Gore '08?

I hope this prediction turns out to be more accurate than the one I made yesterday about Paul Wolfowitz...

From the New York Times (subscription required):

When I asked Gore why he hasn't dismissed all the speculation by issuing a Shermanesque refusal to stand, as he did in 2002, Gore said, "Having spent 30 years as part of the political dialogue, I don't know why a 600-day campaign is taken as a given, and why people who aren't in it 600 days out for the convenience of whatever brokers want to close the door and narrow the field and say, 'This is it, now let's place your bets' — If they want to do that, fine. I don't have to play that game."

It's a good strategy. We're so far out from the election that voters are bound to get tired of candidates. Even candidates that they like. If Gore (the post '00 election Gore) can come on the scene as a breath of fresh air, a known quantity, especially if there's been some excitement around the whole 'will he / won't he' question, he could be a player. And did I mention that he's got another book coming out?

I'm not ready to pick a 'horse' for '08 yet, but Gore would definitely be on my list.

Al Gore 2008 Election

Ron Paul Attracts Attention

When nobody takes your campaign seriously, nobody does background research. When Paul called out Rudi he inadvertently brought on a bit of scrutiny he might not have wanted.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

[...]

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

One would think that being on record expressing views like this would be a liability but then you remember he's running as a Republican. Being a racist will probably get you a sizable portion of the Republican vote.

Ron Paul Republican 2008 Election Racism

GOP Debate: These Guys are Scary - UPDATED

Last night the GOP had their debate on - you guessed it - FoxNews. A couple of downright frightening quotes:

MITT ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.

Candidates were asked whether they would support the use of waterboarding — a technique, defined as torture by the Justice Department. Two said they would.

Rudy Giuliani: "every method [interrogators] could think of and I would support them in doing it."

Tom Tancredo: "I'm looking for Jack Bauer"

ThinkProgress has video of the applause those comments drew.

And these guys want to run our country.

UPDATE: Youtube Video

The Washington Post has a pretty decent run-down of the inter-candidate goings on at the debate.

Republican Debate Guantanamo Mitt Romney Tortue Rudy Giuliani

Hagel / Bloomber Ticket?

Two Republicans running together doesn't exactly sound like a 'third party ticket' to me, but...

Via CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Expressing dismay over the Republican Party's trajectory, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Sunday that an independent presidential bid would be good for the nation.

And Hagel, R-Nebraska, did not rule out the possibility that he might be the one to do it, perhaps in alliance with New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

"I am not happy with the Republican Party today," the self-described lifelong Republican from Nebraska told CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors," he said.

Hagel said he would decide by late summer whether to run for president.

"I think a credible third party would be good for the system," he said.

In reality, a Hagel / Bloomberg ticket would be less a 'third party run' and more a sign of the final schism between the two wings of the Republican Party.

While I applaud Hagel for his courage to speak out about the direction of the Republican Party, but his critique is a bit off. "It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded, almost isolationist insulationists, power-projectors."

Power-projectors are unlikely to be isolationists. Isolationists are unlikely to get American bogged down in intractable wars of choice. Insulationists are unlikely to be Republicans for the simple fact that keeping American wages high will cut into profits.

I think that if Hagel had said that the Republican Party had been hijacked by fiscally irresponsible religious interventionists, he'd have been more accurate. And incidentally, a platform of disentangling American from Iraq, fiscal responsibility, and movement away from legislating religion would probably be a pretty fertile platform for a third party - except that the Democratic Party has that pretty well staked out.

Sorry Chuck.

Chuck Hagel Michael Bloomberg Third Party

The Picture of 'Establishment' Authority

I cannot imagine a group of men more unsuited to be the pool from which the leader of this nation will be chosen.

And their biggest problem is that these candidates and their party members think that a rich, old, white male is the only image of authority.

Republican Debate Patriarchy

That Rudy Giuliani Post I Promised

Since I mentioned it earlier, I better actually write it, I guess.

