US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Hello, visit my home page:
=buy wood alcohol

"Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members . . . if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats . . . Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors."
- Barach Obama, Oct. 2002

"I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism . . . I don't think that we should allow anything to diminish our focus on avenging the 3,000 Americans who were murdered and dismantling the network of terrorists who we know to be responsible for it. . . Nevertheless, President Bush is telling us that the most urgent requirement of the moment - right now - is not to redouble our efforts against Al Qaeda, not to stabilize the nation of Afghanistan after driving his host government from power, but instead to shift our focus and concentrate on immediately launching a new war against Saddam Hussein. And he is proclaiming a new, uniquely American right to pre-emptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat."
- Al Gore, Sept. 2002

I can't vote for her. She wasn't only wrong, she was deluded.

"The result is that we're unlikely to see Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Edwards (both of whom share with Obama seats in the top-tier of the 2008 Democratic field) trying to make any real news for the next 72 hours."

Hey Chris - Seems like Hillary's press conference and appearance on the morning shows did a pretty good job of competeing with Obama's exploratory announcement.

This comment belongs to a different article which didn't allow a comment due to the Name field missing at the end of the comments where new posts are entered.

Generally speaking, can the reporters writing please admit there is no "frontrunner" except/unless VOTED as such?

Hillary has trumped NO ONE and the media is fine in their hoops of fire for the moment, but please make sure it is the merits and not an auction as if the highest dollar bidder wins.

There is a PUBLIC MANDATE at present for an End to the Iraq War. That is my personal desire but also is my most recent take on the polls of 70% say Bring the Troops home and end the War and are not in favor of the continued escalation, currently opposed by Kennedy and other Democrats and some Republicans, according to media reports. There appears to be a match with the 30% approval rating for Bush reported at the same time as the 70% wanting an exit plan for peace and self-rule in Iraq.

It is fair enough of Edwards to consider it a duty of the candidates to have some ability to speak out.

"Its not too early to get defensive" was highly critical of Hillary's silence on her "no show" for the media when the timing appeared poor. Utter silence is generally not acceptable for a responsive government when tendering "official" status.

Accountability to at least some level is generally required. No comment, to me, as a Publicist for state government in the '70's was never even considered while I answered media inquiries for 2.5 years. Some statement that indicates some level of truth and accountability for the situation in question is required and due.

I was a publicist for a state law enforcement agency, the CHRO, and if I needed information, I asked staff (Regional Supervisors or Counsel or Director, usually) and returned the calls to the media, always. As spokesperson, I put the facts into "lead" format as the best way to insure the proper "take."

And, NON PARTISAN coverage of all the leading candidates is also, to me a given required behavior.

Sarcastic coverage when it is understood, is fine. I see the same view myself and even allow the view that the sarcasm might be invited, due to the silence, and when we find out her reason, then we will conclude whether she is weak or strong.

(Was she waiting for Obama's speech as if priority?)

It looks weak, oh yes.

Hillary has not trumped Obama or any other candidate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

Here's Dr. Rice's bio...very impressive and without any cocaine use. But maybe that's a negative with liberals.

Yeah I like Obama too; But I think he is way to green. He possesses alot of flash, style, intelligence and charisma. But, I don't see him as the next President of the United States. John Edwards strikes me as the most sincere of them all. He seems to be running a campaign centered on people's issues. I really like Obama, and am sure he will play an important role in this country someday. But I say Edwards has the most substantive of issues; similar to the politics of Jesus Christ. Hillary is a politician.

Yeah I like Obama too; But I think he is way to green. He possesses alot of flash, style, intelligence and charisma. But, I don't see him as the next President of the United States. John Edwards strikes me as the most sincere of them all. He seems to be running a campaign centered on people's issues. I really like Obama, and am sure he will play an important role in this country someday. But I say Edwards has the most substantive of issues; similar to the politics of Jesus Christ. Hillary is a politician.

Yeah I like Obama too; But I think he is way to green. He possesses alot of flash, style, intelligence and charisma. But, I don't see him as the next President of the United States. John Edwards strikes me as the most sincere of them all. He seems to be running a campaign centered on people's issues. I really like Obama, and am sure he will play an important role in this country someday. But I say Edwards has the most substantive of issues; similar to the politics of Jesus Christ. Hillary is a politician.

Yeah I like Obama too; But I think he is way to green. He possesses alot of flash, style, intelligence and charisma. But, I don't see him as the next President of the United States. John Edwards strikes me as the most sincere of them all. He seems to be running a campaign centered on people's issues. I really like Obama, and am sure he will play an important role in this country someday. But I say Edwards has the most substantive of issues; similar to the politics of Jesus Christ. Hillary is a politician.

Yeah I like Obama too; But I think he is way to green. He possesses alot of flash, style, intelligence and charisma. But, I don't see him as the next President of the United States. John Edwards strikes me as the most sincere of them all. He seems to be running a campaign centered on people's issues. I really like Obama, and am sure he will play an important role in this country someday. But I say Edwards has the most substantive of issues; similar to the politics of Jesus Christ. Hillary is a politician.

Yeah I like Obama too; But I think he is way to green. He possesses alot of flash, style, intelligence and charisma. But, I don't see him as the next President of the United States. John Edwards strikes me as the most sincere of them all. He seems to be running a campaign centered on people's issues. I really like Obama, and am sure he will play an important role in this country someday. But I say Edwards has the most substantive of issues; similar to the politics of Jesus Christ. Hillary is a politician.

Pinkyhart....

"Gore and Obama both have high moral principles"

Barack Hussein Obama confesses to doing more blow than a CAT-5 hurricane...supporting drug dealers, drug cartels and all forms of low life's posioning our country, and you call that high moral principles! We can do better than Obama.

Tina,

With all due respect, nothing you wrote addressed the issue of whether Rice actually wants to run. And if she decides she does not want to run, then everything else you wrote is simply irrelevant.

Nissl said this:
Condi has repeatedly said she's not running. She has not made any moves behind the scenes to begin running.

1) She is currently running at top speed on her Shuttle Diplomacy mission and Andrea Mitchell is reporting the the diplomatic achievements like Abbas and Olmert agreeing to hold joint conference in Feb. Olmert has also agreed to release the $100 million in funds to Abbas to help his people stand up to Hamas thuggery. (my terms, not Andrea's)

Nissl said We'll see what comes out of that meeting. Certainly so far nothing she's done has been more impressive than the ceasefire *Governor* Richardson negotiated last week in Sudan.
2.) so Nissl gives full credit to Richardson in regards to Sudan, rather than allowing his efforts to be linked to Condi. Richardson was UN Ambassador, met with Condi before he left, and maybe she sent a note of support? Nissl, do you know everything about what transpired at the Sudan? Perhaps Condi laid the foundation and Richardson also helped?

Nissl, also said "if she gave any indication of wanting to be president things might be different. But she hasn't. She may not want to deal with the campaign. She may not want the scrutiny her (lack) of private life will get. She may want to wait until W is just a distant memory. Whatever the reason, people won't take her seriously until she starts making the moves to run."
3.) There is a serious effort across the nation to promote Condi NOW. You can see it in the polls, like Quinnipiac shows 50% of the people say Condi is qualified to run for president. Marist polls show that 42% of the people polled want her to run.
THAT IS TAKING A PERSON SERIOUSLY.

Like Obama, Condi Rice also has support early on and she has charisma.

