Joe Biden ⇓ Biden hasn’t done much to distinguish himself in the last month, in all honesty. Latching on to Chris Dodd’s efforts don’t help him in the long run, either. The new plan, attacking fellow Democrats, doesn’t seem like a winner either.
Hillary Clinton ⇑ How high is the ceiling for this candidacy? Although she doesn’t like being called the frontrunner, she is. Frankly, given the fact that she has somehow adding to her lead (eight more points according to Rasmussen, 12 points according to FOXNews, 8 points according to Gallup) she may be the prohibitive favorite. We’re at the point where the only person who can keep Hillary Clinton from getting this nomination is Hillary Clinton.
Stephen Colbert ⇑ The wildly popular and widely loved parodist appears serious about getting on the ballot in South Carolina. This is one way to mess with the snotty, privileged “early states”.
Chris Dodd ⇑ The good karma from last month’s IAAF endorsement rolls on, as Dodd pulls in huge amounts of money for being the first (and for a while only) Senator to stand up against the FISA bill. His hold on the bill to reward telecom companies for violating privacy rights marks him out. This is his moment, right here. How long does it last, and how far does it take him?
John Edwards ⇑ Oh, I SEIU! SEIU decides not to endorse a candidate in the primary — a majority liked Edwards, but not the required 60%. Though this robs Edwards of the national money he needs, endorsements from the SEIU chapters in Iowa and California mean a lot. We come back to the same place — to survive into March, Edwards needs to win Iowa. His chances improved a bit this month.
Mike Gravel ⇔ The only man challenging Fred Thompson for “most anemic campaign”. The stakes are getting too high to include him in debates anymore. Let him go one-on-one with Lyndon LaRouche.
Dennis Kucinich ⇔ Cunningly appears on the Colbert Report to remind people that he is alive.
Barack Obama ⇔ SEIU endorsements in Illinois and Indiana are a pale imitation of Edwards’ scores. His recent strategy of campaigning in non-early spots (such as Madison and East LA) is curious — he has the money to survive early losses. Obama’s best shot? Probably hoping that Edwards craters early, and swings over to him. But sending out the spouse to level character attacks is not befitting of a future president.
Bill Richardson ⇓ The clearest policies on Iraq and education only get you so far. Richardson may be the first candidate to have already peaked. VP? SoS is starting to look good these days…
How’s the old saying go? “Everything I have is for sale except my wife and I’m giving her away”
Either you are incredibly brilliant, or we are both unbelievably wrong. I agree with your analysis.
gospel tour with Donnie McClurkin? I’ve got to wonder what Deval Patrick makes of that move. Hopefully, Obama will cancel those events. Otherwise, I’d say his arrow is decidely down.
We need some serious candidates to step aside…Hey (Senator) Richardson Im talking to you run for an easier race already. Hey Biden your IA strategy wont work..move on…Hey Edwards your not going to win enjoy these last years with your wife…
<
p>
Id say if it came down to Obama, and Hillary itd be a great race, but he needs to start getting serious about the issues and about preventing her nomination, and the party needs to get serious about uniting behind an anybody-but-Hillary standard bearer and fast or else we get President Guiliani.
<
p>
Also at this point Im kinda glad Bloomberg is considering a run to give me an option I might vote for…
<
p>
What a shitty cycle if we get a lesser of two evils choice again
I totally agree that the only one who can stop Senator Clinton is Clinton. If she makes a serious blunder, she opens the door. The reality is that Hillary is a very good, stand alone candidate. When you add Bill to the mix, they become the highly favored Team-to-Beat.
<
p>
The more I hear from Chris Dodd, the better I like him. Too bad he won’t be a VP candidate.
<
p>
VP – Tom Vilsack
Enviromental Secretary – Al Gore
I diasagree with your assesment that “the only one who can stop Senator Clinton is Clinton”.
IMO the only one that can stop Hillary is the concentrated media conglomerate. It could do that at will if and when it chooses to. There is certainly more than enough ammo out there. The question is, will the free pass continue?
Every time I turn on a TV there is some talking head explaining why Hillary can’t win. Geesh, they even have opinions on why her clothes aren’t presidential.
<
p>
IMO, there are no perfect candidates. Clinton, Obama, Edwards are like the rest of us – flawed in some way. You can’t have survived in politics without having associations that opponents can and will call into question.
<
p>
Senator Clinton is running the strongest campaign right now. She has money and field. She has 8 years of the Clinton Presidency to remind people about. No other candidate in the Dem primary has those advantages.
Come on now. How can you compare those disjointed grumblings to what the media can really do when it has a mind to?
