Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Big Fo]

Dead heat between Obama and Clinton among white males, behind Edwards.

Obama won 82-17 among African-American voters.

50% of the white vote 29 and under went to Obama.

[Arles]

I think Cali is key. Prior to his win today, Obama was 12 points behind Hillary. If the SC win gives him a bounce and he can get within single digits, I could see him pulling the upset there.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think Cali is key. Prior to his win today, Obama was 12 points behind Hillary. If the SC win gives him a bounce and he can get within single digits, I could see him pulling the upset there.

It could happen, but it will be very difficult for him. Hillary is very popular among hispanic voters, and will have the LA Mayor working very hard for her. I agree that targeting the state is very good for him, though. It's his best chance in the big states and if he wins it, it will make up for most of the other states he is likely to lose that day.

[Young Drachma]

He's an impressive guy, that Obama. Say what you want about his politics and his relative inexperience. But he's really impressive, even being able to go toe-to-toe with the Clintons, when by all conventional wisdom he has no business even being in the conversation at all.

Hillary is pissed that this kid is getting in the way of her coronation and I'm sure it's just going to get uglier as things go forward and I think it will fail to serve them well.

But I don't know that Obama and his whole movement will be able to do it. That said, their is something happening and I think the longer he hangs around, the worse it gets for HRC. Especially with Edwards hanging around. It's not like the guy has anything else to do, his whole career has been devoted to running for President the last seven or so years. He might as well hang out and give a speech at the convention in Denver.

[Young Drachma]

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama and while that's not a shock, since it's his "hometown newspaper" of sorts, theirs is interesting because they have a say about his time in the Illinois Senate, too.

[Bubba Wheels]

If Bill and Hill are Bonnie and Clyde, then Obama is the County Sheriff. This will continue to be great fun to watch.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama and while that's not a shock, since it's his "hometown newspaper" of sorts, theirs is interesting because they have a say about his time in the Illinois Senate, too.

That's a startlingly good endorsement for an editorial board that's about as right of center as the NYT's editorial board is left of center.

[albionmoonlight]

If there is one thing at which the Clintons excel, it is being able to adapt during a campaign. Bill went a bit crazy the last week, and the voters did not like it. He will now remain behind the scenes. And the Clintons have eight days to re-soften Hillary's image. That is like eight weeks to normal people.

I think that she will still win the nomination, though I sure do hope that it is Obama.

[Big Fo]

Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama.

what are the odds Ted gets his name right?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama.

Is that a surprise? I don't really know, but Teddy K. never seemed to be in the Clinton's sphere.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Is that a surprise? I don't really know, but Teddy K. never seemed to be in the Clinton's sphere.

It is because Hillary had seemed to have a monopoly on the Democratic establishment.

[ISiddiqui]

I found this an interesting article by Krugman in the NY Times Op-Ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/op...rugman.html?hp

January 28, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Lessons of 1992

By PAUL KRUGMAN

It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.

Now, I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a “gilded age of greed.” Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.
For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton’s message of inclusiveness do him?
Meanwhile, though Mr. Clinton may not have run as postpartisan a campaign as legend has it, he did avoid some conflict by being strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until after the election.

This turned out to be a disaster. Much has been written about the process by which the Clinton health care plan was put together: it was too secretive, too top-down, too politically tone-deaf. Above all, however, it was too slow. Mr. Clinton didn’t deliver legislation to Congress until Nov. 20, 1993 — by which time the momentum from his electoral victory had evaporated, and opponents had had plenty of time to organize against him.

The failure of health care reform, in turn, doomed the Clinton presidency to second-rank status. The government was well run (something we’ve learned to appreciate now that we’ve seen what a badly run government looks like), but — as Mr. Obama correctly says — there was no change in the country’s fundamental trajectory.

So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.

I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.

My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues — a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign — and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.

