I think Obama should strike now when the iron is hot. Although I feel he's been set up to be Clinton's vice, he will make a wonderful President or Vice-President. He is intelligent, articulate, and charismatic. He has positioned himself to be likable by both democrats and republicans. I feel that if Clinton and Edwards do not, run Obama will take the ticket. He will put up a presidential race Americans will live to remember.And even though it might cost him his life, he will pave the way for other African Americans in the future. Sen BarackObama if you see this I wish you GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's bring it down to the nitty gritty:

Many of people on this board are saying that Obama should be a Vice-Presidential candidate. To support their claims, these people have proposed a few interesting suggestions. Here is my take on some of the potenial VP tickets offered:

Edwards-Obama:

1. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a previous second fiddle.

2. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a man who has already lost.

Kerry-Edwards:

1. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a loser.

2. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a man who didn't have the stones to attack Bush.

Gore-Obama:

1. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a previous loser.

2. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a man who wasn't willing to defend his own chances at the presidency against an unconstitutional and partisan Supreme Court ruling.

Clinton-Obama:

1. A white-woman black man simultaneous ticket would go down in flames immediately. Obama shouldn't hitch himself to such a radical ticket.

2. Obama shouldn't attach his credibility to such a controversial, baggage heavy legacy.

???-Obama

1. Obama has more media traction than either Kerry or Edwards. He shouldn't play subordinate to either of them.

2. Other than longer Senate terms, neither Edwards, Kerry Gore or Clinton have much over Obama. Leaders are expected to be bold and take risks, and there is no greater leadership position in the world than President of the United States. By placing himself before these folks, Obama demonstrates that he has the ambition and boldness to take the reins of leadership. If he consents to a mere VP run, he'll have lost his luster and appear slightly weak.

Bottomline: Obama should not run on someone else's Vice-Presidential ticket and should go directly for a run at the Presidency.

Obama-???

1A. There are no guarantees Obama will be around for another shot in 2012. He may lose his Senate seat to another guy. His best chances for a guaranteed run are in 2008.

1B. Obama strengthens his chances of success in 2012 if he runs in 2008. Even if Obama loses the presidential election in 2008, with a previous run at the democratic nomination under his belt, he will have already gotten his name out nationally and prepared his fundraising machinery for a run in 2012.

1C. Obama strengthens his chances of just being around in 2012 with a run in 2008. By making such a high-profile bid, Obama sends the message to potential opponents that he is a major player with at least some level of national following. This in turn will help his chances for re-election to the Senate in 2010.

Considering the situation at hand, Obama should not rest content for VP. He should go straight for the highest post in the land. He has nothing to lose from doing so.

Let's bring it down to the nitty gritty:

Alot of people on this board are saying that Obama should be a Vice-Presidential candidate and have proposed a few interesting suggestions. Here is my take on some of the proposals offered:

Edwards-Obama:

1. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a previous second fiddle.

2. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a man who has already lost.

Kerry-Edwards:

1. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a loser.

2. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle who didn't have the stones to attack Bush.

Gore-Obama:

1. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a previous loser.

2. Obama shouldn't play second fiddle to a man who wasn't willing to defend his own chances at the presidency against an unconstitutional and partisan Supreme Court ruling.

Clinton-Obama:

1. A white-woman black man simultaneous ticket would go down in flames immediately. Obama shouldn't hitch himself to such a radical ticket.

2. Obama shouldn't attach his credibility to such a controversial, baggage heavy legacy.

???-Obama

1. Obama has more media traction than either Kerry or Edwards. He shouldn't play subordinate to either of them.

2. Other than longer Senate terms, neither Edwards, Kerry Gore or Clinton have much over Obama. Leaders are expected to be bold and take risks, and there is no greater leadership position in the world than President of the United States. By placing himself before these folks, Obama demonstrates that he has the ambition and boldness to take the reins of leadership.

Obama-???

1a. There are no guarantees Obama will be around for another shot in 2002. He may lose to another guy.

1b. Obama strengthens his chances of success in 2012 if he runs in 2008. With a previous run at a democratic nomination, he will have already gotten his name out nationally and prepared his fundraising machinery.

1c. Obama strengthens his chances of just being around in 2012 with a run in 2008. By making such a high-profile bid, Obama sends the message to potential opponents that he is a major player with at least some level of national following. This in turn will help his chances for re-election to the Senate in 2010.

Considering the situation at hand, Obama should not rest content for VP. He should go straight for the highest post in the land. He has nothing to lose from doing so.

Reality check. Hillary has 4 years as president and six years in the senate under her belt. Not enough experience? Polarizing? Please do not insult my intelligence. 2008 ticket of Hillary Clinton, President/Barak Obama, Vice-President would be a landslide victory. The first woman president and the first black vice-president. He could run on experience based on Clinton's 8 years as president. Where did the Clinton brain come from? Hillary Rodham
Good luck to all you naysayers. Face the facts.

I cannot believe that people have made such a big deal out of Barak Obama - I have listened to him on the radio on c-span and on TV and he is just painful to listen to. He is just about the worst public speaker i could imagine - every other word is "UH" - He really is just over hyped and who cares anyway - the same with Clinton - the primaries in 2008 will take on their own life depending upon what is going on at the time - why are we wasting so much energy on these people ?????

I think it is a Carl Rove conspiracy to energize the ignorant and intolerant white evangelical base

Congressman Frank LoBiondo and George W. Perfect together

I recently received a piece or two of political campaign's literature from Congressman Frank LoBiondo. I know that our Congressman is proud of his achievements for the District and that's his prerogative.

On the inside of the last piece that I received it says; "Frank LoBiondo is a Champion of lower taxes." That's real cute. This is how Mr. LoBiondo perceives his job performance in DC. Here is a key question that all taxpayers must asked ourselves; Are we better off as the result of Bush's tax cuts?

For the past six years, President Bush and his allies in the Congress have passed multiple rounds of major tax cuts: tax breaks for capital gains and dividends, reductions in personal income tax, estate tax cuts and an array of corporate loopholes for the rich and famous.

The highlights of this tax cuts are that they are heavily skewed towards the very wealthiest few. The other point is that the treasury is paying those cuts with borrowed monies; and the cost of paying the added national debt more than wipes out any real benefits from the tax cuts for the average NJ resident. This is real nice how LoBiondo and Bush are piling up debt on the backs of our future generations. They have the audacity of calling themselves "fiscal conservatives." They are a threat to the future of our Country. Borrow, spend and defer spenders is a nice name for Bush and LoBiondo.

I've noticed that our illustrious Congressman does not make mentions of the failed "war on terror" in Iraq. We just heard the President saying that he is not going to use "stay the course" any longer in referring to the war in Iraq. Maybe our Congressman can give the President a suggestion. I have a suggestion Mr. President call it "Titanic II" or "Katrina II". It is a shame that for the expediency of political gains our finest soldiers are dying in an unprovoked war in Iraq. Today over 2,755 plus have died. This October has being the bloodiest month ever with 90 plus soldiers dying.

I guess our Congressman wants to "stay the course." What are the results on the "war on terror? There are no positives results to speak of. Today not a single criminal from the September 11, 2001 attack has being apprehended and brought to trial. The master mind of September 11 Osama bin Laden is still at large.

This Administration with the help of our Congressman Frank LoBiondo has desecrated the most sacred document of our land: our Constitution. The "Military Commissions Act of 2006" passed with the help of Congressman Frank LoBiondo makes a mockery of our rule of law. This law essentially suspends human rights in America as we know them. Due process is out the window. It is a shame that our Congressman Frank LoBiondo is an accomplice on all this. This is a democracy not a kingdom.

Our district can not afford to send Mr. LoBiondo back to Congress. Mr. LoBiondo does not represent the views of the District he represents. Don't not be deceived by the rhetoric they use in calling himself a so called "conservative," or calling his opponent a "tax and spend liberal," they are just empty rhetoric with no real meaning. The real facts are that Mr. LoBiondo continues to support the unprovoked war in Iraq where the failure is colossal.
NJ 08360

Why is the media not covering Wesley Clark as the true 2008 contender, the true Dark Horse in the Running.. They are obsessed with Obama and Hillary but haven't mentioned the full possibility of Wesley Clark running. He is the retired General, the Valedvictorian, the True Moderate. He doesn't sell out either.

Concerned observer: You suggesting that a point may be correct about Mark Warner challenging John Warner in Va. for the senate race in 08'. I disagree. John Warner is an iconic figure there in Va., and Mark Warner, or anyone, would be committing political suicide to do that. Had Warner wanted to be a senator, he'd have challenged Allen this year. He would propably beat Allen, ending his presidential aspirations and boosting his own...all in a "purple state".

Zh, Ask you mom if she would vote for Condi Rice? With all the buzz about Obama, Dan Balz made the perfect statement today in the discussion room at 11AM.

Voters look for executive experience, and most candidates from the Senate do not get elected as president. Look at the history books, governors and Cabinet members have a better chance of getting elected president than any Senator. Obama has been in the Senate 2 years, and by 2008, it will be 4 years. Some voice in here said Edwards has the best experience, but he was only in the Senate 6 years.

If Condi is able to keep the Asian threat under control, based on the success of her tour, and if Lebanon keeps the pot of Hezbollah from boiling over, it will be proof of her POWER to handle foreign affairs with the strong hand plus charm and wits.

Obama and Condi was fresh faces in the political world, both are favored to get in the 2008 race. Condi has the best chance to be drafted by the people, since she is at 20% in the Marist poll ,(Rudy at 23% and McCain at 15%)

This the Profile primary, who are the leaders making headlines and getting the US voter aware of them as a possible candidate. From Coast to Coast, Condi is rated in the top tier. That is a fact no media source can discount or ignore.

ps. You gotta love the ears. No one can feel threatened by someone of any race with those ears.

Gene Taylor is a Democrat, very much so, but votes with the GOP b/c his district is one of the most conservative in the nation, as Rob pointed out. That frustrates me because he is outkasted by both parties, therefore is not affective for his district, which I am a resident. I know thats sad it comes down to that, but thats politics of today. Taylor will never move up for two reasons
(1)He does not like to raise money, and
(2)Dems in MS are waiting to fill the next open slot, whatever it may be with former AG Mike Moore, who has the Clinton effect, either you love him or hate him.
The reason Taylor won his seat in 1989 was because the incumbant GOP Rep, who succeded Trent Lott the year before, died in a plane crash, and during the special election the GOP split on the candidates. He was a default candidate........He is a nice guy, but is perceived as childish by many members of the US House and even some of his constinuents, who really havent had the opportunity to vote against him because of the lack of candidates running for the seat.

Here in PA I look to my mother (83, Republican) and a friend in the Carolinas (early 50s, businessman, male, registered Democrat voted for W twice, not happy about it now) for wisdom on Clinton. Mom, who has voted for both Republicans and Democrats for President over the years, and would like to vote for a woman, will never vote for Hillary. Never, never, ever. Mom represents a group that Hillary must win over if she wants PA. My friend likewise; is part of a group that she must win if she wants any part of the south or border states. He will crap on the confederate flag before he votes for her. I offer these anecdotes to illustrate how deeply pissed off essential parts of the electorate are toward Hillary. I am a Pennsylvanian 50s businessman, formerly R now independent, bailed when the wacko right and the borrow-and-spend crowd took over. Cheney and W make me puke almost daily but I have a hard time contemplating Hillary as President, anyway it could never happen. I and my friends and relatives are typical of the folks who will have to get behind her and pull the lever to win this critical dark purple state and it won't happen.

Obama on the other hand moves people in a way that I last saw with JFK, whom I disliked by the way, but I think most of the folks I know who loath Hillary could vote for him. I think many white Southerners want to prove that they are better than what they think yankees think they are, and many of them could vote for him. His speech at the convention was the best and most moving speech I have ever heard from a pol. I think mom would vote for him and I think he will do very well in the border states. Look at Harold Ford and Obama is at least his equal as a politician. I could see Obama picking up Tennessee and Arkansas and having a good shot at NC, Kentucky, Florida and maybe even Georgia if the stars are aligned. He would have everything that Kerry won in the bag from day one and could focus his considerable skills on red and purple turf. If his running mate has some gravitas his youth would not be a problem. If that toad Cheney could make W a plausible candidate anything could happen.

I am not sure that most of us really yet appreciate the extent of Obama's considerable political skills. I think he will play well in every state, without appearing to pander. Anyway I really like a politician who can have a good laugh at his own expense.

"speculation may be fun, but, seriously, it is much too early!"

Ditto

"I don't happen to believe that presidents can be taken too far beyond the context of their times."

HMMM. I just wonder.

Will any of them be remembered, some day in the distant future, like Alexander, or Caesar might be now?

Is Lincoln's dream of ending slavery, "everywhere and forever" just another political scheme with an expiration date already attached? Or could his nobility possibly transcend his own time to represent a higher truth, in a manner far greater than "his own times" would yield.

Iis all that talk of ultimate super-power-ness just historical self-delusion?

If we really are the greatest, wealthiest nation of all time, then shouldn't our notable leaders be considered SOMEWHERE among history's finest?

At least "Drindl Land" has some links in it..

Gene's sure got some bitter rivals, mention his name and something seems to hit the fan.

That's a good sign he's got some political legs...

Here is another JFK contribution! He got us deeper into Viet Nam by sending more troops there.

On Gene Taylor, I know Gene Taylor, he is nothing but a little snot. The only reason his name is ever heard is because his house was leveled by Katrina.

If your only criteria, is that this is what the political spectrum can agree on then you are entering into "drindl land"..

Why don't you clarify your remark? If you're going to insult me you can at least be coherent ab out it.

I made a comment that Barak Obama was the best speaker since JFK and even FDR. Of course this is a matter of opinion but I make that statement based on how he is able to address the needs of the country amongst them is the need for unity and the end to bitter partisanship. When presidents and great politicians give speeches they speak in broad terms. They do not list off a laundry list of stats but a vision for what people can understand where they will take us. They know that the average audience is not one that thinks in terms of stats and need words to paint a picture for them. For example Kennedy said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." That was a broad statement which had a lot more impact than if Kennedy said in substance terms that need for US to commit to Flexible Response instead of Ike's New Look. Obama is able to do the same thing something Gore and Kerry were not able to do.

Besides in my and many others opinion of Obama being the best politician in decades, he is a man that truly understands where America needs to move abroad and here at home. He understands the need for national unity to confront the transnational and national problems of the 21st century such as global terrorism, proliferation of WMD, globalization, the fall of the middle class and rise of poverty, and the moral sins of humanitarian crisis. I look for the vision of where politicians want to take us. If I think that vision will work and America needs to go. FDR,JFK or any great politician did not know the complexity of policies that would bring their vision into fruition and they relied on not themselves but bureaucrats and professionals to carry that plan out. Obama truly gets understands the broad picture and I can say he may be the only one that totally gets it. I am not committed to Obama or my boys Edwards and Bayh but I give these three candidates equal consideration.

Bhoomes: If you're stuck in the 19th century then, you are correct, Lincoln was the greatest for his time. (CSA wannabes and Dixiecrats would dispute you) I don't happen to believe that presidents can be taken too far beyond the context of their times. It doesn't do justice to the times in which each serves. If your only criteria, is that this is what the political spectrum can agree on then you are entering into "drindl land"..

Don't worry, bhoomes, GW Bush will soon be declared the worst Prez in history.

Peixegato

If the Republicans are passing out the posters of Obama and someone else, they would darken Obama's skin - just to make sure no one could mistake his race. There is a history of such things happening to light skinned African American Democratic candidates. Republican distributed pamphlets in the Virginia governor's race in the 80's contained doctored pictures to make the light skinned Douglas Wilder appear much blacker. I understand that something similar happened to the light skinned Harold Ford in Tennessee recently.

Jeff-for-progress: you made a great point about the impact of seeing a white woman run for office with a black man as her running mate. I can just picture the buttons and popsters now..Hillary arm-in-arm with Barack. How will that play in the ole South (or even in parts of Brooklyn NY, or the small towns in Kansas, or on the ranches in Montana, etc, etc), lol. The only question would be who was pasing them out, the Dems or the Repubs?

Perhaps I am stuck in a twlight zone of some type but there is no way in the world I can see Obama as a "co-frontrunner". At this point with only 2 years in the Senate he lacks the experience to compete on the national stage with Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, etc.

I think he will hurt Edwards more than Clinton in the primaries and would hurt Feingold most of all. I don't see how he could run to the left of Clinton since he is already to the right of her on a lot of issues but he may be able to sell that.

Well I think we have something both liberals, moderates and conservatives can agree, Lincoln was the Greatest. L.STRERLING: Times give a person an oportunity for greatness, that's all. Certainly James Buchanon served during perilous times that could have brought greatness out of him, instead, Historians accurately rate him as the worst President of all times (with Jimmy Carter gaining ground on him). By not giving Lincoln his due, I suspect you know very little about american history.

Regarding Obama:
I am very excited and optimistic about him. He came into the Senate, kept his head down, and took to the task of understanding the Senate, how it works, and how he can best make a difference. Many people say that he hasn't done anything. To me, that is admirable in that he didn't come in with a big chip on his shoulder or like some cocky freshman with a Napoleon complex and something to prove. He's only been in the Senate for 2 years. That can be both an advantage (no long voting record to use against him) and a disadvantage (no long voting record for him to prove where he stands on the issues).

While I would love to see him run, I do have to say that I am nervous about whether the country will elect a Black man as President. When people with racist tendencies get into the privacy of the voting booth, will they be able to pull the lever for a black man? Dont' get me wrong, I don't think race is the only thing that could keep someone from being president (I don't think a Jewish or Islamic person would win either as there are a lot of people out there who just couldn't vote for someone who isn't a Christian). I think Obama has a lot of work to do before he is ready for prime time. What I like is that I get the impression that he understands this and is working behind the scenes to get himself ready.

Also, I don't think the Dems need the South to win the presidency (though it would be nice for them to win at least ONE state in the South). If things got straightened out in Ohio and all of the people that were lawfully registered voters could actually cast a vote and all of those votes were counted as originally cast, the Dems would win Ohio and assuming they didn't loose any states they won in 2004, they'd win the Presidency. All they need is Ohio. Taking back New Mexico (or flipping Nevada or Colorado for that matter) would be icing on the cake. I think in the long run, the Dems need to make inroads into the South, but for 2008, I would concentrate on Ohio as it is the lowest hanging fruit on the tree.

Regadring Clinton:
I again believe that there is a large enough portion of America that doesn't want to see a woman elected president. In saying that, I am not only talking about righties. There are a lot of blue collar old school macho men out there who would never be able to vote for a woman to be president, just like there are a lot of good ole boys who would never vote for a black man (or woman for that matter). Its sad, but true. We could learn a lot from countries like Chile, the UK, and India. But then again, when has the US ever felt like it could actually learn something from another country?

I think I might like to see Obama run for the nomination, just to get the exposure and experience of being in the 24-hour spotlight and allow the country to see where he stands on the important issues and what type of President he would be, but be chosen as a Vice Presidential candidate. This will get him out of the Senate before he has a chance to become one of those "unelectable career Senators" and give him the chance to gain some valuable Executive branch experience so that he would be the undeniable choice in 2016.

Once the dust has settled from the mid-term elections (which may take a long time if things in Ohio are as bad as some say they will be), things are going to get really interesting as all attention will turn to 2008.

PG

Gene Taylor is something of a maverick. He is very much a Democrat although he does not always vote with the party. He is a Democrat in one of the most GOP districts in the nation. He has never expressed any interest in running for statewide office in Mississippi but would be a real contender if he decided to run for Governor or if Thad Cochran retires and he goes for the Senate seat.

Obama too young? He's now older than John Kennedy was when JFK was inaugurated. And my steel-trap brain says he will be two years older in two years.

But I do think John McCain is way too old.

I don't know why, but I"m excited by this news.

I guess it's time to really find out what he's about.

Lincoln and Washington were great; Kennedy was good; Reagan was blessed with good timing. As for the next president, speculation may be fun, but, seriously, it is much too early! The decision period was supposed to be extended from Iowa and New Hampshire forward, not back. We haven't even had the midterm elections yet. Its a long time until someone votes or caucuses. A lot will happen before then. Events may bring someone's name to the fore or others may implode from a macaca moment. About how many seats will the Republicans have to lose before W realizes that something may be drastically wrong with him?

an Obama/Wes Clark ticket could win. I'd give money.

"Too liberal, too young...." Is it me or is everyone missing the 800lbs gorilla in the room, Obama is too black! Everyone may ramble on as much as they want but let's be honest, whites don't vote for blacks, not when it comes down to crunch time - want proof look at the Senate! Sure, we vote black locally, state, and even nationally (House) but to run the country, HA! Should he choose to run, I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but I'm black. But hey, prove me wrong USA - you seldom do, but I would be more then happy if you would this time around.

"Too liberal, too young...." Is it me or is everyone missing the 800lbs gorilla in the room, Obama is too black! Everyone may ramble on as much as they want but let's be honest, whites don't vote for blacks, not when it comes down to crunch time - want proof look at the Senate! Sure, we vote black locally, state, and even nationally (House) but to run the country, HA! Should he choose to run, I would vote for him in a heartbeat, but I'm black. But hey, prove me wrong USA - you seldom do, but I would be more then happy if you would this time around.

I would classify Lincoln as the greatest president because he faced the greatest crisis in our history. He was not a very popular president at the outset and the leaders of his party regarded him as something of a buffoon. Lincoln's cabinet contained his main rivals for the nomination and, to a man, they were more prominent national figures and all believed themselves far more qualified to be president. William Seward, his Secretary of State, took office thinking that he would serve as Lincoln's prime minister and actually make policy himself. Lincoln had to balance the demands of the radical Republicans against the necessity of holding slave-holding border states in the Union. (Not all the slave states seceded - Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky remained in the Union and West Virginia seceded from Virginia to remain in the Union) His leadership in maneuvering through these problems while trying to prod his generals forward was amazing. Lincoln was a political genius in the best sense of the phrase.

There is no snarling as I type. :-) But I dont believe debating Reagan's presidency would do much good. He is too polarizing of a figure. Those who love him, will continue to love him. Those who hate him, will continue to hate him. Very similar to Clinton. But as an admirer of Reagan, I can see some of the same potential in Obama. Sometimes all a leader has to do is make the people believe that all things are possible, that we are on the right track, and that we can make the world a better place. And that is why I tied Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan together. The inpsiration they each provided was as valuable as any specific policy success they achieved (and they each had great successes in my opinion). It is a rare leader who can accomplish that.

Jim Jordan and Robert Gibbs, huh? Where's Paul Tewes and Steve Grossman?

Seriously, this party needs to get some new blood. Show me the candidate that isn't chasing after the same old people, and maybe I'll support him/her.

JEP: got that right; I can hear them snarling to themselves as they type.

Well, Obama is definitely proving it's possible to succumb fast to media hype and grow an ego that outstrips whatever shreds of common sense or humility a person might once have possessed. As far as I can tell, his track record in the Senate to date isn't anything that's going to inspire progressives to vote for him, and when you add in the race issue . . . the one thing he and Hillary have in common is the talking heads inside the Beltway believe they're golden, and the rest of the country is thinking "no way."

I find it interesting that people will put the race card on the table and speculate how it will effect Obama's chances. But what about the gender card? The one thing no one wants to say is they don't support Hilary because they can't imagine a female commander-in-chief.

I've heard it said in private livingrooms, when will the gender card start being discussed in public forums?

Is the US still too machismo to elect a female President? If Chile and India can do it, why can't we?

There is no such animal as the "greatest president". Presidents are made great by their times. Washington was the first, and in retrospect, one of the "greats" of the 18th century, Lincoln was great in the 19th, and lest we forget, FDR was great in the 20th. Reagan and Kennedy are certainly not included in the "greats", at least at this juncture. The "greatest" president of the 21st probably hasn't been born yet.
And for those of you historically impaired, the Cuban missle crisis of October, '62 was resolved by Kennedy removing intermediate nukes from Turkey, on the border of the USSR, in exchange for intermediate nukes being removed from Cuba, on the "border" of the US. It was far more dangerous than anyone today appreciates as Soviet officers on the ground in Cuba, (Major and up), had tactical authority to fire them without higher clearance, if necessary. An invasion would have triggered the BIG ONE.

I agree with the poster up above. Feingold is the darkhorse Chris is ignoring. Here is a logical syllogism for you.

1. Iraq is THE #1 issue on voters minds.

2. Democratic voters are overwhelmingly against our involvement there. It has been a disaster for our country and for stability in the middle east.

3. Iraq will only continue to get worse (that's not me talking, that's the generals). Yet we will have to stay there longer, even for a phased withdrawal. It will remain the #1 issue on voters minds.

4. Russ Feingold is the ONLY 2008 hopeful on EITHER side of the aisle who had the opportunity and the duty to consider the evidence on Iraq. He courageously and wisely voted NOT to get us involved. Is there anything even remotely approaching that that speaks to leadership ability? If so, I'd like to hear it.

I'd like to think that Obama would have made the same decision on Iraq, but Feingold had to put his vote where his mouth was. He did the right thing when the rest of our government was either lying, deluded or spinelessly going along with the lying and deluded.

It is interesting to see the media reaction to Obama. It reminds me that the media is always looking for a horse race in presidential politics.

The blogger that states that Obama simply does not have much political experience is just as right as the blogger that states that after most white people people go into the booth, they will not vote for a black presidential canidate, especially one with no history on foreign affairs, and no national
governing experience.

It is refeshing to see people impressed by black person on the national political level. But believe the blogger that advises that certain people out there are not going to be nice and fair, and let someone like Obama be come president without a fight. Remember McCain in 2000? Wasn't he a real popular war hero?

Will Hillary actually run?
Will she leave the field to Kerry who has the second most amount of money in the bank?
Will Bayh somehow seriously step out on the national stage? (Does he have the third most money in the bank?)

The Democrats are always interesting to watch.

It is good to have this conversation about greatness as we look at potential candidates. Which of them will go onto history with "greatness" attached to thier names?

Great men and women men typically are made "great" not by thier living achievements, but by the historians who follow them after they are dead.

While most tend to judge him by the Gettysburg address, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and it's admonition to abolish slavery "everywhere,...forever" will one day define him and our Civil War, and that alone will assure he will always be judged worthy in history's textbooks.

And Kennedy, though he died before he could bring it to full fruition, won't be judged by his "ask not" call to patriotism, but by his invention of the Peace Corps, as a model for what many of us believe the military might become if the manufacturers of war did not rule our nation.

He, too will be best remembered a hundred years from now for what he tried to do with his fleeting worldly power.

As for Reagan, memory provides no meaningful verse or comment he can claim, if he had not been the first puppet of the energy industry, his "Tear down this wall" might have made him worthy.

But Chernobyl and the public response to it actually made that wall fall down, so I don't see history putting Reagan on the same page as Kennedy or Lincoln. Our modern-day money men all hold Reagan up on a supply-side pedastal, but they depend on an economic model to support that construct, which history will prove was not free-enterprise at all, but foolish monopolism.

Reagan never "tried" anything noble, as "the Great Actor" (re;imposter) he just peformed the act that was written for him by his military-industrial managers and neocon wannabes with stale economics degrees.

I'm sure we'll hear from some of them soon, I just demeaned one of thier dieties. These Reaganites are rabid.

And while Reagan may be gone, they are with us still...

It is a bit surprising to me that Obama garners so much attention about '08. We are talking president of the united states. What does he have on his resume - state senator from Illinois and two years in the U.S. senate. Why not Adrian Fenty for president. He has executive experience since, afterall, he was president of the 16th street association.

Bhoomes,

The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the boldest moves any President, since Truman's use of the bomb in WWII, and deserves high praise for his gutsy decision-making and call to challenge the USSR. That alone is worthy of greatness.

I don't know how this might unfold, but I still think that the best result for the Democrats would be a Gore-Obama ticket. The combination of intelligence and preparation seems to me the best recipe for a possible Democratic success.

I'm sure there is a reason why Bhoomes has taken a David Brooks' approach to Obama, something to do with electability (at least if he runs so soon on the presidential level). I tend to half-agree with Bob Herbert in the NY Times who says that Obama may need time to ripen, but I also agree with folks like Ken Bode (and Bhoomes for that matter), that sometimes you need to strike when the iron is hot.

A VP slot for Obama with Gore seems to me the most judicious course for the former. It allows our A Team to hit the ground running and to take some advantage of the advantage that Obama's candidacy will generate (particularly among African Americans) in the border and some southern states (Arkansas, Louisiana, etc). I think Hillary would not make the same inroads in these states-- a white male with a black male is an easier sell than a white woman with a black man (Hillary's magnetic attraction for rightwing polarizers, etc.)

With Gore no learning curve is needed here, the team hits the ground running on the first 100 days. Gore has good judgment and excellent experience on national security issues. Obama has the time to ripen and to build on a Gore-Obama legacy with a presidency of his own. Of course, Bill could serve as Obama's mentor, but there would be the question of two VP's, much as there was when Gore had to contend with Hillary. This is too distracting. Been there, done that.

Also, the script is easy to write. Getting the country on the righttrack after 2000. Gore has a solid record of being right on every major issue since W. took office, Hillary hasn't.

Who is Barack Obama and why is he so suddenly so "hot" with the media?
Could he ... SHOULD he ... be the next "President of the World"?
Is Barack Obama Karl Rove's ultimate dream 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate ... a "puppy dog" amidst full grown Pit Bulls, Dobermans and Rottweilers?
Is the handsome, young telegenic Junior Senator from Illinois a viable "candidate" or an exploitable "celebrity" of the campaign season?
One thing is for sure ... he is neither the "new JFK" nor the "new Bobby Kennedy" ... though he is certainly attempting to "clone" himself to be both.
Sorry, Barack ... but "where's the beef"?
Shubroto Chattopadhyay
Irvine, CA 92619
Ph: 714-544-5480
shubroto@hotmail.com
23Oct06

'there is very little if anything that Kennedy accomplished. '

what mind-boggling ignorance...

Dan W,

David Brookes wrote an excellent piece on Obama in the NY Times. On Shields and Brookes show, he was asked about his piece and he said that Obama comes to the table with a vast field of experiences that he judicially navigates as he makes his the decisions. He said Obama has a clear vision for the future. He acknowledges he does not agree with him on the issues, but he admired him for going through the exercises that most candidates for both parties forgo. He also said Obama has one thing going that Clinton does have not and that is he excites his audience. It was nice hearing a thoughtful conservative weigh in on Obama without being partisan.

I really like Obama, living in Chicago and watching him emerge during his Senate campaign against better funded candidates was really a treat. My own personal preference is for Evan Bayh, he is far and away my favorite Senator, but of course, I'm also someone who was a Republican until 2002, so my opinion probably doesn't jibe with the democratic base.

