2.Chris Dodd,64, Connecticut, Lawyer, English Literature Degree, U.S Representative 1974-80, U.S Senator 1980-, Chair Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee

3.Joe Biden,64, Delaware, Lawyer, New Castle County Councillor 1970-72, U.S Senator 1972-, Chair Foreign Relations Committee,

4.Barack Obama,47, Illinois, Constitutional Law Professor, Political Science Degree, State Senator 1996-2004, former State Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chair, U.S Senator 2004-

5.Bill Richardson,61, New Mexico, International Trade Consultant, former Casino Co-Owner, International Relations Masters, Political Science and French Degrees, U.S Representative 1982-96, U.S Ambassador to U.N 1997-98, U.S Energy Secretary 1998-2000, Governor 2002-

6.Hillary Rodham Clinton,61, New York, Lawyer and firm Partner, Political Science Degree, Former Arkansas and U.S 'First Lady', U.S Senator 2000-

7.John Edwards,55. North Carolina, Personal Injury Lawyer, former U.S Senator 1998-2004

8.Dennis Kucinich,62, Ohio, Political Science and Communications Professor, Publicly Owned Electricity Systems Consultant, Speech Communications Masters, Cleveland City Councillor 1972-?, Mayor of Cleveland 1977-79, State Senator 1994-1996 U.S Representative 1996-

(obviously all the lawyers have law degrees as well)
Several other fringe candidates have also entered the race, but they won't get in the debates.

Republicans
1.John McCain,72, Arizona, Retired Navy Captain, Naval Academy Graduate, U.S Representative 1982-1986, U.S Senator 1986-

2.Mike Huckabee,53, Arkansas, B.A, Baptist Minister and Religious Television Station President, Lieutenant Governor 1993-1996 former Governor 1996-2006

3.Duncan Hunter,60, California, lawyer, Vietnam Army Veteran, U.S Representative 1980-

4.Tom Tancredo,63, Colorado, Independence Institute (Think Tank) President, B.A- Political Science, former Junior High School History Teacher, former Reagan and Bush White House Department of Education Regional Representative State Representative 1976-1980 U.S Representative 1998-

5.Sam Brownback,52, Kansas, Lawyer, Former State Secretary of Agriculture (appointed) U.S Representative 1994-96 U.S Senator 1996-

6.Mitt Romney,61, Massachusetts, Lawyer and Venture Capital Firm C.E.O, 2002 Winter Olympics C.E.O, former Governor 2002-2006

7.Rudy Giuliani,64, New York, Lawyer and Security Consulting Firm Owner, Reagan White House Associate Attorney General and U.S Attorney, former New York City Mayor 1993-2001

8.Ron Paul,73, Texas, Physician, Former Air Force Flight Surgeon, Obstetrician/Gynecologist, U.S Representative 1976-88 1996-

9.Fred Thompson,66, Tennessee, Lawyer/Llobyist and Actor, American Enterprise Institute Fellow, Philosophy and Political Science Degree, U.S Senator 1994-2002 and former Government Affairs Committee Chair 1997-2001

Ages are the ages they would be when they become president (Jan 2009)

[ 09 September 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]

Obama thread

Hillary Clinton thread

"The Hotline and PoliticalWire are both reporting that former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (D) is already reconsidering his unexpected October withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential race. He's reportedly waiting to see what develops in the next few months with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton before making any new decision. Meanwhile, Warner is keeping his leadership PAC active and recently sent holiday cards to key New Hampshire Dems "

This fits what I said about pressure on so-called 'centrist' Democratic candidates to get into the race following the departure of Evan Bayh.

My own view of politics is that the Democratic Party has basically 4 wings:

1.The "NDP wing" of the Democratic Party (Dennis Kucinich). This wing has basically been a nonentity at the Presidential level since Jesse Jackson in 1988. At the Congressional level though, just as the NDP is strong in inner city ridings in Canada, so are the left wing Democrats in the U.S

2.The Conservative wing of the Democratic Party. According to the Pew Poll, about 1/4 to 1/3 of Democratic voters self describe themselves as Conservative Democrats. Obviously as the South has trended Republican Conservative Democrats have been disappearing at the electoral level. I also can't think of a strong right wing conservative Democratic candidate at the Presidential level since George Wallace in 1972. (no snark about Joe Lieberman (not that he was a strong candidate either), his voting record is much more liberal than his p.r).

3.Reformists. These are people who can be either moderately conservative or liberal ideologically, but tend to favour new ideas, especially involving technology, tend not to be believers in 'big government' and tend to be strong backers of 'open government'. Barack Obama, Wesley Clark and John Edwards are the three leading candidates for these people. Howard Dean was obviously their leading candidate in 2004 before he self destructed. The 'lack' of ideology is one of the reasons why a number of people who were working on the supposedly conservative, but mainly reformist, Mark Warner campaign had no trouble going to the Barack Obama campaign, who has a rather liberal voting record in the U.S Senate.

Most Democrats actively using the internet (bloggers...) are reformist Democrats, likely because of the high tech aspects. In a Daily Kos poll, all three of the Democratic candidates considering running for president in 2008 who I identified as reformists (Barack Obama, John Edwards and Wes Clark) all tied at 28%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
M Spector, you are incorrect. Mr. Kucinich did not announce his candidacy 5 days ago. He announced that he intends to announce. He is not officially a candidate yet.

