The View From Here . . .
By Bob Morgan, Jr.

With the 2008 presidential election a little less than two years away, potential nominees in both parties are gearing up for what is almost certain to be a tough contest. This column will focus on the current state of the Democratic race.

Right now, Hillary Clinton is clearly atop the pack of potential Democratic nominees. She outpaces all of her potential rivals in the opinion polls and, perhaps even more importantly, in fund raising.

In many ways, Ms. Clinton is a high quality nominee. She has now been elected twice as senator from New York, trouncing in 2000 a well-financed opponent who unsuccessfully harped on her alleged "carpetbagger" status. She is universally well known and regarded as a leader of her party. As First Lady, she was a key adviser of her husband, and a player on the world stage.

The problem, of course, is that Ms. Clinton has many detractors as well as admirers. To take a fairly typical survey, a Rasmussen poll released on November 6 reports that 44 percent of respondents have a positive view of the former First Lady, while 40 percent had a negative view. 39% said that they would definitely vote against Ms. Clinton while 30% said that they would definitely vote for her. 47% see Ms. Clinton as politically liberal, while only 18% call themselves liberal. This is a polarizing candidate, even apart from dissatisfaction from the left at Ms. Clinton's opposition to immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The current object of intense media interest is Illinois Senator Barack Obama, an articulate, likeable man with a compelling biography, and an African American. Mr. Obama delivered a well received keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

The problem with Mr. Obama, however, is that is that he is extremely light in relevant experience. He has never held any executive office and at this writing has less than two years experience in the United States Senate, where he has the relative meager legislative record typical of a freshman. Indeed, before his 2004 Senate campaign, Mr. Obama was toiling away in obscurity in the Illinois legislature. If the Republican nominee is a high-profile, nationally known candidate like Rudy Giuliani or John McCain, his lack of experience will stand in particularly sharp contrast.

On a political level, too, Mr. Obama, has barely been tested He triumphed in the Democratic primary after the frontrunner was weakened by accusations of domestic abuse. His initial Republican opponent in the general election then dropped out of the race was replaced by a very weak candidate.

But if not Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama, then who for the Democrats? Few Democrats are excited by the return of John Kerry. Al Gore seems increasingly to define himself as a one-issue candidate. John Edwards, while a personable candidate, was not all that impressive running for vice president in 2004, easily losing his home state. Other possibilities like Tom Vilsack or Evan Bayh are hardly household names.

Democrats are understandably excited about their win on November 7 and have visions of capturing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue starting January 20, 2009. Nevertheless, as the Republicans found out after substantial victories in 1946 and 1994, and the Democrats discovered after a good sized pickup of seats in 1982, winning a midterm election does not necessarily translate into a victory in the next presidential election. They will need a good candidate with broad support around the country. Whether Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or any of the other potential nominees is such a candidate is very much an open question.