84 Comments - HANKSTER - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:56 am: Ill tell you that Clinton is sure hoping Obama does not run. - Ravenswood Right Winger - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:57 am: Hankster is 100% correct. - Pat Collins - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:02 am: Of course she will run, and he is opening saying to her “Call me when you need a VP”. Maybe one idea she has is to “run as a team” in the primaries. She as Pres, the Prince as her VP. Can you say “free TV” and “massive fundraising”. It’s one way to jazz up the Dem base, for sure. - ZC - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:03 am: Wow. If this tidbit is true … I retract a previous posting on this blog. It sounds like Obama is indeed catching Potomac Fever. D.C. can do that to you fast, I guess. But at least his pledge to defer to Hillary shows that he and his staff haven’t taken leave of their political senses. Web speculation aside, Clinton still shows all signs of running, and if she runs she remains the prohibitive favorite for the nomination. Obama vs. Clinton, I still say Obama gets thumped soundly. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:18 am: Try Gore Obama…. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:19 am: Clinton may enter the race, but no chance she makes it through the primary. She’s just doesn’t have the support amont rank and file dems. The elite of the party love her, the average dem voter…not so much. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:19 am: Baar is much closer to the mark. - Anon - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:25 am: For what it’s worth…I go Clinton/Obama. No more Gore, are you kidding? Really? - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:32 am: Nearly 8 years later, most Americans share a rather dismal view of the Bush administration. Gore, now 8 years removed from the Clinton White House is no longer viewed as guilty by association. Between now and primary ‘08 you will see a resurgence in national good will towards Al Gore. I would argue the average dem already has a better opinion of Gore than Hillary. - appopt - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:39 am: so how do we convince Hillary not to run? - War Critic - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:40 am: It ought to be the other way around. If Hillary runs, Obama should definitely run. As yesterday’s defeat of Lieberman underscores, Democrats are showing increasing anger with spineless leaders who failed to stand up to Bush on the Iraq war. Obama was one of the few who did, and his speeches against the war were tightly reasoned and prophetic. Mobolizing the anti-war grass roots, which are the most active and energetic at the moment in the party, Obama could quickly become THE principal alternative to Hillary. Since Obama has the high ground on the Iraq war, the principal issue of this day, he starts with an advantage against Hillary. Yet he commands allegiance from most of the same constituency groups that Hillary is counting on to carry her. Finally, he is a much more charismatic and compelling candidate at this juncture in history than Hillary, with all her calculating political moves, many of which leave her looking like a hypocrite. - Chinaman - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:43 am: Obama has been a big disappointment. I voted for him thinking he was middle of the road. But on major issues he has proven he is controled by that leftwing fringe. He’s no Bill Clinton. He may run but he’ll never win. Will the Dems ever learn. Probably not. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:48 am: I could be wrong, but I have a hard time seeing Obama make a sucessful bid for the presidency this early in his political career. VP, absolutely. Main thing holding him back in a national election: NO RECORD. As veep, who cares. But as President, I think the American electorate will want someone with a little more experience. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:51 am: Appopt, It’s not a matter of convincing Hillary not to run. That can’t be done. Her ego won’t allow it. However, do not dispair. She’ll not be able to pick up enough support amongst the democratic base nationally to secure a primary win. - HANKSTER - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:53 am: The way the primaries are set up now the two people with the biggest advantage based just on the states with early primaries are Barack Obama and John Edwards. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:53 am: No more Gore, are you kidding? I wish. You watch. - Bubs - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:10 am: Wow, Obama is starting to believe the hype, a very dangerous thing for him to do, politically. All glory is fleeting. - Boone Logan Square - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:18 am: If Obama decides to run, what does David Axelrod do? He also works for John Edwards, who may have the best operation of any Democratic candidate. (And if I were to bet money, I’d place greater odds on Edwards being the Democratic nominee than Clinton.) - RINO for Obama - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:28 am: He’s going to run, period. This is the only chance he’ll have. If he waits and a Democrat wins in ‘08, he’ll be out in the cold for 8 years…now is when his star is on the rise…and he doesn’t have a Senate record to attack. Oh sure, he says he’s not