From the Washington Post:

NEW YORK, Dec. 18 -- His national poll numbers are a dream, he's a major box office draw on the Republican Party circuit, and he goes by the shorthand title "America's Mayor." All of which has former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani convinced he just might become America's president in 2008.

He is showing the early signs of a serious candidacy: Giuliani's presidential exploratory committee throws its first major fundraiser in a hotel near Times Square on Tuesday evening, and he recently hired the political director of the Republican National Committee during 2006. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week found that Republicans give Giuliani an early lead over Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who is far ahead of the former mayor in organizing a national campaign.

Despite that lead, conservative party strategists and activists in key primary states are skeptical and warn that the socially liberal Republican faces a difficult campaign. They question whether a Republican who has had one marriage end in annulment and another in divorce, and favors abortion rights, gun control and immigrant rights, has much retail appeal in the evangelical and deeply conservative reaches of the GOP.

That and Republican electoral power is now concentrated in the South. How much excitement do you think a somebody from New York City is going to generate there?

It's like that old 'Pace' salsa commercial where a bunch of cowboys are complaining about a bad bottle of salsa and one reads that it was made in New York City. 'New York City?!?' the cowboys say in surprise and disgust. The commercial ends with the cook looking frightened.

Rovian 'play to the base' politics has made a Northern Republican as un-electable as a Northern Democrat used to be. The race-based immigration politics that some of the Republicans in government can't seem to get away from is just going to make all of this worse.

I'm not complaining.

Rudy Giuliani 2008 Republican Nomination

The 2008 Horse Race

I hate Horse Race politics, but like everybody else, I can't seem to tear myself away...

Quinnipiac ranks national leaders (including many 2008 contenders) and finds that Nancy Pelosi has made the biggest gains from her spot at the bottom of the last poll, taken September 5th.

The survey, taken the week after the Democrats won back Congress, asks voters to rate the warmth of their feelings for leaders on a scale of 0 - 100. The mean scores for each politician with the percentage not knowing enough about the individual to rate him or her:

1) Rudolph Giuliani - 64.2. (9)

2) Sen. Barack Obama 58.8 (41)

3) Sen. John McCain 57.7 (12)

4) Condoleezza Rice - 56.1 (7)

5) Bill Clinton - 55.8 (1)

6) Sen. Joseph Lieberman - 52.7 (16)

7) NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg - 51.1 (44)

8) John Edwards - 49.9 (20)

9) Sen. Hillary Clinton - 49 (1)

10) N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson - 47.7 (65)

11) Sen. Joseph Biden 47 (52)

12) Nancy Pelosi 46.9 (34)

13) Gov. Mitt Romney - 45.9 (64)

14) Former VP Al Gore - 44.9 (3)

15) President George Bush - 43.8 (1)

16) Sen. Evan Bayh - 43.3 (75)

17) Newt Gingrich - 42 (15)

18) Sen. Bill Frist - 41.5 (53)

19) Sen. Harry Reid - 41.2 (61)

20) Sen. John Kerry - 39.6 (5)

John Kerry's gaffe didn't seem to destroy Democrat's ability to win elections during the midterms but it did destroy any chance at a meaningful attempt by the Massachusetts Senator to mount another Presidential run. Other hopefuls that don't seem to be in position to run include Bill Frist and Newt Gingrich. Evan Bayh's numbers aren't that good, but with 75% of respondents not knowing enough to form an opinion, his could go up. Romney, Richardson, and Biden find themselves in a similar situation.

Hillary Clinton is in the peculiar position of having 'topped out' on the support meter. Her 49% 'approval' rating wouldn't be so bad except that 99% of respondents have already formed an opinion - there's no room for improvement. This doesn't bode well for Hillary when compared to the other front runners, McCain and Giuliani.

A note, though, on Giuliani: If he were to make a real run at the presidency, people would start to look more closely at 'America's Mayor.' While the good feelings about Rudy from his actions on 9/11 and the aftermath resonate well with all Americans, his other positions won't mesh with the majority of his party's base. Expect his numbers to fall (especially among GOP primary voters) as other Republican contenders paint him as 'too liberal' and 'out of touch with Republican values.'

