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: Listening to the 2008 Buzz

Of all the considerations that go into composing the Friday Line's ranking of potential 2008 presidential candidates, the biggest intangible is buzz.

What does buzz mean? Different things to different people. The Fix's definition: A sense of excitement and optimism about a candidate generated by the constant crosstalk of a smallish group (The Note's "Gang of 500"), who follow every jot and tittle of the 2008 jockeying.

Buzz is often self-perpetuating, producing scads of positive press and invites to appear on the influential Sunday talk shows. But as quickly as it comes, it can disappear -- often with little explanation.

So how much credence do we give buzz at this point? Some, but not enough to put either of the two "buzziest" (is that a word?) candidates on this week's Line. Neither former Vice President Al Gore nor Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) makes this month's Line for one simple reason: We have seen next-to-no evidence that either of them is taking substantive steps toward a run.

The Fix reserves the right to change its mind, especially in Gore's case. Assuming neither runs, look for the buzz to move on to another candidate -- former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who was the buzz leader earlier this year, jumps to mind.

The five Democrats and Republicans with the best chance to win the nomination in 2008 make this month's cut. The candidates are listed alphabetically; Republicans on top this month because Democrats were listed first last month. The comments section awaits your praise and/or pooh-poohing.

To the Line!

THE REPUBLICANS

George Allen

George Allen: Mum's the word for Virginia's junior senator when it comes to presidential politics. The media's attention of late has been fixed on the two Democrats hoping to challenge Allen this fall. If former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb wins the Democratic Senate nomination on June 13, Allen will have to spend more time at home running for reelection. And in that case, observers can expect trips like Allen's scheduled jaunt to Iowa in the middle of this month to grow more and more infrequent. Given the nature of the presidential race these days, it's an open question whether Allen can catch up with his '08 opponents who are openly campaigning for the job right now -- even if he wins reelection convincingly in November. One bright spot for Allen: He had $7.5 million in the bank as of May 24. (Read The Fix's interview with Allen.)

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani: Count us in the camp of folks who believe the former New York City mayor is leaning toward a presidential bid -- a major change from where we stood just a few months ago. Why? Because of events like the one next Wednesday in Chicago where Giuliani will collect cash for the campaign of David McSweeney, the Republican nominee against Rep. Melissa Bean (D) in the state's 8th House District. The McSweeney event is the latest in a series of fundraisers for congressional candidates that Giuliani has headlined over the past few months -- yeoman's work that only politicians with an eye on higher office are willing to sign up for. Polling shows that he would be the frontrunner if he decides to run, but his liberal positions on social issues make him an underdog (at best) for the party's nomination. (For more on Hizzoner, make sure to read The Fix's arguments for and against a Giuliani bid.)

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee: The Fix sat down with the Arkansas governor a few weeks ago and came away impressed. Huckabee has a background that should appeal to social conservatives looking for a candidate, but he also has a message of practical populism that could make him attractive to a wider Republican audience. The problem for Huckabee is that with little national organization or cash sitting in the bank, it's not clear whether he will be able to ensure that caucus and primary voters hear his message. Huckabee insists that money won't be a problem if and when he decides to run, but count us skeptical for now.

John McCain

John McCain: In the past month, Sen. McCain delivered two commencement addresses that illustrate how far he has come in the last six years. The first was at Liberty University -- a speech that drew massive national attention due to the frosty relationship between McCain and Liberty founder Jerry Falwell that dates back to the 2000 GOP primary campaign. McCain enjoyed a friendly reception from the assembled crowd and his speech drew kudos from the chattering class. Six days later, in a much less publicized address, McCain was booed while he was speaking at the New School in New York City, a traditional liberal bastion. While McCain strategists would never admit it publicly, the New School incident likely helped him in the eyes of conservative Republicans, at least as much as the warm welcome he received at Liberty U.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney: The Massachusetts governor continues to impress with his early hires in key caucus and primary states. The latest savvy move is the addition of Iowa activist Doug Gross to his team. Gross was the Republican nominee for governor in 2002 and co-chaired the reelection effort of President Bush in the state in 2004. One often overlooked factor in Romney's favor heading into 2008 is the shape of the nominating calendar. After a jump ball in the Iowa caucuses, Romney should be considered (along with McCain) the favorite in New Hampshire. South Carolina remains an open question, but Romney has done considerable spade work behind the scenes in the Palmetto State. Then the scene shifts to Michigan, where Romney was born and his father served as governor in the 1960s.

THE DEMOCRATS

Evan Bayh

Evan Bayh: We've long maintained that Indiana Sen. Bayh will surprise some people in '08. He and his campaign team continue to make smart -- and often overlooked -- moves that should pay dividends down the line. Take Bayh's op-ed this week in the Des Moines Register: It used the Indianapolis 500 as a peg to talk about the need to further develop alternative fuels like ethanol -- a major winner in Iowa. Bayh's May visit to the Hawkeye State was his fourth in the past year; he's also made four stops in New Hampshire. Bayh still has not convinced the chattering class that he has the personal charisma to win the nomination, but his background as a senator and governor, along with the work he has done to date in early states, ensures he will at least get a hard look. (Read The Fix's interview with Sen. Bayh.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton: As Sen. Clinton's all-but-assured reelection draws nearer, she is beginning to flex her muscles. Clinton gave a meaty address on energy policy last week and delivered what could well have been a presidential address during the New York Democratic convention on Wednesday. Although The Fix is convinced that Clinton has not absolutely made up her mind about a 2008 bid, the nagging voice in our head that tells us she may not run is getting quieter and quieter (and yes, The Fix occasionally hears voices...).

John Edwards

John Edwards: There are two Edwards in this race. One is the inside the Beltway John who has raised little money for his leadership political action committee, eschewed the importance of courting Democratic Party insiders and is seen as yesterday's news in the 2008 presidential race. The other Edwards has spent the past year working to win the support of organized labor, traveling the country to raise money for candidates (more than $6 million at last tally) and bolstering his foreign policy credentials with trips like the one on his schedule next week to Israel. Which one will emerge when the race begins in earnest late this year? We tend to think the latter. And as we have said before, Edwards is the most natural politician in either party who is widely assumed to be considering the 2008 race -- an invaluable advantage. (Read The Fix's interview with Sen. Edwards.)

John Kerry

John Kerry: The more we talk to Kerry insiders, the more convinced we are that the Democrats' 2004 nominee is itching to run again. His ongoing fight to rebut allegations made during the last campaign concerning his military service doesn't seem to be politically motivated, but his continued effort to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth does send a signal to the Democratic base that the Massachusetts senator isn't going to let any Republican attack go unanswered -- whether or not people are watching. Is it too little, too late for Kerry? Probably. But we are hesitant to write him off given the success he has had in resurrecting a political career that seemed all but over following his loss in 2004.

Mark Warner

Mark Warner: Warner's schedule is as chock full as any politician we have ever seen. Since helping to elect Gov. Tim Kaine (D) as his successor in Virginia last year, Warner has made 37 trips to 22 states and four foreign countries (Israel, Jordan, Switzerland and the U.K.). He has raised nearly $6 million for his Forward Together political action committee and doled out $350,000 to Democratic candidates. It makes The Fix exhausted just to contemplate all this activity. Warner's biggest test is proving he is up to running the country with just four years as Virginia's chief executive under his belt. No amount of travel will solve that problem.

Weigh in with your own thoughts in the comments area below. Last month's look at these same candidates is online here.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 2, 2006; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , The Line  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hillary Clinton: Winning Converts in N.Y.
Next: The Fix Podcast: Sen. Russ Feingold

Comments

The Republicans:

George Allen: I like him. He's down to earth. But he might be seen by many liberals and some moderates as too much of a Bush-clone. Him getting the nomination depends on two things... 1) how well he fares in the 06 election (if he gets a solid majority,he will have an easier road to the GOP nomination, but if he wins with a bare majority or even loses, he's a non-starter) and 2) how President Bush is viewed in 07 and 08 (and how much control, if any, the Republicans have of Congress after November). He's to the right of Bush on immigration, which seems to appeal to the Republican voters. He is your typical conservative, which coukd make him a formidable candidate in the primaries. Again, the political situation in Congress and the country as a whole plays a huge role in his chances. If Bush is like 10 points higher in the approval rating (which is an avg of 39% according to RCP),then I like Allen;s chances in the GE.

Rudy Guiliani: His past marital history and liberal positions on some social issues might be enough to take him out of serious contention in the GOP primaries, because those primaries are feuled by the social conservative base. I don't think he'll run, at least not for the Presidency. Perhaps the VP nod with Condi. He has great leadership skills and is geberally liked by many outside the Republican party, but like I said, the Republicans decide if he will run.

John McCain: Tough one here... McCain has a definite likeability factor going for him and cross-appeal with independents and some Democrats. He's not my #1 choice. But if he was the nominee, I'd vote for him. He has strong foreign policy credentials and military experience. He could be a great war President to succeed Bush. Of course, will terrorism and the war be the premier issues in 2008 as they were in 2004? It depends. I think they will be top-tier issues. Immigration will be the top isue I think and McCain will never win the GOP nomination if that's the key issue.

Mitt Romney: I like this guy. Yes, he's a mormon, which might upset some evangelicals, but the President isn't a priest, let's remember that. He's likeable, like Allen. But he's not as much of a Bush clone like Allen is. And he's a governor. George W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter all were governors. He's a good speaker and he's raised some money already in Iowa.

Out of those 4, I think the two conservatives-- Allen and Romney-- would be the contenders. Allen is Asenator and no senator has won the presidency since JFK in 1960. But one caviat, Allen is a former governor of VA. Hmm... So i think Romney has the better chance of winning the general election causes a conservative but not too conservative. I think it all depends on the midterms and the mood toward Bush by late 07, early 08. The more Bush is liked and if Republicans maintain control of Congress (including an Allen victory), the better Allen's chances are. But if ppl are looking for a Republican not like Bush in most ways, Romney wins.

The Democrats:

Evan Bayh: A moderate in a rural state could be a good candidate for the Dems. But he has been voting more liberal since 05, siding more with the Kerry/Kennedy wing of the party. But I don;t think he's liberal enough to get the nod for the Dem nomination. If he were to win the nod, as unlikely as it is, he could be the guy on the issues that could beat the Republicans. But I've heard he's not the greatest speaker and can come across a a bit boring. The Dems, if they're smart, will want a dynamic speaker in the mold of Bill Clinton, not a wooden speaker in the mold of John Kerry or Al Gore.

Hillary Clinton: She definitely wants to run, it's so obvious because she's trying to convince voters she's more of a centrist. In the general election if she got the nomination, she would have to run as someone she is NOT-- a cenrist moderate. Her views on the Iraq war hurt her in the primaries possibly, because they're dominated by the far left base that is generally anti-war. And her being a woman might not play well in her favor in war time. She could be the VP candidate. Remember Edwards got like 4th in one of the primaries in 04, but Kerry picked him to be the VP nominee. She probably couldn't win a=in the gerneral election.

John Edwards: Even as a Republican, I have some liking for this guy. I love good speakers and Edwards certainly is a good speaker. But he has essentially no foreign policy credentials, which could hurt him. He would definitely be a favorite to Big Labor, a key dem consitutency. But his Two Americas theme doesn't resonate with as many voters as he might think because of the huge suburban middle class. But he's likeable and very charming, but him losing in 2004 could be his achilees heel. I think some Dems feel he shouldve been the Presidential nominee instead of Kerry. I don't think he has a huge chance of winning the general election, but coukd very well win the Dem nomination.

John Kerry: No, no, no... The Dems would be stupid to pick a Massachussetts liberal who couldn't win in 2004. Yes, he's a darling of the anti-war left wing of the party. But again, the Far Left, anti-war candidate doesn't win geberal elections... McGovern, Kerry himself. And his inconsistency during war time can't play well with voters.

Mark Warner: Honestly, I don't know much about him. Apparently, he's a moderate. But if he and Allen were to win the party nominations, that could be an interesting race since both are former VA govs. He could be the dark-horse candidate. But he was only governor for 1 term. He might lack experience.

So... it looks like it could very well be Edwards or Warner winning the Dem nomination. But then again, the liberal base of the party might not go for them and might go for someone like Russ Fiengold or (drumroll) Al Gore. The left has a huge influence on primaries so, I see a Feingold-Hillary Clinton ticket for the Democrats and a Romney-Allen ticket for the Republicans with Romney winning 52-48%. If it's Edwards vs. Romney, I see a closer election, with Romney winning like 50-49-1 (Nader or someone).

Posted by: Kevin | June 24, 2006 1:45 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the comments about Richardson. His chances dramatically improve with the discussion of an early western state in the Democratic primary. Add to his popularity with both black and hispanic voters, and he becomes a real force in early southern states--especially if Florida moves up. He has far more upside than Bayh.

Posted by: Florida Frank | June 20, 2006 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Hey, long list and I hope someone sees this, but as of June 11, Edwards has 36% of the support in Iowa

Hillary has 26%
Kerry is at 12%
Vilsack is 10%

So Edwards is riding high, and I think all his visits to my state, speaking with us, and just being a real guy makes him a strong candidate.

Goodbye Hillary, don't bother to come here.

Posted by: Iowa Girl | June 11, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Bayh all the way! He was great as the former Governor of my state(Not like the current idiot we have), is good as a Senator, and would be good as President. That, and if he names Mark Warner or Bill Richardson as his runningmate, he cannot be beaten. Plus, he promise Joe Biden the Secretary of State spot, and John Edwards Secretary of Labor for their endorsements.

Posted by: RedStateDem | June 8, 2006 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Drew, I agree that the $20 million in Hillary's pocket will not give her the crown, she does not have a strong base of support even in New York to win the nomination. Only 40% of the New York voters polled support her for a run in 2008.

That puts her on par with McGovern, who failed to win home state of South Dakota in 1972, it also puts her on equally bad footing with Al Gore who failed to win his homestate of Tennessee or any other Southern state in 2000. That is pretty pathetic if you can't win your own state.

