Well yes the NOW. Obama's votes as a state senator are interesting and a tad debatable, even controversial. And he has only 2 years of newbie Fed experience to gauge. He has parlayed a 2004 convention speech and a successful book tour to his current exploratory situation. 2012 could be his year, no?

That lawyer with the Breck hair and mill worker father looked promising a couple years ago until his 2 Americas bit and exposure did not really keep him as attractive as after his first splash. 

( Obama is said to smoke cigarettes, that could be more of a turnoff to some than a Muslim background.   )

The personality is working for him for sure. Susan is already pretty sure his past doesn't matter and is convinced that Obama is forthright. Obama gets quick, lightly questioned support that is for sure.

I don't claim Obama's past makes no difference, Raymond. Only that his accident of birth, who his mother married and divorced and who she later married, where she dragged her kids, when she planted him in this school or that school or even with Grandma, is nothing he has to answer for.

What he's done as an adult and as a politician should and will be thoroughly scrutinized.

Teddy Kennedy was just on Meet the Press saying he is supporting fellow Massachusett's Senator John Kerry. That support will last until John Kerry's announcement that he will NOT subject the nation to another run for the top office. At that point, the two of them can settle back into their well-worn Senate seats and do what it is they're more accustomed to doing.

Today, on the heels of Hillary Clinton's (surprise!) announcement of exploratory committee, Bill Richardson announced his "gonna look into this presidential run thing." From the Huffington Post, already these doubts about Richardson.

Can Al Sharpton's announcement be far behind?  

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Well, here we are, coming down to the wire with only 21 months to go - another poll:

...and how correct you were in your judgment, Erwin.

But, Teddy Kennedy already pre-empted you with his own version of the name. Or Wolf Blitzer with CNN's "typo" to explain.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Hillary (fair player that she is - NOT! Who were these Democratic researchers working for, after all?) is unelectable. She has way too much bad baggage and it will all come out (Whitewater again, Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm missing records, the 900 FBI files 'miraculously' found in her White House office, etc.). If the Dems field her as their candidate, she will lose them the third election in a row that was theirs to win except for the exceptionally poor candidates they foisted on the public.

Obama will completely flare out in the next 10 or 11 months, just as the Primaries come up. He is not electable.

So, who are their Dark Horses? They cannot field Kerry again in any manner, Edwards isn't strong enough, Richardson is more of a long shot than the others. Gore is way too vulnerable for another attempt. They need a rising star that can take the heat and hasn't worn out his welcome, and can actually appear not wooden or stiff to the public. So, who can those people be?

Leo's Girl has it right - a woman candidate could be very viable, but not Hillary. Feinstein? I doubt it. Boxer? Worse. Pelosi? Possible, depends on what she does in this next year and whether or not anyone puts the bug in her ear. Does she have dirt? Yes, but less than the others. There are also notable woman Governors that could possibly be put up. Arizona's Janet Napolitano, Michigan's Graham, my friend from Maui who became Governor, Linda Lingle. Oops, she's Republican.... (Hey Republicans-take a good look at Lingle!)

This will be an interesting time. Grab your binoculars and a six pack, this is a helluva lot better than football!

Looks like California, the most populous state, is going to have some say in the results this time around as both Dems and Reps seem eager to have our primary moved up to February. I think that bodes well for Obama.

Florida is shooting for an early primary too. The competition might zap some of the potency out of Iowa and New Hampshire's influence over the choosing candidates.

I'm not sure who makes the final decision on the primary dates. Jordan could easily say if he were around.

Hellllllllllllooooooooooo, Jordan. Are you out there???

Or I could Google the answer too, I suppose...

Hahaha, John, yes I do remember Gary "go ahead -- follow me" Hart. At the time, I really liked Hart and when he called his press conference, I actually thought he was going to say he was staying in the race. It seemed to start off with that tone. His dropping out was as disappointing to me as when Mario Cuomo decided not to run either.

Then there was that other front-runner, Howard Dean.

Ah, times change.

I actually liked what John McCain had to say yesterday on Meet the Press but he seemed so downcast and forlorn. If that state of mind prevails, I doubt he has the power to rally the necessary voters to win the thing. Maybe he'll shake it off, but right now he seemed mired in reality and that's rarely a winning strategy.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Why wait for someone else to do it when you can do it yourself, right? Here's the skinny on changing primary dates and its implications.

Susan 

California wants early primary

State's influence in presidential derby would grow

By Jordan Rau
Los Angeles Times

January 21, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. · With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's backing, state legislators from both parties are moving rapidly to make California a player in choosing the nation's next president by holding the state's primary four months earlier.

