Obama,Edwards and Richardson are my faves in no
particular order,subject to change without notice
For the last year or so, I have felt that Hillary and Bill have joined the "power club" that gravitates aroung 41 and his crowd. Hillary will be a disaster for the Dems.
For more than a year, I have thought Richardson is the only Democrat candidate on the right track. He has disapproved the war. He is a "western" environmentalist which means he understands the devastating impact big oil and coal has had on the American West, yet he understands energy and has a clear view of how a broad and practical approach to alternative energy sources. He is strong on private enterprise which will drag in some of the more middle of the road Republicans. He can talk good "America talk" without sounding like a wimp or a war monger.
Moreover, I have always felt that there is some type of "screen test" demanor necessary to win the Presidency and Richardson is sufficiently endowed with the necessary rough and toughness that guys like Kerry and Edwards lack.
Richardson should be able to beat any of the current Republican frontrunners who have become so tied into the GWOT that they can only preach fear and war. Richardson is developing a new language for a better response to the threats we face from a fractious Middle East and as the Giuliani, Bush, McCain approach bankrupts, his new, wiser, way will appeal to many.
If I were a Republican, I would push Chuck Hegel for many of the same reasons I want Richardson.
A contest between Richardson and Hegel would be very interesting!
In any case, I think Hillary will run weaker than Obama and Obama will run weaker than Edwards, but Richardson will run the strongest in 2008.
Posted by Nobody at March 29, 2007 05:28 PMI think that they all are electable so that really shouldn't be a concern. That being said, I'm waiting for the candidates to show me who's going to make the best President.
Posted by Ga6thDem at March 29, 2007 05:34 PMI agree that the Beltway gang have not covered themselves in adequacy. I don't like one of them. I guess his newness to the Congressional mosh pit gives Obama some reasonable doubt. I still prefer Al Über Alles, but I'm afraid if Tipper, as reported, is dead set against it and he's really got a nice life right now, then he probably won't run.
I like Edwards, who seems to be running 3rd or 4th, behind Al, in some polls. I'm still unclear on Richardson. At least he's got some foreign policy experience, but I need to know more. It's too bad every state is in a mad dash to be first with their primary. If a new candidate, a la Dean, hasn't already arisen, s/he will never be able to raise the requisite $100 million in time to be competitive. Did you hear? Money equals free speech and Rupert Murdoch cashes in for at least a quarter billion every election cycle. Ain't democracy swell?
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 29, 2007 05:36 PMLike you I'm not excited about Hillary and in fact was never excited about Bill. No excited about Obama either, I really haven't seen much substance there. Edwards I could live with - same with Richardson.
Posted by Ron In Portland at March 29, 2007 05:38 PMIs anyone looking forward to a Rudy-Hillary race?
hell no. The thought of it has me despondent already.
ABH.
Posted by Simp at March 29, 2007 05:56 PMEdwards is still my fave; though I'd vote for Gore if he got in. If it's neither, I'll still vote for the Dem, there's no question. And I really wouldn't hate Hillary as prez, even if she isn't my first, second or third choice. If she takes a stab at healthcare again, this time with a Dem trifecta, maybe we'll get some kind of universal system up and running. That wouldn't be bad at all.
Check this out from dKos
A spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, said the committee has reached an agreement with the Department of Justice that will make available seven DOJ officials for transcribed interviews behind closed doors.
Well, there it is, we have transcripts (evidence) of some of the lesser players (though I would like to see Goodling talk, if she drops the 5th plea and spills) - which can be used against the bigger fish. And maybe they'll be more apt to blab if they're not under the dreaded "kleig lights" eh?
Posted by iamcoyote at March 29, 2007 06:01 PMRe:Rudy-Hillary
If it's Rudy & Hill, America will have it's lowest voter participation ratio ever.
I have concerns with Richardson's statements on policy towards Israel - but both Obama and Edwards have said similar alarming things - so with Gore, I like 'em all.d
Posted by idiosynchronic at March 29, 2007 06:08 PMI like Richardson for all of the above & the fact that he is Latino should help some too. I hear he has issues with Enron & women.
I also like him because he is a governor & has run a state.
Hillary? No thanks & I don't get the buzz on Obama.
Posted by PwapVt at March 29, 2007 06:11 PMIs anyone looking forward to a Rudy-Hillary race?
Just slightly less than a root canal.
GORE/OBAMA 2008
The actually winner of the 2000 presidential race could easily wait until September -- even October, 2007 to toss his hate in the race.