running now…but as the Lieberman election showed us, the Democrats are pretty divided…and with Hillary’s vote for Iraq, she’ll have a hard time holding onto the base…Obama will come in to “unify” the Party, and he’ll run…and he’ll win. - Lee - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:42 am: Oh Pleeease! Obama has nothing to show for his year and a half in the senate. i agree with bubs. Obama is r starting to believe his own hype. Soounds like the quarterback drafted number one with lots of hype and fanfare, who finally gets to training camp and bombs, because his college skills do not hold up in the nfl. what is more laughable is he has people on this blog actually writing about this. put Obama in a setting were he actually has to take a position and is grilled by the press, and, well, i don’t have the time to list all the top quaterback picks who never made the nfl. - Loop Lady - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:50 am: I agree with Rhino…hanging around Washington for too long will ruin his chances…husband Bill will have to talk to Hil about not running, droppping out, or the VP spot…Evan Bayh wpould be a good choice for veep as well…a Hoosier/Dem, Gov in a mostly red state… - So-Called "Austin Mayor" - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:00 pm: Lying b****… shrew… Machiavellian… evil, power-mad witch… the ultimate self-serving politician… Criminal… megalomaniac… fraud… dangerous… devil incarnate… satanic… power freak. They left out the most important adjective: unelectable - Cassandra - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:07 pm: The best race would be Condi vs. Hillary. But I guess that is not to be. Hillary and Obama as a duo are far too liberal, read way higher taxes and the return of the welfare state and even larger federal bureaucracies. And even if you assume Iraq will be the premier issue in 2008, neither has shown the slightest indication that they could get us out of there, thus saving trillions of dollars. Hillary voted for the war and Obama, fortunate in that he didn’t have to make the vote, has hardly led the charge about getting out of it. He doesn’t know how. Obama will have to wait. And, unfortunately for him, a lot of things can happen in 8 years if Hillary wins the nomination and the prize. But she’ll only do that if she finds a more conservative running made….or a Hispanic? - Wumpus - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:12 pm: He is basically living off the DNC Convention Speech. Up until 2 years ago, he was a back bench member of the Il Senate. He ran a primary against a wife beater and a general against a stubborn, out of state goofball. He has had free reign and no real criticism. He may be the right man, right place, right time and is catching lightening in a bottle. He could win, he is not stupid after all. But I think once he faces a adecent opposition, he will not be so shiny. - HANKSTER - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:29 pm: Cassandra: Under what pretenses are you saying Obama and Hillary are too liberal? They arent more liberal than Bush is conservative. And Hillary in the Senate is far from a liberal. Obviously you also dont know that this is the largest government and bureaucracy we have ever had. Id ask you to just look at some of the recent articles on the huge bureaucratic mess that was created by Bush with the Dept. of Homeland Security. And unless you are making over a million a year not either one has mentioned touching taxes, except to lower them on the middle class in the form of college tax breaks ect. So lets stop the spin that the RNC has put out their and look at the facts. As far as Iraq, noone is every going to have a solution because there isnt one. What solutions has anyone offered? I guess you are not aware but Obama in fact was opposed to the war before it started. Why do you say Obama has to wait? I think you are vastly ignoring the importance of timing in politics. He in fact is positioned nicely for a strong run, probably more now than he would be in 8 years. - ChicagoCynic - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:31 pm: Since the brilliant convention speech, based on my conversations with his advisors and hearing from him personally, I was convinced there wasn’t a chance he would run. With his lack of national experience, I felt strongly that it would be premature and got the impression from him and them that they agreed. But things change and circumstances change. It’s pretty clear they now see a unique historical opportunity for Barack and that they are trying to keep the window open in case he decides the sacrifice family considerations and run. I’m amazed he’s still white hot given his relatively meager accomplishments to date. But there’s just something about Barack that is special and hard to define. I always thought if he could get out of Illinois he would be a rockstar. But even I didn’t see the magnitude of that. I’m also now ready to say I may have been wrong about this being the wrong time. I’m now convinced that this man has an amazing ability to transcend traditional politics. He may be exactly the right person to heal the divisions that have been so exacerbated in the last six years both domestically and internationally. Chinaman, if you don’t mind, would you let us know in what ways you think he has established himself as a prisoner of the left. Frankly I haven’t seen that at all. But I’m very interested if I’m missing something. But you can forget about him running for VP under Hillary. If Barack runs himself, he will be unstoppable in the Dem primary. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:36 pm: Hankster, what crack are you smoking? Bush is by no means conservative. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:38 pm: Hillary has nothing to lose by running. She will be re-elected in 2006, so she is safe in 2008 and can run. Expect it. Just because liberals are panicking over the war and spewing typical Bush hatred doesn’t mean they will continue doing this until 2008. Wars change daily, and events will change by then in our favor. Anyone hoping for US disaster can’t be wrong all the time. 2008 is a long way away. Today’s events will not be long remembered. We face a nuclear Iran determined to destroy Jews and Christian cultures. This will be an even bigger issue than Iraq, and Bush bashing pacifists will look even more out of touch with reality by then. Obama is nicely placed for a 2008 run. He was even raised a Muslim. He is like Tiger Woods ethnically and politically. In 2008, he will look like a breath of fresh air compare to Hillary. All politicians have a freshness expiration date, and Hillary’s is expiring this year. Obama has no positions to stand on, speaks well, looks nice, and satisfies enough Democratic special interest groups to have a great run in 2008. His freshness expiration date will expire by 2012 if he doesn’t try in 2008. The War on Terror will continue and expand in ways to make it clear to everyone that the 20th Century is long gone and the days of Mr. Clinton’s sexcapades will look so very Victorian era. Democrats hoping to appease Iran will discover that they cannot do it, and will need to continue supporting our war efforts. As to Gore - When he was a little boy, his Senator Dad took him to work and Al sat on Richard Nixon’s lap for a photo. How interesting it is to see him, like Nixon, lose a close election after serving two terms as VP to a popular president, then sit out for eight years during an unpopular war to look “just right” in 2008 - just as Nixon looked in 1968. Creeps me out! - ChicagoCynic - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:38 pm: That’s a joke, right Veritas? I mean he’s clearly not a fiscal conservative but he’s the most religiously conservative president we’ve ever had. - News hound - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:39 pm: When will the media starting writing about what Obama hasn’t done as a US Senator instead of what he might do? It’s not Obama’s fault his star is on the rise, the press fawns over everything he does…and no journalist wants to be the first to write anything negative about Obama, not unless they want to be on the outside looking in. - HANKSTER - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:41 pm: Veritas: except for fiscally he is extremely right, I really hope you are joking, if not please stop and save yourself. - R.I.P. McMurphee - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:45 pm: Al Gore is on his way back. It’s not so crazy to think he can be re-elected President. He didn’t vote for the war, but Hillary did. Senator Obama is not crazy. The road to the Oval Office runs through the 2nd floor of the Statehouse. Governor Obama in ‘10. - ChicagoCynic - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:45 pm: VanillaMan, you present so many false paradigms in your post it’s not even funny. 1) 60% of the American people think the Iraq war was a mistake. Are they all liberals? 2) If people oppose the war, is that Bush hatred? 2) Many Dems opposed the war precisely because they were more concerned about Iran than about Iraq. That doesn’t mean they don’t want to stand up to Iran. It means they knew Iraq would be a disastrous diversion from the real threats we face. And on and on. So cmon, stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and join the reality-based community. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:59 pm: I’m amazed he’s still white hot given his relatively meager accomplishments to date. Obama only looks hot when you compare him to the duds around him. He’s contender only because, with Hillary falling afoul of the left (no dud she), there’s not much else… …Gore-Obama vs McCain or Giuliani with Lieberman (again) as VP. We’ll know the slates early. It will be a Republican landslide. The Democratic party will disappear. - Bubs - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:05 pm: Gore might well be the best answer for the Democrats in 2008. A flawed answer to be sure, but he does have it in him to win. Clinton is currently strong, but ultimately hopeless, thank God. I recall Gore’s speech on TV after he conceded the post-election fight in 2000. He was terrific - positive, relaxed, confident, straightforward. As a Republican, I remember thanking my stars that he didn’t talk like that during the recent campaign, or he’d be President-Elect. His hiatus from politics may have allowed the Democratic anger at him to recede. I get the impression the liberal talking heads on TV starting to shift from Clinton to Gore. Hey, Nixon took the exact same path, ran as a private citizen, and won in 1968. I see the Obama supporters as people that have watched too many reruns of “The West Wing.” - Big Mike - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:06 pm: Bill Baar: HAAAAAA you sure are smart. - Big Mike - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:07 pm: And by smart I mean thats the