Skip to main content

I'm not really ready to talk about this, but everyone else wants to. So here's some random stuff on 2008.

  • Chuck Todd finally writes the obvious -- the Democratic nomination is not Hillary's for the taking. But he still doesn't say the most obvious reason Hillary can't win -- she tops out in the early polls, a popularity contest, at 35-ish percent. Now, money is good to build name ID and to brand. But who doesn't have an opinion well-formed about Hillary already? She's only been around 14 high-profile years. She's got one direction to go -- down. Her chance for the nomination is a crowded field, where 30 percent nets her wins. And being the only woman in the field would help her out. But I just don't see Hillary as being a foregone conclusion. She'll be competitive, but so will lots others.
  • Speaking of Hillary and Obama, Fox News claims that Hillary won't run because of Obama. And the Hotline thinks Obama is in.

    Biden thinks Obama won't run:

    Senator Joe Biden visited NECN studios for an interview with Chet Curtis. In the two-part show that starts tonight, Biden said: "I've decided I am going to run [for president]." Biden said he'd be surprised if Senator Barack Obama seeks the presidency.

    Then again, Biden thinks he's a serious candidate, so what the heck does he know?

  • I still think the frontrunner is Edwards. The primary schedule fits him best -- Iowa, where he dig extremely well in 2004, Nevada, where UNITE-HERE (which represents all Vegas casino workers) is an unofficial extension of the Edwards campaign, New Hampshire, where he only needs to show up and place top-three or four, and then South Carolina, where he should theoretically clean up.
  • Of course, Bill Richardson will make a play for Nevada, counting on regional kinship and its Latino voters to pull him to the top and give him a boost headed into the next few primaries. In fact, Richardson is a big reason the Nevada caucuses even exist. Still, if it's a battle of Latino voters versus Labor, I would give the edge to labor. My people still don't vote in the numbers they should. But Richardson is also very popular in the Latino community. If anyone can get them out, it'll be him.
  • Then again, Richardson (and Vilsack) are at a huge disadvantage. In the latest round of campaign finance reform, senators made sure they would get the upper hand by allowing themselves to transfer their senate funds into their presidential account. Governors are not permitted to do so. So senators generally get a $10-20 million head start on governors. Just another reason that the current campaign finance regime needs to be dumped in favor of a brand new, more sensical approach.
  • I won't forget those Democrats who dug deep on behalf of our majorities, and those who didn't. There was no one more miserly than Evan Bayh. Out of all the candidates, I am hostile to one -- Bayh, and it's because he demonstrated none of the party-building leadership I expect from our nominee and hopefully president.
  • Bayh's retort, I'm sure, would be that he helped three Democrats win House seats in Indiana. Other Democrats that can claim solid local gains are Vilsack, and, um, well, that's pretty much it. Clark has no real geographic base. Hillary didn't shepherd the kind of gains we should've seen in New York, both at the federal and state levels. Kerry lives in a state already dominated by Democrats. Richardson missed out on his state's one hot federal race (NM-01 and Patricia Madrid).
  • Richardson, as head of the Democratic Governor's Association, can take some credit for the six big governorships we picked up, including a crucial one in Ohio. Compare that to Mitt Romney, who heads into the GOP race after having LOST six governorships as head of the Republican Governor's Association.
  • Vilsack announced his candidacy this morning. He also announced it the day after the election. And I'm sure he'll "announce" several times more to see if he can get anyone to care.
  • Still, credit due -- Vilsack was succeeded as governor of Iowa by another Democrat. Compare to Mitt Romney, whose handpicked successor was crushed in Massachusetts in a state that likes to elect Republican governors. Mike Huckabee, in Arkansas, also saw his Republican successor crushed by a Democrat. Other Republicans who screwed up in 2006 are out of the race -- Allen in Virginia and Frist in Tennessee. Romney and Huckabee, on the other hand, don't seem to care about past failures. Kind of like George Bush. On our side, Richardson was re-elected easily to a second term in his (barely) Red state.
  • Then again, Gov. Richardson was unable to carry his state for Kerry in 2004. Neither was Vilsack. And Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards failed to carry his own home state of North Carolina. Clark gets no blame for losing Arkansas in 2004, but he also gets no credit for our gubernatorial victory there this year.
  • Finally, there's Al Gore. No one knows if he's going to run. All indications say "no", though he's got a bunch of his supporters going around trying to drum up interest. It looks like an ego play -- get a reluctant Gore to enter the race to satisfy public clamoring for it. His entrance would be dramatic and welcome. And what better place to announce than when he accepts his Oscar for Best Documentary? Now that would be exciting.
  • And speaking of announcements, the smart ones will do so on either the Daily Show or Colbert. In fact, the candidate should have a blog post ready to go, on a laptop, and have Stewart or Colbert hit "submit". Make it a Comedy Central/Blogosphere event. That would be fun. Why bother with a hostile press interested only in asking questions about Hillary? Primary candidates should go straight to friendly audiences.
  • I am 100 percent undecided at this point. I don't even lean toward someone. I will date around, see if there's anyone I fall for. But I'm in no hurry, and none of us should be either. Make them work for our support.

    But I will say that there are things I'll be looking for -- executive experience, a track record of leadership, especially in controversial issues, an outside-the-beltway mindset, loyalty to party, demonstrated material assistance to the Democratic gains in 2006, an embrace of people-power, and some Webb-style cojones.

    I expect no one can meet all those guidelines, but the more, the better.

p.s. I guess I did want to talk about the 2008 presidential stuff... In any case, this was all stream-of-consciousness. So I'm sure I omitted potential candidates and misc stuff.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:20 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A lot of time to play out (9+ / 0-)

    I think there's going to be a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff going on with the big names, especially Hillary and Obama.

    I like your suggestion for Al Gore announcing at the Academy Awards. Now that would be a sight to behold.

    Progressive Wave
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:20:20 PM PST

      •  I don't think Gore is on an ego trip, (11+ / 0-)

        although being "wanted" must certainly feel good after all the crap that was dumped on him. I don't doubt for a second that he really wasn't planning to run originally, before the stars stated lining up so dramatically in his favor. However, he is very smart to "play hard to get" right now. The longer he stays out of the fray the better. We all saw what happens to early frontrunners with Dean, and I have no doubt he would knock Hillary right off her perch the minute he declared. Even the pundits who dissed him so badly in 2000 are admitting now that he stands head and shoulders above all the other candidates today. Mainly because of the fact that he has more national security experience than the rest, the background Americans prefer (Gov or VP), and he was right about the war from the begining.

        At the same time, it would not be wise to let the buzz cool off either, so he keeps stirring the pot. He is so hot now, dispite his statements, that he is always mentioned along with Hill and Obama. Quite a feat for a guy that isn't running.

      •  Ahmadinejad is winning! (0+ / 0-)

        Not a victory for our Party -but an Opportunity for our Country. - Pelosi

        by annefrank on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:49:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  did you see who is winning????? (0+ / 0-)

        how crazy is that?  

        May all beings be free from fear.

        by shakti on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not crazy. It's not best person of the year (0+ / 0-)

          It is the person who had the largest effect on the events of the year. Hitler won (though Osama did not).

          They should change the name of it since it sounds like an accolade.

          I noted earlier that if bush "won" he'd take it as high praise. Sort of like Colbert, but bush would mean it.

    •  All this stuff is just (yawn) speculation (7+ / 0-)

      at this point.  I gotta get busy.  These TV golf tournaments won't watch themselves.

      threatening the forces of conservatism since 1963...

      by cleverblogname on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:24:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I do lean towards someone...ED RENDELL (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neodem, HillaryGuy

      At this point, if he runs, I will work on his campaign.  He will have my full support.

      My other preferred choices are:

      1. Hillary
      1. Gore
      1. Obama
      1. Clark

      Delaware Dem 2008: The Front Page will never be the same.

      by Delaware Dem on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:26:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Delaware Dem, SallyCat, BobOak

        No way, man.

        I do like Rendell, though. He's a darkhorse candidate I could get behind if others don't play out.

        Progressive Wave
        "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

        by PsiFighter37 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:28:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Rendell! Talk about solid local gains... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Delaware Dem

          Are 4 congressional districts, a Senate seat and one branch of the state legislature good enough to qualify as "solid local gains?"
          PA loves you, Eddy!

        •  Kos dream candidate? (4+ / 0-)

          "But I will say that there are things I'll be looking for -- executive experience, a track record of leadership, especially in controversial issues, an outside-the-beltway mindset, loyalty to party, demonstrated material assistance to the Democratic gains in 2006, an embrace of people-power, and some Webb-style cojones."

          Can anyone say Howard....?  All the others pale by comparison.

          Patriotic, flag waving, radical centrist Howard Dean Democrat. Until we stand on principle and lose our fear of defeat we will never win.

          by rusrivman on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:52:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about Clark? (5+ / 0-)

            Executive Experience: Check. Supreme Commander of NATO. Running an entire international enterprise and dealing with a complex political-millitary situation.

            Contreversial Issues: Check. Wasn't afraid to speak out on concerns abou the war before it started. In favor of single payer healthcare. Has an extensive list of position papers at web site.

            Outside the betlway mindset: Check. Not a politician.

            Loyalty to the party: One of the few who supported Lamont. Critisized Lieberman even BEFORE Lamont won.

            Democratic gains in 2006: Was the number one requested speaker. Did a huge, huge amount of work. I can't think of a single candidate who Clark did not show up for.

            Embrace of people power: Maybe. I'm not sure what this would entail. The campaign, if there is one, will tell.

            Webb style cahones: This is the easiest. I think we can all agree that Clark is more similar to Webb than any other 2008 candidate.

            Real beauty is seldom appreciated by popular culture

            by Mikesco on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:59:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He'd be a good President too (0+ / 0-)

              I'm totally with you on this. I'm surprised and dismayed at how much Clark is overlooked as a candidate. From the MSM we expect it. But Kos ...?

              I think he has great presence, knows how to handle Republican talking points and is truly committed to the party.

              Beyond that, (though I hate the term) I think he's tremendously electable.

              Above all, I think he would actually be a good President-- much more so than anyone else in the field.

              •  Not overlooked... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Demi Moaned

                "I'm surprised and dismayed at how much Clark is overlooked as a candidate. From the MSM we expect it. But Kos ...?"

                Kos isn't overlooking him, they're ignoring him and hoping he'll go away.  
                Once he announces, they'll find out how real "people power" works.

                •  Trivializing Clark (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes, you put it better.

                  But I'm surprised that Kos who is so "people power" himself isn't more enthusiastic. It's one thing to say that you're undecided, but I thought the comment about a geographic base was very trivializing.

                  All the other Democratic possibles discussed (with the possible exception of Gore) seemed very much business as usual. And I think we need something very different not just for the party but for the country.

                  I liked everything I saw about Clark in this year's elections. What I especially liked is his refusal to let the debate be governed by Republican talking points. I think that's an essential trait for a successful candidacy.

          •  Moral Authority will be the real issue (0+ / 0-)

            Exactly right.   Whether one choses to regard him as a Presidential contender or not, whether he should be held to his commitment to stay at the DNC or not, whether he says he is a candidate or not, no one out there so closely matches this description:

            "executive experience, a track record of leadership, especially in controversial issues, an outside-the-beltway mindset, loyalty to party, demonstrated material assistance to the Democratic gains in 2006, an embrace of people-power, and some Webb-style cojones."

            However, there is an even larger issue than the list above, a much larger issue-- moral authority.  The Iraq disaster will  stink even higher by the time the nominating season starts.   No one who voted for the war will have the moral authority to lead the nation forward-- quite the contrary.   The condign judgement of history and the nation will be on those who not only voted for it, but failed to step forward to take leadership against the war.  

            That leaves, basically, Gore and Dean.   Both opposed the war, early, and have earned the moral authority that will be required.

            Kos, I think, has also fairly disposed of HRC's chances: name one state she will take that Kerry lost.   And her moral authority is shot for good, worse than almost any of the major contenders.  

            So the real question is what Gore will do.   If Gore does not run, only Dean has the moral authority required.  

      •  I like Ed... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lois, Adam B, NeuvoLiberal

        but he has a history of saying things that aren't exactly helpful to Democrats.

        I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson [-4.25, -5.33]

        by GTPinNJ on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:28:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I also have interest in Rendell (0+ / 0-)

        Although I really dislike the whole casino thing.

        PSoTD is more than letters, but not quite yet a word.

        by PSoTD on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:31:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you kidding? (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PSoTD, coral, jiminy, oysterface, blueoasis, aravir

        Democrats don't get any more machine party than Ed Rendell.

        I want fresh ideas and a fresh face in 2008. The last thing this party needs is more of the same.

      •  I'm definitely looking for newer faces.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jbfunk, progressivevoice, TomP

        Besides Gore, I'm not really sold on any of the candidates running so far.

        I am looking for someone with political courage. If we nominate another Kerry, we'll just get another Democratic President (if that) who is still politically confined to conservative frames like - "government is not the solution" and what other Reganite crap. We need someone who will uproot the political landscape and use his or her presidency as a mechanism of persuasion.

        We need someone who isn't afraid to raise taxes if our national priorities demand it. We need someone who isn't afraid of NOT bombing brown people in the face of popular opinion. We need someone who isn't afraid of asking Americans to do something (or anything) to make their country great. We need someone willing to stand up and as of today Gore and Dean seem to be the only people qualified to receive my vote.

        Now that we have a Democratic Congress, I'm more than happy to sit out the presidential race until we get the nominee we deserve. 2012 could usher in the era of Schweitzer, Spitzer and other Democrats not afraid of their own shadow.

        "Party like a rock star, hammer like a porn star, rake like an all-star!"

        by crazymoloch on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:42:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Fast Eddie was one of the best (0+ / 0-)

        big city mayors in the history of our country.  This was a guy who when he said he would clean up city hall literly got down on his hands and knees and scribbed the bathrooms of the Philly city hall.

        Rendell could be the East Coast Testor so maybe a presidential run for him ain't so crazy.

        (-2.75,-4.77) America let Bush play with its Army and he broke it.

        by Sam I Am on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:24:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ed Rendell??? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, NeuvoLiberal

        I am very fond of my governor and former mayor, but he looks like Fred Flinstone and sounds like Tom Waits!  I always imagine him staying up til 3am every night playing poker, drinking whiskey and smoking cigars.  I'm not ready for President Rendell.

        My picks: Gore/Edwards or Gore/Obama, although I'm not opposed to Hillary. Having the Clintons back in the WH would not be a bad thing.  

        May all beings be free from fear.

        by shakti on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:21:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  i think announcing at the oscars (8+ / 0-)

      is a terrible idea. how better to reinforce republican "hollywood elite" stereotypes. i don't want stunts, i want bold leadership.

      (and i'm not certain i want gore to get in anyway.)

      How much is your Democracy Bond? Make it bigger.

      by vancookie on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:42:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama will announce (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sphealey, blueoasis, Demi Moaned

      on Oprah.

      You can't govern if you can't win.

      by gatordem on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:49:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree on Bayh (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eamon1916, dsolzman, kristen23

      I think this stuff about Bayh is really wrong. He sent at least 15 staffers to New Hampshire, and they worked on legislative races so effectively that New Hampshire flipped both houses from Republican to Democratic.  He also sent staff to other states.

      •  The Record of Camp Bayh'ers... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dsolzman

        Here's a record of who they were, where they went and the election result...  I think I got one of the Iowa races wrong, but I can't remember which one...

        For the record... of the Camp Bayh'er directly involved with campaigns... their record was 18 wins and 7 losses... or a 72% winning percentage.  In New Hampshire where they were mainly assigned to positions not directly affiliated with a campaign, they also had a great time... Democrats took control of both New Hampshire's State Senate and State House.

        Indiana

        Maria Angelica Aguayo – Tom Hayhurst – IN-4 Challenger – Lost
        Lucas John Burkett – Joe Donnelly – IN-2 Challenger - Won
        Jayson Chubb – Brad Ellsworth – IN-8 Challenger - Won
        Julie Fernatt - Indiana Democratic Party – Indiana Democrats regain control of IN House
        Lauren Smith – Baron Hill – IN-9 Challenger - Won

        Iowa -

        Erin Andrew – Michael Mauro - IA Secretary of State - Won
        Robert Brennan – Chet Culver – IA Governor - Won
        Victoria Dillon – Staci Appel – IA State Senate – Won
        Grant Gustafson – Art Staed - Iowa State House - Won
        Kristine Kippins – Rich Olive – Iowa State Senate - Won
        Cliff Kuehn – Pete McRoberts - Iowa State House - Lost
        Caroline Merkel – Bruce Braley – IA-1 - Won
        Melanie Muenzer – Leonard Boswell – IA-3 - Won
        David Osborne – Merle Johnson - Iowa State Senate - Lost
        Matt Ottinger – Doris Kelley - Iowa State House - Won
        Jonathan Parker – Selden Spencer – IA-4 - Lost
        Brent Pierce – Roger Tabor Stewart – Iowa State Senate - Won
        Allison Pulliam – Bob Kressig - Iowa State House - Won
        Jason Rector – Bill Heckroth - Iowa State Senate - Won
        James Ryan – Becky Schmitz - Iowa State Senate - Lost
        Melanie Scott – Nathan Reichert – Iowa State House - Won
        James Tyll – Amanda Ragan - Iowa State Senate - Won
        Elliot Vice - Iowa Democratic Coordinated Campaign
        Simeon Talley - Iowa Democratic Coordinated Campaign
        Jillian Dykhoff - Iowa Democratic Coordinated Campaign
        Craig Muenzer - Iowa Democratic Coordinated Campaign
        Rohan Patel - Iowa Senate Democratic Caucus
        Brendan Summers - Iowa House Democratic Caucus

        Nevada

        Alex Harman – Tessa Hafen – NV-3 - Lost
        Marlon Mosley – Jill Derby – NV-2 - Lost
        Damion Trasada - Catherine Cortez Masto - NV Attorney General - Won

        South Carolina

        Sven Hurty - SC Democratic Party

        New Hampshire - NH Dems take control of NH State Senate and State House

        Torey Collins – Paul Hodes – NH-2 - Won
        Nicole Miller - NH Democratic Coordinated Campaign
        Seren Orgel - NH Senate Democratic Caucus
        Aliza Pain - NH Senate Democratic Caucus
        Nina Kauffman - NH Senate Democratic Caucus
        Morgan Pinnell - NH Senate Democratic Caucus
        Steven Randazzo - NH Senate Democratic Caucus
        Lori Bryant - Committee to Elect House Democrats
        Sarah Seipelt - Committee to Elect House Democrats
        Danielle Serratore - New Hampshire Democratic Coordinated Campaign
        Chester DiBari - Manchester City Democratic Committee
        Maggie Leuzarder - Manchester City Democratic Committee
        Scott Stephanou - Franklin City Democratic Committee
        Beth Swickard - Nashua City Democratic Committee

    •  Despite the $$$$ they're both LIGHTWEIGHTS ! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      We've got Webb, Biden, and a good half-dozen credible candidates.

      Good solid people.

      Folks who have had JOBS !!

      The interesting ringer, here, is Edwards. He is the one talented politician and campaigner in the herd.

      A second Jack Kennedy.

      Compared side-to-side with Edwards, Mrs. Clinton is campaign road kill.

      Jeffersonian Democracy and the Dixie Chicks are America's best answers to fascism.

      by vets74 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:21:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards, even as an accomplished trial (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lois, Demi Moaned

        lawyer, got clobbered by Cheney in the debate and looked like a child running for class president.  I think he's in WAY over his head.

        Make robo-calls illegal. But if we can't, then let's use our own against the Repugs. Beat em at their own game. Now no longer a HillaryGuy: AL GORE in 2008!

        by HillaryGuy on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:52:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  quit peddling this crap (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue, saraswati, blueoasis, vets74

          nobody is buying.  The hillaryites have been trying to sell this line since Kerry quit on us and Edwards and it is just untrue.

          Every poll taken after that debate said Edwards won or tied.  It's not like he was debating George Bush, he was debating Dick Cheney, in a sit down, one shot debate.  And he won that debate.

          So go sell your revisionist history somewhere else.  Ebvery time i see this line of attack, I'm going to call it out.  It's not true.

          JRE 2008
          "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
          -John Edwards

          by DrFrankLives on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:51:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  frist! (0+ / 0-)

    will not be running.

    but vilsack is.  big ceremony today. whoop.

    l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

    by zeke L on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:20:35 PM PST

  •  If Gore announced (6+ / 0-)

    I'd move to Tennessee.

