Hmmmmm it almost sounds like in a way he could be supporting Hillary Clinton. Second guess would be Obama.

It seems very difficult. He doesn't seem to count out a lot of people we would (Vilsack, Kerry). That being said, I'm severely underwhelmed by our current crop of candidates...unless Al Gore runs.

Richardson sounded pretty good to me.  I don't know much about him, but from that blurb it looks as if he might be able to muster broad support, especially out west.

Hasn't someone hired Trippi by now?

He's most positive about Gore, and if Gore plays it safe then Fiengold gets the nod. Trippi likes Richardson too but wonders if he can get any traction.

I don't really know why Warner and Feingold have dropped out, but last week showed there can be great rewards for Democrats who take "crazy" risks by going for offices the conventional wisdom says is out of their reach. This was the year of the dark horse. Maybe 2008 will be too.

Hire Trippi?

He's good up until the primaries.

I think you have to count some of them out. Not all of those candidates have a fighting chance.

It seems people are dropping out like flies now. I think we'll see more dropouts soon.

Trippi is all for Gore from the sound of the article. It makes the most sense. Gore plays to the base but I'm telling you that he appeals to the right as well. My friend is an evangelical and he thinks that Hillary is too liberal but loves Gore and would vote for him.

I think he's like a lot of us: waiting to see. It's a lot different this time around because there is only one true "establishment" candidate (HRC). We were at the nadir of power in 2003, we are rising now so an insurgent campaign does not make as much sense. I hold no animosity towards any of these candidates, except perhaps a touch of it for Bayh. Biden's foot in mouth disease and lack of money and population base rules him out. Vilsack I believe is too charisma challenged to make headway. He just screams "quiet please". Richardson is not a charismactic speaker. I wish he were, because Trippi's right about his resume.

Edwards is still my favorite. Gore would be next, or first except for that nagging feeling I have about the 2000 election. Could we stand another presidential campaign with the media overt hatred of the man? Can we beat back the lies this time?

Obviously Obama would be great, but if McCain is the nomineed, can Obama successfully define him and not have McCain scare everyone that Obama is too green?

Edwards is still my pick. Look at the new crop of senators, Sanders, Brown, McCaskill, Webb, Casey, and Tester. All economic populists, despite the WaPost calling Webb a "cantankorous conservative". Yeah a conservative that talks about bringing economic justice to the working class. Anyway, These guys tapped into the simmering-below-the-surface tensions that are building in this (not) great new global ecnonomy. Do not underestimate the worry and the anger out there over China's rise (based on slave labor) at the expense of small towns and cities in this country. It is real, and it is big. Larry Kissell may be our new congressman because of it. Heath Shuler definately is. This anger is our trump card against Republican attacks on national security. Economic Security. Sherrod Brown put Mike DeWine on the defensive throughout the campaign because DeWine supported NAFTA and "job-killing trade agreements". The MSM is scratching its head right now about what to call these new Democrats. They can't believe their liberals because they've been reading David Brooks too much and think that all liberals are effete star-bucks drinking wusses. But these are true-blue New Deal Democrats. The type of Democrats that got elected for 50 years in the greatest governing coalition in the history of this country. This is our way out of the wilderness. It's not wire-tapping. It's not just getting out of Iraq. It's creating a better life for all people. Republicans have wedded themselves to a laissez-faire stance that the government cannot interfere with the economy. Well, that will be their downfall as well if the Democratic nominee can represent the anger and frustration that the media scratches its head over and ignores.

has little to no informed perspective.

Wes Clark in 2008 because he's the ONLY top flight Dem that can effectively compete and win in ALL 50 states !

Wes Clark: Trippi barely blurbs him at all.

Obama: Trippie had the most negative tone toward him.

Hillary: Ditto.

I suspect if it comes down to principles, Trippi will look toward Gore.  The idea of an insurgent, returning campaign must have a bent appeal to a man whose core belief is the outsider campaign.

If it comes down to who has the props to pull off the nomination, it is Bill Richardson.  Small state governor.  More moderate than he is liberal.  Sounds a lot like Dean, huh?

I suspect Trippi would never support any Senator.  At this stage, he cannot possibly be that damned dumb.

Jerome - all - Yeah I thought Feingold would add a lot to the debate and win or lose would shape a strong progressive agenda.   I thought it would be bizarre for me to dis someone as a "sure loser" at this point in the game.  I mean when I went to work for Dean no one thought he had a chance -- it pissed me off.  So even Vilsack has a chance IF HE HAS SOMETHING POWERFUL TO SAY.   And yes I think even Hillary Clinton could win over many here at MYDD if she PUTS FORTH A BOLD PROGRESSIVE AGENDA -- but I also doubt she will do that.   I am not sure Gore makes the race or if he does that the act of getting into the race makes him careful and cautious again.

