Well, it took a long time to find that password

What a debacle. It took me almost two years to locate not just my password to Blogger but also to find the email I set up to handle the account. Ridiculous.

A lot of the problem was my schedule - how busy I became in Spring 2007, working for one of the most successful political organizations in Texas. But enough about me.

Obama has won a resounding victory, as this site forecast as early as March 2006. Now true, I am more surprised then most that Obama attained victory in the hard fought Democratic primary, but recall that my index is not a predictor of who can win a primary, but rather what an individual candidate's strength will be in the national election.

Some of you may wonder - what was my final rating for the two candidates? A moot point perhaps, but if we were just to leave it at the March 2007 ratings:

BARACK OBAMA - 98

JOHN MCCAIN - 28

It was obvious to me that this race was a foregone conclusion the moment Barack Obama sealed the Democratic nomination.

If I had updated the matchup the night before the contest, I would have amended thus -

OBAMA - 130

MCCAIN - 35

Both men became stronger candidates as the year progressed, but Obama far more so.

What would Hillary Clinton have done against McCain?

CLINTON - 70
MCCAIN - 35

The race would have been only slightly closer and still resulted in a Democratic victory.

So, I suppose I owe everyone some numbers for 2012.

First off, these are very preliminary. But the fact is, it is nearly inconceivable that Obama will be nearly as potent a force as 2012 incumbent as he was 2008 challenger.

If Obama had to face reelection tomorrow though, his WinChoice number would be:

OBAMA - 79

What of his potential foes?

BARBOUR - 85
CRIST - 113
GIULIANI - 40
HUCKABEE - 41
JINDAL - 99
(Peter) KING - 50
PALIN - 103

What to make of this? Only this - that leading is not the same as challenging. It's easy to be the opposition, especially when there is not an incumbent against you and the economy is in bad shape. But the bad economy will be Obama's economy in a few short months, and the memory of voters is short. Obama may not seem as attractive as he did in 2008 and the GOP may not seem as odious to voters.

We will all see!

Will even one GOP presidential candidate drop out?

What a disaster looms for the GOP in 2008!

Now and then there's a glimmer of hope, but the biggest weakness for them right now - well, other than Iraq, the jittery economy and the loss of incumbency - is the fact that not a single Republican candidate is man enough to back out of the race.

And in fact, the damn field just gets wider and wider. To my astonishment, there are widespread reports that Fred Thompson may jump in the race. In truth, there hasn't been this much talk of a Thompson candidacy since 2001.

In addition, Chuck Hagel is probably going to announce next week. Have I ever pointed out that Hagel doesn't stand a chance?

Bad news all around for the GOP, in any case. As I have written before, it's essential the GOP mobilize quickly around a candidate. In my opinion that candidate should be Romney, who is far stronger than media coverage and the talking heads - most of whom have personal friendships with the Clintons, Giuluani and/or McCain - would have the public believe. But whoever the eventual nominee is, they simply must attain the nomination quickly and not become involved in a long, miserable, destructive primary battle.

Now, the nominee will be chosen earlier this year due to changes in the primary schedule. But again, the sooner the eventual GOP nominee clinches it the better. It would be an enormous victory for the party to mobilize around a nominee even before the primary begins - perhaps Giuliani is that nominee, but getting the nomination early is really the least of the GOP's worries. But unfortunately, if the GOP is to win, a number of things have got to go in their direction and a quick nomination nab is one of them.

Surprisingly, there really isn't much movement in the index now. Obama continues to be the strongest potential Democratic candidate, Clinton remains a riskier choice, but still someone who could probably beat virtually anyone in the bloated GOP field. John Edwards would be a stronger nominee for the Dems, by just a well-coiffed hair, and in fact rises on my index because of all the positive attention the fool Ann Coulter generated for him. For the majority of Americans, if Coulter hates you, you must be doing something right.

I would say Chris Dodd is embarrassing himself, but embarrassment is dependent on someone paying attention to you.

I'll nudge Romney up for winning the CPAC straw poll but McCain rises too - because he didn't attend.

Here's hoping that next time a few GOPers will have done their party a favor and dropped out of the race.


