In 2004, John Kerry was a distant third in the Iowa Caucus to Governor Howard Dean and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. Dean and Gephardt waged vicious advertising campaigns against each other, demolishing each other's chances to win.
The voters were left once again with the third man. In 1992 it was Bill Clinton. In 2004 it was John Kerry. In this 2008 election cycle, John Edwards will win the nomination as Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama's respective star power beats each other to a pulp in the early primary season, leaving the voters disenchanted with both camps.
True, Hillary, with the help of her husband, has an unparalleled political machine. Indeed all the national polls (as well as those in New Hampshire) have her in the lead by double digits over Barak Obama. Edwards trails by another 10 points or so as a distant third. But national polls can be deceiving -- just remember Dean and Gephardt.
Hillary has entered the race with the aura of inevitability; she was the presumptive nominee the day she announced her candidacy. To have that aura burst like a bubble is much, much worse than to never have had the aura at all.
Now, Hillary -- still the presumptive nominee according to national polls -- will have to win both the Iowa Caucus and the South Carolina primary just to stay in the game. Otherwise it will appear as if she has been broken. And when it comes time to vote, either the black Obama or the North Carolinian Edwards will win in South Carolina -- not Hillary.
Obama, now he's a force to be reckoned with -- kind of. He has a celebrity status and an invigorating comportment that harkens back to the Kennedy days. But star power can only diminish, especially as campaigns are starting earlier and earlier this cycle (the New Hampshire primary might be moved to as early as December 5th). Notice how Obama is no longer on the front cover of as many magazines as he used to be, and it is not even Labor Day yet. Even Al Gore -- a non-candidate -- had a front-page profile in Time recently.
True, Obama is only a first term senator, but he was right about Iraq: he laudably opposed it with vitriol. And he is the only viable candidate to be able to boast such a record on the war.
However, Obama's last job was Illinois state senator. Questions of his readiness to be our nation's commander in chief will arise, even as his celebrity status keeps his name on The People's tongue. We recently made the mistake of electing a novice. I do not believe we will do so again.
One would hope that Obama will prove me wrong for three reasons: he was correct on Iraq; he is the most eloquent and inspiring candidate; but more importantly, it would say a lot about how far our nation has come in race relations -- a point worth considering given our gradual loss of our global, moral high ground in recent years -- if we elected a black president. However, it remains most unlikely that Obama will win the nomination outright, for at the end of the day he is still a young, vibrant, invigorating, black flash in the pan without the requisite bona fides. Yet, he remains a strong, viable, crowd-drawing, fundraising VP candidate.
Thus, I say that the ticket will be Edwards-Obama. (Or these days, perhaps Edwards-Bloomberg?)
Edwards does not win by default alone, however. Edwards wins because he has the strongest operation right now in Iowa. He wins because he is young, good looking, strong, policy-based but heartfelt, and he is a southerner. The Democratic Party's last three Presidents have all been from the South.
Also, he is seasoned, a too oft forgotten virtue in electoral politics. He has run for president before, and that is invaluable experience that will help him to avoid the sorts of rookie mistakes that at least Obama is sure to make.
Perhaps most importantly, however, Edwards wins because he is keeping his head low while the 'stars' box in the ring, all while Edwards places well in the early states.
John Edwards will win the Democratic nomination and choose Obama or Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, as his star VP.
