Great work!
http://pvqcczad.com/wyhs/hkkc.html | http://qsuztmxp.com/aqug/lnij.html

I don't think that she will run. But, then again, getting a compliment from the bastion of conservatism--by the name of William F. Buckley, Jr.--certainly helps her cause.

The best thing that can happen to the Dems is Hillary still "uncertain" about her political future...that way, as the Republicans ratchet up the anti-Hillary rhetoric, they're caught completely off-guard (if) she doesn't run.

Hillary can do more for the party by remaining the undeclared favorite and blocking for every other candidate, forcing the R's to change playbooks when/IF she decides not to run.

You're kidding about Evan Bayh being the democratic national security expert, right? Since when? Besides, don't you realize that no senator is going to get elected...there's too much of a paper trail. The corporate media is pushing Hillary Clinton....while Rove is pissing his pants at the prospect of swiftboating her to hell and back. Political pundits like you, Chris, occupy the same bubble as Bush. We Ohio dems want some new representation. How about Wes Clark who actually cobbled together the dems Real Security platform...and has been going from state to state helping local candidates take back the house in 2006? Or how about Rus Feingold? Evan Bayh is boring, boring, boring..an Al Gore wanna be.

the voters held President Bush accountable on November 2004, and he won 3 million more votes across the nation against Kerry in addition to the electoral college. That is one of the most important rights we have as voters, (civics class, ok?).

But the Dems are so angry that from day one of the 2nd term, they have been attacking the President. Did they ever come to question why Tom Daschel of S Dakota was part of the loss of the other Dem Senate seats (Georgia, North Carolina, Florida)? It was all the filibustering of federal judges, more like a GOTCHA style of politics which the people back home did not like. Of course with Daschel moving from a $1 million mansion to DC to a $3 million mansion, it was an example of him lossing touch with the middle-class voters back in S Dakota. As we are seeing again in 2006, the Dems are still trying to block federal judges and might pay a price for that again, especially in states Bush won in 2000 and 2004. That is a fact the reporters won't be sharing with their readers.

Bayh seems to think that being moderate means you need to agree with Bush sometimes or always find the position slightly to the left of Bush. The problem is that Bush is so far off the center that you have to move pretty far left to reach the center of American politics. For instance, most of the country supports withdrawing the troops from Iraq within a certain period (the dreaded timetable) and think the government should get a warrant before monitoring the calls of a suspected terrorist (funny that a "strict constructionist" would have such a loose interpretation of the Constitution--plus illegal wiretaps could allow terrorists to escape prosecution wheras obtaining a warrant could have allowed the case to proceed). Bayh's desire to always find a middle ground allows him to be portrayed as a "finger in the wind" politician who always plays it safe. It's fine to advocate a moderate philosophy, but it should look like he's doing it out of conviction, not political convenience.

"Would it be too much to hope for that some candidate could appeal to our hearts AND minds?": The answer to this question explicitly depends, quite frankly, on whether the Democrats really want to win in 2008 or not.

There is one person who comes to mind who fits the bill you ask: Joe Biden. Biden is very strong on issues concerning national security and is well-versed on a host of other issues (some say to a fault, being long-winded). Biden is moderate-left on social and economic matters, and is moderate-right on issues of national security, having voted for the war and the $87 Billion (though, he has been rather critical of the Bush Administration as of late).

Biden should not be overlooked.

We--Democrats--have a history, remember, with strong presidents who have been strong and resolute on foreign policy; examples include President Johnson (less famously, because of Vietnam), President Roosevelt and President Truman--who has gained more prominence because of his containment policy toward the former Soviet Union. We have to stress this history with the American people and allow them to assess our ability to lead in a post-9/11 world, because lets face it folks: terrorism and nuclear threats will be one of the main topics of discussion for the next 40 to 50 years. This is a fact. We as a party should get used to this.

To the left-wing of my Party: Give moderates a chance. We do have something to say.

Sorry, Evan Bayh isn't a 'serious' candidate, he's just dull.

In the era of internet communication, there's no "moving to the left' to appease liberals, because what you've done all your life is archived for all eternity in Google's cache.

NO amount of fundraising (or playing 3-card-monty with your core beliefs at the last minute) will erase that.

Chris, you are kidding. This is a tongue-in-cheek post, right? In what universe do you really think that Wes Clark, Ike Skelton, Harry Reid, Madeline Albright and Jack Reed need advice from Evan Bayh. Evan. Bayh ? His experience in National Security and international affairs consists of .... what exactly...?

Bayh isn't even in the conversation, much less giving advice to these strong-on-national-defense Democratic leaders. (rolls eyes)

Give us a little credit for not falling for the spin.

Yep, General Clark has been a vocal heavy hitter on national security ever since he arrived on the national scene in 2003. Bayh had then and has now nothing to teach him.

General Clark has been calling for Democrats to get tough on national security since 2003, when Bayh was throwing softballs at Rummy during the 9/11 Committee.

Would it be too much to hope for that some candidate could appeal to our hearts AND minds?

Iraq will probably be the big issue in the Democratic primary. The country as a whole would probably prefer a timetable for withdrawal since our continued presence there doesn't seem to be helping. If the national electorate is sour on Iraq, the Democratic primary electorate will be even more sour and will be unlikely to vote for a "stay the course" candidate. If Bayh's position doesn't catch up to his party's, he's likely to fall by the wayside. Same for Clinton. If she refuses to repudiate her vote for the war and sticks with "stay the course," it'll allow an anti-war candidate like Edwards or Feingold to mount a strong challenge to her.

Bayh needs to be more charismatic. He looks like he's going to run the John Kerry type campaign, where he'll take vague positions on the issues in the hope of not offending swing voters. That strategy won't fly. Clinton's strength was that he could advocate centrism with zeal. Bayh seems to think centrism has to also go with blandness and tiptoing around hot button issues. It's fine to run as a centrist, but he needs to make his centrism exciting. He should come up with bold new proposals. When it comes to domestic issues, Democrats have a big advantage over Republicans. Since Republicans don't like goverment, they can only offer tax cuts (they only squeezed out Medicare Part D with great difficulty--and surprise, it doesn't work). Democrats have much more to offer, and Bayh should take advantage of that.

I don't know. I still think Bayh could do it. I admit, though, he will not be the nominee. It's kinda unfortunate that a candidate of his stature could even be viewed so negatively. I think he--Bayh--is really where the country is--where middle America is. Only if he could be just a little more charismatic and personable: He'd be perfect.

He's from the Midwest; a part of the U.S. that could--and is--coming into play for the Democrats (look at Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas (which has a Democratic governor)). Democrats can win here, and we should be able to compete here. I think the future of the Party lies not in the traditional Northeast-West coast regions, but in the Midwest and Southwest regions (New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada). This is the future--as opposed to the "here and now"--game plan.

No one is saying that a candidate should forfeit what they believe in, fervently, and go straight to electability. Not at all! However, we do need someone who can talk to more than one kind of crowd, whether liberal or conservative. A person who can genuine relate to the people, both personally and emotionally. A person who can express a "you and me," as opposed to an "us and them" attitude. A person with substance, as well as emotion. I don't mean, well...yes, I guess I do mean "folksy." I believe I just described former President Clinton. Clinton can't just be an political anomaly, right? Well, may be he was...

