With more than a year before the 2008 presidential election, the road to the White House is getting hot.
After the third Democratic presidential primary debate Monday, pundits from coast to coast already have thinned the crowd of Democratic presidential hopefuls down to three: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, and John Edwards.
Paul Abramson, an MSU political science professor and political expert, said the race is even tighter - coming down to two candidates.
"It's really turned into a two candidate race on the Democratic side," Abramson said. "In the most recent polls, Clinton has widened her lead over Obama, and Edwards has dropped further back."
Although Obama and Clinton have raised more than $30 million in funds - $34 and $33 million, respectively - when it comes to public opinion, Clinton is gaining the upper hand, he said.
"I guess there's a growing feeling among (Democrats) that Obama does not have enough experience," Abramson said. "He's a very flashy and attractive candidate, but doesn't have the gravitas to be president."
Obama also has to overcome Clinton's family history, said Steve Mitchell, chairman of Mitchell Research and Communications Inc., a Lansing-based political consulting firm.
"Barack Obama is a very exciting candidate, and he has certainly gotten a lot of people involved who may not have been involved before, but the Clinton name has been very important to the Democratic political process," he said. "He's got to overcome 15 years of (Democrats) liking Bill and Hillary Clinton."
While Mitchell said Edwards is the strongest candidate in the field, the odds are stacked against him.
"He has a one stage strategy: Win Iowa," he said. "Take New Hampshire, then South Carolina - Clinton now leads in both states. He's never going to make himself viable. (Clinton) has money, Obama has money. Edwards does not."
But despite the race being somewhat top-heavy with candidates, there still is a good reason to stay in the primaries, said Charles Ballard, an MSU economics professor.
"They could be angling for a vice presidential nomination," he said. "It used to be viewed as a pretty worthless position, but in the last few generations, it's become a very important one."
The role is important to those seeking the highest office in the land, Ballard said.
"It's now often viewed as a stepping stone to the presidency," he said.
The format of the debate could attract younger voters. This was the first time in history questions from people on YouTube.com have been used during a debate.
"It's clearly designed to bring young people into the fold and engage them in the political process," Mitchell said. "It will be interesting to see how many young people they got to participate in and watch the debate."
Others, like Abramson, said while the format may be different, the questions asked likely will be the same.
"I don't think it will lead to a very much different outcome than if a moderator asked," he said. "It's not much different from town hall debates, where people submit written questions."
The effect would be greater if current laws encouraged younger voters to head out to the polls, said Mark Kornbluh, an MSU history professor and voter participation expert.
"This will open the appeal of the debates to younger voters who are more likely to use technology," he said. "New media is a wonderful way to engage college students, but if the laws are still discriminatory, it will not make all the difference by itself."
