In Hindsight: The Winners and Losers from our original field of candidates

It was quite a group we assembled to run for President. In most cases these candidates thought they could become the Democratic nominee, but at the very least they believed running might advance their political standing and careers, and/or their causes. Here's how I think they each made out. What's your hit?

Big Winner:

John Kerry automatically of course. Not a big surprise from the vantage point of the start of the campaign when he was the favorite to win the nomination, but Kerry made a determined come back after he seemingly fell almost completely out of contention. In the process Kerry toughened up his public image significantly, which will help him while running against a "War President".


Other Major Winners:

John Edwards went out into the "retail states" of Iowa and New Hampshire early, and despite little major media attention, he kept plugging away. Edwards parlayed a never say quit attitude, positive public demeanor, and populist economic message into his final standing as John Kerry's last major opponent for the nomination. His strong appeal for America's abandoned workers resonated wherever he spoke. In the process Edwards went from being a somewhat obscure one term Junior Senator into a major National political figure with high name recognition, positive approval ratings, and a growing base of grass roots supporters. He finally got the media's attention and it hasn't left him since. Edwards is now generally recognized as "a star" in the Democratic Party, highly sought after for public appearances, and universally believed to have a bright future in National politics.

Howard Dean began the campaign as a little known ex Governor from a small and seldom thought about State. No one would say that Howard Dean is little known now. Despite "peaking early", and having his campaign come to a "screaming halt", Dean completely changed the political landscape of the Democratic Party, and to a large extent the national political debate. Dean shattered the myth of a popular Bush Presidency that National Democratic Party leaders at the time seemed all too eager to handle with kid gloves. Dean made the Iraq war unpopular when it was unpopular to make the Iraq war unpopular. He pioneered internet organizing and fund raising as potent Democratic Party tools. Dean energized a relatively young and disaffected constituency which previously had felt marginalized by the political process, pulling them (for the most part) firmly into the Democratic Party where they continue to be instrumental in the effort to unseat Bush. And Dean laid the ground work for an ongoing bottom up reform movement within the Democratic Party. Pretty impressive work for someone who supposedly self destructed.

Wesley Clark was less than a blip on the political radar a year ago while other Democratic candidates were already doing Town Hall meetings in New Hampshire. Clark was a highly decorated retired General, but a retired General none the less, and there is always a surplus of them at any given moment. Not only was Clark not a force in the Democratic Party, it wasn't even clear if he WAS a Democrat. In many ways Clark's achievements must be viewed in the same light as Howard Dean's; not by what he fell short of, but by what he actually accomplished after starting out from near nowhere. While Clark benefited from some high level Party support at the time of his entry into the race, he was handicapped by the lack of a skilled political staff who had worked with him for years, something any elected office holder can essentially take for granted. And of course Clark never had the luxury of a campaign shake down cruise in the lazy days before the National media keyed into the race. Still Clark's fund raising, from primarily small donors, soon rivaled Howard Dean's. From the fertile ground of the Draft Clark movement, a strong grass roots effort soon coalesced around his candidacy, and Clark went on to win one Primary and finish a very respectable second or third in a number of other contests before he withdrew early to endorse John Kerry. Clark now retains a vibrant national constituency in the Democratic Party. He is perceived by many as a foreign policy sage for his consistent and astute analysis of international relations and his non wavering biting critiques of the Bush Administration's go it alone adventurism and failure to adequately protect the American homeland. Clark is now enthusiastically received at Democratic Party State Conventions across the country, evidencing his strong ties to his new political home. Perhaps most important, Clark seems destined to achieve his own set out goal, to play a significant role in George W. Bush's defeat.


Other Winners:

Dennis Kucinich. There are many who have loved Dennis for a long time, but it's a big country so that still added up to just a drop in the bucket so to speak. By running for President Kucinich has accomplishing at least three things. One; he has gotten his views on a number of important issues much more widely heard than they otherwise would have been, and Dennis has the type of views that frequently don't get heard in the national media period. Two; Kucinich created a national context within which a movement could form through his candidacy for President. Many of those connections once forged, will not fall asunder. Three; Dennis Kucinich is now a recognized and legitimate national political figure, and not just perceived as a leftist fringe Representative on the order of a Bernie Sanders (another good man who did NOT run for President). I don't call Kucinich a Major Winner because in many cases his impact was somewhat eclipsed by that of Howard Dean's, who started out roughly as obscure as Dennis, and to a lesser extent by Wes Clark. As a result Kucinich did not end up with as powerful a national grass roots movement behind him as he otherwise might have, and he wasn't a major player in any Primary contest.


Kind of a wash category.