So unless the momentum changes in New York, old Hillary should play it safe and stay in the Senate.

Condi will be the glorified Republican on the ticket in 2008. She has 55% job approval and worldwide admiration. She would be the best choice for 2008.

Posted by: Tina | June 8, 2006 4:49 PM | Report abuse

2008 will turn on illegal Immigration and the Victory in Iraq and the coming war with Iran.

No Demoncrat can, or will ever be trusted on such issues.

DemoncRats will remain the Minority Party for valid reasons.

Posted by: Lee | June 7, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner vs. Mitt Romney would be the greatest race one could think of for 08. Both are smart and successful, both have done great in governing their states, either would be a breath of fresh air from this corruption we have seen with a Congress and Administration that are totally out of tune with the American people. Either of these two would make a fantastic president and bring honesty and intigrity back to the office. They have the ability to balance a budget, support the military and veterans, and to govern with intelligence. These gentlemen are a pair that would make any voter think before voting. Both are great and the choice would not be an easy one. All the others are really the same old thing we have seen just different names and more liberal politics that have always failed and will continue to fail.

Posted by: Dave | June 6, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Although The Fix is convinced that Clinton has not absolutely made up her mind about a 2008 bid, the nagging voice in our head that tells us she may not run is getting quieter and quieter ,,,,,,,,,that was written by Cillizza. If Hillary runs, the Democrats will have a long battle on their hands with Moveon.org and the antiwar liberals jumping on her back and pounding on her head. They are already attacking her on the Iraq war vote. So it is going to be a real mess inside the Democrats own party, what do they stand for? FDR and Truman understood how to protect our nation and to stand strong against foreign aggression. Have the Democrats become a party of pacifists and wimps? Even Adlai Stevenson appeared as a weak candidate against Eisenhower in 1952 and again in 1956.

Posted by: Slim Girl in Pearls | June 6, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I am an Austin attorney who often enjoys the direct-spoken Biden as well as the similarly direct-spoken Hagel. I expect and get more information of substance when I hear McCain then when I hear Frist or Ms. Clinton or Kerry. Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, Mitt Romney, and Bill Richardson seem worthy [but I need to hear more from the first three] and Guliani cannot be written off as a lightweight. The only true liberal who could convince me he is a leader for all Americans is Feingold. I would have thought no one could beat John Edwards one-on-one until he lost [same for McCain]. I gave Clark money in 2004 and then Madonna supported him. My instincts for national politics may suck, but my knowledge of American history and government does not. We cannot afford another reckless failed presidency for a very long time and leaders in both parties must push their very best candidates; ones who can credibly call upon Americans to rise above themselves and their partisanship. I worry that the process has failed in this respect. McCain v. Richardson or Hagel v. Biden would be so preferable to Clinton v. Allen, but I think the process is more likely to give us something akin to...Bush v. Kerry.

Posted by: mark | June 6, 2006 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Dear Ohio Guy:

I didn't say that Blackwell will win the Ohio governorship. I said that he has a chance to do so.

Strickland is average in that he represents a combination of the status quo as well as Democratic platitudes about good-paying jobs, access to healthcare, etc. without offering real solutions. Go to his website. You'll see that he offers no real policy ideas for dealing with Ohio's problems, which are due in part, but certainly not in whole, to cheap overseas competition in various areas of manufacturing. Strickland, Voinovich and Taft (and DeWine, actually) are virtually indistinguishable from one another: platitudes mixed with more government spending. (The political-party label in Ohio state-level politics rarely matters much.)

Ohio's growth in government spending and its tax burden are exhorbitant. I'm a mobile high-income-earner/entrepreneur who would love to live in Cleveland for cultural reasons. But there's no way I can justify paying 11% in state/local income tax, 6% to 8% in sales tax, huge property-tax bills and even a state-levied estate tax at death when other states (even nearby ones) have tax burdens that are half or two thirds as onerous. Ohio is absolutely repellant to high-income earners who want to build businesses. Blackwell understands that, while Strickland doesn't appear to.

Posted by: Mark | June 6, 2006 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The bigot have been the Democrats who badmouth any African-American who is not in their party. Condi used her ability to bring international leaders together which brought Libya out of the WMD world and into being able to participate with the rest of the world. Condi is also working with the Europeans to handle Iran. Now if she is successful, I wonder if you will accept the fact that Condi can get her work done without being nasty or a power hungry B**ch. Funny how a few women get when they have wealth and power in their hands, and a few of them are also called Democrats. Martha Stewart comes to mind.

Posted by: Helen Conway | June 5, 2006 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Helen,

Not sure which Condi Rice you're talking about but if its the SecState, what has she ever done except tout the GOP party line, lie about the reasons for war and is now starting up the same "justification" for invading Iran? She screwed up as NSA and was promoted to SecState. It just proves the Bush work ethic - Mess up and Move up! Besides do you really think the bigots who run the GOP would actually allow any BLACK or any WOMAN to become president?

Posted by: KAS | June 5, 2006 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Kathleen for speaking up for Condi being on the list. Here is a woman on the world stage dealing with foreign policy NOW, building relations with world leaders NOW to handle the Iran problem, and if she wants to serve our nation as president, I will quit my job and work on her campaign.

Iowa will be the place where she will need to build a base of support and right now, thousands of people in Iowa want her to run. Hear that Cillizza? There are people in IOWA who want Condi to run for president.

She has high name recogition, high job approval ratings, and worldwide respect. I watched her on FOX News Sunday, and CBS Face the Nation, and she is not going to back down from dealing with Iran and seeking to build the international community to come together on a united front to settle this.

IN the next year, we will see Condi handle more important issues and show the people of America that she is ready and well qualifed to compete for the White House. She would be one of the best presidents and would not rip apart our nation.

Posted by: Helen Conway/ Iowa | June 5, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Out of both the Republicans and Democrats on your list, Mitt Romney gets my vote. If he is not on the ticket, and Evan Bayh or John Edwards is on it, then they get it. No repeats, McCain, Kerry, Gore, et al. will get my vote. Warner doesn't impress nor does George Allen. I'd vote for Barack Obama for President as well. Sorry, no vote for Hilary. Giuliani needs to retire.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 5, 2006 3:47 AM | Report abuse

WashingtonPost blogsite, thedebate,

the issue: what needs to change in the governments policy in order to deal with the fact that 50% of the children now being born in the United States are born to minority parents...


I said, it's not a government issue, it's not a moral issue, it's not a racial issue,

it's a

it's a caste issue.

it is a caste issue...


the government, the elite don't care where they get their peasants from, if the new ones are cheaper, let the old ones die...

who cares?

citizens? they're just higher cost peasants...let 'em compete with the little brown ones...they're cheaper, and eat less...and they're used to corruption...they don't mind so much...

we are a plutocracy, an oligarchy...


not a democracy.


we have been mislead, and given our democracy away


like good children....

you can't get scrooge to work for you, you either have to take him out, or show him something to make him change.


I suggest, arresting and liquidating the properties of someone prominent.


cia/fbi/nsa/negroponte/cheyney/rumsfeld/agency/angry/destruction

(get a clue boyz)


having the United States Government attach the properties of the president or his family members and reducing them to poverty....so that they can learn how the other half live....

like these citizens:
jobs outsourced, future disposed of, shipped overseas when they're just trying to get some college money by joining the effing National Guard who everyone knows _never_ gets involved in wars...


take a few obviously corrupt congress people and make an example of them,


say, "this could happen to you,"


destruction so deep they can't recover from it.....no nest eggs, no properties exempt, seize and destroy....


reduce them to the plight of the common man....


let them go to emergency rooms for healthcare, if they can find a way to get their after thier cars have been taken and their medical abilities reduced by $30 a month when they only bring in a thousand to live on through SSI


let _them_ find out what it's like to go to a homeless shelter because their friggin jobs got outsourced, and they lost their home, their marriage and one of the kids killed themselves because they got caught up in the emotional firestorm of two parents in meltdown...


let them taste hell.


now.

.

be a real citizens, show them how to accept responsibility for their actions...


make them.

.


this isn't an ethnic, racial or moral issue...

Posted by: an issue came up on another | June 5, 2006 2:04 AM | Report abuse

"I grew up in Ohio, a state that needs drastic economic change to reverse the tide of defeatism and decay, especially in Northeastern Ohio. Strickland is just average, while Blackwell is charismatic and smart. The environment favors Strickland, but Blackwell might win the governorship" - Mark

Mark, I have lived in Ohio my entire life and I fail to make any sense at all out of your comments. "Defeatism"? Is that a word for Ohio's manufacturing base being shipped overseas? B/c, in case you didn't know, which it seems you don't, that is the main source of Ohio's economic woes.

Strickland is "average"? How? Why? You offer no specifics or evidence to support that he is "average". Strickland has represented a district in Congress for 14 years that actually has a slight republican lean to it - Bush actually won the district in '04. This says something about Strickland's ability to connect with moderate republicans and those voters who do not normally vote Democratic. This crossover ability in today's polarized politics is anything but "average".

Blackwell is charismatic and smart? How so? He is the farthest right politician in Ohio and beyond his fervent evangelical base he excites no one. His message is purely one of religious zealotry and gay-bashing, while Strickland offers real visions and solutions for Ohio's problems. He shows none of the crossover appeal with Democrats that Strickland shows with republicans. Heck, there are republican state legislators who have admitted that they won't even vote for him. Wow, sure sounds charismatic and smart to me. Oh, wait, I know what the argument is - he's going to pick up a big portion of the Afric-American vote. Please....for every black vote he picks up he's going to lose at least two white votes, not saying that is a good thing that's just how it is. Republican racism working against their own candidate. Ironic, huh?

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 4, 2006 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Looking at Warner as my pony more and more every day.

Posted by: j iowa | June 4, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Still no Richardson among democratic contenders? has he pronounced himself on the subject?

Posted by: Seb | June 4, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Will Hillary run? (Robert in West Hollywood at 06:12 above vs. Q at 02:19)

Simple answer: if she doesn't want to be President, why did she become NY Senator? She had no roots in NY like most senatorial candidates (usually representatives, big-city mayors, state attorney generals and such), and if she merely wanted to put her undoubted talents to work for the general benefit (including her own), the logical place was the headship of some big, respected national nonprofit. Obviously, she ran for the same reason that Bobby Kennedy ran for the same office and that Dick Nixon, after his defeat in 1960, tried to get back into politics via the California governorship; she wanted a steppingstone to the presidency.

Q's "timing" argument seems unassailable. Now if at all--to borrow an expression from H.P. Lovecraft--the stars are right.

Posted by: Kakuzan | June 4, 2006 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney was on TV yesterday answering questions about the healthcare plan passed recently in Massachusetts. He's like Clinton in terms of policy knowledge, and he's better at keeping his answers short and effective. The more people see and hear Romney, the better he will seem.

Posted by: Mark | June 4, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

My early feeling is with Romney. He is smart, articulate, and will bring about some much needed discipline in spending and fiscal issues - as he did with the olympics and with Massachusetts.

Also I love that he does not take a salary as Governer, (I don't think that he took a salary as olympic chairman either). He seems to be in it to serve the public, not for ambitious reasons. I also like that we would be discussing a presidents beliefs and values and not his various scandals, DUI's, and affairs.

Posted by: andy | June 4, 2006 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Wes Clark belongs on the list instead of John Kerry. As an active Democrat I can tell you that there is no way Democrats will nominate Kerry in '08. On the other hand Clark's PAC is working hard and no one personifies leadership more than Wes Clark.

Posted by: Bob, Arizona | June 4, 2006 8:07 AM | Report abuse

PW and Jon Shafer:: I think we are witnessing the start of the implosion of the gop. What is the topic of the day for them? gay marriage. What we are seeing is the holy rollers trying to exert there mind set. Main stream gop'ers want fiscal responsibility, less gov., etc. Come election time one side or the other stays home. McCain can play one side or the other. He can't play both effectively, and that is where the party splits. As of right now the gop really does not have a consensus nominee...Oh wait, i forgot this is the "The Fix" it's George Allen.......

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | June 4, 2006 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Condi is who is being groomed, to stand up to people screaming at her as she fronts for an organization that is all about

"the rape of America and Libery,"


either he r or Jeb, Neil is out of the Question as he i s already convicted of the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal


which cost the United States I think 80 Billion and some old people's pension funds in California...

aspertations of bulumic dysentery predictable poinkings of growth abo ut aggrvated snot

Posted by: you're crazee if you think mccain has a chance.. | June 4, 2006 12:02 AM | Report abuse

I posted this intriguing study of why Al Gore is the compelling choice for president by the Democrats in 2008 on another thread, but it is worth repeating:

"A new behavior prediction tool is forecasting a landslide victory for former Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the 2008 presidential election. However, should Hillary Clinton gain the Democratic nomination, any potential Republican challenger will win the presidency...

With a predictive accuracy of 93%, our results showed that Al Gore would easily defeat any Republican challenger in 2008. However, he is the only Democrat on the scene today who has the ability to defeat the likely Republican challengers, who we believe will be either John McCain or Jeb Bush."

Results were not rosy for Hillary Clinton. "Hillary Clinton would suffer a disastrous defeat at the hands of any Republican who receives the nomination," states Dr. Herndon.

Should Al Gore decide not to seek the 2008 nomination, the Democrats "have their work cut out for them," according to Dr. Herndon."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb391395.htm

Also, a final note on those who think that Kerry, despite running a lackluster campaign, was an inferior choice to Dean in 2004, seems to me to be delusional. Do folks really think we would be in reach of taking over the House of Representatives in 2006 or the Senate in 2008 if Dean had run and the Republicans had received a landslide in 2004? Besides hearing this on this thread, Eric Alterman spouted this nonsense at Conference for Future Journalists at the Center for American Progress on Friday. Do we Democrats need to be as delusional in facing reality as Bush and Cheney have been?