    "I am a Democrat without prefix, suffix or apology." - Sam Rayburn

    by sandra1113 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:20:39 PM PST

  •  Edwards had a book signing (14+ / 0-)

    at a Barnes and Noble in West Des Moines, Iowa last night...and 800 people showed up, braving bitterly cold weather.

    Let the games begin.

    •  kvetching about experience (6+ / 0-)

      Obama's got a thicker resume than Edwards, so it seems strange that Obama has to answer experience questions and Edwards doesn't.

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:27:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Edwwards is going to be tough to beat (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coral, MontanaMaven, joynow, peace voter

      in Iowa.  But, he's betting everything on winning Iowa.

      You can't govern if you can't win.

      by gatordem on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:52:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  VP debates in 04 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lois, adigal, sxu, TomP

      I haven't seen Edwards publically speak yet. But in the VP debates, I think he looked extremely weak with Cheney... to many talking points to win that one - and he's supposed to be a charmer!

      What gave?

      •  I like Edwards (0+ / 0-)

        and I like his focus on class and poverty, but I agree with you: He was extremely weak in that debate. I was disappointed.  He was too "nice" to Cheney.

        •  He did not lose the debate to Cheney (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          progressivevoice

          I do not understand how you could say that.

          •  That's how (0+ / 0-)

            saw it.  Others may have seen it differently.  I am only speaking for myself.  

            •  you saw it wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              philgoblue

              Edwards was all over Cheney.  Just because he didn't waste time playing "yes you did see me once six months ago" doesn't mean he didn't hammer him.  

              JRE 2008
              "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
              -John Edwards

              by DrFrankLives on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:56:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How can I see it (0+ / 0-)

                "wrong?"  

                My view of debate performance is my view.  Your view may differ, but it is neither more or less "correct" than mine.  

                I saw Edwards as being excessively courteous and not as "all over him."  And I was not taking about the silly issue of whether Cheney and Edwards had ever met.

                If Edwards does not do better in this camapign than he did debating Cheney, I don't think he won't win the nomination.

                I think Edwards can and will do better. That's why he may be the front runner right now.  HRC's support in cash, name rec, and pundits.    

                After the 2004 campaign, Edwards talked about how much he had learned and how important it was to present a broad theme and say what you mean, rather than getting bogged down in issue by issue analysis.  (I broadly paraphrase and may have part of it wrong).  Running for President and VP in 2004 will make Edwards an even more formidable candidate.  

                Just shows different people see different things when looking at the same thing because we see through the prism of our experiences and beliefs.

                I saw one thing and you saw another.  Apparently teh polls showed that Edwards "won" and that is all that matters in a debate.  I thought he could do even better and I think he will this time.

          •  I thought Cheney took him apart (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kentucky DeanDemocrat, condorcet

            making him look very, very weak. This will not fly in 2008.

            Don't get me wrong, I really like Edwards, and I LOVE his populism, but his boyish charm is not going to win it for us. I really think I am right about this.

            My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

            by adigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 04:13:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Polls show Edwards Won (0+ / 0-)

          and sure he could have done better, but the format was poor, sitting next to other, very little allowance for rebuttles, etc.  And Gwen asked some shitty questions.  But overall, Edwards made the point that Kerry never could, he linked the corruption and incompetence of Bush-Cheney abroad and at home.

          "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

          by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:40:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess my (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kentucky DeanDemocrat, adigal

            view wasn't reflected in the polls.  Maybe it's Edwards' manner.  I'm not sure what it was, but I was disappointed.  I expected more.  I wanted him to call Cheney on things.  I hope he is more agressive in this campaign.  

            •  Edwards Called Cheney on the Carpet (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ThunderHawk13

              Edwards v Cheney: Edwards Quotes:

              "While he was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay."

              The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States [Iran], paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials.

              "Yes, but they didn't fund the mandates that they put on the schools all over this country. That's the reason 800 teachers -- one of the reasons -- 800 teachers have been laid off, right here in Cleveland. One-third of our public schools are failing under this administration. Half of African-Americans are dropping out of high school. Half of Hispanic-American are dropping out of high school."  

              -- Note the debate was in Cleveland.  See how he links the general problem to specifics effecting actual people (this is one of his rhetorical gifts]."

              "Here's what's happened: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. And it's had real consequences in places like Cleveland.

              Cleveland is a wonderful, distinguished city that's done a lot of great things, but it has the highest poverty rate in the country. One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty.
              During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty."

              We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

              The Transcript
              http://www.debates.org/...

              "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

              by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:01:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the quotes. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PSoTD, philgoblue

                I guess all I can say is my opinion may have been wrong, but it was my opinion in 2004.

                We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

                This is the part of Edwards I like the best.  He is right about this and it is a fundamental issue for me - why I am a Democrat.  

                Maybe my view of the debate was a minority view. I voted for Kerry/Edwards and gave them money.  It's not like I didn't want him to do well in the debate. (I voted for Dean in the primary, but was not opposed to Edwards).

                I may support Edwards this time.  Not sure.  Gore, Edwards, Clark and Obama all interest me.  Still early.

                •  Edwards made the best true points but (0+ / 0-)

                  cheney lied so freely it was jaw dropping...and people wouldn't know unless they looked it up or had been following it all closely.

                  Cheney denied whatever true points Edwards brought up and even brought up elections he observed in Central America when he was in Congress as a wonderful comparison to wonderful, great and super Aghanistan when Edwards brought up the problems there.
                  I cringed. Cheney bragged about the shameful doings in Central America???

                  But he lied smoothly. The press was so focused on cheney's slip of not having seen Edwards before after they'd been together at some dinner that they skipped the mistakes and lies that really mattered.

                  Many people felt cheney did well and largely I blame the press for that. People should be called on lies.

                  Of course in 2000 I thought joe would kiss cheney. Maybe they did kiss privately after and/or before the debate.

                  •  That's not how I remember it (0+ / 0-)

                    I remember the post-debate coverage discussing how many times Cheney lied.  In that sense, I think it was a clear victory for Edwards.

                    "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

                    by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 07:15:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

        I was very disappointed watching the whole debate.  The two were more like in a conversation than a debate, what happened to trail lawyer character?

        When you've "turned the corner" in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles. --- Rahm Emanuel, July 12, 2006

        by sxu on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:05:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  HE WON THE DAMN DEBATE (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        philgoblue

        Quit trying to shape public perception after the fact.  At the least, he held his own when he WAS NOT EXPECTED TO.  THis "ooo what a great debater Edwards was supposed to be and he screwed up" is totally created out of whole cloth.

        It's crap.  Every poll after that debate showed Edwards was the perceived winner.  It wasn't until after the election that operatives for other potential 2008 candidates started spreading this line of manure.  Either you're spreading it, or you breathed too deeply.  So step out from behind the cattle and breath some fresh air.

        JRE 2008
        "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
        -John Edwards

        by DrFrankLives on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:55:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A lot of people watched Matthews' biased crew (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue

          The Times, the Washington Post, essentially all of the major newspapers termed it a ferocious, riveting debate that they judged a draw. The problem is that a lot of people watched Chris Matthews and his group, whose take on the debate was judged as aberrant at the time. Look at the crew he had on his show--heavily biased toward Republicans and covert Republicans. Cheney didn't win the debate--Tweety did.

    •  He'll be in Santa Clara, giving a talk (0+ / 0-)

      SC Convention center, 12 pm, registration at 11:30 - co-sponsored by the Commonwealth Club and Keplers' Books.

      $15 members, $25 non-members

      For reservations visit Commonwealth Club, SV or call 800-847-7730

      (I just received an email with this info')

      Congratulations Congressman Jerry McNerney

      by RainyDay on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:41:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Campaign Finance (9+ / 0-)

    Just a quick early note on the law: the reason why Senators can transfer money over from their accounts to Presidential accounts is because they're raised under the same restrictions, with the same limits and disclosure requirements.

    The same isn't true for state-level fundraising.  In PA, for example, I could write Ed Rendell a million-dollar check to his campaign (though it'd bounce).  There's no contribution limits.  So if you allowed people to funnel money from such accounts into presidential campaigns, it'd eviscerate the federal campaign scheme.

  •  your criteria describe Bill Richardson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverleaf

    and that ain't all bad.....

  •  Pat Buchanan's convinced that Gore is running (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, phoenixdreamz

    That's what his punditting amounted to this morning, anyway.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:21:45 PM PST

  •  Schweitzer/Webb (0+ / 0-)

    Obama--Secretary of State
    Dean--Sec Def
    Bill Clinton--Federal Reserve Chair
    Spitzer--Attorney General
    Al Gore--Supreme Court Justice

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:22:27 PM PST

    •  Er.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, wmtriallawyer

      Obama--Secretary of State

      Yer nutz.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:23:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No... (7+ / 0-)

        Dean for SecDef is nuttier.

        I love Dr. Dean, but c'mon...

        We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

        by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:23:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dean was right on Iraq (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TomP

          and he's got management experience.

          Wasn't Dean a Gulf War supporter too?

          If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

          by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:25:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ummm, yeah. (6+ / 0-)

            So were lots and lots of people.

            That doesn't mean they are qualified to run the Defense Department.

            Personally, I'd like to see somebody there with some military experience.

            Like Wes Clark.

            We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

            by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:29:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  if any of the flag officers whine (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              arbiter, MO Blue

              about experience, I'll be happy to give them a speech about how they forfeited the right to complain by supporting the Iraq War debacle.

              The Dems shouldn't take any shit off those self-serving assholes at the Pentagon. The Dems should lay down the law early and clearly on this. If a whole bunch of flag officers need to be retired, so be it.

              If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

              by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:31:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, so, what's wrong with Clark? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                adigal

                Getting back to the original point, after all.

                We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:35:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I like civilian control of the military (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jxg, MO Blue, TomP

                  we've moved more toward authoritariasm and militarism than I'd like.

                  We should not create the expectation that a retired general/admiral will be the civilian overseeing DOD.

                  Put Clark in the State Department or on the Supreme Court.

                  If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                  by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:37:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ummm...Clark IS a civilian. (5+ / 0-)

                    He's retired.

                    We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                    by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:38:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Clark is of the military (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jxg

                      he spent his life living it's culture.

                      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                      by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:41:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Rummy was civilian as well. (0+ / 0-)

                        We all see how well that went...

                        And Clark for SCOTUS?

                        That makes no sense either.

                        Apparently you don't like members of the military running the Department of Defense, and you'd like to see non-lawyers on the highest court in the land.

                        Which makes as much sense as someone who runs an Arabian Horse association running FEMA.

                        Oh, wait...

                        We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                        by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:44:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Rummy was of the Military-Industrial Complex (0+ / 0-)

                          And I prefer nominees not come from the board rooms of military contractors. That's an even dumber place to get a SECDEF than from the retirees.

                          wmt, I was in the military during Bush I and Clinton. I follow military issues.

                          There are a whole bunch of court decisions regarding military issues that I didn't like. Many of these rulings came down to SCOTUS giving the military deference b/c they lacked self-confidence on military and foreign policy issues.

                          By including a serious military person on the court I think SCOTUS would do a better job on military and foreign policy cases.

                          I'd like Gore on the court as a permanent reminder of the Bush v. Gore decision. Let them always remember the day they disgraced the court.

                          If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                          by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:07:27 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I have no problem (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Radiowalla, NeuvoLiberal

                            having someone with military experience being on SCOTUS.

                            I DO have problem having a non-lawyer on the Court though.

                            That's just my lawyer bias, sorry.

                            99% of all decisions decided by the Court will have little if anything to do with either military or foreign policy.

                            So a legal background of some sort is essential to being on the Supreme Court.

                            And neither Gore nor Clark have that.

                            We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                            by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:10:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  does having a legal background (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            edavis

                            ensure a judge makes good decisions?

                            By the time an issue gets to SCOTUS the legal question is exceedingly narrow. Judgment is more important than encyclopedic knowledge of court cases which can be provided by clerks and computers.

                            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                            by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:13:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, but it ensures (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            edavis

                            they understand and comprehend legal issues.

                            The last two justices without a law degree came out of the 1930s-1940s.  But they each had practiced law.

                            I wouldn't put someone who hasn't practice law on any Court, any more than I'd ask someone with no military experience to be a General.

                            We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                            by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:21:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess we'll agree to disagree (0+ / 0-)

                            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                            by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:34:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We see how well the Supreme Court in 2000 did (0+ / 0-)

                            Weren't they all lawyers???

                            Bah, to only lawyers on the Court.

                            My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

                            by adigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:42:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I believe by law a former active military man (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Carl Nyberg, wmtriallawyer

                      has to be out of the military for a number of years before he can become SecDef.

                      Gore-Warner in 08!

                      by Frederik on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:06:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not sure Clark is a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

                    I'd also prefer to see someone on the Supreme Court with lower-bench judicial experience.

                •  SecDef must be out of the military for 10 years (8+ / 0-)

                  didn't we cover this repeatedly in 2004? Clark has another couple years before he's hireable as SecDef

                  Bush is the Disaster President: Iraq--He Lied & People Died; Katrina--He Clowned Around While People Drowned

                  by el ganador on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:48:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with this choice (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wmtriallawyer, mjd in florida

              After all, we've seen how well civilian leadership handles SecDef.

              After the Rapture, we'll get all their stuff! Hummingbird's Blog

              by Hummingbird on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:40:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ding! Ding! Ding! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hummingbird

                You win the gold star.

                So-called "civilian" leadership gets nada respect in the halls of the Pentagon...especially when it's as f-ed up as Rummy was.

                Besides, Clark IS a civilian now.  Merely retired military.

                We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:42:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Military-Industrial Complex welfare cases (0+ / 0-)

                are not civilians in my thinking.

                If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

                by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:10:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wes Clark is not a MIC welfare case. (8+ / 0-)

                  He, in fact, is very concerned about the MIC, and so did not take a lucrative defense firm job when he retired.  He sees the danger.   In his own words:

                  New Hampshire Public Radio, Laura Knoy, 11/5/03

                  "I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not.

                  When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

                  "But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."

                  Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

                  by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:17:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I like Wes Clark. Heard him at a fundraiser (4+ / 0-)

              last year, and he's honed his message.  He's a true leader, has experience in both military and civilian policy making, and he can't be pushed around.

              I'm surprised Kos has given him such short shrift.  I like West Clark better than any of the other potential candidates.

              The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

              by MoronMike on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:04:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Its a crazy idea (2+ / 0-)

            The military wouldn't like Dean because of all the (unfair) stereotyping of him.  But even beyond that he doesn't have military or foreign policy experience.  He should stay at the DNC.

            Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

            by tmendoza on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:30:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  No... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radiowalla, wmtriallawyer, HugoDog

          Bill Clinton for federal reserve chair is the nuttiest.  I think its best to have an economist.

          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

          by tmendoza on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:28:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about Gore for Supreme Court Justice? (0+ / 0-)

            He's not even a lawyer.  He attended law school for maybe a year.

            We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

            by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:30:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, thats close (0+ / 0-)

              But the Fed Chair is position that requires technical, economic knowledge.

              There have been Justices who didn't attend law school, like Robert Jackson, although he practiced law.  I actually think Gore would make an excellent justice, as he has shown throughout his life that he has good judgment.  But yeah its not likely he would ever be picked.

              As far as '08 is concerned, if Gore gets in, I'll have to support him.  He's just has the most experience and the best judgment of anyone out there.

              Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

              by tmendoza on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:38:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think (0+ / 0-)

                there has been a non-lawyer on the Court.  If there was, it's been a long, long time.

                Attending law school is one thing.  I'm more concerned with the actual practice of law, though.

                And if one does not practice law, I don't think they are qualified for the Court.

                We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:28:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I heard Justice Breyer speak recently... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...at my law school.  Someone asked him this question. He said it would be better for the Court if there were people from more diverse backgrounds.

                  I'm pretty sure there have been justices who were not practicing lawyers, especially in the 19th century, when politicians were pretty regularly picked.  But I can't think of any off hand.

                  In any case, I don't think knowledge of the law is necessary; thats what your clerks are for.  Good judgment, good problem solving, innovative, creative thinking; thats what you need.

                  Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

                  by tmendoza on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:46:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well... (2+ / 0-)

                    I'd be willing to bet that Bryer (and I've heard him say the same thing is well) was referring to diverse backgrounds outside of being appellate judges. Or diversity as to race, ethnicity, gender, or financial background.

                    Nobody's questioning that you have to be a judge to be elevated to the highest court in the land.

                    But NEVER have practiced law before?

                    I flipped through the bios of all of the justices listed here and I was hard pressed to find one who had not practiced law at some point.

                    Remember, there are many, many politicians were are and were lawyers.  I would think one needs to have practiced law at some point to be on the highest court in the land.

                    We are a party of innovation...We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. --Barbara Jordan

                    by wmtriallawyer on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:02:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton is pretty smart on economics (0+ / 0-)

            And economics overlaps with politics and is less of an exact science than economists pretend.

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:09:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's got a diplomat's style & temperment (0+ / 0-)

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:26:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wow (7+ / 0-)

      I haven't seen pot that good since I was in college!  I got a contact buzz off your post.

    •  Why not Bill for SCOTUS? (along with Gore) (0+ / 0-)
    •  other than Spitzer for AG, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coral

      nothing in these assignments makes particular sense (it doesn't mean that they won't do a good job if they ever assume those roles).

      Not long ago, I remember your calling for Hackett for President in 2008. So, I am not exactly surprised :)

      Unite the nation, heal the planet: Al Gore for President, 2008!

      by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:27:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Announcing on Daily Show (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dunderhead, Blue South

    In fact, the candidate should have a blog post ready to go, on a laptop, and have Stewart or Colbert hit "submit".

    The Daily Show is taped in the afternoon (so is Colbert), so that would probably ruin the surprise, as everyone will see the posts go up hours before "submit" is hit on TV.

    Is Karl Rove still entitled to "THE MATH"?

    by pontificator on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:22:32 PM PST

  •  positions (8+ / 0-)

    Frankly, especially from the 2006 election results, we need someone who has fair trade positions, wants to increase social justice/fairness, close corporate tax loopholes who also has expertise on national security and foreign policy (sounds like I'm describing Jim Webb and I kind of am really).

    I think if you get yet another DLC Democrat in there, it's going to be 2004 all over again, whereas if someone who is really crafting positions for working America plus has killer foreign policy and national security credentials that's the winner.

    Frankly, I could see Al Gore morph into the above after all he's been through.

    I could also see Wes Clark.

    But right now the pundits talk and I feel like I'm eating hot air and it doesn't even have any butter on it....
    it's all just "names" and "buzz" when I really believe it's going to be positions that will win...and the ability to enact those policy directives.

    http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

    by BobOak on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:23:26 PM PST

  •  Cojones are the key (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heart of the Rockies

    I still say that Kerry could have cleaned up in 04 if he had offered to step outside with any of the Swiftboaters.  Of course he'd never do that, but still...

    Webb has the right attitude, and I'm behind him 100%

  •  Jim Webb: the darkhorse candidate in '08? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dunderhead

    That's what they're saying at Political Wire

    we have met the enemy and he is us

    by beeswax49 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:23:52 PM PST

    •  Oh, good God (3+ / 0-)

      And if tomorrow, Barney bites Bush on the ankle, half the goddamn liberal blogosphere is going to be putting up "Barney for President" yard signs.

      I say this as a part of the liberal blogosphere, but come on people.

      Listening to a Bush speech is like cleaning the toilet: it's a dirty job, but if you don't do it, the shit just piles up without a fight.

      by AtlantaJan on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:12:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Give one good reason he would not be better (0+ / 0-)

        than most of the names being bandied about.

        He has military experience for Iraq, he is very concerned about the growing inequality in our nation, he had organizational experience in the military, and the man has honesty and balls.

        How does that stack up to John Edwards, with a few years in the Senate after working as a trial lawyer? I think Webb is much more qualified.

        My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

        by adigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:47:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Did something blow up in here (0+ / 0-)

    20 minutes or so ago I got jus a plain white screen?

    Did the new front pagers cause over load on their first day ?

    Have A Bloggy Day :)

    by eeff on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:24:03 PM PST

  •  What about Clark? (15+ / 0-)

    I think Clark has intentions of running...or at least as VP in 2008. He's done an awesome job out there supporting the netroots and grassroots. He's also done a good job of appearing on the talk show circuit and whacking the wingnuts around.