[JPhillips]

I think Krugman's dead wrong about policy specifics. You don't win the general by having the best policy, it's all about likability. It would be wise for Obama to present a plan to Congress early in his trem, but arguing the specifics of a health care plan during the general election would be fighting on enemy turf. Obama's strength is his oratory and inspirational message, anything that takes away from that is a mistake IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

I think Krugman's problem is that Obama doesn't have a specific policy ready to go (some candidates do have specifics), he'll waste political capital and by the time its ready to be voted on his political honeymoon will be over and they'll miss out on the chance.

But the main thing was that he was harkening back to Clinton in '92, that it wasn't Clinton who looked for partisanship, but that he was slammed by the Republicans from the first day. So, basically, don't expect some sort of lack of partisanship if Obama wins the high office.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Krugman's problem is that Obama doesn't have a specific policy ready to go (some candidates do have specifics), he'll waste political capital and by the time its ready to be voted on his political honeymoon will be over and they'll miss out on the chance.

But the main thing was that he was harkening back to Clinton in '92, that it wasn't Clinton who looked for partisanship, but that he was slammed by the Republicans from the first day. So, basically, don't expect some sort of lack of partisanship if Obama wins the high office.

Didn't Clinton have to face a GOP-controlled congress? I honestly don't know how congress will shape up (I think the Dems will retain control), but won't this make a big difference?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Didn't Clinton have to face a GOP-controlled congress? I honestly don't know how congress will shape up (I think the Dems will retain control), but won't this make a big difference?

Not for his first two years, remember. The Republicans didn't take over until January 1995 (after the "Revolution" of 1994). If you recall, Clinton had to push NAFTA through his own party.

And the healthcare bill was with a Dem controlled Congress... but by the time it was introduced, it was year into his presidency and the honeymoon was over. If it was done in the first 100 days, it may have gone through. Which I guess, is Krugman's fear... he wants things to get done (esp universal health care) so he wants whatever candidate to have a plan ready to go, which is why he wants the Dems to focus on campaigning on ideas.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not for his first two years, remember. The Republicans didn't take over until January 1995 (after the "Revolution" of 1994). If you recall, Clinton had to push NAFTA through his own party.

And the healthcare bill was with a Dem controlled Congress... but by the time it was introduced, it was year into his presidency and the honeymoon was over. If it was done in the first 100 days, it may have gone through. Which I guess, is Krugman's fear... he wants things to get done (esp universal health care) so he wants whatever candidate to have a plan ready to go, which is why he wants the Dems to focus on campaigning on ideas.

I was 8 when Clinton took office, so my late 80's-to-mid 90's memory is a little blurry.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Didn't Clinton have to face a GOP-controlled congress? I honestly don't know how congress will shape up (I think the Dems will retain control), but won't this make a big difference?

As someone else pointed out, Clinton had a democrat controlled congress after he was elected.

Even so, Vice President Al Gore had to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, a bill that raised taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers combined with drastic cuts in government spending. Every single republican congressman and a number of democrats voted against the bill.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has since recognized the bill as being the major cause of the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s.

Libray of Congress Link

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Krugman's problem is that Obama doesn't have a specific policy ready to go (some candidates do have specifics), he'll waste political capital and by the time its ready to be voted on his political honeymoon will be over and they'll miss out on the chance.

But the main thing was that he was harkening back to Clinton in '92, that it wasn't Clinton who looked for partisanship, but that he was slammed by the Republicans from the first day. So, basically, don't expect some sort of lack of partisanship if Obama wins the high office.

Disagree. I remember Clinton's first State of the Union only because Comedy Central allowed Dennis Miller to commentate throughout the speech. Great stuff. Miller did not give Clinton a hard time, mostly observations about others in the audience that night. Miller concluded by calling Clinton "a good man." Congress was very warm to Clinton that night also. So what changed?

It started to become apparent very soon afterwards that the Clintons (both) had a hard and very partisan agenda and attempted to ram it down everybody's throats. Gays in the military (don't ask, don't tell was the compromise), all U.S. Attorney Generals sacked and replaced by ACLU lawyers (obviously Hillary at work) and finally the Health Care fiasco (closed door meetings with criminal penalties for those going outside the plan once implemented.) It was this high-minded arrogance that brought about the 94 GOP takeover of both houses and the Contract With America.

