A whole lot of nothing.

[ProSense]

According to participants, Mrs. Clinton has pressed to find out everything from whether former Vice President Al Gore will run again (he is inclined not to, people tell her) to how much support remains for Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party’s 2004 candidate, among Democratic leaders (anemic, she has heard).

Snip...

Mrs. Clinton has talked, both in person or by telephone, to influential Democrats in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada, the states that will begin the nomination process with caucuses and primaries a year from now. She has pressed Democrats to find out what campaign staff her prospective opponents like Mr. Edwards have assembled in states like Iowa. And she asked precisely where she should go in places like Iowa and New Hampshire if she, as expected, does a round of trips there after forming a presidential exploratory committee.

No detail has been too minor for Mrs. Clinton. She has asked Democrats from New Hampshire and Iowa about the concerns in certain regions and counties of their states, dwelling on energy issues, health care, education and the war in Iraq. She has asked about the influence of independent voters (they make up the biggest voting bloc in New Hampshire and can vote in the Democratic primary there). Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so the rest of the candidates steered clear of that state’s race.

Mrs. Clinton has not been to Iowa since the 2004 election.

Snip...

Some New Hampshire Democrats expressed concern that Mrs. Clinton’s first dinner with political players from their state, on Dec. 9, was limited to three Democrats who were active in her husband’s campaigns in the 1990s and not a broader group that reflected the vanguard of state party politics today.

link

What exactly is this article supposed to convey?

[demdiva]

1. Weird ....I think you got it right nt

[Mass]

2. "By PATRICK HEALY and ADAM NAGOURNEY" - No big surprise.

When have these two ever written something that is worth reading?

[MBS]

7. also, Healy used to write for the Globe

. .which adds to the reasons why he shouldn't be taken seriously.

[wisteria]

3. Let me add stupid and a waste of ink.

Other than she doesn't want to run in a challenging primary. Remember, she is use to easy senate races and she wants an easy win.

[beachmom]

4. Well this makes me question my own wisdom of whether Gore will

run or not. Since it said support for Kerry is "anemic" which is BS at best, then I'm going to have to question the whole story. So maybe Gore IS running.

Agree downthread -- Adam Nagorney is a terrible reporter and writer. In fact, you could argue that some of the tidier tabloids are better than his fluff, stupid articles. Has anyone actually seen what he looks like? Yuck. Whoof.

[Mass]

5. comment is about the support among the Democratic leaders.

I am not sure that the assessment is that far from the truth, unfortunately (except that I am not that sure what support he had for a start).

[MBS]

6. problem is that many Dem strategists/pundits/"leaders"

are insecure about the electability of Dems generally. They are scared of their own shadows, still locked into Clinton-era-think about what it takes to win elections. Also that , in both Congress, and in the media, support is often conditional on ego-stroking, back-scratching, tit-for-tat stuff: my guess is that Kerry may not grovel enough for them. Also (my rant of the day) that many have forgotten what a real leader even looks like, and confuse money-raising and media hype with "leadership." OK, no more rants for the day: I've already gone off the deep end

[wisteria]

9. You are correct, they confuse raising money and media hype with

leadership.

[beachmom]

8. Sorry, you're correct. I thought they were talking about support in NH

for which I think it's too early to know.

But I just didn't read it carefully enough. Yes, I agree there is not much support among "Democratic leaders"; I think we all knew that a year ago. Was there even much support among them in '03?

[karynnj]

10. Good point

The article inadvertently points out something that really shouldn't come as a surprise - Hillary really is the ELITIST.

She is speaking only to the desnignated leaders. Kerry is clearly not doing super well now - but he is doing far better than I would expect given all the derision. There is a mid December Nevada poll where he is a weak third to Hillary and Obama - beating Edwards by a point. That is insignificant statisticly - but that poll is after a month of intense smearing and in the buildup to Edwards' launch.

As the Senate opens and the SFRC have hearings, Kerry will be seen in one of his very best roles and in comparison with Biden, Dodd, and Obama. If it is like any hearing I saw in the last 2 years - he has to gain.

They ignore that in October, Kerry was beginning to outpoll Edwards - during that time the word was that Edwards came out "unscathed" from 2004, not Kerry. Strange when you think of their relative convention speeches and debates.