    I'm open to suggestions - anyone except Hillary. Your comments about her being a woman don't help this time. She's sold out the feminist movement in favor of power and "her" first. The oldster feminists can't abide her.

    All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian. Pat Paulsen

    by SallyCat on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:24:17 PM PST

  •  Al Gore: Time "person of the year" (freep) (4+ / 0-)

    ...this poll.

    http://www.time.com/...

  •  Heh. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat

    p.s. I guess I did want to talk about the 2008 presidential stuff...

    Aw, keep going, Kos. You know you want to.

    Pelosi to the Ringwraith Rumsfield: I AM NO MAN!!!

    by Sharoney on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:24:20 PM PST

  •  We The People '08 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, SuburbanBlue

    ...until we have a candidate.  And that candidate better clearly be of we the people.

  •  Jim Webb? (5+ / 0-)

    George Will's hatchet job in today's Washington Post was for a reason -- they're actually scared of Jim Webb. After all, he has defense bona fides, he has a backbone, Sen. Schumer points out that he actually has deep convictions, and he's talking about a kind of old-fashioned Democratic populism (like: let's actually help working people make a better life for themselves and their children).

    Yeah, I know, it's silly to think about considering he's just a first-term senator. But I think it's worth thinking about...

    •  Give yourself some credit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delaware Dem

      Obama and Hillary (technically) are first term Sens, and they've both apparently locked up the nomination.

    •  VP pick maybe (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predator Saint, Elizabeth Ann

      Highly doubtful for the Presidency.

      Delaware Dem 2008: The Front Page will never be the same.

      by Delaware Dem on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:27:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clone (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neutron, cityofgates

      We need to clone Jim Webb.  I can't see him running after just winning a Senate seat at all...
      which is a shame frankly...

      but a mix of positions akin to Webb, Tester, basically the new Democrats who beat incumbents, I think is a sure fire winner.

      Put up someone where it "would you like your Corporate corruption with pro-choice or without" voters will toss up their hands, say they are both the same and vote their cultural identity.

      http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

      by BobOak on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:27:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's another point on Webb (5+ / 0-)

        Newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia.  Let's admit it, okay?  The race was close and thank God he won.  Virginia is so lucky to have him!  Would give anything to have a senator-elect like that here in Texas.  What I'm getting at here is that let's give a southern state (or mostly) time to get used to having a democrat, one which looks to be someone they will be proud of.  We need him there, at least for awhile.  

        In spite of the way some feel, I for one do not want the south written off.  So, baby-steps so as not to leave the rest of us with no hope.  Call it an experiment if you will.

        •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady

          I kinda want Jim Webb to be my Senator for a while before giving him up to the rest of the country.

          Call me selfish, but hey, let us Virginians have our Senator for at least one term, please?

          Just ask North Carolina how it felt to have Edwards leave so soon.

          •  Didn't Feel Too Good (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paradox13

            I've bitten my tongue so many times about this. It was a big deal and a happy day when John Edwards defeated Lauch Faircloth. Now we have Richard Burr. I know people (especially in Iowa) really like John Edwards -- I like him too and hell, I adore his wife, but I'd like him even better if he were still representing us in the Senate. I can speak only for myself, but I'm probably not the only North Carolinian who feels like the plain girl who got ditched for the cheerleader. But I'm keeping an open mind. I'm just throwing this out there as one North Carolinian . . .

            •  Consider (0+ / 0-)

              Feeling like the parent who let go and allowed their child to go go college out of state and take his talents to all of America.

              "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

              by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 07:12:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Always Appreciate Another Way to Look at Things! (0+ / 0-)

                Honestly, I'm ambivalent about Edwards' choice to leave and go for the highest office in the land. You gave me another way to look at it. I said the above mostly to point out that it's not a given that all us North Carolinians unabashedly support his candidacy.

    •  Okay fine (0+ / 0-)

      I've also thought about it.

      If he can beat Allen in VA, he can beat McCain in the USA. Plus the cajones factor is better than the religious factor Obama has going for the super-junior senator faction.

    •  Sorry, Webb can't win (0+ / 0-)

      Webb actually fought in Vietnam.  America hates people who fought for this country.

      Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

      by tmendoza on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:34:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't forget (0+ / 0-)

      he was secretary of the Navy -- and during a major expansion of the Navy.  He may be 1st term senator be he has significant experience.

      Webb's positions are astonishingly liberal for a former Republican.  If God's Own Party still had room for people like Mark Hatfield or Charles Percy he might still be with them; their loss is our gain.  

      I would support Webb without hesitation, although I've been leaning toward Clark Webb is certainly starting very effectively in the Senate.

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

      by mathGuyNTulsa on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:41:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Glad Webb won, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heart of the Rockies

      at the risk of being a contrarian, HE HAS NOT CAST ONE VOTE YET!

      Why not wait and see what kind of senator he is before proclaiming him the one.

      He was a Republican once, and though clearly an improvement for Virginia and the nation, he may not be the savior many think.  

  •  Kos, the thought of Al Gore announcing (8+ / 0-)

    at the Oscars is a great scenario.

    But, I almost think that Al should be the first to announce online.

    Honestly, he is the only one who interests me in that group.  I cannot understand why so many people think Edwards is a frontrunner.  I like the guy and his family, but I just don't think there is any chance he beats a McCain or Guliani.  None.

    Al Gore on the other hand.....I don't think there is any doubt he would beat Hillary in the primaries.

    •  Why Edwards is a Front Runner (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coral, Jake Nelson, Geotpf, fmrgop, America08

      The DNC Schedule

      Iowa:  14 January, Caucus
      Nevada:  19 January, Caucus
      New Hampshire:  22 January, Primary
      South Carolina:  29 January, Primary
      The window for other states would open 5 February.

      Iowa
      Edwards has his grassroots organization intact in Iowa (and they’re having great success with Chet Culver’s gubernatorial campaign), leads the polls there now (he’s kept or expanded his 32% support from 2004), is working the state (10 visits since 2005), and is well liked by the Des Moines Register.  Vilsack's a non-factor in his home state, and may be the first to drop out..    

      Nevada
      So he wins Iowa and takes momentum into Nevada. Caucus is all turnout, and the Democratic party in Nevada is one organization: Culinary Union 226 of Las Vegas, Unite-Here's power base, the strongest local union in the country, 60,000 strong.  And Unite-Here are already 100% behind Edwards (that’ll be true of the Change To Win unions at least).  Union households make up 25% of the electorate in Nevada, and will be a much larger portion of the Democratic caucus vote.  Edwards has developed deep ties with union leaders and workers over the past two years; he’s been very active in "Hotel Workers Rising" movement.  Edwards made friends through his support of Nevada’s successful raising the minimum wage proposal.

      New Hampshire
      This might be the place where Hillary do best, but NH did follow Iowa in 2004, and may jump on the Edwards-Iowa-Nevada bandwagon.

      South Carolina
      And then there's SC, the state Edwards already convincingly won in 2004 (45%)!  Edwards still has the local-boy-done-good vote (he was born in South Carolina), will compete with Clinton for African-American vote, and still will have the momentum

      "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

      by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:26:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cas2

        but he doesn't have a chance of beating McCain or Guliani and therefore shouldn't be the candidate.

        I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I respectfully disagree with you on Edwards.

        •  evidence? (0+ / 0-)

          or logic?   Because you don't expect us to take your word on it based on your use of declarative sentences ... right?

          "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

          by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:31:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, you win. He would win in a landslide. (0+ / 0-)

            I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I respectfully disagree with you on Edwards.

            I was trying to be respectful of your opinion.  Too bad you couldn't afford the same respect for my opinion.

            And you ask me for evidence?  Do you really think your comment was anything more than opinion?

            Nevada
            So he wins Iowa and takes momentum into Nevada. Caucus is all turnout, and the Democratic party in Nevada is one organization: Culinary Union 226 of Las Vegas, Unite-Here's power base, the strongest local union in the country, 60,000 strong.  And Unite-Here are already 100% behind Edwards (that’ll be true of the Change To Win unions at least).  Union households make up 25% of the electorate in Nevada, and will be a much larger portion of the Democratic caucus vote.  Edwards has developed deep ties with union leaders and workers over the past two years; he’s been very active in "Hotel Workers Rising" movement.  Edwards made friends through his support of Nevada’s successful raising the minimum wage proposal.

            You call that "evidence"?  It's a nice scenario, based on your opinion, but it's hardly evidence.

            •  Um? (0+ / 0-)

              You write in vague declarative sentences.

              I mentioned a Union (same one Kos mentioned), gave it's nuimbers and voting strength (those aren't opinions SF, those be facts) and mentioned the reasons why Edwards is very close to the union movement, especially service workers (see the WakeUpWalMart campaign too).

              By the way, Edwards will be getting the Paul Wellstone Award for service to the union cause from the AFL-CIO next week!

              "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

              by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:43:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Come on.... (0+ / 0-)

                your entire comment is really nothing more than speculation on your part.

                We don't know what is going to happen in the next 2 years, but I personally do not believe that Edwards can win the Presidency in'08.  I personally do not think he is our strongest candidate.  That is my opinion and all of the speculating that you have done in your repeated comment doesn't do a thing to change my mind.  I don't think he's our best candidate.  Ask me 100 times and you'll get the same answer.  It doesn't mean that I don't like or respect him, or that I wouldn't like to see him back in public service, it just means that in my opinion, he is not our strongest candidate.

                Like I said several comments ago.....I appreciate your enthusiasm, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree for the time being.

                Good day.

        •  I'm sorry too (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scout Finch, condorcet

          I respect and like Edwards. Obviously I'll get behind him if he gets the nomination but, in my opinion, Edwards is better suited to an important cabinet or diplomatic post than president.  He lacks gravitas which, btw, OBama has in abundance.  

          Right now, my dream ticket is Gore/ Obama...combination of significant global experience, maturity, and smarts of Gore with the charisma, untainted by D.C. smarts of Obama.   Also, I think both of these men can repair our   international reputation and are unlikely to be for sale.

          •  I'd like to see Edwards become Gov-NC (0+ / 0-)

            before going for the Presidency.

            Unite the nation, heal the planet: Al Gore for President, 2008!

            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:05:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Why do you think Edwards would be good (0+ / 0-)

            in a "diplomatic" position? I think he is a blank piece of paper for everything related to foreign policies. Nobody knows him overseas. His rhetorical style isn't that well understood overseas, though I am sure he could change that quite quickly, if he had the chance to work in that field. But I see Edwards as a good candidate for your "internal" affairs and not for foreign policies. I trust him because I trust his legislative skills as a lawyer in combination with his character and dedication to the "poor people with no voices".

            Obama is a blank piece of paper too and one reason he is so successful seems to be that Americans  just feel it's has a problem to have never given "the right black man" the "ultimate chance" and many might just want to do that to prove that America is "the country where it can be done".

            So far I trust him only, because he supposedly has a lot of legislative skills as a constitutional scholar and combinded with his character and  a "realistic" knowledge about his "African heritage" he might just have some insights others don't. I could imagine he not fall for anything related to whatever race and religious cards people might want to play on him and on us.

            Other than that, who knows both these candidates really well? May be judging them by their wives? Looks they win both hands down on that one. They have both pretty terrific women at their sides. Not bad at all. At least with Edwards we would get one hell of a first lady. :-)

            Power ought to serve as a check to power - Montesquieu, 1748

            by mimi on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 03:17:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Who does? (0+ / 0-)

          Personally, I'm leaning towards Obama now, since he's a Kennedy-like rock star (now that my first, second, third, and fourth choice, Feingold, has dropped out), and he hasn't done anything to blatantly piss me off.  He scored highest of any Democrat in the Quinpac thermometer poll.

          •  I'm 100% on board with Gore/Obama. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NeuvoLiberal

            Absolute home run ticket.

          •  have you even looked at the poll yourself (0+ / 0-)

            I find this poll interesting, being based on how
            we generally feel, but when looking at the percent in comparison to knowlege about the candidate it really changes things and with only a polling of 1,623 registered voters.  

            Just the fact that they are registered voters tilts the outcome to me.  

            "Quinnipiac University's quarterly reading of voter sentiment about national leaders"

            "From November 13 - 19, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,623 registered voters nationwide. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points."

            "They are well regarded and most Americans are quite familiar with them. Obama's showing is impressive, but four in 10 Americans still don't know enough about him to have an opinion."

            http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

            I certainly hope you will not chose someone just because of this poll! Only 1623 votes.

      •  New Hampshire (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        philgoblue

        is the fly in the ointment.  He needs to do better than the fourth he placed last time, which sapped much of the Iowa buzz from the campaign.

    •  After some more thought, (0+ / 0-)

      He would still have to announce on TV, but would suggest an online simulcast with an immediate netroots fundraising launch.  Make the announcement available on YouTube and watch the netroots raise record funds for Al Gore literally overnight.  I would love for the story to be that Gore's war chest came $20 at a time online (although don't be shy about more if you are able)!  

      The pixelated faces of a movement for peace, the earth, science, truth, justice and the American way.

  •  Wes Clark (12+ / 0-)

    I think Clark has star power in person, is very telegenic and has and the necessary national security gravitas. He looks enough like an Eisenhower Republican to capture disaffected righties.

    •  Even Kos is ignoring Wes Clark (2+ / 0-)

      He has huge netroots support and Kos doesn't even acknowledge him.

      I guess if even a blogger with the profile of Kos won't speak his name it'll be a hell of a lot longer before we see him taken seriously by the mainstream media.

      I did not like fascists when I fought them as a diplomat for 23 years and I don't like them now in my own country. - Ambassador Joseph Wilson

      by HootieMcBoob on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:44:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kos isn't ignoring General Clark (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, AUBoy2007, Donkey Rising

        He stated a political fact, General Clark does not have a geographic base, as an elected Senator or Governor does.  

        General Clark does have a year to go across the country again, as he did helping fighting Dems, and that is not to be discounted.  General Clark needs to make the best use of time, because he does not have a geographic base.

        Work to make Clark viable, but don't do it by being over dramatic. i.e. 'blogger with the profile of Kos won't speak his name' When Kos mentioned him several times, it just does not help his cause or yours IMHO.

        More troops is not what we had in mind for Iraq.

        by Barry Welsh on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:00:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  if that should be true, it's a disadvantage (0+ / 0-)

      not an advantage, star power, really that's what Americans need? Are you kidding? I liked what General Clark had to say in 2003 o 2004. I am not so convinced anymore about things he hasn't said as clear enough as I would have wanted him to have said them in 2006.

      Where does the obsession comes from Americans have with the "potential good looks" of a candidate? Smooth performance on TV isn't what is important.

      Power ought to serve as a check to power - Montesquieu, 1748

      by mimi on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 03:24:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wide Open Democratic Race (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, TomP

    This is probably the most wide open democratic race in my lifetime and I was born in 1983. I truly believe Edwards will get the nomination for prez and Obama will be the top choice for vice president, unless he declines the favor. (then Richardson would be the top choice to fill in for Obama).

    A couple of weeeks ago I wrote a diary on dailykos just to see what people's reactions where to a Hillary Clinton presidency and people on this site weren't too happy with that idea this early in the game.

  •  Obama on Oprah (0+ / 0-)

    I'm pretty sure he said he'd announce there.  Who can blame him.

    •  this is a serious question (12+ / 0-)

      I just don't get all the Obama adulation (which, IIRC, started Nov, 2004, before he was even sworn in as Senator....) -- so what does he offer as a person who can GOVERN?  Sure, he's charismatic, but is there something else there beyond great oratory (like Mario Cuomo) and great duds?  Are the DC Dems desperate for  a pretty face, regardless of what's there?  (I'm not suggesting Obama is an empty suit -- far from it -- but he really doesn't have any experience, does he?  And he has quite the tendency to publicly criticize his fellow Dems.)

      So, what am I missing here?  My mind is open, but I'm certainly more interested in several other Dems at this point...

      thanks,

      •  Why don't you read his book? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NDakotaDem

        Or listen to his speeches?  Then you would know what he stands for.  Its not his job to inform you.  Its your job to inform yourself.

        Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

        by tmendoza on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:41:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  um (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radiowalla

          Was that an insult?

          If so, you aren't as good at it as Jim Webb (or you're maybe too young to remember Cuomo the Magnificent)...  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, cause I'm in a great mood today!

          best,

        •  I am similarly unimpressed with Mr. Get Along (3+ / 0-)

          as well - Obama wants all to be smooth - as they slit our throats, he would be counseling compromise and manners.

          We need tough, not wishy-washy. And not only did I read his book, I sell a lot of copies of it in my bookstore too.

          My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

          by adigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:49:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why he is popular (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silverleaf, NDakotaDem

        He's been on the right side of a lot of issues from the beginning (like Iraq) and wants to change business as usual in Washington (Coburn-Obama).  He's also shown that he is interested in serious bipartisan work.  And in general, while he recognizes there are an awful lot of problems, he talks about things mostly in how we can fix them rather than harping negativity.

        I don't know if that makes him the best person to be President, but it's a message that really resonates with a lot of voters.

        •  yes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jake Nelson, adigal

          that's the sense I've gotten, but he's also so critical of fellow Dems, that I think he would benefit from more seasoning.  Being in the majority will, of course, be a much better way to develop his talents --

          best,

          •  so many myths (0+ / 0-)

            everyone jumps all over obama when he says anything slightly critical of his party, even if it's constructive, but no one notices when someome else does.  the group-think is overpowering.
            also, i think he's pandering to the media by sometimes criticizing his party (this is why media fellate mccain)

            since obama's big speech, he's held to a much higher standard.  stoller at mydd obviously hates him.  nobody hates feingold for voting for ashcroft and roberts.

            it's also obvious above in america08's comment that he leans right. in reality, obama has 1 of the most liberal voting records in senate, more liberal than feingold.
            people also say he's DLC, which is wrong.

            obama comes off as a bipartisan moderate, so media adore him, but he's actually liberal.  so he can sneak under the radar.

      •  Can someone explain (0+ / 0-)

        why very conservative, loyal Republicans favor Obama?  I have several far-right relatives and friends who think he's fabulous.  I don't get it.

    •  Oprah would go for it (0+ / 0-)

      But she really likes the Edwards too.  Elizabeth, John and Care were on the program during the Saving Graces book tour and they clearly liked each other a lot.

      "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

      by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:44:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice to be thinking about (0+ / 0-)

    the next (Democratic) president.

    Maybe, just once, someone will call me "sir" without adding, "you're making a scene." -- Homer Simpson

    by prodigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:26:17 PM PST

  •  I'm not following--Bayh didn't do what, exactly? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    Okay, I bought "The Way to Win" to see how bad it was, and it was indeed quite bad...

    BUT I have to admit that the last section of the book dealing with Hillary was pretty convincing in its positive outlook on her chances. Money, experience, and hard for them to attack on national security.

    We, of course, can whale on her for carrying so much Bush-piss (it's really not water), and see if there's a better alternative. But we really do have an embarassment of candidate riches.

    Looking forward to it.

    •  Very attackable on national security (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue

      Personally, I would like nothing more than for Hillary to win. Its time a woman was president, and the added stress of seeing her as president every day would surely take a few years off of Jerry Falwell's lifespan.

      But in my opinion she cannot win. Allusions to weakness and implicit sexism will be all it will take to make her appear insufficient to over half the country on national security, and any other issues where "cajones" are a factor.

      Do not forget that Republican attacks will not be constrained by the facts. They will exploit any opening. And Hillary has too many of them.

      •  My problems with Hillary. (2+ / 0-)

        She's a little too centrist and much too DLC for me, but I could honestly live with that if I had to.   The things that makes me dread a Hillary nomination are three things:

        1. She can't truly grow her base. Those who like her, do. Those who don't, don't.  
        1. I can't see her pulling many swing votes or disaffected Republican votes in a general.  She has much less cross-party appeal than any of the others.  Republican friends of mine are crossing their fingers and hoping we nominate her - they've told me this.
        1. She will motivate the GOTV of the Republicans like no other candidate we could field.  Bigtime.

        Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

        by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:43:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  One more problem with Hillary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Heart of the Rockies

          I actually think Hillary could make a good president, I see her as pragmatic which I think a lot of people read as too centrist.

          I also think that the nation could benefit from a women president for a lot of reasons.

