Or might it be Al Gore?

Dick Morris has an interesting article entitled, "Here comes Newt" from Feb. 14, that argues that McCain is on the decline, Giuliani is poised to be the centrist pick within the party; but on the right, Romney is on the decline and Gingrich has a shot to be the conservative pick if he jumps in the race now.

It's a reminder that this horse race is still just out of the gates and there's a lot of jockeying left to come.

As strong and inevitable as Hillary or Obama appear, with Edwards getting an outside shot, I still think none of them may win the nomination. When you start to look down the lineup, not many others jump out. Maybe Bill Richardson. But will UN foreign policy experience fit the bill with a majority looking for someone who can be smart and careful, but still tough.

The one that always stands out as having great potential is Wesley Clark. He's been on the record opposed to the war from Day 1, but isn't a dove that will be eliminated in the general election. He actually speaks intelligently about a lot of matters and can speak to the Christian left and center. He came in at a bad time in 2004 and didn't have his act together. But, he's seen the show. He won a primary. He has experience getting the US out of a mess of a war in the past. I hope he gets in this race.

A time will come, perhaps in a few months, when people will find themselves wavering on Hillary, Barack and Edwards, and they'll be looking for the new, new thing. Wesley Clark could be the one.

Nancy - stormin' Norman for president? Haha. Nice one.

I don't understand why Guiliiani leads McCain and Romney in every poll but is ranked number 3. I wonder why the polls are so wrong? Maybe they are of all voters and not likely Rebublican voters?

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

I think Rudy Giuliani would make an excellent running mate. Ideal republican ticket would be General Norman Schwarzkopf for President in 2008 with Rudy as his VP. Stormin' Norman could help out with the Iraq and Middle East conflicts with his knowledge and background.

Howdy Folks. I was wondering if anyone had any details on the Eastern re-union that is being held in Moncton in 2007. Cheers, Dan

I've seen Vilsack in action in Iowa, and he's actually a pretty good speaker, rousing even, at times. Looking at him that's not what you'd expect, but it's true.

"The Bush years have been such a fiasco that the American people are loathe to let another GOPer into the White House any time soon. "

I'd rather think that, democratic or republican, America won't vote for a stubborn candidate. GWB said "you can agree or disagree with me but here's what I'm gonna do" and since America needed a strong leader then, Bush was given carte blanche. America needs a new way, a new approach. You can find it in both camps.

"As a democrat, I'm looking for Obama to do enough damage to Clinton to allow Edwards to step up from behind,"
Come on, how can you vote for someone whose ass got kicked by Cheney?

As a democrat, I'm looking for Obama to do enough damage to Clinton to allow Edwards to step up from behind, and then take Obama as his running mate. An Edwards/Obama combination (or even dare I say it, a Gore/Obama combination) will be something the dem's are likely to feel more comfortable with that Clinton V McCain. A Clinton V McCain situation is one of those where voters prefer Clinton until they actually vote - where there's a very very late reversion to conservatism - the just-in-case vote - and dem's would do wise to avoid it. Edwards gets the NE and the south, as well as being by far Iowa's strongest dem, and Obama attracts the centrists.

No Republican is going to win the presidency in 2008. The Bush years have been such a fiasco that the American people are loathe to let another GOPer into the White House any time soon. McCain may have had a chance, but his surge support has already ruined that chance, so there goes that. Come November 2008, the Democrats will slightly increase their numbers in the House, drastically increase their majority in the Senate, and take back the White House. Why? Because Bush and the GOP staked the entire future of the conservative movement on the Iraq War. The recent years of Republican dominance only exposed the Republicans as corrupt and inept... the American people aren't going to forget that any time soon.

The most critical asset the next POTUS needs is respect and credibility in the International community. Bush has severly damaged Americas reputation, that needs to be restored.

So, the top candidates are:
1. Gore - hope he runs, he's got gravitas, extensive foreign policy and executive experience.
2. Richardson - well qualified, and well regarded.
3. McCain - been around the longest, extensive foreign policy knowledge. Iraq view is unpopular, but outside America he is still well regarded.
4. Biden - been around a long time, extensive foreign policy knowledge.

Obama, Edwards, Romney are all candidates speaking a message of hope with no track record behind them. The last time America picked a 'hope' candidate ahead of an established experienced candidate was in 2000. Let us hope they don't make the same mistake again.

A Gore/Richardson ticket on the Dem side would rock. None of the Repub candidates have got it IMO. McCain has a good stance on the environment, but his Iraq view makes him a no go. If Gore doesn't run, then I'm hoping Richardson goes all the way.

On the game-
Preferred R ticket: Rudy and Romney- America's Mayor and the fightin' flip-flopping Mormon from Massachusetts!

Likely R nominee: McCain, probably Romney for VP if he does well in primaries, Pawlenty otherwise

Likely D ticket: Clinton/Bayh
Preferred D ticket: Gore/Warner (though the truth is none of the Ds impress me much!)

And the next President is....

if economy stays more or less OK, the President of the United States will be John S. McCain.

On the game-
Preferred R ticket: Rudy and Romney- America's Mayor and the fightin' flip-flopping Mormon from Massachusetts!

Likely R nominee: McCain, probably Romney for VP if he does well in primaries, Pawlenty otherwise

Likely D ticket: Clinton/Bayh
Preferred D ticket: Gore/Warner (though the truth is none of the Ds impress me much!)

And the next President is....

if economy stays more or less OK, the President of the United States will be John S. McCain.

Given the republicans lack of resolve combined with the elite liberal media's adamant insistance in electing a liberal democrat in 2008, it is the elite liberal media who will choose the president in 2008, not the American people. They are already in the process of coronating Hillary Clinton(a.k.a.nurse Ratchet)America's first queen and the GOP knows it. The problem is her liberal values are antithetical to mainstream America!

Oh yeah, guess there was another point to be made. When I lived in Omaha, and Hagel was running against Ben Nelson for the US Senate, my ex and I had a very long discussion about that race. Now, Michelle is a lot to the left of me, politically, and I don't believe that with that exception she has ever voted for a Republican, but the end result was that we flipped a coin to decide who would vote for Nelson and who would vote for Hagel, that's how much Chuck Hagel impressed us.

That said, if Hagel wants to be President, it will be as a Dem or Independent, because he can NOT win the Republican nomination. There was stuff about him giving Bob Kerrey money, and he's never really been a good fit with the modern Republican party. I personally think the country could do a lot worse than having Chuck Hagel be President, but I cannot forsee any circumstance under which the Repubs will nominate him this time or at any future point.

Steve

Oh yeah, guess there was another point to be made. When I lived in Omaha, and Hagel was running against Ben Nelson for the US Senate, my ex and I had a very long discussion about that race. Now, Michelle is a lot to the left of me, politically, and I don't believe that with that exception she has ever voted for a Republican, but the end result was that we flipped a coin to decide who would vote for Nelson and who would vote for Hagel, that's how much Chuck Hagel impressed us.

That said, if Hagel wants to be President, it will be as a Dem or Independent, because he can NOT win the Republican nomination. There was stuff about him giving Bob Kerrey money, and he's never really been a good fit with the modern Republican party. I personally think the country could do a lot worse than having Chuck Hagel be President, but I cannot forsee any circumstance under which the Repubs will nominate him this time or at any future point.

Steve

"McCain doesn't have chance he'll be decimated by his memebership in the Keating Five, his divorce and his joke about Chelsea."

