January 23, 2007

'08 a go go

Let's see....

most likely Biden
and possibly

most likely McCain
and possibly
Tommy Thompson
and Gingrich (ugh!)

It's going to be a demolition derby this time around. Any thoughts?

Who's your front-runner to get the nomination in either party? (and yes, I know it's ridiculously early... but just to get a marker down.)

A helpful reader sent along this tidbit showing some surprising numbers for Vilsack:
A new poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucusgoers shows that Tom Vilsack is locked in a statistical tie with Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton one year before the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. Tom tied Obama in the poll even though a segment of the poll was conducted on the same day that Obama received positive news coverage of his decision to form a presidential exploratory committee.

The Zogby poll of 596 likely caucusgoers, conducted January 15-16, showed Obama earning the support of 17% of those polled, while Tom and Clinton got 16%. Former Senator John Edwards earned the support of 27% of those polled. Biden, Kerry, Richardson and Kucinich each polled less than five percent.


At 1/24/2007 12:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This would be fun if we could turn it into a stock market game. Set expected growth rates, P/E ratios, mergers and acquisitions as the field narrows, etc. My "growth stocks" would be Obama and Giuliani and my "value stocks" would be Edwards and McCain.

I hope Clark doesn't run again. If I were to consider voting for a General to polish the droppings left behind by the incumbent, it wouldn't be Clark. I'd rather it be someone far less egotistical and far more talented, like GEN Powell or recently retired GEN James L. Jones (wonder where he leans politically?).

At 1/24/2007 7:51 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I could be wrong, but I just don't get a real sense that Rudy Giuliani is going to get into the race. I like Rudy, I might be inclined to support Rudy. But he just doesn't seem to want it bad enough. It reminds me of the Senate race vs. Hillary. There is an exploratory stage and then he stops exploring and calls it off. I just have a feeling that he is going to be a no-show. Sure he has the best numbers and is real popular, but that doesn't make a candidate. Colin Powell, Mario Cuomo and Condie Rice all had good numbers too.

McCain- well I think that the novelty has worn off. A lot has changed between 2000 and now. Independents aren't buying this time. Age is a concern- he doesn't look well. McCain never ran well in Iowa. (Never ran in Iowa at all) I just don't see it happening.

Sam Brownback will get the Christian conservatives. He comes across much better than past candidates ideologues of the religous right. (Robertson, Bauer, Keyes, Buchanan) I think he will run very well.

Mitt Romney might end up the nominee. He is acceptable to Main Street Republicans and to conservatives. And he will be able to raise the dough. He has the charisma and the biography to show that he is presidential material. Electable? You bet. For a Mormon Republican to get elected governor of Massachusetts speaks volumes. And yes I know there is some nitpicking going on about how Romney changed his position on various things. But if you are going to hold candidates to that standard, then let's eliminate Obama right away, because Senator Obama did give his word to Tim Russert that he would serve out his full term as Senator of Illinois. In the words of Dad Brady to son Greg Brady: "You said you wanted to live by EXACT words."

If Obama does run, look out for the Clinton machine to pull out all the stops, complete with the million pound shithammer. But will it work against Obama, the one who can do no wrong? Or will it back fire.

I have nothing but contempt for Bill Richardson. He was a disaster as Energy Secretary with all those security leaks at Los Alamos and Chinese spying that happened under his watch. How will he answer for that? And i pity the people of New Mexico who re-elected him, knowing that he never stays home or does the job he was elected to do. He's always jetsetting around the world and indulging his ego. He is a fat clown and I look forward to his concession speech after New Hampshire.

It's Romney vs. Hillary.

At 1/25/2007 7:50 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Interesting Nico.

I'd point out though, that the false story that the Clinton camp was the source of some phony report that Obama attended a "madrassa" in his youth was just that, false.

Clinton hasn't hammered on Obama yet, and though I'm sure they're not out to make him look good, I sort of doubt we'll see any out and out club swinging, though if things get tight, who knows?

Your thinking on McCain makes a lot of sense. I don't see Romney or Brownback, but that's just because I can't imagine them being president. If either are nominated, it will be good news for the Dems.

I'm with you on Richardson, though perhaps not quite for the same reasons. I didn't think he was that bad in the cabinet, but he certainly didn't distinguish himself. I've wondered out loud even a few months ago when he was mentioned as a potential candidate why anyone would consider that.

I mean, the guy's Hispanic. Beyond that, I don't see much at all to offer. No charisma, and though he's been a good governor by most accounts, nothing much to distinguish himself or qualify himself for national leadership. His entire candidacy is a mystery to me. (as are several others)

At 1/25/2007 1:39 PM, Blogger Carl Nyberg said...

If Hillary Rodham Clinton goes dirty on Obama in the primary I predict Black voters will revolt in the general election.

This will be a disaster for Dem candidates for Senate and Governor, not to mention HRC.

I don't see HRC going negative against Obama. I think HRC is going to position herself as the original victim of the modern GOP before they fucked over the rest of us with the Iraq War and Bush deficits.

W got elected gov of the Lone Star State out of buyer's remorse over Bill Clinton. I would see literary to elect HRC over buyer's remorse over W.

At 1/25/2007 4:03 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I have seen many times where the Dems like to play it safe and not take risks and nominate someone who is a "known" entity and experienced and stable and has paid their dues. They won't pick an outsider, not someone who is different- ot someonewho will rock the boat too much. And I don't care how much "grass-roots" support they have. That's why the nominee is going to be Hillary and we might as well go back to sleep.
Think about all the times DNC has played it safe: they picked John Kerry over Howard Dean, Clinton over Brown in 92, Dukakis over Jesse Jackson in 1988, Mondale over Gary Hart, etc.
Frankly, I think it would be good for Obama to get dusted up a little bit. I think he is overrated as a speaker. Since when does having a deep voice and being able to put together a sentence pass for "charisma"? Also, I read about 1/3 to 1/2 of both of his books and guess what? Obama's writing is boring. When I heard his speech at the DNC I thought of how I had been saying these same things for years, regarding education and race-He isn't offering anything "new". Sometimes I think American voters are impressed too easily.

At 1/26/2007 7:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a group - the best thing that the Republicans can offer is a man who is left of JFK (seriously, both parties have moved that much to the left) -

and the best thing that the Democrats can offer is a PR-machine (Obama) who no one knows anything about (and does not even care!) and Hillary who, by most reports, is the most scheming politician going, who would (and has) sold out her principles to gain favor with voters (wonder where she learned that!?).

Politics - what a great system we have!

At 1/28/2007 8:28 AM, Blogger Milton said...

Giuliani and Obama can't get through their parties. It won't happen and I am surpised people are saying it. Giuliani in Iowa and Obama in the south.

At 1/29/2007 11:59 PM, Blogger tiz said...

I don't see a party with a huge evangelical base nominating moderate mormon. I think Brownback has a better chance here in Iowa than Romney does which really is a shame. I'd love to be proven wrong. McCain is toast here. Conservatives still don't trust him. Moderates and "Reagan Democrats" are upset that he's taken to kissing the right's collective ass the last year or so. Most of the republicans I know are saying the same things about McCain that many dems are saying about HRC. And as Nico points out McCain looks to have aged a lot over the last few years..

I'd like to see Gore shake things up and run. I think a Gore/Obama ticket would be solid and could be an easier path to an Obama presidency. When I go to vote I'll have to dig up my Kerry04 noseplugs if HRC gets the nod. =]


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home