Nissl also said "It's silly to feel like you have to counter Obama with someone black or Clinton with someone female. That didn't exactly go well the last time it was tried with either of them in their senate races."
4.) The movement to promote Condi Rice has been going on for 2 years, far longer than any mention of Obama. So it might be that Obama is running to take away the momentum for Condi? From the Wisconsin state convention to the California state convention, Condi was TOP DOG in the straw polls among delegates. The first poll was by Marist back in Feb 2005, showing strong support for Condi as president.
These are the facts, it can easily be researched for any person to see for themselves. I am not the person who has the power to get 20% of the people to respond in a poll that they want Condi to run. I am only sharing the message that even Dick Morris wrote a book about Condi vs Hillary, to show the power of a woman in the Republican party.

To Paulet, Condi is following in the path of Golda Mier and Margaret Thatcher, which means within her own poltical party, her strength on foriegn policy and the 2nd Amendment is seen by the people. The voters see Condi as the real HEIR APPARENT to Bush. If he succeeds, her STAR POWER is brighter. But even if Bush fails, the only people who will be blaming Condi Rice are the anti-war liberals and Democrats. And these people would never vote for Condi anyway.

To Golgi, Condi does inspire women and many of them, like myself, also trust her.
The polls show support for an African-American president, and Condi was interviewed by Anne Gearan of the Wash Post about the issue. Condi said voters will want to know the viewpoints held by all candidates regardless of race.

Finally, over the next year, each and every story about Secretary of State Condi Rice will be like a job interview. She is being groomed for higher office, sharpening her skills to bring opposing sides to the table to settle conflict. The reporters are not cheerleaders, but they do report on her effectiveness.
IF the Democrats are so blind in their anti-GOP rage, then why are so many trying to take pot shots at Condi? Like Barbara Boxer and Susan Estrich and Trump?
Hmmmm?
They must be worried about Condi to they would not try the personal smack-down.
The newspapers are still talking about the HOT DEBATE between Boxer and Condi on the "career woman" issue.

Posted by: Nissl

Lyle, a woman close to me told me that it was because she was a woman that she was unhappy with Hillary.

She claimed that as a woman she understood Hillary's inner self instinctively in a way that men would have to guess at. I don't know about that, but it is most certainly what she believes and she is a registered Democrat.

And her take was that Hillary was not someone she could admire and put her faith in. She said that women voters want politicians they can admire and put their faith in, as opposed to wanting women politicians specifically.

Apparently female politicians can get women's votes if, and only if, the females are the ones who inspire the women to trust them. This commonly happens when an opposing man is seen as behaving unfairly to women or children. But according to her, when both a female and a male candidate seem admirable and trustable, then women vote based on specifics not gender.

I found her comments very illuminating.

I think Obama will finally give me somebody to vote FOR. Obama is a positive person - HRC is a negative personality - and I sincerely hope he wins the nomination and the Presidency. It would be good for the country to be run by a man who is thoughtful, open minded and fair. HRC would be an awful president. Anyone who needs to invent consipiracy theories when in trouble has no business running this country. I'm all for Obama, and for the good of the country, HRC must fail.

hmm

HTM: u r correct the dems can win without the south and the not so far left coast may be the key. Choosing Denver just may have played in the decision .

Hissl: I had not given much thought to Romney for I doubt he will go very far. pinkyhart: I did not see the movie but Gore has stated he would not run and I think he would be great at EPA for that is his passion and Obama would be good at the UN or State along with Richardson for either position.

lylepink,

I think you are overestimating the degree to which white people in the South would be uncomfortable voting for Obama, and also what it could mean in the South if a Democratic candidate could inspire black voters while also appealing to moderate white voters. But in any event, neither Obama nor Clinton for that matter actually needs to win electoral votes in the South.

Well, I am from Illinois and would never vote for Obama. He is a socialist in sheep's clothing. However, judging by the amount of stuff printed here, he will create the largest buzz.

there will be little oxygen for Dodd, Biden, Kerry and others. The Dems will have Edwards, Hillary and Obama.

All three will not attract the center. they will lose again. The only scary thing is the white guilt that many in the middle might feel, and they will vote for Obama. He preys on this. He plays the race card as much as he can without actually playing it.

If you look at the issues though-he is far left of center.

Obama will raise the level of discourse and even if he loses he will have elevated the bar for statesmanship and public speaking and give the others something to work toward. I would also like to see Al Gore in the race. Gore does have the experience and has earned my respect by demonstrating that one person can make a difference with passion and perserverence. After seeing his movie I decided that if he could do all that alone I could at least take people to see the movie. I have now seen it five times and am looking for my next person. I agree that a Gore/Obama ticket would be a winner. Think how different out lives would be now if the Supreme Court had not given Bush the presidency. Gore and Obama both have high moral principles. We are governed at present by crooks in our highest offices in my estimation. Gore/Obama!!! That way we can sequence from Gore to an experienced Obama after he's been VP, and all who voted for Gore and were cheated will feel vindicated and that will be healing.

Obama will raise the level of discourse and even if he loses he will have elevated the bar for statesmanship and public speaking and give the others something to work toward. I would also like to see Al Gore in the race. Gore does have the experience and has earned my respect by demonstrating that one person can make a difference with passion and perserverence. After seeing his movie I decided that if he could do all that alone I could at least take people to see the movie. I have now seen it five times and am looking for my next person. I agree that a Gore/Obama ticket would be a winner. Think how different out lives would be now if the Supreme Court had not given Bush the presidency. Gore and Obama both have high moral principles. We are governed at present by crooks in our highest offices in my estimation. Gore/Obama!!! That way we can sequence from Gore to an experienced Obama after he's been VP, and all who voted for Gore and were cheated will feel vindicated and that will be healing.

Obama will raise the level of discourse and even if he loses he will have elevated the bar for statesmanship and public speaking and give the others something to work toward. I would also like to see Al Gore in the race. Gore does have the experience and has earned my respect by demonstrating that one person can make a difference with passion and perserverence. After seeing his movie I decided that if he could do all that alone I could at least take people to see the movie. I have now seen it five times and am looking for my next person. I agree that a Gore/Obama ticket would be a winner. Think how different out lives would be now if the Supreme Court had not given Bush the presidency. Gore and Obama both have high moral principles. We are governed at present by crooks in our highest offices in my estimation. Gore/Obama!!! That way we can sequence from Gore to an experienced Obama after he's been VP, and all who voted for Gore and were cheated will feel vindicated and that will be healing.

Obama won't have any trouble as a black candidate in the early going. Dems are obviously open to the idea of a black Prez. And Hillary and Edwards seem unable to touvh him yet, although it is s still early.

But is Obama his own worst enemy?
http://polibuzz.blogspot.com/2007/01/2008-letter-to-obama.html
He seems to have dawdled for quite a while when we all knew that he would ultimately run. Will he be as poor is responding to attacks and challenges (Dem or GOP based) as Kerry in '04?

Lyle: Any comments, then, on the recent survey showing people are about as ready for a black president as a female president (and more ready for either than a mormon president)?

Blarg and DTM: I think I can give an answer to both of you in that Hillary will be the next POTUS, should she run, and why Obama can't be. Obama, first of all is black and the black vote or voters is somewhere around 15%, based on the population and voting trends. The white vote in the South, will go against Obama in greater numbers than the rest of the country, and this also holds true for Hillary, although not to such a degree when you count the power of the women voting. The hidden vote of women, IMO, that do not show up in polls is somewhere around 10 to 15% that will not state they are for Hillary. I learned this from some of my women friends who actually are for Hillary but will not say so because it is not acceptable in some circules. I make no claim to know this really is true, but am basing it on years of being involved in the political process. I do not understand why this is so, but, IMHO, it is. Another thing that I think will favor Hillary is the womens' vote in that they are more likely to vote than are men due in part for the history that Hillary represents.

never posted to a political blog before, and never had become involved in a political campaign until I went and saw Obama speak at a neighborhood church early in his primary race.