I don't see where's the problem with the joke about Chelsea. Funny or not, that's really not a big deal. Anyway, The Clintons accepted his apologies.

Here's a mish mosh of my observations, not to be stated with metaphysical certainty (as ViennaVoter accused me of a couple of weeks ago ;) ) but more just for fun:

1) I saw Mike Huckabee on MTP, and while I sincerely doubt that I'll vote for him, he might be the most formidable candidate the Repubs can put up, if he can walk the line on the evangelical thing, and continues along the line about poverty issues, and environmental issues and how his faith informs his views on how these issues need to be addressed.

2) I think that the Dem race is going to shape up to be a three (maybe four party) throw down, but I'm starting to doubt that Obama will be one of those parties. Where things would get really crazy would be if Gore gets in. I think Richardson has some room to make his case, and that the dynamic that I see is people outside of the Clinton-Obama camps coalescing around one or two candidates as the anti-Hilary/Obama or with Gore in the race, probably just Gore. Richardson being hispanic doesn't affect him in the same way that Obama being what he (1/2 black African)

3) The concept of Obama as the "black" candidate might be overplayed. Reading the material that CC posted last week, and talking to some friends in Chicago, Obama might be a person without a home, or at home with everyone depending on how events play. He isn't a black American in the sense that his father was first generation and as such he might very well be viewed with suspicion by the native black community. At any rate, Edwards and Clinton aren't going to give him a free pass in the black community, nor Gore if he gets in.

4) At some point Obama is going to have to come up with some substance, and preliminary reports are not promising. Its easy to be the guy who's in favor of a nebulous sort of "new politics" and sometimes it even works, especially in the 84 mold of campaign where the frontrunner is a hidebound party hack, or in the 92 mold where there isn't a clear frontrunner. With Edwards and Clinton in the race, this race doesn't shape up to be either campaign. But when pressed, Obama said "there will be universal health care by the end of the next President's first term," which shows two things, 1) he's unwilling to be the first person out there with a proposal and 2) he's already adopted the pols fondness for talking in the third person, which kinda belies the whole "new politics" thing. Its easy to be for "universal health care" as an idea, its kinda like supporting Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The reason it hasn't happened is that when it comes time to pay for it, nobody wants to do it.

That'll do for now.

Lylepink, thank you for your comments.

To Larry, I said the Marist poll shows 45% of the people want Condi run.

In the national polls, in a list of Rudy,McCain and Condi, she gets 10% to 15%, which is more than Newt, or Huckabee, or Hunter. She is in the top tier of ELECTABLE choices for the GOP in 2008.

Gallup shows Condi at 68% acceptable as the presidential candidate.

If you watched the Sunday shows, then you heard Joe Lieberman state that national defense and foreign policy are KEY factors for 2008. Joe also said he could support the Republican candidate in 2008. THAT IS A HUGE KICK IN THE FACE OF DEMOCRATS.

Condi Rice is a serious-minded diplomat. And the liberals who don't like her would not be voting for any Republican anyway. So it means nothing to me to read about why she should not be running.
But among the conservatives and Republican voters, that is a group of people who admire her and support her as a possible choice for 2008.
She has the administrative experience needed for the next president, by far more likely to be seen as GROOMING for higher office.
Few Senators have impact on policy, and few Senators ever get elected as president.
Condi Rice is seen in the minds and hearts of Republicans as a choice to carry on strong foreign policy.
The people who want a Democrat have a chance to vote and make their choices.
That is the same right the Republican have, and I come into THE FIX to debate why I support Condi over any of the other 10 names being shown to us.
No votes will be cast until January 2008, so we are debating this for the next year.
I don't mind debate, it just gets silly with the namecalling.

I am amazed at the sheer number of people joining the Presidential race. Is anyone else? People like Chris Dodd, George Pataki, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Dennis Kuciunich, ect. Does anyone have any surprise picks that could really make the primary a race for them besides: Clinton, Edwards, Obama and McCain, Romney and Guiliani?

If I had to pick a surprisingly strong cadidate I would go with Duncan Hunter. He's a defense hawk who is driving home the messege of "security through stregnth", promising to nominate conservative court justices and is focusing on "fair trade deals" to gain support from the textile industry. It should be very interesting to see how this messege spills over. Of the 4 early primary states, Hunter is spending the most time in South Carolina. SC is a big textile state with many retired service people and the majority of the state is conservative Christians. Romney has been campaigning there alot lately, and McCain enjoys the support of SC US senator Lyndsey Graham. Either way, Hunter's messege there in SC and a good showing for him in Iowa or Nevada could definately put him in the running for the 'R' nomination.

I don't see anyone running a campaign to win in the democratic nomination race except the front-runners: Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

I don't understand for the life of me why Sam Brownback is 4th in the R nomination. I am as conservative a Republican as they come...but Brownback has not really accomplished anything and there are alot more Conservative Christians that demonstrate love better than him. Were not electing head Pharisee, were electing a Republican nominee we think can win the election and lead the country. That being said, I think 4th has to be Duncan Hunter. He's been a vietnam vet, congressman, Head of the House Armed Services Committee, has a strong socially conservative voting record, a populist messege to the textile workers and executives who have lost jobs due to the perceived "unfair trade" deals with China, b/c they won't float their currency. So, I think Duncan Hunter is on to something. The big question for Hunter is: can he raise the money to compete? If he can, he could be the darkhorse that can win it all. If not, he's just another candidate. Time will tell.

Come on, folks. Any dark-horse predictions?

McCain doesn't have chance he'll be decimated by his memebership in the Keating Five, his divorce and his joke about Chelsea. I think Huckabee has the best chance for Republicans in the general election

'José Wilfredo Salgado says he collected baby skulls as trophies in the 1980s, when he fought as a government soldier in El Salvador's civil war. They worked well as candleholders, he recalls, and better as good-luck charms.

In the most barbaric chapters of a conflict that cost more than 75,000 lives, he enthusiastically embraced the scorched-earth tactics of his army bosses, even massacres of children, the elderly, the sick -- entire villages.

It was all in the name of beating back communism, Salgado, now the mayor of San Miguel, said he remembers being told.

But as El Salvador commemorates the 15th anniversary of the war's end this month, Salgado is haunted by doubts about what he saw, what he did and even why he fought. A 12-year U.S.-backed war that was defined at the time as a battle over communism is now seen by former government soldiers such as Salgado, and by former guerrillas, as less a conflict about ideology and more a battle over poverty and basic human rights.

"We soldiers were tricked -- they told us the threat was communism," Salgado said as bodyguards with pistols tucked into their waistbands hovered nearby at his home, ringed by barbed wire. "But I look back and realize those weren't communists out there that we were fighting -- we were just poor country people killing poor country people."

Of course it's going to be a filthy campaign, Pierre. it always is nowadays. Republicans have armies of oppo research people and dump tons of money into trashing dem candidates --In fact, that's their primary strategy. Did any R run on issues in the last campaign? No, they ran on painting their opponents as 'soft on terror' or other equally bogus slash-and-burn technique.

And this year, I think dems will fight back. So it's gong to be bloody.

'FORT LAUDERDALE -- A pizza driver wanted in connection with the fatal shooting of a teen customer over stolen chicken wings and a man convicted of choking and slapping his 4-year-old nephew for playing with a light switch are among those licensed by the state of Florida to carry concealed guns, a newspaper reported today.

A South Florida Sun-Sentinel analysis of state records found loopholes, errors and miscommunication gave hundreds of criminals access to concealed weapons permits.

