If Bayh, Clinton, Edwards, Gore and Warner are '08 top 5, who are 6-10?

[DeepModem Mom]

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza

....we are dedicating this month's Friday presidential Line to the candidates that rank 6-10 in each party -- those people who could in theory make a run at the nomination but have one (or many) things holding them back. (Listed alphabetically.)...

***

DEMOCRATS (Senator Joe Biden is first on the list, followed by these four possible candidates.)

Wesley Clark: Clark's campaign in 2004 began among online activists who organized a draft movement that eventually led to the retired general's entrance into the race. At that point he brought on a number of political professionals who oversaw his short-lived effort, which began with great expectations and ended with a classic Washington blame game. In the wake of that race, Clark's support has devolved to grassroots supporters who are agitating for a second bid in 2008. He has an active and loyal web following and is doing interesting things through his WESPAC website; the latest is a podcast interview with Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe (D) who is running for governor. Having said all of that, it's hard to see where Clark's financial support comes from with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the contest. Many of his staffers and supporters were Clinton administration veterans and the expectation is that many if not all of those operatives will be with Sen. Clinton in 2008. Clark has raised just over $250,000 for his leadership PAC this year -- not an impressive sum.

Russ Feingold: We reserve the right to move Feingold into the top five at some time between now and January 2008. In order for Feingold to move, however, he needs former Vice President Al Gore to stay on the sidelines since both men fill a similar niche in the field (vocally anti-war, hero to the liberal left) and Gore is the bigger figure -- figuratively and literally -- on the national stage. Count us impressed by Feingold's commitment to fundraising this year. Through his Progressive Patriots Fund he had raised nearly $1 million so far in 2006 and since he won re-election in 2004 Feingold has collected $2.5 million for his personal Senate campaign committee. He had a solid $1.5 million on hand at the end of June in that account, all of which can be transferred to a presidential committee. Feingold could well surprise in Iowa given the strongly anti-war sentiment of likely caucus voters, but it is an open question whether he could pivot off a strong showing there to be competitive in other early states.

John Kerry: Before we added Gore to the presidential Line last month Kerry had consistently broken into the top five. His fundraising through his leadership PAC, Keeping America's Promise, has continued to be strong and Kerry has emerged as a leading critic of the Iraq war within the party. His travel schedule also makes us think he is running; he is in Iowa today to appear at an event with Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and bicycling legend Lance Armstrong, who is in the Hawkeye state for the annual RAGBRAI ride across Iowa. Tomorrow Kerry will raise money for a state House and state Senate candidate. Most people within the Beltway dismiss the idea that Kerry has any chance and we are sympathetic to the argument that Democrats have not tended to treat their past presidential losers all that well. Still, should Kerry run, his name identification, experience from the last campaign, and more than $10 million that could immediately transfer to a presidential account would force the other candidates to take him seriously.

Bill Richardson: On paper, Richardson belongs in the top five. No candidate in the field has the resume depth of the New Mexico governor: former member of Congress, U. N. Ambassador, cabinet secretary and now chief executive of a state. Plus he is Hispanic -- the fastest growing population in the country. But we are hesitant about treating Richardson as a top-tier candidate for one reason: discipline (or the lack of it). Richardson is an ebullient personality who seems to love the back and forth of politics. But we are not convinced that he can develop a message and stick to it for months on end. A successful presidential candidate needs to be committed to regular repetition of the basic message each day. Can Richardson stick to that kind of rigid script?...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

[wyldwolf]

1. I'd refer to Pollingreport.com

[Mass]

2. Within the Belway talks. Thanksfully, early pimaries are not held within

the beltway.

(This is not aimed at Clark, but at the criteria by with the n 1-5 list has been made).

Sadly, with the exception of Gore, the Fix list pushes the idea that Democrats ignore totally experience and competency as criteria.

[wisteria]

3. Kerry should be in the top five, but when someone uses unreasonably

reasoning to come to a conclusion, you are bound to see questionable results like these. I am sticking by Senator kerry. This is all just inside speculation and nonsense.

[lastknowngood]

4. Then I'm staying home

n/t

[DemPopulist]

5. I really wouldn't quibble with that list too much

Except I'd put Feingold in the top five and Bayh below Clark & Kerry. I just don't take him seriously.

[FrenchieCat]

6. What-E-ver......

Politics, as usual.......

I am becoming more and more detached to the eventual reality of who will become the nominee, and am starting not to care so much already....especially because I have this nagging doubt that we will NOT do as well as we want to for election 2006....meaning the Democratic party, as a whole, still doesn't have a clue as to how to beat the Ruthless GOP and it's media.

From here, unfortunately, It looks like Clinton or Edwards or Bayh or Warner, if Gore doesn't throw his hat in the ring.

