Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

The Friday Line: Hillary, McCain in a Class of Their Own

The last time we dedicated the Friday Line to the raw horse race politics of Campaign 2008 was way back in December. Much has changed since, most notably the solidifying of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

As the Post's Dan Balz noted a recent story, McCain -- along with chief political adviser John Weaver -- has worked tirelessly behind-the-scenes to recruit key operatives who supported President George W. Bush to his increasingly likely 2008 bid.

On the Democratic side of the ledger, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) fundraising machine continues to churn ($17 million in the bank at the end of 2005) -- further cementing her as the favorite for her party's nomination.

Today's Friday Line separates Clinton and McCain from the rest of the Republican and Democratic fields, placing them in a "frontrunner" category of their own because they are far ahead of the other potential candidates at the moment. "The Field" category represents candidates who can make a legitimate case for dethroning McCain and Clinton come 2008 but just aren't there yet.

Reminder: The Fix's rankings of the 2008 race are just a snapshot in time. As always, your thoughts are welcome in the comments section below. Let's get started:


The Frontrunner: Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton

What more can we say about Clinton? Republicans have proven decidedly inept at fielding a solid candidate against her this November, ensuring that her Senate reelection race can serve as an uninterrupted pre-cursor to a national bid. And don't forget that whatever cash Clinton retains in her Senate campaign account after this year can be transferred to a presidential account. We've heard whispers from other Democratic camps that Clinton will decide not to run for the White House. But that seems like wishful thinking. She starts with a double-digit lead in every early state and could well have double the dollars of her nearest challenger. How does a politician turn down a race with that sort of firepower?

The Field

Evan Bayh: Bayh is the tortoise of the Democratic presidential field. He has adopted a "slow-and-steady" approach to the process of fundraising and campaigning that is likely to keep him from emerging as the buzz candidate anytime in the near future. But that approach also should keep him in the conversations of Democratic insiders for months to come. Bayh will never match Edwards in charisma, but he has gotten markedly better -- more animated -- over the past year. It's still hard to see where Bayh goes for votes if Warner continues to be seen as the chosen candidate of those who prize electability in their nominee. But it's also impossible to predict the operating dynamic of a race where the first votes won't be cast until January 2008.

John Edwards: Edwards is taking an entirely different tack at winning the nomination in 2008 than he did in 2004. In his first national race, Edwards lavished state parties and local candidates with money from his leadership political action committee in hopes of currying favor. He has done considerably less of that as he looks ahead to 2008. Edwards has used his advocacy on the poverty issue to emerge as a spokesman for workers' rights -- witness his work on behalf of a number of minimum wage ballot initiatives that will be on the ballot in several states this fall. While Edwards's fundraising has not impressed so far this cycle (he ended 2005 with just $23,000 on hand in his One America PAC), he is clearly the most charismatic candidate on the Democratic side. No longer tied to the Senate could also help Edwards, since no sitting senator since John F. Kennedy in 1960 has been elected president.

Al Gore: Yes, that Al Gore. As I outlined in a recent Fix post, Gore can make a legitimate case for the nomination. He is the only candidate who has shown that he can raise the $50 million (or more) necessary to compete against Clinton for the nomination, and he's the only one who has been unequivocally against the Iraq war from the start. From what we hear, Gore is not interested in participating in the nitty-gritty politics necessary to run and win the 2008 nomination, preferring instead to be drafted -- who wouldn't! Still, until Gore formally says no, he belongs on the Line.

John Kerry: The positions of Kerry and GOP Sen. Bill Frist are remarkably similar at the moment. Both are largely dismissed by the chattering class inside the Beltway but continue to demonstrate an ability to raise vast quantities of money. Kerry's remarkable Internet fundraising operation, which has raised $1 million for Democratic candidates over the past six months, keeps him as a viable 2008 candidate. Democrats, both rank and file and the party elites, tend to be skeptical of a retread candidacy for president (see "Gore, Al"), and Kerry may eventually decide that he'd rather be one of the key powerbrokers in 2008 than the candidate himself. Until then, The Fix is inclined to leave him on the Line.

Mark Warner: Warner's "It Boy" status seems to be wearing off somewhat -- the first dip of the inevitable roller coaster ride of insider opinion that he must endure between now and 2008. Much of that slowing momentum appears to be the result of his low-profile in the last month or so as he focuses heavily on courting the big-dollar donors he will need to challenge Clinton for the nomination. Still, Warner remains the smart money bet to emerge as the anti-Hillary candidate. His second-place showing in a Charleston (South Carolina) County Democratic straw poll late last month seems to back up that perception.


The Frontunner: John McCain

John McCain

McCain is in the midst of pulling off a remarkable transformation. After running an insurgent, anti-establishment candidacy against Bush in 2000, McCain is as well-positioned as any other Republican in the field to be the choice of party insiders in 2008. Why? He stumped relentlessly for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004 and has been a major defender of the administration's Iraq war policies. It's no accident that McCain was also one of the few Republican politicians to come out in support of the decision to hand over port security to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. The one potential complication for McCain is that unlike in 2000 he will enter the primaries as the favorite, meaning that he must run and win everywhere - not pick and choose states to target.

The Field

George Allen: In the final Line of 2005, we described Allen as the "co-frontrunner" with McCain for the nomination. The intervening months have not treated Allen kindly. In his 2006 reelection race, he has drawn two credible challengers who will require him to spend more time in Virginia than in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina between now and November. (More on that conundrum later today in The Fix.) Allen's fundraising over the final three months of 2005 (roughly $1 million) was a major drop off from the $2.1 million he collected during the first three months of the year -- a fact that did not go unnoticed in the political community. With Bush's popularity mired in the mid 30s in two recent polls, the philosophical and stylistic parallels between the two Georges are also not likely to benefit Allen. The Virginia senator remains, however, the candidate in the field best positioned to bridge the divide between social and establishment conservatives -- assuming McCain doesn't beat him to it.

Bill Frist: The straw poll next weekend at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis is a make-or-break moment for Frist's presidential aspirations. His campaign has made no secret of the fact that he must win - and win big - to reestablish himself as a viable candidate after what was a disastrous 2005 for the Tennessee senator. Unlike the other major 2008 candidates, Frist is making a concerted effort to turn out his supporters for the straw poll -- further heightening expectations. To date, Frist has remained on the Line thanks to his proven fundraising ability and willingness to spread contributions all around the country. A loss at the SRLC would zero out Frist's buzz factor among party insiders. A convincing win, however, could put him back on the map.

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani keeps a slot on the Line thanks solely to the fact that if he ultimately decides to run, which looks less and less likely as time passes, he will immediately shake up the field. Giuliani is a beloved figure in the Republican Party, but a bruising primary campaign in which he is forced to either defend or change his previous positions in support of gay marriage and abortion rights could quickly erase that goodwill, at least among party activists in key primary states. Giuliani is not doing the nuts-and-bolts fundraising and politicking that his competitors are, and The Fix's bet is that he ultimately stays on the sidelines -- opting to make $40 million rather than raise it.

Mitt Romney: Aside from McCain, Romney is the most active of the '08ers in the insider game. During my recent trip to South Carolina, Romney drew rave reviews from party officials for his willingness to donate to state legislative candidates during the 2004 cycle. Romney's biggest hurdle to the nomination can be summed up in two words: "Massachusetts Mormon." Can someone who will have those two words associated with him win over conservative voters in Iowa and South Carolina? Romney is certainly aware of the problem -- witness his public support for a South Dakota bill that would ban all abortions except when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. And remember, Romney's Mormonism potentially gives him the skeleton structure of a national organization on which to build.

I was online Friday morning for the daily Post Politics Hour. Read the Web chat transcript here.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 3, 2006; 8:25 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kerry Raises Quick Cash for 3 Vets
Next: Will Dem Challengers Keep Allen at Home?


Feels very much relieved after going through this site as it has all the material which anyone would enjoy.chekc this site also which has airlines review. :Easy jet :Delta Airlines :Virgin Atlantic :Southwest Airlines :Aer Lingus :Hawaiian Airlines :Spirit Airlines :Us airwaysa :British Airways :thai airways airlines :emirates Airlines :ALoha airlines :Iberia airlines :midwest airlines :song airlines :allegiant airlines philippine airline :indian airlines country airlines :china airlines : jet airways :delta airline : America west Airlines : japan Airlines : Alitalia : Air jamaica : Air france

Posted by: Airlines | April 26, 2006 4:44 AM | Report abuse

Congratulation, it was very interesting surfing around here, have a look on car reviews site.
Acura> |
Acura parts |
Acura rsx |
Acura integra |
Acura nsx |
Acura tl |
Dodge> |
Dodge challenger |
Dodge dealer |
2007 Dodge challenger |
Dodge caravan |
Dodge dakota |
Dodge charger |
Dodge viper |
Dodge part |
Dodge caliber |
Dodge magnum |
Massachusetts dodge dealer |
Dodge ram |
Dodge neon |
Dodge durango |
Pontiac> |
Pontiac solstice |
Pontiac firebird |
Pontiac parts |
1967 pontiac gto |
Pontiac gto |
Pontiac g6 |
Pontiac sunfire |
pontiac grangprix |
pontiac vibe |
Pontiac Trans am |
Pontiac fiero |
Audi> |
Audi a3 |
Audi a6 |
Audi tt |
Audi a4 |
Audi part |
Audi a8 |
Audi car |
Mazda Truck |
Mazda truck parts |
Suzuki> |
Suzuki motorcycles |
Suzuki hayabusa |
Suzuki atv parts |
Suzuki motorcycle |
Suzuki motorcycle parts |
Suzuki swift |
suzuki grand vitara |
Suzuki samurai |
suzuki parts |
suzuki atv

your site is very informative, visit this mortgage related site its very nice.
Lending tree |
Lending tree mortgage

Posted by: car | April 21, 2006 2:47 AM | Report abuse

Dear RMill:
The poll I saw was a few days ago -- Chris Matthews had it as a chart on his show.
Clinton ranked #1, Edwards was #2, Kerry #3, Biden #4.