I was convinced instantly that he had a vision to lead, and nothing that has happened since then has surprised me. I would imagine there are many folk like myself out there, starving for leadership and a human being who they can admire. Forget the importance of the black vote, Obama has the power to attract those who don't vote, or rarely vote. Much of my family and community in downstate Peoria responded the same way. Non voters turned voters, by a single human being. I attended both the primary and general election victory parties in downtown Chicago, also a first for me, and met many others in the crowd just like me. I'm well educated, informed and engaged, but rarely inspired.

I can only speak about my personal experience, and offer that, as opposed to the slew of impositions that occur on these sites. An earlier posting emphasized concern of handlers overtaking Obama, and suffocating him just like they did Gore. I only hope that the wisdom and vision so abundant in Obama is strong enough to overcome that. There are some indications on the local level that it is not (see endorsement of Cook County President Todd Stroger).

Having said all that, he does not have my vote. No one does. Let the process begin, and may all the candidates speak to us, and let each one of us decide which one is right for us. My gut tells me that Gore is the best solution for the country, but November 2008 is a long time away.

Politics is like staying sober, you can only do it one day at a time.

never posted to a political blog before, and never had become involved in a political campaign until I went and saw Obama speak at a neighborhood church early in his primary race.

I was convinced instantly that he had a vision to lead, and nothing that has happened since then has surprised me. I would imagine there are many folk like myself out there, starving for leadership and a human being who they can admire. Forget the importance of the black vote, Obama has the power to attract those who don't vote, or rarely vote. Much of my family and community in downstate Peoria responded the same way. Non voters turned voters, by a single human being. I attended both the primary and general election victory parties in downtown Chicago, also a first for me, and met many others in the crowd just like me. I'm well educated, informed and engaged, but rarely inspired.

I can only speak about my personal experience, and offer that, as opposed to the slew of impositions that occur on these sites. An earlier posting emphasized concern of handlers overtaking Obama, and suffocating him just like they did Gore. I only hope that the wisdom and vision so abundant in Obama is strong enough to overcome that. There are some indications on the local level that it is not (see endorsement of Cook County President Todd Stroger).

Having said all that, he does not have my vote. No one does. Let the process begin, and may all the candidates speak to us, and let each one of us decide which one is right for us. My gut tells me that Gore is the best solution for the country, but November 2008 is a long time away.

Politics is like staying sober, you can only do it one day at a time.

Re: "Obama has no experience . . . why doesn't he just *gasp* serve out his first term and maybe learn something?"

It might help for you to read his books . . . you'd see that he has what he needs . . .

Certain recent leaders of ours have plenty of years of "experience" but show that they have no international and cross-cultural understanding - these certain leaders might be great representatives for say, Texas, but certainly not for Iraq, Europe or Africa. Obama has innate cultural understanding and sensitivity to the fact that the Middle East isn't exactly like Texas. He will quickly be seen as a favorable US leader by the rest of the world and because of that he'll be able to get more done (with the UN, EU, etc).

Re: "He is a committed leftist and will not get a single state that Kerry lost."

Bush has greatly mobilized the Christian vote (Focus on the Family, etc), so the Christian voice has become much more powerful over the last 8 years. Yet now the Christians are more and more against Bush and the war, and are more likely to swing based on values (not stick to conservative politics like secular/economic Republicans would). Example: Dr. James Dobson says he is against Republican hopeful McCain because of his lack of family values. Enter Obama - an admitedly committed Christian who recently spoke at one of the largest mega-churches in the US (Saddleback Church in Orange County, California, a Republican stronghold), and received a great reception there. Christians are committed to values and want to see the president do something about AIDS, war, and international suffering. On this basis I can very well see Obama taking some states that Kerry lost.

A bit of misinformation on Federal prosecutors was posted above:

1) According to the U. S. Dept. of Justice website all of the U. S. Attorneys listed as being "pushed out," etc. are still the U. S. Attorney of record in their Judicial District.

but, even if that information is outdated,

2) The U. S. Attorneys are political appointees confirmed by the Senate, but they are "appointed" by the President. Therefore, they serve at the pleasure of the President. The President giveth, the President taketh away [which they rarely do before the end of an appointment.]

3) The appointments are for four years. There was no indication by the posters as to how many of those appointments had expired.

4) Interim appointments are made while the seach/vetting process for the successor takes place. The U. S. District Courts can even make make appointments, in exception to the Separation of Powers docrtine.

"Unprecedented" and "oh now," what was the point? It appears that the process is operating the way it has for well over a hundred years. (for all political parties).

Chris on a recent Hardball, you were discussing Independents & Democrats voting their hearts and saying that you thought both Obama and Clinton fit this picture.

We do not have the same women as Golda Mier and Margaret Thatcher to look to -- to see a strong woman in this role as we once did, and women will not just vote "woman". I think Hillary missed an opporunity in 2004 and would be better as majority leader in the Senate.

If people vote their hearts as you say, it will be Obama in the end -- he can unite this country and he can bring about respect for the position that is known as President of the United States. He can give us all the Audacity of Hope.

Being a Registered Republican for 42 years, I have officially changed that status so that I can help with Obama's campaign in my state.

section9 is kingofzouk

just kidding

KOZ,

I don't know if you were describing me as a "reasonable Dem", but I might note that I am not actually a Democrat at all. In fact, my basic preference is for divided government, which I think is most likely to serve my political preferences (which tend to fall loosely into the category of what I might call mild libertarianism).

Anyway, I think it is indeed entirely possible that elements of the current Democratic coalition will quickly tear it apart. Frankly, I am quite pleased that it appears that some of my pet issues (e.g., controlling government spending) might have become crucial wedge issues for both parties.

Here's why Barack can win: he won't be the Democrat whose supporters will be walking around screaming "Repug, Repug" like the Bush Is Hitler crowd on this board. His speech today reeked of the New Bipartisanship.

Michael Jordan said something once: "Republicans buy shoes, too." Obama understands this. I saw his announce video today. He's got what Reagan had. Hillary doesn't have it at all. He's got the ability to reach out across partisan lines to Republicans and he's deliberately moving away from the Nineties politics that Hillary specializes in.

No one will ever believe any attempt by HRC to be bipartisan, because there isn't a Republican alive who doesn't believe that she's not trying to scam us.

People want unification. Oh, and something else: he'll run to the right of Hilly on national defense and call for a rebuilding of the "arsenal of democracy". It's the smart play: why should someone get a job at McD's when they can train at Lockheed Martin? Liberals will scream, but Obama's got his antiwar street cred. All those defense dollars that went to Rethuglicans will go into Obambi's pocket. You watch and see if he doesn't do this.

KOZ,

I'd also add once again that I know some of the details of what Obama has done as a state legislator and in the U.S. Senate (the details in my view being much more telling than overly simplistic vote ratings), and I do think his book is consistent with his actual performance in office.

By the way, I agree that it is an unfair smear to suggest that Republicans are particularly unlikely to vote for a black candidate for President. Indeed, I think that is one of the reasons why Obama's candidacy is much more viable than some people argue. The really successful presidential candidates have gotten at least a significant amount of cross-party support, and I think Obama could in fact draw a significant amount of Republican support in a nationwide election, just as he did in Illinois. And I don't think his being black is in any way a barrier to his getting such support.

