View Full Version: The '08 race for the White House begins

Al Gore Support Center Online Forum 2008 :: A Reality Based Organization Fighting For Al Gore! > The Democratic Party: Looking Ahead To 2008 > The '08 race for the White House begins



Title: The '08 race for the White House begins
Description: from the Congressional Quarterly


earthmother - November 11, 2006 04:45 AM (GMT)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20061110/pl_cq_...tehousebegins_1

From CQ Weekly: The '08 Race for the White House Begins
By Craig Crawford
Fri Nov 10, 5:24 PM ET

Note: This overview of the 2008 presidential race, including profiles of the top contenders, ran in the Nov. 6 issue of CQ Weekly, one day before the midterm elections that returned Democrats to power in the House and Senate. Two of the Republicans profiled, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Virginia Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), saw their presidential hopes severely damaged by Tuesday's outcome — in Allen's case, his chances were all but extinguished by his loss to Democrat Jim Webb. However, we have included them since political comebacks by both cannot be ruled out.

• Democrats: Bayh | Biden | Clark | Clinton | Daschle | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Gore | Kerry | Obama | Richardson | Vilsack

• Republicans: Allen | Brownback | Frist | Gingrich | Giuliani | Hagel | Huckabee | Hunter | McCain | Pataki | Rice | Romney | Tancredo

The coming presidential campaign will be the most wide open in eight decades. The future of a war is at stake. There is the potential to elect the first woman, the first African-American — or even, possibly, the first African-American woman.

To most of the political world, the 2008 presidential campaign will be considered under way this week. But, in fact, activity on the hustings in the battleground states, those with the early nominating contests, began within weeks of the day George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004.

In the wake of this week's elections, the margins of control are so narrow that establishing a firm rule over the nation’s direction will not be feasible until the 44th president of the United States is elected on Nov. 4, 2008.

If Tuesday's elections were the midterms, consider 2008 the final exam. And what a brutal test it should be.

By definition, any presidential election makes history. But this one is shaping up as the biggest, baddest, meanest and, quite possibly, the most historic race for the White House in at least a generation.

With Vice President Dick Cheney unambiguously ruling out a bid, the stage is set for an epic battle without an official heir apparent on either the Democratic or Republican side.

“It’s the first cycle since 1928 with no incumbent president or vice president running for the White House,” said University of Virginia political science professor Larry J. Sabato. “As a result, we are seeing the earliest campaigning ever, by the most candidates in both parties.”

The 2008 contest began so early that we already have a dropout. Last month, former Gov. Mark W. Warner of Virginia said he would not be running after making several forays into Iowa, New Hampshire and other early-voting or big-money states — and earning standing among the pundits as a member of the emerging Democratic field’s top tier.

In Iowa, site of the first nominating test, more than two dozen potential presidential contenders from both political parties—including 10 percent of the current governors and 12 percent of the current Senate—have already racked up more than 100 campaign trips there since the last election. And the pace is picking up in early-primary states such as New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Many of the White House hopefuls set up their federal exploration committees long ago. As a group, they have already raised a cash total that is now climbing above the tens-of-millions range. Permanent staffs have been hired. Direct-mail campaigns are under way. Consultants have designed logos, tested slogans and even made bumper stickers.

Civilians not accustomed to the guerrilla warfare of a presidential campaign might well think it is amazingly early for so many candidates to be so active. Not so. To win the biggest political prize on Earth, it pays to start now. Indeed, those who have not at least begun testing the waters by now might already be too late — so much of the big money and so many of the smart campaign people having already been spoken for.

Lining up top-shelf strategists and policy experts almost becomes a primary campaign unto itself at this early stage.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is set to inherit the bulk of her husband’s constellation of political stars, James Carville first among them. And John Edwards has won the services of a top rural strategist, Dave “Mudcat” Saunders. But many of the major Democratic operatives, while quietly placing their bets on potential candidates, are hedging those bets until Clinton makes a final decision on whether to run.

On the Republican side, John McCain is mainly sticking with the team he assembled for his run in 2000 and has added some interesting names on the policy front, among them former Clinton administration drug czar Barry McCaffrey. Mitt Romney, though, scored a coup in signing on Mike Murphy, who was McCain’s top adviser last time. George Allen attracted the services of GOP super-nova Mary Matalin and former Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie.

But nobody has won the biggest prize of all in this subcampaign — the ear of Karl Rove, the president’s longtime political Svengali, who has painstakingly avoided even hinting at who he might help, or even whether he will join the fray at all.

p>Would-be presidents are scrambling to the field so soon thanks to a genuine power vacuum in both political parties. For once, it is not hyperbole to call an election one of the most important ever, as politicians tend to say every four years — especially when it’s their moment to make history.

Republicans must debate what to do after the Age of Bush, a period that featured two decades of party rule by a single family — George W. Bush’s two presidential terms following the four years that his father, George Bush, spent as president starting in 1989.

A threshold question for Republicans in their nomination struggle will test the fate of social conservatism’s influence. President Bush built a victorious coalition squarely founded upon the support of evangelical Christians, who are one of the most effective grass-roots players in the history of American politics. But their intensely conservative social agenda disturbs enough Americans that many Republicans, including some of the major 2008 contenders, are eager to make this next campaign about moving the GOP toward the center.

Much will depend on who among the Republicans will claim the mantle of social conservatives’ darling, which the president himself will be shedding, and whether that person will possess Bush’s skill at leveraging the religious base without narrowing his appeal to the rest of the electorate.

On economics, Bush has struggled to bridge a widening gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and the next nominee will be pressed to manage that rift. This tension was at the root of the roiling Republican debate over immigration, for instance. Big business, with Bush at its side, pushed GOP congressional leaders for changes aimed at legalizing the status of millions of immigrants. But rank-and-file Republicans balked in a fury, scuttling the Bush initiative.

The officially leaderless Democrats, for their part, will be in search of someone who can pull the party’s varied factions together into a winning coalition — a task that even this week's sweeping victory might not come close to accomplishing.

Trickiest for the crop of Democrats running for president will be how to win over the legions of party activists who want to immediately withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. It will be tempting for candidates to get on the good side of these voters, who are likely to dominate the primary balloting, but the obvious risk is being tagged by Republicans as weak on national security, a brand that has hobbled the party more often than not since Vietnam.

Of course, the best-case scenario for both party’s candidates would be for the Iraq War to become a non-issue in the 104 weeks before Election Day 2008. But even if the Bush administration some day does begin significantly reducing troop levels, it seems a remote possibility that Iraq will not remain a national headache in two years.

The stakes for the country in the next election are as high as they are for the political parties. Polls show that voters are disgusted with the country’s direction. With two years of bitterly divided government ahead of them, the voters are likely to be even unhappier when they choose the next president.

Look for the White House race to echo much of what was heard in the midterm elections, a tug of war between stay the course or time for a change. Republicans must offer some change, while making the case for keeping the status quo of a GOP-held White House. Democrats must argue for change, but without scaring people.

They have 14 months until the votes are counted in the living rooms, cafes and schoolhouses of Iowa. And then at least two people, one Republican and one Democrat, will start moving toward a place in history. They will probably come from the roster of people, a baker’s dozen from each party, whose current strengths and weakness — political, ideological and financial — are sketched in alphabetical order below.

The Democrats
Evan Bayh — Junior Senator, Indiana Rationale: A red-state darling and the son of another Democratic senator from Indiana — Birch Bayh, who sought the presidency in 1976 — this telegenic graduate of Washington’s prestigious St. Albans School is a proven vote-getter in his home state, winning two terms as governor (he served from 1989 through 1996) of a state that Democrats have not carried in a presidential campaign since the Johnson landslide of 1964. A dedicated centrist and a senator since 1999, he served from 2001 to 2005 as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, the middle-of-the-road policy group once headed by Bill Clinton and Joseph I. Lieberman. In a blitz of campaigning for Democratic congressional candidates in 25 states this year, he has aggressively positioned himself as a Washington outsider, telling stump audiences, “The gulf between our nation’s capital and the people of our country has never been greater.”

Resources: With more than $10 million in his account, Bayh should have no trouble meeting the cover charge to run a credible nomination campaign. His home state’s relative proximity to all-important Iowa will help him muster a network of grass-roots activists. His frequent trips to Iowa and New Hampshire in the past year have attracted local media interest and favorable comments. And his movie-star looks helped make an instant hit of his profile on the popular Facebook.com, drawing more than 2,000 “friends” to sign up.

Hobby Horse: Stressing fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, job creation and lean government, this is one Democrat who hopes to dodge the liberal label so often pinned on his party brethren in national campaigns. His Capitol Hill voting record shows that, until recently, he sided with President Bush on key issues more often than not.

Hobble Horse: Coming across as a mild- mannered Midwestern deacon is not what presidential campaign audiences expect — and in Washington, he is viewed as an intellectual lightweight. To compensate, Bayh asks Democrats, “Do we want to vent, or do we want to govern?” He might find that primary voters prefer venting.