dumbest thing I have ever heard. - Bubs - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:12 pm: As an afterthought, I think that a Gore-McCain race in 2008 would be very good for America. Two knowledgeable, intelligent, intellectually passionate, highly experienced men, who differ on the issues, left of center, right of center. The internet yahoos of both the Far Left and the Far Right would be neutralized, deflating the whole Red/Blue thing. And whoever won, the country could do worse. - Anon - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:24 pm: “Criminal… megalomaniac… fraud… dangerous… devil incarnate… satanic… power freak.” Are we talking about Hillary or Tom De Lay? - anonymous - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:29 pm: We’ll know the slates early. It will be a Republican landslide. The Democratic party will disappear. Another day, another hallucinatory comment from Bill Baar. Seriously, dude, whatever you’re smoking–stop. And if you’re not smoking something–you need to start. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:33 pm: Baar, A Republican landslide in ‘08? Hardly. Unfortunately, if present trends hold, the elections of ‘06 and ‘08 are going to make a minority party of the GOP. There is no reason to be optimistic about the GOP’s national appeal. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:33 pm: The Democrats have a very strong field for 2008 even without Sen. Obama. Gov. Warner is a top quality candidate, Gen. Clark will have spent the past four years building his Dem. credentials (the single factor that hurt in 2004), Sen. Bayh is a strong candidate, and Gov. Richardson is a strong candidate. Sen. Obama is a force, but he will be up against it with that field, with or without Sen. Clinton. The decision should hinge on whether he believes that he can win rather than on whether one particular candidate can be beaten. With regard to the comments about Sen. Clinton: It just goes to show that no matter how we feel that we’ve progressed, there is still an underlying dislike and distrust for strong smart women. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:34 pm: Bush a conservative of any stripe, I just don’t see it. What am I missing? - Captain America - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:35 pm: It’s really a shame Hilary has such high negatives. I think she’s qualified - tough enough and smart enough to be President. I can’t think of any candidates who aren’t Machaivellian megalomaniacs. It goes with the territory. Just read recently on politicalwire.com that Senator Reid is willing to cede his Senate leadership position to Hilary Clinton in 2009 as an “inducement” not to run for President. I think she should consider this offer. But I fully expect her to run for President. As far as I am concerned Barak Obams is an outstanding and highly likely choice to be the 2008 Democratic Vice-Presedential nominee - no matter who the Presidential nominee turns out to be. I’m not wild about Gore’s resurrection - but he is competent and qualified to be president. From the political gossip I’ve read, he’s unlikely to run during the primaries- but would gladly accept a draft at a brokered convention if no other candidate has a majority of delegates. This reminds me of Adlai Stevenson’s unfulfilled desire to be the Democratic Presidential nominee again in 1960 after two consecutive failures. If Obama did run for President, I believe it would effectively torpedo Hilary’s Presidential campaign. Otherwise, I don’t see any other candidate who can stop her from securing the nomination,barring a “brokered” convention. - ChicagoCynic - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:43 pm: “Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:34 pm: Bush a conservative of any stripe, I just don’t see it. What am I missing?” Apparently your glasses. - Wumpus - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:59 pm: Skeeter, just becaus epeople don’t like Hillary doesn’t mean they don’t like smart powerful women. Is everyone a victim to you? Good grief. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:08 pm: Bush a conservative of any stripe, I just don’t see it. What am I missing?” Alito and Roberts. - Bubs - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:08 pm: Cap’n- Al Gore is just making a series of small, slow moves to get where he wants to be, like a boyfriend in a theater balcony. Phase I (”would accept a draft”) lets folks know he wants the nomination, to get the idea in their minds. Expect Phase II (”considering a run if enough party leaders want him to”) about a year from now, maybe less, and then Phase III (all in, “for the good of the Party”). - Ray - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:15 pm: Skeeter is giving us a perfect example of what Hillary’s team will say is the reason she loses…that we’re not ready for strong/smart woman…ah, the victim card. - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:21 pm: I’ve spent a little time in rural NH. My impression was that being from New York was a definite negative. What was the only state FDR failed to carry in each election? Maine. - Mr. Luxury Yacht - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:22 pm: Skeeter 1:33 pm has it right - Gov. Warner leads a strong field even without Hillary. It’s called “qualifications for leadership.” In Warner’s case (one example), it’s Governor + Wildly Successful Businessman (co-founded Nextel) which means non-DC fresh face