I think there is a big difference between the person that votes one way because that happens to be the deciding factor and the person that actively looks for a candidate's position on any given issue. The former is a swing voter and the later is an issue voter. Swing voters probably has a list of things they care about and weigh how close each candidate comes to that list. The party affiliation doesn't matter. The guy who votes soley based on a candidate's position on abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc..is an issue voter and is probably a partisan anyway. In Dan's example, your gf sounds like a swing voter and your friends sound like issue voters.

College Kid, I think you are correct. Swing vorters don't vote on issues. They vote on an ISSUE. Just 1.

My girlfriend doesn't vote. She doesn't follow the candidates and thinks that she is therefore not responsible to vote. (Yes I know she should educate herself and be responsible but not my point here).

However if she were to hear that Candidate X was going to outlaw being Gay (for instance) she would vote for the other side solely on that point.

I know alot of people who put their emphasis on just one or two issues and vote that way.

Ultimately, though, how long can you do the Southern governor thing? If you wind up with leadership that is centrist and percieved to be ineffective, then it sets back all Democrats, (I.E. Jimmy Carter).

Also, politics requires being innovative and taking risks once in a while...
Sure it can be disasterous a la 72 or 84, but it can also really work, a la 1980. My point isn't that electability doesn't matter at all.

And I think one thing a lot of electablity folks miss out you're thinking about the here and now. What about ten years from now? 20 years? 30 years? Ultimately, just finding the perfect candidate with the perfect Q factor or whatever will lead you to the point where you're just about power, and not about real principles. Democrats need to figure out their principles BADLY, and I don't think Bayh is the best choice for that.
Often, electability=caution, and caution doesn't necessarily win elections.

Also, RCwill, you negate the fact that even though Swing Voters count, they don't necessarily vote on issues, they might well vote on personality.

As for the first comment, I think it's safe to say that there are shades of gray that need to be acknowledged. MANY Democrats supported going to war...you know the rest. While we were pretty much had by the Bush Administration, I think it's silly to suggest that you have to support immediate withdrawal if you don't support the war. Insomuch as GWB and the war team didn't consider seemingly anything when they declared war, we need to take a lot into consideration with regard to ending the conflict and pulling out the troops. Why anyone bought into this myth that we'd have this over and done with in five years defies logic, knowledge of the Middle East and our military history. Obviously we were arrogant to try and impose democracy, but do we want to risk total chaos? Should Evan Bayh because he's up for trying to assess damage control in the region? I don't believe so.

[a quick note on Wes Clark potentially being SecDef...I am almost positive that he has not been out of the military long enough to serve in that capacity.]

[a quick note on the last post on Bayh winning in "red" Indiana -- he wins there because of Birch's legacy and being incumbent as much as anything]

Look at any and all polls on potential Dem nominees for 2008. Hillary does not have +50% majority in any of them. If the poll were parsed as Hillary vs. non-Hillary, she loses. Stop proclaiming her the presumptive nominee. It's simply not consistent with the numbers. Add to it that many of the "non-Hillary" supporters are behind other potential candidates for two reason (1-they are not Hillary, 2-they are a candidate the supporter likes), and you have the makings of an actually interesting primary.

There is no such thing as a political center in our polity. Of those voters who do not identify themselves as R or D, all but less than 10% identify WITH a particular party and vote predictably and accordingly. Attempting to appeal to some ideological center is a ridiculous way to win an election and govern. I'll expand in a moment.

But first, on national security: Chris, you continue to drop further and further into the intellectual sludge of DC Conventional Wisdom with your pieces here. Of the Democratic candidates for president, there are far more with "national security" experience and knowledge than of the GOP. Sam Brownback or Bill Frist leading an international summit? Not likely. Wes Clark, Russ Feingold (someone who has actually worked on international issues with tremendous success and savvy), and John Kerry could pull it off, and do it well. And they know how to talk about (lower-case "r") real security. As in not just feigning some military might to ensure security thing, but instead security that is broader than pre-emptive aggression. The things that will make the U.S. a secure nation far into the 21st century. Plus, more Dems than Goopers have military experience in their background now than ever before. Finally on this point, the U.S. people trust Democrats more than Republicans on security issues now. And the Dems have shown an inability to actually talk about national security issues with greater and greater accumen and better and better resonance. It's strictly the DC punditocracy that reinforces a narrative of GOP=strong, Dems=weak.

Reason #1 Evan Bayh is not a credible candidate to win: he does not know how to talk about national security and reassure voters that he will lead well. The previous poster pointing out that he reinforces the GOP meme of cutting-and-running and frames the issue the GOP way was spot-on right. Bayh paradoxically decreases the trust of citizens in the Democratic Party in handling national security (and thus the image of him leading on the issue) but trying to pull those around him down to elevate himself. Reasons #2-1000 that Bayh will not win: He clings to that notion of "centrism" that has lost hundreds of elections (and tons of power and influence and national policy) for the DLC in the past 8 years. Centrism for that crowd is another word for conservative Democrat. And those policies don't work as a matter of policy, and as a matter of politics, turn of the middle 1/3 of the political "spectrum" and piss off the left 1/3 (in terms of personal political identification -- vastly different from the actual principles people hold i.e. you can identify as a moderate but when polled on policy, turn out to be a helluva lot more progressive than what you thought). And Bayh is no progressive. He may not have voted for Alito or Roberts, but where was he on the filibuster of the former? And what are the rest of his progressive credentials? On the issues that will prove to be galvanizing ground for a progressive majority in the future, economic issues, he is not quite there.

Which leads to a bigger point about why Bayh won't win, why Hillary can't win, and why some combination of Warner, Clark, Edwards, or Feingold will/must win. The overarching narrative of the chattering class of DC pundits and political commentors has been right-wing v left-wing with a moderate center that must dominate. While this part is on its face untrue, the resultant ideas are more important. That is, 1) that policies that emanate from the politicians and leaders that come from these three respective political locations match those "principles" and match with voter approvals from them. 2) that middle ground policies appeal to the largest segment of the population -- and that this is because policies are evaluated only on political considerations and not on efficacy. 3) that easily described segments of the three political classes are easily broken down.

First, overwhelmingly, when polled in specifics, people in the U.S. favor progressive policy on economics. Things like a just, progressive taxation of income. Things like protection of labor standards. Things like use of public resources for public good (the right has simply changed the wording of that to "using goverment to make it easier" from "using public resources to enable broader prosperity" -- and made policy along the lines of that negative connotation of public/government understanding). People like progressive policy when they hear about it. They turn out not to like regressive conservativism policies when they hear it. Along those lines, there is not a monolithic political class system. People fall into different areas along a political spectrum based on a number of different issues. The tendency is for people to agree a lot within their class (i.e. someone opposed to reproductive rights will be against gay marriage will be scared about terrorists). But that is not a hard and fast rule. Likewise, preference on ideological grounds is not a perfect predictor of approval of a program or policy in place. Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are not only wildly succesful in terms of polling for approval, but also for policy efficacy. They even outrank pretty much everything in the private sector in their comparable categorizations (even with the demonization of public programs and enshrining of the private sector in the years since 1980). They are not middle-ground policies. They are at their core, progressive (at their time, "liberal") policies, that when made more progressive will be even more successful and popular (e.g. removing the cap on Social Security tax that sits around $94,000 per year incomes). And on the left, the "blogosphere" is not rabidly socialist, atheist, and leftist. They backed Paul Hackett over Sherrod Brown in Ohio (less progressive former, more progressive and certainly liberal latter). They promote a military man as one of the chosen few for president (Wes Clark). And Howard Dean is no liberal firebrand, as the media likes to categorize him. It's easier that way, and better for a story narrative that must be done on deadline and fit into a certain column size. But he proved more "moderate" in his time as governor of VT, and his party-building work in the past year or so has focused on building up and working with Democrats in "red" states, knowing that while they've voted "red" for president in the past few cycles, they still have Democrats in Congress, the Senate, and in their statehouse who work on behalf of those "red" citizens, and do it well (look at Kent Conrad, Brian Schweitzer, or even Evan Bayh -- who I should say here, is no Birch Bayh, who was a modern-day remnant of the Progressive Era, and real American leader and statesman).

