Well, it's Edwards, isn't it? He's likely to win Iowa, based on the most recent polls, and that will be a blow to Obama. Then he'll likely win the Nevada caucuses with union support the weekend between Iowa and New Hampshire. If he then wins New Hampshire, he'll be the clear front-runner.

LOL...it really is hard to say.  Nobody thought leading up to the primaries in '92 that Bill Clinton had a snow ball's chance.

I don't think it will be Hillary or Barack though.  Of the known quantities out there right now I say that Edwards would be the one I would put my early money on.

J. McCutchen

Absolutely spot on. Presidential candidates with "I lost Iraq" on their foreheads beware. It is Come to Jesus Time.
Sorry Hillary, your's has past

It may be true that for Democratic Party primary voters the war will be the issue. However, as Senator Lamont is not about to take his seat it is not obvious that will be true for all voters. Although it does not get as much discussion, even here, more than the war Bush's policies that have been directed at work are even more eqregious than his war policies. The Democrat that can articulate both a tough message, they will fight back, and one that recognizes how much Bush has assulted worker will have a strong message for a country that is nervous about the future.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Clark!

Rated four for enthusiasm.

Ann in AZ

Hoppy, I might agree with you if there were not evidence available that some Republicans, like Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel, also don't think Iraq is worth the lives of our soldiers. I don't think we're in this alone anymore. It's getting to the point that this is not a Republican or Democrat thing: it's an American thing, and some are more interested in seeking what is in America's best interest, and not what is in George W Bush's ego's best interests.

Left wing extremists? Left wing extremists? Sorry, I can't quite picture any, at least not anymore. Oh, wait, maby as fictions of the MSM.

ditto

You mean there was a single person in the entire country, let alone Connecticut who did not know Lieberman was one of hte biggest hawks on Iraq? My in-laws recently of Connecticut certainly knew. I am only a New Yorker but it seemed pretty clear where Lieberman stood. I would suggest that the real problem is not only is Iraq not quite as important to many Americans as it is to people here but many Americans, most?, still want to win. He if winning is ill-defined and impossible.

What is interesting is no one who agrees with the views espoused here ever loses because those views aren't all that popular.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I rated you a four for accuracy in predicting the likely nominee.

Hillary is not going to happen. Few want a rehash of Bill's two terms. Political astuteness? Think healthcare and the mess they made of this important issue. Being close to power as Hillary was doesn't count as "experience" and service in the Senate is the only "experience" that makes her candidacy even possible. In that, she matches the field.

Kerry. Rehash will not occur.

Edwards. Seems to be a lightweight, even though he's sincere. Perhaps VP nominee but even that is uncertain.

Clark. The Iraq mess will not need a military guy as prez...perhaps as SecDef.

Biden. Give it up. Another SecDef possibility.

Gore. Keeps saying he won't run. Believe him. Also remember his lackluster campaign in 2000. His passion shows today when he speaks of something he cares about; he flat didn't care enough in 2000.

Richardson. Good on issues. A SecState possibility; perhaps VP.

Vilsack. Uh-Huh. Cabinet position maybe.

Obama. He articulates American values that knits together Democratic Party principles with the swing-voters and dips into GOP voters. That's very important. He articulated that Iraq offers bad options and worse options--that seems accurate to me. He opposed the war, although he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

I remember after 0911, one NYC survivor said all Americans were the same, covered in gray ash. That's as correct today as it was then. I would argue that most of us are longing for the articulation of American values and not ideological orthodoxy. The surprise of Obama is that he has articulated that longing. Sneeze at it if you must; but the last Prez to do that was Reagan...JFK had the ability to do that but was assassinated before policy victories could validate an historical standing....before that it was FDR, the true Presidential giant in the 20th century. It's a rare gift Obama has. If he has the fortitude (and I think he does) to do well in a campaign, he will take the nomination and the election in 2008.

Excellent post, I agree completely. The big surprise in this next primary/election will be the youth (

Gen X just doesn't trust Baby Boomers any more, Bush hasn't helped narrow that gap any. They don't *hate* boomers, but given a choice they'll flock to one of their own in a heartbeat.

Me too. He's a national treasure in my book. It may be that he'll have more impact in congress than he would in the White House.

Neoboho

If IA and NH voters are so anti-war, how come Dean came in third and second respectively?
Votes for President are often much more personal than adding up the issues to see which candidate is closest to the the voter. It can come down to any number of weird factors, including getting hot at just the right time, which is what makes it so hard to predict.

Yes, the "low information voters" that his campaign targeted were not aware that he favored the war. He muddled this issue. The media enabled that, and Lamont failed to get the Lieberman = "stay the course" message out.

