The Fix

[whometense]

has moved Kerry into the bottom half of their top ten dem contenders for 2008.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/07/the_friday_presidential_line_t.html

I don't really understand his thinking, especially when I look at who's in the top five: Bayh, Edwards, Clinton, Gore, and Warner. But whatever...

John Kerry:
Before we added Gore to the presidential Line last month Kerry had consistently broken into the top five. His fundraising through his leadership PAC, Keeping America's Promise, has continued to be strong and Kerry has emerged as a leading critic of the Iraq war within the party. His travel schedule also makes us think he is running; he is in Iowa today to appear at an event with Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin and bicycling legend Lance Armstrong, who is in the Hawkeye state for the annual RAGBRAI ride across Iowa. Tomorrow Kerry will raise money for a state House and state Senate candidate. Most people within the Beltway dismiss the idea that Kerry has any chance and we are sympathetic to the argument that Democrats have not tended to treat their past presidential losers all that well. Still, should Kerry run, his name identification, experience from the last campaign, and more than $10 million that could immediately transfer to a presidential account would force the other candidates to take him seriously.

[TayTay]

1. Bayh is not going anywhere

I have rarely seen a more boring speaker. I know that he has no problem raising money, but he sounds like he's a door-to-door salesman. I find it hard to believe that this cypher will get anywhere. He is just dull as dishwater and appears to want to be seen as far less controversial. He wouldn't last two minutes in a fight with the Rethugs. They would eat him alive.

[whometense]

2. I totally agree.

That's why I find it so puzzling that anyone but his mother would consider him a serious contender. I keep wondering what I'm missing. He's as charismatic as spackle.

[ProSense]

4. Agree! National Journal rankings:

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/

# Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D): No one has been a more prolific fundraiser and giver than Kerry in '06. There are a lot of candidates who, if they win in '06, will owe something to Kerry (including Tammy Duckworth in Illinois' 6th District and Webb in Virginia). And Kerry's Iraq position does seem to be the dominant one with various Democratic candidates. This should all be good, right? Kerry's shown Democratic loyalty this cycle; will the loyalty be reciprocated if candidates he supported win in November?

http://nationaljournal.com/todd.htm

They're propping up Clinton, Warner, and Bayh.

[wisteria]

3. Well this reads like a listing of DLC candidates- all middle of the

road and the same old same old except for Gore and I doubt Gore is running. Edwards certainly has milked his appearances in Iowa for all they are worth.
I love his wife, but I just don't think of him as being presidential worthy. Bayh has been making the TV rounds recently, but like Tay Tay, I find him boring and mediocre. Warner is strictly middle of the road and IMO doesn't offer what is needed in a President in 2008. We don't need any more Presidents that need to learn as they go. Clinton will IMO, lose against any Republican male running in 08 for president. That is the way I see it. I have had my fill of the Clinton's, they need to step aside and let others run our party and this country. Richardson, I personally can't stand. I feel he let the democratic party down when he stood in the way of allowing all the votes to be counted in NM. I feel his personal ambition got in the way. Then there is the fish tale about him being in the major leagues.
I will just ignore this latest listing. Kerry has been fairly quite lately and there is plenty of time yet until the election.
I still say Kerry will pull off a win and it will be the best thing to happen in the US in a very long time.
I think the idea is that the insider Dem's won't allow him to get at the nomination again. Frankly, I hope the people put these insiders in there place this time around.

[whometense]

5. Amen to everything you said. n/t

[karynnj]

6. I agree with lots of your comments

This is a very DLC heavy list - Clinton, Bayh, and Warner. All of From's DLC list except Vilsack. Neither Gore or Edwards are currently in the DLC, but both were Centrist Democrats for their political career.

Gore was the first DLC endorsed candidate for President in 1988. Because he is NOT running now, he doesn't have current positions on most issues. The real question is if he became a real candidate, he would likely need to reconcile his past and present, take positions on more issues and actually run. Other candidates will note the decrepancies. At the end of the last Rolling Stone interview, he very clearly says he things it is better to popularize that issue of global warming and enable others to run on it.

The comment that Gore would run to stop Hillary is interesting. It would suggest that he is not truely reconciled with the Clintons or he thinks they are bad for the country. The question might be if he likes any of the other candidates. (He endorsed Dean when Dean was the front runner - was it to block Clark who had just come on the scene and who was considered a Clinton protege. I doubt it was anti-Kerry as that was when he polled near Sharpton and that may have seemed to validate his concerns of 2000 re Kerry.)

The real question is how long can Gore wait - it sounds like a pretty long time. For Kerry, it might also be good if Gore makes that decision not to run later versus sooner. His people are anti Hillary and anti war (which might make them anti- Warner and Bayh). I suspect that Kerry may pick up a lot of these. The anger over leaving is dissipating. Kerry, like Gore has gravitas and is good on the environment and the war. Edwards may be the alternative - with little gravitas and a weak standing on the environment (though he can be anything he wants).

Edwards was a very conservative, hawkish DLC candidate who is now anti-war. He sounded like he was anti- free trade agreements. He is clearly planning on running as a populist. It did make sense to keep him given the Iowa poll.

Adding Gore has always been the question - if he wants in - he is a contender. Hillary is a given. From the recent Gallup - Kerry is essentially equal to Edwards and is well ahead of Warner and Bayh. Both Warner and Bayh have had success in raising money. My quess is that Hotline needed to eliminate one of these 3 and Warner and Bayh have been favorites with him. That left Kerry.

[Mass]

7. Most people within the Beltway dismiss the idea

I guess it says it all. People within the Belway do not vote.

Two remarks:

1/ The 1-5 list, with the exception of Gore, inspires me very little, and Gore is not running, IMHO.

2/ It makes sense not to put Gore and Kerry in 1-5 because they are mainly attracting the same people. However, given my remark 1, it should have been Kerry, because Gore is NOT running.

[karynnj]

8. You could also argue Bayh and Warner attract

(hypothetically, as neither get many in the polls) the same people. One question because they don't poll as having support now - where will there support come from. The only thing I can think of is that some could come from Hillary.