Magnolia;

I wasn't necessarily suggesting a run for the White House for Taylor, just that he represents another name that very young, very qualified and very long list of potential leadership figures in the Democratic stables.

You seem quite determined to trash Taylor and that leads me to believe that either (A.) you are a progressive Southern Dem (thus the moniker "Magnolia") and Taylor is too right-leaning for you, or
(B.) you are actually a Southern conservative "R" and Taylor is too popular for you, (thus the personal attacks to immediately smudge his image before it can grow).

I THINK you are the former, but there is enough abiguity in your post to suspect the latter.

While I would personally vote against the Republicans much more than Taylor does, being from Kansas I also recognize there's more ground in the center than you or I might want to accept.

Considering the Republican alternatives who might replace Taylor, keep in mind it is much easier to pull a right-leaning populist towards a reasonable center than it is to move an intractible neocon away from their no-bid economic benefits.

The battle between our personal ideology and the demands of stark reality is waged on these lines, when the only path to your goals is through the compromising of them, you either get out of the kitchen or start cooking according to the recipes and ingredients available.

If the party Dems, particularly down South, are not willing to fully support Democratic candidates like Taylor, who actually represents the majority of his constituency on issues they might disagree with, they will lose more seats to the R's locally and nationally.

The only similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy was they were both murdered. Other than that, Lincoln was the Greatest of all Presidents. If you are objective and look at the historical record, there is very little if anything that Kennedy accomplished. Now maybe he would have if not killed but there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest Greatness.

Mikepcfl

Interesting comparison - Lincoln was a one-term congressman and unsuccessful Senate candidate when he ran for president. However, Kennedy, although very young by presidential standards, had served 6 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate - without achieving much of note in either House.

For those who have been debating whether Sen Obama has enough experience to be president, I think character and judgement outweigh experience by a longshot. The key is to surround yourself with good people who can take care of the minutiae while you set the vision and make the tough decisions. Three presidents who fit this example are Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan. Each of them set up a strong team while they set the agenda and had the guts to make the tough choices when it counted. I am not sold on Obama, but I like what I have heard about his character and his vision for America (and I'm a Republican). I would much rather have a President with good judgement and common sense, than someone who cracks under pressure or blows with the wind.

I thought Gene Taylor was the lead singer for KISS. Am I missing something???

"Jethro Clampett"

"George Allen"

Now there's an interesting analogy, what a cosmic reversal of doofuses..

"From California, he came to stay in Good old South Virgin-I-A"

They even look alike...

Election Alarm!!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Electronic Voting Machines Could Skew Elections

ABRAHAMS and EDUARDO SUNOL

Oct. 22, 2006 -- Cheryl Kagan, a former Maryland Democratic legislator, was shocked when she opened her mail Wednesday morning.

Inside, she discovered three computer discs. With them was an anonymous letter saying the discs contained the secret source code for vote-counting that could be used to alter the votes cast through Maryland's new electronic voting machines.

"My understanding is that with these disks a malicious person could skew the outcome of an election," Kagan said.

Diebold, the company that makes the voting machines, told ABC News, "These discs do not alter the security of the Diebold touch-screen system in any way," because election workers can set their own passwords.

But ABC News has obtained an independent report commissioned by the state of Maryland and conducted by Science Applications International Corporation revealing that the original Diebold factory passwords are still being used on many voting machines.

The SAIC study also shows myriad other security flaws, including administrative over-ride passwords that cannot be changed by local officials but can be used by hackers or those who have seen the discs.

The report further states that one of the high risks to the system comes if operating code discs are lost, stolen or seen by unauthorized parties -- precisely what seems to have occurred with the discs sent to Kagan, who worries that the incident indicates the secret source code is not that difficult to obtain.

"Certainly, just tweaking a few votes in a couple of states could radically change the outcome of our policies for the coming year," she said.

Worry That Elections Could Be Hacked

Computer experts and government officials have voiced serious concerns that if these machines malfunction, no paper record will exist for a recount. Even worse is the fear that an election could be hacked.

Princeton University researchers using an Accuvote TS -- a touch screen version of the Diebold machine -- showed how easy it would be to deploy a virus that would, in seconds, flip the vote of any election.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Technology/story?id=2596705&page=1

I still like my dark horse candidate for Dem nomination: Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen. Good centrist candidate that represents a red state.

Dan W,
There are a few reasons I think Obama would be a great president. First is that he understands that the way for our economy to move forward is in an environmentally friendly way. And he supports the renewable fuels industry as a way to boost our economy. Second, he has taken a leading role on the democratic side in trying to clean up congress and its scandals. The bill that he passed with Tom Coburn (a republican) that allows for all expenditures to be online in a searchable database is a good start to that end. Third, I think he is on the right side of the healthcare debate by supporting a larger role for Medicare and Medicaid, but at the same time he points out that we can save money in Medicare by simply switching the program to using electronic billing.
In general I think he approaches a problem with an open mind and a mind to SOLVE the problem. That means working with Republicans to find a solution not just a democratic or republican talking point.

Adam, please they sent out the email and the IRS is going to nail the LDS to the wall for it. Now I don't know if Romney had anything to do with it, but to imply that the Boston Globe is making it up is a stretch at best.

Gene Taylor??? You have to be kidding? First, the Dems are not going to nominate someone who votes with the GOP 40% of the time. Second, the Democratic Insurance Commisoner in MS said the only thing Taylor could pass in congress was water. He could easily be beaten if the national GOP would pump money into the race, and plus his love for the young women of DC would surely come out if he were to run. Gene Taylor could not win any other race in MS, much less on a national stage.

LSterling;
"The office of the presidency is exaggerated enough as it is. It gets too much attention relative to the other co-equal branches,"

So very true, and a point that needs to be pondered by any of us who posits thier personal opinions upon this blog.

I love Obama, but everything I see here and elsewhere says 2012 or beyond, Chris. His staff is "loaners" from real candidates. They haven't even assessed fundraising potential. He's got two kids under 7 years old. Gotta respect that "family first" rule - for both real and PR reasons.

He has a book out Chris. Remember the first rule of publishing. No publicity is bad (and this is all good, certainly).

And let's be real here. He may be the intellectual giant of both the Dem and Republican sides of the pool (and hopefully this Forrest Gump of a country won't hold that against him), but he still looks like he's running for student council. (Is there something they can use to put some grey IN to that head of hair??)

Obama-President
Warner Vice President (yes he will!)

Hillary moved too far to the right not expecting the country to get as surly as it is getting.

2008 will be about Iraq (we will still be there unless Dubya wants reruns of Huey helicopters being pushed off air craft carriers during an evacuation)

Hillary and John McCain are getting indistinguishable. And she always has Bill. In the developing political climate, he may be wonderful at raisnig money. In her campaign he would be a boat anchor.

right on! Talk about energy, compassion, a clear alternative. Obama's inexperienced? Try - he doesn't have a 10 mile long voting record that will be twisted at every turn to be used against him. People DON'T LIKE Washington insiders (see: Clintons win the white house in 1992, George W. Bush wins the White House in 2000). I agree that Edwards is a great frontrunner, but I think that, in the end, he comes off as less serious than Obama, and younger and more foolish. His angry concession speech in 2004 doesn't help that image. Obama's amazing Convention speech (and every speech since then - I've seen him in person twice) is a clear contrast.

Anyway, as much I love the 08 speculation, I'm focusing on winning back the Congress. See you all again on Nov. 8.

It's become a Republican led mantra lately, too often repeated by a mindless traditional media with the attention span of a toddler gulping down Mountain Dew and suffering from advanced ADD: "The economy is doing great, the stock market is at an ALL TIME high!!!!"

