Who cares what Gephardt thinks or says?

I do.  He should be considered a top pick for VP this time around...since Kerry made a bad decision and did not choose him.

"Joe Lieberman's endorsement will not likely be hotly pursued.".....no kidding, he may as well endorse a repugnant, his endorsement of any of the Dem's would be as welcome as if he took a dump in their limosine...kinda like an old ugly toothless uncle giving them a kiss on the lips and saying "At's my Boy/Girl (Hil1ary)".....  

I didn't understand why Gephardt didn't do better in '04. Unlike Clinton, he really did have experience, plus had labor backing I think. Anyway, good pick-up for Clinton this time around. Comes at a good time, in the middle of an otherwise not so good week.

Back when Lieberman was running as Gore's vice-president in 2000 I had a great deal of respect for him. But that's changed. It's good to see that Lieberman's endorsement won't be "hotly pursued" by any Dems for 2008. This is because Lieberman decided that there was nothing important there that there won't be any investigation into Katrina (or 8/29) the way there have been several (if I'm not mistaken) into 9/11. What a disgusting person. He obviously knew he could get away with this because due to the poverty and powerlessness of many Katrina survivors and the fact that they've no powerful, well-moneyed special-interest groups sticking up for them, he would not be pressured into an investigation. Which he should be. And it's disgusting that you see nothing about this in the mainstream media because it seems that to them, Lieberman can do no wrong.

Right on, Olivia !! Actually, Liebermann might have been a WORSE VP than Chendy. With Cheney, you got one war, Iraq. With Liebermann, you might have gotten two wars, Iraq AND Iran. Reallt now, what does Liebermann's selection as a running mate say about Al Gore's judgement ? Why did All Gore choose this bozo ? They served together in the Senate. Al must have known him. I'm not a big Al Gore fan.  Joe will probably endorse a Republican in the fall of '08. Someone who supports the Iraq war and wants to fight Iran.

Will Lieberman be speaking at next year's Republican convention?
Paul and Matt-I agree that Gephardt would have been a much better choice for Kerry's VP...he might have at least helped carry a state or two...i.e. Missouri and Iowa. Edwards contributed nothing. I hadn't even thought about him as a possible VP for Hillary. I wonder if he could still contribute...guess he might still help with the labor vote and his home state...interesting. Have to think about that.

She may have lots of Washington experience.  But can she bake cookies?

According to Gephardt Hillary is obviously not a former president," Gephardt said, "but she is as close as you can be to that" Because of this she should be the president of United States of America.

If this is the new method to measure experience, I think Barbara Bush MUST be made the next President. She was in the White House under Ronald Reagan as the Vice President, under her husband as President and now under her son as President. As Gephardt said, "she is the closest as you can be to that"

Republicans secretly hate Jewish people. Nothing more repugnant than a Jewish republican. Hey Joe! They hate your guts and are gonna use you! What a suck up. Course we all know a kiss from Bush is a kiss of death.

Al, if Clinton is nominated I think she would take Evan Bayh. He's fundraising for her, there's a personal connection through Mark Penn (Clinton's Karl Rove) and he would fit Penn's geographic strategy.

Obama I think will might try to talk Mark Warner into joining the ticket. Not sure how receptive Warner would be to getting back into the fray, but there seemed to be a chemistry between them when Obama visited Virginia a while back. In fact the two kind of hinted at Obama getting into the race because Warner opted not to. (By the way, I'm not the first to speculate about this ticket.) This would be great for Obama, because Warner could deliver Virginia, plus has that governor's executive experience.

Amos...'Bar' couldn't secure the fundamentalist, born-again, right wing American Taliban vote, she's pro choice. Not acceptable to the ultra-neo nut right wing of the repugnant party...

Hillary has been a Senator since 2000.  How does this translate into the Most Presidential Experience of Any Democrat Running?  Obama has been in an elected office longer, Edwards served 6 years in the Senate, Biden, Dodd, etc.

Are we really supposed to consider her time as First Lady as Presidential traning?  Honestly? Ugh.

Dear Mr. Gephart: "close" counts only in horseshoes.

If any of the candidates came out and said they would choose Bayh or Warner as VP I would support that person.  Bayh and Warner were my first two picks for Pres...very sad they both dropped out.  But yes I agree that Clinton may pick Bayh as the two have a very good friendship and Bayh adds a lot to the ticket.

Independent, don't forget, "close" also counts with hand grenades.

Hope your Fourth wasn't rained out like mine.

Come on, guys. If you're looking for experience, Biden's the one to back.

I thought most of the Gephardt supporters of '04 were Biden '08 supporters? Anyways, just heard Joe speak at the Phila Convention Center (NEA) and he had thousands on their feet!

Mark Warner's protege Tim Kaine endorsed Obama early on, and the word is that Warner is offering plenty of behind-the-scenes encouragement.  He's an obvious guy for Obama's VP shortlist.  The only downside is that, even though they've both spent their life heavily involved in politics and policy, they'll each have only four years in major office.  That could swing things to someone with the obvious experience credentials like Wes Clark or, if his health is okay, Bob Graham.  But Obama is largely running on Warner's theme of moving America forward together, and an awful lot of former Warner people are now with Obama.

