Report from Ohio Blogger: John Kerry Asks Ohio To Vote Early

[kerrygoddess]

This was just posted on the Dem Daily from one of our Ohio area bloggers - it's great report from JK in Ohio today. They'll be more on Ohio later, too...

John Kerry Asks Ohio To Vote Early
Posted by Javelin
October 3rd, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

Earlier today Senator John Kerry visited Columbus, the state capitol of Ohio. He spoke at a local church community center to a gathering of local residents, media, and politicians about the importance of voting early. There were about four TV stations, a few videocameras, and live blogging through OhioDems. The mayor of Columbus Michael Coleman, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (US Rep. from the Cleveland area), and other local politicians spoke and made comments. Senator Kerry also took some questions from the residents and provided the media with a Q+A session after the event.



The Senator stressed that Ohioans have been blessed with a new law change that allows them to vote early. The law change he was speaking of allows registered voters to cast their ballots from now until election day, whereas in the past absentee balloting was only granted in difficult circumstances and caused a lot of headaches for those requesting to do so.

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4359#more-4359

[kerrygoddess]

1. More Kerry in Ohio: Kerry Wows Students at The Ohio State U

Senator Kerry Wows Students at The Ohio State University
Posted by Javelin
October 3rd, 2006 @ 10:49 pm

After a medium sized event earlier in Columbus, Senator Kerry spoke to a huge crowd of students at Ohio State University, the media and many of the Democratic candidates who are poised to take positions in the state and federal government. Excitement filled the University Union not unlike what was seen in the campaign of 2004.



This was a GOTV event and there were so many students in the East Ballroom with buttons, handouts, yard signs, etc. that it was hard to believe that ‘06 was only a midterm. Each of the other candidates made a short speech and then it was on to the Senator.



After an embrace with Mary Jo Kilroy (a leader in recent polls for a seat in the US House), John Kerry resonated with the crowd immediately with a poke at the GOP. “It’s been an exciting four days for the Republicans in Congress; it’s been a whole four days and not one of them had to resign. And it’s been around six months and Dick Cheney hasn’t shot anybody!”. {eruption of cheers}

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4360#more-4360

[karynnj]

2. I love the first post on KG's blog:

"was unable to travel down to Columbus, to hear him yesterday, but the media sure was on fire after his speech. Several media outlets called John Kerry a rock star who seems to be taking the Country by storm, whether in Ohio or Texas, the crownds keep growing and growing. There is no doubt about it, many in Ohio want to see JFK run in 2008.
So Senator Kerry if your out there, and reading this please run in 2008, America needs John Kerry as there next Commander and Chief. "


This is really really good to hear. What surprises me is that the people blinded by Clinton's past win seem to miss that in an environment of corruption, slease, and lying - what you want is an incorruptable, principled leader, who tells the truth and doesn't give in. Those characteristics don't call out "Clinton" - even in Democrats' minds. This is why both Democrats and Republican have been attacking him - but in 2004, it was the people who saw who he was and in spite of everything against him - he likely persuaded enough people.

[ProSense]

3. Awesome! n/t

[TayTay]

4. This is why a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money

as Consultants for someone else in 2008 want to take him out now.

See this NYTimes review of yet another '04 Campaign film says:

Facing in President Bush an incumbent burdened by a 48 percent approval rating and an unpopular war in Iraq, Senator John Kerry had “probably 20 different ways he could have won,” says the former Clinton adviser Paul Begala. “And he refused to execute on any of them.”

Instead, the campaign is shown juggling multiple messages and lacking a cohesive field strategy. (One particularly painful sequence for Democrats contrasts the door-to-door efforts of volunteers from both camps.) Fatally ignoring both the accusations of the Swift Boat Veterans and the concerns of so-called values voters, Senator Kerry watches as his every misstep is recycled into a Republican attack ad.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/movies/04nati.html

Begala, as a consultant, will never be hired by Kerry again. Neither will Carville or Mike McCarry. So, they are attempting to pre-emptively take out Kerry with the very issue they are vulnerable on themselves, incompetence and irrelevance. It's going to get very nasty in short order.

