Blarg:

We're basically in agreement. I also see Obama filling the Howard Dean role, getting very strong support up to the actual voting, and then watching his campaign go south.

To make one thing absolutely clear. I don't have an axe to grind with Barack Obama, and I would almost certainly vote for him in the general election. That said, I do NOT believe that he stands any chance of winning.

For a Dem to win, they have to hold all the states that Kerry/Gore took AND add one or two. I think Obama would struggle to hold my original home state of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Frankly I don't see him sweeping those states unless the GOP absolutely implodes between now and 11/08. And if anybody knows what state he can take that Gore didn't, I'd like to hear it.

There is an ideal world, and in an ideal world, Obama would be judged strictly on his policy proposals (scant as they currently are) and his ability to motivate/inspire people. In the real world, he starts with a huge structural disadvantage because of his race and relative lack of experience. I think that it bears noting that black candidates have only won 5 statewide top of the ticket elections in US history. (2 in IL, 2 in MA and 1 in VA) And in recent history, some very strong blacks have run and lost despite being the stronger candidate, view MD Senate 06 as a for example, and TN Senate 06. Maybe there will come a black candidate who can change that, and Obama might be the guy in 12 or 16, but not in 08.

Steve, the netroots did help Howard Dean. With their help, he came out of nowhere to be the frontrunner for a while. Sure, he lost in the end, but without the netroots he would have been nowhere. (Compare him to Dennis Kucinich.)

The netroots also helped Ned Lamont. It's very rare for a sitting elected official to be defeated in a primary by a nobody, but that's what happened to Lieberman. Again, Lamont didn't win, for various reasons. (Including the fact that the Republicans basically backed Lieberman, while most prominent Democrats declined to endorse Lamont.) But without the netroots, he wouldn't even have gotten as far as he did.

Basically, I agree with you that support of activists (including the netroots) isn't everything. With only activist support, a candidate probably won't win. But with no activist support, a candidate has practically no chance.

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

To unnamed who was going on about netroots and Obama's qualifications, first off, if you don't have the conviction to post your name why should I even consider your post?

but since i have addressed it, do you seriously think that 8 years in the Illinois legislature is equivalent to 8 years in the US Senate or 8 years in the White House (even as a spectator), or 10 years in Little Rock?

Sell your candidates empty vessel that can be filled with whatever hopes people might want to put in it... sell his community organizer roots... sell his good looks and good turn of phrase, but experience? policy specifics? come on now, that's a bridge too far.

As for the netroots... boy it sure helped Howard Dean, didn't it? he was glib and had the anti-war crowd in his corner. yes, it helps to get rabid activists involved, but where the sale is closed is with people who are half paying attention, and then its done with their knowledge of and what they've heard about the candidates.

Carol, are you sure you aren't thinking of Biden? He's the one who has made insulting remarks about other candidates recently. If you really do mean Edwards, can you give some examples of what he's said?

Why does the debate about Democratic candidates suddenly remind me of the movie "Hairspray"? I keep thinking of the scene where the girls are trying out for the Corny Collins show and Mink Stole tells the contestants that the panel will debate their flaws and get back to them if they've made the cut. The most qualified (i.e.- best dancer) is the black contestant,but she can't be a member because the show isn't integrated. Make your pick on who this represents(mine is Richardson). Then there is poor Penny Pingleton. Dead ringer for Edwards. Then there is Tracy Turnblad. She gets the nod but isn't suited to it at all. My pick for this role is Obama. And Clinton? She's Debbie Harry's daughter Amber, the beauty queen. Got the money, the name, the support...and is the worst representative of the show.

Do you suppose Kucinich would agree to be Edna Turnblad? Divine would have loved it.And Motormouth Maybelle? Any MSM personality would do.

It does not suprise me the Edwards did not lead on any in any of the polls. Some of his recent comments regarding his opponents have sounded like something that Dick Cheney might say about his adversaries. As a result Edwards is no longer even on my list of suitable visce-presidential candidates and he had been near the top.
This country has had enough of negative politics.

anyone who thinks that the netroots forms even close to a majority of dem voters or primary voters is dreaming. An important part but certainly a minority. Seriously, some people need to just get real.

i forgot joe biden. sorry, joe... no offense intended. (it's been a long day.) anyway - he's one of the most experienced in the race, and he too would make an excellent president, although he unfortunately keeps shooting himself in the foot verbally. but i do believe he knows what he is talking about, and i do believe he has as good an understanding of foreign policy of anyone in either party.

guess what?

i think obama would make an excellent president.

i think al gore would make an excellent president.

i think bill richardson would make an excellent president.

i think dennis kucinich would make at least a president whose integrity / motivation are not constantly in question, whether or not he has any real chance of getting there.

i think hillary - she's not my favorite, and something seems wrong with 12 years of bushes, 12 years of clintons - but i think she has the brains and the nerve to be at least a competent president.

the same is potentially true of edwards, if he can both stay on message AND develop that message with some believable details.

don't know as much about vilsack, gravel, et al, but i think they deserve a shot.

at this point in the race, is it really constructive to get all hot and bothered by electability? let's stick to the issues for at least the next 6 months.

golgi, Just read your comments and you express mine, and I think what many democrats really feel about Hillary.
She is just plain annoying and the thought of seeing her and listening to that annoying voice for 4 years just makes me shudder.

Josh
"My personal choice is Bill Richardson. He is far and away the most well-rounded candidate in the field, and has the perfect mix of experience and skills that will be needed in the next election." Yep. Here is all i need to know about him. For years as governor, he refused to take a side on the issue of cock fighting. NM and Louisiana are the only 2 states where it is currently legal.
Until last month, Richardson refused to take sides, saying he didn't want a cockfighting debate to interfere with other issues. He has recently had a change of heart, coming down against cock fighting. Coincidentally, he recently started running for president. Odd how that works.