---

quote:

---

Kucinich, 60, formally announced his 2008 campaign at Cleveland City Hall Tuesday with his new bride, Elizabeth, by his side....

With Tuesday's announcement, Kucinich joins Iowa Governor and fellow Democrat Tom Vilsack, who has already declared his candidacy for the presidential nomination.

---

Great article here: Justin Raimondo in Antiwar

Some Obama quotes:

quote:

---

"In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."

...

"After the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'"

...

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute."

...

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.

"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.'"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
What about Al Gore?

---

quote:

---

What about Al Gore?

---

I guarantee you Al Gore will run and win the Democratic ticket for 2008. I'm sure he didnt plan on running, but he received a lot of support for his doc and come the Oscars when he will likely win the Best Documentary award, his chance to regain the spotlight will be greater than Obama's.

I can just see the "Re-Elect President Gore" lawn signs right now

[ 19 December 2006: Message edited by: ctrl190 ]

quote:

---

So Adam, would you update your intial post and put an asterix beside Kucinich's name?

---

Yes, good thinking!

quote:

---

Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn’t the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote.

---

quote:

---

Just days after her return from a trip to Iraq, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton steered a middle course between outright opposition to President Bush's new war strategy and a diplomatic refusal to join fellow Democrats seeking a decisive plan for ending U.S. military involvement in a country torn by sectarian and insurgent violence.

Clinton, a likely candidate for her party's 2008 presidential nomination, made the rounds of early morning talk shows Wednesday, lambasting Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to Baghdad while carefully avoiding any suggestion that she would support a deadline for troop withdrawal called for by some Democrats.

"I'm for redeploying our troops out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq so we can make sure that they're not in the midst of a civil war," said Clinton during an appearance on CBS's "Early Show."

---

I don't believe he has officially declared his candidacy yet.

Of course, I was wrong about Dennis Kucinich earlier, so if somebody wants to check up on me about this, go ahead.

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]

The New York Times describes the current Dem field thus:

quote:

---

Mr. Obama, 45, became the sixth Democrat to enter the prospective field, joining Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio.

---

ETA: On the GOP side, I happened to catch Tancredo on O'Reilly's show for a few minutes tonight: 'Immigration Reform' [sic] appears to be his key issue.

[ 17 January 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]

Hillary Rodham Clinton sort of entered. Her web site has a video with her saying, among other stuff, "I'm in". Kind of an odd way to officially announce.

The only major Democrats who are considering running but haven't made an announcement yet are Wesley Clark and John Kerry.

On the Republican side, Duncan Hunter has been silent since becoming the first elected Republican to form an exploratory committee. Chuck Hagel, George Pataki and Newt Gingrich have yet to make an announcement. Gingrich, in his usual 'dramatic' way said that he won't announce until about September of this year. He said that 'if somebody takes my issues, I won't run, but if not, there will still be a need for me'. (not an exact quote, but it kind of shows his pomposity accurately).

[ 20 January 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy ... I mean, that's a storybook, man."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Joe Biden in. Foot already in mouth.

---

He should stick to plagiarizing Neil Kinnock's speeches.

[ 31 January 2007: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

... not via a third party. via the Democratic Party.

i think if they chose to run together, against Obama & Hillary, the debate would be a lot more real - they have the honesty to discuss Climate Change & Peak Oil/ Energy Transition.

barring any major bloopers, they would Turn Out the Vote - getting a lot of people who had given up on voting to the polls.

granted, the next President will be inheriting a huge mess from Bush 43.

2.George Pataki not likely to run. He hasn't formally said 'no' yet, but he's told his supporters he won't make a decision for months and, in the mean time, they can sign on to other campaigns if they like.

3.Al Gore still not running. He's shut down his PAC too. The dreamers and romantics like to think he will announce during the Acadamy Awards when An Inconvenient Truth wins for best documentary. Or, if not that, when he wins the Nobel Prize. Keep dreaming.

This leaves just 2 Republicans to make up their minds: Newt Gingrich and Chuck Hagel. Gingrich has imperiously said he won't decide for months. What is clearly going on is that he wants to be president, but he doeesn't want to have to go through the nomination process (he was either quoted recently or an old quote was unearthed of him saying that he thought the presidential nomination process 'is stupid'.) He is obviously hoping that the Republican front runners Guiliani and McCain fizzle out and the leading conservative challengers, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback and Mitt Romney are found to be unacceptable and, at that time, a 'draft Newt' movement will start an unstoppable steam roll.

If that doesn't happen, don't bet on him to enter.

[ 02 February 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Former Sen. John Edwards on Thursday stood by two bloggers after a conservative Catholic group demanded they be fired for posting what it called "anti-Catholic" blog entries before joining his presidential campaign.

Catholic League President William Donohue issued a statement this week calling the two bloggers -- Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen -- "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash talking bigots."

In response to the criticism, the North Carolina Democrat said that "the tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me."

"It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people," Edwards said in a statement.

"But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."

In statements also released by the Edwards campaign, Marcotte and McEwen said they did not mean to offend anyone's personal beliefs.

In his complaints, Donohue pointed to a Marcotte blog on her Pandagon site regarding the church's opposition to birth control, which she said forces women "to bear more tithing Catholics." Donohue also objected to another entry titled "Pope and Fascists."

