great site

great site

great site

great site

great site

Newspaper editors around the county could have had all kinds of fun (and I'm sure many did) with Bayh's announcement. See below:

http://commenterry.blogs.com/commenterry/2006/12/some_fun_with_b.html

ALL:

Specifically, I hope the Repubs put up Newt, he'd get absolutely hammered, and maybe we could stop hearing whatever lame garbage trickles from his mouth.

WILLIAM: Some of your analysis of the races on both sides is interesting. If you're looking for exciting, however, you'll never get it with the 24 hr news cycle. Edwards is once again the best candidate the Dems could put up, though Gore if he came back to real life relative to his extreme environmentalism could make things very interesting.

On the Repub side, Romney can't win, the scrutiny of the LDS church that would come about by his winning the nomination would doom his chances in the general. Forget the lib/con argument, his religion will doom him in a general election much as Obama's race would, and Hilary's Clintoness.

But I can understand a Repubs frustration with the candidates out there on his side. McCain seems to be conservative when it suits his purposes, also, despite his decade and a half exculpatory mission to remove his role in the Keating 5 scandal, his role in that matter will come back up in the general. Rudy is a RINO. We've discussed Romney, Brownback and Hunter haven't a prayer. Where is the Reagan Republican?

I'm interested in hearing more about these "liberals" who support the creation of a world wide government. Quotes would be appreciated if possible.

Getting back to the topic of this post, I would second the proposition that Obama benefits as much as anyone from Bayh taking himself out of the race. That really will open up a lot of Chicago-area money for Obama. Also, although Obama and Bayh are obviously different ideologically, Bayh was similar in stressing solutions and unity over ideology and division. I think Obama benefits because he's now the only serious player who is articulating that message.

William is Ann Coulter.

If you can't beat em' call em' traitors.

Beware the cornered beast.

How many bitter Republicans are wallowing around in this kind of self-pity?

WIlliam comes to us from the depths of Coulterzookland, like some cave troll Old Turdblossom conjured up to keep us all living in indignant outrage.

I think he's really James Carville and Paul Begala taking turns pranking all of us.

"I can't even think of anyone in the GOP field I would even want to endorse. There is no real conservative in the race."

Like I said once before, this sounds like a Meternicht groupie who doesn't even know who Metternicht was.

Either that or Will's just a construct of someone's imagination.

If he's for real, his high-swchool civics teachers are the ones who ought to be shot, for letting him get such a headful of cacca.

Dittoheads remind me of a CD with a pinhole, they just keep skipping back like a broken record, repeating the same stupid slogans their own handlers abandoned long ago.

Remember our old favorite "stay the course!"

Just a memory now, for anyone but Will. They haven't goven him anything else to rep[lace it with., Rush is on redneck strike and Hannity can't stop being a crybaby, so where's a stupid troll to go for his daily trash these days.

Even Turdblossom has stopped the daily talking points. SO our constant trolls are stuckat that point.

Ozview;

Most Christian religions base their doctrine on The Bible's teachings about Jesus, while the Mormons study their own books, a mysterious document called "The Book of Mormon," which is purportedly written about Christ's appearance in the western hemisphere long before the coming of the first Spanish ships.

There is a very big difference between the two books, and most Biblical Christian churches consider Mormonism a cult, but then, most of the modern Christian churches themselves represent a cult-like group, so you have a lot of hypocrisy within and between them.

Also, the Mormon church itself has, like every religion before it, gone through its own schisms and "sectarianisms," and still has numerous factions, and each considers itself "the chosen one."

They have one group primarily in the mid-west that comes from the original Joseph Smith branch, that considers Liberty, Missouri to be "Zion", while their Utah branch considers Salt Lake City to be that holy place.

Those two fueding factions, along other strange, cloistered, smaller and secret sects that still support and promote bigamy, give many mainstream Americans (particularly "Biblical-Christian" wives) a suspicious attitude towards "Mormons" as a whole, in spite of the fact the word Mormon covers a lot of territory and more than one group.

So, if you want to understand what "America" feels about Mormonism, ask any American, they each have a different opinion, and it might be hard to quantify that opinion.

But, unfortuantely for someone like Mitt Romney, when that opinion becomes a majority, it will influence the elections.

John Edwards, the frontrunner the media doesn't want?

Hey, CC, not mentioning Edwards as the ultimate beneficiary here was a pretty blatant omission, just leaving his name off your front pages won't make him go away.

The tiny reference you added was, at best, a scrap tossed to keep the rabid realist wolves at Bayh. You can't trivialize Edwards' lead in the places where it counts.

So here's another change the blogs will bring to this game.

The MSM can't "disappear" a candidate these days through mutual omission, the way they have done on the past, because the blogs can keep a name on the net, circulating independently in spite of all those greedy mainstream media moguls.

You can't drop Bayh from this race wothout Edwards gaining from it, probably more than anyone else, and your silent omission of Edwards is as loud as any words you may have used.

Also, jockeying Hiolary's poll numbers up ther where you have them now will encourage her to run and spend, particularly the latter, which is all the East Coast newspapers and TV and radio station owners really want. They could care less about who wins or loses, or the undertow effect their election season money-grubbing has on the American public. They want the K-Street no-bid book-cooking earmarkers to play away, supporting this pay-for-play messs we call our government.

And as long as it remains a billion-dollar game that only "they" can play, they will continue to promote this sleazy system and the "Call Me Harold" advertisers it subsiudizes.

Again, silent omission sometimes speaks louder than words. Thanks for leaving Edwards out of this one, it only proves he's "the front runner the media doesn't want."

Interested in comments about Romney having difficulties because of his religion (as Nissl said). Being Australian we don't have many mormons here at all - what is it about them which is unpalatable for American voters, as opposed to evangelicals, jews or even Catholics? Is it harder being a jew going for the presidency or a mormon? Is it similar maybe to Kennedy going for the presidency as a catholic in 1960? It seems that being a catholic is a non issue these days though...

chief says "The nominee is going to be selected in a number of primary elections"

I hope so, but I don't think thats as true as it used to be. Bayh saying he won't run cos he has no chance is not saying the people won't vote for him. Rather he's saying that if you can't get media attention, you don't get money. And no money means no candidacy.

This race is going to squeeze more out of it very soon I'm sure. Bayh had a $10m headstart. If he can't succeed with that lead, who can? Clark & Richardson have to enter and start raising money pronto, else this will immediately become a Clinton Vs Obama Vs Edwards race. Kerry, Biden, Dodd (LOL) & Vilsack won't get anywhere near the big three.

Three Senators, with a total of 6+6+2 = 14 years experience between them. Surely a heavyweight will emerge? Please?

William, you do make some good points then turn around and post something that is so stupid I cannot figure out if you are playing games or have no idea of what you are doing. A quote of mine you may find helpful goes "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing and in that way you will know what you are doing". Hope this helps.

Romney is pro-life, at least this week.

Next week he might be pro-abortion.

And then he could be pro-life again in January - if he is in Utah.

But if he has to travel back to Massachusetts for any reason, well, then give him a break. He has to be pro-abortion there because the people demand it. It's not his fault.

I agree with MC - neither Hillary nor Obama in the top spot. But remember, we no longer choose candidates by logic of balancing the ticket. The nominee is going to be selected in a number of primary elections - not the smartest thing this country ever did. I don't dislike Obama, but I think he is the most over hyped politician since Wendell Wilkie.

William, it is Burma. Fortunately this is a post where I don't have to use my real name...

Speaking of which, I wonder if Richardson would get any support from the Burmese community for his role in negotiating for the release of political prisoners there.

JayPe - Thanks :)

FreeDom: Agreeing to disagree is cool :)

Is the military dictatorship you mentioned Burma?

I should add that I am active in a movement to get more UN intervention in a poor military dictatorship. It's seeing UN impotence in the face of thugs like these that makes me realize that it's absolutely ridiculous to worry about UN power over the US. If the UN can't even get this country to release its political prisoners and allow aid to reach poor people, it's definitely not threatening the US anytime soon.

William, if I thought the ICJ, ICC, UN, et al actually threatened US interests in the way you mentioned (forcing us to spend on things we don't want to), I would share your concern. The fact is, they are essentially weak institutions that can't conceivably threaten us. I think the UN would work in our interests better as a strong institution, although we would always be safe because of our veto power.

