January Madness is tourney time for candidates

January 2008 will be to democrats and republicans what March is to college basketball: Madness.

If you thought 2007 was ugly, just wait for the first presidential caucuses and primaries to get under way. Fireworks on New Year's Eve will not compare to those launching in several states to kick off this upcoming presidential election year. If the extremely early campaign season, which began unequivocally in January 2007, has been any indication, then Vote 2008 is shaping up to be a doozy of a fight. Below is a breakdown of the democratic and republican contenders....Do I sense a new reality TV show forming??

The Dems...

Hillary Clinton. Three words best describe Hillary Clinton for President: Brand-name recognition. She may be the democratic front-runner for nomination in 2008, but Mrs. Rodham Clinton had better not count her chickens before they hatch. In the early going, she is receiving pretty stiff competition from junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, who has done more to energize and reinvigorate democratic voters in the past several months than Mrs. Clinton did in all of her husband’s eight years in the White House. She is neither inspiring, nor confident, nor unifying as Obama appears to be. Truth be told, Hillary represents the old guard of liberal democrats; you know, the ones who have consistently lost presidential elections since 1968. Yeah, I know Bill won two terms in office in the 1990s; but really, Clinton masqueraded as a "new democrat," and he got a lot of help (11 percent of the popular vote) from the Texas Parrot.
But I digress: Hillary and her camp are taking 2008 for granted. They think the 2008 nomination and the White House are hers for the taking; the presidency is hers to lose. Some even have gone so far as to metaphorically anoint Hillary as the next President of the United States. Lest we forget, this is still a republican democracy and not a monarchy; there are no anointed ones here.
Hillary’s campaign is reminiscent of the NFL’s 1969 Baltimore Colts, who all but laid claim to the Super Bowl III title before the game was even played. That kind of braggadoccio led to the celebrity of Broadway Joe Namath and his upstart New York Jets. The celebrity in this case may just well be Barack Obama.
As Hall of Fame baseball legend and former New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Hillary would be wise to learn from history.

Barack Obama. He is the “rock star” of the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also an upstart, which historically do not have the greatest track record of winning elections. While Obama may be the “hot ticket” for democratic voters right now, there is still plenty of time in the race for him to peter out and lose steam. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? The populist and former republican presidential candidate caught fire early with conservative voters. But by the summer of 1996, Bob Dole had wrapped up the nomination. Barack risks falling into the same trap as Buchanan: Believing his press clippings. He is in great position and poised to upset front-runner Hillary Clinton; but if Barack gets careless with his campaign, Hillary can easily distance herself from him. She has name recognition, influence, party muscle, and the strength of her husband’s tenure in office behind her.
Where Barack may fizzle is down the stretch (like Buchanan), because of Hillary’s reach. In 1996, Bob Dole had it in with the powers of the Republican Party; something Buchanan did not have. Likewise, Hillary has the democratic machine behind her. Barack just has popularity. In a republican democracy, popularity alone does not win elections, much less nominations.

John Edwards. He is the folksy candidate, who tries appealing to the common voter through his country swagger. Unfortunately, folksy candidates don’t always “cut the mustard” as president. People want leaders, not neighbors for president; they want someone who can make the tough decisions that most of us are not willing to make. But this isn’t necessarily a stumbling block for Edwards. What may doom Edwards is his disingenuousness. To put it bluntly, he is a fake, a fraud, and a polished court room actor. He can make a person believe that he is just like their neighbor; but the reality is that John Edwards is an elitist, and not anywhere near like the common man he claims to be. After all, how many “common” people own and live in a 24,000-sq. ft. mansion? How many average folks earn a living as a trial lawyer, whose job it is to persuade juries to award their side exorbitant cash awards? And how many common men put career or political ambitions above their families when there is a personal crisis? I mean no disrespect to the Edwards’ family here, but an ordinary man whose wife is suffering from recurrent malignant cancer would want to spend as much time with her as possible, rather than spending it at the office. God only knows how much more time Elizabeth Edwards may have on this earth. John should focus all of his energy on spending quality time with her, instead of pursuing the presidency. He may well have other chances to run in the future; but when Elizabeth is gone, he won’t have any more chances to spend with her.

