Presidential Watch

OK, so here's where we stand in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination so far.

Senator Russ Feingold (WI) is out. Governor Tom Vilsack (IA) is in. Former Governor Mark Warner (VA) recently got out. Former Senator Mike Gravel (AK) has been in for months. Senator Joe Biden (DE) won't play coy, and says he's planning a run.

Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Evan Bayh (IN), and John Kerry (MA) are expected to run. Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) and former Senator John Edwards (NC) are also expected to run. There's chatter that Senators Chris Dodds (CT), Barack Obama (IL), Governor Phil Bredesen (TN), former Senator Tom Daschle (SD), and former Vice President Al Gore are considering runs for president.

Meanwhile, here's what Joe Trippi said about the presidential race in Sunday's Washington Post:

Front-runner: Hillary Rodham Clinton

She has it all -- the ability to raise the money; a political team that's among the best, if not the best, in the party; a strong base of support; and an uncanny ability to avoid political mistakes. And I don't care what anyone says -- her husband is one of two rock stars in the Democratic Party and a huge asset.

Ironically, the problem with Clinton's candidacy arises from her strength. Front-runners have something to lose, so they almost always run cautious, safe campaigns. This almost cost John Kerry the nomination in 2004, and could cost the senator from New York the nomination in 2008. Her strength also creates the certainty that a campaign of bold new ideas will emerge to oppose her. She is so strong within the party that, with so many contemplating a run against her, the only viable option for a serious challenger is to put forth innovative ideas in hopes of breaking out of the pack. And there are plenty in the Democratic Party who are capable of doing that.

The "Other" Rock Star: Barack Obama

He's the one candidate who can wrestle Bill Clinton for support in the black community and win. All the others are both thrilled about and terrified of this guy. They're thrilled that he might take black votes from Hillary. They're terrified because he might take a lot more votes from them and become a co-front-runner the day he enters the race, if he does. Obama's obvious downside is inexperience. Three years ago, he was an Illinois state senator; in 2008, he will not have completed his first U.S. Senate term. So he had better have some ideas -- or wait till next time.

The Oxygen Taker: Al Gore

Talk about setting a progressive agenda with bold new ideas. The man is doing it and he doesn't even have a job. In a party that tends to treat its past nominees like lepers, Gore has done an amazing job of reemerging as an important thought leader on issues such as the Iraq war and global warming. If he throws his hat into the ring, he will immediately suck all the oxygen out of the room for most of the other candidates. The media won't be able to stop doing the Hillary vs. Al 800-pound-gorillas-go-at-it stories. Everyone but Obama will be reduced to begging for attention. But entering the race means he suddenly would have something to lose. Could candidate Gore stop himself from playing it safe?

The Champion of 2006: John Edwards

Hands down the guy who improved his position the most this year. Edwards leads the field in early polls in Iowa, which is more important than ever, because the 2008 nominating process is more front-loaded than in prior years. The former North Carolina senator has a bevy of ideas, and is the only Southerner, important to a party that has elected only two presidents in the past 30 years -- both from the South. All of which earns him a down arrow -- because once you take the lead in Iowa, the entire field tries to destroy you. Good luck.

Down but Not Out: John Kerry

The former presidential nominee was doing quite well until the "botched joke." Democratic losses in the House or Senate would have made a comeback impossible, so no one was happier than Kerry last Tuesday. The senator from Massachusetts is going to need to present some bold ideas to regain relevance in this field; I'd start with Iraq. And for those who want to count this guy out: He has come back from the dead before. Trust me, I speak from experience. Handicaps? It's all up from here or he's out.

Chairman of Foreign Relations: Joe Biden

The senator from Delaware is doing what Kerry should do: taking the lead on the Iraq war and staking out ideas for bringing our troops home safely. But the down arrow stays until someone gets this guy to shut up and listen.

Running to the Right: Evan Bayh

A senator who has actually run a government, the former governor of Indiana also hails from the region that may be most critical to a Democratic electoral victory -- the Midwest. In 2004, Democrats lost Missouri and Ohio, electoral votes that would have put Kerry over the top. Bayh could be the best bet for picking up three or four Midwestern states. He seems to be running to Clinton's right, which will prove to be either pure genius (he has a lane all to himself) or a disaster -- ask President Joe Lieberman.