Among the roughly 410,000 Floridians licensed to carry a hidden gun: 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 people with outstanding warrants, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions and six registered sex offenders, the newspaper reported. '

'New sources, including an advisor to Gov. Mike Huckabee, have told the Arkansas Times that Huckabee and a senior member of his staff exerted behind-the-scenes influence to bring about the parole of rapist Wayne Dumond, who Missouri authorities say raped and killed two women there shortly after his parole.

The Times' new reporting shows the extent to which Huckabee and a key aide were involved in the process to win Dumond's release. It was a process marked by deviation from accepted parole practice and direct personal lobbying by the governor, in an apparently illegal and unrecorded closed-door meeting with the parole board (the informal name by which the Post Prison Transfer Board is known).'

Does anyone think this story, which has been floating around for a couple of months, will hurt Huckabee at all?

About the "madrassa hoax", it's quite important for Obama's supporters not to let those awful rumors going on. That's an old dirty trick. A lot of people don't know Obama, and if that negative rumor is the first thing they hear about him, that's all they would remember. Remember 2004. Bush released a lot of ads portraying Kerry as a flip-flopper and it took a lot of time for Kerry to fight against it.
I think this is gonna be a really muddy campaign.

On the GOP side, I have been very impressed with Huckabee's public appearances. To me he looks like the best contender to fill the enormous gap left in the Republican field by the implosion of George Allen. I also think Giuliani is underrated at #3--if the Republicans think he is their best (maybe only) shot to win an extremely tough general election, I believe they will line up behind him.

On the Democratic side, Edwards will need to make a strong move over the next few months. Given that he was the VP nominee in 2004, he should be an early leader based on name recognition alone, but in many polls he seems to be struggling to keep up with not only Clinton but Obama. And the idea that he is particularly strong in the early-primary states is a mixed blessing--for example, outside of Vilsack, Edwards probably has the most to lose in Iowa if he disappoints expectations.

I think America needs an humble and open minded President. That's what America mourned with Gerald Ford's death and that's what America longs for.

I think that the Democrats only shot at winning is with a ticket of Bill Richardson and/or Kathleen Sebelius/Brian Schweitzer or Janet Napolitano. The Democrats can not let their passion overtake their reason. What America needs now is someone with both the international and domestic political skills to guide this country forward after the Bush years. It really is "all about the economy stupid!"

Tina is a troll.

to meuphys:

Tina keps contradicting herself. Eralier today Tina said 10 to 15 percent of people asked thought Condi should run. So, 85 to 90 percent of people don't think she should run. Tina seems to have trouble seeing the whole picture.

Tina, why? WHY? i have yet to see a good reason that Condi Rice should be president, and plenty of reasons (on the news!) why not.

Most of you will name the usual suspects as presidential contenders, but I believe it may be a sleeper and an underdog, and whoever that underdog is, I'm urging him or her to stand up for the underdog, and to adopt a campaign theme song reflecting of that message coming from an underdog artist like myself. This song is still available as a contender:

A Future to Behold
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr BLT (c)2007
http://www.drblt.net/music/future3.mp3

Dr BLT
blog n roll artist

Tina: Do not let these folk intimidate you, your choice is what it is, no matter what. I admire you for taking your stand and really wish more folk would not be afraid to be as outspoken as you. This is what this country is all about and however much we may disagree, let us try to at least not stoop to the leval that so many appear to be doing.

william is NO democrat, Tina -- not by a freeaking long shot...

Ok, here are the facts to William who said"YEAH RIGHT" after I reported that
There are thousands of dollars which have been spent already on TV and radio in Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, and Tennessee promoting Condi for 2008.

****************
WHO radio in Iowa ran an ad for over 2 months of ad. You can easily call their radio station and ask.

WMUR of New Hampshire also ran weeks of radio ads plus a TV ad promoting Condi Rice for president. Again, you can easily call the station to confirm it.

Ads played in Texas, California, Florida and Tennessee. Paperwork has to be filled out by the 527 group, and it was reported in the news about the efforts nationwide.

William, pick up the phone and make some phone calls. If you want to challenge me, make it based on facts, not the fact that you don't like Condi Rice. The polls show that from 10% to 15% of the people polled have considered her and want her to run.
You can pick your choice for the Democrats, and you just need to accept the Republican voters have the right to make their choice as well. That is how the system is set up.

'Newt Gingrich bluntly described Iran's threat to the West in general and America and Israel in particular in his speech to the Herzliya Conference held by the Institute for Policy and Strategy.... If history repeats -- and let's pray it does not -- then Gingrich would find himself in the position that Churchill got to in 1939, when his correct assessment of the Nazi threat was tragically validated, and 60 million people (!) died horribly and unnecessarily.'

-newt as churchill -- ROFLOL

FYI: A couple things have happened this weekend that indeed does help my favorite, Hillary, and Obama as well. The "Madrassa Hoax", an indepth article by J. Alter, of newsweek, about the smear campaigh already being waged by our favorite conservative news outlets. The article points out two specific things I have been trying to get across. The "fear" factor and "accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing so you will know what you are doing".

"The Guardian interviews a Mahdi army commander. "[Fadhel's] main job is kidnapping Sunnis allegedly involved in attacking Shia areas. It is men like Fadhel, responsible for the scores of bodies dumped on Baghdad's streets daily, whom the US troops pouring into Baghdad will have to bring under control if they are to have any hope of quelling the city's civil war. ... Fadhel and other Mahdi Army commanders describe an intimate relationship with Iraqi security services, especially the commandos of the Iraqi interior ministry. He says the Mahdi Army often uses these official forces in conducting its own operations against Sunni 'terrorists.'"

The Mahdi Army laying low, and Sunni militants step up attacks in Baghdad. "Basim Shareef, a member of Parliament and part of the Shiite coalition that controls the government, said the attacks might be timed to coincide with the Shiite holy days. But he thought it was more likely that militants were taking advantage of the relative lull in activity by Shiite militia leaders, who might be worried about becoming the targets of the new Baghdad security plan. ... The spate of recent attacks appear to have been designed not just to inflict the maximum amount of civilian suffering, but also to grind all aspects of daily life closer to a halt. In a little over a week, places of learning, busy shopping markets and even an animal market have been targets."

http://warandpiece.com/

The former first lady also said has learned the lessons of the last two presidential campaigns, both lost by Democrats who responded slowly to criticism.

"When you are attacked, you have to deck your opponent," Clinton said. "I have been through the political wars longer than some of you have been alive. We've got to be prepared to hold our ground and fight back."

lthough he has not been seen or heard since last July, a militant Islamist group in Algeria says Osama bin Laden gave formal approval this week for the group to change its name.

In a statement issued by the Algerian Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC), the group -- now known as "Al Qaeda Organization in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb"-- says it had to await bin Laden's personal review for the name change and has now received it.

Members of jihadi forums have noted that the new statement shows bin Laden is alive and well.

One posting, entitled "News About Sheikh Osama," points out that bin Laden's alleged response to the group is proof that he was supervising matters. "Thanks be to God for the good news. We await to hear your voice," said the posting.

'But there's the vote approval for a person who wants a surge - some of the candidates may now need to explain that one also.'

as Alan in Missoula notes, there aen't many choices. If you read about Petraus, you will note that he wrote the Army field guide to fighting insurgents, so he is well qualified, as eveyrone knows.

However, the official manual suggests we need many times more troops in relationship to Iraqis than we can possibly provide.