Bill Richardson. The former New Mexico governor and U.S. Energy Department Secretary appears to be running in the middle of the pack of democratic candidates at this point in the race. He is neither a stand-out, nor front-runner, nor a “rock star.” To a vast majority of political pundits, he is just another candidate crowding the field and clogging up the road for the Hillary Express. As far as official Washington is concerned, he has next to no chance of winning the democratic nomination for president. Funny, there was a lot of the same sentiment being felt about Bill Clinton in the early days of his candidacy for president during the 1992 campaign. He was a former governor of Arkansas (where the heck is that, anyway?!?) who was dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct in the Jennifer Flowers scandal. Yet, by July 1992, William Jefferson Clinton had secured the party nomination for president and went on to upset incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the presidency that November. Richardson finds himself being characterized and categorized in much the same fashion Clinton was during his first campaign for president. Richardson, like Clinton, is being overlooked by much more higher profile candidates. But mark my words: Bill Richardson is as legitimate a candidate for the democratic nomination as any currently in the field. History has shown that the dark horse can win from time to time; albeit not with regularity. What Richardson has going for him: (1) Gubernatorial experience. This means he has been a state governor. History favors former governors, such as Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, etc. (2) federal cabinet experience. Richardson served during Clinton’s presidency as secretary of energy in the White House cabinet. Besides Hillary, he would know better than the other candidates how things work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (3) U.S. Senate experience. Prior to his cabinet post, Richardson had served some time as a U.S. Senator. (4) He is Hispanic. Richardson can appeal to latino voters perhaps as no other presidential candidate has ever done before. And with a growing Hispanic population across the United States, they may well just be the swing voters every other candidate will try to attract. By virtue of his ethnicity, Richardson will have instant appeal with a great many latinos. The bottom line: Richardson has a more well-rounded resume of “leadership,” not just political experience, going for him. Beware of the dark horse, lest you be nipped at the wire.

Dennis Kucinich. I know little about the history and background of this candidate, other than the fact that he is a senior member of the House of Representatives, representing Ohio. But what I do know is that he is too far to the left for most voters in the United States. Most likely, the next President of the United States will be someone who appeals to the center. That has been a long-standing trend. Kucinich represents the traditional democratic candidate, who masquerades as champion of the "little guy" and the average Joe. Bottom line: He is just another foot soldier within the democratic ranks. He is not a member of the "top brass" as Hillary, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and other senate dinosaurs are. Kucinich also lacks the charisma and charm needed to be a presidential front-runner. He lacks widespread appeal. When he speaks, strange things come out of his mouth. I think he may also suffer from a bit of little man's syndrome, given his physical stature. He is of slight build and below average height. For some reason, his aura reminds me of another "little guy" who got his start with the Jacobin Society and rose to the position of Emperor of France. The only thing missing with Kucinich is a funny hat and a pose with his hand tucked in his shirt. Who knows? As the primary season gets more desperate for him, I wouldn't rule that out.

Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. How many times have these two veteran senators ran for the democratic nomination for president? More than I care to count. I use the term "veteran senators" out of respect. But the truth is, these two career politicians are has-beens that are on their way to cushy Congressional pensions. They run for president not because they are really serious, but because they can't get enough of the attention that presidential primaries give them. Both of these fellows come from districts overshadowed by more significant senate seats in the Northeast United States, namely Massachusetts and New York. I mean, unless you live in Delaware or Connecticut, who in Washington or the rest of the country really cares? Furthermore, these democratic dinosaurs date back to the LBJ era and are old-school liberals, who historically have a hard time winning general elections. Can you say Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern, Kerry? This describes Biden and Dodd to a tee. Finally, these guys seek just about every democratic presidential nomination because they do what their party tells them to in order to make the race more interesting. These guys are dyed-in-the-wool blue-bloods, who would walk over hot coals for their party. Dodd and Biden are to the democratic primaries what a color guy is to a play-by-play announcer. They are the flavors of the month, and that's about it.

Mike Gravel. Um, who? Oh, yeah, the guy from Alaska, right? Well, consider Mr. Gravel to be like one of those obscure ornaments on a Christmas tree: You never see it, and probably don't even remember it is there. But nonetheless, in its own obscure way, it helps to decorate the tree. Gravel's purpose in the field of democratic candidates seeking the presidential nomination is the same as that of Dodd, Biden and Kucinich: It is to give the illusion that the race is not a runaway for the front-runners.

Now, the Reeps...

Rudy Giuliani. “Rudy! Rudy! Rah, rah, rah!” The only Rudy more inspiring than the former NYC mayor is the Notre Dame alum who had a movie made about him. And, frankly, if many people had their druthers, they would rather elect Rudy Ruettiger president of the United States than Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani. Hands down, Giuliani is the popular republican candidate. But popularity alone won’t elect him. What makes Rudy a strong candidate is his consistency on issues, as well as a willingness to stand in and take the punches as they come. That takes guts, which is something many politicians these days lack. I don’t think Rudy is out to win a popularity contest; he doesn’t have to, because he is already the popular candidate. Moderates and liberal republicans will flock to Rudy, who will have a tough time attracting the conservative base of the party given his liberal stands on social issues. However, like Hillary, Rudy is a brand-name candidate. He will attract republican brand voters. The greatest concerns for Rudy, though, are the skeletons in his closet; namely his marital history and iconsistent stands on major republican issues, such as second amendment, gay marriage and abortion. Most voters tend to avoid candidates who literally stick out like sore thumbs. Look for Rudy's opponents to exploit his weaknesses and attempt to make him stick out.

