This is good news! While I highly doubt that Moseley-Braun will get the nomination, she'll appeal to many black voters in the South - - the same ones who *supposedly* are so loyal to Joe Lieberman (or so the media wants us to believe).

There goes Lieberman's "momentum" in the South.

I wonder if they'll let Moseley-Braun in the debates?

And no, I still don't think there will be a brokered convention...someone will come out swinging by March.

It could be that Moseley-Braun is running, not only to contribute the debate and make an ideological statement, but also to help the base rally around one of her more progressive opponents for the nomination.

As far as a brokered convention goes, I don't think it'll happen. I think lack of money and momentum will squeeze out a lot of these candidates early on in the process.

Is Moseley-Braun anything other than a placeholder candidate for African-Americans who (rightly) think that the other Democrats in the field don't have a decent civil rights agenda, but (also rightly) recognize that Al Sharpton is a joke and a liability to the party?

Is it just me, or did she lose her Senate seat after one term to Peter Fitzgerald? One term! Peter Fitzgerald!!! Could she have been ambassador to a more perfectly irrelevant country than New Zealand?

Moseley-Braun doesn't meet the credibility threshold for a presidential candidate. We need someone else to counter Sharpton. (My link below is the permalink to the case that I think can be made for an alternative candidate: NAACP Chair Julian Bond.)

JB - I'll gladly take you up on that bet. I say that the Dems do NOT wind up with a brokered convention. Loser of this bet donates $10 to the blogger of the winners' choice. Are you game?

To those who say that the current field of Democrats don't have a civil rights agenda:

2001: On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001: On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Graham voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001: On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Edwards voted their preferred position 95 percent of the time.

2001: On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Lieberman voted their preferred position 91 percent of the time.

*cough*

Source: www.vote-smart.org

The Dems have a perfectly good civil rights agenda. Just yesterday I saw Tom Daschle lambast Bush for his position on the U of M Aff. Action case.

Still, I agree that an African American candidate in the field would be good. But first there needs to be more African Americans who are in positions such as senator and governor. Mosley Braun could not even hold Illinois as a Senator. I live in Illinois, and trust me, conservative Republicans NEVER beat Dems; Dems beat themselves in state-wide races.

Mosley Braun is better than Sharpton, but simply because that man is a rotting pile cow dung. The Dems need to recruit an African American to win either a governership or senatorship because the Dems do need a prominent politician who is loved by the African American community. There are only two types of politicians that fit that:

1. Other African Americans

2. Bill Clinton.

Chances of a brokered convention: 5% or less. JMHO.

Mosley-Braun and Sharpton are both nothing more than static on the Democratic party's screen. The primary system, with its early trials in New Hampshire and Iowa, is all but designed to eliminate African-American candidates before they gain momentum. SC and VA are soon after, but it'll be too late by then.

Besides, Mosley-Braun is a one-termer and Sharpton keeps running for higher and higher positions even though he keeps losing. To review:

Last person to go directly from the Senate to the White House: JFK
Last person to go from never having been elected to any position to the White House: Eisenhower

Well, if Moseley-Braun is running to undercut Al Sharpton, then more power to her. Sharpton has to be prevented from wrecking the party. I would like to see the actual nominee do something for the minority portions of the party. Maybe pick an African-American VP.

OK David NYC.

I think Dean can run the table, if he wins in IA and NH, Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt drop out, and Dean wins MO, it's probably over. I guess that same game plan can be made for Kerry.

And I guess that Edwards could win in IA, come in a strong second or third in NH, then win SC/MO (with Gephardt having dropped out), and VA the next week. And this could game plan can be made for Graham too, I guess.

Gephardt could win Iowa, place a strong third in NH, then win in MO and SC (with Edwards having dropped out), and win it all. Maybe this could be argued for Lieberman as well, stretching....

Those are the scenarios above that one would have to choose from to see this over by the first 5 primaries. That's 6 scenarios, and in order of likelyhood of happening, imvho. I'd say it's 50-50 one of them occurs.