I'm sure those of you reading this who have a vast equity portfolio (All twenty of you) as well as those who've been saddled with brain trauma so severe they cannot do simple math or recall the last decade--basically anyone who still thinks Bush is doing a great job--are thrilled with this recent earth shattering market rally. For the rest of us, here's a short stroll down memory lane with the benefit of a little arithmetic even Jethro Clampett could handle.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was bouncing around 11,000 in the year 2000. Last week's close was 12,002. So, based on those numbers, after swiping trillions of taxpayer dollars -- borrowed from you and your children--and tossing it into the gaping bottomless maw of Wall Street's elite like so much papery green chum, the return on the DJIA during CEO Mastermind George Bush's reign weighs in at a whopping ~ 1.5% a year or so. In between it took a steep dip resembling a certain mountain pass in Tora Bora and has regained just barely enough to rival the interest my credit union pays on a checking account. Goodness gracious, where will we spend it all?

And for you tech investors, the NASDAQ Composite Index hit a high of about 5000 in March of 2000. It ended the week at 2342. Good grief, you'd have done considerably better if you had sealed the cash in a tin can and buried it in your yard for the last six years. Were the NASDAQ COMP a conscious entity in need of immediate medical attention, it might just give up at this point and opt for a mercy killing, lest the poor thing suffer another agonizing botched operation under the inept knife wielding hands of Doc Bush and Nurse Cheney.

This constant talk about Clinton strikes me as ludicrous. She leads 2008 polls now because of one thing and one thing alone - Name Recognition. That is all a poll this far out tells you. I don't see any way she is the nominee - liberals think she has betrayed them, moderates don't think she can win a general election.

She has money and name recognition but once the primary season really gets going someone else will emerge. Personally, I'm not even convinced she's going to run and put herself through it all.

But I don't know what this infatuation with making her the front-runner is... other than the fact people know who she is, she has nothing going for her. She won't be the nominee; whether Obama runs or not.

For the record, both the Romney campaign and LDS church deny that any email was sent out in support of Romney. Both have stated that the Boston Globe made unfounded allegations. The only support that the Globe has for its story is uncited "documents." Until the Globe can provide a little evidence to counteract the testimony of everyone involved, their allegations remain just that, allegations. Anyone remember Dan Rather and his allegations?

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate. (my emphasis)

So where's the journal that accounts for the three-hundred eighty-seven thousand dollars? I think journalists should be demanding to see it, because if Lieberman can't produce one certified by the campaign treasurer it is an admission that he is guilty of egregiously violating federal election law, and that is criminal activity.

I don't think the hard left will really take a liking to Representative Gene Taylor. He did not vote for Pelosi for Speaker. He voted for Murtha. He's a centrist Democrat that the Republicans have been trying to woo to become a Republican, but they will never get him. The Republican party has always angered him. I like him.

Why won't anyone report on Lieberman's illegal use of campaign money? What the hushhush, huh Chris? Any actual reporters out there?

'Lieberman's campaign today claimed that the $387,000 slush fund was used to pay salaries, food, lodging, and transportation of "young kids" doing paid canvassing.

But "Lodging for Volunteers," "Car Rental for Canvassers," "Food for Staff," a $1,700+ tab for "Food and Beverage" for Tom Lindenfeld (their field guy), multiple payments to temp and staffing agencies, multiple gas receipts for $20 and $30 each, multiple van and bus and car rentals (ground transportation alone accounts for at least $90,000 of their itemized expenses), multiple airfares, and even a $12.99 car wash are all itemized on their FEC report.

And who is Gene Taylor?

Yesterday, I got my first good look at the Congressman from Mississippi who's the Dem's lead man on the Katrina commission.

He's got the charming boy-next-door looks of a Kennedy and a southern drawl that's thick as cold molasses. In public he's something of a soft-spoken pit-bull at the podium.

This guy has a lot of potential on the national stage, too.

He and Spitzer could really work together to shake up the insurance industry.

So many sharp Democrats in the game now, it will provide us with a real choice when the time comes.

And as for Hillary refusing the VP seat, she knows a woman as either VP or President would be historic, I don't think she is so self-willed as to refuse such an important role.

It would certainly put her next in line. And while I believe wholeheartedly she would be a great President, that also assures she would be a great VP.

I wouldn't call having a female VP a baby step in our political history, is would be monumental.

This still just amazes me. How crazy is George Bush, anyway?

'he should have called me ahead of time and I'd tell him they're not going to (win)'

Think about that. He tells his father he should have called him, and Junior would have told him Dems are not going to win. He has a crystal ball maybe? There's a fix in?

It's either one or the other, isn't it? Or the more ominous and likely possibility -- that he has a weak mind and the stress has completely broken him?

Obama seems like a good replacement for my 1st candidate of choice, Gov. Warner.

Populist --

On what basis do you make the claim that Obama is "the most gifted politician in the last half century or more to the days of FDR"? I'll admit, he's a gifted speaker, and certainly charismatic...but he's seriously unexperienced as a politician. I want a little more substance in my presidents. Give him time to mature -- he could be a great one someday.

Jaxas I think you are totally on the mark... Repuugs are not going to let go of power. If there's any way they can lie, cheat or steal this election, they will do it. Junior is in so much denial [or knows somethng we don't] he's telling his father to shut up about it..

'On Sunday, President Bush criticized his father on a television show for his remarks that he hates to think what life would be like for his son if the Democrats win the November 7 election, defeating the Republican stronghold in Congress.

"He shouldn't be speculating like this, because -- he should have called me ahead of time and I'd tell him they're not going to (win)," Bush told ABC "This Week" in an interview broadcast on Sunday.

Bush's father was reported to have told a Republican fund-raiser in a Philadelphia suburb that "if we have some of these wild Democrats in charge of these (congressional) committees, it will be a ghastly thing for our country."
He was also quoted as saying, "I would hate to think ... what my son's life would be like" if Democrats win.'

Man, Freud would have a field day with these guys, hmmm?

But you know what they fear -- oversight of the Congress and administration. This is why the 'war on terror' is to republicans a war on democrats.

'I think this country needs that over partisan rancor.'

Well yes, Will that would be nice. But it isn't going to happen -- there are too many fascist pundits like Hannity and Coulter and Limbaugh who are on the air every day, working hard to divide and undermine the country and overthrow the government... too much sick trash like drudge and powerline and all the rest of the neonazis with too much power over too many small minds-- who won't stop until the entire world is at war.

TayTay's comments are right on. Never forget he is a politician.

ANDY:
I agree that Mitt being a Mormon could hurt him but not because of the issue you raised. Not being a social conservative, I don't know how they would accept someone from the Mormon Church. I am leaning towards Mitt because with me it anybody but McCain, and right now he's looking like the strongest candidate to take McCain out. I got to admit I am no fan of the Mormon church, I see it is somewhat of a cult founded by a total nutball. But I really do not think Mitt is anymore religious than me, which is not much.

"If they do lose they will be really, really sore about it just like they were in 1992."

Imagine if Bush had won in 92, then took both houses in 94..

We would all be glowing in the dark (or dead) by now... But at least we'd have oil for our autos!

Oh, for the happy days of a winnable nuclear war!

I think Obama is just what this country needs. Too young? How about more energetic and forward-thinking. Too liberal? Don't forget that he won over many centrist and center-right voters in his home state. Best of all, this man has the power to motivate and a positive vision of what this country could be.

Hillary Clinton is all about politics as usual. I haven't heard anything from her that hasn't been the Democratic party line for years. I think it's unlikely that much would change with her as president.

As far as the right-wing attack machine goes, I'd like to think he has the stones to stand up to it (unlike Kerry who practically put his tail between his legs and ran away yelping).

As the regulars know, I am shopping for a candidate and here is a candidate that bhoomes doesn't hate and Taytay is calling "Too Centrist". Sounds like someone to investigate.

Democrats: What do you like about him.
Republicans: What do you hate about him.
Independents: Is he really a Centrist?

