Why is the article on the frontpage today? We read it 2-3 weeks ago.

It doesn't surprise me a conservative group is hunting for corruption against liberals, but really DC is full of this incestous corruption and always has been the only difference is this administration isn't hiding its contempt for labor, voters, and the poor. The democrats as a whole believe they are able to carry the day by allowing a blanket amnesty of illegals and giving 400,000 tech jobs to legals from china and india, the problem is the rank and file are now in a pickle because we are sick of the lies and contempt of the republicans and don't trust the liberals now because they are willing to give our jobs to illegals. Any gains liberals had are gone now.

Erin Go La Raza (April 7 post slamming Richardson) would do well to read up on Christianity. When England ruled Ireland, there was no need for the Catholic Church to use the shamrock "to secretly teach believers about the Trinity"; the Church of England is also Trinitarian, no secret about that. The story might make sense if the priests had been secretly teaching about transsubstantiation or Papal supremacy or the Assumption of the Virgin--or if it were told right, i.e. with regard to St. Patrick's illustration of the Trinity in his conversion efforts centuries earlier.

A Mark Warner/Obama ticket (setting up a Obama run in 2012) would be a winner in the liberal blososphere and in the general.

According to the FEC

Leadership PACs
Members of Congress and other political leaders often establish nonconnected committees, called leadership PACs, to support candidates for various federal and nonfederal offices. While these PACs might be associated with a candidate for federal office, they remain legally unaf- filiated with the candidate’s principal campaign com- mittee and operate under the same rules as other nonconnected committees. 100.5(g)(5). See Advisory Opinions 2000-12, 1986-6, 1985-40, and 1978-12 and the Explanation & Justification for 100.5(g), 68 Fed. Reg. 230 (December 1, 2003).

Additional requirements apply to Leadership PACs that do not apply to other nonconnected committees. Because of restrictions on the types of funds that federal candidates may raise and spend,, any PAC that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintain or controlled by a federal candidate may not raise or spend funds outside the limits and prohibitions of federal law. 300.60(d), 300.61 and 300.62. See Chapter 2, Section 1 for more information.

In addition to contributions and other financial assistance, political committees may also distribute communications which support candidates, issues and parties.

can you have a PAC with no reported spending on other candidates? Isn't that what the definition of a PAC is legally?

"Edwards- PAC raised $1.25 M; $23 K on-hand; no reported spending on other candidates."

Kerry is a buffoon and yesterday's news

He should be ignored

Stop. Enough comments already... Chris, next topic please...

Can't wait to vote for Warner.

Warner/Clark would be ideal ticket. Competent executive together with strong national defense.

Regarding the Democrats: Senator Clinton is the obvious leader at this point, but this has more to do with her name recognition and husband than it does because of good policy proposals or executive leadership experience. While I feel she could win the Democratic Primary, she is too divisive to win a national election. Instead, the Democrats should nominate someone who has a better chance in a national election; this means someone less divisive and someone that can appeal to both coasts and middle America. Specifically, I think that Senator Bayh of Indiana offers a good "moderate" choice that could rally Democrats and many Independents. He has shown leadership experience as both a Governor and Senator of Indiana and is campaigning with a positive tone which I feel is key in winning (winners aren't negative in tone). Other Democrats that would perform better than Clinton in a national election also include Governor Richardson (New Mexico), former Senator John Edwards, and former Virginia Governor, Mark Warner. All these men are offering a more positive tone than Senator Clinton and will stand a better chance of reaching out to those who didn't vote Democrat in the past two elections.

Dang! You guys sure aint quite the HOTLINE are you? The one Dem who has said that he IS running - you dont include. Joe Bide, Senator for 34 years - who is out in LA right now raising dough...get a clue will ya - and stop just asking other reporters what they think! The HOTLINE is still a bargain compared to this amateur bs...

Lots of other people lacked "certain credentials" when they ran for President, including the vast majority of the ones who were elected. The current President's father, on the other hand, who was perhaps better prepared than any other person in history for the job, turned out to be somewhat underwhelming in office and was turned out after a single term. What matters during a campaign is a combination of momentum, communication, platform (candidate's platform, not the virtually meaningless document composed by committee for the conventions), and the candidate's rapport with the public. Perceived confidence may be a part of that last one, but very few voters make their decision based on exact contents of a candidate's resume.

The only thing about Warner's experience which really falls short is the fact that because of VA law, he was limited to a single term. The election of Tim Kaine, however, demonstrated that Warner would almost certainly have been reelected had he been legally allowed to run.

Jason- I had posted this earlier in response

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE:

While it is true that avoiding the many pitfalls of running a national campaign is beneficial, it is not often beneficial to have lost on the national stage, as confronts Kerry, Gore and Edwards (less so as he was not seen as "in control" and loss falls mainly on Kerry).

Mark Warner is seriously lacking in certain credentials and will not be able to build them prior to the election without a job.

Grad. George Mason Univ. and Harvard Law.
Cahri, National Gov Assoc., Southern Gov Assoc.

