Sorry, I should have said I don't belive Mr. Montand "was" a natural born American citizen.

I don't believe Mr. Montand is a natural born American citizen.

We hear this every four years that the leadership is weak, no way can so and so win. That is what is unfolding before us now.

Who will take the reins of leadership with a completely open presidential election (not since 1968)?

As far as disdain for HRC, IMO, it is a complete love-hate relationship. In general, I believe the source of either the love or the hate stems from the same thing, she was a strong presence in the White House during her husbands administration. Those that love her applaud the fact that she played such a pivital role, those who hate her contend that it was inappropriate as she was un-elected baggage that came with Bill.

I think it will be Hillary v McCain -- Hillary has the money and it's McCain's turn. If not McCain, then it will be some obscure governor noone has ever heard about. Or perhaps Jeb Bush.

Both parties are leadership weak. The special interests propping up both sides have poisoned the politcal process and caused widespread apathy and cynicism.

George Allen for President? Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Why not Yves Montand?

tc468

CNN usually has such side-by-side comparisons in their election coverage website but nothing is up now except 2004.

A couple of interesting sites:
http://primary2008.typepad.com/
http://www.ovaloffice2008.com
http://www.patrickruffini.com/2008wire/
http://2008politicalperspective.blogspot.com

At this point, everything about the 2008 Presidential contest is PREMATURE. That is part of the fun of speculation and handicapping the horse race.

I would love to live in a country where comparing candidates on the basis of their stands on important issues takes precedent. Unfortunately, I have been involved in politics long enough to know that money plays an overwhemling part in selection of a nominee.

And to get back to former VP Gore, Jeff, don't get me wrong. Gore has made some impressive speeches, but they have just not filtered into the conciousness of the general public. While you and I may have heard them and appreciated their articulate messages, I think it will be difficult for him to translate to political support.

The Clinton factor, I agree, is the least of the factors that would deter or derail a comeback but I believe it plays a factor. President Clinton is seen and heard almost daily with his work on the Katrina relief fund. I am not a big fan of a Hillary campaign either but it is a huge factor in garnering financial support from loyal Clintonistas, of which Gore is inextricably linked, like it or not.

Plus it is hard enough for a VP to get elected President, let alone one that has lost once already. You noted the Nixon example, being Eisenhower's VP and losing to Kennedy in 1960, only to return in 1968 to capture the White House. Lyndon Johnson is the last Democratic VP to win a presidential election but he succeeded Kennedy mid-term. The last Democrat to outright win the presidency after serving as vice president is Martin Van Buren in 1836. And of course, the last VP to outright win the presidency is George HW Bush in 1988. A last historical aside, President Grover Cleveland, elected in 1884, lost the presidncy in 1888 only to reclaim it in 1892.

IMO, Gore 2008 is not impossible, just highly improbable but your points are well taken.

Handicapping the money race is premature. Ego and name recognition and steam roller huffing/puffing two years out is presumtuous. What will be the real determination is what issues candidates address and then all us Joe Americans can make a decision with our money and primary sweat. What I want to see now, instead of a money comparison, is a spreadsheet for candidates identifying their stand on 25 or so issues referenced to voting records and dated public pronouncements. And specifically, two years from now I'd like to see this same spreadsheet documenting political shifts and campaign wigglements to discover who's a true believer and who's an opportunist. If this documentation is available today from some
worthy resource would someone please point me in that direction.

Is there any wonder why people in out in real America (non-DC, that is) hate Washington? This kinds of sleazy insider money game is one of the reasons why. Instead of seeing who's got the best ideas, it's "who's got the money?" Remember how Howard Dean's massive fundraising was going to make him unstoppable? All the Beltway know-it-alls fell flat on their face after declaring for months that Dean was unbeatable. Yes, money does have some effect, but there things it can't buy, like a good candidate. Joe Biden may have raised some money, but he's an absolute joke of a candidate with no chance of being nominated. John Kerry? There's only one person who wants another Kerry run: John Kerry. And Giuliani? Please don't insult our intelligence. You beltway guys talk up losers like him, Tsongas, and Forbes when you know that there's no way they will come close to the nomination. Of all of the phases of the presidential primaries, the money primary has to be the dumbest. Yes, let's judge the popular support of each candidate based on how much money the rich guys are giving them. Who's raised more than expected? Who's lagging? Instead of debating who has the best ideas, we're treated to who has more money, as if that should be an issue at all. I also couldn't help but notice that all but 2 of the candidates mentioned were senators. In both primaries, while the beltway elite are examining the money receipts and turning up their noses at outsider candidates, you'll probably see governors end up inspiring the grassroots in both parties and surgining into the lead.

contributions to PAC's are limited to $10,000 per individual. Presidential candidates can put any amount of money directly into their presidential campaign so, what's the use of a PAC?

anyone know the rules about a candidate putting their own money into a pac that could be used for a presidential campaign.

Edwards' cash-on-hand: $23,039

Read it here:

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_06+C00368613

PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. A candidate's standing shouldn't depend on how much money he can raise (because those donations could come from one large corporation hoping for legislative paybacks in return.) instead, let's support a system that will bring in candidates who actually have to meet h/his potential constituents, and that actually gives such constituents a chance to run against those who are bought into office by industries and special interest groups. through a system that publicly finances candidates' elections, maybe just maybe we can get some semi-honest congressmen who are actually working for the interests of the people, rather than cutting or blocking regulations (like DeLay blocking legislation proprosing labor protections and manditory minimum wages to American commonwealths like Saipan -- a payback for huge campaign contributions by the Abramoff represented sweatshop garment industries.) let's think about why we elect these people... not because of how much they can campaign (which costs a lot of money... which is why congressmen waste so much of our taxdollar paid time in office raising money from a few major donors), but rather because they represent us and our interests to a central government that is supposed to protect us. Industries and special interests run this country, not you, me and Joe American... though we elect them. think about it. PUBLIC FINANCE OF ELECTIONS.

Why isn't Sam Brownback on the list? I'm sure he has raised some money for 2008.

What happened to Edwards' $$$s?

Also what about Daschle? An earlier post by Cillizza (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2005/10/daschle_unleash.html) seemed to suggest he was claiming to raise a bunch into his PAC. Apparently, not the case?

I disagree with your assessment of Gore in terms of the loser factor and Clinton factor. I think it makes a difference he won more votes in 2000 (there is the precedent of Nixon who may have won Illinois and still came back). The public's opinion of Gore is higher than it was for Nixon at this point in the race. I think it has helped both his image and his ability to feel more comfortable in his skin by having the extra time.

Second, I don't agree with you about the Clinton factor. Gore has made a series of impressive speeches that have re-established his bonafides as a national thinker, if not completely restored himself as a national leader. Even during the Clinton administration, Gore was well respected, generally taking on the larger issues, while Clinton backing off after the Health Reform fiasco. I finally found some pro-Hillary folks, some students at Rutgers who found her appealing. Frankly, her charisma escapes me and Bill is not running, at least not directly.

As for Gore not holding a job (I presume you mean political office, he has worked at colleges), I think you have a point-- one that John Edwards, in particular, also shares. I did make a visit to the Gore '08 site this afternoon, signing up for their newsletter, but even there among Gore diehards, they said great though Gore's MLK speech was, he will need to do a lot more of those things, to get up a head of steam.

I think that Gore may be the exception to the rule about not holding political office at the time he's running, in that he already has held the vice-presidency and is in the rarified company of those who actually have run for president. (Kerry is also in that category, but his phoned in filibuster message from Davos, scared me, knowing how the Republicans would play it). Obama would never have made that mistake, getting back to potential VP candidates.

I know that the Senate factor plays a part but Bayh was also a mayor and governor and that gives him a mantle of executive experience.

If I had to choose right now, Bayh-Richardson would be my best bet to win 2008. Richardson also puts several SW states (Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) into play as well as Florida with an appeal to Hispanic voters. Midwest-Southwest geography and strong executive experience and mix of domestic and foriegn policy credentials, there is no doubting the gravitas of either candidate.

It would be difficult to make a case for Gore. No doubt he has the intellectual capacity but three things are wrong:

The Loser label- yes he had it stolen from him in 2000 but he couldn't even win his "home state". This would also apply to John Edwards and John Kerry.

No job- American's don't vote for out-of-work politicians, at least not on a national scale (former Gov. Howard Dean, former Gov. Paul Tsongas). This would also apply to John Edwards.

Clinton Factor- the Clintons cast a long shadow over Gore and with former President alive and active and HRC in the hunt, makes Gore look like the forgotten step child of the group.

I am convinced that a triangulation strategy will be used to corner traditional GOP territory and carve some swaths of blue through middle America in 2008.

And while it is two years out and it is unfortunate that money is used as a benchmark, there is no denying that the kind of fundraising strength shown by Senator Bayh is a factor. If he has almost $10 M now, what will he have by the end of 2007?

Money isn't the only gauge for viability - clear and meaningful message helps to raise the money. Yes, little Bush had the big Bush juggernaut and friends helping him, especially the first time out but as per Karl Rove message (read authenticity, political principles) matter - that's why we respond to McCain and Obama. Left, centrist categorizations just don't matter and money (witness Kerry) enables you to do GOTV and media effectively only if can articulate why it matters that 45 million Americans don't have health insurance or that we don't have a game plan for Iraq (or the middle East, or China).

Also, you may want to note, that despite the amount of hero worship the press seems to give Giuliani, he's actually the former Mayor of New York City, not the "Former New York City" itself.

I wish this weren't the gauge we used for viability. The election is 2 years out, and raising money now proves absolutely nothing. Case and point, listed above are Biden and Frist. They may both be able to raise money, but neither one of them has a chance to win their party's nomination. Both can find true believers who will donate money, but neither one, no matter how much money they make, will be able to excite voters when there are better potential options.

The conservative establishment seems to be lining up behind Allen, who is roughly Frist's ideological twin, and much more likely to excite people.

Same deal with Biden, he can't legitimately run left of Clinton, and even if he did, he can't beat Clark or Feingold. And he can't beat Clinton in the center-left.

These guys have long-time supporters that will give them money, but that doesn't traslate into winning.

I like PATeachers idea of a Gore-Obama ticket. The former the best policy Democrat with all around experience, with the additional benefit of running for the office before, and the party faithful ready to even scores.

The latter, thinks best on his feet, articulates a commonsense, outside the beltway view.

Second best, for pragmatic purposes, Gore-Warner. Besides the obvious regional advantage, his fundraising ability is impressive. I also think that Warner needs some more experience and national seasoning, which Gore provides.

Feingold is great. I'd like to see some arguments for him, beyond a protest vote. I'm sick of making symbolic gestures. Also, I'd like to see a united party against anyone the Republicans put up. Whoever we put up, I hope Democrats have the good sense, not to talk them down (learn something from the other party).

If we are talking who is qualified then it is hard to argue against John McCain. He has massive policy expereince and is liked and trusted by the military. Personally I think that come 2008 the centrist GOPers are gonna stage a nice little revolt in the Primaries and put McCain in office. I think this is especially true if they lose the Senate or House in 2006. The far right are cocky as hell right now but if the Abramoff scandal and Delay's impending conviction go through then the real republicans will be looking for a true reformer. Enter McCain. He would kill anyone mentioned above in the General election, especially if he partners with a Southerner like Huckabee or a centrist democrat.
My personal choice would be a McCain/Feingold ticket running as independents.

I agree, RMill. You've got the field narrowed down to the most viable-- and best-- candidates. I hope Bayh doesn't get the nomination, simply because he's a senator, and senators' voting records can always be twisted by the opposition (not to mention pummeled from within the party during the nomination process-- especially when it comes to the Iraq question.) Plus, the Democrats can't afford to lose any more Senate seats. Running a senator from a purple or red state is too much of a gamble-- winning the presidency but losing another seat.

Personally, I hope for a Richardson/Warner ticket. Richardson truly has the expertise to run this country-- he knows both domestic AND foreign policy inside out, which is rare among politicians. Warner is an up-and-comer, but I don't think he has the experience to occupy the top slot on the ticket. But, his presence in the #2 slot could swing Virginia into the blue column.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This post is meaningless. Yet another in a long line of red herrings brought to you by Chri$ $leeza, the Wa$hington Po$t and the Republican Party.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do something.

http://www.worldcantwait.net

Bayh, Richardson, Warner, Vilsack
IN NM VA IA

2 of these 4 in some combination on the ticket. Red and purple states will be the ticket to Dem success in 2008. I would lean towards Bayh and Richardson at the top of the ticket and Vilsack and Warner as VP, based on depth of executive experience.

I'd agree that Newt is bright; not sure about 'engaging' except in a negative sense. However he'd be haunted by a lot of his own past words in any presidential campaign (even by his own party). Having savaged the Democrats about the deficit in the past and then basically given birth to the current record deficit would make him look like another deficit spender in fiscal conservative clothing.

I have a feeling that the GOP is going to nominate an outsider like Governor Huckabee. My personal preference would be to see Newt Gingrich Vs. Mark Warner... I think that race would produce an interesting amount of policy debate as well as a race between two bright, engaging people.

The only Dems I care about are Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Wes Clark and John Edwards. Hillary can retire from politics and I would not give a damn. She can't win over Red States only the Dems I mentioned above can. Mark Warner is a fundraising machine...3 millon in one night. He is one powerhorse.