Donohue also criticized a post by McEwen that refers to President Bush's "wingnut Christofacist base" on the Shakespeare's Sister blog.

---

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/08/edwards.bloggers/

quote:

---

By not firing Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, Donohue said, Edwards is promoting anti-Catholicism. He said the 2008 Democratic contender's actions should be viewed in the same way it would be seen if Edwards had not fired a staffer who had used the 'n'-word.

"He's nothing more than David Duke with a blow-dried haircut," Donohue said of Edwards.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html

Some comments by the distinguished William Donahue:

quote:

---

"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity, in general, and Catholicism, in particular. It's not a secret, okay? I'm not afraid to say it.

[...]

Hollywood likes anal sex. They would like to see, uh, the public square without nativity scenes. I like -- I like families. I like children. They like abortions."

---

quote:

---

Members of the Catholic League's board of advisers include conservative author and media analyst L. Brent Bozell III; conservative radio host and syndicated columnist Linda Chavez; right-wing pundit and author Dinesh D'Souza; former Republican presidential and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; and National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne.

Prior to leading the Catholic League, Donohue was a sociology professor at La Roche College, a Catholic college in Pittsburgh. He was also an adjunct scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. He has authored several books, including Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU (Transaction, 2001) and On the Front Line of the Culture War: Recent Attacks on the Boy Scouts of America (Claremont Institute, 1996).

---

quote:

---

"You want to run for president?" asked Frank Bruni in his book Ambling into History. "Here's what you need to do: Have someone write you a lovely speech that stakes out popular positions in unwavering language and less popular positions in fuzzier terms. Better yet if it bows to God and country at every turn - that's called uplift. Make it rife with optimism, a trumpet blast not just about morning in America but about a perpetual dazzling dawn. Avoid talk of hard choices and daunting challenges; nobody wants those. Nod to people on all points of the political spectrum ... Add a soupcon of alliteration. Sprinkle with a few personal observations or stories - it humanises you. Stir with enthusiasm."

Watching the contenders for the Democratic party nomination at the Washington Hilton this weekend during the party's winter meeting was to see Bruni's formula applied with precision (though he might have added: "Have millionaire backers, be tall, married and able-bodied" - it is unlikely the wheelchair user FDR would have been elected in the era of mass television).

The candidates were each allowed seven minutes, 30 seconds of theme music, and 100 poster-waving fans, to lay out their stall for the new American century. Each one spoke of how the nation's historic mission as a beacon of liberty, justice and opportunity throughout the globe, had been traduced by the Bush administration. There was nothing bad enough you could say about the Iraq war, the budget deficit or the state of healthcare. There was also nothing concrete that most of the candidates would say about what they would do to fix them. With little of substance on offer, delivery was everything. Barack Obama, who delivered beautifully, called for an end to cynicism in American politics. That's a lot of work for just seven minutes....

The mainstream media dances dutifully. Reporters somehow never encounter non-voters, instead constructing a country hotly debating the issues and weighing up the candidates. Obsessed by polls and personalities, they have a surreal fixation about who is up and who is down, with little indication of why we should care.

---

quote:

---

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what’s right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I’m anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue—anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics—has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.

Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

---

Clinton/Obama

vs

Cheney/Perle

Clinton - supersmart, woman - groundbreaker, return of the ever popular Bill.

Obama - charismatic, black - groundbreaker, smoker (if the right wing attacks him on this, they'll be denegrating their own support base). Too bad pretty-boy John Edwards has already had his chance.

Cheney - gun slinging idealogue who can't explain his trigger happy accident with his lawyer - pretty much sums up his reasoning for the Iraq invasion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
One of the bloggers quits.

---

quote:

---

The machine tabulated seven 'yes' and one 'no', because the memory card had been tampered with.

---

Can't recall if it's in the film, but a tech buddy says it's worse thasn that. You can tamper with one memory card, it gets put through a central computer that reads all the results, and it drops a virus in that changes all the votes. There's been all sorts of stories about teen hackers breaking the code on those machines in 5 minutes flat.

I don't know much about Richardson, yet, but I think he should be on the Democratic ticket, if not for President,then for VP. He's a governmor, and in a contest where image is everything, he comes across like your friend's cool dad (kind of a less pudgy John Goodman thing). Plus he's part Hispanic, which would help the odds of locking up the votes of the largest minority in the US

In all liklihood, he won't even get much support here in Alaska, because Gravel is remembered with a great deal of bitterness as the man who defeated our great Senator Ernest Gruening in the 1968 Democratic Senate primary by attacking Gruening's opposition to the war in Vietnam. Gruening has been one of only two members of the Senate to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, the legislation that gave Lyndon Johnson the "blank check" to escalate the U.S. involvement in Vietnam after U.S. Navy ships were supposedly attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin. According to many sources, including this Wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident

It is an open question as to whether any attacks by the North Vietnamese were unprovoked or whether the attacks took place at all.

The other senator who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Oregon's Wayne Morse, was also defeated in 1968 (in his case by Republican candidate and future serial tongue molester Bob Packwood, who served until he was forced to resign in disgrace in 1990).

Mike Gravel was a polarizing and eccentric figure in the Senate, once proposing to put most of the state under a massive plastic dome(I'm NOT making this up, folks) and sabotauging the original 1978 Alaska lands deal that President Carter had agreed to.