A bipartisan group of state senators introduced legislation Friday to change the 2008 presidential primary from June 3 to Feb. 5.

Another bill was introduced by an Assembly Republican on Thursday, the day after Schwarzenegger declared that moving up the primary date would make California "relevant" nationally and was "something to shoot for."

The February date -- the earliest the state can choose under national party rules -- would place California at the beginning of the election season, right after four states that have secured the most privileged spots in January for their Democratic caucuses or primaries: Iowa (Jan. 14), Nevada (Jan. 19), New Hampshire (Jan. 22) and South Carolina (Jan. 29).

The Republican calendar has Iowa and New Hampshire first, with the rest of the schedule in flux.

Contenders, who now bypass California except to raise money, would be forced to establish real presences in the state.

The huge cost of competing in California -- estimated by one veteran strategist to be $6 million to $8 million per candidate -- would probably require all contenders to accelerate their fundraising and possibly give an edge to those candidates who have already amassed sizable war chests, such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., according to operatives in both parties.

Republican moderates such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who might face opposition in Southern states for their liberal views on social issues, could benefit from the change.

"If California can succeed in moving up its primary, this truly is an earthquake in presidential national politics and the tremors will be felt through all 49 [other] states," said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committee member from New York and major presidential fundraiser.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Ok, so Hillary and Obama go at it, and Hillary wins a tight contest because:

a.  She has bucketloads more cash to throw at the campaign.

b.  Who the hell would vote for someone called Obama after 9/11? (which reminds me of a young Aussie bloke Ben Larden who kept getting the phone hung up on him...but I digress...

So it's Hillary vs RepublicanX.

Hillary is just so unpalatable for most of the US that she simply couldn't win.  All the Republican has to do is put a positive spin on Iraq, remind voters that they pushed for the troop withdrawal (around July this year), and they'll romp it in.

I mean seriously - Hillary Clinton? 

This Obama guy does sound interesting - all though almost too good to be true...as though 1 serious flaw will be uncovered sometime soon and shatter the illusion.

The "word" is that Obama will have the Hollywood big bucks. We'll see.

The 2008 election may be a first on many counts, in as much as I don't think the traditional no-no's will be unsurmountable. Such as: divorce, past drug use, cigarette smoking, youth, race or religious background.

Bush's second term has been lame duck city. After last night's State of the Union and last week's New Iraq Plan, I think the cement has hardened and I am picking up a faint quack-quack. This morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- both Dems and Reps -- were discussing what to do vis a vis the increase in troops. They are across the board against the Bush plan. I believe they will squash it one way or another. Feingold suggested the Senate use it's Power of Purse to do so.

So, the US is at a crossroad. There is no chance whatsoever for a Bush comeback. The country is hungry for leadership. Therefore, I think the next President will need to have the type of characteristics found in an Obama or a Giuliani -- communicative abilities, first and foremost. Someone who will be able to rally the American people around a hopeful future and be able to convincingly show the way. All previous wedge issues, from gay marriage to abortion to gun control stances, will pale by comparison to WAR and TERRORISM, and close behind, the growing problems of health care costs, Medicare and Social Security.

In such times, I don't think too many voters will be caught up in lesser divisive matters even if John Gibson has a Marlboro graphic alongside Obama; or if MoveOn.org has a contest winning ad showing Bush as Hitler; or if Keith MSNBC Olbermann does another over-the-top Mr. Bush editorial; or if Michael Moore's new film once again informs the nation how much that nation sucks.

But the negative politicking will go on as it always has in the upcoming election cycle. However, there are other avenues for those who look for a deeper more meaningful discussion. As there always have been.

Susan

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

John Kerry has just announced he is not running for President 2008. 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Another blogger poll over at Pajamas Media has interesting results. Pretty excited to see my picks for each party way out in front and I only voted ONCE! (so far...)

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Thank you to John Kerry for not running. Hopefully Gore will do the same. Add Bush, who is out of it as a lame duck caretaker pres., Cheney way too old and far too infirm physically to be even considered. And we have a new campaign season coming !!  This time really new -and that newness is welcome.

Hillary is the only one who is a 'kind of' holdover from the past-- that having been the Ist lady in the 90's.  Giuliani, Gingrich will be fun, Obama, and the others make things seem fresh . I like that feeling.

Susan, why do you like Obama, besides his interesting background and very limited experience? Is it just personality?Anything in his state senate votes you were attracted to ?

I hope side issues like divorce, smoking cigarettes : ), etc. will be of no consequence this time. Interesting to note that on the long Repub list from Pajamas Media --no mention of Condi Rice at all. Jim Gilmore , sure, and of course Mark Sanford is there ( whoever he is) No room for Ms. Rice.

When people repeat that glib untruth, it bothers me nearly as much as when people use the Liebeck vs McDonald's hot-coffee trial as proof that the legal system has gone mad, or say that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet.

There were two Bush-as-Hitler ads there, actually, submitted as part of a contest. The winner would have the honor of being refused ad space during the Super Bowl. People uploaded their submissions to the site, and they were visible to all. Other people complained by email and editorial about the two ads, and the website removed them. They didn't get past the first round of judging, and they certainly didn't win.

Not that I believe it matters much if people want to publicly compare Bush to Hitler. Rush has been comparing feminists to Nazis his entire career, and mainstream outrage about that has been, shall we say, modest.  Yet society has survived.

As the guilty PEOPLE-person who repeated the GLIB UNTRUTH in my post, I am to understand my error was calling it a contest WINNER?

Lest we forget the contest NON-WINNER was shown all over the place and was likely seen more often than the actual winner. Anyone remember the winner? It's pretty clear I wasn't monitoring the MoveOn Dot Org compet or casting my vote for the People's Choice in Bush-Bash ads but I saw it several times on the web and on TV. The analogy has been a staple of the Left for so long, not started by MoveOn; and not ended by its loss in the contest.

As to the distinction between characterizing a movement (feminism) by a radio talk show host ("femi-nazis") to a Democratic funded website ad comparing the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler, well, I think maybe another contest is in order. How many rude, inflammatory, over-inflated, sarcastic examples can we dredge up from the past 20 years to reinforce the theory that politics lead some PEOPLE to excess. Which side "wins?"

Recently, I had this discussion with a friend who continually emails me anti-Bush material. I never never never send him any anti-Pelosi, anti-Hillary Clinton or anti-any Democrat emails. Never. Every few months, he promises to cease and desist all political discussion with me. This happens with as much frequency as a Hollywood celebrity goes into rehab. But soon, he is unable to resist the temptation to send verbal daggers to one he is certain has been body and mind-snatched by the Right. "Our Fearless Leader" reads a typical subject line. Inside it is filled with "chimp," "war-monger," "lying adminstration cretins" and "Right-wing Haters." I asked if he could think of any equivalents from the Left. He wrote back and told me 'no.' The Right has the monopoly on "hate" while the Left only tells the harsh "truth." After so many years of back-and-forth with my old friend, out of utter frustration I wrote him that the essence of our discussion could be distilled into two words -- "hateful" and "silly." That is the type of conversation I find so counterproductive.

Sigh. I probably shouldn't have even commented on John Gibson's ciggie graphics, especially since I LIKE Obama! But Jamie, for you to cite hot coffee lawsuits as not auguring the end of the legal system, you must be able to see some corollary between that statement and yours suggesting an Obama Marlboro piece is indicative of all current political discourse. And you know I agree with you that society has survived all such discourse much as you and I can and will lament it.

Susan

PS Raymond, I just saw your question about what it is I like about Obama. I'll try to condense it.

It begins with what I don't like and that is Americans at each others' throats over the war and over the Bush administration. I care foremost about the United States as a country and as the great experiment it was from its onset. I'd like the country to continue as the foremost international power in the world because I believe in this country's specialness.

Bush is finished. After 8 years, the country will, as they always do, look for a president without the shortcomings of his predecessor.  Since the country does tend to seek out its center after an election cycle has gone either too far right or too far left, I concede that it's likely a Democrat will be the next president. For me the ideal would be having good choices for both Republican and Democrat candidates.  If my suspicions are correct that a Democrat will prevail, I'd like that person to be someone who is a.) smart, b.) energetic, c.) able to rally the country to his vision.

Whoever ends up in the White House next time will have a truly troubled world to confront. I expect it to be significantly worse by 2008 than even now. I believe that everyone who runs for that office does so with the belief that they are the most capable of managing the country. I believe that whoever ultimately wins has access to the country's best minds as advisers, staff and cabinet members.  I believe that all the pre-election rhetoric withers in the face of realities.

So, with Obama, I believe his youth, his charisma, his brilliant mind and his energy could afford him a significant honeymoon period during which time the world might take a deep breath. Perceptions could alter. Expectations would be high. And maybe that could jumpstart a fresh new start where Americans can work together to face what lies ahead. And what lies ahead, I'm afraid, is going to be some incredibly trying times. I'm just not ready for twilight.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Tell ya what  guys , here is a new poll to add to the discussion. whaddaya think Susan?