Staff, Sen. Chris Dodd; campaign manmager Gov Doug Wilder; VA State Party Dem Chair,
Co-founder: Nextel

Approval 2005 WaPo 80%; Mason Dixon 76%

Issues: Education, Telecomm and IT, Health care

Commuted death sentence of convicted murderer Robin Lovitt

Elected Experience: One term (limited by VA law) Governor of Virginia

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=323

Bush Censure: No Chance in Hell

Friday April 07th 2006, 8:03 am

Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat from Iowa, is embarrassed. “I’m embarrassed that more democrats haven’t lined up on this,” Harkin told the Bill Press Show. “The democrats don’t have the guts to stand up to censure a president who misled us, who lied to the American people, who broke the law and violated the Constitution of the United States in spying on the American people.” Harkin would have us believe there is a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans when in fact both represent the only party in the Washington—the Mass Murder Party, the Big Brother Snoop Party determined to wipe their feet on the Constitution. “We need to hear from people. We need to hear from people. The American people need to know, and to show support for this resolution.”

Of course, some of us have complained mightily for years, and scant few in the government or corporate media listen because they are too busy kissing the posterior of their corporate masters, too busy attempting to demonstrate they are onboard with the Straussian neocons and their mass murder abroad and police state at home agenda. Democrats and Republicans are cut from the same cloth and corporate media is little more than a lickspittle.

As an example of how Congress treats those who buck the mass murder and Constitution chomping orthodoxy, consider Cynthia McKinney, Representative from Georgia. McKinney was targeted for elimination because she is a troublemaker—she continually raises questions about covert CIA activities, about the existence of Dyncorp slave rings, and the unresolved issues surrounding nine eleven. “Throughout my tenure in Congress, I seem to evoke memory loss, especially from certain police officers who claim not to be able to recognize my face while I go to work everyday, representing the people of Georgia’s 4th Congressional District,” declared McKinney in a statement after she was accosted by a Capitol Hill cop. In fact, it is the exact opposite of memory loss—the Mafia dons who run the plutocratic whorehouse otherwise known as Congress recognize McKinney all too well, as do their cops, and they are determined to get rid of her for asking embarrassing questions capable of making Tom Harkin blush like a school girl.

A grand jury should be investigating Bush and crew, but instead one is investigating McKinney. “I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all, and I regret its escalation, and I apologize,” said McKinney from the House floor, akin to the floor of a Chicago slaughterhouse. “The March 29 incident has embarrassed Democrats, including fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus, none of whom has publicly defended her behavior,” reports the Associated Press.

It seems Democrats are embarrassed about a lot of things. Democrats no doubt will breathe a sigh of relief after formal charges are brought against McKinney and she is bounced from the House of Whores. Only then will they be able to return sans embarrassment to the business at hand—kissing the feet of their corporate masters and squawking ineffectually against Bush’s management style.

Democrats are running for the exits now that Russ Feingold’s censure of Bush has grown miniscule legs, soon to be cut out from beneath. “In fact, only two Democrats have co-sponsored Feingold’s resolution: Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California. The rest have distanced themselves from the proposal, with many saying the resolution is premature because a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the eavesdropping program has not concluded,” reports CNN. “There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons,” writes John Dean, Nixon’s lawyer.

Bush will not be impeached, let alone censured. Our country will continue its unabated slide toward tyranny. Instead of concentrating on Bush’s crimes, the corporate media will focus on Cynthia McKinney, the “immigration” (illegal alien) bill, weepy witnesses at the patsy Moussaoui sentencing trial, and Mick Jagger’s jibe at “expat bankers and their girlfriends” who will show up at a Rolling Stones concert in the slave labor gulag known as China. Jagger, at least, understands what side of the bread gets butter.

Remember how everyone in 2004 was saying the Democratic contest would boil down to Howard Dean vs. someone else. Well, it didn't. It was John Kerry vs. John Edwards. Now everybody is saying it's Hillary Clinton vs. someone else. Sen. Clinton will not be able to keep taking vague positions on the issues and expect to win the nomination.

Some guy was dead on earlier: Romney's impressive. Watch out for him. He could give McCain a run for his money.

Maybe a McCain-Romney ticket? I think this would be a good ticket, and a one that could and would win.

For the Dems: I still like Evan Bayh. His record is very impressive, and is just right where the voters are: in the center.

Perhaps a Bayh-Edwards ticket? I have to face the fact that there will be a liberal somewhere on the Democratic ticket in 2008. Hopefully, not THE nominee. Edwards is the only liberal/populist (well, to be fair, he's more center-left) guy that I like who is mulling over a run in 2008.

in a way,

that what he does in his marriage is

_his business_

not yours,

and he still did a better job than this president while being assaulted by

the media and republicans 24/7

and he and his wife still work together on some level...and you know if she were running, she'd have an advisor that could tell her a thing or two, and she's already been second in command....

why do you think the Republicans hate her?

is it really fear?

I don't have any preferences, but I'm tired of the everything looks like a screw because we are used to using a screwdriver a lot........DEFENSE DEPARTMENT would be the screwdriver here

BIG Employer....lot of influence...why I bet they even lobby..........

speaking of Clinton,

and you know, town hall meetings make a lot of sense...

look what the one in Charlotte, NC did for Bush...

draft dodger, coke head, alcoholic, marginal student, business failure, ill-spoken....

I mean with his credentials anyone could be president right?

with his credentials you couldn't get a clearance to work as a civilian for a govnernment agency...

so how did he get to by your president?

connections? is he really president or just the visible hand in the puppet show?

this is what the geese analogy is about.

you can talk/honk all you want to but if you don't know what you're looking at, your conclusions are meaningless...

sort of like scientists before Copernicus discussing how the planets revolve around the earth........theory is nice

but if you can't see what is in front of your faces.....well,

you can't possibly vote correctly...

reread my posts, especially the one about making politicians responsible...

maybe Teddy needs to leave, maybe Mary Jo is important...

