I was wondering about a brokered convention, too.

With so many "native sons" running, what primaries have meaning anymore?

Hear it? Right wingnut heads are exploding all over the place. Think of the possibilities. Listen to that crescendo.

As for the attitude and actions of our lazy and incompetent national media - Smithers, release the hounds.

Put me in the "brokered convention" camp.

By Labor Day or the end of Summer, I expect to see all the candidates with polling numbers in the range of 15 to 18 percent, given that the activists will be working hard for their particular candidates.

Thus, anyone with more than 18% is in "good shape" and anyone with less than the 18% will be considered "less viable" in the public's perception.

But there will be considerable "angst" among the activists as the candidates begin talking among themselves, and outside the hearing and beyond the range of the respective campaign staffs and their teams of activists.

And for the perceptive readers, with this post, I may be practicing the McCain Doctrine of Self-Destruction?  :-)

What kind of scenario are you thinking of when you say a brokered convention would be more likely?

I suppose it is fair to say that your report of "primary creep" is more news than HC's announcement is.  If the primaries move up any sooner or closer together, we may as well do it over the Internet next weekend.

How will Hillary do? What will are allies and enemies around the world think? Will Lush Rimbaugh choke on his own spit?  Interesting times!

"Clinton internet team had the email's of bloggers to notify them separate from the press (no such outreach from the Obama camp)."

Ouch...the "bloggers" are a sensitive group ;)

Considering how much effort is expended by bloggers to be accredited as "press" and then complain when they are treated as "press" seems a bit contradictory.

It does raise an interesting point. Many bloggers are more like a special interest group leaders vs. journalists. If space gets tight (the press plane for  example in the various campaigns) I wonder how campaign press person is going to make the cuts?  Who gets "on the bus", reporter for the Local Disturber or the Betty Boop Blogger?

A brokered convention...Matt Santos for President!!!

No blog outreach by Camp Clinton to South Carolina bloggers.

I liked Clinton's video, but I couldn't get past one stupidy girly thing.  My mom has an embroidered pillow almost exactly like the one Clinton's arm is squishing for most of the video.  Those pillows are expensive!  I guess whoever was directing the video doesn't know much about hand-embroidered pillows.

I have doubts there would be a brokered convention. If there is I think you would see Obama or Edwards making a deal with Clinton for VP if she has the most delegates going into the convention (but not enough for the nomination). Unless the landscape changes dramatically I expect the nominee to be Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I would rank the chances this way.

1. Clinton

2. Obama
   
3. Edwards

The convention may be close but I think Obama and Edwards will compete for much of the same vote and that will allow Clinton to lock up the nomination fairly early on.

that John Edwards had with bloggers nationwide the night before the announcement?

Every 4 years people get in a tizzy about a brokered convention, and it never happens. Someone will emerge as the apparent frontrunner after the first round of primaries, cement support, and wipe the floor with his/her opponents. That's the way it's going to happen, because that's the way it ALWAYS happens. The frontloading is just as likely to accelerate the process of picking a nominee as retard it.

 Well, this is depressing.

 I was hoping that Hillary wouldn't run -- a futile hope, of course, but as long as she didn't announce there was always that possibility. But no.

 There's always a highly compromised, "establishment" candidate on the Democratic side who sucks up all the media oxygen and who basically destroys any chance the Democrats have to effect REAL change and resistance to Republican madness. This time around, it's Hillary.

 Hillary is there to ensure that the Democrats, should they happen to win the White House, don't actually TRY doing anything silly like stand up for labor rights, end the Iraq war, attempt real health-care reform, stuff like that.

 For Hillary Clinton to thread the needle on the defining issue of the decade, the Iraq debacle, is a stunning display of moral bankruptcy. No sentitent human has any excuse for backing that war at this point.

 Hillary Clinton is a pro-choice Republican. Good luck running with that in 2008.

While not impossible, a brokered convention is still extremely unlikely, even if CA and Florida move their primaries up. For it to happen it would defy historical trends -- specifically the trend of the positive earned media coming from a victory in a close contest in one of the pre-window  primaries being strong enough to be decisive.

2004 and 1984 are instructive on this point -- Kerry spent much less than competitors Dean and Clark on window contests like the Arizona and Missouri primaries but was able to beat both handily by riding the momentum wave. Similary in 1984, Mondale spent greatly building primary organizations in many primary states (at its height the Mondale primary campaign org had 400 paid staff), but was beaten in several states by the vastly underfunded but momentum-rich Hart campaign. The point being that brokered-convention scenarios based on wealthy campaigns building "firewalls" in second-stage states are very faulty. Especially now that we're in the era of "bustacaps" the '08 campaigns have every incentive to overspend on the earliest contests, thereby raising the stakes on early contests and limiting their ability to prepare for later primary states.

If this does end up going down to a brokered convention, do the people there have to nominate someone who has been in the primaries (I am thinking Gore)?

The likelihood of a brokered convention has less to do with primary scheduling, and much more to do with the candidates themselves.  In particular, are there any candidates who will refuse to drop out/give up, until the last primary in the schedule?  Are there two such candidates?  Three?  

In the last few presidentials, every "trailing" candidate eventually made nice, dropped out early, or put his campaign on "comatose" status (Dean after NH...very smelly).  If Edwards, Obama, HRC, Clark and Richardson ALL stay in for the duration, that will make it less likely that one candidate will get enough delegates.  Then, you have a brokered convention.  

Media whining about "getting this over now" (I hate this), late night phone calls from influential Senators (we all want you to drop out), and feelings of  "I better play along if I want to have a political future" (cue Obama), all conspire to encourage trailing candidates to give up.  You have to go back to Hart versus Mondale in 1984, to find a truly viable candidate (Hart) who had the guts to say no to all of this pressure.  How many will have the guts this time?  

My sense is that only Edwards and HRC will have the guts to go all the way to the last primary.  HRC will do it because she and her people feel they are entitled to the nomination because of the Clinton name.  Edwards will refuse to give up until the last vote because he really believes in his candidacy right here, right now...not 8 eight years from now (not interesting to him).  Like the netroots, he wants action on America's problems right now.  

As I see it, the others, for example Obama and Richardson, can easily be persuaded to drop out after the late night phone calls, and promises to help in a future presidential campaign.  Clark can also be coopted with a promise of Secretary of State or VP.  

To me, that leaves Edwards as the only candidate who really has the overwhelming interest and will to stop HRC.  To the netroots concerned about HRC and her DLC crowd, I say you better help Edwards with all your strength.  Think about it.  

Of course, in truth, this subject deserves a detailed diary that first informs the readers of how many "super-delegates" there are.  Most political types and journalists completely ignore this number until the day of the convention, but when you study this issue, you will realize that the Democratic Party has created enough super-delegates to effectively allow "party leaders" to pick the candidate from just about the beginning.  When you factor this fact in, and combine it with the national media "choosing" their favorites, you will realize that, there is much less democracy in the whole process than you first thought.

Regardless of how we all feel about HRC, the
"Big Dawg" has announced her candidacy.

I am not supporting Hillary but I have no illusions, she will be a powerful candidate. ( I am leaning Edwards unless Clark jumps in)

Make no mistake about it, Hillary will be the woman to beat in the primary. Can she be defeated? Absolutely! But its going to be Harder & Tougher than many here in the netroots are expecting.

She will no doubt be the Top Fundraiser among all candidates. All reputable organizations, from Time Magazine, Newsweek, Hotline, ARG, Cook are all predicting that she will Raise the Largest Campaign Warchest in U.S. History.

In addition,  By all accounts including gurus from Hotline, Cook & Rothernberg;  Hillary has the "Most Superior Talent Group of Presidential Campaign Consultants" ever assembled by any Presidential candidate. Hotline & Cook even point out that HRC's team will be more superior ( at least on paper & experience ) than the Bush team of Rove in 2000.

She will also have a natural base of Pro-Choice Democratic woman voters. ( Who are about 63% of all Democratic primary voters)

As Cook pointed out, If Hillary even gets just  about 40%-45% of All Women in voters in the primary, she will win this primary. And he believes that as the First Ever Serious Woman Candidate for President, getting 4 out of 10  Democratic women voters in the primary is both probable & very likely. He wouldn't be surprised if she gets even 50%-65% of all women voters.
With the rest scattering among other candidates.
At a minimal, being a major candidate, she will easily muster getting 10%-20% of men voters. The formula alone will get her over the top.

( The women vote base is twice the size of Black voters in the primary even if you exclude Black women voters who may support Obama)

If her team can indeed pull this off by February, there is an expected  BIG "United Endorsement" sometime in the next 60 days of All 10 Women Democratic Elected Senators, All 6 Women Democratic Elected Governors, and at least 37 of the 53 Women Democrats elected to Congress.
( The only expected hold-outs are almost all  African-American women House members who are expected to support Barack Obama )

It will also include Women Heads of Emily List, NARAL, & over a two Dozen National & State Women Union Leaders from across the country.

When you have heavyweight women such as Two from  California( Boxer & Feinstein), Cantwell, Makulski, Mccaskill, Blance Lincoln,Debbie Stabenow, Patti Murray, Mary Landriue, Klobuchar

Combine that with powerful & popular Women Governors led by Janet Napolitano, Sebelius, Granholm, Minner, Gregoire & Blanco- That's huge.

And with All these Women House members on her side, that will be powerful.

Women officers of the AFL-CIO alone have privately confirmed their commitment to support HRC as the 1st Woman President.

Not to mention her secret weapon in Bill Clinton.

She will no doubt be the person to beat. And it will be tougher than people here think. This is a person who has received, endured, survived the relentless Personal Attacks funded by many millions of dollars from the Right Wing Machines in the last 12 years.
Yet today, she has come out on Top & Stronger.

( Kerry collapsed in just a 3 week right wing blitz in 2004)

While Hillary has endured this is for the last 12 years of consistent attacks
with 8 years of them being the sharp & below the belt.

I prefer another candidate over her for the general elections, but I do admire her toughness. She will be in this thing until the very end.

Side note:

Wes Clark has been "friending" people on Facebook and, with that profile, he's been hammering Bush on Iraq and joining Facebook groups supporting a Clark run in 2008 (see profile here, though privacy restrictions mean that you have to be his "Facebook friend" to see the whole profile).  I'm not sure how to take that, but it's weird that he's joining the pro-Clark run groups if he's not running; if he is, it's an awfully strange way to announce.

In terms of the primaries moving up, I think that's most helpful to Richardson, both because it increases the chances of a dark horse winning some states and because of the large Latino population in California (and potentially Florida, though that is likely to be less helpful to Richardson).

I agree that Edwards may be the only candidate who may stay in the race for the long haul against Clinton. I think any who drop out will be more likely to endorse Clinton than Edwards which makes it very difficult for Edwards.

I have doubts that Clark and Richardson will run since both were part of the Clinton administration and would have a good shot at VP and Cabinet positions if Clinton is elected. If they do run and drop out  they would be very likely to support Clinton. Some of Obama's major supports were also part of the Clinton administration as well and I would think he would be more likely to endorse Clinton as well on dropping out. That does not leave much for Edwards to gain if other candidates drop out.

The likelihood for CA moving up just increased with the endorsement of the idea by Sen. Pro Tem Perata.  That means you have both legislative leaders and Arnold in support.

This is going to change the game dramatically.  A statewide ad buy will probably cost them about $3M, which is just crazy money.  The consultants are going to be making bank out here.  Arnold's boy Steve Schmidt is still in Satco working for McCain.  Larry Grisolano who is a great labor/field/direct mail guy is with Obama.  We should see more signups as this moves closer to reality.

And as blogger savvy as John Edwards was in outreach, Clinton internet team had the email's of bloggers to notify them separate from the press (no such outreach from the Obama camp).

But not savvy enough to not announce on a Saturday.

Is that those states (there are some, right?) which have still late primary dates would actually get attention.  The remaining candidates would actually go to all of them, even if not enough delegates are at stake to be decisive, to gain representatives and better yet buzz.  It would be quite interesting!

New Hampshire is REALLY starting to piss me off with all the primary shenanigans.

I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth last night... I love Obama, but if Gore runs, I may have to consider supporting him... That movie was damn scary, but he was brilliant... WHERE WAS THAT AL GORE in 2000?  He would have won in a landslide.

"Want to join them?"

Thats pretty significant coming from one of the strongest Obama partisans on this site.  I feel the same way, by the way.  I support Edwards, but I have a soft spot for Gore.  Comes from the notion that the last 6 years never should have happened, I think.

Great news for Brownback: He doesn't have to lift a finger to get the strong support of the "Nuttier Than Squirrel Shit" contingent in this country.

Did anyone notice that outside the french doors were trees full of green leaves and bright green grass? The sunlight through the trees was reminiscent of summer light. Do you think she recorded this last summer and held it ready for just the right moment?

That's simply not true. John Edwards had live webcasts of Town Hall meetings during the announcement and took questions from people online.

He's also done a webisode series of videos along with other video messages to the netroots including his message on youtube the night before the announcement.

I hate Hillary Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!

HRC and Obama are parroting John Edwards in their announcements and messages.  Yet their gender and race are what have the MSM attention's of them, besides that they are in the Senate, still contemplating their next moves. I'm surprised the blogosphere is also parroting the MSM.

Leadership indeed.

Gore could get in for California if it stays late and go to the convention with some delegates. It's the second vote that counts.