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 98
Wes Clark (AR) 85 (-1)
John Edwards (NC) 56 (+1)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 49
Joe Biden (DE) 16
Christopher Dodd (CT) 9 (-1)
Mike Gravel (AK) 9
Dennis Kucinich (OH) 8


GOP

Mitt Romney (MA) 75 (+1)
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 67 (-1)
Tom Tancredo (CO) 45
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 33 (+1)
John McCain (AZ) 28 (+2)
James Gilmore (VA) 23 (-1)
Duncan Hunter (CA) 20
Chuck Hagel (NE) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Mike Huckabee (AR) 18
Frank Keating (OK) 15 (-1)
Tom Coburn (OK) 14 (-1)
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Ron Paul (TX) 10
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 4 (-1)

Democrat's list of presidential contenders keeps narrowing; GOP field refuses to slim down

I've posted several times that one of the only hopes the GOP has is to narrow the field of candidates quickly.

Sadly for them (and the nation) not only do born losers like Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback refuse to drop out, but the Democratic field seems to get smaller with each passing week.

Now Tom Vilsack is out. This is fantastic news for the Democrats. I am aware that there are some conspiracy theories out there that Vilsack was in this race to benefit Hillary, but the simple fact is Vilsack wanted to be president. Obviously he has read the lay of the land and seen the writing on the wall that Hillary and Obama are going to suck up all the energy and money on the Democratic side of the race.

I think Vilsack made a bad choice here. He should have stuck in the race. Obama really has no place to go but down and Hillary is only marginally stronger a candidate. In fact, I think we are seeing the beginning of a long, drawn out political death throes for the junior senator from New York. Politically she's in a pickle when if comes to Iraq - if it gets better there (and it might) the GOP can paint her as a flip-flopping equivicator; if it gets worse (and let's face it, that's probably what's going to happen) she was big supporter of the war who tried to weasel out when the going got tough.

Plus, Obama simply sounds better, looks better, is more inspiring to the Democrat base and has the freedom to stake out whatever position he wishes on the war or anything else because he's not saddled with 8 years in the White House, a philandering and impeached spouse and a full term in the Senate where he pinballed around on whatever issues the focus groups told him were testing well that week.

Making another sound choice is Al Gore, who apparently is also not running. Al may win an Oscar tonight, but the Academy won't be voting in light of his craven attempt to disenfranchise thousands of U.S. servicepeople in the 2000 election - the real reason Gore will never seek elected office again.

Back to the GOP - there is every possibility of an ugly, expensive drawn out primary fight that will terminally compromise whatever candidate ends up at the top of the heap come Summer 2008. It's vital that their field of contenders become smaller and more manageable, immediately.

Ideally, entering the primary season there would only be three or four candidates in the race - logically, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

That would be an enormous strength the GOP candidate could carry with himself through the general campaign season. It really wouldn't matter which candidate it was, the presumed nominee would benefit from enormously enhanced media recognition, fundraising and even emotional benefit from this.

What are the odds of this happening? Well, probably slim. I don't think Giuliani (who seems to be surging) or McCain will drop out until the last delegate has committed. I think Romney is going to be around until at least the first primaries (note I still think he is the strongest GOP right now, but he may not be capable of actually getting the nomination). I think Sam Brownback is in it for the long haul too.

And I'm not even sure we are going to see some big cull here through to the summer. It's terrible news for the GOP that losers like Tommy Thompson, George Pataki, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee are mucking around soaking up money and media attention.

I tell every GOPer I know that one of their only hopes is to unify quickly around a candidate, whoever it is.

Towards that end, GOPers, especially supporters of the big three (McCain, Giuliani, Romney) should exert public opinion pressure and call for assumed candidates like Brownback, Hunter and Hagel to drop out NOW.

Realistically, Mike Huckabee seems like a great first choice for a grassroots "please drop out" campaign. He's already expressing public doubts about running, claiming he will make a decision within six months. Unfortunately, he's also picking up some endorsements and appears to be actively campaigning again. But it's vital that loyal GOPers let Huckabee know it's time to "slim down" the Republican field - hey, that's language Huckabee should understand.