          However, the problems you have noted I think are very real and I think you need to add one more:

          I don't think women voters like Hillary Clinton. Some do, some don't of course but I think the balance falls on the don't side and there is not much chance of changing opinions here

          This problem is two fold.

          The first problem is the decision she made reguarding Bill after Monica. I actually respect the decision to stay married to Bill Clinton. Hillary had a tough choice to make in the middle of a media frenzy and she chose to keep her family together and she chose to focus on Bill Clinton's good qualities not his mistakes.

          A lot of people do not see it that way. I have noted in conversations with women that the comments tended to fall on the "she should have dumped him side". Infidelity is a deal breaker and I don't feel a lot of women respect her decision.

          If she does run, the whole rotting mess will be dug up again by the media dogs so that they can roll in once more.

          The second problem may be only my perception. A lot of the women I know, think we need a woman president, want a women president. The only problem is they don't like the women that get to a position where they can be president, i.e. they see them as pushy, manipulative, too competitive etc.

          With Hillary the second problem kinda plays into the first one sometimes. Some of the women I know think that the reason she stayed with Bill was so she could run for president and she doesn't get a lot of respect for that.

          I think in addition to the problems you outlined above, I think Hillary Clinton running for president would be a mixed bag when it comes to motivating women voters who are a very important base.

  •  Nice horserace roundup, Kos... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSoTD

    ...now, what about the ISSUES?

    [RED/GLARE]

    For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.

    --Mark Twain

    by redglare on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:27:09 PM PST

    •  Anyone that runs on issues (16+ / 0-)

      loses.

      Webb didn't run on issues. Neither did Tester. Or Schweitzer.

      They ran on VALUES. The average voter doesn't want to know about issues, they want to know about the values that drive their elected officials' voting decisions.

      That's why Bush got away with the Iraq mess for so long, and the spying on American citizens, and the CIA renditions, and the torture. Because while those issues were terrible, they believed in the VALUE behind them -- keeping America safe.

      it's a lesson that Democrats are finally starting to learn. You win elections by appealing to the heart, not the brain.

      •  Followup question (0+ / 0-)

        That's why Bush got away with the Iraq mess for so long, and the spying on American citizens, and the CIA renditions, and the torture. Because while those issues were terrible, they believed in the VALUE behind them -- keeping America safe.

        But weren't the values that allowed Dems to win the mid-term also associated to those issues?  Particularly the Iraq mess.  So even those values were what voters were making a decision on, the issues were still the plate they were served upon?

        Not that the issues are going to be much different in '08 than in '06, I'm afraid.

        PSoTD is more than letters, but not quite yet a word.

        by PSoTD on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:03:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Single-issue politics (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jake Nelson

        Is what tore apart the Democratic party for many cycles.  Let laws passed in Congress with people-powered support speak to issues, let politicians speak to big pictures:  values and ideals.

        Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

        by m00nchild on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:17:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Best comment on the thread (5+ / 0-)

        and the hardest thing I had to deal with, was getting the campaign staff to understand that we could not run an issue campaign but we had to run an emotional campaign.  

        It is the emotions of people that you have to touch.

        You have to have a stance on all the issues and a truthful and non-wavering stance, but you can't run on an issue.  As anti-war as we are, for example, there is still so much more, and you have to breech the trust gap between the candidate and the voter.  You do that with feeling much easier than with fact.  

        More troops is not what we had in mind for Iraq.

        by Barry Welsh on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:28:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          America08

          Speaks of values and issues.  He is extremely good at unifying his viewpoints on various issues under the umbrella of values and responsibility.  He's phenomenal at staying on message.  This makes voters really get a sense of him and what he stands for, which I believe is powerful.  Look at his debate with Cheney.  He always framed his reponses under the meme of responsibility and values.

          I feel this is a truly effective technique and why I consider the John Edwards the best candidate to WIN against McCain, Guiliani, Huckabee, etc.

          Independents are much likely to vote for Edwards over McCain/Guiliani than HRC.  Obama?  I don't know enough about him.  Same with Clark.  So i have no opinions on that.  Overall, Edwards has the best chance of winning.  (Note I didn't say electable like Kerry was supposedly was).  He has a legitimate shot at OH, FL, NC, and SC in the general election.  His populist platform, well be very powerful in OH.  He has, IMO, the best chance holding all those Kerry states from 2004 against McCain or Guiliani or whomever.

          Sure, he has his downsides as well (for me, he does sometimes come across as a too slick pol), but so did Clinton.

          Lastly, he served six years as a senator, ran for the VP position, already has run for President, and is in his mid 50s.  i think he has plenty of experience.

      •  Edwards on Energy Independence (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        America08, WhiteCenterLib

        Couldn't agree more with your idea.

        Edwards' top priorities

        "We need universal healthcare, allow workers to unionize, raise minimum wage, move toward energy independence, tax reform that respects work, allow Bush and gang have made a total and complete mess out of the country.  We've got to hold them accountable.  

        "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

        by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:16:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes and No (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leggy Starlitz, WhiteCenterLib

        You've got to frame around values and vision, but you also need a few key policies to prove that you're not full of hot air.  Tester ran against NAFTA and free trade and the Patriot Act pretty clearly I thought.  

        "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

        by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:18:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  more bone than flesh, though (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue, SaneSoutherner

          It's good to have some real policy statements to back up the values, but stick to values, not issues.  Turning to issues has two problems.  First, it makes you look like a nerdy know-it-all policy wonk (see Al Gore).  Second, it lets them peck you to death over the details of your issues.

          They hate us for our freedoms. So if we stop being free, they stop hating us? Is THAT the plan?

          by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:47:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Insightful, yet I'm confused... (0+ / 0-)

        Don't a candidate's stances on various issues, in totality, make up that person's values? Unless values mean, "I'm Christain." Or "I'm a Good ol' Boy."

        I mean, I'd vote for Russ Feingold for president due to his "values," although that's not the term I'd use. But I derive my sense of those values becasue of his opposition to the Iraq War, his stance against the USA Patriot Act and his desire to censure Bush in the Senate, for example. Those positions on issues give me my understanding of Feingold's values. Not that he's a Jewish father of X kids from Wisconsin.

        I mean, after 2004, the media was all obsessed with "values voters" who'd won the race for Bush (although me and RFK think Bush stole it). Are we now on the left co-opting that terminology and approach?

        [RED/GLARE]

        For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.

        --Mark Twain

        by redglare on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:33:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why doesn't Clark get any credit for Beebe??? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nina, BobOak

    He tirelessly campaigned and fundraised on behalf of Mike Beebe... hell, I attended a fundraiser here in L.A. that Wes Clark organized for Beebe...

    Wes Clark worked his ass off on this campaign.. I strongly disagree... credit where credit is due, please???

    George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

    by ThatSinger on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:27:15 PM PST

  •  I especially like the Webb reference (5+ / 0-)

    "and some Webb-style cojones"

    I'm so proud of our Senator-elect.  He hasn't even taken office yet, and he's become a benchmark by which others are being measured.

    And Al Gore announcing as he accepts the Oscar for Best Documentary... hmmm.... that would be pretty fun.

    'The votes are in, and we won.' - Jim Webb

    by lcork on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:27:18 PM PST

  •  Two substantive notes. (0+ / 0-)
    1.  Kerry won IA and NH with 38% and 39%, respectively.  Even a week later, on the busy February 3 date and Kerry with all the momentum, no one broke 50% anywhere.  Hillary's 35% isn't a bad place to start from.
    1.  re:

    [H]e's got a bunch of his supporters going around trying to drum up interest. It looks like an ego play -- get a reluctant [    ] to enter the race to satisfy public clamoring for it.

    I believe we've seen that one before, and I believe it ended with the words "Mary, help!".  At least Gore will come in prepared, though I hope he sits this out.

  •  I think the idea of making them earn our vote (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverleaf, juliesie, Lesser Dane

    Can't be stressed enough.  We're not even a month away from the mid-term election.  There may be some high-profile candidates that have done things to deter interest in that past activities, but I can't see how anyone's actually EARNED a vote at this point.

    PSoTD is more than letters, but not quite yet a word.

    by PSoTD on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:27:59 PM PST

  •  I'm curious (0+ / 0-)

    I see the "must have executive experience" criteria a lot.  Why?  

    "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

    by bawbie on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:28:11 PM PST

    •  because it's an executive position (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, MO Blue

      You have to be able to lead -- your cabinet, your staff, your party and the nation -- and to make decisions for which you alone are accountable.

      •  but... (0+ / 0-)

        "executive experience" is read as "been a governor" and you are saying that someone who hasn't been a governor isn't able to lead.

        Yes, leadership is something we should look for, but just because you haven't been a governor doesn't mean you can't lead.  And visa-versa.

        "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

        by bawbie on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:51:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because POTUS is the Chief Executive (0+ / 0-)

      not the Chief Legislator.  It's an entirely different skill set.  It's about leading, inspiring, delegating, appointing good people, listening, making confident solo decisions, and riding herd on the Executive branch.  There's a certain force of personality that is required to do it well.

      There are many Dems who I think make marvelous legislators but would not make a good executive leaders.  I look for different qualities in a president than I would a legislator. I want the same liberal values, but in a different temperament package.

      Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

      by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 04:19:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree...mostly (0+ / 0-)

        There are many Dems who I think make marvelous legislators but would not make a good executive leaders.  I look for different qualities in a president than I would a legislator. I want the same liberal values, but in a different temperament package

        I agree with that, we should certainly pick a good leader...but why do they HAVE to have executive experiece.  Yes, we should think they have the skill to be a good executive, but limiting our options to people who have been governor is too restrictive.

        "Why don't newscasters cry when they read about people who die? At least they could be decent enough to put just a tear in their eye" - Jack Johnson

        by bawbie on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:48:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hillary has executive experience (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaneSoutherner

      Her husband put her in charge of an effort to revamp 1/6 of the national economy, and deliver something that has been a Democratic goal for 50 years...

      ... and she Failed Miserably at it.

      This, IMO, is highly significant information.

      "We got [Lieberman's] ass out of the Democratic party. So we did our job." -Markos Moulitsas, 10/26/06

      by jimsaco on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:16:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fixing a military mess calls for Wesley Clark (10+ / 0-)

    Iraq isn't just going to respond to good intentions. Wesley Clark, manager of the zero-casualty war in the Balkans, is the necessary man. Let's hope the public can be persuaded to overlook his wonkish TV persona.

    It's a sad day when the American public judges Presidential candidates the way children envaluate characters in a puppet show, but that is what we have come to. Obama is a cipher next to Clark in terms of demonstrated management of tough international problems, yet because he plays well on TV suddenly he is the leading candidate? Let's stop this theatrical nonsense and back a man with a DEMONSTRATED relevant set of leadership skills!

  •  Michelle Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, peace voter

    Having worked in the past for Michelle, I'd be hard-pressed to imagine her encouraging the Senator to run this early.  The hype and momentum surrounding him at this time, while flattering, are just hype and momentum.  He's a great man, and she's amazingly brilliant---I imagine she would advise him to run (assuming Clinton gets the nom) as the #2.

    "Justice is truth in action." - Benjamin Disraeli

    by mtibbens on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:28:35 PM PST

    •  He hasn't done anything yet. (4+ / 0-)

      Nice face and all.  Many people are personifying their asperations in Obama, not based on anything he's done.

      •  Obama-Coburn (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mtibbens, blueday

        was a pretty big feat for a first year Senator in the minority party.

        What did John Edwards accomplish in his first year in the Senate?

        What's Wes Clark done in the last year?

        For that matter, what has HRC accomplished in the Senate?

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:17:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards in the Senate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jake Nelson, ThunderHawk13
          1. Closing Argument for Not-Guilty in Impeachment.  

          McCain talked about how it was a big part of why he voted against impeachment.  Thus, Edwards played a huge role in stopping The Hyde Putsch.

          1. Patient Bill of Rights

          Co-Sponsor with McCain and Kennedy.  Passed the Senate.  Stalled in the House.  But, how is that JRE's fault.

          1. Campaign Finance Reform

          Co-Floor Leader.  Praised by Feingold and McCain.

          1. Sponsor of Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada.
          1.  Sponsor of Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination.

          "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

          by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:23:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  giving credit for arguing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mtibbens

            Obama did pretty well at the John Bolton hearings.

            Obama-Coburn is law. That's worth more credit than passing in the Senate and failing in the House.

            Obama also has legislative accomplishments in Springfield.

            I'm not in the Obama for Prez camp, but think that the claim that he lacks the experience is overblown if you accept that being a Senator is experience enough.

            I agree with the U.S. public that all things being equal a governor or major cabinet figure is preferable to a Senator.

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:33:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The US public (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Carl Nyberg, ThunderHawk13

              generally votes for the person who can win the "cares about people like me" vote.  They rarely are all that interested in resumes.

              I've not criticized Obama, I think "experience" in public-office is overblown.  I'd like to see someone who has won a campaign of significance, but beyond that I'd have thought that after 2004 we would have learned our lesson about nominating someone because they've sat in a seat for a long time.

              "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

              by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:38:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Clark has done a lot this year. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philgoblue

          Has worked tirelessly for 86 Canidates, and I mean worked extremely hard for them, making more than just an appearnace here and there

    •  Hype and Momentum (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tkmattson, condorcet

      ...are pretty important to a political campaign.  He has the charisma, the fund raising, and wide range of passionate supporters across many constituencies.  I don't see why, from a strategic point of view, the time to run wouldn't be now.  Running "experienced" candidates just gets you John Kerry.

    •  Clinton/Obama.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mtibbens

      The geography doesn't work for me.

      Clinton/Schweitzer? Clinton/Richardson? Those might work. I think if she'd to win, she needs a governor from the west or southwest.

      "Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise." David Mamet

      by coral on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:22:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If this is any indication... (9+ / 0-)

    Yesterday I had lunch with a couple of Democratic women who vote, and we discussed the '08 Dem caucus taking place early in NV. They loved Edwards and Obama, thought Clark would be an excellent Secretary of State, and gave a big thumbs down to Gore and Kerry.

    I am leaning Edwards because I think Elizabeth Edwards is a huge asset for the Democrats in '08.

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." --James Madison (1751-1836)

    by LV Pol Girl on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:29:49 PM PST

    •  "Joyul" and "Happier" Elizabeth Edwards (0+ / 0-)

      Well, she's certainly made "joyful" choices in her life, hasn't she?

      Elizabeth Edwards: "She [Hillary Clinton] and I are from the same generation. We both went to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I'm more joyful than she is."

      Katha Pollitt on that remark.

      Luiza Savage on that remark.

      •  Elizabeth appologized for those remarks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII

        though they were really blown out of proportion, I mean you can read what "choices" means.

        And you may want to note that she was a very successful lawyer who worked during her first two kids' childhoods and only stopped working for a wage when John was elected to the senate.

        "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

        by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:42:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She apologized, true, but... (0+ / 0-)

          ...she still said them. Her husband is known for not negative campaigning, not belittling other people in the race.

          •  What was she thinking? (0+ / 0-)

            She said her remarks were taken out of context. What did she actually mean? Why compare herself to Hillary Clinton in the first place?

            •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

              I haven't seen the primary source -- do you have it?  I read Katha's piece becuase I get The Nation and usually love her stuff, but I thought she overplayed the sources on that one.

              "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

              by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:59:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, okay. (0+ / 0-)

                No, but I'll tell you what galled me about Elizabeth Edwards' remarks. It's just so damn easy to pile on to Hillary Clinton. I'm just saying. Edwards is great about not attacking his opponents. I think that's the main reason he did so well, his basic humanity in campaigning, focussing on issues, not personalities. Elizabeth Edwards needs to be a lot more careful. Okay, so she apologized. I'll let bygones be bygones. It wasn't a great apology though since she said her remarks were not intended that way. Well, I'm sorry but when you boast that you're happier than someone else, it's a damn stupid pitiful ridiculous mean-spirited thing to say, no matter what the context. I'll find it more hurtful if she meant by "choices" that Hillary Clinton chose to run for office herself when she could have just sat pretty on royalties from her memoirs. If she meant, Hillary Clinton was getting involved in shady real estate deals while Elizabeth Edwards was earning an honest living, then perhaps she had a point, but it was still a creepy cruel meaningless thing to say. Yet, I feel it was just a smarmy thoughtless brainless remark made to Ladies Home Journal likely belonging to the former context and speaking more to Elizabeth Edwards' personal phobia of being in public office. Personally, I'm seeing her as a liability, not an asset. I know she's popular, but with that remark, she showed why she should just stay out of the spotlight or else maybe herself run for office. Maybe she should run for U.S. Senate from North Carolina herself, put aside the joyful happiness of premature retirement and try her hand at the difficult work of serving the public instead.

          •  I don't think she has anything to apologize for. (0+ / 0-)

            Elizabeth Edwards has a right to her opinion even though the remarks were taken out of context.

            Personally she does seem much happier in appearance the Hillary, one thing is for sure, she has never had to endure the personaly embarrassment of her husband being impeached for sexual misconduct. That alone would make Elizabeth a happier person.

            I like President Clinton and Hillary, but Mrs. Edwards does seem to smile more.

    •  Sounds like a great lunch! (0+ / 0-)

      Shoot me an invitation for the next one!  

      The LV Kos women should stick together!

  •  I'm leaning toward Obama (6+ / 0-)

    My username says it all.

    I like and respect Hillary. She is my senator. But I am done with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton hegemony. This psychodrama has dominated my adult political life. No more. Enough.

    •  He is losing Dems (5+ / 0-)

      with his sermons on the mount about how we gotta get religion.  I think momentum for him will lose steam soon, too.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:35:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No he's not (9+ / 0-)
        He's just losing the tiny, tiny minority of people who are hostile to religion.  That group does have a sizeable presence on the internet, but not so much in the real world.
        •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)

          Obama's statements on religion have to be a net plus. Yes, it irritates a small collection of liberals, but they'll end up voting for him in the general, and it helps oodles with swing voters and Reagan Democrat types.

        •  Religion (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pHunbalanced, Geotpf

          I am an atheist and would probably be considered hostile to religion, but his religion remarks don't bother me in the slightest.  Born-again Carter is the only winning candidate I had no problem voting for in my lifetime.  Son-of-minister McGovern is my favorite losing candidate.  Despite my general hostility to religion, I would say I am ideologically closest to the religious left.  

          What bothers me about Obama is his lack of willingness to fight for the causes I care about, though he still remains one of 3 candidates that I would have no problems voting for (Clark and Kerry are the others).  And as long as people dream of drafting Gore, I will continue to dream that Russ changes his mind.

          •  I'm kind of the same way (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geotpf, condorcet
            I'm an atheist and I'm certainly hostile to the way some practice their religion.  But I think there is a small group of people like Dawkins and Bill Maher who just don't like any talk of religion from politicians.

            As far as your concerns, I do know what you mean, but I think Obama's apparent unwillingness to fight has more to do with his status as a freshman member of the minority in the Senate.  The only Senator who's really tried to fight is Russ, but even then, he's had very little success.  I would like to see Obama fight back against some of the smears the Republicans have started to throw at him, because he's going to need to be able to do that if he's going to win this thing in the end.

        •  On other diaries, not by Kos, they disagree (0+ / 0-)

          and are finding Obama's religious rallying a problem.

          Different strokes.  The thing to find out is whether it is not sufficiently problematic for different folks.

          (Btw, I happen to be a practicing member of a church -- but I also am weary of religiosity in politics . . . and its resulting damage to our democratic practices.)

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:37:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  He's a religous person (0+ / 0-)

        It shouldn't offend anyone that he thinks religion is important.  He is a religous person.

        Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

        by tmendoza on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:39:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  every last one of them (5+ / 0-)

    should douse us in chocolate fountains this August.

    •  that really doesn't generate the best (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silverleaf

      mental image ;)

      PSoTD is more than letters, but not quite yet a word.

      by PSoTD on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:32:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's not quite the YK I had in mind (0+ / 0-)

      Ideal world:

      • Each candidate participates in a panel
      • We host a debate on Friday or Saturday night, at which bloggers are the questioners
      • After the debate, let 'em throw parties.
      •  friday and saturday night parties (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jake Nelson

        with debates would rock. (since I'm only going to be there for friday night and saturday.)

      •  I like... (0+ / 0-)

        the concept, but, especially if (as would be likely) a "debate" would be nationally televised, I'm reluctant to have "line up at an open mic to ask questions" for two reasons.

