I'd agree... although Obama gets bashed by some on MyDD and Kos, I would say that he does have support among some of the Netroots (albeit not as strong as Gore, Clark or Edwards)... However the article by Paul or Chris (too lazy to go check) on Obama being a top down old school media candidate is a fair point (after all the COnvention sent him to stardom).  I would say the roots (without Gore) split Clark 40%, Edwards 40% and Obama 20%... with the possibility of a few percentage points going to other candidates.  If Clark or Edwards drop, then 60-40 to whichever stays in v. Obama.  

BTW, I don't think HRC has the Clinton mystique as much as Bill, but especially among the younger 18-22 voters in 2008 who were 2-6 when Clinton took office and 10-14 when he left...  This leaves the door open more for Obama, Clark  and Edwards and possibly Gore among that demo.    

In the 2004 race, Clark had a tremendous uphill climb to make in a very short time just before the Democratic Party jumped on the John Kerry bandwagon.  Back then, it wasn't unusual to meet Democrats who'd never heard of Clark, Democrats who figured he was a conservative because he was a General, and Democrats who mistakenly thought he was a Republican.  In spite of all that, and his late entry without any staff, Clark won the Oklahoma primary and was 2nd to Kerry in three others.

This time around, Clark is known to be a progressive Democrat, and much more than simply another retired General.  In the Presidential election, Clark can run effectively in all 50 states.  Somehow, I can't see a still to be proven Obama managing that feat in many states if he's the Presidential candidate.  Consequently, if Clark chooses to run, he'll be on the ticket; and likely at the top.

Obama is popular within all demographics, and he's popular in the blogosphere.

...is the same it always is.  Not enough of them show up to vote.  Seemingly everything has been tried to change this over the last 30+ years with little to show for the effort.  Will Obama change this just because of what he symbolically represents?  That would be great, but I'm not optimistic.

I gotta second this.  Edwards will be ridiculously strong in Nevada because of the heavy unionization in the state.

I assuming it won't be Edwards... I respected his positive campaign during the 2004 primaries and hope he continues that way.  

This is a very underrated factor.

will conservatives vote for a woman or an African American? Is the racist/sexist vote big enough to swing an election to the GOP?

I wouldn't base my vote on what I think this group will do, but I think we'd all have to adjust our personal participation level up a notch should either be on the ticket.

I think an Oprah endorsed Obama would do pretty well with that demographic as well...

Your points on Iowa are accurate, and is a good example of why the primary system we currently employed is SUPER FLAWWED.  

I don't mean this as a criticism, I mean that you judge candidates based on their campaign structures.  I respect that judgment criteria.  I'm more ideological, which I hope you respect.  It's confusing when you bring in progressive issues, which you have previously suggested are distractions when it comes to winning.

Stoller, you are talking about liberal ideology, not progressive. Look and see how many times we used "progressive" in CTG. Alongside John Halpin and Andrew Garib, I use it in a non-ideological manner.

I like candidates that are fresh horses, have little baggage in Congress, and can run a 50 state presidential campaign. So here's the field from that preference and outlook.

Maybe you should have read a little closer... These are HIS preferences, not a prediction on where they will finish.  No one in their right mind thinks Hillary will finish that poorly... she has way too much money to not finish in the top 4 in the first few contests.  

Dodd gave a great civil liberties speech last week that made me sit up and pay attention, so now he's in my top tier of candidates I could campaign for in a positive way (as opposed to the ABB [anybody but Bush] and better than Santorum sorts of messages I've been stuck with).

His preferences...

The Kos/Mydd netroots is really letting their hatred (?) of HRC get in the way of sound judgement. Let's see here, Clinton has:

1. Money

2. Substantial support among women
   
3. Extremely substantial support among blacks, Obama or no Obama
   
4. Top-notch team of political operatives
   
5. Money
   
6. Money
   
7. Bill Clinton
   
8. Money
   
9. Support among blacks
   

Further, even if the netroots were large enough to put a major dent into the primaries, and of course they are not, there isn't one candidate being rallied to here. That was the advantage Howard Dean had and he imploded after the first votes were cast.