If you're interested in joining my movement to persuade Mike Huckabee to drop out, you can contact his non-campaign here. I would drop them a line and tell them that you don't believe there's any chance he could win the election even if he attained the nomination, and that the sooner he drops out, the better for the party in 2008. You can even steal my "slim down" line.

Hopefully we will be successful, and then could turn our attention to Sam Brownback. I do think Pataki will drop out very soon, if he hasn't already. Who knows? There's so much dead air coming from his direction he could announce his withdrawal and there's every chance no one would pay any attention to that either.

Anyway, other than the "losses" to the Democratic side, not much is happening on my board. The lay of the land is what it is. I do think the big story of the pre-primary season will end up being Hillary's impending implosion. Other than that, Giuliani is solidifying his support and silencing the naysayers. A number of potential candidates continue to nose down because they aren't officially jumping in the race.

Until next time . . .


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 98
Wes Clark (AR) 86 (-1)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 54 (-1)
John Edwards (NC) 55
Bill Richardson (NM) 49
Joe Biden (DE) 16
Christopher Dodd (CT) 10 (-1)
Mike Gravel (AK) 9
Dennis Kucinich (OH) 8


GOP

Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 68 (-1)
Tom Tancredo (CO) 45 (-1)
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32 (+1)
John McCain (AZ) 26
James Gilmore (VA) 24 (-1)
Chuck Hagel (NE) 19 (-1)
Duncan Hunter (CA) 20
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Mike Huckabee (AR) 18
Frank Keating (OK) 16 (-1)
Tom Coburn (OK) 15 (-1)
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Ron Paul (TX) 10
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 5 (-1)

January water testing

The two biggest announcements are, of course, Hillary and Obama.

I don't think Obama did a bad job, but he lacked some of the energy and excitement I would have expected. I am keeping him flat in the ratings because he is also being dogged by this weird Internet/Fox News story about his Muslim past. It's fascinating, mostly because it shows how much many Americans despise Islam and also it raises questions about who is pushing this story.

There's two main culprits - the GOP and Hillary Clinton.

Is it the GOP? Well, a lot of the GOP insiders I know chortle about how Obama would be a dream scenario for them in 2008. I don't think the party leadership fears him like they do Hillary and would not like to see him drop out anytime soon. This basically indicates they still have no idea what they are doing in 2008 - Obama is their worst nightmare. Anyway, I wouldn't put it past the GOP to spread this story but it's something they would have waited to do.

Whoever is spreading the story is wanting to eliminate Obama NOW, before he soaks up fundraisers and before the primaries. That indicates to me it's more likely it's Hillary or possibly Edwards.

Anyway, as far as people hopping in the race, there's no surprises here, except maybe Tancredo, who I was writing off in my last post, and Duncan Hunter, who I thought had dropped off the face of the planet or something.

Some people were surprised that Kerry dropped out, but I wasn't. I think we are going to see a lot more Dems drop out as they face the battle of the juggernauts that's shaping up between Hillary, Obama and Edwards. The real challenge now for the Democrats is somehow getting Kerry to abdicate his Senate seat, completely get him out of public life before he makes another "the troops are stupid" gaffe.

One person who won't be dropping out is Bill Richardson - he has a real shot at getting the nomination and he knows it.

Guessing the next Democrat to drop out, I would say Joe Biden. He's going nowhere. And even though he just hopped in, I wouldn't be all that shocked if Chris Dodd decided to bail out too.

Let's talk for a moment about a very interesting development in Texas. Maverick GOP Congressman Ron Paul has announced he will seek the nomination and he is running to win.

Paul is an odd bird. The scuttlebutt I have heard is that the GOP elite burned him after the 2004 elections. Paul was due to receive some choice committee appointments and he was snubbed because he's a libertarian at odds with GOP leadership on issues like medicinal marijuana and the war. So supposedly he's running in the hopes it will help foul things up for more mainstream GOPers like McCain and Romney.

In addition to his traditional libertarian views - many of which I think are a real breath of fresh air for a party that seems to have forgotten it's roots in small government and letting the states be laboratories of democracy - Paul has some decidedly un-libertarian views, like tight border controls and pro-life advocacy.