Posted by: Erin | March 7, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Bayh is indeed one of the finer choices the Democrats can make. The former governor's resume alone. He wouldn't pull IN into his column. But Colorado? New Mexico? Maybe Arizona. These are nice striking points for Democrats. The point is to play all over the map. While I like Giuliani in these early days, it is my hope that the Democrats back a candidate who can bring America a serious debate. As I would not back, Jeb Bush for the presidency, and I don't want Bill Frist, or any of that ilk, I'd like to see the Democrats not back Hillary, who is their Jeb Bush; their divide-the-country figure. The woman polls at less than 50 percent favorable and she is defined. The portions of my party I don't exactly admire will run her into the mud. They'll be less inlclined to do the same to Bayh or Richardson -- who we genuinely respect.

Posted by: The Republican | March 6, 2006 7:23 PM | Report abuse

All you need to do is look at the disasterous results of this Administration's foreign policy and you will see why Dr. Rice should never run for ANYTHING.

Mushroom Clouds? Aluminum Tubes? August 6 PDB as a "historical document"? Never anticipating planes as weapons?

This woman made a career out of lying.

Posted by: maria | March 6, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Bayh has the executive experience (8 years as Governor); won five statewide races in a red state (Indiana has not gone D since 64); and the foreign policy and military experience (Intelligence and Armed Services com) to the win the WH for the Dems. He brings IN, KY, OH and WV to the blue column. No other candidate can bring as much -- wake up Dems the race is decided in the Midwest, not the South.

Posted by: Midwest Demo | March 5, 2006 8:30 AM | Report abuse

This whole list--in both parties--is so uninspiring and mediocre. Are these really the best candidates we can come up with for president? I mean it'd be great if Feingold had real appeal, but I admit it's unlikely in most circumstances. I guess I'm just as well hanging out here in Canada waiting for the Liberals to regroup and take over the government again. Silly Americans; leadership is for real democracies!

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | March 5, 2006 1:56 AM | Report abuse

How can Warner be competitive against McCain? How can you think that National Security just won't be an issue, and that Warner's lack of experience with it is going to make him able to penetrate the South? And Warner hasn't had any idea as to what to do with Iraq. Like many others, he's a follower, not a leader. The last I read, Warner was avoiding the Iraq subject to save up his "capital".

Just cause everyone now knows that Bush actually "sucks" on the National security issue at this point, it doesn't mean that Democrats don't still have that as an handicap on their own side!

But if enough Democrats like you stop thinking long enough, Warner could just be the nominee. All the GOP will have to do then with McCain on the ticket, is just play an ol' handy dandy Osama Bin Laden tape on October 31st, 2008! And Warner being "southern" (which he actually really isn't) won't change make anyone feel safer!

Posted by: Addie | March 5, 2006 1:52 AM | Report abuse

I spent last fall in Virginia during the gubernatorial election, and it's clear to me that Mark Warner would be a great president. He left office with high approval ratings and would be great for the Democrats in 2008. After Gore and Kerry's inability to penetrate the South in the last two elections, we need someone who can put the Republicans onto the defensive. Evan Bayh would also be a strong moderate candidate, but his "tortoise" pace may be insufficient to beat Hillary in the primaries. Though many liberals support Hillary for 2008, I just can't see her beating McCain in the general election. That's why we need a strong, Southern Democrat like Warner as the nominee, not just as the VP like with Edwards in 2004. If Warner can beat HRC in the primaries, he would be very competitive in the South against McCain and might pull of as strong an electoral victory as Bill Clinton did in 1992 and 1996.

Posted by: russ | March 5, 2006 12:23 AM | Report abuse

I think people need to realise that the people that read this blog are not necessarily representative of the population at large or even of democrats. Hence the whole Feingold is wonderful issue and the Hillary sucks issue.

and to defend Chris...look at the polls. HRC is the frontrunner atm. And yes, money is very important. Who can raise enough to challenge her? How the hell do you get known to the larger electorate if you can't get your face on tv etc. And her favourability ratings amongst democrats are very high. Over 70%. Some of you don't like her, cool, don't forget that plenty of other democrats do. Oh and she does have the insiders onside, the people who know how to run campaigns etc.

Any honest appraisal puts her as the frontrunner. Whether you like her or not is rather immaterial atm. Perhaps she'll win, perhaps she wont. Who knows? I'll admit I like her, but it's not hard to see why she is out in front at the moment.

Posted by: jamie | March 4, 2006 11:12 PM | Report abuse

I've been dismissing both Hillary Clinton and John McCain as future Presidents (for opposite reasons: she can't win a general, and he can't win the nomination). For that reason, I haven't really considered a Clinton/McCain matchup. It's one more reminder of how early in the game it is. So much will happen between now and then.

Posted by: Jehosophat | March 4, 2006 9:22 PM | Report abuse

RMill: thanks very much for the polling data summary. Leads me to believe that it's all just name recognition at this point, that I Can't Believe It's Not Butter would poll 3% without breaking a sweat. This would also explain HRC's somewhat mysterious appeal.

As much as Chris would like us to believe otherwise, it's much too early to be hyperventilating about 2008 at this point. Let the primaries and a few debates sort it all out and hold off on all the prognosticating.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 4, 2006 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Don't know where people get their information but Edwards Federal PAC raised $1.25 M in 2005 and Wes Clark's raised $420 K, about 1/3 the amount (See Political Money Line)-

Gore's last recorded listing was Dec 2004 where he had $177 K on hand. Clark also had $447 K on-hand as of 12-04 in his Presidential fund.

As far as Biden is concerned in polls-

Since Sept 2005, he has consistantly polled 4th, 5th or 6th but has not breached double digits in any. He is generally between 3-5%.

He tied Warner at 5% in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in mid-Feb 06 at 5% (With Gore in the mix). A Dec 05 poll without Gore had him at 8% (Warner at 3%

In a Marist Poll done in mid-Feb, without Gore he also does better, at 7%, then with Gore in the mix (drops to 4% to Warner's 2%). Clark and Richardson lost 1% and Hillary drops 7% and Kerry 4% with Gore in.

A Cook Report poll done in Dec 05, without Gore has Biden at 7% to Warner's 4%. Without HRC in the mix, he goes up to 9% with Warner inching up to 5%. The Feb 06 Cook Report Poll does not list all candidates, but Other was only at 12% behind HRC, Edwards and Kerry so between all other candidates, I would say Biden's numbers have fallen somewhat.

Zogby's Dec 05 poll has Biden at 3% tied with Warner.

Interestingly, I would not have thought that Biden would have been drawing from the same supporters as Gore and HRC. It does seem to confirm my earlier contention that HRC, Kerry and Gore do draw from the same base.

These are not significant challenges to front runner and Warner's fund raising certainly warrants his inclusion. Biden did raise $2.6 M for his Senate committee but he has a strong home base of support for Senate.

Posted by: RMill | March 4, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I want John Edwards and Tom Vilsack on the Democratic ticket.
I also want Sen. Bill Nelson (Sen. from FL) to obtain a post with close advisory to the President. These are actually honest people with a plan for America and Americans who have lost jobs as well as insight on how to actually IMPROVE America's image around the world.
They are proven leaders with very impressive track records.
They love America, they adhere to The Constitution, they believe in America, and most of all, they respect the rights of the average American!

Posted by: Jimnlimbo | March 4, 2006 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Xenophobia, protectionism, and class warfare??? No, I'm not nostalgic about the 1930s, Thank you very much. I'd rather grit my teeth throgh Jesus freaks in red america who know how to run a country."

It is not so much about the 'how' of the running as 'where'. The current destination, 'ground', is not necessarily the best.

And in any case, a bit of class warfare is exactly what we need. The current state of inequality is proposterous.

Rise up and fight, brothers and sisters!

Posted by: comrade roo | March 3, 2006 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Disgusted Massachusetts Republican,

You do have a point about the South (including Texas). No Democrat outside of the South has been elected to the presidency since JFK in 1960 and all those that did win were state governors. The list of current Southern Governors in good standing is short and he’s no where on the radar screen. The country will have to be very bad off for southerners to elect a Democrat from outside of the south, perhaps it is now.

