In the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections foreign policy credentials were at the bottom of the list of what people were looking at in terms of experience. The Cold War was over, the emerging threats of the post-Cold War world hadn't emerged yet, those campaigns were won and lost on domestic issues alone (hence Clinton's 1992 slogan). Kerry was nominated due to his military creds, but he blew it horribly by gfailing to properly articulate a vision and playing into the Republican trap with that "voted for it before he voted against it" line ( I know whell what he meant, but a politician running forPresident can never be so stupid as to hand their opponent ammo like that). Bush was still basking in the glow of 9-11, and Kerry never gained the momentum to make the race a referendum on his failures, allowing it to be a referendum on Kerry instead. A military/foreign policy resume isn't sufficient in itself, but it is a necssary prerequisite.

Those who say that Barack Obama lacks foreign policy experience need to think twice. In the 2000 election, Al Gore's foreign policy expertise dwarfed Bush's by a factor of one thousand to one. In 2004, Kerry was probably better versed in the minutiae of security and foreign policy than was Bush. So much for foreign policy experience.

That said, in the past year, Obama has been working on the serious issue of non-proliferation with none other than the respected Republican foreign policy and security stalwart Sen.Lugar, whom I hear as high regard and respect for the Illinois senator. Next year, Obama is scheduled to visit a region, Asia, which is sure to be this century's most important region in terms of trade, security and foreign policy. The countries he is likely to visit are China, India, and Indonesia.

Folks, Obama is on the move.

If Obama is too young to be elected president in 2008, how did Kennedy in 1960 and Clinton in 1992 win when they were even younger? If elected in 2008, Obama would only be our 4th youngest president. John McCain, on the other hand, would break the record for oldest president ever. What a great contrast that would present people!

Ann Richards' death is sad indeed, and she deserves a moment of honour. She was one of a kind and irreplaceable.

In this world, you'll need a ticket with strong foreign policy credentials; that rules out multiple governors, and many governor-senator combinations. A Clark, Biden, Richardson, or to this point low profile military or foreign policy expert, maybe even a moderate Republican crossover, will be needed to give the ticket credibility. Doesn't have to be on top of the ticket (although at least a year or so of service would be desireable for the top spot, and not in the TNG), but I don't see Obama/Some Governor, Feingold/Obama, etc., standing much of a chance.

America needs motivation. Few leaders in American history have been able to motivate the masses . My Judgement tells me that Barack Obama has that capacity to motivate and will restore America to Glory just like Ronald Reagan did in the 80's .

To the criticisms of Obama as playing a role as a poor kid with a rough background: how do you back that up?

In his autobiography, he writes about his time after college working as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. He bemoaned to a fellow organizer that he envied her for growing up in the Chicago ghetto, which enabled her to really BE one of the people she was organizing -- to have a deep connection with them.

To which she responded: "And here I've jealous that you got to grow up in Hawaii."

I don't think Obama's presented himself as growing up poor. Fatherless and struggling with identity questions, yes, but not poor. In his book, he struggles with exactly that issue: being an advocate for the poor while not having that background.

He's more an idealist than a populist.

Hillary Clinton has "almost no weak spots"? I'm active in the Democratic party in Iowa, and I hear widespread comments along the lines of, "She rubs people the wrong way and so can't win" Even: "She just rubs me (liberal Democratic activist) the wrong way, and I don't really want to see her as president."

After the Dukakis debacle, Democrats went the other way with the empathetic Bill Clinton. My guess is that most Democrats are so frustrated that Kerry's cold and elitist personality cost them the last campaign that they'll (wisely) look for someone skilled at connecting personally. That won't be Hillary.

Democrats thinking she's a sure loser in the general is a HUGE weakness -- probably fatal for her candidacy.

Nice try Chris, yet Sen. Obama had little opposition in his first encounter(a guy from Maryland the GOP sent in because he was Black and conservative). Obama likes to play the role of the poor kid--his wife(and her brother)went to Princeton and Obama to the Ivies too. They live in a million dollar mansion in Chicago. Like most liberals he talks the game yet plays differently. And John Edwards--others already pointed out that he could not even carry his own state in 2004. Oh how you hate Bush and he beat you twice.

JEP - good observation on Ellison. He's in my district, and while I haven't payed him too much attention, his response to his GOP opponent's attacks on Wed were perfect. I'm supporting the 3rd party candidate, but Ellison will likely skate to an easy victory in this district, and do a fine job as Rep.

lylepink I agree a woman would be great but I also think it is important that the Democratic party have a minority somewhere on the ticket sooner or later.

Bill Richardson would be an awesome choice - former congressman, ambassador to the UN, sec of energy, two-term governor of a swing state, hostage negotiator, this man has an unbelievable resume. Sebelius and Richardson are probably my top 2 choices for VP but I lean towards Richardson.

Ohio Guy: Your ticket looks pretty good to me. The thing I've talked with a few friends about is their desire to have a woman on the ticket, not just for the sake of a woman being on the ticket, but it would be that there are so many good women in the dem party it would be a shame not to have one in 08, unlike Gerry sometime back when the dems stood almost no chance of winning. Senator Fienstein is another good one, highly thought of and respected by most everyone regardless of party. The dems have so many good choices I know I can't think of them all. After this Nov. we will have a better perspective and by this time next year it will be down to 4 or 5.

"the Republican National Committee (RNC) distributed a list yesterday declaring that 14 once-competitive House GOP seats are no longer endangered." - koz

Sooooo....they're not competitive anymore just b/c the republicans SAY that they are'nt? Well, if the Republicans say it is so then it must be true.....