In any case -- thanks for all that all of you did to make victory last Tuesday possible.  You had more to do with providing the winning edge than a lot of people in the party will ever give you credit for.  Trust me -- I speak from experience on that one too.

Joe Trippi

Gore. The Oxygen Taker is a dead giveaway, IMHO. Classic Trippi observation, with key strategic implications of that: immediately changing the field, the rules, the dynamic. And Gore needs a consultant to ensure he doesn't play it safe. Uh, Trippi's available, I'm sure.

It sounds to me like he's a fan of Edwards, although his words on Gore make him a very close second.  My first choice has vacillated between Edwards and Feingold, with Clark an attractive alternative.  I'm for Edwards. Dream ticket, Edwards and Clark.

Howard Dean led us out of the wilderness but like Moses will never see the "Promised Land".  He is the REAL leader of the Democratic Party and I would hope that the grassroots would rise up and draft him.

At least there's no LIEberman this time around.

Not sure who trippi supports although the common thread through his comments is that whoever it is needs to present a clear and bold set of ideas. Would seem that his interest leans toward Obama and Edwards.

Steve Jarding, campaign manager for Jim Webb seems to be interested in Clark, though:

Jarding thinks Edwards, who ran as John Kerry's running mate on the '04 Democratic national ticket, might be more on the outside looking in as far as his chance to top the ticket in '08 is concerned.

"Edwards lost North Carolina in 2004 - so it's almost hard for him to say, I can win in the South. He couldn't carry his own state in '04. Another issue for him is the Des Moines Register poll had him at 30 percent - which is probably a high-water mark for him. It's going to be hard for him, particularly if Hillary's in, to get much higher than that," Jarding said.

"Clark is to me the interesting darkhorse in this thing," Jarding said. "He can make the case, one, that he's from the South, two, if the Democrats try to convince themselves that the '08 election is about the economy, they're crazy, because it's going to be about the war. It's not going well, it's not going to change - at least there's not anything in the cards that suggests that it's going to turn around, because Bush is stubbornly saying that he's going to stay the course.

"So I think the war is going to be the top issue - and here you have a very successful general in Wes Clark, and I think the upside to Clark is that he's Southern, and that he's a military guy," Jarding said.

He's trying to get hired by one of these campaigns

Steve Jarding think.....

"Clark is to me the interesting darkhorse in this thing," Jarding said. "He can make the case, one, that he's from the South, two, if the Democrats try to convince themselves that the '08 election is about the economy, they're crazy, because it's going to be about the war. It's not going well, it's not going to change - at least there's not anything in the cards that suggests that it's going to turn around, because Bush is stubbornly saying that he's going to stay the course.

"So I think the war is going to be the top issue - and here you have a very successful general in Wes Clark, and I think the upside to Clark is that he's Southern, and that he's a military guy," Jarding said."

LINK

Fuck Trippi. He's a loser who wants to get back in the game.

Are we in the progressive blogosphere gonna start taking orders from on high?

I don't think so.

And while I've foaming at the mouth would somebody, anybody kill the Obama bullshit. He's just what we don't need: An inexperienced, Joey the Liarman protege, a guy who likes Fundies.

Oh, yeah...he's black.

Call me racist? Go ahead. The ReThugs can run Frist against Obama and win. They can run Brownback against Obama and win.

Al Gore is the one for us to back. Hillary? Anybody who buddies up to Rupert Murdoch and fails to campaign for Ned Lamont...

Don't get my support.

Thanks for your time and attention.

I've gotta agree with Pericles, fuck Trippi!

I also agree on the HRC/Obama front, what a colossal waste of time it would be for the grassroots to spend a second of time looking at those two!  Let's talk about supporting real progressive candidates like Clark and Gore.  In fact, you want a winning ticket that will ultimately appeal to Dems across the board, not to mention how timely their candidacies would be, those two are the ones to do it.

Gore/Obama or Obama/Clark

Also, the point made upthread bears repeating: Looking to the Senate for a candidate is a fool's errand. It's gonna be an interesting next 15 months, and I suspect these metrics will change one hell of a lot. But this far back from 2004, I thought the nominee would be Gary Hart, so I clearly have no predictive credibility...  

How's a Gore/Richardson ticket? There's a great story in that, actual competence, and a willingness to be great leaders with an important, inspiring message.