Lieberman's numbers are surprising. His supporters are more likely to be Republicans than members of his own party. I would say that this doesn't bode well for his staying 'blue' except that Joe's smart enough to realize that if he switched parties, he'd be in real trouble.

The real winner here is Barack Obama. With a 58.8 rating and lot of room to grow (41% of respondents didn't know enough about him to form an opinion) Obama is perhaps in the best position of any potential candidate on the list.

That said, the winners of the 2006 midterm haven't even begun their terms, so all of this could change wildly in the next two years. All speculation at this point borders on tea reading...

2008 Presidential Election

Problems for Romney

A Rasmussen Reports survey has found that 43% of Americans would never vote for a Mormon. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

WASHINGTON - Some 43 percent of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for a Mormon for president, according to a new poll that shows an increase from previous surveys in the number of voters unwilling to support an LDS candidate for the White House.

The latest poll, released Monday, is bad news for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon Republican who is expected to make a 2008 presidential bid. Previous polls have shown a smaller share of Americans saying they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.

The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg in June found 37 percent of those surveyed wouldn't vote for a Mormon while other surveys from the late 1990s showed about 20 percent were opposed to a candidate from that faith.

Some 38 percent in the Rasmussen poll said they would consider voting for a Mormon, while 19 percent were unsure. Of those who identified themselves as evangelicals, 53 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

It's interesting that the only sub-group that is mentioned is Evangelicals. It would be interesting to see breakdowns by party affiliation, race, income, education, and region. Of course 'Evangelical' is code for 'White, socially conservative Republican' - of which only 53% would vote for a Mormon. This must scare the shit out of Romney. If this bias against people that have different ideas about God can't be overcome quickly (with either speeches, TV spots, or appropriately timed attacks on Gays) Romney's candidacy is dead in the water.

Romney has the deck stacked against him. He's running for the nomination of a party with its powerbase in the South and West when he's from the North East. This poll shows that he's looking to attract voters that are hostile to his religion. He has low name recognition and, as far as I've seen, no 'proto-platform.' He's not the 'immigration candidate' or the 'Iraq candidate' or the 'trade candidate' or the 'tax candidate' or any other 'candidate' except the 'Mormon candidate' and his base has basically rejected that.

For what it's worth, I would have no problem voting for a Mormon. I just can't imagine voting for Mitt Romney.

Here's the other part of Rasmussen's survey that I found interesting:

A potential Mormon presidential candidate fared better than one who is Muslim or an atheist running for the White House, the Rasmussen poll also found.

Some 61 percent of likely voters would not even consider voting for a Muslim presidential contender while 60 percent wouldn't vote for an atheist, the poll found.

I always knew I was unelectable... Atheism is the new gay...

Mitt Romney Mormon Religion+in+Politics Atheism

Russ Won't Run

From Feingold's website:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

On Sunday, November 12th in Racine, I will hold my 1000th Listening Session with the people of Wisconsin. Before reaching that milestone, I want you to know that I've decided to continue my role as Wisconsin's Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.

Like many Americans, I am excited by the results of the November 7th election. My fourteen years in the Senate have been the greatest privilege of my life and I am extremely pleased with what we have accomplished. During so much of that time, however, we Democrats have not only been in the minority but have often been so deeply mired there that my role has often been to block bad ideas or to simply dissent. That is a very important role but I relish the thought that in this new Congress we can start, not only to undo much of the damage that one-party rule has done to America, we can actually advance progressive solutions to such major issues as guaranteed healthcare, dependence on oil, and our unbalanced trade policies. The Senate of the 110th Congress could also well be a place of greater bi-partisan opportunities for change; something I am very proud to have been effective at in both Republican and Democratic Senates.

[...]

Yet, while I've certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, "Run Russ Run", or "Russ in '08", I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I've taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations. This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured.