I think Ron Paul adds up to someone who could do a heck of a lot more damage to the Bush claque of neo-cons and Bible thumping nannies who seem to dominate the party right now. I think Paul will be well-funded for a "fringe" candidate (I know for a fact he has a surprisingly effective national fundraising organization due his long embrace of Libertarian-friendly policies) and has the potential to go into the convention in 2008 with significantly more support that either Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. And in the end, there's a heck of a lot of disgusted conservatives out there who might take a serious look at Ron Paul.

In short - keep your eye on "Dr. No," he speaks to a lot of GOP core constituencies that feel like the mainstream party has really given them the high hat for the last two years.

As such, I rate Paul as a fairly effective, albeit a long shot, potential presidential candidate. If he somehow did get the nomination I think he would probably do about as well as Goldwater did when he was nominated. However, like Goldwater, a Paul nomination would probably pay some real dividends down the road in an election where the Republicans actually had a chance.

Speaking of fringe candidates - expect an announcement any minute now from George Pataki that he is retiring from political life and will not seek any public office ever again.


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 98
Wes Clark (AR) 87 (-1)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55 (+1)
John Edwards (NC) 55
Bill Richardson (NM) 49 (+1)
Tom Vilsack (IA) 45
Al Gore (TN) 23
Joe Biden (DE) 16
Christopher Dodd (CT) 11
Mike Gravel (AK) 9
Dennis Kucinich (OH) 8


GOP

Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 69
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46 (+1)
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 31
John McCain (AZ) 26
James Gilmore (VA) 25 (+1)
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20 (+1)
Duncan Hunter (CA) 20 (+1)
Mike Huckabee (AR) 18
Sam Brownback (KS) 19 (+1)
Frank Keating (OK) 17
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Ron Paul (TX) 10 (enters board)
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 6 (-1)

White House 2008 - The wheat from the chaff

It's time for the WinChoice Presidential Winnability Index great decimation of early 2007.

With heavy heart and merciless keyboard I do now remove three supposed contenders who are not obviously, on some level, seeking the White House. I will also add a few that I have held off on adding because I just couldn't believe they were really going to try to run.

First, the eliminations:

JOHN MURTHA - This corrupt and egotistical old goat actually wanted to seek the nomination as late as mid-2006, according to a well-placed source of mine who closely monitors rust belt states like Pennsylvania. His campaign in 2006, while successful, brought to light a number of ethical issues that have dogged him, including his near involvement in ABSCAM. Apparently Murtha himself became convinced these problems doomed any chance he had to run as an anti-war, war hero, last honest man type candidate. WinChoice bids him adieu, slightly surprised at how strong a candidate he could have been.

HALEY BARBOUR - Woe unto you Republicans. Barbour's apparent lack of interest in 2008 is a sure sign that he doesn't think the GOP can win. And there are few more qualified to make that call than Barbour, an insider's insider, pure politician and a top GOP pulsetaker and handicapper since the 1976 election (when he correctly percieved that Ronald Reagan was the only chance the GOP had). As of Summer 2005 Barbour was actively discussing a White House run with his trusted advisers, but Katrina changed all that, and not because Barbour didn't distinguish himself during that crisis, moreso than any other city, state or national politician affected by it. I'm told he never broached the subject of running in 2008 after Katrina, and when it came up in press conferences or interviews he stressed his only goal was to rebuild coastal Mississippi. Barbour knew Katrina was bad mojo for the GOP long before anyone else did, and I suspect he knows the big GOP dark that began in 2006 will continue on into 2008. Maybe it's a smart bet - by 2012, I think the country will be sick to death of their Democrat congress and presumed Democrat president, and the winds will be ready to blow someone like Barbour into the White House. We'll see, but if he asked me I would say "Run Haley run." The country needs him now, and 2012 is a long way away. Finally, as a loyal Republican and small "c" conservative, let me state for the record what a travesty it is that Haley Barbour isn't running but Sam Brownback is and Mike Huckabee might. Just crazy that the party leaders aren't moving mountains to get Haley in and telling those two pinheads to take a hike.

FRED THOMPSON - Not gonna happen, but in the late 1990s and again in early 2001, when a rumor briefly swept DC that Bush would only serve one term as a way to "heal the nation" from the contested 2000 election, Thompson talked about running nearly constantly, to anyone who would listen, and there were a lot of people who lent him their ear.