So other than Gore, they all (except for Warner who supported it till "they" said it was no longer popular) voted for the IWR (some are now sorry and some are not yet) which shows fucked up judgement at the time that it counted from every last one of them....regardless if they have, after the fact, seen the light.

How so unexciting...... To think that instead of voting for a leader (unless Gore runs, cause they will make sure that Clark doesn't), it will be politics as usual; Democrats being off the mark, and totally misinterpreting what the issues are that would win the elections this time round! :boring:

[karynnj]

11. Frenchie cat,

I wouldn't despair this quickly - consider how the view looked in July 2002 - I think Lieberman, Clinton and Gore were the people people were talking about.

Then in July 2003, Dean was emerging from the back - but at least in NH, (in a CSPAN Road to the WH) Kerry, after being asked about Dean was asked if he would give up if Hillary or Gore entered the race.

At that point, Clark wasn't a potential candidate and few had heard of Edwards.

In a Nov 2003 poll, Kerry was tied with Sharpton - who wasn't doing too well.

I wouldn't take this too seriously - this is DC beltway. Note that 3 of the 4 From DLC candidates are in the top 5. Added to that are 2 Southern centrists. (I respect Gore - and he is a fantastic advocate on global warming, but he really was a Southern centrist his entire career. It sounds as though he has rejected the hawkish of his political career and he may have changed otherwise. Like others said here including you, he's the only one I am the least interested in.)

This is also just one pundit's analysis - just consider how well they did in 2004. The pundits went into caucus day still saying Dean and Gephardt - even then they were totally wrong. A month earlier they were talking of when Kerry would pull out.

Also, look at how inconsistent his reasons are - neither Warner nor Bayh have generated any support in polls I've seen. Warner has gotten a lot of media attention - even a NYT magazine cover and I think some newsmagazine covers and he has key blog people working for him - but still no numbers. That can't be good news. It may be too early and Warner may gain ground, but at this point I don't see the groundswell. Also, if CW is that it will be Clinton plus an anti-Clinton there aren't too many anti-Clintons here.

You just sounded so down - I just thought it would be good to say these things. :)

[FrenchieCat]

22. Thanks Karynnj,

That was very nice of you!

And yes, you are right....With all that is going on now, it so easy to be down.....

Thanks again! :hi:

[Placebo]

7. Biden, Feingold, Kerry, Richardson, Vilsack...

I'm guessing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. My reply to "The Fix" regarding Wes Clark (I just had to write them)

It's well past time for you to update your basic talking point on Wes Clark. Sure he has a strong Internet following, as you point out, and yes he doesn't have millions piled up sitting in the bank for a 2008 run, which you also point out. That states the obvious with about as much insight and nuance as a science reporter revealing that planet Earth is mostly covered by ocean.

The impression I get from your summary is of General Clark hunched over a keyboard in his personal office, corresponding with supporters over the Internet. It's true, he does do that, but actually Wes Clark is seldom in his personal office because he is much more often on the road, keynoting State and Regional Democratic gatherings and campaigning for a host of candidates now running for election in 2006.

Wes Clark may not be a fixture on the Sunday morning Washington TV circuit, but he is a frequent traveler to States and Congressional Districts where new and talented Democrats are fighting to unseat Republican incumbents.

Clark's support isn't just an Internet phenomena. More and more that aspect of his base is being eclipsed in enthusiasm by Democratic activists from districts and States that the National Democratic Party usually writes off during the 4 year Presidential election cycles. Clark is out there fighting for them, and they have taken note and they appreciate it.

Clark's PAC can't keep up with all the requests he receives to campaign for Democrats fighting for the very upset victories it will take for the Democratic Party to regain control of Congress this November. And Democrats in those States and Districts choose Delegates to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 just as surely as do those in Maryland and Illinois.

Wes Clark consciously chose to throw his heart and soul and the wallets of his potential contributors into the Democratic fight to retake Congress in 2006, and that takes him to a lot of unglamorous places speaking on behalf of Democrats who are by no means yet recognized power brokers in the Party. It may not do a lot for "Presidential Buzz" but it does a Hell of a lot for the Democratic Party, and it seems shoddy for you to not have even noted the strenuous road schedule Wes Clark is keeping appearing before Democrats across the nation. There is a lot more to report on than just Clark's "active and loyal web "following".

And when you wrote: "The depth and acuity of his foreign policy knowledge is unmatched among the Democrats considering a 2008 bid and he presents his disagreements with the Bush administration in clear and concise language" are you sure there wasn't some mistake? I could swear you were describing General Clark, but that text somehow got inserted next to Joe Biden.

[DeepModem Mom]

15. That is excellent, Tom! (I was a Clarkie volunteer in '04.) nt

[janx]

9. As much as I admire Richardson,

he has some baggage that would be easily exploited should he win the nomination. (This is what I've heard from folks here in NM.)