I'm sure a campaign for President would have been a great adventure and helpful in advancing a progressive agenda. At this time, however, I believe I can best advance that progressive agenda as a Senator with significant seniority in the new Senate serving on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Judiciary and Budget Committees. Although I have given it a lot of thought, I cannot muster the same enthusiasm for a race for President while I am trying simultaneously to advance our agenda in the Senate. In other words, if I really wanted to run for President, regardless of the odds or other possible candidates, I would do so. However, to put my family and all of my friends and supporters through such a process without having a very strong desire to run, seems inappropriate to me. And, yes, while I would strongly prefer that our nominee in 2008 be someone who had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the beginning, I am prepared to work as hard as I can through the Progressive Patriots Fund, and consistent with my duties in the Senate, to maintain or increase our gains from November 7 in the Congress and, of course, to elect a Democrat as President in 2008.

Russ has been on my 'Candidates & Campaigners' list since it first appeared. Feingold's strong progressive drive and his willingness to speak truth to power have earned him my respect. He would have made a great President and his presence on the campaign trail, especially in the primaries, would have pushed the discussion left and also would have forced the conversation to address real issues.

I'm very sad that I as a Maryland resident, I won't be able to cast my vote for such a dedicated progressive.

That said, I respect Russ' decision. I believe that he probably is more effective as a Senator than he would be as a Presidential candidate. Feingold's constituency allows him the ability to pursue a very progressive agenda. I can't imagine Russ Feingold compromising on those principles - moving to the center - to appeal to more voters. I can't imagine Russ Feingold 'playing the game' in Iowa and New Hampshire. Russ Feingold is, perhaps, too good to run for President.

* * * * *
Less than one week has passed since the midterms, yet the news is rife with stories about who gained ground and who lost ground in their bids for their party's 2008 nomination. While I support a healthy and public campaign for the nominations, one would think that the focus, at least for a while, should be on solving the myriad of problems that one party rule has brought down on America.

I have closed (temporarily) the 'Candidates & Campaigners' section because I intend to avoid covering the horse race until at least sometime in mid 2007. This isn't a blackout - I will cover some aspects. Entries, exits, major gaffes and anything else that I think is important will be discussed here. The fact that a candidate is in Iowa talking about ethanol isn't the most important thing going on in the United States today.

In an effort to lead by example, this blog will focus on governing for the foreseeable future - not on elections. The Democratic Party would do well to follow this example, as would our government in general. Not that it's likely...

Russ Feingold 2008 Election

I'm waiting...

Sen. McCain: Don't you owe me something?

Actually, Senator, I'm feeling rather magnanimous. Maybe you could just go away. I mean, suicide seems rather extreme, don't you think? You could retire to a ranch in Arizona and paint desert landscapes for the rest of your days. You could even write poetry, though I'm not sure I would be likely to buy a book of your verse at Barnes & Noble.

If you feel that you just can't let go of politics and governing, why don't you follow the lead of Jimmy Carter? Go watch elections in other countries. Honestly, that would be more productive than you watching the grass roots grow.

Hell, if you're into it, just resign your Senate seat and take a job on K Street. I'm not sure that it's any more ignoble than suicide. Maybe just a little bit...

John McCain Suicide Democratic Victory

Warner Out, Edwards Up, Hillary Ahead

The Political Wire reports that Mark Warner, former Virginia governor, is NOT running for President in 2008:

When Mark Warner's political strategist, Mudcat Saunders, told Political Wire earlier this year that he thought John Edwards was the stronger candidate in 2008 it must have made Warner pause. With Warner now officially out of the running, the main beneficiary is John Edwards.

Edwards just lost his most serious Southern opponent and is now the clear favorite in South Carolina's primary. He has the best organization in Iowa and leads in the polls. He's actively against the Iraq war and admitted his Senate vote in favor of it was a mistake. He's also aggressively courted key Democratic constituencies with his efforts to end poverty. But most important, Edwards' "under the radar" strategy is building an impressive base of supporters around the country.

I haven't really looked at the 2008 races yet (best get past 2006 first) so I don't really know enough about Warner to say whether I'm happy or sad about him dropping out of the running. Edwards seems likable enough, though I'm not sure I'm ready to endorse him either.

