Hi everyone...don't forget "GONZO -GATE".

Peter Jones / intelligence does not equal wealth, truth be known to amass the kind of wealth romney has means you are most likely dishonest and a very accomplished liar without a sole, probably an accurate description of the mittster don't you think?

Romney seems very fond of spinning words and positions into false statements and one-liners. Not too becomming of a POTUS candidate, this seems like a frequent symptom from the GOP side this year (Clinton's campaign too).

I can't wait for Romney to be our president! It will be a great day for America to have him in office. I think everyone knew that Obama didn't literally say that he was going to "sit down for tea" with our enemies. Romney was trying to make the point that what Obama said was ridiculous - and it was.

Go Mitt!!!

Barack Obama's threats to Pakistan over a hypothetical sitation are meant to demonstrate his "toughness". In doing so he damages insults an ally and damages a relationship. I hope the Obama supporters can understand that much.

[["I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," ]]

It seems that Repub candidates like Romney (the serial Flip-Flopper) just can't pass up a lie they think sounds cute in order to smear an opponent from the other party.

Romney is so fake and dishonest he makes me throw up in my mouth a bit every time he speaks!

Funny that Romney would mention Dr. Strangelove. Didn't they tell him at Harvard that Dr. Strangelove was modeled after Henry Kissinger?  Hahahaha

Romney's line was great political rhetoric, it doesn't need to be scientifically supported.

Obama is proceeding through the typical evolution of "fresh, new" faces.  He's smoother than Howard Dean but recent indications are that he's headed down the same road. The more he is seen, the less perfect he will seem and a good deal of the damage will be done by his own party.

Partisans can explain away his Pakistan and foreign policy gaffes but if he gets the nomination (assuming his own Democrat opponents don't take him apart first) the Republicans will thrash him with well produced commercials.  That's politics.  

The other thing about politics these days is that no candidate gets built up, only torn down.  First by their own party opponents in the quest for the nomination, then in the general election and all the while in these little blogs.

Obama will be a fresh face until the DNC takes charge of his campaign, if he gets that far.

Sierra:  Nice to know HRC, the leading Democrat candidate, has so much help to look forward to from the far left wing of the party.  Right now I think Rudy has a better chance of holding onto evangelicals than Hillary has of retaining the Daily Kos audience.  Third party anyone?  A little Ross Perot in reverse? How about a Sheehan/Nader ticket?

P.S. I don't think Ann Coulter would allow Hillary to be at the top of the ticket.

Hey Mitt:  When Ronald Reagan decided to meet and negotiate with Gorbachov, were they sipping tea too?

Jon, Vancouver--the question Ronmey was asked was VERY serious and his answer wasn't serious at all.  Do you really think that this he is the best republican to run the country??  If so, republicans have an extremly low threshold that has to be met...

Richard, the only problem with what you wrote is that from what we've seen the GOP is running a horde of very vulnerable candidates. Do you really want to get into the "politically good though unsupportable rhetoric" battle with any of those candidate?

Romney, Guiliani... who else are you thinking of nominating? It won't take a Karl Rove to think up the rhetorically funny though perhaps not fully fair commercials there. Unless you guys are going against Clinton, I think its going to be a tough cycle.

OH my, Romney has an MBA from Harvard.  Well, that makes all the difference.  We need more Harvard MBA's as president.  Let's see...was any previous president also a Harvard MBA?  Being a dumb democrat I don't know the answer.  Oh, a republican friend just told me--George Bush is the only other president with an MBA, and as a coincidence, also from Harvard.  Well, at least we know that both men were admitted to one of the hardest to be accepted to graduate programs in the US.  You would have to be a genius, with a straight A grade point average and a perfect score on the GRE and SAT's, right?  But, not only that, you would also have to have distinguished yourself in some manner as an undergraduate--such as Student Body President or having led a campaign to end poverty in Africa, or some such.  

