Looking forward toward 2016

   It's more than a year before our next presidential election, and already, contenders from both parties are lining up. So who has the best chance to replace President Barack Obama? Will historic trends continue and will 2016 be the Republicans' year? Will Hillary finally realize her destiny and win the White House that she has coveted practically since the day she and former President Bill Clinton left in 2000? Or will the Republicans finally field a candidate with a chance to  win the presidency?
   Of course, it's a little early to know for sure who will separate themselves from the crowded field of presidential wannabes, but it's never too early  to begin handicapping the field and trying to determine who we'll still be talking about a year from now. Below, I have broken the field down by party. Only those candidates who I feel have a legitimate shot have been included.

Democrats

   Hillary Clinton: The Democratic nomination appears to be Clinton's to lose at this point. She has been part of the national political scene for almost a quarter century, first as first lady during husband Bill's presidency, then as Democratic senator from New York and most recently as Secretary of State under Barack Obama. In 2008, she very nearly won the nomination outright, becoming the first woman to headline a major party ticket. Clinton has unrivaled name recognition and a resume that few can touch. She enjoys a vast network of donors. And, of course, there's her ace in the hole: her husband, Bill.
   Bill Clinton is, without a doubt, the most gifted politician this nation has seen in the last 50 years. Who else could have survived a sleazy White House sex scandal and impeachment while making his political enemies look bad and coming out the other side more popular than ever? Clinton has maintained his popularity since leaving the White House, and there' s no doubt that his popularity and political genius could benefit his wife.
   Clinton's biggest weakness is, ironically, also one of her strengths. Her long history in the public eye means that she has a record separate from Bill's that she has to defend. And as big an asset as Bill could be, he also could prove a liability. Bill Clinton was only the second president to be impeached. The Monica Lewinsky scandal dragged this nation through the sewer, and not everyone has forgotten that.
   Then, there's Clinton fatigue." Bill and Hillary have been part of our nation's political life since 1992. Many Americans are tired of seeing their name on the ballot every four years, and many would vote for "anyone but Clinton." Still, even with these obstacles to overcome, Hillary has to be considered the odds-on favorite to win the nomination next year.

Joe Biden: Biden is the only other person with a realistic chance to win the nomination, at least so far. Biden's strengths include his vast experience in government and his name recognition. He served in the U.S. Senate from 1973 until 2008, when he became vice president. He is former chairman of both the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committee. And he has run for president twice before, in 1988 and 2008. That experience should serve him well in what promises to be a wide open race to replace the popular Obama.
   The problem with Biden is that he has not used his time as vice president to his fullest advantage. In fact, he has made several notable public gaffes, so much so that he is regarded as somewhat of an intellectual lightweight in some circles, much like former Vice President Dan Quayle under Bush the Elder. Historically, vice presidents are seen as having a major advantage when they decide to seek the top office. Just ask the elder Bush, who was swept into office thanks to Ronald Reagan's popularity. Biden doesn't appear to have that advantage. Then, there's his age -- he's 72.  Still, so far, he's the only person who can pose a real threat to the Clinton juggernaut.

Jim Webb: The former Virginia senator is a little bit of an enigma. He's a Democrat who managed to win in largely Republican Virginia. That shows he has some cross-over appeal. Still, I don't think he has the name recognition or the bonafides to mount a serious threat to either Clinton or Biden.

John Kerry: Kerry has not expressed a formal interest in running yet, but if he did, he would be formidable. Like Clinton, he has a sterling resume, having served in the U.S. Senate from 1985-2013. He is currently Secretary of State. And he is both a genuine war hero and a former Democratic nominee for president in 2004. He's been there before, and one can only assume that he learned from his past missteps.
   The problem with Kerry is that he's "damaged goods." In 2004, George W. Bush successfully painted him as a stereotypical Massachusetts liberal, an elitist blue-blood -- much as his father had done to Michael Dukakis in 1988. It's an image he is yet to overcome. Add to that the controversy over Kerry's actions upon returning from Vietnam, and it's doubtful that Democrats would take another chance on him in 2016.

Al Gore: Another dark horse who is yet to declare a formal interest. Gore would be an intriguing candidate. He is a former U.S. senator from Tennessee who served as vice president for eight years under Bill Clinton. In 2000, he very nearly rode Clinton's popularity into the White House, losing the election by less than 600 votes.
   Gore brings vast knowledge of government policy to the table. He is the quintessential "policy wonk." But Gore never had Clinton's personal charisma. He wasn't a popular vice president. And his somewhat extreme views on the environment have made him a punchline and alienated him from the more mainstream elements of his own party. He would be a major risk if Democrats hope to hold the White House.