The original deal would have left much more land in the state open to development than the lands deal that was approved in 1980, a deal in which Carter put much more of the land off limits to development out of spite at Gravel and which was, essentially, the death knell of the Democratic party in Alaska in terms of congressional races(they haven't won the Congressional seat or either Senate seat since). And it is this deal that is what our vicious and now ancient U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, and his almost as ancient and twice as vicious Congressional counterpart Don Young, refer to over and over again as having "locked up Alaska" to economic growth.

Gravel was soundly beaten in the Democratic senate primary in 1980 by Clark Gruening, Ernest Gruening's grandson, who, unfortunately, lost to our recently defeated Governor Frank Murkowski in the fall election that year.

Just thought I'd pass along some Last Frontier history to my fellow Babblers.

[ 14 February 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

Here are my thoughts:

Democrats

The conventional wisdom is that it will basically be a race between Obama and Clinton. Now, it could still turn out this way, but I have my doubts. They both have their strengths. CLinton is definitely the establishment candidate, she's gonna raise a ton of money and she's gonna have the best campaign team, including her husband. However, she is universally despised by conservatives as well as a lot of independents and moderates and Democrats could be scared off that she's unelectable. This happened with Dean last time and so they went with the most bland, boring, inoffensive empty suit that they could find. She also voted for th Iraq war and continues to be at least generally supportive of it, trying to position herself as a moderate for the general election. But first she has to win the primaries and the Democratic primaries are dominated largely by the left who will not be too enthusiastic about supporting her.
Obama is the closest thing US politics has had to a rock star since Bobby Kennedy. He's young, 'an outsider' and can seemingly appeal to the moderate majority of the country. However, up until now, he's been all style and little substance. People love him but can't really tell you where he stands on any major issues. Which has been great for him until now because people have been able to project anything they want onto him. If you want him to be a lefty, he is. If you want him to be a centrist, he can be that too. But as a presidential candidate, he's gonna have to stake out clear positions and this will inevitably piss off and alienate some of his supporters. Also, since Obama and Clinton are the two front-runners, though neither really has a clear advantage, there's a damn good chance that they're gonna spend the next year attacking the hell out of each other and reducing both of their viability in the process.

This would allow someone else to come up and emerge as the 'compromise' consensus candidate. Joe Biden seems well-positioned to be this guy. He's similar to John Kerry in that he's obviously smart and experienced and well-known in the party. He brings a certain gravitas that Obama lacks after only 2 years in the Senate. And he's been solidly anti-war without being on the left-wing fringe - so he'll satisfy the hard-core activist voters without scaring away the soccer moms.

I don't like Edwards' chances very much. I think he had a great opportunity last time, but that time has passed and the party and voters have moved on. He's certainly well-spoken and has a compelling message, but people have heard it before so it loses that 'freshness' appeal. Though, again, if Obama and Clinton fall apart, people may give him a closer look, especially if he can come 2nd in Iowa (polls have him doing well but it's way too early) and then win the SC primary the next week.

I actually think they're best bet in terms of electability is Bill Richardson. He certainly has low name recognition now, but on paper and IMHO in person, he seems the most impressive to me. His style is exactly what they need. Democrats are constantly being tarred as effete, northeastern champagne socialists or granola-eating hippies. Richardson looks even more comfortable in a cowboy hat and boots as Bush. He's plain-spoken. He's from the southwest, which is an area the democrats need to be competitive in if they're gonna win. He's half-Hispanic and speaks fluent Spanish which is important given the inroads that the Republicans have made in that community. Great resume in terms of experience. Executive experience as a governor. Foreigh policy experience as UN ambassador. ANd as energy secretary, he gained experience in what is gonna be a very important issue for voters - energy and the environment.

The Republicans

I think it basically comes down to McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback and possibly Gingrich if he jumps in.

Giuliani seems to be the frontrunner so far but I just don't see that lasting very long at all. He has great name recognition and a 'hero' aura about him but people haven't paid any attention to him. The Republican primary voters are largely rural or suburban, religious and conservative. Giuliani is a wealthy New Yorker who is on his 3rd marriage. Voters won't like that. They'll like even less his positions on some issues: pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage and pro-gun control. I'm not sure anyone who holds that combination of positions can receive the Republican nomination in this day and age. And let's not forget that while Giuliani was a hero on September 11th, he was a pariah on September 10th. His administration had a number of scandals. He is widely disliked in the black and Hispanic communities for certain police brutality incidents and racial profiling accusations and Republicans are trying hard to gain support from those communities.

McCain is right up there with Giuliani in terms of the frontrunner status. He still has a lot of loyal support from his run in 2000 and the people who backed Bush over him have been impressed by his loyalty. There's talk that Rove and a bunch of Bush people are quietly backing him. He has strong appeal to independents and moderates. A great personal story that's hard to resist. But his strong support for the war could hurt him as even Republicans are now viewing the war as a big mistake. Despite what has been a pretty socially conservative voting record, he's taken some shots at leaders of the Christian right and they make up a pretty big chunk of primary voters in certain states and may not be inclined to support him - though tehy move to him if he appears to be the only one who can stop Giuliani from getting the nomination. And, finally, let's face it - he's not a young man anymore. The trend lately has been for younger leaders with families at home since this is more relatable for the biggest group of swing voters - just look at Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Stephen Harper.