Feingold is my first choice, but any of the Democrats mentioned in this blog are far better qualified than Bush. And for a third party independent, I see no one out there.

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Let me add my voice to those who would like to see Wesley Clark as the Democratic candidate for president. I was a McCain delegate to the 2000 RNC -- probably the most liberal delegate at the RNC. I disagree with the Bush administration's position on almost everything. In 2004, I went to NH to work for Wesley Clark. I saw him speak at three town meetings -- for about 5 1/2 hours. He impressed me as being an extremely intelligent, articulate candidate on a multitude of subjects. His expertise is in the areas that most concern our nation at this time. I have seen him set a town meeting on fire. He is steeped in southern culture. He strikes me as having many of the same personal qualities as John McCain -- a sort of left-wing McCain.
I don't know that he has a chance in 2008, but I see him as the most electable candidate the Democtrats could nominate.

Posted by: Disgusted Massachusetts Republican | March 3, 2006 10:11 PM | Report abuse

AS WEIRD AS IT MAY SOUND OR READ, Our president to be re-elected is (King) George DUBYA. DON'T LAUGH. He and his Congressional cronies (YES MEN) will change the voting rules for the 2008 elecions. It has been done before and will be done again! OUCH! (Remember Franklin Roosevelt?)

Posted by: gerryc | March 3, 2006 8:45 PM | Report abuse

With #43 selling off, destroying America, invading foreign countries and then sitting on his A$$ doing nothing during Katrina, I'll take Hillary anytime, any year. Today we have the worst president of all time sitting in the oval office.

Posted by: Its Clinton Time | March 3, 2006 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Democrats have been backpedaling since 1980 or longer. A fundamental change needs to happen if they want to gain broad credibility with voters. (Reagan and GW Bush didn't win 2x each apologizing for their gut instincts.)

Feingold is clearly the only candidate on the table who's not a backpedaler. (And, yes, it's true that Feingold won by a hefty margin in the recent DailyKos poll.) I think he's the guy to go for.

Posted by: Bill | March 3, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The #4 person in Democratic polls, since September 2005, is Sen. Joe Biden. He even outranks one of your picks, Mark Warner. With a LOT of recent face time on weekend news shows, and weekday radio programs, plus his legislative work on both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (how much foreign policy experience does Mark Warner have, anyway?) and the Senate Judiciary Committee, how could you possibly have omitted his name here?

Show a photo of Mark Warner to ten random people across the U.S and how many of them will recognize him? Just the ones in the South, I'll bet. Then do the same with a photo of Joe Biden.

Take the blinders off, Chris. There's a lot more to see out there.....

Posted by: Erin | March 3, 2006 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Watched the hearing for lobbying reform last night.The guest group said that there is a need to have a a special council to fix the the lobbying problems and ethics reform. They made a lot of sense to me. Today I hear that the Senators are not taking any advise,and that goes to show you that they do not look to do any reform anytime soon. This shows us how corrupted they are.Americans no longer trust Republican Senators who abide by Bush's agenda.

Posted by: Josephine Rossello | March 3, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

It's great how all of the Washington folk talk about how formidable Hillary Clinton is and how nobody can beat her for the nomination. Where are her supporters? Everyone seems to assume they're out there, somewhere, even if they don't see them. Ever considered that the emperor doesn't have any clothes? She'll raise a ton of money, but you can't buy the Democratic nomination like you can with the Republican one. Take Howard Dean. As a Republican, with as much money as he had, he'd have been a lock for the nomination, much the same way Bush was in 2000. But Dean's millions could not buy the nomination. If Hillary is relying on money to hand her the nomination on a silver platter, she'll be disappointed.

Posted by: Q | March 3, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Wow! That is an eyeful of posts.

On Feingold-

This has been discussed in other posts. Solid senator, focused on doing his job for Wisconsonians(?) but no fund raising to speak of or national network to build a campaign outside of his region. Probably too liberal for a majority of voters, not registering in any of the early polls.

On Biden-

Gives a good speech, especially when he swipes it from someone else (A little humor there). Another also ran with little left in the tank except anger. Still a good mind, would be good for a cabinet post or Supreme Court.

On Wes Clark-

Also ran got bounced early in primaries. Little fund raising accumen and no network to speak of outside of some VFW posts. Not registering in any early polls. Good choice for Defense, NSA or CIA Directors.

On Richardson-

Doesn't have the smarts? He may have the best mind of them all and the fullest resume for President of the United States. Energy Secretary, Ambassador to the UN, Governor of New Mexico, Congressman. It has yet to be determined whether he can build a network of support for a national campaign and is behind in fund raising. Definate appeal to latino voters can put a number of state in play that were lost in 2004 (New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Arizona) and make them sweat and spend resources in Texas.

On Gore, Kerry and Edwards-

Also losts. This makes it difficult for comebacks. They also draw from the same funding folks, namely the Clintonistas, which is in full HRC mode right now. Kerry has shown the most funding independence. The loser label is going to hurt them all.

On Vilsack, Warner and Bayh-

Next generation leaders make up a healthy core for Dems from purple and red states along with Richardson. Represent the best chance, in my opinion, to retake the White House.

In general-

I know it can be disheartening to have candidates discounted out of hand because of "fund raising" or "opinion polls". But this is a blog not an election. Ultimately, this is going to be decided by real voters but realistically, there are reasons these things can be important. It takes tremendous resources to get known. You may know and like Russ Feingold, but what of 111 M other voters. How will they find out? Money makes that happen. Polls reflect it. So if Biden, Clark, Feingold are missing right now, it doesn't mean they won't eventually show up, but at this moment, they are not yet a significant factor nationally.

Posted by: RMill | March 3, 2006 4:40 PM | Report abuse

What Analysis? Chris is saying the exact same thing as the rest of the bunch, and they all judge everyone chances on nothing more than fundraising, which is the only thing that creates a "buzz", and the "buzz" being the only way that candidates can get free publicity, which is the only way that their names become more recognized, which is the only way that they fare better in polls, which is the only way that people donate to them.

Round and round we go, where it stops....well, we all know!

It's all a sham and not much else. Everything is "for Sale" in America, including our political system.

Posted by: Juliette | March 3, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I posted earlier in the comments section regarding my thoughts on msm darlings McCain and Clinton and my own support for Senator Russell Feingold (who is, for me, head and shoulders above all the other candidates).

I thought the following, from Mr. Cillizza's online chat today, was revealing:

"Washington, D.C.: I was disappointed to not find Sen. Feingold in the field of Democrat Presidential hopefuls.

"Any particular reason he has fallen off the radar, so to speak?

"Chris Cillizza: Feingold gets lots of mentions in The Fix's comments section any time I omit him from the presidential Line.

"His problem, like that of many of the candidates that didn't make the cut this week, is money. Feingold has yet to show an ability in his political career to raise the tens of millions he would need to stay competitive with Clinton, Warner, Bay, Edwards or even Kerry.

"Feingold does have the right profile to tap into the Internet gold mine that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean found in 2004 but I am not sure that the Dean phenomenon can be repeated.

"If Gore is in the race, Feingold has no chance. Without Gore, he is an intriguing candidate to watch."

2 things regarding the above transcript.

First of all, the Internet factor, if anything will be far more pronounced than it was for Dean. The blogosphere has emerged by leaps and bounds, as has the way many people turn to blogs for news. That will only increase with time. Why the Dean "phenomenon" may not be repeated is a mystery. When you have a candidate who the msm ignores because they do not fit the centrist stereotype that is assigned to so-called 'legitimate' candidates, than the Internet is the perfect engine to produce campaign energy and dollars. I am eager to donate to the Senator's campaign.

Secondly, Cillizza states that Feinglod has "no chance" with Gore in the race. Maybe that is the impression one gets when looking through GOP-colored glasses, but these 2 do not necessarily share the same constituency.

Speaking for myself, despite my thoughts on dirty tricks at the polls, Gore totally blew the 2000 election with an idiotic, reactive campaign. Because of Lewinsky, Gore chose to distance himself from Clinton, despite the fact that the country prospered under his presidency. Gore should have won by a wide enough margin, so that dirty tricks was not a factor. He is the LAST PERSON, outside of maybe John Kerry, I would cast a vote for.

To suggest that his presence would pull support from Feingold is insulting.

However, the bottom line is that Chris' lists are always predicated on who he perceives are the fundraisers. That seems to be the only litmus test.

And that is why I feel he does not have a good handle on Senator Feingold's support and potential.

It also diminshes his analysis.

Posted by: scootmandubious | March 3, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Michael Bussio:


An interesting set of comparisons between Hillary and Rice is over at the Washingtonian Online. I shamelessly stole it and added a couple of items:

Birth Date: Hillary: October 26, 1947
Condi: November 14, 1954
Comment: Both are Scorpios

Hometown: Hillary: Chicago, Illinois
Condi: Birmingham, Alabama …………..Earned Degrees: Hillary: Wellesley College Yale Law
Condi: University of Denver: bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa Master's”

But Mike, she’s a rubber stamp lapdog that says whatever her master tells her to say. Remember the “Mushroom Cloud”? Hey man, get serious!