As for India and Brazil, you are right that they aren't always aligned with US interests. But the hope is that by the US aligning with these countries and trying to draw them in as responsible stakeholders, they will feel less obliged to support outposts of tyranny countries. The truth is, international relations is rarely about liking the countries you deal with, but rather finding mutual interests. India is a democracy that is becomming more dependent on our economy, and in the future as a potential ally to balance China. In this case, I respect your opinion that these countries on the security council might make it more difficult to work on some issues. However, I think overall it would be a net plus.

Point is, we can disagree, but (for everyone on these posts) let's isolate the points of disagreement, understand the nuances, and go from there in non-vitriolic postings.

William, good on you for that last post.
Full Credit!

Blarg, yeah, that was me getting kind of carried away, sorry.

FreeDom, thanks for your response.

I gather that you are not completely averse to participation in the ICC or ICJ, or voting rights based upon population.

I disagree. We should not legitimize the ICC or ICJ by agreeing to even qualified or limited participation. That would put us on a slippery slope to losing our sovereignty.

I believe in the sovereignty of nations. For better or worse, AMERICANS must decide everything that involves our country. Even if my fellow Americans made a decision I don't agree with (like abolishing the death penalty), I would prefer that to a decision that I agreed with coming from the UN or another external source. As Americans, we know what we want for our country, and no other nation has the right to decide for us.

What if the UN or ICJ ordered the US or other rich nations to set aside 5% of our GDP for 3rd world aid assistance or something? That would be a violation of our sovereignty, would it not?

I and most conservatives are opposed to participation in ANY international body that would assume authority over ANY aspect of our sovereignty. That is not unreasonable, is it?

Why should other countries be able to force us to do what they want us to?

We are a free nation, and we should not be obliged to obey any other entity, including the UN.

Regarding the Milosevic trial, the judges utterly destroyed any credibility the court had by dragging the trial out for years and years, and eventually Milosevic died before a verdict was handed down. The whole trial was misconducted.

With regard to India and Brazil getting seats on the Un Security Council, I STRONGLY disagree.

If you consider China and Russia to be unconstructive members of the council, just wait until India or Brazil gets a seat. India is, in my opinion, only befriending the USA for short term benefit, and they will eventually form an alliance with China. Indeed, they have signed some sort of military cooperation alliance.

I don't trust India. Most Indians are hostile towards the USA, but they admire the USA because we are strong militarily, economically, and diplomatically.

In other words, they want India to BE the US, they don't LIKE America or Americans.

And my father worked in India for years, and is familiar with a lot of Indians, and the political climate there, so I have firsthand knowledge of this.

India is a socialist country that sided with the USSR during the Cold War, and is still highly unreliable as an ally. They recently sold 18 sophisticated Su-30Mk fighter jets to Belarus, and are cozy with Iran, the Burmese junta, Vladimir Putin, Venezuela, Sudan, etc.

The only enemy of America India is not cozy with is North Korea.

There is A LOT of anti-American sentiment in India, and they would be more than glad to help bring down the US.

Recently, the former chief of staff of the Indian military wrote a book called "The Writing On the Wall: India Checkmates America 2017."

The book was a huge bestseller in India. A lot of Indians of all social statuses dream of vanquishing the mighty USA.

In short, India has yet to demonstrate that they can be trusted.

If India gets a seat on the Security Council, I see them using it to bully their neighbors, use it to further their own jingoistic agenda, and obstructing security council action, like Russia and China always do.

India is far from a constructive member of the world community. If they get a security council seat they will be another security council veto for hire, like Russia and China, and will arrogantly use their veto power to shield rogue states like Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Syria, etc.

Also, WHY should we support the expansion of the council when it will only dilute our own power and influence in the world. Our goal is to do what is best for our country, not what is best or fair for India.

Let India demonstrate that they are a responsible world power and a reliable ally if they want a seat on the council. They have not done so yet.

As for Brazil, they are another unconstructive country, which serves a backer for Venezuela and other unhelpful leaders and forces in the region.

Furthermore, why, exactly, would it benefit us to give a nation not under our control a veto on the council?

Remember, we should do what is in the best interests of our nation, not what is "fair" or what is in the interests of Brazil.

There is no reason that Brazil should be given a seat. They are a malcontent on the world stage, at least towards the US, along with nations like India and South Africa.

This "Axis of Malcontents" is not overtly hostile to the US, but they don't especially like us, and try to covertly undermine us when possible.

Also, remember, the more countries get seats on the council, the less consensus there will be, and the more dysfunctional the council will become,and the harder it will be to get anything meaningful done, especially on controversial issues like Iran.

If it is so hard NOW to get a resolution on Iran, can you imagine how hard it will be with a bunch of other permanent members each doing their own thing?

Finally, if you give India and Brazil seats, other nations will want seats.

I don't mind giving Germany and Japan seats because Japan is under our control and will be like a second US vote. Germany is an unbaised, responsible power.

But countries like India and Brazil are not and will only make the council even more dysfunctional and useless.

If India and Brazil get seats, Indonesia, which has a much larger population than Brazil, will want a seat, as will Pakistan, and then Africa will complain they don't have a seat, and it will keep going until you have a completely dysfunctional council.

William, I agree with most of your Repub analysis, except for the part about Romney having no chance because of his views.

Politics is all about perceptions, that is why Hillary is still viewed as "liberal" (when by Dem standards she clearly isn't). Romney has the charm to persuade people that he has developed from his old positions, a changed man. A born-again conservative, if you will. It would not be the first time.

Furthermore, although McCain can argue that Romney is a flip-flopper who has only become Conservative recently, the same argument rebounds on McCains head. McCain is very clearly a born-again Conservative. Compare his 2000 persona with his 2008 views. So he can't attack Romney that much.

This is why I think Brownback has a chance. Not all his views resonate with the base, but at least he's consistent. Guiliani, McCain & Romney are all open to the charge of flip-flopping...

Another point about Hillary - McCain. Hillary can only go up (all the shady deals were discovered in the 1990s) whereas McCain's support will probably never again peak as it did before 2004, when he was the most popular politician in the US (a spot Obama seems to occupy now...). Now, as voters learn more about him, they may like him less - something they didn't know before will turn them off. Any matchup between those two probably means Hillary wins, unless something happens. With Hillary already ahead in some polls, she can only go up.

"Liberals and especially socialists disgust me. You are all despicable traitors.

In the old days you would have been arrested, put on trial for treason, convicted, and shot.

Posted by: William | December 16, 2006 11:11 PM"

You said the other day that you tend to get carried away sometimes and say things you don't really believe. I assume saying all liberals (not just some, ALL) should be killed falls into that category? Otherwise your girlfriend could get upset.

Jaype, McCain will crush Romney. Romney has a liberal record that is MUCH too long to be ignored.

Now slick Romney is trying to do a 180 and pretend to be a conservative.

But McCain will bring up Romney's strong support of gays and quotes from that infamous letter to match, and devastating soundbites from Romney's campaign against Ted Kennedy.

Romney's policies while in office were generally pretty liberal as well, until the last two months when he did a U turn in policy.

McCain will also play upon the Protestant and Evangelicals' distrust of Mormons.

He has already hired Terry Nelson, the guy who made the "Call Me" ad against Ford. McCain is preparing to go in heavy (and dirty) against any Republican or Democrat who opposes him and he will destroy Romney.

If Romney had been conservative ALL ALONG, he would be a much stronger candidate. But everyone knows he is pretending to be conservative, and isnt really.

I can't see Romney defeating McCain, or in the general, Hillary.

Brownback MAY have some hope if he manages to do the impossible and get adequate name recognition. That is what his AIDS test with Obama and that rather immature and odd overnight stay in prison was about.

IF Brownback was not pro-amnesty, and not anti-death penalty, the right wing base would be more enthusiastic about him and he would have a real chance.

But he IS pro-amnesty, and anti-death penalty. Brownback's views basically match those of the Catholic Church.

He is not really a true conservative. Also, the evangelicals and Protestants of the GOP base are not excited about Brownback because he is Catholic.

And the latest actions of the RC Church (pandering to Islam, interfering in our affairs by declaring our wall "inhumane") will harm Brownback.

What's more, he's pretty boring and doesn't have much more experience than Edwards. He has been in the Senate since, I think, 1996, so he has almost 2 terms.

Before that he was the KS secretary of agriculture.