Now, here's a quick rundown of some names that I am hearing will probably not run, but I am leaving them on for another few months because, I don't know, something tells me they could be persuaded. And yes, I know at least two of them are really trying hard to look like candidates, and at least one of them has already publicly stated that he probably won't run. But these candidates represent the gamut from insincere protestations to belabored efforts to sound like a serious contender. Any or none of them might run.

Al Gore
John Kerry
Tim Pawlenty
Tom Tancredo
Chuck Hagel
Mike Huckabee
Newt Gingrich
George Pataki

Don't be surprised if half these names either unequivocably remove themselves from discussion or re-stress thieir non-intention to run, probably by Easter at the latest.

Additions - I'm finally getting around to adding Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich to the index, because I was able to stop laughing hard enough to type their names in. Seriously though, Dodd is a great vice presidential candidate, as long as the Democrats decide they don't want to win. Useless vanity cases, both of them.

Wrapup - A lot of candidates are dropping this time because their organization seem inactive, like Huckabee and Wes Clark. Obama is hurting a little but he shouldn't worry. Have I mentioned the White House is his if he wants it? Even Hillary Clinton realizes this, which is why she's dropping. Bad form Hill, attacking your primary opponent so early in the game. You're not a loser are you?

Speaking of bad form - Giuliani looks like a buffoon with his election strategy leaking out. I dunno, he's really not that strong a candidate at all, but the rubes in middle America love him. In the end a lot of Americans just want a just tyrant. It's worth noting that some are saying the leak is "all part of the plan." We'll see.

Finally, Sam Brownback is dropping because he's a fool. Trust me when I say, the worst thing that could happen to his candidacy is that people pay attention to it.

Until next time.


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 98 (-1)
Wes Clark (AR) 88 (-1)
Hillary Clinton (NY) 54 (-1)
John Edwards (NC) 55
Bill Richardson (NM) 48
Tom Vilsack (IA) 45
Al Gore (TN) 23 (-1)
Joe Biden (DE) 16
John Kerry (MA) 14
Christopher Dodd (CT) 11
Mike Gravel (AK) 9 (-1)
Dennis Kucinich (OH) 8


GOP

Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 69 (-1)
Tom Tancredo (CO) 45 (-1)
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 31 (-1)
John McCain (AZ) 26
James Gilmore (VA) 24
Chuck Hagel (NE) 19 (-1)
Mike Huckabee (AR) 18 (-1)
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 18 (-1)
Frank Keating (OK) 17
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 7

Gala Christmas edition of the WinChoice Presidential Winnability Index

As we all settle down for what I hope will be a peaceful holiday season, a few dozen presidential candidates have visions of holding the most powerful elected on earth dancing through their heads. Some of their dreams are so real they could reach out and touch them. Some of their dreams are so delusional that probably they should be committed. But only one of them will get have attained their dream come Christmas morning 2008.

Well, first off, let's do a little housekeeping. Condoleeza Rice is never going to run for president. I know, she'd make a swell one, and there's tons of people out there who wanted to see her run, but it's never going to happen. Once the most potent candidate the GOP could have run, she's fatally compromised by the Iraq war, North Korea's big F you to the world with their nuclear test (incidentally also one of the main reasons the GOP lost congress) and the continuing possibility that Iran will soon join the nuclear powers. Add to this the rise of NeoCzarist Russia, the uncontrolled collapse of Mexico and the loss of Latin America to far lefters, and it's hard to argue that America is in a better position in 2006 than we were in 2004. If Condoleeza Rice ran, not only would she have to defend her asexuality and her libertarian domestic policy beliefs, she would be crucified for the Bush administration's foreign policy record. Plus, the talk I heard in 2005 about her doth protesting too much has completely dried up. She's done, she will never run. So long Condi, I would have voted for you.

If I haven't heard some squeaks from the camps of a couple of my other GOP "might runs" by the end of January, I will probably remove them as well.

On the Democrat side, Evan Bayh wisely chose to end his run. He's not the last Democratic senator who will pull out before spring folks. Dem presidential hopes radiate from the Senate, but it won't be some loser also ran, also won or bumble mouth plagiarizer who will carry the banner in 2008.