[karynnj]

5. "going to get" - I think's it's "got"

It is also slimy that the Clintons have clearly started this pre-2006 election. To me this says they are willing to bet that Kerry won't overtly hit back before the election. This lets them "prove" he won't fight back.

There are easy counters to Begala:

He and Carville didn't do there job as Democrat partisana in a partisan media.
Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's man, didn't do a good job with the local parties
Kerry would have won Ohio IF THE PARTY WOULD HAVE FUNCTIONED better than shown here.

An approval rating of 48, while not good is not the 39 the GHWB had. That also was the lowest estimate - it vasilated between 47 - 51 for all of 2004. There were NO recent Prsidents with approval ratings in the 40% - 50% range - a basic rule of statistics is that it is dangerous to make inference in a range where there is no data. (Also the 48 was the number willing to say approve. There were people (think Buchanon who didn't approve, because they were ultra conservative and ant-war. They were NOT likely Kerry voters.)

[ProSense]

7. And they still ignore the fact

that it was an historically close election. It was all on the Democratic Party to guard against fraud and vote suppression, yet the biggest effort in that area came from the candidate who also had to campaign and was ambushed by the media, while the Carvilles and Begalas of the world sat by and watched. Lapdogs---more than 300 media reports in a month, and not a peep from them.

[wisteria]

8. I hate to say it, but in a lot of respects, the Repubs, have it right

on the Clinton's. I don't look at the Clinton's and see morals and values. Unfortunately, what I see are two un-scrupled, power driven self-centered individuals. The closer we get to 08, the less I want to see Senator Clinton in any leadership position.
As far as the advanced attacks, yes they are underway. And, I have not seen Kerry fighting back yet. He has been too busy doing the people's work.
Let me add, the attacks are all the same rehash of the 04 election talking points. In other words,they are trying to take him out with old material. It didn't work right after the election, why would it work now?

[ProSense]

10. Remember this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2482117


I don't see why Hillary Clinton returned the contributions and why Bill Clinton accepted them? Her election was before 9/11 and his library contribution was after. Now you have Hillary against the deal and Bill in "no comment" land. That article made the ex Clinton people seem greedy, especially since the deal was so questionable.

[wisteria]

12. Oh, yeah, that is when Pres. Clinton decided it was best to lay low

and not say much on issues that may affect his wife. With President Clinton being a media ham, I wonder how long it will be before he puts his foot in his mouth again?

[karynnj]

13. Good point that it didn't work right after the election

It also didn't stop Kerry. If you think about it that faction of the party essentially stabbing him in the back after a close loss was both disgusting on a personal level and wasteful on a political level. In a normal polical environment, Kerry should have been given a role as a statesman, especially as it became clearer that he was right on so many things. As to 2008, it would be a double-edged sword. If he did an excellent job, against the same biased media there in 2004, it would help him in 2008, but it also would have helped the Democrats and the country. If he couldn't connect, couldn't communicate, then he would gradually get less coverage. An intense spotlight also makes errors more costly.

this would not have taken awya from anyone else. Clinton, a fascinating ex-President, will always command attention. Hillary hasn't really been spotlighted, except when the Clintons want it. She spoke at Mrs King's funeral, she denounced Rumsfeld (and the press syncopants praised her for speaking out - though others were 3 years ahead, and recently she spoke of how her husband has shown the Democrats how to speak out. But in reality, the Deans, Kerrys, Feingolds etc have been speaking out -- it was the Clintons who weren't. (The DU reaction bothers me as it shows how easily they forget the last 5 years, in big dog's case.) They also have led on NOTHING.

Part of why the Republicans and their media get away with the Democrats have no plan is that that wing of the party is against the type of plan that the country would back - if it wasn't hidden in the Senate and distorted even by some Clintonistas. In NJ, Kean said on Stephanopolis that he agrees with Clinton that what Menendez backs, cut and run, would be a disaster. Menendez voted for Kerry/Feingold. Stephanopolis did NOT question the premise! He then in asking Menedez his position, did it saying; something like " Kean says his position IS LIKE Clinton's, what is yours. Menedez then gave his position - without challanging the claim that Kean's position is like Clinton's. Possibly because Clinton hasn't ever said specifically what he is for.