What do the first six primaries have to do with a brokered convention? For a brokered convention you're going to have to have three or four candidates in the hunt and winning primaries all the way through. Sharpton will probably hang around as long as he wants to make a nuisance of himself. Kerry has the money for the long haul if he doesn't tank early. So does Lieberman. Dean would be the one most in danger of early elimination. With his lack of money, if he gets off to a poor start he might just completely disappear. I'd guess Kerry, Graham and Lieberman in it for the long haul. If those are the guys in the CA primary I'll probably vote for Kerry.

The Democrats came oh so close to having a brokered convention in 1992, had Brown not slipped up and stated he would choose Jackson as his VP, he would have won in NY, and Clinton would not have gotten enough EV's.

Unless a candidate comes close to running the table in those early 5 primaries, getting it down to two candidates, then the odds of a brokered increase dramatically.

If three different candidates win the first three primaries, none of the top 6 are going to drop out before the first super Tuesday on March 2nd, and then, assuming the splintered regional trend is broken, it could then be narrowed down to 2 or 3 for March 9th.

The way the EV's are stacked, if theres still even 3 candidates left by that time, breaking up the vote, then none of them will get over the hump.

Getting over the EV hump becomes nearly impossible if those two super tuesdays involve more than 2 candidates getting a good share of EV's. Look at the math.

If someone's not running away with in in February, how will they be doing so in March?

There hasn't been a Dem. pres. nomination to go beyond the first ballot since '52, I believe. I think Governor Stevenson won on the third ballot that year. Since then, there's been a lot of hand-wringing about a convention being deadlocked, but nothing has happened. In '72, I remember Washington Sen. Scoop Jackson took his 500 or so delegates to the Dem. convention in Miami hoping for a hopeless deadlock among Senators Humphrey and McGovern and Gov. Wallace. Sen. Jackson's hope was that by the second or third ballot, he would pick up more delegates and gain momentum. But Senator McGovern had the nomination pretty much won when the delegates gathered in Miami....I just don't see an '04 deadlock happening. I predict the Dem. nomination will be won on the first ballot.

"Is it just me, or did she lose her Senate seat after one term to Peter Fitzgerald? One term! Peter Fitzgerald!!! Could she have been ambassador to a more perfectly irrelevant country than New Zealand?"

Moseley-Braun did lose to Fitzgerald in '98, but it was by a margin of something like 48% (Moseley-Braun) to 51% (Fitzgerald). That's actually pretty astounding, given that: A.) Moseley-Braun was embroiled in a controversial scandal, B.) Fitzgerald is a multi-billionaire and considerably outspent Moseley-Braun, and C.) with Moseley-Braun's baggage and Fitzgerald's limitless wealth, Fitzgerald only beat Moseley-Braun by 2 or 3 percentage points.

Now I don't think anyone believes Moseley-Braun is a candidate with a serious shot at winning the nomination, much less the presidency. I doubt that Moseley-Braun herself expects to win. I think she is throwing her hat in the ring to bring more principled debate to the primaries. She could hang around for as long as Alan Keyes did in 2000, despite the fact that Moseley-Braun won't win any of the primaries.

The primaries may run past Super Tuesday, but only by a few weeks at most. I'm positive there will be a nominee by April.

And if Dean make a decent showing in IA or NH, he'll advance to the later primaries (win or lose).

re: the race, I think that at least one person who we think will be strong (Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Graham) will seriously underperform. Maybe two will. If 2 underperform, then no brokered conv. If only one underperforms, how about then?

I'd be amazed if Sharpton attracts enough support to do any damage. I'm from NY, and I can't see him being dangerous outside of Bklyn/Queens and maybe Chicago.

Aside from being self-righteous, he's abrasive and shrill. He has no understanding of vision and messaging - just complaint. Really, I think people are overstating his impact out of fear. He is occasionally funny, though. He'll be angry if Carol MB gets in the race; he might take more risks. I think it'll be entertaining.

what I just wrote seems obvious - what I meant to imply is this: somebody who looks like they have all the goods to us experts will just fall totally flat with voters. (e.g. bob kerrey in '92). It's weird, unexplainable except in retrospect, but it'll probably happen.

We need to get a schedule posted.

You are probably right bcNY. No polls out of SC or IA yet?

Bottom line: Can any noth eastern dem carry the south?

Moseley-Braun may have only lost by a couple of points, but how does that make her any more viable a candidate?

My point is that, if the purpose of her being in the race is to undercut Sharpton, the fact that she's a one-term senator who's been in Auckland for the last 4 years makes it dangerous to entrust that responsibility to her. I think we need someone bigger and better.

I think she will particularly fail at cutting a contrast to Sharpton if (God forbid) he makes it into the debates. Principled discourse or not, I don't she's the wrong person for this primary. If Bush loses next year, would we expect Rod Gramms in the mix, raising the level of dialogue in the race for the 2008 GOP presidential nod?

Mosley-Braun is about as unqualified as you get, but still, no one can compete with Sharpton in that arena. I think that Caligula would be a better president than Al Sharpton.

New Dem 2004 poll results up from that new Time CNN Harris poll. See the results here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Tracks well with Zogby. I would say it confirms the Zogby numbers.

"Can any noth eastern dem carry the south?"

Not with Edwards and Graham in the mix?

Not only will she undercut Sharpton, she'll remove the last hurdle to beating Peter Fitzgerald-her being his opponent.

What about Ron Kirk in TX and Carl Mcall in NY, sure they didnt win the general but the Democrats nominated them.

Kirk won't run but I think Ron Kirk might end up as a Secretary (of the Interior perhaps?) if a Dem gets elected in 04.

Carol Mosely-Braun has some ethical baggage but she is still a viable contender for Vice-President. As for being a light-weight, just look at the present occupant of the White House! I'd rather have a hamster as President than Bush!
Carol has a proven ability to attract white voters. Having her on the ballot will attract suburban women (who the polls said preferred Bush to Gore) and energize African-Americans (who the polls say stayed home in 2000). If she shows some white support in the North and some black support in the South, she should be #1 for veep, but not the top spot. My vote goes for the combo of Dean and Mosely-Braun. Although that's a non-euphonious mouthful. How about "Vote for Howard and Carol"?

MyDD:

I said it before, if you recall.

Joe Biden will be Sec. of State in JFK-Lewis admin.

I stand corrected that it is shaping that way. Biden effectively endorsed JFK last weekend and Lewis is a sure thing for JFK if he wants to win south and mid-west.

Bush-Cheney are going down, down, down...

AliKarimBey

"I think she is throwing her hat in the ring to bring more principled debate to the primaries."
"Carol Mosely-Braun has some ethical baggage but she is still a viable contender for Vice-President."

Fortunately for all Land of Lincoln dems, Mosely-Braun will not be running for Senate.

How exactly does Mosely-Braun become either viable or demonstrate principles? Furthermore, as was already mentioned, there are a number of candidates in the field who demonstrate a commitment to issues deemed important to groups such as the NAACP, and the share of the black vote received by the Dems continues to be overwhelming.

If what we're trying to do is offer the GOP a lightning rod to stir up their base, then CMB is the right candidate. Especially in light of the fact that she'd be running with a record of sympathy to human rights-abusing dictators while we, as a country, could be fighting one (possibly two) wars against human rights-abusing dictators.

Ross,

Most Democrats have a commitment to issues important to black voters. But that is not the same as BEING black. Democrats get a 90% share of black votes, but the percentage of registered black voters actually voting is dropping. I've seen analyses (here, I think) that contend that blacks staying home was the reason we lost the Senate. People want to see other people of their own ethnic group in positions of power. It was Jane Byrne's mistake in Chicago to try to turn back the clock to a city run only by Irishmen. Everyone needs a piece of the pie. Sure, I'd like to see someone with credentials like Powell, but for some unfathomable reason he stays Republican even though it's obvious they only want him as a figurehead. He doesn't agree with his boss about affirmative action, he doesn't agree with him about Iraq. Why the Hell does he stay?

And the Republicans will be energized no matter who we nominate. I had a Republican friend who has been out of work for sixteen months call me two weeks ago. He's broke and desperate. He can't make his mortgage payment. He blamed CLINTON! When I argued, he replied, "At least Bush is going to take care of Saddam Hussein". I have relatives that are fundamentalist Republicans (every family has black sheep). They vote like automatons for the anti-abortion candidate and think Bill Clinton is the anti-Christ. You will NEVER please people like that, so why try?

There will be no brokered convention. As for Carol Moseley Braun - she'll take care of Sharpton but if anyone thinks she'll win SC or VA or any other state I have some real estate to sell you. Take some aspirin and come to your senses.

Moseley-Braun won't win any primaries, but she'll make it easier for Edwards or Graham to win the Southern primaries.

Good that Mosley Braun is not running here in Illinois. The Dems have a wonderful chance to knock off Fitzgerald.

I think that best chance for that would be Daniel Hynes. His organization is amazing, and he'll have the blessing of Daley, Blagojevich, Durbin, and both the Madigans. Thats hard to beat.

Blair Hull is equally good. Instead of an awesome organization, he has a ton of money that he can use to couneract Fitzgerald's deep pockets.

Whoever gets nominated, by Mosley Braun declaring that she is not running, the Dems just picked up a Senate seat.

MLK said that his dream was all people would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. It’s too bad the Democratic Party has rejected that idea. Affirmative action is contrary to that idea. Bush has appointed African Americans to higher positions that any other president. Not because of their race, but because of their abilities.

Don't you just love how the very same right wingers who deamonized MLK during the 60's and called him a radical are now warping his message to suit their own backward agenda? Conservatives have been on the wrong side of almost every social movement in this country for the past century. And then wheny the lose try to rewrite history. Shame on you. I fully support Moseley-Braun's entry into the contest. She will bring a lot of issues to the table that might get ignored. I wish Sharpton would just go away. He is an embarassment to the Democratic Party. He is not even a very loyal Democrat. In 2001, for example, he basically sank the campaign of Mark Green for mayor when his prefered candidate Ferrer lost. However, i admit, he does have a following who often really help Democratic candidate in NY. It is such a catch-22.

So it’s wrong to discriminate against a person because of the color of their skin, unless they are white? This is one of the reasons the Democratic Party has lost all credibility. If we don’t stop the hypocrisy, the Democrats will never get back the House.

Confused, your thinking is exactly why the GOP can't win more than 12% of the Black vote nationally. Democrats stil get about 40% of the white vote. Clearly both sides have more work to do. But the GOP surely has more work.

I agree with you Russell. I would like a lot more proof of this discrimination against whites that Confused thinks is going on. Blacks don't have the power in this country, whites do.

The idea that whites are suffering becuase minorities are getting all the "special" breaks is nonsense. Whites still dominate the business world, political world, etc. So where are these white people suffering discrimination?

I was personally a victim of government sanctioned racial discrimination. I wanted to apply for a job at the Long Beach, California VA hospital. I was told that they would not even except my application because I was not a minority. I have never discriminated against anyone. I am a firm believer in equal rights. When people say that they believe in equal rights, well, equal means equal. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you think that discriminating against me because of my race is OK because some other white people have the best jobs in the country. Maybe you should think about your principals.

"Her appeal will be to blacks and women, with a progressive agenda. Given the white slate of men who will be spliting up the votes in those 3 states, her winning in SC looks possible, and she'll be tough in MO and VA as well. "

This is one area that I find myself in dispute with my party. Her appeal will be to blacks and women? Why would anyone vote based on the color of skin? Why would her entrance mean lower numbers for Sharpton. It's my belief that Sharpton may get more votes than CMB. Sharpton may bring out voters who wouldn't have voted without his presence, thus not reducing the number of votes the white guys would get. Our party should be bigger than reducing candidates to their common denominator (skin color, gender) but this comment just indicates we have so much more work to be done

Ced, what we need to be conscious of is ensuring that so-called "affirmative action" policies meet their intended purposes WITHOUT disenfranchising working-class whites....the racism against whites comes in when people arbitrarily ASSUME that working-class whites have had an *EASY* (or *EASIER*) life simply by virtue of their skin color.