2004 was winnable by Kerry if he were more aggressive about swiftboating and used Edwards better. It was always a tough fight to unseat a sitting president during war and Kerry-Edwards came within a whisker of winning it. Dean despite the good job he has done at the DNC would have been a disaster in the general election. I just hope that we can balance our idealism with pragmatism that takes into account the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. It's better to weigh the pros and cons of a candidate before they become our nominee, than after.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | June 3, 2006 11:30 PM | Report abuse

The question of whether Hillary runs or not boils down to this: does she want to be president? I am 100% sure that answer is yes. And if it's yes, the time to run is now. 2004 was too early and would have looked too ambitious, but 2008 is right because she will just have been re-elected and waited until two terms after her husband (like W did with his father). If she doesn't run, there's a good chance the Democrats win and she's shut out until at least 2016. If that president is re-elected, she has to wait until at least 2020 since the VP would run in 2016. Running for president is about timing. If you don't run when the window is open, it may never be open again. Mario Cuomo in 1992: he could have probably won the nomination and possibly the election against Bush, but he passed it up and lost the governorship of NY in 1994. That was the end for him. Also, even in the best case scenario for Hillary (involving a Democratic loss in 2008) is Hillary can run in 2012 if she passes this race up. She will have to give up her seat to run in 2012. And also, will Democrats really feel like running her after having lost 3 straight elections? No, they'd go with somebody like Mark Warner, who'd probably have returned as Virginia governor. So for Hillary, if she wants to be president, the time is 2008. She's running. Count on it.

Posted by: Q | June 3, 2006 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Just some random thoughts after reading, or at least skimming through, many of the responses here.

Just to set the tone, I'm a former Reagan Republican who worked for a moderate GOP congressman and very popular Indiana governor. I'm a fierce independent who got deeply involved with the Perot phenomenon in '92. Our whole two party system stinks, and needs refreshing. That said, let me further say Bush is a lunatic who is out of control and impeachment would serve this nation well.

The mid-term elections should serve the Democrats well. I would venture to say extremely well, regain control of at least one house of Congress, if not both. And both should be winnable.

As for presidential stakes...

Clearly, it is the Democrats hugest chance to win big...but who become the nominees is critical.

Forget Kerry, he is another Skull & Bones. Don't rule out Clinton, even with her baggage. Think of her possibly as VP, or possibly in a cabinet role. She is an intellect with great potential. But she seems to go wherever the political wind blows...and I don't like that.

Similarly, being from Indiana, Bayh does the same thing. He was a pretty good governor, but I fear he is a bit shallow. We need a deep thinker for president, and I don't see Bayh as the nominee...but perhaps as VP. Also, at an Indianapolis meeting of mostly Black clergy, I was told Bayh is not seen that favorably, and that unlike is father, a former senator, the Bayh is more for promoting himself...a certain self-centeredness.

I'd like to know more about John Edwards. Also Virginia's Warner. We need to know more of their thinking.

Personally, I like Gen. Clark, clearly an intellectual who wrote a fascinatingly complex analysis of why Bush was going into Iraq well before it happened...oil being the prime cause and fear of switching from a dollar-based to Euro-based system. However, I do have reservations about the "military mind-set", although I grew up in the Eisenhower years.

I'd also like to hear more of Feingold.

And one who I see is barely mentioned is Sen. Joe Biden. He does have an organization. He is extremely knowledgeable on foreign policy, and with the mess in Iraq and our foreign policy in shambles, we need a clear and new redirection of foreign policy focusing on diplomacy, not unilateral invasions of countries, no matter how bad their regimes are. Is our presence in Iraq any better than what we replaced?? I don't think so.

A ticket that sounds feasible to me: Biden and Obama. Juggle around a few other names, as well. Or Obama as the nominee if he can show an intellectual and independent command of issues. I still won't rule out Feingold in the picture somewhere.

Unless the Democrats blow it entirely, the Republican better figure on losing the control of the White House. But what they NEED to do, in the process, is steer their party toward the center. Whoever is the nominee needs to veer inward from the far right neo-con base.

I had once admired John McCain, but he is now courting the SAME power base that is Bush's. That effectively cancels out his "maverick" image.

The GOP leadership in Congress cannot produce a viable candidate, what with rubber stamping most of Bush's insanities. It will have to be someone outside of Congress, perhaps someone like Romney. Many talk of a Condi Rice/Hillary Clinton matchup...but Rice probably cannot get the nomination...and anyone from the Bush administration is sure to help the Dems.

well, enough of my random thoughts....

Posted by: Jon Shafer | June 3, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Rick - don't throw a hissy fit dude. No one here owes you anything.

To answer your question, no it isn't likely that O'Malley will be a first-tier VP option in '08, for the main reason that by coming from Maryland, he doesn't really add anything, unless you're an oldster like Biden and you need to balance your ticket with youth. Plus, the rumors of his womanizing (regardless of whether they're true or false) and his liberal reputation just make it difficult for any Democratic Presidential nominee to seriously consider asking him to join on as VP.

That said, there will be a serious movement behind him for Pres in '12 or '16.

Posted by: kid_rocka | June 3, 2006 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Rick - No!

Posted by: Nor'Easter | June 3, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

DOES ANYONE ON THIS THREAD ANSWER OTHER PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS? If Martin O'malley wins the Maryland Gubernatorial race in 06 will he be a viable choice for VP in 08?

Posted by: Rick | June 3, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone really think that McCain speaking at Liberty U. will even be rememebered 12 months from now? He is doing the obligatory pandering now, and getting it behind him. It does not refect the true candidate. The GOP does not give it's nomination to newbees. It goes to the one who has paid there dues the longest. That means McCain. SC and the Southern primarys will seal it for him IMO.

Warner, Bayh or Biden will be the Dem's nomiminee. The Dems will be hungry for a winner, that means no Kerry or Hillary. Why isn't Biden on the list?

Posted by: vicupstate | June 3, 2006 10:02 AM | Report abuse

My bet would be that the eventual nominees for each party would be none of the above-discussed people. Who will it be? I don't have a clue. But if I'm reading the current mood in the majority of the public correctly, none of the discussed people would satisfy their desire to see some forthright honesty, appropriate problem prioritizing and pragmatic competence in the next President. From everything I've seen of the discussed list, none of them have a balance of those character traits to offer the public.

Briefly, here's my take on the two presumed front-runners.

Sen. John McCain came closest to at least appearing to have the mix of qualities the public is looking for, that is until he pulled his little pandering stunt at Liberty University. He lost the middle of the political spectrum when he did that. They're not interested in Bush Light and McCain now appears too much like Bush. Plus, it's been filtering out that he'd be no better at running the government than Bush is as President. Like Bush, McCain doesn't like to sweat the details and while I think he would place more priority on competence than Bush has, in truth McCain suffers from the same lack of interest in how policy is implemented as he does musing about what the policy should be.

As for Sen. Hillary Clinton, I don't think she will run. I know that sounds like blasphemy to some but here's why. Hillary can be far more influential and truly shape future democratic policy as the Senator from New York State working under a Democratic President than she would be able to accomplish as President herself. Why? Hillary's too polarizing and she knows it. Within certain segments of the population, she's viewed as the Anti-Christ and while I'm sure she views them as misguided she's also smart enough to know that the Representatives who will be elected to represent those districts of like minded Hillary haters would be a significant roadblock to her success at implementing much needed policy reforms as President. I think she has a genuine concern is for the future direction of this country and to that end, her desire to see those changed implemented far outweighs any seduction pulling her to move down Pennsylvania Ave. in order to become the first Woman President of America. I think her interest is seeing an inclusive vision of a future America stands a far better chance of coming into being if she remains in the Senate.

Of course nothing is certain except that there will be a Democrat and a Republican nominated to run for President. That's the only prediction one can count on with a 100% chance of being correct, everything else is up in the air...

Posted by: Robert In West Hollywood | June 3, 2006 6:12 AM | Report abuse

I live in Indiana. Bayh has been voting with the left recently in the Senate. That might help him in the Democratic primary, but I just don't see him as dynamic enough to capture the hearts of the primary voters. Plus, he and Warner will be going for lots of the same voters (center-left males, 'cause Ms. Clinton will get most of the Dem females.) In Warner vs. Bayh, I think Warner wins because he appears to have more of a common touch. Plus, there's John Edwards. All these youngish Dem male candidates will siphon from one another, giving Hillary the nod.

Posted by: Mark | June 3, 2006 5:40 AM | Report abuse

Sorry I do want to see change because of that I am voting Strickland. I think because I want to see change I will vote for either Bayh, Edwards or Warner in the primaries. On the Republican side I am going with Romney who could bring change if elected. I like Romney, but I don't like him as much as Edwards, Warner or Bayh, but I will always be open to see how thing turnout and watch the debates and so on.

Posted by: Josh | June 3, 2006 2:06 AM | Report abuse

As a native of Ohio, I hear a lot of Democrats talk about Evan Bayh and John Edwards, but of course Bayh is near Ohio and Edwards is Edwards. Bayh has a very good record as Senator but an even better one as Governor. The Republicans are going to have hard time finding anything tangible to run against him. To name just a few he is a Governor that has foreign policy experience in the Senate, as Gov he balanced the budget, cut taxes, while investing and reforming health care and education. Not to mention he has won five state wide races in a very very red state. If Bayh can get Republicans in Indiana to vote for him...he can moderate to even conservative Republicans in Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico and Florida to vote for him. I agree with others that Iowa is where Bayh makes his stand. Vilsack, I have seen him and I am not impressed by him. On the Republican side I think Allen would be the best candidate for them because he can really rally the Republican base. I think McCain can't with him bucking from the party so many times it has left a very bad taste in many conservatives mouths and they might not turn out to vote for him, but he can pull independents. In this day in age, base turnout is key. For VP's, if Bayh wins he will want someone loved by liberals respected by moderate and conservatives like Wes Clark if he wants the base to turnout, but I could see him picking Warner. If Edwards or any other candidate wins I can see them picking Bayh of his moderate record and the fact his state is so close to Ohio. For Republicans, if Allen gets the nod, McCain has the Vice Presidency. If McCain wins he will want to pick an ultra-conservative to turnout the base like Sam Brownback. Ken Blackwell here in my homestate, I think will lose. He is losing by six to ten points in polls and Strickland being moderate and being an expastor will appeal to moderates, liberals and even conservatives. He will win every area that Kerry won and will pull his district by far and large, which will put him in the blue column. Plus, with Taft's bad numbers, GOP woes, Bush woes, and the states bad situation it is rype for a change of party. I am independent and I don't want to see change, and I will vote for Strickland. So is many Republicans in my very conservative area of the state whom want change as well and want Strickland. So if conservative Republicans in my county that went to Bush by over 70% than I say Strickland has is pretty well off.

Posted by: Josh | June 3, 2006 1:53 AM | Report abuse

Vilsack will definitely be on The Line in the next few months. Like Warner, he is a Democrat interested in practical ideas that work, but unlike Warner, he has served more than one term, has a life story that appeals to common Americans, and has already made decent headway with the netroots. Unfortunately, Warner comes off like a salesman, albeit an effective one.

Posted by: Vilsack2008 | June 2, 2006 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Vilsack will definitely be on The Line in the next few months. Like Warner, he is a Democrat interested in practical ideas that work, but unlike Warner, he has served more than one term, has a life story that appeals to common Americans, and has already made decent headway with the netroots. Unfortunately, Warner comes off like a salesman, albeit an effective one.

Posted by: Vilsack2008 | June 2, 2006 10:51 PM | Report abuse

So does anyone think Martin O'malley is a viable VP candidate in 08 if he wins the Maryland Gubernatorial race this year?

Posted by: Rick | June 2, 2006 9:45 PM | Report abuse

I grew up in Ohio, a state that needs drastic economic change to reverse the tide of defeatism and decay, especially in Northeastern Ohio. Strickland is just average, while Blackwell is charismatic and smart. The environment favors Strickland, but Blackwell might win the governorship.
As for 2008, I get the impression many folks haven't actually seen or heard most of the candidates on TV. When the nominating season begins, Governor Romney will outclass every other Republican running because of his extensive knowledge of domestic issues. He's like President Clinton in this respect. And he's the complete package politically. And he isn't damaged by years of votes in the Senate. His Dem equivalent is Warner, except that Warner isn't as dynamic or as varied in his experiences. For Romney's VP candidate if he gets the GOP nomination, watch for Fred Thompson. I agree that Warner/Bayh would be a strong ticket for the Dems.

Posted by: Mark | June 2, 2006 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm waiting for SOME candidate, I don't much care from which party, to come out and propose an end H1B and L series visa's, tax the snot out of companies that outsource, and will end illegal immigration and ship the parasites here back home. Jobs are the #1 issue and, I think by the time the primaries roll around, they are going ot be the only issue that really matters to voters. That candidate will win the primaries and will win the general election. Everything else posted here is pure and simply nonsense or side of peripheral interest.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 2, 2006 7:19 PM | Report abuse

As a former Washingtonian, I'm kind of grinning at the Beltway-centrism in Chris' list. And centrism in general. Out here in the southern Plains, we're possibly more attuned to the success of Dean's efforts with the regional parties. 2006 -- and then possibly 2008 -- may turn out to be the moment at which the Democratic Party begins to be altered by rural/populist energy. The grass roots have quietly grown into huge stretches of healthy political fuel. On the other side of the fence, McCain is not looking so good... The Republicans may find themselves even more divided, come election time, than they appear to be at this point.

Posted by: PW | June 2, 2006 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Clarification for Thin Man - This is indeed a political blog. The title is "The Fix by (C.C.) washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog"

What you cited were the condensed rules for use; which are exactly the same on each of the Post's blog sites.

