Check out his voting record, and his entry on wikipedia.
I definitely don't want to see Obama, Clinton, Gulianni, Edwards, or McCain.
We have no choice here folks. We need the puppets and corporate bed partners out of office, and someone who will return our Country to Constitutional adherence, else the so called "terrorists" win. They've already managed to provide material support for the incumbents.
If you look closely, you can see the timing of the staged terror coincide with an event that we need to be distracted from. Anybody find it curious that bin Laden hasn't been heard from in ages? He either fulfilled his obligations to the CIA or he's dead.
Pakistan and the Saudis need to be in the crosshaiors, not Afghanistan and Iran.

ALL:

Suggesting that the MSM take a look at so-called 2nd tier candidates is a quixotic quest at best.

Not to mention that there really isn't 2 tiers. In a normal cycle, there are 2 tiers, in this cycle there are more like 4.

Because the MSM seems intent on making the Dem race Clinton-Obama, even three Dems who in an ordinary cycle would be getting a good look: Edwards, Richardson and Biden are being treated as 2nd tier candidates. My personal opinion is that Obama is going to flame out, which makes this more of a conventional cycle in that by fall it will be HRC and the anybody but HRC crowd, which means that Edwards and Richardson may be slugging it out for the anybody but Hilary vote. If Obama doesn't flame out between now and say September, he and Hilary will be sucking all of the oxygen out of the race leaving it very difficult for either Edwards or Richardson to stay viable.

On the GOP side, there is a much more open field than it is perceived. I do NOT believe that Giuliani can be a viable GOP primary candidate, and when his personal history and public stance on red meat issues becomes apparent to the average GOP primary voter, his support will evaporate quickly. His opponents will eviscerate him on his stances and his weird personal hisotry. Which leaves the "top-tier" with McCain and Romney, who have both taken almost absurd stances on Iraq. If Iraq straightens out a little, it will be McCain vs. Romney for the average GOP voter. BUT... there is a huge opening for a candidate who appeals to evangelicals. The next six months will show whether that is Brownback or Huckabee.

Duncan Hunter is not a serious candidate for President, because bottom line, he doesn't inspire people. He is the prototypical safe Republican congressman from a hard Republican district, who has never had to broaden his appeal, nor does anyone outside of So. California even really know who he is.

Dems should cross their fingers that Huckabee doesn't catch on and that McCain and Romney suck all the oxygen from the other candidates because he is dressed in the language of moderation, and makes an appealing national candidate... (that said even while I find his religious politics noxious).

In fact, a dream race would be Richardson vs. Huckabee, because it would be a substantive, real election, the first in a generation or more

Thanks to "Mountain Thinker" for a different perspective on Huckabee. Thanks to "Tom L in NJ" for pointing out what seemed obvious in Carson City: that Richardson and Biden were the thoughtful, and experienced, and moderate, voices; if not necessarily the flashiest. As an independent, I seldom get my druthers about having competent center right candidates run against competent center left ones. Hell, last time I would have settled for a competent liberal against a competent conservative. Richardson or Biden against McCain would give me hope for the 2009-2012 era. But I have no standing with the party [ies] faithful and I fear this long season will polarize and harden the positioning, magnifying the narcissism of small differences.

As an observer of and voter in elections for some 60 years, I think the only solution to all this excessive spending, ranting and raving is to limit the time and the money which can be used for campaigning.
There should be a law passed to do just that.
By the time the election actually comes
about, the general public is so sick and tired of all the candidates, they'd really
like to vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE".
My vote is not for sale, and I am not a
nincompoop easily swayed by propaganda for
or against a candidate. The record and
qualifications are most important. The
presidency is not a personality or "beauty"
contest. It does require intelligence,
tact, understanding, experience, and an
ability to listen to others who have more
expertise in a given field than the president may have. The press does little
to summarize all this, focusing instead on
the "human" behaviour for some and exempting others from that focus. It's enough to make a body cringe at the thought of enduring the whole process.

"Gore has become an ex-politician, a born-again real human being who has just learned to love life. My guess is that someone in that position has learned too much about life ever to go back."

Golgi, I know you won't agree with me but I'm pretty sure he will run.

Tom, I'm a Reagan Conservative Republican, and I have to confess that Bill Richardson and Joseph Biden actually don't infuriate me, or make me feel like they're clueless idealogues. Frankly, if my party is foolish enough to nominate Guiliani or Romney and no third party Conservative arises, I might just stay at the house if either one of those is on the ballot for the Dems. Or I suppose I could follow Obama's lead and vote 'present'...

How could Chris Dodd be ahead Joe Biden in your rankings? I saw Dodd at the Carson City event and I was not impressed at all. Richardson & Biden yes!! Even with all Joe Biden troubles in the past(clean comment &, plagirism in the 88 campaign) I think he will be able to get in the top tier of candidates once the debates start. He is the only candidate coming up with real solutuions not just political rhetoric. I think he will scare the XXXX out of the other candidates with his expertise in foriegn policy especially Iraq for which he is the only candidate with a real plan!!

Mayors don't back someone because they're trying to create a straw man. A backing is a backing. You'd have to be crazy to back Obama if you really support Hillary. She'd hate you.

JayPe's suggestion was interesting, but set off some "creaky convoluted logic" red flags for me. I think she doesn't really know what to do because she's only recently realized that the country has lost the interest in her that we used to have. She must have bad dreams about Obama every night. My sense is that the attacks are simple defensive attacks.

Could be wrong though...

JayPe,
That's a very lucid and well-reasoned argument. I too believe that Obama is being set up as the biggest political straw man ever seen in national politics. And frankly, I find it further interesting that he comes from Hillary's home-turf, and is currently backed by someone that is a staunch Hillary/Bill backer, Chicago Mayor Daly... Watch and see!

I have a theory that Hillary is attacking Obama because she wants him to be her main rival. She knows these nomination fights usually resolve to a two person battle (Kerry/Edwards, Bush/McCain, Gore/Bradley) and wants to ensure that in 2008 its Hillary/Obama. If she keeps attacking him and ignoring Edwards/Richardson etc then he'll be the last man standing.

I think this is smart politics from her(i.e. nasty!) As he focuses Democrats on experience. Hillary can point to her tested experience at winning elections (Senate and Presidential) and the Dems will back her in a Kerry-esque rush to ensure the chosen candidate is "electable". I hope it doesn't work.

Anyone agree with this?

Very penetrating article on Gore's newfound rockstar status today in the Washington Post.

In my eyes, it quashes the rumor that he will run.

Gore has become an ex-politician, a born-again real human being who has just learned to love life. My guess is that someone in that position has learned too much about life ever to go back.

Welcome, Al Gore! We love you out here! You must have had a really amazing experience through all that. Cool stuff, man.

Ok...I just had to jump in here!

William, wow you need to do some fact checking and in-depth reading on Huckabee before you post on him again. We both seem to be Reagan Conservatives, so I would also believe you consider intellectual integrity to be important...

Huckabee's Record...