.

To Dan:

Poverty is an issue, it's just not really an issue most people have much interest in talking about. For one thing, there isn't really any specific political moves any Presidential candidate can point to that will have any major or significant effect on it. Poverty has always been here and always will be here--and it might be an important topic for discussion during a campaign at times when economic conditions are especially bad--but they aren't right now. Bill Clinton learned and showed the rest of us how improving the lot of the Middle Class is what really pays in politics. That still applies today.

Feingold's policy about raising money in WI would probably change in a Presidential run is the point I intended to make. I think Clark or Feingold would raise the money after they declared candidacy. The blogosphere is still a place for money.

Richardson (and his advance staff) had better learn his audiences.

I almost fell on the floor laughing uncontrollably when I saw him on C-SPAN addressing a Manchester, NH Saint Patrick's Day breakfast. He said that they were gathered to celebrate Saint Patrick and four-leaf clovers. Four-leaf clovers may come into play in some parts of Irish folklore, but surely not on St. Patrick's Day.

If Ted Kennedy was to refer to Emiliano Zapata as Speedy Gonzales at a Cinco de Mayo celebration, it couldn't have been worse.

Bill, we use Shamrocks in the celebration; and Shamrocks have three leaves. (Used by the Catholic Church during the English Opression to secretly teach believers about The Trinity)

Wesley Clark is the quality in the Democratic field. I saw him speak for (a total of) six hours in the NH primary and was tremendously impressed. He's the liberal version of what people think John McCain embodies. Put me down as yet another reader of this column who wants him in the "Wes Wing!"

Yes, Bredesen is a fairly popular Democratic governor of a red state but if you look at just how many popular red state Dem governors there are you see that he is really not special. Bredesen has a net approval of 18%.

West Virginia Gov Joe Manchin(D) has a net approval of 55%.

Wyoming Gov Dave Freudenthal(D) has a net approval of 44%.

Montana Gov Brian Schweitzer(D) has a net approval of 42%.

Oklahoma Gov Brad Henry(D) has a net approval of 39%.

Kansas Gov Kathleen Sebelius(D) has a net approval of 26%.

Iowa Gov Tom Vilsack(D) has a net approval rating of 23%.

New Mexico Gov Bill Richardson(D) has a net approval of 23%.

Arizona Gov Janet Napolitano(D) has a net approval of 22%.

Virignia Gov Tim Kaine(D) has a net approval of 20%.

North Carolina Gov Michael Easley(D) has a net approval of 19%.

And of course you have to mention arguably the most popular red state Dem governor ever in Mark Warner, whose approval rating was in the high 70's low 80's when he left office. Warner, Richardson, Vilsack or Napolitano would all probably do much better on a national ticket then Bredesen.

No Frist?

Dan,

I did not try and hijack the issue - my earlier point was - I believe people are looking for a candidate who can define what it means to be an American -

the response was we will never agree -

I just tried to given an example -

It is like on the immigration issue - under the two year you are out rule this means women who are here illegally with a child, and married to someone legal, then we as Americans are mandating the break up of the family - does she take her American citizen child back to god knows where or abandon her child to her American citizen husband? ( I can type pages on the child support nightmare the two year rule is going to create - welfare roles are going up because good luck getting payroll deduction in Mexico)

As Americans we can agree it is wrong to allow for the foregoing result - all I am saying is I believe we as a people are looking for someone who can speak to the bigger idea of what it means to be an American instead of trying to micromanage every issue to the point of division

As I said b4 I will vote for the Democrat or Republican who can accomplish this goal.

For the record and in support of your position on marriage - if you review the common law summaries of Blackstone he said - more or less "it is the sole provence of the church to decide when a marriage is scriptual and the roll of the state to enforce the marriage contract as recognized by the church."

The slippery slope began mid 1800's over the issue of property and support - men were abandoning their children and wives with no liability - the courts intervened and slowley took control over marriage - something which at the time of the Revolution was the sole responsibility of the Church - I say give it back to the church - the church can have marriage and the state can have registered civil unions.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

For RMill and any other poster is knowledgeable and is high on former Viriginia Gov. Mark Warner:

Doesn't he lack foreign policy experience and knowledge compared to other candidates? I asked this question earlier but no one answered which is understandable since there have been so many posts here.

Also I will repeat another question I asked earlier:

Don't you think a repeat candidate such as former Vice President Gore, Sen. John Kerry, and Gen. Clark would be better candidates than a first-time candidate because they've learned from experience? To me this is similar to having a rookie pitcher going in a big game against a veteran.

Jeff,

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Kennedy makes that mistake. There's a dinosaur in need of political extinction.

If we all agreed on the issue, would it really be an issue?

Bobby WC,

My last boss was been Gay and when I met his husband the world didn't stop.

Have we discussed candidates long enough that we can hijack to issues?

As far as I am concerned, the term "Marriage" is a religious term that has no place in government. Call them all civil-unions, you know a personal contract between 2 people, and let teh religions have their marriage. A marriage should have the Legal status as a Civil-Union but religions should also have the right to have their own marriage laws. In fact, the Jewish church does. The Jewish faith does not consider a couple divorced until the divorce is final through the church.

As far as laws are concerned, all legal benefits should derive from and pass through the Civil-Union. Marriage should not carry any legal weight as it is a product of teh religious institution and we have this little thing called separation of church and state.

Maybe the good people of Maine can get Susan Collins to switch parties and the ticket can be Richardson/Collins -

It could happen

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

I do believe a Republican or Democrat can bring a sense of US Americanism to the fore front without having to piecemeal every issue -

Does anyone disagree that it is part of our values that everyone have an equal opportunity to an education, to a job, to housing, to speak their mind - o be free to follow their heart

Yes we are divided on the issue of gay marriage (polls are changing on this though for gay marriage) on these divisive issues we are divided because no one will speak to the greater issue - is it who we are are as a nation to regulate a person's heart or intimacy? no one ever asks the larger question.

Is it me or is it silly to believe that the world will end if two men introduced themselves as married - we ignore the fact they are living together in all ways as married, but are okay so long as they do not refer to it as marriage.

This is why we are a bankrupt nation - morally and financially - the politicians keeo us divided so they can destroy everything American

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

If we do not stand for such larger ideas, then what do we stand for?

The candidate, Democrat or Republican who can answer this question will have my vote -

Phil Bredesen is the Governor of Tennessee and there have been recent rumblings, since he is from a red state and is cruising to an easy re-election, that he may be good for the ticket.

Survey USA has his approval rating at 56%.

I would really like it if people on the right would stop telling me who among the Dems 'has a chance to win'... you know, because whomever they suggest is someone that activist Dems -- you know, the people who donate, who volunteer, who man phone banks, who work their hearts our for the candidate -- would hate. Bredesden [?] I've never heard of, Warner I'm lukewarm about at best.

I don't see a similar phenomenom among Dems. I don't say to Republicans -- 'the only chance you've got is with Rudy Guiliani' just because even though I can't stand him, I can't stand him less than the other potential candidates.

Oh, as for Biden? I called his office the day he voted for that vile bankruptcy bill and he couldn't even tell me why. Couldn't figure out why voted for it. Not a single reason came to mind.

No thank you. Not only that, he never shuts up.

Richardson can be a really strong candidate-definitely has the right background. Obama needs a few more years so he doesn't fall into the same trap Edwards did. He's definitely a rising star in the Dem. party. (Although its a bad sign when Ted Kennedy can't distinguish between 'Obama' and 'Osama')

I think the only common set of values you're going to find is the core set of freedoms written into the constitution. Speech, religious freedom, press, etc. I think differing ideas and debate make for better public policy in the end. Personally, I would be suspicious if we all agreed on everything.

Too soon for Obama.

I'll take Richardson any day at either end of the ticket.

Richardson- Bayh
Richardson-Warner
Bayh-Richardson

He is definately in my Top 2. He needs to get through re-election and then get stumping. He will be well behind in the game by January 2007.

Not much support for my ticket of Richarson/Obama -

I love this forum for the people who accuse Chris of being on the left one day and then the next on the right - maybe he is just beltway and not mainstream America

Everyone I know is tired of he said she said - every one I know is tied of "he lied first so his lie is bigger"

The US is at a crossroads wherein it will divide itself and become weaker or unite and become stronger.

At the end of the day I believe the super majority of US Americans are looking for someone who has the ability to unite us on common values.

I am so tired of being divided on issues of gay rights, abortion, immigration and on and on while Washington bankrupts our nation while playing golf in Scotland -

here in South Texas both Democratic Congressman do not even dispute the allegation that they spend more time in China making money than they do in South Texas.

I am voting for some one who can tap mainstream US Americanism - positive morality - not this everyone is going to Hell by the radical Religious right-

We need a candidate who can define what it means to be a US American and then unite us behind that definition.

This is why I am equally open to Democrat Bill Richarson, and Republican Susan Collins

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Greg-G

Do you remember Biden's performance in 1988? Press won't let him forget either. And all those corporations may be his friend if he is only the Senator from Delaware, its another story running for President.

college kid-

My apologies, I assumed nothing but my post was erased accidently and I retyped quickly and made an error.

I still say the hole is in the premise that internet fund raising is the answer. If Feingold and Clark are so popular, why haven't they raised any money? You made the point that Feingold raises from Wisconsin contributors purposefully, which is great if you want to stay a Senator from Wisconsin, not if you want to run a national campaign.

And what do you define as plenty? It was a novelty in 2003-04 and Dean tapped in. Now everyone has on-line fundraising as part of their campaigns.

otis-

Who is this Richards you are referring to? Do you mean Richardson? Just want to clarify.

Not sure about everyone else, but I don't live in the Beltway either (Cleveland, Ohio).

Jeff-

I am mildly surprised about Lindsay Graham. After his performance in the Clinton Impeachment, I must say I am impressed with his moderation. I think he has positioned himself well for a shot at the Republican ticket as VP.

oops, Richardson, not Richards, nonetheless A's-gate kills his chances.

Allen is definitely way too similar to Bush, and the fact that his name is George doesn't help.

What do you guys think of Lindsay Graham as a VP candidate for someone like McCain? He loves the press and is a great bipartisan guy. If McCain has to pull to the right a little bit, Graham might be a good counterweight for the moderates

The only chance for Dems is Warner + either Bredesen or Richards (although A's-gate argues against Richards). Except Edwards, the others are legislators who have to compromise to get things done--ergo "waffle." Edwards is too closely associated with Kerry to win.
Other possible win for Dems would be the other Kerrey, Bob. Any pair of Bob Kerrey, Warner, and Bredesen could win, the other Dems cannot.

Greg, the second part of Cal-Gals post refers to Romney as does my post. Sorry for being uncler.

Dan, Allen has the "ability to work with Dems"? With all due respect, that sounds like what they said about Dubya in 98/99. I think there's going to be significant Bush fatigue by the time 08 roles around, and Allen is waaaay to similar to Bush. Romney would make for a much more interesting candidate (or anti-McCain if you prefer)

Happy Friday!

I actually think Joe Biden would make a good Presidential candidate, but he may be past his prime. He is well-spoken and probably the best versed in foreign affairs out of all of the Dems.

And I have to disagree a bit that DE is a "lousy" launching pad, although it is not ideal due to its obvious lack of political clout. The state DOES have a ton of corporations based there due to their tax laws, a lot of which (esp the credit card companies) have become good "friends" with Biden over the years, giving him a fairly decent well of campaign cash to tap.

Yep. And all the right positions filled. If he wins the Primary, he will be pretty tough to beat. And he has a demonstrated ability to work with Dems.

The appeal of George Allen is just a mystery to me. Sure, he looks good on paper--all the "right" positions (pun unintended but there anyway)--but the guy can NOT talk! His spouting of talking points is the MOST wooden of any politician I've ever seen.

Romney, on the other hand, is slick as a mud wrestler.

you're still geese to me Dan.

pretending I'm a dog doesn't change that.

ha ha ha.

there isn't enough to go around for everyone, but there will be probably be plenty to go around to feingold.

Outside the Beltway (where I live) people are more interested in having a president who's competent, talks straight, and is honest. Evan Bayh has all of those qualities, and then some. We are not electing an "American Idol" or a cheerleader-in-chief, but rather somebody who is going to lead this country out of the mess that George W. Bush has handed us. Sen. Bayh has the experience and the brain-power to do just that.

OK. Thanks nameless. But you realize that you just put yourself in with the likes of Che in our hearts and minds.
Good bye.

it's college kid, and why call me college boy? i'm a female. did you just assume?

yes, many people will try to get money from blogs, but certain candidates are more popular.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/3/113957/0417

so, that *was* a hole in your reasoning.

I am not really worried about the way I'm coming across...

I'm not trying to fit in or stir you up.

I view you as a group of geese grazing on grass around the myriad pools of water that exist in the Washington Metro area.

Oblivious to the rest of the world...

I'm the rest of the world.

I'm also a former Washington DC resident that knows a few things besides the DC area, I've traveled from coast to coast, by car several times in the last five years and have talked with and even interacted with people in ways besides "reading" about them.

thanks for trying to include me and teach me the styles used here.

as far as remaining nameless, it started out as a joke, and I enjoy it...

I like the idea of having the leading sentence included in very bottom line...

posted by: it's humourous to me, sorry if it makes your box seem threatened.

.

Kerry failed agains Bush in 04. I'm in his state and I voted against him.

Put him against McCain... PLEASE, I beg you. We haven't had a landslide like that since Reagan v. Dukakis.

Kerry in 08, watch out, he is coming back and will win!

Nameless,

Its not the issue its the way you are coming across. If you want to discuss Illegal Immigration or even Immigration reform we'll be happy to partake in the discussion. But it would be nice if you used a more standard format and included a name, even if its HeyYou.

Most of us would even consider it to be on topic since McCain is driving a bill on the issue.

Joe Futrelle

As a general rule our two party system totally hoses the third parties. I guess that's why they are all called third party.

I'm all for dumping the two party system. The Rep party has all but split anyway.

But tell me, when was the last time a third party took an electoral vote?

racial is not what I was feeling...

that was a mocking of racially motivated responses to the _illegal_ immigrant issue...

ususally by the illegals or their friends, as it is their only response to the idea that hiring _illegals_ or

the act of butting in line in front of those that are trying _legally_ to become immigrants on the path to citizenship

and vehemence is not the same as venomous, although to ones threatened by fact it may appear that way.

are you friends with the former democratic senator from NM, lobbying for Mexico in favor of illegals, because it brings money to Mehico?

I happen to have a lot of friends that are being displaced by illegals,

in the formerly middle-class blue collar world...

hiring _illegals_

is effectively the same thing as outsourcing domestically all jobs that require you to be present to do them:

painting,

plumbing,

electrical contracting,

landscaping,

factory work with false documentation,

construction,

bricklaying,

iron work.

they _are_ citizens

that are being marginalized by your,

"oh I didn't know that, attitude."

"Both" parties?

What about the Green Party? Given how fast we're growing (more elected Greens every election), and that we're the only party that has consistently opposed the Iraq war and has never equivocated on global warming and the end of cheap oil, I'd say we're worth watching.

ob
sqeak

kneeousnest

means.

it means asking for permission

to be yourself.

.

as to the war on terror...

Funny how I did not feel the least bit threatened by the protests on the immigration issue. No one was shaking a flag at me.

The obvious racial bias you showed in your post shows that you feel threatened (although I can not fathom you racial epithat). I am just wondering how? Or is it easier to spill out illogical venom instead of making a valid argument.

Guess I am just not real clear at what exactly your point is in posting what you did.

pointed that out I will feel really good about obviously ignoring your

obsequeisnous....

pander on bucky.

.

Have you not noticed yet that the first form space is for your username, not subject line obsequious and anonymous user?

Forever a democrat...

Some retreads on that cabinet list. Subordinating your ambitions and personal philosophies is difficult and up and coming candidates like the ones you mentioned are not likely to do so for 4 - 8 years. Spitzer will be a leading contender in 2012 (if we are still on the outs) even he is Governor of New York. Obama from big state Illinois is inexperienced to provide depth in a cabinet positionby 2008 and is young enough to want to pursue his own agenda.

Gore and Clinton would find a cabinet post hard to swallow after being the top executives.

Huckabee is a Republican and don't know of any value he would have in a cabinet.

Rubin could be back. Vilsack still wants to be president but could take a cabinet post.

I mentioned Clark and Biden.

Other possible cabinet members in Dem admin:
Gephardt for Labor Secretary, former Sens. Mitchell and Nunn could be possible for Homeland, Defense or State. Sen. Paul Sarbnes at HUD, Commerce or Treasury. Sens. Jeffords or Feinstein for Interior or EPA, and Sen. Akaka for Veterans Affairs.

is by and large a non existent vote...

Mexican Mafia, I think not:

it's so effective that 12 million towel head lookalikes managed to sneak, nay may I say _saunter_ in

and now they're waving Mexican flags at you as if to say....

"we're Mexicans not Americans"

while they beg for you to help them out? They're not begging, they're threatening you....and you weak kneed pollyanas know it....

you'd better vote them citizenship pendejo's

.

Bill Richardson is a far better politician than any of the five Democrats you listed, and he IS running for President. He enjoys unprecedented bipartisan support as governor of New Mexico, and the Hispanic vote is the fastest-growing sgment of the electorate.

poseurs, not poisers...

.

it's so effective that 12 million towel head lookalikes managed to sneak, nay may I say _saunter_ in

and now they're waving Mexican flags at you as if to say....

"we're Mexicans not Americans"

while they beg for you to help them out? They're not begging, they're threatening you....and you weakneed pollyanas know it.

The war on terror could be ended by arresting bush, cheyney, rumsfield for foisting a PNAC agenda on an unsuspecting nation and his staff and putting someone of substance in until the 2008...

hint hastert wouldn't be in the list or Ted Stevens....

perhaps you could tap Hilary and Bill Clinton...they seem to know what is going on...

ha ha ha...what a bunch of posuers you are.

.

Fair enough.

college boy

The mythical blogsphere fund raising machine is not the silver bullet. Everyone who has not proven to raise money is magically going to be a contender for President through the internet. There isn't enough to go around for everyone.

This is not a hole in my reasoning as much as it only further proves the point I was making, that these candidates have not proven to have the national network required to be considered credible national candidates.

Dan-
New England with the exception of NH, voted against Bush with a vengence then.

Only NH (51% to 49%) switched red to blue from 2000 to 2004. Kerry won by a minimum of 53% in every state, some over 60%.

1988 was the last year any other New England state voted Republican.

Still, my point is that Delaware is a tough presidential launch pad and New England is perceived national as the bastion of liberalism (along with the West Coast) in the US.

Sorry, Luis, it is "their".

you know watching bush, I can see that he's _pulling_ McCain...

just to let you know where I stand.

I think McCain is an embarrassment as well. Pandering to the religious right?

Using bushes campaign manager, asking us all to give up our morals and "just support the president?"

is he a man or a panderer?

who wants another smarmy, lieing through their teeth adherer to standards of sanctimonious theivery?

we're in Iraq because of the oil,

because the president and his friends like oil and they also love and make money from defense....

_this_

is the embarrassment that McCain is linking himself with.

who can trust someone like that?

he's a distinguished war vet?

what was Cunning Ham? what kinda guy was he?

thanks so much, continue with your learned honking...

hope you find some nice grass.

.

Richardson, Vilsack, Obama, even Spitzer are names that deserve to be on this list, even with circumstances that suggest their futures might have a longer time horizon.
One way I like to think of it is a little backwards - these names would fit nicely into a cabinet, joined by the likes of James Lee Witt, Mike Huckabee, Al Gore, even Bill Clinton (as sec of state), with Robert Rubin, John Podesta and maybe a David Gergen or two, emphasizing the need for a renewal of the country's bipartisan heritage.
A Clinton/Feingold or Kerry/Warner ticket in '08 might need to gather a group like this to restore some civility and inclusive pride to our presently demoralized political discourse.
Put these people in a Clinton/Feingold administration

McKinney is an embarrassment, to somehow act as_if that weren't true is to call forth questions of your own honesty...

and thanks for not speaking off topic...

and speaking of sitting members of congress let's look at their mores....

I think the focus should be on making those that _hire_ illegals into criminals, felony criminals...

I think congress people should be _less_ exempt from getting away from commiting crimes...

the reason congress people should be not at all exempt from being prosecuted for crimes, _any_ crimes is that they handle laws...

how can we be assured that the congress people are acting in _our_ best interests IF they don't adhere to the laws that they pass...

I think it's time to arrest a few congress people.