Back to top

Joseph R. Biden Jr. — Senior Senator, Delaware

Rationale: A Democrat who talks the way many people talk, Biden’s vernacular style is frequently on display in his many appearances on radio and television news shows, such as his regular gigs with syndicated host Don Imus. Despite spending more than half of his life in the Senate, the world’s most elite political club — he arrived in 1973, when he was 30 — he seems to have a genuine instinct for middle-class sensibilities. Before the Iraq War, most Americans knew him from a series of bruising Judiciary Committee battles for Supreme Court nominations as he delighted liberals with his ferocious assaults on Republican presidents’ choices. In past years his seat on the Foreign Relations Committee afforded him the chance to travel frequently to Iraq and stand out as one of the most vocal critics of the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq.

Resources: Biden never has faced genuinely difficult re-election races in Delaware, a small state where he has not needed to develop a large financial donor base — at least by presidential campaign standards. This has left him chronically unable to raise enough money to match his White House ambition, which manifested itself in a short-lived run in 1988 and dalliances almost ever since. Still, his popularity with broadcast news producers and personalities gives him a tool for reaching voters that most rivals envy.

Hobby Horse: Despite voting for the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq War, Biden dissects the war’s subsequent troubles with relentless passion and a knack for explaining his views in ways that average folks can grasp. And he takes great delight in pointing out that recent White House policy adjustments track his own longstanding suggestions.

Hobble Horse: If Biden could raise big bucks he would have been a serious contender in any of the last several presidential campaigns. And despite his average-Joe demeanor in public, his 33 years in the Senate — along with his reputation as the very model of a long-winded lawmaker — tag him as a creature of Washington. So, too, would the target-rich database of thousands of roll call votes from which opponents could cherry-pick.

Back to top

Wesley K. Clark — Retired General

Rationale: In an era of national security concerns that could last a generation, a retired four-star general who has been around the presidential-campaign block should be a most attractive commodity. Now a contributor to the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel, Clark has the opportunity to develop general- election appeal by reaching many voters who distrust the Democrats. Although unsuccessful in what experts deemed a disorganized 2004 bid for the Democratic nomination, he performed well enough to earn the undying loyalty of moderate voters attracted to his background as West Point graduate, wounded Vietnam veteran and NATO commander during the Kosovo conflict. Having run before and established modest political credentials, Clark — lacking experience as an elected official — might not be at as much of a disadvantage in a second run.

Resources: Raising $30 million in his first outing on the presidential field was not too shabby, but so far Clark has not begun to put together a serious war chest. Since most of his 2004 campaign funds came from individual donors, thanks to an effective Internet program, it is likely that he could raise plenty of start-up cash quickly if he decides to run again. But the major-league Democratic donors have shied away from him so far.

Hobby Horse: As the only potential contender in either party with such a distinguished military résumé, Clark commands attention as long as voters rate the war in Iraq as a top concern. His experience in handling the Kosovo conflict and helping negotiate the Bosnia peace accord give him unrivaled credibility.

Hobble Horse: Although Clark’s lack of experience holding elective office is a plus to some voters, it is likely to remain a hindrance in the eyes of media and political elites. And he has not effectively used his time since the last campaign to shore up his credentials on the domestic front.

Back to top

Hillary Rodham Clinton — Junior Senator, New York; former First Lady

Rationale: Having evolved from Goldwater girl to first lady to player on the mighty Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton is better known and more road-tested than any of her rivals and is by far the most politically viable woman ever to ponder the presidency. She is hugging the ideological center to shed the liberal, big-government image she acquired in a failed attempt during her husband’s presidency to radically change the nation’s health care system. But now she is tacking rightward, backing federal legislation against flag burning, refusing to recant her vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq War — even sounding a distinctly centrist tone on abortion. And she seldom misses an opportunity to emphasize her conservative Republican roots growing up in the Chicago suburbs. A recent HBO documentary about Barry Goldwater prominently featured pictures of her as one of his teen supporters along with interviews of her warmly praising the father of modern conservatism.

Resources: Insiders say she will tap former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Bill Clinton fundraiser, to oversee a nomination campaign with a donor budget expected to at least double the record-shattering $100 million that George W. Bush stockpiled in 2000. She has surprised observers by spending so much on her shoo-in second term Senate campaign, however, which means that she will not have as much left over for a presidential bid as she could have — and has fueled speculation that she might not actually run.

Hobby Horse: Clinton is a passionate policy wonk with a think tank to prove it. Founded three years ago as a refuge for Clinton administration alumni, the Center for American Progress has become an emerging force within the Democratic Party, sometimes outdoing the party’s congressional leaders in taking on the Bush administration.

Hobble Horse: A stilted and sometimes boring performer on the stump, she pales in comparison with her husband when it comes to revving up crowds. And she seems cozier with the many Hollywood stars who are flocking to her cause than with the average folks she most needs to win over.

Back to top

Tom Daschle — former Senate Majority Leader, South Dakota

Rationale: Call it buyer’s remorse, the notion that a nation once so high on George W. Bush might possibly embrace the man who led the Senate Democrats for a decade but lost his bid for a fourth term in South Dakota in 2004 after going toe-to-toe with the White House throughout the president’s first term. Now that Bush is at rock bottom with voters, perhaps they would see Daschle’s partisan warring — once so successfully targeted as “obstructionist” by the Republicans — as a badge of honor worth a belated reward. Grass-roots Democrats especially might be receptive to repaying a debt to Daschle. And with the pivotal state of Iowa neighboring his home state, he has a chance to play a role akin to that of the martyred favorite son in the first nominating contest of 2008.

Resources: As Democratic leader, Daschle was able to raise $20 million for his 2004 race back home, or $51 on every vote cast. Building the even more substantial war chest required for a presidential campaign could be an uphill struggle without the platform of an influential Capitol Hill post to help attract donors. Despite launching a new political action committee last year and testing the waters with trips to Iowa and New Hampshire last summer, Daschle has not revved up his fundraising sufficiently to convince skeptics that he can get his groove back on the cash front.

Hobby Horse: Daschle can argue that he was out front against Bush when it was hard, when the president was rated so high in the polls that many Democrats ran for the hills. And from his perch at the Washington lobby shop of Alston & Bird LLP, he has an opportunity to maintain access to party fundraisers who favored him in those heady days as a Senate leader.

Hobble Horse: Having pulled out of an expected presidential race last time, when he was at the height of his influence, Daschle could easily be written off as a has-been and a loser. Although a recent stint debating former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich in California earned them both points for across-the-aisle creativity, it seemed to make both men look very retro.

Back to top

Christopher J. Dodd — Senior Senator, Connecticut

Rationale: In an era when liberal Democratic partisans see the party’s move to the ideological middle of the road as caving in to conservatives, Dodd is the true-blue alternative to centrism. Although he voted in favor of authorizing the war in Iraq, Dodd’s liberal credentials are solid. He has a 91 percent support rating from the AFL-CIO and sided with President Bush only one-third of the time on the Senate floor last year. Dodd is a popular speaker in Democratic circles, easy-going and humorous even while hurling verbal spears at the opposing party. Within his robust résumé as a senator since 1981 — and as chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1995 until 1997 — Dodd has the tools to bolster his case.

Resources: Dodd has raised more than $1 million to fund contributions to Democratic campaigns in the midterm election, but it will take much more to seriously get into the presidential game. Corporate givers are not fond of his longstanding opposition to their pet projects, such as restricting shareholder and class action lawsuits. Still, his home state is home to many wealthy givers, and his politics should appeal to the Hollywood money crowd.

Hobby Horse: Although he’s a liberal, he is a pragmatist known for cutting deals at the last minute to shape legislation that he opposes more to his liking. In 2005, for instance, he gave in to Republicans on a bill to restrict class action lawsuits after winning concessions from them.

Hobble Horse: Another New England liberal might not be the ticket Democrats are looking for after walking the plank in 2004 with John Kerry of Massachusetts. And Republicans in Florida would have a field day with his strong support for opening up relations with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Back to top

John Edwards — former senator, North Carolina; 2004 vice-presidential nominee

Rationale: As one of the few political figures on the national stage who routinely talks about fighting poverty, Edwards was a natural for the debate on helping the impoverished citizens of the Gulf states after Hurricane Katrina hit a year ago. His come-from-nothing personal story — the first in his family to go to college, he became a multimillionaire personal-injury trial lawyer before his election to the Senate from North Carolina in 1998 — makes him the genuine article when it comes to appealing to the middle class. One of the most popular speakers on the Democratic chicken-dinner circuit, Edwards is keeping a high profile outside Washington. He impressed Beltway insiders weary with Democratic waffling on the Iraq War when he wrote a Washington Post op-ed last year plainly stating that he was wrong to vote for authorizing the war while in the Senate.

Resources: Edwards raised $2.5 million for his One America Committee in the 2006 election cycle, funding a full-time staff and other expenses for one of the most aggressive PACs of the presidential wannabes. As happened at the outset of his 2004 run for the Democratic nomination, his seed money — nearly $1 million — comes from lawyers, presumably drawn to Edwards’ own background. Broadening that donor base will be a major objective for him.

Hobby Horse: Edwards is all but living in Iowa, where a poll last June showed him in first place, ahead of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Iowa insiders say he has natural appeal in the state — the Des Moines Register endorsed him in 2004 — and might have won the presidential caucus if he had maintained a stronger grass-roots organization.

Hobble Horse: Washington’s political insiders tend to dismiss Edwards as a poor performer on the 2004 national ticket who came across as a lightweight in the debate with Vice President Dick Cheney and could not even help carry his home state of North Carolina.

