Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

The Iowa scorecard

The highs and lows of our would-be presidents

The Rocky

Published January 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

We not sure what Iowans have in mind today in terms of the presidential race - and some of them may not be entirely sure either as they head to their respective caucuses. If so, their indecision would be understandable. Has there ever been primary season with so many candidates whose undeniable strengths were offset by such obvious weaknesses? As a service to readers today, we offer a pro/con scoresheet for each of the major candidates - and even a few who aren't.

First the Democrats.

* Hillary Clinton.

Pros: Unlike some in the race, she usually acts like a grownup, and has been around Washington long enough to develop nuanced, measured views on a range of issues. Her center-left administration would probably not uncork too many surprises - at least in the policy arena.

Cons: Personal integrity somewhat suspect. Answers on issues such as trade seem overly driven by polls. For that matter, do we want another president that half of the country hates? Or a continuation of the Bush/Clinton/Bush alternating dynasty?

* Barack Obama.

Pros: An appealing problem-solving approach. Possesses charisma that could move and persuade a broad swath of the electorate from the White House bully pulpit. Upbeat. Measured. As first black president, would signify one more huge step in overcoming America's ugliest stain: slavery and the racist policies that followed.

Cons: Inexperience. Inexperience. Inexperience. Also, where's the beef?

* John Edwards.

Pros: He's tough, persistent and commendably energized by the plight of the least fortunate. And as a fantastically wealthy former trial lawyer, he'd be in a great position to push for national tort reform - if that ever found its way onto his agenda.

Cons: His tedious, high-decibel pandering to envy and economic anxiety is no substitute for a philosophy of governance.

* Joe Biden.

Pros: Highly knowledgeable on foreign policy, with serious, mature views.

Cons: Elected to the Senate in his 20s, he gives the term "career politician" a bad name. Hard to think of many domestic initiatives of note by him, either.

* Bill Richardson.

Pros. Great resume. Only Westerner. Broad executive experience. Supple (in the good sense) and smart.

Cons: His campaign. Disappointingly, he decided to pander to the activist left, as witnessed by his let's-rush-to-the-exits position on Iraq.

And now the Republicans.

* Mitt Romney.

Pros: First-rate businessman and entrepreneur (unlike the White House's current occupant). Executive branch experience as governor. Broad appeal across GOP constituency groups.

Cons: Overly calculated. Seems to lack genuine passion on issues, as if they were part of a marketing strategy and not emanating from the heart.

* Mike Huckabee.

Pros: Appears unscripted and genuine. Former governor. Great sense of humor, an asset in selling a policy.

Cons: Made an overt religious pitch to insinuate Romney's Mormon religion into the campaign - the most damning interpretation being that it was a tawdry appeal to bigotry. Utter novice in foreign policy. Seems at sea regarding the importance of trade.

* John McCain.

Pros: Expert on national security. Fearless in personal life and in espousing unpopular views, such as his early support for the "surge" in Iraq. A genuine fiscal hawk.

Cons: Self-righteous. Little regard for how the First Amendment applies to political speech. Partial to top-down Washington mandates. Would conclude his second term at the age of 80.

* Fred Thompson.

Pros: A principled federalist in an age when few politicians can resist extending Washington's reach to every cranny of the land. Able to articulate positions in plain English.

Cons: Sparse record of signature accomplishments while in the Senate, to put it mildly.

* Ron Paul.

Pros: Means what he says about small government and keeping the United States' nose out of other nations' business. Able to tap the energy and enthusiasm of a range of alienated voters.

Cons: Makes no attempt to broaden his appeal or to acknowledge the nature of coalitions. Surprisingly inarticulate when pushed to defend some controversial views.

* Rudy Giuliani (last here because he's basically not competing in Iowa).

Pros: Impressive record as U.S. attorney (fighting organized crime) and then as New York mayor (on welfare, crime, the bureaucracy and taxes). Determined, driven and smart. Steady, inspiring presence after 9/11.

Cons: Overly combative. May be a streak of the bully in him. Personal history a mess, with disgraceful treatment of earlier wives and children. May have cut ethical corners while mayor.

So there you have it, with this caveat: We reserve the right to alter our thumbnail sketches as the election campaign proceeds.

Comments

  • January 3, 2008

    8:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    No wonder I can't decide who to vote for. All ballots should have a spot that says, None of the Above.Your dead on in your analysis of each candidate.Americans have some hard choices to make in the coming year.

  • January 3, 2008

    9:30 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    lj629 writes:

    With respect to John McCain, you write, "Little regard for how the First Amendment applies to political speech."

    This is simply not true. Money is not free speech. People with more money are not entitled to greater free speech rights than the rest of us.

    With respect to the Democratic candidates, as a right wing conservative newspaper there is zero chance that you will endorse any Democrat running for president in 2008 in the general election. You will endorse whoever wins the Republican nomination.

  • January 3, 2008

    12:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    abel89 writes:

    On Joe Biden:

    "Cons: Elected to the Senate in his 20s, he gives the term "career politician" a bad name."

    I don't think he was elected to the Senate in his 20s, as that would have been unconstitutional. (One must be thirty to be in the Senate, which was Biden's age when he was elected.)

  • January 3, 2008

    1:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    fletch writes:

    Biden was elected to the Senate in his 20s -- he was 29 when he was elected in November of 1972. He turned 30 later that month (and before he took office in January of 1973).

  • January 4, 2008

    9:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    One state...Iowa...does not make a candidate President. Just because it is the first one!

    Too much press has been spent on Iowa...let's see what happens with the next 15 states. Then you can make predictions!!