That example shows Stephanopolis either being played by Kean, who is from the early debates, as dumb as George Allen, or Stephanopolis not correcting a slur that works against Menendez and secondarily, Kerry and Feingold. If this is to position Hillary, whose name always is said with a dazzling smile, this is beyond sick. Are they willing to lose a 2006 seat and possibly control of congress?

In quiet ways, Kerry is setting up how to fight back. His answers in the Distance Learning event were great. My guess is that he knows this is not the time to make it about him. The real issues are Iraq, Afghanistan, real security, the environment, and people's real needs (healthcare etc). In the long run, being a strong voice on all of these is important because it is REAL LEADERSHIP, not political triangulation. Consider there will be debates before the first primary. Even ignoring Kerry's skill as a debator, whose history would you want in the debates, Kerry's or Hillary's? Even in 2004, Kerry had an edge. Since 2004, Kerry has strengthened his case enormously. Has Hillary? The NYT can call her a leader in teh Seanet all it wants. Where are HER big initives? That he is a threat is likely why they are still fighting him.

It may be people like us who are best suited to criticize flacks like Carville and Begala.

[whometense]

15. I think your analysis is brilliant.

Kerry not hitting back against the Clintons now shows that he means what he says - he is focusing on the 2006 elections, which he (and most of us) see as crucial. To my mind, this leaves the Clintons looking petty and selfish. What are they doing to win the House or Senate? Yeah, they are campaigning here and there, but their efforts don't come anywhere near Kerry's.

Maybe this is just me, but I see Kerry as his own best refutation of the lack of courage charge. He's been front and center on so many contentious issues since 2004. He refuses to give up. He refuses to back down. He is diplomatic and positive, but he's been dogging Bush nonstop over every error.

It's hard to see things the way people who are not online see them. But I still believe that one of the most important reasons Kerry won the nomination in 2004 is that he managed to be intelligent and critical without losing his positive outlook. In spite of the incessant carping about how "no one wanted to vote for Kerry" and the way he "sucked as a candidate", he managed to give people hope. It would be a real mistake for him to give that up.

[ProSense]

17. I think

your assessment of Karyn's brilliant analysis is brilliant! Seriously, you both hit the nail on the head!

[karynnj]

20. Thanks to both of you and Whome I think you stated the key points far

better and more succinctly.

It actually goes back to a comment I remember from Dkos after the election. I think it was in the long thread that happened when the funeral picture was posted. There were a series of comments that essentially conceded that Kerry was fundamental a decent human being - one spoke of the fact that it was hard not to see that he often just did the right thing.

When Kerry is actively running, this comment made almost as if it were a surprise will be a sentiment seen by more people. Even though, or maybe especially as, the coverage has been so snarky, a picture will show of a serious man working to define real solutions. (The obnoxious Zahn interview actually showed this when - Kerry responded to her political game question by saying that doing these things was his job as a Senator.

As to outside the blogosphere, the main example I can think of is the reaction to my husband's uncle to Kerry's Real Security speech which we sent him. His initial comment was that it was the biggest effort he had ever seen in a dozen years to win the support of the country. A later response was frustration that the Democrats weren't focused on something like that. I've been working on a response - first, Real Security was one of 4 major initiatives (couple Dissent with Kerry/Feingold). So, Kerry's contribution is far greater. It's also likely that he may not know the true breath of Kerry/Feingold - which to me sounds better each time Kerry defends it. I'm actually glad I procrastinated because it is mindbogglingly that no Democrats are pointing to a key element of Kerry/Feingold being passed as a Sense of the Senate resolution by a voice vote (at that hour meaning it had support of their leadership. It will also be good to mention that he is working with Snowe on legislation for global warming.