Your patenthetical remark was tasteless and  inaccurate.
<I>Gephardt cites Clinton's experience, but that's largely what he highlighted about himself when he ran. It didn't make much of a difference.</I>

You also seem to be bucking for Halperin's developing reputation as somebody with right wing predilections, Drudge-like asperations and an inabliity to see or tell the deifference between fastballs and curves.

Please define HRC's "experience"?  It's quite humorous how the media is spinning Hillary's role as  First Lady to be equal to that of a president.    How much clout does Gephardt's endorse bring to Clinton's campaign?  He's now a lobbyist who's traded his endorsement for a political favor.

Hillary has the ideal level of experience and intelligence to run this country.

Why or why must we keep going between a Bush or a Clinton?

Isn't there someone else among the 250 Million plus people in this country that we can select instead of a Bush or Clinton?

I am sick of both families.

Go Barack Obama,,,,or anybody else for that matter!!

THis is a great endorsement for Hillary!!

Experince is key!!!

Gephardt is king of lobyist selling his country.  One coacroch endorse's another fellow coacroch doesn't mean much.

some would consider the kind of "experience" hillary has as a negative, she's to cozy with the corporate lobbyists for me, big business has already bought her, we don't need a president that has experience in business as usual

Think about it. If Hillary is elected, we get Bill back in the white house. Bill Clinton ran this country better than any president in my lifetime, and I'm 50.

President Clinton will receive valuable insight from her husband Bill. That is what I believe gives her the most experience to lead.

There are too many people in this country that want the Clinton/Bush era to be over. We need a fresh start. Edwards all the way!

Electing H. Clinton because she will have B. Clinton's advice is absolutely the most idiotic, childish reasoning I have ever heard. That simple-minded reasoning is why this country has as many problems as it does.

HP, Kansas / I think bill would be an asset for hillary also, but quite a few wouldn't, the clintons are very polarizing, repubs that may have stayed home on election day will descend on the polls like a swarm of locusts to vote against them, edwards can draw some of the repubs and a lot of independents, his healthcare plan is attractive to them because it is not conceived as purely socialized, and he is pro middle class, he understands a 2 class society won't work, hillary is too entrenched in big business and the elitist click to suit me, and some of the statements she's made concerning illegal immigration are for sure going to alienate a lot of fence setters, hillary can't win the general election  

Scott in South Texas (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:21 PM)

It was a soggy 4th. However, I'm grateful for the rain as we've been in a drought for years. I live in the Hill Country so flooding wasn't a personal factor although I do have a new cut through my back pasture.

You guys keepin' dry?

Thanks, Sierra! Shows how young and foolish I was back when I supported "Gore 2000" and his running mate, whose true colors came out when he scotched any Katrina investigation. (Though I wouldn't have wanted to vote for Dubya...) And I'll have to say that were Gore to come out and run again (which I hope he doesn't) I won't support him. Ditto if Lieberman ever decides to be a presidential candidate....

MK,MO,
If Hillary wins the primary, she WILL win the general election. Because unless some anti-Bush/anti-war repulican comes out of the pack; that swarm of republican locusts wont be nearly large enough.
They wont admit it, but deep down even the died in the wool republicans know this country was a lot better off when Clinton was president.

MK,MO - I think you are dead on with your remarks that Clinton cannot win the general election, however I don't think Edwards can either. As others have pointed out that while it might not be fair there is a certain national perception of him that I don't think he can shake. I think the closer we get to the election that more Americans will gravitate towards a true change in the political scene. If he can keep his momentum going and his hands out of the mud I think Obama could very well win in the general election.

please do not make me think of the clinton years-----it feels a hundred years ago.Gee---we had jobs,allies,my grandson was not heading to Iraq,having a job and money to pay for gas my neighbors were friendly to each other not arguing over who was the most religious and who voted for George Bush.I forced myself to watch Bush on the fourth of July---then I watched 9 hours of the Revolution on tv.That was enough to make me lose my lunch.The guy is in his own little narcisstic world.Pitiful to see the ame old smirks and winks and hear the same old lying and decietful words.He actually thinks he is still believable.Phew how much longer will he last?

HP, Kansas / I hope your correct, seems like most people I know either love hillary or hate her, doesn't seem to be much in between, if rudy gets nominated a lot of repubs don't care for him either, so hopefully it will work out with a dem in command come 08

HMT,
yep, yep and yep, except for your last statement.
You should have said, Phew, how much longer can WE last?

HP, Kansas - I wish I were as optimistic about Hillary's chances as you are.  But she's a Clinton and will bring all the Clinton baggage with her.  The republicans will dig up the old dirt, look for new dirt, and keep harping on Bill's actions when he was president. Don't get me wrong, I voted for Bill both terms and was glad I did!  I'm just not ready for 4 years of mud slinging.  I'm still not sure on Obama and Edwards.  But I don't care if the democrats nominate Mickey Mouse, I'll vote democrat! The republicans have had Goofy in the White House these last 7 years! Have a good weekend everyone!