The One to Watch: Russ Feingold

Perhaps the most authentic candidate, the senator from Wisconsin has a deep connection to the grass roots and is a favorite of the party's progressive wing. If President Bush stays stubborn on Iraq and the rest of the field plays it safe, Feingold could get very hot.

A R?sum? to Die For: Bill Richardson

He'd be the first Hispanic to make a presidential run, and his r?sum? covers nearly every issue, foreign or domestic. Need bold ideas on immigration? New Mexico Gov. Richardson has grappled with that. Ideas on energy? Ask former energy secretary Richardson. How to deal with a nuclear North Korea? Former U.N. ambassador Richardson knows the turf. But can he raise the money, and earn enough early support to get his ideas into the mix?

The General: Wesley Clark

He still has a strong following among progressives and the netroots and could get traction if there's no consensus on a new Iraq strategy soon.

More Than a Cameo: Tom Vilsack

I thought the Iowa governor's candidacy was a cameo until I saw him speak at Renaissance Weekend last year. He clearly gets that this will be an election about ideas. Vilsack will have a tough fight -- but I'm the last guy to bet against a governor from a small rural state.


Discuss.

Comments

  • Levon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If McCain can make it out of the GOP primary, can anyone craft the scenario where any of the D's mentioned here beats him?

  • christopher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am hoping any of the DLC crew will stay out of the presidential race, too much greed present there for us to believe in. I wish Howard Dean would run again, Russ Feingold had my vote as well. Any one heard much from John Edwards lately?

  • CJAllen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Johnny Edwards has been out campaigning for Democratic candidates before the election, talking about poverty and class issues, and organized volunteers to go to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina earlier this year. I think he might be the only one that could beat McCain, because i think he has the potential to make inroads into purple and light red areas. I think this guy is better than any we've had recently. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut has announced that he wants to run. I don't think he has any chance, but he seems like a good guy. He led the fight against John Bolton.

  • (Show?)

    I can't think of a scenario where McCain could beat any decent Democratic candidate. Having followed his career since he nearly knocked Ted Kennedy off for a Senate seat, my biggest concern from the Republican side is Mitt Romney.

    On the Democratic side, Clinton, Obama, and Gore have to be the top three contenders. Here's hoping that both Obama and Gore throw their hats into the ring.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If McCain can make it out of the GOP primary, can anyone craft the scenario where any of the D's mentioned here beats him?

    2008 is a long way off politically--no one knows what the issues will be.

    But the guy who wants more troops in Iraq and who did robo-calls for Mike Erickson (did he know anything about Erickson or just do it as a party chore?) is not Mr. Straight Talk Express from 2000.

    I think we need new candidates (not Kerry or Gore), so let's see a debate between Edwards, Wes Clark, Barak Obama, and any Gov. or other Senator who wants to run. I suspect if the outcome of that primary battle is someone Americans can believe in who is a better campaigner than Kerry or Gore could win.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If the right wing nuts of the Republican party can be managed by the center of the Republican party, and after this November's disaster I suspect they might be, I predict that Rudolph Giuliani will be the Republican candidate. Except for Feingold and maybe Barack Obama, I would vote for Giuliani before any of the other Dems listed, and I am the guy with the "Better Dead Than Republican" bumper sticker.

    Stop the war NOW!

  • (Show?)
    "Posted by: Levon | Nov 16, 2006 4:35:23 PM If McCain can make it out of the GOP primary, can anyone craft the scenario where any of the D's mentioned here beats him?"

    I think McCain would be a washout for the GOP should he get their nod. Their base doesn't like the guy and ticket with any combination of Clinton, Obama and Gore would beat the crap out of just about anyone they run. A ticket with any combo of those three, particular with Obama as the VP half would make the GOP play defense in places like GA. We won't win GA if the GOP does play to win there, but that means they are leaving the midwest and mountain west open if they have to lock up states like GA because of the demographics of having a black man on the ticket (and either a progressive TN man with world creds or a smart pragmatic woman who was first lady in Arkansas for three terms) would force them to. Look at the stops the RNC had to pull out to secure TN against Ford.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Sal Peralta | Nov 16, 2006 5:15:28 PM "...my biggest concern from the Republican side is Mitt Romney."