Gay Marriage: Strongly Opposed. (True)

Abortion: Strongly opposed, says if a South Dakota style abortion had been passed in AR, he would have signed it into law. (True)

Gun rights: Huckabee holds a Concealed Carry permit (this makes him the only GOP Candidate who does, let alone actively mentions it, as far as I can tell, as well as a life member of the NRA for MANY years)

Taxes and the Economy: Largest Economic Growth in Arkansas in decades, and the tax increases that he passed were not fiat declarations from on high, but rather passed in a state wide binding referendum 3-1 with dedicated revenue/expenditures stated in the vote so that tax dollars could not be misappropriated. The purpose was to FIX Arkansas and its infrastructure after years of neglect by the Clinton Administration. As a Conservative Republican I believe that public referendum-based taxation with dedicated revenue streams for stated projects is the absolute BEST way for government to operate. By the way, it's the same way Ronald Reagan 'raised taxes' in California as Governor to create economic boom and development that lasted for two decades...

Immigration: All I can say is Wow! Gov. Huckabee's record on this issue (being the FIRST Non-border Governor to send Nat'l Gaurd troops to help secure it!) is one of balanced compassion. The blame rightly belongs not to a group of individuals desperate to make a better life than the near third-world conditions in much of Mexico, but to our own gov't which has done nothing to enforce our own laws and borders. Gov. Huckabee believes that we must first secure the border, and then find a comprehensive solution to those already here, including the possible repatriation of all those that have a criminal record, and then some form of restitution-based integration for those that remain. Logically, as well as logistically, that sounds like the way to go for me!

Iraq: Huckabee has given quiet support to The Surge. (True...after all, what is the genuinely effective alternative? He has been outspoken on the over-use of the gaurd as opposed to active-duty forces, and he, like many, hopes that 21,000 are enough of a boost to be effective...)

Foreign Policy: Huckabee wants to engage in unilateral talks and negotiations with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. He believes we need to be more accomodating to the wishes of other nations. Huckabee supports the role and mission of the UN. (True, but this does NOT mean he PROUDLY supports the current ineffectiveness and corruption within the organization. Furthermore, treating other nations as sovereign entities with genuine interests/concerns is probably the starting point for any negotiations that one can hope to be effective.)

Death Penalty: He claims he supports it in principal, but thinks it should be used very rarely if ever. (True, and I hope we would ALL agree) He commuted the sentences of, relatively speaking, many prisoners on AR death row. In actuality, Huckabee effectively opposes the death penalty. (Simply FALSE! Though troubled by the hard reality & harshness of the death penalty, he actually ordered the death penalty to be carried out more than ANY Arkansas Governor EVER! 17 times...)

Law and Order: Huckabee believes in "restorative justice" which holds that society is to blame for a criminal's actions, and that the criminal is really a victim, too. Under restorative justice, a criminal must be rehabilitated and released as soon as possible. (Mischaracterization of the concept of 'restorative justice.' First, it recognizes that often society has a shared responsibility in criminality in general, through societal failures. Reasonable people cannot disagree with this. However, personal responsibility is not nor should be negated, therefore individuals must be held accountable while we also try to repair the underlying causes that have helped contribute to the development of criminals. Secondly, rehabilitation should be the aim of our Justice system, not revenge. Therefore, we must try to break the cycle by providing legitmate paths to reform for those in our prisons. Still, as the addage goes, 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' which is why Gov. Huckabee focuses on fixing the root causes...not managing the symptoms...

Huckabee has made at least one comment indicating he believes that we need to address the "root causes" of terrorism, (and YES, WE SHOULD!) and that terrorists can be rehabilitated as well.(Not just No, but HELL NO!, the point is that we can govern ourselves and our actions to encourage or discourage the creation of terrorist states as well as the recruitment/creation of NEW terrorists, and I think that is true to a certain extent.)

Church/State: Huckabee supports school prayer and the teaching of Intelligent Design in addition to evolution. (True)

Global Warming: Huckabee supports the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel, and has made at least one statement in qualified support of a Kyoto type treaty. (as long as we ALL are held to the same standards, which is a reasonable 'qualification' echoed by many rational conservatives)

So basically, Huckabee's overall record on the issues is "liberal, with splashes of conservativism." (Utter Nonsense, Overall Huckabee is a Passionate, Well-Reasoned, Mainstream Conservative who staunchly and consistently supports every single mainstream conservative position of the last 30 years; something neither McCain, Romney, or Guiliani can say!)

'So you see the GOP base is not really concerned with issues or even God, Family, Country. They are about hating liberals. (Many of them are about hating dark or foreign liberals in particular.) We can present a thousand ten point plans and say they should vote for us because their economic interests lie with liberal policies, but it won't make a bit of difference. We can point out their hypocrisy and flip-flops and it means nothing. Republican identity politics transcend such prosaic concerns as policy and political philosophy. It's all about whether you are one of them. If you can prove that then they could not care less what you once stood for. The only thing that will trip you up is being insufficiently hostile to liberals once they have validated your membership. That will get you kicked to the curb in a Midland Minute. '

The lawyer for a former Baptist church leader who had spoken out against homosexuality said Thursday the minister has a constitutional right to solicit sex from an undercover policeman.

The Rev. Lonnie W. Latham had supported a resolution calling on gays and lesbians to reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle" before his Jan. 3, 2006, arrest outside the Habana Inn in Oklahoma City.

Authorities say he asked the undercover policeman to come up to his hotel for oral sex.

Damn. You are bringing up things from one thousand EIGHT HUNDRED ninety-seven?

Would you also like to explore how many political figures have family trees involved in slavery? After all, that was only a couple decades before your timeline there.

Let the man stand or fall on his own.

'Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today.
The claims are reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war.'

'Although contractors were widely used in Vietnam for support and reconstruction tasks, they have never before represented such a large portion of the U.S. presence in a war zone or accounted for so many security and military-like jobs, experts say.

Some of the workers are former U.S. military personnel. Some are foreigners. The companies and the U.S. government say they do not keep track of how many are Americans.

The contractors are paid handsomely for the risks they take, with some making $100,000 or more per year, mostly tax-free _ at least six times more than a new Army private, a rank likely to be driving a truck or doing some other unskilled work.

The difference in pay can create ill will between the contractors and U.S. troops.

"When they are side by side doing the same job, there is some resentment," said Rick Saccone, who worked as an intelligence contractor in Baghdad for a year.'

Joe Lieberman ran against Ned Lamont for the Democratic nomination for Senate and told the voters of Connecticut how he votes with Democrats in Congress more than 90% of the time.

Having campaigned as a true blue loyal Democrat in the primary, Lieberman campaigned in the general election as an independent Democrat who would vote with Democrats to organize the Senate.

Lieberman gave his word of honor to senior Democrats. Lieberman gave his word of honor to the voters of Connecticut.

Now, Joe Lieberman is blackmailing the Senate and proving his word of honor has the same honor as the false presentation of pre-war Iraq intelligence.

By threatening to vote with Republicans, Joe Lieberman has already broken his word of honor. Less than two months into a six year term, Lieberman is telling the voters of his state that his word during the primaries is null and void, and his word during the general election is null and void.

This is an act of dishonor unprecedented in the history of the United States Senate. Whether he changes parties or not (and I predict he does not) Lieberman is saying this:

A man's word is his bond. Except for Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman's word is his bond. Until he decides to break it. This from the man who talks so righteously of his personal values.'

