The Blue State

Kerry bolsters staff for '08 presidential campaign

The '04 Democratic nominee is positioning himself for another run at the presidency.

John Kerry's unsuccessful attempt at sarcasm just days before the '06 election caused him a great deal of political trouble -- but he is not down for the count.  Sources confirm that the Massachusetts Senator is hiring some well-known political heavyweights to lead his campaign team in his 2008 presidential run:

Kerry has recently begun to bolster his Senate and campaign staff inpreparation for what some Kerry insiders insist is a likely run forpresident. Kerry has signed on Erik Smith to serve as a senior adviser to his Senate campaign committee and Vince Morris to be communications director in his Senate office.

Smith, who runs Blue Engine Message & Media, served as national press secretary for Dick Gephardt's2004 presidential bid and previously was communications director inGephardt's leadership office. He also served a stint as communicationsdirector at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Fittingly, John Kerry is also up for Senate reelection in 2008.  If Kerry were to run for president and lose in the primaries, he could still run for the Senate.  But his eventual Republican opponent would brand him as being more interested in his own higher aspirations than the concerns of Massachusettsans.  If Kerry were to win the Democratic nomination, then he would obviously no longer be a Senate candidate -- therefore end up unemployed in January of 2009 unless he wins the presidency.  Kerry has a big decision to make: go all-out and risk his Senate career on another presidential run, or focus his entire energy on getting reelected.

Another question that Kerry needs to ask himself is can he win?  The Democratic field will consist of more big names than any other primary season in party history.  Can Kerry match up with Clinton, Obama and his defiant former running-mate John Edwards?  What if Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark and Al Gore throw their names into the race as well?  Can Kerry beat all of those people?  Even if he does, does he even stand a chance in the general election against John McCain, Rudolph Giuliani or Sam Brownback?

Many bloggers and their readers that follow politics on a daily basis would conclude that Senator Kerry's chances of winning the Democratic nomination are between none and -- well -- none.  But it is different if you are the candidate.  As Princeton political science professor Fred Greenstein said, candidates are not always rational when evaluating themselves:

He said candidates exhibit a tendency "where faith triumphs over reasonand empirical reality-testing falls by the wayside, and a lot of whatdrives people is some combination of vanity and lack ofself-perspective."

Michigan psychology professor David Winter agrees:

"It puts them in a bubble such that they aren't able to look honestlyat the whole picture," he said. He added that the candidates also arelikely to be influenced by what he calls the power motive. "They wouldlike to be president, but they may not be in it to win; they're in itto make a point," Winter said.

Unless Kerry is convinced by a close friend or reliable third party not to run, he will almost definitely enter the already large field of candidates vying for the nomination.

Edwards begged Kerry to go after swift boaters

The wasted opportunity, otherwise known as the 2004 election, became an afterthought rather quickly in the weeks following the vote.  Progressives immediately mobilized to stop the White House's effort to dismantle Social Security and eventually fought the appointments of two Supreme Court nominees.

Still, more than two full years after the election, new information has surfaced about the rift between John Kerry and his running-mate, John Edwards, during the final leg of the campaign.  In a new book by Terry McAuliffe, titled "What a Party," the former DNC Chairman detailed how John Edwards was angry that the campaign did not respond faster to the swift boat attacks.  There were other personal tensions between the two men as well:

McAuliffe recounts having dinner with Edwards after the 2004election. He notes that Kerry sent Edwards to a lot of small markets,leading to criticism that Edwards was not visible enough.

"Terry,they wouldn't let me," Edwards told McAuliffe. "I wanted to go afterthe Swift Boat guys. I wanted to go after Bush. They wouldn't let me."

But when McAuliffe sat down with Kerry, the Massachusetts senator expressed frustration that Edwards did not campaign harder.

"Kerrysaid that Edwards told him several times, 'Watch the news tomorrow! I'mreally going to go after Bush.' Then Kerry would watch the news thenext night, and Edwards was nowhere to be seen," McAuliffe wrote.