The netroots cannot be ignored as they comprise people from 20 - 80 years of age and these are the volunteers and the ones who actually vote in elections. You can poll the mainstream but, who will actually vote.
It's more telling when looking to the party activists and bloggers who are the voters in the democratic party.
That tears down the so called inevitabilty of Clinton that the msm loves to pretend it is.
And, in the issue of leadership and competence, you have to look to the netroots again for they are the ones who know the legislative story of the candidates. this again points to the Clinton myth and fact. Her record show a follower and not a leader and someone who has not introduced one major peice of legislation in 6 years whereas Sen. Obama has an impressive list of accomplishments.
Why the msm never asks the difficult question such as above and fails to question Hillary's lack of legislation or leadership in reality vs myth is beyond me. Why they paint Sen. Obama as a rookie when he has a long list of accomplishments and 8 years of state legislation plus the 2 in the US Senate is also beyond me. he is the more experienced but, the msm ignores this fact.
The msm needs to separate fact from fiction and start asking and exploring the hard stuff about Clinton and quit buying into the campaign spin. Maybe the average person in the country could then be able to make good decisions regarding who they support and the polls would reflect a more accurate picture

Colin, et al:

Sorry, I must have missed the policy specifics aside from daring to hope in all the fawning coverage. It is extremely easy for someone who came in after the vote on the use of force resolution to be against the war to come out against it afterwards. How heroic of him.

So, this supposed wonk who won't even go on the record himself as supporting health care reform, simply saying it will happen (magically one presumes), has made what specific policy releases, or speeches? One?

If candidates were elected on policy issues or by the head, the Republican Party would be out of business.

Judging by the tone and content of the previous entries, the progressive base has not yet understood elections are won by organization and imponderables.

In the 08 Democratic Nomination process, imponderables remain undefined and nebulous, opening the way for almost anyone, lightning may yet strike for Vilsack!

But in organization, savvy, money and policy innovativeness, the Junior Senator from New York is the class of the field.

Ditto all the comments that the media should be talking about all the candidates, rather than trying to frame the election as Hillary vs. Obama. My personal choice is Bill Richardson. He is far and away the most well-rounded candidate in the field, and has the perfect mix of experience and skills that will be needed in the next election. He is a superb diplomat, having been nominated for the Nobel Peace prize for his nuclear negotiations with North Korea. He was Secretary of Energy under Clinton, has as much insight into energy and global warming as nearly anyone else in the world, and has already begun to implement a substantial clean energy program in Nevada. He is an extremely popular governor in NM, having won in '06 with 69% of the vote. And as a moderate and pragmatist, he is the most electable of the Dems in a general election.

Watched McCain on the Senate floor yesterday apply the Navy standard of "The Captain is responsible for evrything which happens on his ship!" to General Casey.

McCain wants somebody to be held accountable for losing in Iraq, with the implication that it should be Casey.

That makes sense, except that the Generals won, what they were supposed to win. You can't call them on the carpet for losing after that, when they have been ham-strung by politics once Mission Accomplished was reached.

Their mission was accomplished at that point. The White House and State Department are to blame for what's followed.

Look down the Mall and over to 16th Street and to Foggy Bottom, Senator!

It's true that both Obama today and Edwards in 2002 began running for president after two years in the Senate. But that's where the similarities end.

Edwards had - and has - none of Obama's assets.

A keen intellect is important, so that our leaders don't vote/decide to rush into war without asking the hard questions. Obama has the keen mind Edwards doesn't. Obama went to the top schools where he earned top grades. He is an expert on constitutional law. He has extensive background as a grassroots organizer and civil rights attorney. He had 8 highly productive years in the state legislature where he drafted many bills in a bipartisan manner; so he has an intimate knowledge of the political issues affecting our states. He's written a best selling book that clearly demonstrates he is a policy wonk. His book outlines his political platform and offers proposals for improving our country.

Unlike Edwards, Obama's views on Iraq don't change every time the polls tell him to do so. Edwards went on Meet the Press 1 1/2 years after the war started, and still said he would have voted for war. Unlike Edwards and Clinton, Obama has always been right on Iraq - even when his views were not considered the politically wise stand. No amount of experience can buy that kind of political courage and integrity. In 2002, gave a very detailed explaination of why he opposed the war. All of his predictions have turned out to be true.

As others have noted, above, Obama only recently decided to run for president. The others have been preparing for years. A year is a lifetime in politics. Assuming he doesn't make any major mistakes, by the time of Iowa's caucus, everyone will know who Obama is, and he will seem much more like a seasoned national leader. And he will be one year closer to eclipsing Edwards in terms of national elected experience.

By the time he is president, Obama will have 8 years of state experience, and 4 years of national experience.

Anyone who reads Obama's latest book knows that he has an exceptional grasp on 20th and 21st century politics, and the political issues of today. He is probably the leading policy wonk running on the Democratic side.

Richardson would make a good VP, but he doesn't have the charisma to be a strong presidential contender. Nor does he have the following. Clark has never held elected office, so far as I'm aware. He has no track record of negotiating with Republicans, drafting legislation. He ran 4 years ago and dropped out without having won a primary, if I recall correctly.

These polls do set up an interesting and fairly clear contrast between current sentiment towards Clinton and Obama. Of course, it is anyone's guess how that plays out once people start seeing a lot of them.

I'd also say that overall, this early polling is very bad for Edwards (particularly in Iowa--he may be done if he doesn't win there). And unlike Obama, he can't claim people don't know him very well yet. So, to me it looks like Edwards is starting in a hole, and I'd say he needs to start digging himself out pretty soon.

Well one thing is for sure, we need the president who is most likely to spend our money where we want it spent. The Millennium Development Goals are a great example, Americans are under the assumption that a significant portion of our budget goes toward international aid, when in reality its less than a half of a percent. Who is going to put our money where it really counts?

Bush is, or at least was, considered very likeable, one of his great strengths.

He may have doomed likeable as the most important president-wanna-be attribute for the foreseeable future.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"Anybody here heard of a guy named Bill Richardson?"

Sure, Richardson is really underestimated but, you know, the bimbo scandals won't help him to win the presidency. He could only be a chief of stuff.

It's more fun to consider potential menu choices:

Clinton - ONE glass of a good dry white wine, broiled fish, asparagus, no dessert ("I'm watching my weight")
Edwards - 1982 Chateau Margaux, Almas golden caviar, Timbale of Fingerling Potatoes & Truffles with a Potage of Leeks 
and Root Vegetables, Papillotte of Coquelet with Truffle Port Compote and Celeriac Mousseline, no room for dessert!
Obama - room temperature Guinness ("no, more than one makes me light-headed"), calamari with pesto, Kobe beef burger w/bleu cheese, a cigarette for dessert

MikeB
The Republicans won with fear-and-smear last time, why alter a winning formula?

Here's the biggest difference between Bush and McCain: John McCain is not a liar. If he has negatives, you'll know about them before he gets into office. I like Giuliani, but he makes my neighbors here in the flyover zone very uncomfortable.

ISTM the Democratic party is determined to hand over this election like they did 2004. It is a mistake to choose a candidate you don't really like because of some imagined electability. This story talks about heart and head, but what about the gut?

Republicans would love to see the Democrats nominate Hillary. They made a big mistake last time nominating a terrible candidate who excited nobody because of his so-called electability. Had any of the delegates for Kerry ever heard the man speak? This was a decent, thoughtful man who had no clue how to connect with the mass of Americans.

If the field is narrow in either party, it is because the media choses a couple of people that they've heard of and ignores the rest. Anybody here heard of a guy named Bill Richardson?

What surprises me is the lack of discussion on McCain. He is currently a hero of independent voters, but he is a right wing extremist in the mode of Bush. Guiliani's candidacy will bring that out, as McCain resorts to attacking Guiliani's liberal social stances, with the result that McCain's negatives are going to sky rocket.

The most likeable candidates are Edwards and Obama, who are both running as populists, tapping into the mood of the voters, who are afraid of loosing thir jobs to immigrants and guest workers, horrified of the mess we have made of Iraq, and terrified that the right wing maniacs will attack Iran and just blow the whole world up.

I don't see one Republican candidate that has anything other than fear and smear to offer.

Off topic: Classic radio from the They Have No Shame Department.

This morning Vice Pres. Cheney staffer, Mary Matalin initiated a call to Don Imus to complain to Imus about him reading the Libby note which had Mrs. Carville advising Libby to call Tim Russert. "He hates Chris -- he needs to know it all," referring to Hardball host Chris Matthews.

In a move worthy of Richard Nixon, Matalin admitted that "If Scooter wrote it, I must have said it." and immediately attempted to shift the blame onto Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald for "wasting taxpayer money on the investigation."

This of course is the investigation which is getting sworn testimony entered into the historical record in the most credible way. Better than Bob Woodward could hope to do.

I have to wonder how many "days of money spent on the Iraq War," would pay for the entire investigation?

" It's very easy to say, "I would have worked with Iran and Syria to keep them out, used diplomacy to get North Korea to disarm and go democratic, negotiated to get free oil from Russia, etc"

You forgot "I would have negotiated peace between Hammas and Israel, I would have rescued the Katrina victims before the levees gave way, and engaged with our friends in France to become part of the coalition."

Bush 41 could have done so.

Likeability vs. Electability

John Kerry had neither, so ....why did dems support him? I forget.

To continue on my previous point about ignoring the so-called second-tier candidates, the media seems to have convinced several of the people leaving comments here that only those 3 candidates are running.

Elizabeth says that Edwards gets her support because he's the only one who wants to get out of Iraq right away. Wrong. Vilsack has called for Congress to immediately rescind the authorization to use force in Iraq. Richardson and Clark both call for removing US troops and instead using diplomacy.

Robert says that only Obama can run as a Washington insider who hasn't flopped on Iraq. Nope. Richardson, Vilsack, and Clark can also do that. And Richardson and Clark in particular can do it with much more foreign policy experience than Obama.

Oh, and democrats picked Kerry because they thought he was electable because they have no idea what electable is. The point of Chris's article is good - electable often comes down to how likeable a candidate is. If 2004 was just a vote on whose policies people liked better, Kerry would have won easily. But people just didn't like Kerry personally, a problem Clinton also suffers from.

I agree with Colin. Until recently, I thought there was no way for a one-term senator to win the nomination. Nevertheless, I've got the feeling that Obama's candidacy gives fresh air to America. In a country morally devastated by an endless war, the guy comes and brings hope. Can America bring trust?

" It's very easy to say, "I would have worked with Iran and Syria to keep them out, used diplomacy to get North Korea to disarm and go democratic, negotiated to get free oil from Russia, etc"

You forgot "I would have negotiated peace between Hammas and Israel, I would have rescued the Katrina victims before the levees gave way, and engaged with our friends in France to become part of the coalition."

Steve -- Have you actually taken a look at what Obama has proposed? Because he's a lot clearer on a number of things than Hillary is, including the most important issue of the day; Iraq. The guy DOESN'T have a ton of national stage experience, but don't discount him as a lightweight for a second. He's a policy wonk at heart and his campaign is going to reflect that. Let's not forget, it is still February of 2007 and unlike Hillary Obama didn't know he was going to be running for President till recently.

Unless your opponent is Michael Dukakis or Bob Dole, you can't win an election without the enthusiasm of a strong base. Hillary won't win if she's only seen as the most likely democratic candidate to get elected.