That doesn't mean the blog doesn't get hi-jacked and go off-track. But, the primary purpose IS politics.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | June 2, 2006 6:45 PM | Report abuse

you want to have the world be a better place?

take care of your own place, bring back the middle class and quit pandering to the affluent and corporations....


remember the story "A Christmas Story," it was about a time about 150 years ago, that we're headed towards at light speed....


and scrooge is your congress.


they have paid medical, retirement in huge amounts, approximately their salary and they don't pay into social security, but they dip from it....


the other thing is these pendejoes during a time of moving everything offshore and outsourcing

made it almost impossible to declare bankruptcy...even though it was the corporations that were moving overseas...

they didn't act to protect the consumer, they acted to protect the corporations.

they also passed a law saying it was okay not to pay for overtime, at a time when job cuts, downsizing have made it so that a great many white collar workers do the work of 2 or 3 people.


do you know why sound bites work so well?


MOST PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TIME TO PAY ATTENTION


they trust and hope that the media is like it was during the 60's and 70's and is reporting something close to the truth...


that would be nice, do you all think you can handle that small thing?


do you think you can get us back 37.5 hour work weeks with benefits?

do you think you can bring the factories home?

do you think you can help arrest the presidente' and have us quit killing other people for oil?

like how about instituting reforms in legislation that require us to seek oil alternatives as part of the banking of excess revenues of oil companies?

or increasing oil prices to make it painful enough that people begin ride sharing and moving into the city, how about making the city safe?


how about making the already marginalized into safe citizens by redeeming them with intervention?


how about fighting for your country by being honest instead of grabbing your ankles any time someone ask you to by saying it's

the "right thing" to do, why don't you look under their skirts and see if they aren't cross dressing on you?

patriot act, how bout great satanist action?

plundering of the Bill of Rights,


good luck and good night.

Posted by: point of fact. | June 2, 2006 6:41 PM | Report abuse

With the exception of two or three people on this issue, I doubt if any have taken a History class beyond the third grade. Al Gore will be sworn in as President on Jan. 20th, 2009. Period.

Posted by: weseto | June 2, 2006 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Need to enforce the law,


and require our congress people to act repsonsibly,


and abide by the laws that exist, zero tolerance for scofflaws...do the Guilliani thing, arrest for all crimes pertaining to congress peoples...


it cuts down on the big ones, like a war on false pretenses


we could _require_

our president and his _tribe_ to


quit giving our rights, our land, our children to his friends to


use as they see fit.


I don't think, that the few reich people that are controlling our government actually

have the right to say how the other 99.8%

of the rest of us live our lives...


I don't want to go to "war" to make sure Cheyney and his friends can bet on the oil_futures market and win..


I don't want to lose an entire class of people

blue-collar middle class

construction, factory workers, trade, drivers, agricultural, painting, electrical, plumbing, truck driving, etc.


because their jobs are _outsourced_

because their jobs are given to people that would make $4 dollars a day _max_ in Mehico, want to come here and take theirs away...


any more than I want to see my job as a computer tech go to India, because they'll do the same thing that I get paid more than 30 dollars an hour for for 37 cents and hour....


I don't believe in child labor or slavery either, both are practiced in India....slavery not so much...but...


I'm all for other countries getting ahead, not overnite, and not at the expense of _my_ class

the middle class

I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice George Bush's families share, and that includes his uncle Jeb, his brother Neil and his father's as they've probably stolen that money from me or someone _I_ know, or _you_ know

after all, this is what they do for a living

they inherited it, and their families taught them how to use the peasants since the Revolutionary War, when they voted to not let slaves learn how to read or write...

Posted by: again...WE, AMERICAN CITIZENS... | June 2, 2006 6:16 PM | Report abuse

that the republican party doesn't want Hillary to run?


I mean the people that claim to be dems that don't want her to run, don't sound like dems...whatever they sound like...


small squirrel-like creatures perhaps...like in that new animated childrens movie with raccons and turtles in it...


anyone has a chance. I'm blowing the doors off of this reality, this week...

cheers tittless...
.

Posted by: wouldn't you think from the tone, | June 2, 2006 6:13 PM | Report abuse

WE have a group of people that work for us that

aren't working for us, they are on the public dole passing laws for themselves..


WE need a group of people passing laws that affect them too, that they are willing to abide by.....

enforcing the law against illegal hiring of illegal aliens should be easy....

those that have to compete against them, can pretty easily point out the violations,

perhaps we should have a bounty, for


_turning in_


those that hire illegals.


It's a lot easier to lock up a few hundred, violaters for a few months with a felony charge that radically alters their ability to bid on jobs or to vote or to not register with local law enforcement...


you wouldn't have to do it for very long...


keep the bounty in place for 5 years.


try it.

quit talking about the rightness or wrongness of it...


it's illegal.


speaking of illegals, where's the NM lobbyist for Mehico? he's getting paid.

.

some one that is smarter than you.

.

Posted by: ARREST THE HIRING AGENTS....including congress people... | June 2, 2006 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Julie Smith: What is your problem with "tittle"? "Every jot and tittle" is a Biblical phrase (cf. Matthew 5:18) meaning approximately "every letter and puncuation mark." (Admittedly, when discussing buzz, it might be more evocative to say "every wink and nudge").

Thank you, Ann Marie Curling, for writing about what your candidate could do for the country instead of merely about whether he/she can be nominated/elected. Don't see much of that.

Why are so many messages above appearing in duplicate or triplicate? Are people getting irritated at their internet connections for not responding and punching buttons again and again?

Posted by: Kakuzan | June 2, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

since the early nineties,

jobs have been outsourced....


and factories have been moving overseas...

People used to drive down to North Carolina from the NYC, Boston, Philly, DC and other areas to buy furniture direct from the factories....cars would be backed up on the shoulder of highway 40 several miles back....


not no more, those factories done moved to Indonesia, the Phillipines, etcetera...wood still cut in the American forest....but people in other countries using the milling tools and shipping the pieces to be assembled in NYC by temp workers....

working for no benefits and no predictable future....


Charlotte NC, is knee deep in _illegals_ fighting with the laid off textile, furniture and other southern factory jobs....


I've seen _illegals_ building an apartment complex on 123 just North of Tysons Corner VA....you know three miles from CIA headquarters....near where the old MITRE complex was on the West side of the highway....

heavy equipment operators, framing carpenters, roofers, electricians, plumbers and so on.....think they were union? they came to work in a bus and were let off in a fenced in perimeter....


how many thousands of dollars do you think they took home to Ecuador?

I had my Reston VA homes interior painted by _illegals_, my broker hired them as I was in Wyoming fly fishing...


the point is if you don't work, blue collar, trade, you won't know that...

most jobs that used to be factory jobs have been shipped overseas...


blue collar used to make up 56% of the middle income people....


how much income do you think is missing from the economy?


Capitol ONE the credit card company that has ads all over television used to have headquarters in Fredericksburg, VA about 40 minutes south of DC and employed 3,000 customer service operators....now that is done in Bangalore India...

high tech is being shipped overseas...and managers from overseas are being asked to work in the US for 2/3 the salary of US workers....


_illegal_ immigrants make it

impossible for your marginalized to compete with them.


they also bid contracts for 2/3 of what citizens would charge, their boss pays them 2 times what they would make in Mexico and pockets the rest and still makes a profit....


your citizens lose jobs.


it's not about competitiveness, it's about making the United States a 3rd world country by adhering to hiring practices that destory your citizens ability to fend for themselves....


you want to find out what it's like?

have your job outsourced or maybe you've not been downsized and had your company sold to an international one with employees from another country taking your jobs, but still having the gutted company treated like an American company, favorably, when it sells it's product...


it's a mulitfaceted issue...

you should read what is stored in the archives at:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate


there was a three week discussion, with many salient points being made by William Hurt and the Senator from NM as well as myself, an excellent thinker...

ciao

.

Posted by: dear friendly American... | June 2, 2006 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of all the people saying Hillary Clinton cannot be elected and/or that the Democratic party shouldn't nominate her. Sure, sure has unfavorables in the forties - which Democratic candidate hasn't by the time November rolls around? I am doubtful that the additional exposure that Senator Clinton will get in the general election will raise those numbers any higher - if you are gonna hate her, you already do. And though I have never seen her in person, from what I understand, she's a damn good campaigner, and if the Democratic party can garner 48% with a lackluster campaign then I'm sure she can break 50%.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the world is in deep trouble right now. Mark Warner probably is a sure bet to win the general election if he is nominated and John Edwards, Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh would probably have good chances as well - so what? Getting a Democrat into the White House is only the first step to repairing this world, and while I have no problem with the guys I mentioned above, Hillary Clinton's is a towering intellect and her closest advisor is the man who ran the country for eight years. She is the candidate I can best envision repairing our ties with Europe, developing effective policies to deal with conflict in Asia and Africa, and shaping the nation's domestic policy.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't think the Democratic party is dying. It is dormant, yes, but it's numbers aren't all bad. 45 might not seem like many Senators, but the Republicans had fewer than that during much of the period from 1932-1980. The same goes for the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the Republicans only elected two Presidents - centrists both - during that time period. Did the GOP dwindle out of existence? No. So I'm not looking for a candidate to resurrect the Democratic party; the only thing that will do that is the party itself. I'd rather see someone who has the best chance of confronting the nation's challenges, and to me that person is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Jeff | June 2, 2006 5:20 PM | Report abuse

That you overlooked Feingold puts your entire "buzz" into question. Anyone in tune with Democratic/liberal/progressive groups and blogs knows that Feingold running in 2008 is discussed daily. And to dismiss Gore out of hand, seems quite odd considering the swelling of a grassroots effort to "draft" him. The dream team of Al Gore-Russ Feingold would have my support, and vote, without question.

Posted by: P Dempsey | June 2, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

This list is depressing. Not a one could I get excited about. There are a few who I could get angry about tho. It's a shame that in what will be a leadership vacuum neither party can come up with something better. Guiliani, as soon as the rest of the country learns more about him, will never be a starter. Hillary-pandering to the military.McCain-pandering to the fundamentalists.Edwards-pandering to the unions. And Blackwell for VP- don't get me started. The only way he'll win the gov's. race in Ohio is because he made it illegal to contest election results. I don't know who else is out there, but if this is the best we can come up with, then the race is wide open.

Posted by: Dorothy | June 2, 2006 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Where did you get this list, at the Thrift Store? No Feingold, Gore or Dodd??? No Condi? Get real.

Posted by: Kathleen | June 2, 2006 4:39 PM | Report abuse

As for who the nominees will be, I think McCain is set up for a fall as I indicated in my post above.

Hillary Clinton could also be vulnerable.

They're both running as something they're NOT. McCain is NOT a Right-winger and Hillary is NOT a NeoCon. Unless frontloading of the primary schedule saves them, I think one OR BOTH will fail to be nominated.

On the Democratic side the main challengers will be Sen. Russ Feingold who has come out on the Left of the party spectrum with Censuring the President and endorsing gay marriage, and John Edwards, who people remember and admire from 2004.

Truth is, if Howard Dean hadn't screamed his concession speech in Iowa he could have made New Hampshire a contest and Kerry would NOT have romped so quickly to victory in '04. Even Edwards would have been more equiped to rebound from his disastrous 4th place in New Hampshire.

I think Feingold is a bit more demure and therefore you're more likely to see a genuine contest in '08. All this predicated, of course, on Al Gore NOT running as he repeatedly says WON'T. If he surprises us, Hillary or no, he'll be the nominee. Recouping for the perceived 2000 theft of the White House would be too delicious for Democrats.

Evan Bayh is a titan, in Indiana. But outside of there he's just a young Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

Governors are always strong Presidential contenders and it's remarkable so few make up the front-line of at this point.

The Democrats do have a history of nominating 1st-time candidates so a Mark Warner (D-VA) or Bill Richardson (D-NM) isn't entirely out of the question. If Edwards falters in Iowa, Warner could claim the southern mantle from him.

If California ends up voting right after New Hampshire, Richardson could become a serious contender, and given the current Immigration debate, a nearly hands-off candidate at that. Think Jesse Jackson, but nationally electable. But only with California at week 3. Otherwise the fire will catch elsewhere.

Sen. Kerry (D-MA) doesn't have the redo value that Gore has. Revenge for Florida '00 is more poignant than the wanna-be revenge for Ohio in '04. And Hillary is newer an idea than he is.

On the GOP side, as I've already indicated McCain's people have to have some foresight regarding the primary process or he'll be its 1st victim.

Allen, Romney, or Frist. One of them is going to win Iowa. Assuming House Republicans retain their majority this fall the immigration issue with still be important in the GOP primaries and either Tom Tancredo (R-CO) or, in his absence, New Gingrich (R-GA) is going to win New Hampshire with it.

Unless he's coming from behind, outside of, and beyond Iowa and New Hampshire, Sen. McCain is going to be goose-liver for the emerging contest between the winners of these 1st two.

At that point I find it unlikely that Sen. McCain would beat George Allen or Mit Romney in South Carolina, or even Tom Tancredo in immigration-sensitive California. He might win Florida, but that would be his only chance.

If Allen survives his Senate race he's probably the GOP nominee. If not, then Bill Frist (R-TN) or Mitt Romney, assuming his religion isn't an issue for Southern voters or his health care plan for Republicans in general. If the party comes entirely apart over McCain, then perhaps even Gingrch or Tancredo could win the nomination, but again both Allen and Frist would have to be undone before that could happen. But McCain's front-runner status within a party, some parts of which, hate him more than the Democrats, will likely make the contest more volatile than usual.

Posted by: Cavalier829 | June 2, 2006 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Will I don't argue that Hillary has a ton of support especially in the large donor group of the Democratic party. She also has a Star power that none of the other candidates can challenge. And unlike most people I think she Can win a general election. I just don't think she can win the primary.
First off, I think the democrats are getting a little tired of the Clinton strangle hold on their party (see the article the Fix did about Clinton suprising a big strategy meeting recently).
Second I don't think anyone should right off the power of the progressive movement which really don't like Hillary due to her war stance.
Third, there are a small but vocal group of democrats who beleive that the reason Kerry/Gore lost their respective elections was by being republican light (or centrist)This is where I fall.
Lastly, there are alot of people who just don't trust the Clintons. Is that fair? Probably not, but politics is perception and people like my mother who is a die hard Democrat in the south perceive HRC as untrustworthy.
Now these people are the folks who vote in primaries. So that is where I think her "electability" problems lie.

