The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

AP

Cliffs Notes: Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa has announced that he is running for President and has filed documents to form a campaign committee.

Analysis: As much as I love politics, I could have used a few weeks off. Oh well.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Russ Feingold is expected to annouce his running or not in a week or so, as well.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

With a strong showing early, boosted by his Iowa base, I think Vilsack could put himself into the mix for a VP nod. I really doubt he will have the money and name recognition to make much of dent in the presidential.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

I am still new to the politicing scene(only 20 years old). How long till all the dems and reps come out of the woodwork and make it offical about running for president?

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Most of them will declare by August or September. Not unheard of to get a straggler in November (next november).

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of them will declare by August or September. Not unheard of to get a straggler in November (next november).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then they campaign for the primaries which is around march 08?

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

They start in January nowadays. States keep moving up their primaries so that they are close to the front. States that are close to the front have more influence and more attention from the candidates. The nominees will have a lock no later than the middle of March.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]

Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa has announced that he is running for President and has filed documents to form a campaign committee.


[/ QUOTE ]

This could impact the Democratic nomination process in a way similar to 1992. In that year, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran for President. As a result, none of the Democratic contenders bothered to campaign in the Iowa Caucus. It became a non-factor in the election. Instead, all the candidates focused on New Hampshire and former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas got the win over Bill Clinton.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am still new to the politicing scene(only 20 years old). How long till all the dems and reps come out of the woodwork and make it offical about running for president?

[/ QUOTE ]

As it is right now, you can probably make a short list candidates from each party with a very real shot of running and winning the nomination. While an "official announement" is a nice way to spill some ink and get some face time, you can narrow down the possible field right now, regardless of an official announcement -- running for President is a lengthy process and many have been getting their organizations, fund-raisers, PACs, strategy teams, etc. in place for a quite a while now:



Democrats Almost Certainly Running:
Sen. Clinton
former Sen. Edwards
Gov. Vilsack
Sen. Bayh
Sen. Feingold
Wesley Clark
Gov. Richardson

Democrats Maybe Running But With No Real Shot of Winning the Nomination:
Sen. Kerry
Sen. Biden
Sen. Dodd

Wildcards:
former VP Gore
Sen. Obama

----------------

GOPers Almost Certainly Running:
Sen. McCain
Gov. Romney
Gov. Huckabee
former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

GOPers Maybe Running But With No Real Short of Winning the Nomination:
former Sen. Allen
Sen. Hagel
Sen. Brownback
former Sen. Frist
Rep. Tancredo

Wilcards:
Gov. Jeb Bush
Sec. State Rice

I think this is pretty comprehensive. If I've left anyone out, they likely fall under the "No Real Shot of Winning" groups, with the caveat that Howard Dean was relatively unkown and a huge long shot to win the '04 Dem. Nomination in the autumn of 2002. He obviously didn't win, but it's hard to say he didn't become very relevant in the nomination process.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

My picks are Hillary and McCain.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am still new to the politicing scene(only 20 years old). How long till all the dems and reps come out of the woodwork and make it offical about running for president?

[/ QUOTE ]

As it is right now, you can probably make a short list candidates from each party with a very real shot of running and winning the nomination. While an "official announement" is a nice way to spill some ink and get some face time, you can narrow down the possible field right now, regardless of an official announcement -- running for President is a lengthy process and many have been getting their organizations, fund-raisers, PACs, strategy teams, etc. in place for a quite a while now:



Democrats Almost Certainly Running:
Sen. Clinton
former Sen. Edwards
Gov. Vilsack
Sen. Bayh
Sen. Feingold
Wesley Clark
Gov. Richardson

Democrats Maybe Running But With No Real Shot of Winning the Nomination:
Sen. Kerry
Sen. Biden
Sen. Dodd

Wildcards:
former VP Gore
Sen. Obama

----------------

GOPers Almost Certainly Running:
Sen. McCain
Gov. Romney
Gov. Huckabee
former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani
former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

GOPers Maybe Running But With No Real Short of Winning the Nomination:
former Sen. Allen
Sen. Hagel
Sen. Brownback
former Sen. Frist
Rep. Tancredo

Wilcards:
Gov. Jeb Bush
Sec. State Rice

I think this is pretty comprehensive. If I've left anyone out, they likely fall under the "No Real Shot of Winning" groups, with the caveat that Howard Dean was relatively unkown and a huge long shot to win the '04 Dem. Nomination in the autumn of 2002. He obviously didn't win, but it's hard to say he didn't become very relevant in the nomination process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson might belong in the "no real shot of winning" camp. I don't mean to sounds like a cynic, but they all seem like the classic "5th place in the New Hampshire primary" candidate. Plus Dems will have at least one (HRC) and possibly 2-3 huge names running, which kills fundraising efforts.

