<p>Looks like Mark Warner is set to announce for a Senate run against Tom Davis in Virginia.</p>
<p>Now, if someone could just talk some sense into Bill Richardson. Get him to switch his sights and knock off Pete Dominici in New Mexico.</p>
<p>The only good thing about Bush’s strategy of “Stay the course, with an 18 month interlude of escalation” is that it puts even more Republican seats at risk. Susan Collins will be toast if we still have 130,000 troops in Iraq on election day 2008.</p>
<p>The Republicans are on verge of drowning, dipping under water and gasping for air. George Bush is like the drunk fratboy who not only doesn’t recognize that they are drowning, but pushes them under water every few minutes, thinking it’s funny to see them gasp and sputter.</p>
<p>VD…what took you guys so long (except apparently for the old guy)? </p>
<p>Anyway…my certainty goes beyond Republicans. I spend time each and every day with people who I like to call regular folks. They’re not attached to this cause or that one. Regular people. Not Republicans or democrats. Don’t necessarily view themselves as either liberal or conservative. You know the kind…just living their lives.</p>
<p>The few of you here who frequent this site have to be impressed that my view of the world as stated at 11:07 pm in post #16 was confirmed by the illustrious NYT less than an hour later…</p>
<p>The Clinton campaign has returned all of the money to all all of the donors brought to the campaign by Mr. Hsu. No other campaign has done that, including some campaigns (both Republican and Democratic) who have received bundled funds from fundraiser currently under indictment.</p>
<p>John Doolittle, by the way…this will be an interesting race. He barely survived against a Democrat last election–now the Republicans are worried that they might lose his seat and so the Republican primary will be competitive for the first time in a long time. </p>
<p>What is taking so long for the government to decide whether he is fish or fowl (foul)?</p>
<p>Obama’s big problem is that he doesn’t have someone of Bill Clinton’s political ability guiding him. Love him or hate him, the guy really knows how to get elected. Considering how close the Bush/Gore election was, I think Gore made a mistake in not getting Bill’s insight/advice.</p>
<p>… or borrow his Teflon suit? Fwiw, it would be impossible to measure the impact of Gore distancing himself from Bill in 1999 and 2000. We will never know how many Democrats the support of Bill would have delivered to the booths versus how many Republicans. </p>
<p>The same issue will continue to plague HRH Clinton. Her staunchest supporters have come out in droves and will continue to support her blindly and lovingly. The problem will come from the other side of the aisle where people who hate the Clinton reside. An election with a Republican base that feels compelled to vote might be quite different from what is expected from the early polls. In this vein, the anti_clinton polls might be a lot more indicative of the country’s acceptance of our first female president’s name being Clinton. If this is warranted or not is not really part of the debate as voters react more to a candidate’s inage than substance; a fact well documented by every election since the two terms of Ronald Reagan. </p>
<p>All the celebrations and positive polls won’t mean diddly in November 2008. We already saw what the “energized like never before” democrats accomplish when they cheer the Super Bowl champion in October and the winner of the World series in August. I’m wondering if they still have the pompoms in te gararge … just next to the Kerry for President signs.</p>
<p>VoxDei – Is your name less the voice of god than the other side of the motto Vox Populi Vox Dei? </p>
<p>I don’t know where you live but there are plenty of people around her (in my intensely blue county) who aren’t crazy for Hillary but who will come out to work for her if she is the nominee. Those who I know who are Republican (and there are a few in my upscale neighborhood as well as in my immediate family) aren’t crazy about <em>any</em> of the Republican candidates…not one. Giuliani is just too liberal, McCain clings too close to Bush, Thompson is the whipped cream candidate (looks good(!), all air) and Romney has flippy-flopped on every position possible, sometimes more than once. They too will vote for the nominee but an awful lot are saying, “I don’t know…I may stay home. I can’t vote for a Democrat, but these guys…shrug.” Fewer and fewer Republicans are willing to support GWB’s policies and this ennui may well transfer to the Republican nominee (whichever old white dude it turns out to be.)</p>
<p>As for Fox News, polls indicate that people who watch Fox still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks in far greater numbers than people who don’t. This after everybody, even the prez at last, stating that he didn’t, that the war is not connected to 9/11. I guess Fox must have missed that story. </p>
<p>Head on over to Media Matters sometime if you are interested at all in seeing how the Fox people spin, shade, and flat out lie…even if only to prove to yourself that Fox is right. My favorites are always when Bill O’Reilly or others of that ilk say they didn’t say something, the clip goes up at Media Matters, and then Billo attacks Media Matters for quoting him correctly. That joke <em>never</em> gets old!</p>
<p>I wasn’t talking about Bill Clinton bringing in supporters, but rather his acumen in shaping Gore speeches, political strategy, etc. Gore was a very “clunky” candidate–he could have used the help. Who can forget the Saturday Night Live skits of the Bush/Gore debates…</p>
<p>LMNOP, I understand. It does, however, not change much to the fact that Gore felt compelled to distance himself from the President. It was a calculated move, and with the loss came the idle speculation that Gore could have won with Clinton’s support. </p>
<p>We can twist and churn it to death, but the fact remains that the immense popularity of Bill Clinton --and by extension-- of his partner also constitutes a liability in national elections. James Carville declared that it’s not the job of the Democratic Party to bring forward candidates the Conservatives like; Nominating a candidate the other party despises with a passion might be more he bargains for! </p>