who knows how to lead and can’t be bought. There are two or three others who could also easily catch fire. Look at where Dean was at this point in the 2004 cycle - to the point where he was the consensus nominee (um…before he flamed out). The Democratic Party will live (and maybe be better off) if she doesn’t run. That said - the math about What Obama Has Done is all wrong. What is a reasonable expectation for a Dem who landed in DC in 2005? DEMOCRATS DON’T RUN ANYTHING. If you look at the legislation he’s authored - almost none of which even reached the floor, he’s right where 80+% of the D’s want him to be. He can say, “Here’s the 10 things I want(ed) to do but the Republicans stopped all of it.” Besides, what had Bush II actually done when he became the presumptive R nominee in 1999? He won and his party had a whole lot less to work with. I mean, other than his ability to chuckle in an alarming way when announcing he was not to going to stay an execution… Bottom line, if Hillary decides it’s not worth it, watch for Barack Hussein Obama to take a swing at it. And watch for him to run away with it. - Jaded - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:30 pm: Here is my question for all of you political wizards, if there hasn’t been a sitting US Senator elected president since JFK, what makes everybody think all these US Senate Presidential hopefulls have a chance? - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:31 pm: …if present trends hold, the elections of ‘06 and ‘08 are going to make a minority party of the GOP. There is no reason to be optimistic about the GOP’s national appeal. The thing with trends is the direction of the curve is dictated by what point in time you start from. For me, it’s always been 1968. There have been two Democrats elected President since then: Carter and Clinton. I voted for both. Clinton twice. I look at both as terribly flawed Presidencies. If the Democrats don’t win in 2008, I don’t think the can any longer be considered anything but a regional party. Demographics are just not on their side. Democratic strength is concentrated in states with low fertility and low marriage rates, which wouldn’t be a problem if these places were attracting large numbers of new residents. But most are not, at least when compared with the fastest-growing states, and that will have consequences after the next decennial census when congressional seats (and thus electoral votes) are reallocated according to population. Based on 2004 population estimates, Poli-data of Lake Ridge, Va., a political data analysis firm, projects that nine states will lose House seats after the next census - all but two of them voted for Kerry. Seven will gain seats - all but one of them carried by Bush. In 2012, even if every state voted the same way it did in 2004, there would be a net gain of six electoral votes for the GOP ticket based on these projections. If Lamont’s victory means they’re plunging into a purge of less the true believers on top of it, I can’t see how they survive. They blow 2008 they’re finished. Obama is a good guy and smart, but he’s done nothing, and I don’t think he could salvage it. Hillary could, but she’ll get purged too. - Mr. Luxury Yacht - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:37 pm: Mr. Baar, sir, re “Demographics are just not on their side.” Two words: Latino birthrate. Now that the R’s have so thoroughly blown any opportunity they may have had, for a generation, of getting newly-American Latinos to think seriously about voting for them, those states picking up population are fueled by two things. Growth in the Latino population and the out-migration of seniors from blue states (Arizona, Florida). And the demographics for the second bunch don’t look good for the R’s either. Bush’s Social Security wet dream saw to that. Demographics ARE on the D side. - francis of assisi - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:40 pm: Other than a nice smile,can someone tell me of any legislative accomplishment while a state senator and US senator. As I recall, he was never a go-to guy in springfield. He introduced hundreds of bills prior to the US run with no intention of trying to move them through the chambers,however, they made for nice TV ads though. - HANKSTER - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:49 pm: Bill Baar: It does not matter who picks up seats in terms of how the state voted for president, it matters how the state is being distrcited. As more and more democrats are being elected governor and to leadership in the state houses, they will be the ones choosing how to redistrict the state. And these are “Bush” states such as Kansas, Wyoming, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and this year Ohio and Nevada as well. - ChicagoCynic - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:51 pm: I agree with you Jaded and have consistently discounted sitting senators because of that. But I believe Obama is different. - Dan Vock - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:54 pm: Captain America, do you have a link to that story? I couldn’t find it on Politicalwire.com - Bluefish - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:59 pm: All this talk of a strong Dem field for ‘08 and no mention of Blago? I thought all his great giveaways (oops, I mean programs) were really to position him for a run at the big prize. - ZC - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 3:16 pm: There is good anecdotal evidence that being in the Senate does atrophy your chances of becoming President. But I don’t think it’s like the moment you walk in the doors, you become radioactive. Obama’s been in the Senate since _04_. If he had to wait all the way until 2016, it would be two terms. He would still be a fresh face. Besides, for anyone who thinks that the Senate kills your chance of running for President, what about John McCain? He’s been in the Senate a long time now, and I’d say he’s in the best position of all. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 3:41 pm: Sorry, Wump, but the absolute anger you see direccted at Sen. Clinton from both sides only points in one direction: People cannot stand smart strong women. We are not talking about the dislike that people have for Ted Kennedy or George Bush. The anger directed at Sen. Clinton goes far beyond that. - ZC - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 3:53 pm: As long as this is a Hillary thread and we are also talking polls , check out Gallup’s latest poll while it’s still available online, at www.gallup.com : “Recent Gallup polling finds Hillary Clinton with an important advantage among the current field of big-name contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination: more Americans name her as having the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate for president. The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, has the weakest image in this regard — overshadowed by his running mate, John Edwards, as well as by the 2000 Democratic nominee, Al Gore.” The blogosphere says Hillary is one of the worst candidates for 2008. Let’s not forget that it also gushed how Howard Dean would be one of the _best_ candidates in 2004. There’s a lot of uninformed opinion flying around out there. Clinton is not perfect but remains a much stronger candidate than many cyber-citizens give her credit for. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:04 pm: Mr Luxry, Two words: Latino birthrate. page 8 of Galston and Kamarack, The myth of demography is the view that long-term, ongoing changes in the U.S.population will secure a Democratic majority for decades to come. Central to this myth is the rising tide of Hispanic voters, who now number 8.4 percent of the voting population, up from 4.1 percent in 1996. The tide has risen, but the terrain has changed. Clinton’s fifty point margin among Hispanics in 1996 dwindled to less than twenty for Kerry in 2004. Along with rising Hispanic voter rolls has been a dramatic increase in Hispanic incomes, and these newly affluent voters behave more like the rest of the middle class electorate. I don’t think Conn’s Latino vote went to Lamont by the way. He carried the toniest of burbs. It was Lieberman carrying Bridgeport. I think Obama will get VP slot but he’ll have his work cut out for him getting votes outside of the wealthy burbs which seems to be becomeing the Dems core. Strange isn’t it? - B Hicks - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:11 pm: I’m a big fan, but it’s too early for Obama to run. He needs to sit this one out. A George Bush supporter calling the Carter and Clinton terms, “terribly flawed Presidencies.” OMG! - Tom B - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:24 pm: Oh now that is funny. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:30 pm: Hicks, That’s why I became a Bush supporter. I had high hopes for Clinton. He failed on health care reform… (he had some later personal failures too that disappointed.) I remember sitting in a room listening to Ira Magaziner present nothing from the secret plan… you could just feel the thing sinking as he spoke and the guy just acted odd… one of the strangest presentations I’ve seen from a Gov official. And then the turning point for me really started with foreign affairs and Bosnia and Rwanda. I voted for Gore Lieberman because I dreaded Bush’s self deprecating style and appalled how that was translating into Arabic. I remember Clinton’s 1998 speech to the Joint Chiefs. I took it seriously and it was another reason why I voted for Gore Lieberman. The Party is just spent. At the end of its ropes. Look at Giuliani, McCain, or Romney… I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night for the returns. Colms was at Lamont HQ and some fool was holding up sign saying Hannity sucks a**. Small maybe but it seems representative of the immature and out of control people the party is attracting. Obama will have his hands full with this. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:32 pm: I mean look at Giuliani, McCain, or Romney and compare to their potential Democratic opponents. Sorry for the anchor tag error on the link above. - Pete Giangreco - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:40 pm: I hereby nominate Gibbs for finest wiseass quote of the year in a supporting role. Rahm has already locked up the Oscar for wiseass quote in a starring role by referring to Joe Lieberman as “Bush’s love child” in today’s NYT. - Veritas - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:41 pm: Alito and Roberts have yet to show a proven record of conservatism. Others were more qualified both judicially and in terms of their stances taken on matters conservative. And don’t get me started on the hack Bush originally tried to foist off on us, which caused the conservative base across the country to rebel, resulting in Alitos selection. Sorry, Bush’s Supreme Court picks are not proof of his conservative leanings. Care to try again? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:43 pm: Veritas, stop it. You’re creeping me out. And Pete G, I agree. - HANKSTER - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:45 pm: Bill Barr: You are right, I have never seen Republicans holding up signs that call people bad names. There are no immature and out of control Republicans. Well if you dont count the President, the leaders in Congress, and the people who blindly follow them. Except for them you are right on! - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:51 pm: OK, that’s enough. Back to the topic at hand, please. And, Bill, one doofus in a crowd does not a party make. I remember in 1982 that some young white dork in a giant orange afro wig was dancing behind the TV reporters at Jim Thompson’s victory party during their live shots. Annoying? Yes. Indicative of the Republican party? Doubtful. The plural of anecdote is not data. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 5:16 pm: Bill Baar - Luxury Yacht’s got you on this one. Go check the crosstabs on the SurveyUSA polls. Bush’s job approval rating among Hispanics: Illinois - 2% California - 24% Arizona - 29% Florida - 33% New York - 23% Texas - 24% I ask random Latino/as why. I get a onw-word response: “Immigration.” - Buck Flagojevich - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 5:23 pm: Obama will never make it on or to the “Big” national ticket. In ‘08 Edwards with his sweet little accent would wipe out any chance Obama would have in the south. Obama as VP would be a drain on the ticket due to the south. Then his record, or lack of, in the senate will come into play as well. What I am saying is that racism and ethicity still matter very much in this country. Remember when Lieberman was nominated VP? The only thing the press talked about for weeks was that he was Jewish and didn’t drive after sundown on Friday, blah, blah, blah. It’s sad, but this country will only elect a white, male protestant to the presidency, regardless what people tell the pollsters. - So-Called - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 6:23 pm: The plural of anecdote is not data. Rich, Are you gunning for Gibb’s new award? - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 7:00 pm: YDD, It’s not Bush’s approval ratings that count for anything now. It’s Giuliani’s, McCain’s, Romney’s… I made that mistake long ago with Nixon… I didn’t think anyone in their right mind would ever vote Republican again. Then, after the Carter fiasco, the country shifter farther right than I had thought possible with Reagan. Democrats will have to decide from here on out whether they’ll stand side by side with Lamont to cheers of bring them home now!, bring them home now! I think history will skip the Carter interregnum now… it’ll be a Republian in 08 unless a Democrat of real stature emerges. - Effingham - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:57 pm: The Democrats have twice lost to Bush. A candidate that is widely believed to be a poor communicator with poor intellect. They have to be worried how they’ll match up against a real Presidential candidate. - Captain America - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:54 pm: Attention: Dan Vock August 3 politicalwire.com Will Reid Step Down for Clinton? Source link is to WashingtonNote by Steve C. Clemons - same date august 3, 2006. I don’t know anything about Mr. Clemons - so it’s hard to judge the veracity of this story. sounds a little far-fetched to me. - T$ - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:23 pm: “The Democrats have twice lost to Bush. A candidate that is widely believed to be a poor communicator with poor intellect.” I can think of about 911 reasons Americans were orange alerted to voting for Bush in 2004. “The plural of anecdote is not data.” Bravo. - T.J. - Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 4:33 am: 2%? - zinged again - Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 7:39 am: Hilary looked like a total baffoon when going up against Sec. Rumsfeld last week and this had to give great pause to her Presidential aspirations. Unless she can do something about this, she proved herself totally incapable of handling the big stage, Obama may have an opening. However, if Hillary showed her vulnerability, Obama will show his. The man is a first time, don’t make any waves, Senator. Can ’star-power’ one really carry a ‘nothing’ political career to the White House? - Craig - Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 8:08 am: Everyone here knows that she is running though. I really don’ think anything will stop her. She might pull off enough votes to get the nomination, but then she will be destroyed in the general, because no one reallylikes her. Obama would be great, but I fon’t see Hillary not running. - Ron - Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 8:21 am: Typical Skeeter and typical liberal, if a person isn’t liked, it’s not their fault, it’s everyone elses. Why oh why do Democrats always have to make a person’s race/sex a factor? Trackback WurfWhile - Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 8:47 pm: Don’t Know If Obama Plays Golf Like He Plays Politics - But It’s Likely A Different Handicap Maybe there was no there there - but there are plenty of good golfers other than Tiger (see bottom of post) that probably could beat Barack Obama. In politics, however, Obama does pretty well on the green - not to… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.