"continue to dream about Kerry or Gore or Edwards or some other washed up old Lib actually getting the nod. they don't stand a chance. Rudy will expose them for the girlie men they are." - koz

LOL. you mean the same Rudy Giuliani who dressed up in drag? Wow - what a manly man. Ok Koz.....keep dreamin...

"How about a "Good Governors" ticket?

Vilsack/Sebelius? Or vice-versa?

That way we get a pair of experienced, powerful and progressive Democratic governors, real movers-and-shakers who have both dealt with a rogue Republican statehouse and still managed to govern quite graciously by all reasonable accounts and perspectives.

As VP material, either Vilsack or Sebelius would make a ticket stronger. And either one of them could handle the top job, if they were given the opportunity."

I'm so glad someone else realizes how awesome Kathleen Sebelius is!

Warner/Sebelius '08!!

Two more I did not mention are Byah and Richardson. Either one has quite a bit of support, and would make great choices for VP. These posts of mine have been given a great deal of thought and I am only trying to get the most likely at this point in time. We all know almost anything can, and most likely will happen, before the convention. my favorite ticket now is Clinton/Warner. This may seem odd for Hillary has been playing down her desire to run, but most of us think she will and she is playing politics, just like all the rest.

You're right Annandale!

Osama for 2008.........

By the way, Condi Rice agrees with every aspect of the Bush Administration's foreign policy (because she is after all the primary author.) Is that such political gold?

I apologize for submitting the same comment twice. It was inadvertent, I swear, but...my bad.

Interesting sentence construction by our hero: (Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and therefore did not vote on the use of force resolution against the country.) The Use of Force Resolution was, just as Brother Cilliza's construction suggests, against OUR country.

When The Fix discussed the Case For Barack Obama a few weeks ago, I pointed out that we do not elect national leaders whose résumés most impress us, but rather those who prove able to capture our imagination. For whatever reason, Senator Obama has been able to do that, at least to an extent that must be the envy of Senators Bayh, Biden, Feingold, Kerry and Dodd and of Governors Warner, Vilsack and Richardson.

That said, the only way he will ever be on the National Democratic ticket is to win the top spot. When the Bland are nominated for President, their response is to choose a Vice Presidential running mate from the ranks of the Even Blander. If Senator Obama wants to be President, he should jump to it and he should understand that his time is Now, not after all his edges have been worn down by another 8 years in the Senate.

Interesting sentence construction by our hero: (Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 and therefore did not vote on the use of force resolution against the country.) The Use of Force Resolution was, just as Brother Cilliza's construction suggests, against OUR country.

When The Fix discussed the Case For Barack Obama a few weeks ago, I pointed out that we do not elect national leaders whose résumés most impress us, but rather those who prove able to capture our imagination. For whatever reason, Senator Obama has been able to do that, at least to an extent that must be the envy of Senators Bayh, Biden, Feingold, Kerry and Dodd and of Governors Warner, Vilsack and Richardson.

That said, the only way he will ever be on the National Democratic ticket is to win the top spot. When the Bland are nominated for President, their response is to choose a Vice Presidential running mate from the ranks of the even Blander. If Senator Obama wants to be President, he should jump to it and he should understand that his time is Now, not after all his edges have been worn down by another 8 years in the Senate.

Barack Obama is a freshman senator, who will have a grand total of 2 years served in the US Senate in 07', when the campaigning started. Remember, Obama in 04' had a very easy race. The Republican incumbent resigned due to speculation that he had abused his wife both mentally and sexually, by forcing her to perform sexual acts in some wacky club. This didnt go well, and the Republican's had to import Allan Keyes to even have a nominee against Obama. The man claimed Obama supports slavery b/c he supports abortion...Keyes had no chance what so ever of winning that election. This basically handed it to Obama due to the circumstances. Unless he was in any close races while running for state senator in Ill., he's never been in a close one. Obama has certainly never been in a tough fight like the one he would pick on if he choose to run for the dem. presidential nomination. I believe Obama when he say's he's not running. I think if Obama were planning to run, he's say so. Most don't, but McCain and Allen make no secrets. Clinton has denied she has those ambitions, but come on! Edwards hasn't shied from the idea of running as much. I think Obama is legite and I take him at his word: he ain't running! Truth is, if any Dem.politician were invited to Harkin's steak fry they'd be a fool not to do it. It provides fresh meetings with donors, name recognition and a great opportunity to be notice in Iowa in case a politician ever did want to run for higher office. The only think in Iowa better than an endorsement by Harkin for a general election, is an endorsement by Grassley! Obama is just doing what anyone else would do, I think he's going to be an Ill. senator for a while!

I just came across this in an article on Slate, "Won't Deploy? Can't Deploy." Recalling "Parsing the Polls," I thought JimD might appreciate the reference to the Carter administration.

"In terms of ground-force readiness, the United States is in worse shape than at any time since the aftermath of Vietnam, when revelations about a "hollow" military sparked defense buildups from the Carter and then Reagan administrations. While most press coverage of the Iraq conflict has understandably focused on loss of life and the damage done in that country by the insurgency, the readiness of the U.S. military has also been a casualty."

OH-18 Special Primary results: http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com/2006/09/oh-18-padgett-wins-special-primary.html

Because he's irrelevant?

General Wes Clark has been speaking out about Iraq more than anyone else, including for the Democrats. How come Chris never mentions him?

PS

Tina, Condi's one of the liars.

"Southern Democrats" couldn't stomach their own party's transformation into one of tolerance, so they jumped into the local minority party, (Republican), took it over and turned the party of fiscal conservatives into the party of failure.

Lncoln was Democrat, as far as modern ideology is concerned. The changing of the labels don't ever change the truth.

