Joe Biden ⇔ I’d love to hear from somebody somewhere who is supporting Joe’s run. So that I can ask why…he’s a good enough feller, but what does he offer that nobody else does?
Hillary Clinton ⇔ Earth to blogosphere: Hillary remains the clear favorite for the nomination. She outraises, outhustles, and outshines everybody else. This may not be the case in a few months, but there are thousands of people who don’t blog who want this woman to be president. And they vote same as us.
Chris Dodd ⇔ Outraises Biden for quarter one, surging to lead the ongoing battle for fifth place.
John Edwards ⇑ Handled the conversation about the return of Elizabeth’s cancer with the class and dignity we’ve come to expect, and others need (*ahem*Couric*). He’s the guy you want living next door, but is he the guy you want living at 1600 Penn?
Mike Gravel ⇔ Any month that ends with him still in the race is a good month for Gravel.
Dennis Kucinich ⇔ Do you think he’ll release his delegates at the 2008 convention (in case he doesn’t win that is)?
Barack Obama ⇔ A strong second in fundraising, with a wide donor base — we think. Still hasn’t released numbers, though the $22 mln number is a rather stable rumor. And then announces he will undercut the Democratic Party, refusing to force Bush to bring the troops home by cutting funding. Does Barack do refunds?
Bill Richardson ⇔ How long can a candidate stay just out of the spotlight?
So there we have it.
check out today’s Unger Report for a well-deserved review of her ahem sources.
I would say that when we hear firm numbers about Obama’s fundraising. (At my seder tonight I heard 21 million with 80,000 people donating, is that accurate?) If that’s true then I’d put Obama on up arrow, though, of course behind Hillary.
<
p>
You’re right to point out that Hillary is the front-runner on the national scale. Anybody to point out anything different isn’t looking at the data correctly. However, As we’ve seen in the past the winner of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary can easily catapulted to first place, even if he/she trailed behind in the national polls almost the entire race. I urge you to look at teh chart on pollster’s post on primary timing to show how
By the way, it’s worth noting that Kerry’s support was high in Iowa before the “Dean scream.” And then that campaign collapsed further boosting Kerry to be the winner.
<
p>
So looking at just Iowa for a moment, right now it appears that Hillary is actually “in second” (if polls within the MOE mean anything, anyway) there.
<
p>
Edwards: 27 (24)
Clinton: 25 (24)
Obama: 23 (18)
<
p>
and
<
p>
Edwards: 30.2
Clinton: 24.4
Obama: 22.1
<
p>
My point in saying all this isn’t that Hillary isn’t the lead, but that she’s mostly in the lead nationally which, at least going by 2004, means very little and a beefed up early primary season could mean even less.
Hey Sabutai I agree with your rankings and the logic behind them and I think this is a great series that you should continue to do. I do take task with your quote about Obama that he “then announces he will undercut the Democratic Party, refusing to force Bush to bring the troops home by cutting funding. Does Barack do refunds?”
<
p>
Actually using that logic every House Democrat and Speaker Pelosi are undercutting the party since they backed a proposal that does not cut funding but merely attaches it to timetables. While I disagree with that proposal and disagree with Obama’s support of it he is entirely in line with the official policy of the Democratic party and is not undercutting it at all but rather supporting it. Undercutting his support among anti war liberals perhaps?
First of all, I’d say that something Obama says is taken far more seriously than something from the mouth of an anonymous freshman in the House. Given that Obama is running for president, and he represents a solidly blue state, breaking with the party comes across more seriously than say, Nick Lampson. Particularly in the Senate, where the vote margin is so thin to begin with. The Dems can afford to lose one or two representatives, not as true with senators.
<
p>
Secondly, when you have the Dem leadership in both houses preparing to vote on cutting funding, when it was a major plank of the Democratic campaign in 2006, then yes I think it’s fair to say that you are undercutting the party. Not the entire party, but once you’re disagreeing with the rank-and-file and the leadership, with whom are you agreeing? And given that cutting funding to force Bush’s hand is the majority popular position right now in polling, it’s more accurate to say “antiwar mainstream” rather than “antiwar liberals”.
So tell me, how’s he doing there?
<
p>
Or is he just the candidate the Dem side HOPES will win (full disclosure – I voted for Hillary on your poll)?
Apparently he wanted to be the Dem VP candidate in 2004. How will this play out among present-day Repubs?
…but once again, he does not disappoint.
<
p>
A chance remark interrupted by a phone call isn’t exactly Mark Felt, but Sen. Kerry needs to clarify this with a statement. What a knife-twisting SOB he seems to be.