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Damn, what is wrong with this country that we are SO obsessed with the familiar? We blindly stick to what we recognize out of either small-mindedness or cowardice. And look how everything is going to crap, but we still stick to the same familiar, even though it is what is the root of our problems.
We are one of the least progressive countries on the planet. I blame our political parties and the complacent American electorate. The parties view government as keeping the status quo for as long as possible. They move at a snail's pace instead of progressive, aggressive pace to really solve problems and get the job done. The GOP and the Dems work together to make sure everything stays as is and as little is done as possible to make government anything more than career politicians beholden to keeping the upper class exactly where it is. All this is a simple case of time and corruption that every nation faces. Perpetuating the status quo when real change is necessary is the root of many of our American political problems.

Posted by: ErrinF | March 3, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

What about Condi?

Posted by: Bill

Bill, your exactly right, what about her, other than a Bush's lapdog?

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I was also surprised Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware wasn't mentioned. He's very visable, and is one of the few that actually will talk about 2008 to the press. He definitely wants to run and has taken all the steps.

Also surprised not to see Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin mentioned. At this point, he's probably my top choice among people that might actually run and I think he's got a good chance.

I know it's a total longshot, but I would really like to see Sen. Barbara Boxer run. I think she would make an amazing president.

Posted by: Jordan | March 3, 2006 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Just to correct the record, Nixon was an ex-Senator. He won in CA in 1950 against Helen Gahagan Dougles, campaigning against her as "The Pink Lady." He served 2 years, then got on the ticket in 1952. Reminds one of Dan Quayle, actually.

Posted by: butchie b | March 3, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

It doesn’t say much for most American voters when the candidate with the largest war chest in favored to win an election and usually does.

With that said, Hillary Clinton is a formidable politician, not to be taken lightly by anyone, even John McCain in a head to head match up. McCain will be painted as George Bush Jr. long before the November election just as Lee Atwater said of Michael Dukakis “I 'would strip the bark off the little bastard' and 'make Willie Horton his running mate.'”, her campaign will strip the bark of the little @@@@@@@’ and 'make George Bush his running mate. Good advice for McCain is to distance himself from Bush and his policies, but this won’t happen. As one of the former top 100 corporate lawyers in the country she can be worthy opponent to any debater.

Rove and Bush found good poll numbers on the “push “ issues abortion and gay bashing to win elections and Hillary now has the “push button” issues of outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries and port security. She always been considered weak on security, but seems to be shedding that issue. As for voting for the invasion of Iraq, she was fooled like most Americans by the Bush administrations cherry picking of intelligence and suppression of intelligence opposing the war. She now has a stance against beginning the Iraq war, while McCain still supports the war and the initial invasion.

Bill Clinton has over all very good status with most Americans and “Super Star Status” in the African American community. If the Bush Administration has reached out to him for help, just ask yourself what he can do for Hillary?

Posted by: Jamal | March 3, 2006 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Where's Wes Clark?

-- college kid, you're wrong about Russ Feingold winning the myDD and Daily Kos polls the last two months.

I know for a fact that Wes Clark won at least the February myDD Straw Poll. Check the Kos result too.

-- Chris, you're wrong about Al Gore being "the only one who has been unequivocally against the Iraq war from the start."

Gore gave a speech not very long after Bush's imfamous State of the Union Address with the Axis of Evil and "Iraq better watch out" comments. Many are currently saying that Gore was very much anti-Iraq invasion? But what does this speech means if that's the case? Did he do flip-flop, or is there a better explanation?

Here's reports on Gore's speech dated Feb 12, 2002.

Gore, Championing Bush, Calls for a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq

Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to oust President Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Gore, speaking four miles from the ruins of the World Trade Center, applauded Mr. Bush for singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address.
In advocating that the administration consider whether the time had come to try to remove Mr. Hussein, Mr. Gore seemed to be in line with Mr.Bush's emerging policy.

But if Mr. Gore found himself on the same side as the White House about what to do now about Mr. Hussein, he was sharply critical of the way Mr. Bush's father had handled the matter during the 1991 war against Iraq. Mr. Gore noted that, back then, Mr. Hussein "was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade — and still do."

"So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right," he said.

Posted by: voteforhopeandsunshine | March 3, 2006 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Also, in terms of financial stuff. Russ overcame those odds in 92 and 98.

Posted by: college kid | March 3, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Vienna, I think Feingold could win IA and Ohio. He voted against CAFTA, NAFTA, etc.

Additionally, he's done well in small towns. He's pretty likeable. A lot of folks like/admire Russ in WI.

I think Hilary would make a terrible president. I'm a Democrat, liberal one, and if Hilary is nominated, would write in 'Susan Collins' in the actual election.
Too much triangulation calculation. I'm with Molly Ivins.

Posted by: college kid | March 3, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

In re Edwards: You note that no sitting senator has been elected since Kennedy in 1960; but has any ex-senator been elected ever? Nixon in 1968 was an ex-VP. Ex-governors, yes, but not ex-senators.

"Hillary": Though it looks sexist, this name distinguishes her economically from her husband. Some male pols have been regularly referred to by their first names, e.g. Teddy Roosevelt and--in his youth at least--Winston Churchill.

In the comments above, the two names that keep coming back are Clark and Feingold. Significant?

Posted by: Gordon Chamberlain | March 3, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Wes Clark raised more money then both Gore and Edwards last year and is doing far more for the 06 congressional races then Gore & Edwards. I will say though that its probably better for Clark not to be on the radar because we all know how the press loves to destroy the front runners in the primary. You better beilve the press already has the stories written about warner and hilary slipping in the polls. It'll be a nice surprise when Clark comes back into it.

Posted by: Brent Parrish | March 3, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Warner has no Foreign policy or National Security experience (he was not governor of Virginia during 9/11). He is totally uncharismatic and plays it safe to the point of nausea. He is not a leader because he is too afraid to lose his political capital. Considering that Dems have just made some headway on the issue of National Security, why take two steps back with this inexperienced Foreign policy guy? We've already tried a CEO President who was a Governor with no Foreign policy experience and we are still suffering throught that right now.

McCain tells us that he "trusts the President on the Port Deal", making him a weak follower, not a leader. His rubber stamp on the war in Iraq is disgraceful and disturbing as well.

The media loves McCain irrationally, I guess to make up for their harsh treatment of him back during the 2000 GOP primaries.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? Is that what we really need in this country right now? The British already own a big part of our country. Are we also willing to go the route of their monarchies as well?

Wes Clark and Chuck Hagel are the most reasonable and rational choices for their respective parties considering the times that we live in.

Posted by: Addie | March 3, 2006 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris, a quick question:

One factor about McCain that seems to escape mention by political writers/reporters is his wife, Cindy McCain, who is an admitted drug addict and even worse, was convicted of stealing other people's drugs to feed her habit.

How much of this will surface as McCain continues to be included among the conventional wisdom crowd as a viable 2008 presidental candidate? Not one of over twenty recent stories mentioning McCain as a possible candidate even make mention of this factor: what gives?

Posted by: Nicholas Thimmesch | March 3, 2006 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Reagan's challenge to Ford in 1976, he is (to my knowledge) the only serious presidential candidate to announce his running mate before the primaries were over (Schweitzer). Perhaps two of the not-Hillary candidates (or not-McCain) would combine even before New Hampshire? Or maybe Warner will announce (before NH) his choice of Napolitano as running mate.

Posted by: virginian | March 3, 2006 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I love Hillary Clinton and will support her as long as she's a candidate, mainly because I think she'd be a great President.

I do have some concerns about the electability issue, however, particularly if John McCain is the Republican candidate. Right now, he appears to have turned himself into an Eisenhower like consensus candidate. Remember that Kerry wanted him as his running mate.

If Dems really think that Hillary has such electability problems, why not start now drafting her to be Senate Majority Leader in January 2007!

And what about Joe Biden?

Posted by: Will | March 3, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to understand why Wes Clark is not among your candidate potentials. After all, he's the most credible Democrat in terms of addressing the problems with US faces, he's out there on a regular basis working for other Democrats in the party in 06, he's not ruled out running again anymore than Edwards, Kerry, etc. and he's got the cross over appeal that candidates like Kerry and Clinton don't have. Is he being ignored because he's not an insider or a current elected official? That's what makes him appealing!
Hope you'll take a closer look.

Posted by: Debby | March 3, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

In 1976, I overheared a conversation between three people who were discussing politics. Gerald Ford had recently staved off Ronald Reagan's challenge for the Republican nomination.

The group was talking about Reagan, and about what a circus we would have if he ever got elected.

30 years later, there are those who would like to see Reagan's image carved onto Mount Rushmore.

Some say that if Jimmy Carter had launched a full-scale invasion of Iran in response to the hostage crisis, the public would have patriotically rallied around him and he would have won reelection. And with Paul Volcker tightening the money supply and reducing inflation, Carter might have left office in January of 1985 viewed as a visionary leader and a great president.

But that isn't what happened.

When the idea was first floated about Hillary Clinton running for the senate from New York, George Stephanopoulos thought it was a joke, that she would most certainly lose, and why would she risk damaging her reputation even further by taking on such a potentially embarrassing race?