Posted by: Andy R | June 2, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I really don't understand the definitions here. What do you folks think a 'centrist' is? A democrat who supports republicans, like Joe Lierberman? I've heard him described as a centrist -- and indeed, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity adore him.

Whereas you refer to the Looney Left, but do you really understand what they want in a candidate? My understanding is clean politics, no caving to corporate interests, no wars to dominate the oil market, a sane energy policy, jobs for Americans, defending the Consitution. How is that different from what centrists want? Or have you just swallowed the right's propaganda?

Posted by: Drindl | June 2, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Mike -- I realize the economy isn't perfect, but why exactly are you so obsessed with illegal immigration issues? I have seen zero evidence that such individuals are taking substantial numbers of jobs away from the american public. Moreover, I have yet to see ANY viable plans for rounding up and removing the illegal immigrant population that exists in the country. Finally, I find it somewhat disturbing that you flippantly refer to illegal immigrants as "parasites." I gather that these individuals have broker US laws to get here, but I honestly don't understand how anyone can blame them for doing so. A large percentage of these folks are working hard on a daily basis to try and make life better for their children. They've come to the US for the same reason everyone does -- to try and create better lives. Do you really feel comfortable viewing such individuals as parasites?

Posted by: Colin | June 2, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

One year ago this month I started the blog Elect Romney in 2008, at the time virtually no one even knew who he was. But, after careful consideration of all the possible candidates out there I felt that Romney was THE candidate for 2008. Obviously I still feel that way.

Over the past year as I have blogged about various issues he comes across as the man with the integrity to be a strong servant leader.

Mr. Romney works with the other side, and puts the people first. What we're doing right now is not working. Here we've had control of every single branch of government and we are not getting things done. We're constantly fighting with one another, and our country is still as sharply divided as we've been since the beginning of George W. Bush's first term. This is not the kind of country that we need. We need an individual with the abilities to not compromise on the core values, but who can reach across the aisle and come to a consensus with the Democrats too. He has done this repeatedly in Massachusetts as Governor. One major example of this is the recent health care initiative passed by the Democratically controlled legislature, and signed by the Republican Romney.

Also, the thing that sets Romney apart from the rest of the field is his out of government experience. He's worked in the private sector; he knows what the real world is like. He's turned around struggling companies, not to mention the fact that he took the scandal laden 2002 Salt Lake Olympics that gave our country a black eye, and turned it into an event that our country could be proud of especially on the heels of the 2001 terrorist attacks. He definitely delivered when it comes to those games. He made the process transparent, so that no one was above reproach.

More importantly at this point in our country's history though is his financial acumen. With his background he has keen business awareness, and knows how to streamline things to run efficiently.

In conclusion, when we look back on the Romney administration in the future we will be able to look at what was accomplished and appreciate all that has been done.

Ann Marie Curling
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com

Posted by: Ann Marie Curling | June 2, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I really don't understand the definitions here. What do you folks think a 'centrist' is? A democrat who supports republicans, like Joe Lierberman? I've heard him described as a centrist -- and indeed, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity adore him.

Whereas you refer to the Looney Left, but do you really understand what they want in a candidate? My understanding is clean politics, no caving to corporate interests, no wars to dominate the oil market, a sane energy policy, defending the Consitution. How is that different from what centrists want? Or have you just swallowed the right's propaganda?

Posted by: Drindl | June 2, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I really don't understand the definitions here. What do you folks think a 'centrist' is? A democrat who supports republicans, like Joe Lierberman? I've heard him described as a centrist -- and indeed, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity adore him.

Whereas you refer to the Looney Left, but do you really understand what they want in a candidate? My understanding is clean politics, no caving to corporate interests, no wars to dominate the oil market, a sane energy policy, defending the Consitution. How is that different from what centrists want? Or have you just swallowed the right's propaganda?

Posted by: Drindl | June 2, 2006 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I really don't understand the definitions here. What do you folks think a 'centrist' is? A democrat who supports republicans, like Joe Lierberman? I've heard him described as a centrist -- and indeed, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity adore him.

Whereas you refer to the Looney Left, but do you really understand what they want in a candidate? My understanding is clean politics, no caving to corporate interests, no wars to dominate the oil market, a sane energy policy, defending the Consitution. How is that different from what centrists want? Or have you just swallowed the right's propaganda?

Posted by: Drindl | June 2, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Interesting lineup! Guiliani will attract bi-partisan support if he can get by religous jihadists in his party.
So, Kerry fights back now? The Swift Boat folks were crucial in bleeding votes from the Democratic party in '04, and now he fights back? What a waste. He and Edwards should give it up. Edwards for lack of any experience, and Kerry for lack of awareness of where the electorate is at at any given time. Hillary will get pilloried, and Bayh and Warner face a '?who are they?' label across the country. Just my 2 cents worth.

Posted by: jets_ya | June 2, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I really don't understand why Hillary is mentioned as a forerunner for the Democratic nomination? Just because she has the money will not cut it. She may be popular in states like New York and California, but she WILL lose all the battleground states like Ohio and Florida. She doesn't have the national popularity of her husband.

I think this election will eventually boil down to the two past governors of Virginia: Allen vs. Warner. Warner, imo, has the better chance as he is very moderate for a Democratic candidate and should be able to win over the undecideds.

Posted by: Drew | June 2, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting that people keep referring to "charisma" in connection with a presidential candidate. The current occupant of the White House tries to come across as a "regular guy," but does anybody in the country think he has any competence whatsoever? Evan Bayh might not be a back-slapper, but he's a decent and levelheaded person who oozes competence. Listen to him talk about the 21st Century Scholars program he created or other examples of how government actions can have a real impact on a person's life and you will see honest emotion. It's about time we have somebody at the helm who knows what he's doing, somebody like Sen. Evan Bayh.

Posted by: RichP | June 2, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone think that if Martin O'malley wins the Maryland Gubernaorial race in 06 that he would be a viable candidate for VP in 08? There have already been talks about his national prominence.

Posted by: Rick | June 2, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone think that if Martin O'malley wins the Maryland Gubernaorial race in 06 that he would be a viable candidate for VP in 08? There have already been talks about his national prominence.

Posted by: Rick | June 2, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

What a free-for-all. I love it.

Chris, if you have any information on the possible changes in the Primary schedule that would be most helpful to know.

I've heard recently that Florida and possibly California were seriously thinking about moving there primary to within a week of New Hampshire.

Some people think this could seal the deal on the front-loading of the primary process, but I'm not so sure.

It has typically been the conventional wisdom that the more states bunch up near the beginning of the calendar the more likely the winner of the name-recognition and money primary the year before becomes the automatic winner, effectively making the selection of the Presidential nominees before a single primary or Caucus vote has been cast.

The power of New Hampshire and Iowa can only be withheld if a candidate decides not to run there. In 2000, McCain foreswore Iowa and catapulted into contention with New Hampshire.

Given the expectations game, I think Sen. McCain would be wise to skip both in '08 as he's unlikely to outperform his 2000 win there and Iowa is unlikely to forgive him for skipping them.

If he does contest these as expected he'll be damaged goods going into South Carolina, California, Florida or whatever is next. They could save him but only if, like Bob Dole in 1996, no one has emerged as a serious rival by the time they get to week 3.

Back to my point, though, If Senator McCain had the foresight to realize that as the frontrunner he can choose which primary to launch his candidacy for the nomination, he could skip them both, let the munchkins fight it out for a couple of weeks without him, and then come in with a win in Florida with its elderly community or California, he'd not only upset the conventional wisdom regarding the necessity of New Hampshire and Iowa (perhaps permanently), he'd catapult to the front of the pack with the hundreds of delegates those states select.

It has been assumed that front-loading the process would be the end competitive Presidential contests. I think, however, that if California or Florida or both were place themselves a week after New Hampshire something very interesting could happen.

In skipping the title 1st caucus and primary, McCain could show that it can be done. Others will attempt the strategy in 2012 and with not all the candidates contesting New Hampshire and Iowa, their importance will diminish and the process will become decentralized.

Instead of New Hampshire effectively being the run-off for Iowa, candidates could cherry-pick places to run against each other and the money process would become decentralized as well.

You could even see the re-emergence of favorite Son candidates go to the convention with what amount to uncommitted delegates.

I may be wrong, but I think it's not outside the realm of possibility that if Sen. McCain's lieutenants see through their candidate's invincibility going into next year we could see a drag-out fight reminiscent of Reagan-Ford in 1996, all the way, or nearly so, to the GOP convention. And a real fight over the party's future.

Posted by: Cavalier829 | June 2, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

What a free-for-all. I love it.

Chris, if you have any information on the possible changes in the Primary schedule that would be most helpful to know.

I've heard recently that Florida and possibly California were seriously thinking about moving there primary to within a week of New Hampshire.

Some people think this could seal the deal on the front-loading of the primary process, but I'm not so sure.

It has typically been the conventional wisdom that the more states bunch up near the beginning of the calendar the more likely the winner of the name-recognition and money primary the year before becomes the automatic winner, effectively making the selection of the Presidential nominees before a single primary or Caucus vote has been cast.

The power of New Hampshire and Iowa can only be withheld if a candidate decides not to run there. In 2000, McCain foreswore Iowa and catapulted into contention with New Hampshire.

Given the expectations game, I think Sen. McCain would be wise to skip both in '08 as he's unlikely to outperform his 2000 win there and Iowa is unlikely to forgive him for skipping them.

If he does contest these as expected he'll be damaged goods going into South Carolina, California, Florida or whatever is next. They could save him but only if, like Bob Dole in 1996, no one has emerged as a serious rival by the time they get to week 3.

Back to my point, though, If Senator McCain had the foresight to realize that as the frontrunner he can choose which primary to launch his candidacy for the nomination, he could skip them both, let the munchkins fight it out for a couple of weeks without him, and then come in with a win in Florida with its elderly community or California, he'd not only upset the conventional wisdom regarding the necessity of New Hampshire and Iowa (perhaps permanently), he'd catapult to the front of the pack with the hundreds of delegates those states select.

It has been assumed that front-loading the process would be the end competitive Presidential contests. I think, however, that if California or Florida or both were place themselves a week after New Hampshire something very interesting could happen.

In skipping the title 1st caucus and primary, McCain could show that it can be done. Others will attempt the strategy in 2012 and with not all the candidates contesting New Hampshire and Iowa, their importance will diminish and the process will become decentralized.

Instead of New Hampshire effectively being the run-off for Iowa, candidates could cherry-pick places to run against each other and the money process would become decentralized as well.

You could even see the re-emergence of favorite Son candidates go to the convention with what amount to uncommitted delegates.

I may be wrong, but I think it's not outside the realm of possibility that if Sen. McCain's lieutenants see through their candidate's invincibility going into next year we could see a drag-out fight reminiscent of Reagan-Ford in 1996, all the way, or nearly so, to the GOP convention. And a real fight over the party's future.

Posted by: Cavalier 829 | June 2, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't mean to be the nay sayer in this group, but Barack Obama won't or at least should not run for the presidnecy in 08. A Great choice for VP or even president in '12 if the GOP wins but not in 2008. Let's think back to the last time a freshman senator ran for president who was very likeable high ratings and a great speaker. That was John Edwards in 2004. Now hes out of a job, his popularity is sinking and what was once a bright young star for the Dems is fading into nonexistance. VP or wait until '12 thats my advice. But I'm just a voter.

Posted by: Collins | June 2, 2006 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't mean to be the nay sayer in this group, but Barak Obama won't or at least should not run for the presidnecy in 08. A Great choice for VP or even president in '12 if the GOP wins but not in 2008. Let's think back to the last time a freshman senator ran for president who was very likeable high ratings and a great speaker. That was John Edwards in 2004. Now hes out of a job, his popularity is sinking and what was once a bright young star for the Dems is fading into nonexistance. VP or wait until '12 thats my advice. But I'm just a voter.

Posted by: Collins | June 2, 2006 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't mean to be the nay sayer in this group, but Barack Obama won't or at least should not run for the presidnecy in 08. A Great choice for VP or even president in '12 if the GOP wins but not in 2008. Let's think back to the last time a freshman senator ran for president who was very likeable high ratings and a great speaker. That was John Edwards in 2004. Now hes out of a job, his popularity is sinking and what was once a bright young star for the Dems is fading into nonexistance. VP or wait until '12 thats my advice. But I'm just a voter.

Posted by: Collins | June 2, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I don't mean to be the nay sayer in this group, but Barak Obama won't or at least should not run for the presidnecy in 08. A Great choice for VP or even president in '12 if the GOP wins but not in 2008. Let's think back to the last time a freshman senator ran for president who was very likeable high ratings and a great speaker. That was John Edwards in 2004. Now hes out of a job, his popularity is sinking and what was once a bright young star for the Dems is fading into nonexistance. VP or wait until '12 thats my advice. But I'm just a voter.

Posted by: Collins | June 2, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

too little too late

arrest them,


strip them of the power to make laws if they're not willing to obey them.


sell their properties for reperation...


open an FBI office in New Orleans....remove the boss hawgs, black or white...

.

Posted by: tittle late | June 2, 2006 2:04 PM | Report abuse

DHMC and Gavin, I hear you 100%. Bill Richardson has the best resume out of any potential Democratic candidate. He may emerge as the dark horse candidate who wins it all, in a similar manner to another Bill from not so long ago . . .

Posted by: The Caped Composer | June 2, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I support Senator Bayh 100%. He's the best Dem for the job and he has the qualities needed to be president.

A Bayh/Warner ticket would be unstoppable.

BTW: Keep an eye on Senator Barack Obama.

