This piece of occasional commentary on the 2008 campaign focuses on the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for President. At this time, polling shows Senator Hillary Clinton with a narrowing lead. The narrowing lead reasonably reflects that she is the favorite but that the potential exists for someone else to win the nomination.

My assessment of the leading candidates follows:

Senator Hillary Clinton:

She is currently suffering somewhat on account of her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Her base feels that she voted "wrong" on this issue. To date, she has chosen not to appease them with any apologies for her vote. While such a course can be risky in the near-term, she can later use her unapologetic stance to highlight her capacity to provide strong, principled leadership. A lack of differentiation from the other candidates and a sense of "staleness" in which she is an "old" political face at a time when the nation is increasingly searching for a "fresh" one are also dogging her campaign. However, her candidacy is not doomed.

First, the odds she faces are less formidable than those her husband faced in 1992. Then, issues concerning marital infidelity and allegations that he strategically pursued graduate education to avoid the Vietnam draft loomed large over his campaign.

Second, there is ample time for her to differentiate herself. If she can demonstrate that she possesses experience, strong leadership skills, clear positions on the major issues, and a capacity to listen to the people she will gain votes. On the Iraq war, she will assert that her current positions are realistic given the present circumstances. On the issue of healthcare reform, she will argue that her instincts were right (i.e., almost 50 million Americans are presently uninsured, health costs are rising faster than inflation, and the employer-centered model now in place is eroding) and that she now has workable models from reform efforts in California, Vermont, Massachusetts, etc., along with lessons learned from her past effort to do a better job on an important issue. Her past approach to health care reform might did not sell very well to the general public, but it wasn't unpopular with the Democratic Party. Her immediate task is winning the Democratic Party's nomination, so her overall effort toward that end won't hurt her.

Third, she has the financial resources to mount a vigorous campaign. Money will make it possible for her to reach prospective supporters on a nationwide basis. Fourth, she has access to her husband, President Bill Clinton. Political/ideological differences many might have with respect to his policies notwithstanding, he offers access to a wealth of experience and contacts that others don't have. As a result, she will have the political contacts to put together strong campaign and policy teams.

All said, she probably has the best odds of winning the nomination, but those odds are only a little better than those of Senator Obama. She will not score a decisive victory in the primary process. The race for the nomination will likely be fairly close and extended.

Senator Barack Obama:

Senator Obama is widely perceived as a "fresh face" in national politics and has run a campaign that has emphasized inclusiveness. He is perhaps the most charismatic leader in the Democratic Party's current field of candidates. Those attributes have contributed to his raising nearly as much money as Senator Clinton. A strong start in the primaries could allow him to eclipse Senator Clinton in his fundraising.

His inclusiveness could be an especially powerful attribute at a time when the nation is deeply and severely divided. This could allow him to make "electability" in the general election a potent selling point. In contrast, to his image as an inclusive leader, polling data shows that Senator Clinton remains a relatively divisive figure, especially outside the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, among the Democratic Party's base, Senator Obama's initial instincts on the Iraq war are viewed as having been "correct" from the start. He'll need to be careful to avoid being painted as a "Moveon.org" candidate who is out of the mainstream to maintain the theme of "electability" in the general election. This challenge is feasible, as an anti-Iraq War candidate need not be seen as one who is out of the mainstream or opposed to waging a strong fight in the ideological struggle with radical Islamists.

His biggest drawback is his lack of experience, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs. He will need to address this issue, as Americans are likely to seek candidates who display a reasonable understanding of foreign affairs. According to Bob Woodward's State of Denial, then Texas Governor George Bush's knowledge of foreign affairs was almost non-existent, even after he had received the Republican Party's nomination for the Presidency. Today, with big foreign affairs challenges confronting the nation, a candidate will need to possess credible understanding of foreign affairs issues. Senator Obama is likely a future nominee for President. He has a chance at winning the 2008 nomination, but will need some luck to do so.

Senator John Edwards:

Senator Edwards is attempting to position himself as the "ideas" candidate, offering policy solutions for an increasingly broad range of issues. Public concern over his wife's health and the possibility that his offering a large number of policy solutions could inadvertently "position" him as being unfocused on the nation's biggest issues could diminish his chances. He will likely fade during primary season.

Governor Bill Richardson:

Governor Richardson has strong credentials and demonstrated experience, especially with regard to trade and diplomacy. He can make the case that he is in the best position to rebuild currently frayed U.S. ties with key NATO partners and the world's leading states, restore legitimacy to U.S. foreign policy, and reintroduce diplomacy to the center of overall American foreign policy through his experience, relationships and commitment to pragmatic Realism. However, the key selling point will need to be his relationships.

Considering that the neoconservative approach to foreign policy has been widely discredited, most, if not all candidates, from both the Democratic and Republican Parties will likely offer some variation of the Pragmatic Realist approach to foreign policy. Such an approach entails realpolitik with a dose of idealism; a focus on the national interest; diplomacy at the center of U.S. foreign policy; use of military power only to address credible and imminent threats to critical U.S. interests; and, reliance on overwhelming military power for any engagements. His familiarity with energy issues could be another advantage. However, he is not exceptionally charismatic and is likely to be viewed more as a potential senior diplomat (e.g., Secretary of State) than President. He probably will not last through the primary season.

Should Senator Obama receive the Democratic Party's nomination, he would do extremely well to choose Governor Richardson as his running mate. Governor Richardson would immediately provide the experience that Senator Obama currently lacks. In terms of general election prospects, an Obama-Richardson ticket would probably offer the Democratic Party its strongest prospects of winning the White House.