Yes, people like your inlaws who were paying attention didn't buy his claim to support withdrawal, but it gave him enough cover to get Democrats who had been voting for him for years to do it again.

The election, post election polling, and Lieberman's pre-midterm rhetoric make it pretty clear that there is widespread and deep opposition to the war.

I can't figure out Edwards' message. What exactly is it that he wants to do about poverty? Is he calling for the federalization of welfare?

Antiwar.com has an article on Obama and the war
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10181

The take is that Obama won't rock the boat.

On DrudgeReport, I saw that Hillary refuses to meet with Segolene Royal (MJ's crush!) if she visits the US. (Because Royal took too long to have a hissy fit after a Hezbo guy uttered some nonsense.)

Reminds me of Hillary kissing Arafat's wife in '99 and having to grovel at AIPAC's feet and beg for forgiveness.

That lady makes me nauseous.

Obama can try to run on youth and charisma. Gore could run on global warming or whatever. Edwards can run on his poverty theme. Vilsack can run on middle American midwest values. Kucinich can run against the war.

But Hillary - the heiress apparent of 8 years of Clinton experience -- how does this woman think she can get away with having NO PLAN of her own on Iraq for going on 4 years? Is she a leader or not? If not, what is she doing in the way of everyone else?

I'm not much for believing Obama can run on charisma and nothing else, but what is Hillary bringing to the table? If she doesn't know what she stands for now, when will she?

I think you are right about Obama being Dean08.  Both men have charisma to burn, make a great speech, and arouse intense positive feelings among the party activists who frequent websites such as this one.  But, I suspect it will be as easy for the MSM to derail Obama as it was for them to derail Dean.

I'm not yet on board the Obama train, but I was also not one of the early supporters of Dean.  My passion builds more slowly than that.  The practical matter of winning the Presidency most likely will require someone else to be the candidate.  (That is very disheartening to me.) 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Isn't it somewhat ironic that Bush's legacy may be that very humble foreign policy that he campaigned about in ...was it 2000???

What else is possible after Bush?

Clark was viable in 2004 because the Democratic Party was fussing with the charge that they were "soft" of national security. That will not apply in 2008. This is the main reason I don't see a Clark candidacy as viable--another reason is that he had problems getting financing in 2004 and I think that problem will worsen for a 2008 run.

I think Dean made two errors: (1) he put together a more or less ad hoc campaign organization and a campaign manager who was unable to get it together; and (2) inappropriate expressions of passion. They were fatal errors for his candidacy. The MSM didn't derail Dean; Dean derailed Dean.

That won't happen with Obama.

Although I think where a candidate stands today (or more accurately, on the eve of the election) on Iraq is much more important than his or her position five or six months before the war even began... I would say that Edwards went above and beyond the other Dem IWR voters, his "Liebermanesque" moment was his choice to sponsor the bill.

It will be easier for Obama to stand on stages in front of the crowds he sees now, a year away, than it will be for him to stand on stages with competition... some of whom are very well versed in the issues the country faces and perhaps as many as four with first-hand experience in the grueling Presidential campaign process.

To NobelessOblige:
You write: "On DrudgeReport, I saw that Hillary refuses to meet with Segolene Royal (MJ's crush!) if she visits the US. (Because Royal took too long to have a hissy fit after a Hezbo guy uttered some nonsense.)"
Thanks for making m feel dumb. "My crush" and I never heard of her.
Don't give me too much credit. My "crushes" are two hot Jewish ladies: Scarlett Johannsen and Jennifer Connelly.
Anyway, I looked her up. I did know all about her, just not her name!
Send the link where Hillary dissed her for not being AIPACy enough.

It will be easier for Obama to stand on stages in front of the crowds he sees now, a year away, than it will be for him to stand on stages with competition... some of whom are very well versed in the issues the country faces and perhaps as many as four with first-hand experience in the grueling Presidential campaign process.

Now this is what is called seriously underestimating the strengths and depth of Obama. Obama is no slouch on the issues facing this country. He understands them and has the intellect to synthesize the data to a 'soundbite'  If you have ever seen Hillary do a speech pre or post Bill .you have a picture of how candidates are going to stack up on the stage next to Obama. He creams them with his eloquence and ability to phrase an issue simplistically yet impactfully.

I have a friend who visited the WH and had the opportunity to visit with the Senate and engage with both Clinton and Obama in the room dialoging. He flat out stated there was no way a person would know Obama was the 'freshman senator' in that dialogue. He stood toe to toe and often above his peers in terms of analysis and delivery to such a point that my friend found himself wondering 'just who are the elder statesmen speaking here?'.