        1.  VERY few candidates would agree to that sort of scenario.  (Anyone think Clinton would show up at a debate where 90% odds a question along the lines of "how much are you paid to be a war whore?" is asked?)
        1.  It could make DKos/YKos look horrendous.  Just have one questioner up there asking "Why don't you impeach the President now?" or "Why do you have blood on your hands?" (questions asked, more or less verbatim, to Barbara Boxer and Matt Bai, respectively, last year) and you've got a "Macaca"-esque problem.  

        That said, I'd be fine with "bloggers" asking questions provided that they do so respectfully.  I'm just worried about what it could very easily devolve into.

        •  Oh, I didn't mean "open mike" (0+ / 0-)

          The YearlyKos organizers would select 3-4 people to be the questioners, probably front-pagers, and we'd have threads soliciting questions.

        •  Some people see it as their mission in life... (0+ / 0-)

          ...to protect respectable dignitaries from roving hordes of unsophisticated brainless ones. So what that hundreds of bloggers should be asking hundreds of questions with varying degrees of relevance? Surely information overload is nothing new to an elected representative. Do you really think you need to protect politicians from exposure to the horrible masses? I thought that was the problem, that they become so enamored of themselves, their fundraisers, their lobbyists and each other that they don't make the most commonsensical decisions in the echo chambers of their scenes.

  •  Could Clark have a "netroots" base since (7+ / 0-)

    he doesn't have a geographic base from which to build?

    Daniel Craig...the BEST James Bond...ever!

    by ShaShaMae on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:29:58 PM PST

  •  Richardson (0+ / 0-)

    Will Richardson really pull in the Latino vote?  Sure, he did well in New Mexico, but that state is unique and I'm sure everybody realizes he doesn't pretend to be from one of the old New Mexico hispano families.  Having a Mexican mom by itself isn't going to be enough for him to get traction with Latinos outside of his own state, I suspect.

    •  Thats just one positive he has going for himself. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Colorado Luis

      I think he would get a large majority of the hispanic vote, but he's also very likeable and is more of a centrist (low taxes, etc...), that appeals to moderate republicans and independents. He may end up being perfect for vice Pres. But with the field we have, he's looking pretty good as president too.

      •  True of course (0+ / 0-)

        Really he's a great "resume" candidate because he has substantial foreign policy experience and he is a governor.  I'm not going to assume that he'll rack up a solid majority of Latino Dems, though -- he'll definitely have to work for it.

        If I had to bet, though, I'd say he'll end up as Secretary of State instead of on the ticket.

  •  Bush's failure in Iraq (8+ / 0-)

    is really helping Clark's bid.  It's gonna be a huge mess over there and I think Clark will be in the best position to say 'I'm the guy who can fix this debacle'

  •  Evan Bayh (10+ / 0-)

    I remember tuning in mid-way to an interview on NPR a year ago, where the subject was Iraq.  I was thinking the whole time "who is this Republican flak?"  When they came back from the break, I was (mildly) suprised to hear they had been talking to Evan Bayh the whole time.

    •  That will be his nitch in the primaries. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kristen23

      Not everybody wants to just pull out immediately and leave a big mess.

      •  if the niche has to be filled better Bayh (0+ / 0-)

        than Lieberman.

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:42:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Theres alot of democrats that feel the same way (0+ / 0-)

          Bayh does, not just Lieberman. They feel Iraq was a mistake, but we have to be cautious with how we pull out. Lieberman isnt a democrat anyhow, so that isnt a valid comparison.

          •  cautious about pulling out? (0+ / 0-)

            like these "centrist Democrats" were cautious about going into Iraq?

            What bad outcome do you think is a priority to avoid?

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:02:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it could be even worse than it is now (0+ / 0-)

              if we just would drop everything and bug out. Im not sure what the best way is to get out. Ill leave that to people like Evan Bayh to figure out. Theres now critical mass in the coutnry to do so. All we need is a plan now, thats why the american people voted us the Congress. Im waiting to hear what the Baker/Hamilton commission suggests as well.

              •  My views are changing... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dsolzman

                I've always held the "You break it/You buy it" view on Iraq... like it or not, the US broke Iraq so it's our responsibility to fix it.  Regardless of who was President at the time, the United States is the one responsible.

                However......

                There's got to be a point at which you say "We've tried as much as we can, but you guys (Iraq) aren't helping us help you and we can't fix your country alone."  What is that point?  How much is too much?

                I guess I liken it to the a parent/child relationship where the kid keeps wrecking his car and the parent keeps repairing it for him... How many chances are we going to give the Iraqis to get their act together before we just tell them "Fix your own damn car..."

                I don't know.

                •  Thats the way I feel as well. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dsolzman

                  I was always skeptical about the whole idea, but I liked that we were going to help the Iraqi people take control of their own country and have freedom and democracy etc.... Then I saw their Iraqi Constitution with 'Islam as the source of law" and "experts in Sharia law" and thats when I first started to turn against it.

                  Now it seems like there doesnt seem to be much chance of a democracy anyhow and just staying isnt going to solve their problems. In fact, maybe us being there is really causing problems. Its possible that had we conducted the war properly with more troops etc.. from the start that we may not be in the situtaiton we are now. I think thats the way Bayh and some other democrats feel as well. They trusted Bush and Rumsfeld to conduct the war right and they didnt. Now well never know if it would have worked or not, and people that trusted Bush are left looking like fools.

                  I honestly dont know what to do now, except that we shouldnt just leave and not care about what happens. I still feel like "we broke it", and feel responsible to the millions of people over there that arent involved in the violence and dont want to live under a theocracy. Like I said though, Im waiting for the Baker/Hamilton report and I guess Ill go along with what they recommend.

    •  Exactly (8+ / 0-)

      He's Indiana's Ben Nelson, and my Senator.

      And I, for one, hope that he gets crushed in the primary. He's one of these Lieberman/centrist/DLC/offend-no-voter clones that has been killing our party.

      Sadly, I have a hunch Obama is the same way.

      Wes Clark seems to have everything: incredible military credentials, Rhodes Scholar, smart and tough as hell, outsider status, roots in the South, already went through this four years ago, not married to the Iraq War. . .

      I want Al Gore more than anyone, but it always amazes me how many people across the country don't like him. Why, I have no idea.

      The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

      by IndyScott on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:48:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My guess is Clark's position on the issues (0+ / 0-)

        wouldnt be that much different than Bayhs is, except for the fact that he opposed the war from the start, at least I think he did. But I remember hearing him speak during the '04 primaries and he sounded pretty "centrist/DLC" to me.

        This war has given liberals tunnel vision. All the sudden Jack Murtha's a hero even though he's anti-abortion, anti gun control.... and a social conservative on a lot of issues. But Evan Bayh is someone to hate just because he voted for the war, (like alot of other democrats did), even though otherwise he's a liberal on most other issues liberals care about.

        •  While it's hard to judge because he lacks (0+ / 0-)

          a record of votes, Clark has seemed fairly liberal to me. But you certainly might be right.

          •  Clark's a Liberal. (7+ / 0-)

            He's pro-gay rights (including in the military), pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-affirmative action, pro-fair trade, wants to pay for the first two years of college for most Americans, and says global warming is a national security issue.

            Yeah, he's Liberal, and when a lot of candidates were running away from the "Liberal" label as fast as they could, he proudly embraced it.  Maher asked him if he wanted to run from that word as well,  and after a resounding "No!", he said:

            We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. It's in our constitution! We should be very clear on this... this country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, have reasonable dialogue and discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything, right from wrong. People who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, and dialogue, and civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.

            Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

            by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:04:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Gore is faring quite well vs McCain/Giuliani (0+ / 0-)

        Gore is within one margin of error of beating Giuliani (currently GOP favorite), and 7 points of McCain, and he is beating every other GOP prospect (in the recent SUSA Mega poll).

        Unite the nation, heal the planet: Al Gore for President, 2008!

        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:37:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't know either... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg, Jake Nelson, thumperward, MJB, lowellfield

    ...but I'd give it to Gore if he wanted it.  That "return of the rightful king" narrative he's got going is incredibly powerful stuff.

    And Boo to the Senators, while we're on the subject.   Clinton's the only one who doesn't come across as a loser or complete lightweight.

  •  Yep, hereafter Hillary can only go down, (4+ / 0-)

    everyone in the galaxy has already made up his/her mind about Hillary...
    I'm for Clark, but I'm not dismissing Edwards.
    Obama? Perhaps as VP but not (yet) for number one.

    we're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression

    by Lepanto on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:33:23 PM PST

  •  Evan Bayh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kristen23

    Id like to see the statistics that proves Bayh was more "miserly" than all the other Pres contenders, because until I do I dont believe it.

    If you want to win in '08 you shouldnt count out someone that the Republicans fear most. They do not fear Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards much. They do fear Bayh and Richardson. They fear a candidate that can run as a centrist the way Clinton did.

    •  He didn't transfer a dime (9+ / 0-)

      of his warchest to the DSCC. A campaign finance loophole allowed senators to transfer unlimited amounts of their campaign fund over to the DSCC, which was locked in a vicious battle for control of the Senate.

      Kerry transferred big bucks. Hillary sent $2 million. Others did so as well. Bayh, on the other hand, refused, even though he had over $10 million in his Senate account.

      •  Ok, Id still like to hear him explain that. (0+ / 0-)

        And Ill bet there are a lot of the others that didnt give either. Hillary and Kerry probably have the money to give, Bayh doesnt. 10 million may seem like alot, but he's going to need that if he runs. He's not going to be the kind of candidate that can raise alot of money quickly like some of the others can, at least not unless he does well in some of the early primaries.

        •  You can't be serious (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jake Nelson, Debby, Pithy Cherub

          $10 million is a pittance to you? Bayh is a boilerplate for what's wrong with the Democratic party - absolute self-interest before the Democratic Party's interest. Bayh took this to a whole new level.

          So you're telling me Bayh couldn't afford to make a reasonable donation to the DSCC or DCCC in a crucial do-or-die year for Democrats in which control of Congress was on the line?

          I'm sorrry, but Bayh blew it big-time with his overly stingy attitude. Support goes both ways. He's clearly demonstrated where when it comes to push and shove his priorities are: with himself.

          Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

          by blueday on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:34:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heres something I found just by doing a quick (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eamon1916, dsolzman, kristen23

            search. Im sure I could find alot more if I wanted to.

            The "Bayh's stingy" campaign is riddled with inaccuracies... well let's take a look at his giving...

            First off we have his Camp Bayh'ers... He's paying the salary of 50 campaign workers across the country for 3 months... $1000/mo for 50 workers for 3 months... $150,000, not including room and board, transportation and training...

            And as for donating money... just since July All America PAC donated:
            Leonard Boswell - $5000
            Julia Carson - $2500
            John Cranley - $1000
            DSCC - $15,000
            Phil Hare - $500
            Tom Harkin - $120
            Paul Hodes - $417
            Iowa Democratic Party - $900
            Iowa Democratic Party - $1000
            Selden Spencer - $100
            Selden Spencer - $400
            Debbie Stabenow - $2000

            His Senate campaign has also paid more that $15,000 to the Indiana Democratic Party to pay for salary and other costs...

            Not only that but he's spent a good portion of money travelling around the country campaigning for candidates...

            Oops forgot to mention the $100,000.00 donation to the Indiana Democratic Party. These funds are much needed to help all of our candidates in the last month of the election season. With Bayh's help we may very well send 3 seats to Congress. Bayh has donated a great deal of effort behind Donnelly, Ellsworth and Hill. Bayh has spent most of this month campaigning and fundraising for these good men in Indiana.

            I also found out after a quick search that the other presidential contenders didnt give all that much either. For example, Feingold gave 10 thousand (I know he's not running now), and what Hillary and Kerry gave may not even amount to a whole lot more than Bayh did when you it break down by percentage.

            •  Yeah that was me... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RonK Seattle, DigDug, dsolzman, kristen23

              And the Camp Bayh program ended up costing about $250,000 all told...

              Of the Camp Bayh'ers directed assigned to campaigns... 72% of them won.

            •  One more thing about Bayh (0+ / 0-)

              Bayh paid for staff mostly in Iowa. You think he's doing that for nothing in return, huh?

              If the first caucus was held in Alaska, Bayh would be paying for staff in Alaska. Not in Iowa. That's the measure of the man and his giving. Self-interest. Nothing more.

              And please, spare me the righteous indignation of $10 million being a "pittance".

              Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

              by blueday on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:29:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You dont think other candidates arent doing the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dsolzman

                same thing? You think Hillary gave just out of the goodness of her heart. Its self interest for everybody, at least to a large degree.

                10 million isnt a pittance, but Bayh spent a decent percentage of that. Im sure less than some, but more than others too. And he also did other stuff, like campaign for candidates. Im satisfied that he did his fair share.

      •  Three Pickups in a Red State (5+ / 0-)

        Bayh worked his tail off for Donnelly, Ellsworth, and Hill.  Dems now have a 5-4 Congressional advantage in Indiana, of all places.  Yeah, I'm upset that he didn't contribute anything, but there are many ways a candidate can display his generosity.  However, a candidate still has to deliver results.

        Hillary donated $2 million of the $4 billion she raised (I know, that's an exaggeration).  But, what did she do to help out her state?  Last time I checked, the GOPers still have the NY State Senate, and Dems made only nominal gains there.  Plus, two of those three upstate Congressional pickups were gifts (NY-24 was a solid pickup).  Sue Kelly was embroiled in the Mark Foley scandal, and John Sweeney got caught being a wife-beater a week before the election.  

        John Kerry transferred big money too, but did he really help out candidates on the stump?  Sure, he went out and campaigned, but can you credit him with helping win any races?  Plus, don't forget his botched joke.  I think the only candidate he helped out with that was Tim Walz because Kerry cancelled a campaign appearance for him.

        •  it was bad politics (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Debby

          People have long memories here.  He'll ALWAYS get beat up for not donating to the DSCC in 2006.  Is that fair?  Who cares!  It was politically tone-deaf of him to not make a donation.  Kos, MyDD, and other leftie blogs were basically making open threats to remind everyone who didn't donate.  Bayh's failure to donate was either a deliberate snub to the netroots, or just plain dumb.

          They hate us for our freedoms. So if we stop being free, they stop hating us? Is THAT the plan?

          by Leggy Starlitz on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:52:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Complaining that he didn't donate to the DSCC... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dsolzman

        is like complaining someone isn't a good Christian because they're not giving to Rome.

        Bayh donated a ton of time/effort/money to turning this Congress Blue.  The Iowa GOP credited his Camp Bayh'ers as being a huge reason for Iowa turning Blue.  He had staffers at numerous Democratic organizations in NH... Which also turned Blue.

        Of the Camp Bayh'ers directly assigned to campaigns, 72% of those campaigns won.  Of the All America PAC "featured candidates", 86% of those candidates won their races.

        Your yardstick that you measure giving by is severly skewed.

  •  NOBODY HAS A CLUE (0+ / 0-)

    Nobody has a clue who is going to run and this is brilliant. The gop and thier brainwashed group of conservatives who watch fox news have no clue who start targeting yet.

    On the other hand, the gop has huge ideological difference in thier own party between "normal republicans" and the "religious right" who in the most part primarly despise of a Mccain or Giuliani candicay because they support gay rights to some degree and stem cell research.  

  •  Vilsack's strategy may be viable (0+ / 0-)

    If Vilsack manages to take his state of Iowa, the primary season could well become very interesting. It could become a 3-way or 4-way race. Here's the early schedule:

    • January 14 - Iowa caucuses
    • January 19 - Nevada Caucuses
    • January 22 - New Hampshire Primary
    • January 29 - South Carolina Primary

    I think it becomes very interesting if Vilsack wins Iowa. Vilsack has been building a ground game in Nevada too. While I think it is a long shot, he may be able to garner enough support to pull off an upset in Nevada especially if he wins strongly in Iowa.

    •  But if Vilsack doesn't win Iowa, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MO Blue

      he's incredibly done, since then he's the guy who couldn't win his own state.  And if he does win Iowa by anything less than a huge margin, he's still the guy who won his own state, which probably give him less advantage than someone else winning Iowa.

      Blue Hampshire - a new community blog for a newly blue state.

      by Laura Clawson on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:45:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, toast if he doesn't win (0+ / 0-)

        Which is why Vilsack doesn't need a deep purse to run his race. If he doesn't win big in Iowa, then true he's done for. But if he does manage to win, then his work building in Nevada could become a factor.

        Vilsack's strategy may not be to win the presidential nomination either. He could be thinking that the front runners are all senators (sitting or not), and they will need a governor on the ticket in the vp slot. If Vilsack comes across as strong enough, he might convince the nominee he's the guy. I guess what I'm thinking is Vilsack is running for the VP slot against the other governors who would be interested. Vilsack may want to demonstrate he's a vote-getter outside of Iowa.

        Shrug... or he could just be a dreamer.

      •  I'm not sure that's true (0+ / 0-)

        this is not 1992 where everyone passed on Iowa because Harkin was in.  Remember that early polling data had Vilsack in 5th place in his own state.  I think for most of the talking heads they don't even expect Vilsack to finish in the top two in his own state.   That is, their expectations bar is not as high as the one you are setting.   And if things stay that way, then he may only have to win or come in a close second in order to have momentum into Nevada.  And it is worth noting that he has a ready made organization for caucuses -  it is, after all, a caucus state, and he has a state-wide organization in place that knows caucuses:  after all, Christie used it to help Kerry in 2004.  As far as I can tell right now, from a distance, the only one else who has a pre-existing organization might be Edwards because of his 2nd place finish last time.  

        Also, remember that what people will also look at is the fundraising.  If Vilsack is able to a good job of early fundraising, that will give him more credibility, including in Iowa.    And the stuff he has done for DLC, for Democratic governors, and through Heartland Pac, has given him some connections to people who have or have access to money.  So that might be the most important thing to watch.   If he can raise a substantial amount of money, then maybe he becomes interesting.  if he cannot, then he probably will not do that well in Iowa, and that will be the end.

        Please note -  I am a friend of the Governor because of our common interest in education.  Like Kos, I am at this point totally neutral.  I accept that the rules require someone lie Vilsack to get in early - he has no federal campaign account from which to transfer funds.  

        I think he - and every other candidate - has to demonstrate the ability to raise enough funds to opt out as did Dean and Kerry in 2004 and Bush both times.   I do not think any candidate who plans to take the matching funds will be able to survive.

        It will be interesting to watch.

        Oh, and congratulations (and commiserations for the additional responsibility).  I look forward to seeing more of your work.

        Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

        by teacherken on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:17:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Everyon assumes (7+ / 0-)

      Vilsack will win Iowa. If he does, he gets nothing. If he loses, he's toast.

      •  The question is who else skips Iowa (0+ / 0-)

        If everyone who's anyone skips because he's the favorite son, then it's meaningless.  (In fact, that would so neuter Iowa that I expect some Iowans would favor others to keep the state competitive and important.)  If everyone's in, then maybe he wins, but  if people don't think he has the chops to go all the way (at least to VP), why are they wasting their time working for him?  It would be tempting at that point to jump to whoever you think is going to win.

        If only some are in, then the question is: who?  This is, I think, the biggest danger to Edwards.  He'll be so wll-placed in Iowa that he can't drop out.  That means that if lots of others drop out -- Hillary, for example -- they can use Vilsack as a tool to knock out Edwards, much as Gephardt was used to knock out Dean.  And my guess is that's why DLC guy Vilsack is actually running, aside from the desire to be Hillary's Veep choice.  (Oh, how he must fear Obama!)

        By the way, having worked in Nevada this campaign, I predict that Nevada's caucuses will be an administrative and political mess.  Neither voters nor party officials will know what to do with them.

        My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

        by Major Danby on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:45:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Schedule (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue

      still favors Edwards I think.  Vilsack is in a lose-lose situation.  If he wins Iowa, he would not receive the same wave of momentum that Kerry received because he is expected to win that state and the attention becomes focused on who is 2nd which could be Edwards again. If Vilsack loses he is out.

      Then Edwards goes to Nevada and battles it out with Richardson and Hillary, and with his union support, wins the caucuses.

      During this time Hillary's lead in New Hampshire (a lead built on mostly name recognition and love for the Clintons) begins to fall, Edwards riding his momentum  cuts it close and even though Hillary may still win, Edwards maintains momentum as the media then question Clinton's poltical viability as Edwards rolls on to South Carolina which he would win.

