He's about as serious a candidate as Dennis Kucinich would be. All you have to do is take one look at him or Kucinich to see they would be steamrolled if their party was ever dumb enough to nominate them for president. Plus Democrats would play on the negative Mississippi stereotypes just like the Republicans did with Massachusetts.
The Republicans will make short work of him and it won't be pretty. The prospect of him as a candidate shouldn't keep anyone up late at night. All we need to do is to nominate a decent candidate (basically, someone not like Gore or Kerry) and we can cream the Republican by wrapping them all around Bush. "Well Sen. Allen, you say you disagree with President Bush's policy on XYZ, but you voted for it the last 6 years."
Edwards would have kicked Bush's ass, plain and simple. The whole "national security" thing was a red herring that led us to choose some stiff 20-year Senator who people still didn't trust on national security.
I don't know about Clark. He wasn't close last time and I doubt he'll come close this time either. Other than the whole "electability" thing with him being a Southern general, what else does he have (and we know how "electability" goes)?
McCain is going to get smacked down if he runs again. As for those polls, they are meaningless. After all, Joementum led all early Democratic polls. In March 2008, we're going to be laughing about those polls that had been showing Rice, McCain, and Giuliani as front runners.
They demand Democratic nominees follow their platform. Then when the Democrat loses, they claim it was because they were "too liberal and too weak on national security" even though they followed the DLC line. Kerry adopted a moderate DLC economic platform, talked about increasing the size of the army, and staying in Iraq until it was stable. And now the DLC says he's weak on security? Give me a break. Kerry lost because he ran a campaign without any focus, had no personality, and had horrible rapid response. When they say Democrats have "no credibility on national security" they just reinforce Republican talking points. Their idea of "getting tough" is to be more like the Republicans. The Republicans are imploding on everything and all the DLC can say is "Democrats have no credibility on national security and are out of touch with the nation's values." If they want to promote their ideas, fine. But they go too far when they bash the Democratic party.
unless he faces criminal charges. Then all bets are off. Bush is probably going to pardon anyone who gets convicted when he leaves office in 2009. At this point, Bush is probably too weak to pick the Republican to succeed him. VP Condi would probably lose the nomination. I can't see Cheney stepping down because it would look really bad for the administration. Even if he was stepping down so Bush could appoint a successor, everyone would suspect it was because he committed some crime (which is probably the case). Bush only cares about himself, so now that he's gotten two terms, he couldn't care less about what happens to the Republicans in 2006 or 2008.
Brown did release a statement on that matter. In any case, it's too bad Brown didn't announce he'd run a few months ago or at least say he hadn't made up his mind. Now this situation is more complicated than it ought to be. I still think that whoever wins the primary will beat DeWine. DeWine was lucky to first run for the Senate in 1994 and then get a pass from the Democrats in 2000. I think his luck has run out.
Clinton was able to get himself re-elected and had 70 percent approval ratings, but he was never able to make a serious effort to re-take Congress. One of the things Bush has done well is to understand that the president can play a key role in getting people in his party elected to Congress. While Clinton largely stayed out of midterms and worried about himself, Bush actively went in and got the candidates he wanted. He got John Thune and Norm Coleman to switch from running to governor to running for senator. Then they orchestrated the rise of Mel Martinez in Florida. That's what we need to see from Rendell and from the next Democratic president. It's not enough to win the presidency and governorships because without the legislatures, we can't get anything done.
The thing that annoys a lot of people about Brown was that he told Hackett that he wasn't running. Then Hackett waited for Tim Ryan, who said he wouldn't run. Then Hackett decided to run. Then Brown decided that he wanted to run after all and seems to expect Hackett to get out of his way. If he wasn't sure he didn't want to run, he shouldn't have said he wouldn't run. And is he really in this time? Or is he going to make Hackett run in another race and decide that he's not running for the Senate after all? I just hope the Ohio Dems get their act together. It is just unfathomable that in a state that Clinton won twice and even Kerry got 49 percent in that Dems could do so badly on the statewide level. Hopefully when Tom Strickland becomes governor and someone beats DeWine, they'll revamp the state party and drive out the fools who put them in this position.
Ohio not being a swing-state for state politics is the Democrats' fault. If people are voting Democratic for president and not voting Democrat on other races, that's the Democrats' fault. Clinton won Ohio twice and Kerry got 49 percent. What that seems to say is that the Democratic message is appealing, but the messenger, especially for statewide races is flawed. I guarentee you that in any other state, a nobody like Fingerhut running against an incumbent would lose horribly. Look at North Dakota. Bush won with 63 percent. But Byron Dorgan, a Democratic Senator, was re-elected with 66 percent. The GOP ran some nobody against him. They didn't lose because the Republican message doesn't appeal statewide, they lost because they ran a bad candidate against an incumbent. Voinovich's re-election was assured because Fingerhut was a nobody with no money. But when you run strong candidates, like the GOP did in South Dakota, you can get people to vote the same way down the ticket as they do at the top. The trick is to get Ohio voters who voted for Kerry but also Taft in 2002 to vote Democratic down the ticket, plus nab some dissatisfied Bush voters. Like with other states, the trick is probably to run a strong candidate. Ted Strickland and Paul Hackett certainly fit that description.