If you think about it. Kerry, a Democrat, treated as an outsider by the leaders of the party whose people nominated him for President, in the less than 2 years since Nov 2004 has gotten passed in the Senate, the following:

- A key bill to aid New Orleans (it doesn't matter if they took his name off)
- An amendment to allow oversight on secret prisons
- A key element of his Iraq plan that would change the course
- Various veterans benefits he was able to get included in earlier bills

This is a broader range and more significant than Senator Hillary's list


-

[wisteria]

6. We need to discredit them. How much longer can they milk the time

they were with Clinton? Begala knows nothing. The so called value voters were lost to us due to Clinton. They were a surprise, the number of these voters who turned out in 04. Now, what exactly was Kerry to do other than what he did to try and win them over. Then, Begala uses the RW Swift Boaters,which lends credibility to them.
I suppose the only thing we can do is hope him and Carvelle attach themselves to Senator Clinton's long coat, and then they all go down with her in the primaries. Maybe, we will finally be ride of the lot of them.

[beachmom]

9. A little anecdote from local Dems in my area re: Hillary

On the local blog, there was a post about how Hillary had come to Virginia for Webb and done some fundraising as well as a rally. The poster said it was unhelpful, and preferred the likes of General Zinni or Clark to her.

This guy was not anonymous -- his whole name is there, and the local Dems spotlight this blog in their newsletter. So people are being very forthright that they do not like Hillary Clinton. This is just as true in red states as blue states. The war is unpopular, and she still supports that war. Even if she pulled a 180, and said she was wrong, nobody would believe her. She's got a credibility problem. Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan has now adopted using Hillary as the "Democratic response" to everything. Considering where he's coming from, this tells us all we need to know. The DC Establishment that doesn't want to rock the boat wants Hillary. For the sake of our country, we absolutely need to rock the boat!! Kerry '08!

[wisteria]

11. The Dem establishment in Washington is rallying Repubs as well as

as, who knows, how many Dem's to vote against Senator Clinton and for a Republican. Why are they so blind to her lack of appeal?Do they think she can win everyone over with her massive money pile? Most people who ask me about her are relieved that she may have competition in the primaries. I personally believe any Republican candidate they run will win the presidency if Clinton is our candidate. Former President Clinton may be liked, but do people really want to see another Clinton White House and do they like him enough to enter into a four year relationship with his wife and him again?

[whometense]

16. I swear, the first mention I ever heard

of Hillary running for president in 2008 was out of the mouth of Chris Matthews. That tells you something right there.

I honestly believe that even though Bill wants her to run (because, frankly, he'd be back in the spotlight he lives for), the whole Hillary '08 bandwagon is media-driven.

Matthews positively salivates at the thought of 4? 8??? more years of Clinton bashing. You can see it - he smirks, he giggles - it's his dream. I watched this whole show before, in 2003, with the Dean juggernaut. Media. Driven. The irony of the media megaphone is that democrats are influenced by it too. What gives me hope, though, is that voters will tell early pollsters anything. If they've been hearing "Dean, Dean, Dean" 24/7 in the media, that's the answer they'll give the pollster.

But when they actually think about who they are going to vote for, it's a whole different process.

[Inuca]

27. Some more thoughts on Hillary

In my view most people who say Hillary 08 think Bill 08, consciously or otherwise. It's that simple! One can find arguments for and against her as a candidate, but at the bottom of it all is the glaring fact that without Bill NOBODY would even think of the possibility. Same idea goes for her being so controversial. The main controversy is that she is Bill's wife, and all the controversy associated with him reflects on her. And I find all this situation pretty absurd. And I cannot but think of all the harm Clinton's recklessness has caused. Ridiculous as it may sound, the famous BJ may have caused all the thousands of deaths and all the suffering in Iraq. In other words, the whole country and the whole world was and still is affected. But he is a very intelligent person (with some obvious exceptions)and especially a very charismatic one, and unless you hate him a priori it is difficult not to fall under his spell. All that charisma and charm became attached with the name and for some it also shines on Hillary for the time being, but unfortunately for her she personally only has the ambition and probably the intelligence (and hopefully less of a sex drive). ANyway... end of rambling.

