about .5%).
2. He most likely won Florida and hence the electoral college too. Recently, Pres. Carter was involved with working on a panel for electoral reform during which he was probably exposed to the 2000 Florida fiasco in depth; shortly after that work was concluded, he came to the opinion that, and I quote:
There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."
(link below)
3. These despite the fact that, due to Bill Clinton's sexual aberrations, and the impeachment, Gore was handed a severe handicap, which the Bush campaign made stick with their "honor and integrity" mantra.
4. The so-called "Main Stream Media" turned on Gore and it was the first occurrance of it to adequately respond to their mischaracterizations, spins and negative slants, presumably.
Today, Gore stands as a rather tall figure with tremendous credentials and he has given some of the most powerful political and issue speeches over the last 2-3 years, here and abroad. I invite you to read those speeches from the links posted below.
So, in summary, should Gore choose to run, given fair and balanced exposure by the media, he will most likely do very well in 2008.
Thanks.
Links:
1. Pres. Carter on Florida 2000: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html
2. Against the Iraq war: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
3. Opposing the Patriot Act: http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_09/issue_22/opinion_02.html
4. A large collection of speeches: http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2005/10/001981.html
I actually think Al Gore will make the strongest and most successful nominee and President. I am urging the Vice President to run and show America the good things he has to bring to America, in contrast to the two failed terms of the Bush Administration, lead by a so-called "wartime" President. Ridiculous.
we talk about kerry,gore, and past democratic losers. we fail to realize that the gop is in the worst of times as one can imagine at this moment !! think about it, al gore can easily win in 2008 !!