Harry Reid vs. HRC: 2008 nominee

by Carl Nyberg, Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 06:28:28 AM EDT

Who do you prefer the Dems nominate in 2008?

  • Hillary Rodham Clinton
  • Harry Reid

Fighting out of the Blue corner, representing somewhere in Illinois-Arkansas-New Yawk, the junior senator from the Empire State, and former first lady, Hilllllaaaarryy Rodhammmm Clintooooooon.

And out of the Red--almost purple--corner, from Searchlight, Nevada, the minority leader of the United States Senate, the Mormon with Moxie, Harrrry Reid!

Tags: (all tags)

  • 71 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

71 Comments

Shadow_head_small
the back story
See this exchange for background on the poll.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 06:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Full disclosure:
I'm voting for Reid, too. I like him better, but I still say that Hillary would beat him in the actual primary season.

Also, I recommended this so that everyone will see it.

by craverguy 2005-08-20 06:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
theory vs. reality
But the actual primaries aren't head-to-head like this.

The candidates raise a bunch of money and compete in a crowded field.

The existing system works to the advantage of a candidate like HRC. Hopefully, these kind of polls will show her activist supporters how weak her support really is.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 06:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: theory vs. reality
Does this mean that you'll do one head-to-head poll for each person on your list? That would be interesting.

I'd just like to point out, though, that the 2000 primaries were head-to-head.

by craverguy 2005-08-20 06:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: theory vs. reality
I created a series of ranked polls in this diary.

I don't aspire to do a bunch of one-on-one polls at MyDD because it clutters the diaries.

But I think it's illustrative to point out how weak HRC is even if she's got a bunch of name recognition.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 06:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
My replies to your polls.
Anti-Iraq War

Barbara Boxer = 8
Wes Clark = 7
Russ Feingold = 10
Al Gore = -4
Bob Graham = -4
Paul Hackett = 5
Dennis Kucinich = 5
Barack Obama = 6

BlueGuvs

Rod Blagojevich = 3
"Jerry" Brown = 7
Gray Davis = -4
Howard Dean = 9
Eliot Spitzer = 6

Clinton Connection

Wes Clark = 7
Hillary Rodham Clinton = -3
Rahm Emanuel = 4
Al Gore = -4
Robert Reich = 8
Bill Richardson = -4
Robert Rubin = 0

Guy's Guy

Bill Bradley = 6
Wes Clark = 7
Paul Hackett = 5
Bob Kerrey = -3
Brian Schweitzer = 6
Jesse Ventura = 5
Ted Turner = -10

Organized Labor

David Bonior = 0
Hillary Rodham Clinton = -3
John Edwards = 4
Russ Feingold = 10
Dick Gephardt = 4
Dennis Kucinich = 5

PurpleGuvs

John Corzine--NJ = 4
Bob Graham--FL = -4
Angus King--ME = 0
John Lynch--NH = 0
Janet Napolitano--AZ = 0
Ed Rendell--PA = -3
Bill Richardson--NM = -4
Jean Shaheen--NH = 0
Tom Vilsack--IA = -10
Mark Warner--VA = -7

RedGuvs

Evan Bayh = -10
Kathleen Blanco = 0
Phil Bredesen = -7
Mike Easley = -7
Brad Henry = 8
Bob Kerrey = -3
Ben Nelson = -5
Kathleen Selebius = 0
Brian Schweitzer = 6

Current Senators

Joe Biden = 3
Barbara Boxer = 8
Hillary Rodham Clinton = -3
Russ Feingold = 10
John Kerry = 1
Mary Landrieu = -3
Blanche Lincoln = -3
Barack Obama = 6
Harry Reid = 5

Former Senators

Bill Bradley = 6
John Breaux = -8
Max Cleland = 4
John Edwards = 4
Gary Hart = 7
George Mitchell = 0
Sam Nunn = -4