The reason Bill Clinton won twice in running for president was not being a DLC centrist, but instead being Bill Clinton. That is common knowledge I think. The reason he would win if not Constitutionally limited is that he's Bill Clinton. Hillary is not Bill. And none of the potential candidates on either side are as talented a politician as he was. So policies, principles, and actual candidate ability amongst themselves will be a factor. Not just in their appeal to voters. But also to those people who will get them elected - donors (big and small), activists, and other leaders.

Big donors are a fun group to handicap, and it's hard. But clearly, the trend in winning elections lately (thankfully!) has moved a bit towards small donors. Money can come in $20, $50, and $100 contributions, not just $2100 checks for each part of a cycle. And it takes a passion-inspiring candidate to bring that out. Dean did it. People like Feingold and Clark and Warner and Edwards can do it. And it turns out that the people who make these contributions also do something bigger and better. They volunteer or work to get these candidates elected. This kind of grassroots thing will be far more important in the future, ironically because of the political polarization on the part of the recent GOP. You can't get elected chasing the middle 10% who are finnicky. You have to win by getting 100% of your base out, nailing down the "middle ground" voters that identify with your side, and identifying and cultivating new or returning voters that are with you on issues. These categories require a candidate that inspires passion and gets people riled up.

Reason #1 Hillary won't win - She doesn't get her presumptive base excited anymore (the liberals, progressives, etc), but she sure riles up her potential opposition's base. And likewise with the middle-grounders here. Reason #1 Someone besides Hillary will win - People will give up money and get out and work for someone principled and admired like Feingold, Clark, Edwards, or Warner. The only reason Kerry had people out there for him was that he was not Bush in a highly-contested election. And he'll never have it again because he's not as talented a politician as he once was in terms of getting people riled up (for him). The rest are coming into their own with that.

To summarize, the notion of centrism-based politics is a farce and deadly to the party who has tried it for years (and lost, and they're called the Democrats -- notice how little mind the GOP pays to any ideological center and still captures enough votes to win). Hillary and Bayh are two politicans who cater to that (and the latter tries to out-center the rest of the Dems who are into that by pushing them down to look taller, only appearing tallest of a scrunched down bunch when he does it) and because of that, will not be successful come '08. And as the former party of economic populism and progressivism returns to that in a 21st century form, they will regain national prominence because that is what is best for our country and that will be recognized by voters in turn.

ofcourse my scenario rules out Clark as possible SoD, but it puts the best ticket together in my opinion...Warner could hammer fiscal responsibilty and Clark could hammer Iraq, Middle East, terrorism...who could the Republicans put together to trump that line-up? or even reverse the ticket as Clark/Warner...either way i think it's a winner!

Someone noted earlier that who ever comes into office after Bush is going to have a huge mess to clean up....

"Umm, hate to point this out but the COUNTRY (forget Parties) is going to be in a total shambles after Bush leaves. Record debt, endless war(s) in the ME."...

That leads me to believe that Mark Warner is the man for the job...he cleaned up the fiscal mess in Virginia during his term and I can't remember a Democratic governor in the state of Virginia that was praised so often by Republican voters...he has just enough charisma and good looks (I hate to say these things are important, but in today's sound byte world they are strangely tantamount), and he is not hampered by the up and down voting record that haunts many senators. His draw back ofcourse is his lack of experience, especially in foreign affairs...so why not bring Wes Clark on board as his running mate...Warner/Clark in 08 looks pretty damn good to me!

college kid

Obviously, you chose the best poll that Feingold has received out of the dozen or so listed on the Polling Report site(which I have cited in several posts over the past few months).

It was not a bad showing, but his average is around 3-4%.

Sola Mia

Feingold himself is unabashed in his liberalism. He is one of the leaders of the Progressive Caucus. He does not run from it.

It is not a matter of will Dems vote for the Dem nominee. Of course they will, although turn out could be depressed greatly by nominating a perceived unelectable candidate. It is the middle swing voters that win elections in this country. R's vote for R's with something between 88-92% consistancy and their turnout rates are considerably larger than Dems. Dems vote for Dems about 77%-85%. Independent voters are all over the map. Their turnout rates vary widely and much lower than voters committed to one party or the other. They also shift alleigences (Reagan 1980, Clinton 1992) readily.

Sorry Gravy but Dan is right. To win a national election, you must capture their attention and "swing them" to your side or you lose, plain and simple.

The issue is that our system of chosing leaders comes in two stages. Primaries are for this very discussion. Parties get to choose their candidate to represent their party. But you cannot ignore the the fact that the General election is the key to the White House. Nominate the best "Democrat" in the world and they can still not be acceptible to the country as a whole. Look at the polls. Hillary Clinton is the runaway choice of Democrats in every poll right now. Yet she trails most every possible Republican opponent. Things will change to prove or disprove those polls, but what they tell us right now is that she is the favored Democrat to lose to a Republican in November 2008.

We have the luxury of this debate, it being 2006 and it is fun to predict and prognosticate. And as more of the country becomes focused on the topic, candidates will get weeded out.

I have been on the inside of politics for long enough that I no longer allow myself the luxury of concerning myself with only the candidate that appeals to me. I have been trained to identify those traits that appeal to the broader base needed for victory.

After eights years of Bush Jr., I do not believe this country can afford another term of Republican control of the White House. I felt this way back in 1991. I did not choose to work for CLinton because he was my favorite Democratic candidate, but he proved to have the best chance in my estimation, to recapture the White House. Otherwise, I would have been a Tsongas delegate.

The intervening fifteen years has not changed that fact for me. I will not denigrate anyone for choosing a candidate they like and I would hope that the tone of the dialogue of the entire board (most adhere to this good behavior)would do the same. People are not crackpots for following their hearts in wanting a different way of life for this country and finding a candidate that speaks to their hopeful visions.

Unfortunately, I am simply to jaded or realistic and too much is at stake, in my opinion, to personally do so anymore.

If Bayh wins over as many Republicans like he has done in Indiana then he can win anywhere in the country. He can convert Red states like Georgia to Kentucky to Ohio. Let's not forget that Ohio is very close to Indiana and Bayh's relationship with Ohio Democrats and Ohio voters is strong. I as an Ohioan, have seen many of Bayh's speeches and have gotten positive remarks from Republicans here and Democrats alike. Plus, with his Midwest background he will be able to further relate to the voters in that area like Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio places that Bill won but Gore and Kerry lost. Hillary Clinton can not be nominated if Dems want to win, we need good impressive candidates like Bayh, Warner, or Edwards.