Oh, wait, my smart republican friend just told me there is a teeny tiny little loophole in the HBS admission process.  You can be admitted if you are the indolent son of a wealthy powerful person.  All it takes is a C average and no test scores.  Hmmm. we do know that fits George Jr's history.  But, Mitt? didn't he pull himself up by his bootstraps, coming from dire poverty in a small town in Utah to become a successful and obscenely wealthy venture capitalist?  Oh, my friend tells me is was the indolent son of a former repub governor, from wealthy Grosse Point, Michigan, CEO of General Motors, and failed and repudiated presidental candidate, one George Romney.

Oh, well, at least these two were successful in using their royal births to advance to high office.  Doesn't that qualify?

Just goes to show how popular Obama is becoming.  The Repugs are worried about him now!!  Way to go.

Another case of taking comments totally out of context. Mitt Romney must work for FOX noise. These are the same guys that voted against the continuation of the CHIPS program for poor children.
Oh yea sure let's give all the big corporations a big tax break cuz they need really need it. What a bunch of geniuses. Ron Paul is the only one that makes sense over there. Can't wait for the Bush/Cheney dictatorship to end.

Paul:  I don't have any illusions about this election, but I think it's more a matter of the political environment than a lack of good candidates.  Either Guiliani or Romney would hold their own with Obama in a debate, whatever that's worth.  Besides, if Bush could hold his own with a master debater like Gore, anything is possible, right?

This one is for you guys to lose. In the past you've often found a way, but the implosion would have to be monumental for it to happen now.  On the other hand there is still time.

I think it will be Romney or Guiliani for the Republicans.  I think McCain will make something of a comeback, but not enough.  Thompson is a lot like Obama in that a lot of people are in love with the idea of him, not necessarily his qualifications (though his political experience and qualifications are comparable to Hillary's and in my view superior).  

All in all I see two tiers of Republicans, but I would support any of the top 4 when it's time to vote in  2008.

Democrats unquestionably have the political momentum but I think you only have two viable candidates with Clinton the most likely to be nominated, mostly because to many people are still in love with Bill.

I think they are weak candidates on their own.  For starters, Democrats have never seen fit to grant Hillary a 50% approval rating among Democrats.  In a poll matchup against Guiliani, she doesn't exactly blow him away either.  

I wouldn't take great comfort in that or that a lot of Democrats seem to be quite disenchanted with her.  Take, for example, the YearlyKos reaction to the question about taking money from lobbyists.  Will the YearlyKos types hold their noses and vote for Hillary?

Anyway, that's your strongest candidate right now.

Obama will be faced with experience questions and some of the things he has already said will come back to haunt him.  He will either make more mistakes or allow himself to be reined in to the point of irrelevance.

Re: Political commercials. No political commercials are fair and political rhetoric isn't meant to be fair, only political.  Politics are by nature partisan and political ads are designed to favor one's own candidate.  Both parties are equally unfair under those parameters.  The parties are mirror images in terms of campaign tactics.

Frankly, this time around I could go for funny unfair ads but neither party can be counted on for that and with Hillary you guys would be at a distinct disadvantage because she doesn't do funny very well. Maybe SHE should hire Karl Rove.

I think it's going to be closer than you think, but you guys definitely have the edge.  Be careful not to let over-confidence lead to misunderestimation.

Hello!  Quit looking at Obamma through rose colored glasses.  Romney was right and Obamma did say that.  You seem to conveniently ignore that Pakistan was very upset by his comments and criticized his comments as seen below:

Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., delivers a speech about terrorism, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Romney's degree and business experience don't mean a whole lot.  If you've noticed, he gets really REALLY angry anytime anyone crosses him (see the town hall meeting where someone asked him about the "No Obama, Osama, or Chelsea's Moma" sign), and while that can work ok in a boardroom it absolutely does not work in elected office.  Also, if you want to talk about the ultimate inexperienced candidate, it's him...he has the least experience in elected office out of any of the candidates.  The last candidate who ran with those qualifications (four years of governor and Harvard MBA) was...oh wait, George W. Bush!

Obama recently gave a speech to the racist group La Raza, promising amnesty to the 20 to 30 million illegal aliens should he be elected. He is willing to sellout citizenship while pandering for votes.
 

The last thing we need is an Episod of Big Love in White house, and we dont want a repeat of Lewinski. Obama is best bet.