Posted by: Michele | June 2, 2006 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"Look for two african-american VP's, Obama for the Dems and either Blackwell or Swann for the republicans. 2008 will be great for us political junkies."

The republicans are going to choose between 2 losing gubernatorial candidates for their VP in '08?

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 2, 2006 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Romney being Mormon will not negatively affect his chances of winning the presidency if he gets the nomination. Protestant conservatives will support him over just about any Democratic candidate. With at least one Supreme Court nomination to be made, Huckabee and Romney will appoint someone sure to be the key in overturning Roe v. Wade. That will appease Christians of all denominations.

Posted by: AlabamaChristian | June 2, 2006 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Raise your hand if you are the type person who never learns a lesson - or if you are discussing electability as a basis to support or not support a candidate.

REMEMBER ELECTABLE JOHN KERRY - so the press told us - so we voted for him in the Primaries.

Richardson, Clark, and Obama are each smart enough to stay low at this time - the country is at their absolute limits with Washington - by laying low they are not associated with the Beltway.

Once the numbers are in come November you watch each of these men will come out fighting against Washington and one of them will become the frontrunner by January making Hillary into the slogan of "Hillary who?"

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes | June 2, 2006 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Let me be the first to say that if Hillary Clinton get's the nomination the Democratic party, they throw away a great chance to regain the presidency. Clinton is way too polarizing and doesn't bring in any of the undecided voters that really determine elctions. The last two times the Dem's won the office a southern governor lead the way (Mark Warner anyone)? Also if your thinking of Obama as a VP candidate (which might be intersting) to be practical and honest will America elect a woman and an African American for the first time into the offices all on one ticket? I wish I could say yes but I'm still skeptical. I think Warner and Bayh give the Dem's the best chance with Vilsack lurking in the background. On the republica front its rediculous to throw Guliani, who I like, out as likely to get the bid. The GOP will never nominate a pro choice, pro gay marriage, accused adulterer as a candidate. Wait, that's been done by the Dems and he won?.......

Posted by: Collins | June 2, 2006 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I suggest someone proofread your columns, tittle was not what you were trying to say I'm quite sure.

Posted by: Julie Smith | June 2, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I cant believe your list of dems takes kerry into consideration and yet completely ignores Bill Richardson's chances.

Posted by: Gavin | June 2, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- the problem with your theory is that (1) Blackwell is getting crushed in the polls right now; (2) Strickland has tons of money that he hasn't had to spend yet; (3) The entire state of OH is fed up with Republicans in general (take a look at Bush's approval ratings there + the State GOP's scandals); (4) There is no evidence, outside of a few endorsement from black religious leaders that Blackwell will pick up and sizeable portion of the black vote (certainly not enough to make up for conservative whites in the state that won't vote for him B/C he's black)and (5) Strickland is the perfect moderate democrat for for the State.

In short, Blackwell has NO chance.

Posted by: Colin | June 2, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Will--

First of all I did not say Hillary is "unelectable." So let's forget about that nonsense. Second, although it may upset some folks, I cannot support Russ Feingold, who despite being a fine person, I do believe is unelectable. I frankly, don't understand who comprises your looney left, when you state that Feingold is someone you could support. Frankly, his stance on gay marriage is a non-starter in the general election. Although, if conditions in the country were different I would have no trouble in supporting Russ, who is an outstanding representative of a Democrat in the progressive tradition.

Also the 42% negative rating at this point is a very significant number. Given a real Republican or a faux one, I think that Americans will go with the real one. I do think that the selection of Barack Obama might lead many Americans to a second look at Hillary (we're still trying to figure out who she is).

As for Warner, I have no problem with his centrism when tied to his special strength of solving problems. I just think that he like Obama make more sense as a VP candidate. Gore-Warner spell for me, competence. Gore also has a better "big picture" of the environment, the Iraq War and the need for citizen governance than Warner. Who at this point is less a big thinker than a competent public official (no little thing following Bush, but not enough for him to lead the ticket at this point, IMO).

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | June 2, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

Have you read the papers recently? the african american politicians are all behind Strickland and against Blackwell. Just wait until all the clergy tell their people to vote for Strickland. You must think that the African-American community is stupid. Blackwell, Swann and Steele - all losers in November.

I am not overconfident - rather stating the facts.....the Republicans in the state legislature refer to Blackwell as "him." They hold their nose to him. The election won't even be close. Strickland wins by at least 10%.

Posted by: kevlen | June 2, 2006 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to Andy for pointing out we can dislike Hillary on the merits -

Interesting discussion with Thin-Man and Will - while both have merit to their points I find it interesting they are arguing over the purpose behind this blog as opposed to the greater issue.

I only point this out because this is how the country goes - we get off point so easily it boggles my mind. We are obsessed with controlling one another.

Meanwhile back at the ranch the country burns, Congress hides the exploits of their criminal conduct in their offices and the Dems and Repubs leadership yell foul - how dare you use court orders to secure evidence of our criminal conduct.

The President tells us that we need to relinguish our civil liberties because of a fictitious war on terror (it is serious enough to limit our civil rights but not serious enough to secure the border)(The Puerto Rican Liberation Army bombed NYC with pipe bombs left and right in the 70's and the country survived without us relinguishing our civil liberties and blaming immigrants.)

So I say keep on with the distractions and some day you will wake up to find that there is a wall keeping you in and not keeping them out.

Remember Reagan "Mr. Bush tear down this wall."

Yes - the debate over what kind of blog this is, is so much more important.

We all know that when Bush gives his speech on "Gay Marriage" all will be fine at the ranch - and that good old Republican family values - Cheney sits back and allows Bush to use his lesbian daughter's call for equality as a tool to rally the nut jobs in the Social Conservative Movement -

But all will be well on the ranch - the war on terror will be won by amending our constitution to ban homosexuals from referring to their relationship as a marriage - here comes the National Guard to arrest grandma because she introduced her grandson as being married to another man to her bridge partners.

Yes, American lets argue over what kind of blog this is - it is so much more salient to our national security and future

BObby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | June 2, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Andy R-

"Will I personally don't support Senator Clinton BECAUSE of her views on the issues. Her vote for the Iraq war was a politically motivated decision and she has not even come out to say it was a mistake."

I totally support that. If you don't like Hillary as a CANDIDATE then that's a legitimate reason to vote for someone else. Keep in mind, though, that you do not have a monopoly on issue-voting. Religious folk vote for a Christian candidate because they agree with them on the issues.

Personally I am not waiting on the "Iraq was a mistake" official handout from Hillary Clinton. Her support of troop withdrawals is enough. However we are both entitled to our opinions.

What bugs me is not that some people may not support Hillary on issues; there's nothing wrong/surprising about that. It's that her own party has backstabbed her under this veil of "unelectability" when really it's her refusal to disavow her Iraq vote, her centrist politics, etc. that irks the party faithfuls.

"Also what has she done as a Senator that she deserves to be considered for the highest office in the land? She hasn't stood up and fought for anything."

Merely because someone has picked a fight does not make them a worthwhile candidate, in my opinion. I wouldn't have voted for McCarthy, for instance. In any event I think this "hasn't fought" line is eerily similar to "won't backdown line" that Bush supporters use. Fights aren't by necessity productive or admirable.

However she did fight for universal healthcare which is a political inevitability in our lifetimes. 2008 could hasten that along.

"Until then she is just a fundraising machine."

Which is a reflection of... support, yes?

Posted by: Will | June 2, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I agree with everybody that mentioned Feingold for the Democratic side. He has been vocal which is more than can be said about the other democratic candidates. John Kerry has been involved in a fight to defend his wartime records but that will be the last national step he takes. His presidential ambitions are over; they were over after his "lack-luster" campaign in 2004. I call it "lack-luster" not because he didn't put a real fight but because he was an awful candidate that barely had a position on anything other than abortion rights and gay marriage rights. Clinton, although I think she's one of the brightest democrats in politics today, is not a leader. She has her name on no major legislation. People are happy about her speech on energy but her call for change was by 2025. If she wanted to be a leader she'd say by 2015, or 2010 we need to have something going to help defray energy costs. I could easily see the Democratic ticket being a Feingold-Warner or Bayh-Warner pair. The national senators would have the experience to get elected while Warner who appeals to the more social conservatives would have time to get the experience needed to be president.

As for the republican side I have only one thing to say. As much I would love to see a fellow New Yorker get elected president, Giuliani does not have NERALY enough political experience to be president. Let him spend a term in the senate or as governor and then he'll be a great candidate. But not until that has happened.

Posted by: D.L. | June 2, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Kelvin/RMILL: I can' understand how you write off Blackwell so easily. I didn't say he would win but he will have a good shot at winning if he runs a good campaign. You seem to forget the african-american vote. If he can just get 20% of that vote and hold his base, there is no way Strickland can win. There has already been black democrats not only coming out for Blackwell but also volunteering to work for his campaign. Ohio is still a center right state which bodes well for Blackwell. Over confidence kills, just ask President Kerry.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 2, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

the candidate read this blog,


tell them what you want to hear,


ignore the walrus and the carpenter,


in this version of Alice in Wonderland.

Posted by: dear thin man... | June 2, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain is a strong candidate if you like your candidates on their knees doing questionable things...


it's like, what's he doing down there?

is that something someone does outside of a love relationship,


if you catch my drift nudge nudge, wink wink...


oh, he's a strong candidate, is that your soap over there meester Mc Cain?

Posted by: yeah, | June 2, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner I think is clearly the strongest candidate the Dems can offer. He would give the Dems Virginia, a state that they have not won since 1964, and could definitely do well in Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, and possibly GA. It is absolutely essential that the Democrats force the Republicans to defend these states so that their resources can not be used in the midwest, in states the Dems have to have.

Bayh would be a good runningmate, with the possibility of the IN pickup, but I think Wes Clark would fit the bill just a tad better. He gives the Dems a strong national security voice as a general, that will be hard for the GOP to discredit as weak.

I would argue to Liberals who like Feingold and Hillary, to please not vote for these candidates. I know that Warner/Bayh are not as liberal, but they aren't as conservative as some make them out to be. It is imperative for Democrats to take back the White House, so that we have a voice. Unfortunately, as much as I like Feingold, the right-wingers would have a field day painting him as a left-wing nut job. The last thing we need is another GOP President.

For the Republicans, obviously McCain is the strongest candidate. I don't necessarily think that a social conservative is ideal for the upcoming election, just because I think that the GOP used up that card in '00, '02, and '04 a little too much. The question is whether he can get through the primary. Romney will be a strong candidate, despite the fact he wouldn't carry MA, because he is extremely articulate and well spoken.

Posted by: H.L. | June 2, 2006 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Will I personally don't support Senator Clinton BECAUSE of her views on the issues. Her vote for the Iraq war was a politically motivated decision and she has not even come out to say it was a mistake. Also what has she done as a Senator that she deserves to be considered for the highest office in the land? She hasn't stood up and fought for anything. Where as someone like Feingold has challenged the administration and even his own party on many major issues and worked with others to pass some major legislation. Let her show that she can work with people across the aisle to pass some real legislation then I will sit up and take notice. Until then she is just a fundraising machine.

Posted by: Andy R | June 2, 2006 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Dan W-

"Check out her numbers among the unenrolled voters, not just the Dems. Winning ALL the dem votes in the general election only gets her 33% to 40%."

I'd be glad to check out the numbers if you'd provide them.

Regardless, I've taken for granted that any particular Democratic candidate is going to win 33% of the Democratic vote. And they will not win any of the Republican vote. The votes that win elections are in the center and I think Hillary is a centrist candidate. Right now she's at a political disadvantage because of personality; by this time next year people will NOT be talking about Hillary's personality they will be talking about her massively informed and well-articulated position on Policy issues relevant to real people in both parties. My opinion.

The only way this 42% thing becomes the end all and be all of her Presidential run is if people keep repeating, ad nauseum, that she *cannot* win a GE. Why? Because 42% say they won't vote for her? That's an immobile number?

Because Republicans won't vote for her? And they will show up in droves for Feingold, Al Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc.?

Warner is getting a lot of "buzz" because he represents a centrist candidate. But in a war of wits I'd put my money on Hillary over him any day. If centrist candidates generate buzz then Hillary is the centrist candidate I see making the most noise.

Posted by: Will | June 2, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Jeff-For-Progress:

42% leaves 58% which would be great. George Bush won one election where the majority of people did *not* vote for him and one election where 47% of the people did not vote for him.

In any event, I think this 42% number is scaring too many people too early on. I'm far more impressed by her overwhelming support in the Democratic party. The hate stems mostly from the Republican party who isn't going to vote for her anyways. The remaining people unaccounted for by Republicans are swayable people, and I think when Hillary opens her mouth she generally has things to say.

Does she have political baggage? Sure. Which candidate has no political baggage? What's shocking is that even with all the naysayers IN HER PARTY she still dominates polling... in her party.

I think people like you repeating the "unelectable" nonsense is precisely what contributes to that 42%, and when she gets out there and speaks on issues with voters you'll find that number shrinking. That's my opinion.

"If she thinks that marginalizing the Democratic base and appealing to folks similar to the likely Republican candidate is a winning strategy"

I would be ecstatic if both candidates marginalized their bases, which is precisely what needs to happen. I don't much care for bases. What you consider making her "similar to the Republican candidate" I might consider "makes her more of a centrist and thus the kind of person I want to elect." What the Democratic party needs to realize, as evidenced from virtually every recent election, is that the Republicans CAN win with a "conservative" candidate and the Democrats can ONLY win with a centrist. And the entire nation is better off when the Demos win with a centrist then when the Repubs win with a rightwing nut.

But if you want to support another losing candidacy be my guest. Personally I think Feingold is a fine candidate and he would get my support. I don't think he is electable NOT because I am scared of some 42% polling number but because it's obvious that Feingold just straight up does not represent America. He might represent me (to an extent). But I'm one vote.

