"He just lost the last shred of hope I had for him."

Heh, I just said almost the exact same thing to my wife.

Clark's attempt to worm out of it by saying Moore is entitled to his "opinion" (he stated it as a fact, which makes it more of a lie than an opinion) just doesn't cut it. When Moore expresses that "opinion" in a public forum where Clark is the center of attention, then if Clark doesn't refute it it's tantamount to agreement. Period.

I might could vote for Lieberman, if Bush gave me a good reason between now and November. Other than that, I'm troubled that this bunch of clowns is the best the Dems can come up with.

And Joe Lieberman just made the statement which should have propelled him by acclamation to the Democratic nomination...no one has given a better explanation for the liberation of Iraq, nor one more unanswerable.

Dean, Toldya so! Ha! :)

I read an interesting article recently (NRO? Don't recall right now) reflecting on the fact that the Dem primaries aren't winner take all.

The author speculates that if the current spread holds for the next five weeks of primaries, no one will have a solid majority for the convention.

Which reminds me, I have to say I've never thought about it before: what "majority" does a Dem candidate currently need to win the nomination going in? 50%+1, or what?

What in the h*nk are Kucinich, and Rev Sharpie doing in this fiasco.

Clark is done, Dean is fried, and why can't the responders actually answer the questions as asked instead of, well the question wasn't really the question, just say whatever you wish
prospective candidate ?

Casey,

I think it takes a super-majority of 60% of the delegates...though with the so-called "super delegates" I think a candidate can have somewhat less than that and still get the nomination...

A brokered convention is possible...provided that no one backs out (there's no reason for the top four to drop out) and no one runs out of money before mid-March (seems that everyone has enough cash on hand to make a showing at least till then)....and, of course, provided no one catches fire and starts winning primary after primary with outright majorities.

I have to agree with you. Personally I liked Sharpton tells Dean that if he had spent that much money in Iowa and only got 18% of the vote he would be hollering too. Classic.

One could only wish that Lieberman were taller and better-looking; he'd have a MUCH better chance at the nomination. Shallow, but there it is. I really like Joe. He's the only one of the lot that has much respect from me...even if he did run with Gore.

None of this matters. You all know as well as anybody that incumbent presidents are re-elected nine out of ten times, more or less. Especially in the US presidency and its elections, incumbency trumps everything except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

In any case, the US is beginning to look better all the time in Iraq, the economy is now moving in higher gear than all last year, a popular prescription drug package was just passed with Bush's leadership, taxes have been cut for most of the middle class, most Americans are more comfortable with a down-home kind of guy like Bush than they are with toney New England types like Kerry. And above all, the Democrats have neither viable and serious issues on which to mount attacks against Bush, nor internal unity about how to mount such attacks.

So I think it's over before it began. Like Dole in '96. Like Mondale in '84. Like McGovern in '72. Like Goldwater in '64. Like Stevenson in '56. Like Dewey in '48. Like Dewey in '44. Like Willkie in '40. Like Landon in '36. Like... like... like...

Bush will win the election by at least 55-45. Maybe 58-42. If there any third party distractions this year, they'll be at the expense of the Democrats. Maybe the ghost of Ralph Nader making a rerun. This year, there will be no doubt who won Florida. And most of the upper midwest states will go for Bush, along with the newly re-solidified south -- this time solid Republican. And Arnold Schwarzenegger's victory in California indicates that state is probably in play this year.

But 2008 will be an entirely different matter. That will be the next best chance for the Democrats to retake the presidency. I think their man for that year will be Edwards, who is sparking just the right amount of attention this year.

This, if anything, is a kind of replay of 1956, when young John F Kennedy made a play for the vice presidency and got beat out for it by senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. But the Democrat insiders who counted remembered Kennedy for 1960, when Eisenhower finished out his second term. (And if they forget young JFK, his father Joe Kennedy and his secret connections with bosses such as Richard Daley of Chicago was spreading his money around to remind them.)