Obama would probably be a little smarter than that.

[ISiddiqui]

Disagree.

Of course you would.

It started to become apparent very soon afterwards that the Clintons (both) had a hard and very partisan agenda and attempted to ram it down everybody's throats. Gays in the military (don't ask, don't tell was the compromise), all U.S. Attorney Generals sacked and replaced by ACLU lawyers (obviously Hillary at work) and finally the Health Care fiasco (closed door meetings with criminal penalties for those going outside the plan once implemented.) It was this high-minded arrogance that brought about the 94 GOP takeover of both houses and the Contract With America.

His attempts to have homosexuals serve in the military was so partisan that people on the left and on the right hated it! And of course, we all know how hard left partisan he was when he pushed NAFTA through Congress, which we all know the hard left really wanted.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course you would.



His attempts to have homosexuals serve in the military was so partisan that people on the left and on the right hated it! And of course, we all know how hard left partisan he was when he pushed NAFTA through Congress, which we all know the hard left really wanted.

The left hated it? Don't remember that, remember instead the left outraged that Clinton sold them out on that when he compromised.

NAFTA? The only one who seemed to understand NAFTA was Ross Perot, and its a big reason that he took votes away from Bush Sr., throwing the election over to Clinton with less than 50% of the vote.

NAFTA, btw, makes perfect sense being backed by Clinton when you figure he and she are up to their eyeballs in Dubai lobby money (something like a $10,000,000 contribution to the Clinton Library) and other globalist interests.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The left hated it? Don't remember that, remember instead the left outraged that Clinton sold them out on that when he compromised.

It's because Clinton always had a compromise. He didn't go full bore for gays in the military. He advanced the idea so that he could negotiate it downwards. The far left was outraged that he sold them out.

NAFTA? The only one who seemed to understand NAFTA was Ross Perot, and its a big reason that he took votes away from Bush Sr., throwing the election over to Clinton with less than 50% of the vote.

NAFTA, btw, makes perfect sense being backed by Clinton when you figure he and she are up to their eyeballs in Dubai lobby money (something like a $10,000,000 contribution to the Clinton Library) and other globalist interests.

I love how all of this ignores (willfully) the fact that NAFTA was being pushed by the Republicans. That George H.W. Bush signed it, but couldn't get it through Congress at the time, and how Clinton had to get it through the Democrats, with a solid base of Republicans backing the measure.

Btw, Perot got destroyed on NAFTA by Al Gore (who actually understands trade far more than Perot) and you bring up Dubai lobby money like its supposed to bother me.

[JPhillips]

The 1994 elections were only partially a rebuke to Clinton. Another major factor was the general corruption of the Democratic Congress. The banking scandal, Rostenkowski, etc. caused the Dems to get a very deserved ass kicking. It wasn't all about Clinton.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

and you bring up Dubai lobby money like its supposed to bother me.

No, if Clinton selling nuke missle gyroscopes to China so they can hit what they aim for in the U.S. doesn't bother you, then being owned by Dubai wouldn't either. And I use the term 'you' in the broad sense to mean anybody.

[Toddzilla]

Never let facts get in the way of a good slandering, Bubba.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

No, if Clinton selling nuke missle gyroscopes to China so they can hit what they aim for in the U.S. doesn't bother you, then being owned by Dubai wouldn't either. And I use the term 'you' in the broad sense to mean anybody.

Wasn't it Bush that tried to have the US Ports run by that Dubai company? And walking hand in hand with the Saudi princes? You sure you want to toss those stones at Clinton?

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

No, if Clinton selling nuke missle gyroscopes to China so they can hit what they aim for in the U.S. doesn't bother you, then being owned by Dubai wouldn't either. And I use the term 'you' in the broad sense to mean anybody.

I worked with the committee, led by House Republicans, that investigated that technology transfer to China. With all due respect, your statement on this is wrong.