Six years later, she's poised to win reelection by an overwhelming margin.

I post this simply because politics, history, and opinion can be fickle.

Most people feel that HRC's shot at the presidency is a joke.

But that's how a lot of people felt about Reagan in 1976.

Posted by: Influential Thinker | March 3, 2006 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Several comments here in response to remarks above.

First, re McCain's age. Have you seen his mother? She is in her 90s, and, when she appeared on TV at the 2004 Republican convention, she looked and sounded better than most people in their 70s. McCain clearly has a high energy level. Unless his melanoma recurs, he seems likely to remain in good health for a while. Of course, age not only affects health but attractiveness, and that may undermine his chances compared to other candidates.

Re Hillary's appeal. Did you have a chance to read the article by Richard Morin (the Post's pollster) re the relative appeal of candidates w/ the facial features of HRC vs. those of McCain? It's at The article describes a set of studies in which the facial features of HRC and McCain were digitally "morphed" onto the faces of less well-known politicians, both male and female. The details are too complex to describe here, but the results were fascinating. Candidates who were given Clinton-like features were regarded as more appealing than they were when they were presented in their own, unmodified photos, and candidates who were given McCain-like features were regarded as less appealing than when they were presented in their own, unmodified photos.

These results surprised me, because although I mostly like HRC's politics (despite certain recent instances of pandering), I haven't, to say the least, thought of her as particularly charismatic. As a speaker, she is rather schoolmarmish, and it's easy to picture her as a someone self-righteous nag. (Yes, this sounds sexist. I'm a woman who would love to see a woman president. I'm being candid here re how I sometimes perceive HRC and how I think other people are likely to perceive her.)

Studies of this type are important because many, many people vote on the basis of impressions rather than real information about candidates. To wit, the widely held view that GWB was more the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with than JFKerry.

Above, Beth said: Feingold is definitely the Dem who most excites me right now. I admire his stance against the Patriot Act, as well as his efforts on campaign finance reform and against torture and indefinite detentions of terror suspects without any mechanism for judicial review.

This is the perspective of a well-informed person who is interested in fundamental issues regarding the individual and the state. But most people do not vote based on such premises. Likability is a big, big factor.

Posted by: THS | March 3, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Okay, let's get real about Feingold. In 2004, Kerry carried Wisconsin by 11,000 votes because -- and only because -- Russ won by a margin of over 330,000 votes -- and in doing so, he tallied more votes than had ever been cast for anyone running for statewide office in Wisconsin. He did so running on his record, without using a single negative ad and in the process carried 26 counties Bush won. He is a person of high principle, passion and the ability to articulate his positions with eloquence. He truly has the courage of his convictions, the kind of political courage that is almost non-existent in American politics today.

As far as Hillary goes, if she wins the nomination, the Dems can be assured of four more years of GOP control of the White House. And McCain? Even with his selective straight talk, he is a hardcore conservative -- make no mistake about that. He might be the best the GOP can offer, but let's remember that there is a big difference between having a Dem or Republican in the White House. Can you say, "Supreme Court"?

It's time to put Russ back in your mix, Chris.

Russ might be a dark horse, but he was also one in 1992 when he first ran for the U.S. Senate and in a three way race for the nomination that many gave him no chance of winning over opponents with stunning financial advantages, Russ won the nomination with 70% -- that's right, 70%! --of the votes -- and then went on to defeat a favored two-term incumbent.

Posted by: All4Russ | March 3, 2006 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"They" relish the control they have over our political system. "They" tell us over and over again who it is gonna be, and because "they" repeat it over and over again, the polls reflect such since who "they" push are the only names that the people taking the polls hear about.

The more "they" drill it into our head as to who the frontrunners are, the more name recognition "they" give their hand picked frontrunners, which allows the Frontrunners to collect more money from the "big (corporate) donors" placing their bets, and so it goes; those "selected" candidates pad their war chest and continue getting the pundit "Buzz".

I'm starting to question whether we are even a democracy at this point, as "They" (the Corporate, political and media insiders) continue to push and shove at us what our options will be, which in truth is only based on who they are allowing us to choose from!


Note: Gen. Wes Clark in the Dem's best choice in 2008, regardless of what these know nothing pundits and political insiders keep repeating at us! "They" know it, but "They" will never allow us to find out anything about him through free media publicity like they give Hillary, Warner, McCain, Allen, Kerry, Edwards, and even Will-Sack and Bye.

Wes Clark is not controllable, and "They" like maintaining control above all else.

Ditto for Feingold and Gore...although Feingold being twice divorced, single, Jewish, a Senator (who has voted "no" on most defense issues) and 5'6" has enough handicaps that "they" may start to push him once the 2008 race really gets going as the "new" Howard Dean for the "liberal" voters, and then Deep-Six him when the time is right (a la Dean).

Watch, listen and then speak out. Our democracy depends on you!

Posted by: Juliette | March 3, 2006 1:09 PM | Report abuse

independentWoman--Are you utilizing "Weimar" Germany to somehow circumvent Godwin's Law? Well, at least that explains why you were putting Weimar and the Soviets in the same basket...

Anyway, Biden may mean well, but he's a windbag and loves listening to himself talk. Plus he's got baggage that cost him in his last Prez run. Bayh, maybe, can win in some Red states. Gore might be okay, but there may be too much "been there, done that" for the electorate in the general. Feingold is great for being consistent, but how much of the Midwest and the South can he take, outside of Wisconsin.

I like the suggestions about Warner and Vilsack. Being from VA, I'm partial to Warner b/c he was a great governor, both on the political and the policy sides. However, I'm open to being persuaded about Vilsack since I've heard nothing but good things ABOUT, but little of him. I wouldn't mind seeing Clark, either, but he looked a little shaky in his primary. I think he'd do particularly well in purple states and places with lots of military and retirees.

Posted by: vienna local | March 3, 2006 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Tom Vilsack has the speaking skills and the executive experience to really pull away from Warner Bayh and Edwards. Unless the Republcian party crumbles in 06 he could beat Hillary. Richardson does not have the smarts to win. I feel there will be a backlash against Mcain if the Republican luck turns more sour.
Vilsack is the best candidate in the field he is the next Bill.

Posted by: gabriel | March 3, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Gotta agree with the legions of people supporting Feingold here; the "let's get real, he can't win" sentiment doesn't quite hold up, as he isn't seen as "just another liberal" by red state voters. Even his detractors do generally concede that he's a principled politician, and grant him some semblance of respect. In addition, he is generally perceived as somewhat righteous on a lot of values issues... you know, the same set of issues that dominates debate in many Southern and Midwestern states.

As for the anti-McCain sentiment, he's not simply "just another repub." To promote this belief is to essentially say that a candidate's character takes a back seat to their views on "hot button" issues. While it isn't often said, there is more to governance than your position on the political spectrum. He may be conservative, but he's no Bush, Frist or Lott.

Posted by: CollegeWoppy | March 3, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I can't think of anything more depressing for this country than two major party nominees with virtually no difference on the Iraq war after everything that has occurred. I used respect McCain while disagreeing with him. Sadly, McCain is not a Republican Gorbachev, he's a Brezhev Republican. Hillary is a Republocrat.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | March 3, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons NEVER enter a race they KNOW they can't win. NEVER. I think that Hillary knows that half the country loves her and half hate her. I think the republicans are putting her name out there to start scaring the american people that they had better vote Republican or they will be stuck with Hillary!

Posted by: Paula Phillips | March 3, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Condi? Why she will look just fab in leather and high boots. She can find Bearded Gore and his pink suede chaps, and together they can have a happy romp.

Independent Woman.....I long for you!

Posted by: SilverCitySlim | March 3, 2006 12:29 PM | Report abuse

You mentioned Bayh and how he has to overcome Warner, how does he do this? IA is less than 2 years away.

Posted by: 08 Dem | March 3, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

It dismays me to think that Hillary Clinton is the front runner for the Democratic party nomination - I have nothing against her, but being the wife of a president, and a lawyer, and serving part of a term as Senator does not give one enough experience to be president! I would like to see people like Carl Levin, the governor of New Mexico (Richardson, I think?), and that Senator in Wisconsin (don't know his name) be discussed more.

Posted by: Tamara Sanders | March 3, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

My comparison to Weimar and Soviet days was hyperbole. Still, there is cause for concern.

After all, ours is now a country that tortures. Mr. Bush's war has now taken more American lives than 9/11 did. Bush is trying to make the case that the congressional authorization for force gives him carte blanche to do-whatever-it-takes regarding terrorism (a bizarre legal theory--especially given that as I understand it the FISA court had a procedure in place to get authorization even after the fact).

There's a swagger in Bush's step that implies he thinks he's above the law. I see very few candidates talking about this at all, and that worries me.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of the pundit analysis is stuck in the pre-9/11 mode of "Democrats are fiscal and social liberals; Republicans social and fiscal conservatives". Now fiscal conservatism seems deader than the macarena. Democrats are racing Republicans to see who can appeal most to the NASCAR set.

When the Post's George Will comes out against some of Bush's over-reaching, you *know* that a lot has changed. When will our politics catch up?