Back to top

Russ Feingold — Junior Senator, Wisconsin

Rationale: The ultimate insider-acting-like-an-outsider, Feingold often breaks ranks with his party and sometimes the entire Senate. The campaign finance overhaul enacted in 2002 over the objections of the leadership in both parties is known as the McCain-Feingold law. Perhaps the most uncompromising liberal in the Senate, Feingold’s name appears as the only dissenter in the occasional Senate roll call. His lone-ranger status forever endeared him to civil libertarians in 2001, when he cast the single vote in the Senate against the counter-terrorism law dubbed the Patriot Act — and did so just six weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. More recently, party leaders refused to even seek a vote on his resolution to censure Bush for ordering “warrantless” surveillance.

Resources: Even Democratic Party insiders grumble that Feingold goes too far in spurning the campaign finance system by refusing to accept most forms of outside money, even before McCain-Feingold took effect. Still, he has managed to raise more than $2 million for his presidential exploration fund, most of it from individual donors. The law he helped write could level the playing field to his advantage, as rivals must play by the rules he set.

Hobby Horse: No one in the presidential field for both parties has a better track record for advocating clean government, even when his stands irritate his own party’s leaders. Voters cynical about corruption in Washington should find him to be a refreshing exception and tireless champion.

Hobble Horse: Feingold’s social liberalism — he opposes the death penalty and supports gay marriage — delights his loyal followers, but it could be a devastating target in a general election and severely limit his reach into middle America. He didn’t help matters by once referring to Greenville, Ala., as a place of “check-cashing stores and abject trailer parks.”

Back to top

Al Gore — former Vice President; 2000 presidential nominee

Rationale: Revenge-minded Democrats could have a champion in Gore if they want a do-over of the 2000 presidential election, which many believe he actually won. After wandering in the wilderness after that bitter loss, Gore re-emerged to popular acclaim as George W. Bush was tanking in the polls. It is tough to discount his claims that the United States would not be mired in Iraq if he had become president. And he restored some of the old luster by starring in a critically acclaimed film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” alerting audiences to the dangers of global warming. While once rejecting any notion of another race, Gore has recently cracked the door open a bit. Party insiders believe that he will definitely run if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton opts out.

Resources: Gone are the heady days when Gore, as the two-term incumbent vice president under Bill Clinton, raised well above $100 million for his second presidential campaign. (He first ran in 1988, the year he turned 40, when he was a freshman senator from Tennessee.) Four years ago, when he toyed with another try, many of his financial backers abandoned him, a major factor in his final decision to sit out the 2004 campaign. If Gore joined the 2008 field, associates say he would shun the big bucks — out of necessity — and try to make it an asset by running as an outsider.

Hobby Horse: Global warming and the environment enthuse Gore like no other topic, although some observers note that he failed to make those issues much of a priority while he was vice president. On the Iraq War, he parted with Bush and most congressional Democrats in vehemently opposing the invasion early on.

Hobble Horse: Endorsing Howard Dean for president in 2003 was a sign to some Democratic insiders that Gore had simply lost his way, reducing his appeal to the party’s fringe elements. And his global warming obsession is not viewed as a big enough platform to revive a presidential bid.


Back to top

John Kerry — Junior Senator, Massachusetts; 2004 presidential nominee

Rationale: The preferences of a few counties in southern Ohio cost Kerry the electoral votes that would have made him president last time. Since he came so close against an incumbent, he could put it over the top in a race for an open seat in the White House — especially considering that, since the 2004 election, the country has turned against Bush on the war in Iraq. Battle-worn from that race, the 22-year senator from Massachusetts says he has learned crucial lessons in how to run against Republicans. Primarily, he vows to fiercely defend attacks, evidenced by his initial refusal to apologize last week when Bush assailed him for joking that young Americans must get educated or “get stuck in Iraq.” Instead, Kerry counterattacked, calling the president’s aides hacks who are “willing to lie.” He apologized for the gaffe the next day.

Resources: Money is the least of Kerry’s problems. He raised nearly $350 million for his last presidential campaign and nearly $6 million in the 2006 cycle for his political action committee, Keeping America’s Promise. His personal wealth, mostly from the fortune of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, came in handy in his first national run, when he infused his Iowa caucus campaign with his family money in the final days and eked out a win that propelled him toward the nomination.

Hobby Horse: Kerry has determinedly used his Senate platform to extend his campaign against President Bush and fuel another presidential bid. He turned much of his 2004 campaign policy agenda into a legislative agenda. Just a few weeks after that election, for instance, he retooled his campaign health proposals into the first bill that he introduced.

Hobble Horse: Last week’s imbroglio over what Kerry himself termed a “botched joke” — which, to many, appeared to suggest that American soldiers are uneducated — was yet another reminder to Democrats of how clumsy he can be on the stump. It forced him off the campaign trail as fearful Democratic candidates canceled his appearances.

Back to top

Barack Obama — Junior Senator, Illinois

Rationale: Right now he holds one of the hottest cards in American politics, his initial flirtation with a 2008 campaign generating so much enthusiasm that media pundits have labeled the nation beset with “Obama fever.” With his deep baritone voice and Lincolnesque physicality, he has Oprah Winfrey swooning and Democrats cheering, attracting massive audiences on a White House exploration itinerary thinly disguised as a book tour. Although Obama once flatly ruled out a presidential bid so early into his first Senate term, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last month he acknowledged that he could well change his mind. On paper it would seem much too early in his career for such a run, but when you are holding such hot cards it is tempting to play them.

Resources: Anyone who can stir the waves as he has done usually finds that the money flows in. He raised $15 million for what was a cakewalk 2004 Senate campaign and more than $4 million this year for a federal political action committee that presumably would become his presidential exploration fund. Obama’s biggest PAC contributors come from organized labor, and it seems he delivers, already earning a 100 percent support rating from the AFL-CIO for his Senate votes.

Hobby Horse: Obama has captivated the imagination of baby boomers in an ironic way, by arguing in his new book, “The Audacity of Hope,” that it is time for American politics to move beyond them and the polarizing issues of their growing-up years in the 1960s. His forward-looking message clearly resonates with many Americans.

Hobble Horse: Although many political experts say the country would be open to electing an African-American president (his father is from Kenya, his mother is a white woman from Kansas), it would be a racial gamble for the Democratic Party to nominate only the third black senator since Reconstruction. And his far-from-ripe career on the national stage, while evoking memories of a youthful Jack Kennedy, is bound to give pause among some voters.

Back to top

Bill Richardson — Governor, New Mexico

Rationale: For starters, ethnicity and geography argue in favor of Richardson, a Latino governor in a battleground state that backed Al Gore in 2000 but George W. Bush in 2004. Add to that his varied Washington experience — 14 years in the House plus four years in the Clinton administration, first as U.N. ambassador and then as Energy secretary — and on paper you have the ingredients for national office. Richardson is a larger-than-life character who is charming on the stump. On policy matters, he is a pragmatist who remains quite popular in his politically fluid state, recently winning kudos for making good on a 2003 campaign promise to save taxpayers $90 million in state budget costs. Governors do well in presidential contests, which is enough of a reason to consider Richardson a player.

Resources: Richardson raised more than $8 million for his bid for a second term as governor this year, a sizable sum in New Mexico politics. And his shoo-in standing in that race has allowed him to spread his money around to other Democrats in the state, always good for earning chits to solidify his home-state base in a presidential campaign. Also, the bulk of his campaign funds come from business interests instead of big labor, a good talking point for any Democrat in a general-election bid.

Hobby Horse: Richardson earned foreign- policy credentials as the ambassador to the United Nations, troubleshooting hot spots from Iraq to North Korea, and he also can emphasize his popular management of New Mexico and tout what is expected to be a lopsided re-election victory.

Hobble Horse: Richardson’s closet is not entirely clean. At a minimum, a presidential bid will again bring to light his brush with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, in which he reportedly offered her a job, and revelations that for years he erroneously claimed to have been drafted as a pitcher by the Kansas City A’s.

Back to top

Tom Vilsack — Governor, Iowa

Rationale: Vilsack’s hopes are pinned to a four-letter word: Iowa. As the outgoing governor of the state that has the first presidential nominating contest, he owns the place. Democrats take note that he was the state’s first governor from their party in 32 years. In recent years he has worked hard to broaden his portfolio with a heartland-focused message assailing Washington’s pork barrel spending and arguing for an end to what he derides as corporate giveaways in federal budget and tax policies. He has a strong working knowledge of economics and knows how to appeal to middle class pocketbook worries. His wife, Christie, is a talented politician in her own right and was instrumental in helping John Kerry win the Iowa caucus last time.

Resources: Vilsack raised more than $6 million for his successful 2002 re-election bid, with contributions from business groups edging out labor donors. He has raised a bit more than $2 million for his current political action committee but would need much more to convince party bosses that he can move into the major leagues of fundraising.

Hobby Horse: As one of a handful of governors in the race from either party, Vilsack is well-positioned to run against Washington at a time when voters seem disgusted by corruption in the nation’s capital. And he intends to make his views of the excesses of federal spending one of his primary targets in a presidential campaign.

Hobble Horse: Another Iowan, Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), demonstrated in his 1992 presidential bid that being a favorite son might be enough to win the state’s nominating caucus, but it was much discounted by the national media and proved not to be anything close to a momentum generator for the New Hampshire primary.