Candidates love to run as outsiders. It appeals to voters. Only Obama can run as a Washington outsider who hasn't flip flopped on Iraq.

I strongly disagree with Chris' assertion that H Clinton has a deeper and broader resume. Aside from one term in the senate, she has no other elected experience. She may have other "life" experiences, but so does Obama.

People tend to mention the names of candidates they know are running. Everyone in the country has known that H Clinton and J Edwards would be running for president for years. Edwards has never stopped campaigning since 2002, and as a rsult, it's noteworthy that he's not ahead in this poll.

Except for those who follow politics closely, I don't think most people know yet that Obama is running. Once they do, I expect is numbers to go up.

Last time, we went with our head and voted for Kerry - no one's favorite candidate but the person we thought was most electable. I think this time we go with our heart and vote for Obama. Not only is he well liked, he's the only one who can't be accused of being a flip flopper on Iraq. He's the only one who actively appeals to most parts of the political spectrum.

on the topic of second tier candidates, why focus on Kucinich? He's a decent congressman, but he couldn't possibly win the general election. But Chris Dodd, Wes Clark, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden all have long and distinguished careers in politics. A non-serious first tier candidate Barack Obama is sucking all the oxygen from the room, when in all reality, he stands about as much chance of being the next POTUS as Denny Kucinich.

Before Obama is labeled a top tier candidate, let's hear some policy specifics and not just vague generalities about the politics of hope. Edwards was rightly/wrongly dismissed in 2004 for running the exact same campaign that Obama seeks to run this time. So Edwards comes forward with a set of specific policy initiatives this time, some of which, frankly (as a long term supporter) depress my interest in see him nominated, but the meat is there.

As for HRC, I'm not a huge fan of her as a politician, but while people are pouncing on her for her bad/evil man comment, I see the humanization of her as a potential President in those comments. To me, that comment, and her response to questions about it-- (telling people she was trying to lighten things up)-- and the fact that she addresses the 800 lb gorilla in the corner with grace and humanity, makes me think that she's a lot more electable than some (myself included) give her credit for.

B4 some of you punk me for that comment, look at the strings I've posted over time, I'm not an HRC backer by any stretch of the imagination, but we're not choosing Prom King or Queen, we're choosing the candidate who best represents our vision of what should be done in concrete terms. Until Obama starts addressing such things, he should be relegated to the level of Dennis Kucinich, and we should start demanding to hear more about Richardson, Clark and Dodd.

I am a Democrat and feel a duty to say that I respect Clinton, and actually in many ways I really do respect her.

But honestly, when it comes to the concept of having dinner with her, I find her very annoying. I would make the dinner appointment because she is famous and powerful and it would be interesting to see her up close, but honestly I would not be looking forward to it.

I would much rather have her stay in the Senate, where the only people she has to annoy are other Senators who asked for it by running for the Senate themselves. I think she is doing a good job in the Senate and if I lived in NY I would vote for her reelection.

But I will be irritated on a personal level if she is elected president, because on a personal level I am not looking forward to seeing her annoying facial expressions and hearing her annoying voice in every political cartoon and radio broadcast, for the whole four years between 2008-2012. I already can't stand even the idea of it.

Didn't see Sec. Rice's name in the poll. The percentages add up to 100, without her.

Could Tina have been putting us on, all of this time?

These polls are still in the name recognition stage, but they actually indicate some useful information. There is no real enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. Yes, she probably does have the best credentials, but, as Obama and Edwards' candidacies show, lack of credentials can be overlooked with enough personality. Never the less, she is the assumed candidate. But the DailyKos poll shows the lack of enthusiasm for that decision among the base and netroots. For them, she is the establishment: A big name straddling the middle while doing the best to please the corporations. Dennis Kucinich, a man with 10 times the credibility and .001 times the name recognition is pulling ahead of the most well known candidate in the race. That should tell you something.

It's very funny to see the lefty extremists who infest this blog say that, if a Dem were president, they would have prosecuted the war so much better. Yet, I guess, they still would have went to war (at least, Edwards, Kerry, HRC would have, according to their vote). Where is the evidence? It's very easy to say, "I would have worked with Iran and Syria to keep them out, used diplomacy to get North Korea to disarm and go democratic, negotiated to get free oil from Russia, etc..." Pie in the sky!

Reality is much more difficult than the easy utopian results that we are to assume would take place under a Socialis...excuse me, Democratic, administration.

Lark and Artie make interesting points.

But I wonder which of the candidates can stand the test of all the time between now and the primaries a year off. Hillary has been there before, as has Edwards, so they know how to avoid the missteps (like Joe Biden's stumble right out of the gate). That doesn't mean they won't make some mistakes, maybe even fatal ones, but they both should know how to avoid them.

It seems like Chris loves to report on polls to stimulate at least some debate, although a lot of the comments are far off the subject. I'd prefer to see him focus on the delicate balance in the U.S. Senate, and how Senate candidates for president will affect that body in the future. Which of the candidates will have to choose between reelection in '08 and running for president, both Democrats and Republicans?

And I think this is one reason why so few senators are elected president--along with the fact that the longer their voting records, the more ammunition for their opponents. Much like Hillary's vote to go to war.

This morning the Des Moines Register published a poll of Iowa's likely caucus-goers taken January 29-Feb 1 with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent:

Dec 06 Jan 07
DEMS
Clinton 31% 35%
Edwards 20% 18%
Obama 10% 14%
Vilsack 17% 12%
Biden 2% 2%
Clark 1% 2%
Kucinich 5% 2%
Dodd 2% 1%
Richardson 1% 1%
Gravel 1% 0%
Kerry 2% N/A
Undecided 8% 13%

In general, good news for Clinton and probably the result of her rallies around Iowa, bad news for Vilsack since name recognition isn't a problem for him. Many non-starters and growing undecideds. Edwards must be disppointed that he is likely losing ground since he has expended a lot of effort in Iowa. Obama will likely gain more ground after this weekend's announcement hoopla.