Posted by: IndependentWoman | March 3, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

You're concerned that we have a state religion, news service, and domestic spying agency? This is nothing new. In the past, those three things have been:

1) The Church of Political Correctness
2) Public TV/radio
3) The FBI under JFK

Posted by: Ed Lahoa | March 3, 2006 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I think Richardson is a lock for VP, no matter who the dems nominate to run for the top spot. The democrats really need to focus on brining in the Latino vote to counter the Republican "solid south". The states where the Democrats won under Clinton, Gore or Kerry (or lost by less than 10%) are New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona; most of those are picking up valuable electoral votes to counter the growing southern states. Throw in the attraction of a Latino candidate for Floridians, and Richardson - with impeccable international and domestic credentials - is an automatic for the VP post.

Posted by: thehal | March 3, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse


An interesting set of comparisons between Hillary and Rice is over at the Washingtonian Online. I shamelessly stole it and added a couple of items:

Birth Date: Hillary: October 26, 1947
Condi: November 14, 1954
Comment: Both are Scorpios

Hometown: Hillary: Chicago, Illinois
Condi: Birmingham, Alabama

Earned Degrees: Hillary: Wellesley College Yale Law
Condi: University of Denver: bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa Master's from Notre Dame PhD from Denver
Comment: That's Doctor Rice

Honorary Degrees: Hillary: More than ten;
Condi: Seven;
Comment: Meaningless trinkets given to curry favor

Party Affiliation: Hillary: Started out as a Goldwater Republican, now a liberal Democrat;
Condi: Democrat until 1982, now a Republican
Comment: Clinton grew power hungry, Rice grew up

Social Life: Hillary: Parties with the rich and famous:
Donald Trump's Palm Beach wedding, Star Jones's celebrity-studded nuptials, Katie Couric's table at a benefit aboard the Queen Mary 2;
Condi: Seriously single:
Dated former San Francisco 49ers star Gene Washington On her 50th birthday, she partied with Vernon Jordan, Karl Rove, and Karen Hughes, She upped her hipness quotient by dining at Galileo with U2 frontman Bono;
Comment: Fluff vs. Substance

Favorite Designer: Hillary: Oscar de la Renta: wore a yellow de la Renta pantsuit to the Trump wedding Oscar de la Renta:
Condi: received a red ball gown from the designer for her 50th birthday
Comment: They're both women, but one wears pants to a formal wedding.

Music: Hillary: No known ability;
Condi: Has played piano since age three
Comment: Music training greatly enhances spatial-temporal reasoning required for math, chess, science and engineering.

Working Out: Hillary: Has a small gym in her New York home;
Condi: A former competitive ice skater, she runs on a treadmill every morning
Comment: One possesses something, the other does something

Dining Out: Hillary: Has been spotted at Restaurant Nora and Cafe Milano;
Condi: Eats at Marcel's as well as Bush favorite Peking Gourmet Inn in Falls Church; cooks gumbo and other Southern dishes
Comment: Again, fluff vs. substance

Hairstylist: Hillary: Isabelle Goetz of Cristophe Salon;
Condi: Watergate Salon
Comment: One has a personal stylist at a solon, the other has a favorite salon. Did we say fluff vs. substance before?

By the Books: Hillary:
Living History sold more than a million copies
It Takes a Village
An Invitation to the White House: At Home With History, a picture book with some comments
Co-authored The Unique Voice of Hillary Rodham Clinton: A Portrait in Her Own Words
Edited Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids' Letters to the First Pets

The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1983: Uncertain Allegiance
The politics of client command: Party-military relations in Czechoslovakia : 1948-1975
The Party, the military, and decision authority in the Soviet Union
Co-authored Gorbachev Era
Co-authored Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft
Co-authored Sternstunde der Diplomatie. Die deutsche Einheit und das Ende der Spaltung Europas (Great moment of the diplomacy. The German unit and the end of splitting Europe)
Comment: One writes self-aggrandizing fiction and edits cutesy kids letters. The other is an expert in history and foreign affairs and writes scholarly works.

Experience: Hillary:
Advised the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge
Joined the impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives
Taught at University of Arkansas Law School
Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee
Currently Senator from New York

Professor of Political Science, Stanford
Winner of 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching
Winner of 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching
Six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost
Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council under Bush 41
Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs under Bush 41
Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Served on Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military
National Security Advisor for Bush 43
Currently Secretary of State for Bush 43

Glamour Shot: Appeared in the December 1998 issue of Vogue. Appeared in the October 2001 issue of Vogue For the Fans Designer Marc Jacobs created a funky Hillary T-shirt A bobble-head doll

Posted by: Michael Bussio | March 3, 2006 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Where is Wesley Clark????? The best person for a job should always be listed!

Posted by: Tricia | March 3, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I am really getting scared for the dems with pundits like you pushing Hillary for '08. Don't you all realize that Karl Rove and the rightwing spin machine has been pushing Hillary even before Kerry's defeat? They are drooling at the chance to knock her into yesterday. Look at the internet netroot polls for dems....she barely registers. WE DON'T WANT HER!!! She is not a bad person...just would be a horrible candidate. Wes Clark would be Rove's worst nightmare...strong on security...with no voting record to trash!

Posted by: BlueOhio | March 3, 2006 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Feingold all the way. Hillary, no longer the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy, is now the tool of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Wonder where Rove is these days? (Seems to have left Georgie flapping in the wind.) He's running Hillary's campaign, undercover of course. To Shawn, the high-school senior, welcome to American politics. Yes, it's all about money.

Posted by: felicity smith | March 3, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Just as a matter of record, how often in a situation where no incumbent president or vice-president is running does someone who's a front-runner more than a year before the first primary end up getting nominated? Not that often I suspect.

Posted by: PJ | March 3, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

HRC stands a chance of winning in 2008...if the repubs decide to nominate that same guy she beat for her Senate seat in New York.

Posted by: Bug | March 3, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

So far as I'm concerned only candidates for 08 who are actually welcome to campaign in red states need apply.

So far, that's a field of .... uh..... one or two.

Wes Clark seems to be the front runner in that race.

Chris C. doesn't mention him? Says a lot about the Washingotn bubble, doesn't it?

Posted by: RedStateDem | March 3, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I am sad no one is pushing Biden. He can give a great speech, is very charismatic, and has a ton of experience. I don't care how much money Hillary has, she is simply not electable and if the Dems are really serious about permanent suicide then nominating her will help them on their way. I like McCain's 'maverickness', but, heck, he is as conservative as they come. I sure am hoping the McCain/Clinton battle goes the way of Howard Dean

Posted by: Janet | March 3, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Posted by Candide: "Let's get real, Feingold cannot be elected."

Wow. Case dismissed, eh?

I guess anybody who stands up for the 4th Amendment is in real trouble in this country.

Maybe it is time for the common man to stand up to the ridiculous notion that liberalism is somehow not something that appeals to Americans.

It is one giant con game that you have just perpetuated.

Posted by: scootmandubious | March 3, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate in my 58 yrs, but will do so if McCain gets the nomination. 1) He is not perfect, but who is? 2) he is a leader in the Senate, unlike most who are argumentative compromisers or simply follow-the-leader noisemakers. 3)Hillary is a good senator for New York, my state; keep her there; 4) under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary if McCain is nominated; 5) the Republicans will probably shoot themselves in the foot and nominate another right winger and not McCain.

Posted by: LPM | March 3, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Hillary? Are you on first-name terms with her but not with Senator McCain?
Why does your headline use the woman's first name and the man's last name?

Posted by: Wondering | March 3, 2006 11:28 AM | Report abuse

BTW, Shawn the high school senior is incredibly wise. Any political analysis that says someone is the front runner because "they have the most money" is quite misguided.

I think a better analysis is that Clinton has hired a bunch of high profile strategists and fundraisers who are the leaders of the Democratic establishment in DC. She and her team are incredibly tight with the members of the mainstream media who publish and broadcast stories that say Clinton is the front runner.

Those reporters point to polls that show Clinton has the leader of the horse race, but any poll taken three years out is nothing more than a poll of name recognition. They also point to the fact that Clinton does, in fact, have a lot of money.

Therefore they add up a couple of disconnected facts, then follow that up by talking to high profile Democratic toadies like Begala and Carville, and - ta da - Hillary is the front runner and presumptive nominee three years before a vote is cast.

Posted by: Choska | March 3, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Let's get real, Feingold cannot be elected. I see nothing wrong with a Hillary vs. McCain contest, either way you get a much better president than we have had for the last five years.
If you think about the presidents we have had since Kennedy, they have all been losers, excepting perhaps Clinton.

Posted by: candide | March 3, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I can't imagine voting blue again as long as the John Edwardses play up the two Americas, and the Hillaries complain about the sale of a British company to a Dubai based company. (The ports were not owned by Americans to begin with. What's her problem with brown skin? )

Xenophobia, protectionism, and class warfare??? No, I'm not nostalgic about the 1930s, Thank you very much. I'd rather grit my teeth throgh Jesus freaks in red america who know how to run a country.