Gravy, I agree with your last post completely. I wish the Democratic professional strategists were as smart as you!

For the only and only time in the history of this blog, I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say: THANK YOU WAPO/CC FOR DELETING CHE'S POST.

As much as all this debate about candidates seems worthwhile, I think it's worth pointing out that partisans like Chris Cilliza are probably more interested in watching us devour our own than to actually discuss things based on substantive issues.

I suggest that we shouldn't continually fall for this cyclical, self-destrustive argument. Plainly put, the Democrats have the agenda and have the plans to win back political power in 06/08 and the GOP scared to death. Of course, they are helping the Dems cause b/c, well, they are simply a disgrace. But yes, I do think that the dems have the plans ready to execute for the future (ala Obama's oil conservation proposals in Chicago today) and the moral highground on a number of issues, and if we avoid GOP rat-trap pitfalls like those tossed out by Rove, Cilliza, et al, we'll be much better off.

In regards to a substantive discussion on the issues, I think, my friends, that heated debate on potential '08 candidates is just uhh, fartin' in the wind... I think we're lookin good for '06 despite what gop hacks think, but I guess that's another story for another day, or another blog.

I would have gotten out of a sick bed to vote for Bayh for anything until he voted against Roberts to be Chief Justice. He was a great canditate, played by the rules, never in trouble and double qualified. If you vote against someone like Roberts, you need to be turned out of office.....

Dan,

I don't have a problem with "swing" voters, or republican voters, or democratic voters, or socialist voters, or fascist voters, etc. People can vote for whomever they like. But as a political strategy I believe chasing after swing voters is bunk. I agree that it would be ideal if people voted on candidates stances on all the issues. That's why I vote democratic, because I agree on most issues. Unfortunately many people don't vote like that, and I believe that many swing voters are in this category. I think personality and such factors are much more likely to win swing voters than a move to the center. People who care passionately about certain issues seem much more likely to have already chosen sides that most conform to their beliefs. When a candidate moves to the center, or carefully courts the center they're seen as ideologically wishy-washy or purely political beings, and this turns off the very voters their aiming for with this strategy.

Bayh's record is the best of any Democrat in the field, and way better than John Kerry's. Bayh is not long winded like Kerry, speaks from the heart, and unlike Kerry can win in Red States. If the Dems want to make the most safe choice Bayh would be the answer because he can win a 50 state strategy.

Gravy, Whats wrong with the center? I happen to be one of those swing voters and would love to see a candidate wjo represents the middle. This country does not deserve two parties, this country requires strong candidates capable of:
1) Fiscal responsibility with an eye towards social programs
2) Balanced social programs with an eye towards fiscal responsibility
3) Checks and balances between the branches of government
4) Realization that we have separation of church and state for a reason.

Why not forget about which candidate the dems should select and concentrate on what discussing which policies we think our elected officials should adhere.

Question: Which candidate (either party) is most likely to do the best job of controlling the budget.

Question: Which candidate is most likely to get us out of Iraq in the most responsible manner possible.

Question: What does most responsible manner possible mean and should we care?

Question: Which candidate is going to fix the tax code.

Question: Which candidate is going to fix Social Security.

Question: Which candidate is going to address the Illegal immigrant question.

We don't even know what we are looking for in a candidate yet.

Was the real Che so long winded and circuitous? I thought this post was about Evan Bayh.

Tell Bernie that the hijackers didn't have to "get that 100-ton beast in the air" because it was already in the air when they hijacked it.

--You people are a bunch of crackpots. Feingold doesn't have a chance. His chances are only slightly better than those of Kerry, which are less than zero

Sheesh? Just because someone disagrees or might be wrong, doesn't make them a crackpot.

You people are a bunch of crackpots. Feingold doesn't have a chance. His chances are only slightly better than those of Kerry, which are less than zero

He recruited Paul Tewes for Iowa.I mean he's not up for re-election til 2010, so I think he has something on his mind.

sola mia: that'd be Feingold himself who has shown no interest and has not been making the organizational moves necessary. Kinda short-circuits the whole process when your candidate refuses to run, doesn't it? As much as I agree with his positions and admire your passion reality has to rear its ugly head at some point.

"while Republicans have remained solid?" This statement requires willfull ignorance of the facts. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100004.html

The Republican Party of Eisenhower and Nixon started dying during the first Reagan administration and is now long dead. The GOP is now drifting toward hypocritical evangelism. The country deserves two parties, not one party and a set of religious beliefs.

Excuse me, Judge C. Crater, but why do you think that Feingold doesn't have a chance? Who are you listening to? There are: the people in the blogosphere, real people (family and friends), the various Democratic power groups (who have their own favorites to promote already), and the pundits who basically try to predict (make) the future. Who is telling you that they wouldn't support Feingold, but would support Richardson?

Couldn't agree more, Gravy. Except that I still think the idea of "moderate" is meaningless. Does moderate mean do nothing, say nothing, and pretend to be Republican? Because that's not moderate.

Those who are labeling Feingold as "far left": What does "far left" mean to you? And if you are a democrat, would you vote for Feingold if he did get the nomination, or are you just predicting that people you don't even know would not vote for him? If you would not vote for him, what specific issue do you disagree with him on? (This question is asked to people who usually vote for Democrats but say that Feingold is "far left", not for Republicans who would not vote for Feingold or any other Democrat.)

Why don't we hear Republicans talking about nominating moderates and centrists? Their ideological extremes have proved politically effective, and not because they are more in line with national sentiment. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that Republicans have been winning, so if Democrats want to win they should nominate Republicans (dressed up like Democrats). That's crap. When given the choice between a Republican and a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, they'll choose the former every time, and rightly so.

The hunt for the swing voter is a wild goose chase in which Democrats have engaged and been pulled to the center, while Republicans have remained solid. Conservatives have seized the ideological high ground, and Democrats aren't gonna take it back by meandering in the valley. The country deserves two parties, not one and a half.

Can't help but note that the only people promoting Feingold in the blogosphere are the people in the blogosphere. He's far too smart to think that he has a chance on the national stage however richly he deserves it.

Richardson would make for a good top ender on the ticket but he'll need to get moving relatively soon. Combine him with Warner and they'd be a demographic dream come true for the D's.

My experience with Evan Bayh as a 2 term governor now 3 term U.S. Senator has been very positive. Can't say that I agree with some of his Senate votes but overall he's done a good job for us. If you look hard enough I'm sure you'll find liberals in Indiana who do not support him but this liberal is satisfied with his performance.

Bayh has something that resinates about him. TRUST. As for the other Dem potentials there are some good ones there too, but I'm keeping an eye on Bayh for 08.

Guys-- it is unlikely that Hillary will gain the nomination, and not necessarily because of this perceived unelectability (whether real or imagined). The reason is that this time the first-in-the-nation caucus and primaries may actually do us a favor. Bill Clinton was successful in these states because he was intelligent AND personable, and was able to speak with and relate well to the people of Iowa and New Hampshire, who tend to need a little more personal attention than those in more populous states. Hillary is unlikely to be able to pull off the same trick, since she is simply not as skilled in the art of gladhanding and politicking. Iowa and New Hampshire are far more likely to think seriously about intelligent, reasonable candidates like Bayh and Warner (or even Edwards) than someone like Hillary whose personality may be a bit too hard for some to swallow.