"SALT LAKE CITY -- While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she "used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow" over her own husband's multiple marriages.

Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy.'

"When you read the family's history, you realize how important polygamy was to them," said Todd Compton, a Mormon and independent historian who wrote a book about the polygamous life of the church's founder, Joseph Smith. "They left America and started again as pioneers, after they had done it over and over again previously."

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was "a very important part of Miles Park Romney's family."

Hey Chris, you do all of these run downs on who has the edge politically in these primaries. Why not do a run-down, not by party but by person, on who has the most positive experience dealing with issues: foreign policy and rank the top 5, economy: rank the top 5, energy, border security and who has done the most in his/her career to appeal to social groups: for 1 side or the other. Let's actually talk about issues and who has experience in them. Then again, this is a Presidential campaign...so that may not matter right?

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

To William: Your posts seem to reinforce my own writings, yet I'm an idiot? I think you have me confused with the person that signs with plain "Mike"

frannie--Frankly, I could not care less whether the son of someone powerful was subjected to the same treatment as the plebes suffer each day. He was not a diplomat or, so far as I know, specially protected by any other laws.

The sense I am getting from the few quotes is that the person in question was actually upset that this happened at all but the media (there and here) is reporting the great outrage to be his treatment /even though he is related to someone powerful/, which is despicable.

To give special provisions to the important or those connected to the important is the first step towards a de facto aristocracy.

If you want to argue that NO-ONE should be subjected to this type of treatment, feel free to do so and I will agree with you.

I would love to see a Gore/Obama ticket. Mark my words, by the end of the summer, Gore will jump in and emerge as the favorite. When this happens, you'll see Obama fade back (by his own choice) toward the end of the year and by the end of the rist round of primaries, he will have struck a deal with Gore to get out of the race and become Gore's VP choice. I couldn't imagine a better scenario (as a Dem, that is).

HRC would be fuming mad, as she would come to terms with the fact that her hopes of ever being President would be eliminated, as Gore would never pick her as hs running mate.

Can you imagine what a battle royale it would be to see Gore go up against Clinton? WOW, talk about fireworks. I think we'd see a lot of true feelings come to light.

PG

'see -- 'liberals' only disagree with 'conservatives' for political or commerical gain, or atheism..'

Two issues that need resolving are a) what precisely does it mean for this to be written from a Conservative Christian viewpoint? In particular, what policies and world views does this include? (For example, we've had some editing issues over whether Mormons are Christian) b) When writing, should things be written in a way that states the conservative christian viewpoint as fact or merely give is a large amount of weight?

That is, should an article say "X is Y and liberals think X is ~Y but they are wrong for the following reasons" or should we have things of the form "Conservatives say X is Y, some people disagree. Here is one reason against this statement and here is n reasons for it for large n". Both of these issues seem to becoming increasingly relevant for a number of articles, such as the evolution related articles, abortion and a few others. JoshuaZ 14:46, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Good questions, Joshua, but I don't see any conflict between the "Conservative Christian viewpoint" and ordinary logic, or faith. So in answer to (a), I would say that we're open to all information that meets the guidelines, which are quite broad. In answer to (b), I'm fine with posting alternative viewpoints with disclosure about who holds those viewpoints. I wouldn't constantly say that "Conservatives say ..." because this site presents encyclopedia-type information as factual. But where liberals disagree with something, I'm fine without point that out along with information about why they disagree (e.g., political or commercial gain, or atheistic views).'

'The Conservapedia (via everybody and their cat) is indeed pure gold, and many people have picked out their favorite bits. (I'm particularly partial to "[Nineteen-Eighty-Four] is a utopian book because it talks about a place where everyone is watched over by Big Brother.") I like the entry on "judicial activism":

There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:

1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values

The most famous example of this is Roe v. Wade. Other examples include Brown v Board of Education[1] and Loving v Virginia[2] which stripped state control over education and marriage, respectively, putting it in the hands of the federal government.'

From the conservative Daily Telegraph:

'Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.

A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons'.

I suppose the Iraqis themselves--a sovereign country, we are reminded by the Bush Administration when it's convenient--would be militarily helpless to stop Israeli overflights, but one can imagine that the backlash against U.S. troops by Iraqi Shiites would be swift and fierce. We might find ourselves longing for the days when we were merely caught in a civil war.

Sixteen million Americans live in "severe poverty," defined as individuals making less than $5,080 annually and families of four making less than $9,903. Yeah, 16,000,000.

'Any administration extricating U.S. troops from Iraq would have to send the message that the U.S. military would now refocus its full attention on al-Qaida. As for other commitments, why would we allow anyone to conclude that our failure in Iraq had any bearing on them? In withdrawing, the U.S. should answer questions of credibility loudly and clearly. Demonstrating that we recognize the error of our ways would indicate a seriousness of purpose and a national magnanimity lacking throughout the Bush years.

The other protest from war supporters is that withdrawal would sound a death knell for the prospect of liberal democratic reform in the Middle East -- a reversed version of the domino theory. But that objection implies that liberal democracy could sweep across the Islamic world if U.S. forces are kept in Iraq. In every location elections have been held in the Muslim world since the Iraq war, something close to the worst possible result has emerged.

Elections predating significant social change have done little to advance either America's interests or the cause of liberalism. The naive assertion peddled by neoconservatives that liberal democratic change was a workable solution to America's terrorism problem has been a blight on U.S. grand strategy. Reform in the Islamic world cannot be precipitated -- or even hastened in a meaningful way -- by pressure from America.'

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/270636,CST-EDT-REF24A.article

'Prime Minister Tony Blair announced Wednesday that he would begin withdrawing British troops from Iraq immediately. Though Blair stopped short of setting a timetable for the full withdrawal of British forces, his decision to pull 1,600 soldiers out of Iraq, at a time when the United States is sending more than 21,000 more into the war, must be seen as a harbinger of defeat for the U.S. mission there. Denmark, which has 460 soldiers under British command in the Shiite south of Iraq, announced plans to withdraw its troops by August.

The Bush administration has shifted noticeably from defending the war to emphasizing the suspected downsides of withdrawal. President Bush continually asserts that the consequences of leaving Iraq would be "grievous and far-reaching," and result in a "nightmare scenario." The president has focused on two negative consequences: a loss of U.S. credibility, and the prospect that withdrawal would precipitate a reverse domino effect, propping up the authoritarian governments that Bush's Iraq policy was intended to undermine. These claims echo the arguments of Lyndon Johnson, who argued against cutting our losses in Vietnam.

The issue of credibility was so central to America's Vietnam policy that tens of thousands of Americans died in the pursuit not of victory, but of saving face. They died because American leaders believed then -- as the Bush administration apparently believes now -- that defeat would have uncontrollable consequences. But the wiser voices inside the Johnson administration were arguing as early as the mid-1960s that the costs of defeat were manageable.'

thank you anon. just becuase someone is 'intelligent' doesn't mean that he or she cannot be morally repugnant. Hitler, after all, had a deep appreciation for art and music, and was quite an acceptable artist...

'BAGHDAD, Iraq Feb 24, 2007 (AP)-- Thousands of Shiites rallied in the holy city of Najaf on Saturday to protest the nearly 12-hour detention of the eldest son of Iraq's most influential Shiite politician as he crossed back from Iran.