Posted by: Recovering Democrat | March 3, 2006 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Archer and Glenn are correct. No Hillary - ever. Don't want McCain either.

As far as this out of the loop, never on the inside Boomer is concerned, I am deeply repelled about all the Insider picks.

D&R Insiders got us where we are today. Schemers and takers have been in charge for too long, Washington D. C. needs cleaned up.

I predict the lowest voter numbers in history if the Insiders get their way. Speaking for myself, I'll vote down the ticket for the 3rd, 4th, or 5th candidate rather than choose the same old same old.

See my "Yard Sale Notice" on spinresponse

Posted by: JB7176 | March 3, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Wow, a perfect set of candidates for the blind, deaf and incredibly dumb msm.

McCain may have shown bravery in VietNam, but his failure to be more than a lapdog for Bush is forever to his discredit as a politician.

As for Hillary, while I supported her husband, what exactly has this woman done to distinguish herself in her brief Senate career?

My money is on Senator Russell Feingold.

Posted by: scootmandubious | March 3, 2006 11:18 AM | Report abuse

What about Condi?

Posted by: Bill | March 3, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

The media's attention to the horse race numbers is incredibly frustrating because it distorts the democratic process. The only reason Clinton and McCain are front runners is because everyone in the media says they are. People hear that so-and-so is the leader, and then they start deferring to that analysis.

Where I live, in admittedly deep, deep blue Seattle, Clinton has ZERO support. In fact, I think people actively fear she will get the nomination because we know (1) she can't win, and (2) is the wrong leader to unite the country. At least, that's my hypothesis going into my precinct caucus on Saturday.

Should her handlers successfully win her the nomination, and they are certainly winning over the MSM, then it will be the most boring election in years. The Democratic base of DailyKos readers and state party people won't vote for her or volunteer for her.

Her support is best characterized as a mile wide and an inch deep.

Posted by: Choska | March 3, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Sound analysis, but not nearly as entertaining as the 2008 rankings over at :-)

Posted by: The Jockey | March 3, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

I have noticed a phenonemom that strikes me as a paradox. Everyone seems to assume that HRC is a solid frontrunner, but I know few people that actually think she would be a good nominee, especially if the goal is to win the general election, but also to some extent from a normative perspective. Is it that people are afraid to work for or give money to other candidates because of her funding ability? In a perverse way, it reminds me of the Bush in 2000. At some level, he seemed an odd choice. Did many people really think he was the best man for the job or even a terrific natural politician? But at another level it almost seemed -- McCain aside -- that his nomination was a fait accompli from the start. It worked well for the Republicans in 2000. But I am highly skeptical that a stampede mentality will serve the Democratics well in 2008. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Mark | March 3, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"The only thing differentiating our culture from Weimar Germany or the Soviet Union is our wealth and celebrity culture--"

Uhh, yeah so why do you not fear being rounded up and summarily executed for posting your political views on this public site? Just take your meds and don't pack your bags just yet. Besides, I don't think Canada wants you.

Posted by: Stalin's Mustache | March 3, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Most of the names mentioned in these comments are contenders for the Whitehouse, but i definitely agree with Chris that Clinton and Mc Cain are *definitely* the frontrunners.
Which can change....
But for now, all others are also-rans.
Not much of a choice is it?
Mc cain is like 100 years old, and a pussified bush apologist (maverick? a joke!)
and hillary hardly inspires me.

Posted by: jay lassiter | March 3, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Someone mentioned any early polls showing a match-up between Hillary Clinton and Johm McCain. There have been several over the past several months, and it's interesting to note that Hillary beats every Republican except for McCain, who - and this is even surprising to a liberal like me - has only a 5 point edge over the New York Senator.

That said, I'm not wholely convinced that the Republican establishment - especially in the South - are going to accept McCain anymore than they did in the 2000 primaries. I only see them doing so if, and only if, they fall into the trap that Democratic party leaders have - and that's electability. If they see McCain as the only candidate who could beat Clinton (as current polls show), they may suck it up and approve him.

For me, my vote is with Gore. I'd be happy to dedicate my time and efforts to any draft Gore campaign, as he's proven he can not only muster the fundraising necessary, but can attract 50 million Americans to vote for him.

Posted by: corbett | March 3, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I am outraged, OUTRAGED! I held Hillary's hand when Bill was galavanting around with that harlot Monica. I was always kicked out of the Oval Office when she would come in. And now, Hillary is going to take away my thunder! My chance at redemtion! I'll show them, I'll show all of them. I'm going to start my own party and nominate myself for...not the President of the United States - nooo, I'm going to be emperor!! And everyone will have to worship me! I invented the Internet and I can now use against all of you!!!! Hillary will be my chambermaid!!!! I will wear a crown festooned with peacock feathers and I sport my pink suede chaps...

Posted by: Al Gore's Beard | March 3, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The hidden dynamic of '08 is that the real political spectrum is no longer left vs. right, in the way that we used to think of it. In a very brief time, Bush has dramatically transformed the Republican party into the party of huge government. It's like Bush never found a government power he didn't like. Like a frat boy partying on daddy's money, he seems oblivious to the high costs he's running up.

The only potential candidates I've seen that have a shred of a brain left (after the post-9/11 lobotomy our lawmakers seem to have volunteered for) are McCain and Feingold. And McCain's support of the U.A.E. purchase of our ports leads me to think he's a little goofy, too;

We now have a state religion (Fundamentalist Christianity), a state news service (Fox), a domestic spying agency (the NSA). The only thing differentiating our culture from Weimar Germany or the Soviet Union is our wealth and celebrity culture--and when the bill comes due from tax cuts and the debt of war, spying, and nation-building, that may be gone too.

Canada looks better all the time...

Posted by: IndependentWoman | March 3, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Feingold is definitely the Dem who most excites me right now. I admire his stance against the Patriot Act, as well as his efforts on campaign finance reform and against torture and indefinite detentions of terror suspects without any mechanism for judicial review.

Posted by: Beth | March 3, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Aside from Clinton...

While Richardson will probably run, he has thus far been reluctant candidate. If he is assembling a team, he is doing so covertly and under the radar. Pound for pound, probably the brighest and best rounded candidate in the field. Teamed with Warner or Vilsack, could be formidable but difficult to put him on thye list AT THIS TIME as national presence is almost non-existant.

Bayh is moving slowly but has put a fund raising team into the field. Both he and Kerry have shown strength with fund raising keeping their names in the field. I still believe he is a winner in a part of the country where Dems need a voice. I am leaning now towards a VP slot for him, also perhaps with Richardson or Warner.

Current Top Picks for Dem Ticket


Posted by: RMill | March 3, 2006 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I think Pericles (thanks for the Parthenon, btw) has it right: the primaries will constitute an early warning/winnowing process for all of these people. Frist? Is to laugh. Will Warner win out in the primaries over HRC? Maybe. I still have an ounce of respect for McCain in spite of his best efforts to eliminate it. Politics is the art of compromise but McCain's true colors would make him a good choice.

I'd hate to see the RNC trumpet McCain's veteran status (over non-veteran Democratic candidates) after trashing Kerry's Nam experiences but with Rove in control amoral behavior is a sure bet.

Born 8/29/36 McCain will be 72 in '08; will he still be healthy?

In general I like elections involving two good candidates where my choices are less clear. I voted for McCain in the '00 primaries. Not sure I'd do that again; still, he'd be a vast, enormous, spectacular, tremendous, golly-gosh improvement over Bush (and no I didn't vote for Bush).

The primaries are HRC's to lose.

I like Warner's chances in the general; I hope that it at least includes some discussion regarding the Bush Deficits and how they will be addressed rather than dissolving into the tired old stupidity of a debate about abortion/flag-burning/gay marriage/water fluorination/communist threat/witch-burning/anything religious.

We're going to have some big problems and we're going to need a real leader. A good one who surrounds himself with smart, relatively altruistic people (the latter being where Bush is at his most godawful).

It's still too early; I resisted the urge to type that in all caps. I can only hope I have a hard time choosing in 11/08.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 3, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Feingold is the most articulate progressive candidate running. He has a proven track record of fighting for the common man and woman.

Posted by: Mitch | March 3, 2006 10:37 AM | Report abuse

It is easy to see the national profile candidates, such as Senators, and to overlook governors. Chris rightly pointed out that the last time a serving Senator was elected was 1960. It is even longer since a Senator defeated a governor.

People have already pointed out that Vilsack, Richardson and Huckabee are missing. If he wins re-election, Ed Rendell could be a formidable candidate - real executive experience in a must win state and national connections through his chairmanship of the DNC.

His Republican counterpart is Haley Barbour, a southern governor who has chaired the RNC.

Quentin Langley
Editor of

Posted by: Quentin Langley | March 3, 2006 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm a high school senior in Northern Va, and I'm curious, has anyone asked the voters what they think?

Has anyone considered that elections are seemingly bought because the first place we check for a candidate’s viability is his or her bank account?

I may not understand, but it's a little scary to ask "So, what qualifies Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination (and, therefore, to be president)?" and hear,

"She has a lot of money."