REPUBS
Giuliani 28% 27%
McCain 26% 22%
Gingrich 18% 16%
Romney 6% 11%
Hagel 6% 5%
Huckabee 1% 2%
Brownback 1% 1%
Tancredo N/A 1%
Gilmore 0% 0%
Hunter 0% 0%
Pataki 0% 0%
Thompson 0% 0%
Undecided 14% 15%

Giuliani may have gained since the poll after announcing he is forming a committee. McCain can take no comfort in slipping 4%. Romney while gaining is still lagging and behind an unannounced Gingrich who is a strong third.

According to the Register's David Yepsen, both Romney and McCain operatives have been working hard in Iowa and have developed the best machinery thus far. Giuliani hasn't campaigned in Iowa but has hired former Congressman Jim Nussle for his campaign.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

I give EDWARDS my highest rating for his stand on BRING THE TROOPS HOME as soon as possible, and his challenge to the other candidates to STAND UP and TAKE A STAND.

Hillary's statement that she would give the funding to the U.S. Troops and NOT the Iraqi troops is dissembling hypocrisy of the corrupt greed in place, and her suggestion Bush is the man to bring the troops home, likewise is NOT in line with proper peace planning. (Sunday, 9 a.m. on a major network, this past weekend, she smiled broadly and said that statement as if expecting applause. I was shocked and appalled, even though I already am furious at her VERY "candidacy." She is a fall guy for the Republicans. SHOULD NOT WIN, utterly yes.

She gets a ZERO from me.

I intend to read Obama's book, and study him. Sure, I would love to have a dinner chat with either him or Edwards on their Presidential Aspirations. Likely what they want is VERY desirable.

What I expect from Hillary is the ugly probably Worse than what I already expect. Corporate blimp bloopers.

Adding to Greg in LA's coment; from an Anna Qunidlen column last week: http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20070201/1069975.asp

"Presidential campaigns are like the surface of the Earth. Layers accumulate slowly over time. Soon the assumptions of today will be buried under strata of primary contests, opposition slime and debate fallout. Voters will find themselves amazed that they once considered those about whom they knew so little.

"Today many of the contenders are enshrouded in the mists of myth....As winter turns to summer, Iowa to New Hampshire, candidates to nominees, many myths could be dispelled, or could harden into the stuff of conventional wisdom...And then there's the myth that no one good runs anymore. The current field is crowded with experience and intellectual depth.

"The biggest myth, of course, is that the professional opinionators know anything much at this point about what's to come."

The last comment says it all.

Hillary has enough rabid support to overcome thos that hate her. She's got it in the bag. Even top-level GOPers agree that Hillary is going to win everything.

http://political-buzz.com/?p=37

Primary, general: everything.

So far the Post's coverage of the Democratic candidates has totally focused on the superficial elements of their personalities while totally ignoring any substantive issues. The Fix continues that perfect record.

Hey meuphys,

I absolutely agree 100% that the numbers are going to get tighter as the race gets going - that's a given. And I've said that name recognition is a factor. But I certainly don't think it's the only factor.

Research shows that candidate images (as in, the almost caricature-like idea of a candidate that voters have in their heads) are exceptionally difficult to shift once they've solidified (that's what did for Gerald Ford in 1976). Hillary has clearly already acquired a reputation as cold and calculating, but also as a competent and strong woman. That reputation has been solidifying ever since she first came into the public eye (though the healthcare debacle may have put a dent in the "competent" part) and particularly since she became a "politician" in her own right in 2000. Her campaign team are doing everything they can to make her seem a bit softer and more likable before it's too late - but I think that this poll, rather than respondents just basing their answers on their memories of Bill in office, actually reflects some widely and genuinely held perceptions of Hillary herself - that she's competent but cold. I think it's fair to say that that is the generally held opinion of Hillary Clinton, and this poll is just confirming that.

Absolutely, these numbers will change the longer the campaign goes on. They don't "show" anything, per se. But neither does any poll - they're just tools to use to get an idea of how people feel about things. This poll shows how a (hopefully) representative sample of people feel about the top Dems right now.

I just thought it was a little bit unfair to accuse Chris Cillizza of hypocrisy when he was just drawing the conclusion that this poll (and many others) would naturally lead you to. There's nothing hypocritical about that.

Check out this scooplet from the Libby trial. Evidence introduced today apparently revealed that Paul Wolfowitz has been identified as leaking the still classified NIE to the WSJ editorial page, as a kind of surrogate for Libby. "The fact that Libby had Wolfowitz do it enabled the WSJ to make the ... claim that the information did not come from the White House."

Do the words "name recognition" mean anything to you? That's what the polling reflects this far out. Please stop picking our candidate for us and just let the process unfold. If that leaves you with nothing to do then why don't you write more fawning columns about how electable and charismatic Michael Steele is?

Exactly how well did Kerry's ELECTABILITY help the Democrats of this country last time around? -any fool who considers electability as something to be considered deserves every bad thing this country has suffered under nimrod BUSH.

Hopefully everyone with an IQ higher than a dead horse will remember how the press dubbing Kerry as ELECTABLE cost this country dearly

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes
www.balancingtheissues.com

Bring back the Snickers Commercial
http://balancingtheissues.com/snickers.htm

How silly did the Pelosi-airplane story get today in the CNN retelling? Some choice squibs.

Chatting it up with Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room Carol Costello noted that protestations to the contrary, "both planes are capable of flying coast to coast without refueling under optimal conditions."