[karynnj]

14. I heard the same lack of enthusiasm for Hillary

at the Morris county fundraiser - even from some who are still charmed by Bill. It shocked me that several said that they were in spite of having always thought he was sleasy.

I think Hillary's problem goes beyond the war. It is more personal. What the Clinton blowup does is remind people that she will have a hard time being the most important person on the stage. If you remember the Philadelphia rally, which was both in a very Bill Clinton neighborhood and was Clinton's first appearance after heart surgery, Kerry stood as an equal. His speech got every bit as much a response. (Though the MSM cut out after Clinton and CSPAN covered the whole thing.

It is not just Clinton's stature - it is the sense that he is the kid in the classroom that will always do something to be the center of attention. This is a Clinton trait that got him where he was and I don't know if he can constrain it. (Even consider the JFK picture,where he got the hanshake he did in the photo reaching across other kids. This is not a bad trait unless you are auditioning for first spouse.)

[beachmom]

18. You are so right about Bill

If it were up to him, Hillary's convention speech would be BILL talking about how great his administration was, and a little, oh yeah, and Hillary would make a great president at the conclusion.

The thing people have to realize, is that given the co-presidency nature the last time, voting for Hillary is not so different from voting for Bill. And, I just don't want that again. It was torture the first time, and I don't want to go through that all over again. I certainly will acknowledge the many successes Bill had, but the world is different now. And I am opposed to dynasties (gee, how did this last one work out? OT: anybody hear Bob Woodward on 60 Minutes say that Bush Sr. is just plain SICK about the Iraq War. I believe that. Serves him right for denigrating Kerry in an interview on the News Hour during the Republican Convention, talking about Kerry and Jane Fonda in the same breath.)

In general, I'm just tired of the D.C. cynicism that the only way to gain power is to sell out on your principles and your soul. I think the American people will pick up on that; I sure hope they do. We need to reject John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Still, if faced with that choice, Hillary is MUCH better -- I don't fear her finger on the button the way I would McCain's.

[wisteria]

19. IMO, Clinton wouldn't stand a chance if McCain is the Repub nominee.

We will have many Dem's jump ship, so to speak, and vote for "the maverick" McCain. He might even win in a landslide. That thought just makes me shutter.

[beachmom]

21. McCain wins against ALL Dem candidates according to polls

Something would need to happen. John McCain would have to lose his temper (it's possible).

So what is our only hope? That Republican primary voters choose somebody else? If they think McCain is the only way to win, they'll vote for him.

It does seem right now that all of our infighting on who should be our '08 candidate in the blogosphere belies the point that McCain has at this point trounced all of them. A Democratic Congress would better his chances.

What would Kerry's plan be against McCain?

[blm]

22. Hahah - easy - use McCain's own words. Ever read McCain's book?

McCain almost broke down several times during the Vietnam normalization ordeal - he said he couldn't have kept it together except for Kerry, and that it never would have even happened without Kerry's leadership..

Of course, that was BEFORE he turned into an A-1 liar for Bush. But, now we have a little thingy called Books on Tape where the author's own voice tells the story. heheh

I'm not worried about McCain at all, and hope he is the nominee. Let him debate withdrawing from Iraq with Kerry.

[wisteria]

23. Polls only indicate so much. Right now, McCain looks like a

winner because of his media exposure. I personally think Kerry has many more positives to offer than McCain. Until people see them side by side and Kerry has the same opportunity to sell himself, people will automatically stick with McCain. In the long run, I think Kerry has a lot more to offer than McCain and I think the voters will see that too. McCain is old, he talks and says nothing and really has little appeal when viewed up close.
Clinton on the other hand, IMO, doesn't have a chance no matter what she does. For me, her appeal is very short lived.
Kerry grows on people. The more exposure to him you have the more you like him.

[ProSense]

24. The polls are bogus!

Take this one for example:

WNBC/Marist Poll. Sept. 18-20, 2006. N=1,018 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm#misc

Scroll down to the second question:

"Do you want (see below} to run for president in 2008 or not?"

Seems the public only want four people to run, and three of them are Republicans.