What would make it an even more fun race: Republican team has Jeb Bush heading it up, Guiliani as VP. As much as the media hates Gore, there's a narrative it just wouldn't be able to resist.

OK...so I been warned. Doesn't look to me as if Trippi is a poster here.

Just another form of gas-bag bloviator trying out for a job like Carville, Begala or PillBaugh has.

What am I missing?

I dont really understand the talk about Richardson's lack of charisma. I think the guy is pretty funny, as far as politicians go. That Western ad he made during his governor's race was pretty good- imagine anyone else trying to pull that off. His problem as I see it is discipline- staying on message. But if he can overcome that and raise some money, he has a solid shot.

I'll vote for Clinton or Gore. I can't put my finger on it but Gore has changed for the better. Maybe he is fatter now.
Obama is young and can wait for more than ten years.
The following candidates have no shot either because they are losers or don't have enough support: Bayh, Richardson, Vilsack, Kerry, Biden

Top three: Clinton, Gore, Obama
All from the "Establishment"! Every one of them is a Washington Insider. I don't care about that, but I knowe a lot of people here do.

I forgot Edwards - he'll be a great Attoreney General. However, he's a bad candidate for PREZ

As a former New Mexican, I'm very interested in Bill Richardson's candidacy. He's popular in NM, a governor, and yes has all that good stuff.

Why do so many people dismiss Edwards or Obama because they lack experience, specifically foreign policy experience? That didn't hurt Bill Clinton in '92 or Bush in '00. Obama will have had more years in public service than Bush had in '00. I don't think anyone outside of the Beltway cared if Bush lacked experience.

My feeling is, be famous and charismatic, and surround yourself with skilled advisors, and yes, even you could be president.

Do we have to trash all of the big names and put our support behind a second-tier candidate? Sometimes it seems like you people love to root for the underdog just to root for the underdog. I love Feingold. But he never had much of a shot. Same thing with Clark. Supporting them seems like it just marginalizes our movement. With such big stars in this race, you've gotta choose from one of the top 2 just to appear relevant. If we throw all of our support behind a candidate who ends up getting 10% of the primary vote or less, then we've become a big joke. The party establishment will never listen to us.

Where does that lead us... We have to decide among Clinton, Obama, Gore, and Edwards. They're the only candidates who might be in the top 2, depending on who enters the race. If we throw our support to anyone else, we will surely be seen by the NYT/WaPo-reading public as a bunch of irrelevant wingnuts.

Seems like Trippi likes Gore & Edwards. My dream ticket is Gore/Obama. Perfect blend of the old and the new, experience and energy. Gore has been fantastic since recovering from 2000, clear and smart and passionate. And ironically he'd be running as an outsider in the primary, and I'm pretty sure that appeals to Trippi. I think Gore's finally found his voice as a progressive.

Gore is the real deal, and the one politician here who has made me feel inspired multiple times in the past several years.  He has already won one presidential election, back when he was uninspiring.  Now he would do better.  

As a progressive he appeals more to conservatives and moderates than centrist Hillary does.  There no doubt that he has the resume, the intellectual firepower, and the gravitas for the job.

He should bring one of the younger talents on as VP.  Gore/Obama or Gore/Edwards would be fantastic.  If Obama serves as VP, he can get the needed experience for a future run without exposing himself to a damaging long record of senate votes.

Here's something to consider.  We all know why Al Gore was the Democrats' nominee in '00.  It was because, as vice president (and for a lot of other reasons), he was the most prepared for the job.  But why did George W. Bush end up being the Republican candidate, when there were so many other choices for the GOP?  It was because he could raise money.

Fast forward to '04, and why did Kerry beat out Edwards, Dean and the rest to run against Bush?  Answer: it was because he could raise money.

Those of us who post on blogs love to talk about candidates' positioning on the issues as though that would be a key determinant in who gets nominated, but that's all just wishful thinking on our part.  And to talk about charisma?  That mattered for Kennedy against Nixon in 1960, but ever since then, every candidate has been well aware of how to handle himself or can find a handler to help.

Unfortunately, absent the Democrats making massive reforms in campaign finance during this session of Congress (not impossible, just unlikely) it's going to come down to who can raise money.  That means Clinton and Gore, possibly Kerry (though his star has fallen), maybe Edwards, and maybe Obama.  And perhaps Clark could get the netroots behind him and raise some good money.

All the rest of them, I think, are just hoping to be noticed to get the Veep slot.  Frankly, though, I even expect the selection of running mate to be predicated on ability to raise money in '08.  So perhaps those six are the only ones even worth considering.

And remember that Gore is not even officially running yet.