By TONY KARON  Thursday, Jan. 25, 2007   Time.com

Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner to win the Democratic party's nomination for President in 2008, but the Republican race will be a close contest between Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani — with McCain edging Giuliani by a three- to four-point margin. And a presidential face-off between Clinton and McCain, right now, would be close to a dead heat. Those are some of the key findings of a new TIME poll earlier this week that canvassed a random sample of 1,064 registered voters by phone.

Despite the buzz generated by Senator Barack Obama entering the race, the survey found that Senator Clinton would beat him for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 40% to 21%. Senator John Edwards is a distant third with 11%. Obama clearly suffers a disadvantage in profile among likely voters, with only 51% indicating that they knew enough about him to form an opinion, compared with 94% saying the same of Hillary Clinton. In Obama's favor, however, is his far lower negative ratings. While 58% of voters familiar with Hillary Clinton have a positive view of her, 41% give her negative marks, for a net favorability score of +17. By contrast, Obama's net favorability score is +47. On the Republican side, Giuliani has a net favorability rating of +68, with only 14% having a negative view of him. McCain's net favorability score is +45.

McCain, however, holds a narrow lead of 30% to 26% over Giuliani for the GOP nomination. A race between McCain and Clinton would be a virtual tie (47%-47%), according to the poll, while McCain would beat either Obama or Senator John Edwards by a 7-point margin.

Clinton's popularity within her party does not translate as easily across party lines as Obama's does, or indeed as Giuliani's and McCain's. Only 58% of the total sample of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable impression of her, compared with 82% for Giuliani (including 7 out of 10 Democratic voters), and 70% each for Obama and McCain — both of whom showed strongly among independents. These figures must be read against the fact that 94% of respondents said they knew "a great deal" or "some" about Clinton, while 73% said the same of Giuliani and 66% of John McCain. Only 51% knew "a great deal" or "some" about Obama.

If the election were held now, Rudy Giuliani appears to have the support of the greatest number of respondents of both parties, with 56% indicating they would "definitely" or "probably" support him — followed by Hillary Clinton (51%) John McCain (50%) and Barack Obama (50%). But Clinton has a strong edge when the question is which presidential candidate people would most like to have over to their homes for dinner. The former First Lady led the dinner-invitation field with 26%, while Obama and McCain tied for second place at 15%. But with the New Hampshire primaries a year away, the the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters, and Giuliani in landing more invitations to dinner.

I'm going to go dig up my last year's predictions on who would NOT be the Dem/Rep candidates for president. Okay. Found it but it is not from last year. Rather it is from June 9, 2005! Kinda funny but I'm still in basic agreement with myself with one notable exception.

Still have about a year before this thing is wrapped up. (So they say, anyhow) I'm actually not even going by the polls at this point except like I do with a long range weather forecast. When the long range projection says "Rain" when I'd like it to be a dry day, I consider that a good sign as I know when the day rolls around the weather is likely to have shifted. Same with the polls.

Anyone else have their old predictions around? 

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Susan, you know I love to wallow in my hyperbole. :)

I wasn't trying to paint the coffee lawsuit as a direct metaphor, it was just part of my overall rant about how we all rely on convenient fictions too easily. I know I do, and I'm lucky if I catch myself 25% of the time. But lately, with the rhetoric on both sides matching the motives of the players -- not to lead, but to win -- I find myself pulled back into the ideological footsoldier role I've been trying to abdicate.

I mercifully can't recall the precise details, but I've certainly given you good reason to correct me a time or three on a point of order, and I know you expect me to return the favor. I've mostly lost my taste for the scrimmages, at least for now, but I seem to retain an appetite for popping in as a biased ref from time to time. (Were we just talking about sloppy metaphors?)

Forgive me if my tone seemed icy or angular, though. That absolutely wasn't intended. I'm always happy to hug a Republican so long as they're one of the good ones. ;)

I know you take on the big complicated issues, but do you at least share my concern that most people seem to focus on the hot-button stuff that gets people riled up but usually isn't that vital? (And yes, I totally did that by dragging Rush into it, but in my defense, I was actually watching him and complaining about him back in the 90s when he had a syndicated tv show and still made half-a-lick of sense, so it's not like I'm being fashionable here...)

- - - - -

As far as Guiliani goes, I think he's unelectable, unless he has an amazing team. Tonight I'm printing up the allegedly-complete 120+ page campaign strategy that theoretically-amazing team leaked last week, by accident... [sepulchral] or was it? [/]