Posted by: Will | June 2, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

about Condi is her willingness to pander to an ideology that she doesn't believe in...


similar to a house slave acting like they thing they better than the slaves that work in the field....


they do what the massa say, 'cause dey be gettin to live wit de big folks...


dey looks jes lak 'em...


it's still agin de law fo dee slaves to read an write but some dey as long as we do what dee massa say we get some o' dem dere libertee's...


poverty rate increasing.

outsourcing diminishing every Americans income...

_illegal_ immigrants trying to take the jobs still in this country


old people becoming more and more likely to enter the poverty cave....


we are in Iraq to get ahold of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world to make dis a here president and dickless cheyney e-ben moh richah....whatsa dis a worl a comin to lawsee lawsee...

yeah, Condi's representin...


she's representin the elites slavish attitude towards money and ignoring people that are the citizenship she purports to represent...

I would walk across fire for Colin Powell...there's someone with integrity, even though he's got a little dirt on him from the bush s-hitstorm...but who doesn't?

.

Posted by: I think that the interesting thing | June 2, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

In point of fact, this is NOT a political blog. Here's how the Post describes it:

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

In other words, this is to comment on the Post and its reporting, not to have inane conversations about topics eighteen months before they are relevant.

Posted by: Thin Man | June 2, 2006 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Will: Apologies, After reading the post a few more times I catch the subtle drift.

However, I have to disagree with you about Hillary. She may be favored in the polls to win the party nod, in fact a lot of people here admit that, but its the general she can't win.

Check out her numbers among the unenrolled voters, not just the Dems. Winning ALL the dem votes in the general election only gets her 33% to 40%.

Posted by: Dan W | June 2, 2006 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Thin Man-

I don't know why you are barking up this tree, but this is a political forum. It "reports" on a very narrow subject; politics.

"But there are other avenues for you to do your research."

But this is a valuable one with an informed host who gives us much to chomp at the bit about. There are also other "avenues" for you to complain about "horserace reporting". The only difference between you and the rest of us is that you've chosen a political blog to crusade against... discussing politics whereas the rest of us have chosen a political blog to... discuss politics.

There's more blogs in the cybersea.

Posted by: Will | June 2, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

bsimon,
You raise a great point. But to do that, Cillizza would need to stop mindlessly feeding fron the trough of over-paid, under-qualified consultants that give him bogus stories about whoever is feathering their nests.

Posted by: Thin Man | June 2, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

In light of your earlier column about 3rd party candidates, maybe you could include an example or two the next time you do an 08 column. The masses are ready for what's behind door number 3. The majors are putting up the same garbage year in and year out. They'll never nominate the Huckabees or Feingolds of their parties- those guys lose out on the so-called 'electability' factor.

Posted by: bsimon | June 2, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

It's back-handed compliments like the one levelled here at Mark Warner that convince a bunch of ill-informed Americans to continue voting for Republicans. I'm talking about the comment about whether he's "up to running the country with just four years as Virginia's chief executive under his belt."

None of the MSM pundits minded or cared when Dubya was a former cokehead, drove the Texas economy into the ground, had never travelled outside the United States, and was bequeathed the Texas Governorship by his own family.

I can't wait for November 2006 and November 2008. Y'all want to talk about qualifications? BRING IT ON.

Posted by: twitchy | June 2, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

would be people saying how they felt about issues...


the candidates.


I'm damned tired of hearing the campaign managers run things....

I mean Karl Rove has moved America into the emotional dark ages because of his pandering to demagoguery....


open up those boxes a little and let the candidates speak for themselves....

if you have polls, ask the public what questions that they would want answered...


not feed the public questions that would make your candidates look best,


ask Americans wha they want to hear about.


integrity, honesty, ability to handle uncomfortable situations as they see fit...


if I were Hillary and someone asked me about my husband, monica lewinsky,

I'd say, none of your effing business,

family lives are family lives, and if this were France or Germany, you'd be booed and hooted for asking such a superfluous question....


I could care less what someone does in the bedroom or the office as long as it is with consent....grow up.


middle America needs to grow the eff up, kill crackerism....arrest the demon lord p. Robertson....sending e-vile to attack supreme court justices...mcCain Kissing Falls well....what a parody of kissing the popes ring...

Posted by: you know what would be nice | June 2, 2006 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Will, when 42% of the American public say they will not vote for a candidate at this early point of the process, it is hardly looney to take this into account. Unless, you want to join the ostrich party, or are secretly rooting for the Republicans.

I can live with Hillary as a candidate if she get's over this overly clever triangulation gambit. If she thinks that marginalizing the Democratic base and appealing to folks similar to the likely Republican candidate is a winning strategy, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn, I would like to sell you. I still think her selection of Obama as a VP candidate is the best chance to add sizzle to her candidacy. We're trying to excite Democrats here not those who believe we should turn the Democratic party into a clone of the Republican.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | June 2, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Dan W-

A more careful reading of my post would have informed you that your post is a repeat of my entire point. The base Republicans do not backstab McCain because they think he is "unelectable" (in fact it's hard to imagine him losing a GE), but because they disagree with his politics.

As often as not the far left, beltway Democrats, and DailyKos repeat ad nauseum this silly platitude about Hillary not having any chance to win... when really it's her politics they may disagree with. The only thing keeping Hillary from winning a GE is her own backstabbing party. Every national poll shows overwhelming support for Hillary in the Democratic party; maybe not from the Politicos in DC or the bloggers at DailyKos, but the rest of America has as much use for them as we do for the Religious Right.

In conclusion, I think you should read my posts more carefully. My entire point was that McCain is electable, I happen to think Hillary is as well. The party hopefuls backstab McCain because they don't agree with much of his politics and thus he cannot win the nomination. If the looney left gets its way, Hillary will lose as well. And then America will get to choose between a somewhat Conservative Republican representative of 25% of the nation and a somewhat Liberal Democrat representative of 25% of the nation. And the 50% of us who aren't represented by either extreme will be left choosing between a rock and a hard place... again.

Posted by: Will | June 2, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Dan W,
If you want to learn about the candidates, that's great...but at this point none of them have formed actual committees for you to contribute to, so your reasoning for Cillizza reporting on this stupidity is faulty.

But there are other avenues for you to do your research.

Why can't political reporters report on something other than the horserace? This is why the American people hate politics and the people we elect tend to universally suck -- because of the pablum we are fed by hacks like Cillizza et al at the expense of real reporting on real issues.

Posted by: Thin Man | June 2, 2006 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Where's Dodd?? He's announced that he's interested in running, this announcement made your blog, and he's been talked up among high level politicians as of late (Senators Lieberman and Alexander have weighed in with advice for a run). Here's a candidate who has all sorts of liberal appeal, yet has friends on the other side of the aisle.
Since you haven't included him yet, I recommend watching him closely. He would be a great counterweight to Hillary - especially among the liberals in the party.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 2, 2006 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Thin Man: Believe it or not, the prelims to the 2008 election are under way. Candidates are raising money and testing the waters. The public at large (well OK I) wants to know who is considering a run so I can decide when to contribute my limited funds to a given candidate.

If I learn of a great candidate is testing the waters, I want to show support so he (or she) will decide that running is a viable option rather than a non starter.

Posted by: Dan W | June 2, 2006 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Why not just rename this feature the 'Cillizza Bubble Wish List for '08.'

As you continue to ignore the relevance of Feingold's potential impact, you just make yourself more irrelevant.

Posted by: scootmandubious | June 2, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Why is this a story and why do we care a good many month out from the MID-TERM elections, let alone the primaries etc.?

Are political reporters so desperate to make themselves seem useful that they need to report on non-stories like this?

Chris, if it'll help, I'd be happy to give you some story ideas.

Posted by: Thin Man | June 2, 2006 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Will: Um, Repubs don't say McCain can't win the GE because they don't think he can LOSE the GE. Its the nomination he can't win.

However, I agree about the Religious Right and Looney Left.

Posted by: Dan W | June 2, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I see Edwards and Kerry dying on the vine right now. No talk on immigration or Iran nuclear crisis. What are they waiting for?

I would also question Huckabee's inclusion. No national network or fund raising at this point. An "impressive" one-time interview (which I did not find impressive in the least) is not enough.

The surprising fund raising totals of Feingold should be acknowledged along with the seemingly increasing popularity of his stand on domestic wiretapping among his fellow Dems.

Hagel has come down hard on the administration of late, providing another maverick in the fold. He has wisely stayed out of fund raising in Nebraska with contested races, leaving fund raising wide open for his Republican collegues so his numbers are not all that impressive. Still, between his Senate and PAC commitees, has dispersed some $180 K to other candidates and committees. I think he warrants more consideration for the list than Huckabee.

Posted by: RMill | June 2, 2006 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the beltway Demos, DailyKosers, and far left need to stop worrying about Hillary's "electability" and start recognizing that she dominates every Democratic Presidential candidate poll. If this is not evidence enough that you are being marginalized by the rest of your party then I don't know what could be.

The only thing keeping her from winning a general election is you wackos and your crazy insistence that "she just can't win." Why? Because you keep repeating it ad nauseum? You guys don't like her as a candidate, and that's fine. The Republicans may not like McCain as a candidate; but they don't peddle this garbage about him being incapable of winning a GE.

Get over yourselves. I yearn for the day when the Religious Right and the Looney Left become permanently insignificant in American politics.

Posted by: Will | June 2, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

if you think the bush crowd is bad wait until you see who supports huchabee. his glassy eyed supporters are pro life, pro religion and there will be no separation between church and state. he believes the executive has total control. he bans press from his approved list if they write things that do not agree with him. he grabs all freebees he can, as most southern preachers do, and is amazed when people think he shouldn't. this man will make bush seem like a believer in open government.

Posted by: jerry | June 2, 2006 11:16 AM | Report abuse

if you think the bush crowd is bad wait until you see who supports huchabee. his glassy eyed supporters are pro life, pro religion and there will be no separation between church and state. he believes the executive has total control. he bans press from his approved list if they write things that do not agree with him. he grabs all freebees he can, as most southern preachers do, and is amazed when people think he shouldn't. this man will make bush seem like a believer in open government.

Posted by: jerry | June 2, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

if you think the bush crowd is bad wait until you see who supports huchabee. his glassy eyed supporters are pro life, pro religion and there will be no separation between church and state. he believes the executive has total control. he bans press from his approved list if they write things that do not agree with him. he grabs all freebees he can, as most southern preachers do, and is amazed when people think he shouldn't. this man will make bush seem like a believer in open government.

Posted by: jerry | June 2, 2006 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Andy R: Gods I hope your right, the only thing that could make me vote for Billary is if she ran against Romney.

Posted by: Dan W | June 2, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

First of all, thank you Andy R for seeing that there is a movement promoting Condi for president. And by her efforts to bring Russia and China on board to deal with Iran as part of the international community concerned the nuclear weapons threat is a HUGE example of the POWER of Condi. She helped bring President Bush into the world of diplomacy on this Iran problem and using world pressure on that nation to get them to understand what their role is now and for the future of Iran.

Condi was able to get worldwide media coverage on the Iran plan with her press conference in DC and then flying to Vienna to get the plan agreed upon with Russian and China. She is truly one of the most powerful women in the world, and her saving grace is not to BRAG about it.

That is what people like me do, we are bragging about Condi and promoting her. You can go to
www.4condi.com to see the TV ads and hear the radio ads playing right now in Texas before the state convention.
Some reporters call it CONDIMANIA, but I call it showing support for this great woman and getting her to run in 2008.

Posted by: Tina | June 2, 2006 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Forget about Swann and Blackwell since neither are going to win this November.
Also Romney is not from Mass, he is from Michigan and Utah. When he ran for office there was an issue of if he was technically eligable to be Governor. Romney's problem isn't that he is from New England its that he is a Mormon. I just don't see the Evangelicals getting behind him. Those two sects are competing for the same group of people in terms of new recruits. If a Mormon is elected president think of how much exposure that would provide for a relativly small branch of the Christian faith that is in direct competition to the evangilical movement.

Posted by: Andy R | June 2, 2006 11:04 AM | Report abuse

My worst fear is Romney v Clinton.

She has the money to get the Dem Nomination. He is one of the few that hasn't p*ss*d off the christian right.

These are the two most able to get their parties nominations.

Ironically, they are the two least likely to win the general. Talk about your third party election.

Posted by: Dan W | June 2, 2006 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Bhoomes,

Blackwell will not win in November, no way, not a chance. Most Republicans I speak with, including one who is running for State Rep seat, told me that they will vote for Strickland. Strickland leads in every poll and no poll shows Strickland with less then 50%. Blackwell is cooked.

He will lose then get appointed to some obscure job with the Bush Adminstration where he belongs......with all of the other idiots.

Posted by: kevlen | June 2, 2006 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Swann is getting walloped in polling in PA 52% to 34% according to Rasmussen May 22.

In Ohio, Rasmussen had it at 16 pts. (52% to 36%) on May 8 and has been double digits in Strickland's favor since Feb.

One University of Cincinnati (Blackwells hometown) poll, done May 25 had it 50% to 44%, is not enough for Blackwell to be "in good shape in Ohio." Also, these were registered voters not likely voters.

Blackwell's net favorability is only 3% while his name recognition was near universal at 92%. They own the seat and have for 15 years. The only spin on this is he isn't losing by double digits in this particular poll.

He has been manuvered to drop the TEL amendment he has been pushing, which was supposed to help him in November get his conservative base out and capture Independents. He is in a firefight over the Primary Election and fighting with his own Party chair. None of this constitutes good news for Blackwell.

Neither will be VP material after a year and a half should some miracle occur to get either of them into office.

Posted by: RMill | June 2, 2006 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Where is Bill Richardson in The Fix? Great domestic and international experience, cross-party appeal (as he has shown here in New Mexico), a Western State governor, so he eats into an important red demographic, and he is a draw for the Hispanic/Latino vote. He has managed to square the circle of being both pro-environment (an appeal for the left) and pro-business (an appeal for centrists). As others have noted, where was Bill Clinon in 1990?