Back to top

The Republicans
George Allen — Junior Senator, Virginia* Rationale: A Ronald Reagan conservative with George W. Bush’s down-home style, Allen has deep appeal to those social conservatives who dominate Republican presidential nominating contests. His background as Virginia governor and a solid conservative voting record during his term in the Senate present a powerful résumé. A year ago, Allen was seen as a top prospect to inherit the conservative chair in GOP circles. But a bruising re-election bid this year against Democrat Jim Webb has seeded ample doubt. Still, his troubles could be a blessing if he wins a second term. Despite his gaffes on the campaign trail and charges of racism in his past, Allen always could argue that these matters have now been vetted fully and dodge further discussion in a presidential run. All bets are off, of course, with Allen's loss this week.

Resources: There once was no doubt that Allen, a fundraising machine, could fund a credible presidential campaign — until his Senate re-election campaign foibles surfaced. Raising almost $14 million for his current race, much of it from outside Virginia, Allen had hoped to save a chunk of the money as seed funds for a White House run. But, instead, he has had to shovel the bulk of it into television ads in a last-minute effort to save his seat.

Hobby horse: Before his political skills were called into question this year, Allen was seen as a major talent on the stump. Never considered much of a policy wonk, he has served the GOP well on the political front, such as his successful management of the Senate Republicans’ 2004 campaign team.

Hobble Horse: Even some Republicans privately say that Allen is not too bright, an image reinforced by his stumbling this year on the campaign trail. With his loss on Tuesday, Allen will likely be seen as damaged goods. And his tough race kept him tied down in Virginia, unable to travel the country earning the favor of other Republicans.

* see note at the top of this story

Back to top

Sam Brownback — Senior Senator, Kansas

Rationale: Brownback has an opening to seek the social conservative mantle in Republican politics, especially if Sen. George Allen loses his re-election bid in Virginia — and with it his viability for 2008. Brownback is no poser on issues of concern to evangelical Christians, who have grown restive about the Republican Party’s real commitment to their cause. In Brownback, they would have a true believer who passionately denounces what he sees as the decay of American culture and has made the championing of social conservatism a centerpiece of his decade in the Senate. He has remained steadfast in opposition to stem cell research — a litmus test for anti-abortion conservatives, who view the harvesting of embryonic stem cells in the cause of medical breakthroughs as the destruction of human life. While others in his party are looking for room to wiggle toward the center on that and other socially divisive issues, Brownback has stayed put. None of his potential 2008 rivals can beat his ties to politically active religious leaders on the right.

Resources: Although he raised a respectable $2.7 million for his breezy Senate re-election campaign in 2004, Brownback has no experience in the major leagues of presidential campaign fundraising. His current political action committee, Restore America, raised just under $600,000 over the past two years. But if he can ignite the evangelical grass roots for a White House drive, Brownback could overcome a money deficit.

Hobby Horse: Brownback has cultivated Mideast credentials since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when he began making use of his standing at the time as the top-ranking Republican on the Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations panel. Since then, he has developed a reputation for expertise on Afghanistan and the Muslim world.

Hobble Horse: As a darling of the religious right, Brownback might have a leg up for the GOP nomination, but his appeal in a general election could be quite limited. Pragmatic Republicans would likely argue this case against him in the primary campaigns.

Back to top

Bill Frist — Senior Senator, Tennessee; Majority Leader*

Rationale: Before his stunning promotion to majority leader four years ago, Frist was seen as the heir apparent to President Bush’s command of the Republican Party. Many say he was handpicked by the White House for the top Senate job. Despite a lackluster-at-best performance during his four years as GOP leader — and his decision to retire from his Tennessee seat at year’s end — Frist can still argue that his résumé as a transplant surgeon and his political base in the South keep him in the running for 2008. He has struggled to balance his party’s ideological divide. On the one hand, he pleased social conservatives when he set a Senate vote to overturn Florida court rulings that allowed the comatose Terri Schiavo’s husband to have her life support removed. But he irritated evangelicals by taking a strong stand in favor of stem cell research — and in opposition to the Bush White House.

Resources: A very wealthy man, thanks to his own surgical prowess and a family fortune in the hospital business, Frist is comfortable and persuasive among the super-rich who fund major political campaigns. He raised nearly $6 million for his 2000 re-election and, naturally, health industry donors led the way. In the 2006 cycle, he has raised more than $7.5 million for his political action committee. If he runs for president, Frist could be one of the better-funded candidates in the field.

Hobby Horse: Frist is working hard to regain the trust of social conservatives after parting company with them on stem cell research. He got out front in the drive to ban same-sex marriage, even though it was a non-starter in the Senate. He knows that winning over the evangelicals is his first order of business for renewing interest in his presidential prospects.

Hobble Horse: The Senate got little done on his watch, and many conservatives hold him responsible for failing to enact their agenda. And as he tries to make it up to them, moderate Republicans accuse him of pandering to the right wing. Washington insiders who were once so high on his chances now all but write him off.

* see note at the top of this story

Back to top

Newt Gingrich — former Speaker of the House, Georgia

Rationale: In a twist on Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign slogan, “Why Not The Best?,” Gingrich could use as his campaign tag line the rhetorical question, “Why Not The Past?” And why not, indeed? Gingrich, who led Republicans to control of the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years, could be just the one to revive his party’s winning spirit. With one of the sharpest minds in politics and policy, he can outtalk anyone in the game. And none of the party’s current problems, from the Iraq War to the swirl of scandal around lobbyist Jack Abramoff, can be laid at Gingrich’s doorstep. He’s been out of politics since he resigned his House seat eight years ago, giving him the right to chide his party for losing its way, as so many grass-roots Republicans seem to think has happened. All he needs is a new contract with America.

Resources: Having been out of politics and the fundraising game for so long, Gingrich might have trouble getting up to speed. But when he was at the top of his game, as Speaker in 1996, he amassed more than $6 million for one of his more competitive House re-election races in suburban Atlanta. He has kept up ties with the money crowd as a popular speaker on the convention circuit, where well-to-do business leaders congregate.

Hobby Horse: Gingrich gives no ground when it comes to national security, arguing that the nation is already embroiled in World War III and should act accordingly. Although concerns about terrorism were not at the top of the agenda during his days in power, he has written several books about war and misses few opportunities to join the national debate.

Hobble Horse: Some think that Gingrich just talks too much, sometimes sounding like a nutty professor, and is much too eager to be provocative even at the risk of being misinterpreted. Social conservatives distrust him, and it doesn’t help that he’s on his third marriage. And the last big campaign he ran, the 1998 midterm, was a big enough bust for the GOP that it forced him out as Speaker.

Back to top

Rudolph Giuliani — former mayor, New York City

Rationale: No one has ever moved from a city hall to the White House, but Giuliani could be the first for one reason: He still basks in the glow from his role as “America’s Mayor” five years ago, when his considered but forceful stewardship of New York City after the Sept. 11 al Qaeda hijackers’ attacks on the World Trade Center earned him comparisons to Winston Churchill and prompted Time magazine to name him “person of the year.” Other hallmarks of his eight years as mayor, such as fighting crime and cleaning up Times Square, bode well for making his case as a competent manager. He is a sought-after speaker on management topics. And perhaps most important to his political ambitions, Giuliani has tirelessly trooped around the country to leverage his star power stumping for Republican candidates. Despite his moderate social views, he has made a sincere effort to reach out to religious conservatives and talk in personal terms about his own beliefs.

Resources: Giuliani raised $2.4 million for his political action committee, Solutions America, in the 2006 season and gave nearly a half-million dollars to GOP candidates or other campaign committees. Among the home states of his donors, Florida and Texas are in the top five, a positive sign that he can tap the deep wells there for Republican cash. Still, he is untested as a national fundraiser.

Hobby Horse: Competence will be Giuliani's best argument. He takes pride in having run the nation's largest city and surviving the experience well-remembered as an able manager who actually got some things done. And his earlier days as a crime-fighting federal prosecutor could be cited as a credential for fighting terrorists.

Hobble Horse:Giuliani’s views on abortion rights, environmental protection and other domestic issues are far to the left of the typical GOP voters’ And his personal life, to put it mildly, is something of a mess. He has been married three times and his last divorce sparked a tabloid frenzy of charges and countercharges. Main Street Republicans and evangelical Christians might find it all a bit much to handle.

Back to top

Chuck Hagel — Senior Senator, Nebraska

Rationale: Call him the new John McCain. With two Purple Hearts earned as an Army infantryman in Vietnam and cozy relations with the press corps, Hagel comes across as the Republican maverick that McCain once was — before he began courting President Bush and the party’s conservative wing. Early on, Hagel was a rare GOP voice in opposition to Bush’s handling of the Iraq War. He did not let up, despite extreme pressure from party leaders to cool it. As a result, he is a favorite Republican to many Democrats. But he is no wild-eyed liberal, having once voted to overturn the Roe v. Wade protection of a woman’s right to an abortion. For a presidential campaign, geography favors him: His home in Omaha is practically within walking distance of Iowa.

Resources: With just over $1 million raised by his political action committee during the 2006 cycle, Hagel shows no signs of being a campaign-finance powerhouse. He easily won re-election in 2002 with a modest $1.6 million in campaign funds. Chances are that if Bush and his friends have anything to say about it, Hagel will not be tapping a lot of traditional GOP resources. He has been a thorn in the president’s side, and payback is probably on its way.