Tina, I think you are a future Democrat. You heart's in the right place, but your loyalties have been hijacked by liars and cheats.

JEP

Anyone know where to find results for today's special primary in OH-18?? Neither Ohio.gov nor the Columbus Dispatch nor the Cleveland Plain Dealer seem to have anything.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Then in the 1940's the black vote shifted to Dems under Roosevelt, while Republicans abandoned their roots and began under Goldwater pushing the "Southern Strategy" to pull in the former Southern Dems as the backbone of the new Republican Party (Thurman, Helms, etc). Maybe this is why Republicans get about 8% of the black vote, they have to go back over 100 years to cite these issues, never minding that both parties are 180 from what they were back then, in terms of ideology, geography, pretty much every way you can imagine other than name.

Yes, I stand corrected, Brown vs Board of Education was in 1954. Earl Warren was a Republican, that is true, and in 1952, he was the Republican Governor of California. He was not on the Supreme Court in 1952, he was exploring a run for president on the Republican ticket. But the support went to Taft, Harold Stassen, and IKE.(I looked it up.)

JEP posted this: southern-state rebel-flag waving, testosterone laden redneck base. Sounds like the Southern Democrats who created the Jim Crow laws to block the blacks from voting. (look that up) The Southern Democrats were scared to death over newly liberated African-American men gaining too much control in elected office in their states, like Louisana, Mississippi, and Florida.

The 15th Amendment gave black men the right to vote and run for office, passing on Feb. 3, 1870. Then in Mississippi, the Republican leaders selected the very first black leader, Hiriam Revels, to the US Senate. Then Mississippi selected Blanche Bruce, a black leader, as US Senator in 1874. Then Republican president, James Garfield, appointed Mr. Bruce as Register of the US Treasury. That is just a part of what the party of Abraham Lincoln started.

Just saw Keith Ellison on Hardball, this guy is a real player, and the fact he is a Muslim can only help heal the rift the Bush administration has created between all of us.

Keep an eye on Ellison, he's about as straightforward and real as a candidate gets.

Gotta go, Chris is on right now, and he managed to interrupt Matthews before Matthews could interrupt him..

Now that's a first.

OK, Gore/Feingold would probably be an even better choice than Gore/Obama. Put me down for that ticket.

Wonder what they'll be saying when the Wave crashes over the Reds ... gonna be a lot of change in places noone thought it would happen.

The contenders will be around 8 or 10. Some of my thoughts are along the lines of who is the most likely for the dems to be elected as well as to not be elected. There are two I could not support-- Al and Joe-- very frankly they threw a lead pipe cinch in 2000. Just think back to the speech Joe made on the Senate floor then think of how Al refused to have Bubba campaign for him. I can not think of any two people that appeared to want to get beat for the office they were seeking. I have felt this since 2000 and nothing they have done has in any way changed my mind about them. I know this is harsh, but it is the way I feel. Kerry got swift-boated and it will be done again. The idea not to say what I think is foreign to me.

I'm still not sold on McCain getting the nomination. Beyond his moderate streak and conservative distrust of his ability to toe the Republican line, there's his age. He'll be older than Reagan, and has a history of cancer and other problems that could recur between now and then. Two years is a long time from now and a lot of time for things to change, one reason I'm not spending a lot of time on this right now. Too many things can change. The month and a half between now and the midterms is an eternity in politics, the next two years are a lifetime. Iraq could completely disintegrate in the next two months blunting any Republican security argument, or things could show real signs of stability undercutting Dems. Anything can happen in two years.

Someone else used my name earlier, wasn't me, I'm still for Warner/Clark

"McCain will most likely win the Republican nomination"

not if the real conservatives have a say in it...

Drindl;

Quite hypocritically, Rudy's marital philandering isn't nearly as damaging out here in Hooterville as his cross-dressing, which he has done for years and makes no apologies for it, its just a gag and not a lifestyle.

Fun with women's fashions, I guess...

(Again, I must admit, I'm a recovering dominant male...)

But, unfortunately for his Republican nomination chances, there are a lot of pictures around of Rudy in drag.

Too bad such a trivial issue can make or break a candidate, and while we know he should be judged on his REAL bad moral issues and not some knee-jerk redneck gaybashing prejudice, if Giulliani gets the "R" nod, expect a lot of cross-dressing photos to pop up every time he looks like he's gaining ground with the rednecks out in Wyoming.

Do you suppose there is a picture anywhere of Bush in a dress? How about Karl? And Wolfie?

The neocon chorus line, all dressed in drag...

I think Venicemenace has a good point saying:

"When are mainstream Democrats going to realize that dismissing other people's beliefs with condescension and arrogance is costing our party election after election?"

Obama and Edwards both have the ability to connect with folks who don't necessarily buy into the complete Democratic agenda. Warner obviously succeeded in Virginia, while Gore has improved stylistically and finally has an issue where he can show genuine passion and show he's authentic-- climate change.

Bill Mahr made me wince the other day on Hardball when he called Republicans stupid. Given he is a satirist with different rules than a politician, but this cultural elitism, I believe he said that Republicans lack education, left me cold.

As the party of the common man, we need not to blame our failure on the stars, but on ourselves, to paraphrase Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, if we continue to lose elections, due to cultural arrogance.

Mahr did have a valid point on the decent communication skills of Biden and Edwards. Biden on the bottom of the ticket or Gore at the top of the ticket, provides an opportunity for the more or less greenhorns (Obama, Edwards, and Warner) an opportunity to run in 2008.

Hillary probably does as well, although I think her real skills lay in the Senate where she has shown she can forge consensus as a future Senate Majority leader. I also think this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton cycle wears on the nerves of the voters. Hillary's talents seem to me to be more in the legislative realm.