Posted by: DHMC | June 2, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Even with being out of the executive office for 6 years I have to say I'm excited about the choices that Dems have. I mean a Southern Governor (everyone knows that's a good thing) a Liberal Senator (Feingold) two more reasonable senators (Bayh and Biden) the poverty-labor guy (Edwards) the multiethic candidates (Richardson and Obama is he runs) used to be president elect (Gore) and Vilsack who my gut tells me will be strong. Everything is great! Well, except for Hillary. I like her politics but the simple fact is that she is way too sticky. Anything that the republicans throw at her (she was a lesbian baby molester in college!) will stick and she will have to waste energy fighting them off. Though at least Hillary wouldn't hesitate to go on the counter attack like Kerry did. So the stickyness by itself might be overcome but there is an even greater negative about Clinton: Clinton! Bill is one of the greatest assets that the democrats have. But if Hillary is running he will have to be put in the closet. Some people believe (myself included) that Gore could have won if he had agreed to use Clinton more effectively, especially in Modular Democrat areas. (You know Modular Home...) Think of it if anyone but Hillary were running he could go out there and people - just by looking at him; hearing that familiar voice - would remember "damn!, the country was pretty sweet back then lets get some more of that." Choosing a candidate that forces you to tie one had behind your back is just dumb. Plus, explaining how the white house would work, ("Don't worry Bill won't be allowed to visit his old office I'd send him off to the UN or something") would be another distraction to what ever message Hillary was trying to get across. Hillary, I'm sorry, the stars are not aligned for you and we need to win. Just don't do it.

Posted by: David George Ferguson | June 2, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"Romney is from Mass, which would be very difficult to swallow for us Southerners."

Let me get this straight: even if you agree with a man's policies, agenda, principles, and "values", you'll still deny him your vote because he comes from a state you dislike? Granted, I can understand a conservative's dislike of MA's two current Senators, or the decisions of its judges, but to immediately dismiss every politician that comes out of a given state is just bigotry.

If this is the kind of criterion applied by the average Southern voter, that's just sad.

Posted by: Venicemenace | June 2, 2006 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Hillary would be a difficult candidate only at first. She's very beatable and comes with tons of baggage behind her. She's also quite short, which is a severe disadvantage for any politician (Dukakis?).

Hillary's biggest problem is the senior citizen New Dealers who've voted for Democrats in every election since they were born are very, very reluctant to vote for a woman for the ultimate "man's job", as my grandmother says. She's not alone, and that's a lot of votes that are normally in the pocket of any Democratic candidate.

She might raise more money than anyone else, but I would not be afraid of Hillary if I were a Republican campaign strategist.

Posted by: everlast00 | June 2, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Of course Swann or Blackwell will have to win this november to be considered as prime GOP VP meat. I don't know PA politics but right now Blackwell is in real good shape for Ohio. To be only 6 points down after a bruising primary battle has got to concern Strickland. Warner and Bayh would be a tough ticket for us GOPers to beat, but it won't happen for the same reason Rudy won't get ours. The base would never stand for it. If Gore jumps in, I may be in political junkie heaven.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 2, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Those of both parties and all political persuasions who misunderestimate Hillary do so at their own peril. She is a brilliant politician on her own & along with her husband, she has the best political team in the country. I have a strong hunch that when push comes to shove, millions of moderate Republican women--motivated by history, by shattering the glass ceiling, by creating opportunities for their daughters and granddaughters--will quietly pull the lever for Hillary in the ballot box & she will be elected President in 2008 with 55% of the popular vote.

Posted by: Michael | June 2, 2006 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I think how Chris chooses who gets on his list and does not reflects the mood in Washington - reserved about their future

Every poll and every populist blog indicates that insiders have no chance of taking the White House - when I hear people speak of Hillary in South Texas the attitude is - if we have no other choice - remember the second poorest county in the United States and 95% Latino voted for Bush and not Kerry (Cameron COunty)

In my view the best chances for winning in terms of the Dems goes to those not mentioned - Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark - I think Westly has a better grasp on the populist vote - wait until the morning after the November Election and see how fast these two candidates spring to the forefront - they may be the only two last standing after the American people register their disgust with Washington come November.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

for those who remember my ACLU post - all is set - June 19 the chair of the ACLU will be served in the RICO action immediately after the filing of the RICO action in federal court in Brooklyn - when the ACLU not once but twice fail to disclose conflicts of interests as related to their attorneys this country is in deep doodoo - but then the president is above the law - congress is above the law - why not the ACLU? The ACLU story is endemic of what has happened to our country

Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | June 2, 2006 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Warner-Bayh would be a very difficult team to beat for the Dems. The Republicans have no such obvious choices. Allen is another Bush Republican clone. Romney is from Mass, which would be very difficult to swallow for us Southerners. Everyone thinks Giuliani would be a great nominee, but no one's really excited to vote for him in the primaries. I don't know much about Huckabee, but another governor of Arkansas so soon? I don't believe Condi will run, and I don't think she'd win the primary because she has no experience running for elected office. If Colin Powell wasn't going to be 71 years old, I'd say he'd be a great candidate. Maybe he would be anyway, despite his age. Rank and file Republicans are not serious about McCain; he's too much of a "maverick" (read, untrustworthy). After the media hype and a win in IA, he'd fall off badly.

Posted by: everlast00 | June 2, 2006 10:18 AM | Report abuse

I think Chris is right to reserve his opinion on a Gore run. I believe that Gore is waiting to see if Global Warming reaches a tipping point within the next 6 months which doesn't need his personal leadership to sustain itself. At that point, the horizon expands from creating awareness to implementing a program becomes more attractive to him. The run for the presidency makes sense at that point.

I'll admit that Gore hasn't made an absolutely final decision yet. What's of interest to me is how a Hillary decision would impact on Gore. Also, whether he indicates a preference for another candidate toward the end of the 6 month period like Edwards (or Obama) which tips his hand.

The 42% of the American public who say they would never vote for Hillary has to influence a future Hillary run. Outside of the historic significance of the run, in terms of gender, I think her decision and how she handles herself will determine whether she rises to the head of Senate leadership or becomes a footnote in history.

Of course she has an outside chance to win it all, but it should be clear to the consummate professionals who serve as her advisers, everything needs to fall into place for her. In reality, everything seems to be falling into place for a Gore run. If Gore doesn't realize it, maybe he is right not to run. Political instincts can make the difference between victory or defeat. Tone deafness at this point in a presidential candidate is not something the Democratic party needs at this time. Both Edwards and Obama have a good sense of political pitch.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | June 2, 2006 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Warner Bayh would win the election for the Democrats. I think Hillary is more vulnerable than people think.

Posted by: JC | June 2, 2006 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Hoosier your example is exactly why it is so hard for a Senator to get elected for President. Now I understand the complexity involved in conressional compromises but the GOP will attack him with the label of Flip-flopper. That being said I think Bayh has a chance to be in this, but he should be Praying that Vilsack doesn't run cause Bayh's strength is that he should do well in Iowa he could then carry that into NH.

Posted by: Andy R | June 2, 2006 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Intrepid liberal: hey, I don't hate Bayh. I love his education iniative. Exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. One of the biggest problems in this country for the middle class is paying for college. Huge. That and health care expenses are the two things killing us.

I didn't know about Bayh trying to kill the bankruptcy bill. Maybe he needs to talk up government's responsiblity to serve its citizen constitutents, not its corporate godfathers. I think that a lot of us are crying out for that. Edwards is one of the few who even touches on it.

Posted by: Drindl | June 2, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The same names keep popping up on this list time after time. And I would not be surprised if the actual nominees are candidates whose names are not appearing in the headlines these days. At this point in 1990, did anyone foresee the rise of Bill Clinton? Not at all! To those political junkies who paid attention (a very small segment of the population,) Bill Clinton was some guy who gave a bad speech at Dukakis's nominating convention. To everyone else, he was a nonentity. Mario Cuomo (a New York superstar politician, hmm . . . ) was the presumed frontrunner, with more minor buzz going to Harkin, Tsongas, Bob Kerrey, and Jerry Brown.

So, let's face it-- we have no clue as to the outcome of the 2008 presidential primaries at this moment. As entertaining as it may be to speculate, it has no bearing on reality. Let's get back to the midterms!

Posted by: The Caped Composer | June 2, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

IntrepidLiberal,

And, Bayh's going to be loved for things like this.
http://www.scholars.in.gov/

Stop the hate. Give him a chance. And bayh the way, Bayh tried to kill the bankruptcy bill. He only voted for it after all attempts to kill the bill failed and Reid asked members to vote for a compromise he'd worked out.

Posted by: H_o_o_s_i_e_rTen | June 2, 2006 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: BSR | June 2, 2006 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Did someone suggest Lynn Swann as a VP possibility? Maybe Jack Arute would be available to be Secretary of State, too. Swann has no knowledge of the substance of governing and, more troubling, has shown no inclination to learn. Do you really think the country will put someone who could make G.W. Bush look like a rocket scientist a heartbeat from the presidency?

Posted by: GOPinPA | June 2, 2006 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Learn more about Mike Huckabee at www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com
BSR

Posted by: BSR | June 2, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I have to suggest Feingold too, big support among activists. Vilsack seems really good, although practically unknown/invisible at this point. Warner I like, although he's been called a 'centrist' and that usually means 'corporate sellout'. Same with Bayh and that bankruptcy bill, I will never forgive that.But I don't understand why Warner's experience as governor of Virginia should be derided -- Little Prince George seized power after being governor of a state that barely has a government. Hillary -- too many men are afraid of her. Kerry -- too little, too late. Edwards is probably not mean enough.

Guiliani -- you really think the base would vote for him? Never, never, never. Italian name, has gay friends. End of story.

McCain will probably snap before 2008 even gets here. Mitt Romney? Will the Christian dominionist base vote for a Mormom? Again, you must be joking.

Huckabee probably lacks the necessary thuggishness, although George Allen is possibly repugnant enough to suit them.

All in all, I think it's a shame that our political system has come to this -- that it's all about sound bites and phony, ginned-up issues like gay marriage and flag-burning. Once a great nation...

Posted by: Drindl | June 2, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

While I understand Vilsack's absence from the list at this time, he should and will be on the list in the near future.

Vilsack has the ability to unite virtually every part of the Democratic party. The bottom line is that unlike virtually every other Democratic contender, he has no clear flaw. He gives a great stump speech, has a great life story, and a great record as Governor. Additionally, the fact that he is not a Senator means that he has not cast votes that will alienate the base of the party (Bayh) or the general electorate (Feingold).

Vilsack will surprise people.

Posted by: Vilsack 08 | June 2, 2006 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Speaking from the home of the 101st Airborne, I do not think that Hillary can win or will win. Also witness a comment from a soldier who told me she would be shot before she would win. Can we put Huckabee to bed, were he the nominee, Clinton would negate him faster than you could say is. Why don't we just run the two former Govs of VA and get it over with. I would say Allen couldn't win, but we elected a man with a disdainful smirk twice so I guess anything is possible. Here's a good one, Bill Clinton runs again and wins in a landslide.

Posted by: Reed Bergen | June 2, 2006 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Why is Feingold not on this list? You placed Huckabee because he "appeal[s] to social conservatives looking for a candidate"
Well us social liberals are looking for a candidate too. Of all the folks on the democratic side only Kerry is a social liberal (and he is a non starter after 2004). Also if Warner's problems are that he only ran Virginia for one term why does the same not get mentioned for Romney? Romney has won one election in his life against a Poor candidate for governor. If those two face off in 2008 Warner will wipe the floor with him.
There are two other people that should be added on this list as honorable mentions Condi Rice, and General Clark. I personally don't feel Condi is running for anything but the GOPers on this site have convinced me there are people out there who want her to run. Clark IS running, he is just keeping a low profile and will jump in after 2006 and ride the "buzz" into a strong 2007.

Posted by: Andy R | June 2, 2006 8:43 AM | Report abuse

I don't think I'm giving anything away here when I say that Huckabee is the demon du jour for the Dems. Not for pure evil mind you, but because he so darn sincere and articulate. See John Stewart, Daily Kos and me among stalwarts of the left that fear the "bee."

In full disclosure, a few months ago I called him Huckawho. A Muse reserves the right to change his mind you know.

Prevailing thought on the D side: the running mate will be Clark or selected from among the dissenting generals...the military will be in a complete shambles once Dubya's done. Mark it down.

(Huckawho? What a fool I am.)

Speaking of Dubya, new on EWM:
Contrition, Crawford Style
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/diary.php?p=225
...Standing in front of the nation and beside what's left of Tony Bair, Bush admitted that he's just too damn manly. Bush says it was the "tough talk," that stands out among mistakes. You know, the "bring it on," "wanted dead or alive" crap.

The President let his inner cowboy out and he's sorry for sending the "wrong signals." Signals are important to this caballero. There's no "Brokeback" in his Baghdad policy...

Posted by: The Eyewitness Muse | June 2, 2006 8:40 AM | Report abuse

On the democrats side, it will come down between Clinton and somebody to her left, I believe that person will probably be Fiengold who is not even on your list but should be. I think the Left correctly understand the 1st woman President will have to be a warhawk to prove her mettle and Clinton seems to be ready to take up that mantle. On the republican side it will be between Allen and probably McCain with Allen winning. I love Rudy, but I don't see the social conservatives in my party giving him any votes. Look for two african-american VP's, Obama for the Dems and either Blackwell or Swann for the republicans. 2008 will be great for us political junkies.

Posted by: bhoomes | June 2, 2006 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsak belongs on this list as well. He is very active with the Democratic Party's netroots.

Evan Bayh will be haunted by his support for so-called bankruptcy reform in 2005 which was nothing but a boondoggle for the banks and credit card industry at the expense of the working poor and small business entrepeneurs. His support for this odious legislation makes him unworthy of his party's nomination.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | June 2, 2006 6:34 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company