In short, people who claim Obama is unelectable because of his race are giving too little credit to voters in general, but most particularly to potentianl Republican cross-overs.

Obama has no experience - I would not trust him to help me find the men's restroom in the US Capitol, let alone be leader of the free world. What is his rush? Why doesn't he just *gasp* serve out his first term and maybe learn something?

I must go tend to my subjects but I am musing on the distinction between the wacked out moonbarkers you all know and love and the more reasonable Dems on this site. How will you consolidate this in the next election. will you want to win so bad you will hold your nose and vote the moderate/lefty candidate you wish the party hadn't picked? Dick Morris (that shameless wh*re) believes the new left is splitting apart the majority already? will pragmatism or paranoia rule the day. Perhaps the moveon folks are just vociferous (evidenced by Lamont losing) and are the paper tiger they wish the US military to be. will the DLC come back and win the field?

KOZ, that's a good question.

I actually do have a reason to think that The Audacity of Hope reflects Obama's genuine views, not just cold calculation.

The views expressed in this book are so fundamental, based on real human nature and even (!) "conservative" values, that I do not believe anyone would be capable of articulating such views and then fail to believe them themselves. Because they so obviously hit the nail on the head.

It just wouldn't be possible to write that stuff and not believe it yourself.

In general, most books written by politicians are calculated and are no guide to future behavior, just the way you say. McCain's storybook is so schmaltzy it makes me gag and Edwards' "book" is a joke. That's why people are so excited about Obama.

Rich,

My sense is that Obama tries to avoid anything that might seem too staged or theatrical (and indeed I gather he was caught off guard a bit by the media interest in his trip to Africa). So, for good or ill, I think you will see more of Obama doing things like avoiding a splashy public announcement on MLK Day and instead announcing the next day via the internet.

And personally, I doubt that is the doing of his "handlers". Rather, I strongly believe it is his own personal preference for how to conduct himself.

It is always those despicable Republican troglydytes who won't vote thier interests or are too bigoted to vote for a minority. Yet look at Bush's cabinet. then comnpare clinton's. who is the caveman? Maybe the nanny state line is not in everyone's interest.

DTM, you always say what I think but couldn't phrase well. I could not agree more.

Note also that the argument "someone else will vote this way but not that way, therefore I will back candidate X in anticipation of other people's votes" means candidate X doesn't have much else going for them.

The last time the Democratic party fell for this argument, it put up a primary candidate who lost the general election. (Kerry)

What makes you think that the book, meant to sell, will have any correspondence with policies, once elected?
I would never shine the light on my views if I was selling a book. I would pretty them up, make them sound reasonable, even moderate. I would avoid any contention and only answer Oprah questions.
why would I rely on a novel for policy questions? how about we talk about his voting record? Still not one taker all day. what are you hiding from? they are called irrefutable facts, irrevokable decisions or if you must inconvenient truths. Yet they are.

keep 'em conservative

keep 'em conservative

keep 'em conservative

Obama can win if he stays "real" and not managed. I'm disappointed by two "calculations" which suggest he may be prone to listen to advisors instead of himself:
1) Setting up an exploratory committee instead of jumping in with both feet -- too gimmicky. The voters aren't looking just for a new face. They are looking for someone with new ideas to rise above partisanship and tired old formulas. Will his expert handlers buoy him up, or will they pull him down?
2) Passing up the chance to announce on Martin Luther King Day. Smacks a lot of political triangulation. The real Obama went to Africa in 2006. Will he stay real in '07 and '08 or is he going to avoid anything that might make some whites uncomfortable with what they fear a vote for Obama might mean? Timidity isn't going to win the Presidency.

Gore learned in 2000 that handlers can put you into a straitjacket. I think the voters in 2008 will be very wary of over-managed candidates. HRC will fall victim to this. It would be a pity for Obama to fall into this trap. He has a fresh voice and ideas. They shouldn't be filtered, massaged and packaged into something that won't resonate.

KOZ, if you read Obama's book you will notice that his views are not nanny-state. Give it a try, it has enough material to be a fun read to any King even if you do not end up becoming a supporter.

You don't have to admit you read it :) Pay cash for it while you are on vacation, and hide it in your carry-on...

Now, if you said that Hillary or Edwards are nanny-staters I would have a harder time arguing.

I think the idea that the country is not "ready" to elect a black President has little evidentiary backing. Moreover, I think it is premised on a conceptual error, namely that it somehow doesn't matter who the particular candidate is or how they conduct their campaign.

On this issue, I think Kennedy's overcoming of the then-serious issue of his Catholicism is instructive. In retrospect, the issue was not whether the country had become ready to elect a Catholic President in the abstract. Rather, the issue was whether Kennedy could succeed in convincing voters that his Catholicism was not an issue for him in particular. And, of course, he did precisely that.

I think the same is true of Obama being black. In other words, the issue is not whether the country is ready for a black President in the abstract, but rather whether Obama can convince voters that his being black is not an issue for him in particular.

And viewed in that way, it seems clear to me that Obama has already largely succeeded, much more so even than Kennedy. In other words, I am sure there are some pockets of people somewhere who think Obama shouldn't be President because he is black. But wherever they are, there can't be many of them, because they are nowhere to be seen in public discourse as far as I can tell.

In fact, all I ever see is this argument (that the country may not be ready for a black President). But if almost everyone in the country is only concerned that someone else in the country might have a problem with Obama being black, then in fact the problem does not actually exist. And as far as I can tell, that is where we actually stand as a country.

It is not his palor or her sex that prohibits people from voting for them - it is their liberal, nanny-state views. why can't you Dems ever admit that you lose elections based on positions, not on fraud, racism, stealing, etc. Rs lost the last time based on losing their conservative way. We admit it and don't go to court. we go back to the base and beg foregiveness.

It is not his palor or her sex that prohibits people from voting for them - it is their liberal, nanny-state views. why can't you Dems ever admit that you lose elections based on positions, not on fraud, racism, stealing, etc. Rs lost the last time based on losing their conservative way. We admit it and don't go to court. we go back to the base and beg foregiveness.

"I have given the Hillary issue much time and have spoken with many folk that like her, as I do, and each and every one of them agree that Hillary cannot be elected POTUS in 08. They give different reasons but the one that is so obvious is that Hillary is female and this country is not ready for a woman to be elected POTUS. I would like to think we, as a people,was not this way but that is, IMO, the reality is what I am going by and this is the reality of the time."

I know that you disagree with my edited version of your post. But what's the difference? Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton fits the mold of the standard presidential candidate. Seems to me if you think a woman is electable, you have to accept that a black man might be electable too.

Hissl: I have given the Obama issue much time and have spoken with many folk that like him, as I do, and each and every one of them agree that Obama cannot be elected POTUS in 08. They give different reasons but the one that is so obvious is that Obama is black and this country is not ready for a blsck person to be elected POTUS. I would like to think we, as a people,was not this way but that is, IMO, the reality is what I am going by and this is the reality of the time. Early on I mentioned the fear that some have of a strong woman, and how some folk cannot accept that, be it jeously, envy, or other things they want not to say, but it is there. I cannot explain how this is by some folk but I have seen it many times and the sorry thing about it is these folk do not even know it themselves. Think of the times you have seen folk do good things for others and they are the ones that are resented by the very ones they have helped. Maybe it is the feeling of oweing someone. I just don't know.

koz +2

only if you're a fellow-traveling moron..