I understand the desire to be top banana, but ultimately the important thing is to get something done. Working with a Democratic president, I think Hillary might make a real contribution to the country through legislative achievement. A sort of Lyndon Johnson, without Vietnam. In many ways, that would be as successful legacy as any modern president.

One thing to keep in mind about 2008. McCain will most likely win the Republican nomination and it's hard to imagine any of the Democrats beating him, unfortunately. Obama doesn't have the experience that McCain does and I think McCain would really use that against him quite effectively. Americans know that foreign policy experience is particularly important for a president to have right now. If Obama waits until 2012, he'll have a better shot at winning.

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Obama has a new book coming out in October -- it's called the 'Audacity of Hope.' It sounds like he's going to be doing a press tour to promote it and will be on Oprah. I would love to know what his motivation is for doing the book -- to test the waters for a run or just get his ideas out there.

His message stands in such stark contrast to what we've been hearing from the Republicans. They've been talking about what Americans should be against and about fear, whereas Obama's message is about hope and what America should stand for -- could be the Democratic version of "morning in America."

After being so rightfully admonished for making suppositions about Mark Warner's "gentrified upbringing," I say with all contrition, I think we should all attempt to stay away from statements like, "If the Dems nominate this guy for the top of the ticket, it'll be another lost opportunity."

My real political heroes are Russ Feingold, Barb Boxer and Tom Harkin, but I support Edwards and Obama as the most hopeful and heartfelt ticket.

And as I admitted earlier. I obviously don't know enough about people like Warner to have a proper opinion, and he may prove to be a serious contender on my own list. Both Kerry and Dean still own a place in my heart, and either would make a better President than anyone the Republicans have to offer.

So I'm not going to dis ANY of them, I'll support my favorites and laud those for whom I have a great deal of respect, but I won't say anything negative.

Because, no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, they carry with them the most noble hopes and dream of millions of Americans, good people who yearn for a government that they can trust.

About the only thing I ever agreed with Reagan about was that you don't dis your own party members.

Tell us who you support, tell us why, and go off all you want about any given issue.
But when the conversation starts to sour and supposed Democrats start taliking about other Dems in a negative light, the Republicans just benefit from it.

To be quite honest, and I mean this, the only Democrat I would NOT trust above the Republican options at this point is Lieberman.

Al, Hillary, Russ, John E., John K., Ted K., Charlie Wrangel, John Conyers, they are all worthy leaders, and whether you agree with their every position doesn't matter as much as whether you want a real change at the top of our misguided government.

Picking apart the minutia that divides us will never get us anywhere, and usually, when someone claims to be a Dem but consistently uses their post to point out the Dem's flaws (easy enough) under the auspices of intra-party competition, I begin to wonder if they are a real person or a politically planted troll.

I have my favorites, but that doesn't mean I don't like the alternatives. We have a first-class collection of potential candidates,and instead of beating up on each other, lets work together to form a "more perfect Democratic Party."

What Vilsack did with the labor unions is a great example of what I am suggesting. As Democrats, lets try a little pre-emptive unity for a change.

Again, my apologies to the Warner folks. I'm getting my "Warner" families mixed up. It won't happen again.

The heart of the matter is exactly that - the "heart" of the matter. I am another individual who has an "Obama in 2008" bumper sticker. This is a man to be trusted - his motives are not so much political as they are to use a political platform to benefit mankind. Are we so cynical now that we don't believe this can exist?? I find it no coincidence that the Biography channel ran a program titled "JFK and Barack Obama" - although he reminds me more of RFK. It is my belief that if the country is exposed to Mr. Obama and hears him speak on a regular basis, he will have no problem winning the U.S. presidency in 2008. If he waits, it may be too late for US in the eyes of the global community - we have a lot of repair work to do there - who else would get this done with such grace and strength combined?

oops comment appeared in wrong place. sorry eamon.

Me thinks I scared everyone away. After reading the posts for the past hour I found almost what I expected, with about 5 [five] exceptions, mainly the serviceman's father. Bless the both of you. The dislike of Hillary is still a puzzle to me. For 08 Gore has a fork in him, Obama this country is not ready for a black, Biden no way, Edwards already a loser with the help of Gore. That only leaves, in my opinion, my favorites Clinton/Warner.

....NOT.

the conventional wisdom that obama is too young/inexperienced to run in 08 absolutely infuriates me, I see it as a perfect example of inside the Beltway thinking that completely misses the point. If what the country hungered for was more "experienced" politicians, Gore and Kerry would have won landslides. Sometimes experience is a hindrance, not a help. What does Obama have to gain from staying in the Senate?Mastering the art of Kerryesque Senatese, indecipherable to normal Americans?

Obama has plenty of experience to point to, his entire adult life has been spent in public service, in many different forms. He is a fresh face and voice, he shimmers with that rarest of political qualities-authenticity. I can only hope that he has the courage to withstand the naysaying and enter the fray-this is his moment. An entirely uninspiring Democratic field that he would wipe the floor with in the primaries..."experience" notwithstanding, none of the prospective Dem candidates can hold a candle to Obama on either style or substance...I believe he could win the general as well, obviously a much harder task but I think the number of people who would be newly energized by an Obama candidacy is larger than most would guess...he would give a lot of people who have been ignored by mainstream American politics something to hope for again....he would conduct a campaign that Democrats would be proud to rally around...I think you have to go back to 1968 and Bobby Kennedy to find a Democratic candidate who gave people reason not to be disillusioned with their political process. underestimate Obama at your peril...he is the real deal

welcome to the club, zathras.

MikeB; I cannot think of a genuine liberal that believes that Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell or Rudy Giuliana are anything other than decent men.'