Amar al-Hakim, who was taken into custody on Friday, complained Saturday that U.S. soldiers handcuffed and blindfolded him before his release and "strongly abused" his bodyguards.

"Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq's sovereignty," he said.'

Seinfeld: George, she's a Nazi!

Costanza: But Jerry, she's a cute Nazi!

I don't care how intelligent William appears or that he's "only 19." His opinions are the most vile in our society.

Don't be sucjered by him. He casts such a broad net that he invariably catches somebody here in an exchange. Stop being his straight men.

William is an unrepentent racist Nazi; and that cannot be said enough. He is dangerous. He is the type who will draw other to his cause, because he appears intellignet and can speak to many things. But to him "two wrongs" are just acceptable politics.

You enable him whenever you compliment him.

Here's a REAL man, one who actually hunts wild and dangerous animals, getting kicked in the face by a bunch of gun nuts who keep their arsenals in the basement to mastur**te over... just because he suggested real men don't need terrorist assault rifles to shoot fierce and deadly -- prarie dogs. what a bunch of sick fu**s:

'Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

Outdoors writer and TV personality Jim Zumbo, posing with a bear he shot in Canada in 2004, is in hot water for his recent posting on the Outdoor Life Web site, which took aim at hunters who use military-style assault rifles.

Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

Beside the 15 year old daughter of a friend of mine, Obama actually drew 20,000 others to the lakefront here in Austin yesterday. He spoke outdoors in the drizzling rain for 40 minutes or so and was received like a star by a bunch of folks who took off from work all afternoon. My guess is he raised 1/4 a mil in small contributions, plus a greater sum at an earlier fundraiser. younger folks gushed. some of the older ones were favorably impressed, but not to the point of worship.

When I as a college student stood within 30 feet of John Kennedy on Columbus Day in 1963 I approved of him and thought he was "our" guy; young, smart, and witty. I listened intently. That may be what is happening for Obama with first time and second time voters, now.

Beats apathy...

A Gore-Obama ticket in 2008 makes the most sense to me. If Gore stays out of the fray, perhaps, Obama-Richardson, two very talented politicians with complementary strengths, but not as politically viable IMO as a Gore-Obama ticket in 2008. I would be intellectually comfortable with the latter ticket, but I don't know if I would emotionally feel the same way, the day after election day.

I was intrigued by the idea of an Obama-Gore ticket given by one poster, but I'm not too sure that Al would agree to run again as VP. Al is a classy guy, so you never know. In any event, I believe Obama would be in an excellent position to run and win at the top of the ticket after having served as Gore's VP for 8 years. It would also be better for the country and the party to have strong leadership these two could provide for 16 years-- not just 8. So put me down for Gore-Obama.

once again, william's personal obsession with race clouds his judgment, thinking, analysis, and most likely, existence on earth. the reasons for kerry's loss are as myriad as the stars, but the simple fact is that a 60,000 vote switch in ohio would have made the man the 44th potus. now that to me is amazing considering that would have meant defeating the man who led us through severe national trauma 9/11 and was currently commanding troops in not one but two theaters of was. the only reason we can't say it's hard to imagine it getting any closer than that is, of course, four years earlier we actually had the twilight zone situation of the presidential loser being declared the presidential winner.

however the fact remains that kerry came very, very close to defeating a wartime president who had led us through our worse national crisis in over sixty years and once held the highest approval rating any president has ever known. obviously, coming so close to toppling such an incumbent took a man of great strength, talent, perseverance, intelligence, and clear presidential timber.

also, william, what is more treasonous: volunteering to fight for your country, going so far as take the life of other human beings for your flag and then realizing the fight is not your fight, and that those killing and dying are not doing so for the right reasons and therefore trying to put a stop to it so no one else has to die or far worse, soak their hands in the blood of others, OR sitting on your comfortable butt at home pushing and screaming for a war that you lack the guts to go fight yourself? personally, i find any cheerleader for a war who's unwilling to fight in it or encourage their children to fight a coward of the highest magnitude. That, my boy, is treason: allowing your fellow countrymen and women to die for a war you want but refuse to stick your own neck out for.

don't you dare insult kerry or anyone else who has the mettle to pick up a weapon, stand a post, and defend this country. this action requires a heroism beyond anything you've ever done and you should be ashamed of yourself for degrading the actions of anyone who's served nobly. when kerry returned, he truly believed his anti-war activities were the best things for his brothers-in-arms, and some times, they absolutely are. it took bravery and courage to stand up and say we were making a mistake, the kind of same bravery and courage that was sadly missing when rumsfeld was putting together his foolhardy plan for iraq's invasion, or when bremer disbanded the iraqi army. if just one ranking officer had raised the gigantic stink that they all knew these MONUMENTALLY stupid decisions were goin to cause, maybe things would be different. what we do is that are armed forces stayed silent, and the idiot ignorant civilian leadership execution of operation iraqi freedom has cost countless thousands more lives than it ever should have. i wish to god there had been a john kerry or two amongsthe joint chiefs, someone who would not only have said was shinseki said (which was really just an offhanded comment, made in response to a question), but then pursued the crap out of until he had knocked some sense into someone.

trust me william, the more john kerry's we have in all walks of life, men and women who can move push past their ego and sacrifice and recognize a mistake for what it really is and then do everything in their power to correct it, no matter how much it costs them, the better off we'll always be.

Meuphys His middle name is Hussein there is no way the republicans wouldn't link him to the terrorist in a campaign ad. William is right its perception that matters and Obama doesn't pass the smell test.

I for one would love to see Michael "Savage" run. I wonder, will he run under his stage name, or his real name? HA HA HA HA HA

PG

I'm sorry Maryland, can you tell me exactly what the message from McCain is? He's flip-flopped on so many issues over the last couple of years who knows where he really stands on anything.

PG

Wait, are you guys forgetting someone?
Michael Savage is thinking about running. He has over 1 million votes on his website alraedy saying he should run... That would be a joy to watch
Hah, republicans are sooooooo screwed this election. All the conservatives (right wing kooks) are mad they don't have a true "conservative" running while all the moderates (mccain, guily) are going to get nowhere in the primaries.
this should be fun to watch, as long as the dems don't nominate hrc. anyone else should take it in a cakewalk

William, thanks for the view on Huckabee. I followed up and your description of his take on illegal immigration is pretty close to the gist of his public statements, to my shocked surprise.

I now believe that he may self-destruct during the early going. Again thanks for the enlightenment.

Mark

I truly believe McCain will be our next president. Instead of the standared blame Bush rhetoric or blame the republicans we have seen recently, he's the only one with a real message to strengthen America

The guy never had enough buzz to grab the campaign cash needed to stay relevant. I liked what he stood for, though.

But some bloggers think that he's headded for a VP slot.
http://political-buzz.com/?p=67
True?

'Say goodbye to your Volvo V-70 and 3 bedroom apartment in the City. They'll be taken from you and given to some poor minority family, as reparations for "racism and colonialism" that your eeeeeeevillllllllllllll white ancestors assuredly partook in.

Next, they would flood the "civilized" areas of the world with their uncivilized hordes, in the name of "racial diversity."