Loose conjecture about Hilary Clinton in 2008 counts for little or nothing. Senator Clinton has the same kind of polarizing political baggage that Ted Kennedy acquired after Chappaquidick. I doubt she'll ever get her party's nomination. (So she'll have to be satisfied with a lesser role from her US Senate seat, in her perpetual war against her own husband to see who casts a longer shadow in ruling the United States. But that's another story.)

Who will the Republicans put up in 2008? I would guess it might be senator Dr Bill Frist of Tennessee. Another clean-cut youthful articulate professional southern face to match that of senator trial lawyer Edwards of North Carolina. Politics in America is all a stage play, you know. So don't take the world too seriously.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Kelley,

He who has the best hairdo wins. That leaves a lot of people out. You can figure out the hairdo's on your own.

There are only two choices left. Take a survey.

Kelley, nobody who's as short as Joe Lieberman or Howard Dean gets elected to the US presidency. Lieberman sublimates that physical shortcoming (literally!) by acting like a senior statesman. Dean works off his deformity by throwing temper tantrums before the massed media, then tries to laugh it all away the next morning.

But neither of these guys can fool the cold-steel glare of the television cameras, which seek and find every blemish and weakness. Life's unfair. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong. But that's the way to place your bets, like Damon Runyon wrote once. And in politics, especially, the losers whine and tell the dealer to shuffle the cards for a new hand, while the winners smile, lean back in their chairs and whistle a tune.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Only Dean will have money after Super Tuesday. I don't see how Kerry raises 40-50 mil such a short time span...especially without the Clinton's.

This is exactly what happened to Bob Dole in '96 ...he had to wait until the convention for federal funds and Clinton poured 50mil+ into defining/trashing him...the money issue is more critical in this cycle because of the soft money ban.

The dems may have been too clever by half in frontloading the primaries and passing campaign finance.

Heh.

Arnold,

It would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for a good Democratic nominee to win in 2004...for a bad one (ie, all but the now-absent Gephardt and the going-nowhere Lieberman), its pretty much no contest...'cept for how big the win is, and how long President Bush's coat-tails are.

I know we aren't supposed to make predictions and that we're supposed to stick with the anything can happen mantra...but, lets face the fact that unless President Bush is found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, he's re-elected. Its down-ballot where all the action will be...will California be in play? Will the GOP wrack up huge Senate gains? How about the House? The GOP could pick up a dozen seats even if GW loses...if GW wins big, think 30-50 seats. The answers to these questions mostly revolve around whom the Democrats pick...

Paul Bremer in 08??

Bremer's Bio Very Impressive!

Sorry I screwed up the 1st time.

I guess I don't have the right formula! Can you tell I am blonde! http://cpa-iraq.org/bios/

"Who will the Republicans put up in 2008?"

Not Frist. It'll be a Governor, perhaps Bill Owens of Colorado. REps will be ready to support someone who controls spending.

mj,

Q: Who will the Republicans put up in 2008?
A: The loser.

Interesting point, Tim. Remind me to go back and see when and how the office changed hands between parties.

In 1968, for example, the obvious impetus was the Vietnam war. At the very least, Johnson had become unelectable.

Also: what's the longest "streak" the GOP has had? Apparently it's 1860-1884 (24 years).

If it's Frist, I'll definitely vote against him. There's no way I'm going to sit still for the man who expressed a "fear" that the Supreme Court's recognition of my right to privacy would "condone criminal activity within the home" (is cunnilingus a criminal activity?), said that banning homosexual relationships ("sodomy") should be left to state legislatures, and then said that we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent said state legislatures from recognizing homosexual relationships as marriages.

Yes, yes, I know: "single-issue voter". We all are. The only difference is that my single issues tend to be the "girly" ones about privacy, sex, love, and marriage instead of the "manly" ones about guns, war, and $$$$$$.
By the way, I have great respect for some of those whose "single issue" is stopping abortion, another "girly", "emotional", issue often ridiculed. When or if we defeat that anti-marriage amendment, I think I'll turn more of my attention to abortion.

I'm with you on Joe. He's the only Democrap running I'd support if I lost my mind and switched parties.