Bad news for the GOP - more and more hopeless ego trips are jumping in to cloud the waters and dilute the effect of GOP hope, enthusiasm and campaign donations.

From Virginia, the well-connected but ultimately doomed Jim Gilmore is musing about running. Do your party a favor Jim, and keep on musing. Just about any of the Democrats poised to take the nominaton could beat you, pretty much without campaigning.

Oklahoma offers Frank Keating, also thinking of running. Keating would be a good president I think, and I also think one of these days America will have an Oklahoman president. But it won't be Keating. He's just got too much baggage, inclduing getting sucker-punched by Bush in 2000. I don't think he could ever win, certainly not against a juggernaut like Barack Obama.

As to some Democratic contenders who actually have a chance, I'm nudging Obama down just a hair in response to the thus-far extremely weak anti-Obama backlash attempt, which I understand has been almost completely orchestrated by the Clinton family and their media creatures. Don't worry Democrat true believers - Obama's middle name won't keep him out of the White House.

Hillary gets bumped down because of some polls, both public and internal, that I understand all the insiders are buzzing about. These polls show her losing to virtually any of the most-mentioned GOP contenders and has caused a real crisis of support among Democratic fundraisers and insiders. I have said for a long time I think Hillary is a lot weaker than she looks, but I do think she would beat Giuliani or McCain. Romney could take her, at least if the election were held next week. Ironically, I understand some of the internal polls show her losing to McCain but beating Romney. Trust WinChoice, not polls. Unfortunately, polls make the political world go around.

Finally, John Edwards is doing very well in a number of polls and is generating some real interest. I would be astonished if he ended up president, but who knows. Certainly it was a big mistake for the dems to not nominate him in 2004.

Well, it's almost time for me to wrap up here and go wrap up my daughter's Christmas presents. But you owe it to yourself to absorb some of the interesting ideas in this post at Political Insider. Electability passe? Friends, it always has been. Most "electable" candidates lose. Just ask Bill Clinton or some of the great candidates and elected officials that sadly lost in Nov. 2006. The last think the blind mass-mind of the voting body worries about is electability when they cast their ballot. Usually most of them are voting against someone, not for anyone.

With that, Merry Christmas and happy New Year!


DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 99 (-1)
Wes Clark (AR) 89
Hillary Clinton (NY) 55 (-1)
John Edwards (NC) 55 (+1)
Bill Richardson (NM) 48
Tom Vilsack (IA) 45
John Murtha (PA) 33
Al Gore (TN) 24
Joe Biden (DE) 16
John Kerry (MA) 14
Mike Gravel (AK) 10


GOP

Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32
John McCain (AZ) 26
James Gilmore (VA) 24
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Frank Keating (OK) 17
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 7

Daschle out, Richardson in for 2008 presidential race

I had heard some really bad things about New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, I think about six months ago. Some of those things were probably being spread by his political foes; a lot of that talk has dried up but now it might start up again.

I like Richardson and would like to see the Democrats nominate him. He's almost as strong a candidate as Hillary, and I think potentially far more likable to the electorate. I would consider voting for him, especially if someone like McCain or Giuliani is the nominee.

Also, Daschle recently announced he wouldn't run. No surprise there.

DEMS

Barack Obama (IL) 100
Wes Clark (AR) 89
Hillary Clinton (NY) 56
John Edwards (NC) 54
Bill Richardson (NM) 48 (+1)
Tom Vilsack (IA) 45
John Murtha (PA) 33
Al Gore (TN) 24
Joe Biden (DE) 16
Evan Bayh (IN) 16
John Kerry (MA) 14
Mike Gravel (AK) 10


GOP

Condoleeza Rice (CA) 79
Haley Barbour (MS) 79
Mitt Romney (MA) 74
Tim Pawlenty (MN) 70
Tom Tancredo (CO) 46
Rudy Giuliani (NY) 32
John McCain (AZ) 26
Fred Thompson (TN) 23
Chuck Hagel (NE) 20
Mike Huckabee (AR) 19
Duncan Hunter (CA) 19
Sam Brownback (KS) 19
Tom Coburn (OK) 16
Newt Gingrich (GA) 11
Tommy Thompson (WI) 10
George Pataki (NY) 7