Romney could very well pull it off. He has a very impressive resume, a strong track record as governor, he's from a region of the country where Republicans need to be competitive and, because he was a gvoernor and not involved in foreign policy, will not be tarred with any of the Bush legacy and the mess in Iraq. The big question will be if he can gain support from social conservatives. Although he now positions himself as pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage, he wasn't always so and some doubt his sincerity. There's also a big question mark on whether people will be willing to vote for a Mormon canidate. Romeny may have the msot potential to come up between McCain and Giuliani but there are some big traps that he could fall into along the way.

Brownback is a really interesting candidate. Like Richardson on the Democratic side, Brownback could very well be the strongest candidate but lacks the name recognition adn fundraising and organizational ability. He definitely has the experience after 2 terms in the senate and one in the house. He's as solidly socially conservative as they come. But I think he brings a really unique perspective that I, personally, even as someone who considers himself 'progressive' really admires. While Bush played up the whole 'compassionate conservative' theme, it sorta struck me as just a slogan whereas Brownback really tends to exemplify for me what conservatism should be and could be. His compassion for the poor strikes me as very genuine. I know he's done a lot of work in the prison system trying to rehabilitate inmates and provide them with education and job training. On foreign policy, he's been really committed to human rights issues - particularly the fight against trafficking sex slaves and the genocide in Darfur and has worked with Democrats on these issues and really earned their respect. He even instructed his own financial planner to pull out all of his investments from any company that was doing business with the Sudanese government, which I thought was admirable. If McCain or Giuliani get the nomination, don't be surprised to see Brownback as the VP candidate in order to shore up the social conservative vote and to try to continue the inroads that the aprty has made among Catholics.

quote:

---

I actually think they're best bet in terms of electability is Bill Richardson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

I think there best bet is Edwards. However, if I had to predict right now, I think Clinton and Romney will win the nominations. Two more legacies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Whom:

If that happens, Romney would absolutely thrash Clinton.

---

I enjoyed your comments re the various people who might run, but I have trouble with your last statement.

So, while not trying to disagree, I'm wondering why you think Romney would easily beat Clinton?

[ 14 February 2007: Message edited by: oreobw ]

quote:

---

He consistently argued for lifting the arms embargo, training Bosnian Muslims, investigating war crimes and administering NATO air strikes. Biden's subsequent "lift and strike" resolution was instrumental in convincing President Bill Clinton to use military force in the face of systematic human rights violations.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden was supportive of the Bush administration efforts, calling for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and agreeing with the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated. The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden supported the final resolution of support for war in Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
My candidate for President, with her Attorney General al la the Kennedy bros:

(image deleted)

Jenna and NotJenna in 2008!

---

quote:

---

Back in 1994, when Brownback came to Congress as a freshman, he was so contemptuous of federal authority that he refused at first to sign the Contract With America, Newt Gingrich's right-wing manifesto -- not because it was too radical but because it was too tame. Republicans shouldn't just reform big government, Brownback insisted -- they should eliminate it. He immediately proposed abolishing the departments of education, energy and commerce

---

quote:

---

The most bluntly theocratic effort, however, is the Constitution Restoration Act, which Brownback co-sponsored with Jim DeMint, another former C Streeter who was then a congressman from South Carolina. If passed, it will strip the Supreme Court of the ability to even hear cases in which citizens protest faith-based abuses of power. Say the mayor of your town decides to declare Jesus lord and fire anyone who refuses to do so; or the principal of your local high school decides to read a fundamentalist prayer over the PA every morning; or the president declares the United States a Christian nation. Under the Constitution Restoration Act, that'll all be just fine.

---

quote:

---

During a recent broadcast Brownback explains that with the help of the VAT, he's working to defeat a measure that would stiffen penalties for violent attacks on gays and lesbians.

---

quote:

---

Brownback is less concerned about the world being polluted by people. His biggest financial backer is Koch Industries, an oil company that ranks among America's largest privately held companies. "The Koch folks," as they're known around the senator's office, are among the nation's worst polluters. In 2000, the company was slapped with the largest environmental civil penalty in U.S. history for illegally discharging 3 million gallons of crude oil in six states. That same year Koch was indicted for lying about its emissions of benzene, a chemical linked to leukemia, and dodged criminal charges in return for a $20 million settlement. Brownback has received nearly $100,000 from Koch and its employees, and during his neck-and-neck race in 1996, a mysterious shell company called Triad Management provided $410,000 for last-minute advertising on Brownback's behalf. A Senate investigative committee later determined that the money came from the two brothers who run Koch Industries.

Brownback has been a staunch opponent of environmental regulations that Koch finds annoying, fighting fuel-efficiency standards and the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. But for the senator, there's no real divide between the predatory economic interests of his corporate backers and his own moral passions. He received more money funneled through Jack Abramoff, the GOP lobbyist under investigation for bilking Indian tribes of more than $80 million, than all but four other senators -- and he blocked a casino that Abramoff's clients viewed as a competitor. But getting Brownback to vote against gambling doesn't take bribes; he would have done so regardless of the money.

---

[ 14 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
In addition, the evangelicals were apparently not fundamentalist enough for him. He converted to Catholicsm five years ago, and has flirted with the Opus Dei crowd. I don't think he has a realistic shot at the nomination. But I could see Romney picking him as his running mate because the social conservatives are suspicious of Romney's Mormonism and his previous moderate stance on social issues.