Richard Gephardt was viewed from the start as a serious candidate for President, and he entered the race with a long established standing as a national leader of the Democratic Party. Gephardt was once favored to win the first contest in Iowa but instead came in a very disappointing fourth and subsequently dropped out. So why not call him a loser? Some would. Still Gephardt kept himself squarely on the national stage by running, and he made no major campaign blunders which helps solidify his image as a dependable spokesperson for the Democratic Party. Some would say he fell on a sword for the Party by so forcefully confronting Dean in the run up to Iowa. Among those who would say so, Gephardt earned some points by so doing.

Al Sharpton both exceeded and fell short of expectations. He entered the race with some political baggage intact, most of it accumulated during his confrontational days as a regional civil rights leader. Sharpton was a surprise hit in the debates, showing a quickness of mind and tongue that not all knew he had in him. He consistently got the biggest laughs, but his humor was never hollow, his points were clear and they were sharp. Sharpton thereby rehabilitated his image and polished his credentials as a national Democratic Party spokesman, so why not call him a winner? Some would, but Sharpton fell far short of the Jesssie Jackson test. He was unable to turn the good will he garnered into any significant voter support outside of his African American constituency, and he fell short of Jackson's appeal there as well, though he played an important role in helping keep that constituency engaged. Sharpton did not emerge form the Presidential campaign with the degree of influence he hoped to wield in the National Democratic Party.

Carol Mosely Braun entered the race, in some ways like Sharpton, with something to prove, both personally and politically. She had been defeated after serving only one term in the U.S. Senate, and there were some controversies in her past as well. Mosely Braun was able to tap into aspects of an activist feminist base through her National Organization for Women endorsement, but she continually lagged in both fund raising and polling. Still, she was a welcome sight at the debate podium for many, as the only woman running, and most felt she handled herself relatively well in the limited role she played throughout them. However in hitching her wagon to Howard Dean's in a paid consultant role just as the wheels were about to fall off of it, Carol Mosely Braun squandered most if not all of the political capital she had managed to regain. Since she had so little to lose in the first place, I am not counting her among the losers here, though some might put her into that category.


Losers.

Senator Bob Graham falls into this category. Though never viewed as a real favorite, Graham had been thought of as a serious candidate by most. His career has been distinguished, as a popular Senior Senator and ex Governor of the critical swing state of Florida. Many saw Graham as an obvious choice for the Democrats National ticket, if not as President then as Vice President. He brought executive and legislative experience, domestic and international expertise, together in one package. But Graham's fund raising lagged and he never caught on with voters. Fairly or not, Graham was seen as a dull campaigner on the National stage, his anti war message lost in the shadow of Howard Dean. Grahams assets are still assets, but his stock has lessened as a result of his failed campaign, and that is why he comes out as a loser.

Significant losers.

I'll award this category to the sole possession of Senator Joseph Lieberman. Certainly he was always considered to be a serious Candidate for the Presidential nomination, if not a favorite to win it. Gore emerged from the Supreme Court Election of 2000 as the President denied in most Democratic voters eyes, and Lieberman then was the VP robbed. Lieberman was experienced in running a true National campaign, he had operatives in place through out the country, and the presumed loyalty of Al Gore. Wrong. After skipping Iowa to concentrate on New Hampshire, Lieberman scored 5th there despite being a fellow New Englander. Worse still, there hardly seemed a Democrat running who Lieberman wasn't eager to attack over something, that is when he wasn't supporting George Bush on Iraq. You don't hear much about Lieberman Democrats nowadays, do you?


In summary this has been an amazing election year for the Democratic Party to date. We just came through a competitive process that elevated rather than reduced most who failed to come out on top. That bodes well for the November elections, with many voices of enhanced national stature now available to back John Kerry in his fight against George Bush.

Kerry beat them all and he is our Democratically elected nominee. That is why we have primaries. The people voted him in.

He is the candidate.

The post didn't pretend to break any news. Just engaging in discussion like 95% of what is said here. The point, to the extent that there is one, is that the Primary season produced several real winners for the Democratic Party, not just the obvious and very real winner John Kerry. Yup. He is the candidate.

When Kerry wins two terms,we will hardly note the candidates that lost this year.

You're wasn't very clear.

I agree with Tom, tho, that there were other winners than Kerry. Not sure I agree with which ones they are, but not all of them will fade into the sunset. Some of these men are going to be on the national scene, contributing to the greater good, for a long damn time. For some, that might not have been true had they not run at all. I call that winning. For us, if not for them.

I wasn't making a reference to your initial post then. I disagree with you about us hardly noting the losing candidates after Kerry wins two terms though (which I think he will). For one thing there's a good chance he'll pick one for his VP, but more important, all the men I call "winners", and possibly Sharpton, leave invigorated groups of activists in place in the aftermath of their campaigns. I don't think that is the norm, at least not so many, and I think it will make a difference. Like most everything else, time will tell.