Certainly agree with you on Hagel and Powell i feel sorry for, I do think he regrets what he did. And the way he challenged bush today about torture was great.

But if you had lived in NY while Rudy was mayor, as I did, you might feel differently about him. He was a serial adulterer even when his kids were little, keeping one woman after another on the city payroll. It isn't a rumor, we had to pay for security for them! Judy was the last one, whom he finally marrried. But there were plenty of others. Plus he has been profiting hugely from the Iraq invasion with a shady 'security company' he started on Day 1 of the invasion -- and by hugely I mean instant millions. So I'm too enthusastic.

It looks like KOZ is getting the silent treatment the last couple of hours. What a great idea! I'll sign on to that pact, as should everyone else here.

Actually, it is most of the time. but thanks for acknowledging it. that is the first step to recovery.

Only one Senator had the guts to vote against the Patriot Act. Russ Feingold is the man who has done more than anyone to rid Washington of the monied special interests. We are at what I hope is the end of a second Gilded Age. It is time for another Teddy Roosevelt. Time for a new Upton Sinclair. It's time for Russ Feingold

'To JEP who wrote about Mark Warner's "gentrified upbringing":

Mark Warner was a poor boy, the first of his family to go to college.'

My apologies to the Warner crew, my ignorance is blatant at times. I'll look more closely...

Kasey says:
"bsimon; where have you been? Edwards has been all over the country promoting his ideas for change, and lord knows we need change. Two strong Democrats that that have worked their way up in life, educated themselves, have charisma, good ideas, good looks, and haven't forgot where they came from! Edwards/Obama? Yea, thats the ticket!"

Talk is cheap. I want a capable leader who's proven they can accomplish something. Building a campaign organization does not qualify, in my book. Is it helpful? Sure. But shouldn't they have some relevant experience first? Edwards gives a nice speech, don't get me wrong. Same with Obama. But like Obama said at some point "Wait until I do something." It would appear that Edwards is not willing to overcome that hurdle first. One Senate term, of which a huge portion was spent running for President, does not qualify. If the Dems nominate this guy for the top of the ticket, it'll be another lost opportunity.

Feingold may bring in votes from the left but he will send all center and right voters running for the hills. not going to happen. I don't see any of the guys you talk about here getting to the end. do you have any on the deep bench you could use?

"Whether Feingold would be willing to be VP could also be an issue."

Russ may be independent, but he's not willful. Any good, potential future president should consider the VP spot somewhere on the ladder, and Feingold would help any moderate ticket bring in some votes from the left.

Some random thoughts/comments:

26 months is an eternity in politics. Overwhelming favorites for the Democratic nomination 26 months out over the last 35 years or so include Ed Muskie (72), Gary Hart (88), and Mario Cuomo (92). I do not remember any particular early favorite for 1976 but no one was predicting in 1974 that Carter would be the nominee.

Truman tried to recruit Eisenhower to run for president as a Democrat in 1948. He even offered to run for VP on that ticket.

I'm for an Obama-Warner ticket or a Warner-Obama ticket.

And I'm from Illinois, in the Quad Cities, on the Iowa-Illinois border, home of John Deere and Co.

I think both Governor Warner and Senator Obama are excellent candidates -- smart, integrity, speak well and have the ability to pick up votes in red and purple states.

They will be at Tom Harkin's steak fry in Indianola on Sunday. Perhaps I'll get them together and make this suggestion. Stay tuned. I'll let you know how it goes on Monday.

To JEP who wrote about Mark Warner's "gentrified upbringing":

Mark Warner was a poor boy, the first of his family to go to college. He made a pot of money by investing very early on in cell phone technology, when the smart people didn't see any use for people to carry around a phone. But he has never forgotten his upbringing.

He was a damned good governor, who really got people to work productively together.

More bad news for the Socialists:

"the Republican National Committee (RNC) distributed a list yesterday declaring that 14 once-competitive House GOP seats are no longer endangered."
DCCC had a $5.5 million cash-on-hand advantage over the NRCC as of June 30. By the end of July, Republicans had outraised Democrats enough for the NRCC to post a $1.1 million advantage in cash-on-hand over the DCCC, " From "the hill"

Te he he. so it starts. You are circling the bowl.

continue to dream about Kerry or Gore or Edwards or some other washed up old Lib actually getting the nod. they don't stand a chance. Rudy will expose them for the girlie men they are.

"Sure, he's campaigned, and built an organization, etc."

Duh! Thats what its all about.

Ditto Kasey's post..

But isn't it great we have so many good Democrats to consider?

And if our neocons think they'll be happy with Giulliani, they haven't studied his politics. The only thing that is really "R" about Rudy is his first initial.

I do not thnk it is a realistic ope, but my favorite candidate is John Kerry. Mr. Edwards, however, would make a fine alternative. If I can't have either of them, give me Colin Powell. My deal ticket would be Powell-Kerry with either man on top. Delussional, perhaps, but allow me to dream today.

"Obama is too young, like Edwards was in 04, and Edwards hasn't done jack since then, which rules him out for 08 too. I'm still a bit boggled that he 1) ever did and 2) continues to get support from so many in the D party"

bsimon; where have you been? Edwards has been all over the country promoting his ideas for change, and lord knows we need change. Two strong Democrats that that have worked their way up in life, educated themselves, have charisma, good ideas, good looks, and haven't forgot where they came from! Edwards/Obama? Yea, thats the ticket!

In the interests of bashing members of both parties, I will throw Giuliani in the same bucket as Edwards. What's Giuliani done since ending his career in New York - besides raising money for R candidates? Is this really what we expect out of our leaders? Ug.