"Feingold hasn't gotten much traction."

It's easy to overplay the blogosphere, but some experts on the netroots say that his support matches that of Dean's in fall 2003.

Also, according to a Strategic Vision Poll, he did pretty ok:
17. For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)
Hillary Clinton 35%
Al Gore 15%
John Edwards 11%
Russ Feingold 9%
John Kerry 7%
Wesley Clark 3%
Joseph Biden 2%
Bill Richardson 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Ed Rendell 1%
Tom Vilsak 1%
Barbara Boxer 1%
Mark Warner 1%
Undecided 12%

Obviously the censure controversy would help up those numbers, but if you look at nomination numbers of the previous cycle, that's really not bad for a starting candidate.
:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Someone said Bayh was most qualified. I was just disputing that.

I personally don't think Feingold will get the nomination. I think he deserves it the most, and I would vote for him, and work for him. But I absolutely 100% don't want him to be scorned the way Dean is. I also find him such a breath of fresh air after ever other elected official is playing all those cutesy Washington parlor games.

With the exception of Richardson and excusing the unfortunate extreme descriptive language, I have to agree with the ultimate conclusions of the Predictron.

Feingold is liberal and he makes no excuses for it but I do not know if he fits the definition of crypto-socialist.

Clark has no elective experience, which is not necessarily a downside to some voters but is not gaining any traction and whether his blogsphere supporters do him more harm than good I do not know and don't really care. It won't get him elected to anything.

I think Gore is the closest comparison to Nixon's situation but I don't think either he or Gore can resureect themselves.

I think it was meant that Edwards was an aberration not ABOMINATION but don't think either description helps in getting him elected President.

Richardson is lying low for sure but has the potential to have pizzazz and wow Dems once he makes up his mind. He will definately energize latino voters which can be a huge plus in certain red states.

The Dems are hungry for power and if there is anything they've learned since the 1990s..its this..power is good and you keep it at all cost or pay. The Dems (unless they are on crack), will nominate Warner for President and Bayh for Veep. Feingold is a crypto-socialist who will crash out of the primaries.
Wes Clark HAS NO Elective experienc and his storm-troppers on the left blogosphere do him more harm than good.
Kerry is no Nixon and can't be resurrected
Edwards was an abomination and is nohwere near ready for primetime who knew he was going to have a hard time running for reelection and made a premature gamble on the Presidency...no leadership there.
Richardson has no pizzazz and won't wow the Dem base (maybe some Hispanics but not more than that)
Hilary Clinton is Hilary Clinton..nuff said and that's the end of it

Look up the definition of 'context' and get back to us when you resume your medication

Bayh supported bankruptcy legislation last year and that's reason enough to oppose him.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

There were at least ten mentions of Kerry in these postings. Talking about Kerry now as a viable candidate is about as worthwhile as discussing Walter Mondale or Hubert Humphrey. A complete waste of time.

Except for Sandy,

Kerry is a complete buffoon. Why are you people wasting any time talking about him? He is arrogant, out of touch, and yesterday's news.

college kid

I assume you posted the last three scorecards, which are from 2001-2, 2000 and 1999, because some of the people on the lists are no longer members of congress (Robb, Edwards, Grams, etc).

Does not alter your point, just for accuracy sake, want people to know from when these "scorecards" were taken.

I don't think anyone to my recollection, has said Russ Feingold is not a fine US Senator and represents Wisconsin well. As far as a national candidate, he is definately not getting much traction yet and is lagging behind in organization and fund raising.

Also, this assumes that everyone buys in to the methodology of the Concord Coalition Scorecard for Fiscal Responsibility and that their definition and the votes they include are representative. I do not personally have working knowledge of this beyond what I have just read so I cannot vouch for its vaildity. I will say that Bayh is represented on the list,not a consistantly or as high as Feingold but still he can make a claim for fighting for fiscal responsibility as part of his message.

I think Dems are looking for a highly principled person to pin their hopes on. By that I mean someone who can articulate a belief or principle and adhere to it--unlike Hillary or McCain, who attempt to appease opponents by switching positions. Hillary, supposedly a first amendment supporter sponsored the flag-burning amendment. In 2000, McCain called Jerry Falwell "horribly intolerant'" but yesterday he stated he found him acceptable. This is pandering and I don't believe too many Dems will tolerate it.

Also, you say Bayh is the most impressive. If you look at fiscal ratings, Feingold beats Bayh.
www.concordcoalition.org
Senate Honor Roll
Raw Score Percentile
Sen. Lincoln Chafee 84 100
Sen. Russell Feingold 81 99
Sen. Thomas Carper 79 98
Sen. Judd Gregg 68 97
Sen. Bob Graham 66 95
Sen. John McCain 66 95

Raw
score Percentile

Sen. Russell Feingold 63 99
Sen. George Voinovich 63 99
Sen. John McCain 59 98
Sen. Robert Kerrey 56 97
Sen. Richard Bryan 50 95
Sen. Bob Graham 50 95
Sen. Phil Gramm 49 93
Sen. Judd Gregg 49 93
Sen. Don Nickles 49 93
Sen. Frank Lautenberg 47 91
Sen.Pat Moynihan 45 90
Sen. John Edwards 43 88
Sen. Charles Robb 43 88
Sen. Joseph Lieberman 41 87
Sen. Evan Bayh 39 85
Sen. Craig Thomas

Senate Honor Roll

Raw
score Percentile

Sen. Russell Feingold 97 100
Sen. George Voinovich 86 99
Sen. Bob Graham 83 98
Sen. John McCain 71 97
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald 65 96
Sen. Barbara Boxer 64 95
Sen. Charles Robb 60 94
Sen. Evan Bayh 58 93
Sen. John Edwards 57 92
Sen. Wayne Allard 55 87
Sen. Mike Enzi 55 87
Sen. Rod Grams 55 87
Sen. Chuck Hagel 55 87
Sen. James Inhofe 55 87
Sen. Herb Kohl 55 87
Sen. Jeff Sessions 55 87
Sen. Robert Smith 55 87
Sen. Craig Thomas 55
87

Also, if Bayh is *so* much better, why does Feingold beat him in passing amendments:
"Top 5 Senators: John McCain R-AZ); Orrin Hatch (R-UT); Jeff Bingaman (D-NM); Charles Grassley (R-IA); Russell Feingold (D-WI).
Top 5 Representatives: James Saxton (R-NJ); Ron Paul (R-TX); Christopher Smith (R-NJ); Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA); Charles Rangel (D-NY)."

And David Brooks of the NYTimes, a known conservative, compliments him on the Roberts hearings:Generally the people who have aspirations to run for president voted no. The exception, I think, was Russ Feingold who to me is the profile in courage head of all this.

I thought in the hearings he did an excellent job of asking tough prosecutorial questions; really some of the more critical questions that were asked were asked by Russ Feingold. I thought he did a much more competent job. And then he turns around and says, "well, I think he's a decent guy." So Russ Feingold looks very good.

Not to mention campaign finance reform, which is a big piece of bipartisan legislation.

I just love how someone will take the board to task and then ignore their own advice a paragraph later.

"Geez, the words in the chat rooms need to make sense. So that aristocracry comment is just junk.
.....
the only people spitting on the Constitution are the Dems who bash the President instead of protecting our nation. FDR and Truman would be Republicans today if they looked at the mess the Dems have made with all their socialist stuff instead of protecting our nation."