Then, look out.
Posted by Christopher at March 29, 2007 06:17 PMIf it's Rudy & Hill, America will have it's lowest voter participation ratio ever.
Ya think? The People would love a Celebrity Death Match. If the circumstances weren't so dire, it would be fascinating. But I just don't see Rudy making it that far. He's not as popular as he thinks he is.
Edwards would be formidable. He and Elizabeth have been on every talkshow that matters to millions of women who watch Oprah or Ellen or the View thingy - don't underestimate the power of down-home real people in this cynical age or the size of their audience. PwapVt, I feel the same about Obama. He just doesn't wow me like Edwards.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 29, 2007 06:27 PMhillary clinton will never be elected president.
baggage, bills baggage, baggage.
why do we not get the pleasure of a new, younger face in both parties.
the reruns are getting tiring.
Posted by steve at March 29, 2007 06:35 PMTwo words: Al Gore.
So time for letters to Tipper. Gah! Can we abide a first lady named Tipper? Sure we can.
Run, Al, run.
Posted by badpenny at March 29, 2007 06:44 PMWhen was the last time a senator has gotten elected? Senators have to compromise, something that does not go well with who those are dragged out for scrutenany in our current swift boating era of politics.
She could use her considerable monyes to be a deversion for them.
The Democrates or the Rebubfasciests need to look to the state govenors for decient electable candidates.
I do not look foward to a Hillory presidency because of the fact that she will wearing the big target of the last Clinton "legosy". And her current one as a voting Senator.
So far I really like the way that Peliosi can remind the president about reality in the current battles.
Pelosi: (dispite her promise that he should not be impeached and tryed for at least a few hundred crimes and then shot by a military firing squad for having done so much to destroy the furure of this country)
In the past Carthegenian leaders were crucified for less.
Ernest Olsen
hillary clinton will never be elected president.
She has the poorest chance of the current Democratic front-runners, but the GOP brand is badly damaged and still losing ground. We could run Bill the Cat and still have an outside shot.
Posted by dj moonbat at March 29, 2007 06:53 PMAnd Bill the Cat would be safer than any of the current GOP possiibilities. What's BTC doing these days?
Posted by anon at March 29, 2007 07:00 PMi don't see that hillary has a record she can run on when compared with any of the other dem prospects.
gore can top any ticket and win.
if gore does not run an edwards/obama ticket has got to be attractive. both men appear to have their hearts in the right place and obama's 'experience problem' would be addressed by 8 years as vp.
i've heard/read nothing but good things about richardson but it will be very difficult for him to distinguish himself given the name degree to which clinton/obama/edwards are known.
the best news: the dlc dems seem to have only one horse in the race.
Posted by treefrog at March 29, 2007 07:00 PMPwapVt, Richardson doesn't have a problem with women, he seems to like them just fine.
He's not a groper in my experience; he's an appreciator of the female form, and of a good aged whiskey. I don't know how typical I am, but both of those qualities remind me of my dad and I find him more trustworthy because of them.
So much so that he overcomes my worries about the judgment he showed getting involved with his brother-in-law's Enron-style business during the stock bubble. Just by being such a regular guy. Who also happens to be green with energy ideas and Latino and experienced.
Posted by PhoenixRising at March 29, 2007 07:08 PMShe has the poorest chance of the current Democratic front-runners...
When it comes to the all important likability factor, Hillary is bankrupt and all the millions she has tucked under her mattress won't change this fact.
Hillary is part of the Bush; Clinton; Bush; Clinton merry-go-round and voters are tired of it.
Posted by Christopher at March 29, 2007 07:24 PMWe could run Bill the Cat and still have an outside shot.
My sentiments exactly. Dobson hasn't signed off on a one of their trial balloons; and without the fundie bloc, they don't have a single demographic for 'em. Which, if you think about it, is the Perfect Storm for a minority Dem candidate - as cynical as it sounds. Even if it's Hillary, I can't say as I'd cry to finally have a woman as president. Good or bad, it's a milestone that I'd like to witness in my lifetime.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 29, 2007 07:42 PMI'm amused by the reaction to the Edwards/ Clinton/Obama comments re Israel/Iran/nuclear weapons.
What do any of you think Gore would say if asked the same questions should he jump into the race? He'd say the same things. A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable and is a threat to us and Israel.
Would you all hate him then?
