Of the 8 D's, Independents Will Favor Obama, Richardson

by Independent Blogger Matt Simon 

At this point it’s hard to remember too many specifics from the Democratic debate, but I’ve got plenty to say about the candidates regardless…

I’ve had my ear to the ground for the last few months trying to figure out which candidates were going to get traction in their quest to take down Hillary Clinton.  About 1/4 of the Democrats I know worship the junior senator from New York, and would run through walls to get her elected.  Another ¼ of the Democrats I know think she is corrupt, dishonest, and/or overly thirsty for ultimate power.  The remaining half are what I’d call skeptical – they want to nominate a candidate who can win, and of the top four she appears most likely to get beat by a Republican.  They also want to pick the best president, and aren’t so sure she’s the one.  Most people seem to be keeping their options open, and that’s good for the process.

So, the three candidates who could defeat Sen. Clinton and win the Democratic nomination are…

Barack Obama – He didn’t exactly stand out at the debate, but it was a solid enough performance, and at this point I would consider betting on him to win the nomination. 

Unlike any candidate I’ve ever seen, for any office, this guy has absolute star power.  He would be a remarkable president, but would he be remarkably good or remarkably bad?  He has precious little experience legislating and no experience as an executive, so a lot of practical Democrats are afraid to make him leader/administrator of the free world.  Most of his core supporters seem to be very idealistic, and that can be contagious.  (Over time, the Obama-ites might even seduce some of the Clinton drones!)

Obama should be attractive to Democrats because (barring another terrorist attack) he would absolutely trounce any Republican who opposed him.  As the Democratic nominee, he would cast a spell on the United States of America and win in a landslide.  (If I had to play basketball against Michael Jordan, I’d rather do it in a game of 5 on 5 than 1 on 1).

Obama will do better in debates if and when this field ever thins down.  If he is nominated, he will shine on center stage and beat whomever he’s up against with sheer personality and charm.  But would he make a good president?  Do we know where he stands yet on much of anything? 

Bill Richardson – At this stage in the game, it’s better to be a little low in the polls but making steady gains than up in the polls but losing traction.  Bill Richardson is finally being recognized as a top tier candidate for the Democratic nomination, and that’s the way it should be.  Richardson’s supporters in New Hampshire include some of the most level-headed Democrats I know.  They see this guy’s impressive resume, shake his hand, and understand that he is a leader who can actually manage people. 

I think he will play especially well with independents as the campaign goes on.  We realize we’re in the process of trying to hire the best president, and we’re looking for somebody competent, somebody who can solve problems and think independently.  In New Hampshire, we’re also looking for somebody who will not intrude on our state government’s authority, and we’ve seen some good positions from the governor in that department (issues such as gun rights and medical marijuana, which separate him positively from Sen. Clinton).

If we used the same hiring process that is used for most other important jobs in America, there’s a good chance we’d select Bill Richardson to be the next president.

John Edwards – At this stage of the game, I like Richardson’s chances better than Edwards’.  His apology for the war vote is what’s keeping him halfway interesting, but we’ve got to remember one thing:

The guy is a trial lawyer, a polished actor who has used his skills to become a multi-millionaire and then a senator.  Please, democrats, nominate a candidate who doesn’t owe his wealth and power to the legal profession.

Pretty please?