Today, the National Journal released their latest rankings on the Democrats seeking the presidential nomination in 2008. Here are their rankings:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Bill Richardson
5. Chris Dodd
6. Tom Vilsack
7. Joe Biden
8. Wesley Clark
9. Dennis Kucinich
10. Mike Gravel
Make sure to check out what they have to say about each candidate and the fundraising predictions that they are making.
Let me add a couple of things to the questions or things they are talking about in their descriptions of each candidate. It seems that they frame Clinton’s problem as one of responsibility or the ability to appear genuine. Iowa Democrats, in my opinion, are looking for a genuine candidate who is able, ready, and willing to admit mistakes. John Edwards and Barack Obama easily have that advantage over her — and I’m pretty sure some Iowa Democrats are already holding that against her.
Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder are looking for some staff beyond Nevada to impress them some more and prove that he is everyone’s second choice. Here’s some nice news that I have heard: former Iowa Democratic Party Field Director Brad Frevert has joined Richardson’s campaign as his go-to guy for Iowa field operations. Frevert’s an Iowa-boy, and worked with Jesse Harris (who is Vilsack’s field guy), so we know he’s got Iowa field knowledge coming out the wazoo.
They note that Chris Dodd is basically raising lots of money because he’s got a cushy position as Chair of the Senate Banking Committee. It is true, but he’s also taking leadership on restoring Habeas Corpus. That’ll give him a little edge with which to hold on to some grassroots activists.
Finally, we get to Vilsack, and this is the question I have to ask: Does the endorsement of Barack Obama by Tom Miller and Mike Fitzgerald really mean anything? Todd and Ambinder seem to think that’s bad news, as do the folks over at CityView’s Civic Skinny. Now, maybe because I’m young I might be a bit naive about Iowa politics, but do Miller and Fitzgerald really have that big of a following in Iowa that their endorsement would swing Iowa voters to Obama? I don’t believe that for one bit, but I guess I have to keep inserting the naive bit just in case. Both Miller and Fitzgerald have been around in state Democratic politics forever and neither were indebted to Vilsack at all, so I don’t think there was a lot of pressure for Vilsack to lock up their endorsement.
And let’s not forget, Tom Miller endorsed Joe Lieberman in 2004 and Lieberman didn’t even make it to the caucuses. I’m not saying Obama won’t make it to the caucuses (he will) but Miller seems to endorsed based on how well you’re doing early on in the race, not simply based on issues.
Finally, Joe Biden will be back in the state this weekend (or is supposed to be, but it looks like Sen. Reid might be scheduling a vote for Saturday), so I think we’ll officially be able to gauge Iowan reactions to his campaign after he’s been here as a serious candidate.
Anyway, what’re your thoughts on the rankings? And if you haven’t already, make sure to vote in the poll on the left side of the page.
12 Comments
Thoughts
I would put John Edwards in front of Barack Obama for now. Edwards will have comparable funds after the first quarter and a superior ground game. The only thing that could put Obama ahead of Edwards, for now, is hype.
There’s no way Bill Richardson belongs in the top 4. Way too many skeletons. Way too little organization.
I think Joe Biden has one of the most interesting plans for Iraq that exist today. I think it makes a lot of sense, so long as there is a unified national Iraqi army to defend from Syrian and Iranian influence. If his plan gets the nationwide coverage it deserves, Biden could take buzz away from mainstream candidates who only discuss troop withdrawal when discussing Iraq. I’m not saying his plan is best. But, it’s a different alternative.
snipehunter Thu 15 Feb 5:10 PM
Will it work?
For Biden’s plan, which as far as I can tell from my reading of it, is basically imposing a kind of federalism on to Iraq. It is a creative solution, but I honestly don’t know what to think of it. At first glance, the biggest problem to me is that for federalism to work, the people have to want to be divided and have to want to face decentralized power–to some degree–while still ceding some kind of national or federal power. Right now, I just don’t see that working in Iraq.
chris-woods Thu 15 Feb 5:23 PM
Biden's Magic Pony Plan
Biden’s plan would work as well as endorsing giving everyone in Iraq a pony. It’s jsut not going to happen. Bush is in charge and as long as he is, there really are only two options- forcing withdrawal or doing what Bush wants.
Does anyone really think that after 6 years Bush will see the error of his “decider” ways, look at someone else’s (like Biden’s) plan, and say “Gosh, you have a point! My way is not working, let’s try yours.” Not gonna happen.