[Buccaneer]

albionmoonlight, it appears that there are quite a few notable Dems, as well as left-leaning editorialists that are telling Bill to stop acting like Bill Clinton and to STFU.

[Jas_lov]

With 5% of precinicts reporting, Hillary has 54%, Obama 27%, Edwards 16%. Remember that there are no delegates for Florida and nobody campaigned there. Hillary is there tonight though for a victory speech.

[Jas_lov]

Hillary Clinton is the winner of the irrelevant Florida primary!

[Young Drachma]

So...is Claire McCaskill angling for a possible VP pick from Obama should he win the nomination?

I think if he beats Hillary, no way he runs with a man of any kind..so he'll have to narrow his choices down to a woman.

I don't think Senator/Senator tickets work all that well, but...she's one of his early supporters and while she hasn't been in the Senate very long, she seems poised to be somewhere in his cabinet. And Missouri is a swing state.

I just thought about it today, when I saw her on his plane (on TV) heading back to the midwest.

Probably nothing to it, but...it was an interesting idea. Or maybe one of these female governors from the Heartland? I doubt he'd go after someone from the northeast, given that it's unlikely they could deliver anything for him (we're talking a woman again) and out west, I'm not so sure about that, save for one of those crunchy blue dogs from the "libertarian west", but I can't see that working either.

Thoughts?

Hillary's situation would be way different I think if she were picking a running mate, especially with everyone wondering aloud about the technicalities of Bill running with her. Neither of them is that silly to even consider attempting to do that, when they just could just do it de facto once she were to be elected.

Bill Richardson would be the "logical" choice, given his Clinton ties and such, but I don't know if his "street cred" is really as big as the media likes to believe it to be in the "hispanic community". And New Mexico is a western state, to be sure, but given McCain is from out west and Romney is Mormon, the west isn't exactly going to be an area that they can expect to dominate anyway regardless of who'd they get pitted against.

As the race dwindles down, it's all just interesting stuff to ponder.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think if he beats Hillary, no way he runs with a man of any kind..so he'll have to narrow his choices down to a woman.

Agreed.

Question is, does he go with a white woman or maybe a Hispanic woman?
And does he run with one from the middle or does he throw a bone to the (perceived) further left?

[Racer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

So...is Claire McCaskill angling for a possible VP pick from Obama should he win the nomination?

I think if he beats Hillary, no way he runs with a man of any kind..so he'll have to narrow his choices down to a woman.

I don't think Senator/Senator tickets work all that well, but...she's one of his early supporters and while she hasn't been in the Senate very long, she seems poised to be somewhere in his cabinet. And Missouri is a swing state.

I just thought about it today, when I saw her on his plane (on TV) heading back to the midwest.

Probably nothing to it, but...it was an interesting idea. Or maybe one of these female governors from the Heartland? I doubt he'd go after someone from the northeast, given that it's unlikely they could deliver anything for him (we're talking a woman again) and out west, I'm not so sure about that, save for one of those crunchy blue dogs from the "libertarian west", but I can't see that working either.

Thoughts?

Hillary's situation would be way different I think if she were picking a running mate, especially with everyone wondering aloud about the technicalities of Bill running with her. Neither of them is that silly to even consider attempting to do that, when they just could just do it de facto once she were to be elected.

Bill Richardson would be the "logical" choice, given his Clinton ties and such, but I don't know if his "street cred" is really as big as the media likes to believe it to be in the "hispanic community". And New Mexico is a western state, to be sure, but given McCain is from out west and Romney is Mormon, the west isn't exactly going to be an area that they can expect to dominate anyway regardless of who'd they get pitted against.

As the race dwindles down, it's all just interesting stuff to ponder.

I really think Indiana senator Evan Bayh is the likely choice for Hilary's VP if she gets the nominee. He's really high up in her campaign. I also heard from somone I know who heard from someone who knows Bayh's college roommate that Bayh believes he has a really good chance of being the vice president if Hilary is nominated.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by path12

Wasn't it Bush that tried to have the US Ports run by that Dubai company? And walking hand in hand with the Saudi princes? You sure you want to toss those stones at Clinton?

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Agreed.

Question is, does he go with a white woman or maybe a Hispanic woman?
And does he run with one from the middle or does he throw a bone to the (perceived) further left?

He can't go further left. He's already firmly to the left of Hillary. He's willing to work with Republicans, but he's a hope-filled modern liberal idealist. He has to get someone in the vein of Hillary (with personality) to balance him out.

And a white woman has to be the choice. A Hispanic woman is too much ethnicity and I think 'tolerance fatigue' will set it on election day. For better or worse, he has to get someone that the majority of voters can "relate to" because he sure as hell isn't that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think 'tolerance fatigue' will set it on election day.

I have a growing suspicion it already has.

[st.cronin]

Why did they even have this primary?

[ISiddiqui]

If we are talking about potential Clinton running mates, lets not forget Wesley Clark, who has been behind Clinton since the beginning of the campaign and is a former general (good on the national security issue).

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If we are talking about potential Clinton running mates, lets not forget Wesley Clark, who has been behind Clinton since the beginning of the campaign and is a former general (good on the national security issue).

Yeha, because two people on a ticket from the same state is a good thing...

[ISiddiqui]

Does anyone actually consider Hillary Clinton as from Arkansas? Anyone?

[Toddzilla]

Don't forget about Jim Webb - the perfect running mate for either Obama or Clinton.

But I got the suspicion that Edwards is staying in the race to grab as many delegates as he can before the convention hoping neither of the two leaders has a majority, in which case he's got some serious capital, and could trade it for the VP job.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Does anyone actually consider Hillary Clinton as from Arkansas? Anyone?

Sorry, I do. First thing I think of with her is WJC's First Lady.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Sorry, I do.

+1

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Don't forget about Jim Webb - the perfect running mate for either Obama or Clinton.

But I got the suspicion that Edwards is staying in the race to grab as many delegates as he can before the convention hoping neither of the two leaders has a majority, in which case he's got some serious capital, and could trade it for the VP job.

Attorney General.

[Dr. Sak]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bsak16

John Edwards is dropping out of the race...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

(1) HUGE help to Hillary. Exit polls showed that most of his supporters would have backed her. The whole idea that he and Obama were splitting the "anti-Hillary" vote was absurd. Anyone motivated by anti-Hillary to that extent would have voted for Obama, the candidate with a realistic chance to beat her.

(2) I have no idea why he is doing this now. He seems to like campaigning, and it is not like he has a day-job of any consequence to go back to.

(3) Putting (1) and (2) together, I think that Hillary promised him the moon if he dropped out before Super Tuesday, and he decided that it was the best offer that he would get from either candidate.

(4) And, might I say again, HUGE help for Hillary. Might have just sewn up the nomination for her.

[Dr. Sak]

I don't claim to be an expert in politics but everything I have read and heard this morning is saying that the Edwards camp has been talking to the Obama camp for weeks about a deal. They said that there is no way Edwards would endorse Clinton because, they just don't like each other. And to be frankly honest, they are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.

It's just what I have been hearing. Not sure what is right or not, but I wanted to bring these points up.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bsak16

I don't claim to be an expert in politics but everything I have read and heard this morning is saying that the Edwards camp has been talking to the Obama camp for weeks about a deal. They said that there is no way Edwards would endorse Clinton because, they just don't like each other. And to be frankly honest, they are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.

It's just what I have been hearing. Not sure what is right or not, but I wanted to bring these points up.

Don't let my use of a well organized list and carefully placed HUGE in all caps fool you. I generally have no idea what I am talking about.

My logic sounds good to me. But I've certainly been wrong before.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Don't let my use of a well organized list and carefully placed HUGE in all caps fool you. I generally have no idea what I am talking about.

My logic sounds good to me. But I've certainly been wrong before.

That makes two of us!