<p>2 Baby Senators on a presidential ticket? hmmmmm. Baby Governors seem to fly, but even long term senators drop like flies. Americans get caught up with a congressional voting record, though they don’t espeically pay attention to a Governor’s record. </p>
<p>If the Dems were playing a long game they would throw money/organization at Obama for Gov of Illinois. He could be a contender for 2012.</p>
<p>Agree about Sharpton. Remember reading a lengthy article on the ups and downs of his career. </p>
<p>It’s never too early to handicap. You can bet that Harold Ickes and Co. are handicapping inot the wee wee hours.</p>
<p>“If you ever get a chance to see Sharpton on Bill O’Reilly’s show, don’t miss it. It is very clear that they both like each other and enjoy the sparring match.”</p>
<p>I think Moore and O’Reilley would make a better combination don you think? :)</p>
<p>mini - great post. Naturally, I agree with you on all points (smiley face!)</p>
<p>I also agree with some of the other posts here who say Rudy is star power for the Republicans. It will be interesting, though, watching republicans who frothed at the mouth about Clinton’s morals (“how can you trust a man if his wife can’t trust him?”) dealing with a man who wanted to move his mistress (was it his second or third? I lost track) into the governor’s mansion, along with his wife and kids. Ah, yes, America’s mayor. </p>
<p>2008 will be a fascinating election! I never thought I might actually look forward to another campaign season.</p>
<p>No. I’ve seen Moore on O’Reilly’s show. It wasn’t very interesting or witty. Moore’s a bore in my opinion. He’s like listening to UFO or Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs.</p>
<p>Sharpton is on regularly and parries O’Reilly like nobody else. You can tell the two of them are really enjoying themselves. I suspect that Sharpton appreciates all the money O’Reilly gives to primarily black inner-city children’s charities.</p>
<p>I almost voted for Sharpton in the Mass. democratic primary. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Kerry. Fortunately, Lieberman’s name was still on the ballot even though he had dropped out of the race, so I had a candidate to vote for who I actually liked.</p>
<p>Governorship, in general, is a much better office from which to run for president. Bush II, Clinton, and Carter were all governors, and Reagan was an ex-governor. The last US Senator to be elected president was John Kennedy.</p>
<p>Senators have no administrative responsibilities and achievements to brag about, and they have hundreds of votes on record that can be picked apart and exploited by their opponents.</p>
<p>Romney is on record as being pro-choice. He has no prayer of getting the Republican nomination. </p>
<p>Same disqualification applies to both Colin Powell and Condi Rice and Rudi Guliani. It’s the ball and chain that centrist Republicans have to drag around.</p>
<p>There is no room in the GOP tent for a pro-choice candidate, or even for a candidate who is not dogmatically in favor of reversing Roe v Wade.</p>
<p>Sorry, Mitt. Maybe you could find a political future in the Democratic party.</p>
<p>Zagat, I agree about Obama but no first-term Senator with only four years in is going to be a serious contender. I think Obama’s number may be called in 2012 (if Dems lose 2008) or 2016 if Dems win. May they win for a generation but not a) get complacent or b) bog down in internecine warfare. Wait a sec…b) is clearly out of reach, these are Democrats we’re talking about.</p>
<p>If you research Rice, the operative phrase you will find among reporters and analysts is “mildly pro-choice”; you’ll also find that most observers find her “coy” on the subject. So, “strongly pro-choice” isn’t accurate. Regardless, her current (vague) stance on abortion can’t be factored into a candicacy as far out as 2012. I think she is not right for 2008 more due to the fact that she’s never held elective office, and has only held high office recently. Abortion is an issue in primaries, for sure, but it is more of a litmus test in the Democratic party than the Republican party these days. Would the Republican delegates prefer an ardently pro-choice candidate? Absolutely. Will they commit political suicide over ideological purity? No…those days are gone. Speaking as one who knows a lot more Republican delegates than you do.</p>
<p>You can’t be “mildly pro-choice” and raise money for a Presidential run in the Republican party or carry the key primary states required for the nomination.</p>
<p>Rice is dreaming if she thinks calling herself “mildly pro-choice” will fly. Look what the Republicans did to Bill Weld when he was nominated to be Ambassador to Mexico. The Republican controlled Senate, bought and paid for by the Fallwell crowd, wouldn’t even allow his nomination to get out of committee for a hearing.</p>
Says you. As I said, 2008 isn’t the right time for Condaleeza Rice to run for president. But you, up there in Barnie Frank/JohnKerrey/TedKennedy Land aren’t in any position to gauge what’s going on in the real Republican world.</p>
<p>What’s Condoleeza Rice’s positon on the teaching of evolution. That seems to be emerging into a hot-button issue for the Republicans.</p>
<p>Of course, if the Republican-controlled State governments ever tire of their “evolution” warning stickers in textbooks, maybe they could push for this one:</p>
<p>“This textbook suggests that the earth
is spherical. The shape of the earth is
a controversial topic, and not all
people accept the theory. This
material should be approached with
an open mind, studied carefully, and
critically considered.”</p>