[beachmom]

25. I hope they're bogus, because they look quite bad. n/t

[blm]

26. Have there been any debates yet?

.

[beachmom]

29. But people know Kerry already. I wish he was polling higher.

But you guys perhaps know how polls work better. I certainly wasn't studying all this data in '02. Still, I distinctly remember Kerry being listed as the frontrunner early on. Then the Dean phenomenon happened, and then it crashed. Then there was the brief love affair with Edwards, and then Kerry won in Iowa. I do hope your optimism is correct, and maybe I should just stop looking at the polls. That's what Kerry said (don't trust polls).

[blm]

31. People don't know Kerry at all. They remember he did well in the debates.

They only know now what they have been told in the media since then.

Kerry will work harder to combat the news whores and let people get to know him in more UNFILTERED ways, where he always excels.

[karynnj]

33. What was true then is true now,

the early numbers reflect the media. Kerry was high only after Gore pulled out, Lieberman was annoying, Gepheart bored everyone to death and Kerry was the only name people recognized because he WAS really the one criticizing Bush. The media actually called him and Dean anti-war. Then as you said the Dean phenomenon started.

I certainly don't see that Kerry has done fantastically in the polls - until I realize that since Nov 2004 there has been a constant negative noise. From that perspective, I think that he still comes out well within the range of Edwards and Gore - who have been pushed by many people, is great. After over two years of people trying to smear him, he's still standing. Hillary is the elephant in the room - a good question is if X and Hillary were the only candidates, who would you pick? The problem is I would game the question, so others likely would too. (That inflates Hillary - incidentally if this question is ever asked.)

So, the negatives I see:
- that Kerry's numbers are going in the wrong direction
- that Hillary is staying pretty constant

The positives I see:
- Gore has higher negatives. This means that there is no way a draft Gore group could honesty tell him that he could get the nomination without a huge fight. (He likely knows how sharp elbowed the Clintons would be - The New Yorker comment that he (and Kerry) were losers was a stab in the back to Gore, even more than to Kerry.) As he seems reluctant to run, I don't see this as encouragement. He genuinely seems to have found contentment with being an advocate.

- The Edwards trend is significantly worse. This surprises me because it's been a time of positive press. It may be others fear him more or it may be that he doesn't wear well. This is one poll, so I wouldn't make much of it. It is good as it counters the short (2) burst of great Edwards polls - as referenced by the great pundit Paula Zahn.

- Feingold (not in survey) seems to have faded everywhere. Clark has very strong internet supporters, but he hasn't built up a major following or a cause.

- Warner seems to have not caught on and had some stumbles

The point being there is no budding anti-Hillary.
So, either Hillary is coronated. (Scenario 1)

or

Some one becomes the ant-Hillary. All of the above gives Kerry the possibility to be positioned for it - by the time the debates start next year. Best case: Assume Gore and Feingold don't run. Kerry next to Edwards in a debate, gives Kerry a very very good shot. (Scenario 2)

I find Scenario 1 very unlikely as Hillary is out of step with the party. Not as bad as Lieberman 2006, but almost as bad as Lieberman 2004. (remember then it was only the war and he wasn't dissing Democrats) Lieberman WAS the front runner in late 2002. So Scenario 2 is more likely.

In Scenario 2, consider Kerry's platform - the set of Faneuil Hall speeches. They are very very impressive. Heaven knows how he can top them! Kerry was impressive in debates and interviews in 2004 and has only gotten better. Someone new could appear, but given the seriousness of the times the pool of possible candidates is smaller.

If Kerry is the anti-Clinton, he may quickly be favored to win. Remember Hillary has really not been subjected to the pressure of being considered as President, Kerry has. (First Lady, even as a Clinton, really is less)

On a more personal level, we know the Kerrys are writing a book together on the environment. There will likely be promotion for this. I assume people will be surprised to see the Kerrys as they actually are - not to mention they will be speaking on very important issues that both have worked on for decades. We also know the very lovely Alex Kerry will have a book out that sounds very interesting. The 2 best advocates in the universe for JK are Alex and Vanessa.