---

Although things are getting muddier with every state moving up primaries, and, although, I admit this analysis is that of a general fighting the last war, if we look at 2004 this was the process: basically 40-60% of Iowans made up their minds in the last 2 weeks of the caucus, and Iowa decided everything.

Based on that, the important thing is merely being strong enough in Iowa to essentially make a run in the last 2 weeks. That comes down to three things: money, organization and at least a semblance of policy. Kerry didn't win in 2004 because he was "the most bland candidate" or whatever. He won because he refinanced his house and he had the active support of a lot of Iowa state legislators (as well as the wife of the then governor) and a bunch of unions.

The best analogy is the N.H.L playoffs. Any team that can get into the playoffs has a shot at winning the cup, similarly, any candidate who has enough of those three things can win Iowa, and, if 2004 is any guide, can ride the momentum to the nomination.

On the Democratic side, I think that could be any of them except for Kucinich and probably Biden. Kucinich has too high negatives and Biden makes too many blunders.

The other Democrat not to overlook is Chris Dodd. As has been reported in the news, he's raised the second most amount of money for any Democratic presidential candidate in the last quarter.

On the Republican side, I'd add Mike Huckabee in as a strong contender. He has a lot of baggage (a whole bunch of mini scandals that reduced his 2002 reelection from an expected over 60% of the vote to just 53% plus his own Willie Horton) but, the rest in the field aren't super strong either.

[ 16 February 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

Clinton's negatives are much too high and while she has strong and loyal support amongst certain demographics. Most importantly, there are no "swing voters" if CLinton is the candidate. And her base is not enough to win a general election, barring a viable 3rd party candidate (which is a possibility if Bloomberg runs or Hagel goes independent) to take votes away from the Republican.
Now, given Clinton's weakness, virtually ANY Republican would have a big advantage, though I think less so with Giuliani because he will concede his NY base to her and many social conservatives would stay home. But a guy like Romney would maintain the party's lock on the South and West but also be competitive in the Northeast, including possibly in Massachussets which has big electoral votes and has been one of the safest states for the Democrats. If they have to even compete there, they're dead.

---

1.On Hillary Rodham Clinton, I think you are mistaking the vehemence of the conservatives as a sign of their overall size. Polls right now show her either in a tie or defeating all Republicans. While I don't know if the election campaign could increase her negatives, as she showed in her New York Senate campaigns, she's actually brought people onside. People who don't like her say "the day she announced was her strongest day, and it's downhill from there", I've heard several people who watch C-Span say she is one of the most effective and informed senators going and people will actually find her better than they expect once she starts campaiging in earnest.

2.On Mitt Romney. There is no way he would be competitive in the North East. He left office with a 35% approval rating in Massachusetts and saw his Republican successor for governor lose by 21%.

Looking out from this point, the presidential campaign will likely largely boil down to two things: a referendum on the Democratic performance in Congress and the war. Any Republican is going to be saddled by the war, which will push them between the hard line true believers in their party, and the vast majority of the American people on the other side. As to the Democratic Congress, expect them to promote a bunch of popular bills that will either get bottled up in the Senate or vetoed by the President. The Democratic candidate for President will merely run on the theme of "if you want these bills to pass, you need a Democrat in the White House."

The Republicans will also likely continue to be hamstrung by their record, especially among independents. "Tax and spend liberal" went over like a lead balloon in the 2006 midterms because of the Republican fiscal record from 2001-2006.

Partisan identification is stronger than ever in the U.S, which each candidate for President pretty much guaranteed to get 45% of the vote minimum. In the aggregate Congressional vote in 2006, the Democrats won 52-46%, the widest split between the parties since Clinton's presidential win in 1996.

quote:

---

As to the Democratic Congress, expect them to promote a bunch of popular bills that will either get bottled up in the Senate or vetoed by the President. The Democratic candidate for President will merely run on the theme of "if you want these bills to pass, you need a Democrat in the White House."

---

To the degree that he had many supporters, his dropping out should help Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson. Vilsack was head of the DLC and Clinton should gain whatever support he had from that group, and Richardson is now the only governor in the race.

2.Chuck Hagel will likely announce he's running within the next two weeks.

3.Looks like Wesley Clark will not run. He said a month ago he would make a decision and he's not said anything since then.

2.Fred Thompson is being pushed to run by many in the Republican Party. No surprise given the disatisfaction, at least among the hierarchy, with the top choices.

3.Newt Gingrich admitted to carrying on an adulterous affair at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I'm not sure where this leaves us with him other than I just have to wonder who are these women that would want to have anything to do with him? Don't they have any self respect at all?

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]

Obama is currently the most viable candidate to move the paradigm TOWARDS the center, in a non-polarizing manner.

Ask thyself this : who would you be more capable of having a dialogue of reason, realism, lucidity and compromise with... Bush or Obama ? And who could possibly accomodate some principles/policies of Democratic Socialism more readily... Bush or Obama ?

The comparative models reveal that it's really quite simple, incremental and practical.

quote:

---

Ask thyself this : who would you be more capable of having a dialogue of reason, realism, lucidity and compromise with... Bush or Obama ? And who could possibly accomodate some principles/policies of Democratic Socialism more readily... Bush or Obama ?

The comparative models reveal that it's really quite simple, incremental and practical.