Wesley Clark is in the "wild card" category as far as I know.

Duncan Hunter is running for the Republicans but has no shot at winning.

Pataki should be listed somewhere on the Republican side but I don't know which category he belongs in.

In terms of most-to-least likely to become our next president, we're probably looking at:

1) McCain (R)
2) Clinton (D)
3) Giuliani (R)
4) Obama (D)
5) Gore (D)
6) Edwards (D)
7) Romney (R)
8) Huckabaee (R)
9) Bayh (D)
10) Gingrich (R)

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson might belong in the "no real shot of winning" camp. I don't mean to sounds like a cynic, but they all seem like the classic "5th place in the New Hampshire primary" candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. So that's a fair point. Given that there's 5%-10% chance that one of them end's up being the nominee, perhaps I should have added a 4th category for "Low Probability of Winning Worthy of Mention", although that's not entirely different from the "Guys With No Shot" category. However, I think it's important to distinguish between these three and the likes of Kerry, Biden, and Dodd, who are all strongly considering a run but effectively have no chance (in fairness, Kerry is listed at 2% at Tradesports).

I'm fairly certain an "anti-Hillary" effort will be mounted in the Democratic primaries -- and that certainly "anti-Hillary" movement could be manifest itself in the form of support and cash for Vilsack, Feingold, or Richardson. Many of the best empirical studies demonstrate that primary voters are indeed strategic, so if voters are questioning voting for Hillary in the primary because of her electability in the general election, I just don't see Biden/Kerry/Dodd filling that void.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus Dems will have at least one (HRC) and possibly 2-3 huge names running, which kills fundraising efforts.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true and a good point. It's why I'm completely ruling out Biden, Dodd, and Kerry -- they're all dipping from Northeastern center-left donor pool that Clinton currently pwns.

[ QUOTE ]
Wesley Clark is in the "wild card" category as far as I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if he decides to run, I question what his real chances are. But this is a good point that the likelihood of him running is nowhere no certain.

[ QUOTE ]
Duncan Hunter is running for the Republicans but has no shot at winning.

Pataki should be listed somewhere on the Republican side but I don't know which category he belongs in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tradesports has both of these guys at < 1%.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of most-to-least likely to become our next president, we're probably looking at:

1) McCain (R)
2) Clinton (D)
3) Giuliani (R)
4) Obama (D)
5) Gore (D)
6) Edwards (D)
7) Romney (R)
8) Huckabaee (R)
9) Bayh (D)
10) Gingrich (R)

[/ QUOTE ]

A pretty good list. I think we could probably draw a dotted-line after Romney, because I'm not bullish on Huckabee, Bayh or Gingrich having any real shot.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]


As it is right now, you can probably make a short list candidates from each party with a very real shot of running and winning the nomination. While an "official announement" is a nice way to spill some ink and get some face time, you can narrow down the possible field right now, regardless of an official announcement -- running for President is a lengthy process and many have been getting their organizations, fund-raisers, PACs, strategy teams, etc. in place for a quite a while now:

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice list to focus the discussion.

On the Dem side I think Biden has a decent shot because he will "wear well" like Kerry did. I think W. Clark has no shot unless he's much improved his game and Edwards goes away. Edwards would surprise me because I don't think he will do well outside of the South. Richardson talks well so it wouldn't surprise me if he leaps out in front in Iowa/NH where he gets to go door to door. What I'm most confident about is that Hillary Clinton will almost definitely finish exactly 2nd.

On the Republican side, I think Romney has the best shot, followed by Frist. He's been my governor for the last 4 years and I can't remember a single thing he said, but you're left with the vague impression that he's competent. Someone I know described him as an "empty suit" before he got elected, and that's exactly what he is, but an empty suit is vaguely acceptable to all. I think McCain will finish 2nd no matter what.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely certain about this, since I'm not that old, but didn't Bill Clinton show similiar polling numbers prior to his election in 1992? Just food for thought.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely certain about this, since I'm not that old, but didn't Bill Clinton show similiar polling numbers prior to his election in 1992? Just food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah we really have no clue at this point. I love Richardson at 40:1 though.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely certain about this, since I'm not that old, but didn't Bill Clinton show similiar polling numbers prior to his election in 1992? Just food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and it's a fair point. That's why I added the caveat about Dean and the 2004 nomination. Anything could happen.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is true and a good point. It's why I'm completely ruling out Biden, Dodd, and Kerry -- they're all dipping from Northeastern center-left donor pool that Clinton currently pwns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biden is on Imus and MSNBC a lot. Don't you think he could get a lot of donations from rich Wall Street democrats who don't like Hillary?