Educate me please.

My future hopes for the year 2009;

John Edwards-President
Barack Obama- VP
Bill Richardson-Secy of State
Elliot Spitzer- Attorney General (yah, baby!)
Bill Clinton-UN Delegate
Wes Clark - Secy of Defense
Hillary Clinton- Senate Majority Leader
Al Gore-EPA Administrator OR Secy of the Interior
Tom Vilsack-secy of Agriculture
John Murtha- Secy of Veteran's Affairs
Dick Gephart- Secy of Labor

I know, there's more; any suggestions?

So far this list looks very qualified to me, and ought to scare the tar out of the Republicans who are now exploiting our natural resources, and our soldiers.

Did anyone hear Kerry's interview Sunday? He has at last found his voice. He came across as strong, articulate and not "wordy." THIS Kerry would have won in 2004.... or made the Diebold folks work harder.

I would prefer Obama to Clinton, her negatives just won't go away. I'm impressed by Obama's persona.... now let's see if he's more than an empty suit.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

No matter how attractive Obama may seem to be at the moment, remember what happens when the right wing spin machine gets finished with any candidate who doesn't fit their wretched ideal of what a President ought to be.

Anyone remember how the media and a good portion of the country swooned when Johm McCain's "Straight Talk Express" was traversing the country in 2000? What happend to McCain in South Carolina? What happened to Gore following the democratic convention in 2000 after he opened up a lead over the twangy Bush? What happened to John Kerry in 2004 when he turned out to be a serious threat to the odious Bush-Rove machine?

And don't kid yourself. This foul bunch of radicval right extremists is not going to go quietly into the night. They love power. They hate government, but they love power for power's sake. And no matter what the polls or what the electorate thinks of them, they are not going to go out gracefully. If they do lose they will be really, really sore about it just like they were in 1992.

Remember. These people are not about governing the country, or the Constituion, or freedom or being good citizens or any of that. They are about the same sort of motivations that drove the wretched bunch of thugs who gained power in Nazi Gremany in 1933 and believe me, they will not be happy until the whole world is at war.

If you want to talk about dark horses for prez nomination, I am a fan of Governor Bredensen. The Democrat from Tennessee. He is going to win his re-election in TN by a wide margin. People should start looking at him. He brings everything that Dems need for an 08 success. He's a centrist (you have to be to win the presidency people) and he represents a red state.

OBama has all the bloviating hype of a media driven candidacy. This may fly in circles where the punditocracy creates and then starts to believe its own hype, and then stampedes the "candidate" into some kind of an agreement that he "thinks" about running, but this has all the earmarks of blowhard Chris Matthews attempt to get a "Kerry-McCain" ticket ginned up in 2004. The media should lay off this guy and let him "grow" a little in the job. The office of the presidency is exaggerated enough as it is. It gets too much attention relative to the other co-equal branches, which some time don't get enough..... By the way, Hillary wouldn't run 2nd banana to anyone, on a Dem. ticket, so don't get your hopes up......

"This infamous precinct in suburban Columbus registered 4258 votes for George W. Bush where just 638 people voted."

Civil War vets voting for Bush?

just one more example of "Blackwellian" election results...

And what is even worse than the crime itself, many Ohio Republicans are actually proud of it.

I like Edwards but I really like Obama too. He is the most gifted politician in the last half century or more to the days of FDR. He can bridge the gap between the right and left and win the presidency. He would be a very good president and would be a lot better candidate than Hillary would be. I doubt that he could win in the south for obvious reasons but does he have to? I don't think the Democrats have to go to the South to win. They can easily win by retaining their Northern base while reaching out to more socially liberal or moderate places of the West and Midwest. He should focus on winning Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and only southern states would be Florida and Virginia but they are not your typical southern state.

I like Edwards but I really like Obama too. He is the most gifted politician in the last half century or more to the days of FDR. He can bridge the gap between the right and left and win the presidency. He would be a very good president and would be a lot better candidate than Hillary would be. I doubt that he could win in the south for obvious reasons but does he have to? I don't think the Democrats have to go to the South to win. They can easily win by retaining their Northern base while reaching out to more socially liberal or moderate places of the West and Midwest. He should focus on winning Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and only southern states would be Florida and Virginia but they are not your typical southern state.

I like Edwards but I really like Obama too. He is the most gifted politician in the last half century or more to the days of FDR. He can bridge the gap between the right and left and win the presidency. He would be a very good president and would be a lot better candidate than Hillary would be. I doubt that he could win in the south for obvious reasons but does he have to? I don't think the Democrats have to go to the South to win. They can easily win by retaining their Northern base while reaching out to more socially liberal or moderate places of the West and Midwest. He should focus on winning Ohio, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and only southern states would be Florida and Virginia but they are not your typical southern state.

George Miller?

You meant George Allen, I'm sure, at least according to your description,(sadist racist moron fits lots of Repugs, but Allen in particular)

So that is whom, I assume, you are talking about?

It will take just two Biblical fixes for the GOP to keep the Congress, and thus solidify their power in this country, possibly forever: a loaves and fishes vote count, a Holy Ghost turnout.
We coined the phrase "loaves and fishes vote count" to describe the tally in Gahanna, Ohio, 2004. This infamous precinct in suburban Columbus registered 4258 votes for George W. Bush where just 638 people voted. The blessed event occurred at a fundamentalist church run by a close ally of the Reverend Jerry Falwell.

I watched all the Sunday talk shows and can only think they are creating the things they want us to talk about. Obama has at best a one in a million chance of getting the 08 nomination. There are only about four that are really in the running at this time imo and he is not on my list. I still think there is someone out there that none of us has not thought of yet and may get a lot of attention around the end of 07 or early in 08. Anyway I very much think Hillary will get the nod if she chooses to run.

ConcernedObserver -- Interesting points, but I'm not sure I agree about Spitzer or Obama. First, Spitzer has a substantial personal fortune that he could tap to get his fundraising started. Second, Wall Street money always flows to the GOP but those folks are also smart enough to hedge their bets, so whoever gets the Dem nomination will get a share of that particular source of funds. Obviously any coversation about Spitzer is a bit premature right now though. Lets let the guy actually get elected Governor before we start talking about his next campaign.

As for Obama, I don't agree at all that he couldn't win in the South. The variable no one mentions with respect to an Obama run is what it might do to voter-turnout. Certainly a lot of white racists would be motivated to turn out (in the South and elsewhere -- the south doesn't have a monopoly on racism), but what would african american turn out look like? If memory serves, Georgia is about 40% black. What if a HUGE portion of those voters actually came to the polls to case a vote for the first black presidential candidate? That could turn the entire election on its head.

Also, an Obama run would put the GOP in a tough spot nationally. To take full advantage of racist reactions to an Obama run, they'd have to engage in some pretty pointed race-baiting. If that actually got reported on, there could easily be some realy ramifications among moderately conservative suburban voters who often decide elections. After all, its hard to have your racism and eat it too. Or something like that.

concerned observer,
The anger that Spitzer created on Wall Street was because they were cheating you and me out of billions. But I do get your point that the amount of money from WS to smear Spitzer would be mindblowing.

Now to Obama's chances in the south. Growing up there I will admit there are alot of redneck racist hillbillies that won't ever vote for a black man. But they are also never voting Democrat anyway. Also there are alot of black people in the south too, and they will come out in DROVES for Obama. Now he might not win a Alabama or Mississippi but he would have a strong showing in Georgia (Atlanta is over 50% black), and could pull it out in Arkansas with its bluish trends lately. Especially if a Clinton was on the Ticket.

"but it's hard to imagine any of them gaining much traction in a primary battle between two such high-profile figures."

Edwards already has traction, Chris, this is purely "spin."

Warner the only legitimate candidate? Bull. Compared to what? George Miller, the sadistic racist moron? Romney, the slick huckster? Frist, the video diagnotician? McCain, the soldout fraud? Guiliani, the philander and serial adulterer?