    I dunno, he is still too hard to get a bead on. The Evangelical right dislike the guy because he is a mormon, which is why he is trying to build creds white whack-a-doodle theocons by trying to make a stink with his go-nowhere quixotic tilting at the MA legislature today over a same-sex marriage revocation bill that is DOA. But he has Gov. creds and appeal in the mountain west because of the Olympics and all. I think he is one of their stronger candidates to be sure, but a sleeper. Certainly someone to really watch carefully and see if he can pull serious bucks in the primary.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: BlueNote | Nov 16, 2006 5:33:39 PM

    ROFLAMO

    Rudy?

    PLEASE... I am begging for him to get the nod. We would have to nominate someone the GOP has video of them eating babies to lose to Rudy.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kerry is no longer a potential candidate since his most recent display of political ineptitude.
    Too soon for Obama, too late for Gore.

    Mrs. Clinton would do more to motivate Repub voters than any candidate they could nominate . The results of this last election demonstrates the voters desire for a more conservative Dem they can vote for. Despite that I look for her to pull out the stops to get the nomination this time ‘round.

    Senators in general have a poor track record of successful presidential runs in recent history. The powerbrokers of the Dem party, who gave us Sen Kerry, realize that by now.

    I’d look for a Dem governor to get the itch in the next year and catch fire, much like Carter did in ‘76.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 16, 2006 6:22:36 PM

    I think your take on a Govenor being a better source of candiates having merit (though that begs the quesiton of who? I thought Warner woudl have been strong be he nixed that one himself) ...and agree with your assessment about Senator candidates generally sucking wind, but I am not convinced that Hillary Clinton would be a problem for us. Rove and the GOP have been running at Hillary since before her husband and her left the White House. They have been going nuclear against her for years for a reason. They have seen that train on the tracks for years and are scared shitless of it.

    The first viable female presidential candidate in our nations history with a black man making them play defense in place like GA... I said it before and will say it again, that is the GOP nightmare scenario. I just worry about two things about such a ticket, Obama not having the experience (which you note and why I also like Gore who has the experience) and someone with a rifle.

  • (Show?)

    Vice President Al Gore is most definately not considering a run for President. He said so himself in Portland. And it was about as clear a "no" as anyone gets.

    More's the pity, but I understand his logic.

    Gore thinks fighting Global Warming simply can't be politicized. Leftists may hate WalMart, but Gore needs them to understand he's not their enemy. Not when our species is in serious danger of turning the biological clock on our planet 500 million years, melting the polar ice caps, turning our seas acid, floodinf Florida, and turning most of the midwest into a desert that would make modern day Arizona seem temperate by comparison.

    If it comes down to some Bush clone vs Hillary (which would guarantee the Bush clone a win), maybe he might be persuaded to enter. But even then, I'm not so sure.

  • BlueNote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Fortunately for this country, Hillary and I have exactly the same chance of being elected President. Our mutual chances are 0.000000000000

    Unfortunately for this country, Hillary is likely to be nominated as the Democratic candidate on the shoulders of the corporate backed DLC.

    Thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died thanks to Hillary and those who voted with her. For some of you, Hillary's pro-war positions are just a speed bump on her way to the presidency, and I am sure you have dozens of reasons why she should now be supported notwithstanding the tens of thousands of maimed US servicemen that she has left in her wake. I hope to God that the rest of the country views her as the war monger that she is.

    Stop the war NOW!

  • (Show?)

    I like Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack. Both former governors. Both respected, serious and thoughtful.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's take a look at the "play" against Hillary. The Clinton monster-ette Anti-gun Corrupt - travelgate junk, V Foster, Whitewater Flipflop NY Liberal

    Their list goes on and on and it will resonate with voters the Dems ought to have. Let's see if we can come up with somebody actually worse...

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kitzhaber.

  • (Show?)

    The Evangelical right dislike the guy because he is a mormon.

    I keep hearing lefties say that, but I've seen no evidence that there is something other than a strong political coalition between mormons and evangelicals. That has been the case since Falwell launched the moral majority in 1979. Falwell recently said that he'd vote for Romney if he believed they shared the same socially conservative positions.

