Who's On Fourth?

So we have our top-three in the already over-discussed 2008 Presidential Primary. On the Republican side, we have three candidates who seem to have muddled pasts when it comes to being the hardline conservative that republcian primary voters like to see. Guiliani, Romney 4.0, and McCain all have histories of not taking the actions a quintessential Republican would especially Romney (see Mitt Romney, Romney 2.0, Romney 2.1, Romney 3.0, and Romney 3.6).

On the Democratic side, we have Obama and Hillary, with John Edwards taking somewhat of a backseat in the media but still holding a strong third nationally. Remember, this is a man who has been running for president nonstop since mid-2002, and he presents a formidable challenge for such a sunshiny face and light rhetoric. Many Democrats are either decided or at the point of a coin toss between Hillary and Obama. I think they can both win, but that's a story for a different blog.

But the top three rarely stay that way this far out (remember Gephardt) . There's always a little suffling, and usually a second-tier candidate breaks in at some point in a favorite-son primary. An people love insurgents (especially NH independents), and with this much name recognition being generated this far out, none of the top tier candidates will seem "insurgent" to voters. So that leaves an open door.

Republicans? I don't think the Republcian field is finished filling up yet, with Hagel, Gringrich, and Fred Thompson all considering later runs. But currently, those unhappy with the present field (a group I predict will get much larger when the former positions of the top-tier start getting news and attack ads fly) have found solace in Senator Brownback, a self described "bleeding heart conservative" from Kansas. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is another good candidate (and a governor, we love them!) who totes the conservative line well. These two may pull a Howard Dean and rally up the base like no other candidates in the field. I hope they do; I think people are at their best when they're voting their ideals and not just for a winner (even if they are voting anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc.)

Democrats? Richardson is probably the most likeable and the most "worthy" to be our next president. He's gone up the ranks: US Rep, Amabassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and now re-elected governor of New Mexico with 69% of the vote in 2006. He could make nice with the rest fo teh world well; he's also a Hispanic and might lock up that growing democraphic for the Democrats. But he is very Washington, and that probably won't resonate well with voters; he is as slick a politician as they come. Joe Biden is getting a lot of press, especially with southern and western Democrats; indeed, the man was elected senator as soon as he was old enough to be. And he ran for President in 1988, back when he was still practically a rising star. But the man won't keep quiet; he talks to much for his own good and listens too little. Sounds like a good senator to me. Chris Dodd evokes the same emotion Richard Gephardt did: he's experienced beyond belief, he served his time, he's a nice guy, and he has core Democratic values; he could probably run the country very well. But he's just not that exciting. Kucinich; I love the guy, but sorry. Vilsack could've been on fourth; a midwestern governor with a great energy policy could bring the party and the country to where it needs to be, but an honest, hardworking midwesterner like Vilsack rarely has as much money as the East Coast big city folks. Poor guy, I liked him.

Of all the candidates who looked like good contenders for this election, one sticks out in my mind as the most likely to have won this election, no matter who he was running against: Mark Warner. I still have a draft Warner pin from when I saw him speak. He was impressive, a Caucasian male businessman with centrist ideas, a Democrat from a Red State that loved him, and a very good speaker. It's just too bad he didn't stick it out.

Now we've got some powerful people still waiting in the wings on the Democratic side. Wesley Clark visited New Hampshire recently, but he hasn't shown much other indication. He may make the same mistake as last time and enter too late. Even if he did, I think he'd do better than Edwards. His great speech at the 2004 Convention and his centrist, pro-defense, and pro-globalist positions would make him hard to beat.

Then there's Al Gore. He's my personal favorite. The best part is, he's already won a presidential election. Imagine, a candidate who won an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, had a strong message, was somewhat of an outsider, a populist southerner, and a charismatic speaker with "movie-star" fame. Sounds like a good candidate to me. Al Gore is (with the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize, which he's in the running for) all of those things.

So who's on fourth? You can't say yet, but if someone gets there, they may very well have hit a homerun.

Thank you for reading.