      (Note: All of this doesn't account for a possible Gore or Obama run, an Obama run can also make neighboring Iowa interesting and have an effect on South Carolina which would change everything)

      Isn't Time the Terrorists Feared America?

      by EMKennedyLucio on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:49:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like Edwards, but I don't think he can win (0+ / 0-)

        Lots of republicans I know like Clark, but think Edwards is a Pretty Boy who is not up to a man's job. After the debate where Cheney took him apart, I had to agree.

        As said, I like him a lot, but I fear his lack of experience and gravitas will hurt him.

        My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

        by adigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:55:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Iowa (0+ / 0-)

      A Vilsack loss in IA would kill him, but I don't think a win would mean a thing.  If polls look like he has a good chance of winning, all the other candidates will concentrate on other states.  Similarly, a SC win by Edwards won't mean a thing, though its unlikely that he would lose in SC.  

      There is a precedent for this.  In 1992, Harkin ran and all other candidates pulled out of IA.  Harkin won almost 80% in IA (compared to Clinton's 60% in Arkansas after everybody but Brown dropped out), but look where that got him.  Clinton played a beautiful campaign by not campaigning in IA, claiming to be the come-back kid for his second place finish in NH, and then taking the lead soon after since the primaries were frontloaded with essentially the whole south.

      In short, any candidate that plays the expectations game well can neutralize losses.

      •  Vilsack in a no-win situation in Iowa... (0+ / 0-)

        Harkin really screwed other Iowans... Everyone expects an Iowan to DOMINATE the caucuses... the result is a vastly over-inflated expectations game that Vilsack can't win.

        If he dominates the caucuses... well he's from Iowa, that's what he's supposed to do.

        If he barely wins... the story line will be "Why didn't he win by a bigger margin... Hey did you see who finished second?"

        if he loses... well if he gets as far as Jan '08 and isn't polling well in the lead in Iowa... he had better just close up shop because if he loses in Iowa he's not just toast, but burnt toast.

  •  How many Senators have ever become President? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carl Nyberg, Paradox13, cityofgates

    Anybody know the answer to that question?  I do.

    "Live life like you attend church - Vote Democratic"

    by egarratt on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:36:58 PM PST

  •  Addictive, ain't it? (6+ / 0-)

    I guess I did want to talk about the 2008 presidential stuff...

    I tried to contain myself when we were focused on winning 2006, and feel proud that I mostly did so.  

    And thanks to me, we won!   (snark; quite pathetic snark, at that)

    But I'm not so un-opinionated as Markos at the moment.

    My choice:

    Edwards - Clark 2008!

    The perfect domestic-foreign policy team.

    Two notes:

    1.  I could see changing the order of that, with Clark running for Prez and Edwards for veep.  But I don't think Edwards would (or should!) run for VP again.
    1.  All this changes for me if Al Gore enters the race.
    1.  Hilary?  Sorry, no way.  Please stay in the Senate and become a great leader there -- maybe even majority leader.  Don't drag us through a Presidental bid.
    1.  Bayh?  No way.  Uses too much DLC-type anti-liberal language for me.  It's fine to be a "moderate," whatever that means at this point.  But I won't tolerate a Lieberman-like Democrat who bashes other Dems.
    1. Obama?  Tough one.  He's got intelligence and charisma to spare.  But I am not fond of his tendency to pander for the media, at the expense of the party (see Bayh, above).  Maybe he'll cut it out, then he could really be a leader for the ages.  I'm happy to wait and see.
    1.  Biden?  Sorry, Joe.  Not a chance.  Smart guy when he gets serious, but too much of a media clown most of the time.

    PRAVDA under Stalin had more shame than Fox News.

    by chumley on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:38:02 PM PST

    •  Oops! Notable ommissions: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nina, MO Blue
      1.  Kerry?  No way.  I respect him greatly, and think he would have made an excellent president.  But he's not a good candidate in this day and age, and has the unfortunate distinction of having lost in 2004 (fairly or not -- YMMV).
      1. No opinion yet on Vilsack.  I'll watch and see.
      1. Richardson can be impressive, and brings a great demographic / regional flavor to the ticket.  But I still need to see more of him.
      1. I hope Jim Webb sticks around for a long time to come, and maybe runs himself someday.  He's got balls, and that is one of my main criteria for a Democratic candidate.  (Not literally, of course -- ovaries count as well, metaphorically speaking.  See:  Boxer, Barabra.)

      PRAVDA under Stalin had more shame than Fox News.

      by chumley on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:43:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You and I (0+ / 0-)

      See this the same way.  And Gore enters then I'm 100% with him.  Then I would want Edwards as Ceep, though I would be happy with Clark as well... though then you would have TWO people from Arkansas, again! (it was a good combination before though!)

      Though according to the WIRE:

      Obama Talks With Kerry, Gore Operatives
      Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "has discussed a potential campaign with leading Democratic activists in Iowa, which holds the influential caucus that kicks off the presidential primary campaign in early 2008," the Chicago Tribune reports.

      Among those he has spoken with are the former Iowa campaign managers for 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry and 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore.

      According to Political Insider, Obama will appear on Jay Leno's Tonight Show later this week.

       

      And Gore was on yesterday night.  Are we looking at a Gore/Obama ticket then?  Because Kerry doesn't have a chance.

      After the Rapture, we'll get all their stuff! Hummingbird's Blog

      by Hummingbird on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:11:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, Markos, where is the ... (3+ / 0-)

    ...Straw Poll?

  •  no Hillary! (7+ / 0-)

    I don't hate her or anything - I'm pissed about her voting for the Iraq fiasco, though. But more importantly, if Hillary wins the nomination, and if she wins and if she wins two terms (a lot of ifs, I know), by 2016 there will have been a Bush or Clinton in the presidency or vice-presidency for 36 years! Then here comes Jeb. Time to break out of this cycle.

  •  Vilsack's role may be to let Hillary survive Iowa (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MJB, MO Blue

    At 10% after 2 terms as governor, Vilsack is too weak in Iowa (where he'd need to win decisively to be a factor). So why is he running? Maybe to soak up just enough of the vote to prevent a huge win by someone else and keep Hillary alive post-Iowa.

    •  Since it appears (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Carl Nyberg

      the 3 early front runners would be HRC, Obama and Edwards (with Clark running an unquantifiable at this point darkhorse campaign), I'd have to imagine Vilsack siphoning more votes from HRC than the others because I just don't see an Obama supporter flipping for Vilsack.

      •  I was thinking more along the lines of... (0+ / 0-)

        ...trying to keep Edwards under 40%. Hillary and Obama will struggle in some rural precincts to convince Iowans that they're ultimately electable, and they could miss the 15% minimum cutoff to get any delegates in some of these precincts. Vilsack, on the other hand, might at least compete with Edwards in small-town Iowa and prevent him from running away with it.

    •  Totally agree (0+ / 0-)

      Vilsack has as much chance of becoming POTUS as anyone posting a comment in this thread.

      Keeping Hillary's presidential hopes from dying in Iowa may or may not be the raison d'etre for Vilsack's candidacy, but it will surely be the effect of Vilsack's candidacy.

      So this is how liberty dies -- with thunderous applause.

      by MJB on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:20:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Webb/Hill - end of game (0+ / 0-)

    Get the urge to purge!

    by 0hio on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:41:02 PM PST

  •  No Hillary = D Victory (6+ / 0-)

    The "Republican populist" base (haters, wasters, welfare staters) needs to feel like it's destroying something when it votes. Destruction is the only kind of victory they understand. And Hillary is the bloodiest target for their ravenous jaws. So they'll turn out in strength to vote against her, no matter how vile (Giuliani) is the alternative.

    Meanwhile, Hillary forgoing the D candidacy would give those Republicans a sacrifice thrown to them, satisfying them without building any sense of real strength (they mostly can't vote in Democratic primaries). So they're more likely to stay home instead of vote in the general election, and remain satisfied enough not to attack an alternate D candidate as much.

    Meanwhile, with Hillary safely in her Senate seat from NY, she can spend her money backing the D candidate to deliver a D White House to her D Congressional majority. And launch as many attacks on, say, Giuliani, as necessary to keep him out of the seat. Which she already did when she beat Giuliani for that Senate seat, when she was still an Arkansas/DC carpetbagger, and Giuliani was, early in his career, at the lowest level of hatred by New Yorkers.

    Holding their nose and voting for Giuliani is the best way for Republicans to unify their party behind a "tolerant" fascist, so their party mechanics will try to do it. Hillary is the ace in the hole... as long as she stays in the hole.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:41:39 PM PST

  •  Richardson's still my man (0+ / 0-)

    I'm thinking hard on Edwards and Obama, but a guy with Richardson's resume and negotiation abilities really comes along once in a generation. And dude speaks fluent Spanish. And his 06 ads were funny.

    •  As in the diary... (0+ / 0-)

      I think he's going to get some of the blame for not pulling enough voters into Madrid's camp and people will wonder if his coattails are long enough to support a run for national office.

      I like the guy personally, but I think he has to prove a certain amount of appeal.

      •  Respectfully disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jake Nelson

        In the first instance, coattails goes to electability, not quality of the candidate, and as we all learned in 2004, electability is a really rotten reason to pick a nominee. Granted, we can't pick someone the rest of the country will hate, but over a certain threshold, electability is impossible to interpret.

        Secondly, we're talking about a deeply purple state. The argument that Richardson isn't likeable, evidenced by Madrid's loss, has to contend with the fact that Richardson himself won 70% of the vote for re-election.

        Third, that awful "Mary Did You Know" song is playing in the office next door, and that makes me want to hurl small woodland creatures at the radio.

      •  Madrid... (0+ / 0-)

        was not a great candidate and ran a mediocre campaign at best.  She got killed in the late debate and wasnt able to respond.  I wouldnt blame Richardson at all for her loss.

        Bingaman won 70% of the vote, Richardson got close to 70%, the dem candidates for secretary of state, state auditor, state treasurer and attorney general all won between 53 and 61% and Madrid barely got 50% in Bernalillo county (The vast majority of the district).

        Richardson's exectutive experience on top of his foreign policy experience make for a great resume and he usually does pretty well in his TV appearances.  Id like to see him run.  I guess the one disappointing thing was that he wouldn't debate his opponent this year.  Granted the guy had no chance, and it would only hurt Richardson, but if you're going to run for an office, you owe the people at least 1 debate.

  •  Al Gore won't be accepting an Oscar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jxg

    He is not one of the producers - if the film wins, they would get and accept the Oscars.

    It would be against protocol for him to go onstage with the producers, although he might have a ticket to be in the audience.

    If he were to hog the stage, I think it would backfire, particularly with the big-contribution liberals in the industry.

  •  Can I add coherence... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BDA in VA

    ... to the list of criteria? Not from a speechwriter, but from the candidate him/herself?

    It's been so long that I think I would vote for whomsoever is the first out with one good, crisp sentence that makes sense. Don't even care what's said.

  •  Clark didn't help Arkansas governor? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sybil Liberty

    Not a victory for our Party -but an Opportunity for our Country. - Pelosi

    by annefrank on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:50:58 PM PST

  •  you dismiss Clark to lightly (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AKTup, Mimir, Predator Saint, Rich S, what if

    I guess the title is pretty much the comment, other than to say he does meet your criteria better than just about any other candidate.

    •  What about Oklahoma? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pithy Cherub, what if

      Didn't Clark win that primary?

      A Southerner with Western appeal.  Clark has more of that than Edwards.

      •  A Reminder of Reality (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, America08

        The Outcomes of the Major 2004 Democratic Primaries in Southern States (defined as CSA states and border states):

        2004 Democratic Primary

        South Carolina
        Edwards 45%
        Kerry 30% 1
        Sharpton 10%
        Clark 7%
        Dean  5%

        Virginia
        Kerry 52%
        Edwards 27%
        Clark 9%
        Dean 7%

        Tennessee
        Kerry 41%
        Edwards 26%
        Clark 23%

        Edwards soundly defeated Clark in two and beat him in the third.

        "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

        by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:35:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clark and Kos's "guidelines" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HootieMcBoob, jen, what if, SaneSoutherner

      "But I will say that there are things I'll be looking for -- executive experience, a track record of leadership, especially in controversial issues, an outside-the-beltway mindset, loyalty to party, demonstrated material assistance to the Democratic gains in 2006, an embrace of people-power, and some Webb-style cojones."

      No one running has more executive experience than Clark.

      No one running has a better track record of leadership, albeit not in controversial issues.

      Clark certainly has an outside-the-beltway mindset and was outside-the-beltway even when in the military.

      Loyalty to party?  How many of the prospective presidential candidates worked hard for people like Lamont?  Clark doesn't have a base in a particular state, but at the same time one can reasonably ask whether a number of tough, close races were decided by his efforts?

      Clark's 2004 run started far too late and didn't have the opportunity to embrace "people power."  Since then it appears that he has definitely "seen the light."

      And on cojones, Clark's certainly in the top tier among those mentioned as presidential candidates.

      Finally, while Clark comes from a military background, his approach appears to be far from the knee-jerk centrist positions.

      If we end up with a candidate as good as or better than Clark I would be quite pleased.

      •  Plus, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AKTup, HootieMcBoob, jen, SaneSoutherner

        Wes has been prominent in an advisory capacity to top Congressional Democrats for the last several years - notice how every time the Dems have come out with some new platform he's always there on the podium? I'm pretty sure that's because he's had major major input.

        I've never seen anybody else there on the podium with them who wasn't a Congressional - only Wes Clark.

  •  GORE/??? 2008... (6+ / 0-)

    Obama's run for president will actually be a run for vice president as will Vilsack's run.

    Hillary can read. And she can read the blogs (the new "handwriting on the wall"). And I'm sure as she's reading the blogs, at least at this point, she'll see she does not have the support of the progressive wing of the Dems (and probably never will).
    Without that support she will never win the party's nomination and she's smart enough to know that. So...much to the dismay of the DNC insiders and the media, the chances of her running are decreasing daily.

    This will leave a vacuum into which the progressives with the help of the blogs will launch a draft Gore campaign.

    He will initially decline (in the '07 summer or fall) then eventually accept and win by a landslide in the general.

    His choices for Veep are many and most of them good. Obama, Richardson, Feingold, Clark, to name just a few and would all be excellent choices each for differnt reasons.

    I could even see Harry Reid stepping down and Hillary stepping up as leader of the Senate. But however it plays out she can do the most good staying right where she is, in the Senate. And I think with each passing day she too will come to this realization.

  •  Richardson v $ transparency ? (0+ / 0-)

    Recently I read some comments faulting Bill Richardson, Chair of the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA) for not doing more to help Florida's Democratic candidate in the recent gubenatorial race.

    I haven't contacted the DGA to find out more, but as a transparency advocate I would have like to find the numbers easily available.  What is the DGA budget? - How much did they raise? Who decides haw the funds are distributed?  And how were those funds distributed?  Frankly, I think that transparency might encourage more folks to contribute to the association.

    ```
    peace

  •  What if Clinton was to run (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral, NDakotaDem

    and get the nomination. What will the Kosiacks for a Clinton free democratic party do? Object? The incessant Clinton bashing around here leaves a rancid after taste.

    But I will say that there are things I'll be looking for -- executive experience, a track record of leadership, especially in controversial issues, an outside-the-beltway mindset, loyalty to party, demonstrated material assistance to the Democratic gains in 2006, an embrace of people-power, and some Webb-style cojones

    seems to me like Clinton passes all the litmus test except the "outside-the-beltway-mindset". What ever that is An "outsider" your looking for a "maverick" perhaps? yaawwn. What ever happens a Clinton bid would surely raise the bar in the next election. And I for one would love to see her have the opportunity to go toe to toe with the best (sic) the Rebuplicans can cough up.

    •  Agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, fisheye, SaneSoutherner

      I think the Hillary bashing should diminish, because if she is the candidate...we will need to win.

      She will definitely be better president than any of the Republican possibilities. And we will all have to fight like hell to make sure we have a Democratic president next time around.

      The stakes are just too high.

      "Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise." David Mamet

      by coral on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:29:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Daily Show, Colbert-or Olbermann; & Obama comment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Nelson

    I'm sure an announcement on Olbermann would get a bit of zing out there, too. Admittedly probably not as much as Daily Show or Colbert - but it's an option, in case those two get overused. ;)

     
    On Obama
    I saw Obama speak about a week before the election. Maybe I've just heard too much hype, but I wasn't as impressed as I thought I would be.

    Actually, I wasn't really all that impressed. Nice guy - no doubt about it! And I'm sure it had been a long day/week/month etc, and he might have just been worn out-  but I just didn't see it.

    Bill Clinton has it, and I think Tim Walz has a spark of it.

    Having been in the crown to hear Wellstone speak many times - in fact, I was standing just a couple feet away on election night 1990 when he was told Boschwitz was conceeding and he'd won (I swear to god he was floating about a foot off the ground, he was so wired!) - I have been in the presence of that unquantifiable it...

    and it just wasn't there when I heard Obama speak.

     
    It? The X factor? Whatever you call it, whatever that strange spark is that catches people, that picks you up and brings you along, that makes you feel bigger than just yourself...

    Obama didn't have that. I wanted him to, but he just didn't.

     
    I don't know if that whatever-it-is can be developed. I know that Al Gore has a little of that spark when he relaxes and lets the words flow. (It's stifled when he gets too scripted.) In the rest of the potentials that I've seen- maybe there's a little of it in Edwards. Maybe.


    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His Justice cannot sleep for ever. - Thomas Jefferson

    by Lashe on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:04:05 PM PST

    •  Deval Patrick (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coral, SaneSoutherner

      has "it". Though that's not an endorsement of him for Pres, let him clean up MA first :-).

      "This site is the suckiest suck that ever sucked a suck"--Thomas Kalinowski

      by ChurchofBruce on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:51:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you have the definition of IT handy? (0+ / 0-)

      If not, it would have been nice you had.

      Power ought to serve as a check to power - Montesquieu, 1748

      by mimi on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 03:34:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I gave the best definition I can (0+ / 0-)

        It's not something you can just run down a checklist and find. That's why I called it "it" and the "X factor". It's just not something you can easily put your finger on, like you might with good looks, intelligence, determination, experience, etc. (Of course, those all help!) Like I said -

        It? The X factor? Whatever you call it, whatever that strange spark is that catches people, that picks you up and brings you along, that makes you feel bigger than just yourself...

        This... thing. It's the ability to bring people out of themselves and into the whole. You feel their energy and determination and commitment and respond to it on a visceral level. It's more than just an intellectual agreement with their policies. They have an energy that... gods, I don't know how to describe it. An energy or spirit that spreads, and shares itself, and rouses an answering energy/spirit in others.

        They START things. They INSPIRE people to do more, go farther, than they ever imagined they could before.

        It's... something. I don't know how else to describe it. When you find that X factor, you KNOW it. If you were ever in the crowd when Wellstone spoke, you probably felt it. I wasn't around then, but Jack Kennedy and MLK had the quality... Bill Clinton does. Sounds like Deval Patrick does.

        Come to think of it, so does Keith Olbermann.

        This is the kind of thing that once you've supported a candidate who HAS this X factor, any candidate without the X factor just somehow... isn't quite as good. Sure, they're the best candidate and you still support them and work your ass off for them - but once you've campaigned for someone with the X factor, any other campaign feels like there's something somehow missing.


        Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His Justice cannot sleep for ever. - Thomas Jefferson

        by Lashe on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 09:27:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Who's Gonna Choose the Nominee? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pithy Cherub, cityofgates

    This is perhaps the most important question of all.  In 2004, it ended up more or less being the Democratic Party Heathers.

    Remember that in 2004, 801 of 4964 delegates to the Democratic Convention were so-called superdelegates, men and women who, by virtue of office or party position were able to vote for whomever they wanted for the nomination regardless of what the primary voters said.  Superdelegates were a post-1972 "reform" designed to "stabilize" (i.e. take out of the hands of the grassroots) the selection of the Democratic presidential nominee.  Especially in a crowded field, superdelegates can be an enormous thumb on the scale.

    And that's not even considering the dynamics of the irrationally scheduled primary/caucus season, or the way in which small events can be manipulated by powerful people in the heat of the moment.

    For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

    by GreenSooner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:04:07 PM PST

  •  sick of 2008 already (0+ / 0-)

    when's the soonest that kos can/will run for president?