  • Go Clinton! (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Mrs. Clinton"? "Travelgate"? "She voted for the war"- hello, most did, even if wrong

    Hillary Clinton has done an amazing job as a Senator (despite other predictions). Clinton/Obama!

  • Behind the Scenes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Falwell recently said that he'd vote for Romney if he believed they shared the same socially conservative positions.

    Its not surprising that the Republican churches will support the Republican. But there are a lot of evangelical churches whose members are still Christian. To the extent they consider a candidate's religion, they may not be enthusiastic supporters of a Morman Republican over a Christian Democrat.

  • Whoa there (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excuse me, but aren't Mormons Christians too?

    Anyway, BlueNote, you are saying stop the war, but that you would support Giuliani? That doesn't make sense.

  • Geo Rip (unverified)
    (Show?)

    2 years is an eternity in politics, so anything can happen - and does anyone really want the same old same old tired methodologies of an outdated, unresponsive system? America needs the courage to grasp a bold new vision of democracy if we are to deal effectively with issues as major as global warming, a potential economic crash, unfavorable foreign relations and war, social security reform, higher energy prices, health care reform, poverty, and problems with our election systems, to name a few. The current system just isn't responsive enough to people's obvious needs and wishes.

    The recent election was a clear victory for progressive principles but the old guard DLC centrists supporting Hillary are the ones sucking all the air out of the room, successfully cutting out the principled anti war Murtha for majority leader and doing their best to take control of the party machinery from Howard Dean progressives. Carville is jealously guarding his old power, stuck in the middle, leading nowhere.

    What is needed is an electorate that recognizes the need for serious reform and a dark horse candidate with a method to cut the Gordian Knot of the corporatist/Republicrat/Demublican juggernaut. The only candidate offering an idea powerful enough to do that is Senator Mike Gravel, a man who earned gravitas and respect as a bold maverick 30 years ago when he read the Pentagon Papers into the National Record and, by himself, successfully filibustered an end to the Vietnam era draft. These days no Democrat dares filibuster.

    The keystone of Mike's candidacy is codifying the "power of the people" as law. Let the people decide serious issues and take the corporate lobbyists out of it. The legislative process as we know it does not have the political will to make the changes this nation needs in the shortened time frames necessary no matter how much people march and protest, and we shouldn't have to exhaust ourselves with that effort anyway. Mike is proposing that "we the people" have the codified right to use the ballot initiative in every jurisdiction from federal to local. Let the people decide on more issues, we're smart, and it is our lives that are at stake. Why should we give all our power to a few legislators who immediately must sell out to corporations? If Congress wants to surrender its obligation to declare or not to declare war, let the people make that decision. As Oregonians you would not give up your power of the initiative, help Mike get into the Dem. Presidential Primary Debates, he is a serious candidate. Nader and Dean got their political support by chanting "the people have the power" but that is mere rhetoric until the power is made law...Empower the people by law and we will change the world. Check out www.gravel08.us

  • (Show?)

    Excuse me, but aren't Mormons Christians too?

    Depends on who you ask. Bigotry has many flavors.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Hillary Clinton has done an amazing job as a Senator" - um, of New York. Let me run that by you again, New York.

    Let me point our something that ought to be obvious to anybody reading Blue Oregon, there is a heck of a lot of this country and a heck of a lot of voters that are not NEW YORK. I'm perfectly happy for Hillary Clinton to be one of New York's Senators. It's very far away and she has 1/100th of the vote.

    Hillary Clinton For President would undo most of the work the Democratic Party has done to take itself from being marginalized. Do you have any idea how many Congressional seats she'd drag down with her?

  • (Show?)

    The election is a long ways away, but I can tell you I wouldn't under any circumstance vote for Hillary Clinton. I use to think highly of her, but her votes for the war in Iraq are terrible.

    It's too bad Obama lacks the experience to run for president, but I wouldn't rule him out as a VP pick.

    McCain (sadly) would probably beat most of the Democrats who will run if he made it out of the primary with the Republican nomination. That's not to say things couldn't change before the primaries. In 2000, McCain got slammed by Bush and his own party. I also have to wonder if age plays a factor as he will be as old as Reagan was when he started his second term.

