News from the New Party

US Presidential Candidates II: The Democrats

Last week we looked at the Republican presidential candidates in the US.  This week we turn to the race for the nomination in the Democratic party.  The difference with the Republican race is very marked, not least because in the Republican party the conservative base has not readily identified with any of the candidates on offer.

Hillary Clinton has been the obvious front-runner for some years now and has maintained a strong lead in the polls.  Her campaign is slick and professional, with commentators noting that she shows little sign of putting a foot wrong.  Her sure footedness shows very clearly in aspects of foreign policy where blunders by her opponents have enabled her to present herself as the candidate who can be trusted on national security.  But this is no walkover for the Clinton camp.  They have seen perhaps an unexpectedly popular opponent in Barack Obama and Clinton has had to shift her policy stance to support the left-wing causes of the Democratic base.  While her national poll ratings are good, her lead in Iowa - a key early race - is only around 2%, indicating that she may be vulnerable if another candidate can gain some early momentum.  Polls also seem to indicate that Clinton's popularity among Democrats does not translate into a good standing among the general public.  Any worries that Clinton would not be able to break the vote ceiling might encourage Democrats to look for a candidate who can appeal to independents and moderate Republicans.

Barack Obama, the young Senator from Illinois, has been the star of the Democratic race.  He has generated enthusiasm and has been notably very successful in raising campaign funds.  There is a real chance that Obama could defeat Clinton and the early momentum in his campaign clearly worried the Clinton camp.  However, Obama has shown himself to be shaky on foreign policy issues in particular, opining about the circumstances in which he would or would not use nuclear weapons, saying that he would authorise an attack in the territory of an ally (Pakistan) to get al-Qaeda's leadership, and answering a question about a potential terrorist attack on America in terms of the effectiveness of the emergency services rather than talking about retaliation.  As Obama's campaign comes under scrutiny he could easily make critical mistakes of this sort, but right now he is a serious contender in what previously looked like an inevitable victory for Hillary Clinton.

John Edwards, the candidate for vice-president in 2004, has yet to gain the traction that would make him be seen as a potential winner.  However, the left-wing agenda he has adopted has effectively dominated the campaign and the other leading candidates are if anything following him.  Edwards can pin his hopes on a good showing in the early races where his campaign is certainly stronger.

The wildcard?  Step forward Al Gore - not a candidate as yet, but a name that is mentioned by many.  With his high profile on green issues, Gore has shaken off his dull wooden image from the 2000 campaign and, while playing down talk of a presidential bid, looks to be adopting the de Gaulle posture by awaiting the call.  It will probably not happen, but any major upset among the leading candidates could be enough to drag Gore into the race.

Our verdict is that none of the Democratic candidates as yet are convincing on issues of national security, with the exception of Hillary Clinton - though she is being forced to pursue an agenda which to some extent undermines her strengths on this issue.  Obama is an exciting candidate but potentially very weak on issues that matter, and John Edwards - who calls the war on terror a "bumper sticker slogan" - would be a disaster.  Among Democrats, we have to call for Hillary Clinton.