Chris, you're forgetting the best Democratic national security candidate to take on 2008 GOP nominee John McCain who has
had a consistent anti Iraq war position since 2002:

General Wes Clark.

JEP, were you claiming this:
"But as for "Edwards hasn't done jack since then..." either you haven't been paying attention, or you are trying to spin this away from the facts.

Edwards is the future, not the past. "

Ok, what has Edwards done since then, if not Jack? Sure, he's campaigned, and built an organization, etc. As far as I can tell though, he doesn't have a job - elected or otherwise - and thusly isn't doing a whole lot in terms of making this country a better place. That is what I mean when I say he hasn't done Jack.

The best ticket would be Gore/Feingold. Both are seasoned veterans. Both have been adamant about the issues that count, not the hype issues. Gore did win the pop vote in 2000, he is only more popular now than in the past. Feingold is awesome in his integrity and repeatedly standing up for high ideals, often alone. In terms of win-ability - Gore has that potential riding on the slip stream of his current popularity internationally. I don't know about Feingold, but I think he would be best running mate with gore b/c of his integrity and skill. He could crush the competition with his debating skills too. He is SO on the ball and always returns to the most significant points. Something the opposing party often can't grok - the issues. They are both the best possiblity we have though I suppose Gore/Edwards woudl be viable. Or Feingold/Edwards if Gore is not up for it. Whether Gore will run remains to be seen. Whether Feingold would be willing to be VP could also be an issue. That's my 2 cents

Having taken a good nap, I noticed the humber of posts and read only a few but I will go back and read all of them after this post, and see how close I guess what the comments will be. Clinton/Warner 08.

Anon - Like it or not, Eisenhower sent in Federal troops to enforce Brown. Prior to his actions, no one enforced the Supreme's decision. And, further, Eisenhower became an active proponent of civil rights after that. He tried a "middle road" that got him into trouble with the segregationists and he wasn't active enough for the integrationists, but he did all he thought he could without splitting the country. He was genuinely GOOD man. You really ought to read "Eisenhower" by Stephen E. Ambrose.

JEP - do you have any idea how much a fool you sound? you have gone from complete arrogance about setting prices and demanding all buyers pay the bid price for milk (dumbest economic ideas ever) to being able to peer into every soul and detect racism. If we were all as smart and omnipotent as you, of course we would want to rule all those other dummies.

your pedantry is revealed for its underlying miasma. those long winded rants you post display some sort of psychological yearning for attention and reward. Un fortunately, you do not know everything and the evidence I have gathered here indicates you know very little.

Just more examples of you know-it-all Dems with plenty of ugly accusations to throw around and no facts. the world is laughing at you.

Tina's post - "To MikeB, thank you for mentioning Brown vs Board of Education, which was in 1952. (The Dems hate to admit it was a decision under a Republican president.)"

1) Eisenhower did not take the oath of office until January 1953,
2) Brown v. Board of Education was a argued in 1952, reargued in 1953 and decided in 1954,
3) It was a Supreme Court decision which did not involve the Executive Branch (until it had to be enforced by Eisenhower as a result of the 1955 Brown decision), and
4) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at the time of the decision Republican Earl Warren, whom most Conservative Republicans despise today.

If it were to be argued today, I can picture many of today's Republicans resisting it, because the initial opponents of it would label it as Affirmative Action, knowing the knee-jerk reaction that would evoke.

Anon poster - On this site, we often use hyperboly to make points. Just now, however, I feel sobered and not much for ranting. I cannot think of a genuine liberal that believes that Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell or Rudy Giuliana are anything other than decent men. They are certanly not racists. I believe they are honorable, patriotic, just good American's and think they would make great presidents. Likewise, only the looniest fanatic would think that Democrats like Kerry and Edwards and Rangel are cowards. They, too, are patriots and honestly decent men. I would be honored to have any of them as my President. There are certainly others that deserve to be on this list, too. The fact is, this country deserves better leaders than we have had the past 20 years; certainly better men than we have right now. Our last truly great president was Reagan. Like his policies or not, Ronald Reagan was a good father and a great leader. Along with the late Pope John-Paul, he rid the world of the Soviet Union, Poland and much of Europe, and fathered the high tech revolution (and, I might add, avoided outsourcing and similar programs that threatened our nations security). I genuinely believe that, if he were alive today, Reagon would join Mr. Powell in condemning the actions of the Bush Administration; their conduct of the war in Iraq, their silly "war on terrorism", their brutal negative "scorched earth" political camapaigns, and their unconstitutional actions with regards to prisoners, wire taps, and much more.

Rock on Senator Obama - and yes -- PLEASE DO RUN !!

Thank you Chris for an excellent article! I do think Governor Mark Warner will also be running, but they are both great candidates.

BTW, thanks also to drindl on that interesting info on pathetic Santorum. What a sad case he's become.

Fieldmouse:

"anybody but Clinton and Bush, I want my president to be smarter than me."

Please. Putting the Rhodes Scholar (and by everyone's estimation usually the smartest man in the room) in the same *paragraph* as Dumbya says more about you than the two men.

forgot to post my JEP on that last one...

also, in response to the anonymous poster, (K or B no doubt.)

"you mean all Rs are racist?"

Of course not.

What I meant was "most racists are R's"

No one in their "right" mind would even try to argue with that one.

I wonder if Tina saw Letterman last night. He congratulated Canada for being the first country to put a man on Condi.

I agree Feingold is worthy of our respect, and if he gets close enough, our support for either President or VP.

But as for "Edwards hasn't done jack since then..." either you haven't been paying attention, or you are trying to spin this away from the facts.

Edwards is the future, not the past.

By the way, an Edwards/Feingold ticket wouldn't be a bad combination, either.