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

The thing with the Tradesports numbers is that they have to factor in who is running. Personally, the only person I put at >70% to run is Hillary. There are a whole bunch of dark horses that could turn into the next Clinton.

I think McCain's high Tradesports percentage to win is way inflated because the race hasn't even started taking shape. For example, I would put Obama at #2 on Nate's list if he runs and move Gore down a few pegs because I don't think he's running.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Biden and Richardson have impressed me the most so far.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson might belong in the "no real shot of winning" camp. I don't mean to sounds like a cynic, but they all seem like the classic "5th place in the New Hampshire primary" candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports. So that's a fair point. Given that there's 5%-10% chance that one of them end's up being the nominee, perhaps I should have added a 4th category for "Low Probability of Winning Worthy of Mention", although that's not entirely different from the "Guys With No Shot" category. However, I think it's important to distinguish between these three and the likes of Kerry, Biden, and Dodd, who are all strongly considering a run but effectively have no chance (in fairness, Kerry is listed at 2% at Tradesports).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't necessarily trust Tradesports to be authoritative here, particularly when we're talking about the difference between say .5% and 2.0%.

Richardson has two problems, IMO. He doesn't look presedential, and he's came out a little too firmly for medical marijuana. Neither of those things should be problems, but I think they will be.

Feingold, I think, is simply too liberal. I don't think either party has nominated a true populist since McGovern, and we all know how that went.

Vilsack, I think, lacks the name recognition and isn't "sexy" enough for a presidential nominee.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly certain an "anti-Hillary" effort will be mounted in the Democratic primaries -- and that certainly "anti-Hillary" movement could be manifest itself in the form of support and cash for Vilsack, Feingold, or Richardson. Many of the best empirical studies demonstrate that primary voters are indeed strategic, so if voters are questioning voting for Hillary in the primary because of her electability in the general election, I just don't see Biden/Kerry/Dodd filling that void.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Vilsack, Richardson and Feingold could somehow combine their candidacy, then I think they'd have a shot (at the nomination, maybe not the presidency). But as it stands, it's sort of a catch-22: it's hard for one of them to gain momentum without fundraising, and it's hard for them to get fundraising without momentum.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the Dem side I think Biden has a decent shot because he will "wear well" like Kerry did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm skeptical Biden will ever convince donors he's credible -- by "credible", I mean: "has a legitimate chance of winning".

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards would surprise me because I don't think he will do well outside of the South.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Edwards has a very good chance to be the "strategic primary voters should choose me, because my positions are closely aligned to Clinton's but I'm much more electable" guy who could mount the anti-Hillary movement. He should succeed where guys like Bayh fail, because Dem. voters (voters who are the most intensely partisan) may not want to temper their ideological/policy expectations by voting for a centrist merely for electability purposes when they could have both ideological/policy alignment and electability with Edwards.

[ QUOTE ]
Richardson talks well so it wouldn't surprise me if he leaps out in front in Iowa/NH where he gets to go door to door. What I'm most confident about is that Hillary Clinton will almost definitely finish exactly 2nd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't rule Richardson out but I think he'd be behind Clinton, Edwards, and (if he decided to run) Obama if the primaries were held today.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vilsack, Feingold and Richardson are all between 2%-3% on Tradesports.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely certain about this, since I'm not that old, but didn't Bill Clinton show similiar polling numbers prior to his election in 1992? Just food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true but you have to adjust for two factors:

(1) Clinton had way more political talent than any of the longshots under discussion here. The guy was mesmerizing on the campaign trail, allowing him to not only rise from from obscurity but also to fight back after he got reamed by some sex scandal stuff even before the primaries started.