But whether it's Elephant or Donkey, the American Political Paradigm is certainly, but SLOWLY, shifting towards the left.And the entire world benefits.

---

I think Edwards stays in the top tier simply because he appears to be the anointed candidate of the bloggers and 'people power' activists, and we all saw how those folks mobilized for candidates like Jon Tester and Jim Webb in the congressional elections, to take two examples (of course, they also backed Ned Lamont...). Otherwise it's shaping up to be a Clinton-Obama fight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:

Bush is a lame-duck on his way out. He doesnt represnt most republican candidates, who will be craftier and more convincing at attacking the Left than Bush had ever been.
ANd as for Obama, he does support attacking Iran after all.
What Imsaying is that you have presented a simplified paradigm, since Giuliani/MCCAin appear more "sophisticated", than Bush. Obama seems kinda nice, but he seems to be prone to fall to really bad advice. Again,A lot like Hillary.

---

Obama might implode yet, I know.I also know some of his policy aspects will mirror the Harper-clan.

But in the pursuit of an alternative to the Bush regime, and selection according to the *lesser evil* preference, you.....me..... and others will be systematically duped into cheering for someone who ends up implementing some, most or all directives from the (monstrous) military-industrial-prison-pharmaceutical complex.

We all know what happens to them when they become truly anti-establishment...

(And we all must agree that folks like Nader, Sanders or Kucinich have next to zero chance...)

What did JFK say before he was eliminated ?

"I will smash the CIA into a thousand pieces."

"CLINTON FORESEES A “REMAINING MILITARY AS WELL AS POLITICAL MISSION” IN IRAQ

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

U.S. Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) addresses the International Association of Firefighters Bipartisan 2008 Presidential Forum in Washington, March 14, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing."

Same old.
That is, the US will keep control of the oil fields amid the sea of blood and chaos that used to be Iraq.

Not to mention keep the string of little known mega-bases cutting across Iraq.

And of course keep the brand new Middle east command-and-control centre euphemistically called "The US Embassy". That is, those 21 high-rises in the Vatican city sized fortress, carved out of what used to to be Baghdad's financial district.

Clinton: NYT

quote:

---

Senator Chuck Hagel spent 13 months as a lowly grunt in the Mekong Delta in the deadliest period of the Vietnam War. He saw the horror of war from the bottom up — men sheared in half by explosives, half-decapitated by sniper fire, bleeding to death in the gloomy swelter of the jungle. Thirty years later, he came to believe he had been used.

Senator John McCain was shot down 3,500 feet above Hanoi on a bombing run one month into his tour. He spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war; he was held in solitary confinement, tortured, beaten until he could not stand. An admiral’s son and a Navy pilot, he came to believe, like many pilots, that the war had been winnable, if only it had been fought right.

Memories of Vietnam haunt the public debate on the war in Iraq. They also lurk in the private thoughts of a generation in Congress — men like Senators Hagel and McCain, who lived through the earlier war, vote on the current one and, despite their shared past, now disagree profoundly on what the United States should do next.

Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican who is running for president, is a vocal supporter of the plan President Bush announced in January to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. It represents, he says, the best hope for success, “our last shot.” Mr. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican who has accused the administration of “arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,” opposes the troop increase and is pressing for a phased withdrawal.

At a time when more than half of Americans say the war was a mistake, Mr. McCain’s support for continuing it has become one of the biggest challenges his candidacy faces; and Mr. Hagel’s status as the war’s most outspoken Republican critic in Congress has become a powerful argument in favor of his running, although he shied away from entering the campaign last week.

What role does the Vietnam experience of the two senators, longtime allies and friends, play in their divergent thinking about Iraq? Mr. McCain says his years as a pilot and a prisoner of war play no part — although one aide said that the year he spent studying the war at the National War College probably did. Mr. Hagel, however, says his Vietnam experiences unquestionably inform his thinking.

“Surely it has affected how I have seen this war and why I have spoken out as I have,” Mr. Hagel said in an interview last week. “I was part of, I think, the forgotten group of people in all wars — that is, the person at the bottom who is expected to fight and die and has very little to say in policy, even tactics.”

His faith in the rightness of the Vietnam War was worn down by reading history and traveling abroad, but what changed his mind most, he said, was listening to tape recordings released in the late 1990’s of telephone conversations in which President Lyndon B. Johnson confided that he saw the war as pointless. That was in 1964, and Mr. Johnson said he feared impeachment if he tried to withdraw.

“The dishonesty of it was astounding — criminal, really,” Mr. Hagel said. “I came to the conclusion that they used those people, used our young people. So I am very careful, especially now. We’d better ask all the tough questions. This administration dismissed every tough question we asked. We were assured, ‘We know what we’re doing.’ That’s what they said in Vietnam.” ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:

On the Republican side, I'd add Mike Huckabee in as a strong contender.

---

Just saw Huckabee on Jon Stewart last night and have to say, he immediately reminded me of his brilliant performance in Rick Mercers "Talking to Americans"

quote:

---

Q: I read that you're against miniskirts.

A: If a person dresses provocatively, they're calling attention -- maybe not the most desirable kind -- to private parts of their body.

Q: What about a burka?

A: No, that hides everything. I think a person's hair, arms, shoulders, legs are an appropriate display of who they are. I want people to be attracted to me because they find me interesting, not because I'm wearing something ... well, I doubt I own anything provocative.