"Ialso heard that Kerry believed Edwards had promised him that if Kerrywanted to run again in 2008, Edwards would sit the race out," saidMcAuliffe, who is supporting New York Sen. Hillary Clinton forpresident.

"But if you asked the Edwards people about it, they said there was no way any such promise has been made."

The two had their chance in 2004 and failed.  But Robert Guttman of Huffington Post thinks Edwards has what it takes to win in 2008.

Polls for Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are in

Not really that surprising.  These polls were conducted by American Research Group around the end of December:

Iowa
Hillary Clinton - 31%
John Edwards - 20%
Tom Vilsack - 17%
Barack Obama - 10%

Nevada
Hillary Clinton - 37%
Barack Obama - 12%
John Kerry - 9%
John Edwards - 8%

New Hampshire
Hillary Clinton - 27%
Barack Obama - 21%
John Edwards - 18%

South Carolina
Hillary Clinton - 34%
John Edwards - 31%
Barack Obama - 10%

You might wonder why certain candidates do not appear in the results that I listed.  I didn't include candidates with a percentage below 8% -- which explains why Kerry and Vilsack are only in a a few.  For example, John Kerry only received 2% support in Iowa, which I thought was a waste of space to include.

As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, this is as high as she will probably get in the polls, especially in Nevada.  John Edwards has the most connections in that state -- so expect his numbers to go up once endorsements start flying his way later on in the year.  Obama's numbers are not a surprise, since voters still know relatively little about him.

Lastly, the poll included eleven Democratic presidential contenders.  Al Gore was not listed as one of them.  Had he been included, the polls might have been different.

Weekly '08 Roundup: Biden trying to get exposure

Way under the radar, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) said he will run for president.  The Delaware Senator will find himself even more in the shadows when John Edwards officially announces on Thursday from New Orleans, and then both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announce in January.  Still, Biden hopes that voters will look past the hype of certain rock star candidates and look for the most experienced individual:

"Frankly, I think I'm more qualified than other candidates, and theissues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow," Bidensaid. "I know I want to be president, I know what I believe and mymessage is important."

Still, Joe Biden will have a difficult time getting media attention because of his aristocratic speaking style (which is what happens when you stay in the Senate that long) and the fact that he has been branded as part of the Washington establishment.  The same is partly true about Hillary Clinton, except for the fact that her name recognition automatically gives her better marks.

In other '08 news, the dates for the first three contests in the race for the Democratic nomination have been finalized:

• Iowa Caucus - Monday, January 14, 2008
• Nevada Caucus - Saturday, January 19, 2008
• New Hampshire Primary - Tuesday, January 22, 2008

After New Hampshire will come South Carolina, which John Edwards won in 2004.  Remember, a primary is different from a caucus, although both are important in terms of sending delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Without further adieu, as The Blue State blog does every week, here are the odds that each of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have of winning the nomination.  Remember, these are entirely subjective, and are based on the analysis of a political science student (me!).  It has nothing to do with who I want to win, and everything to do with a number of factors: fundraising potential, appeal in early primary/caucus states, star power, experience and others.

1. Hillary Clinton - 25%
2. Barack Obama - 24%
3. John Edwards - 20%
4. Al Gore - 12%
5. Tom Vilsack - 9%
6. Bill Richardson - 4%
7. Joe Biden - 3%
8. John Kerry - 1%
9. Chris Dodd - 1%
10. Dennis Kucinich - 1%

Here was last week's total.

Again, don't write Gore off just yet.  His book, titled The Assault on Reason, will be out in May.  If the book does well, he would have every reason to throw his name into the field of candidates.  If it bombs, then the chances are he will stay out of it.  But don't expect a decision out of Gore until after the book comes out.

A proposal that Kerry called for a long time ago

Because America's military is stretched to almost a breaking point -- an opinion shared by Colin Powell -- President Bush has decided to expand the size of the U.S. military, as reported in an exclusive interview with the Washington Post:

"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- theArmy, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talkedabout this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some timetalking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendationto me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

Of course, this is one of the many ideas that the Democrats suggested a long time ago, and Bush chose not to implement until he was under political pressure.  In 2004, John Kerry called for the increase in size of the U.S. military.  Imagine if Bush followed John Kerry's recommendation two years ago, and the impact it would have had on the strength of our armed forces.