(2) The field was really open in 1992. Big name Dems steered clear because Bush looked unbeatable after the Gulf War. So when Bush started to tank, Clinton was fighting the likes of Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown for the nomination.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Predictions

1) Hilary will finish 2nd in the primaries. It will be close, but not razor-thin.
2) Al Gore will not run, but he will effect the primaries nonetheless (endorsements, appearances, etc). His effect will be positive for whomever he backs.
3) Kerry will not run.
4) Edwards will run. He will get creamed, finishing at least a distant 3rd to Hilary, perhaps worse.
5) Clark will not run.
6) The nomination will go to one of the following four: Richardson, Biden, Vilsack, and Bayh.
7) If Obama runs, all bets are off. However, whether he runs or not, I would be unsurprised to see him be named the VP candidate.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is true and a good point. It's why I'm completely ruling out Biden, Dodd, and Kerry -- they're all dipping from Northeastern center-left donor pool that Clinton currently pwns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biden is on Imus and MSNBC a lot. Don't you think he could get a lot of donations from rich Wall Street democrats who don't like Hillary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Biden was thinking about putting together a run in '04 but he couldn't get the money together. He's essentially tried to run twice now ('88 and '04) and has made no secret he plans on exploring another run in '08. Despite being one of the most visible Democrats in the Senate, each time (including now) he's failed to build any kind of momentum (I concede he had some missteps in '88). Maybe something unique will happen where he can convey to activists/donors that he's worthy of their resources, but I just don't see it being a likely outcome.

Of course, anything could happen.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the Dem side I think Biden has a decent shot because he will "wear well" like Kerry did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm skeptical Biden will ever convince donors he's credible -- by "credible", I mean: "has a legitimate chance of winning".

[ QUOTE ]
Edwards would surprise me because I don't think he will do well outside of the South.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Edwards has a very good chance to be the "strategic primary voters should choose me, because my positions are closely aligned to Clinton's but I'm much more electable" guy who could mount the anti-Hillary movement. He should succeed where guys like Bayh fail, because Dem. voters (voters who are the most intensely partisan) may not want to temper their ideological/policy expectations by voting for a centrist merely for electability purposes when they could have both ideological/policy alignment and electability with Edwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I do think the big wild card here is Gore though, who could jump in to this same role. He has had a pretty remarkable makeover, his environmental activism has earned him a lot of grass-roots Democratic support in the last five years, and he has this symbolic value for Dems in that he personifies both what-could-have-been-without-Bush and the Clinton years.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Richardson talks well so it wouldn't surprise me if he leaps out in front in Iowa/NH where he gets to go door to door. What I'm most confident about is that Hillary Clinton will almost definitely finish exactly 2nd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't rule Richardson out but I think he'd be behind Clinton, Edwards, and (if he decided to run) Obama if the primaries were held today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richardson has a lot of positives, but I think the problems Nate mentioned are real. Also, I have heard (completely unsubstantiated) rumors from sources I consider semi-credible that he has trouble keeping it in his pants and that he might not hold up too well under the scrutiny of a presidential election.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is true and a good point. It's why I'm completely ruling out Biden, Dodd, and Kerry -- they're all dipping from Northeastern center-left donor pool that Clinton currently pwns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biden is on Imus and MSNBC a lot. Don't you think he could get a lot of donations from rich Wall Street democrats who don't like Hillary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Biden was thinking about putting together a run in '04 but he couldn't get the money together. He's essentially tried to run twice now ('88 and '04) and has made no secret he plans on exploring another run in '08. Despite being one of the most visible Democrats in the Senate, each time (including now) he's failed to build any kind of momentum (I concede he had some missteps in '88). Maybe something unique will happen where he can convey to activists/donors that he's worthy of their resources, but I just don't see it being a likely outcome.

Of course, anything could happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see Biden as one of these guys whose success as a senator has gone to his head, such that he has little self-awareness about his likeability. There is a reason he can never get the money together.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
7) If Obama runs, all bets are off. However, whether he runs or not, I would be unsurprised to see him be named the VP candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Obama is actually quite unlikely to be the Veep nominee. Let's look at the potential Democratic tickets.

Clinton-Obama. Unless the Dems are reaaaaaaaaaly confident based on polling and focus-grouping this ticket, I don't think they're going to nominate a woman and a black man in the same election. Sorry, but it's the truth. You can find a lot of quotes from Democratic insiders that say as much.

Edwards-Obama. Here you run into the Lloyd Bentsen problem: you don't want the Veep candidate to outshine the presidential candidate. This is particularly problematic with Edwards, whom IMO has problems with appearing sufficiently assertive. But it would also be a problem with Bayh, et. al. because of the "charisma gap". Richardson-Obama runs into the minority problem. Clark-Obama is a well balanced ticket, I guess, but I don't know how serious Clark's candidacy is.

