Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
And then there were 10
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, February 08, 2006

US News and World Report gives us the most up to date list of possible presidential contenders from the Democrat side in 2008.
Our friends at the Democratic Party have been drawing up a list of who's running for president in 2008, and they tell us that it's already reached 10: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, ex-North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, and Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander. Nearly all, we're told, are hiring key staff and raising money. And nine of the 10 share a big hurdle: "They're all waiting,"says our source, "for Hillary to decide."
Given the track record of Senators in presidential politics, the Republicans can only hope the Democrat's nominee comes from the first 6. And of those 6, whether you like her or not, Hillary is the strongest candidate. Of the last 4, I think Richardson and Warner are the best candidates (and frankly the best of the 10). But there's always the Clark factor. For whatever reason he hits me as a left-wing Al Haig. Creepy. But, depending on what's up in Iraq, and what's happened by the primaries in the War on Terror, he could have a shot.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Why exactly is Hillary the stongest? If you base that evaluation on her current support from the Dem base, wouldn’t the current opposition to her as a candidate on the part of the rest of the electorate suggest that she is actually one of the weakest candidates in a national election? No doubt she’ll have oodles of cash and as much name recognition as one could hope for, but I think probable voters across the land have already made up their minds about her, and not in her favor.

And forgive me if you’ve already addressed the issue of why her candidacy gives the Dems the best shot (among current Senator-types). I did a quick search to get the background on that position, but didn’t really see a thorough treatment. If I just missed it, I’d appreciate a link to it.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
So you’re suggesting that she isn’t a stronger candidate than John Edwards, John Kerry, Even Bayh, Joe Biden and Russ Feingold? Wow ... you must know something about the other 5 that isn’t evident to the rest of the world.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
I just suspect that none of them, with the possible exception of Kerry, are going to face the entrenched, immovable antipathy of a majority of the electorate. HRC, based on what polls I’ve read, is a complete non-starter for over half the nation. Sure, she’s guaranteed a strong showing, but she’s also guaranteed a loss. The rest of those non-Kerry stuffed shirts may be comparative long shots, but at least they HAVE a shot. Maybe Evan Bayh appeals to "moderates", maybe Feingold can make hay out of being a "reformer fighting the corrupt Republican machine" (assuming McCain isn’t the opponent).

My main point is that the composition of her field of competitors is almost irrelevant. As long as even one of them is not a sure loser, as I think HRC is, then she is by definition not the strongest candidate.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
Sure, she’s guaranteed a strong showing, but she’s also guaranteed a loss.
That may be, but that wasn’t the point I made ... I simply pointed out that she was the strongest of those six candidates, whether she wins or not.
My main point is that the composition of her field of competitors is almost irrelevant.
Not to her competitors it isn’t. And that was what this was about.
As long as even one of them is not a sure loser, as I think HRC is, then she is by definition not the strongest candidate.
Speaking of sure losers, if she’s stronger in the primaries than they are (which I suspect she would be), it is they who are irrelevant.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
If your claim is that she has the best shot of getting the nomination, then I would tend to agree with you. I took you to mean that she had the best chance of being the next President, not just for being the next Dem Candidate for President.
 
Written By: CNH
URL: http://
If your claim is that she has the best shot of getting the nomination, then I would tend to agree with you. I took you to mean that she had the best chance of being the next President, not just for being the next Dem Candidate for President.
No, just that of the 6 senators, she had the best shot of garnering the nomination.

I don’t think she has a chance in hell of winning the presidency unless a new party pops onto the right side of the spectrum and pulls a Perot. That’s essentially how her husband won, and history does have a way of repeating itself at the damndest times.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
They should call that list "Hillary and the Nine Dwarves". The nomination is Hillary’s to lose.

While I despise her, I also know she is smarter than any of the other potential candidates. (I mean "smarter" in an evil genius way.)
 
Written By: EdMcGon
URL: http://politicsandpigskins.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider