How about Obama/Daschle?  I believe Daschle has endorsed Obama already and he is someone with an appeal in farm states as well as being a very experienced politician but not Cheneyesque.  

If I got a Christmas card from John and Teresa Kerry, I'd hang onto it and I imagine most of the 75,000 who got one will do just that.

Its something different.  The card I sent out this year had a little girl and a sled on it, a black and white photo that might have been myself as a child in the 50's, or my sister or sister-in-law.  Next year I'll send something different, a card that catches my eye and I think its special and I hope the people I send it to think its special, too.

In what states would it make a difference?  I'm reading "Whistling Past Dixie" and one of the points Prof. Schaller makes is that even with black voters being a much higher percentage of the electorate in the South than in other states, Republicans easily win all the Southern states.  Which states with high enough black populations to matter are swing states?  

In my opinion, Vilsack would certainly be a better general election candidate than Obama or Edwards.  

I don't think the "tiers" of candidates have shaken out yet.  Its a year+ before the primaries start and we don't even know how the "money primary" shakes out.  Where does Obama get $40 - $50 million from?  Is there a reason for the big contributors to back Obama?  In other words, do the big contributors actually think he can win the presidency?  Does he have an actual message (as opposed to just being a fresh, new face) that would get small dollar contributor money like Dean did?  Dean had anti-Iraq war when no one else was anti-Iraq war.

The Senators can carry over their campaign warchests but I heard that governors cannot do that and I heard that Edwards and Clark cannot legally even begin to raise money until they announce.  

Right.  The UN will have credibility when it votes to use force to enforce 242 and 338.  

Carville has always been a terrible person to have out front for Democrats.  I have to strain to make out what he's saying, though it appears to be an act he's putting on with the marbles-in-the-mouth diction.  Its as though he thinks that projecting a thug attitude is more important than whatever it is he's saying.  I think he's contemptuous of the voters.  

Obviously, the Tennessee Senate seat could have been won with another candidate.  Where did they get the idea that a 36 year old unmarried guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth and handed a seat in Congress from his father was a good candidate against anyone?  The House seat his father handed him was the only one he could win, truth be told.  

Linda Stender (NJ-07) could have used some of that money.  She came in 1.7% behind the incumbent, Ferguson.  In 2004, the pro war Iraq vet Democrat who ran got 42% vs. 58% for Ferguson.  

I'm not too crazy about Murtha's plan, either, "redeploying" the troops to bases around Iraq.

Thank you for that information.  I was wondering about Harold Ford's brother running as an independent.  Was it for Harold's old seat (his father's seat before that) that was won by Steve Cohen?  

Your comment is the kind of important information the mainstream media just loves to miss in favor of a story about a TV ad.  It makes perfect sense to me that rival political machines within the Democratic Party would have cost Harold Ford a lot of votes, especially if the Ford family insisted on running one of its own as an independent to try and keep that seat.  That would look so arrogant and selfish to the voters loyal to the party.  

Lieberman is a national figure.  It should be a national story.  If he's exploding campaign finance law, thats a national story.

Did you catch what happened last week in New Jersey when Menendez and Kean were speaking in front of a Jewish audience and it became an issue whether Menendez was supporting Lieberman and Menendez made a statement that sure seemed like he was, even though his official stance has been to support the winner of the primary and official Democratic candidate, Lamont.

Whose fault is that?  I can't blame Menendez; this is the fault of Reid and Schumer and Bill Clinton and other big shot Dems who did not come out right after the primary and make strong criticisms of Lieberman running as an independent.  Lieberman was the Vice Presidential nominee; he has a special obligation  to the Democratic Party; they should have called him on, publicly.  

Feingold's issue is campaign finance reform but he's sitting on his hands while Lieberman defecates on campaign finance reform with a $387,000 slush fund.  (And that was the primary; there'll be another slush fund for the general.)

Someone posting over at the Lamont Official blog did a graph of other senate campaigns petty cash and it looks like no one else spent more than a thousand.  

There are no campaign finance laws if Lieberman can get away with taking out money in cash.  There are no laws about politicians taking bribes if they can do that.  But no major Dem has said "Boo" about it in a year when they are running against the "culture of corruption."  

What would get their attention?  Does it have to be a million dollar slush fund?  If this is OK, every campaign will do it.  The Republican out in California wouldn't have bothered to pay his wife as a campaign fundraising consultant if he'd known you can just take the money out in cash and fill in a form that says "stipend volunteers."

Where is Schumer?  He'll get his mug in front of a camera for ANYTHING; he is a known camera hound.  Here is the issue that will put a Democrat in the US Senate and he's no where to be found.