One year from this moment, the polls in California will have just closed, and I'll most likely be sitting at home, biting my lip, grinding my teeth, and hoping like hell that the Democrat gets elected. Right now, of course, that seems likely....but we have a year to go, and a lot can happen.
If one believes the polls as of this moment, the race will be between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. But early front-runners certainly don't always end up winning. Everyone is focusing on the Iowa caucuses, only about two months away, but with the shortened primary scheduling, I'm not sure just about anything can't happen.
For instance, an article in this week's Newsweek resurrects the idea of an independent run by Michael Bloomberg, a possibility I had thought laid to rest a few months back. The initial take is that such a candidacy would likely take more votes away from the Republican than the Democrat. On the other hand, could Bloomberg actually win? He's a billionaire who doesn't have to depend on outside fundraising; as a former Democrat and former Republican, he could presumably appeal to at least some folks in both parties. With a number of die-hard Democrats swearing that they won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, Bloomberg would be an obvious alternative; and Giuliani's appeal to Republicans is likewise limited (though I'm not sure the evangelicals, who are already threatening to split off due to Rudy's pro-choice and pro-gay stances, probably wouldn't be all that thrilled with Bloomberg either). And I think the entire rest of the country might take a slightly dim view of choosing between two mayors and a Senator who are all from New York.
I haven't made much of a secret that my own preference is for Barack Obama. I had a bumper sticker for him on my truck even before he officially announced his candidacy; I donated to his exploratory committee, and again to his primary campaign -- two things I've never done before. In fact, the last time I chose a candidate this far out was in 1984, when (being a total space buff) I supported John Glenn. (It wasn't entirely space; I thought only someone with Glenn's middle-American appeal could possibly break off votes from Ronald Reagan, whereas nominating a known liberal like Mondale was a certain route to failure. In retrospect, I doubt if Glenn would have done much better -- the Democrats were pretty doomed in '84.)
Why Obama? As with most people, he first came to my attention with his marvelous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. I didn't think about it too much, however, until somewhat later. I liked what I knew, but that wasn't much.
Then I read his book, The Audacity of Hope. It definitely got my interest. Obama is, as it happens, just my age; we are also both male, American, and have a tiny amount of Cherokee blood. Other than that, we have very little in common. I'm a suburban white guy who's lived his whole life in southern California and has traveled very little; who did well in school but have drifted through adult life with little success. Obama is an African-American (literally; his father was from Kenya, his mother from Kansas) born in Hawaii, who has lived in Indonesia, New York, and Chicago, has been a community organizer and a teacher in constitutional law as well as a legislator, joined the Church of Christ as an adult, and has traveled all over the place. But boy, do we think alike about politics: not only on issues, but on processes; on concern about the divisiveness we face, about the values Americans have in common, on the need to work to transcend partisanship and actually get some things done.
Now, that's not to say that I agree with every single policy he proposes, or every single vote he's cast; I've been disappointed in him a couple of times. Nor am I put off by the rest of the Democratic field -- I would very happily support John Edwards or Chris Dodd; I think Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are extremely well-qualified; while I find Dennis Kucinich a bit too far left for my tastes, I think he brings a lot to the debate; and I think Hillary Clinton is extremely smart, extremely well informed on the issues, and has the drive and guts to fight through the fire that will doubtless be directed at her if she's our candidate -- and through any crises she might face in office. I will happily support and vote for any of them if they are nominated.
But Obama still appeals to me in a way none of the others quite do. I think he means it; I think he gets it; and I think he can do it. And if he can get people to listen to him enough, I think he can get that across, get elected -- and actually lead in a way no President has done since at least Reagan, possibly since Kennedy.
Can he win? Well, he has the funds to see the race through, notwithstanding all those (including his wife) who have made the claim that Iowa is a must-win for him. Not only has he kept up with Clinton in raising money -- which is a prodigious feat in itself -- but he has done so largely on the backs of small contributors. (Which means that he might easily be able to raise much more in the long run -- unlike Clinton, many of whose donors have already donated the maximum amount allowed, Obama can get three or four times as much from many of his donors than he already has.)
What I think could happen in the Democratic race is that, after Iowa and New Hampshire, it will shake down to three, maybe four candidates. One will certainly be Clinton; one will certainly be Kucinich (not because I expect him to win, but I think he will stay in the race till the end regardless). Biden will almost certainly be gone by then, and (I think) so will Richardson. And the supporters of Clinton's two main competitors -- Obama and Edwards -- will be vying to see which of the two is going to survive to be the "anti-Hillary", to gather the votes of those Democrats who desperately want the nominee to be anyone but her. On the funding grounds, Obama would appear to have the advantage over Edwards, but in other ways -- one of which, sadly, is race -- Edwards might appear to be the more electable of the two.
What about Dodd? Well, he might be gone, too. But I think he might pull an Iowa surprise. He has a lot of strong union support there -- including the Firefighters union, whose work has been largely credited with Kerry's victory there in 2004. Dodd has also been one of the louder voices protesting the seeming continued capitulation of Congress to policies of the administration on things like privacy violations. I think it is just possible that this could propel him, if not to a win in Iowa, to finishing second or third. While I don't think Iowa is necessarily a must-win for Obama (or Edwards), I think finishing behind Dodd could be a fatal blow to either of them -- or to both.
Well, I will have lots more to say on the campaign as we go along. (In fact, I am entered in a competition to become a "citizen journalist" for the local public radio station, which would entail writing something at least once a week -- good-luck vibes appreciated!) But for now, that's probably enough. Get out the soapboxes, brush off all the horse-racing analogies, and prepare for rhetoric, attack ads, and gaffes -- the campaign year is here!