[wisteria]

36. I always thought he would be the best counter to Senator Clinton.

I just don't like the idea of him being billed the anybody but Hillary candidate.

[karynnj]

37. It was not meant negatively

It is a reality that the party "leaders" and the media have both pushed Hillary by designating her as the obvious candidate. Repeating it often enough that it became true.

[wisteria]

34. At this point in time, I would be nervous if he were the front runner.

Don't pay them much mind. People aren't really paying close attention right now to the 08 elections. The polls parrot the media spin on a particular politician at a particular time. As for Hillary, she is always mentioned in the news as being the front runner. People say what they think the questioner wants to hear.

[ProSense]

28. No one can possible believe

that given how extremely close the previous election was, the state of the Republican Party, Bush's low approval rating, the lies being exposed daily and the Democrats polling much higher than Republicans on every issue, even narrowing the gap significantly on national security (led the Repugs in a couple of polls) that Americans want only these three Republicans to run.

Sigh!

[karynnj]

32. To see how useless the poll asked this way is,

consider that there were 3 Democrats asked in Nov 05 and in the Sept 2006 poll.

Hillary was 48 went to 46; Edwards was 47 went to 32; Kerry was 39 went to 31. (First of all you need a difference of 6 to be significant. What happened? All three Democrats fell. The reason Al Gore - not included in November is up to 31, with greater negatives than any of the others. (Interesting observation is that Edwards seems to have lost a lot rather than gained at a time he and Elizabeth have been high profile. Kerry's shift may well be do mostly to people wanting Gore and seeing Kerry may appeal to the same people, a strong experienced non-Hillary.)

What this tells me is that many people are answering in a partisan fashion - it's a very odd question. Who would you want to RUN? Your favorite and losers who can lower a popular candidates vote. There is also no a single person with a high run and a low don't run. They really need to find a better question - as this is likely not measuring what they want it to.

[TayTay]

35. The polls are good for today, and that's about it.

There are X factors that will be at play. It is still very, very early in this process. The biggest things to consider are what happens with the midterms and see who controls Congress. Then see the smaller races and how the Dems did and the candidates backed by Sen. Kerry did. Then the Senator will sit down and assess the situation.

Anything can happen between now and when the Dem field really starts to take shape in the spring. We know who is starting up field organizations in Iowa and NH and SC and who isn't. (Ahm, Gore is not. Unless he is planning on being nominated by acclamation, he should put something together in the key states or it will be too late.) The money is worrisome. It takes a great deal of money to run for President. We shall have to see if the money is being vacuumed up by any one candidate. Lots of stuff.

However, I beg you to consider a couple of things. We are currently embroiled in a slimy sex scandal that will also serve to remind everyone that there is indeed a 'culture of corruption' in many ways in the Republican Party. If the Dems take one or both Houses of Congress, then there will be investigations and lot of slimy, slimy rocks are going to be turned over and awful, dreadful things will crawl out. It is quite possible that the time for a reformer will come, someone who can 'clean house.' We would need someone without a taint of scandal, without money or PAC problems in their background. That could be one of the most powerful things about the '08 race. If that happens, then all bets are off. Don't forget, John McCain was part of the Savings and Loan scandal a few years ago. Mr. McCain has taken some money from some questionable sources and is taking money from guys who are involved in construction and building. (Ahm, is how's that housing bubble coming along? Heard any good news about the housing market lately?) The Clinton's have never been too choosy about where their money has come from and they have, ahm, a past that includes scandals. (Hmmm, scandal fatigue in '08? Could well be.)

This is the very beginning of a marathon. Count nothing in, count nothing out. All that matters right now is whether or not you have enough to get in the game, if you can ante up at the table to start. Everything else is subject to change and nothing, as it seems today, will stay the same. (This should be a mixed metaphor moment, this is like a marathon held on a roller coaster. Hang on for your life, this will be both harrowing, exhilarating, scary and wonderful. You have been warned.)

[Inuca]

30. Yes

Your points are very similar to some ramblings on the topics I posted just before reading this. Charming in spite of being sleazy is essential to what CLinton is all about.