[DeepModem Mom]

16. I've heard same, from NM, vaguely hinted at. nt

[AtomicKitten]

10. I sincerely hope Dems choose as their candidate

someone that doesn't have the stink of the IWR on them.

Otherwise I will truly be holding my nose to vote.

It's a deal-breaker for me, something I feel so strongly about. People have tried to convince me otherwise with rationalizations of all kinds. Democrats need to move beyond this shameful point in our history and the best way to do that is to choose someone who didn't enable it in any way.

That's my opinion.

[karynnj]

12. Would you rather have

someone who is essentially saying stay the course and who was not in Congress (but would given all his believes have voted for the IWR (Warner)

or

or someone who voted for it and now say it was wrong (Edwards)?

I'm for neither (as you know)

If Gore doesn't run, this is your choice from the 5 - Hillary and Bayh voted for it and I think neither have renounced their votes.

[AtomicKitten]

13. Gore from that group.

Staying the course is insane.

Realizing and stating a yes vote on the IWR was a tragic mistake in retrospect is something.

But I feel we have a better chance as a country for a fresh start if we elect someone who recognized it was wrong in an epic way from the get-go.

I realize things may not go down that way and I may have to rethink the race at some point, but I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

[karynnj]

20. Nice answer to a tough question

[blm]

21. Read Gore's speech from Sept.2002 - his suggestions for the IWR would

not have prevented war any more than Biden-Lugar did. He also says in that speech that Bush already can go into Iraq legally thru the 1991 UN res.

[AtomicKitten]

23. you are being rather selective and mischaracterizing what he said

... "Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint."

He is expressing the view that we should work within the framework of international law. This was a hypothetical, a legal analysis; he made it clear Iraq was not a legitimate target in the war on terrorism.

He then went on to talk about how Bush I built a coalition to help shoulder the responsibility as well as the financial burden. He also commented on the fact that Junior was pushing this vote BEFORE an election, which I commented on above, and that Bush I waited until after the midterm election.

But more importantly he made it really clear in the speech that Iraq should not be the focus of fighting the war on terror, that we should go after the actual perpetrators of 9/11.

I don't see how you could possibly come to the conclusions you have other than vis-a-vis an agenda.

So, I would venture to guess that you don't like Gore.

I have this thing about honesty, for myself and for others in all situations. It doesn't make your case against Gore to mischaracterize what he has said. And he deserves credit for coming out against this folly before it was cool.

[blm]

24. You've assumed wrong. The point is that you can pick out the parts of ANY

speeches of the time and see pretty much the same thing, if the speaker was a Democrat with deep knowledge of the region and its history.

Gore was not FOR war unless it was unavoidable, but the suggestions he made for the IWR would not have STOPPED the war any more than Biden-Lugar would have or the IWR that passed.

The mistake so many seem to make is in believing that the IWR took us to war - it did not. In fact, it would have prevented war if its guidelines had been adhered to.

ANYONE can be selective about a speech and pick out the parts that prove their point - what matters is the actual APPLICATION of what the speech suggests or offers - what would the end results have been? These men are not black and white thinking men - they are intelligent, nuanced, and usually address every side of an issue in their speeches, that is why it is important to NOT cherry-pick their speeches but take them at their whole.

You all claim his speech was anti-war, when it was just as antiwar as Kerry's speech from that time - but - had an IWR passed that had Gore's suggested guidelines in it, war would have happened anyway, and then would you be angry that Gore supported an IWR that passed as per his suggestions?

[AtomicKitten]

14. Let me add that I have sympathy

for those Dems in Congress that voted yes on the IWR and maybe weren't thrilled to do so. The Republicans did to them what they did to Clinton when he was running for re-election in 1996. The Republicans cough up some major piece of legislation prior to an election (for Clinton it was DOMA) and dare them not to sign on. Idealistically our politicians would do the right thing knowing it probably would end their political career, just as the Rs planned, so the judgment I pass on them is with that caveat. This particular war is so heinous, I find myself not particularly forgiving at this point.

[blm]

18. EVERY person who has supported any of Reagan-Bush policies has enabled

what's happening today.

The 1991 UN res. enabled what's happening today.

IWR isn't even CLOSE to being responsible for what's happening today. I think it's a shame that the IWR is still used to hide all the other crap that actually led us down this path.

It certainly was convenient for Bush that people targeted the IWR for four years instead of the actual source of his path to war.

[AtomicKitten]

19. we can only change what is before us now

but I also believe a reckoning is in order for it all.

[NoodleBoy]

17. Richardson would have a hard time breaking in to grassroots support

which will probably be a larger factor than anyone is currently considering for 2008.

He really doesn't seem to have any qualms about letting Dems hang and abandoning any and all sense of progressive principles if it means he can make political hay out of it.

and, he has the same problem as Clark, many of his potential pro supporters would be former Clintonites or DLC people, who'd flock to Hillary.