Hobby Horse: For Hagel, the word is maverick. In an era when voters are disgusted with blind partisanship, he is about as independent as they come. Like McCain and Rudolph Giuliani, his best argument to Republican primary voters is that he could appeal to a wide swath of general-election voters.

Hobble Horse: Plenty of GOP conservatives would rather set themselves on fire than see Hagel win the Republican nomination. They see his persistent criticism of the Iraq War as treason within his party, if not to the nation as a whole.

Back to top

Mike Huckabee — Governor, Arkansas

Rationale: If teaching Americans how to lose weight can make you president, then Huckabee is a shoo-in. After being diagnosed with diabetes in 2003, he set upon a life-changing course of eating less and running more. Now 110 pounds lighter than when he began his exercise and diet regimen, Huckabee last year published a book about his experiences, titled “Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.” As governor, he has argued that promoting healthier living, among both citizens and state workers, ultimately saves taxpayers millions of dollars in medical expenses. Huckabee’s weight-loss evangelism comes naturally. He is a Baptist minister accustomed to inspiring others. As Bill Clinton demonstrated, you do not get to the top of Arkansas politics and stay there without knowing how to charm a crowd. And Huckabee, who has been governor for a decade (and was lieutenant governor for three years before that), gets high marks as a crowd pleaser.

Resources:Huckabee raised $2.3 million for his last governor’s campaign, in 2002. The bulk of his money came from Arkansas business interests and only a little more than 10 percent of his funds came from out of state, suggesting that he might have some difficulty financing a national race. Although Huckabee might possess some of Clinton’s charisma, he does not share his fellow Arkansan’s knack for fundraising.

Hobby Horse: In a party so dominated by religious conservatives when choosing presidential nominees, Huckabee’s status as a Baptist minister should get him a hearing. He and his wife, Janet, entered into a “covenant marriage,” a popular movement among evangelicals in which couples agree to limited legal grounds for divorce.

Hobble Horse: A penchant for granting pardons went awry for Huckabee when he released a convicted rapist, Wayne Dumond, who then committed a murder in Missouri. Look for this story to get plenty of play if Huckabee becomes a credible presidential candidate.

Back to top

Duncan Hunter — Congressman, California's 52nd District; Chairman, Armed Services Committee

Rationale: In these times of national security worries, there is nothing like an ex-Army Ranger to the rescue. In the halls of Congress, where he’s been since 1981, Hunter still comes across as a trained combatant. At the helm of the House Armed Services Committee for the past four years, he has earned a reputation as a blunt and ferocious advocate for the military, especially when it comes to protecting the troops from budget cuts. When the Bush White House wanted to redesign the nation’s intelligence hierarchy, the president, the vice president and many others in the administration had to personally lobby Hunter to back off his firm stand against it. He finally signed on when satisfied that the changes would not threaten the access of soldiers in the field to intelligence data.

Resources: Considering the squads of defense lobbyists who traditionally swarm the Armed Services panel’s offices, running from the Rayburn Building is a fine platform for raising money, and Hunter has mustered war chests in the $1 million range for each of his last three re-election bids — none of which has been remotely close. But if Republicans lose control of the House, Hunter would lose his chairmanship and not be in as strong a position to raise money.

Hobby Horse: Beyond his solid credentials as a defense hawk, Hunter presents a social conservative portfolio that has appeal in GOP presidential primaries. He has long sponsored legislation to ban abortions. And now that building a fence along the Mexican border is in vogue, he can point out that he has proposed doing so for years.

Hobble Horse: Hunter is a powerhouse on Capitol Hill, but outside Washington and his Southern California district he remains a complete unknown. Perhaps he is expecting to have plenty of time to get outside the Beltway and build name recognition after Tuesday.

Back to top

John McCain — Senior Senator, Arizona

Rationale: As close to a Republican heir apparent as anyone gets in the 2008 field, McCain has done his best to earn that title from tradition-minded voters in his party. His positioning as a straight-talking maverick continues to give him clear general-election appeal, so his challenge is winning over social conservatives to get the GOP nomination. Independent voters and more than a few Democrats flocked to his initial presidential campaign. At the risk of losing some of those voters, McCain has courted religious conservatives and buried the hatchet from that bitter rivalry for the GOP nomination six years ago. The result has been a swell of conventional wisdom in Washington that sees McCain as the party’s most likely nominee. Look for the president himself to give that nod at some point if all goes well between the two former rivals.

Resources: Money was tight for McCain toward the end of his 2000 nomination bid, which played a role in his ultimate loss to the massively funded Bush machine. But no one on the horizon for 2008 seems able to duplicate what Bush accomplished, opening the way for McCain to play the role of the presumed nominee and attract the attendant onslaught of cash.

Hobby Horse: While the corruption scandal brought on by convicted ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff primarily tainted the Republican Party, it could make GOP voters all the more eager to nominate McCain, who has earnestly built a squeaky-clean image — he was, of course, a principal author of the 2002 campaign finance overhaul — despite himself getting caught up in the “Keating Five” savings and loan scandal of the 1980s.

Hobble Horse: Age and health are the biggest worries for McCain. He would be 72 on Inauguration Day 2009, meaning he would be the oldest person to become president. (Ronald Reagan was just shy of his 70th birthday when he first took the oath.) And although McCain says his bout with skin cancer is behind him, it left marks on his face that — along with injuries he suffered as a prisoner of war in Vietnam — deny him the appearance of robust health that Reagan projected.

Back to top

George E. Pataki — Governor, New York

Rationale: The governor’s mansion in Albany was a good enough launching pad to get Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt into the White House — but it proved lousy for Mario Cuomo, who had to shelve his national ambitions in 1994 after losing his bid for a fourth term to Pataki, then a relatively obscure state senator. That upset earned Pataki the awe of Republicans nationally. They have watched him ever since, and his stewardship of the state — cutting taxes and creating jobs — has not disappointed them. (He’s not seeking a fourth term of his own this year.) After the attacks of Sept. 11, Pataki was in the national spotlight, side by side with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, demonstrating a calm competence that made their party proud. Instrumental in bringing the 2004 Republican Convention to New York, Pataki on paper is ready to play an even bigger role at the next convention.

Resources: The state of New York by itself has enough money to potentially fund a presidential campaign, but in 2008 there could be three from the state dialing for dollars: Pataki, Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Clintons have a tried-and-tested national network. Giuliani has been out of office with plenty of time to travel the country. Pataki, without the track record of the Clintons or the free time Giuliani enjoys, could face a tough challenge finding enough cash elsewhere.

Hobby Horse: A governorship has been the job of choice in four of the past five presidential elections, and Pataki is currently the nation’s longest-serving governor — with plenty of policy achievements to boast about. Tax-conscious conservatives will find Pataki’s tax-cutting record quite appealing. For compassionate conservatives, he can tout his 1999 health care plan extending insurance to those without employer-provided plans.

Hobble Horse: Pataki’s charisma deficit — he’s considered boring on the stump — will not help him charm his way into the hearts of religious conservatives who are not going to warm up to his abortion stand and support of gay rights. Rockefeller Republicans are still not welcome in such circles.

Back to top

Condoleezza Rice — Secretary of State

Rationale: She has said no in every imaginable way, but the political world cannot stop being fascinated with the idea of Rice on the national Republican ticket. She fits the bill for those who think only a solid conservative could ever become the first woman president, let alone the first African-American in the Oval Office. Rice, of course, is both of these — and she would make history just by running and winning a single primary. Careful and calculating in public, Rice makes very few mistakes despite having so many political foes gunning for her. A stalwart in the Bush White House’s war on terrorism, from national security adviser in the first term to secretary of State since last year, she has the policy platform for a credible campaign despite lacking the experience of elected office.

Resources: If the Bush family gets behind her, all things are possible. The president is her biggest fan, and so far no one knows which of the 2008 hopefuls he might favor. Such high-powered backing is probably what it would take for Rice to mount an adequately resourced campaign. She has no experience raising the amount of money needed for such an undertaking, though her fame and rock-star appeal at GOP gatherings could make up the difference.

Hobby Horse: While she has legions of critics, no one can doubt her toughness in the national security arena. She gives no ground, whether on talk shows or in contentious Senate hearings. And the State Department turned out to provide some refuge from the brickbats being hurled at Bush’s war policy, where Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has taken ownership of the hot seat.

Hobble Horse: As a presidential candidate, Rice would face endless questions that she now mostly dodges about uncomfortable matters, such as the warnings she received about terrorist activity before Sept. 11. That headache alone could be enough to dissuade her from joining the White House fray.

Back to top

Mitt Romney — Governor, Massachusetts

Rationale: If conventional wisdom is correct and John McCain is the one to beat for the Republican nomination, someone will emerge as the conservative alternative. Bet on Romney to at least have a turn in that spotlight. Most pointedly, he rushed to President Bush’s defense when McCain was taking on the White House plan to expand the authority to interrogate terror suspects. On immigration, Romney has taken a hard line, in contrast to McCain’s middle-of-the-road approach in support of the president’s proposals. And Romney seems to show up in religious conservative country, such as South Carolina, every time McCain tries to make his way there. Romney is doing what Sen. George Allen was plannin



Copyright © 2006 Congressional Quarterly Inc.

dbciii - November 11, 2006 05:38 AM (GMT)
interesting analysis.
one point struck me I had not really thought about - assuming this war is still dragging on in two years, it will be the key issue. That will vault Gore way above other contenders as someone with the international experience, maturity, and command presence to close it down as cleanly as possible. Barack and Hilary may be more "glamorous" candidates to some, but I think they'd fade quickly with the war backdrop, along with whatever other nasties will have developed by then. Iran, Syria, N Korea won't have stood still.