I like the idea that Rudy Guilliani had in New York City, they were knee deep in murder, flagrant robbery, rape, assault, and so on...New York City was a CRIME CAPITAL....

then he pressed the New York City Cops to arrest anyone commiting a crime, scofflaws, subway vandals, what-have-you...

turns out crime went to zero.

the reason being, the people that think nothing about

not paying for lunch
not paying a parking ticket
not reporting honestly on their taxes
hiring illegals
shop lifting
not paying for a subway pass/jumping the turnstile
punching a cop because they don't need to respect the law,

were the same ones murdering, raping, assaulting and what not

if you arrest congress people for their daily inability to simply follow the law of the land, then you won't be troubled by the ones that they are passing to
rape you of your rights as a citizen.

prosecute fully for hiring illegals...

.
thanks so much.

A few of you are holding Mitt Romney to a much tougher standard than the other candidates on the "flip-flop" issue. My own former governor, Mark Warner, ran on a no-new-taxes pledge and then raised taxes. HRC was railing against illegal immigrants a few months back and then a couple of weeks ago used the name of Jesus in support of them. Edwards/Kerry were for the Iraq war and now.... It seems to me as if Romney is doing what almost all smart presidential candidates do: first run right or left (depending on the party), then run to the center after the nomination is assured. Romney is a governor who can point to significant accomplishments in government(including, probably, the recent health-insurance bill), public service (the 2002 Winter Olympics) and the private sector. Plus he has a beautiful wife and family and has advantages over the other likely GOP candidates in New Hampshire and Michigan. Plus, he's going to have the money to compete and win.

Republican Contenders Money Watch

Allen- $6.8 M raised; $4.94 M on-hand; $221,417 spent on other candidates; PAC raised $61 K; $3 K on hand; spent $2,500 on other candidates.

Brownback- $213 K raised; $153 K on-hand; $2,100 spent on other candidates; PAC raised $242 K; $107 K on hand; $32,500 spent on other candidates.

Frist- Raised $81 K; $0 on-hand; $0 to other candidates; PAC raised $4.275 M; $522 K on-hand; $81,000 to other candidates.

Giuliani- PAC raised $303 K; $295 K on-hand; $58,000 spent on other candidates.

Hagel- $259 K raised; $159 K on-hand; $34,000 spent on other candidates; PAC raised $741 K; $225 K on-hand; $94,116 spent on other candidates.

Huckabee- NO INFO currently available

McCain- Raised $153 K; $1.1 M on-hand; $15,500 spent on other candidates; PAC $2.8 M raised; $1.05 M on-hand; $197,914 spent on other candidates.

Romney- Old Senate campaign fund has $20 K and is $3.1 M in debt. PAC raised $59 K; $30 K on-hand; $12,000 spent on other candidates.

I don't think Gerrymandering will be needed at all. Once being in the middle is "IN", candidates can campaign by saying they are in the middle.

Staley,

Why isn't Poverty an Issue. (and this from an uncaring Moderate - me, not you).

With HUGE apologies to Staley for posting in his name before. I was trying to talk TO him, not AS him (or her).

Dan,

Moderates have more pull now than they did, but thats the void of conservative leadership in both Chambers created when DeLay left...moderates are more emboldened. The RSC still as a lot of pull with their ~115 House Members.

Just look at the immigration bill...Bush is definite on the moderate side of that debate and conservatives are torpedoing the whole deal b/c of the guestworker provisions. The right isn't currently on the fringe, and I suspect that it won't be until at least 2010 after the next round of gerrymandering.

RMill,

Don't be so sure that New England is so strongly Blue. Most of the people I know (admittedly not a valid polling sample) are strongly in the middle and voted as a block AGAINST Bush.

I have never had a conversation with someone who admitted they voted FOR Kerry though many say they voted against Bush. A strong moderate Republican espousing a modest social agenda would do well. remember we DID elect a republican governor.

Why Kennedy and Kerry keep getting elected is beyond me though the fact that Kerry ran unopposed in the last senate election might have something to do with it.

HRMill
You say Feingold shows limited fundraising ability outside of Wisconsin. In his 1992 campaign, he promised to get the vast majority of his campaign contributions from Wisconsin residents.

If he were to make a national run, I think his best bet would be the blogosphere. He hasn't really asked for their money yet, but if he runs, I think a lot of folks on the blogs would be willing to help.

So, that's just pointing out a hole in your comments.

Character is the issue I have with Romney. While he has not done anything Unethical or which would give him a bad name, quite the opposite, he is a good Mormon boy.

However, it was a mistake for him to suppress his Mormon roots for so long to gain the seat in Mass only to now try to reassert them in his bid for Pres.

I think it shows a "I will say what I need to say in order to get the job." mentality. That is what I can't stand. While he will truly believe what he says in his statements, it reflects a policy of catering to the polls rather than governing based on sound policy.

We are elcting the Pres based on the beliefs of Now. If those policies change next year, then you will no longer the person we voted for.

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE:

While it is true that avoiding the many pitfalls of running a national campaign is beneficial, it is not often beneficial to have lost on the national stage, as confronts Kerry, Gore and Edwards (less so as he was not seen as "in control" and loss falls mainly on Kerry)

Refresher on Campaign Fund Raising Totals:

Bayh- $3.3M raised; $9.6 M on-hand; spent $0 on other candidates; PAC raised $1.5 M; $819 K on-hand; spent $74 K on other candidates.

Clinton- $23 M raised; $17 M on-hand 12/31/05; spent $358,350 on other candidates; PAC raised $1.5 M; $165 K on-hand; spent $110,000 on other candidates

Edwards- PAC raised $1.25 M; $23 K on-hand; no reported spending on other candidates.