I saw some of the (in)famous Romney v Kennedy debate on Youtube. Gee Romney seems like a real slimeball to me. Just an impression I know but he seems incredibly insincere and doesn't seem like someone you can trust. Too much hair gel doesn't help either.
Seems like he will say anything and take any position the public wants...whatever helps him get elected.

'From high-dollar fraud to conspiracy to bribery and bid rigging, Army investigators have opened up to 50 criminal probes involving battlefield contractors in the war in Iraq and the U.S. fight against terrorism, The Associated Press has learned.

Senior contracting officials, government employees, residents of other countries and, in some cases, U.S. military personnel have been implicated in millions of dollars of fraud allegations.

"All of these involve operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait," Chris Grey, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, confirmed Saturday to the AP.

"CID agents will pursue leads and the truth wherever it may take us," Grey said. "We take this very seriously."

Battlefield contractors have been implicated in allegations of fraud and abuse since the war in Iraq began in spring 2003. A special inspector general office that focused solely on reconstruction spending in Iraq developed cases that led to four criminal convictions.

The problems stem in part from the Pentagon's struggle to get a handle on the unprecedented number of contractors now helping run the nation's wars. Contractors are used in battle zones to do nearly everything but fight. They run cafeterias and laundries for troops, move supplies, run communication systems and repair weapons systems.'

Generals serve in political jobs and serve the administration that commands them. Supporting and implementing the current Bush administration push for a "surge" is his duty. As a former soldier and combat veteran of Vietnam, I understand duty and why it transcends one's personal political beliefs.

I think if you read "In the Company of Soldiers," the story of his leadership of the 101st Division in Iraq, you will find that he is a thoughtful and free-thinking leader not bound by ideology. That is why he enjoys broad support in the Senate. Of course the new commander in Iraq is goping to support and implement the policy of the civilian commander in Chief. He either does that, or he retires.

It is retired generals who are free to criticize the administration's Iraq policy. Please note that a great many of them have done just that.

Frankly I am glad to see General Petraeus move up. He will probably rise to Army Chief of Staff some day.

In a difficult war, which I don't support, he is still one of the most intelligent leaders we coud have. If my son, a professional soldier who has already had one tour, has to go back, I will be relieved that it's General Petraeus leading the troops.

I said "should we see a marked improvement" - not that we currently are.

But there's the vote approval for a person who wants a surge - some of the candidates may now need to explain that one also.

While some are scrambling to explain support, or proving they never supported the war, etc., the voting records of some keep making a different statement.

Just noting something that was pointed out this morning.

i don't know where you're seeing "marked improvement." more bombs friday, saturday, and sunday - also, as another poster noted (although maybe not in this particular discussion - don't remember) even with bush's recent escalation, there are not as many boots on the ground as there were a year and a half ago, and things have only gotten worse since then. i trust the bipartisan examination by the Iraq Study Group far more than i do the deep - divinely-inspired? - thought of our president.

Interesting note this morning - There is the "dichotomy" of the whirlwind Senate approval of General Petraeus who wants a surge but some candidates continue to demand withdrawl.

Interestingly enough - as pointed out, it does present an unfortunate situation if someone chooses to press the candidates for an explanation. Not a single dissenting vote.

So it would more seem that the interest is more about hammering an unpopular president than actually what they believe.

What was also noted this morning is that some are now backing away from the "it won't work" opinion - things appear to be slowly eeking around a turn - even al-Sadr's people are falling back.

I think we're witnessing a shift to the center by some to be able to maneuver to the "winning" opinion should we see a marked improvement in an unpopular conflict.

Yet some involved in the increasingly aggressive standoff over Iran fear tensions will reach snapping point between March and June this year, with a likely scenario being Israeli air strikes on symbolic Iranian nuclear plants.

The sense of imminent crisis has been driven by statements from Israel, not least from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has insisted that 2007 is make-or-break time over Iran's nuclear programme.

. . .

It also emerged last week in the Israeli media that the country's private diplomatic efforts to convince the world of the need for tough action on Iran were being co-ordinated by Meir Dagan, the head of Israel's foreign intelligence service, Mossad.

Hawkish elements of the Israeli government working in tandem with hawkish elements of the U.S. government to spread the chaos outward.

Lieberman revealed for the bush weenie and toady thhat he is -- by Brownback!

'This morning on Fox News, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) echoed the Bush administration and claimed that people who oppose escalation in Iraq are emboldening terrorists. "[I]t will discourage our troops, who we're asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy," Lieberman said.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who announced on Friday he will support Sen. John Warner's (R-VA) anti-escalation resolution, pointed out the obvious: "I don't see this enemy as needing any more emboldening or getting it from any resolution. They're emboldened now."

'Iran's efforts to produce highly enriched uranium, the material used to make nuclear bombs, are in chaos and the country is still years from mastering the required technology.

Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.

Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.'

He's in. It's going to be a battle on the right for who can out 'conservative' each other -- they'll call for an end to all abortions, then gay relationships, birth control, then they'll have to up the ante or call or stoning adulterers. It's gong to be a fun election...

'LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Republican Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a favorite of conservatives, will take the first step in a 2008 presidential bid, an official told The Associated Press on Friday.

Huckabee, 51, plans to file papers on Monday establishing an exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money and hire campaign staff, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement.'

'Contrary to the common liberal view, I don't believe that the 9/11 attacks were payback for U.S. foreign policy. Bin Laden isn't upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.) He isn't upset because Washington is allied with despotic regimes in the region. Israel aside, what other regimes are there in the Middle East? It isn't all about Israel. (Why hasn't al-Qaeda launched a single attack against Israel?) The thrust of the radical Muslim critique of America is that Islam is under attack from the global forces of atheism and immorality -- and that the United States is leading that attack.'

Why does the WaPo print drivel like that whihc issues from Dinesh D'souza, one of the most dishonest pundits in America? Everything he says is a lie. Here he suggests that there 'are no US troops in Mecca' -- no, not now, but there were on 9/11. They were ordered to pull out the next day after The Saudi princes asked their buddy Mr. Bush to do so.

At least TRY for a little veracity, Dinesh, you might not be such a laughing stock. Been dating Ann Coulter lately? You have about that much credibility.

I might add also, william, that it is quite clear to a lot of people here that you are a blatant racist, in spite of your pathetic denials of such. Why don't you just admit it to yourself and at least be honest about it? It spills out of everything you say.

''Liberals didn't like Gilmore as governor because he cut taxes which resulted in a deficit (which would not have existed if wasteful entitlement programs didnt exist!)'

If I had some bread, I could have a ham sandwich. If I had some ham.

This is why 'movement conservatives' are completely incapble of governing... you cannot even recognize reality and react to it. You simply instead create an ideologic construct that does not exist, and react to that-- i.e. Gilmore does not wish for 'entitlement programs' [which by the way, we have paid for with our own money and deserve to receive] to exist, but he can't change that, so he simply ACTS as if they don't exist--by cutting taxes and creating massive deficits.

Just like Bush. Unfit to govern a dog pound.

Joel is a buffoon.

'Why don't you move to France or Sweden? America doesn't need some pinko tie-dye shirt wearing nutcase like you.'

It's you that's un-american, my friend. Why don't you move to Russia or China?