[TayTay]

12. Well, According to The Fix at WaPo, he's 3rd in NV

IT's a start.

[karynnj]

17. I think it's a good start. Edwards has spent a lot of time there

as well as in SC, Iowa and NH. I know Kerry went there to support Jack Carter because it was on the john Kerry blog and there was a link to the daughter's blog (she looked like Amy!)- I think he went with Carter's wife and daughter to some veteran's event - where the veterans liked him. (This was pre-joke - but if they ignored the SBVT lies, this one was nothing.)

[wisteria]

11. I would think they would naturally be apprehensive to come out at this point

to support Kerry fully. They have been told for 50 years that we can not run a candidate that lost once already. It's the Stevenson races many years ago that have no baring at all that have them scared. We are suppose to be progressives, yet we can't progress beyond two consecutive races back in the late fifties that we lost.

[MBS]

14. wonderfully put!

"yet we can't progress beyond two consecutive races back in the late fifties that we lost." PERFECT!

[karynnj]

23. Maybe we should point out

Stevenson lost to Eisenhower in an open race, then ran a second race against him when he was a pretty popular sitting President. He may have gotten the nomination because no one wanted it.

Kerry almost beat a sitting President in war time and would in a second race be running a race the generic Democrat is favored to win.

[Island Blue]

29. We've also been told

(forever) that we cannot run a candidate who is a woman or a candidate who is African American. Let's face it, in '08 we Democrats will have a pretty good chance of destroying the "You can't run a candidate who ..." myth. (And it's about damn time.) I say let them all go out and talk to the people, debate the issues, suffer the slings and arrows of the media and their fellow candidates, and let the best person win. My money's on the tall guy :) .

[wisteria]

34. My money also is on the tall guy. n/t

[ProSense]

13. Negative editorial on Edwards from

the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Posted on Yahoo (scroll down to the sixth article).

[ProSense]

15. Another:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/post_142.html

Seeing a trend here, some people still pushing Clinton and Obama.

[beachmom]

19. Obama is a better Edwards. He's actually DONE what Edwards

merely talks about -- community organizing in Chicago. I still say Iraq and foreign policy will be at the top of people's agendas in '08, given that Bush has promised to prolong the agony there. And we all know Kerry has helped New Orleans when the photographers weren't there plus he has a Senate record to back up his progressive credentials. And, now that Mass has outed the "originality" of the phrase McCain Doctrine, I'm tiring of this talk of how clever Edwards is.

[Mass]

21. If the choice is between these three, Obama is my choice.

Hopefully, there will be somebody else to support, though.

[beachmom]

24. I agree. If Gore isn't running, here is my list:

1. Kerry
2. Obama
3. Sit out the primaries

I can't in good conscience vote for any of the others in the primaries. In the General, I'll be ABR -- Anybody But the Republican (sigh, I'm pained to even consider that I'm going to be stuck voting for Hillary).

[karynnj]

27. My list and comment would be identical to yours

The way things are going and with the nastiness level where it is - Kerry may be the only one left standing.

[_dynamicdems]

36. Gore would be my second choice to Kerry, but if he's not running...

1. Kerry
2. Clark
3. Lucian Wojciechowski (just kidding)

[rox63]

37. Here's my top 3 list

1. Kerry
2. Gore
3. Edwards

Yes, I really don't mind Edwards. But please note that he is 3rd on my list.
Should I duck and run for cover now? :hide:

[beachmom]

38. No, just a good reminder that I need to watch my rhetoric on him

I'll try to hold my fire more often. I know there are some Edwards fans here, and some Edwards supporters who read and occasionally comment here.

[rox63]

39. I am not a Edwards fan

I am a Kerry minion. And damn proud of it! :D

But if Kerry and Gore don't run in 2008, Edwards would be next on my list.

[ray of light]

40. my top three...

1. My hubby. (If people vote for looks--and not policy--he's the one!)
2. Kerry
3. Gore
4. Edwards, Clark, Obama (Most of these I place at the VP level)

[karynnj]

25. There is a flaw in Edwards' plan - if this is true

One of the key areas where Edwards won points in 2004 was that he was said to be "nice" and "to not be attacking others." That and a smile and hair - which looks thinner this year, were his biggest assets other than "being from the South".