Blitzer also noted that "In theory, [both plane] could fly coast to coast without refueling, but that would also depend on multiple factors, including winds, payloads and reserve fuel requirements."

Note, the plane the GOP says Pelosi must fly on "in theory" could make it to her district. That is, assuming good prevailing winds. Adverse wind conditions or a back up on the runway in San Francisco and it might fall out of the sky. But under "optimal conditions" it could well make it all the way there.

Go see the rest of the transcript to see if CNN asked any of Pelosi's accusers any adverse questions.

Other Steve, I would agree with you that it is ludicrous the way second-tier candidates are treated. As far as Kucinich goes, most people could be forgiven for thinking that his first name was "Long-shot Democratic Presidential Candidate" instead of Dennis.

An interesting poll that I read last week (I can't remember if it was CNN-Gallup or Newsweek) showed that when asked if Gore should enter the race, the response among Democrats was 59-40 in favor (for Republicans and Newtie, it was 45-44 in favor) so I think that if he gets in the race everything changes and he immediately becomes a frontrunner or the frontrunner. He was right on the war and he has been a leader on the issue of global warming, and I think that people are ready to take him seriously on that one. As far as electability goes, he is one of only two Democrats eligible to run who can say that he has won before, and I doubt we will see a return of Carter so he wins on that, too.

'Yet another article from ABC -- this one on the front page of their website -- on the Pelosi-airplane bamboozle. I find it almost dazzling how nauseating and disingenuous this latest article happens to be. The new news, according to ABC's Jake Tapper, is that the Pentagon has rejected Pelosi's request for a military aircraft that can fly from Washington to her district in California without stopping to refuel.

We have here a pretty nice illustration of the iron triangle of right-wing sludge slopping. Queued up by the Moonie press, fed by congressional Republicans and orchestrated by Bush administration officials and then spread far and wide by the gelded mainstream press.

Here's something that jumped out at me though in the ABC News piece. Tapper provides a list he got from the Pentagon on the strict rules Pelosi must abide by with her US government plane.

Among those is this ...

Members of Congress cannot fly on the plane unless their travel has been cleared with the House Committee on Standards (the Ethics committee);
Now, first of all, do military regulations really pull in the okay of the House Ethics committee? That sounds a bit more like a House rule. More importantly, though, did the ABC reporters on this story give a close a look to whether this purported rule was ever enforced with Speaker Hastert? Did he routinely ferry fellow members of Congress around on his plane?

TPM Reader BL reminded me of an incident from back in the Foley scandal in which Hastert was trying to clean up the mess created by his congressional lickspittle Rep. Shimkus (R-IL), a close Hastert 'ally' from a nearby district who the Speaker installed to run the House page board.

Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times on October 9th, Lynn Sweet wrote ...

A week ago Sunday, about 8 p.m., Shimkus arrived at Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to pick up his ride back to Washington. As speaker, Hastert flies on U.S. aircraft. The government plane picked up Shimkus and then headed to Aurora to board Hastert, who spent the weekend at his Plano home.
So in the midst of the exploding Foley scandal, which the Ethics Committee would eventually whitewash, the esteemed Speaker Hastert had his buddy Shimkus get a separate pick up to fly back to DC with him on his military jet so both could head back to Washington to deal with FoleyGate.

The ABC piece merely quotes an Air Force spokesman saying that Hastert would use the plane only for "himself ... one to three staff members and two security staff -- members of the Capitol police force. His wife would sometimes fly." No mention of other members of Congress.

Has anybody asked Hastert's office how often he shuttled other members of Congress on his military plane?'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A manager for a private security contractor warned executives that he lacked proper equipment in Iraq a day before four of its employees were killed and two were left hanging from a bridge, a House committee disclosed Wednesday.

The manager's e-mail was read during a congressional hearing into the use of private contractors in Iraq. In it, he complained to Blackwater USA bosses that he didn't have hardened vehicles, radio gear or ammunition.

"A top Pentagon leader weighed in yesterday on the war debate and appeared to undercut the argument advanced by the White House and many GOP lawmakers that a congressional debate challenging the Bush plan would hurt troop morale.

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the House Armed Services Committee. He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they "don't have a clue how democracy works."

nothing 'cold' about competence -- it saves lives.

imagine if we had had a competent president the last 6 years -- thousands of people wouldn't have died -- either in katrina or iraq...

A lot of people seem to say that Hillary is as competent as cold. Obama is just fresh. Too fresh. Still, when it comes to positive campaign and ethical standards, in a way very deep american values, Obama leads. I really thinks it's about reason vs heart. The democratic nomination will reflect an important choice : cold competence or unfinite hope?

I hate the fact that the media has just run away with 3 candidates. Of the currently declared democratic candidates, there is one that beats Clinton on experience without doing so poorly in the likability category, and that's Bill Richardson. Only problem is, nobody knows it because the media refuses to talk about him. Or, say, Vilsack or anyone else but Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

'The New York Times leads, and the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, with a look at how some military officials worry that all the recent helicopter crashes in Baghdad suggest insurgents are changing tactics, becoming more savvy, and concentrating more of their energy on shooting down U.S. aircraft. Almost everyone fronts the crash of a U.S. Marine transport helicopter yesterday, which killed all seven crew members and passengers.'

saudi arablia provided the rocket launchers -- that's who we are war with.

'When I'm 1964: The far right used to inspire fear, not pity, but these days it's hard not to feel a little sorry for the conservative faithful. For a movement accustomed to morning in America, the hour is closer to midnight. First, a Republican Congress betrayed them for pieces of silver. Then a Republican administration ran their ideas into the ground. Now, when they need a conservative messiah, the bundle on their doorstep is Rudy Giuliani, who endorsed Bill Clinton's assault-weapons ban and Mario Cuomo's re-election campaign at the height of the Republican revolution in 1994.