Richard - actually I'm an independent. I agree, its the Democrats race to lose. And I also agree it will be the usual tight split in popular vote. But Democrats race to lose - and Clinton would be the best bet they have to lose it.

It will come down to three factors, as always. One is which party gets its voters out. Another, and often the most important, is how independents split. And a third is the electoral calculus.

Independents are poised to break for the Democrat by about a 6-4 ratio. I'd guess that will tighten once the two sides start going at each other.

I'm not smart enough to figure out the electoral stuff at this point, though I know my state is in play and has been considered "red" for a long time. The Southwest also looks good for Democrats. The Republicans also seem to have an opening in some usually "blue" areas.

The big one, I think, is party energy. Right now Democrats should be favored in the energy/GOTV category. Look at how they are doing with fundraising. However, this radically shifts in favor of the Republicans if Clinton is nominated, because as you noted a lot of Democrats will have a hard time supporting her and no one energizes the Republicans more.

I think Obama would do fine in the general. I have no doubts the Republicans will go after him on experience, and there will be a lot of media focus on how much experience matters. Think about three presidents you consider to be among the best in our history and ask yourself how experienced they were. No need to answer that here, but the answer might surprise you. I think an argument that judgment and trustworthiness are more important will play with independents this cycle. And those are strong suits with Obama - even the so-called "misteps" are beginning to look pretty good. For instance, Obama seems to be the only candidate from either party who understands U.S. nuclear policy.

Edwards would do alright but I don't think he'd be as strong in the general. Yeah, I know he's white - but how many people who wouldn't vote for Obama out of racism would vote for any other Democrat? A few, but I really don't think many. And its probably offset by a few whites who will vote for Obama to prove to themselves they aren't racist. The thing about Edwards is that populist approach. He does it well, but politically speaking it hasn't been the best tactical move in the past.

Biden I think would get Kerry'd. He's been in the Senate long enough to have said a lot of things and voted on a lot of things that can be twisted to seem contradictory. And the guy won't stop talking.

Richardson hasn't grown into being a candidate. I like him and I think he'd be an okay president, but he just hasn't shown any ability to inspire or even give a sense of confidence that he's in charge of his surroundings. And he's kind of a goofy guy, too, which would open up the door to some strange episodes being thrown out there in negative ads. He likes to tickle one of his female aides, I've heard. I've read its all innocent but the same article said he takes it to an odd level. Things like that.

Dodd is kind of dumpy looking, though my impression of him has improved as he's gone along. Not that I think he has a shot at getting the nomination, but if he did, I think he's a guy who wouldn't hurt his own chances. This cycle, that may be enough for the Democrat.

So in terms of electability, I guess I'd have to go with Obama, Dodd and then Edwards. Maybe Edwards above Dodd because he is a better speaker, though the pretty boy thing works against him.

Just my two cents and of course we don't know what we don't know - what skeletons from the past might come tumbling out of anyone's closet.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

This coming from the party that said that the Republicans have ruined our relations with countries around the world by prematurely invading them.  Who is the real Flip-Floppper here?

Obama, Hilary and crew are the worst bunch of liars this country has ever seen.  I would compare them to Stalin and Hitler.  They want to see families disintegrated, America invaded from our southern borders, and the Terrorists to duplicate like rabbits all around the world.  They WANT America to be destroyed.  Those who support them are terrorists themselves.

Paul:  Sorry, made an assumption about party affiliation that apparently wasn't correct.  Enjoyed the exchange, though.  Don't know much about Dodd but agree 100% with your comments about Richardson.  From what I've seen, I could be comfortable with him as president, but he's just not going to get it done in the primaries.  Might be a good VP option.  Hillary could be tickled pink to have him.

What really matters here in the election (selection) of our next president may not be the party, but the philosophy of the individual who will lead this country. The candidate who seems less tainted by the Washington "in crowd" may be Ron Paul. Goofy?? What does the MSM want us to believe and then do the opposite. I like Kucinich who is liberal and Paul who is Conservative. Can either deliver our democracy back to us??? I am not convinced we have already gone too far in allowing it to straw from its intended course.
God, Please, Really, Bless America.

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