  •  Richardson Has the Best Resume (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Nelson, sammy1

    Granted, that doesn't mean he will or should be the nominee, but if you looked at resumes only, he'd be the guy.  He's been a successful governor, UN Ambassador, and a member of the House.  I don't know what his position on Iraq was.  He doesn't have pizazz..but he's very qualified, perhaps as a VP.  Does anyone know what his Iraq policy was at the beginning?  Not now, the beginning.

    •  Like Dole/Kemp's resume (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue

      in '96 was stacked...

      -------------------------

      "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Pynchon

      by HairOnFire on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:12:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  if you overlook (0+ / 0-)

      the screw-ups and racial profiling at DOE on his watch.

      If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

      by Carl Nyberg on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:22:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama was way out in front on Iraq (0+ / 0-)

      Wasn't he?

      Bill Richardson is really a mixed bag.

      • His active role in pushing through the NAFTA may not be forgiven by labor.  
      • I'm not thrilled with his opposition to single payer health care (according to a NM state of the state address) - did he take that position because he's counting on the support of the health insurance industry?  
      • He blocked the recount of the Kerry v. Bush ballots.  
      • He allowed a false story about being drafted to play pro baseball stand for nearly forty years.
      • He probably will pick up some votes from Latinos who to whom identity politics is a consideration.
      • While Secretary of Energy he opened a plutonium dump in Southern NM that he had vowed to fight against when he ran for congress.  The project is a Westinghouse / DoE boondoggle that allows thousands of truckloads of plutonium contaminated nuclear wepons waste to be funneled into southern NM and dumped near the Carlsbad National Caverns.  There's an aquifer above the dump which is periodically flushed into the Pecos River.  And Richardson opened the facility while environmentalists were suing to allow the EPA to determine whether the lethal waste could be isolated from the accessible environment.

      ````
      peace

    •  Richardson (0+ / 0-)

      Watched him during the 2004 election.  He doesn't seem very  articulate.  And he doesn't have much charisma, which, unfortunately, is important these days.

      Whereas Clark is articulate and comes across charming, honest and sincere.  He's smart, knows the issues, and is an excellent debater.  Yes, Wes!

      ...and they passed in thought out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness.

      by rlharry on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:06:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good (0+ / 0-)

    I still think the frontrunner is Edwards. The primary schedule fits him best -- Iowa, where he dig extremely well in 2004, Nevada, where UNITE-HERE (which represents all Vegas casino workers) is an unofficial extension of the Edwards campaign, New Hampshire, where he only needs to show up and place top-three or four, and then South Carolina, where he should theoretically clean up.

    Obama or Hillary (we can use her money) for VP

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:06:52 PM PST

  •  Well, Kos (0+ / 0-)

    by omitting the one man who eminently fits your qualfiications, you've fallen lock-step in with your blind cohorts of the MSM.  That man is Wes Clark, and I think you know that. Didn't you support him last time around? What happened since then to change your mind?

  •  mccain-giuliani (0+ / 0-)

    i see that as the republican ticket.

    these republicans know each other and are fully negotiated to the cause. they will try to put their most triangulated ticket forward. i despise both mccain and giuliani, but it's a strong ticket, if only that the dems would have fights on their hands in california and new york.

    •  It's A Scary Ticket (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jake Nelson

      But I'm hoping it won't happen.  I think McCain is going to go into full-pander-mode during the primaries in order to get the Fundies on his side, and if McCain is successful, I think the Fundies will insist on excluding Giuliani from the ticket.

      •  The Republicans here in SC (0+ / 0-)

        are not excited about McCain, at least not the ones I know.  His habit of disagreeing with Bush, then subsequently caving in has hurt him in the eyes of many.  It's a character thing - pick a side, and be either respected or hated for it, but don't be a wuss.

        Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

        by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:16:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  These two ego-maniacs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      adigal

      will never share a ticket.

      "Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise." David Mamet

      by coral on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:31:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The one problem they both have.... (0+ / 0-)

      is getting the nomination!  I don't think that either has much currency with the fundamentalists, and without them the nomination may be tricky to obtain.  Remember, the primaries do not represent the whole country.  No matter how popular McCain or Giuliani are in national polls, they have to win with republicans first!

  •  I found myself in complete agreement with James (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, shaharazade

    Carville today.  He said Democrats should take ownership of the theme of energy independence in the same way Republicans have on tax cuts.  I think energy independence should be and could be the defining issue of the '08 primary and the general election for a number of reasons; global warming, national security, and the sleeper issue, opportunity.  Americans have historically been on the cutting edge of innovation, which has always lead to economic expansion.  I think in energy independence people sense the opportunity, from soybean farmers to solar panel installers to fuel station operators.  For me, I'll be looking for the candidate that offers the boldest (and smartest) solutions to energy indepence.  So far only Vilsack has seriously co-opted the issue.  But Vilsack is a proponent of nuclear power, which I think is the wrong way to go because no one knows how to get rid of the waste yet, and a host of other reasons.  Al Gore would be ideal, but he says he's not running. Whoever wins the nomination, I can not see being over excited about any candidate who does not make energy indepence the centerpiece of their campaign.

  •  No one did more to help the Dems in '06 than Bayh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eamon1916

    He singlehandedly turned three districts in his home state blue.  1/3 of his state switched because of his influence.  No other '08er  claim the same ability to turn red to blue.  Not to mention the cash he doled out to candidates across the US.  If this were the Oscars, Bayh wouldn't even be a nominee for "Most Miserly."

    http://takebackdefense.blogspot.com/

    by Pat Robertson on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:13:30 PM PST

  •  "Miscellaneously" speaking, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jen, adigal

    Clark was the most sought-after surrogate among Dem congressional candidates in the midterms.

    I would think perhaps that would give him a bit of a "geographical base"...as for Beebe, Clark was one of the first to endorse him.

    What did you want Kos, the congressional majority? or the governorship of Arkansas?

    ...it's about integrity, stupid

    by Sybil Liberty on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:15:59 PM PST

  •  Re: Markos "dating around" for pres. candidates (7+ / 0-)

    Make sure to wear protection.

    Just sayin'.

    It's crazy out there.

    "The cheering can be heard not just in America itself but around the planet." -- Martin Kettle

    by Mad Mom on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:16:22 PM PST

  •  Two Words : WES CLARK (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    applegal, adigal

    Disappointed he is not mentioned in this post, Markos. Then again, he's not exactly making headlines.

    WHERE YOU AT WES? HOLLER BACK

    •  Let' see... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jen

      today he was on a call-in show on C-Span. He'll be taking off soon for Dubai where he will be a speaker/participant in an Arab League conference.  Anybody else on Kos's list been invited to speak in Dubai lately?

  •  Bayh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eamon1916, NDakotaDem, kristen23

    But Bayh did help turn three red districts blue.

    he donated through his All America PAC.

    Presidential campaigns are expensive and no one thought HRC would waste 30 million.

  •  Democrats that can claim solid local gains (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bsmcneil

    John Edwards.

    Pushed hard to get Heath Schuler to run and he won big over an entrenched incumbent in rural North Carolina.

    And Larry Kissell almost pulled off one of the great upsets of the year.

    So, Edwards should get some credit for these.

    "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

    by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:20:57 PM PST

    •  Heath Shuler? (0+ / 0-)

      So we should be grateful for DINOs?

      •  We should be grateful (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeanBoneII, bsmcneil, dem4evr

        for votes for Nancy Pelosi.

        Schuler is pro-life, pro-guns, and conservative on cultural issues, true, but he's very leftist on economic issues.  He is the absolute best that we could get in that district.

        "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

        by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:01:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  GOP was fine with Shays, Chafee, Leach because... (0+ / 0-)

        ...they helped them win majorities in the Congress.

      •  that's so stupid (0+ / 0-)

        Which would you rather have a very conservative Democrat or a very conservative Republican?  Take the deep Southern Democrats in the Reagan years; they had party unity scores ranging from the high twenties to the high fifties.  Meaning that many of them voted with the Republicans more often than not, but they were replaced by men who voted with the Replicans 90+% of the time.  So yes, better in DINO than a full blooded Republican at least in some places.  It just depends on where you are.  And my bet is Schuler doesn't vote as right as he ran.  

        •  Oh yeah? (0+ / 0-)

          Well, I stand by my remarks though they may have been misapplied to Heath Shuler, so you think I'm stupid, huh? Here is the error in your assumption: That some or many Democrats need to be "very conservative" in order to achieve a majority. If that's true, if they need people like Harold Ford, Jr., then Democrats don't deserve the majority and it won't help them much anyway because enough of a sizeable minority will vote with the other side enough of the time to undermine the Democrats' efforts. To add insult to injury, you insult me and alienate me while building your majority for a party that shares the same basic goals as the Republicans. Fine, if you don't want my vote or support, then go with your DINOs. I'll vote for a third party.

          •  moron (0+ / 0-)

            You win every seat you can.  You think the Republicans are happy to see moderate Republicans in the Northeast get wiped out?  No because the Democrats who replaced them are much more liberal and because all Democrats who came in will vote for Dems in the leadership roles.  If we can pick up seats by running candidates who are centrists to even a bit right of center in certain districts I say do it.  I mean very conservative only relative to the Democrats.  A Republican who votes with the Republicans 60% of the time is a liberal Republican, but a Democrat who does the same is extremely conservative for a Democrat.
            You don't really care about getting anything done I can see.  For you it's all about ideological purity and moral snobbery.  It's more important to be pure as the driven snow (or at least what you take to be pure) than it is to take steps that might actually put this party in a position to help people.  But you're as naive and as stubborn as a little child.  No party that actually does anything can remain like that.  Look at the Greens in Germany.  They've become very adept politically and have implemented a good bit of their agenda, but to do so they've had to make deals and compromises enraging people like yourself.  And you're free to waste your vote out of sheer willful spite if you wish.  I just wonder if you're one of those people whom we have to thank for Bush's 00 victory.  Still believe there's no difference between him and Al Gore?

  •  How can you forget (0+ / 0-)

    kos, I'm ashamed of you, how can you forget Mike Gravel in your analysis?  :-)

  •  Anyone but Bayh (0+ / 0-)

    I am from Indiana and Evan Bayh did very little to help out the three CD House wins (my opinion).  I even did some searching on the FEC website for donations from Bayh to candidates and could not find any amounts given to any candidates.  Of course keep in mind, I could have searched with the wrong names (PACs, etc.) or years, but I do not believe he gave money or support until the polls should all the candidates; Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and Joe Donnelly were well ahead.  Then he attended so rallies for them.  Bayh has not helped out the Indiana Democratic Party in any shape or fashion unless it is as directly benefited him.

  •  Money (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cyn NY, adigal

    When I hear a figure like 10-20 million dollars being thrown around, I wanna puke.  I hate the state of US politics.  All talk on the media... and all money in the back rooms.  Mike Stark is right, politicians are not our friends.

  •  Nice work, kos. Nice work. (0+ / 0-)

    Very balanced yet wide-ranging reportage.

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:29:41 PM PST

  •  I never have (0+ / 0-)

    understood the Edwards love.  Likeable enoug guy.  Smart enough.  But he seems, and I don't know exactly how to describe it, but...he seems TOO  rehearsed, too FAKE.

    I also don't get how he can be considered any sort of front runner or why he isn't subject to the same types of criticisms that have been leveled against Barak Obama about "experience."  

    That said, i think Hillary is still going to be the one to beat.  She's not my choice, and its not because I so much disagree with her on anything in particular, I rather like her...but I think that she can't win.  The right freakin' hates her, a lot of people in the blogosphere/left hate her just as much, and I think much of her support in these preliminary presidential polls is coming from a nostalga for the BILL Clinton years and a tendency to want Bill back in office, not necessarily because they're excited or overly supportive of Hillary herself.

    •  Edwards (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      I think the reason Edwards gives off the weird vibes is his trail lawyer slickness but if you listen to him he's right on for most isssues.

      •  That might be it, but.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade

        I think Obama comes across as being smooth and polished and smart and articulate without being fake like Edwards.  I know its just a stylistic thing, but it a reason I can't find myself ever getting behind Edwards unless he is the one that makes it out of the primaries.

    •  Someone has to get out of the gate fast... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and become the alternative, or Hillary will be the nominee.

      •  Agreed... (0+ / 0-)

        but I just don't think its Edwards.  If we're going to have a sitting or former Senator as the nominee, I'd rather it be Obama.

        I also like Clark and Richardson and would be willing to take a gander at Vilsek, although I know next to nothing about him.

    •  Read the books (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherrylynn

      "Two Trials" by John and "Saving Graces" by Elizabeth.  The last thing the Edwards are is fake.

      "We need to ask America to adopt a new kind of patriotism, a patriotism about something more than just war." -- John Edwards

      by philgoblue on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:09:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards is like Bobby Kennedy. (3+ / 0-)

      As with either John or Bobby, people either really like them or didn't.

      He has the charm of Bill Clinton, when you hear him in person, he is speaking to you. His words do not just connect with all Americans, he has a gift as a speaker of sincerity. That comes from the heart and is real.

      I don't think if you talked to him or hear him like at his book signings you would walk away and not feel that he is the right person for the time.

      •  Watch their eyes. Edwards connects (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        America08

        That's what's ususally the key to an actor, his/her eyes.  Also watch to see if they listen.  I had the privilege to represent Alan Arkin and before that to do a play with him.  He is the best listener that ever was in the biz.  I was standing next to Cindy Asner when she looked John Edwards in the eye and said, "You must talk about Iraq."  That was at last year's 2005 "Take Back America." He looked right back at her as he held her hand and said, "I know, I know."  It was so sincere and pained.  I knew then that he was going to talk about his vote but not until he had a plan to get us out of Iraq.  Edwards never says anything without a pragmatic plan behind the words.  He's awesome smart.  To this day he is the only one talking about getting the contractors out of Iraq first and putting the Iraqis back to work.  If they are working, they won't be fighting.

        "It's time to rein in the rascals and rotate the crop"

        by MontanaMaven on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:16:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama can also take some credit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter

    for helping those three Indiana CD races turn blue.

    "This is truly a great country. Where else can you work on one successful election in 1992, lose for the next fourteen years, and still get press?"-Jim Dean

    by TheJohnny on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:42:42 PM PST

  •  Speculation Is Fun (0+ / 0-)

    Whether or not it accompishes anything, who knows?  Random thoughts -

    1.  Key watchword: Hope.  Successful Presidential candidates always project a highly optimistic vision of the future.  Reagan and Clinton were 2 masters of this.  Right now, Obama is scoring highest on the optimism meter.  Note the title of his book - The Audacity of Hope.  Wonderful use of buzzwords.
    1.  I sort of think Obama will run.  His strengths are his youth and "fresh face" status.  Those attributes don't improve with age.  I also don't see him as a VP, certainly not with Rodham Clinton.  Can't have 2 firsts on the same ticket.
    1.  Edwards has never done much for me, but I could be wrong.  If Obama runs, he'll have trouble beating him for the "fresh face" vote.  Unfortunately, Kerry has become such a downer in the media (really unfair, IMO, but that's the way it goes) that he may drag Edwards down by association.
    1.  Gore will be like Stevenson in '60.  A sentimental favorite now commanding lots of respect, but everybody knows his time is past.
    1.  I don't know quite what to think of Rodham Clinton.  She is clearly the most hated candidate, but will that hurt her?  She won't make mistakes, but can she be bold?  If she does click, she could be great, as she could energize a bloc that hasn't voted much in the past - working women who could really get excited about the idea of a woman President.  One sure thing in her corner: she'll have a lock on lots of traditional Democratic money.
    1.  I don't want to do any shameless stroking, but support of the netroots could turn out to be crucial.  It is the only real source of money that could compete with the kind of dough Rodham Clinton will have.
    1.  What will be the impact of Iraq?  My hunch is that the war will still be going on in 2 years, although it is conceivable that Baker, et al., will implement some kind of modified withdrawal that will make US participation (and casualties) less salient.  The war could be a major negative for Rodham Clinton and a major positive for Obama.  If the war is still going on, I think the Democrats are very strong in the general election, barring a major goof.
    1.  The other guys - Bayh, Vilsack, Richardson - all strike me as classic also-rans, and I don't see any of them breaking out of the pack.  I think Clark is very close to Rodham Clinton and he will not run against her.  Clark and Richardson are my top picks for VP.  Anthony Zinni might be an intriguing outsider if the war is a big issue.
  •  Bill Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    The main force behind Hillary's run is her husband.  If Hill should decide not to run, admittedly unlikely, who would Bill get behind?  Who would he want? I'm thinking Obama all the way.

  •  how can Obama NOT run when Durbin sent a letter (0+ / 0-)

    asking his donor base to support Obama's run?

    http://news.yahoo.com/...

    I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. -- James Baldwin

    by zdefender on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:11:47 PM PST

  •  Labor and the Latino vote in Vegas (0+ / 0-)

    I just want to take a little issue with opposing the labor and the Latino vote in Vegas.  Unite Here has done an amazing job organizing Latino workers not only in NV, but in hotels and casinos across the nation.  The majority of the casino workers organized into the 50,000 member Unite Here Local 226 are themselves Latino.  While this doesn't make the interests of labor and the Vegas Latino community identical, they are not nearly as opposed as Kos suggests.  

    Just sayin'

    Btw, Edwards rocks!

  •  I agree with KOS - Edwards has the lead (3+ / 0-)

    John Edwards 2008

    check out:

    http://www.oneamericacommittee.com

  •  Wishful thinking (0+ / 0-)

    on the part of Sen. Biden. He wishes Barrack Obama will not run.

    "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

    by RevJoe on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 02:40:16 PM PST

  •  Rodham Clinton and NY in '06 (0+ / 0-)

    I disagree that Rodham Clinton did not have a role in the gains in NY.  I have no doubt that she played a major role in the victory in my district (Gillibrand in NY-20) since she (and Bill) appeared at multiple rallies and her "guy", Howard Wolfson, was key in running the campaign.  My impression is that the Clintons were also very helpful to Hall in NY-19.  The fact that we didn't improve the State Senate is a product of the dysfunctional nature of the legislature, and can't be attributed to any lack of attention by Rodham Clinton.  Hopefully, Spitzer will be getting more involved in dealing with that over the next 2 years.

  •  webb (0+ / 0-)
    What about Webb ? New, lots of personal appeal. Hard to get past on national security. So what if he worked for Regan ? people change. Sometimes they evn grow.
  •  Gore & Holbrooke (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral, Radiowalla, thumperward, Cyn NY

    I really hope Al Gore throws his hat in the circle and I encourage everybody to set up a clamor to get him engaged. Draft Gore!  

    Really, Gore is the only one with the intellect and resume to make a dent in the mess GW will leave our next president.

    Let me suggest another name that should be considered in 2008 and that is Ambassador Richard Holbrooke.  He has tackled several unsolvable problems and guess what, solved them.  Again, looking at the kind of problems our next president will be presented with, Holbrooke is one of the few people I know who has the skill and insight to address them successfully.  Gore and Holbrooke would be a dream team.

  •  Match them, laugh for laugh . . . (0+ / 0-)

    . . . all the way to the White House.  

    "Barack Obama's middle name is "Hussein". Expect this to be a great source of amusement for right-wing morons in the coming years."

  •  Obama is on my shit list (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    for not helping out Ned Lamont.  At this point, I see him as an opportunist looking out for number one.  I don't believe that's the kind of person I would support for President.  I'm looking for more of a team player.  I've had enough of Presidents with deity complexes.  

    One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. ~Plato

    by Cyn NY on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:15:42 PM PST

    •  Obama.. (0+ / 0-)

      campaigned for more candidates than anyone besides Kerry, 46 of them.  For Senate races he campaigned in what were supposed to be weak Dem seats in FL, MD, MI, MN, NJ, and WA and in weak Rep seats in AZ, MO, MT, OH, PA, RI, TN, and VA.  I dislike Joe Lieberman as much as the next guy but in a general election with limited resources, Id rather spend time and money protecting our seats and contesting Republican seats than trying to get rid of someone who promised to caucus with Dems.

      •  I don't trust Lieberman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal

        as far as I could throw him.  He's voted Republican in the past and I'm sure he will continue to do so.  I'm not saying Obama is someone I wouldn't vote for, he needs to show me what he's made of.  