So what Biden is saying is “Let’s kill and die for another 2 years, and THEN when I become President, we’ll try this NEW thing that may or may not work, but will certianly eep us in Iraq killing and dying for another 2 or 3 years.”
Magic pony plans give Bush cover and extend the war, and all for the slim gamble that they may work. We are down to the rent money and some politicians want to put all that rent money on Red 7 because they have a hunch.
boringdad Fri 16 Feb 9:49 PM
Story County Soup Supper
Actually, Biden said some great things about our foreign policy problems tonight. Sure, the things he is talking about won’t be enacted by the Bush Administration, but Biden has a much better vision of the world and our place in it than any Republican, and better than most Democrats.
Biden is not my first choice, however, for the Democratic nomination.
tom Fri 16 Feb 11:12 PM
Frevert
Chase Martyn of Iowa Progress has a bit of a bio here on Brad Frevert.
chris-woods Thu 15 Feb 5:26 PM
Miller and Fitzgerald Endorsements
I agree that their endorsements don’t help Obama much, unless they work hard in building Obama’s organization as Iowa co-chairs. Miller may be in Ames for the Soup Supper tomorrow night, for instance.
But I agree with many that it is a big slap at the Vilsack campaign at a time when he is struggling for traction. He seems stuck in fourth place. Vilsack has to win in Iowa to be a viable candidate nationally, and he will need the support of most of the big league players in Iowa. That includes longstanding officeholders like Miller and Fitzgerald. Turning their backs on Vilsack so early, when it really was not necessary, definitely hurts Vilsack’s chances.
tom Thu 15 Feb 5:59 PM
Harkin and AFSCME endorsed Dean
Let’s be honest. Most Iowans don’t even know who Fitzgerald is. Tom Miller is well liked, but then, so is Tom Harkin, and it didn’t help Dean.
As an Edwards supporter, I would obviously like to see Edwards pick up more endorsements in Iowa (so far Ed Fallon is probably the most prominent). But endorsements won’t decide this thing so much as “organize, organize, organize and then get hot at the end.”
As for Hillary, I think Iowa Democrats are looking for someone who can win. Which is not to say that electability is the only issue, but it is a factor. One of my own brothers, who never votes Republican, swears that he will write in a candidate if Hillary is the nominee.
I am not saying that’s a large slice of the electorate–maybe 5 percent?–but the number of Democrats who dislike Hillary Clinton is large enough to raise a lot of questions about her electability. My brother would vote for any of the other Democratic contenders in a heartbeat if they were the nominee.
I like Edwards’ domestic policy priorities, and I like his proposals so far, especially the health care reform that offers the chance to evolve toward single payer. But I would be lying if I said that I would support him even if I thought he were not electable. If I didn’t think he could beat the Republicans, I would be looking elsewhere despite my support for Edwards as the best progressive in the race.
desmoinesdem Thu 15 Feb 6:49 PM
Being Honest
I agree wholeheartedly that endorsements don’t mean much, especially in the Iowa caucuses. But favorite sons need support from their state party, and Vilsack is not getting a fraction of the support Harkin got in 1992. So, in this case I think the Miller and Fitzgerald endorsements do say something, about Vilsack, not Obama.
tom Thu 15 Feb 7:01 PM
Bad For Vilsack
I completely agree with tom here – these endorsements don’t say much about Obama, but do about Vilsack’s ability to hold together the state. And Chris, to say that Miller endorses perceived frontrunners is sort of silly – if so he definitely would have gone for Culver instead of Blouin in the 2006 primary. That Lieberman thing is just wacky for sure though. We’ve had some dinner table conversations about that one, let me tell you.
drew-miller Thu 15 Feb 8:32 PM
not wacky really
Miller is a fairly conservative Democrat, and he has known Joe Lieberman for a long time, since Joe was attorney general of CT before running for the Senate.
I think Miller endorsed Obama because both of them went to Harvard law school.
desmoinesdem Thu 15 Feb 8:57 PM
Tom's your uncle?
Dinner conversations with Tom Miller? Are you insinuating again that Tom Miller is related to you?
tom Thu 15 Feb 9:12 PM
Talked to your uncle
Tom Miller was at the Soup Supper in Ames tonight as a surrogate for Obama, but Drew was nowhere to be found. Miller made a funny comment about being charismatically-challenged and jealous of Obama’s charisma.
tom Fri 16 Feb 11:24 PM