This comment, if not taken out of context is petty and is strange in that it arguing one slogan against another. Identifying the problem IS the first step to solving it - jumping in without identifying the problem and figuring out a good solution - doesn't sound good to me.

Attacking Obama is NOT a smart move. It is not certain he will win and he is 2008's Edwards - the nice guy with a great smile. He is though far more genuine.

A second mistake is to proclaim that he is the activist - when there are potentially 2 people who don't need to proclaim their past as activists - it is in their biographies and in their way of thinking.
It's kind of like a cowboy without a horse. Edwards is playing activist - spending a few days shoveling or building houses. Then broadcasting it to the world.

[ray of light]

33. honestly...I couldn't figure out if they were saying good or bad

about either candidate.

I guess their intent went over my head.

[MBS]

16. Thanks for this: the conclusion is great (and positive for Kerry)

I especially loved this: " Maybe back in the '90s, but not today. ..."
. . . that's what I think is wrong with most of the strategists and the Talking Heads: they're still thinking in the 90's
And the conclusion:
"Here's what America is looking for in the next president: Somebody who'll lead, not just talk about leading. Somebody who'll do the right thing when nobody is looking, including photographers. Somebody with more substance than flash. Somebody who doesn't confuse courage with just plain stubbornness. Somebody who won't be afraid to call on Americans to sacrifice when sacrifice is needed. ..."

Sounds exactly like John Kerry to me!!!!!!!!

[Democrafty]

18. That is so JK!

"Somebody who'll do the right thing when nobody is looking" could be the title of his biography.

[beachmom]

22. Exactly!!! That really captures him completely.

When are these dopeheaded journalists going to figure this out? You can't do something and call the press about it, and the deed remain pure. You just simply need to do it, and those lazy reporters need to dig it up. That's the only way it works. Now who's going to do the detective work -- that's the question.

[Island Blue]

30. Sounds exactly like JK to me too!

I can't imagine who else that would describe.

[sandnsea]

31. Or Wes Clark..

considering it's Arkansas. Just looking at what might of motivated the writer is all. One or the other for sure, certainly not any of the media 'front runners'.

[karynnj]

35. I think it might also be Gore

Gore has led on global warming. He is not flashy. He is substance.

It clearly is NOT Clinton or Edwards. It is also likely not Obama - not for negative reasons, but because you wouldn't say "not flashy".

[karynnj]

20. Very interesting editorial

The content sounds like it was written by a group of us. I'm surprised by how cynical the Clinton references are. From the only reference to Kerry, he may not be a fan, but I think Kerry fits what he wants:

"Here's what America is looking for in the next president: Somebody who'll lead, not just talk about leading. Somebody who'll do the right thing when nobody is looking, including photographers. Somebody with more substance than flash. Somebody who doesn't confuse courage with just plain stubbornness. Somebody who won't be afraid to call on Americans to sacrifice when sacrifice is needed. ... "

He may be thinking Gore, Obama or Clark, but this IS Kerry.

editted to say next time, I read the whole thread before commenting. I agree doing the right thing when noone is looking is him.

[ray of light]

32. hmmm....

"Here's what America is looking for in the next president: Somebody who'll lead, not just talk about leading. Somebody who'll do the right thing when nobody is looking, including photographers. Somebody with more substance than flash. Somebody who doesn't confuse courage with just plain stubbornness. Somebody who won't be afraid to call on Americans to sacrifice when sacrifice is needed. ... "


Golly...I think JK does this. (wink) but those nasty cameras are awol when the compassion and generousity are there, but they sure find him when he misses a pronoun.

[beachmom]

26. Anyone else in the mood to pile on?

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/03/report_hillary_believes_obama_threat_will_diminish#comment-192394

I'm just going negative on her, not saying a lot about Kerry, however. She doesn't have many friends on the blogs, and I intend to keep that the conventional wisdom.

[MBS]

28. I liked your comment-thanks

I also thought the comment by desmoulins was interesting: "IT would bother me, if I were on Clinton's campaign team, that she sees Obama as her main threat. IF she really believes that, its a bad sign that she's back to the pre-2000 HRC who readily believes conventional wisdom, even when its obviously wrong."