I don't live in the City dear, too many people, too much closeness. I grew up in the Mojave Desert --wide, wide open. I like space. As I mentioned, I grew up in an extremely conservative and religious family. So I understand where your viewpoints come from.

But I grew up, and I stopped believing in this silly 60's rhetoric you indulge in. How many people do you really think push this stuff? It's just some ancient paleocon propaganda, long discredited. Only indoctrinated rightists beleive this kind of crap. Get out more, you're not that stupid.

And as for the 'uncivilized hordes' -- how very nineteenth century you are -- does conservatism prevent you from comprending more modern concepts? And do you realy think americans, whose favorite TV program is American Idol, are really more 'civilized' than all the rest of the world?

Hi William,

Yes, I agree with some of what you say. Let me repeat parts of my previous post:

"Last time, the Dems needed a dull white guy badly."

That's your point about a 2004 moderate dull candidate. Agreed.

"This time around, for the Dems to select a dull white guy would be admitting defeat. That's not what America is hungering for now."

What you and I disagree on here is whether the "average-election" rules-of-thumb are the ones that can be trusted during this election.

You feel that they can, I feel that they can't.

At this point, verbal arguments cannot tell which one of us is right - only time can.

I do appreciate that there is something to your analysis of the "average-election" rules-of-thumb about race. And I agree with you that Dems commonly make the mistake of ignoring these rules-of-thumb - at their own peril.

But within today's topic, when you point at Edwards and Richardson and predict they are 2008 winners because they are dull, I see them and predict they are 2008 losers for the same reason.

Golgi, if last time the Dems had run Wesley Clark (who is dull), or any other moderate Dem, they probably would have won.

Also, things in Iraq weren't as bad as they are now in 2004, so Bush had more support (and he still only got 51% of the vote.)

Kerry was a weak candidate because of:

1. His borderline treasonous anti-war activities in the 1970s.

2. His far left, very liberal voting record, including that he voted against every military weapons system since he was first elected to the Senate.

3. He was an elistist snob, with an even snobbier foreign wife.

4. He was a far leftwinger from MA (MA!!!!!!!)

5. He failed to respond adequately to attacks on him.

6. He kept flip-flopping.

7. Too many awkward moments like "I'm John Kerry reporting for duty!"

8. Bush was accurately able to portray him for what he really was: a far left quasi-socialist wimp, who was weak on national security.

9. Boasting that mysterious, unnamed, "foreign leaders" want you to win doesn't help.

If the Dems had not run a MA liberal, and had run Clark, or any other moderate, they would have taken Bush down.

Maybe it is just my conservative nature, but in something as important as a presidential election, I don't want to risk losing with an uncertain candidate, just in order to make a statement.

Yes, we know the Democrats support diversity and women's rights.

Now, pick someone who can win.

If Warner can be persuaded to re-enter the race, go with him.

But considering the candidates that are left, I would go with richardson, or if you are only talking about the top 3, edwards.

William is a smart guy but has not been around long enough to develop an instinct for how the appetite of Americans changes from election to election.

William's race-analysis would make a decent subject for a term paper. All else being equal, it isn't a trivial subject. But all else is never equal. In my opinion, William underestimates the strengths of the various currents in play in 2007/8.

Last time, the Dems needed a dull white guy badly. Too bad the dull white guy they picked wasn't more likeable.

This time around, for the Dems to select a dull white guy would be admitting defeat. That's not what America is hungering for now.

Golgi opinion Dull-o-meter:

Dodd and Biden actually aren't dull, even though they are long-term Senators.

Edwards is really dull.

Richardson is dull enough that it barely matters that he's technically not Anglo.

Obama: Definitely not dull.

Clinton: Dull except for her sex, which isn't enough.

meuphys: You may find CQ interesting in that it has an article about the Clinton/Obama dustup. Something I had not thought about for years. Check it out.

meuphys, it doesn't matter that the madras thing, or any other Muslim smears about Obama aren't true.

People will believe them anyway, and in politics, getting votes is what matters.

Sorry Meuphys, Adam Putnam one of the Munchkin leaders in Congress is still letting the discredited story float wherever it will. (On Kool-Aid most likely.) PutNut was quoted as saying that he didn't care if the story was false or not. Which I seem to recall the Junior Nazi saying also more than once.

Truth Hunter: There is no point in ingoring the issue of race. It is the elephant in the room, and Dems who pretend race won't even be an issue in a presidential election are doing their own party a disservice. You said my analysis of a candidate's electability depends a great deal on race. My analysis does depend a great deal on that, because a candidate's electability in the general depends a great deal on that.

Race certainly isn't the only issue, but it is an issue. Pretending it's not would be like pretending that there is no evidence to support the idea of global warming.

Just like global warming, there are different views on HOW MUCH race will affect electability, but it certainly will.

Drindl, yes, I am opposed to international treaties which paint the US into a corner and limit what we, as a sovereign nation, can and cannot do.

George Washington cautioned against treaties which impinge on our sovereignty.

Furthermore, as much as liberals would LOVE the world to be comrpised of one country called "Earth" or something like that, the fact is that such an entity would be disastrous for us.

Since most of the world's countries are poor, the first thing that the impoverished peoples of China, India, Africa, Latin America, etc would do is vote to institute socialism, so they could take our wealth and redistribute it.

Say goodbye to your Volvo V-70 and 3 bedroom apartment in the City. They'll be taken from you and given to some poor minority family, as reparations for "racism and colonialism" that your eeeeeeevillllllllllllll white ancestors assuredly partook in.

Next, they would flood the "civilized" areas of the world with their uncivilized hordes, in the name of "racial diversity."

Then, they would outlaw any opinions which differed from the official, anti-Western, socialist, PC version of things.

That's because in order for people to be "truly free" "barriers" such as "ignorance and prejudice and poverty" must be eliminated, at least according to the Sandanistas teaching political science @ UC Berkeley.

So, it would become illegal for anyone to point out that minorities commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes. Even though that is true, mentioning it might lead to "ignorance and prejudice" thus preventing said minorities from being "truly free," using the definition of freedom adhered to by communist Columbia professors.

In addition, everyone would be told where to live, and people from the suburbs would be foricibly relocated to the "ghettos" and vice versa, in order to promote diversity.

(Even if said diversity was accomplished by minorities gang-raping your daughter. How eeevilll and racist she was, to refuse to have sex with those nonwhite people. They are only taking out their frustration at the "legacy of colonialism".)

Do you see where I am going with this? If there was just one global country, as nice as that might sound, in reality it would look like a combination of South Africa, Baghdad 2007, and Brazil.

Not pretty.

Even if we were only to join the ICC or ICJ, they would force us to donate a huge portion of our national revenue to fight "world poverty". They would also declare it illegal for us to deny illegals amnesty, and force us to increase illegal immigration.

A world court will inevitably rule in favor of the 3rd world, at our expense.

We have nothing to gain (except liberals feeling good about themselves) and everything to lose, by participating in a World Court, or more equal UN, where voting power is determined by population.

the wisdom of william - "Obama is even more risky. He grew up in a foreign country, and has a Muslim past, and is half white and half black. These factors leave him highly vulnerable to smear attacks like the "Call Me" or "Hands" ads."