Hyperbole and rhetoric have their place (obviously) but hypocracy is a sin and its even worse when you commit it in the same post.

I think others have already addressed some of the absurdity of the language in the post in question.

Many feel (myself included) that upholding the Constitution is the ultimate protection of this nation and that hallowed document was written so that the "ends do not justify the means." Whether Bush has broken the law is yet to be determined (interesting that Nixon aide John Dean said that Bush's domestic spying was far worse than what Nixon did), but it has raised the perception in many people's minds (anywhere from 36-48% favoring censure) so much so that it has contributed to a serious drop in polls of whether the President is honest and trustworthy (71% in 7/02 down to 44% as of 3/5/06).
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 2-5, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

So questioning the President is hardly spitting on the Constitution or if it is, there is plenty of saliva to go around and your ill-worded defense is clearly in the minority of public opinion at the moment.

By the way, hey
Posted by: | April 3, 2006 03:34 PM,
at least make up a name so we know with some consistancy who we are conversing with.

FDR was the closest thing to a dictator this country has ever had.

I have yet to see an instance where the Republican party has trampled on anyone's 1st amendment rights. Reasonable people can, and do, disagree about the NSA, but there is no clear-cut answer to that question... Unless I'm missing something and this discussion has progressed past the 3 sentence talking points the Democrats keep trying to hammer away with.

Feingold would make the best President. And you say he's catering to the far left. 42% of Americans support censure of the President.

Bayh would be a terrible choice. Democrats need to find out what they really stand for. What they are really about, and Bayh would sell out every Democratic principle.

Re: "cut and run" -- when Mr. Bayh uses words like that, he is only framin the issue exactly as the Republicans want it heard. Please, how about something along the lines of a "smart exit strategy" -- then there is room to talk about leaving not running -- which is so pejorative.

Re: "Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright [who] bashed the Bush administration for its 'incompetence' in keeping Americans safe...." Now, that was a smart Democratic move...using Ms. Albright to kick off the Democrats "Real Security," when Ms. Albright, just a couple of weeks ago, was hired by Dubai World Ports to lobby Congress to allow DWP to buy the operations of the port! How does that work? Have we got a credibility problem here? -- another Democratic blunder?

The Democrats need a man with a powerful vision -- the middle is just sloppy. If Mr. Bayh stays there, he will not, as they say, resonate.

I like Bayh, though I disagree with him on many things. The obstacles to his getting nominated by the Democrats are formidable.

Democratic Presidential politics come down to persuading the leadership of the organized interests that dominate the Party that you are completely theirs -- you will do what the trial lawyers tell you to do on their issues, say what the feminists tell you to say on their issues and so on. A major problem for the Democrats in the past has been that none of "the groups" -- except the ones who care about Israel -- has taken much of an interest in foreign policy or national security affairs, leaving their candidates mostly without guidance.

Bayh is disadvantaged because "the groups" start out suspecting him of being willing to disobey his instructions. Take partial birth abortion, a relatively rare procedure that Bayh opposed. The distance between his views and those of pro-choice hardliners wasn't that great, but they had laid down the law as to what position Democratic politicians had to take, and Bayh ignored them. For that reason he will be right at the bottom as far as the feminist groups are concerned, and will stay there unless the other candidates just implode.

Incidentally, the idea that Democrats voted with their heads in picking John Kerry in 2004 is bizarre, for all that it is conventional wisdom in the media herd. Kerry was "the groups" candidate, absolutely reliable on all the issues they cared about. He didn't get young activists excited the way Dean did, but Dean's supporters were unorganized. Kerry, a showhorse Senator with no record of defying interest group pressure, was the ideal candidate -- except of course that he couldn't beat perhaps the weakest incumbent President since Hoover.

Evan Bayh would make a plausible President. His weakness is as a candidate in the primaries, and as a fundraiser before they start. Perhaps he can overcome his liabilities between now and 2008.

Daphne makes good points.

And now that I think about it, Hilary has an advantage IF she can take her hubbie's coat-tails out of the mothballs. A wave of Clinton nostalgia...with a hint of some of Bill's old pals back in key positions...would probably get the press on her side and get the public to think fondly about the pre-9/11 world and the boom times of the '90s.

"Posted by: | April 3, 2006 03:40 PM"

Bush was in office for 270 days before 9/11. How many bj's did he have to get to overlook memos entitled "ISLAMISTS LEARNING TO FLY COMMERCIAL AIRLINES?"

Go back to the Faux News echo chambers and take your stupidity with you.

I don't know what some of you are talking about. Bayh is by far the most impressive (maybe second to Richardson) of all the candidates considering a run in '08--even more so than HRC. Russ Feingold has no prayer to ever be President of the United States. Ever. He's even more devisive than HRC. He's catering to the far-left of the Party. This is "strategery" for the party primaries, but is political suicide/euthanasia on the national level. Hasn't the Party learned this yet? I sure hope so...

Bayh and others can salvage the Democratic Party from being hijacked by the far-left of the Party. The Democratic needs and should capture the sensible center of the Party and the country, because they--we--are ripe for the taking.

There is an opportunity for this to happen, and the time to act is now. Nominating someone who is a liberal in moderate clothing (Hillary Rodham Clinton comes to mind?) is no strategy for winning in 2008. The political winds are definitely blowing in the direction of the Democratic Party, with a current, troubled, unpopular president; a scandal-proned Republican Party; a disagreeable war in Iraq...

The Democratic Party needs to get serious about winning elections, because if not it will be--again--a lonely four years in the political, presidential wilderness.

Re: "cut and run" -- when Mr. Bayh uses words like that, he is only framin the issue exactly as the Republicans want it heard. Please, how about something along the lines of a "smart exit strategy" -- then there is room to talk about leaving not running -- which is so pejorative.

Re: "Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright [who] bashed the Bush administration for its 'incompetence' in keeping Americans safe...." Now, that was a smart Democratic move...using Ms. Albright to kick off the Democrats "Real Security," when Ms. Albright, just a couple of weeks ago, was hired by Dubai World Ports to lobby Congress to allow DWP to buy the operations of the port! How does that work? Have we got a credibility problem here? -- another Democratic blunder?

The Democrats need a man with a powerful vision -- the middle is just sloppy. If Mr. Bayh stays there, he will not, as they say, resonate.

Hilary has too much baggage. Everyone already has an impression of her. To many casual observers of politics (like myself) Feingold has a greater chance because voters haven't already made up their minds about him.

Bayh puts me to sleep.

But then again, who really needs charisma? Bush is probably the absolute worst public speaker I've seen in the White House during my lifetime. Yet circumstances of the post-9/11 world and a reckless attitude have led him to intimidate the press and the Congress.

The ideal Democratic candidate in a general election would be :

1. completely vague and ambiguous on social issues, supporting the status quo (they'd have to be to take the steam out of social conservatives in the general election while being able to talk-the-talk enough during the primaries)

2. Hammer away at stuff like port security, the failure to capture Bin Laden, etc. Have legitimate credentials and experience as a security hawk.