However, if I was picking a team right now, not necessarily my own favorites, (I did that earlier) but according to all the models in my over-active imagination, I would not be surprised to see a Clinton/Vilsack team, and that would be very good ticket.

Maybe not in terms of popularity with the extremes, but in the practical terms of total political experience and proven leadership qualities, it would be very hard to beat that team.

In any party.

GOP Pa. Sen. Rick Santorum's flagging re-election campaign has launched a new TV attack ad that can only be described as absurdist theatre, if not out-and-out absurd.

Santorum... he's meltingggg....
'Using actors and interspersed with grainy black and white, the new 30-second spot seeks to tie his Democratic foe, state treasurer Bob Casey, to a shady cast of corrupt characters, without naming names. In fact, not a single one of the past Casey backers vaguely alluded to in the ad has anything to do with his current race for the Senate.

Indeed, one of the past Casey donors -- portaryed by an actor -- died 22 months ago, while the Democrat had not yet even been considering his race for the Senate. And while he was alive, Philly power broker Ron White also forged a link to Santorum through their charities.

A second didn't give money to Casey's Senate campaign -- but donated $1,000 to Santorum in 2003 (later returned). During that time, fundraiser Bob Feldman was working for the private bank that gave Santorum the $500,000 mortgage -- not available to the general public -- to pay for the senator's McMansion in Leesburg, Va.'

MikeB, I want to thank your son for his service... and I hope that this nightmare is over soon and he can come home. I truly respect you and others who have such a stake in this -- I have a child and I can't imagine. I don't know how you stomach the cowardly war cheerleaders and chickenhawks who come on here -- you're a good guy.

"Many stereotypes have a basis in reality. This one is surely on that list."

you mean all Rs are racist? I heard somewhere that all Dems are yellow-bellied cowards and they love to take your money away. does that have a basis in reality? you have now sunk to an all time ignorant low.

Obama is too young, like Edwards was in 04, and Edwards hasn't done jack since then, which rules him out for 08 too. I'm still a bit boggled that he 1) ever did and 2) continues to get support from so many in the D party. I'd vote for Feingold. Gore is damaged goods. Clinton is far, far too divisive - through no fault of her own - but facts are facts. Dems need to find a principled, charismatic leader with experience and respect if they want to win in 08. I don't know jack about Warner, so I'm back to Feingold.

On the R side, Condi is immensely overrated. She's over her head; her only positive is actually being able to budge Bush on foreign policy, as Powell was unable to. But that hardly makes her Presidential. For one thing, wasn't she in charge of National Security 5 years ago? Yikes.

That Condi is such a strong leader type. All of our leaders should be out buying shoes and watching Broadway shows while thousands of our citizens are dying during a category-5 hurricane. What if all of our leaders acted this way? Oh wait...

"Not to mention the fact that the counter-argument always assumes widespread Republican racism"

Don't be naive.

Many stereotypes have a basis in reality. This one is surely on that list.

Also, let me repeat an old refrain; blogs that stay on topic lose readership, so you aren't doing Chris, The Post or their advertisers any favors by creating a demanding a purely academic blog.

Drindl, it is always all about you. and yes, you are totally wacked out, even your fellow Dems are now politely trying to give you a hint.

Venice menace - thanks for the breath of fresh air. I know there are reasonable Dems out there with a mind of thier own.

Gore?

Like I said too close to Maui Wowie. At that point, let Bill Clinton run as his VP.
And then we'd have Hillary in the White House because I don't think she could get elected.

And Colin Powell would be a great candidate.

Since when has the american electorate cared much about being lied to? It is almost tradition in most elections.

More specifically the Current Occupant has raised it to a fine art. And he has managed to continue his Occupancy by hook and by crook....But he still got a lot of votes no matter how one looks at it.

MikeB;
Just like candidate Webb in Virginia, people like you who have family in Iraq or Afghanistan, have a much deeper understanding of the issues than those of us who sit on the sidelines and pontificate and prognosticate.

I also know you understand when I tell you that my own sons and my daughter and granddaughter are the main reason I am so active in this dialogue.

God bless you and your family.

We all hope and pray they stay safe abroad, and that they return home safely. And thank you for your posts, they have always moved us, and now it is clear, at least to me, why your words ring so true, so often.

MikeB wrote: "Yes, that's Jordan. God I love him so much. He is such a wonderful and brave and good young man."

Good on him.

Though, to your credit, it's been my experience that the apple don't fall too far from the tree as well. So good on you too.

Just keep your chin up, keep plugged into the unit FSG (if he's married, his wife will have info on FSG - Family Support Group - activities and info).

Prayers for your son's safe return.

venicemenace-- I want to reply becuase I know you';re talking about me. You were right about Tina today -- she was fine. A lot of people here think it's silly the way she goes on so breathlessly over someone who says theyre not running. And I think you are being way too generous to say that a lot of republicans aaren't racists because they run black candidates. Didn't you ever hear about the southern strategy?

And as far as going off-topic with 'GWB conspiracy theories and election-stealing accusations' --if all electronic voting machines were owned by democrats and you knew they were easily hacked, what would you think? Would you be okay with that if they siad, just trust me?

And I don't know which conspiracy theories you're talking about--do you mean about bush's grandfather prescott bush collaborating with the nazis? Sorry that's not a theory. The whole episode is recounted in gov't archives. I cn show you if you wish.

I thought a self-serving womanizer was your idea of the best Dem president. you know who I mean.

"I have an idea that Colin Powell is a man of honor and integrity."

I agree. But he will always have the UN event hanging over his head, and that is a liability of monumental proportions. No matter who he's running against, Democrat or Republican, he'll be vilified, as a partisan pawn by the rabid left, and as as a traitorous turncoat by the rabid right.