Posted by: Shawn | March 3, 2006 10:31 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: Whatabout | March 3, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Clever argument, Jaxas. But it doesn't persuade. We're not talking about Bill vs. Dole or Bush (Sr. or Jr.), we're talking about Hillary v. McCain. Quite another ballgame.

Posted by: Archer | March 3, 2006 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Is there any chance of an Al Gore comeback?
I'm sick of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

Posted by: macawber | March 3, 2006 10:14 AM | Report abuse

HRC is way too polarizing. She's also not especially charismatic nor does she have the political skills Bill has. It would be a disaster for the Dems to nominate her. Her big pile of money at this point may not matter so much. Remember all the money Dean had in the summer of 2003? Didn't do him much good.

Posted by: Glenn | March 3, 2006 10:13 AM | Report abuse

If a bookmaker offered me "the field" as even money against all the people on this list, I'd take it. Where are Feingold, Richardson,
Biden, and Clark on the Democratic side and Brownback on the Republican?

As a New Hampshire Democrat, I predict Hillary will lose here, just as Bush did in 2000. We love to shoot down over-funded front-runners. All her tactical maneuvering compares badly to Feingold's clear stands on human rights and the Iraq war.

Posted by: Pericles | March 3, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Not to put too fine a point on it Marc, but you are talking about the physical world, the reality on the ground as it were when you point out the distinctions between port security and port operations.

In the political world such distinctions get lost, buried, smothered in the natural avalanche of spin that accompanies a political campaign.

As a matter of fact, McCain has been mouselike on the port issue because it is such a dangerous issue for any Presidential candidate who comes out in favor of it. I can see Hillary's political ads now painting McCain as a dupe, atool of the multinationals and a supporter of outsourcing our national security to a nation that has a poor track record on fighting terrorism.

Now that ad will not be honest and truthful. But remember: This is politics. And as they say: Politics ain't beanbag.

Conservatives may howl with outrage about it but look: George W. Bush and Karl Rove were masters at such deceitful advertising.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 3, 2006 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Democrats should do eveything in their power to dissuade Hillary from seeking - or, if necessary, to prevent her from geting - the nomination. It would virtually guarantee a Republican Admin. till at least 2012. Has anyone seen any Hillary v. McCain matchup polls yet? I would be very surprised if they show her beating him. Rightists, including, of course, Bush/Cheney, hate McCain's guts (literally!) but Party will back him simply becasue he's their only chance to hang on to the WH in the wake of the Bush/Cheney debacle.

Posted by: Archer | March 3, 2006 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris -
What are you hearing about Tom Vilsack? Great story and a good Governor.

Posted by: mike | March 3, 2006 9:59 AM | Report abuse

A good many republicans are publicly saying "Bring it on!" regarding a Hillary Clinton nod for the democrats. Remember that old, shopworn adage: Careful what you wish for...?

Look. The American people are notoriously addicted to celebrity. Hillary is a celebrity. I know. I know. Her husband's odious fling with Monica Lewinski and all that. But remember: Despite Bill Clinton's randiness in the Oval Office, notwithstanding his marauding libido in general, he left office with an approval rating 20 points higher than George W. Bush has at the moment.

And consider this: Despite all of the whistling-by-the-graveyard boasting of conservatives to "bring it on", they had pecisely the same attitude when she took on Rudy Giuliani and that other whatzisname and defeated them roundly. And her husband Bill is still widely admired by a substantial majority of the American people who just may be thinking once more of getting two for the price of one.

Add to that all of the dismissing and counting out of Bill Clinton in the early going in 1992. We have seen this movie before.

Posted by: Jaxas | March 3, 2006 9:55 AM | Report abuse

McCain's "support of the decision to hand over port security to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates"

It is importnat to clarify that it is port OPERATION and not security. Port security will remain the responsability of the U.S. government.

Posted by: Marc | March 3, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Fix, your analysis is outstanding, as always. Didn't Wes Clark just take another job at an investment bank? That would suggest to me that he's out. Tom Vilsack, on the other hand, is an outstanding candidate, despite being the least famous. True, the Iowa caucus would be a little weird like it was with Harkin in '88
(making it even tougher for an underdog to get name recognition), but he has made some outstanding decisions as governor and would make a great president.

Posted by: Lou | March 3, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I think Brent has a good point. Where is Wes Clark? Also I wouldn't count out Huckabee. He seems to be doing alot of behind the scenes stuff (like visiting SC more then anyone) that makes him the Dark horse of the GOP.
Also as we all in Mass know Romney is done. There is no way that he beats the likes of Huckabee or Allen in SC. Take that with the fact that McCain will wipe the floor with him in NH and he is dead in the water.
On Wes Clark, I have beleived for a while that Hillary is raising money for him to run with her in the VP slot. Clark is a friend and the hand-picked successer of Bill Clinton. If the rumors are true that Hillary is staying out of the big run then she could throw her support behind Wes Clark and he could tap into her massive fundraising machine. He also is kept out of the firing line until say January 2007 when he emerges as the "strong on Defense centrist candidate". Also Clark brings you a good chance of picking up Arkansas especially with Bill campaigning for him.
Maybe next time you do this add a dark horse section to it.

Posted by: Andy R | March 3, 2006 9:35 AM | Report abuse

For those who are horrified by the possibility of George Allen or Frist presidency (and I'm one of them), do whatever you can to build up support in the Dem primaries for anyone OTHER than HRC. Even though I kind of like her, she CANNOT win a red state. Period. End of story. I don't care how much money she has in the kitty. Why do you think Rove is touting her so conspicuously as 2008 Dem frontrunner? They CAN'T WAIT to run against Hillary.

McCain's going to be tough to beat for any Dem candidate, but if the Dems pick HRC in the primary, almost ANY GOP candidate can win. Those who feel otherwise just DO NOT understand the level of animosity and loathing otherwise moderate voters (let alone conservatives) have for her.

Posted by: vienna local | March 3, 2006 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Why is Bayh ranked above Vilsack? Do you think Vilsack has any realistic chance of winning?

Posted by: JDS | March 3, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

major bill like campaign finance reform

Posted by: college kid | March 3, 2006 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Russ Feingold won both the MyDD and DailyKos polls the last two months. Hilary has yet to sponsor a major bill like that. While the re-enactment of the Patriot Act was clearly not a victory for Feingold, being the first Democrat to propose a timetable for withdrawing in Iraq (Senate-wise).

Posted by: college kid | March 3, 2006 9:26 AM | Report abuse


Are you counting Condi Rice out of the GOP run?

Posted by: Tony S. | March 3, 2006 9:26 AM | Report abuse


and now for the real candidates:

Bill Richardson is running - the only Democrat who actually stands for something and he does not get an honorable mention?

Governor Bill Richardson could actually put Texas into play in the national election - now that would make for an interesting race.

ALthough no real discussion about a run, but as a longtime Republican hater I could actually vote for Susan Collins R-Maine - she seems to truly care about healing America.

As To Hillary - hating the republicans is not a readon to vote for Hillary so I guess I will not vote in that election - If Hillary is on the ticket Texas will go Republican anyway so no big deal if I do not vote.

John McCain - same old same old - yawn.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | March 3, 2006 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The only true reformer candidate, who can help bring the Republicans back home again - Charles Timothy Hagel. He is way down in the polls and is anathema to the Bushies, because he doesn't coddle them.

The more Bush sinks, the more a Hagel would benefit.

All the Bush/Iraq War apologists who run are in trouble, if things continue the way they are.

Posted by: Hagel2008 | March 3, 2006 9:19 AM | Report abuse

The prospect of George Allen or Bill Frist becoming president of these disunited States is horrific to contemplate. Frist, despite his physician skills, is a spoiled rich boy with no emotional balancew. Allen is just a redneck football type.

Posted by: candide | March 3, 2006 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Chris I love your blogs, but still no Wes Clark what's up with that!?!?!

Posted by: Brent Parrish | March 3, 2006 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Chris I love your blogs, but still no Wes Clark what's up with that!?!?!

Posted by: Brent Parrish | March 3, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

McCain = Bush apologist

Posted by: sharona | March 3, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

I hated Hillary during her husband's presidency but in the following years I have come to respect and admire her. I hope she runs and wins.

Posted by: candide | March 3, 2006 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I supported McCain in 2000 but in the following years I have had good reason to suspect him of megalomania, treachery, fanaticism, and just plain political baloney.

Posted by: candide | March 3, 2006 9:09 AM | Report abuse

It's people only think McCain is a moderate because be bucks the system, but when you look at his positions on issues he is a repug through and through. You can also bet he will be running to the right during the primary.

Posted by: Brent Parrish | March 3, 2006 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Message to ElSid, McCain is no Democrat, and while I respect your opinion of supporting the "so-called" moderate and ever-so wonderful Senator John McCain, I would like to warn you not to come crying to the Democrats in 2009 when you realize that John McCain is no better than VP Dick Cheney.

Posted by: wave43 | March 3, 2006 8:55 AM | Report abuse

This McCain Democrat is more than happy to have a showdown with Hillary...providing Mccain gets the GOP nod in the end. Otherwise...yikes.

Posted by: ElSid | March 3, 2006 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company