Likely Dem nominee: Edwards
Preferred Dem nominee: Gore
Likely Dem ticket: Edwards/Clark
Preferred Dem ticket: Gore/Obama
Dark Horse: Richardson

Likely Repub nominee: Guiliani
Preferred Repub nominee: Hagel
Likely Repub ticket: Guiliani/Huckabee
Preferred Repub ticket: Hagel/Huckabee
Dark Horse: Gingrich

in re: Romney - "in the early stages of the nomination he has performed admirably."
Based on his track record as Massachusetts governor, he's more interested in winning than in actually governing. He will say and do whatever he thinks will help his chances.
and his attendance record as governor this year has been anything but admirable - he was absent more than half the time!
he is on an ego trip, and he runs only to convince others that he is a smarter, more capable, and more moral person than almost anyone else. (he long ago convinced himself.)

William, drop the mouse from your sweaty little hands and back away slowly from your computer. It amazes me that you continue to blindly color others' arguments with the racism you deny having yourself.
e.g. "Obama being half white will not attract more white voters than he would if he was all black, and it will, in all probability, turn off not only a significant number of white voters, but many blacks as well!"
have you considered that other, more mature voters, might base their vote not on race, but rather the qualifications of the candidate? Obama certainly has those.
or this: "Obama being half white will not attract more white voters than he would if he was all black, and it will, in all probability, turn off not only a significant number of white voters, but many blacks as well!"
and you know this how? your seminar in current events doesn't count, and you have yet to establish any basis for your opinions on race in this country. news flash - some people actually CAN and DO look beneath a candidate's skin. After all, we're more interested in the brain, and Obama's is first class.
here's another one:
"we do not have credibility now because we have never had a nonwhite president?"
glad you asked. we do not have credibility now because we have a president who seems to base his decisions not on the facts - and experts' understanding of them - but solely on his own gut, an organ which has landed us in a world of hurt. i do not believe that the rest of the world would collapse in scorn if the US elected a minority. they might actually approve.
and this:
"you always care what "the rest of the world" thinks, kind of like a high school kid who constantly obeys peer pressure just because he thinks it will make him popular."
speaking from experience, Billy Boy? it's actually nothing like that at all - geopolitical diplomacy vs. locker room angst. yes, i know you were trying to sneer at someone else, but face it: it's NOT our world, and we have to share it with others. seems to me the way to do that is to at least listen to what they have to say.
finally, there's this:
"our 1994/Reagan/Goldwater roots."
the Republican Party i used to at least respect owed more to Lincoln and Eisenhower. ever heard of them?

Hillary is more conservative than Guliani. Hard to believe but true.

"So, we have a lot of front-runners potentially breaking into the WASP club - Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Giuliani, and Romney (as Mormon)"

Clinton isn't a WASP? I thought she was Methodist?

I don't think Hillary's "negatives" are as bad as some think. She certainly is someone Republicans love to hate. But her negatives came largely from resentment of her unofficial power in the White House. Partly it was more because of the break in tradition. First Ladies aren't supposed to be out front on anything but the "motherly" issues, like literacy, etc.

But give her some credit. She convinced New York voters to put her in the Senate after recently moving there after the end of Bill Clinton's presidency. She not only overcame her supposed negatives, but also the "carpetbagger" issue.

New York is not necessarily a given for Democrats. Pataki, Giulliani, D'Amato come to mind.

This is also a woman who had a lot of active decision-making participation in two successful presidential campaigns. She knows how to win them. Her primary problem, of course, in the primary will be appealing to liberal Democrats. Regardless of what Republicans say, Hillary comes out of the Democratic Leadership Council background, which is of course the conservative wing of the Party.
But, with her out front of her own race, she can sell her own story. She did it in New York, she shoudln't be counted out anywhere else.
The 2008 primary field is so front loaded, that the early wins are going to very crucial. There is no longer time for the lesser funded candidates to prove themselves early to become viable alternatives and attract the money.
Early front runners have failed in the past. But I think it's still most likely a McCain-Clinton race on 2008.

Nobody else seems to have noticed, but electing Rudy would in fact make presidential history as well as the first Italian-American president. Yes, Italians are essentially considered white, but that's still history in my books. As an Italian American, I would take notice.

So, we have a lot of front-runners potentially breaking into the WASP club - Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Giuliani, and Romney (as Mormon). Exciting

So what if Sandy doesn't like Kerry and thinks Kerry is a buffoon? She is entitled to her opinion. And what nerve to say Sandy has nothing else interesting to say, when this blog is filled with completely irrelevant and useless commentary, self-promotion and drivel. I have yet to see Sandy writing 5,000 words about some irrelevant topic. Maybe she repeats that she thinks Kerry is a buffoon, but that's nowhere nearly as bad as the same people who complain about Sandy are the same ones who repeatedly say that Bush is Hitler, Bush is the devil, Bush is a mass murderer, Bush was responsible for Katrin and the Indonesian Tsunami and the Beubonic Plague, and so on. At least Sandy gets to the point and avoids melodramatic hyperventilation from the anti-war whack jobs who have nothing else to do all day but write into blogs with their meaningless drivel.

I have been checking reports from Iowa throughout the day and night and each and every one appears to be giving Hillary better reviews than even I had expected. The answer to the question about the war vote, which the media has played up to the hilt, was buried at the bottom of one article where she stated in "the do-overs" part in her answer. Check it out.

To William:

I guess I have more faith in my fellow Americans than you do. I trust them and believe that in the words of one of the greatest singers and songwritters, "The times they are changin'"

Forgive me for not capitalizing the "w" in World, I didn't think on a blog it would make such a difference, but apparently it does to you.

Be Blessed! :)

To William:

I guess I have more faith in my fellow Americans than you do. I trust them and believe that in the words of one of the greatest singers and songwritters, "The times they are changing'"

Forgive me for not capitalizing the "w" in World, I didn't think on a bog it would make such a difference, but apparently it does to you.

Be Blessed! :)

"William -- I'll repeat my offer to let you pick the GOP nominee."

OK! Call Amnesty Mel at the RNC and see if he agrees. I would LOVE to pick the GOP nominee!

If I did, it would not be any of the people running now.

I would pick Hayley Barbour from Mississippi, and he would destroy whomever the Dems ran (especially Osama!).

And, as evidenced from his handling of Katrina, he would be an EXCELLENT president! Even most liberals admit Barbour is a great governor!

But he is running for reelection in 2008, and not for president. That is wise, b/c he will have served 2 terms as governor by 2012 and no one can say he is inexperienced.

Also, 2008 will be a hard year for a Republican to win. Hopefully, we will get a Dem president rather than a triangulating RINO, so we can take back the WH in 2012 with a good conservative, like Barbour.

I can't wait for Barbour or Sanford to run in 2012!!!

" Jim Gilmore would be fantastic as far as I'm concerned. The guy was a DISASTER as governor and as NRC chair, which is why he got the boot."

Liberals didn't like Gilmore as governor because he cut taxes which resulted in a deficit (which would not have existed if wasteful entitlement programs didnt exist!)

While I acknowledge that he is not the ideal president, nor a very good governor, and quite possibly a mediocre one, he is passable, for a candidate.

But in any case, you really needn't worry. He doesn't seem to be serious about running, and hasn't even started to assemble a staff or infrastructure. I doubt he'll really run.

"Also, you don't seem to know Virginia politics as well as you pretend. Mark Warner was never a congressman. He ran for SENATE against Senator Warner, but lost narrowly before eventually becoming governor. "

I though Warner was a congressman first. Sorry if I am mistaken. Maybe I confused him with Allen, who was a congressman before he was governor.