Southern Guvs

Roy Barnes--GA (former) = -6
Kathleen Blanco--LA = -3
Phil Bredesen--TN = 0
Jim Easley--NC = -7
Bob Graham--FL (former) = -4
Brad Henry--OK = 8
Jim Hodges--SC (former) = 0
James Hunt--NC (former) = 0
Ronnie Musgrove--MS (former) = 0
Mark Warner--VA = -7

I mainly put down "0" for the ones I didn't know. A bit cheeky putting Spitzer down already, eh? ;)

by craverguy 2005-08-20 07:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Corzine and Hackett too
I assume Spitzer and Corzine are gonna win. Hackett too.

Obviously, if they lose their 06 races they aren't contenders.

What about a Hackett/Graham ticket?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 07:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bob Graham = -4
I'm not a big Bob Graham fan. That "I'm from the electable wing of the Democratic Party" line made my blood boil.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 07:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bob Graham
Bob Graham has many good points.

  1. popular former governor of a big swing Southern state
  2. fiscal hawk
  3. knowledgable about intel and security
  4. voted against the Iraq War for the right reason--underming conflict with al Qaeda

In theory Graham is the kind of guy that should be able to bridge the DLC types and anti-war types.

In 2004 he didn't click with journalists and he hit the wrong notes. But with some reflection and a better choice of campaign staff he should be a serious candidate.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 07:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bob Graham
#1- I'm really tired of nominating people based on geaography.
#2- Yeah, the kind who takes his hawkishness out on welfare, instead of the Pentagon.
#3- Really helpful to Kerry, wasn't it.
#4- I concede that point.

My point is that when I look at potential VP candidates, I look at someone that I would like to see running the country if my first choice dies. Graham doesn't fit that bill.

by craverguy 2005-08-20 07:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
security and intel
Kerry proved he didn't grasp security and intel with his Iraq War votes.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 07:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
If you say so.
Anyway, my hope is for a Feingold/Henry or Feingold/Schweitzer ticket, although Feingold/Hart will do in a pinch.

How 'bout you?

by craverguy 2005-08-20 07:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Feingold/???
I'm a dislodgable Feingold supporter.

Feingold/Richardson is probably logical.

Feingold/Obama would rock. I'm also a fan of Feingold/Ryan.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 08:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Feingold/???
Ryan who?
by craverguy 2005-08-20 08:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Tim Ryan
Tim Ryan, populist, anti-Neo Liberal, Iraq War criticizing young buck from Ohio.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 08:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Tim Ryan
Probably not. If a congressman were to make it onto the ticket, it would have to be someone with name recognition. Someone like Hackett, Jackson, or Gephardt.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 08:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: If you say so.
A Feingold/Obama ticket would probably be my first choice. Feingold/Spitzer is my second (I say screw regional balance and nominating a VP from the West or South).
by schwompa 2005-08-20 08:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Bob Graham = -4
I like Bob Graham voted for him he may not be the most Liberal but he sure as hell is better than Martinez.
by Liberal 2005-08-21 10:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Corzine and Hackett too
What about a Hackett/Graham ticket?

This is nuts! Really nuts!!

Carl, when will you stop push-polling Hackett as a 2008 presidential contender?

Paul Hackett's political cache, notwithstanding his heroic run for a house seat in 2005, is really really tiny to be even mentioned for the 2008 pres. race, IMO.

Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 08:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
He's not push-polling Hackett.
If you don't like Hackett, you can give him as big a negative rating as you like.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 08:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He's not push-polling Hackett.
I think that Carl IS DEFINITELY push-polling Hackett.

But I definitely will not use the ratings for this purpose, because that would be curtailing Carl's freedom of his speech in this case.

But if I could, I would "unrecommend" this diary that I had recommended earlier because I found the Reid Vs Clinton matchup to be quite interesting. But Carl seems to be using the diary's place on the "recommended list" to promote Hackett for 2008 (an insane proposition IMO) instead.