The Dean Scream? The Kerry “slip up”? The Imus joke?
Wait, watch, learn …
No way. He brings nothing to the ticket, IMHO — he’s painfully boring on the stump, he can’t serve the traditional VP attack dog function, and Iowa isn’t that important in the general.
<
p>
I still think it’ll be Clinton/Obama. If that’s not it, it’ll be someone weird like Ben Nelson (though I think that’s quite unlikely). Or, I suppose, there’s always the faint prospect of a “unity ticket” with Chuck Hagel. Now that’d be interesting …
I agree he isn’t a ball of fire and woouldn’t be the most effective attack dog but… popular Democratic Governor of a Red State. The Dems need to flip one state. (I would be agruing for Warner but his decision to run for US Senate in Virginia takes him off the short list). If the Dems flip Iowa (or VA or damnit Ohio)they will. Plus, Clinton likes Vilsack personally.
It won’t be Clinton/Obama for 4 reasons.
<
p>
1) Obama is competition for Clinton. Obama has been the only candidate who can keep up with her in terms of fundraising. Realistically, unless there is a major surge in Iowa for Edwards (which there very well might be), Obama is the only candidate standing in Clinton’s way for the nomination. Edwards simply can’t raise the cash. Clinton ain’t gonna forget that.
<
p>
More, if he stays in the Senate, he’s much less a danger for Clinton in the future. On the stump and during her presidency, comparisons between the two will be rampant. Her perceived “cold and calcualted” DC insiderish style vs. his “inspiring” and “grassrootsy” feel may complement eachother nicely, but ultimately Clinton doesn’t want the competition. Nor does she want to share the spotlight. When she’s elected, the headlines will be “first female president,” not “first female president AND first black VP”. Along those same lines, Clinton is a cautious politician. She doesn’t want to push the envelope too much when it comes to race and gender.
<
p>
2) No help on the electoral map. What state does Obama help bring in that Clinton can’t take on her own? Illinois? Give me a break. Electorally, Obama doesn’t help, and he may hurt in places we can win — like Virginia.
<
p>
3) Obama isn’t a good attack dog. Obama may be “sharpening” his positions against Clinton, but he has not proven that he can go point for point bareknuckled on the stump. If anything he’d be like Edwards v. Cheney – showing glaring inexperience next to a seasoned veteran. Assuming, of course, that the Republicans have a seasoned veteran on their side as VP.
<
p>
4) Vilsack is boring, but VP selection is rarely made by who is interesting. Cheney, Lieberman, Gore, Bush I…none of these VPs (or rightfully elected VP in the case of Lieberman) were the most inspiring of choices.
<
p>
2. Obama doesn’t “bring in a state” — but he could bring in a whole lot of voters in a lot of states that are exactly the ones Clinton might have trouble reaching. That’s likely to be more helpful, IMHO, since a lot of the states Kerry lost were by small margins. Obama can make states competitive that otherwise wouldn’t be. Vilsack maybe brings in Iowa, but is of zero use in every other state in the country. Plus, why would Obama hurt in VA? Because he’s black? I don’t accept that, and I don’t think we should play into it. I am similarly skeptical of the argument that Clinton doesn’t want to “push the envelope.” To the contrary, I do think that she wants to make history, and what better way to do it?
<
p>
3. Remains to be seen. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I think Obama might actually be a pretty good attack dog. He’s holding his fire against Clinton for the sake of not tearing down the likely nominee. He won’t need to do that in the general.
<
p>
4. I actually think Cheney was a brilliant VP pick and has a lot to do with why Bush came as close as he did to winning in 2000, and why he won again in 2004. And just because past VPs have been boring isn’t much of an argument for continuing that tradition.
both Clinton & Obama have to be careful not to lose one voter block by cultivating another. as your recent diary shows, David, Obama may be courting the religious voters at the expense of the LGBT & Allies voters. The jury is still out on that of course, but this isn’t a new problem and it will continue beyond however this Mcclurken incident pans out. If Clinton chooses Obama to strengthen her appeal to black voters, they are both going to have to find a way other than conservative religion to try to appeal to them. othewise, Obama cancels out as much as he brings to a ticket.
…much as I have believed him too inexperienced to be president. But with this latest revelation, not a chance.
<
p>
It was Lieberman’s (a Jew) pandering to conservative christian churches in Detroit that turned me off to Gore/Lieberman. But Obama’s pandering to homophobes before he even has a nomination is revolting.
