James Taranto surveys the field of prospective Democratic presidential candidates—Webb, Warren, Sanders, Biden:
There’s not a lot of young blood here. At 65, Warren is the most youthful of the lot. Webb, Sanders and Biden are 69, 73 and 72, respectively. (The oldest president ever elected, Ronald Reagan, was 69 in 1980 and four years older four years later.) For that, elderly Democrats can thank President Obama: “The sad thing is that we’re losing all these promising young guys who were the future of the party,†David Axelrod’s memoir quotes the president as saying “glumly†on election night 2010.
Before getting around to the target of his commentary, Hillary Clinton (67).
I could vote for Jim Webb. I could also vote for Warren, Sanders, or Biden depending on how vile the Republican candidate will be. I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. If it’s Clinton vs. Cruz, I’ll think about moving to another country.
What we’re really talking about here, of course, is whether any of these candidates are viable alternatives to Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. For several reasons, I don’t think so.
Sanders is not a serious candidate. In addition to his age, he is simply too far too the left for the modern Democratic Party. He’s made no secret of the fact that if he does run it would be for the purpose of forcing a debate on issues, not winning a nomination that he clearly doesn’t have a chance of winning.
Biden has the same age problem that Sanders does but, more importantly, I’m not sure that anyone takes him seriously anymore. The image that has developed around him since he’s been VP has been more the kindly old, and often politically incorrect Grandfather rather than someone who could be a real leader.
Jim Webb was one of my Senators up until the 2012. Honestly I had no idea that he was 69; I assumed he was younger. In any case, even though he’s been traveling to Iowa lately he’s also not someone who has ever demonstrated any real love for retail politics and campaigning. It took forever for Virginia Democrats to persuade him to run in 2006, and he basically said he wasn’t running for re-election in 2012 because he was sick of politics. I don’t see a guy like that lasting long on the Iowa-New Hampshire rubber chicken circuit.
And that brings us to Warren. I wish people would get it through their heads that she’s not running, because it’s clear that she isn’t. Not only has she said it many times herself, but pretty much all of her big financial backers from her Senate run in 2012 have pledged themselves to Hillary and said publicly that they would not change their minds if Warren somehow did decide to get into the race.
I don’t think the race for the Democratic nomination will be a coronation per se. The media will find some candidate to focus on as the underdog for at least a part of the time, and it’s entirely possibly that HRC will stumble. Right now, though, I’d be loathe to bet against Clinton winning the nomination no matter what odds you gave me.
I agree with you, Doug. Barring some cataclysm, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate and I’ll be voting for somebody else.
Now if you want to talk about the Republican field, let me get back to you after I’ve had a few scotches.
I’m having trouble seeing how the Republican field is more vile than the Democratic field. When the absolute BEST the Dems can offer is old Hillary, and I mean that from the perspective of ethics as well as politics, I have trouble seeing how any major party from any time in this country’s history could do worse. As bad, but not worse.