One for the ages? Only if the age is about overhyped also rans. Please stop choosing our candidates and let the process play out. I doubt Democrats want either Hillary or Obama, but it is obvious you want an easy story. How about Edwards being the front runner? Would it take much effort to wirte that?

When it comes to Democratic primaries, my attitude is ,"the more the merrier." There is a very good list of potential Democrats that must be added to this "Clinton-Obama" fray.

As for Hillary making "half" of us sick, that is just wingnut spin and wishful thinking from a Republican who consumers too much right-wing talk-radio.

It is still a marvel to me that so many Dems get on here and talk about Hillary as a "progressive moderate", even accusing her of being a bit right of center to better match her constituency.

Then the neocons get on here and preach "Hillary, the liberal wicked witch of the East" because they hear it from the wingnut radio lumps, who all joined quite self-righteously jumping on the Clinton impeachment dogpile. (This is, of course, the same crew that has turned Nancy Pelosi into such a big, tough bully that has all these neocon tough-guys running to hide behind thier Mommys.)

SO which is the real Hillary?

I would guess our confusion is actually proof of her political skills

If her own party's "lefties" considers her a centrist while the neocons call her a leftie, then she's probably doing something proper.

Again, let me repeat something I've posted before, from Edwards to Obama, there is a slate of potential Presidents, VP's and states-men and women in the Democratic ranks that makes me proud to be a Democrat.

So let the trolls rave, from either side of the political teeter-totter, I think there's a comfortable space in the middle where our next Democratic President will hail from. Richardson, Warner, Vilsack, Clinton and Edwards, just to name a few, put any pair of them together, you will have a world-class team, where either name could sit first on the match-up.

Although I believe a Clinton/Obama ticket is not nearly as likely as a Clinton/Vilsack or Clinton/Warner ticket, a Clinton/someone ticket would make me proud.

Edwards/Obama still sounds best to me. But Edwards/Clinton would work in this day and age, too.

As for the Repubs, I think "they" once thought George Allen might just be their man. But he's become a once and future loser now, "the blogs" kicked his soft teeth down his whiney throat.

Or was that Grand Wizard George A. himself, just chewing on his own foot?

So now, with thier neocon icons falling like flies, the Real Republicans will have to choose between flip-flopper McCain (don't lose your temper, now John) or cross-dresser Giulliani, if they think they'll get Mormon Mitt into the Oval Office, they will need some help from Moroni. (look it up)

Hopefully, the wingnuts will find thier candidate in someone like Brownback, so they aren't voting against thier own moral values to elect a McCain or a Giuliani. Unfortunately for the neocons, that will lose them any majority they might have ever hoped to have and hold.

But at least they would no longer be hypocrites.

Spitzer will never be president - an absolute pipedream. For that to happen the business community would have to roll over and die, and that is never happening either (any time soon at least). Spitzer's made far too many enemies as NY AG; the best he can hope for is AG or even a post within DOJ - and then only if the Democrats control the Senate. He's an economic populist out to strike blows for the "little man," who might vote, but certainly doesn't donate all that much money, the undeniable life blood of campaigning. Anyways, Wall Street would panic if Spitzer won, probably causing a one-man mini-recession - is that what we really want?

I agree about Richardson as SecState; the man seems to lack the necessary gravitas to fill the Oval Office (though given the lack displayed by its present occupant...). I was never all that impressed by Edwards; he's a pretty boy ambulance-chaser who talks nice, and the GOP will slam him for being just that. It's a damn shame Mark Warner bowed out (probably to challenge John Warner in 2008 as CC rightly pointed out), because he was the only truly legitimate candidate the Democrats had for 2008. Hillary is too polarizing and Al Gore is far too much damaged goods. Of course I could be wrong on any of these points.

And as to Obama? I like him personally. But I don't think he's electable. Intelligent and informed members of both parties have expressed their concern to me that Obama cannot win, as sad as this is, because of his race - or more exactly because of the way the Republicans would use that to their advantage.

I would like it very much if Obama ran. He sets a good tone and seems to both have my interests at heart and want to work with both sides. I think this country needs that over partisan rancor.

I am not eager to vote for Barack Obama. He has been too centrist for me. He voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice as Sec of State, he voted to strip Americans of a lot of their right sue for damages in court and he has been very, very wishy-washy on the war in Iraq. I don't think he is ready to run for President and he is not a strong enough voice of opposition to the Republicans. He strikes me as yet another 'go along to get along' Democrat. I am mystified by his alleged appeal and I don't think he will wear well over time unless he comes out and actually takes some strong stands on the issues.

Well, Andy, I agree with you except I think Edwards has more experience. None of us really have much idea what Obama will do as president... he really has done very little of anything so far. He sure talks a good game, though, I'll give you that. The South will never vote for him though-- they still are who they are.

Richardson is a good solid candidate but I do agree that he is not exciting. But I forgot Gore, who along with Spitzer, is my fave. You're right Spitzer has an amazing populist appeal -- and he scares the bejeezus out of the corporations. He's one of the few that could get them out of government.

I think Feingold is good, but I think the rightwing smear machine will take his votes [dishonestly and out of context naturally] and crush him.

Drindl,
What is the big hoopla about Richardson. Does he really strike you as Presidential material. I think he would be great as a secretary of state, but I just don't see him in the oval office. Edwards I will agree with you on, but what does he bring to the table that Obama doesn't? Other then being a young white southerner nothing. Obama is as smart, more articulate, and has more of the 'gravitas' that is needed for a presidential run.

Spitzer will be president one day, but he needs to do one or two terms as NY governor first then he will storm into the White House. I have said this before that he is the modern day Andrew Jackson populist. Where as Obama is in more of the RFK mold.

Bhoomes,
I agree that Mitt is making all the right moves, but I think this Mormon church influence rift is going to drag him down somewhat. For those not keeping up with this, basically some leaders in the Churhc of Later day saints sent an email out soliciting money and help for Romney. This is against the IRS regulations that govern the church's tax-exempt status. Now Romney didn't do anything wrong, but it is possible that the Church of LDS could get fined or revoked it's tax-exempt status. Either way it doesn't help Romney, and might drag his momentum down some.

Also you said " I would never vote for him, but I wouldn't be sick to my stomach if he got elected" This is why I think he will end up running. When a die hard republican like you says something to that effect it means that middle of the road independents will definitly support him.

How about neither one of them? How about if the media stops making up our mind for us?

Either Hillary or Obama would be fine -- and certainly a lot better than any of the horror show, more-of-the-same horrible crap that the rightwingers are offering, but still.

She's too much of a triangulator and he's too young. Great story and all, and both of them are terrific speakers -- and maybe I'd go for her as Prez and him as Vice. But there's a lot of other people [like Edwards and Richardson] or SPITZER -- who'd get my vote first.

CC, I saw Senator Obama on MTP and I think the media is overhyping what he said just a little. He basically said he has thought about it. I agree that I think he will run, and the reason why was during another interview (and much better interview by the way) on Charlie Rose on PBS. Rose said to Obama "You know you have to hit when the iron is hot, just look at Coumo in NY." Then Obama made a couple more refrences to other politicos that missed thier chances, and basically agreed with Rose. Then Rose said "you know this type of excitement very rarely lasts 6-to 10 years." And again Obama agreed with him. For all of you political junkies I recomend the Charlie Rose interview, much more indepth then Tim Russert's.

One thing I think you missed and keep avoiding CC is the role that Russ Feingold will play in the 2008 elections. He has a solid amount of support in the Progressive movement and the only person who can derail that support is Obama. If Obama Does run then he takes the progressives away from Feingold, the black vote from Clinton, and the Northeastern Ivy league vote from Kerry. Also the biggest hit against Obama is lack of experience which Edwards can't use against him. In the end it give Obama t