Out of Office? It Might Be an Edge for 2008

When former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner addressed a sold-out dinner of prominent Democrats here this month, he received a mixed reception.

Many found Warner, a likely contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, fresh and forceful. Others thought his speech not quite ready for prime time.

“It was a little too corporate -- not enough passion,” said one New Hampshire Democratic activist who spoke on condition of anonymity when critiquing the politician who might be his party’s choice for president. “I’ll bet you anything that in six months, this isn’t his speech.”

The good news for Warner is that he has plenty of free time to hone his campaign speech -- and to focus on every other aspect of a possible run for the presidency. In that opportunity, Warner is far from alone.

Warner’s gubernatorial term ended in January. (Under state law he could not seek reelection.) He joins an unusually large number of politicians -- as many as six Democrats and five Republicans -- who might seek the 2008 presidential nominations while out of office.

This prospect is sure to revive an old debate among political professionals: Does the race for the presidency favor candidates who hold an elective office, or those who don’t? Most political strategists would answer the latter, but history points toward the former.

Among Republicans, potential 2008 contenders include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and New York Gov. George E. Pataki -- each of whom will leave their posts after the November election.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who resigned from Congress after the GOP suffered unexpected congressional losses in the 1998 election, and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who left office in 2001, are also possible candidates.

Among Democrats, Warner (who in New Hampshire jokingly described himself as “unemployed”) and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the party’s 2004 vice presidential nominee, seem virtually certain to run.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is not seeking reelection this year, is viewed as a likely presidential contender, and former Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota has kept his name in the mix.

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who sought the nomination in 2004, and former Vice President Al Gore, the party’s nominee in 2000, continue to generate buzz among activists.

Each party could have roughly as many out-of-office as in-office presidential aspirants.

Republican officeholders mentioned as possible candidates include three senators -- George Allen of Virginia (who is up for reelection this fall), Sam Brownback of Kansas and John McCain of Arizona. Also, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado is considering a protest candidacy based on his opposition to illegal immigration.

Five Democratic senators are possible contenders -- Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin and 2004 nominee John F. Kerry of Massachusetts -- as well as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (both he and Clinton are favored for reelection this year).

Results over the last 50 years give the edge in presidential contests to candidates with a political day job. Leaving aside incumbent presidents, the two parties since 1956 have picked 12 nominees who held an elective position when they were chosen. Over that same period, five nominees did not.

Of those five, two were former vice presidents (Republican Richard Nixon in 1968 and Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984). Another was a repeat nominee, Democrat Adlai Stevenson, tapped to run in 1956 after losing to Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952.

Ronald Reagan, the former governor of California, won the GOP nomination in 1980 after building a national following by nearly toppling President Ford in a 1976 primary challenge.

Thus, the only candidate in 50 years who lacked previous national exposure, was out of office and won a presidential nomination was former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party’s choice in 1976.

Despite this history, several top strategists from previous presidential campaigns said they believed candidates without a political office enjoyed distinct advantages.

“It is far better to have a candidate who is loose and not affiliated,” said Donna Brazile, who managed Gore’s 2000 campaign.

John Sasso, who served as a senior advisor to Kerry and 1988 Democratic nominee Michael S. Dukakis, added: “Every once in a while there is an advantage of being in office because you can deal with a real world event. But by and large it’s a lot of downside, because it takes away focus from something that needs 100%-plus attention and concentration.”

Brazile and other strategists said the biggest plus for the out-of-office candidates was a more flexible schedule. Especially valuable is the chance to lavish time on voters in the early caucus and primary states.

William Shaheen, a prominent New Hampshire Democrat, said former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, in 2000, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, in 2004, surged to early leads in the state’s Democratic primary battles “because they were here all the time.”

Both, however, lost the contests -- Bradley to Gore and Dean to Kerry.

Strategists said out-of-office presidential candidates also had more freedom to take contrary positions or pursue iconoclastic strategies because they were removed from the day-to-day political tumult.

That asset, though, can become a liability if it causes candidates to lose sight of the practical necessities of politics, said Eric Hauser, the communications director for Bradley’s 2000 campaign.

“If you start to think you are just a roving ambassador for truth, justice and the American way, as seen through your eyes, it can un-tether you from the reality of political organizing,” Hauser said.

Candidates in office when seeking the White House often find it easier to raise funds, because donors recognize they will still hold influential positions even if they do not capture a presidential nomination.

Perhaps the biggest edge for these candidates is that their positions can gain them sustained attention from the national media and the public.

“I think it’s better to have the day job that gives you a platform,” said Scott Reed, the manager of the 1996 presidential campaign of Bob Dole of Kansas, who kept his job as Senate majority leader through the GOP primaries, then resigned his seat.

“You need an agenda, you need some ability to build coalitions, you need a sharp message,” Reed said. “Those are all hard things to maintain if you don’t have [that] platform.”

Ultimately, the main trade-off of being in or out of office during a presidential run is what sort of exposure candidates receive.

The officeholders can more easily attract national coverage, but the candidates without an elective post can accumulate more face time in Iowa and New Hampshire living rooms.

Fewer than two years from now, voters in those two states will provide new evidence to fuel the old arguments about which kind of visibility is more valuable.