Republicans

Jeb Bush: So far, the odds-on favorite for mainstream Republicans. Jeb is a former Florida governor who is seen as less extreme than his brother, George. As far as assets, perhaps his biggest is his family name and political pedigree. Both his father and older brother are former presidents. That gives him instant name recognition that would be hard to beat, at least in the early going. That pedigree also gives him access to the vast Bush political machine and network of donors. Win or lose, Bush would run an extremely well-financed campaign.
   Bush faces at least two major obstacles as he prepares to step onto the national stage. First, and perhaps most problematic, is the baggage he inherits from his older brother. George W. Bush was seen as an extremist by many, even within his own party. His elective war against Iraq, his support of the use of torture against suspected terrorists and his use of Guantanamo Bay to hold prisoners indefinitely all made him extremely unpopular. Jeb is already seen by many within his party as less extreme than his brother, but he would still have a tall mountain to climb to prove that to the average American. Many of us have not forgotten the nightmare of the George W. Bush years, and it would take a lot to prove that he's really different from his brother.
   The other obstacle facing Bush is the same facing Hillary Clinton: public fatigue with his family. Think about this: Since 1980, a Bush or Clinton has either been president, been within a step of the presidency or occupied some other major government post. We've had two Bushes serve as president so far. To many, Jeb's ascension makes it seem as if he is simply continuing the family dynasty by taking his turn.

Ted Cruz: The Texas senator and Tea Party darling is perhaps the scariest of the possible 2016 contenders. What makes his interest in the White House so ironic is that Cruz led the charge to shut down the government in 2013. And now, he wants to head that government? What an opportunist. Cruz is a virulent narcissist and a bomb-thrower in the grand tradition of Newt Gingrich. While he is undeniably  brilliant and a master at garnering headlines for himself, he also represents the most extreme elements of his party. While that may appeal to the hardcore primary voters, it won't play well during the general election. Most Americans, regardless of party, occupy the political middle, and there's no way for Cruz to ever successfully paint himself as a moderate.

Rand Paul:  The biggest thing Rand Paul has going for him in 2016 is name recognition, thanks to his father, Ron's perennial quest for the White House. Over the years, Ron Paul has built quite a impressive network of  grassroots support, both among Libertarians and among those fed up with the status quo. Rand Paul would automatically inherit that support.
   Rand Paul's biggest liability looking toward 2016 is that he shares many of his father's more extreme positions. While it may sound good to promise to eliminate the Department of Education, for instance, that will never realistically happen. And there's the problem. Paul, like his father before him, is an ideologue. His ideas might sound good, but his chances of actually making them a reality are slim to none. If he were to become president, he would prove to be an extremely ineffective leader. And a presidency cannot survive on ideas alone.

  Bobby Jindal: The Louisiana governor has made no secret of his desire to be president. In fact, if you look at his career in public life, every move he's made has had that as his ultimate goal. Jindal is a former U.S. representative and served as head of the state's public college system before becoming governor. Since becoming governor, he has taken every opportunity to raise his profile nationally, often lecturing the national party on how they can better connect with voters. The problem is, his actions often belie the wisdom of that advice.
   While head of the University of Louisiana system, Jindal spearheaded an effort to change the names of the state's universities, thus stripping them of any of their unique identities. As governor, he led an effort to privatize the state's hospital system, going so far as to push through a contract with 50 blank pages, presumably to be filled in by the company that took over the system. Jindal was originally one of the leading proponents of the Common Core national education standards. Once they gained traction, he promptly changed sides and has been trying to repeal them in Louisiana ever since.
   Jindal is undeniably brilliant. But he has shown that he lacks the ability to lead. He is a "fair weather" politician who will support an idea when it suits his needs, then promptly change his mind when it no longer serves him. While he might make a decent vice presidential pick (and even that's doubtful), he lacks the name recognition among the general public to be considered anything but a dark horse candidate.

   Chris Christie:  Another intriguing candidate. The New Jersey governor has been on the public's radar for awhile. He won widespread praise for his leadership following Superstorm Sandy in 2013. And he has occasionally shown an independent streak by giving praise to Democrats when it's due, and even criticizing members of his own party in public. The question is, how would that translate in a long presidential campaign? Could Christie be seen as "Republican enough" by hardcore primary voters? And if he did win the nomination, would he be able to moderate his positions enough to gain the trust of the average voter in the general election? It's a formula that almost worked to perfection for Arizona Sen. John McCain in 2008. But McCain had years of experience on the national stage and a lengthy record of being a political "maverick." Both of these are things Christie lacks. At best, Christie is a dark horse candidate. He'd make an excellent vice presidential pick, but despite showing flashes of promise, he's not quite ready for prime time, at least not in 2016.