Betting the band back together? The one that played so many hits in 2000, the race any sitting VP should have won by 5 points?
He is a bad retail politician. He still strikes me as stuffy. I don't think he's any more passionate in person than he was in 2000. On the page, his words are more fiery, no doubt. Very smart guy, though, but that doesn't necessarily translate to political strategy, as we've seen.
I think if he ran he wouldn't win the nomination, unless Hillary ran, the rest of the field tanked (not gonna happen) and the non Hillarys coalesced around him. I think this is a fantasy.
Matt, you really, really need to stop psychologizing, it's embarrassing to read, and damaging to your credibility and this blog's.
Lieberman and Klein know who they are, they know what they think, they are adults. They are simply wrong. And they exhibit shallow and ignorant thinking. And they may both be narcissists, they seem to be pretty smug, but we don't know for sure, do we? They may be sincere and just stupid.
Any speculation as to the makeup of their sense of self is really silly. And gets us nowhere i.e. persuasion.
It is always double-edged to have criticism be the dominant tone in any campaign in this time of widespread cynicism. We need an equivalently strong forward-looking positive message.
Before the R collapse of this year, I didn't expect D's to really contend for Congress for a couple more cycles. I believe we inevitably will come back....but circumstances are forcing us to come up to the plate before we're really ready. Maybe we can punch the ball into a hole. The home run will probably come in later years - an exceptional 2008 messenger, possibly.
I don't think we have a "right" to have an inside source on Mark Warner or anybody else. Besides, Jerome is clearly biased, anyway. And he could turn this into a sports blog if he wanted to.
And I too like Warner at this point, but it's early; If you want Warner "spin" on an issue, why not go to his blog, or ask people like me on this blog or others? Then you'll get an honest opinion. (or, hah, maybe I'm getting paid huge bucks to act this way and persuade with genuine integrity....somebody, please, hook me up with such a job)
I cannot believe the DLC has anywhere near enough money to pay people to comment on blogs.
I think the "base election" formulation is simplistic; every election is a base election. The key way to understand elections is the change vs. continuity dynamic, which is often driven by purely external events. So leveraging external events politically is what matters. Guess which side has been better at that recently (terrorism)?
This is not to dispute any of the blogospheric criticisms of the party structure and politics in general; it's merely to add on an ignored layer.
I've said many times I think D's need about a 15 point generic ballot advantage to have a chance at taking a chamber. I don't expect this margin to last.
But I'd actually rather fall just short in both chambers and run as "out of power" in '08.