Maybe Hillary Clinton has the experience and the qualifications to be president, but as many others have said, she brings a lot of baggage. I don't like the idea of political dynasties in this country.  Isn't it rather a sneaky way to get around the two term limit on the presidency?

The repugs will slime whoever the democrats nominate. If they can't find anything, they will manufacture it. There's plenty more paid scum like the swift boaters, who will swear to whatever they're paid for.

Eileen--Kind of a cheap shot you took at Goofy wasn't it? The rest of your post was right on though.
I think we are lucky in the fact that just about anyone at whatever level of experience will out class and out perform whatever the hell is sitting in the Oval office right now. We do need to remember that the only way to win an election with just the base is if the opposition stays home or if you lie (fear and loathing at Threat Level orange),  or cheat (Florida and Ohio). This country needs an honest landslide election. A true mandate. That means we need to attract the center and the moderate right. We have to pay attention to that. We need a candidate that they can vote for or we will end up will another photo finish and a too evenly divided congress. I am fine with Hillary and will campaign for her enthusiastically if she is the nominee, but now is the time to remember that she is a polarizing figure. Rove will be able to use her to get his hardcore but disgusted base off the couch to go vote AGAINST her. We can end run that by providing a candidate that the center and moderate right can vote for and a candidate that at least some of the hardcore republican base will not vote against. We have such a strong stable of competent alternate candidates in Obama, Richardson, Edwards and Biden. The stakes are high and we need to make sure that this inevitability suggested by the Clinton campaign and pushed at us by some elements of the media doesn't stick us with a bush clone in '08. Remember this, for the past 20 years there has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Hillary is the nominee, you will hear that over and over and over again pointing out that if Hillary is elected, that could easily become 28 years. The center and moderate right will hear that. It will have an effect.

I support Hillary Clinton (although I will proudly be voting for any Democrat on the ticket in 2008).

I see A LOT of experience in spending eight years in the White House, with an office in the West Wing, of one of the best adminstrations ever.  If nothing else, she'll know exactly how badly Bush f'd with stuff, and get us back to American values in our executive branch.

Also, Hillary Clinton is "a polarizing figure" to them because 100% of them hate her.  But they hate her because she is competent, and that's why I refuse to have THEM tell me she "polarizing."

The fact is, they said she'd be too "polarizing" for Republican upstate New York. They were wrong. They said in 2006 she'd have to win by 60% to have a clear mandate because she was too "polarizing" to run for President without a clear mandate. She won NY by well over 60%.

They've tried to ruin Hillary Clinton. I refuse to allow them the power.  If anyone says they don't like her stands, I can understand. But to determine our candidate because of who Clinton Haters want or don't want is a mentality that denies that our nation was in great shape under the leadership of Bill Clinton. And that's exactly what the Clinton Haters want, to deny that great leadership.

They created the scandals to take him down and they failed, even losing seats the 1998 election.  Are we going to let them win this time around, just because this tiny group of children is very loud, very obnoxious, very rich, and thinks if they whine loudly enough, we won't vote for Senator Clinton?

I'd say these people don't know us women very well:)  So, if you have another candidate, I respect that choice because we have some GREAT candidates.  But Hillary Clinton is one of those great candidates, and she has proven that she can win, despite the Clinton Haters. So let's not use THEIR talking points to one another against OUR candidates, if we can help ourselves.

I must say, I also really don't understand the big deal about Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.
First and foremost, we're a democracy.
Is someone here saying someone shouldn't enter a free election in the US of A because your father or your husband already ran and won? Seems like that would be an unusual rule in baseball or business... no descendants of previous players can play?

In addition, Mr. Clinton cleaned up after the disaster that was Daddy Bush.
Maybe we need Mrs. Clinton to clean up after another Bush... before we give the reins to Obama and follow his lead as he takes this nation to the top of its game again, for another eight years, starting in 2016.

If the 2008 ticket is Clinton/Obama (or even the other way around) I will be thrilled.  I do not believe either of them is going to disappoint us in terms of having a great choice.

Jan, she's competent? How do you know? She's never been in charge of anything.

Here's my thing. Obama lacks executive experience, but he doesn't pretend otherwise. Clinton lacks it, too, but is trying to present herself as the experience candidate. We both know that no one ever imagined this idea of experience through being the First Spouse idea, until it fit the political expediency of her campaign. Its a silly idea.

Imagine the current First Lady running for the Republican nomination on the basis of her experience. Who knows, she might make a fine president (certainly couldn't be worse than hubby). But if all she brought to the table was her time in the White House's upper floors, would you take that campaign seriously?

Granted, Clinton also is a senator, and that experience shouldn't be dismissed. Its not executive experience, but then the only one in the Democratic field who has any is Richardson.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):