ReElectAlGore2008 - November 11, 2006 12:50 PM (GMT)
After the last two weeks its still

Hillary, Gore, Obama and outside for Edwards on the democratic side

McCain, Rudy on the republican side

More people of the other contenders are (it is reasonable to say) further away than they ever were (meaning they don't have a chance in 'ell), or they will run, tap precious dollars, make a meaningless fight longer, all for the sake of the now
wanted vice presidential spot. (Its funny how up to 2000, people really did not campaign nor even want it, did they. Al Gore didnot campaign in 1992 for it.
It used to be a meaningless job, just being there in case disaster to the President happened, but not having any meaningful duties.
Guess Al, because he was given some power while President changed that.

But the race for vp was shameful in 2004, and IMHO cost the ticket dearly.But I guess you can't bottle it up and do believe on the democratic side of the people
listed Vilsack/Bayh/Daschle/Dodd/Richardson/ are all not serious candidates to the big guys/gals listed above and I think Clark will probably end up having a major role in whoever's cabinet wins for the Democrats. Although he would I think make a good VP choice for Hillary, showing strength behind her.

And the same with the republicans, although a few of the names I couldn't tell you much about. Pataki has no chance whatsoever either.

Keep in mind two darkhorses-
Michael Bloomberg- who was a major big winner on election day. He backed numerous candidates both democrats and republicans, and I believe most of them won, and are owed bigtime by those candidates.

More and more the buzz is a 3rd party run independent, (and he is in real life a liberal democrat, and one of the richest self-made men in the world.) He would
be a super choice for Al Gore's VP, putting the two together, but I doubt Michael would want to be someone's #2. (but stranger things have happened.)
He is extrememly sucessful, and extremely likeable.

Eliot Spitzer-the new governor of NY won a major landslide, and some people consider him a Bobby Kennedy type, and as experience seems to no longer matter
could be a late entry, especially in the VP wars (although as they are both from NY, not Hillary.)


In the end, if Al don't get in the race, it means Hillary is just too far ahead for those pesky delegates, the only actual #s needed. (approx. 2165 I think out of 4200(approx. as they change a little each time I think). Especially those 800 super delegates.
It all will boil down to those #s, and the other suprising thing is how little time in reality there is.

461 days IMHO, and the next Presidential nominee for the democrats will already be decided.(not officially as they will continue the primaries, but like almost all years, the winner will be a sure thing).
And then the long time between then and the conventions in the summer.

Oh yeah, one final thought

Howard Dean.

There already are rumblings from the clintonistas out there to fire Howard Dean, even though Dean was the big winner too this week, as it was his 50 state strategy which enabled Indiana and other states congress. Without Dean that never would have happened.
Should Dean be wrongly fired, then his vow not to run is off the table.
And the millions of voters of Al's and Dean's are going to be even madder.
Keep that in mind.

Having fun yet?

Wayne in WA State - November 11, 2006 11:09 PM (GMT)
Yes, that was an interesting analysis from CQ

I would not even jump to conclusions this early. A lot can happen :) OK, Pataki has the charisma of a potato, but otherwise, it's anyone's game.

Why do people think superdelagates are going to vote for Hillary? I believe they can vote for whomever they choose. If her campaign unravels, or never starts, they are voting for someone else.

Is it just me or is McCain looking like Bob Dole's older grey-haired brother.. :?:

I know that people don't officially run for Vice-President, but I can see why they do. It has become a powerful office and a platform to run for president. No longer is it true that the VP office is worth about as much as " a large bowl of warm spit" :lol:

Hillary Rodham Clinton :?: If she was running why didn't she save more of her Senate re-election fund to roll-over into a general campaign? I can see her running. I can also see her declining to run and getting Bill to talk to Al and setting up scene for an Al Gore steamroller. We will see. I don't take Obama that seriously this year, but hey, I could be wrong.

Two names to watch for: Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack. And believe me, John Kerry is tenacious. If his remarks earlier this month hurt Democrats it's hard to measure ;)

Let the race for Vice President begin :!:

ap215 - November 12, 2006 04:22 PM (GMT)

Patsy - November 12, 2006 05:33 PM (GMT)
I think the ticket is already formed: Gore/Richardson. We would not have early pull-outs if something was not in the wind. Gore has been too guiet lately on the issues that are hot in Washington, and this should mean something. I heard Tim and David on CNBC discussing '08, and both agreed that it was Gore's for the asking.

earthmother - November 12, 2006 07:09 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Nov 11 2006, 11:09 PM)
Hillary Rodham Clinton  :?:  If she was running why didn't she save more of her Senate re-election fund to roll-over into a general campaign?

My understanding is that what you're proposing is illegal. Money received for a campaign from one race can't simply be turned over into money for a campaign for another race.

It's not exactly the same, but I know that Gore had to (required by law) give the remains of his war chest back after he definitively ruled out running in '04.

Therefore, the fact that Hillary hasn't turned her Senate money into presidential money doesn't mean anything. I have read in a number of places that the speculation was huge about her presidential run because of how much money she was taking in, and then I would read that those musings were irrelevant because the Senate money can't be used for a presidential run, and if you think about it, it makes sense. People donated money for her to be in the Senate. Those same people don't automatically or necessarily want her to run for President. So the money has to be given back (where does it go?), and money for a presidential run has to come from elsewhere. :blink:

earthmother - November 12, 2006 07:13 PM (GMT)
So, Feingold is out. Thanks for that info, ap215. I wasn't aware of that.

But note that Feingold is only out as president. He could still be selected as someone's veep. But I think Feingold's decision is a wise one. One thing's for certain, to run for president, to BE president, you have to really want it. And if he doesn't, then he shouldn't launch a campaign. Also, I think he knows that with the potential field of candidates he'd be facing, he'd have little chance. AND, I think he may now feel that with a democratically controlled Senate, he can accomplish more in the Senate.

Sorry to see him go. I liked him a lot. But he, too, had baggage that would have made a presidential run difficult--twice divorced, not married, Jewish. I think his chances were slim.

But he's a terrific Senator, and I'm glad he'll be working for us there. :good:

Wayne in WA State - November 13, 2006 06:01 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Nov 12 2006, 01:09 PM)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Nov 11 2006, 11:09 PM)
Hillary Rodham Clinton  :?:  If she was running why didn't she save more of her Senate re-election fund to roll-over into a general campaign?

My understanding is that what you're proposing is illegal. Money received for a campaign from one race can't simply be turned over into money for a campaign for another race.

It's not exactly the same, but I know that Gore had to (required by law) give the remains of his war chest back after he definitively ruled out running in '04.

Therefore, the fact that Hillary hasn't turned her Senate money into presidential money doesn't mean anything. I have read in a number of places that the speculation was huge about her presidential run because of how much money she was taking in, and then I would read that those musings were irrelevant because the Senate money can't be used for a presidential run, and if you think about it, it makes sense. People donated money for her to be in the Senate. Those same people don't automatically or necessarily want her to run for President. So the money has to be given back (where does it go?), and money for a presidential run has to come from elsewhere. :blink:

EM, you may be right about directly transferring money from one campaign to another but I think it's more complicated than that.

Some campaigns have debts at the end of the race and try to raise funds after the elections are over. Many campaigns have funds left over after the election. I know they don't give it back to the donors. Somehow, it is transferred to other political purposes. Perhaps it is given to the Party general fund or donated to other candidates.

I also like an Al Gore/Bill Richardson ticket very much. I can't think of a better team. I sent Al Gore a letter about a year ago that said Al Gore/Bill Richardson 2008. I'm still waiting for an autographed reply :good:

earthmother - November 13, 2006 02:38 PM (GMT)
You're right, Wayne, that money isn't returned to the donors (that's what's done with private, non-political funds when there's money left over and you want to use it for something else--I've been involved in that kind of thing). Whatever money is left over from a political campaign goes to something, I suppose to the party as a whole or some such thing. I remember that Gore had to turn over what was left from 2000 only after he knew he wouldn't be running in '04, which made it sound as if he could have kept the money to use if he'd decided to run again. But I don't think Hillary can just turn around and use whatever's left from her Senate campaign and put it toward running for president.

ap215 - November 14, 2006 12:03 AM (GMT)
Giuliani has thrown his hat in the ring for '08.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/13/giu...dent/index.html

ALGOREismylife - November 14, 2006 02:09 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ap215 @ Nov 13 2006, 06:03 PM)
Giuliani has thrown his hat in the ring for '08.

Not at all impressed. Giuliani always seemed a bit smug to me, nothing new with repugs. <_<

November 13, 2006

Giuliani Takes First Step Toward Presidential Bid
By SEWELL CHAN

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, has taken the first step toward mounting a presidential candidacy, forming an organization on Friday to explore a White House run.

Mr. Giuliani stopped short of filing documents with the Federal Election Commission to create a presidential campaign committee, a step that Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, a Democrat, has taken. Instead, he filed to form a nonprofit group in New York State. Other politicians, like Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, have said they planned to file.