"On a related subject, wat exactly do you think makes someone "conservative?" Obviously you value tax cuts and socially conservative positions, but you don't seem to think balancing budgets is at all important. At one time, that was the touchstone of the Republican party and conservatives. I guess that makes you a big government "conservative." Sadly, those are the least intelectually honest conservatives, IMO. It's a sad day when I long for Goldwater conservatives. Sigh."

Colin, I understand your point. I DO care immensely about the deficit, which is why I favor pay-go spending, and slashing wasteful entitlement programs like Medicaid and welfare (yes, I know liberals will say that is unfair.)

The deficit and out of control spending is one reason, of many, why I dislike Bush. He has implemented VERY few policies which are truly conservative.

I am certainly not a big government conservative. The GOP has lost its way, and that is why it's lost a lot of support, with conservatives staying home or voting for conservative Dems like Tester or Webb.

While many of the Republicans in the GOP leadership today are the big government kind, such as Bush, Boehner, McConnell, Blunt, Lott, etc, there are some true conservatives left, such as Barbour, whom I mentioned, Sanford (a Goldwater conservative), Senators Coburn, DeMint, Sessions, Thune (I LOVE Sessions and Thune!!!) as well as Senator Isakson of GA and Vitter of LA.

Ironically, many of the older , longer serving GOP senators have become the big government supporters, who love pork and K street lobbyists. Examples include Lott, McConnell, Cochran, Warner, and many others.

There are also a lot of good Congressmen in the goldwater mold, like Tancredo, Paul (although Paul is a little weird), Linder, Goode, etc.

Don't worry, when Bush is gone, we will renew what is left of the GOP, and return to our 1994/Reagan/Goldwater roots.

Regardung HRC, Her Royal C..., it's obvious that she intends in purchasing the White House by selling shares of influence like Max Bialystock and Bloom ala The Producers;you know where interests, media, medicine, pharaceuticals, finance, etc., collectively own 250 percent of the woman.

When it becomes apparent that she is stuck at 40 percent popularity of the Dems and Big Money starts to not give lotsa dough anymore, Big Al will step in next January and run the table leaving the Queen shreilley shreking.

Nobody believes that she is anything but a woman who hitched her wagon to a popular politican-hubby. Al Gore and Obama have one thing in common. They both have core values, and their voting record shows their idealism.

" Only to say I'm supporting Senator Obama."

That's nice. Thank you for sharing.

"He is both black and white, (it doesn't get any better than that) which makes me like him even more."

Ummmmmmmmm...you like Obama "more" because of his race? That's intelligent (sarc). Would you consider it racist if someone liked a WASP because of his race? You're stupid for liking any politician "more" because of their race. and how is that a benefit? It always amuses me when liberals opine how Obama, a half-white, half-black man, Christian-former Muslim, will help our nation "get beyond racial and religious divisions".

That's wishful thinking on behalf of Osama's supporters.

I believe a fully black man would stand a better chance of being elected. Many whites (and a lot of black people and other minorities as well) are privately opposed to interracial marriage (in some states, upwards of 70% oppose it). I think that will hurt Obama's chances.

Obama being half white will not attract more white voters than he would if he was all black, and it will, in all probability, turn off not only a significant number of white voters, but many blacks as well!

Interracial politicians have traditionally not been very successful, with Bill Richardson being the only exception I can think of (but NM is about 40 something percent Hispanic, at least, which accounts for much of his support.)

"I think when he is elected it will do so much for our Country regarding the race problem."

Wow...do you really think so? Gosh...I can't wait for him to be sworn in!!!

"We will have instant credibility around the World."

And we do not have credibility now because we have never had a nonwhite president? Does Britain, which has never had a nonwhite Prime Minister, have credibility? What about France? Norway?

And if we elect a nonwhite we will suddenly have credibility??

That's the problem with you liberal moonbats..you always care what "the rest of the world" thinks, kind of like a high school kid who constantly obeys peer pressure just because he thinks it will make him popular.

Oh, and "World" shouldn't be capitalized.

William -- I'll repeat my offer to let you pick the GOP nominee. Jim Gilmore would be fantastic as far as I'm concerned. The guy was a DISASTER as governor and as NRC chair, which is why he got the boot. Also, you don't seem to know Virginia politics as well as you pretend. Mark Warner was never a congressman. He ran for SENATE against Senator Warner, but lost narrowly before eventually becoming governor.

On a related subject, wat exactly do you think makes someone "conservative?" Obviously you value tax cuts and socially conservative positions, but you don't seem to think balancing budgets is at all important. At one time, that was the touchstone of the Republican party and conservatives. I guess that makes you a big government "conservative." Sadly, those are the least intelectually honest conservatives, IMO. It's a sad day when I long for Goldwater conservatives. Sigh.

Only God knows who will win the 2008 race for the Presidency so I won't speculate. Only to say I'm supporting Senator Obama. He is both black and white, (it doesn't get any better than that) which makes me like him even more. I think when (if the Lord says the same) he is elected it will do so much for our Country regarding the race problem. We will have instant credibility around the World.

Thank you for reading my comments
I love Bill Clinton, I'm not too crazy about his wife. I think a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Whitehouse is more than our Country should have to bear.

Noreaster - I doubt Webb would be picked for VP. He's too confrontational, and probably couldn't even carry VA for the Dems. He only won by 8,000 votes out of 2.5 million cast, and he only won because Allen self-destructed, and because 2006 was a hugely anti-GOP year. Moreover, Webb will have served in the Senate for less than 2 years in 2008. That's not enough experience to be VP. Plus, the Dems won't want his writing to be dredged up again.

I definitely think Webb may be on a presidential ticket ONE DAY (assuming he's reelected) but probably not in 2008.

The Dem nominee (probably Hillary) would be wise to pick someone with more experience and more likeability in their state than Jim Webb. She should pick someone who actually MAY be able to deliver their state in the general.

Her best choice would probably be Evan Bayh, and she went to Iraq with him, which could be foreshadowing.

Bayh on the ticket would give Hillary a much better chance of taking Ohio, and keeping PA, NH, etc in the blue. bayh in the VP slot may even take Indiana, though I doubt it.

Warner as VP would help balance the ticket and make it seem more moderate, but I really don't see Hillary taking VA either way.

Brian Sweitzer would not be a bad pick, although he would be stronger at the top of the ticket than at the bottom.

I don't know if Sweitzer as VP could take red states, but if in 2012 Sweitzer runs for president, at the top of the ticket, I think he could take MT, WY, IN, OH, IA, NM, CO, and put some other red states in play.

Colin - Tancredo may not be electable (as long as the Dem nominee is relatively moderate) but Gilmore certainly is. He headed up an anti-terror committee before 9/11, and the committee's report, published 1 week before 9/11, recommended a Homeland Security cabinet post/czar, shared intelligent and increased interfacing and cooperation between the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, and other recommendations the 9/11 commission later made.

So, he has strong enough national security credentials. In addition, he served as head of the RNC for one year (until the Bushies booted him for being conservative), so he has fundraising skills, and presumably still has connections with the big donors.

Finally, he was governor of VA, and lowered taxes (which will gain him a great deal of conservative support, especially from powerful groups like the Club For Growth.) Liberals claim that his tax cuts hurt the economy of his state, but conservatives disagree, and his tax cutting record will greatly appeal to them.

I would say Gilmore is about as qualified to be president as Mark Warner, who, if he had run, would have been one of the Dem frontrunners.

Warner has more legislative and political experience than Gilmore, since Warner was a congressman before he was governor, but Gilmore has far stronger national security and administrative credentials than Warner.