    I'm not sure if anyone has seen this, but it's interesting to play around with.

    http://www.surveyusa.com/default.html

  • (Show?)

    but aren't Mormons Christians too?

    Mormons may share certain culural values with evangelical Christians, but despite their conservativism they are most certainly not considered just another flavor of Christian. More like the anti-Christians. Or scientologists. Or worse.

    Think Sunni versus Shiite.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Book of Mormon is not the Bible. The Church of Latter Day Saints is to Christian what Christian is to Judaism. They share some common beliefs and traditions, but they extend and change them as well. It is a distinct religion, separate from Christianity.

    This is not the case with Sunni and Shiite, which is more a Catholic and Protestant division. Sunni and Shiite both share the Koran as the common text that defines their religion, just as Christians share the bible.

    BTW, the Mormons have a division, similar to the Sunni and Shiite division, dating from a split over church leadership in the 1800's. There is a separate Mormon church centered in the midwest that is much smaller than the Utah based one.

    Anti-christian is what I would call the Republican churches. But that is a different story.

  • Fiveriversstash (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I just read a college poll taken in New York in which "nearly half" the democratic voters would vote for H. R. Clinton. They said she leads the polls. Nearly half of democrats is not what I would call a rousing endorsement. I just moved from Oregon to Wisconsin last year and at NO TIME ever in either state did I find anyone who said they would vote for her if she was nominated. I certainly wouldn't. It seems to me that the Zionist controlled DNC wants her in and what they want, they usually get.

  • Dickey45 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like Richardson - he's a governor and he has plenty of hair :)

  • Daaaaave (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama/Edwards. I think they capture the hope for the future better than anyone else and I think by 2008 we are going to desperately want leaders who will spend more time looking forward than looking back. I think Clinton's negatives are just too high and there's something vaguely regressive about her, too calculating (although the same may be said of Obama) and too much baggage.

    I think McCain is going to plummet. Talk about a let down. When the primaries heat up and the facts come out, I think moderates are going to be appalled at how derailed the "Straight Talk Express" became and the fundamentalist right will never embrace him, no matter how many times he panders to Jerry Falwell and hugs Bush.

    Giuliani is 100% name recognition. After that, he doesn't have much and his nomination would kill any chances the GOP has of wooing Mexican votes. Romney epitomizes the same gladhanding vague affability Bush had in 2000 and everyone expected Allen to have in 08. A conservative everything-to-everyone. I think the Mormon thing is pretty overblown, the majority of the evangelical GOP know on which side their bread is buttered: just watch David Kuo shout into the wind.

    Obama/Edwards v. Romney/Huckabee

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    More than anything, the last election was a vote for change. People understand there are real problems facing this country, in everything from national security, to economic security, healthcare and more.

    Politicians with heavy ties to the establishment aren't going to float in 2008.

    People want change. Maybe the best democratic candidate would be someone who will rise to the top but whose name most of us don't even know yet.

  • Levon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    People don't vote based on the VP candidate so not certain why this is continually brought up in this discussion.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The 2008 presidential race may have some parallels with this year's race for governor in Oregon. A whole lot of us were not thrilled at the prospect of four more years of Kulongoski and favored Hill, Sorenson or Westlund. Yet after the primary and after Westlund dropped out, enough of us put that aside and worked hard to re-elect Ted, because the alternative would have been worse. And not just that--I think Ted made a good case for himself as the election wore on.

    So while I would love to see Gore as president and would vote for practically anyone over Hillary except Obama (who needs to get more experience), I'll probably work my butt off for her when she is nominated. And I suspect a lot of blueoregon readers will do the same. The alternative--especially McCain--will be much worse. Secondly, she is not an evil witch, a product of right wing caricature. Her presidency would be much like her husband's, with a lot more attention to detail.

  • Ryan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Feingold was my pick, but now that he is out I'm shopping around. With reservations there are only four current possibilities that I might feel good about...Gore, Dean, Edwards, or Obama. If I had to name a Gov, it would probably be Richardson. Gore and Dean probably won't run and Obama's inexperience probably relegates him to VP, so that leaves Edwards for now, unless someone comes out of nowhere.

    I like Edwards' emphasis on poverty, even if there isn't a great deal of substance to it...at least he is talking about it. Though Edwards' relative inexperience is a factor as well.