I've been curious as to whom the folks on the "Hillary train" actually are, so I'm fascinated to have encountered one.  I agree that Clinton is counting on strong support among African-Americans, which is why there's been this HRC quasi-panic in the wake of the "Oboomlet" as of late.  I disagree, however, that HRC will be the favorite among Democratic women voters.  I'd love to see some polling on this.

I don't know why you're sure Hillary has the "women's" vote. I'm a woman and I wouldn't vote for her in a primary. I don't hate her, but I don't think she's up to the job. It's not because she is or isn't a woman. It's because she's who she is - a very intelligent, accomplished woman who lacks leadership ability, and lacks any sort of real vision.

My problem with Obama is that he seems to be mostly about "vision" and short on everything else.

Of course, all of this speculation is based on perceptions that people have about the possible candidates TODAY.

The perceptions people have will undoubtedly change based on how these various candidates run their campaigns (which includes how they handle the media).

The media, I'm convinced, is setting Hillary up to rip her the hell down as soon as it can. There's just so much old crap out there.

ARGH!  Please tell me how Clark outperformed Edwards in '04, and yet he is awful?  

Please read this and become a little more informed before you rush to judgement.

"Indeed, looking back, I think the conventional wisdom is that John Edwards excelled as a candidate, while Clark never really caught on with voters. That's not quite what happened.

After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates -- Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards -- met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.

In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests.

In fact, in those first eight post-Iowa primaries, if we look only at top-two finishes (candidates who came in either first or second), Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one.

But the media was unimpressed. A day after Clark and Edwards each won their first primaries, and Clark outperformed Edwards in a majority of the mini-Super Tuesday contests, news outlets praised Edwards and dismissed Clark. Salon, for example, ran a major feature, taking a look at the race for the nomination. The headline: "And then there were two." A big picture accompanied the article with Kerry and Edwards. The article said Clark "posted disappointing numbers in the seven-state primary" and "may not be long for the game." Again, this was a day after Clark actually did slightly better than Edwards."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc hives/9242.html

A good point, I don't get him being there, or Dodd either for that matter.  I'd like to hear Armstrong's thinking, but it probably isn't very relevant when it comes down to it.

John McCain is not pro-choice!

Ive been thinking this same thing, just couldnt articulate it. They act as if they are playing musical chairs, just waiting for the music to stop, and scramble for THE seat...

Of the field above, Bayh would be below Kerry, HRC and Richardson, all of whom would trump him.  

That is actually a fair point... Bush fatigue is so High that Jeb would be slaughtered in 2008 (which is why he won't run)... not sure if Clinton fatigue still exists, but fresh blood would be nice... That being said, I will support HRC if she wins the nom... pretty much most of the dems I would support except for a few (Bayh and Biden come to mind) and would vote Green, libertarian or something else unless the GOPer is a real Sam Brownback troll.

Yeah, I'd have loved a Levin/Dorgan ticket in 04.  He's too old now, but I've never understood why our best senators are never considered realistic presidential candidates.  I'm sure there's reasons, skeletons or something that keep them solidly off the list.  But if Biden can keep throwing himself out there, then the reasons the others can't are obscure to me.

Incidentally, Levin is jewish, Dorgan is not.  I don't think that's considered a real reason anymore, what with Feingold and Romney and Lieberman, but it might be.

why can't people read the frackin' post before spouting off bullshit.

"Aside from the progressive issues, I like candidates that are fresh horses, have little baggage in Congress, and can run a 50 state presidential campaign. "

He then goes on to list his cadidates.  What do you not understand about that?  

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to become hostile, its just that a few people have said the same thing.

What do these tiers represent? Which candidates Armstrong likes more or less?

i know!  can you BELIEVE that a post about jerome's thoughts on presidential candidates is predicated on...jerome's thoughts about presidential candidates?!  The outrage!