can someone please tell me why rudy is a viable candidate on any side? he hates minorities as was shown in his dealings within new york city and he's pro abortion which kills him for the republicans.
He doesn't hate minorities - that's media b.s. Besides, being pro-choice won't kill him, I'm sure he'll moderate his stance. He'll get it because every republican knows he'd carry NY, Connecticut, and NJ in a national election - that would really boost repubs hopes.
There is no way New York or CT go Republican in 2008. FDR and Teddy could come back from the dead and run on the Republican ticket and NY would still go for Dems. Still, if this is the thinking in the GOP, bring it on... a serial adulterer who occassionally dresses in drag and favors gay rights and abortion while pushing people like Bernie Kerik for positions of responsibility is going to play real well among the party faithful and the general electorate. If the issues weren't so damn serious, this would be a really fun race to watch on the Republican side.
if rudy is the nominee, i guarantee NY, NJ, and CT go red. youcan book it now. he is revered in this area for what he did in the aftermath of 9/11.
He is too young and dont have enough track record to lead this country. We don't need another failure president. I would rather vote for Oprah if this is going to be the case.
no- bloomberg has nowhere near the personal charisma of rudy g; bloomberg is an effective manager, and who knows what he would have done in a crisis of similar magnitude, but rudy g, was there, and did that.
That's what Barry Goldwater said. That's a nice little post-Civil Rights Bill, pre-draft lottery "Johnson carries New England, Arkansas and California" electoral map:
doesn't matter. Guiliani won new york city every time he ran over dems. And New State would have re-elected Pataki. If Guliani ran for prez - he gets NY easily. And will pull NJ and Conn with him....he might even pull futher, getting Penn, Vermont, NH, Maine, and Del. Perhaps Maryland. He wouldn't take Mass, but consider how many electoral votes he gets there. Then throw in Texas, the deep south and the midwest - and wow. Obama would get the midwest, probably florida, california, and then what?
http://www.pollster.com/mystery_pollster/openends_on_the_dems.php [rquoter]Open-Ends on the Dems I wrote earlier this week about an open-ended presidential preference question from Gallup. In another free-for-today-only analysis, Gallup's Lydia Saad provides results from a different set of open-ends -- questions that provide no answer categories and allow respondents to answer in their own words -- on the four best known Democrats mentioned as potential candidates. The results show that a majority of Democrats have good things to say about Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, fewer are positive about Al Gore and nearly half of Democrats react negatively to John Kerry. Gallup used their national panel survey to ask a simple question about each of the four: "What comes to your mind when you think about [name]?" The Gallup interviewers wrote down the verbatim responses, and then the Gallup analysts "coded" those responses, assigning each to a category (such as "experienced," "strong," "like him/her," etc.). They then classified each of the categories as positive, negative or other. The report provides results to those classifications, both among the 1,003 adults and among an unspecified subgroup of those who think of themselves as Democrats (presumably about 350 interviews). The results among Democrats are as follows: 12-07%20gallup%20open%20end.png This quick post does no justice to the level of detail available in the full analysis, but some of the most obvious findings: * Comments about Hilary Clinton are net negative among all adults (37% to 50%) but nearly two-to-one positive among Democrats (56% to 31%). * The positive comments about Clinton among Democrats are mostly about her leadership credentials (qualified, experienced), strength and intelligence. * The independents and Republicans that dislike Clinton are apt to say they dislike her personally, Democrats are more likely to worry that she is not electable (5%) or that she is "riding Bill's coattails" (10%). * When asked about Barack Obama, more than a third of Americans (38%) and more than a quarter of Democrats (28%) are unable to offer anything specific that comes to mind. * Comments about John Kerry are overwhelmingly negative. Even among Democrats, 49% offer negative comments compared to only 28% that have something positive to say. Of course, the sample of Democrats is relatively small and represents, at best, all Democratic identifiers nationally -- not likely Democratic primary voters and certainly not likely voters or caucus participants in early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina. It is also worth noting that these results are from a Gallup "panel" survey. The methodology blurb at the end of the analysis tells us that "respondents were randomly drawn from Gallup's nationally representative household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods." Generally speaking, a panel is a pool of respondents who agree to regularly participate in opinion surveys. When Gallup says their panel is "nationally representative," it presumably means that panel members were recruited using a conventional telephone survey and a random-digit-dial (RDD) sample. What we do not know (unless Gallup has posted a more detailed description of their methodology elsewhere that I have overlooked) is the size of the panel, the typical response rate, how Gallup weights or statistically adjusts the results and how often panel members agree to be interviewed. The two key issues with any panel survey -- even in we assume that the pool of potential respondents is a representative random sample -- are (1) whether a willingness to be interviewed more than once allows an additional bias to creep into the sample and (2) whether the experience of being interviewed changes the respondent. On the last point, assume that respondents complete a Gallup survey on issues in the news. Do those individuals subsequently pay more attention to issues in the news and become better informed? I raise all of this, in part, because National Journal's Hotline yesterday reported that party identification for this Gallup panel survey is 35% Democratic, 36% Republican and 29% independent or other. The Republican percentage (36%) is considerably higher than on recent national Gallup surveys. Party identification among all adults has averaged 35% Democrat, 28% Republican on Gallup's last five national surveys conducted in October and November, and 35% Democrat, 30% Republican on all surveys conducted since July. Of course, as discussed often both here and on Mystery Pollster, Gallup does not weight by party, so random variation in the results for party ID is to be expected. Still with a panel based sample, it is a good idea to keep an eye on this sort of.[/rquoter]
Obama on MNF tonight... Cutely coy: U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat doing nothing to discourage speculation he'll take on Senate colleague Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, will appear in ESPN's Monday Night Football opening to talk about "a contest between two very different philosophies" that is also "a contest about the future." And — hint, hint — acknowledges questions about "whether the new guy has enough experience." Then, he says, he'll "put all the doubts to rest. After a lot of thought and a good deal of soul-searching, I'd like to announce to all of America that I'm ready … for the Chicago Bears to go all the way!" Barack, you tease, you're running. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-12-10-hiestand_x.htm
TJ this is right up your alley! From yesterday's CNN transcript... http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/11/sitroom.02.html Jeff Greenfield is an idiot.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/12/obama/print.html Obama's magic With his rock star visit to New Hampshire, the highflying senator continues to tantalize Democrats with intimations of a White House run -- and a buzz not felt in American politics since JFK. By Walter Shapiro Dec. 12, 2006 | As Barack Obama addressed the largest pre-presidential-primary crowd in modern New Hampshire history Sunday afternoon, Democratic state party chair Kathy Sullivan was sitting directly behind the Illinois senator. From her vantage point, Sullivan saw exactly what Obama saw -- 1,500 rapt faces staring up at him with curiosity, affection and hope. Turning to her seatmate Sylvia Larsen, the president of the state Senate, Sullivan whispered, "Imagine what it must be like to be him." For Obama, the "Imagine" has almost reached John Lennon levels. His political ascent has already reached those star-studded heights where even political insiders like Sullivan cannot fully comprehend the pressures from the adoration and expectations that envelop him. He was not supposed to run for president this time, for Obama was the Democratic future held in reserve for 2012 or 2016. We are witnessing something rare -- a would-be candidate tantalizingly signaling his potential availability and the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party responding beyond his most rapturous dreams. As Chicago-based media consultant David Axelrod, one of Obama's closest advisors, said in an interview Monday, "I wasn't alive then, but this is the closest thing to a draft since Adlai Stevenson in 1952." (Stevenson, the reluctant governor of Illinois, was nominated on the third ballot at the Democratic Convention.) Obama's best-selling book may be called "The Audacity of Hope," but a presidential campaign by the fledgling senator (he was elected in 2004) might best be dubbed "The Hope of Audacity." Virtually every major politician believes in destiny, but few test fate's limits so early in his or her career. Facing more than an invasion-size armada of 100 reporters at a press conference Sunday afternoon, Obama said, "I am suspicious of hype. The fact that my 15 minutes of fame have extended a little longer than 15 minutes, I think, is surprising to me and completely baffling to my wife." Axelrod insists that Obama has not definitely made a decision to become part of the 2008 field, partly because of that wariness about the hype and the hoopla. "Anyone who tells you that he is 100 percent certain that Senator Obama's running doesn't know him," Axelrod said. "He's still working it through." Part of working it through, though, was promising a major announcement before "Monday Night Football," which turned out to be a jokey declaration that the Illinois senator was "ready for the [Chicago] Bears to go all the way." Since two presumed 2008 contenders, Mark Warner and Russ Feingold, have disavowed their candidacies in recent months, there is a danger in assuming that anybody seriously contemplating a presidential bid is destined to run. But few in Democratic politics still believe that Obama is just aimlessly window-shopping outside the White House. A major Democratic strategist, who is affiliated with another presidential candidate, ran into Obama on Capitol Hill last week and was told by him, "I hope that when your conflict-of-interest period is over, we can work together." The easy translation: "After your candidate loses in the early primaries, I hope that you will sign on with me." There is an unplanned quality to the Obama movement that should not be dismissed. Obama's current ascent began three months ago when he was the headliner at Sen. Tom Harkin's steak fry, the biggest political event on the Democratic calendar in Iowa, the first caucus state. Harkin presumably picked Obama -- a non-presidential candidate -- to avoid offending Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is running for the Democratic nomination and would be suspicious of any potential rival. As Sullivan tells it, her invitation to Obama to come to New Hampshire for a post-election fundraiser was an impulsive gesture. The Thursday after the election -- buoyed by the Democrats' landslide sweep in the state -- she received a call on her cellphone from an unfamiliar area code. "Kathy, this is Barack Obama," the voice on the other end said, before adding, "I might be coming to New Hampshire." It was yet another signal of Obama's fast-growing fascination with running in 2008. Already envisioning a modest-size victory celebration in New Hampshire, she told him, "We were talking about having a little event, and you might want to come up and help with the fundraising." No one anticipated that 1,500 tickets (at $25 a piece) would be all sold by the middle of last week -- and fire codes and the lack of a larger venue forced the state party to stop there. (Earlier Sunday morning, Obama attracted another 750 people to a book signing in Portsmouth.) New Hampshire, as the fabled home of the first presidential primary, has a vibrant political culture, but an outpouring like this is unprecedented in my experience covering the last seven primaries here. All day Sunday, long-memoried political reporters struggled to find a parallel. When, for example, Bill Clinton ran for president here in the 1992 primary, he never attracted a crowd beyond, say, 700 people. When John McCain was riding high before he won the 2000 Republican primary, he might have spoken to a thousand voters in a high-school gym. And those were free events on the eve of a primary. Last time around, John Kerry was speaking to crowds of roughly 100 people in fire stations around the state, little more than a month before the primary. Small wonder that local politicians like state Sen. Lou D'Alessandro, a major John Edwards backer in 2004, were harking back to John Kennedy's 1960 appearance at the University of New Hampshire to find an event that matched Sunday's Obama appearance. There is a palpable uneasiness in New Hampshire and elsewhere with the notion of Hillary Clinton being prematurely anointed as the 2008 Democratic nominee. It is not accidental that Obama is the third candidate this year who has been ballyhooed as the challenger with enough heft to take on the Clinton dynasty. First came Warner, followed by Al Gore -- still a possible candidate, whose luster dims the longer he remains indecisive on the sidelines. Helping propel the Obama bandwagon is that the senator, like Gore, passionately opposed going to war in Iraq in 2002. Part of the rationale for the anti-Hillary star search is the feeling that the New York senator cannot win, barring a full-scale collapse of the Republican Party. "If the country has changed, maybe she could get in," said Nancy Lloyd, who runs a bed-and-breakfast in Jaffrey, as she waited to hear Obama. "But if they are going to fight all the old battles and smear her, Hillary should stay out." Without ever mentioning Clinton by name, Obama repeatedly spoke in New Hampshire about this weariness with old battles. At his press conference, he lamented "the small, petty slash-and-burn politics that we have been seeing over the last several years." In his formal speech, which he delivered wearing a dark jacket and crisp, open-necked white shirt, Obama declared, "Politics is not a sport and the debates we have in Washington are not about who is up or down, they are not about personal attacks, they are not about tactical advantages ... They are about who we are as a people." This was about the level of issue-oriented specificity in Obama's speech and his other public remarks. What Obama is offering is a different kind of hope than the standard Democratic variety. He embodies the idea of a style of governing that goes beyond the nonstop rat-a-tat invective that dates back to the Clinton era battles against Newt Gingrich. Obama, the mixed-race son of Kenya and Kansas, who grew up in the multicultural melting pot of Hawaii, also represents a politics that transcends the two-century-old battles over race and ethnicity. Asked about his middle name "Hussein" at Sunday's press conference, Obama, provoking laughter from the reporters, flatly declared, "The American people are not concerned with middle names." Obama's vagueness provoked a certain degree of grumbling among the Democrats lucky enough to snag tickets. "I came with questions and I left with questions," said Anne Stowe, a high-school mathematics teacher from Nashua. "I'm not certain that I know who he is and what he stands for." The morning after Comet Obama flashed across the New Hampshire skies, Democrats were still trying to sort out exactly what had happened. As Sullivan said, referring to the massive turnout for Obama, "People have been constantly asking me, 'Why, why, why?'" By way of explanation, she mentioned Obama's status as the first prominent post-Vietnam era politician and the way he reflects the changing ethnic and racial makeup of the country. The New Hampshire party leader also acknowledged that she understood the complaints that Obama was light on the issues. "But he has the vision and he has the magic," she added. "And maybe that comes first." Something near-magical did happen in New Hampshire on Sunday, when more than 2,000 Democratic voters turned out at two events to see a would-be presidential candidate, who had been in the Illinois state Senate just two years ago. Magic can easily dissipate in politics, especially during a long and grueling campaign year like 2007. But something is happening around Obama that we have not seen in American politics for decades. And no matter what happens from here, the significance of Obama-mania, in terms of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, the politics of race and the coming of a new generation, may long endure.
Throwing his name in the ring: If a smart, good-looking leftist Senator can get this kind of excitement behind his campaign, why can't a short, less-than-good-looking, slightly crazy leftist Congressman? http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/12/12/ap3247882.html Kucinich Launches Presidential Bid Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich launched his second bid for president on Tuesday, a long-shot candidacy fueled by his frustration with his party's effort to end the Iraq war. "I am not going to stand by and watch thousands more of our brave, young men and women killed in Iraq," Kucinich said to applause from a crowd gathered at City Hall. "We Democrats were put back in power to bring some sanity back to our nation. "We were expected to do what we said we were going to do - get out of Iraq." Kucinich is a six-term, liberal congressman from Cleveland whose presidential candidacy in 2004 made headlines more for his bachelorhood than his policies. This time around Kucinich has a wife.
