Allow me to kick-off the week with a discussion about the viability of Hillary Clinton as a candidate for President of the U.S. (in either 2004 or 2008) --

1. We know the Democratic base loves her and she has considerable sums of money to spread around to acquire allegiances. However, how would she fare in a general election outside of NY, NJ, CA and perhaps IL. Can she really capture PA, OH, MI, WI, and FL?

2. Sen. Clinton is up for re-election to the Senate in 2006. Will Rudy Guiliani challenge her, possibly defeat her, and thus hobble her aspirations for 2008 and beyond?

Thoughtful analysis and commentary would be appreciated. I know it's generally difficult for both sides of the aisle to remain completely objective about her.

Did anyone else see Kiesling's (a US diplomat in Athens) resignation letter to Colin Powell? I found it pretty courageous. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more news coverage.

There's a transcript here:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/3/2/113123/1408

AZGOP, in general I'd say it's too soon to start discussing Hillary Clinton, after all a Democrat could very well win in 2004.

A couple points, however
1.The first poll out that showed a hypothetical matchup between her and Bush had her well within the area that every other Democrat lost by. Lieberman was the closest at 49-43%, she was I think down 51-42%. This poll came out about a month ago, and I think was well discussed on this site.

To the degree that she is supported just for being a woman, she could very well have a lot of competition by 2008/2012. Other Democratic women who could be credible presidential contenders by then include Janet Napolitano, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell and possibly Nancy Pelosi.

Anybody have any news on the Kentucky and Mississippi governers races coming up, seeing as both states have now passed their filing deadlines?
Mississippi is clearly a contest between the incumbent Democratic governer Ronnie Musgrove and Republican Haley Barbour.
I gather the frontrunners in Kentucky are State Attorney General Ben Chandler for the Democrats and Congressman Ernie Fletcher for the Republicans. Unlike in Mississippi though, there are other credible candidates running for the nominations in both parties.

One final point, in Kentucky all of the candidates have named their choses for Lieutenant Governer before the nominations, would anybody think it would be a good strategy for the Democrats running for President to name who would be their vice presidential nominees right now and run with them through the primaries?

Guinness: I read the ambassador's resignation letter the other day. He speaks the truth. And that is why the letter wasn't given more coverage in the corporate/right press we have in this country. After all, the letter is highly critical of the Bush administration. And we can't have that in Amurika, now, can we?

guinness,

THANKS for posting the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling to Colin Powell!

I search the internet frequently for news and information and had not seen it before you posted it here.

Hopefully this web site will give it a link with more visibility as well!

I have a question about delegates. According to the Trivalley Herald article linked in the "Money Race" story, only candidates who finish with 15% or more in a primary will receive any delegates from that primary. However, if the receive 40%, 30% or 20% in a primary, they will receive a corresponding amount of delegates--40%, 30%, or 20%.

With all of this in mind, I have to ask what happens to the delegates that are both not assigned to anyone and are not super-delegates? Certainly, there will be several candidates will recieve less than 15% of the vote in the first few weeks of the primary season. It would appear from the Democratic delegate distribution method that these delegates will remain permanently unassigned.

For example, let's take a hypothetical look at the 2004 Iowa Caucus, with 45 delegates at stake:

Gephart: 31%
Dean: 25%
Kerry: 20%
Lieberman: 10%
Sharpton: 5%
Kucinich: 5%
Other: 4%

In this scenario, Gephart would receive 14 delegates, Dean 11 and Kerry 9. However, 11 of the 45 Iowa delegates would not go to any candidate. What happens to those delegates?

Now consider this: Dean wins Iowa, Kerry wins NH, Edwards wins South Carolina, Gephart wins Missouri, and Liberman wins Arizona. Fuirther, all of these victories come with numerous single-digit also rans (and numerous unassigned delegates).

The higher-ups in the DNC appear to want the primary season over with quickly so they can have a nominee for whom they can raise money and a national profile ASAP. However, it seems to me that a crowded field, a regionally diverse crowded primary season and this new delegate distribution method could potentially leave no candidate anywhere near a majority even after the second Super Tuesday. In fact, even after California the largest group of delegates could be "unassigned."

Unless there is some contingency plan I am not aware of, there could be a real convention fight come next summer.

I think you are correct Chris, and the CA article linked by Mathew certainly implies just what you are talking about, if you notice the logic behind their number presentations. However, then it segues into Bob Mulholland saying it'll all be wrapped up by CA by the first week in March, and we can go home until July... I think the high-priests are doing their best to assure eachother, and the reporters, that this will be the case, but it looks increasingly unlikely.

I just had an interesting thought about the iraq debate and two phrases I hear a lot:
"this situation can't go on forever"
and
"If the invasion is short and successful, it will be a major victory for Bush"
Well, saddam has been trying to get nukes for over 20 years now, and we've stopped him up till now. We've blown up his plants, we've defeated him in war, we've inspected him. It seems like this situation reallly could go forever. meanwhile, a Bush victory shouldn't be judged by a successful invasion, it needs to be judged by the situation 3 years from now. It seems like the talking heads will stop at nothing to prepare the public to receive a major Bush victory that will only be a victory because the bar is being set low.

adam
polstate.com has a new poster who posts on the Mississippi races. he has had some good ones so far.

Adam, just to clear up a misconception: Janet Napolitano is ineligible to run for President, as she was born in Canada.

I thought the governor of Michigan, Granholm, was born in Canada?

She was.

Thanks for the information on Mississippi.

Indeed, it is Jennifer Granholm who was born in Canada not Janet Napolitano. this is from Napolitano's biography:

"Like millions of fellow Arizonans, Janet Napolitano is a transplant, having been born in New York City and raised first in Pittsburgh and then in Albuquerque."

Slate had an interesting op-ed last week about the "native-born" citizen clause in the constitution. Bascially the author spoke out in favor of a proposed amendment from Barney Frank that would revise that clause to requiring 20 years citizenship/residency. Maybe we could have a Granholm/Schwarzenegger election a few years down the road...

So this mastermind terrorist was planning to attack commercial sites in the US, causing the orange alert?

Gee, it sure would be nice if our protective govt would say so.

Practically speaking, I can understand reluctance. Our shaky consumer confidence would plummet as Americans desert the malls. Bush can't handle the economic shock.

Yet what would happen with a successful attack? Same thing.

On balance, I think they blew this call. We need to know where the danger spots are. It grants citizens the chance to add extra sets of eyes and it saves lives. And malls can bring in their own security precautions to limit the risk; the economic shock would be temporary.

Callous disregard of citizen safety oughta be impeachable, and this one pisses me off.

Any comments on this Zogby poll, which has Guiliani handily defeating Schumer if the two go head-to-head for the Senate in 2004?

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/3/163107

Guiliani has a tremendous amount of stored political capital from his handling of 9/11 in NYC. Will he challenge Schumer in 2004 or Hillary in 2006? Or does he have something else in mind? I think he could knock out either Schumer or Hillary if he went up against them, which has to scare the dickens out of both of them.

AZGOP, don't get your hopes up about Rudy, although he would give Schumer or Clinton a very tough race. He likes to run things, not be one of 100. Polls are going to be skewed in his favor right now since he has been above politics since 9/11. If he jumped back into politics, though, people would remember the bad stuff about him from before 9/11.

I think the GOP is going to save their strongest weapon - be it Guiliani or someone else - for 2006. They want nothing else in NY than to damage HRC's political career and set her presidential hopes off on a sour note.

Watching Carol Moseley-Braun on Lehrer right now... supremely unimpressed.

azgop, unlike her husband I do not think that Sen Clinton will ever be able make a successful run for President. At some point in my life a women will make a serious run for the White House but it will not be her. She has too many past problems to deal with, her husband was able o to overcome his, but he had a dynamic personality as well as a record a Governor of Arkansas that had some impressive achievements.

Hillary Clinton is many things. An idiot she is not. Clinton underatands that the political heat she has on her can only dissipate with time and distance. Second- Senators have a longer political life then Presidents. Being a senator from a big state has many benefits with none of the downide of having to go to NH and greet factory workers in a blizzard while you are daily attacked by the boobs on AM radio.
With regard to Guliani -
I will be politically incorrect and remind everyone that Rudy was actually very unpopular on Sept 10, 2001- despite having been a great mayor.
Should Rudy go back into politics, some of those old ghosts will come back to life and he may end up being less golden. He must move up by moving out of NY politics altogether.
On final thought: as 911 becomes a matter of history it also takes a spot not so easily mined for political value.
The GOP is the "stupid party" (not my label) because it overdoes and overplays its hand. Should the GOP appear to be living off 911, as I reckon it will eventually attempt to do in 2004, the public could go very cold on anyhing connected to that day.

Hillary is well-liked and has impressed people on both sides of the aisle. She'd beat Rudy by 7 percent. By the way I'm 19 and there won't be another GOP Senator from NY in my lifetime.

If it comes down to picking the strongest liberal Republican candidate to topple either Hillary or Schumer, the GOP definitely would want to get rid of Hillary over Schumer.

Fortunately, we have two strong Republicans in New York... Guiliani can take out Schumer, and then we've got Pataki to take out Clinton.

Guiliani or Pataki may take out Schumer, but I highly doubt anyone can take out Clinton. Even Pataki. He won't run against her because he doesn't like to even RISK losing. Pataki is and always has been a very cautious politician and never one to take risks. NY'ers have Clinton for as long as she wants to remain Senator there. She's a very smart politician and has been "bringing home the bacon" which is what most voters look for in a Senator.

I'd be surprised if the Rs really went after Hillary in 2006. Sure, they'd like to beat a Clinton, and they're oh-for-three so far, but she's useful to them in a way that few other people are, as a stick to beat Democrats with. As long as she's a viable political figure, they can keep writing hyperbolic direct-mail fundraising letters and ranting about her. For whatever reason, she's a higher-profile lightning rod than other Democratic politicians of similar stature, and GOP attempts to turn other Democrats into poster children for liberal extremism just haven't worked as well -- if you were Karl Rove, would you pin your hopes on the number of angry white males who could remember Tom Daschle's name?

Republicans want to run their nominee in 2008 against Hillary, because they believe HRC could be easily beat.

Democrats want Hillary to be their nominee in 2008, because they believe HRC could beat any Republican in the race.

We'd better hope that a Democrat (with the exception of Lieberman) is elected president in 2004, or else 2008 will be all about Hillary.

I would like to know if anyone knows how I can find different websites for politicians running for various positions accross the US. I would like to help one of my local Republican conadidates for in his campaign for governer but I don't know how to find a website with information. His headquarters are in my home town but I don't know if that is a place of inquery.
Thanks!