All this said, whenever talking about the race for the 2008 Democratic Nomination for President, it all comes back to Hillary Clinton. I have issues with Hillary Clinton. She's pandered to the right a bit too much. We don't need a 'middle of the road' Democrat, we need a strong progressive. Her high negatives among many Americans are just another strike against her.

She does, however, have the money and the staff for a strong run. If there is a herd of Democratic hopefuls and she can win primaries with small pluralities, it's to her benefit.

We'll see how this shakes out later. I'm more concerned about this November than I am about November two years removed.

Mark Warner John Edwards Hillary Clinton Democrats 2008 Election

What Would President McCain Do?

Despite being the presumed GOP front-runner for the 2008 nomination since time immemorial, nobody's really bothered to find out what John McCain would do as President. On Tuesday, a voter in Iowa did. Via the Globe Gazette:

Though McCain has not formally announced his candidacy for the presidential nomination, he was asked to define his priorities if elected.

He ticked off four without hesitation.

• "“I start by vetoing spending bills. There is just too much pork-barrel spending and we must become fiscally responsible."
  

• "I would work more closely with our military allies. We need their support in the struggle that is ahead."

• "“I would speak every two weeks to the American people. You need to know what is happening -— about the war and the many serious issues we face."

• "“I would make sure we donÂ’t torture prisoners. I would close Guantanamo Bay."”

Well, those four positions are about as non-controversial as you can get.

(Except that in a way, they aren't. For the population at large, these are pretty safe. For the Republican privary voter they're out of the mainstream. Especially that last one. But that's another story...)

Not surprisingly, McCain's positions make him the 'anti-Bush' in approach, but not in policy. Work with allies, talk to the people and hide the torture are all nods to procedure, not sweeping change to Republican policy.

Asked if he agrees with farm subsidies, McCain said, "I don't like subsidies. I am a free-trader, and I believe subsidies do damage, especially to undeveloped countries. And while I support ethanol for its greenhouse effects, I do not support ethanol subsidies."”

That could really hurt you in Iowa, Senator. And that talk about 'greenhouse effects' won't get you very far with the global warming deniers.

All that said, John McCain still enjoys the status as a 'moderate' in the eyes of most Americans. That, of course, isn't accurate, but it doesn't change what people think. Many Democrats still look back at 2000 and say things like "I would have voted for McCain if he'd been the Republican nomination." That's bad.

Luckily, the guy's been in the Senate for years. There should be plenty of fun quotes, flip-flops, faux paus, and votes McCain would like to take back. We must begin to educate the public. McCain is NOT the moderate that his image-makers want you to think he is.

John McCain Iowa Republicans President 2008

This Sounds Good

The Washington Note reports on an idea I really like:

First of all, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, whom most give high marks for the manner in which he has stewarded the Dems in the Senate despite the absence of a clear Democratic Party chief, has sent private signals to Senator Hillary Clinton and other stalwarts of the party that he "would like to" step down from his post in early 2009. Reid has not stated definitively that he will -- but he apparently prefers "whipping" the Party from behind and the side rather than serving as commander-in-chief on the Senate floor.

What Reid is offering Senator Hillary Clinton is his total, robust support to succeed him as Senate Majority Leader if she elects not to pursue the Democratic nomination for President.

Many are realizing that the electoral map is not something one can wave a magic wand over and reverse the views of 42% of Americans who believe that they know Hillary Clinton well and have strongly formed views of her and will not vote for her under any conditions -- according to recent polls. Reports are that Senator Clinton herself knows this and that her own enthusiasm for running actually trails that of her husband, her advisors, and her staff -- whose enthusiasm for the race is ranked in that order with Hillary the least enthusiastic.

I like Harry Reid. Well, I guess I just think that Harry Reid has done a decent job lately. Either way, I feel no malice towards him and if he wants to do his work outside of the spotlight, I can respect that.

I also like Hillary Clinton. I just don't want her to run for President. Not because she wouldn't be a good President (on top of the fact that this country desperately needs a woman to be elected President) but because she won't win. We're not in a position where we have the luxury to run a candidate with no real chance of winning.