Kerry- $5.5 M raised; $297 K on-hand; $6,500 to ther candidates; PAC raised $2.3 M; $259 K on-hand; spent $25,485 on other candidates.

Warner- PAC raised $3.3M, $2.5 M on-hand 12/31/05; spent $51,900 on other candidates.

Biden has $240,000 in his PAC and $2.5 M in his Senate campaign fund. Not staggering numbers when you consider that Warner raised something like $1.5 M in one day in December on his birthday.

Also, Delaware is a tough launch pad for a national campaign (not as important but relevant) and New England is strongly blue already.

He is a good candidate for Secretary of State or Supreme Court in a democratic administration.

Feingold has $310 K in his PAC and $793 K in his Senate campaign account. Shows little fund raising ability outside of Wisconsin.

Clark's PAC has $22,543 on-hand through Feb 28th (took in only , having spent over $576 K and only $10,000 to candidates. Had $447 K on-hand at last check in his 2004 Presidential account. This is not a sustainable generator of funding for a national campaign. Should however, be considered for Secretary of Defense or CIA Director.

I was kind of cheered by Chris's inclusion of Gore and the positive response by some of those posting here to his potential candidacy. I fit the category if Gore isn't running, then I support Edwards camp.
Perhaps, I took his non-Shermanesque intension not to run in 2008 too literally. I see he is still running third behind Hillary and Kerry in a recent poll, with Edwards close behind.

I actually think unlike other posters that Kerry has improved of late, but his call in from Davos during the Alito hearings, shows he hasn't learned all the lessons he needs to learn from 2004. Both Gore or Edwards would run more convincingly as populist candidates. Kerry would be superior to any of his Republican competitors, including the New and Improved John McCain who has embraced Bush and Falwell. Even his charming appearance the other day on the Daily Show can't overcome this fact.

Why isn't Poverty an Issue. (and this from an uncaring Moderate - me, not you).

I could not let the comment about "The Fix" living in a bubble go un-answered.

I have to wonder if scootmandubious and the other Dems will wake up and realize that it's time to abandon the "we are right, why won't anyone realize it?" strategy. While it may be emotionally satisfying to regard 51% of the country as morons, the fact of the matter is that politics are about persuasion - not sitting around shouting the same thing over and over again and thinking that there will be some revelatory miracle that suddenly shifts everyone to your side.

There is a growing moderate segment in this country of economically conservative, socially liberal voices who are absolutely dying to have a candidate come forward with NEW ideas. If Democrats really think that Bush-bashing censure resolutions and rabid anti-war sentiments are the path to change, then you are adopting the same strategy you used in the last election: "We do not have to present new ideas because SURELY by now everyone hates Bush like us?" Oops - 4 more years.

Lest you think I am biased, Reps are not going to do much better if they rely on the "everyone hates gays" and the "Iraq war is a huge success/look out behind you it's Osama!" strategies.

The party that comes to the middle is going to win the next election, which is why you'd love to see the HRC-McCain faceoff. Bubba was no hard left-winger in spite of the way BOTH parties have tried to paint him and his wife is the same. And as soon as McCain convinces the Republican right that he is the only hope of defeating HRC and gets the nom, he will return to his rightful place in the center. Leaving us with the kind of debate we deserve - real issues.

Jeff,

You are assuming that McCain will need the ultra conservatives to get his agenda through congress.

The country is moving to the middle. How many of the Dem front runners are considered "Centrist".

Much of McCains itinerary will get strong support from the middle from both parties. Congress will no longer be R/D, but will actully become Liberal/Centrist/Moderate/Conservative where the moderates and centrists form mini coalitions (for want of a better word) ala the agreement of the 12.

Can we get a better word than Centrist?

And I apologise for coming down so hard. The war is over, its time for the media to catch on to that fact.

Gravy:

Exactly. McCain's big advantage has always been "I do as I say". He never needed to SAY anything. You needed to just look at his record and know where he stood. By going to the right to appease the Religious base of the party, he risks opening himself to "But you said during the election that you would..." He has never had that problem before. Integrity has always been his most valued treasure.

By saying one thing to the right during the Primary and then possibly going back to his true positions during the general, he risks alienating those who disagree with him on certain issues but would vote for him solely on the strength of his character.

Lets discuss the character of these 10 people.

Dan,

I agree with Iraq comments. I suspect you and I are pretty close on the spectrum. Didn't mean to say that the war phase was handled badly-quite the contrary. The term "Iraq war" is just the vernacular for our current situation-which is what I was referring to.

Gravy,

Good point, although I think realistically every professional politician has to play the game, so to speak. McCain is a straight shooter, and I think he'll govern from the middle-right. Doing so while listening to the base of his party isn't a mutually exclusive proposition. Were he to become POTUS, he will have to deal with the conservatives or he won't get any of his moderate agenda passed-esp. with such low ratings from his Republican breathern in Congress...

Sorry everyone.

Um, it seems that alot of the Dems have a line like: "As long as they can get over their support of the war vote..."

I guess I am WAY out of the loop on things but if everyone is Blaming the war on GWB then why should the Dems need to apologise for doing what they thought was the right thing at the time. Forget looking at the vote in hindsight. Look at the vote in terms of the then and there.

WMDs are no joke. Congress was 100% correct to go in and stop them. And that is ex