1, you can't get over the fact that a lot of people seem to find a black man personable and intelligent. 2, obama lived in indonesia for a few years. he grew up in hawaii, which has been part of the u.s. since way before you were whelped.

tell me, william, have you ever been abroad yourself? it's a great experience - people in other countries are surprisingly intelligent and cultured. although, when you go, try to avoid seeking out the nearest mcdonald's.

also, WILL YOU GIVE THE 'MUSLIM' THING A REST ALREADY. i know it's a neo-con talking point, but it has been proven untrue by REAL news organizations who do not belong to rev. moon.

Mark -

Here is Huckabee's record, in brief since I have to sign off soon.

Gay Marriage: Strongly Opposed.

Abortion: Strongly opposed, says if a South Dakota style abortion had been passed in AR, he would have signed it into law.

Gun rights: Huckabee holds a Concealed Carry permit, and says he opposes "Assault Weapon" Bans (AWBs). However, a couple of times, he has made comments which seem to justify AWBs. But in general, he is pro-gun.

Taxes and the Economy: Huckabee's record was blasted by the conservative Club For Growth recently, which published a detailed report on his record, available on their website. Huckabee's record was described as being quite liberal and disturbing with "splashes of conservativism." Huckabee raised taxes on many things during his tenure, and on some items taxes increased 113%. He is also on record supporting internet taxes, and opposing the Bush tax cuts. In all, Huckabee is probably more demand-side than supply-side.

Immigration: Huckabee believes that the issue of illegal immigration has given our nation a "second chance" to "atone" for segregation. He not only favors giving government benefits to all illegals and their children, but believes we are obligated to give amnesty to all illegal Hispanics who are already here AND all illegals who will come in the future, in order to "make up for" our racist past. According to Huckabee, in his own words, those who oppose amnesty are "driven by racism."

Iraq: Huckabee has given quiet support to The Surge.

Foreign Policy: Huckabee wants to engage in unilateral talks and negotiations with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. He believes we need to be more accomodating to the wishes of other nations. Huckabee supports the role and mission of the UN.

Death Penalty: Huckabee has an extremely shaky record on the death penalty. He claims he supports it in principal, but thinks it should be used very rarely if ever. He commuted the sentences of, relatively speaking, many prisoners on AR death row. In actuality, Huckabee effectively opposes the death penalty.

Law and Order: Huckabee believes in "restorative justice" which holds that society is to blame for a criminal's actions, and that the criminal is really a victim, too. Under restorative justice, a criminal must be rehabilitated and released as soon as possible.

Huckabee has a penchant for pardoning or paroling dangerous capital offenders. In numerous cases, he ordered the release of an offender, and soon after he released them, they raped or murdered innocent victims. This scenario played out while Huckabee was governor all too often.

Huckabee has made at least one comment indicating he believes that we need to address the "root causes" of terrorism, and that terrorists can be rehabilitated as well.

Church/State: Huckabee supports school prayer and the teaching of Intelligent Design in addition to evolution.

Global Warming: Huckabee supports the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel, and has made at least one statement in qualified support of a Kyoto type treaty.

So basically, Huckabee's overall record on the issues is "liberal, with splashes of conservativism."

Mark -

Here is Huckabee's record, in brief, since I have to sign off soon.

Gay Marriage: Strongly Opposed.

Abortion: Strongly opposed, says if a South Dakota style abortion had been passed in AR, he would have signed it into law.

Gun rights: Huckabee holds a Concealed Carry permit, and says he opposes "Assault Weapon" Bans (AWBs). However, a couple of times, he has made comments which seem to justify AWBs. But in general, he is pro-gun.

Taxes and the Economy: Huckabee's record was blasted by the conservative Club For Growth recently, which published a detailed report on his record, available on their website. Huckabee's record was described as being quite liberal and disturbing with "splashes of conservativism." Huckabee raised taxes on many things during his tenure, and on some items taxes increased 113%. He is also on record supporting internet taxes, and opposing the Bush tax cuts. In all, Huckabee is probably more demand-side than supply-side.

Immigration: Huckabee believes that the issue of illegal immigration has given our nation a "second chance" to "atone" for segregation. He not only favors giving government benefits to all illegals and their children, but believes we are obligated to give amnesty to all illegal Hispanics who are already here AND all illegals who will come in the future, in order to "make up for" our racist past. According to Huckabee, in his own words, those who oppose amnesty are "driven by racism."

Iraq: Huckabee has given quiet support to The Surge.

Foreign Policy: Huckabee wants to engage in unilateral talks and negotiations with Iran, Syria, and North Korea. He believes we need to be more accomodating to the wishes of other nations. Huckabee supports the role and mission of the UN.

Death Penalty: Huckabee has an extremely shaky record on the death penalty. He claims he supports it in principal, but thinks it should be used very rarely if ever. He commuted the sentences of, relatively speaking, many prisoners on AR death row. In actuality, Huckabee effectively opposes the death penalty.

Law and Order: Huckabee believes in "restorative justice" which holds that society is to blame for a criminal's actions, and that the criminal is really a victim, too. Under restorative justice, a criminal must be rehabilitated and released as soon as possible.

Huckabee has a penchant for pardoning or paroling dangerous capital offenders. In numerous cases, he ordered the release of an offender, and soon after he released them, they raped or murdered innocent victims. This scenario played out while Huckabee was governor all too often.

Huckabee has made at least one comment indicating he believes that we need to address the "root causes" of terrorism, and that terrorists can be rehabilitated as well.

Church/State: Huckabee supports school prayer and the teaching of Intelligent Design in addition to evolution.

Global Warming: Huckabee supports the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel, and has made at least one statement in qualified support of a Kyoto type treaty.

So basically, Huckabee's overall record on the issues is "liberal, with splashes of conservativism."

William: Testing you on the Gov. Bush and you caught it well. Yes I did hear that former Gov. Jeb Bush was/is going to support Romney. This was about a week or so ago on one of the cable news shows, and btw we all know they report nothing but the truth, tongue in cheek. I still have a hunch Chuck Hagle just might get in the race once the others have been brought down to be within striking distance.

Me, not Republican. Raised as an evangelical, originally from [quite conservative] Southern California, with most family in the South and Midwest.

I don't much like bush's trade agreements eithr, but probably for different reasons than you, but ths:

'Such subversion includes participation in the ICC OR ICJ, signing treaties like Kyoto, 'untrustworthy anti-American nations like India and Brazil and South Africa '

You just hate the idea of any international treaties, don't you? Or trusting anyone, or having any allies? Do you not get that it's hard to win a war, or accomplish much of anything else, without allies? Don't they have a history department at Liberty U?

William... I misspoke, I meant he served since 2005 but it was in a GOP-majority Senate so he, and other Dems, were serving at a disadvantage. I consider the failures to be on the GOP watch. Thanks for having me clarify.

Insofar as the UN is concerned, I agree to some extent, and I'm not sure it can be rehabilitated. It's more sound than fury. In the meantime, our anti-U.S. Central and South American neighbors are cementing relations in a mini-UN way. If we had any kind of a foreign policy it would help, but can't expect that from Rice the Unready.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

William, "White guy" Vilsack couldn't have come close to the nomination, I guarantee you he wouldn't even have carried Iowa.

I find it interesting that you base a lot of your analysis on the race of the candidates. I'm not saying you're wrong, just sincerely hope so.

I think people are looking for sane leadership and someone who can put an intelligent sentence together. Many can fit this bill including Biden, Obama, Dodd and others. But the campaign season is young and many candidate minefields await.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Truth Hunter, you don't consider the 109th to be a failed congress??????

As for the NAU, yep, it is happening, and Bush is implementing it, and the treasonous MSM loves the idea, which is why they aren't mentioning it, because they know there will be a backlash.

But when I said Hunter "will preserve American sovereignty" I also meant resisting, in addition to the NAU, the subverting of our sovereignty to the UN.

Such subversion includes participation in the ICC OR ICJ, signing treaties like Kyoto, allowing the UN to have veto power over US policy, giving untrustworthy anti-American nations like India and Brazil and South Africa seats on the Security Council, etc.

To GTM, William, and JimD in Fla:

I am an independent in Austin, TX and not an evangelical so I have not looked at Huckabee through the eyes of a "Republican primary voter."

I suggested that Huckabee took consistent and principled socially conservative positions that the evangelicals I know will find palatable but from which moderates and independents will not cringe in
abject terror. I gather that you think that the social conservatives in the Republican Party will not rally around him to the extent I imagine and that he is less than the perfect running mate for a more centrist Republican presidential candidate.

I may have misread the tone of your comments, of course.

Are you guys Republicans? Aside from Jim, are you in the south or the west? And are any of you evangelicals?

I can only claim the geographical identity here - but I truly want to know if y'all have a better handle on Huckabee than I do.

Thanks for your consideration.

I have never heard that Jeb Bush is supporting anyone yet, and he is not "still a Gov."

The current governor of Florida is named Charles Crist, not Jeb Bush.

Jeb Bush IS a FORMER governor, just like Jim Gilmore or Howard Dean or Tom Ridge.

Drindl, I agree that a Giuliani nomination would fracture the right. So would a Romney nomination. The only thing I can't think of is, who would the 3rd party challenger be? They would have to have a high profile, but Tancredo won't do it.

I CAN see the problem of fracturing being mitigated to some extent if McCain, Rudy or Romney get the nomination and choose someone who is REALLY LOVED by the right as their VP. Examples of such people are Sanford, Barbour, Sessions, etc.

There are also a lot of Class of 2004 GOP senators who are loved by conservatives, but they (unlike Obama) realize they don't yet have the experience to run. They are Coburn, Thune, Vitter, and DeMint.

William: I have read your comments and find you are not very accurate. Jeb Bush is supporting Romney the last I heard, and he is still a Gov. for example. The frontrunners are mainly three in each party and as best as I can figure it is based on a number of polls. I repeat can anyone help me out on this, for I seem to be missing something.

pacman, I think that Vilsack's exit will remove a highly electable yet solidly liberal candidate from the race.

Vilsack is boring and bland, but he would have been a solid bet for the Democrats in an election year that will probably favor the Dems to begin with.

He is not "unique" or "new" or "a glass ceiling breaker" like Obama or Clinton, nor is he charismatic.

But he passes the "Who would you want to have a beer" test. He comes off as an average guy who can relate to average concerns. He's a relatively moderate governor from a moderate, slightly red state, and he could appeal to swing voters.

Also, he would have been a safe bet for Dems. Nothing new, nothing risky.

Just an average, midwestern, white guy.

If 2008 is a blue year, as it probably will be, then Vilsack probably would have won with ease, and Dems would have gotten a candidate at least as liberal as Clinton into the WH.

As things stand now, there is no "safe bet" for the Dems.

HRC is VERY polarizing, does not excite the liberal base, and is female, and is married to Bill Clinton. Because of these factors, she is a risky bet.

Obama is even more risky. He grew up in a foreign country, and has a Muslim past, and is half white and half black. These factors leave him highly vulnerable to smear attacks like the "Call Me" or "Hands" ads.

Smear attacks on Obama might play upon him being black, the interracial marriage issue, or, most likely, the Muslim issue.

He is not a strong candidate.

Also he has a relatively far left record from the IL senate which will be used against him.

Edwards is probably more electable than HRC or Obama, since he doesn't have the "risk" factor that Obama and HRC have.

But Edwards has really swung out left since 2004, and is seen as a retread and a lightweight. He will not be able to hold his own in a debate against McCain, Hunter, or probably even Giuliani.

If Brownback or Romney is the nominee, though, experience may be less of an issue.

Edwards has come close to advocating socialist solutions to problems like poverty, which may turn a lot of swing voters off.

Also, the blogging scandal will hurt him, as well as his hypocritical house purchase.

Richardson is highly qualified, but also carries some risk for Dems since he is Hispanic.

You'd think that after 12 years out of power in Congress and 8 years out of power in the Oval, Dems would play it safe.

But that's not what they are doing.

I think the Line underestimates Richardson. He should be a first tier candidate. While still small in numbers, he has been able to get solid upward movement (like over 100% in New Hampshire) in just the last month. His 2 million dollars in one night fundraiser and his ability to wow crucial crowds (DNC and Carson City) mean he is connecting with the right people in the party for the primary season.

Anon... Think again about U.S. sovereignty being far-fetched. Bush is pushing for a North American Union with Mexico and Canada, and is puting in place the infrastructure to support this thrust, including new currency like the Euro.

Besides, it'll become a done deal when most of Mexico finally takes up residence in the U.S.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Anon... First of all, Obama started serving in January 2005 so he didn't serve in the failed GOP-majority Congresses. By 2008 he will have four years of experience in the Senate. A thin resume, I agree.

You don't consider a back-alley voodo--economics conservative far right?.... OK, whatever. The only thing good I can say about Hunter is that he could save us from a Haley Barbour nomination, now he's scary.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Enjoyed your ranking of the candidates; am hoping my favorite son candidate Joe Biden makes the next cut with his call to revoke the 2002 Iraq vote and hopefully supplant Chris Dodd. (I confess I probably have the only Biden for President bumper sticker in all of South Carolina)! Think Richardson will probably make "show money" the next go-round, replacing Edwards. It looks like the only sure vote Dennis Kucinich can count on is Willie Nelson's.

'as well as preserving America's sovereignty.'

umm, I don't really think anyone is trying to destroy america's 'sovereignity' -- is that some black helicopter fantasy?

Don't you think, William, that a third party candidate will fracture the right?

Hannity's pushing hard for Guiliani, but Limbaugh is not supporting or trashing anyone. Says he'll support whoever the R nominee is, because anyone is bettr than a Dem. And this true abut a number of rightwing pundits -- they seem quite in disarray at this point, so it seems quite wide open, more so than I have seen in a long long time.

And as far as Kucinich is concerned, I just don't think he has a constituency... his viewpoints may be fine, but his irritating self-righteousness, like Nader's, turns most people on the left off.

The long post above was mine.

Vilsack was too "normal" to be a serious candidate for President, but he may have enhanced his chances for a cabinet position, such as at Agriculture.

The Obama/Clinton dust-up may have tarnished both. Obama, because he missed a good chance to enhance his "positive campaign" agenda. The Clinton response was shrill and missed the mark. Probably no real damage because it's so early.

The Clinton response does show that, unlike John Kerry, her campaign won't let an attack go unanswered. If nothing else, it shows she's wearing her steel cup.

But the Geffen comments might be more ominous to her--especially if significant left-coast support, both personally and financially, abandon her. It may mean that the "move to the middle" may start earlier than anyone expected.

Truth Hunter - If serving in "failed Congresses" isn't enough for president, then why is Obama running? He served in ONE do nothing congress, and now he wants to be president.

About Hunter, you may consideer him "scary right", but since you are a liberal, you probably think that anyone to the right of HRC is "scary right."

Hunter is a mainstream conservative Republican. He opposes abortion and gay marriage, is pro-gun, pro-capital punishment, anti-amnesty, and favors an assertive (not aggressive) foreign policy, a strong military, as well as preserving America's sovereignty. Like almost all Republicans, he supports supply-sde economics as well.

He is also more electable than Romney, Brownback, Huckabee, or Guiliani.

Huckabee is too liberal on many issues for conservatives, but to the rest of the country, as another Born Again Southern evangelical, he is thought of as Bush Reloaded.

Brownback is thought of as a pro-amnesty version of Rick Santorum.

Giuliani will result in HUGE GOTV problems with the conservative base, causing swing states to fall to the Dems. There would also be a Ross Perot style 3rd party challenge, which might even take some electoral votes.

Since Guiliani is "pulling a Romney", I think his appeal to blue state voters will erode almost as badly as Romney's has.

Mitt Romney will turn off a ton of people since he is is seen as untrustworthy. Basically he is a political chameleon, transforming his views every 2 minutes depending upon whom he is talking to. He has too much of a liberal record.

Moreover, in a general election, Romney would be a very weak candidate. He has no geographical area of support, and his liberal record will discourage conservative turnout. That will cause swing states to go Dem. His Mormonism will also hurt him.

Romney is unelectable.

I still see McCain as electable, but given a choice between McCain and Hunter, who is also electable, I will choose Hunter.

Hunter served in Vietnam (unlike Bush) as an Army Ranger in one of the units that saw the most action in the war.

He has tons of military experience, and his 28 (by 08) years in Congress, including many as Chairman/ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, give him foreign policy and legislative experience.

Also, perhaps if he wins the nomination, it will be a wakeup call to the media that in order to be a nominee, you don't have to have the title of Senator or Governor.

I think Hunter would make a good president. He is a Reaganite conservative.

My first choice is still Hayley Barbour, though. Sanford is great too.

'amature'? don't they know how to spel in the montains?

Amature hour at Obama campaign. I can't believe the so called reformer let himself get drawn into such a petty squable this early. For a candidate to claim to be above negative attacks it sure didn't take the Obama camp long to forget that campaign promise. I don't know why people think Obama is any different then any other politician. He's spent his career in politics and is proving that will say anything to get elected.

Dunno William...
It's snake oil to be sure, but I am afraid that there is a real market for it.
Can definitely see Giuliani winning the primaries, as sad as that would be.

Glad to hear a staunch Republican coming out and calling Hannity a snake oil salesman, though. That's a good sign for truth, justice and the American way.

Lylepink- read my above post about why Giuliani will find it difficult, though not impossible, to win the primary.

Basically, most conservatives despise McCain so much that they will pick someone else during a poll, but when the primaries come around, Giuliani is going to have to answer for a lot of baggage and liberal views.

Also, most people don't know his positions on the issues yet. The average voter in SC or OK or MT has no idea where Rudy stands on guns or abortion.

Since there is no major staunch conservative who is running, a lot of politicians with higher ambitions are backing the perceived frontrunner, McCain, which only serves to add to his growing momentum.

A lot of social conservatives will think "There's no one I like, but McCain is better than Giuliani or Romney, so I'll take the best I can get."

That's why most major conservative politicians have rallied around McCain, such as Hayley Barbour, Trent Lott, John Thune, Tim Pawlenty, Mark Sanford (sort of), and a LOT of others.

Romney has the support of a number of conservative congresspeople from the RSC, but the only senator supporting him is Jim DeMint, and the only governor supporting him is Matt Blunt (who is in a tough fight for reelection himself.)

Some conservative commentators like Hannity in particular are trying HARD to peddle Giuliani's snake oil, arguing that he would make a great president since he stood near ground zero on 9/11 and got rid of the squeegee men in NYC.

But most politicians don't see Guiliani as viable, which is why only 4 congresspeople, IIRC from an earlier Fix post, have supported him, and 2 of them are from NY.

I would like to know more about Duncan Hunter.... all I know is that he is for a border fence and wants to stem illegal immigration. So far so good, but I perceive him as scary far, far right on most other things (I think both the moderate left and most of the right want the border invasion and illegal immigration stemmed).

Serving time in many failed Congresses, especially on the Armed Services Committee during the trumped-up invasion of Iraq, isn't enough. Where's the beef?

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

I agree. I didn't even know that Tancredo or Tommy Thompson were running! And when some other minor candidates announced, they weren't mentioned on The Fix at all. I'd like to see fewer inane news posts about the frontrunners (Hillary impresses 15 people! Romney is a Mormon!) and more discussion of the lesser-known candidates.

Maybe part of the problem is that this campaign, and the campaign coverage, is starting so early. The debates are far away and nobody has come up with very detailed policies. So there isn't much to talk about except fundraising and early endorsements, areas dominated by the top-tier candidates. I think we'll see more movement in the rankings once the debates start and the lower-tier candidates get more exposure.

I cannot see where McCain is the GOP frontrunner. Consider the current polls and we find Rudy is ahead in most of them and even in double digets in some. I mentioned some time ago about how many supporters of GW are cozying up to others, in spite of the support McCain has shown for GW. I hope someone will tell me what I seem to be missing.

I do not like any of the top tier candidates in either party.

Quintis-Arius - Florida is not a Democratic state. We have had Republican governors and state legislature for over 8 years now. Jeb is popular and is far more articulate and intelligent and detail oriented than his older brother.

Chris is finally coming around to the view I have stated in here for months about Giuliani - in a fractured Republican field he could win a lot of primaries with 30 - 40%. And, those primaries are winner-take-all for delegates. Furthermore, Giuliani could sink Mccain's candidacy. They are competing for a lot of the same voters. McCain is deeply distrusted by the base and his front-runner status is based, in large part, on his perceived electability, If Giuliani takes him out in several early primaries, a lot of his support will evaporate. I do not see Romney being successful running as a social conservative - far too many YouTube moments from his 1994 and 2002 campaigns in Massachusetts waiting to be put in attack ads. His religion will hurt him with a significant minority of evangelicals - especially in the south. However, his fundraising ability and organization could keep him in the race for a while. That could prevent either Brownback or Huckabee emerging as the main opponent to Giuliani. So, if Giuliani knocks out McCain and Romney fails to emerge as the solid favorite of the social conservatives, it would be Giuliani versus three social conservatives.

I agree with im that it does not always come down to "God, guns and gays" with Republicans. And I agree with david that a number of evangelicals will support Giuliani because they agree with him on national security, law and order, judicial nominations and fiscal conservatism. However, there are, in fact, a significant group for whom social issues are paramount. I cannot see James Dobson and other religious right leader