Gore-Obama, e.g. the Progressive Wet Dream. Maybe too progressive, although it's also a ticket that would get absolutely absurd turnout among the base. The thing is, I don't think both Obama and Gore run for the nomination, and I think Obama probably gets first dibs on making his choice. But I think you could see sort of a quid-pro-quo here, where Obama doesn't run, gets behind Gore, and becomes his Veep.

Also, we should keep in mind that Mark Warner remains an extremely attractive Veep candidate for the Dems, unless there was some underlying reason that he withdrew from Presidential consideration.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]

Gore-Obama, e.g. the Progressive Wet Dream. Maybe too progressive, although it's also a ticket that would get absolutely absurd turnout among the base. The thing is, I don't think both Obama and Gore run for the nomination, and I think Obama probably gets first dibs on making his choice. But I think you could see sort of a quid-pro-quo here, where Obama doesn't run, gets behind Gore, and becomes his Veep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh if dreams could come true.

Dvault,

Thanks for the list. Well done.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

The 2008 campaign began a while ago. Numerous presidential hopefuls have been taking trips to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Can someone explain what is so progressive about Obama? I don't know much about the man besides that he is suddenly the Democrat everyone loves to love.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain what is so progressive about Obama? I don't know much about the man besides that he is suddenly the Democrat everyone loves to love.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you hear him speak, he comes across as very intelligent, rational, and charismatic. He has a lot of the appeal Clinton did. On the issues, he's cut from the liberal cloth pretty well. If he were white and 50+, every Democrat would be jizzing at the chance to nominate him for President.

Obama on the Issues

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

I hope Vilsack gets nowhere near either nomination, the man is as boring as corn. Bayh, Obama, Gore, Clinton and Edwards are the only real candidates i see being able to win the P nomination.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Is Schumer a viable presidential candidate? He seems intelligent and is a good speaker. Although I'd rather see a Republican win the presidency, if it had to be a Democrat, he would be right up there with any of the other possible candidates in my opinion.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain what is so progressive about Obama? I don't know much about the man besides that he is suddenly the Democrat everyone loves to love.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was his speech at Kerry's convention that put him on the map. Ever since Clinton, all Democratic speeches have had this theme of bribing the voters by giving each individual interest some kind of cookie. Instead of doing this, Obama defended liberalism in a way that everybody on the left wing had been dying to hear for 20 years, by appealing to the community. The quote below from the transcript is probably what did it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ech-text_x.htm

[ QUOTE ]


A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.



[/ QUOTE ]

I still get chills just reading the text. Made me want to campaign for the guy, and I don't even live in the same country.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Good list in the original post. A few points: First, I have it on good authority from a second-hand source (but a pretty good one) that Gore will not run in 2008. Second, the likelihood of Obama winning the Dem nomination is much higher than most people currently realize.

And third, I think McCain will be very, very tough to beat on the Republican side of things, since it's pretty clear that 2008 will be, as most prez elections are, about who can best market themsleves to the ideological middle of the electorate. People also for some reason perceive him as independent of the political disaster that the GOP has become over the last year. Unfortunately, McCain stated last month that he planned to commit suicide if the Dems won the Senate, so I guess we can scratch him off the list after all.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Second, the likelihood of Obama winning the Dem nomination is much higher than most people currently realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this also based on insider info?

Personally, it would not surprise me one bit if Obama ran. Could be one hell of a cat fight between he and Hillary, though.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Whoever runs for the democrat nomination should realize that any repub nominee, especially McCain or Giuliani, is not going to defend Bush's record totally, so will have to be able to matchup against whatever platform that repub uses. Also, someone like Obama or Hillary is coming from a home state almost assured of going democrat regardless of who the candidate is, so that is kind of a negative unless they have a VP from a swing or southern state. If I were a democrat, I would be wanting Evan Bayh to be the candidate.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever runs for the democrat nomination should realize that any repub nominee, especially McCain or Giuliani, is not going to defend Bush's record totally, so will have to be able to matchup against whatever platform that repub uses. Also, someone like Obama or Hillary is coming from a home state almost assured of going democrat regardless of who the candidate is, so that is kind of a negative unless they have a VP from a swing or southern state. If I were a democrat, I would be wanting Evan Bayh to be the candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]


Note to self: Oppose Bayh at all costs.

Re: The 2008 Campaign has begun
 

Note to self: our masterful plan is working. All we have to do is to tout the democrats with the best chance of beating any repub candidates, and the dems will think something is wrong with such persons and nominate the typical east coast/northern ultra-lib we run best against.