Oh, BTW, I actually admire Hackett a lot, and want to see him go places, but would want him to do so in logical and well-earned steps.

Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 08:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He's not push-polling Hackett.
How many of my posts mention Hackett?

One.

It was pointed out that Spitzer hadn't won yet. I responded that I had categorized Corzine and Hackett based on the anticipation of winning too.

Go back and read what I wrote. I don't think I'm pushing Hackett in an inappropriate manner.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 08:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Just out of curiosity, Carl...
...where did Ted Turner come from?

After that, I half-expected to see Donald Trump on one of the lists.

by craverguy 2005-08-20 08:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just out of curiosity, Carl...
Ted's rich. He's a Democrat. He cares about issues.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 08:58AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Just out of curiosity, Carl...
Since when? I've never seen him at any rallies.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 09:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ted Turner
I don't know when he became a Dem.

He gave $1 billion to the United Nations. He's the largest private landowner west of the Mississippi. He bought the land for conservation.

He was a big Max Cleland supporter.

He maxed out to Edwards and then Kerry in 2004. He maxed to the DNC. And gave $5000 to the LCV.

Democrat enough for you?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 09:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Ted Turner
Yeah, but I still wouldn't vote for him if he paid me. I expect my candidates to have some sort of title in front of their name.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 09:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He's not push-polling Hackett.
How many of my posts mention Hackett?

One.

Not true: how about (pls note that I am talking about your promotion of the "Hackett 2008" concept, and  not your Hackett comments of other kind)

  • here
  • here, where, in fact, you go ahead and claim that the greater Chicago region is ready and perhaps pining for Hackett to run in 2008 :)

And, not to mention your polls that you cite here.

Carl, I am guessing that you as someone with uncommon guts relates to Hackett passionately, but being president requires more than courage, guts, charm, and charisma all of which Hackett possesses in generous degrees, along with other good qualities.

The scantiest possibility of Hackett running for the head of the ticket in 2008 is this: he runs and wins the OH senate seat in 2006, and then somehow convinces everyone (in about 6-8 months after getting to the senate) that he is ready for the top job on the planet. I'd estimate that the probability of Hackett being declared the pres-elect in Nov 2008 is about 1 in 1 million, if not worse. Sure, the cReepublican spin machine can possibly pull it off even against these odds, but no way can it happen on this side of aisle.

That's why I think that "Heckett for President 2008" is an ludicrous and insane proposition, at least as things stand today.

But, having said that, your freedom of speech is your inalienable right. Use it :)

Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 09:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He's not push-polling Hackett.
"Being president requires more than courage, guts, charm, and charisma."

Tell that to John F. Kennedy.

by craverguy 2005-08-20 09:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Brief JFK Bio
KENNEDY, John Fitzgerald: "... elected as a Democrat to the Eightieth, Eighty-first, and Eighty-second Congresses (January 3, 1947-January 3, 1953); did not seek renomination in 1952; elected to the United States Senate in 1952; reelected in 1958 and served from January 3, 1953 to December 22, 1960, when he resigned to become President of the United State".

that's 14 years in the US congress before reaching the WH.

and then, what doeth thou say? :)

Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 09:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Link to JFK's Bio
Oh, here is the link to JFK's bio.
by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 09:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Brief JFK Bio
That if the presidential nomination that year had been handed out on the basis of experience and actual accomplishments, it would have been Lyndon Johnson or Hubert Humphrey in the top slot, and everyone involved knew it.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 09:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Brief JFK Bio
That if the presidential nomination that year had been handed out on the basis of experience and actual accomplishments, it would have been Lyndon Johnson or Hubert Humphrey in the top slot, and everyone involved knew it.

Care to compare the experience and accomplishments (prior to 1960) with hard facts?

Even so, whoever said that only experience and accomplishments determine the nominee (experience together with the personal qualities makes the bio)? Or are you trying to employ somekind of cReepublican Logic to make up for lack of substance in your argument?