KOZ,

In order to get to know Obama, I think people will draw on all their usual sources--the news media, ads, televised debates, live appearances, conversations with other people, and so on. Heck, a nontrivial number of people are actually reading his books.

As for how people will respond--all the indicators so far suggest that when voters do get to know more about Obama, they tend to like him. You seem to be suggesting that trend will reverse itself at some point, but we shall just have to see if you are right.

koz +2

I decided to go windsurfing instead of snow-skiing this week. Can I be president? - John Kerry

Yes drindl, I am a conglomeration of all the posters who disagree with your wacked out world view. I like to switch names every so often just to confuse the signaling device on your tin-foil hat.

Are the democrats likely to put up ANY candidate that has actually run a large organization or had to make executive decisions?

I told you judge -- zouk is sand flea. Look at the 'ideas', the candence, the misspelling patterns, the grammar and syntax. He is a parody of the right, only he doesn't know it.

DTM - my point was that they will get to know him as what? The media will ignore what counts - his voting record. In that vacuum, the populace will paint his blank canvas in any manner they choose, since he doesn't seem to have any real policy prescriptions. when will the hard questions, (that will disqualify him) actually begin? Edwards has gotten very good at sound bites and trivial responses to questions. he is the new Dan Quayle, but with much less experience.

Take note everyone: Sand flea provides us with a post so mind-bogglingly stupid it makes us appreciate having KOZ and even Tina on this blog.

KOZ,

Like seemingly everything else so far, my sense is that Obama's response to the "Beach Babe" photo was pretty much ideal (slightly embarassed but taking it with a sense of humor).

Anyway, we have obviously moved into trivial territory. Suffice it to say that if he formally announces, we will see how his fundraising has gone, and otherwise the central issue remains whether voters will continue to respond positively as they get to know him better.

Blarg - I am not part of any movement. I already have riches beyond belief and live in the most liberated country on Earth. I am trying to get you backwards hillbillies to adopt the Kingdom of Zouk policies for your own good.

SandFlea is just upset that he/she/it was laid off from stint as a possible writer for the already canceled, "Fox News Live Standup" show.

I heard this from a US newsman. But since I work as a child killer in Iraq and haven't been home to Iran for some time, I can only access CNN here. As a result, I can't get the american point of view, only the freedom fighters of the grand Ayatollah, which I already know. Is it true?

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic
hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the
summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer
and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the
beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were
the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct
subgroups:

1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of
agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet,
so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be
invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages
were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night
while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as
the Conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off
the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the
sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the
Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became
known as girliemen.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats,
the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic
voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives
provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most
powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by
the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer
white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their
beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal
fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have
higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal
injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists
are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it
wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for
their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys,
lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police
officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone
who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other
conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and
decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more
enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in
Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after
the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for
nothing

Is there anyone else who has noticed how low-key McCain has been in the last two years? Is this really the same guy that at times shook the Republican and Democratic parties to its core in the late 1990s? Has there even been a more obviously positioned and schooled candidate for presidency in the history of American politics?

I know McCain's people feel that he has to court the Far Wrong (I mean Right) to win this election. But can they at least take him off ritalin? The loud, outspoken yet honest McCain is the one I would have considered voting for over this sniveling, lap-dog version.

I have to say I find it hard to believe Obama could win and agree that you might be looking at him as a VP to HRC or AG. How's this for a general battle: HRC/Obama vs. McCain/Guliani?

Do you consider yourself part of the intellectual right?

That was me. the intellectual left is non-existent on this blog. Only the moonbat brigade can be found.

DTM, he is starting at minus 36 million. I know a thing or two about fundraising and that is not a small amount. If he gets insulted by Mauron dowd about his ears, just wait until the tag team clinton/mccain lat into him. he will be blubbering like a baby. did you hear what he said after his beach body photo. he better toughen up fast before his macacca moment.

Duphys,you didn't respond to one point, just tried to appear clever. It seems you are not. bickering and tit for tat is not a strategy for winning an argument. Ask drindl, she hasn't won an argument on this website in millenium.

'Drindl, you old fossil, it is time for a new schtick.'

LOL -- old fossil, buddy? I'm sure I could kick your a** across the room. Or I could just announce I was an 'islamofascist' and you'd be in the next county in a flash hiding under a bed and peeing your pants.

the aliense are talking to me and anyone who says they aren't just can't hear them

Welcome to the race Barack Obama.

Look out from above he's going to come crashing down to earth. Hard.

'zouky get mad! i must have hurt his feelings.'

meuphys -- give up. zouky is a cipher, a zero, a fraud. if you present him with a valid argument he ignores it or says you 'have no ideas' and then hurls some childish epithet. all he can do is repeat talking points -- less intellectual capacity than your average parrot.

KOZ,

We appear to be overlapping posts.

Anyway, another interesting thing I have learned in studying politics a bit is that money and name recognition are important indicators, but not always in the way people think. For example, winning candidates usually end up collecting more money on average, but the causal direction may be that popularity leads to more money, not the other way around (see Freakonomics for a discussion of these issues).

Anyway, this is another subject in which knowing something about the Illinois U.S. Senate primaries is helpful. In the primaries, Obama also faced better-funded candidates, candidates with better initial name recognition, and candidates with more support from the party establishment. One of those candidates (Hull) self-destructed a bit, but Obama still faced a crowded field, and yet nonetheless managed to pull off a massive victory.

So, with all due deference to political commentators like Chris, sometimes I think they are missing the forest for the trees. In the long run, if people like you well enough, and you don't hurt yourself, the money and name recognition (and pros offering their services) will follow. We've seen just a bit of that already with Obama (he is already raising funds at a high clip and his name recognition is increasing fast), and I fully expect it to continue as long as people keep responding positively to him.

Drindl, you old fossil, it is time for a new schtick.

"Actually, Ohio held on to all but one of its R congressmen (NEY). this is not supporting your argument."

I think the statewide results are what you should be thinking about. Dewine? Blackwell? What do you think about how they did? Your moderate candidate lost to markedly liberal and undistinguished Sherrod Brown 57-41. Blackwell was even worse.

I forgot to add NM and NV to the list of swing states; they were very close last time. I agree with conservative commentator Michael Barone (townhall.com, you should like him); 2008 is different that 2000 or 2004 and there is a much larger mass of undecided voters capable of sweeping one way or the other. I think a lot of these voters feel like the system is broken and want a new way forward. Obama provides that feeling, even if he isn't saying anything particularly new. I'm not sure what other democrats or republicans can provide it.

Okay, so we already know that the White House has now taken the unprecedented step of firing at least seven US Attorneys in the middle of their terms of office -- who are in the midst of corruption investigations of Bush administration officials and key Republican lawmakers. We also know that they're taking advantage of a handy provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the White House to replace these fired USAs with appointees who don't need to be approved by the senate.

Given that these new USAs are being plopped into offices currently investigating Republicans and other administration officials and others into states with 2008 presidential candidates, there's certainly ample opportunity for mischief.

So we're looking into just who the White House is appointing.

Well, let's start with the estimable J. Timothy Griffin, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas since December 20th.

If you hadn't heard about Griffin's appointment, don't feel bad, the guy he replaced hadn't either. Griffin's appointment was annouced on December 15th before the then-US Attorney Bud Cummins had even been given a chance to resign. Cummins got the call on his cell phone the same day while he was out hiking with his son. Cummins, who subsequently said he got forced out for political reasons, resigned on the 20th, the same day Griffin was sworn in.

So who's Griffin and what experience does he bring to the job?

Well, top of the list seems to be his stint at the White House where he worked for Karl Rove doing opposition research on Democrats. That was until late last year. According to this Arkansas Times report, for the last ten years -- with the exception of two one year stint -- he has always worked as a Republican party opposition researcher digging up dirt on Democrats. Deputy Research Director for the RNC from 1999-2000. Research Director for the RNC from 2002-2005. Oppo Research Director for Karl Rove 2005-2006. Prior to 1999? Well, he was associate independent counsel investigating Henry Cisneros from 1995-96. After that he went to work for Dan Burton on the Hill to investigate Asian money contributions to the DNC.

Back in 2000, when he was in charge of digging up dirt on Al Gore, he apparently had a poster hanging on the wall behind his desk which read: "On my command - unleash hell on Al."

So clearly, Griffin's a pretty apolitical guy.

Now, why would Karl Rove want his top oppo researcher being the US Attorney in Arkansas for the next two years?

And is Ed Gillespie suiting up to take over the Duke Cunningham investigation in San Diego?'

May they burn in hell. Did you ever see such vicious corruption?

'What's the White House Doing to Prosecutors?

During a floor speech on the topic moments ago, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said the White House has told her it was replacing from five to 10 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys with its own interim appointees.

We know of seven who have left during the last couple of months, many under unusual circumstances. Here is our list:

San Francisco - 1/16/07 - Kevin V. Ryan - unclear

Nevada - 1/15/07 - Daniel Bogden - pushed out

San Diego - 1/12/07 - Carole Lam - pushed out

New Mexico - 12/19/06 - David Igleslias - pushed out

Arizona - 12/19/06 - Paul K. Charlton - unclear

Seattle - 12/15/06 - John McKay - unclear; likely pushed out

Little Rock (Ark.) - 12/15/06 - Bud Cummins - pushed out

Feinstein said she also knew of seven, and listed those above. Curiously, she mentioned an eigthth -- from Texas. We haven't been able to identify that one.

There is an eighth recently-departed U.S. attorney we know of, which some readers have noted: Debra Wong Yang, the former U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, Calif. Yang was overseeing the investigation into Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). She announced her resignation in October 2006.'

what hellishness is this all about?

"Duphys - "

-good! you rhymed my screen name with a childish insult. How clever you are! for future reference, though, the children i know spell it "d - o - o - f - u - s." But I suppose as the king of an imaginary country, you have the option of arbitrarily deciding what reality is. who else do you know who likes to do this?

"I suppose you would advocate that the president go terminator and personally go kick their butts."

-i'm sorry, didn't you know? That was a movie. real life is much too complicated. In real life, you usually can't solve problems by being a bully, no matter how "shocking" and / or "awesome" you might see yourself as being.

"Perhaps you should cut down a little on your TV watching and read a few books."

- i suppose you would recommend that vixen of vocabulary, that princess of phrasing, that siren of sagacity, Ann Coulter? thanks, i'll stick with authors who have valid points to make.

"I don't know how smart Bush is, I don't think anyone really does."

-so, y'all have been following him blindly for the past 6 years - why? "yes, i know there are no nukes in Iraq, but he's just so damn cute" - ?

"he did win the presidency, twice. he did attend good schools and did better then your chosen genius."

-and who, if i may ask, is my chosen genius to be? I actually have yet to choose this year's genius... although i'm sure you can guess who it will NOT be.

"But this is all just more personal attacks with no basis because of your paltry idea base."

- are you sure that as a defender of the regime, you really want to use phrases like "personal attacks" and "paltry ideas"? The irony is bottomless.

and now, without warning, we're in Iraq:

"Let's talk about measurable physical metrics we can compare instead of your body count and hysterical denouncements. how many schools, businesses, banks, patents, unemployment, refugees, etc."

-OK, let's talk about it. You're going to tell me that on balance, things in Iraq are going well? excuse me? I suppose something as insignificant as 3000 American deaths is nothing compared to the relatively small amount of reconstruction that has not been - easily - redestroyed by terrorists? everyone - Americans living in Iraq, Iraqis living in Iraq, people living in neighboring states, EVERYONE I have heard on this topic says unequivocally that Iraq is a very dangerous place, and getting worse.

"Ever thought about that? My guess would be that thought and your mind are not intimitely acquainted."

zouky get mad! i must have hurt his feelings.

Lyle, you should want Obama in the race. For Clinton to beat him in the primaries, she will have to articulate a broad vision of where she wants to take America and loosen up and display genuine charisma. Both of these would serve her well in any general election; indeed I believe they are her most glaring flaws at the moment.

I still do not understand why you think Barack Obama cannot win. Most observers believe he can get enough money for the primary, and he's as smart as Clinton and as charismatic as Edwards. We see from his Illinois senate race (pre-Keyes) that he's good at appealing to moderates in a general.

Someone above commented that Reagan wasn't slick. You must be young or something. He was the slickest ever -- an actor in Hollywood for decades for chrissakes. He lied about everything and was a mediocre president at best--and at worst a disaster. California had the finest education system in the country till he became governor and destroyed it. He sucked, period. I know you cons don't like to hear it, but from one who remembers, he went straight from lying to alzheimer's.

KOZ,

I think you are conflating two different things.

I certainly think it is true that political rhetoric can play a role in elections, and effective use of concise slogans and "soundbites" are important elements of political rhetoric.

But that is entirely separate from reductionist labels like "liberal", "conservative", or "moderate". Indeed, I would suggest that the hallmark of effective political rhetoric is that it can be concise but also convey a very specific meaning at the same time, and one of the problems with terms like "liberal", "conservative", and "moderate" is that they are lacking in specificity and well-defined meaning. In fact, to use your example of "cut and run" (although one might suggest that particular phrase did not end up being a successful piece of political rhetoric), as you suggest yourself it does encapsulate a particular critique of strategies involving withdrawals.

In any event, ultimately the voters get to decide who they like for their own reasons. And while both self-described "conservatives" and self-described "liberals" like to claim that the American voters systematically prefer their own sort, the truth is that American voters, at least in national elections, tend to flip around quite a bit. So, it makes little sense to me to try to use labels like "liberal" or "conservative" to predict voter preferences in national elections.

Actually, Ohio held on to all but one of its R congressmen (NEY). this is not supporting your argument.

drindl - devoid of facts, logic or reason makes another personal attack. I am shocked. not really. what else does she have?

Also, Bush is 'brave' he says. I guess that's why bush 'bravely' sends other people's children off to die while his own stay home in an alcolholilc stupor. Chips off the old drunken cokehead they are.

After all, bush 'bravely' deserted his unit and went AWOL during Vietnam. You don't get much 'braver' than that, huh?

No KOZ, Joe Sixpack is smarter than you think, even though J.S. does not make a hobby of reading policy papers.

Deep down, J.S. really wants more than simple slogans. J.S. wants results just like anybody else. A simple slogan only wins J.S.'s vote when no Great Communicator is running against it.

Great Communicators are great BECAUSE they communicate nuances to J.S. (and to everybody else) that lesser mortals would end up burying in bone-dry dull-as-dirt policy papers.

DTM, you are assuming that HRC name and money will not stomp him out of the picture. how did you arrive at that response? she has been planning for a while and has the best in the biz on her side. how can you compete with that. 36 million is a long way to go just to be even.

'Judge, did you know that at the current rate, the deficit will dissappear in 3 years. Bush will leave office with a surplus. '

Do you think zouk is the most delusional nutcase you've ever encountered?

Just asking. His math and predictive skills are truly awesome.

I agree with Golgi. Edwards also plagiarized Obama's response to the inexperience question. Isn't plagiarism what got Biden into trouble many years ago?

I have to laugh when I see readers say Obama isn't experienced and then they suggest alternatives who have even less experience.

The only leading candidate in either party with much more experience than Obama is McCain. McCain is too closely tied to war in Iraq.

John Edwards is a light weight version of Obama. Edwards ran for president in 2001 after just two years of any elected office. Edwards's war on poverty is too far to the left to appeal to independent or moderate Republican voters. No one remembers a single bill he sponsored in the Senate except for his bill to authorize war in Iraq.

H Clinton has no charisma. She is viewed as a liberal ideologue - not that there's anything wrong with that - and will have difficulty appealing to independents and moderate Republicans.

Of the leading candidates, only Barack Obama had the vision, judgement and political courage to strongly oppose war in Iraq in 2002. Only Barack Obama can unify and excite disenfranchised independents, moderate Republicans, and Black voters in key swing states. He has a track record as a bipartisan work horse in the state legislator, drafting many bills. While no Dem has passed many bills in the Republican Senate, Obama has helped pass a few. Of the leading Dems, only Obama has experience in both state and federal government. And he can raise $100 million; I've already done my part.

KOZ, Obama is rated about 80% liberal by democratic boards. That's right about where Hillary Clinton is and to the right of 15 or so democratic senators. That might seem like a quasi-communist to you, but he's good enough at framing his votes that he'll make the sale to moderates.

As far as what non-Kerry states he'll get, republicans should be freaking out about what just happened to them in the deciding state of OH. Obama's midwestern background should help in IA, CO is rapidly turning blue, and even MO which has a large black population and went dem this time is in easily in play. What states will Edwards or Clinton pick up that Obama cannot?

This did come as somewhat of a suprise to me in that I have thought for a time that Obama would not run. This may be an ego trip based on the attention he has been getting from the media. The more dems that are serious about 08 is in effect a good thing for the party. The big story may yet be to come in that Obama will indeed not run. I have maintained all along that Hillary will be the next Potus, should she choose to run, and I hope she will. By not running in 08 Obama will, IMO, enhance his standing in this country as having the best interest of the country at heart and not an ego trip, when there is no way, none, zilch, nada, zero, and any other way it could be stated that Obama can not be elected POTUS in 08.

coward, you are going to have to fight this battle on your own. your worst nightmare, standing up for something.

I've mentioned this before, but to summarize, I think the evidence that came out of the Illinois U.S. Senate elections (both primary and general) supports the view that Obama would have a great chance to pick up states Gore and Kerry did not win.

Basically, in the primaries and before Ryan had to withdraw, Obama was drawing majority support from the "collar counties" and a decent amount of support "downstate". This is a recipe for Democratic success in all those states which are roughly divided between Democratic-leaning cities, Republican-leaning rural areas, and swing suburban areas--which turns out to be an awful lot of states, including many that have recently voted for Bush.

Colin, I think he will have a "slip" which will be blown all out of porportion by the leering and slobbering media. Just like Dean, although his was too late already. Like allen. How difficult is it to monitor every word for two years.

DTM, short lables and bumper sticker slogans are what sells in this market. Part of the Dem problem is that they can't fit all their nuanced ideas onto a bumper sticker. they tried to find something before the election but kept floundering. cut and run may not be very precise, but it encapsulates the idea nicely. the last time you Dems had one was "It's the economy, stupid". Joe sixpack doesn't read policy papers or newspapers. He only pays attention when the TV show is inturrupted. he wants a single factor to decide. Now go find a winning one.

none of these three can win...please nominate any of them

'I would state that the worst president in history would have to be a one-termer. any normal people out there with a way to measure this other than your personal predilictions?'

anybody else with me? anybody else think W is the worst president in history?

I will be really glad when the primaries come around and Condi obviously won't be there on the ballot because she doesn't even personally feel like being president in the first place and we stop getting all these posts for Condi.

KOZ -- you really don't think Obama could win a SINGLE state that Kerry lost? And you feel comfortable making that statement in January 2007? I'll definitely remind you of that little prediction down the road.

For what it's worth, I think Obama could clearly be competative in Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada for sure. Missouri also seems to be moving back into the purple column after trending straight red. Finally, I think the unknown about an Obama run is what he does to existing voter participation models. It's possible a large number of white voters won't vote for him b/c of his race -- although I'd argue Harold Ford actually running BETTER than his polling numbers weakens that argument. Regardless, it's also possible that Obama would spur RECORD african american turnout. If that happened, you could have some VERY interesting results in some of the southern border states that have large black populations.

First of all, the people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 are the people most likely to support Condi Rice, to keep the momentum for peace in the Middle East. Condi helped voice support for the people of Lebanon to oust Syria troops that occupied their nation after the murder of Rafik Hariri back in Feb 2005. The UN was given the duty of forming a tribuanl to investigate the murder and you know what, there was another murder in November 2006.
When is the UN going to stand up and defend the people of Lebanon from thuggery?

Now, Condi spent 3 days meeting with Israel and Palestinian leaders, and also days of discussions with the King of Jordan and the King of Saudi Arabia. She is not just waving to the camera, like Donald Trump claims, Condi has rolled up her sleeves and trying to work for resolutions to end the conflict.

On the matter of setting up a presidential committee, Condi is blocked from doing that since she is in a NON-political post and would be forced by the Dems and the media to resign if she tried to show that she is running for president. That is why the nationwide grassroots efforts from California, to Texas, to Tennessee, and Florida and Iowa are having an impact to promote Condi Rice.

Please, just do a google search on
Condoleezza Rice for president.

You will find pages and pages of written viewpoints in newspapers, a copy of events by these groups and the impact of their ads. These groups have created the Condi Wave of support. She is strong on guns rights, foreign policy, and defending our nation. Civil Rights stand for diversity in our nation, and the Bush Administration has shared power with many African-American leaders starting with Colin Powell, to the Sec of Ed. Paige, to the HUD and the Justice Department. The TOP DOG is Condi Rice, a true partner with Bush. Where are the minority-rights people to celebrate Condi at the center of power? Where are the Martin Luther King people celebrating Condi Rice? Where are the women's right people celebrating the success of Condi Rice?
It would seem that the liberals and the Democrats only appreciate the success of any African-American or a woman if she is also a Democrat? Now that is the truth and I am astonished at the degrading comments toward Condi Rice which have been mentioned in the past. Uncle Tom? That is disgusting and Glenn Beck challenged Al Sharpton to defend those comments toward Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice.
You can look at the December 2006 transcript to see it.

Obama says we need to change the tone.
So let it start in here.

First of all, the people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 are the people most likely to support Condi Rice, to keep the momentum for peace in the Middle East. Condi helped voice support for the people of Lebanon to oust Syria troops that occupied their nation after the murder of Rafik Hariri back in Feb 2005. The UN was given the duty of forming a tribuanl to investigate the murder and you know what, there was another murder in November 2006.
When is the UN going to stand up and defend the people of Lebanon from thuggery?

Now, Condi spent 3 days meeting with Israel and Palestinian leaders, and also days of discussions with the King of Jordan and the King of Saudi Arabia. She is not just waving to the camera, like Donald Trump claims, Condi has rolled up her sleeves and trying to work for resolutions to end the conflict.

On the matter of setting up a presidential committee, Condi is blocked from doing that since she is in a NON-political post and would be forced by the Dems and the media to resign if she tried to show that she is running for president. That is why the nationwide grassroots efforts from California, to Texas, to Tennessee, and Florida and Iowa are having an impact to promote Condi Rice.