<p>Regarding the OP, the sale of our political process to unsavory characters transcends political lines, and no politician is immune to accepting money that can backfire. Fwiw, speaking about immunity and the impact of fundraising, the money raised by moveon.org does seem to buy the right to run innocuous and cutesy ads with the congressional support of one side of the aisle. General Betray US. What a classy group.</p>
<p>Xiggi, do you really think that the GOP isn’t in disarray & depression and that the Democrats aren’t in the stratsophere? And do you really think that Independents haven’t swung emphatically towards the Democrats since 2004?</p>
<p>Those Kerry signs in the garage may be worth money on e-Bay some day and they aren’t taking up much room. Heck, I’ve still got my John Anderson staff pin, a couple of Secret Service pass-of-the-day pins. I’d like to nail the s.o.b. whole stole my original McKinley-Roosevelt button out of my desk at the Navy base when I was 18, however… Just another example of Republican outrage in all likelihood.</p>
<p>One of the early turning points in the 2000 campaign was when Clinton’s pollster/strategist Mark Penn left the Gore campaign after Gore rejected his polling data showing that Bill Clinton would be a positive for Gore. Gore believed that he had to actively distance himself from Clinton and the Clinton administration.</p>
<p>Penn is, of course, Hillary Clinton’s pollster/strategist. It is pretty obvious over the last two weeks that she isn’t planning to make the same mistake Gore made. Bill Clinton has been all over the media in support of his wife’s campaign, cleverly wrapped up in a book tour pitching his new bestseller, Giving.</p>
<p>“His (Obama’s) problem is so obvious a school child could see it. He entered the race with an unprecedented lack of experience. In my lifetime, nobody has ever had the audacity to make a Presidential run just two years removed from a stint in the state legislature. He can’t cross the “commander-in-chief” threshold.” </p>
<p>Agreed, Obama does not have a long political resume–certainly not when compared to the many longtime political stalwarts who are lining up to be our next president. I’m not sure what’s worse: no experience … or experience. Hmmmm.</p>
<p>No, not just in comparison to this year’s candidates. In comparison to any credible Presidential candidate in my lifetime. The next closest in lack of experience were Jimmy Carter, who had been elected to one term as Governor of Georgia and Bush, who had served 1.5 terms as Governor of Texas.</p>
<p>I see what you’re saying. Still … I’m willing to give Obama a chance. He’s obviously very smart and eloquent–unlike the cretinous “decider” we’ve had these past 7 years, and he hasn’t been around long enough to be completely soiled by the political process. Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem is that too many people have rabidly despised her ever since her “baking cookies” remark all those years ago. At this point, I think Obama is the most electable Democrat.</p>
<p>I am, too…after he knuckles down for a few years in the Senate, gets the necessary experience against big league pitching, and invests the hard work to forge connections with the Democratic Party constituent groups such as Latinos, seniors, Jewish voters, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can he be the most “electable” when he is not leading in a single state except his home state of Illinois?</p>
<p>Look at the new Qunnipiac polling for key battleground state Florida released today:</p>
<p>TheDad, it’s not hard to read the current polls. It’s not hard to see that people are not happy with the current political climate, and especially with the War in Iraq. However, while they are obviously ticked off at the current leadership, it does not stop at the White House. What are the recent number of approval for Congress? Were those not supposed to be better with Madame Pelosi solidly at the reins? </p>
<p>My point, and the same I made when we start discussing the last elections is that it might be too early to predict. I know we do not really agree about the history of the rise of Bill Clinton when Bush Elder seemed invincible. </p>
<p>I simply happen to believe that much can change between now and election day, starting with the selection of the nominees. Currently, there are no real and definitive choices; just a bunch of names. From my vantage point, there won’t be a whole lot to choose from, as it has been for a while, we’ll elect the least unelectable candidate. </p>
<p>Politically, our country is as sad as it could be, and it won’t change with the cast of unfits we’ll have to send to the White House. I just do not understand what people cheer about.</p>
<p>The polls have mystified me. Clinton’s popularity among Democrats is obviously very high, though I’m not sure why. (I have a major problem with her war vote.) I’m not sure I believe the polls that show her winning the general election. She has somehow royally antagonized a significant portion of the electorate, right or wrong, and I’m convinced if she’s the Democratic candidate, right-wingers, religious nuts, sexists, and morons of every stripe will turn out in droves to vote against her. Thus, I don’t see her as electable, despite the polls. … Obama’s biggest problem in my opinion is not inexperience, but ethnicity. I’d like to think our country has moved beyond race as a factor in voting, but perhaps it hasn’t. If not Obama, that leaves John Edwards–who will undoubtedly be crucified by the Republican slime machine for his ridiculous $400 haircut. That’s about the level of what we as Americans care about and can comprehend these days.</p>
<p>Well, don’t you think the DNC places its hopes that enough morons of every stripe will turn out in droves to vote FOR her? If we place any credence in I-Dad optimistic polls, she represents the only chance to send the Republican packing. </p>
<p>Speak volumes about the quality of the choices, doesn’t it? Of course, we can always count on morons to pick our elected officials. And even re-elect them to multiple terms.</p>