So all in all, if he was a true conservative, the base would be more excited about him, but he isnt, so there is no special motivation to rally around him.

Huckabee faces the same problem.

McCain or Guliani will probably get the nomination by default simply because they are well known and there is absolutely no high OR medium profile true conservative to oppose them.

Moderates will rally around McCain in the primary, while the base will not rally around Brownback or Huckabee b/c of their views on some issues.

So Brownback and Huckabee will not be able to generate much support.

Just a few points of clarification I remember from law school. The ICJ only has the right to rule on issues if the party agree to a) an ICJ ruling on that issue, or b) ICJ rulings on any issue that may come up (I think there are rare exceptions for when the security council can refer cases to the ICJ, but that has never been done). For Israel to be judged on the wall, it must have agreed in some manner to the ICJ's jurisdiction (I don't know which method it was). The US generally grants ICJ jurisdiction on a case by case basis, so it can't rule on an issue unless we agree to give it that power. Mostly, the ICJ is used to settle territorial disputes in Latin America and elsewhere. The judges have a pathetically light caseload and seem intent on avoiding most controversial topics (Israel's wall and the ruling on the US-Nicaragua dispute are exceptions). It's mostly powerless to handle real claims, thankfully so.

The ICC is a bit of a different animal. IT has more power, but still most allow states to conduct their own investigations first. If a country decides that its national did not commit a crime, the ICC has no jurisdiction. The only exception is if the state process is a sham (and consensus is that nobody would seriously claim a US court martial is a sham). With that said, the ICC is flawed for another reason. It gives the prosecutor too much power. Obviously when you're dealing with Milosovic, that's not a bad thing, but in less obvious cases that's dangerous. I wouldn't support the US joining unless it becomes more effective in protecting defendants' rights.

Some of the other points William raises I believe are correct but irrelevant (such as voting based on population). The UN is in institutional crisis, and it isn't really strong enough to dictate anything to any country. The more common problem with the UN is that it is not strong enough to push horrible regimes to stop human rights abuses (namely Sudan and Burma). Also, I think some states, such as India and Brazil, should get seats on the UN Security COuncil, but since India is moving closer to the US anyway I think this will only be a benefit as it will counter China and Russia.

Sorry to digress from the topic of this blog, but these are important issues with some legitimate (and not so legitimate) issues. Hopefully the next presidential debates will include serious discussion of them.

We'll see about Romney, he's building a very good team. If he wins, it'll be politics Dubya style (think McCain, South Carolina) but I think he's good enough to do it. Unfortunately.

I just don't see McCain doing it though. His experience is outweighed by the fact he's getting older. A younger person can talk about "moving on ... the next generation" and present an image of hope far better than McCain can.

Given McCain, Guiliani, Gingrich & Romney all have big doubts to overcome, who else is there? Does Brownback have any hope?

FreeDom, thank you for your honest response, when most other people on here become disengenous when asked that question.

I and most conservatives are not opposed to the US taking part in the Sea Law or International Maritime Laws or the Geneva Conventions or trade agreements.

Those are useful treaties that are beneficial to us and our interests.

What I am talking about is the International Court of Justice, the UN having veto power over US foreign or domestic policy, or the UN being able to pass binding resolutions that the US is obliged to follow.

Some extreme leftists HAVE advocated abolishing the US government and establishing a World Government BTW.

The international community should not be able to tell us what to do. We are a sovereign country.

I reject the idea of including the US in an arrangement similar to the ICJ or the European Court.

FOr example, the ICJ ruled Israel's wall with the Palestinians to be illegal.

What right do they have to decide if that is legal or not?

What if we participated in the ICJ and it ruled that our 700 mile fence is illegal?

They have no business telling our country what to do.

What if the ICJ ruled that we have to accept X number of immigrants into the US or abolish or nuclear arsenal, etc?

That would violate our sovereignty.

So in all, I support the idea that the USA is a SOVEREIGN country, and that the rest of the world has no power over us.

The ICJ has no business telling the US what is legal and illegal, that is for AMERICANS to decide.

There is no "world community" in the sense that other countries should not be telling is what to do.

COOPERATING with other countries is fine, as long as we keep our sovereignty.

The US should not participate in the ICJ, nor should it support a UN that has power over its members, nor should it support a UN where the voting weight of nations is based upon their populations because that would allow the rest of the world to tell our country what to do.

Americans should decide what is best for our country, and the rest of the world should have no power over us.

That is a pretty reasonable position right?

What do you think?

FreeDom, you are correct that there would be no point in putting Pataki on the GOP ticket. He won't be able to carry NY or NJ, and his moderate views will turn off many voters. He is even more moderate than McCain.

Phil Bredesen would have made an extremely strong Democratic presidential candidate. I don't know why he isn't running. Maybe because he is just starting his second term.

However, Bredesen said that while he is not running in 2008, he would be "delighted" to be considered for his party's nomination in 2012.

Also, maybe Hillary will pick him for VP.

You are right that Romney will flop. The GOP right he is trying to do a 180 to appeal to sees through his charade. I don't know where he gets the gall to pretend he's conservative. He has no chance at the nomination unless something happens to McCain.

What do you mean by ceding sovereignty? By giving up all of our sovereignty as an independent nation, or acting like a normal country and agreeing to international treaties in our best interest (like the Law of the Sea - even GWB agrees) that may require us to give up a few things. Clearly nobody is advocating we abolish our government and give up our nationhood to the UN. But what right-wingers have to understand that we can play a game of give-and-take with the UN and actually benefit. Nobody is claiming to give the UN a veto over our use of force, but it does make sense to try to get UN "approval" before we act, simply because it makes it a lot easier for us to get the job done. Note the absence of UN and European nation-building expertise in Iraq, as well as the absence of any significant amount of non-US peacekeeping troops (and nope, I didn't forget Poland). Working with other countries can help us achieve our goals. And when it doesn't neither Gore nor Richardson would let the UN stand in our way...

Interesting observations mgturn. I am actually a bit surprised Bredesen isn't in the race himself...

As for the GOP, Romney is going to flop. His flip-flopping has already become a theme for his campaign. He may win the primary, but if the media keeps up with this theme, he'll be gone. Gingrich could also be a good candidate. He is an ideas man (or claims to be).

As a New Yorker, I liked Pataki, but he has been getting no press coverage on his campaign. I'm not sure he'd make a convincing VP. He wasn't really loved in NY by either party and isn't a great speaker. He wouldn't be able to shift NY or NJ into the Rep column. If he could be pres, I wouldn't mind, but I just don't see him as relevant. His strongest asset is his close relationship with GWB and Rep governors (as one of the longest serving ones).

You're LYING again Blarg, which means you owe me another apology.

I DONT "want Bill Clinton to be killed."

I DO want him to be investigated for the sale of our nuclear secrets to China, and other such escapades. If it is found that there was no malfeasance, then I will be satisfied with that.

I NEVER said that "all liberals should be killed."

Name ONE instance where I said that. Again, you are peddling lies. I am waiting for another apology.

I DID say that people who want to give our sovereignty to the UN should be charged with treason.

I NEVER said that "all liberals" or even most liberals, or even many liberals, should be killed.

My girlfriend is liberal, and we argue about politics all the time, but we get along just fine. She calls me her "crazy republican" and thinks most of my views are wacky. I think most of her views are wacky.

But even my girlfriend, who is a moderate liberal, doesn't think the UN should be given or sovereignty.

Blarg, do you believe that a politician who tries to cede America's sovereignty to the UN is guilty of treason? Please answer yes or no.

In any case, I await your second apology, for telling lies about me that are just as bad, if not worse, than the first time.

You owe me an apology telling LIES.

Gingrich? A chance? For President? Never. What a complete waste of time to even speculate about this. The guy has been married three times - the most recent time to one of his own staff people.

No one cares how many lectures he gives or how much the cocktail party circuit in DC may still find him interesting - he would get blown out of the water in Middle America, because he is immoral and corrupt. He would never make it past Iowa.

What would be his base? NO ONE likes the guy. NO ONE.

What? Still no completely irrelevant posts from this "Bobby White-Man Servantes" person? This is shocking and deeply disturbing. Either he/she is on vacation, or someone should check on his/her whereabouts. I guess instead we will have to settle for 10,000 posts filled with hyperventilation, name-calling, and foolishness from this "Drindl" person, who clearly needs a real job, or maybe just a life, for that matter

A few additional comments as well as a little insider information to clear up some of this Mark Warner nonsense.

1) Mark Warner: there are NO personal indiscretions. He really got out of the race for personal reasons. One daughter is going to college soon, the other two are in or entering high school. One has diabetes. He wants to be around his family in these crucial years and his wife has never been keen on a Presidential run. And again I'll say, he is 90% committed to running for Governor in 2009. (For you Virginia political junkies, look for either Viola Baskerville, Public Safety Secretary John Marshall, or Del. Brian Moran to be the Lt. Gov. candidate and Sen. Creigh Deeds to run for Attorney General again). There is no more than a 10-15% chance Warner would accept a VP slot. Why? One, he's always been his own man. Two, if he's governor in '09, he can run in '16.
(If you're wondering how I know this, let's just say I'm VERY involved in the Virginia Democratic Party and have some well-placed sources)

2) If Clinton gets the nomination, she will probably have a short list that looks like this: Vilsack, Bayh, Schweitzer (MT Gov), Bredesen (TN Gov). I suppose you could include Clark as well.

3) McCain is not the strongest GOP candidate, though he may well win the primary. His age, his uncertain political philosophy, and Iraq positions will cause him problems. And just like Obama, McCain's media-inspired rosy image will take a tumble in a primary battle. A stronger GOP ticket would be Romney/Hagel or Romney/Brownback. Gingrich is also a strong candidate (if he needed a moderate running mate, he could pick Pataki or he could go with his new, "results-oriented" persona by picking Romney). Giuliani isn't happening. Like so many other fascinating candidates who have flirted with the White House, he will drop out and I can't blame him. He did extraordinary things on and after 9/11 and, despite his critics, did a good job cleaning up New York. He can make a lot more money and keep his hero image by staying out of what is sure to be a nasty primary battle.

4) If Gore hops in, he will have a short list that looks like this: Obama, Kathleen Sebelius (KS Governor), Janet Napolitano (AZ Governor), Bredesen, Vislack, Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin. Gore, because of his credentials can pick anyone he wants to be his VP...he can make a statement with a black man, a black woman, a white woman, or stick with the tried-and-true white, southern Democratic governor.

5) My personal Dem pick would be Obama/Clark with Richardson, Napolitano, and Vilsack somewhere in the Cabinet. Mrs. Clinton would make an oustanding Senate Majority Leader.

Sorry, William. I shouldn't have implied that you wanted Bill Clinton to be assassinated. It was wrong of me to act like you're some kind of bloodthirsty conservative maniac. You just want Bill Clinton to be killed. And for all liberals to be killed. Those are perfectly calm, reasonable positions to take. There is nothing wrong with desiring the death of approximately 1/5 of the nation's population.

I know it is a common meme that the media has thrust "Obama-mania" onto an unwilling public, but I really think that is wrong. Rather, I think the media is following Obama because Obama is drawing crowds (and selling books, and so on), and the media is going where the action is.

In that sense, it wasn't the media that did in Bayh's fledgling campaign. It was the people of NH (and places like it), and all the positive media coverage in the world wasn't going to get people in places like NH to come out to see Bayh instead of Obama.

All that said, of course in theory it is possible that people will stop coming out to see Obama too. But having followed him for a while now, it appears to me that Obama is one of those people that the more exposure he gets, the more people like him.

"Its a sign of how quickly the field is shaping that everyone is declaring already. You get the impression if Richardson or Huckabee don't declare soon, their candidacy can be written off straight away."

Yep, the underdogs need to get out early and try to gain some name recognition before they get run over by the titans in their respective parties.

"And I must say I'm disappointed Bayh backed out. He just couldn't formulate a message other than "I'm electable with a great CV". Doesn't exactly inspire."

I feel sorry for Bayh. He is highly popular in his state, served as governor twice, 2 senate terms, and when he went to NH everyone just ignored him in favor of an unqualified upstart.

Bayh must feel betrayed and stunned. He deserved a lot more attention given his electability and qualifications. The Dems will regret forcing him out of the race with this rediculous Obamania.

"What was shaping up as a fantastic Dem field (Left to Right from Obama, Edwards, Gore, Feingold, Clinton, Richardson, Bayh, Warner) suddenly is looking as thin & boring as the Repub field. I do hope Gore or Richardson make it interesting."

I completely agree. I thought that this would be an extremely exciting presidential election. The first time since what, 1928, when there is no Pres or VP on one side in the running.

It was SUPPOSED to be a completely open field.

I agree with you that neither field is very interesting.

I can't even think of anyone in the GOP field I would even want to endorse. There is no real conservative in the race.

At least in the Dem field, every slot is taken (Dem left wing, Dem mainstream, and Dem moderate).

Clinton dominates the moderate slot, Obama and Edwards are on the left, and Richardson and Vilsack are on the moderate side.

In the GOP field, all the candidates are moderates or posers. The roles of GOP-right wing and GOP-mainstream are empty.

I really feel disappointed. This is shaping up to be a boring primary and election between Hillary and McCain.

It would have been much more interesting IF the fields looked like this:

Dems: Clinton, Warner, Edwards, Feingold, Gore.

GOP: Allen (assuming he hadnt self destructed), Frist, McCain, Pawlenty, Guliani, Santorum.

Those fields would have made for a really exciting race. Oh well :(

It looks like we're going to have a boring race if no other candidates will get in.

I hope Gore runs too, just to make things interesting.

Who knows, people could be so annoyed at the GOP that he might win.

He needs to start moving back to moderate terrain, though.

His movie was nice, and that has enhanced his stature, especially with the base, but he needs to moderate his views on how much power the UN should have, gun control, etc.

At least if Gore runs the Dem field has a chance of being interesting.

The GOP field looks like it will stay boring. Even if McCain were to drop out for some currently unforseeable reason, it would still be a battle between 10 uninspiring moderates.

Richardson will probably enter the race, unless he makes a deal for another spot. In his autobiography, he says he would have considered Secretary of State under Kerry. He might get Clinton to promise the same in return for not running.

If he gets no such promises, expect him to run. Unlike Warner and Bayh, he has a base both in DC and outside of DC. He can formulate a message as a resume candidate better than Bayh because, unlike Bayh, he actually dealt with what will be increasingly important issues: energy, foreign policy, immigration, etc. Bayh's great resume was mostly the fact that he was governor, not what he did as governor. Big difference. Meanwhile, Richardson can talk about how he already has experience negotiating with the North Koreans, managing a budget, etc., which, if played right, should put him at a different tier than the Obamas and Edwards of the field.

As for Gore, he recently said he fell out of love with the political process. He seems really sore from 2000 (rightfully so) and seems happy where he is. Don't look for him unless things go really bad in the primary field.

Some thoughts:

1) On VPs, I agree with the above sentiments, but not the choices. When used effectively, the VP can be an effective campaign substitute. Beyond the general label of moderate or liberal/conservative, most voters probably will not care so much about the VP's positions. As long as the candidates don't pick someone unacceptable to the rest of the country (such as Sharpton (D) or Lott (R)), nuanced positions don't matter. But the impression of a person supporting the top-ticket could bolster the candidates image (ie, conservative western Dem with Hillary, conservative Rep supporting McCain). The VP should also complement the candidate (Gore had foreign policy, environmental experience; Cheney had some experience in bureaucracies to Bush's minimal experience). With that, a few suggestions:

2) Clinton may want to go with someone who has a spark of inspiration, not a boring VP, even if from the midwest. Her major problems are that she does not connect well with voters and she is seen as liberal. She would need to find someone with that balance of being moderate and well-spoken. I don't think Bayh has that. If Spitzer weren't so new to his job as governor, he would be a good pick. There might be some good governors out west that can excite voters (Schweitzer from MT perhaps).

3) As for McCain, he probably wouldn't want someone too conservative and alienate moderates. The more he looks like a sell-out, the worse for him. Already he is falling in the polls. Maybe he should choose Sen Grahm from SC or a McCain ally from the South. Grahm is young and can talk well. Furthermore, he has a mix of the South and of being a maverick, which may not repel too many moderates.

Jaype, I am trying to be calm, but when people are FALSELY accusing me of supporting assassinations, and boldly and unashamedly lying, as blarg has done, I feel obliged to respond vocally.

Its a sign of how quickly the field is shaping that everyone is declaring already. You get the impression if Richardson or Huckabee don't declare soon, their candidacy can be written off straight away.

And I must say I'm disappointed Bayh backed out. He just couldn't formulate a message other than "I'm electable with a great CV". Doesn't exactly inspire.

What was shaping up as a fantastic Dem field (Left to Right from Obama, Edwards, Gore, Feingold, Clinton, Richardson, Bayh, Warner) suddenly is looking as thin & boring as the Repub field. I do hope Gore or Richardson make it interesting.

William, settle down. This is a political blog to discuss the POTUS race, not a Liberal vs Conservative slogfest.

You could make your point in a much simpler way, without going off the deep end...

Blarg, what on earth do you mean by "But which side is always calling for the assassination of elected officials?"

I hope McCain hasn't picked a VP yet, he still has to win the GOP primary...

Bert, you are right about the tickets.

Hillary WILL pick a moderate Dem for VP if she wins the nomination. Since she is perceived by many as being liberal, she will have to balance the ticket with a moderate from a red state.

McCain will also have to pick someone who appeals to the right wing of the GOP.

It will not be Brownback.

My guess is that it will Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota. Tim has kissing up to McCain, hoping for the VP spot.

But even Pawlenty is not that strong of a VP on McCain's ticket.

The GOP's biggest strongholds are in the South and in the West, and Pawlenty is from a liberal part of the midwest.

Also the South will be upset that there is no southerner on the ticket, and it will not make sense to anger the Southern base.

Also, Pawlenty barely won reelection in MN, taking only 47% of the vote.

That says he is not extremely popular in MN.

A much better pick for McCain's VP is Governor Mark Sanford of SC. He is adored by conservatives, and a McCain-Sanford ticket would almost assuredly lock down the South for the GOP.

Sanford is also supposedly on McCain's SHORT, SHORT list for VP, and I hope McCain picks him.

"Clinton was a moderate or conservative Democrat."

Yeah, right. The justices he nominated to SCOTUS? Ruth "Vader" Ginsberg and Steven Breyer. Are they "moderates o conservatives" in your opinion?

Clinton is unabashedly pro-choice, anti-gun, attempted to give our sovereignty to UN. Is that your idea of a conservative?

I could go on and on. He slashed the military budget, as KOZ mentioned, gutted our military's capabilities, did nothing to prevent or obstruct the rise of the Chinese military, in fact sold our nuclear secrets to China.

I will admit, he is MORE conservative or moderate than a LOT of other Democrats, but considering the current collection of Democrats, thats not saying too much.

"He was heavily supported by the DLC, the major Democratic conservative group."

Sooooo? John McCain is not a member of Republican Mainstreet. For some reason, Johnny Isakson is. Which senator is more conservative? Isakson, who IS a RMSP member. So the group you are backed by is not necessarily a complete indicator of your views.

I will admit though, for the Democratic party, Clinton was more moderate than a lot of others Dems, at least during his first term.

"Throughout his time in office, liberals complained that he was too conservative, as he did things like end welfare and compromise too often with the Republicans. I thought all of this was common knowledge."

That's because the Kos readers think that anyone to the right of Dennis Kuchinich is conservative!

"But which side is always calling for the assassination of elected officials?"

NOBODY is calling for any assassinations. NICE TRY. Your sleazy and reprehensible attempt to put words in other people's mouths has failed.

Many conservatives believe that Carter and Clinton should be arrested and PUT ON TRIAL, and then, if convicted, punished accordingly.

NO ONE called for an assassination! Did you think I would let your slimy little LIE slide by?

THINK AGAIN!

There is a HUGE difference between someone being executed AFTER a trial, and someone being assassinated.

Absolutely NO conservatives want to see either Carter or Clinton assassinated.

Executions after a fair trial are completely different than a murder, UNLESS you are a liberal wacko who thinks that the Holocaust is the same as the death penalty.

Do yourself a favor and save your credibility by refraining from telling LIES.

No one called for anyone to be assassinated.

And conservative fantasizing about Clinton or Carter being convicted of treason and executed are basically just angry ranting. We know that they will never be put on trial. We just like to express our anger at their treasonous policies.

GOT IT? You owe me an apology for telling a lie.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the nominations are locked up with some variations of Obama/Clinton and Guiliani/McCain.

First of all, those are teams of people who are similar politically and have the same pitfalls. Cinton and Obama both have the draw of being the first woman or black man respectively to hold either job. McCain and Guiliani want to be perceived as moderates and they scare the religious right.

It's got to be one or the other on each ticket. McCain needs a running mate to his right. Hillary needs a running mate who might have a chance of winning her a few votes, because McCain could stomp her in the general.

Obama is getting reamed on the internet mostly because bloggers want to control the content of every newspaper and, whether they blog from the right or left, have kneejerk reactions against anything a medium with a qualified editor says. Obama can win the nomination and even take the presidency.

Out of the four frontrunners for both parties, Obama is likely to be the only one who would settle for a VP slot. Clinton could keep her senate seat and be Democratic leader in a few terms. Guiliani, as mentioned, has an ego which would require an additional zip code. Plus, he isn't actually running nor does he have a chance of winning a primary. McCain would be better off keeping his senate seat than being VP and unemployed in four years (unless the GOP kept the White House for four consecutive terms.)

The only reason Obama shouldn't take second place on the ticket is because he should be president--either now or later. It's unlikely that he would serve two terms as veep and then become president. Admittedly, it's a better story if he wins it this time--a fresh face with lots of charisma and the pleasingly generic rhetoric of unity and overcoming false divisions. He's firmly on the left but can talk Jesus better than anybody. He's Black enough to inspire some but not so black that he'll scare moderates.

Race is still the most important factor in deciding party affiliation in the South. Many nasty things will be said about Obama. (Perhaps a white Playboy playmate or two will go on tv and ask him to call her.) But he can bring out the largest black voter turnout ever.

As for Obama bring out the youth vote, well, I'm skeptical. I'm 24 and I most people I know don't give a damn and probably never will. But if anyone can make them listen, it certainly isn't Vilsack. Or Clinton.

Bill Clinton was a moderate or conservative Democrat. He was heavily supported by the DLC, the major Democratic conservative group. Throughout his time in office, liberals complained that he was too conservative, as he did things like end welfare and compromise too often with the Republicans. I thought all of this was common knowledge.

Conservatives like to call liberals traitors to the country. But which side is always calling for the assassination of elected officials?

well, i seem to have struck a nerve with His Majesty. i will admit up front that the list i posted yesterday was designed to push Zouk Dogg's buttons, hee hee.

'course it was all true, too.

Back to the subject at hand...

Bayh's exit benefits Vilsack & Richardson the most ("resume red state executive candidates"). In fact, Vilsacks chances of winning have just doubled (0.1% to 0.2%).

However, its clear that the field is quickly being narrowed thanks to the Media/Need for Dollars squeeze. It seems that the Dem field is now realistically down to:
1. Clinton - massive fundraising, name recognition, good political team, and occupies the moderate niche.
2. Obama - I don't think he can make it, but he'll suck up a lot of dollars and media attention in the process.
3. Edwards - his 6 years in the Senate is just less than Clinton and just more than Obama, so I think the experience issue is overblown. Has massive numbers in Iowa, and his stump performances have improved from 2004 (when he was best in the field anyway!).
4. Richardson - only resume candidate who has the potential to perform well. Needs a couple of the top 3 to make mistakes, or need the country to really focus on the "experience" thing.
5. Gore - the sleeping giant. has the best combination of lefty appeal, executive experience, foreign affairs experience, and political cred. If he comes in, its him vs Hillary.

One possible scenario. Hillary runs on the right, as Edwards & Obama vie for the left. Thy country's view on Hillary changes as they realise she's not an extreme liberal --> She would be sitting very well for the General then.

One more thing, isn't it sad that the Media are calling the shots here? If the media wasn't so obsessed with Obama & Clinton, Bayh would have a shot.

'But Clintoon and Karter definitely should be shot by firing squad for treason.'

--advocating murder, are we now, Little Willy McVeigh? Your mind is a foul sewer.

Methuselah - and your point is. Oh, as usual no point, just blather.
I look forward to refuting your nonsense from yesterday which I just found but am in a hurry and will need a full 3 minutes to demolish your silly stances.

Most conservatives and Liberals do not argue from a philosophical base, usually from an emotional one.

but I think that the death penalty and abortion is working pretty well for the country right now. I would prefer to see much, much less of both, but I succomb to the will of the majority since I have no special knowledge about these issues. Ultimately, it is a moral value at the heart of each of these, despite most people's ignorance of this. Abortion has nothing to do with free speech and search and seizure as is mis-construed in the very poor SCOTUS finding. this should have been left to the states where it would have been resolved long ago. Much like the death penalty. If you think your daughter will need an abortion, move to NY. If you think your criminal can be killed before he strikes again, move to TX. but I do find it questionable that one could think it is OK to kill a baby for convenience. the later in the pregnancy, the more questionable. the first month, I personally would shrug my shoulders and not-decide.

the king of zouk and his page, william, seem to glory in their shared ability to confuse the issue. The King's posts are cunning, distracting you with their misspellings, (admittedly minor) errors in grammar and punctiation, and use of the frat-school-esque epithers "Libs" and "Dem."
His page is slightly better-spoken, and almost endearing in his earnest assumption that he is, at last, bringing religion to the godless. That he intersperses these passages with crude name-calling diminishes their impact, however, and brings to mind a group of second-graders, with boogers on their fingers and battle on their minds.

Dennis Kucinich - ha ha ha. He is the moonbattiest of them all. Can you state one policy he supports that is based on 21st century Earth. now don't get me wrong, He is a nice guy and lovable enough, but he has no business as President, as it would seem, everyone but you (and He) acknowledges.

KOZ - Credit to you for your consistency on the Death Penalty and Abortion. Most Conservatives and Liberals ignore the philosophical inconsistency in their positions.

I forget to state that the death penalty has over time been shown to be enforced in a racist fashion. I find this one aspect utterly intolerable and more danger than a criminal who languishes in prison. It is like the entire criminal justice system which insists on "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases while only "preponderance of the evidence" for civil trials. think about why we do this. It is based on errors in statistics - false negatives and false positives. Out of time today. I will return to thrash the stupid things meuphys said yesterday about so many Lib propositions.

"Vilsack is already in the race and running -- something no other candidate in the Democratic field can claim."

What about Dennis Kucinich? He already announced. I know you are a numbers realist and you think he doesnt have a chance but don't shoot him in the back.

William, maybe time to start on the decaf. It is late in the day.

Your generalizations are harming your argument. I am considered the resident wing-nut here but would disagree with you on the death penelty issue. I don't think the State has an interest in putting criminals to death. It is NOT because I feel sorry for criminals. It is not for anything to do with the victim.

there are some practical issues: a death penalty as-is is very costly - more than lifetime incarceration. the death penalty has never been shown to dissuade crime.

And some philosophical ones: either it is wrong or right for a State to decide to kill people or allow it. abortion and death penalty can't diverge on this. the only valid killing is in self defense considering imminent danger. this can be applied widely to just wars wherein the State believes it is in danger of being killed.

Painting with a broad brush, as you do, ignores many of the intracacies of issues like this. One of them is the insanity defense. Is an adult who would kill thier own kids automatically insane. who could do such a thing? We are a forgiving society and wish to punish evil, not medical problems. I am fairly well satisfied with the way this is handled.

and as you may know, I could never be considered a Liberal.

what would you think if the majority of the population decided that some of the things you say or think are criminal and you therefore deserve death? Later it was found you were right after all.

Another quick thought: it seems quite likely to me that the candidate in either party who can convince voters that he or she transcends the political divisions of the past has the best chance of winning the general election. This hypothesis, of course, helps explain the early appeal of Obama (regardless of whether you think it will hold up to further scrutiny). But this was also true of both Clinton and George W. Bush when they first were elected, and also Ronald Reagan, and it was true in all these cases in some sense despite their actual political ideologies.

Accordingly, analysis which depends on saying "X is too liberal" or "Y is too conservative" or even "Z is a centrist" somewhat misses the mark. The most important question is whether X, Y, or Z will be able to convince voters that those labels don't matter.

Why would you oppose the death penalty? Do you feel sorry for the disgusting monsters who kill other humans, rape women, or molest children?

Take a look at pictures of some women after they have been raped. No monster who would do that to a woman deserves to live.

People who rape, molest or murder other members of society have forfeited their right to live amongst us, and therefore should be executed.

We as a society should not have to pay to feed, clothe, give medical treatment, etc to these vermin, nor should they have 10 year "appeals."

I have NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for evil animals who commit capital offenses like rape and murder. They should be EXTERMINATED like the beasts they are.

To me, criminals are less of a life form than insects. If someone broke into my house, I would shoot them in the face, have the police remove the body, and then I would be able to sit down and enjoy my dinner.

The life of an evil animal who harms innocent people means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to me.

Having two arms and two legs doesnt make you a human. Monkeys have two arms and two legs.

Humans are intelligent and can tell the difference between right and wrong. People who can't or won't do this need to be killed.

And as for "insane" criminals, they are worse than non-insane criminals since they are like rabid dogs who cannot control themselves. All people who rape or murder and then claim insanity should be obliviated with no mercy.

People who oppose the death penalty feel sorry for the rapist or murderer.

People who support the death penalty sympathize with the victim.

Heinous criminals have forfeited their right to live.

As I said before, the value of the life of a criminal is NOTHING!

They should be exterminated like the beasts they are.

If I killed a criminal, it wouldnt even matter to me. It would be the same as killing a fly. In fact, I would consider a criminal to be less than a fly.

Does anyone actually want to talk about politics or is it more funny to call each other communists and fascists?

I oppose the death penalty so that makes me a Liberal. Spending our national treasure on a war for oil/money and costing the lives of our young folks in uniform makes me a conservative. How logical is this for anyone to understand? I certainly cannot.

Nowadays carter gets a nobel puss prize instead.

clinton a Liberal - no way. turning over the national health care system to the government is liberal? making gays in the military your first issue is liberal? gettin busy with interns? lying, cheating, stealing, scandals every day? raising taxes? gutting the military budget? nope that's not liberal, that's kooky. all though it sure sounds like most of the Libs on this site. Blarg, do you always need to be clubbed by the facts? Are you the head of a Dem thinktank? does the guage read E?

I didn't say ALL Democrats are traitors who deserve to be executed.

But Clintoon and Karter definitely should be shot by firing squad for treason.

Clintoon sold our nuclear secrets to Red China.

blarg, you don't think Clinton is a liberal?????????? Are you KIDDING me?

Why is he the hero of the Dem party then????

He is very liberal. All of his policies made that clear.

It is his fault that we got attacked on 911. The 911 Commission should recommend his indictment. If he had taken out Al Qaeda when he had the chance, instead of caring about being PC, we would not have been attacked.

Clinton is one of the WORST presidents EVER!

The others are Franklin D*ckhead Roosevelt, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and LBJ.

Clinton proved himself to be a liberal when he entered office? How?

Seriously, William, you keep saying that you hate the Democrats, or at least that you have no respect for them. I don't see how you can rant about how the Democrats are all traitorous pinkos who deserve to be executed, then try to have a serious political discussion.

Seriously, Carter was a complete disaster as president.

You forgot to mention his panama canal giveaway to china.

Communism reached the high water mark while that socialist was in power.

He should be tried for treason, not only because of what he did while he was POTUS, but because of his current activities as well.

He is a facilitor of and an apologist for Al Qaeda, Hamas, Chavez, Iran, NK, Russia, China, and every other ememy of the US.

In an earlier day, he would have been hanged.

By the way, it seems likely to me that William is a parody/troll.

didn't Jimmy carter show you wacky Libs just how perilous our grasp on reality is when we elect big smiles. In an energy crisis he turned off the tree and put on a sweater. When our embassy was taken he invaded with 4 helocopters. when the entire nationand economy was in the doldroms, he pleaded that it was only a malaise. We boycotted the Olympics to stop an Afgan invasion, while hollowing out the CIA and DoD. We stood in line on even/odd days for gasoline. We have still not recovered from that level of ineptitude. and now you are trumpeting more of the same. A untested radical Lib with no experience to speak of but with a winning smile. And you thought that Dems were intellectually barren. Well, you were right.

Whatever candidate that oprah endorses will be the one who loses.

That is DEFINITE.

Honestly, I really wonder about the people who drink her KoolAid.

Her show is about the dumbest thing on TV.

Watch OReilly instead, you might learn something.