So, having Obama on the stage next to his peers is merely going to catapult him into the stratosphere when people see how much greater his ideas are in terms of the way he states them to resonate with their own desires and hopes. The reason he is goint to be catapaulted is because folks like yourself are going to have to reevaluate your entire 'lack of experience' conventional wisdom when you see him not only demonstrate deeper analysis of the issues but articulate them in a more profound way than those individuals you deem 'experienced'

It is a gift to distill complexity to simplicity when communicating. It is what makes people 'identify' with you. Obama has it....WATCH!

I think you have to include South Carolina in the "round one" states. It's only a bit after New Hampshire. (Call it the East Regional, the South Regional, the Midwest Regional, and the West Regional. And as luck would have it, there's probably just room enough for a Final Four in the second round.)

The primary calendar itself screams Edwards, but I just don't see it happening. He's too weak on too many issues, and frankly doesn't have anything like the experience he needs. Walking away from the Senate two years ago was a really dumb idea, in addition to being terrible for the party.

Edwards will very likely win South Carolina. The only person who could really take it from him is Obama, and I'd call that unlikely. He also leads in Iowa right now, and he'll have had a ground operation there for over four years by the time the primaries roll around. Where I see this going awry is that because he's already established as the frontrunner, You-Know-Who coming out of New York will be gunning for him. That means he's got to do more than smile his way along to the Mr. Sunshine roll that let him finagle a second place finish in '04, and I don't know if he can. But all that said, his ground game in Iowa, his hometown status in SC, and his labor support in NV at least get him to the second round, barring getting completely overshadowed by Obama (see below).

Hillary, of course, has no chance whatsoever in SC. Forget it -- the best she can hope for is third, and that's a stretch. She's probably the frontrunner right now in New Hampshire, and she'll have enough DC backing to blitz Iowa the same way Kerry did last year to at least make Edwards and Obama sweat. I don't see her playing well in Nevada, but I don't know the state. Barring a total collapse, though, Iowa and NH carry her to round 2.

Obama's best shot is Iowa, of course. His status as an ascendant black leader means his pole position in South Carolina is probably #2 out of the gate as well. His message and demeanor and geographic draw are similar enough to Edwards that one really needs to knock the other out early, or else each will spoil the others shot. Right now, Edwards has a far better machine, but he could also become yesterday's news really fast. Hillary's best bet is probably if Obama and Edwards stick around through March, trying to out-charisma the other, and let her appear as the businesslike candidate. On the other hand, two highly gifted orators leaping around the country debating each other can only be good for the Democrats in general...

Biden and Vilsack: not going to happen. Iowa has a serious case of modesty, and part of that is assuming that a local probably isn't big enough for the big stage, unless he's a certifiable superstar. Vilsack isn't. Biden brings nothing to the primary calendar -- the only state his style maybe works in is New Hampshire, where I suppose he's got an outside shot at a #2 finish, but really, come on.

Richardson is the dark horse in the wings, if you ask me, and since Warner dropped out, he's probably the guy I'm rooting for right now. His best bet is probably to ignore Iowa, and let Edwards, Obama, and Hillary duke it out there, and try for a surprisingly high showing in New Hampshire, then ride into Nevada, where his real strength is. If he can go #2 in New Hampshire and win Nevada, he's then got to focus on surviving the next month, doing passably well and maybe winning one of the states he's not particularly suited to, until Feb. 26, when he absolutely has to win Arizona. If that happens, he's got to ignore the March 4 lineup and go for the big win on the 11th, when he could sweep Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma. If he's still alive on the 11th, and manages a big day, he's probably one-on-one agaist Edwards, Clinton, or Obama for the nomination.

The X-factor, the sleeping giant, is of course, Gore. If he comes in, all bets here have to be off. I see two scenarios for that happening -- either February winds with no one separating themselves from the pack, and he announces his intention to run two weeks before the big March 4 primaries. He could dominate that run, perhaps excluding New York, and go sailing into the following weeks as the conquering hero. No one would have time to stop him.

The other option is that Hillary starts to pull away, and the anti-Hillary forces amass around two other candidates, but without enough force to win outright. Gore comes in at a brokered convention and walks out with the nomination. Boy, talk about fun for political junkies!

Read Crashing the Gate.

Gephardt and Kerry did Dean in in Iowa.

The constant repetition of the scream didn't help--a presentation that was as dishonest as the hit job done by Kerry and Gephardt through a third party.

Also, the media buying into the false frame that Dean was crazy Michael Moore liberal did an enormous amount of damage.

I agree with your first point. His campaign didn't scale well, and his management of the Iowa caucus was poorly done.

The irony of all this is that the policy position that led to the DC crowd ganging up on Dean was his opposition to the war. Go back and read what Dean was saying then. He got pretty much everything right.