How come when the Democrats suggest something then it is "being liberal," but then when the President suggests something he is "doing what is best for the country?"

When a Republican and Democrat do the same thing, attack the Democrat

Fox News and conservative commentators have been trashing both John Kerry (D-MA) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) for wanting to travel to Syria and speak with president Assad about Iraq.  However, these same talk-show personalities have said nothing about Arlen Specter's (R-PA) recent decision to do the exact same thing.  Maybe it doesn't fit the right-wing talking points to even acknowledge that a Republican would maybe think about talking to every government in the region about Iraq.

Specter explained why he is traveling to Syria:

The senator said he and other Republicans are concerned that theadministration's policies in the Middle East are not working and thatother GOP members may follow in his footsteps.

"I've talked to my Republican colleagues, and there is a disquiet here," Specter said.

The visit, coming on the heels of a trip by Florida Sen. Bill Nelson,would be a direct affront to the White House. The United States haslimited diplomatic ties with Syria because of its support for Hezbollahand Hamas, which the U.S. deems terrorist organizations.

President Bush has expressed reluctance to seek help from Damascus on Iraq until theSyrians curb that support and reduce their influence in Lebanon.

When something doesn't work, you try something new.  That is common sense.  Arlen Specter, like John Kerry and Bill Nelson, probably know they made the wrong decision on authorizing force in Iraq.  Now they want a way out.  If you think dialogue with Iraq's Middle East neighbors is not a good idea, then say so, and use substance to say why.  But don't use such a fragile issue as a way to further a polarizing notion that John Kerry hates our soldiers.  If he hates our soldiers, then he must hate himself because he was once one -- unlike every person in the Administration that never fought in a war before, and wants to send our troops to die for a failed policy.

Kennedy won't support Kerry

Ouch!  From his old pal, too.  Not that John Kerry would have stood a chance in 2008, anyway.  The Boston Globe reports:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy Monday dropped his public commitment tosupport Senator John F. Kerry in a 2008 presidential race, saying thathe won't wait "indefinitely" for Kerry to declare his intentions whilethe Democratic primary field takes shape.

"I was under more of the impression before that he was going to run andwas waiting in time [to declare his candidacy], but now he's deferredthat decision," Kennedy said. "I have no plans of supporting anyoneelse at this juncture. I'm also not going to just wait indefinitelyuntil he's made a judgment or a decision."

That is political speak for "I won't support you."

Weekly '08 Roundup: Kucinich to run

Hillary says she will wait until the first part of January before making an announcement.  Obama will announce no later than mid-January.  Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack are already in it.  But just when you thought that eleven possible Democratic candidates were enough, another individual threw his name into the hat yesterday.  U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced that he will run in 2008 because he believes his party has done a poor job challenging the President to get troops out of Iraq:

The liberal, anti-war Ohio congressman said he was inspired to runbecause he disagrees with the way some of his fellow Democrats arehandling the war, including approval of a proposal to spend $160billion more on the conflict.

"Democrats were swept into power on Nov. 7 because of widespreadvoter discontent with the war in Iraq," said Kucinich, 60. "Instead ofheeding those concerns and responding with a strong and immediatechange in policies and direction, the Democratic congressionalleadership seems inclined to continue funding the perpetuation of thewar."

His candidacy might have some initial appeal -- that is if he were running against Bush.  But when the reality sets in that George W. Bush is not running for reelection, progressive voters might be looking for a fresh face -- which is why Evan Bayh and Barack Obama could have a lot of appeal.

Speaking of Evan Bayh (D-IN), his recent New Hampshire visit was overlooked by the mainstream media because Obama gave a big speech there around the same time.  But that didn't stop Bayh from telling New Hampshire voters that his number top issues in 2008 will be global warming and energy independence.  He says those issues have bipartisan appeal.  The Indy Star reported on his trip:

"I'd begin with this energy issue, includingglobal warming, because it affects so many important things and becausethere's some common ground there," he said.

Bayhwas hosted by Democratic state senators from Keene and Cornish onSunday, after speaking at a reception in Manchester on Saturday night.

Bayhhas promoted himself as a moderate who can work with Republicans. Hesaid he expected the new Democratic majorities in Congress would makefederal funding for stem cell research one of its their top prioritieswhen it convenes in January.

Back to Obama's New Hampshire trip.  Salon.com reported that the "largest crowd in modern New Hampshire history" saw his speech on Sunday afternoon.

Without further adeiu, here are the weekly rankings for each of the Democratic hopefuls.  Dennis Kucinich's name has been added to the list, impacting some of the candidates (Remember, these are rankings based on a political science student's take on who has the best odds, as of now, of winning the Democratic nomination.  This is not who I want to win.  It is based on who I think has the upper hand on fundraising, appeal in the early primary states, a low unfavorable rating, and the best campaign team.).

1. Hillary Rodham-Clinton - 24%
2. Barack Obama - 19%
3. John Edwards - 15%
4. Al Gore - 14%
5. Evan Bayh - 8%
6. Wesley Clark - 7%
7. Bill Richardson - 4%
8. Tom Vilsack - 3%
9. Joe Biden - 2%
10. Dennis Kucinich - 2%
11. John Kerry - 1%
12. Chris Dodd - 1%

(last week's results)
Up a few points is Barack Obama.  I was waiting to see what type of a reception he got in New Hampshire.  Since the officials up there said it surpassed everything they had predicted, I am giving him an edge of four points on Edwards now, who seems to have hit a brick wall.  The former North Carolina Senator's media attention is way down.  The media is branding this as a match-up between Clinton and Obama.  If Gore gets in the race at the end of the summer, that may destroy any slim chance that Edwards might have.  For every day that Obama or Clinton spends in Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire, John and Elizabeth will need to spend double the time campaigning in those places.  Unless either John or Elizabeth write another book soon, their media honeymoon might be over.

Also, if it weren't for the fact that there will be major hearings on Iraq in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the Democrats take back Congress, then I would put Joe Biden at the very bottom of the list.  But those hearings will give him a lot of press coverage, since he is the Chairman of that committee.  Still, I see the likelihood of Biden getting nominated as less than Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark.

Becoming more clear when Dem frontrunners will announce

This is what we do know for sure, as of late-yesterday/early-today:

• NY Senator Hillary Clinton will make a decision about running after the 1st of January, 2007 -- so a few weeks away.
• IL Senator Barack Obama will decide between early to mid-January.  It is quite likely that he will wait until after Hillary Clinton announces in order to maximize possible media attention.
• John Edwards told CBS News two Sundays ago that it would be "safe to say I might very well" run for president.  He has yet to make a formal announcement.  So, along with Obama and Hillary, his announcement could also come in January.

The '08 Democratic Nomination: Playing the odds

Who stands the best shot at winning the Democratic nomination?  This is the first in a series of weekly posts that will forecast the odds that each Democratic hopeful has in winning the nomination.

As the war in Iraq boils over and the Democratic Congress prepares to assume its leadership position in January, it is probably not a good idea to become too fixated on the 2008 race for president.  I don't plan to analyze this each day between now and next fall.  However, this winter is a time in which a lot of candidates will start making formal announcements.  In the coming weeks, I will pay close attention to who is thinking of joining the field.

As General Wesley Clark, a 2004 presidential candidate, said yesterday, he made a strategic error by getting into the race so late last time around.  When he joined the field in September of 2003, he hardly had any funds and did not even hire a campaign manager until November.  By that time, he only had two months until the Iowa Caucus.  From watching what happened to Clark in '03, candidates will want to get in early.  Setting up a presidential exploratory committee offers potential contenders a loophole in the federal elections law that allows them to raise cash without formally declaring their candidacy.  Since Hillary Clinton already raised tens of millions of dollars, hardly anyone will be able to compete with her unless they start setting up exploratory committees immediately.