        If memory serves me correctly, Obama voted for some very harmful republican bills.  It seems to me that he didn't stand up for much of anything last session. If I'm wrong, point me in the right direction.  

        One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. ~Plato

        by Cyn NY on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 04:00:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good job by Obama! (0+ / 0-)

        But an even better job by Wes Clark.  He campaigned in 26 states for over 80 candidates. Sorry, Obama doesn't get the "campaigned for more candidates than anyone besides Kerry" award.  Wes Clark does.

        Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

        by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 04:47:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Major candidates (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MeanBoneII

          Im talking about major candidates (Governors, Senators, Representatives).  Although I was incorrect, Edwards also surpassed Obama and the number was 52.  I havent seen a list of total candidates that includes minor races as well.

          According to the hotline:

          Kerry 86
          Edwards 64
          Obama 52
          HRC 46
          Richardson 43
          Clark 34
          Dodd 29
          Biden 28
          Vilsack 26
          Bayh 24
          Feingold 18

          •  Okay, that's fair then. (0+ / 0-)

            I will add that Clark was the most requested surrogate in the Red states, though.  I'd say that of that list, he and Obama have the most cross-party appeal.

            Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

            by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:33:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Clintonistas will do anything to stop Edwards (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, klarfax

    Like 2004, IMHO they did everything they could including enccouraging Clark, a terrific guy by the way, to enter the race to take away from Edwards in the South amd they put the "electable" military spin on Kerry.  They,like Republicans, hated Dean and Edwards because they would have gone after the corporations.   This time they are encouraging Obama.  Anything to keep an economic populist away from hurting their corporate sponsors.

    "It's time to rein in the rascals and rotate the crop"

    by MontanaMaven on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:19:17 PM PST

  •  Obama for President (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jkfp2004

    I'm not dating.  I want Obama to be the nominee.  I hate none of the Democratic candidates.  The worst one is better than the best Republican.  

    This is a very cerebral group and probably not prone to "go with your gut".  I think that Americans want to be inspired again, and Obama is the guy who can do it.  So my gut tells me that inspiration is going to trump experience.  If experience was the most important thing, I would be pushing Cheney for President.

    I know that hype and momentum have short half-lives, but Obama's popularity is not based on the kinds of things that fade into the wind.

    Was he terrific on this issue or did he support that cause?  Don't know.  Don't care.  I've seen enough candidates to know who can get to the finish line.  Obama can make it.

  •  Go Obama!! (0+ / 0-)

    We need a candidate we can vote for.  Voting against Republicans can only get us so far.

    •  I am NOT being snarky, but how has Obama (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      klarfax

      proven himself that he will take on the thugs that have destroyed our govt?

      He is always talking about compromise and bipartisanship. He has very little experience. And he has gone after some Dems, polishing up his own reflection.

      I see him as self-serving, self-absorbed and relatively weak. Nice guy, but certainly not a strong leader.

      My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 04:07:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal

        Obama's tone is not right for these times--we need someone who will expose the problems at the foundation of the Republican ideology, and we need someone who will be seen as a straight-shooter (Kerry's big problem, IMO).  I see Obama as too slick, too Clintonesque.

        I also don't understand why more people don't care that Obama has only been in the Senate for 2 years.  Now is not his time.  He may be right for the job in 8 years, but not now.  Obama might also make a good VP candidate now.

      •  I've posted this before (0+ / 0-)

        This is what I've found about Obama and what he's done in Congress.

        I play a virtual politics game called Fantasy Congress.  Senators and Congresspeople generate points based on the number of bills they introduce and the progress of those bills.  Obama has more points than about 80% of senators, and has more points than almost every other Democrat.  Just thought the people who say "Obama does nothing" should hear that.

        BTW I suggest Kossacks sign up.  It's loads of fun!!

  •  There is no excitement for Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just enough

    Not on this website, not anywhere. An I wrong?

  •  Edwards is a good guy but is too milquetoast (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    for these times.  I'm hoping Gore will join the fray: he has done a great job on the environmental front (much like an Democratic ex-President!) and has bulked up a tad for the long haul.

    The hottest places in hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. - Dante

    by GinaNY on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:54:23 PM PST

    •  Perhaps (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MeanBoneII

      Edwards is too milquetoast for you, me, or others on this site.  Not in a general.

      As I stated earlier (imo):

      He holds all of Kerry states with the exception of maybe losing OR, WI, ME, and/or CT.  To lesser extent PA is at risk.  That is it.

      He can win OH (moreso than any other dem), FL, NM, IA, NC (15 electoral votes!), AR, and WV.  Possibly SC.

      That is tremendous potential.

  •  Gore should announce on YouTube (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal

    Especially since he invented the internet ;).  Announcing on YouTube would really make a splash with the netroots.

    Alternatively, the Daily Show/Colbert Report would also work.  The Oscars might get more immediate attention but also has more chance of backfiring ("Hollywood elites", etc).

  •  Having said that I love Gore, Clark, and (0+ / 0-)

    now Webb (of course, I  would love Dean also) I must say that I would vote for, and take time off from work to work for almost any Democrat nominated.  OK, not MBNA Biden, but almost any other one.

    My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

    by adigal on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 04:17:20 PM PST

  •  Let bygones be Bayh gones. (0+ / 0-)
    1. Bayh's retort, I'm sure, would be that he helped three Democrats win House seats in Indiana. Other Democrats that can claim solid local gains are Vilsack, and, um, well, that's pretty much it.

    Check the record, historically Bayh has provided no downticket assist. He is Lieberman from Indiana. No Statewide democrat won in Indiana. Someone needs to research the Pannos/Bayh gambling connection out of Lake county and how Bayh et ux has made as much money as they have over the years. He's never done a thing for others, unlike Edwards.

    Hoosiers for John Edwards.

    Steve Laudig

  •  Breaking down the candidates (0+ / 0-)

    Howard Dean-Is this a joke? No one is going to vote for him again, plus, he's actually a good DNC chair. Wake up and realize that this is not 2004. And he won't run.

    Jim Webb-Once again, he's not even a senator yet, and was barely elected in his home state. I think he's great, but back in July nobody even knew who this guy was. Webb is smart enough not to run too.

    Al Gore-Clearly, if he runs, he is a legitimate contender. That said, I don't think he will. Though I might consider voting for him. I have no idea how he would play in the general election though.

    Barack Obama-Here is another person I might consider voting for. He hasn't been a Senator very long, but his calls for bipartisanship are a plus. First, you have to get elected to serve. And second, if you don't reach across the aisle, you're not going to get a lot done, and Barack is smart enough to realize that. Certainly electable in the general.

    Hillary Clinton-Frontrunner. Can't stand her, and it bothers me that so many smart Democrats I know would vote for her just because Bill is her husband. And I don't even think she would have a  very good shot at winning in November.

    John Edwards-Another candidate I like, and one of the leading candidates. He'll have trouble if Obama or Gore runs though, there is only so much room for candidates that aren't named Hillary. I think he would win in November, no matter who he faced.

    Evan Bayh-Yawn. Doesn't stand a chance in the primary, he's not a very good speaker, and should be grateful to his dad for winning his first few elections for him.

    Wesley Clark-Another good candidate. His mistake last time around was waiting so long to jump into the race. And when he did, he wasn't ready. This time, he'll be ready, and more formidable. At the same time though, he was the Clinton Democrat in the race in 2004. If Hillary runs, he can't claim that title.

    John Kerry-I keep having this nightmare that the blogging community will get behind him because they perceive that he's the anti-war candidate. John, you had your chance, and you blew it. You used to be a good Senator, go back to that.

    Bill Richardson-An excellent VP choice, I don't think he is ready for the top spot yet. Does not have the aura of a President yet.

    Tom Vilsack-Enjoy your 15% showing in Iowa Tom, its all you're going to get. And no, I don't think that Hillary thinks you'd make an excellent VP choice.

    Joe Biden-Would anybody actually vote for this guy? Yes he's smart and experienced, but when was the last time a Washington insider won the White House, exluding incumbents?

    I think on the whole the outlook is good. Kerry was not a good candidate, ran a poor campaign, and still almost won in 2004. I like our chances.

  •  Al Gore? (0+ / 0-)

    Also, why is everybody here so excited about Al Gore? I know he's changed since 2000, but not that drastically. Here is what he had to say on the Death Penalty during one of the debates in 2000, "I believe in the Death Penalty because it saves lives." I saw An Inconvenient Truth too, I liked it, and he is better now than he was then, but still the guy ran to the right of Clinton in 2000.

  •  Conserve oil. Stop eating meat (0+ / 0-)

    The best way to drain cash from the Republicans and weaken their political power is to turn down the thermostat and buy a pellet/wood stove. If possible, set the thermostat at 60 or below. Wear sweaters and heavy socks. Stop eating beef. Eat pork and chicken. Hit these republican assholes where it hurts most, the wallet. The election is over but the power of the internet is to organize energy and beef boycotts for the next 2 years. Less profits produce less campaign donations. Make these assholes cave. If anyone is asking how they can sacrifice to bring the troops back, turn down the thermostats, buy a car (that includes used)  that gets at least 20 MPG , get a pellet/wood stove and stop eating beef.

  •  What if we use Kos's criteria? Who meets them? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HootieMcBoob, jen, Sybil Liberty, bnewton

    Kos says he will look for, "executive experience, a track record of leadership, especially in controversial issues, an outside-the-beltway mindset, loyalty to party, demonstrated material assistance to the Democratic gains in 2006, an embrace of people-power, and some Webb-style cojones."

    Executive experience seems to rule out Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards, and John Kerry.

    A track record of leadership doesn't really rule out anyone, but certainly Barack Obama and John Edwards have rather short records in this area.

    An outside-the-beltway mindset is not easy to come by when you've spent many years inside the beltway.  That may rule out Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden.

    Loyalty to the Democratic party probably rules out Joe Lieberman, but I'm not sure who else.  :)

    Demonstrated material assistance to Democratic gains in 2006 seems to rule out Evan Bayh (according to Kos).  Bayh may also be ruled out because of lack of executive experience, and an inside the beltway mindset, but I don't know him well enough to say.

    An embrace of people-power seems like such a fundamental Democratic Party tenent that I doubt it rules out any Democratic candidate.  Some Republicans for sure, but I can't think of a single Democrat it would rule out.

    Webb-style cojones may or may not rule out lots of candidates - I just don't know which ones other than Wes Clark, Al Gore, Barack Obama and John Edwards have much web support.  That may or may not be because of cojones.  Maybe we should ask Hillary her opinion of this criteria? ;)

    Anyway, it seems like Kos's criteria rule out just about everyone but Wes Clark, Tom Vilsack, and Bill Richardson.

    I know which one of those three I would most like to see as our next POTUS, and that is Wes Clark.  But I  suppose I should take a closer look at Vilsack and Richardson just in case my first choice decides not to run.

    •  Bayh was Governor of Indiana for 8 years (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dsolzman, kristen23

      And a very popular one... won re-election by the largest margin in modern Indiana history...

      As for Bayh's "non-assistance"... I would ask the Iowa GOP what they though of his "non-assistance"... considering they credit his Camp Bayh staffers as being a significant reason the state turned blue...

      •  Thanks for the info. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dsolzman

        I've only seen him on CSPAN once, and he seemed quite the confident speaker.  Part of that may have come from his time as Governor.  Anyway, this means he does meet the Executive experience crit.  As for the "Demonstrated material assistance to Democratic gains in 2006" crit., maybe he should have done more?  And given that he's a Bayh as well as a Senator, it would be tough for him to not have an inside the beltway mindset.

        How is he on Ireland?

        •  Bayh and Ireland... (0+ / 0-)

          Ummm... That's a question I don't think I've been asked yet...

          Indiana doesn't have many significant ties to Ireland (my family excluded ;) so he hasn't had much dealings with them.  However he has held them up as an example of a country investing in their infrastructure and technology turning the country from one of the poorest EU nations to one of the wealthiest.  He wrote a post in HuffPost back in Sept '05 on the subject.

          •  Thanks. That's a good article, and Bayh is (0+ / 0-)

            looking better to me as a result of the info you provided.  Provided that I don't discover any deal-breakers, I suppose I could support him if nominated.  How does Clark look to you?

            I would hope that whomever we nominate has a good understanding of Ireland.  As Bayh points out, we can learn from their experience.  Not only in economics, but also in using diplomacy and patience to address security issues. Bill Clinton had a good understanding of Ireland - and I think it served him well in other parts of the world.

            •  I like Clark.... but... (0+ / 0-)

              I have a few reservations about him...

              First, while I love that he's a former General... They often don't end up as very good politicians... There's the old saying "There's nothing on earth as close to a god as a general on a battlefield..."  well that doesn't work in politics... And fmr Generals etc can tend to get frustrated by the unwillingness of other politicians to follow him...

              Second... He's been a general yes... but what other experience does he have... his foreign policy/national defense criteria is great... but domestic policy?  education?  Health Care?  What experience does he have there?

              Finally... He wasn't a great speaker in '04... not saying he's not better (I know Bayh has improved tremendously) but... I haven't really been watching him yet...

              All that being said... I'm keeping my eye on him should my favorite fall through...

              •  Popular ex-general presidents and Clark (0+ / 0-)

                Two of our most popular presidents were great generals, Washington and Ike.  Their triumphs as generals were largely due to their great political abilities.

                For example, Washington personally persuaded his literally barefoot-in-the-snow troops not to go back to their families as they were entitled to.  He also persuaded his victorious generals not to divide up the spoils of war like the victors of every previous great war. If he hadn't been able to do that, we wouldn't have a country.

                If Ike hadn't been able to finesse the command of great prima dona generals like Patton and Montgomery, the Allies might have faltered.

                Likewise Clark's quick victory in Kosovo was due to his political ability to get the huge fractious NATO coalition to work together.  He had to persuade both the political and military leaders of  countries who had bitter historical beefs with each other to accept his command on a day to day basis.  He's an internationally renowed diplomat also because of his negotation of the Dayton Accords.

                Reportedly, his reputation as a general, which lifted him to the top in the Army, was as a fixer.  He took over commands that were in trouble and restored their efficiency and morale.  He did that by improving schools, health care, and other services on bases as well as working out chain of command problems that were disfunctional.  Clark's many years of executive experience are probably more impressive than most governors.

      •  Bayh is DLCer. (0+ / 0-)

        Just so y'all know.

    •  Kos has mentioned Richardson before (0+ / 0-)

      I'd say you are right and Kos is probably thinking about those candidates. I also think that this is a pretty reasonable criteria.

      I don't see why Bayh got so much flak. Bayh spent more of an effort to help things in Iowa than Vilsack! And he spent a good deal of money and helped win the three contested house races.

      One thing i do not like about Bayh is he voted for the war. My criteria is i'd rather not have another candidate who voted for the war. This rules out Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Biden, and Edwards.

      Real beauty is seldom appreciated by popular culture

      by Mikesco on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:04:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I come to an other answer (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thumperward

      executive experience: Gore
      track record of leadership: Gore
      outside-the-beltway mindset: Gore has acquired one since his defeat
      Loyalty to the Democratic party: Gore
      embrace of people-power: Gore
      Webb-style cojones: Gore seems to have gotten them after 2000

      Demonstrated material assistance to Democratic gains in 2006 is N/A for Gore because he's no longer politically active

      My answer: DRAFT GORE!

      Gore-Warner in 08!

      by Frederik on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 02:48:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's a HUGE stature gap below Hillary; (0+ / 0-)

    that is the most important thing.  People have to believe that someone is substantial enough to be President.  Edwards is even too lightweight by this standard.

    I don't think Obama, who has the stature, has enough experience and won't run this time.  The Republicans would tear him apart as not being capable of being Commander in Chief during the "Global War on Terror."  The commercials against him would be nonstop.

    Vilsack, Richardson, Bayh and Clark are not substantial enough.

    Hillary makes this partly on her own and partly because Bill is behind her as a reassuring force.

  •  interesting meander kos (0+ / 0-)

    but all I can think of it teasing you about your powers of prognostication.

    I used to think Edwards was a frontrunner too, now I can't!

    it's part of your act now... prognostication, and a bit endearing since you admit it... and ironic, that someone as able to track polls as well as you would not be a better prognosticator... shows how polls are bad for prediction, because they are about the recent past, at best, not the future, I guess.

    interesting thoughts though.

    strong infrastructure, fair play and sober leadership

    by pyrrho on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 05:42:39 PM PST

  •  100% undecided? Are you aure? (0+ / 0-)
    This comment sounds like Wes Clark...

    But I will say that there are things I'll be looking for -- executive experience, a track record of leadership, especially in controversial issues, an outside-the-beltway mindset, loyalty to party, demonstrated material assistance to the Democratic gains in 2006, an embrace of people-power, and some Webb-style cojones.

    I expect no one can meet all those guidelines, but the more, the better.

    WesPac
    http://securingamerica.com

    by kevin22262 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:22:03 PM PST

  •  The Republicans will nominate (0+ / 0-)

    Sam Brownback.  The "front runners" are un-nominatable by that party.  They won't go pro-choice/pro Gun Control (Rudy) and the party establishment knows that McCain can't be trusted and he can't be elected.  (Yes, that's right.  Chris Matthews' darling can't be elected.  Why?  Ethanol subsidies.  He's against them and that means the Dems wouldn't have to spend a dime in the Central Time zone to clean his clock.)

    "The only difference between me and the Surrealists is that I am a Surrealist" S. Dali

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 06:33:39 PM PST

  •  Sigh, you forgot Kerry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheJohnny, MH in PA

    And, you know, since he'll be the chairman for Net Neutrality, maybe you should acknowledge his existence at least a little bit.  Okay, that's it.

  •  Biggest asset (0+ / 0-)
    imho our nominee must LOVE to fight the Republican Propaganda Machine. Our last nominee did not fill the bill. Karl Rove politics must be recgnized as a national disease.
  •  You left out Senator Kerry. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheJohnny

    I know he must of just slipped your mind, and you really didn't mean the slight, so I thought I would let you know and add him to your list through my post. You also seemed to miss General Clark too. Also Senator Dodd.

    Now the going may be a bit tough for Senator Kerry, but I wouldn't count him out. He has proven himself over and over again to be a man of the people,has been correct about Iraq and  he has an extremely loyal and energized base. And, as you get to know  Senator Kerry the more you like him.

  •  SC isn't a lock for Edwards if (0+ / 0-)

    Obama gets in the race.  Blacks make up (I've heard) about 50 or so percent of the democratic party there.  And considering Rev Jackson's win there in 1988, Obama would have a great shot at taking it.  However, Edwards is very popular with the black community, and is still a favorite there, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an upset.

    "Santorum, that's Latin for 'asshole'"--Sen Bob Kerrey (D-NE)

    by Terryus on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 07:18:09 PM PST

  •  I'm with Kos (0+ / 0-)

    on not leaning towards anyone. I could potentially see myself voting for any of the following:

    -Richardson
    -Vilsack
    -Edwards
    -Obama
    -Gore
    -Clark

    And that's not in any particular order. The question as to who will likely win, for me, is a much less interesting question. And my answer is decidedly unprofound. Hillary will likely win unless Gore or Obama runs, in which case it will be close (but probably still Hillary). The reason why I say this is that either Gore or Obama could rally both the anti-war  and possibly the DLC/TNR crowds simultaneously in ways that I don't think any of the others could.  

    It is easier to stay out than get out. -Mark Twain
    (-1.88, -6.77)

    by Bundy on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 08:01:42 PM PST

  •  No Preference Yet (0+ / 0-)

    I am also not leaning toward anyone seriously.  I will have to be persuaded to support my Dem Prez candidate.  I guess, if anyone, I may lean slightly toward Obama since he is my Senator.  We'll see.  I'm going to just sit back and see who captures my attention, my imagination and my passion.  Dean did it last time.  Who's the new Dean this cycle?

  •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

    I also could lean toward Gore.

    P.S.S.  Vilsack has been emailing me a lot in the past few months.  How'd this "sack" get my email?  I gotta cancel my "subscription". (as if I ever asked to subscribe to his web newsletters) He probably thinks that the earliest Dem dude who starts using the "internets" to trawl for support is going to end up the frontrunner.  Don't think so, "sack".  The internet is just a method of outreach.  What matters is the content behind the internet utilization.

  •  The Best Man (0+ / 0-)

    Only one potential Presidential candidate possesses the intelligence, the experience, the vision and the moral authority to rescue our nation - BILL MOYERS!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site