Now, granted, most of that 42% was never going to vote for a Democratic candidate anyway, but if Hillary is that Democratic candidate, I can guarantee you that every one of them will be at the voting both in November making a vote against her. Even if the Republicans were running a Neanderthal who was unfrozen in mid-October.

But Senate Majority Leader would be an excellent use of Mrs. Clinton's considerable skills. Even if I disagree with some of her positions (cough, cough, flag-burning, cough) I would gladly accept her as Majority Leader if it meant that the Democrats could run a candidate for President with a chance of winning.

Additionally, if this announcement was made, say, sometime after the 2006 elections, it would open wide the race for the Democratic nomination for President. The party could really use some internal debate about its own nature and its course towards the future. Hillary Clinton's presumed nomination stifles that.

If this actually happened, only good could come from it.

Hillary Clinton Harry Reid Democrats 2008 Election

Scary John McCain Numbers

Tagan Goddard's Political Wire runs a headline stating "Poll Suggests Trouble for McCain in 2008" while siting a Gallup Poll that actually seems more scary for Democrats.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain "typically vie for the lead in Republican preference polls, but a greater percentage of Republicans say they would find Giuliani acceptable than say this about McCain (73% to 55%)." In fact, 4 in 10 Republicans "say they would not find McCain to be an acceptable GOP presidential nominee."

However, McCain's "strength as a presidential candidate would be in his cross-party appeal if he were able to secure the Republican nomination. Independents (55%) and Democrats (56%) are about as likely as Republicans (59%) to view McCain favorably... Thus, McCain could be a very formidable candidate in the general election, but may have difficulty winning the Republican nomination."

Emphasis Mine.

Is it just me, or does the fact that more Democrats than Independents view McCain favorably scare the bejesus out of you? How have Independents been more successful in smelling the "McCain the Maverick" bullshit? Should he get the nomination, McCain seems the early favorite for winning in 2008. It would take a lot of re-education of voters to clear the misconception that McCain is less Right-Wing-Fundie than Bush.

John McCain 2008 Gallup Poll

Thank George Bush for This One

Via The Political Wire:

Poll Finds 73% of Young Voters Will Vote

"If the 2004 and 2005 elections are any indicator, young voters will continue to turn out at the polls in record numbers in upcoming elections... A new poll released by Young Voter Strategies, a project of the George Washington Graduate School of Political Management, shows that 73 percent of young people who are eligible to vote are likely to cast ballots this November."

Said YVS director Heather Smith: "This generation will be 25 percent of the population by 2016 and it is likely that the party that wins in 2006 will be the party in power in 10 years."

These are people that grew up watching The Real World. Sex Ed and Gay Baiting won't sell Republicanism to enough of them to keep the GOP coalition together.

From the Campaigns & Elections:

Turnout in 2004 among the 18-to-24 year old bloc increased 11 percent over 2000 turnout, while general turnout increased only by four percent. In key governor races in Virginia and New Jersey in 2005, youth turnout continued to grow while general turnout dropped. A new poll released by Young Voter Strategies, a project of the George Washington Graduate School of Political Management, shows that 73 percent of young people who are eligible to vote are likely to cast ballots this November.

Ok, I'm a little suspicious of the 73% statistic. But I do believe that people in my generation voted more in 2004 and will vote more in 2008 (and beyond) because George W. Bush taught them that it's important to pick your leaders - otherwise people that are more than half way to being dead will pick them for you. And their priorities have nothing to do with taking care of you in your old age. Or keeping the air you'll breath clean. Or making sure people around the world don't hate you...

Best of all, more young people self identify as Democrats / Progressives / Liberals. And the Democratic Party Platform lends itself to appealing to young voters because it's actually about the future.

All a candidate needs to do to appeal (not pander) to these voters is mix talk about long term issues like environmental protection and controlling the National Debt with the issues that mean something to them. Stop talking about tax credits for parents putting kids through college and start talking about tax credits for people carrying massive amounts of college debt. And any effort to make rent payments tax deductible would be great too.

The point is that whoever goes after this block of oft-ignored voters will get them.