Without further adieu, here are the odds for each of the possible Democratic contenders.  I base this on potential appeal in early battleground states, unfavorable rating, potential issues in late-'07 and early-'08, fundraising potential, and net-roots support.  This is more or less my analytical bias, and does not represent any bias for who I want the Democratic nominee to be (I am undecided, anyway!):

1. Hillary Clinton - 24% chance
2. John Edwards - 17% chance
3. Barack Obama - 16% chance
4. Al Gore - 15% chance
5. Evan Bayh - 7% chance
   
6. Bill Richardson - 5% chance
7. Joe Biden - 5% chance
8. Wesley Clark - 5% chance
9. Tom Vilsack - 3% chance
10. John Kerry - 2% chance
11. Chris Dodd - 1% chance

Keep in mind that these numbers will fluctuate over time, especially when some candidates from this list officially take their names out of the hat.

Every projection like this requires some kind of analysis.  Here is the way I see it.  Hillary Clinton is definitely in the lead right now, for the most part due to her significant money advantage that would help mobilize get out the vote efforts and travel in the early primary states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina).  What she has going against her is her vote for the war and her unpopularity among Democratic activists.

That brings us to the race to become what I call the "anti-Hillary" candidate.  As of this moment, there is a log-jam between Barack Obama, John Edwards and Al Gore.  Voters who want an alternative besides Hillary Clinton will likely choose between these three candidates.  John Edwards is very popular in the labor movement, who are more likely to choose a Washington outsider that has stood against free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA.  Al Gore is also a serious threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination, and has a strong following in the Northeast and out West.  It still remains to be seen whether Gore's green themes will catch on in Nevada, Iowa and South Carolina.  However, being that New Hampshire is in the Northeast, and being that the state has historically respected independent-minded, maverick candidates, Al Gore might even be the odds on favorite there.  Then there is the wild card: Barack Obama.  The Illinois Senator is also a threat to Hillary Clinton because he will grab a significant portion of the female vote.  Already pledging to announce his candidacy on the Oprah Winfrey show, should he decide to enter the race, Obama might cut Hillary's female voting base by a third.  Out of the three -- Gore, Edwards and Obama -- Edwards has a slight advantage because of his popularity among local politicians in Iowa and Nevada.  Edwards travels to both places more than any other presidential hopeful in both parties.  In January of 2004, the Des Moines Register newspaper endorsed him.  Over the last half year, Edwards has campaigned with hotel unions in Las Vegas.  The Edwards strategy appears center around winning Iowa and Nevada by getting the support of labor unions, while conceding New Hampshire and then going after South Carolina, which he won in 2004.

When you move down the list, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Evan Bayh are still within striking distance.  They don't have a lot of name recognition, especially Evan Bayh.  But of the three, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh definitely has the advantage.  By next fall, those who have never heard of him today will learn to appreciate him as a very positive, consensus-building leader.  As an opponent of gay marriage and flag burning, it would be difficult for the Republicans to attack Bayh in the general election.  However, his biggest obstacle might come from the NRA, which has consistently opposed his strong gun control stances.  He voted for the Iraq war and against partial birth abortion.  However, he did vote against a repeal of the estate tax, in support of investigating the no-bid contracts in Iraq, and yes on a bill that would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil (had it passed).  He is very much an environmentalist, but conservative on social issues.  Bill Richardson and Joe Biden both have foreign policy credentials.  It is highly probable that they would be considered as a vice presidential pick.

As far as the remaining candidates are concerned, here is all that needs to be said.  John Kerry would be committing political suicide by running again, especially after his botched joke.  Chris Dodd lacks publicity.  However, if the Connecticut Senator can pass his bill that would repeal the Military Commissions Act, then he will have helped himself.  Tom Vilsack has declared his intention to run.  Keep in mind though that Vilsack is not even catching on in his home state of Iowa, which still seems to be split between Edwards and Clinton.  Wesley Clark lacks both attention and money, therefore he would be wise to enter the race ASAP.

Again, I am going to try and make this a weekly thing.  If it catches on, great.  If not, then I will find some other way of critiquing the field.