Richardson is going to be in South Carolina this Friday and Saturday.

whoever Feingold endorses.  He has hinted at support for Obama:  that works for me.  I think Richardson may also be able to garner some netroots support.

No one is going to blow the field away like Dean did in 2004.  The reason:  they're all Howard Dean now.   At least, they're all talking now like he did then.

So we're likely to have 2 governors (1 sitting), 4 sitting senators, 2 former senators, and a House member running for president. I don't think Clark will run; I think he'd do well in some sort of Cabinet position somewhere down the road (either State or Defense).

Of those who seem to be running, I'd argue that Richardson has the most experience. Both Biden and Dodd have been in the Senate forever, but the last election placed Senate experience in a negative light. Interestingly enough, the 'heavyweights' who will join the race (Clinton and Obama) have the lightest experience at the executive or federal level. Gravel and Kucinich are irrelevant. Vilsack needs to put up some strong numbers financially if he's going to have any impact on the race.

I agree with the assessment that Edwards and Obama will be vying for netroots support, but there's a distinct difference between the two: Edwards has been actively embracing Internet grassroots activism, while Obama has been slighting his thumb towards us ever since he had his feelings hurt over at Daily Kos in 2005 (or whatever it may be. He never came back after telling the crowd to be civil). Edwards, though, unlike Dean, will have a much better managed campaign, and I think he has a genuine shot at garnering the nomination. As of right now, an Edwards/Obama ticket sure sounds good.

I still wish either Feingold or Gore would seriously consider getting in the race.

And don't forget - Sharpton's been thinking about making another run at it. This might have the potential to split African-American support from Obama and/or Clinton, perhaps?

Interesting, given that senators customarily endorse the presidential run of a fellow senator from the same state and same party (given Liebrman's claim tht he remains a Democrat).  Moreover, Dodd was going to run in 2004 but deferred out of respect to Lieberman.

Didn't Clark also have some major Clintonistas pulling for him?

I'd argue that Edwards and Obama aren't distinct enough to split the netroots among them. Partisans of either will probably argue with me about the huge differences between them ... but they aren't the opposites that Dean and Clark were.

I think there's plenty of room for at least one more, and possibly two. I've said before, and I stick to it, the nomination has four moving parts: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Richardson. Probably in that order right now, but Obama and Edwards maybe should be switched. I think there's room for Richardson online, but I don't see Hillary making an impact online to match her offline presence.

I think this is easy to handicap.

HRC spent 8 years in the WH gathering chits, now she can start cashing them in.

Obama is doing a Gore 84.  Probably angling for VP with HRC.  He will scramble the AA vote for HRC, that she was probably counting on to wrap up the nomination.  But she has 8 years of chits gathered in the WH.  That is why Clark is not running.  Ask his son.  I'd say HRC will have to run harder than she expected, but ultimately she has the party establishment behind her.  Remember how they united against Dean.

Edwards will run a noble race reminding us that there is still a lower and a middle class in this country, endangered though the latter may be.  In the best tradition of US national politics, his message will be coopted by the HRC campaign.  Edwards will not get the nomination in a time dominated by scared voters and foreign policy (Iraq).

The only thing that could seriously scramble things: if Gore were to surprise everyone.

And you know what?  I think he's going to surprise us.  I think he's relishing the reception his documentary got, and thinking about the platform a campaign would give him to put global warming on the national agenda.

Just a hunch.

Gore will be the Clark of 2008, in that his supporters will never stop waiting for him to enter until he either does so or the first primary happens.  His delay will cause a significant portion of Dems to withhold their support from ANY announced candidate.

and as duty guides him, I think he will run.  

He said a day or so ago that he would announce within the next few weeks, but that he is currently trying to do what he can to move foreign policy in the right way (I think by helpting to craft the congressional message and with op eds).  Once he announces, the perception that his words are a reflection of his campaign, instead of "what they are" will cloud things.

But looking at his schedule on securingamerica.com I'm thinking that Monday would be a nice day for an announcement.  

John Edwards timing is wrong.  The candidate with the most foreign policy experience, coupled with domestic policy experience will win.  Outside of the netroots, which is still a very small percentage of the Dem party at large, there is going to be a swell of support for Senator Clinton, based on her record and her past 28 to 30 years of political experience, right back to her 12 year stint as First Lady of Arkansas, to the present day.  And Bill Clinton will be criss-crossing the country on her behalf as her biggest promoter and fundraiser.  Hillary is 60 years old and has waited her life for this opportunity and the time is right.  She deserves it.  I hope she gets it.  She has certainly paid her dues.

(1) Will Gore enter the race?
(2) Will Edwards accept being second banana to Gore?
(3) Will Obama accept being second banana to Edwards?

I will have to really hold my breath if we wind up with a Clinton/Obama ticket. If that happens, the Red Warrior Pundits will cut them to shreds. Are enough Americans smart enough to ignore their God-and-Country-flavored attacks?

I get a fuzzy picture whenever I try to envision  VP Hillary. She is in a precarious position. The country could probably handle her as VP, but I doubt that she could stomach being VP under the candidates we have who can win.

Edwards & Obama has a very nice ring to it, but as someone said, their lack of experience could really hold back a strong Edwards/Obama ticket.

That brings me to the only combination that allows me a sigh of relief. A Gore/Edwards ticket would win. McCain may as well throw in the towel before he spends all that money campaigning.

http://sucktheboob.blogspot.com

I find it interesting that there's so much support for Gore. Very interesting indeed.

If he gets the nomination in 2008, I will have to take the path of the 2000 election and vote for Nader. Al Gore will do nothing for our country.

If Edwards is the best we've got... Ok...
But I'm still putting my money (and time and effort) on Obama. It's time to make history.

And if Barack Obama doesn't run or gets knocked out early, I will fight tooth and nail against Hillary. I dislike her for the same reasons I dislike Gore -- snootiness doesn't make friends.