And those of us not suffering ideological rabies can only grimace at the exposure.

Also, I owe an apology on this blog to Harvey Kietel, I off-handedly mentioned him in a negative way because of his role in "The Trash to 9-11" debacle.

But he has publicly criticized the show's producers for their revisionist agenda, and he deserves respect for doing so.

However, I quit watching "Raymond" and won't watch again until "you-know-who" makes the same kind of statement.

Yes, Virginia, we DO adjust our TV viewing habits to avoid the likes of Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity, dropping a sit-com off my list is just another matter of principle. Curious, the only real losers in this fight are the advertisers.

Yes, that's Jordan. God I love him so much. He is such a wonderful and brave and good young man.

He's a good looking boy, MikeB--and brave. Thank god he wasn't hit by the bomb. Oh god, you must worry so much.

God bless your son. They/we just buried a young Marine in Rhode Island that was an All-State Lacrosse player, and was actived from his sophomore year at UMass to the reserve unit that last week got blown up in Baghdad. 20 years old... And this is supposed to be part of the "war on terror"?

MikeB:

Do you mean this photo? (Link below).

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/iraq.main/newt1.thurs.iraq.01.cnn.jpg

Much respect to your son. I was with the Army (mostly in the 25ID(L)) and still love the institution.

Everyone, the medic helping the wounded soldier on the front page of CNN right now is my youngest son.

Well if a General in the military does not know what he said is a lie I have no faith in him. The weapons inspectors knew there were no WMDs and Powell chose to disregard that and go on TV and lie to the American people. His career is forever tainted. Not presidential material anymore. As for Giuliani he is a self serving womanizer and an authoritarian. No good either. But I agree almost anyone is better than the criminal we have now.

Only tangentially related:

If you look at the metro pages of the WP, you'll see that there's some issue with White's Ferry (for you non-Washingtonians, it's a ferry that operates across the Potomac river) running into trouble with the Coast Guard b/c they didn't have a licensed operator on duty at all times.

I have a solution.

Condi can not only walk on water. But she's able to carry large passenger cars while doing so. She ought to merely station herself on one side of the river and give rides on her back to passengers and commuters seeking to cross the river.

Condi is God.

I disagree that Obama is too young for the job. I think the baby-boomer generation of Democrats has been an utter political failure, with the exception of Clinton, who won by "triangulating" and, most of all, through the power of his unmatched personal charisma. I'm ready for a new generation of Democratic politicians.

Now for a little shop talk. Everyone loves to rip Tina for her devotion to Condi, and I admit there are times I see her spiel and say "Not Condi again!" and scroll past. However, I think that she is often dismissed unfairly, particularly today, when her comments are appropriate and apt. Not to mention the fact that the counter-argument always assumes widespread Republican racism, which doesn't hold up when you see the number of minority candidates the Republicans are putting up this fall.

I see a lot of liberals on this blog go off-topic with their GWB conspiracy theories and election-stealing accusations every single day, and nobody in the center calls them out or demands that they leave. When are mainstream Democrats going to realize that dismissing other people's beliefs with condescension and arrogance is costing our party election after election? So many things that frustrate me about the Democrats are evident here on this blog. (Same with the Republicans, but they're so outnumbered and outgunned, they don't need to hear it from me.)

Larry, I may not sound like it lately, but I really am a moderate; a liberal moderate, but a moderate nonetheless. Mr. Powell did not intentionally lie. He merely presented the information he was provided because he was told they were the facts. When he discovered otherwise, he resigned. I have an idea that Colin Powell is a man oh honor and integrity. I may not agree with him on some, or even many, issues, but he is such a decent man, a true patriot, and a godly man, and a rational and thoughtful leader, that I could do nothing but vote for him. It is true, the Democraic Party has leaders like him, John Kerry immediately comes to mind. Oh what a dream that would be, two classy and really good leaders running for president! I would be a dream come true. I would settle for just one clear choice - Colin Powell, John Kerry, John Edwards, Chuck Nagel, Charles Rangel, Rudy Giuliana, and a very few other measure up to the standards I set for my leaders. Anyof them would be a breath of fresh air for the troglodytes that currently inhabit the Whitehouse.

Speaking of Ann Richards, she was such a good soul. I have never understood how one of the most popular governors in Texas history got beat by Bush.

In my humble opinion (OK, so, maybe I have never had a "humble" opinion)... in my opinion, her gubernatorial loss to Bush is still one of the most suspicious events in Texas political history, and was a practice precursor for the election shenanigans we suffer today on a nationwide basis. And only the Republican stranglehold on the Texas statehouse keeps this truth from ever being public.

Ann had more real Texas class in one finger than Tom Delay, George Bush and Rick Perry together will ever be able to muster.

"The only thing they fear more than a government that refuses to hand out gravy to them, is a government that wants to know about the gravy they already got."

a hand for you, my friend.

Tinabot, I don't care that Eisenhower or Teddy or Lincoln were republicans -- your party today would be unrecognizable to them. You have moved so far to the right that Goldwater would be a liberal to you. Read some of his views and you'll see what I mean.

You are now a party which has no principles whatsoever, save greed and lust for power. Your base is composed of miscreants and the terribly, terribly misinformed and the mentally ill. You don't have a competent or honest person in all of Congress. You are a cancer on this country-- a proto-fascist regime which is destroying the Constituion and threatens our very lives.

I agree, a Gore/Obama ticket is a winner.

Bhoomes, I'm sorry that you have found teaching history to others to be taxing. Why, it seems to have even affected your understanding of the rules and usage of English grammar, spelling