"The great weakness of the Democratic Party is its propensity to nominate people who can wrap up the early money or party mechanism -- but who either cannot get elected or cannot lead if elected. McGovern, Carter, Kerry."

Fred, you are completely correct. It's easy for a liberal to win the Democratic primary, but someone who is the ideal candidate of the Dem base will not appeal to the rest of the nation. On the other hand, a candidate like Allen who is the favorite candidate of the GOP base WILL appeal to the rest of the country.

The Dem base doesn't seem to understand that they are out of touch with the other 70% of the country, so they nominate people, or support people like Obama, who have no chance of being elected.

The only way for Dems to win the election is to run a candidate who pretends to be conservative or moderate until they get into office, like Clinton.

You never see a GOP candidate attending a pro-abortion rally or a gay pride march, but you do see people like Kerry showing off that they hunt.

That is because the GOP is more in line with the rest of the country.

We only lost this election because a lot of conservatives were angry at the GOP for abandoning conservative principles, so they stayed home.

Iraq, the patriot act, huge spending, nuclear give-aways to potential enemies, etc are NOT conservative values.

That is why we lost the election.

Don't think for a MINUTE that we lost because the American people have suddenly embraced liberal "values" like queer "marriage" and gun control, giving our sovereignty to the UN, Kyoto, global warming, high taxes, abortion, abolishing the death penalty, and other ludicrous and insane liberal ideas.

We will regain control, probably in 2008.

And we will almost assuredly win the 2008 pres election.

Should Obama run, it will be interesting to see how far Oprah chooses to inject herself into the race. After remaining politically neutral throughout her career, she's made no bones about her desire to see Obama in the White House. Would she dare make an open appeal to her audience to support his campaign? It could alienate her fan base but Obama's war chest could overflow.

Hilary Clinton ignores this possibility at her peril. She should spend the holiday watching video of the Clintons' appearance at Rosa Parks' funeral. That would give her an idea of what a campaign against Obama would look like - not unlike a race opposite her husband. If she's half as smart as I think she is, she would make a New Year's resolution to remain in the Senate and aim for Harry Reid's seat - one for which she's far better suited.

THANKS KingofZouk!

On a minor point: I think the idea of using the VP nominee to provide "regional balance" is overstated. To give a few recent examples, Arkansas/Tennessee beat Texas/Indiana and then Kansas/New York. Texas/Wyoming beat Tennessee/Connecticut and then Massachusetts/North Carolina.

So, I don't think there is a strong case for the regional balance idea--much more important, in my view, is whether the candidates are complimentary from a professional experience standpoint (e.g., foreign/domestic, legislative/executive, state/national, and so on).

Why should anyone care what another posts to this site? There is no admission standard here. Haven't you learned from Che how to entirely skip certain postings? and I care what william says so make that one. I would also care what you said if it actually had any substance. Or did this finally become a Dem/Lib moonbat or nutcase only site. I knew there were leanings, but hadn't heard it was official yet.

Each of us have our favorite ticket and I have pointed out mine of Clinton/Warner and have given many reasons why and the most important thing of all is winning. I can say without any doubt in my mind this is the ticket the dems will have the best chance with and I cannot think of another combination that even comes close no matter how I try.

William, why should anyone care what you think of the Democratic candidates? You've said repeatedly that you think liberals are like cancer, you laugh when you think of them being killed, all Democrats are traitors, etc. So who cares about your analysis?

Or is this the one reasonable post you make each day before you switch over to Hannity-style personal attacks and hyperbole?

A thought for "lylepink".....

I'm a democrat-leaning independent.

Contrary to lylepink's claims, I oppose Hilary's candidacy for the opposite reason: I don't want her to ruin the Democrats' chances in 2008.

She's been wrong on Iraq from Day One -- but doesn't show the integrity to admit. She's a political captive of the Israeli lobby, which means she lacks the independence necesary to break the Middle East gridlock. Her domestic stance is to seek "workable" compromises which accomplish nothing. My God, she's a woman who can't even stand strong for abortion rights.

The great weakness of the Democratic Party is its propensity to nominate people who can wrap up the early money or party mechanism -- but who either cannot get elected or cannot lead if elected. McGovern, Carter, Kerry.

Senator Clinton fits that prescription for failure.

Alright, here's my take:

Hillary Clinton benfitted tremendously from Bayh's exit. Her husband endorsed him for president in his book, which would be a problem for her if she was running against him.

Also, she has been trying to portray herself as a moderate, and has had some degree of success.

With Warner and Bayh out, the two most high profile moderates who would have made strong rivals to Clinton are now out.

Richardson has a LOT of skeletons in his closet, and is seen as being pro-amnesty and a shill or Mexico, in addition to being Hispanic. Believe it or not, his marriage will also be an issue. Remember Ford?

I think he will be steamrolled by Clinton, who will be able to make hay over Richardson's fetes with the North Koreans.

Can you imagine that made into a campaign ad? Richardson invites North Korean officials to private parties at his house? Cozy with NK and Iran.

Terry Nelson, are you HEARING ME?

Richardson will be a lot weaker of a candidate than you might think. And yes, he has a lot of skeletons that will come to light. He is a corrupt guy. Just look around on Google.

With Feingold and probably Gore out on the left, and it quickly becoming clear that Obama is neither electable nor qualified, Hillary will become the favorite of the liberal base.

She hopes her moderate credentials will appeal to moderates.

Edward's resume is WAAY too thin. One term in the senate is definitely not enough experience to be president.

Can you imagine 12 year old Edwards against McCain in a debate?

McCain would DESTROY Edwards!

Edwards is a spent force from the past. He won't even carry NC for the Dems, and he is so inexperienced that his ability to carry PA, OH, MI, OR, WA, IA, NH etc will be compromised as well.

IF MCCAIN or GULIANI or ANOTHER MODERATE is the GOP nominee, you CANNOT necessarily count on all the states Kerry took as staying blue.

Therefore, you need a candidate who is able to at least have a chance at taking some red states. Richardson and Edwards are NOT that candidate.

Vilsack has the moderate creds but completely lacks charisma. If national sentiment is still highly anti-GOP he might win anyway, but its not wise to trust a presidential election to luck.

At this point, I think the strongest Dem candidate is Clark, if he chooses to run. As proudtobeGOP mentioned, he has some problems, but I still think he is the strongest.

Richardson, Obama and Edwards are VERY weak candidates. You Dems will be well advised not to nominate them.

HRC is a little more complicated. A LOT of people don't like her, and she IS a polarizing figure, but she is a much stronger candidate than the three above, and with a moderate VP, might be able to take OH in addition to Kerry's states.

Again though, if McCain or Guiliani is the GOP nominee, you are going to have to consider some of Kerry's states in danger.

You need a candidate who can either lock those states DOWN, OR make inroads into the red states.

It's far from clear that Vilsack could even take Iowa. It's far also unclear if Clark could take any southern states, but I bet he would take WV and AR at least.

Some of you Dems on here need to stop tossing out rediculous tickets that are completely unsupported by fact. Above, someone came out of the blue and put out Napolitano-Obama.

First of all, Napolitano has said definitively that she is NOT running.

Secondly, that ticket would s*ck. Napolitano will NOT carry AZ against McCain. It is a red state. Nap is seen as COMPLETELY pro-amnesty. Obama...enough said. Obama will sink ANY ticket.

Re: Gingrich.

He is certainly highly qualified and I think he would be an excellent president, almost as good as Reagan.

BUT, he has SERIOUS electability issues. If he runs against anyone but Richardson or Obama, he will NOT win!

He is too polarizing a figure. Remember, if the Dems take Kerry's states plus OH or any other combination of 20 votes, the Dem wins.

I doubt Gingrich could take OH, and he would probably lose IA, NM, CO, and possibly NV and MO to the Dem.

He would take the south, and probably most of the plains west, as well as states like MT and ID and WY.

But that will not be enough to win. If we run Gingrich, we will lose.

His personal scandals will keep a lot of moderates and evangelicals away.

If no more candidates get in the race, I think McCain will definitely be the strongest nominee.

I don't much like him, in fact, I despise him, but we cannot afford to have Hillary or God forbid, someone like Obama or that traitor Richardson win in 2008.

That would be the END of America as a superpower. The WH MUST stay in GOP hands in 2008 and McCain is the way to go if we want to do that.

Unless Sanford runs, in which case he will be the best candidate.

Hillary will almost ASSUREDLY win the Dem nomination, unless Gore runs (in which case the GOP automatically wins the election) or if the Dems surprisingly rally around Clark because he has red state appeal but is also liberal.

Out of the current GOP mix, McCain owns the moderate label. I doubt Hagel will even run, and even if he wants to do a Mitt Romney, I don't think voters will buy it.

I really don't see Mitt taking off. His gay support, his liberal record as Massgov, all the soundbites that can be used against him, his religion, etc. That is too many negatives.

McCain will shred him, I'll wager.

Guliani is trying to "own" the national security issue, but McCain can solidly lay claim to it as well.

Huckabee? Please! He's going out of his WAY to pander to illegals and Hispanics. Also, he has a mean style, and is anti-death penalty. Stay in AR Mike, you worthless P.O.S. Also, Huck is a big govt, tax and spend Republican.

Brownback? He has some issues that prevent him from claiming to be a true conservative. He is very weak on the death penalty, and is proudly pro-amnesty. In fact, he seems to be parroting the RC Church view on every issue. Converting to Catholicism was kind of a dumb thing for him to do. It hurt his political future. But oh well. Brownback is a somewhat more conservative McCain. The last thing we need is Sam Helen Prejean in as POTUS.

Duncan Hunter: A congressman with no name recognition? I'd say he is angling for the VP spot, but won't get it.

My favorite candidate is Tancredo, but unfortunately he would come up just short, and would probably fail to take OH and NM as well as maybe FL.

So all in all, I think McCain is the strongest GOP nominee, even if I despise him.

Alright, here's my take:

Hillary Clinton benfitted tremendously from Bayh's exit. Her husband endorsed him for president in his book, which would be a problem for her if she was running against him.

Also, she has been trying to portray herself as a moderate, and has had some degree of success.

With Warner and Bayh out, the two most high profile moderates who would have made strong rivals to Clinton are now out.

Richardson has a LOT of skeletons in his closet, and is seen as being pro-amnesty and a shill or Mexico, in addition to being Hispanic. Believe it or not, his marriage will also be an issue. Remember Ford?

I think he will be steamrolled by Clinton, who will be able to make hay over Richardson's fetes with the North Koreans.

Can you imagine that made into a campaign ad? Richardson invites North Korean officials to private parties at his house? Cozy with NK and Iran.

Terry Nelson, are you HEARING ME?

Richardson will be a lot weaker of a candidate than you might think. And yes, he has a lot of skeletons that will come to light. He is a corrupt guy. Just look around on Google.

With Feingold and probably Gore out on the left, and it quickly becoming clear that Obama is neither electable nor qualified, Hillary will become the favorite of the liberal base.

She hopes her moderate credentials will appeal to moderates.

Edward's resume is WAAY too thin. One term in the senate is definitely not enough experience to be president.

Can you imagine 12 year old Edwards against McCain in a debate?

McCain would DESTROY Edwards!

Edwards is a spent force from the past. He won't even carry NC for the Dems, and he is so inexperienced that his ability to carry PA, OH, MI, OR, WA, IA, NH etc will be compromised as well.

IF MCCAIN or GULIANI or ANOTHER MODERATE is the GOP nominee, you CANNOT necessarily count on all the states Kerry took as staying blue.

Therefore, you need a candidate who is able to at least have a chance at taking some red states. Richardson and Edwards are NOT that candidate.

Vilsack has the moderate creds but completely lacks charisma. If national sentiment is still highly anti-GOP he might win anyway, but its not wise to trust a presidential election to luck.

At this point, I think the strongest Dem candidate is Clark, if he chooses to run. As proudtobeGOP mentioned, he has some problems, but I still think he is the strongest.

Richardson, Obama and Edwards are VERY weak candidates. You Dems will be well advised not to nominate them.

HRC is a little more complicated. A LOT of people don't like her, and she IS a polarizing figure, but she is a much stronger candidate than the three above, and with a moderate VP, might be able to take OH in addition to Kerry's states.

Again though, if McCain or Guiliani is the GOP nominee, you are going to have to consider some of Kerry's states in danger.

You need a candidate who can either lock those states DOWN, OR make inroads into the red states.

It's far from clear that Vilsack could even take Iowa. It's far also unclear if Clark could take any southern states, but I bet he would take WV and AR at least.

Some of you Dems on here need to stop tossing out rediculous tickets that are completely unsupported by fact. Above, someone came out of the blue and put out Napolitano-Obama.

First of all, Napolitano has said definitively that she is NOT running.

Secondly, that ticket would s*ck. Napolitano will NOT carry AZ against McCain. It is a red state. Nap is seen as COMPLETELY pro-amnesty. Obama...enough said. Obama will sink ANY ticket.

Re: Gingrich.

He is certainly highly qualified and I think he would be an excellent president, almost as good as Reagan.

BUT, he has SERIOUS electability issues. If he runs against anyone but Richardson or Obama, he will NOT win!

He is too polarizing a figure. Remember, if the Dems take Kerry's states plus OH or any other combination of 20 votes, the Dem wins.

I doubt Gingrich could take OH, and he would probably lose IA, NM, CO, and possibly NV and MO to the Dem.

He would take the south, and probably most of the plains west, as well as states like MT and ID and WY.

But that will not be enough to win. If we run Gingrich, we will lose.

His personal scandals will keep a lot of moderates and evangelicals away.

If no more candidates get in the race, I think McCain will definitely be the strongest nominee.

I don't much like him, in fact, I despise him, but we cannot afford to have Hillary or God forbid, someone like Obama or that traitor Richardson win in 2008.

That would be the END of America as a superpower. The WH MUST stay in GOP hands in 2008 and McCain is the way to go if we want to do that.

Unless Sanford runs, in which case he will be the best candidate.

Hillary will almost ASSUREDLY win the Dem nomination, unless Gore runs (in which case the GOP automatically wins the election) or if the Dems surprisingly rally around Clark because he has red state appeal but is also liberal.

Out of the current GOP mix, McCain owns the moderate label. I doubt Hagel will even run, and even if he wants to do a Mitt Romney, I don't think voters will buy it.

I really don't see Mitt taking off. His gay support, his liberal record as Massgov, all the soundbites that can be used against him, his religion, etc. That is too many negatives.

McCain will shred him, I'll wager.

Guliani is trying to "own" the national security issue, but McCain can solidly lay claim to it as well.

Huckabee? Please! He's going out of his WAY to pander to illegals and Hispanics. Also, he has a mean style, and is anti-death penalty. Stay in AR Mike, you worthless P.O.S. Also, Huck is a big govt, tax and spend Republican.

Brownback? He has some issues that prevent him from claiming to be a true conservative. He is very weak on the death penalty, and is proudly pro-amnesty. In fact, he seems to be parroting the RC Church view on every issue. Converting to Catholicism was kind of a dumb thing for him to do. It hurt his political future. But oh well. Brownback is a somewhat more conservative McCain. The last thing we need is Sam Helen Prejean in as POTUS.

Duncan Hunter: A congressman with no name recognition? I'd say he is angling for the VP spot, but won't get it.

My favorite candidate is Tancredo, but unfortunately he would come up just short, and would probably fail to take OH and NM as well as maybe FL.

So all in all, I think McCain is the strongest GOP nominee, even if I despise him.

Well, Blarg, I think Clark has been doing pretty much exactly as you have described your expectations. He's a senior fellow at a UCLA think tank and is on the board of the International Crisis Group. He's done a lot of writing and public appearances to help Americans make sense of the nonsense that is the Bush-Cheney policy in Iraq and the Middle East. He's a news analyst for Fox and does a lot of other media appearances. He also worked very hard for Democrat candidates (and especially candidates who are veterans) in the midterms--both as a fund raiser and on the stump. He's also a fairly prolific author, and I understand he's recently signed a contract for his campaign biography. So, I think he's been pretty busy. Still, you're right in a sense. As busy as Clark has surely been, and although he has done a lot to establish his Democrat credentials since 2004, he has not raised his profile so much in the interim as one would expect a presidential proto-candidate to do. He's still a bit too much of an aw-shucks Midwesterner/Southerner to be a good self-promoter. Clark needs a lot more aggressive management if he is to be widely noticed and taken seriously.

"Some people at Air America assert that, under Mr. Glaser and the team he put in place, the network was top-heavy with management, inept at selling ads, unwilling to make program compromises that v