I, for one, will remember them all and their contributions. Even those who do not get the top spot can go on to do great things.

I agree with just about everything you've stated, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich of course (probably because I'm a little biased in that respect).

Kucinich actually did quite well in a few primaries, although you wouldn't know it by the coverage given him by the media. He came in a strong 3rd in Minnesota with 17%, although his overall support at our state convention ended up closer to 30-35%. Unfortunatly, MN's delegates are alloted according to the straw poll conducted on caucus night, and not by convention delegates, so he only got 1/4 of the overall delegates from MN.

Also, Kucinich finished quite well in Hawaii, Alaska, Washington and Maine. Which is pretty amazing when you consider his entire campaign spent about $10 mil overall, and didn't go into debt to accomplish it, either.

You are entirely correct about DK's grassroots, too. There are already a number of state progressive caucuses cropping up to carry on the message and the fight (www.progressivevote.org lists them). While other groups are focusing on supporting candidates, the progressive caucuses are focused on issues and supporting grassroots activists, and encouraging these activists to become the candidates. If we are to continue winning, both approaches are necessary.

Once again, great analysis Tom. Good to see something useful on this forum!

:)

...but he was my #2, so I don't personally care--but lots and lots of other folks are none too happy about the frontloaded primaries.

THINK :think: about it: The first two states to vote have almost ZERO minority populations. With frontloading primaries and the media bounce from a victory in the first two, voters in other states don't really get much of a say--the word is writ and most follow the bouncing ball.

To essentially not give minority population democrats a chance at the a say in the first dem primaries, we are disenfranchising them. Not good for the democratic party, and Terry Mac's head should be on a spit for it.

I think your analysis is insightful and interesting.

Thanks.

and nice to read about all of the candidates again.

Not to be mean as we had a great lineup of democrats but I'd bulk up the loser pile some.

Gephardt probably had one of the biggest losts besides Joementum. This is his 3rd time running and had ample amounts of support, structure, and connections. But in his own back yard was dealt a crushing blow by Kerry and Edwards who were both pronounced dead only weeks earlier. Even though Gep is now being considered for VP that is because his personal relationship with Kerry and not his mediocre performance in the primary.

Braun also did not accomplish as much as she had hoped or could have. Due to lack of media exposure, credibility, and money she was never considered serious and that's not a winning sign.

Sharpton on the other hand who also wasn't considered serious took his reputation as being political kryptonite and turned it into a notable political figure. Kerry campaigning with Sharpton now shows of his sucess, because if he had not been such a hit during the primaries Kerry wouldn't be on the same block with him. Sharpton's made a name for himself and if he doesn't waste it could potentially be bigger of Jesse Jackson.


But I like your list, good job.

I can easily see your shuffle, but I bet you already figured we would disagree about Clark lol. I do acknowledge that you did not put Clark in your losers category.

Gep is tricky, and you note I said he could be seen as a loser. By most standards he is, but he presented himself just well enough on the stump that Kerry seemingly isn't getting holy hell from influential Democrats for seriously considering Gep as his VP. If Gep ends up with that plumb it's hard to see how he could be called a loser.

I do lean toward Carol as a loser, but she started out with the least also, she started out perceived as a loser, and now a number of people have an updated more positive image of her.

I certainly see your point about Sharpton. I lean toward him as a winner I suppose but his is the case where I was trying to be conservative in my judgments. I do think Sharpton expected to do a lot better than he did, even if most Democrats expected him to do significantly worse.

As for Clark, well in short he is a player now and he wasn't before, a rather significant player at that though people will differ on just how significant a player they believe Clark to currently be. I'll leave it at that in order to curb my partisan tilt toward Clark before I get going on him yet again. I've done that enough elsewhere.

I enjoyed your comments.

There was such a great amount of drama, tension, and surprises this time around.

I'm sure this primary race will be historic (as well as the election). I wonder when the movie will be made.

Thanks. I would knock Clark down a notch to "other winners" but otherwise think your analysis is pretty accurate.

party to one of our top three candidates. Anyone who went from virtual obscurity to being vetted for VP...has to be a winner. How can you deny that? It's a fact...not speculation. Most people would be happy if he were SoS! How can that not be a winner? Your dislike of Clark or preference for another VP candidate is clouding your judgment. Please reconsider your opinion of whether or not he is a winner.

Tom...that is a well though out analysis of all the candidates and I agree with you 100%...as always. Thanks for writing it and it's nice to read something truly positive and thoughtful instead of a lot of arguing over who's candidate is best.