Please, just do a google search on
Condoleezza Rice for president.

You will find pages and pages of written viewpoints in newspapers, a copy of events by these groups and the impact of their ads. These groups have created the Condi Wave of support. She is strong on guns rights, foreign policy, and defending our nation. Civil Rights stand for diversity in our nation, and the Bush Administration has shared power with many African-American leaders starting with Colin Powell, to the Sec of Ed. Paige, to the HUD and the Justice Department. The TOP DOG is Condi Rice, a true partner with Bush. Where are the minority-rights people to celebrate Condi at the center of power? Where are the Martin Luther King people celebrating Condi Rice? Where are the women's right people celebrating the success of Condi Rice?
It would seem that the liberals and the Democrats only appreciate the success of any African-American or a woman if she is also a Democrat? Now that is the truth and I am astonished at the degrading comments toward Condi Rice which have been mentioned in the past. Uncle Tom? That is disgusting and Glenn Beck challenged Al Sharpton to defend those comments toward Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice.
You can look at the December 2006 transcript to see it.

First of all, the people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 are the people most likely to support Condi Rice, to keep the momentum for peace in the Middle East. Condi helped voice support for the people of Lebanon to oust Syria troops that occupied their nation after the murder of Rafik Hariri back in Feb 2005. The UN was given the duty of forming a tribuanl to investigate the murder and you know what, there was another murder in November 2006.
When is the UN going to stand up and defend the people of Lebanon from thuggery?

Now, Condi spent 3 days meeting with Israel and Palestinian leaders, and also days of discussions with the King of Jordan and the King of Saudi Arabia. She is not just waving to the camera, like Donald Trump claims, Condi has rolled up her sleeves and trying to work for resolutions to end the conflict.

On the matter of setting up a presidential committee, Condi is blocked from doing that since she is in a NON-political post and would be forced by the Dems and the media to resign if she tried to show that she is running for president. That is why the nationwide grassroots efforts from California, to Texas, to Tennessee, and Florida and Iowa are having an impact to promote Condi Rice.

Please, just do a google search on
Condoleezza Rice for president.

You will find pages and pages of written viewpoints in newspapers, a copy of events by these groups and the impact of their ads. These groups have created the Condi Wave of support. She is strong on guns rights, foreign policy, and defending our nation. Civil Rights stand for diversity in our nation, and the Bush Administration has shared power with many African-American leaders starting with Colin Powell, to the Sec of Ed. Paige, to the HUD and the Justice Department. The TOP DOG is Condi Rice, a true partner with Bush. Where are the minority-rights people to celebrate Condi at the center of power? Where are the Martin Luther King people celebrating Condi Rice? Where are the women's right people celebrating the success of Condi Rice?
It would seem that the liberals and the Democrats only appreciate the success of any African-American or a woman if she is also a Democrat? Now that is the truth and I am astonished at the degrading comments toward Condi Rice which have been mentioned in the past. Uncle Tom? That is disgusting and Glenn Beck challenged Al Sharpton to defend those comments toward Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice.
You can look at the December 2006 transcript to see it.

Duphys - I suppose you would advocate that the president go terminator and personally go kick their butts. Perhaps you should cut down a little on your TV watching and read a few books.
I don't know how smart Bush is, I don't think anyone really does. he did win the presidency, twice. he did attend good schools and did better then your chosen genius. But this is all just more personal attacks with no basis because of your paltry idea base. Have we been attacked since 911? have we foiled attacks? Let's talk about measurable physical metrics we can compare instead of your body count and hysterical denouncements. how many schools, businesses, banks, patents, unemployment, refugees, etc. Ever thought about that? My guess would be that thought and your mind are not intimitely acquainted.

Lesliee, Here the Comment from last Sunday's Telegraph, judge for yourself: Frank Luntz, the communications strategist who has helped mastermind a string of victories for the rival Republican party, has singled him out as the politician whose oratory puts him in pole position for next years presidential election. His whole message is one of hope and opportunity, Mr Luntz told The Sunday Telegraph. He comes across as a real person, and real is in for 2008.... Mr Luntz predicts that the party of Ronald Reagan, who was known as the Great Communicator, will also lose the White House next year unless its leaders raise their game to challenge fresh voices like that of Mr Obama. Mr Luntz highlights Sen Obamas inspiring speech to the 2004 Democrat convention - in which he talked of coaching Little League baseball, having gay friends, worshipping God and pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes - as a striking example of his unifying communication skills. I was in the hall when he gave that speech and I heard a future president, says Mr Luntz. Here was the American dream embodied in a young man running for Senate, a new Jack or Bobby Kennedy. The pollster has a long track record of identifying the phrases that make or break political and corporate campaigns. In 1994, he helped craft the Contract with America, which paved the way for 12 years of Republican domination of Congress, replacing neutral terms such as estate tax with the politically-charged death tax in order to stage a vote-winning campaign against it. So when he makes such observations, American politicians listen. In his book, Words That Work: Its Not What You Say, Its What People Hear, he identifies Mr Obama as the verbal opposite of fellow senator Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democrat 2008 nomination.

Sorry for repeated comments - not sure why it occurred.

Good comment about wanting to see health care meat on the rhetoric bones, Yockel.

I want to see Obama's healing-global-warming plan and it had better have some items on it that independent engineers deduced will be maximally effective.

That is the one place where I am concerned that plant-a-tree type rhetoric could be suicide. For us all, not just for Obama's campaign.

Science policy information flow should go scientist --> engineer --> politicians-and-general-public --> policy --> poll.

NOT the other way around.

KOZ,

Actually, what I am suggesting is that reductionist labels like "liberal", "conservative", and "moderate" are generally unhelpful. I think that is true on all sorts of levels: they aren't very useful for describing expressed ideologies, nor for describing actual activities of officeholders, nor for predicting the preferences of voters, and so on.

Good comment about wanting to see health care meat on the rhetoric bones, Yockel.

I want to see Obama's healing-global-warming plan and it had better have some items on it that independent engineers deduced will be maximally effective.

That is the one place where I am concerned that plant-a-tree type rhetoric could be suicide. For us all, not just for Obama's campaign.

Science policy information flow should go scientist --> engineer --> politicians-and-general-public --> policy --> poll.

NOT the other way around.

Judge, did you know that at the current rate, the deficit will dissappear in 3 years. Bush will leave office with a surplus. all this despite the war, 911, accounting, etc. you might want to find a new mantra to chant before it gets old. In fact the economy is something you Libs better stay away from because you can only do yourselves harm. all the talk about Bush's failures certainly don't include economic issues. Remember how funny the culture of corruption was before it became real two weeks ago?

Good comment about wanting to see health care meat on the rhetoric bones, Yockel.

I want to see Obama's healing-global-warming plan and it had better have some items on it that independent engineers deduced will be maximally effective.

That is the one place where I am concerned that plant-a-tree type rhetoric could be suicide. For us all, not just for Obama's campaign.

Science policy information flow should go scientist --> engineer --> politicians-and-general-public --> policy --> poll.

NOT the other way around.

zouk - "He is a committed leftist and will not get a single state that Kerry lost."

is that really why Kerry lost the states he lost? remember - voting "irregularities" which consistently favored the GOP, especially in Ohio, exquisitely timed color coded incentives for panic, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, etc? and also, unfortunately, Kerry being a nerd... but none of that is true of Obama, at least not that we've seen thus far. So far, he looks pretty impressive, at least to me. What a refreshing change it will be to have a president w