Three-horse race for Democratic leadership is getting nasty

US Politics / Chicken Dinner / 07 November 2007 / Leave a Comment

White House spies Chicken Dinner talk us through the betting on the next Democrat leader in the US

No one's got too much of a clue which lucky candidate is going to be checking out wallpaper samples in preparation for a move into the White House next November, but the Republicans are beating the Democrats hands down in one field: running an interesting race for the nomination. The Dems race is so uneventful that one of the leading candidates in the betting isn't even running (Al Gore 17.0 on betfair) and shows no signs of doing so. Meanwhile the trajectories of the three that are: Hillary Clinton (1.38 to win the nomination on betfair), Barack Obama (7.0) and John Edwards (16.0), haven't crossed since the pollsters started drawing their wobbly lines across their charts several months ago. They've been one-two-three since the starter fired his pistol.

This week, however, has brought a little drama, as Sen. Obama has managed to close the gap on Sen. Clinton by as much as ten points in some polls. If your money's on Barack, however, don't waste too many heart beats on this false dawn.

Hillary is still out way out in front of the field, with the most money, the best organization, the highest visibility and the big leads in key states. At some point in all political races, the trailing candidates have to stop tooting their own trumpets and concentrate on the real business of rubbishing their main opponent.

This happened during an October 30 debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, when the chasing pack turned their fire on Hillary in a panic that they are running out of time to get the ropes on her. Barack Obama was also told by his financial backers, according to the New York Times, to stop being so nice and land some punches.

John Edwards, far less polite and agreeable than during his 2004 campaign, kept hammering away at his theme of Mrs Clinton being enmeshed in a corrupt Washington system. Hillary is also being bashed over the head for voting in favour of a motion to declare the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, which is seen by some as clearing the way for a farewell attack on Iran by George Bush, and for not advocating a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. And as if that weren't enough, some people are getting all nervous nelly about her chances of winning the presidential race if she does win the nomination.

But so what? This is the just the process working itself out. If you're backing Hillary, tune out the insults. Did you expect them to hold the door open for her and make one of those arches with swords for her to condescendingly swan beneath? No. As top drawer political campaigners they've got to fight like their lives depended on it. But by the end of January all the infighting will be over.

In fact it could all be over for John Edwards as early as January 3. If he gets buried in the Iowa primary his campaign will stall and he'll have to settle for bronze. Edwards' only chance of a prolonged campaign is if he wins Iowa, where Sen. Clinton currently leads (according to the RCP poll average) by 30% to Edwards 20%, with Obama on 23%. The Clinton campaign has just shoveled a ton more cash into Iowa either because she's taking the threat of the other candidates seriously (their version) or because she's going for the jugular and trying to knock everyone out in round one (her version).

The only hope for those who've laid Sen Clinton for the nomination is history, which shows candidates with big national leads sometimes failing to win the nomination if they stumble in Iowa or New Hampshire. Jimmy Carter almost lost the nomination to Ted Kennedy in 1980, even though he was an incumbent president at the time. As rays of hope go, that's about it.