Woe be unto us if Kerry gets nominated again. Nobody who saw him in '04 sitting at one of those huge spools that holds electrical wire having lunch with about 6 construction workers and looking very ill-at-ease with nothing to say would ever wish that on the Democrats. Well, Karl Rove would.

I never meant to say that $3,250,000,000 was spent every day in Iraq. It was a TYPO! Who will deliver me from this?

Richardson remains my guy and I appreciate your acknowledgment of him.   I just don't think Senators can win and altho HRC is more than just a Senator two out three of their candidates are Senators.  (Feingold is a wonderful guy but I doubt he will ever catch fire.)

The press has solidly defined 2008 as HRC vs. everyone else.   Unfortunately that means that a stealth candidate like Dean will have to rise quickly at the right time and stay hot past the early primaries.  It is a lot to ask especially if she takes on an air of inevitability.  That's when big money comes to the table and it gets ugly.  When people take out the big guns --remember the volvo commercial in Iowa.

Altho it isn't going to be easy to put an 'outsider' candidate in the WH what happens in 2006 with Liberman, Webb, Tester, NJ guy, Mfume, etc. will set the stage for the 2008 primaries.

I really think that HRC should have to fight like hell to win this--it will make her a tougher candidate.  Plus if it is becoming the conventional wisdom that we are taking over the party HRC is gonna have to come begging eventually....

In fact, in an e-mail last December I told friends that one of those three would be the nominee.
It's merely prognostication (and your point about Edwards is reasonable) but they are the most well-positioned thus far.  Clinton has gender and legacy, Feingold has progressive cred, Warner can call himself electable and might strike some as Kennedyesque.
Of course, in the summer of 2002, few people had heard of Howard Dean, so there's recent evidence that this is far too early to bet on anything.  It appears to me, however, that 2004 was a lot more wide open for Dems than 2008 will be.

Give me a break with the Obama speculation.  I wish everyone would stop worshipping him for a few minutes and give his head a chance to deflate.  A presidential run is incredibly premature and the next SUSA poll will show a substantial drop in his approval ratings.  Again, that's prognostication, but his detractors are doing an extremely good job tying him to Lieberman.

Wes Clark is in the top rung in my view. He has a good grass roots organization and has been very active in electing the "fighting Dem" congressional reps. With his organization he can bring in money and volunteers overnight. And he is quite personable, down to earth, and can pull from the left and the right of the party.

On the one hand, it does show a lack of respect for Democracy, on the other hand, its just them stumping for their particular candidates.

For example, Jerome took a break from MyDD when he started work for Warner, but he used his puplit (MyDD) to push for him a bit before he went to work for him, the differences are that 1) Jerome wasn't anonymous and 2) Jerome was stating a clear preference.

Jerome spoke honestly about what he honestly believed. I have no problem with that. If these democratic whisperers did that, I wouldn't have a problem with it or think it undemocratic.

they keep telling me that it is going to be Warner, I am not sure if I am happy with that, but I do think that we need to seriously take that possibility into account.  I think that he may be able to heal many of the rifts in our nation and internationally if he does win, and I see him as having an excellent chance in the general.

"I also have a very difficult time seeing Kerry as viable again. He has done virtually everything right over the last eight or nine months, and yet he still does not seem to be gaining any traction."

Of all the possible candidates, Kerry is the only one who's actually demonstrated himself to be UNelectable.

(Don't ya just hate being smitten by your own campaign theme, "JFK"?)

To me, it's as simple as that.  Any questions about candidate X's stands/experience on issues a,b,or c are irrelevent.  

Clinton had no foreign policy experience.  JFK was 43.  Harry Truman was considered to be not ready for prime time.

The best person to capably tell a compelling story about Democrats, liberalism, America, and the future, while encompassing the relevent issues (economic security, Iraq, etc.) is the candidate that will be most likely to win.  Story, narrative, philosophy, optimism....NOT a laundry list of positions or single-issue passionate appeal.

And it's a very big plus if that candidate is also not an intellectual from the coasts.

Let the best messenger win.  I'd bet big bucks it won't be the Senator from NY.  

This is not even to mention that unlike just about everyone else, he has a real narrative--two Americas--through which he can articulate his political philosophy and his policies.

'Two Americas' is a weak, contrived slogan, not a useful political tool. All the enemy has to do is come in with a Reaganesque aura, and say "I believe in one strong America" or some such crap.

I'm hearing Warner described as a "one-term ex governor" pretty often lately, and it does influence me a bit.

(I have problems with Edwards for the same reason.)

I'd still vote Dem no matter who's nominated...the Republicans simply can't be trusted anymore...but the lack of experience bothers me.

"I won't vote for Obama.
In fact, if he runs I hope he gets his ass kicked and decides it's time to work for the peoples' interests again."

God forbid a Senator should fail to pass your  litmus test. Is no one ever bothered by the ridiculous standard of ideological servitude that most activists hold their elected officials too? If a politician happens to disagree with you on a vote, according to this logic they have betrayed the people, the Party and probably the country. And what are Obama's supposed sins? Bankruptcy reform? Not advocating immediate withdrawl from Iraq?