<
p>
2. David, have a little bit more faith in me. It’s not because he’s black. I don’t really see how Obama brings in voters Clinton couldn’t reach. Which constituency does Obama bring in that Clinton won’t win? Let’s break it down by Obama’s base: Progressives, moderate “consensus building” voters, youth, African-Americans. I’m sure you’ll let me know if I missed a major branch.
<
p>
Progressives:
I don’t see progressives turning to a third candidate, and I don’t think there will be nearly as widespread disaffection on the D side as people think with a Hillary candidacy. For two reasons. (A) Democrats of all stripes want the White House bad and Hillary is much better than any Republican. As much as people say they don’t like Clinton, they hate Republicans, and progressives have learned the lessons of 2004. (B) Clinton is a really good campaigner and will be able to whip up just as much support on the D side as Obama would be able to.
<
p>
More moderate voters: The Clintons have appealed to moderate voters for literally decades. I don’t think they’ll have a harder time reaching out to middle class moderates than Obama. If anything Obama is seen as more progressive than Clinton. And while Clinton may be more “divisive” than Obama, I don’t think the Republicans are really fielding a candidate that is less divisive. Giuliani, maybe, but he’s moving to the authoritarian right. We’ll see…
<
p>
Youth:
Democrats in general win this group. Kerry totally slammed Bush among the youth. I haven’t seen any evidence that Clinton is less popular among young folk than Kerry was.
<
p>
African-Americans:
This is a group is one that has been split between Obama and Hillary, it being a major move that African-American voters are shifting away from the Clintons to Obama. But they’re not going anywhere.
<
p>
That’s Obama’s base. I don’t think he’s going to pull in a suddenly new group of people in the general, but I may be wrong. Independents? Maybe, but Democrats in general lead among Is.
<
p>
3. Okay, well, we’ll see.
<
p>
4. I agree that Cheney was a good VP pick from the point of view of BushCo. But it’s not like either Cheney or Lieberman was your most charismatic picks. And I didn’t say it was tradition, I’m just saying of the folks who have actually been elected to VP slot (majority) — Cheney, Cheney/Lieberman, Gore, Gore, Quayle, Bush I — only Quayle has been your young supposedly charming (ick) fellow.
The Clintons didn’t seem to fear being upstaged by Gore, who was no slouch in 1992.
<
p>
The “too many firsts for one election” notion might give them pause though, I agree.
before Obama will.
<
p>
It makes no sense…there is no case to be made…he brings nothing she would/could not get without him.
<
p>
On the other hand…Richardson (NM, experience and resume) or Warner (VA,key flip state) have more to offer.
Richardson may have had a shot at the VP slot before, but he’s been so lousy in this campaign that he’s out, IMHO. Warner (Mark) is running for Senate in VA to take over Warner (John)’s seat — if he’d wanted to run for VP, he’d have been in the presidential campaign (as many thought he would be).
<
p>
And I disagree that Obama brings nothing that Clinton doesn’t already have. What about the record-setting numbers of small donors? Those folks all vote, and they all like Obama (presumably more than they like Clinton). If she can bring in the “movement” that’s backing Obama, that helps her campaign across the country, not in just one or two states.
It’s Webb, Clark or Strickland. It’s true that Obama had alot of small donors, but part of why Hillary has lagged here is becase she hasn’t been very aggressive at raising them. But she is doing this now and I think when/if she is the first woman running for President, she will have absolutely no problem attracting new voters. Further, I don’t think it is perticularly helpful for Obama to become VP. I think he’d rather go back to the Senate with his new found status or perhaps run for Governor of Il. Being second fiddle to Hillary doesn’t do much for him.
is a real possibility. Friend of the Clintons; big endorsement of Hillary; obvious “national security” cred.
<
p>
But I don’t agree that being second fiddle doesn’t help Obama. If Obama is Hillary’s VP, he’s president in 8 years if things go well. Pretty good deal.
He would definately be a prime VP candidate. I have to agree with the Obama doesn’t bring anything else to the ticket crowd. I think this is all about flipping one state from Red to Blue.
<
p>
That said – can Richardson flip NM or NV with strong Latino vote? If he can, his stock rises as the Dems head to the convention.
Why is Obama touring with ‘ex-gay’ homophobe Donnie McClurkin?
that is really an unfortunate choice.
The nominees will be decided long before we ever get to vote here in MA. As such maybe we should all just write in Colbert. đŸ˜›
Hedda Lettuce has been
just the ticketon the ticket for nigh on a year now. get with the program already!<
p>
Obama is not backtracking on his plans to pander to homophobes for votes this weekend. So, Obama for VP? Not if I can help it. I will now oppose his efforts for any national office. What a two-faced jerk.