Conservatives have not yet begun to ache. In coming months, they'll have to listen as Giuliani and his fellow gypsy moth Mitt Romney pretend not to be what they've spent the last decade pretending to be. The savior conservatives want is Newt Gingrich--but even with their movement tied to the railroad tracks, the right's Dudley Do-Right waits to ride to the rescue.'

exactly right. the religious right loves newtie--who left his wife while she was dying of cancer. and then there's rudy -- who announced he was divorcing his wife on TV -- before he told her. oh yes, humiliated her, quite purprosefully.

why is it tht republican women like men who humiliate women publicly? self-loathing?

I would like to see a poll with the 'likability' of republican candidates. Given the sheer repulsiveness of most of them, perhaps that's not possible.

But that's not the point. I don't care whether I like a candidate or not. I care whether they're smart and competent, and possess good judgement and common sense.

I loved Bill Clinton, but I don't have the same warm feelings about Hllary. She seems cold and calculating. However, those may be the very qualities we need in a leader. The world will always be a dangerous place, and as a nation that is wealthier than most, we will always have enemies.

By the way, I have seen Hillary in a debate with Rudy. Talk about wiping the floor - he was a limp rag by the time it was over. No contest.

Since just about every candidate this cycle (in both parties) comes with lots of negatives (or at least questions about electability), polls like this at this early stage don't really hold much meaning. I do think that every time Hillary polls well, however, it adds another brick to her candidacy. As she continues to look more and more like the "solid choice" rather than someone who's flashy because she's the First Woman With A Chance or The First Former First Lady Blah Blah Blah or The Continuation Of The Bush/Clinton Rivalry or whatever, the closer she gets to the nomination. And once she gets the nomination, the electability and stature questions largely go away, especially since no Republican is likely to look much stronger.

hey turtle -

"...the sheer number of polls that show Hillary with big leads (and yes, I know name recognition is a factor)"

-at this point, it's the only factor. let's see where they shake out after the campaign really gets going.

"it must be because they think she's got the best chance of winning in '08 - i.e. for "head" reasons."

-see above. given a choice between a name they know - and associate with bill, and the go-go budget surplus '90's - and several with which they are less familiar, they go with hillary. i don't know if the democratic electorate really knows what all she's been doing in congress, with the exception of her constituents in new york, of course. the one thing they might know is that she was initially a strong supporter of the iraq war, and has has been gradually changing her tune recently - more quickly since the elections last fall.

"The Gallup poll cited shows that she's the candidate that most think is the strongest leader, would be the best performer in a debate, and is most qualified to be President, as well as the Dem candidate that is most likely to win the election in '08."

-actually, the poll only shows that at the moment, more people are more familiar with her than with the others. in making the judgments above, i would guess that the respondents are basing their answers on their memories of bill in office, of whom all of these criteria are certainly true. in any case, a poll is only a measure of opinion - it doesn't "show" anything to be true one way or the other.

these numbers are sure to get closer the more we know about obama, richardson, et al. edwards is an exception - fairly or not, whether or not they know him well, voters may think they do - as john kerry's running mate. and the wild card is still al gore.

If i am following correctly, this is suggesting that Clinton is the most "electable" candidate for the Democrats. Even taking into account that i am conservative, this has to give democrats great concern about their chances in 08. Her husband, perhaps the greatest politician of the 20th century, couldn't even manage to get 50% of the vote and was reviled by a lot of people (in addition to far right-wingers). A fairly milquetoast and "electable" candidate in Kerry could not unseat Bush. Democrats would do better to vote with their heart.

I would rather lunch with the Rev. Al or Jesse

"While head-to-head matchups and favorable/unfavorable ratings are important, the answer to questions like "Which candidate would you most like to have dinner with?" are often more telling."

Indeed. Who's gonna eat salad and lean turkey with Huckabee?

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

http://www.democrats.com/node/11929

Why the Holt Election Reform Bill Must be Amended to Guarantee a Real Paper Ballot

Guest Blogger and Constitutional Attorney John Bonifaz on Concerns About Holt's 'Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007' (HR 811)
Guest Blogged by John Bonifaz on BradBlog

Ed Note: John Bonifaz is a constitutional attorney, the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute and a Senior Legal Fellow of Demos' Democracy Program. He further serves as co-counsel for VoterAction.org on behalf of the voter plaintiffs in the Sarasota FL-13 case.

Earlier today, The BRAD BLOG posted a short article about the new Holt Election Reform bill in the U.S. House urging readers to read it before either endorsing or rejecting the legislation. We hope to have a thorough analysis of the bill in the coming days and weeks. For now, Mr. Bonifaz, given his background, credentials and current work on the FL-13 case provides a useful and important perspective on the new legislation.

Today, Congressman Rush Holt introduced H.R. 811 [PDF], a bill trumpeted as requiring "a voter-verified permanent paper ballot." But before we all jump on this train as the new guarantee that our votes will be properly counted in future elections, we ought to beware of the warning flag. A paper trail from DRE (Direct Recording Electronic, usually touch-screen) machines cannot protect the integrity of our elections.

Here's the bottom line: The DRE technology is fundamentally flawed for recording and counting our votes. The Holt bill, unless amended, will further codify into law the use of this technology, piling onto the disaster of HAVA (the Help America Vote Act of 2002) a new disaster.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist recently announced proposed state funding to replace DREs in the state with optical scan machines for election days and Florida is moving forward on certifying the AutoMARK machine, a ballot marking device NOT a direct recording device. New Mexico has already moved away from DREs and has a blended system of optical scan machines and AutoMARK. New York may soon go that way, as may California and Ohio.

Why, in the face of this movement in the states, should we embrace a bill in Congress that allows for the continued use of DREs? Yes, optical scan can also be vulnerable to being hacked, but at least with optical scan, there are still paper ballots (marked by hand or by a ballot marking device) that can be audited or recounted to ensure that our votes are properly counted. DREs provide no such guarantee.