But as I said, it will be hard for Gilmore to gain traction in the primaries. However, it is certainly not impossible, especially with a conservative candidate lacking.

And Colin: you said I should be allowed to choose the nominee, as it would ensure the Dem being elected.

Well, if the Dems choose Obama as their nominee, that will ENSURE that ANY Republican but Condi (sorry Tina) WILL win in 2008.

So please Dems, pick Obama! Obama 2008!!

As for Bill Ricardoson, I wouldn't bet to heavily on his electability, either.

Interesting observation Staley. I saw Kaine on C-SPAN in a debate a VA Governor's race debate in 2005; he was okay - his opponent helped in that. Then I saw the response to the 2006 State of the Union; if anybody was "not ready for prime time" it was him.

But then last Fall I saw him C-SPAN again at a campaign rally for Webb. With Webb and Mark Warner on the same stage, Kaine was by far the best. Great presence, great rapport with the audience, great timing. Totally different from the SOTU person.

Kaine could be a gem in the rough for the Democrats. How does he get past Mark Warner though?

What jumps out at me is that this cycle (like most cycles in the past) no one really looks totally strong. I would've put McCain as the strongest overall, but the already disastrous and getting worse situation in Iraq weakens him more and more each week. HRC is similarly strong but has so many doubts about her candidacy. I think she may begin to turn a corner on most of those soon by the sheer power of inevitability--the longer she's the frontrunner, the more doubts fade. I know some of my own have started to fade already.

I know it's really stupid to worry too much at this point about running mates, but I think it's interesting that 3 of the best prospects for Democrats (especially if HRC is the nominee, but also for other potential ticket-toppers) are from Virginia. Warner and Webb both look good, but I think Tim Kaine might be even better.

I LOVE the idea of either Gilmore or Tancredo being the GOP nominee. Accordingly, I hereby move to allow William to pick the next GOP candidate. Honestly, I can't think of a better way to ensure that the next POTUS is a democrat.

PS the last several unsigned posts are rather clearly from William. Sorry to see he's no longer even willing to sign his name. Sad.

Guliani will NEVER get the GOP nomination, and you can take THAT to the bank.

The right wing MAY tolerate McCain, since at least he is pro-life and anti-gay marriage (if shakily), but that is as far left as they will go.

There is no way Guliani, who is extremely anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay, and pro-affirmative action, gets much support.

Only the Linc Chafee branch of the GOP will support Rudy, and even they may be turned off by his numerous skeletons and scandals. Furthermore, the Chafee wing of the GOP counts for about 10% of it at most, and that's a very generous estimate.

Guliani's ONE claim to fame is his handling of 9/11, which his reputation for being strong on fighting terror is due to. But McCain has equally strong credentials in that field.

Finally, McCain has already picked up a ton of endorsements from a wide variety of politicians, including many in key states.

Romney has had a few endorsements, but trails McCain by a lot.

So far, Guliani, Brownback, etc have had NO major endorsements that I can think of, and will have to rely on grassroots support.

To some extent, that may be there for Brownback, but not Guliani.

However, Brownback's pro-amnesty and mildly anti-death penalty stances will cause a lot of people who would have supported him to either simply not support anyone, or go to a smaller candidate like Tancredo or Hunter or Thompson.

Jim Gilmore, I think, would make a good president, BUT so far, all he has done was file papers with the FEC. He has no official website, no exploratory committee that anyone knows about that has actually been assembled, and if he has any infrastructure or operatives on the ground in key states, he is keeping awfully quiet about it, and no one knows.

So Its hard to say if Gilmore is even serious.

If he announces very soon, he may emerge as the right wing candidate, and gather some momentum, and he can probably count of fundraising support from VA conservatives and maybe some other conservatives in the South.

He may also get a good deal of grassroots support at Brownback's expense.

But if he's serious, he needs to act like it.

He may not be able to raise money on par with the big candidates, but if grassroots conservatives, especially in VA and the South, donate to him, he could probably raise several million, maybe even low double digits.

Posted by: | January 27, 2007 03:31 PM

Talk about gutless wonders...

"no nukes, global solidarity, humanitarian aid not military offenses...I did not vote for Bill Clinton and I did not vote for Papa Bush. So, far, for 2008, looks like I'm not voting due to no good choices."

From your description of your ideal candidate, it's obvious that you are one of those fringe left lunatic freaks in the Dean/Kucinich mold.

No nukes...you're incredibly stupid. According to you we should give up our nukes when Iran, NK, and China are getting stronger and causing trouble?

Why don't you move to France or Sweden? America doesn't need some pinko tie-dye shirt wearing nutcase like you.

Talk about contributing to global warming.

The polls don't show enthusiasm of any kind at this point. They are really measuring nothing but name recognition, and of course EVERYONE has heard of Hillary Clinton, while most people have heard of Edwards and a bunch still don't know Obama. Also, I pointed out earlier that there are polls showing Clinton tied with Obama just as others show her significantly ahead.

Who is "michael dot com"?? I might support him if I knew what he stood for.

I like the Tancredo/Paul idea. That's just nutty and entertaining enough to happen. At least, I sure would love it to happen just because it would make the race so much more fun!

So far, "none of the above" are an affirmative choice for President. I want a track record that shows no nukes, global solidarity, humanitarian aid not military offenses, and a budget based on self-sufficiency for this country, including energy resources--conserving what we have for natural resources and putting our money where our majority rule mouths are should be the affirmative successor who can lead us from the Iraq Quagmire back into world diplomacy, sanity, and harmony with nature with a FOR PEOPLE not corruption and greed!

I did not vote for Bill Clinton and I did not vote for Papa Bush. So, far, for 2008, looks like I'm not voting due to no good choices.

Sandy is a buffoon. Every time she posts proves it.

Amy,

Obama isn't running as African Americans' candidate for President of Black Americans. He's running as the best presidential candidate of any ethnicity or gender. The fact that your coworker has dark skin doesn't make him an expert on whether Obama has the experience, good judgement, and political vision to be president.

If I find a woman who doesn't think Hillary is qualified, or a Hispanic person who doesn't think Richardson is charismatic enough, or a white man who thinks Edwards is a light weight, does that prove that they are right and/or that their opinion should have greater weight?

Let us treat all humans as individuals, and not as categories.

Richardson has an impressive resume. He is not as charismatic as some, nor am I familiar with his legislative accomplishments. But time will tell how he interacts with voters.

None of the top 3 candidates in either party have much experience, except for John McCain, and he is way too tied with war in Iraq.

As you probably know, I think Obama is the best candidate, and I've already explained some of the reasons why.

Sandy said : "Clearly, the last few days have proven that Kerry is a buffoon.
I mean, what an idiot.
Virtually no one takes him seriously."

Vae victis! OK, Kerry had his turn and he lost but I feel quite sorry for him. After all, his campaign wasn't good but wasn't that bad too. Even if it has taken him more than two years to realize how has been he his, and even if it's blatant that his official reasons not to run are fake, I really don't want to shoot at an ambulance

I think Richardson will turn out to be the dark horse. The resume, the fact that the current frontrunners have big question-marks about electability against a Republican, and his power to woo Hispanics back from the Republican party make me want to pay close attention to him.

Even though I like the top three personally, when I go to the poll I won't be thinking about who I like but about who will have the best chance of winning. Are we ready for a woman? Obama's color -- my African-American co-worker said he wouldn't vote for him because he's green. Edwards' seeming inexperience and the opposition's characterization of him as an ambulance-chaser. Governors have a solid track-record of defeating senators. I'll be watching Richardson closely.

