Since 2004, Clark has become a much more effective public speaker and interviewee. In 2004, he was too green and wasn't ready to run. He learned a lot from his experience and he has campaigned all over the country for democrats. He's made numerous appearances on Fox news informatively discussing national security issues without being shouted down as a "weak on defense" democrat.

securingamerica.com

Hillary may be trustworthy and smart, but as an electable candidate nationally, I think not. She has been so branded as a closet feminist and damaged from Clinton administration baggage by the republican dominated news media that middle america won't support her. Clark can compete for votes in middle america where Clinton can't.

By that token, I don't really see anyone whose name has been bandied about as qualified to handle the mess in Iraq.

I used to like Clark in the early stages of the previous election, but towards the end he seemed to be waffling on his stances and not particularly polished at the lectern.

I guess from a foreign policy perspective, I trust Hilary the most, if only due to her being able to lean on Bill. That said, I don't personally think that a female president is the best choice as Muslim men traditionally don't deal well with (read: respect) women in any kind of power role. And right now, that's what Iraq needs: someone they can trust but also someone who will tell them how it's going to be in no uncertain terms.

Bloomberg lovers forget that he has no idea how the Constution works, and that he has not an ounce of civics training, let alone knowledge of foreign policy minutia. The Iraq situation requires a new leader who at least has an inkling of civics training.

Let's stop picking our leaders based on stupid "gut feelings" and start picking them on whether they're qualified. Bloomberg is clearly UNQUALIFIED to be president, period. Running a country is not like running a business.

Kristin, you want a white protestant southern man to run.........Wesley Clark. Very strong and intelligent on defense and foreign policy, which we'll need from a candidate since national security will be a big issue for the forseeable future and he is progressive on the social issues. He's potentially much more electable in the south, the swing states in the midwest and the mountain west than Hillary. Richardson or Bayh serve as a running mate. But if Wesley is going to do it, he's got to make up his mind soon.

Here's my darkhorses:

Democratic party, John Edwards/Gov. Bill Richardson

I'm not keen on McCain for the Republican party, they got beaten up pretty well last week, From Macaca on to Chafee.

OK, Repubican long shot, Gov Jeb Bush/Sec'y of State Rice, I did say it's a longshot.

Kristin, I need to know why you don't think a woman would win- I hope it's got nothing to do with 'looking strong' or any associated national security issues. I think the current chimp in residence has blown that argument out of the water, and what woman in the last 10 yrs in the public eye has looked stronger than Hillary? If anything I think this country is ripe for a woman on top, and Edwards secures a measure of the South (and demographics are changing the GOP's Southern Strategy dominance anyway).

Finally, a Black WOMAN will win before a Jew in this country. Too many Americans believe that New World Order stuff.

Totally agree with waffle haus (#6)... the Dems need to find a white, protestant, southern man to run in order to win--in effect, Bill Clinton Part Deux. A woman will not win in 2008. This is not to say that a woman shouldn't win. This is to say that politics in America is not about ideals.. it's about thinking strategically, and right now a woman won't win.

People are also getting all hyped about Obama, and I think he would be great... but he's not right for 2008... what the dems need to do with him is keep grooming him for about 10 years, THEN run him in a future presidential election when he has more experience under his belt.

As for #2's question, if a Jew would win.. the answer is simple: Not a chance in hell. Have you listened to the way most of America perceives minorities?

As I tell tourists when asked what I think of Bloomie, I do believe he's the best mayor I've seen in my 45 yrs as a NY'er. As opposed to Lindsey, Beame, Koch, Dinkins, Crueliani... Some list huh?

This city is about COMMERCE, and say what you will about the man, he's got it running full tilt in that regard. Does that mean I like him? Nope. Hell, I thought I'd be safe living in Harlem when I moved back 3 yrs ago(as I type this from Jersey City). Should I blame him for helping make this town unaffordable for me to live in? If he didn't do it someone else would.

This town lost its' flavor in the 80's and apart from a few scattered neighborhoods is just one big Starfucks. But it's a city so what do you expect from it?

Here's my horserace for '08:

Clinton/Edwards

McCain/Rice

Clinton wins and the 90's return...let the good times roll.