But MJ, did I dream this up? Or didn't you a while ago start a post by saying something like: "Here is my choice for the next French president" With no name attached. But with a link. And when one clicked on the link, there was this gorgeous woman staring at us: Ms Royal.

I know everyone here is busy rereading Kant's "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" in order to decipher Ikenberry's latest post, but me I'm more interested in the centerfold (ok, not quite) link you gave us.

The link to the Hillary vs Segolene tiff:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061218/wl_nm/france_royal_clinton_dc_1

PS Johannsen is sexy (those lips!). Too bad she can't act.

I agree with Whiterosebuddy, but on the basis of personal experience.  I was at the Take Back America Conference in Washington last June...all the biggies  (and some of the semi-biggies) spoke.   In many instances attendees at the sessions chatted right through the speeches.  When Obama spoke, one could hear a pin drop.  At the end of his talk there was what can only be called a pregnant pause, followed by an eruption of applause I venture was louder than anyone else received over the several days of the conference.

The attendees were a very mixed group of progressives:  graybeards like myself, and some for whom the 2006 campaign was their first.  I'm wondering if any other readers were there and can confirm my memory.

I also note that there was a very active Draft Gore table in the exhibition hall...one had to wait to sign the petitions.  My ideal ticket would be Gore/Obama, and I think it would be near unbeatable. 

There is something very special about Senator Obama:  in person he's even more impressive than on television.  He knows how to weave a narrative which touches emotion, intelligence, and conscience simultaneously.

aMike

I find Edwards far more genuine than Clinton. When he makes a mistake, he fesses up and then comes up with a solution. When he wrote his "Mea Culpa" a year ago in an op ed, he also clearly articulated his exit strategy i.e. 40,000 troops out now and getting rid of the contractors and putting Iraqis back to work. I like that about him. He never says anything without a clear position. You only have to go to his site: Edwards
to see some of his ideas about "College for Everyone" and reducing the size of HUD and giving housing vouchers to the poor etc. He also feels that we need to get the young muslims out of the Madrassahs by sending money for education not more bombs.
He's sick of little steps and tweaking the system. He wants bold change. That scares the insiders. He can't help having a boyish body. He's a serious man trapped inside it. Look at his wife. She wouldn't be married to a cypher.

"Loyalty to your country always; Loyalty to your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain

Dean and Obama seem polar opposites. Dean is a man of strong convictions. He rarely holds back his punches. Obama seems very cautious. He seems to be almost a tabula rosa in that people seem to be projecting their own hopes on him without knowing anything specific. I had a woman clutch my hands and say that "He's the one. I love him. He speaks to me." "About what?" I genuinely asked. She didn't really know. I like specific solutions. And I like fighters with good manners. Not just good manners. But I do believe that the MSM could tear Obama down as easily as they are building him up right now. Just for the heck of it, but may not because they perceive him as one of them. Washington insiders whether left or right like controllable candidates. Dean was never going to be controlled, so they (Press and insiders) destroyed him and chose the more acceptable and controlable Kerry. This is the age old struggle between the Federalists (few good men running things) versus Democratic REpublicans (The Mob).

"Loyalty to your country always; Loyalty to your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain

Richardson. Good on issues. A SecState possibility; perhaps VP.

Wow. Now here's an interesting idea. An Obama/Richardson ticket!

Imagine what a wave that would be rolling through the country. Has anyone done the math to see whether Hispanic and Blacks combined as  voting bloc could pick the next ticket?

I certainly see this ticket as being one which would claim the electoral votes in CA, TX, FL, NM and NY....after that could anyone else win?

This might in terms of  the results be 2000 all over again, in reverse, with the GOP nominee getting perhaps the popular vote. But Obama and Richardson being elected based on the electoral votes. What a stocking STUFFER!

O, what a colorful WH that would be!!

Someone needs to calculate these odds.

The GOP would be in such a snit....imagine the immigration, ATF, DEA and DHS raids that would occur the first half of 2008....hahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush with Gonzales and Yoo's legal advice would declare a state of national emergency..DHS would raise the color code on election day and no one would be allowed to vvote...hahahahahaha!!

To some extent, Ann - it is a Republican and Democrat thing.

Look at the Democrat's sweep of Congress - a vast majority of Americans disaprooved of the way the Republican party was runing things and decided that the Democrats could do much better (as, some of the Ads we were subject to - clearly showed us that they all have a plan in Iraq - that remains to be seen, but I guess we shall soon find out how many of our new represenatives shall stay true)

People are wary of a Republican White House again - they really, really are focusing and seeing the Republican party's main members flubb up and they are growing restless.

I doubt highly that we will have a Republican back in the White House for quiet some time.

Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated.