The Tide in the Senate -- and Beyond

The New York Times is reporting that Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is set to formally announce on Monday that he will not run for reelection in 2008.

That makes three Republican senators who will not be running for reelection next year -- Hagel, Virginia Senator John Warner and, most likely, Idaho Senator Larry ("Wide Stance") Craig.

2008 is looking very good for the Democrats to extend their currently razor-thin majority in the Senate. And given how the Republicans are imploding, both on the executive and legislative level, it's theoretically possible that 2008 is going to be an election year that makes 2006 look like a tea party.

I haven't given much room to the 2008 Democratic candidates here lately, so maybe it's time to do a little ruminating, given the events of today and the past few weeks.

Robert Novak has been saying (or possibly implying would be the better word) that the Democrats are on the verge of shooting themselves in the foot by nominating either a woman (Hillary Clinton) or a black man (Barack Obama) to head the ticket -- something that he thinks is the only hope for the Republican party to hold onto the White House in 2008. It's an antediluvian and arguably racist opinion.

But is he right?

I'm not sure. I think Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a candidate and would most likely lose in a general election -- and on the off-chance that she won, I think she'd most likely be an awful president. Based on what I've read in books like Carl Bernstein's splendid recent biography, Hillary Clinton, with her band of insane loyalists and her passion for utter secrecy, has more in common with George W. Bush than a lot of people might think at first glance.

If the Republicans had any sense at all (and based on the evidence of the past seven years they have none) they would rally around Mitt Romney as quickly as possible. There's no doubt in my mind that Romney could beat Hillary Clinton. He might be able to beat Barack Obama.

Could Obama get the nomination and actually win the general election? I'm not sure, although I'd like to think so. I'd like to know more about him, but what impression I have of him so far has been favorable. Clinton's people are making a crucial error for slamming Obama for his suposed lack of "experience." As JFK's speechwriter Ted Sorenson (who supports Obama) pointed out not long ago, Cheney and Rumsfeld had lots of experience when they began the Bush Administration -- and what good did it do them?

I've made no secret of the fact that my first choice would be for Al Gore to enter the race. But right now it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Events are going to start unfolding fast in this election cycle, and we could have a presumptive nominee by early February if not sooner. That means that the candidate with the best organization has the best chance of winning -- but it also means that if someone can somehow pull off an upset in Iowa and New Hampshire it could turn the whole race upside down, and lead to the craziest scramble for the nomination that we've seen in generations.

It's going to be an interesting six months, that's all I can say.

Tom Moran