“Mayor Giuliani has not made a decision yet,” John H. Gross, a lawyer at Proskauer Rose and a former campaign treasurer for Mr. Giuliani, said in a statement. “With the filing of this document, we have taken the necessary legal steps so an organization can be put in place and money can be raised to explore a possible presidential run in 2008.”

In another statement, Anthony V. Carbonetti, a former chief of staff to Mr. Giuliani, said, “Rudy has traveled the country campaigning tirelessly on behalf of Republican candidates and has had the opportunity to speak with Americans on a wide variety of issues. They have been encouraging him to run for president, and this filing affords him the opportunity to raise money and put together an organization to assist him in making his decision.”

As news of Mr. Giuliani’s action emerged today, some Democrats rushed to criticize him. “It’s unclear whether or not Rudy Giuliani will be able to just ‘explain away’ the fact that he’s consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear,” a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Karen Finney, said in a statement.

Mr. Giuliani, who was mayor from 1993 to 2001, has expressed socially liberal views including support for gay rights and abortion rights. He has traveled widely in recent months, stumping for Republican candidates in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere. Several of those candidates lost in the midterm elections last week when the Democrats recaptured both houses of Congress.

On Sunday, after a speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Mr. Giuliani said he did not view the election as a rebuke to Republicans, but urged the party to commit itself to fiscal discipline and immigration reform.

Federal election law allows individuals exploring a candidacy to “test the waters” before deciding to run for federal office. The prospective candidate does not need to register with the commission, but must abide by the same contribution and spending limits as declared candidates.

The commission advises any individual doing such preliminary exploration to keep detailed financial records, because if the individual formally becomes a candidate, money raised and spent on “testing the waters” will be considered as contributions and expenditures under federal law.

Individuals who are “testing the waters” may pay for polling, phone calls, travel, political consultants, office space and stationery, among other things. But they may not raise more money than “reasonably required for exploratory activity,” use public advertising to publicize their intention to run, make statements that refer to themselves as candidates, or campaign for office.

“It’s likely that presidential candidates will have to raise at least $100 million by the end of 2007,” the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Michael E. Toner, said in an interview. “Rudy Giuliani is clearly one of those candidates who can raise that amount of money.”

Once prospective presidential candidates file exploratory papers with the Federal Election Commission, they are required to file monthly fund-raising reports. Several aspirants intend to wait until at least January, so that their first fund-raising disclosure is not due until late February, giving them more time to raise money.

If Mr. Giuliani decides to run, he will be able to transfer money from his new organization, the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Exploratory Committee, to his federal campaign committee.

In a four-page filing submitted on Friday to the New York State Department of State and obtained by The New York Times, the new organization was listed as a nonprofit corporation. Bobby R. Burchfield, a partner who handles corporate litigation at McDermott Will & Emery, a firm in Washington, filed the papers. Mr. Gross was listed as a director of the organization, along with Peter J. Powers, a former deputy mayor, and Dennison Young Jr., a former federal prosecutor who was Mr. Giuliani’s chief counsel.

Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.

earthmother - November 14, 2006 03:02 AM (GMT)
I heard them talking about Giuliani on Scarborough tonight. No one seemed to think he had a chance of winning. Of course, it's early, and McCain's been digging holes for himself lately . . .

Wayne in WA State - November 14, 2006 07:20 AM (GMT)
I think it could be enjoyable to watch Republican Party infighting this year. Without a clear pre-eminent pachyderm it will be an unusual primary season for them :coolwink: :laugh:

Let's see what happens when Giuliani's personal life is exposed to the Republican faithful in these primary contests :blink:

al001 - November 14, 2006 02:10 PM (GMT)
CNN showed it's list or poll of Republicans running this morning. I found none I would vote for regardless of the office. Dog catcher or up.

And Frist...what a joke.

dbciii - November 14, 2006 03:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Patsy @ Nov 12 2006, 11:33 AM)
I think the ticket is already formed: Gore/Richardson. We would not have early pull-outs if something was not in the wind. Gore has been too guiet lately on the issues that are hot in Washington, and this should mean something. I heard Tim and David on CNBC discussing '08, and both agreed that it was Gore's for the asking.

I agree. Don't know about the veep choice, but I do agree that something is afoot.

The Dem Party has shown recently an uncharacteristic level of organization and control. Don't know if its Dean, Emanuel,both, others, or what, but they do seem to be acting more like an "organized political party". Much as the reps set out the minute Clinton won to gird themselves for 2000, using Dole as a sacrificial lamb in the interim, the dems appear to have been actually planning for something, rather than just saying "every man (/woman) for him(/her)self"

The primary scenes the last two elections with (what, twelve at one point?) candidates filling the stage for a so-called "debate" are not going to be repeated. I don't even think there will be as much of a contest as there was between bush and mcclain.

The success in the '06 elections weren't a fluke. Sure, lots of things fell in to place to enhance the efforts, but the comprehensive game plan was pretty impressive.

I think Pelosi, Dean, Emanuel, et al will do a lot of private talking, make sure they are on message and on track per the game plan, and we will hear the candidate announced in due course. I think they are down to a very short list, may be just working on how to get the remaining wannabes in line.

earthmother - November 14, 2006 07:46 PM (GMT)
Over at AG.org (and other sites, I'm sure), there's a lot of talk about insisting on impeachment. People are saying that we elected the Dems. for a reason, and that reason is impeachment. I don't see it that way at all. I think we elected the Dems. to change the direction we were headed in, not to villify the president. And I think Pelosi et al. have a plan to do exactly that. They've already gone to Bush with a proposal for troop withdrawal in Iraq. Of course, it was rejected, but they obviously have things they want to achieve, and impeachment would impede progress on those fronts, IMO.

I agree with you, dbciii, that the Dems. seem more organized. I think Pelosi is a strong woman, and I think she's wielding a lot of power, trying to get the Dems. all on the same page (not an easy task). All I know is that when the likes of John Conyers, who has been as bullish as a person can be about impeachment, suddenly backs down and uses the same language as Pelosi saying that impeachment is no longer "on the table," something's going on.

I am a bit concerned that Dean seems to be getting short shrift, though. It was his 50-state strategy that was largely responsible for our big win last week, and yet he doesn't seem to be getting much credit for it. Dean would be in Gore's camp, I believe. I've heard some say that Raum Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer are in Hillary's camp. And then there's Obama.

I agree with you that it does seem as if there's some orchestrated plan here, some understanding that they need to control things tightly on this journey to hopefully taking the White House in '08. I just don't know if Gore's a part of it.

Wayne in WA State - November 15, 2006 07:30 AM (GMT)
But Frist has special powers :o

He can diagnose Terri Schiavo from a videotape

:bad: :bad: :bad:

ReElectAlGore2008 - November 15, 2006 09:46 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Nov 14 2006, 01:46 PM)
Over at AG.org (and other sites, I'm sure), there's a lot of talk about insisting on impeachment. People are saying that we elected the Dems. for a reason, and that reason is impeachment. I don't see it that way at all. I think we elected the Dems. to change the direction we were headed in, not to villify the president. And I think Pelosi et al. have a plan to do exactly that. They've already gone to Bush with a proposal for troop withdrawal in Iraq. Of course, it was rejected, but they obviously have things they want to achieve, and impeachment would impede progress on those fronts, IMO.

I agree with you, dbciii, that the Dems. seem more organized. I think Pelosi is a strong woman, and I think she's wielding a lot of power, trying to get the Dems. all on the same page (not an easy task). All I know is that when the likes of John Conyers, who has been as bullish as a person can be about impeachment, suddenly backs down and uses the same language as Pelosi saying that impeachment is no longer "on the table," something's going on.

I am a bit concerned that Dean seems to be getting short shrift, though. It was his 50-state strategy that was largely responsible for our big win last week, and yet he doesn't seem to be getting much credit for it. Dean would be in Gore's camp, I believe. I've heard some say that Raum Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer are in Hillary's camp. And then there's Obama.

I agree with you that it does seem as if there's some orchestrated plan here, some understanding that they need to control things tightly on this journey to hopefully taking the White House in '08. I just don't know if Gore's a part of it.

My thoughts are if there is a deal going down, it won't be with Al. He is not part of the inside the beltway deal making thinking these days... Alot of us here have said he will run as an outsider on his own terms, which doesn't bode well for an insiders deal.

As so many of the insider players are Clintonites, one can only guess that you know who will be the benefit of that. (and its not the American people getting the #1 best choice out there). It's Hillary, Hillary and Hillary.

I still believe this polarizing stuff is wrong on her, and at the end of the day 40 percent of the public won't vote for any candidate, as the winner will end up with at most 53-55 percent (if that much), and if there are 3 or 4 people running (independent with a big name or conservative with a big name), then it will only need say 45 percent to win, so one then concievably could win with 55% negatives.
So it really doesn't matter.

The rightwing radio will do their trash on any ultimate candidate. Appeasing the right wing by nominating a no name like Bayh, for instance, will lead to a 50 state republican blowout, as the only thing the fans of him say is he wins in a red state, however, he has a famous last name there and runs with minimal competition.
In a general election, running against a big republican, republicans vote republican 100 percent of the time.Indiana hasn't gone blue in a Pres.since LBJ. and that was a blow-out.