To CBX: I was actually one of the people polled by the Quinnipiac folks for this last poll and I can tell you that the call was extremely professional and unbiased. I also emailed with the polling institute afterward and I found the staff there to be helpful and informative. Why would they want to fake data? They're just the messenger - they get press either way, regardless of what the news is. And, uh, videotaping the first 30 people you see isn't exactly a snapshot of this city....

As far as Guiliani, And Clinton are concerned, First off nobodies going to vote for Guiliani due to his vindictive nature . Any vote "fooliani" pulls will be from those of whom don't live in N.Y. . Granted he did his job as Mayor, There were so many ethics issues with this guy he should be writing a book about it ! Hill's problem is no real backround, Better yet "Back round in progress of creation" . It sounds like a battle for the ages (As far as Politics are concerned) but it's more fluff then any real substance!

Let's stop with the "Bloomberg for President" campaign ! He said he wasn't interested in the Presidency so let it go . Besides he's a business man, If we haven't learned anything business types aren't what this country needs . Sure he would run the country the way it was suppose to be run and would probably get us back on the right track . The issue here is the fact that the general public wouldn't buy into his style of mangement . They would view Bloomberg in the same light as say Ken Lay . It will boil down to an issue of trust . Aside from that, I just don't feel Bloomberg is tough enough to be in control of a country .

We don't vote for shorties. besides, the mayor stated he won't go into public service after his term ends, he'll be seventy.

The candidate should and will come from a Southern State. When will the Democrats learn?

New Yorkers have to get rid of the delusion that their pro-president opinions of Clinton and Giuliani have any relevance beyond nyc. Regardless of ethnic and religious orientation, new york pols do not play well nor relate to middle america which is what you've got to win to get the presidency.

Bloomberg would probably run as an independent and finance his own campaign. Probably wouldn't win a single electoral vote but could easily grab over 25% of the popular vote. Or he might use his sway behind the scenes. I just don't believe he is going to be a full time philanthropist when his term is up.

And no way Obama beats anyone. Sorry but he's too green and he's a Senator. People don't like Washington insiders. A Senator hasn't won since JFK.

cxb, name one instance where Quinnipiac has been busted for faking a poll.

I keep reading how the red states would never accept an Italian-American as a presidential candidate (Giuliani).

I wonder if these same people think a Jew would be acceptable to red-staters?

Remember, Quinnipiac has been busted repeatedly for faking their polls.

Of course, how accurate can a poll be when they set out to make it as vague as possible.

EX: I will wager $500 to any human who can find me a 1% approval rating for Tax Hike Mike on the planet earth.

In fact, we went out and videotaped the first 3o people we saw and found that 100% thought Mayor Bloomberg was totally worthless and belonged in jail, when they were informed of the FACTS, rather than empty, deliberately vague questions like "Do you approve of the job the mayor is doing?"

EX:

ask anyone you know if they support BLoomberg's contention that waterfront real estate in MIDTOWN MANHATTAN is "not worth much". (See his corrupt Jets stadium failure.)

EX:

ask anyone if they approve a politician who got caught breaking 99% of his campaign promises.

Surprisingly, 100% of conservative AND liberal voters despise 90% of what BLoomberg does.

Go read "How Corrupt Is Bloomberg?" at MayorBrodeur.org for just a tiny list of his federal, state, and city crimes.

Heck, the man is a convicted criminal (for contempt of court when he ignored federal judges rulings during the RNC when he kidnapped over 1800 people and illegally held them longer than allowed).

Hey, ask how many NYorkers are glad he's going to give the Council another 25% pay raise on top of the 75% pay Crook Giuliani gave them.

But then, most New Yorkers don't even know that a City Council position comes with NO ACTUAL JOB DUTIES.

You can literally sleep for four years, as long as your constituents re-elect you.

Not bad for 90K a year currently!

FYI:

Bloomberg is one of the top ten most corrupt pols in american history. (Ask me for endless details.)

Hell, the piece of excrement isn't even a successful businessman,as you've all been told.

EX: all his businesses are money-losers except ONE... the Bloomberg Machines for financial industries. But he made all his billions from this because he BUNDLED THE SOFTWARE to prevent any competition, which is a federal crime.

Bloomberg is a successful CROOK, but he could only succeed in business by cheating.

Let's see him make an honest dollar sometime.

He can't.

ask anyone