The survey also found that 63 percent of respondents thought that the country was on the wrong track. The top three issues that concerned young voters were gas prices, education and jobs and the economy. Forty-nine percent of those polled believed that Democrats would do a better job of addressing their top issue, while 28 percent believed Republicans would do a better job. In a generic ballot question, 45 percent said they would vote Democrat while only 26 percent said they would vote Republican.

The signs are good, Democrats just need to pick up on them.

2006 Election 2008 Election Democrats Young Voters

Clinton - Gore -or- Clinton vs. Gore

From the Wall Street Journal:

For former Vice President Al Gore, a rash of favorable publicity surrounding this month's opening of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," and the growing political resonance of its subject -- global warming -- are stoking the most serious speculation about a Gore political comeback since his loss in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

In 2008, that could mean a once-unimaginable battle for Democrats' nomination between Bill Clinton's former vice president and his wife, Hillary Clinton. To some pro-Gore Democrats, worried about Mrs. Clinton's electability, that is part of the appeal.

"I appreciate that buzz, but he's not running for president," insists Michael Feldman, a former vice presidential adviser who is helping promote the film and Mr. Gore's new book on which it is based. "He has been spending a considerable amount of time trying to educate people about the issue of global warming," and won't talk about politics "right now," Mr. Feldman says.

The demurrals aren't persuasive to some Democrats, including former Clinton-Gore White House insiders. "I do know that he's thinking about it. I know for a fact," a former adviser says. "He's talked to people about the pros and cons."

Unnamed 'advisors' get credit for a lot of things, but I can't imagine that any politician, flush with positive press (at least among his base) wouldn't at least consider running. Hell, if I were in his position, I sure would.

I voted for Gore in 2000 but did so saying "he'll be a good President, even if he wasn't a good campaigner." Wonkyness doesn't get votes, but it does get things done in the White House.

It's like choosing accountants. You don't really interact with your accountant all that much. You don't go out and have a beer on the weekends. But you do trust him or her with your money. When you pick an accountant, you look for one that will be smart and responsible. One that knows all aspects of the business.

My opinions about Gore's intellect and knowledge haven't changed. My opinions about his ability to be a good candidate have. It seems he was hampered by advisors that didn't allow him to come across as a personable guy. If that's true and he's gotten rid of those advisors, I wouldn't be opposed to another run for the White House by Gore.

The Republicans will trot out the same old "he invented the internet" and "oh, he's so boring" crap, but having been through the Bush Presidency, I think people are ready to elect a President based on issues and ability, not the 'I'd rather have a beer with' test.

Only the primaries will tell.

Al Gore 2008 Election

Kerry 2008?

Reuters reports on Kerry's possible 2008 Presidential Run:

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Thursday he was seriously thinking about another White House bid in 2008 and will decide before the year is out.

"I will make that decision toward the end of the year, but I'm thinking about it hard," Kerry said in response to a question at the Latin Economic Forum at the United Nations.

"If you can get help me find 60,000 votes in Ohio ...," he joked, referring to the close race in that state on which his 2004 loss to President Bush hinged.

Let me say this about Kerry Redux: There are worse candidates out there. Hillary Clinton, for one. I like Hillary. I think she would be a very good President. Her problem is that SO many people hate her just because her last name is Clinton. At this point in history, with our war against Islamist Exteremism, the rise of Dominionism at home, shortages of oil and rising health care costs, Progressives / Liberals / Democrats cannot afford to run a candidate that has such a slim chance of winning.

John Kerry would have made a very good President but a very lousy drinking buddy. That's why he and Al Gore both lost. The thing is, I think America has learned its lesson when it comes to electing Presidents. While it's ok to vote for the coolest person when your voting for student council, when you're voting for the person who will decide if and when our soldiers are sent off to some foreign land and asked to fight and die...

The one thing Kerry might have going for him is a 'gee, I should have voted for him last time' sentiment. Plus name recognition. That said, there are better candidates out there. I'm not looking to find my favorite until after the 2006 Congressional elections anyway.

John Kerry 2008 Election