Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Gore--the Democrats who may throw their hats in the ring for a run for the presidency in 2008 possess a cachet that the Republicans discussed for the job lack. That's not supposed to be the way it is. The Democrats are out of power. So, which Democrats are the contenders for the nomination? Who are the pretenders? Who would be the most formidable opponent for the Republicans?

McCain.

I said it before and I'll say it again: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

I'm not saying he's the best candidate, not saying he's the best choice, but he will be the nominee. You heard it here first. McCain will never come over to the Democrats Obi.

Clinton/Bredesen

I might be giving in to my deepest fears but it looks from here like an unbeatable Clinton/McCain ticket. Perhaps God will intervene in American affairs once again and save us from that fate but He must be getting tired of saving our sorry asses.

Gore's already said he isn't running, so he's out. Same with Dean. For a top tier that leaves Hillary, Edwards, Kerry. But, Kerry doesn't have a chance. The real possibilities come from the second tier: Richardson, Clark, Bayh, Biden, Vilsack, Bredesen, Warner. Then, there is Sebelius, although I doubt two women will run at the same time. Also, a possible surprise is Feingold. He looks like he's running and he may pick up the Deaniac support which would make him formidable. Hillary is the obvious frontrunner, but there is a huge chunk of the party that is convinced she can’t win, so there are opportunities. Of the second tier, it looks like Richardson, Bayh, and Warner have the best shot to break out of the pack and do well. If Vilsack does run, Iowa plays no role (like in 92), so NH becomes even more important. In that case, Richardson may be able to pull off a surprise. He is also trying to orchestrate an early Western Primary which he would be favored in. Warner and Bayh will have money and the DLC guys behind them and the ydoesn’t have the baggage of Lieberman, so one may pull it off. It will probably look like a contest between Hillary, Edwards, Richardson, and Bayh (with Feingold hanging around). Out of that group, I think Edwards or Bayh could surprise everyone and walk away with the nomination. Look to Richardson, Sebelius, and Blanche Lincoln as possible VP nominees.

The only one who can beat Hillary Clinton is Condaleeza Rice. This is a demographic isssue. In order to win the woman vote, you have to be one.

Slightly OT: The best thing the Dems could have done in '04 was to run someone like Gephardt. The morons pounced on him for supporting Iraq, but with his Labor background and support from same, he could have run on Terror, Jobs and More Jobs. It is still a mystery to me why the Dems didn't make "offshoring" the centerpiece of their campaign. That issue was a winner if there ever was one, and would have put a (D) in office for sure.

So, to look ahead, I have no doubt they've seen the error of their ways, and now the offshoring issue, and the China buildup (both Militarily and economicall) will be the prime issues, barring another catestrophic terror attack. Is the Hillary/McCain ticket the way to go to sell those issues? I dunno...I agree with DocMcG (did he really say "sorry asses"??? He's lettin' his hair down...) that Star Power generally wins the day, but if you could get a player of substance to run on China/Jobs, you'd have yourselves a winner. A winner, in fact, for either side.

Hillary won't get the nod. The Dems know that she wouldn't stand a chance against any decent Republican candidate.

Only the Bluest of the Blue will carry Hitlery.

Given most posters seem to think I'm crazy, I will defend my positiion a bit. Some write as though the Democratic Party will act rationally. But the curse of the Democrats both externally (for all of us) and internally (for them) is that they are ruled by their passionate factions. Last time they were only saved from Dean by accident and their fallback "centrist" was, by some measures, the most liberal member of the Senate.

The general passion for Hilliary, her celebrity, the feminists passion for a feminist, along with all the money she can raise and the political acumen and contacts of her husband will carry her.

When she is leading in the polls, when he is scorned by his own party in what would obviously be his last chance (because of age) and rationalizing to himself that he will bring "moderation" to the ticket, McCain will be sorely tempted to take the Dems VP spot. We can hope he is stronger than that, but he often has fallen for the "mainstream's" bs in the past.

No one called ya crazy, Doc. (Though your penchant for kid's movies featuring Cuba Gooding Jr. has raised more than a few eyebrows)

Ali G.
Richardsen is a possibility, but I don't think he has pull with the East Coast money. West coast money will probably be split to a certain extent because there are many who admire Hillary and she has a lot of name recognition. Heard on the radio this morning that Hillary has been given 5-1 odds on being the next president. Best of all the current contenders/pretenders. Would Richardson do a better job? Quite possibly.

I think the watch out for Hillary crowd are hysterical. If I were a republican strategist I would be salivating at the thought of a Hillary 2008 campaign. The baggage and skeletons in the closets of the two Clintons are not going to play well outside of the Village Voice and Boston Globe circulation. Her high negative polling numbers concur. The country may be ready for a (conservative or moderate) woman president. But it is not ready for those two again.

Does anyone really think the Dems will try again with a Northeast liberal? It just doesn't work. So I don't think we'll see Hillary running for prez but maybe as vice prez to Richardson.

I gotta say, I don't see Hillary willing to play second fiddle to anyone. She's already done that. As for DocMcG, I thought you meant McCain/Clinton, not Clinton/McCain. Now I know you're crazy ... just kidding. I don't think McCain is going to want to be vice president if the president is Hillary, though, in all seriousness.

Really, the wisest comments out there are coming from Mitch, but I have one (two-part) question for him (who does that remind you of?)

-- Here it is:

1a.) When was the last time the Democrats nominated someone for President who had previously failed as a vice-presidential candidate?

and

1b.) Along those lines, what makes you think Edwards stands any more of a chance than Kerry at the nomination (I agree Kerry is finished)? Sure, he's young, but I don't see it -- I just don't see Edwards getting anywhere.

McCain would mop the floor with miss clinton. Suffice it to say, however, that McCain will never win the Republican primary because voters are too stupid to look past the style and focus on the substance. Rated 83% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003). Rated 0% by the ACLU. Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) That seems pretty conservative to me, and I can't imagine McCain would be a stronger proponent of large and bloated government than our current president. I'm 100% for McCain as the Republican nominee.

http://www.issues2000.org/John_McCain.htm

I think Hillary will get the nod. We must remember that those voting in the DNC Primaries are some of the most out-of-touch wackjobs around.

0% by the aclu, ali? i know y'all hate liberty, but you want us all behind bars in naked heaps, it sounds like.

Doesn‘t matter whether or not the Dems think they can or can’t win with a Northeast Liberal. These are precisely the types of candidates that fit their agenda and that they are in love with. If Fat Ted didn’t have the Chappaquiddick baggage, they would have run him every four years until he won.

Hillary is a shoe in for the coasts. The question is: how will she play to the rest of the country? Recent history being any indication – not very well.