Give it up.

Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 09:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Brief bios of the three.
Hubert Humphrey Experience (Pre-1960): Four years as mayor of a major city. Twelve years in the U.S. senate. Combined 16 years of government service.

Hubert Humprey Accomplishments: Co-founded Americans for Democratic Action, cleaned out bigots and anti-Semites from city government, single-handedly got a pro-civil rights plank in the Democratic Party platform in 1948, thought up the Peace Corps, Food for Peace, and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Lyndon Johnson Experience (Pre-1960): Four years in the House of Representatives. Nineteen years in the U.S. senate. Combined 23 years of government service.

Lyndon Johnson Accomplishments (Pre-1960): Won the Silver Star in World War II, served as Senate Majority Leader for seven years, one of only three southern senators not to sign the Southern Manifesto, was instrumental as Majority Leader in passing dozens of pieces of progressive legislation.

John F. Kennedy Experience (Pre-1960): Six years in the House of Representatives. Eight years in the Senate. Combined 14 years of government service.

John F. Kennedy Accomplishments: Won the Purple Heart, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. Did absolutely squat in Congress.

by craverguy 2005-08-20 09:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Kennedy in Congress
He did make key votes against civil rights on amendments to civil rights legislation. This is what endeared him to the South.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 10:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
a Hackett scenario
If Hackett defeats DeWine in '06 he could run for POTUS.

In a field of

Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Phil Bredesen
Wes Clark
Hillary Rodham Clinton
John Edwards
Russ Feingold
Paul Hackett
Dennis Kucinich
Janet Napolitano
Ben Nelson
Ed Rendell
Bill Richardson
Tom Vilsack
 Mark Warner

Hackett could do well enough in Iowa to continue into New Hampshire.

Who will make it to NH?

Evan Bayh OR Ben Nelson
Wes Clark
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Russ Feingold
Paul Hackett
Dennis Kucinich
Bill Richardson
Mark Warner OR Phil Bredesen OR John Edwards

Picture

Bayh
Clark
HRC
Feingold
Hackett
Kucinich
Richardson
Edwards

If Clark fails to catch on again and Feingold stumbles, Hackett could win in NH.

It's not likely, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Hackett is good with the media. He seems genuine.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 09:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The hallucination continues :)
while at it, please pass around the joint :)
Neo
by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 09:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Full disclosure:
but I still say that Hillary would beat him in the actual primary season.

My guess-o-meter says Reid would beat Hillary in an actual primary. To put a finger on why, perhaps Reid's apparent sincerity and down-to-earthness may trump Hillary's high profile name recognition.

In terms of primary machanics, I'd say that Reid would be favored by IA dems, and NH would go for Hill. Then, SC is a tough call (due to the demographics there), but I'd go with Reid by a thin margin.
Then, rest of the way, the 2004 clearcut red vs blue should break resp. for Reid and Hillary. And the battle would center on OH/FL/WI/NM I'd say. I'd give: FL:HRC, OH,WI,NM: HR. So Reid wins.

That's my take :)

Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 07:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Reid for me this time
For me, between these two capable and intelligent folks, it came down to whom I trust more. After some thought, I went with Sen. Reid, despite the fact that Hillary used to be far closer to my political leanings.

thanks for the poll, Carl.

Neo

by NeoLiberal 2005-08-20 06:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
HRC supporters
are invited to speak up for their candidate.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 06:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Between these two,
I'd probably pick HRC. Reid seems too soft-spoken -- I'm not sure he could carry a national campaign. I'm not fond of either.
by catastrophile 2005-08-20 07:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: HRC supporters
Hillary is #1 in my book!  She is smart, tough, wise and shares the values that will make America a better place for all.  Under her administration the middle class will do better, college will become more accessible, poverty will be reduced, schools will be improved, domestic security will be improved  and we will be looking towards building a better country, as opposed to fighting illegal wars for Texas Oilmen.
by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 10:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: HRC supporters
Is there any reason to believe that any of that would be untrue in the Reid administration?
by craverguy 2005-08-20 10:24AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: HRC supporters
Yes, because under a Harry Reid administration there is less chance of there being a Harry Reid administration.  But under a Hillary administration there is not only a very good chance of there being a Hillary administration, but she is the only Democrat in the possible-race that can hit the ground running.  And that counts for a lot in the post-Bush world.
by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 10:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: HRC supporters
Eh? During the Harry Reid administration there's no chance of a Harry Reid administration? Am I missing something here?
by craverguy 2005-08-20 10:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
What's the point of this?
Is Reid running now?  I've never heard of him being even slightly interested in a run.

Anyway,  I would never vote for him.  Even if by some weird happenstance he did decide to run.  I won't vote for a anti-abortion candidate--  I refuse to put poor and young women's lives at stake for politial convenience.

by bellarose 2005-08-20 07:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What's the point of this?
Did you read the link I provided?
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 07:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
hum
I think it's interesting that Reid is clearly winning this poll even though, in a comparison of their records, Hillary would probably end up further to the left than Reid.

I guess this is what Hillary gets for doing everything she can to make it very clear that she is a New Democrat, something that used to be called a Republican. I might disagree with Reid on a number of issues but at least he's willing to put up the occasional fight.

by punishinglemur 2005-08-20 08:45AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hillary, because:
She tried to get universal health care for Americans, and that shows what she values and the kind of person she really is

She is not the least be naive about what being President is and isn't, she can hit the ground running and we need someone who can fix George's mess without delay

She will be able to govern since she's dead set on building a middle coalition

We need to win in 2008, and Hillary is the most electable Democrat out there

by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 10:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
choosing words
I don't think that "most electable" thing is gonna play well in 2008.
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 10:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: choosing words
how better to make sure it doesn't by claiming all the candidates are most electable right out of the gate - especially as others are trying to brand certain candidates as unelectable becuase of what the extremists on the Right think about them.
by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 10:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
That might not work.
You can call Al Sharpton "electable" until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it so.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 10:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: That might not work.
Well I was not considering fringe candidates - but since Harry, Hillary, Al, John and Joe are not on the fringe my point holds.
by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 10:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: That might not work.
I don't think Sharpton is on the fringe. Whenever they had debates during the primaries, his positions always got the most applause.
by craverguy 2005-08-20 10:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: That might not work.
okay - I can't beat that.  But I don't think that Kucinich or Nader are fringe either - especially since I agree with them both on almost everything.  Which, of course, negates the category.  So there was no point to be made afterall. I therefore retract my non-point.
by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 10:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: choosing words
Do you think that the MyDD people that voted against HRC did so b/c of the Right Wing noise?

Why don't you ask people why they oppose HRC?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 10:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: choosing words
no, not at all.  But regardless of why the people in this poll voted one way or another, I have still heard a lot of "the Right wing hates her = she can't win" from a lot of people.  That was my point.
by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 10:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Dem opposition to HRC
Have you considered that Democratic leaning activists have their own reasons for opposing HRC?

Perhaps her constant moving to the Right makes people suspicious she's gonna sell them out if she gets elected?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 11:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nawww . . .
We don't associate the Clinton name with selling out! Where did you get that idea?
by catastrophile 2005-08-20 11:14AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nawww . . .
Glances furtively around, leans over, and whispers:

Psst. Welfare "reform." NAFTA. The crime bill. Pass it on. Be careful, or the DLC thought police might find us out.

by craverguy 2005-08-20 11:19AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Shhh!
Don't you know there's been a truce called? If they hear you, they'll start shelling us again!

INCOMING!!!

<boom!>

Damn! Sarge got hit by a From Bomb! Worst thing I ever saw . . .

by catastrophile 2005-08-20 11:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Two words and a letter
George W. Bush

We can't risk another 4-8 years of total Republican rule in the post Bush world.  Too much is at stake, and too much has already gone horribly wrong.  2008 is more important than 2004, if only because George W Bush had 4 more years to run America into the ground.

by Tom Kertes 2005-08-20 12:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Two words and a letter
You don't see the Clinton eight years as setting-up the Bush eight years in some way?

Remember Bill Clinton encouraging people to support the Iraq invasion?

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 12:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Two words and a letter
"This is too important, do it my way."

If it's so important to you, you best get on board with somebody else.

Clinton is one Dem I won't vote for.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 12:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Two words and a letter
If so much is at stake, the DLC and the Dem power brokers better pay more attention to the grassroots. Hillary's compassionate warmonger platform isn't going to unite the party and triangulation isn't going to fool anybody.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-20 05:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
This Diary Is Totally Insane
That's my contribution to freedom of speech. Unless you are talking about whether HRC should replace Reid as Senate Majority/Minority leader, depending on the outcome of the 2006 election. HRC and Reid are equally unlikely candidates to win a Democratic primary.

By 2008 support for the Iraq war in the Democratic party will be in the low teens. Any candidate that has not proposed a plan for an immediate pull out is dead meat. Democratic primary voters will demand at the very least a workable plan to have the last soldier out of Iraq by 2010, at the latest.

Wes Clark's appearance at TPM Cafe at the end of the month is going to be very interesting. I would be very surprised if Wes has a chance to discuss anything but Iraq. The next watershed event is going to be the Peace Rally that will be held across the country at the end of September.

Let's see how things look in October 2005, before we try to predict the outcome of the 2007 primary.  How many surprise upsets there are in the 2006 elections will be the biggest factor in determining who the favorites are for 2008.

It is theoretically possible that the Dems could take back both houses of Congress. Not at all likely, but either a severe economic downturn or an even worse picture in Iraq could do the trick. An economic downturn plus a worse picture in Iraq could give both houses of Congress back to the Dems. The 2006 election will tell us what the overall mood of the country is.

Nobody's predictions are any more accurate than a Magic 8 Ball untile we see the primary winners and losers, the results of the 2006 election, and most importantly, whether the Dems control one or two houses of Congress, or none.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-20 12:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
nominating HRC is insane
The point was to show that HRC is a weak candidate even against an improbable candidate like Reid.

If Reid beats HRC almost 2:1 with the netroots, imagine how she'd do head-to-head with Feingold or Clark.

This doesn't mean the establishment can't strong-arm her through the primary. But if they want the party to remain unified they'll go with someone else.

by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 01:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
One thing I can say for sure:
If that new Geena Davis thing finds an audience, HRC is going to sweep the f@cking primaries in 2008. It ain't right, but you know it's true.
by catastrophile 2005-08-20 01:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Warren Beatty
Sorta like Bulworth affected U.S. politics....
by Carl Nyberg 2005-08-20 02:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
No,
more like the West Wing got everybody pining for a Bartlett in office . . . if there had been such a character in the 2004 Dem primaries, he prolly woulda took it. (Y'know, like a John Edwards, only with . . . testicles, I guess.)

<smacks forehead>

That's what happened! We wound up with John Kerry instead of testicles!

(Sorry.)

by catastrophile 2005-08-20 03:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: One thing I can say for sure:
In the real world not Hollyweird world the GOP will beat Hillary like a drum in 2008.  The Clinton/Gore administration's legalistic approach to Usa'ama binLaden and al-Qa'ida basically allowed the monster to gather its forces and allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed. My source on this Michael Scheuer.  If the Dems want to win in 2008, we would do better to nominate someone well outside the Clinton/Gore administration.  Evan Bayh seems like a good possiblity to me.  Any other ideas?
by ivortheenginedriver 2005-08-21 04:52AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------