So if a deal is being set, the way an outsider gets in is to get in before the deal is done, because that will off-set it. Wait too long, and the playing field is closed.
IMHO of course. Because I don't even think Al Gore knows :wtf: he is going to do
at this point.

(Just hope it isn't like Ted Kennedy. He hemmed/hawwed each time said no, then finally he got into a race and never got it going in 1980 til it was too late. Missed it by that much.

If one wants to be seen as a strong candidate, back and forth isn't the way to do it.

(meaning- So come on Al!) before the old days of smokefilled rooms and bosses pick the candidates is upon us again (not that they ever left, as we know how the bosses like Terry McAuliffe and the Clintonites screwed Al Gore and John Kerry the last two times out.


Wayne in WA State - November 15, 2006 04:42 PM (GMT)
We will just have to wait and see :unsure:

I would not be so sure all of the insiders are Clinton people. Insiders want power, they want to win. Hillary represents losing to McCain. Gore may not have to be plotting behind the scenes. Howard Dean is the Party chairman now. Gore endorsed Dean in 2003.

Sure they will try and trash any Democrat. But their attacks will be more effective against some than others

I've been wrong before but I cannot possibly see Hillary winning the Primaries and the Nomination in 2008. And it could well be that Bill would actually prefer to nominate Gore. Jimmy Carter has came right out and said so...

:?: :?: :?: :!:

earthmother - November 15, 2006 05:18 PM (GMT)
Carter said that Bill wants to nominate Gore? :?:

ap215 - November 15, 2006 05:52 PM (GMT)
Well it looks like dean is starting to get his notice. Chuck Schumer mentioned on the daily show last week that he credit dean's 50 state strategy for the dems victory. It's about time.

earthmother - November 15, 2006 06:07 PM (GMT)
Yes, very glad to hear that, ap215. I was never a huge Dean fan, but I do give him a lot of credit for his 50-state strategy, and he should get public credit for it.

Wayne in WA State - November 15, 2006 07:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Nov 15 2006, 11:18 AM)
Carter said that Bill wants to nominate Gore?  :?:

:lol:

Not exactly, I'm not privy to the Former Presidents Club :(

Remember, when he was in England they asked Jimmy who he would like to see be the nominee and he said he preferred Al Gore :clap:

earthmother - November 15, 2006 07:34 PM (GMT)
Oh, yeah, I do remember that. :clap:

Patsy - November 15, 2006 11:03 PM (GMT)
Joe Lockhart was on Chris Matthews, and he said,"The '08 democrats will be Hillary, Obama or Edwards." He will not let anyone mention Gore's name ,and Joe did not seem to want to.

ap215 - November 15, 2006 11:05 PM (GMT)
Former Gov Thompson To Form Presidential Exploratory Committee

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...ns/16020535.htm

Wayne in WA State - November 16, 2006 08:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Patsy @ Nov 15 2006, 05:03 PM)
Joe Lockhart was on Chris Matthews, and he said,"The '08 democrats will be Hillary, Obama or Edwards."  He will not let anyone mention Gore's name ,and Joe did not seem to want to.

Could that be because Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are candidates they think the Republicans have a good chance of beating like a dusty, old carpet?

Gore-Richardson
Gore-Kerry
Gore-Feinstein

That might have them shaking in their jackboots :spikey: :laugh:

ReElectAlGore2008 - November 16, 2006 09:39 AM (GMT)
Wasn't Joe Lockhart one of the Clintonites that the day Bill sent in 3 of them to help out John Kerry, immediately was the one that passed the now infamous CBS memo thing to John Kerry, thereby opening up a whole can of worms for him?

Between that and then Sandy Berger tossing some documents and putting them down his pants the only thing they helped Kerry with was reminding them of all the scandals from the Clinton days.

Please Al Gore, when you get in the race (if?) DO NOT just like 2000, use any of the Clintons or their fellow members.

I still say it was the best political move and Al won using it. That he wasn't seated
was a crime (it was actually a crime) and the people should have demanded more.

We can like Al Gore and at the same time not be thrilled with Bill or Hillary or their workers (all of whom only care about Bill and Hillary and not the party nor the other candidates.) I am convinced of it. IMHO of course.

As for Tommy Thompson...he was a great health and human service man, wasn't he.....he was in over his head, and he even admitted it...who is calling for him
to be president, although he appears to be a moderate republican, but...really now.
What ever happened to Fred Thompson?

ReElectAlGore2008 - November 16, 2006 09:47 AM (GMT)
The thing about Al Gore is- may I add- is he upsets the nice cozy system of the republicans and some democrats have.

Those that have their hands in others pockets, those that get rich doing things that they shouldn't be doing.
Those that have no care for those that have nothing.
Those that are the injustices that those with nothing always have.

Al Gore is apart from that system.

That is why both parties are scared of him.

And Damn Ralph Nader now even more. Because what would have been interesting might have been had Nader backed Gore, and gotten say 5 Senate seats, and 10-30 house seats by now, and controlled the power so to say, with Nader being in the Senate theoretically, and in 08, Al Gore running and winning
as the Green party candidate.
But we all know that didn't happen.

The people are tired of the same old/same old system of corruption in both parties. That is what they resoundingly said last week.

(and I am a lifetime Dem.)

FellowDemocrat - November 17, 2006 02:30 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ReElectAlGore2008 @ Nov 16 2006, 03:47 AM)
(and I am a lifetime Dem.)

Yeah, a lifetime Dem that said he would vote for Condi "A key architect of numerous wars" Rice. :!:

Wayne in WA State - November 17, 2006 08:03 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ReElectAlGore2008 @ Nov 16 2006, 03:47 AM)
The thing about Al Gore is- may I add- is he upsets the nice cozy system of the republicans and some democrats have.

Those that have their hands in others pockets, those that get rich doing things that they shouldn't be doing.
Those that have no care for those that have nothing.
Those that are the injustices that those with nothing always have.

Al Gore is apart from that system.

That is why both parties are scared of him.

And Damn Ralph Nader now even more. Because what would have been interesting might have been had Nader backed Gore, and gotten say 5 Senate seats, and 10-30 house seats by now, and controlled the power so to say, with Nader being in the Senate theoretically, and in 08, Al Gore running and winning
as the Green party candidate.
But we all know that didn't happen.

The people are tired of the same old/same old system of corruption in both parties. That is what they resoundingly said last week.

(and I am a lifetime Dem.)

REAG2008

I think you have some good points there

I suppose I have to forgive Ralph Nader for 2000, the past cannot be changed by any means known to me :(

But what about Nader now? He could not win a Senate seat in any State in this Union. If he wants to work on his karma what would be his path? He stood in line a few months ago to get Al's autograph on his copy of the "An Inconvenient Truth" book. That's a small start I suppose.

I really do not think a 3rd Party is a good idea at all. In the current American political dynamic a progressive 3rd Party would be equivalent to donating to the Republican National Committee :bad: . I say it's the job of We the People to take back the Democratic Party and make it be as good as we possibly can.

It isn't just an organizational problem; it's human nature. It's let Dick and Jane fix things or blame some easy target instead of doing the hard work ourselves.

Precinct by precinct, door by door, neighbor by neighbor, is the way to really bring Power to the People. Yes my friends, the Democratic Party is all we've got and it is worth saving :o :good: :D :clap:

earthmother - November 17, 2006 04:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Nov 17 2006, 08:03 AM)
Precinct by precinct, door by door, neighbor by neighbor, is the way to really bring Power to the People. Yes my friends, the Democratic Party is all we've got and it is worth saving :o :good: :D :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

al001 - November 17, 2006 05:18 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (earthmother @ Nov 17 2006, 10:57 AM)
QUOTE (Wayne in WA State @ Nov 17 2006, 08:03 AM)
Precinct by precinct, door by door, neighbor by neighbor, is the way to really bring Power to the People. Yes my friends, the Democratic Party is all we've got and it is worth saving  :o  :good:  :D  :clap:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

To that I say... :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

ReElectAlGore2008 - November 17, 2006 07:49 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (FellowDemocrat @ Nov 16 2006, 08:30 PM)
QUOTE (ReElectAlGore2008 @ Nov 16 2006, 03:47 AM)
(and I am a lifetime Dem.)

Yeah, a lifetime Dem that said he would vote for Condi "A key architect of numerous wars" Rice. :!:

fellowdem- I really wish you wouldn't bring a line of something I said on a different board over here...

what I said was

I would rather vote for Condie over some terrible choice like Evan Bayh. I will not vote for him. And I do not have to vote for someone that shall lose IMHO 50 states.

He is a non-entity.

He polls 1 or 2 percent (about the same as Joe Lieberman did in 2004). I certainly would not vote for him either.

Talk about someone who is the problem not the solution and that's Evan Bayh.

So sorry, I will not vote for him.
And now, to top it off, his screwing of Ned Lamont has helped Joe win.
All those Dems (supposed Dems) who origianlly supported Joe, then ran over to the other side primary next-day and then screwed Lamont.

With no support, no show ups in CT. Nothing.
Why hog the limelight and then flip flop three times?

So sorry, Evan (who should stay in Indiana as senator, if he leaves that position, his seat will be filled by a republican governor). There goes the senate right there.

Just IMHO of course.
And get the reason I said something down if you are going to quote me

Because that is the reason we need Al Gore, someone on the left of George Bush and Joe LIeberman. Someone willing to speak out and not keep the same old same old.




Hosted for free by InvisionFree