3. Find a way to strike a tough and patriotic tone on Iraq WHILE ALSO getting us out of there over time AND finding a way to support regional stability

So the perfect Democratic candidate is...
RUDY GUILIANI (?!) :)

Before you chime in that he's not really ambiguous on social issues, I will tell you that he probably *would* be if he ever ran nationally. But given that Rudy is unlikely to ever switch parties, we need to consider someone else...

Bill Clinton? ;)

Judge,

The "bj" in the White House was the only topic on Clinton's agenda. IF Clinton had tended to the "work" of the people, we would not be in the mess we are in.

Will Evan play well in the Iowa and New Hampshire? He was also an Indiana Governor giving us executive and legislative experience in and from the so-called heartland.
Not sold on him yet but he does at least correct the last person elected nationally....the stupid Dan Quayle.

Connie, thank you for pointing out that it was Democratic Presidents who have kept us safe. I don't anyone who is satified with the status quo with the Republicans controlling all three brances of government. And what mess have the Democrats made when they don't even control the government?

Connie should understand the only people spitting on the Constitution are the Repubs who trash the First Amendment instead of protecting our nation. FDR and Truman would still be Democrats today if they looked at the mess the Repubs have made with all their imperialist stuff instead of protecting our nation like FDR and Truman.

Everyone said Reagan could not win. (Run Hillary, Run.

Connie, what socialist stuff again? Why is it spitting on the Constitution to hold the President accountable for behaving lawfully? What high school civics class did you attend again?

Republican aristocracy? Who is that? As far as being rich and being a politican, the Dems have lots of millionaires running for president in 2008. Does that make them aristocracy too or how about crowning Hillary since the Dems would like KING Clinton back in the White House. Geez, the words in the chat rooms need to make sense. So that aristocracry comment is just junk. Dems and Republicans will be nominated by the party leaders getting the people to vote, nothing new about that. If Dean had kept his temper on low beam, and his venom agains Bush instead of against Gephardt and other Dems, he might have won Iowa.
My point is that the Republicans have a wide open field, just like the Dems. Hillary is not a shoo-in for Iowa or New Hampshire, so I guess there will a race for who is the Un-Hillary. Just like there will be a race in the GOP for who will be the UN-McCain.
Sola Mia should understand the only people spitting on the Constitution are the Dems who bash the President instead of protecting our nation. FDR and Truman would be Republicans today if they looked at the mess the Dems have made with all their socialist stuff instead of protecting our nation like FDR and Truman.

Umm, hate to point this out but the COUNTRY (forget Parties) is going to be in a total shambles after Bush leaves. Record debt, endless war(s) in the ME.

Remind me what was wrong with Clinton again? Somehow the bj in the Oval office doesn't seem so important (not that I cared at the time anyway).

I think the Republicans should be the ones searching their souls. Trouble is, they'd have to find them first. Karl Rove's not going to give them back any time soon.

I would be happy to vote for a "moderate/centrist" Democrat, but not a "moderate/centrist" who has idly stood by and allowed George W. Bush to proclaim himself above the law. Besides, what does "moderate/centrist" mean? These terms are meaningless with regard to this country's most significant issues. Is it "liberal" or "moderate/centrist" or "conservative" to stand up for the United States Constitution? Is it "liberal" or "moderate/centrist" or "conservative" to offer real help to victims of natural disaster? Is it "liberal" or "moderate/centrist" or "conservative" to be opposed to war profiteering? What do those labels mean? I would vote for Warner. I would not vote for Bayh who has allowed George W. Bush to perpetrate harm on the American people and to spit on the Constitution.

"Nominate Feingold in 2008 and get 4 more years of a Republican Presidency.

Feingold, Kerry, Clinton 2.0, are not the answer.

Moderate/Centerists like Warner, Bayh or Richardson are.

Those who say they would punish those centerists in the primaries as a reaction against Bush are Rove's second favorite people after the evangelicals"

I don't believe in grouping. Feingold and Hilary can't be grouped together. Feingold is authentic and sincere, and Hilary is so careful.

Moderate/Centrists are not necessarily the answer: It's true that so far Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter only worked in the previous 40 years, but it's also true that Democratic registration weakened after their Presidencies. Essentially a Warner/Bayh/Richardson could leave Democrats in shambles when they left. The truth is that is just a simple way out. Democrats really need to search their souls and find a compelling direction for the country, and depending on Southern governors could inhibit that.

George Bush does indeed have a price tag....problem is, it is with our money that he pays for favors. We were supposed to become solvent with Social Security after retirement age and SS taxes were raised under Reagan. We would have been fine if Social Security had not been borrowed against.....not to mention all the other debt we have incurred so Bush and cronies can have more power and money.

Posted by: | April 3, 2006 02:56 PM

Whoever you are, it's time for Democrats to stop playing the "who can best predict the future" game. Feingold's censure resolution has 48% of the American public's support. Now, how many Americans do you think are paying close attention to the issue? I'll vote for someone who tells the truth, and stands on principle. I will not vote for Bayh or anyone else who allows a dictatorship. That's not a "moderate"; that's a traitor.

I wish Sen. Evan Baye's father, former Sen. Birch Baye was running. He is still active on the lecture circuit and a true liberal. I wish I knew if his son was more of a centrist in order to win elections in Indiana or if he really is more centrist than his father.

Nominate Feingold in 2008 and get 4 more years of a Republican Presidency.

Feingold, Kerry, Clinton 2.0, are not the answer.

Moderate/Centerists like Warner, Bayh or Richardson are.

Those who say they would punish those centerists in the primaries as a reaction against Bush are Rove's second favorite people after the evangelicals.

Claudia: when you say "Too bad our system of governing is dependent upon power and control, rather than on carrying through with what is ethical and appropriate" to what, exactly, are you referring? Can't be Iraq because based on the column above Bayh seems to have the same attitude as Bush.

Along the same lines, please name a politician who consistently carries through "with what is ethical and appropriate."

Claudia, did you actually say Bush has no price tag?" How about all those corporate donations he's received in order to buy his vote?

I hope you're right. Feingold's record of voting against war with Iraq and his vote against the Patriot Acts legitimize him in my eyes. But he's not terribly charismatic, either. I just hope people can distinguish between a war that is necessary to keep us safe, and one that has made us less safe--Iraq.

Being a resident from Indiana, I can actually state I did vote for Evan Bayh. That is past tense. Senator Bayh was, once upon a time, a man of valued principles. Being a member of Congress has altered his brain, which is now seemingly filled with political ambitions. Another Senator temporarily modified his conscience six years ago...Senator Lieberman. In the case of Lieberman, his code of ethics was built upon rock and not structured in sand, such as the case with Evan Bayh. During the campaign with Gore as his running mate, Lieberman was clearly uncomfortable with his newly found polital status.

Too bad our system of governing is dependent upon power and control, rather than on carrying through with what is ethical and appropriate. Many hate George Bush. He is contemned because no one can touch him. George Bush does not have a price tag...a fact that has hindered the GOP, because many of the party members are for sale.

When looking towards a potential candidate for President of the United States, "party" should not be the only consideration. It is first important to ask where the "political house" is built...on sand or on rock? Basing a candidacy on a momentary political campaign only is a risk I refuse to take.

Candidates rely on donations and the so to succed in campains. Politicians rely on tax money. We need politicians to represent us generaly speaking. Most are good but some will allways come to be not so good at the works. We simply have to deal with those on a personal level

Russ Feingold is going to be the Democratic nominee. He's the one who is defending the Constitution. No one who pretends that George W. Bush has any legitimate claim to the dictatorship he presumes will get my vote in the primary, and there are many other people who feel likewise.