Remember the saying in politics."early money is like yeast." McCain and Clinton will both have more than they know what to do with it. Hillary, with her fundraising-in-chief husband, should be able to amass no less than $200 million over the next 18 months. McCain with alot less but well within striking distance.

McCain and Clinton will do yeoman work for the next 11 months before any big media blitz. They know they have to stay out of the glare of media lights do to overexposure, which is what is happening to Barack Obama at the moment. He won't be a player this year or next.

I just wish that America's political version of professional tag team wrestling - Bushes and Clintons - would leave the ring. I am more than a little tired of both families and would like to see something else of the Presidential level. However, the current crop of Presidential hopefuls look to be woefully weak and uninspiring.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Most of the conservatives on the GOP have at least one serious flaw. My scenario is that the GOP conservatives split the vote, allowing Giuliani to get a plurality in the early primaries (and in 2008, all of them that matter will be early). Since many of the Republican primaries are winner-take-all, I think Giuliani could get a healthy lead, but not enough to grab the nomination.

Clearly, the last few days have proven that Kerry is a buffoon.

I mean, what an idiot.

Virtually no one takes him seriously.

Chris, once again I mostly agree except for your #5 picks. I believe you're overrating Vilsack and Gingrich. Dodd and Hagel, respectively should be in those positions.

Hagel has picked up a lot of steam this week with his stern and much-publicized opposition to the surge in Iraq. This will appeal to many moderates and libertarians within the party. He has solid conservative credentials as well on issues like abortion. People who never considered him before or possibly those who had never heard of him will now take a serious look at him. Besides, look at all the free advertising he's gotten.

Anyway, here's a look at my complete updated ratings:

Democrats:

1. Hillary Clinton

2. Barack Obama

3. John Edwards

4. Bill Richardson

5. Chris Dodd

6. Joe Biden

7. Al Gore

8. Tom Vilsack

9. Wesley Clark

10. Dennis Kucinich

11. Mike Gravel

Republicans:

1. John McCain

2. Rudy Giuliani

3. Mitt Romney

4. Sam Brownback

5. Chuck Hagel

6. Newt Gingrich

7. Mike Huckabee

8. Tommy Thompson

9. Jim Gilmore

10. Tom Tancredo

11. Duncan Hunter

12. George Pataki

13. Ron Paul

14. Michael Bloomberg

Richardson is an excellent candidate. You can learn more about him at http://dcforrichardson.blogspot.com or http://www.americaforrichardson.org/

See you there.

Huckabee jumping in would be bad news for Brownback, because Huckabee would contend with him for the conservative role.

Huckabee might announce this weekend
http://political-buzz.com/?p=12

What impact will he have on the GOPers?

Wait'll Al Gore jumps in the race!

LylePink, You might enjoy this piece in The Moines Register about the Clinton/Obama/Harkin seating at the SOTU.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWS09/701260394/-1/politics

I'll be on the lookout for Iowa Hillary bashing, if any.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Not wanting to sound cocky, but with Iraq in the toilet, there isnt a repub that stands a chance to win in 08. Not a chance.

So the race to win the Dem nomination is the one to watch.

Re: Romney

"I have discovered that while his "values" changed on ONE subject - abortion(not "many" issues as some are inclined to make you believe), that he has remained the most consistant on every thing else!"

Either you are massively uninformed or you are ol' Mitt himself to make a statement like the one above.

Have you seen the YouTube video on Mitt's flip-flops?

He is a two-faced, opportunistic flip-flopper who has absolutely no core values, but says whatever he thinks his audience will approve of. The only reason he has any support is because he is seen as the anti-McCain. If Allen or Frist were in the race, Mitt would be trying to position himself as a moderate candidate, not a conservative. He has no moral values and no honesty, and cannot be trusted, because he is a disengenous flip flopper AND because we have no idea what he truly believes.

Let's look at a small number of the issues Willard Mitt ROmney has flip flopped on since his failed race against Kennedy, and since his race for governor. During his 4 yrs as governor of MA (MA!!!) he was very liberal (more liberal than Rudy) for over 3.5 of those years.

Abortion: In 2002, Mitt thinks abortion should be safe, legal, and available to everyone. although he "personally opposed it," he strenuously asserted that he would not impose his views on anyone else, and he supported Roe.

Today, Mitt says he is strongly against abortion.

Gay marriage: As governor, Mitt violated the MA Consitution by ordering state officials to perform gay marriages. I posted the link to an article on a previous thread.

He also wrote a letter to the MA gays saying he would be a "stronger advocate for gays than Ted Kennedy."

Mitt opined that excluding gays from the military is "discrimination," as are bans on gay marriage.

Wow! A stronger advocate for gays than Teddy K????????

Today, Mitt says he strongly opposed gay marriage. How can we believe him? Why should we trust this over-opportunistic sleazeball?

Judicial appointments: I don't know much about Mitt's judicial appointments, but he appointed a gay activist to a judicial post while he was governor.

Economics: In a debate with Ted K, which you can access on Youtube, Mitt rejected and disparaged Reaganomics and supply-side ecomonics and other conservative economic policies in the strongest of terms.

Now, he says he has done a 180.

Social programs and entitlements: Mitt used to champion them, but again, has now flip flopped.

Guns: Mitt strongly,strongly supported MA's "assault weapons" ban, and even signed it into law.

Now, Mitt goes around saying "from my cold dead hands" and pretending to be pro-gun. DOes he think we're stupid????

Capital punishment: As governor, Mitt opposed the death penalty, but then as he neared the end of his term, proposed a plan that would bring back the death penalty in theory, but make it virtually impossible for someone to be executed in actuality.

The Reagan legacy: During his debate with Ted, Mitt disparaged and denounced Reagan and his legacy, rejecting Reagan's policies and proudly proclaiming himself an independent while Reagan was pres.

Now, he likes Reagan.

Illegal Immigration: When Mitt ran for governor, he sympathized with illegals and favored amnesty.

Today, he says he wants to "increase legal immigration to the USA" but he also wants improved border security.

By the way, Mitt hires illegals to tend the grounds of his house. Did you know that?

In his last three weeks in office, Mitt signed an agreement with ICE that would allow 30 MA state troopers to apprehend illegals. He knew that he would leave office before the agreement went into effect, and his successor scrapped it.

That pathetic gesture does little to bolster Mitt's immigration cred, especially since illegals mow his lawn.

Is there ANY issue Mitt HASN'T flip flopped on???????????

Come on! This guy has absolutely no values. He believes in nothing but his own career! He has flipflopped so much he cannot be trusted, since NO ONE knows what he actually believes.

For all we know, he may still be an MA liberal at heart.

Oh, did I mention that Mitt supports affirmative action?

Why vote for Mitt when you can actually have a real Democrat?

If you care about social issues, as you said you did, support Brownback, Hunter, Gilmore or Tancredo.

Even if they dont have much of a chance, at least they stand up for what they believe in and don't base their moral values on their audience.

bhoomes: Your statement about Hillary bringing out the worst in people, to a degree is quite correct. Now here is where the "but" comes into the picture. The Hillary haters tend to fall into a few "molds" i.e. Women Haters, Jealous Men and Women, Envy, Resentment, and Fear of a Strong Woman. Strangely, another thing I've found is that folks that do support her are afraid to say so, for as best as I can figure, mainly from folks I've been in contact with, because they feel they will be attacked for their views. These are in another "mold" that I have never came across and am having a hard time understanding.