  • Zak J. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whoever runs, I hope they see commit to a full campaign season and not just a sprint to Iowa & New Hampshire. Gephardt would have been a fantastic president, as would have Howard Dean, but both of them quit WAY too soon after early set backs and missed the chance for even the VP position. Stay in, keep the nomination from getting decided by narrow caucuses and fight it out (i.e. pick the best one) at the convention.

    No quitters, please!

  • (Show?)

    Wow, I find it stunning how hand-shy people here are about Hillary. She would not be my first choice because I want a liberal/populist firebrand, but so many here have so throughly drunk the GOP/Rove kool-aid on Hillary I am literally stunned by it.

    There is a reason the GOP have been running against Hillary for six plus years, yet the media memes and circular firing squad habits have got a large swath of the Democrats eating their own because of being so worked over by the GOP talking points and media memes about the Clinton's.

    Amazing.

  • Ryan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My opposition to Clinton has nothing to do with Republican talking points and everything to do with my progressive values and a desire for a Dem who can win.

    A lot of Dems voted for the war but Hilary has gone out of her way to be a hawk. She is in tight with the DLC that is ruining the Democratic party, she is not a great public speaker, and she refuses to stray even the slightest from the safe political discourse. Obama and Edwards are also a part of the DLC crowd but at least Obama is a fantastic public speaker and Edwards is willing to talk about poverty issues in a way that others won't touch.

  • Obama (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama is most certainly not a DLC'er. In fact, during 2004 he was named one of their 100 "rising stars" and he went out of his way to make clear he didn't have anything to do with that and didn't endorse their agenda.

    http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html

  • BOHICA (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. nuf said

    Run Wes, run.

  • THE WOLFE (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama has the best chance of winning for the Democrats.

    I know all you racists out there and people afraid of racists are saying..."But he's Black."

    I know but things have changed...not that racism has gone away...rather the republican party has thrown aside openly racist people....Evangelicals Christains have taken on a new Trinity....Love Christ....Love Thy County....and love all, equally....even the blacks. They have become openly anti-racist...I know not all of them but most them and it is this knew found love of inclusion that will allow them to vote for an African American.

    More importantly is why Middle American would vote for THIS African American. I have heard to many times people say "Obama is the next Kennedy." This is bullsh*t...he is not the next Kennedy he is the next Ronald Reagan...not in ideology rather in what he would give to the country.

    Ronald Reagan is loved by the far right because he brought uber-conservatism out for the tumbleweeds in mainstream American...but to most Americans they don't understand or care about that...they love Reagan because he made them love their country again....he made them remember why this is the greatest country in the world. That was Reagan's talent.

    And I see this talent in Obama. He speaks about hope. He make people remember why they love this country. He is the walking, breathing version of the American dream.

    This country has gone through hell since 9-11. We are still hurt. We were mad, angry, and scared which is why we had a very close presdiental election and reelected GW Bush...but our country is starting to come out of it. We are finally realizing we need something to heal us...and some one to show us how.

    I believe Obama is the man that can make that happen. Obama will let us see how great we are and more importantly how great we can be....American is asking...no...begging for this...and Democrats are the right party to make this happen...and Obama is the right man to lead us.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Obama should make a run for it, but three years on the national stage isn't going to be enough to get him there. I see him following the path of JFK, who made a bid in 1956, after entering the Senate in 1953, then making it in 1960. Of course, unlike the situation with JFK, I certainly hope there is a Democrat in the White House as of 2008--and that Obama is biding his time as Vice President.

  • (Show?)

    In descending order and starting with populists-who-actually-are-progressives:

    Governor Schweitzer of Montana (actual rancher) John Edwards (who really is up-from-the-gutter, to quote our very own Cherry Poppin' Daddies)

    Popular-politicians-who-can-play-progressives-on-TV:

    Bill Richardson Barack Obama

    <hr/>

    Ms. Clinton is not on my radar unless she teams up with Chuck Butcher in the Prez slot.....

    <hr/>

    The 27% of the population that is clinically insane will torpedo the cross dressing Guliani on the R side, and he's the closest thing that they have to a progessive...

open discussion

connect with blueoregon