Journalists should be careful to note the source of funds. Do hedge funds and offshore funds have to report campaign expenditures? How can the State Department help determine the sources of funding from outside the country? One could easily imagine the leaders of OPEC ready and able to suspend payments to those offering a comprehensive energy policy.

Is anybody else depressed that the Democratic party could nominate yet another senator for Prez? This would be an unmitigated disater to get someone like Kerry, HRC, Biden, or Obama (sad of me to say). Bayh is only innoculated by first serving as Governor, but only a little. JFK was the last Senator elected directly to President and he (and his family) ran their own organization.

It is excruciatingly frustrating that at a point in our political daily life when we have a failed Presidency and a transparently corrupt and failed republican Congress, the democrats seem helpless to gain any traction. What is it about the democratic leadership that it cannot rouse itself out of the seeming lethargy and learn how to do combat like the right has been doing for years.

When the democrats were down after the election of George W. Bush in 2000, you didn't see a wimpy, handwringing republican right too fearful of being depicted as harsh and meanspirited. they simply kept on pummeling democrats right through the 2002 and 2004 elections.

It is time for the democrats to start doing the same opposition reasearch on republicans that the republicans have been doing on them and raising holy hell just like they do. You can't win elections against bombthrowers by hurling meek apologies at them when they mount their deliberate campaigns to describe some "outrage" they create like they have done over comments that essentially mimic their own.

First, I am amazed at how much money Senator Clinton has raised. Who is giving her all this money? I think that the other guys that we all mention are doing well but 25 million and tremendous name recognition. That is impressive for anyone, much less the Junior Senator from New York.
Secondly, would everyone please stop crowning Barack Obama as the savior of the nation. I like Obama alot and I seriously think he will become the first minority president in the history of America, but he has said repeatedly that he WILL FINISH his term as senator. Obama saw what happen to Edwards and he is not going to let that happen to him.

Woops, bad link:

http://www.politicalderby.com/powerrankings.html

This analysis is not too out of line with PoliticalDerby.com (http://www.politicalderby.com/powerrankings.html) but I think it's interesting that you give Warner the "it boy" title and PD has him with a down arrow...

It's often said that the way to attack Sen. Clinton in the primaries is from the left - Intrepid Liberal suggests Sen. Feingold, above, and the New York Observer recently made the same case for Al Gore.

I think that's a mistake. Yes, liberals are disenchanted with HRC's recent moves to the center. But that doesn't mean that centrists love HRC. Centrists understand what a difficult time HRC will have in the general election and are looking for a candidate with a broader appeal. Keep an eye on Warner.

losingteam.blogspot.com

A message is what's needed by the Democrats, but if they don't recant previous support for the Iraq War, their campaign will be a non-starter. John Edwards has stated the error of his way, as have others. Senator Clinton has got to get on the right side of this issue. Molly Ivins recently wrote about this problem for Clinton and she is absolutely correct. I have fessed up to my Dean friends - they were right and I was wrong (in supprting someone who supported the war.)

What about Al Gore??? He remains the most articulate and passionate critic of the Bush Administration among leading Democrats, and his speech on MLK Day ranks as one of the greatest in recent memory. I hope and pray that he would be willing to run again in 2008-- a Gore/Obama ticket would inspire millions of Americans who are hungry for real change. These other candidates are all 'business as usual'-- on both sides of the aisle.

George Allen raised the majority of his money in the first half of year when the threat of a warner for senate candidacy was real.

His second half performance was poor. His finance goal was $20 million and only raised $6.5.

How sad and boring for all of us. Not an inspiring candidate in the bunch, either from the Dems or the Repubs. I guess that's the influence of money on politics- it flows not to the best and brightest, but to the most known "entities" that will maintain the status quo.

Isn't it about time to shake things up? What about Feingold, Richardson, Clark or Obama or any combination of these four!

Anything on John Edwards?

In other election news, Democracy for America voted last night to endorse Lt. Col Andrew Horne in his race against Anne Northup.

http://horneforcongress.com/news/newsitem.php?section=PRS&id=3445&showcat=2&seq=1

Money may be the mother's milk of politics but message is the real meat. On the Democrat's side I have yet to see anyone other than Wesley Clark - whom this blog always neglects to mention - who combines compassion, toughness, and authenticity. Also there is Russ Feingold who will not require as much money in order to mount an insurgent campaign on the Left.

The Republican Party is hiearchical and money will flow to the candidate who most appeals to the party's elite nomenklatura. That contest will be between McCain who they don't like but everyone acknowledges his electability in a general election and George Allen who is univerally liked in the Party.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com