Posted by snark at March 29, 2007 07:43 PMI favor John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson in that order. If Hillary wins the nomination, I wouldn't just vote for her, I would also work hard for her simply because the alternatives at the moment are so bad.
But I'm not happy with Hillary. This is not 1990 when the Clintons probably made their decision for Bill to run. Hillary Clinton has yet to convince me that she understands the need for real change or that our problems are much more serious now than they were sixteen years ago. Bill Clinton didn't spend much time on energy and environmental issues in the 1990s and I don't see that Hillary has a handle on the issues. Given global warming, the need to sort energy issues worldwide, the need to deal with environmental issues worldwide, the need to mitigate the worst damage from globalization and the need to keep the world from descending into a bigger mess, we need a president whose eyes are open on the need to rebuilding and retoolling our foreign policy with a return to an emphasis on diplomacy; Bill Clinton was sometimes good on these issues and sometimes not. Brzezinski just gave Clinton a C on foreign policy; that may be a fair grade, though I think Clinton was better at foreign policy in his second term than his first.
Then, there's the failure of Hillary to acknowledge what a strategic failure the war in Iraq was from its inception. She can't say it and she can't admit it. She recognizes Bush's incompetence but not his arrogance, his recklessness and the hubris of his imperial vision. At this late date, it ought to be a no-brainer.
Finally, there are unresolved issues left over from the Clinton presidency. Normally, we could leave those issues for the historians, but if Hillary is running, those issues need to be dealt with. For example, what role, if any, did Bill Clinton play in Hillary's vote on Iraq? And what legacies of Bill Clinton will Hillary Clinton feel compelled to protect? There's a funny game being played where one moment Bill Clinton is part of Hillary's run for president and the next moment, we're not supposed to talk about his role and relationship. The tendency of the Clinton campaign to run away from some of these issues and do Republican-lite does not give me a lot of confidence that she (or is it she and Bill?) is ready to take on the issues of a very different era. They're both intelligent and talented but the times may indeed call for a clean break.
One last point: old generals are always fighting the last war instead of the current one. This is also true of politicians. That is partly what got Cheney and Rumsfeld in such deep trouble; they were refighting the cold war but against the Muslim world this time with some old imperialist ideas thrown in. I worry that Hillary and Bill will be too attached to some of the issues they fought for in the 1990s when things are now very different and changing very rapidly. I'm not hearing fresh ideas or fresh approaches.
Posted by Craig at March 29, 2007 07:47 PMOh for God's sake, any fuckin' candidate,any one of them will be better than Butch, don't you guys understand that?
What can Hillary do worse than Bush? What can Rudy do? Bush is a HARD act to follow, remember that.
The Prez and ANYBODY would be an improvement. Ask a returning Iraqi surge GI who he/she wants to see in office.
The whole discussion of who is a presentable candidate is moot.
(But I'll kill myself if Hillary gets it)
Posted by Mal Feasance at March 29, 2007 08:20 PMConsider that the beltway pundits are certain that Hillary will win. And let's take a look at how many times these pundits have been right, in say, the last six years ... anybody ... anybody ... So my bet's on anybody BUT Hillary.
As others have said, I'm sick of the DLC-oriented triangulation that's supposed to pass for leadership these days. I agree wholeheartedly on the need for a clean break from the past bush - clinton line of succession.
I happened to stumble across tweety's show today with buchannon and margaret carlson discussing this very topic. I could only watch for about 2-3 minutes, but was amazed at the utter cluelessness and insulated arrogance on display. These twits were like a a bunch of junior high girls protecting their clique. I still don't get why these people and, in particular, russert are still granted any credibility whatsoever. WTF are these idiots still doing on television?
My personal preference is Gore/Clark. But I've been very impressed with John Edwards since he announced and particularly over the last couple of weeks. Edwards is a leader.
Posted by Jim Faith at March 29, 2007 08:30 PM
Craig has hit the "Hillary problem" on the head. The circus that was the 1990's will not be repeated, history never moves backward. 911 really did change one thing and that was to lock the Clinton triangulation era into the past. Our economic, enviromental and military problems are much worse because "Nero" Bush and cronies have used the Iraq war to enrich their friends. America wants answers to these problems.
As things look now, I can't see any Republican winning next year. Enough people understand that the GOP is to blame for where we are. The evidence of this is last years' midterm. But, Hillary dispite her intellegence and abilities is liable to blunder her way into a one term presidentcy. We could be in for another long and miserable decade after this one if we're not careful.