Yes, the Holt bill tries to say it is requiring a paper ballot even for DREs, but, in the end, a DRE "paper ballot" is nothing more than a paper trail, which requires voters to verify their votes after they have cast them in the DRE machines. Studies show that most voters will not spend the time to verify their votes after casting them into DRE machines. Thus, the "voter-verified paper ballot" is a fiction when it comes to DREs.

If none of this is convincing, we need to look no further than Sarasota, the current epicenter of this debate. A "voter-verified" paper ballot or paper trail in Sarasota would not have erased the problem with the 18,000 missing votes in the FL-13 congressional election. With most voters not verifying their votes, most of those missing votes would still be missing --- and with no way to recover them and derive voter intent.

As Brad Friedman rightly says, placing a paper trail on DREs is like placing a seatbelt in the Ford Pinto. The Pinto will still explode --- so what is the point of installing a seatbelt?

We can and we should press for the principled position here: an amendment to the Holt bill that would ban the continued use of DREs and require a real paper ballot. Otherwise, we're going to wake up in 2008 realizing the new disaster we helped to create.

Hi Friends of washingtonpost, i write you because Fix.lu its going to leave to auction today at 16:00 h in www.sedo.com

Thanks!!!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Why is the US press silent on Brzezinski's warnings of war against Iran?

By Barry Grey in Washington DC
3 February 2007

The major national newspapers and most broadcast outlets failed even to report Thursday's stunning testimony by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is among the most prominent figures within the US foreign policy establishment. He delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the policy of the Bush administration was leading inevitably to a military confrontation with Iran which would have disastrous consequences for US imperialism.

Most significant and disturbing was Brzezinski's suggestion that the Bush administration might manufacture a pretext to justify a military attack on Iran. Presenting what he called a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran," Brzezinski laid out the following series of events: "Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in, quote/unquote, 'defensive' US military action against Iran..." [Emphasis added].

Thus Brzezinski opined that a US military attack on Iran would be an aggressive action, presented as though it were a defensive response to alleged Iranian provocations, and came close to suggesting, without explicitly stating as much, that the White House was capable of manufacturing or allowing a terrorist attack within the US to provide a casus belli for war.

It is self-evident that such testimony at an open congressional hearing from someone with decades of experience in the US foreign policy establishment and the closest ties to the military and intelligence apparatus is not only newsworthy, but of the most immense and grave import. Any objective and conscientious newspaper or news channel would consider it an obligation to inform the public of such a development.

Yet neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post carried so much as a news brief on Brzezinski's testimony in their Friday editions. Nor did USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. All of these publications, of course, have well-staffed Washington bureaus and regularly cover congressional hearings--especially those dealing with such burning political questions as the war in Iraq.

There is no innocent explanation for their decision to suppress this story. The Washington Post on Thursday published a large page-two column and photo on Henry Kissinger's appearance the previous day before the same Senate committee. The former secretary of state under Richard Nixon gave testimony that was generally supportive of the Bush administration's war policy.

Moreover, the Post's web edition carried an Associated Press report on

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f03.shtml

Al Gore is heads and shoulders above all of them.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

"Wow, the hypocrisy in the conclusion is absolutely appalling! After citing a poll (as unscientific as it is, you cited it!) in which Clinton is TRAILING Dennis Kucinich, you decide that "Clinton is the unquestioned 'head' candidate"."

The point of citing the Daily Kos poll was to show that Hillary doesn't have a great deal of "heart" support - Edwards and Obama are splitting that. But the sheer number of polls that show Hillary with big leads (and yes, I know name recognition is a factor) must show that there are quite a lot of Dems who are choosing her - if it's not for "heart" reasons, it must be because they think she's got the best chance of winning in '08 - i.e. for "head" reasons. The Gallup poll cited shows that she's the candidate that most think is the strongest leader, would be the best performer in a debate, and is most qualified to be President, as well as the Dem candidate that is most likely to win the election in '08. Seems like a good reason for calling her the unquestioned "head" candidate to me.

http://turtleonafencepost.blogspot.com/

"Different strokes in 2008, it will be a question of heart to pick a candidate."

I'm not sure it will. Electability is still going to weigh very heavily in a lot of Dems minds when making their pick for 2008. That's not to say that a "heart" candidate can't win the election, but I think he'll have to make a very strong case for his electability to complement the "likability" factor.

On the face of this poll, that might be good news for Edwards, since he was second for "the Democrat best positioned to win the White House next year" and still did well on likability (and favourable/unfavourable questions on plenty of state by state/national polls back that up). He's got plenty of netroots support too (if this blogger thing doesn't mess it up) and name recognition from the '04 race.

http://turtleonafencepost.blogspot.com

Wow, the hypocrisy in the conclusion is absolutely appalling! After citing a poll (as unscientific as it is, you cited it!) in which Clinton is TRAILING Dennis Kucinich, you decide that "Clinton is the unquestioned 'head' candidate"...

The nerves!

By the way, in that same poll Kucinich now has 5% to Clinton's 4%.

It's no surprise that Kucinich is ahead of Clinton in the poll. Given a fair chance (and something that comes close to the order of magnitude of coverage in MSM that the "frontrunners" get), Kucinich would wipe the floor.

Hillary is clever, but will get MAULED in a debate against the Republican candidate. So many skeletons to rattle in that closet ... and she cannot indefinitely hide who she really is.

Heart vs. reason...In 2004, the question was not to pick the best democratic candidate. It was to pick the best candidate to defeat Bush. Defeating Bush was the heart. Since America felt the duty to elect a wartime president, it had to be Kerry. There came the reason.
Different strokes in 2008, it will be a question of heart to pick a candidate.