<p>No big surprises here, both were expected to enter the race.</p>
<p>Brownback: Trying to make himself look like a combination of the Prarie Populist and a Reagan Conservative. Far-right on social issues, stone-cold against abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, etc. Moderate on the immigration issue. Not a clear hawkish stance on foreign policy that most Republicans would prefer. He's vowed never to increase taxes, but does not seem like a darling to the business conservatives. He's pretty much the darling child of the religious right, which makes me happy because he's the most unelectable.</p>
<p>Clinton: May have got herself in the jam. Hasn't repudiated her 2003 Iraq Vote like Edwards, much to the chargin of the liberal base of the Democratic party. She's been booed lately when at liberal crowds. Seems to be a lightning rod to some conservatives because of the health-care reform she tried to implement, which wasn't that bad actually in my opinion. Will the Clinton name hurt or help Hillary? Latest Newsweek poll says Clinton runs neck to neck against McCain and Guliani? Is there still a hope? Bill Clinton was always known as a Democratic strategist, can he take it for Hillary? I am not sure where she stands on some,most of the issues?</p>
<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_el_pr/democrats2008_1%5B/url%5D">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_el_pr/democrats2008_1</a></p>
<p>All things considered, she is a little bit more a front-runner than Senator Obama," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster not aligned with any candidate. He put the odds at "better than 50-50 that the nominee will come from that pair</p>
<p>well, it is pretty obvious that the nominee will be either Hillary or Obama</p>
<p>I mean, is anyone expecting serious competition from Dodd and Vilsack?
Maybe Clark will run again, but it will fizzle, methinks</p>
<p>I am hoping Clarke will take it actually. I think he's t he best candidate for the Dems. I don't think the Republicans have any good candidate out there. Brownback isn't electable, and McCain or Guliliani isn't popular enough with the Jesus Camp crowd.</p>
<p>Oh, nooo. Not Hillary. mREOROTUEHROTNjankdnja. </p>
<p>Sorry, I'm immature when it comes to stuff like this. But still.</p>
<p>the more politicians announce their bid for the presidency, the more i mourn that Feingold isn't running. He would never win, but the precise reason I dislike Hillary is that I never know what her real stance is and what she's doing just to be electable. Americans won't watch C-SPAN, but they will watch primary debates...Russ we need you. :(</p>
<p>Hillary is an incredible woman though, as much as her senatorial performance in very recent years is saddening. She and Barack I'd vote for immediately, any other democratic nominees I'd have to decide between democrat and independent.</p>
<p>Richardson is running too but I think Hillary will take the Democratic nomination - she just has a well-organized political machine behind her.</p>
<p>We just need a Democrat to win; and I would be happy with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.</p>
<p>Newtonian1964:</p>
<p>John McCain or Rudy Giuliani</p>
<p>I think Barack should run as President, with Hilary as VP. That would attract the large clinton-supportgroup, and her polarizing past wouldn't effect her as much. barack Obama is a superstar in politics, no one can deny that, and his more bipartisan stand makes him a stronger candidate for the presidency. I would find it hard for any republican group to beat an Obama and Hilary campaign. </p>
<p>This would be history in the making!</p>
<p>McCain or Guliani.</p>
<pre><code>They're pretty identical. I'd say Guliani is more liberal on the social issues, but with what I am concerned, foriegn policy, McCain is ideaologically identical to Bush and the neocons. McCain was anti-torture, but I think that is more because of personal experience than moral convinction. McCain supported the troop surge. We don't really know what Guliani is on economic or foreign policy issues because the highest position he has held is a mayor. I think I'd choose McCain for now because Guliani is a question mark although we can guess that he has a hawkish foreign policy.
</code></pre>
<p>Obama and Clinton are guranteed losers if they run unless the Reps. put a far-right candidate like Brownback or Gingrich. My favorite ticket is Clarke-Richardson.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obama and Clinton are guranteed losers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that is only on the assumption that people are going to vote like they did in the last general election. people, based on the midterm elections, have swayed sides after the mess in Iraq. A poll was conducted (sorry I don't have a link or exact numbers) said that the majority of americans would like new leadership (as in political party) in all branches of government.</p>
<p>This is not to be unexpected, as when things go poorly people often switch, that's why a lot of the time it goes Dem, Repub, dem, repub, (a generality of course).</p>
<p>I believe you are referring to the Newsweek poll. It stated 50 percent would prefer a Democrat to take the Presidency in 2008 and 30 percent for the Republicans. The rest is undecided.</p>
<pre><code>However, when people were given actual choices such as Clinton, McCain, Guliani, and Obama the results were dead-heat within the margin of error.
</code></pre>
<p>I believe HC is too polarizing because she's a known liberal figure and Obama has too much baggage that is out of control. The right wing and even some moderates will be pushed away from Obama once the RNC slime machine starts mentioning the fact that Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim and that he spent time in Indonesia during his childhood.</p>
<pre><code> I don't think the country is that enlightened and that many people aren't ready for a female or a minority, its just that in a polling scenario, people won't voice their racism publicly. If Democrats ran a generic Dem such as Clarke or Dodd or Gore, their chances would be much higher.
</code></pre>