As for me, I now plan to support Edwards in the primaries as I did in 2004. However, for the general election, any Democrat is preferable to any Republican. If you need a reason why think Supreme Court nominees.
Posted by herbal tee at March 29, 2007 08:34 PMGenerally, Mr Soto is right to say Dems are looking for a fresh face with less beltway baggage. I have to agree with most folks here: Hillary is not going to be the spiritual first choice---the trouble remains that she may be the only one with the capital to remain standing and lots of Dems will hold their noses to vote for her in lieu of any Republican. In many ways, I think she may be counting on that. She sure knows a high percentage of Americans of any stripe and conviction cannot stand her lecturing manner, her grating voice, or her dedication to calculated posturing.
Posted by gtash at March 29, 2007 08:38 PMI am against Hillary. I can't forgive her war vote, and she shows no sign of regretting it. She panders and triangulates as much as Bill ever did.
But the biggest isue I think is that the Republicans want her to win the nomination. They plan to cream her. And they will.
The candidate they probably fear most is Al Gore.
For me, an Al Gore / Wes Clark comobo is the winner.
Posted by bob at March 29, 2007 09:10 PMI could never vote for Hillary. I cannot throw my vote to someone like her. I don't hold her vote against her because Senators are human and make stupid mistakes. I know she now doesn't take it back because frankly it;s too late.
I am supporting my senator, Obama, as we here know the guy is able, intellegent, and capable of doing the job. He is very good and not the lightwieght the msm tries to make him out to be. You only have to look at the video on the Chicago Cable access of Nov. 2002 where he called what would happen if we invaded Iraq. Stunning. A person with mild intellegence could not have forseen this. Only someone with alot of foresight, judgement and depth.
George Clooney will jump in at the last minute and make politics fun again.
The First Lady of the Month contests should be interesting.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 29, 2007 11:17 PMThanks for dropping Brian Schweitzer's name, one I have been dropping in Minnesota for some time, he is smart, savvy , doesnt always take himself too seriously(an important point that most Beltway pundits and brokers do not understand as they are ego driven and take themselves way too seriously) and is, as Richardson, able to understand both the environmental issue and the energy issues... I remain convinced the future of the Dems lies in these Rocky Mountain leaders, they are able to be progressive without being discounted as kooks and wild eyed leftists...and that is a potent equation for success in USA national politics.
Posted by leftymn at March 30, 2007 04:59 AMif al gore doesn't enter..it's john edwards for me..that man has a lot of character..and so does his wife..i have tremdendous admiration for both of them
Posted by dennis at March 30, 2007 05:15 AMwhy would The Hillary make a good president? Let's count: 1) because,uh, well, uh, but, uh....
Posted by T2 at March 30, 2007 06:25 AMWhy would anyone make a good president?
Posted by snark at March 30, 2007 07:00 AMi think Hillary is infatuated with the idea of being the first woman president and that her marriage to Bill Clinton makes it more possible than if she had remained Hillary Rodham / i dont think she would have gotten this far on her own and i am sorry bc i would very much like to see a woman president before i die / oh, okay, an african american would do too / i like Gore and Clark and Edwards and Richardson at any rate
Posted by Katherine Hunter at March 30, 2007 08:02 AMRichardson would be the best choice for the Dems. Fiscal conservative and all.
Rudy would be an interesting choice for the GOP. A social progressive and all.
Those are the two who would most appeal to me and would have a good chance at the crossover and middle votes.
Forget Hillary. DOA.
Posted by muckdog at March 30, 2007 09:01 AMMy support will go to a DC outsider or newcomer. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll note for a sure loser, as is my custom in past elections.
If the Repubs put up Ron Paul (no chance in hell), I would support him in a heart beat.
Imagine....a President that actually fulfills his oath of office.
Posted by brisa at March 30, 2007 01:14 PM"...I just can’t get inspired at the thought of Hillary as our standard-bearer heading into the convention next year, especially after the weekly drubbing she will go through with the media...."
If anyone thinks any nominated Democrat will receive favorable media coverage in 2008, they have paid zero attention to the last eight (if not eighteen) years. Or better, go ask President Dukakis, if you can break him away from crack parties w/ Willie Horton in that tank.
Go read Somerby's Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com) for ten minutes. The Republican'ts and their compliant, conservative, corporate media (yes, including the Washington Post and the New York Times) have it in for any Democrat.
And you can take that to the bank.
Posted by bartcopfan at April 2, 2007 09:15 AM