Q: How about a minskirt?

A: A thong.

---

quote:

---

If Canadians could choose the next US President,
it would be Hillary Clinton by a landslide, according to a new poll released
today.
Almost four in ten Canadians want Senator Clinton as the next US
president. A new poll conducted by The Strategic Counsel on behalf of The
Globe and Mail and CTV News shows Hillary Clinton is the strong favorite among
Canadians who give the New York senator a three-to-one lead over Rudy Giuliani
(12%), the next most popular candidate among respondents. 11% would vote for
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton's closest rival for the Democratic nomination.

"Clearly the Clinton brand continues to hold a lot of luster in Canada,"
says Tim Woolstencroft, Managing Partner of The Strategic Counsel. "Bill
Clinton has always enjoyed tremendous popularity here, and that critical mass
of positive sentiment has given Hillary's campaign a big boost. She's a strong
candidate in her own right, but it's an even stronger franchise. A lot of
Canadians would like to see another Clinton White House."

Canadian support for Hillary Clinton cuts across age, education level,
and even political affiliation. "She's as popular among Canadian Conservatives
as she is among Canadian Liberals," says Woolstencroft, "and I think that says
something about the kind of broad, personal appeal that the Clintons have
managed to secure here in Canada."

Hillary Clinton enjoys strongest support among Quebeckers (51%),
Francophone Canadians (52%) and, overwhelmingly, Bloc Quebecois voters (67%)

---

quote:

---

Presidential hopeful John Edwards said Saturday he's raising enough money to compete in the early states and invoked Howard Dean's 2004 fundraising totals as a cautionary tale.

''Money will not decide who the nominee's going to be,'' Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. ''Everyone will remember Governor Dean who outraised everyone else by more than 2-to-1 and wasn't able to win the nomination.''

Edwards' campaign reported it raised $9 million from April through June. It's a shortfall compared to Sens. Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton -- his top rivals who best him both in the polls and fundraising tallies.

''I like very much where I am,'' Edwards said, taking a break from his three-day vacation with his wife and two youngest children. ''Among the three of us, I'm the underdog. I'm fighting. I like that place. It's always worked very well for me. That's the story of my life.''

---

The former Governor of Virginia apparently hopes to either run for the U.S Senate in 2008 should incumbent Republican John Warner retire or run for governor in 2009.

Mr. Gilmore, who was governor of Virginia from 1997 to 2001 was a disaster and is one of the main reasons why the state is steadily trending Democratic.

I would put the Republican candidates basically into four camps:

Frontrunners
1.Rudy Giuliani (with surprising strength)
2.Fred Thompson (not officially entered)
3.Mitt Romney (but may have peaked too soon)
4.John McCain (but fading badly)

Second Tier/could catch on
5.Mike Huckabee (eclipsed by Fred Thompson, but apparently steadily gaining in the early states)

Third Tier/surprising they aren't doing better
6.Sam Brownback
7.Tommy Thompson

Congresspeople and pretty fringe
8.Ron Paul (there are some here who may think they like him due to his opposition to the war, but he is basically just a libertarian kook)
9.Tom Tancredo
10.Duncan Hunter.

[ 15 July 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]

That is the opinion of politics1.com website operator Ron Gunzberger.

quote:

---

I don't think Romney's peaked too soon. He's ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire. Don't focus on national polls. As for odds of winning, I'd rank them as follows:

---

Republicans
1.It seems Fred Thompson's late entry has blocked Newt Gingrich (if Gingrich had wanted to enter).

2.Mike Huckabee has continued to make gains since coming in second in the Ames (Iowa) straw poll. If he can improve his fundraising, he could become a first tier candidate.

Democrats
All 3 of the major 'second tier' Democrats have made moves.
1.Bill Richardson. Above 10% in the polls in Iowa and Nevada, 2 of the early states.

2.Chris Dodd, endorsement of Iowa firefighters union.

3.Joe Biden. Has most endorsements from Iowa state legislators. (only 6 though)

John Kerry's win in Iowa in Iowa was attributed to his endoresements from the firefighters union and state legislators.

4.John Edwards has received the endorsements from several national unions.

quote:

---

Jewish groups lined up with Arab and Muslim organizations yesterday to hammer Sen. John McCain for calling the U.S. a "Christian nation" that should have a Christian President.

McCain's remarks were "disappointing and disturbing to say the least," said Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League. He called on the Arizona Republican to retract them.

"Absolutely nothing in the Constitution establishes that the U.S. is a Christian nation," Foxman said, "nor is it accurate to say that this nation was founded on Christian principles."

The American Jewish Committee also challenged McCain's statements last week to the religion and faith Web site Beliefnet in which he said that while he wouldn't rule out a non-Christian President, a Christian is preferable because, "I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead."

---

quote:

---

“How, as president, would you deal with Iran?”

Thompson: “I think we need to understand first of all the threat that Iran poses to us. . . . We’re seeing some success with some minor economic sanctions right now. I think the best way to describe it as probably aggravating the Iranians more than anything. It’s not really hurting them. I’m afraid that the Soviet Union & China are not ever going to do anything that’s going to hurt them that badly but we need to ratchet those up if at all possible.

---

http://www.electoralcompass.com/

Hilarious!

Homer: "Being President is easy -
just point the Army and shoot".