As to the immigration issue, abortion, Iraq, and many other issues, there is room for good people to disagree on what must be done. But Evan Bayh and others who have stood by and allowed a President to become a dictator will not receive sufficient support to become President.

So does this mean he'll only increase the deficits and national debt half as much on wasted programs?

Sorry, if it isn't real fiscal discipline, it's not worth my time.

The problem for Democrats is that Bush has mutated the Republicans into the new party of big government (albeit with a socially conservative base). By cashing in on that key section of the demographic, the irresponsible vote, he's created a daunting challenge for any Democrat.

The constituency for social liberalism seems to be dwindling pretty far out of the mainstream (I think most people are really social moderates). The constituency for economic liberalism has been disarmed by Bush's endorsement of entitlement programs and a "What, me Worry?" attitude toward the budget. The Republicans win by redefining what it is to be a Republican.

The problem is that Responsibility doesn't poll well. So, all candidates, (Bayh included) will likely be forced to campaign for a continued reign of irresponsibilty (cut taxes, raise spending, get our national welfare check from our foreign investors).

The only exception to this I can see is on the front of terrorism. If the Dems can build a plausible attack on the war on terrorism (um, anyone remember Bin Laden?) and disconnect it from the issue of Iraq, they stand a chance. Bashing the President on Iraq isn't enough--they have to have credibility in an alternative strategy. And the Democrats certainly have to watch the line between pointing out flawed policy in Iraq and appearing like they're cheering for U.S. defeat.

The problem is, so far American voters don't seem to have caught on to this. It isn't visceral enough. Terrorism is an emotional issue. Policy-wonk-ness won't make a dent.

Hilary doesn't any ability to draw outside the Dem base. Bayh's biggest advantage is he isn't Hilary. Woe for the Republic :)

Kevin: why did you vote for him? That would be the only condition that could make your comments meaningful rather than mindlessly partisan.

As a registered voter in Indiana, I fervently hope Senator Bayh does choose to run for president and that he gains the Democratic nomination. I cannot think of a more sure way for the Republican Part to maitain it's hold on the White House.
Since being elected as our Senator, Mr. Bayh has progressively moved to the left on many issues, a la Al Gore.

Any Senator who supports the Senate Judiciary Committee Amnesty bill for illegals is finished politically. So far that includes: Senator John McCain, Russ Feingold and Joe Biden.

For example what are these Senators who support Amnesty for illegals going to say to returning servicemen who find their job is now taken by a "legalized" illegal.

Contact your Senator now to OPPOSE the Senate Judiciary Committee Amnesty Bill.

Yes, exactly what we need: more, stupid, brainless plutocrats in leadership positions in the Republican Party.

It's looking much less like a Republican "Party" than a Republican "Aristocracy" or a Republican "Series of Incompetents."

Any Senator who supports the Senate Judiciary Committee Amnesty bill for illegals is finished politically. So far that includes: Senator John McCain, Russ Feingold and Joe Biden.

For example what are these Senators supporting Amnesty going to say to returning servicemen who find their job is now taken by a "legalized" illegal, who is in a few years going to be a US citizen?

Yes, exactly what we need: more, bland, faceless technocrats in leadership positions in the Democratic Party.

It's looking much less like a Democratic "Party" than a Democratic "Luncheon" or a Democratic "Lecture Series."

Sen Bayh is by far the best candidate out there. Moderate, Red-State Democrat who is very popular in his homestate. Sen Bayh could bring back those Democrats who feel like the party has been taken over by the left-wing. Remember the last guy who did that, President Clinton? Even Clinton said he hoped he'd be voting for Bayh for President.

As for Hillary, she soooo reminds me of Cuomo in 1992. Will she, won't she, will she, won't she... Everyone had annointed Cuomo as the nominee even though he never announced.

Judge:

That may be so but both Richardson and Bayh have foriegn policy, intelligence credentials that should overcome that fact. I would be happy to bring Wes Clark into the cabinet as Sec of Defense.

Don't forget Dean shot himself in the foot in Iowa. Yeeeeaaaaaaahhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Bayh is neither bland nor typical. He is a plain spoken mid-westerner, which may be bland for the coasts, but his repore with Indianan's (Indianites?) is exactly the kind of "translator" Dems need to recapture the middle and retake the White House. No GOP strategist wants to run a race against the likes of him or Warner. They are salivating for Clinton or Kerry II/Gore II.

Bayh seems like a typical bland Democrat. Actually people voted with their heads who supported Howard Dean who was open and candid and right about most issues including Iraq. And he was hardly a "liberal firebrand." He lost Iowa mostly because liberal unions and others ganged up on him for his balanced budget stand and independence of the liberal hierarchy.

Also, there are these things called 'primaries,' perhaps you've heard of them? They actually mean something on the 'D' side rather than just being part of the coronation process as they are on the 'R' side.

AlanSmithee, I think you're wrong. Hillary is too divisive. All the polls say that, if Hillary goes up against McCain, she would lose. So, from a practical standpoint, I think the Dems will look elsewhere.

I support Evan all the way.

I like playing pundit as much as the next guy, but really, the donk's '08 prez'l candidate is Hillary. Why pretend otherwise?

RMill: too bad there are no veterans in the group you mention. That would help a lot with the national security debate that will dominate 2008.

I am still of the mind of Bayh, Richardson and Warner as the top three in terms of a ticket.

Whether its Richardson-Bayh or Bayh-Richardson, I think this provides the most depth and strength for Dems.

Warner has been impressive but what worries me is that he is un-employed (through no fault of his own except that he is from Virginia with a one-term limit). Still there is that stigma that his only "job" right now is to run for president. That does not work out too well (i.e. Dean, Tsongas, Wilder, Mondale)

I agree with Andy R regarding the need for someone more charismatic at the top of the ticket. Unfortunate but necessary.

" "Leading this country has to be about something other than ideological division," Bayh said. "It's got to be about how we move this country forward in practical terms, not looking at issues as left or right or even center but instead do they make sense, will they matter in peoples' lives?" "

My initial response would be to say that Senator Bayh is living in a time warp except for the fact that I completely agree with him. I do hope that he can overcome the R's tendency to suck in the less-intelligent component of the electorate who are highly susceptible to defining everything in terms of "left or right," us v. them, good guys/bad guys and so on as part of the progressive deterioration of politics (and the US) in the US. Karl Rove is the physical embodiment of "ideological division" and his tentacles will be all over the GOP in the fall of 2008.

No doubt some of the Calcified Ones who post here will look at "his votes against Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, an Indiana native, and Samuel A. Alito Jr." and say that this dooms his candidacy. Pshaw. Only a political junkie or a pre-programmed Rovian drone would even think that such issues are going to be important years down the road.

Running for President of the United States is the act of creating the "Perfect Storm" where sufficient resources are marshalled at the right time to catch the attention of the voting public.

To my thinking, the steps taken by Bayh thus far, fit that mold, laying the foundations for the long haul.

Maybe it is just me but Bayh sounds more like a very good choice for secretary of State, or maybe VP at best. Nice Cool calm non-partisan type of guy that would play well on the bottom of the ticket. I think the support of the Iraq war will kill him in the primaries though.