Mitt Romney. Although he has the look, swagger and charm of a president, Mitt also represents the old-guard, country club republican. He is financially wealthy and has a background in corporate America, which has been painted by the media as evil in modern times. Many swing voters might see Mitt as just another rich white guy looking to move into the nation's most prestigious mansion. Yet, Mitt Romney has a lot going for him as well. He seems to have a level of integrity that is uncanny in today's political climate. He has gubernatorial experience, which historically bodes well for presidential candidates. And, Mitt can hang his hat on the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which he helped to reinvigorate from bust into a boon. But look for Mitt’s opponents to exploit his “180” on abortion and other issues that can and will be dug up. The effort will be to paint Mitt as a flip-flopper. And we all know how well Sen. John F. Kerry fared in 2004. Otherwise, Romney is a good communicator, has charisma, and has experience and leadership behind him as a former governor of Massachusetts. Besides, any republican who can serve a full term as governor of the most liberal state in the country, while proudly identifying himself as a mormom, must have some good qualities.

John McCain. At risk of sounding callous, if it hadn’t been for his unfortunate stint as a Vietnam POW, would we know or even care who John McCain is? Indeed, would John McCain even be the high-profile politician he is today, running for president a second time? Other than the McCain-Feingold Bill –- which blatantly violates the free-speech clause of the Bill of Rights and has handcuffed mostly his own republican party’s ability to raise campaign money –- what else is John McCain known for? He is a Vietnam POW survivor, who happened to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But John McCain is not presidential material. He is to be admired and respected for his service in Vietnam; but that does not necessarily make him an effective leader. McCain exudes neither confidence, nor inspiration, nor unification. He does not have a defined voting base, either. By and large, conservatives don’t support McCain because of his liberal stands on illegal immigration, globalization of the economy, and his voting record in support of big government. Moderate and liberal republicans also do not favor McCain because of his conservative views on abortion and other social issues. To many, McCain is just another flip-flop-wearing empty suit running for office. He is kind of like the republican version of John F. Kerry. Scary.

Fred Thompson. His political opponents will attack him on his resume. First, Thompson needs to separate himself from the “country-club republican” stereotype that his tenure in the U.S. Senate was surrounded by. If he cannot, then political enemies will succeed in painting Thompson as just another rich white guy looking to take care of his own. Second, Thompson’s career as an actor can be as much a weakness as a strength. No doubt, political opponents will attempt to paint him the same color as Reagan: a good actor and nothing more.

Dr. Ron Paul. While I respect this man for his integrity and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, his libertarian views just won't jive with the mainstream voter, who is increasingly identified as moderate and generally reluctant to accept a position of shrinking the scope and size of today's federal government back to Constitutional levels. In addition, Paul's personal stand against abortion appears to be in conflict with libertarian principles, which although do not condone abortion, also do not seek to prevent its practice. I do not get the sense that he is the "live and let live" candidate his campaign wants us to believe him to be. He is also out of touch with the reality of the War On Terror. He wants to cut-and-run in the Middle East and leave everything unfinished. I appreciate his respect for the words of America's first president, George Washington, who warned against meddling in foreign affairs. And I agree with it wholeheartedly. But financially, we can't just pull up the drawbridge and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Economically, we have entangled ourselves so much in China and the Middle East that a sudden retreat could cause a depression or ruin to our domestic economy. This needs to be done gradually, not all at once. As far as the War On Terror, lest we forget that the terrorists brought this war to our soil. It is more prudent to take the fight to them than let them come back here and fight us. Perhaps Paul's biggest disadvantage is not his views on the War On Terror or foreign trade, but rather his age. At 72, he would succeed Ronald Reagan as the oldest president ever to take office. That just does not happen very often. And I think the mentality of today's uninformed swing voter is to vote for the most youthful, most energetic candidate.

Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. Good guys, great views, but too far to the right for moderate mainstream America and the swing votes there. These guys are blunt and to the point on their views. They do not sing, dance or entertain. The uninformed American voter, though, seems to like those who do. Tancredo and Hunter are the meat and potatoes of republican politics; but they are considered to be too high in fat and cholesterol for the appetites of moderate voters, whose palates tolerate only fad diets and sweet desserts as opposed to a hearty meal. What these two will do during this campaign season is help bring attention to issues that the front-runners would prefer to avoid, and that's good for debate.