Chuck Todd of the National Journal's "Hotline" is out with his latest rankings of 2008 Presidential contenders. Rankings are based on a number of factors, including organization, money, buzz and polling. According to Todd, the Republican Top 5 have stayed exactly the same (John McCain, Mitt Romney, George Allen, Newt Gingrich/Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee) since the last ranking. On the Democratic side, in contrast, there's been movement, with John Edwards moving up to #2, John Kerry moving up to #5, Mark Warner moving down to #3, and Evan Bayh moving down to #4. Wesley Clark falls back off the Top 5 list into "The Rest" category.
Regarding Virginia's two probable 2008 candidates, Chuck Todd has some interesting comments (bolding added for emphasis):
Mark Warner
Buzz matters -- it attracts money and the bright lights of the media. Warner's pre-presidential bid may not be the smartest or most easily defined, and his Kerry-like caution has yet to trip him up, but he gets positive press hits about once every two weeks. The intrablogospheric war about whether Warner/Armstrong are buying blogs out has repercussions. Kos (a smart and subtle guy) may not care, but these activists probably will -- Warner ain't a liberal. And his Webb/Miller non-call is debatable.
I thought that last comment was particularly intriguing. Is Chuck Todd suggesting that Mark Warner made a mistake in staying neutral during the Webb/Miller primary? Recall that Warner early on seemed to be leaning Miller, but then ended up holding a fundraiser Webb - the "netroots" favorite - late in the primary. On the other hand, Warner was conspicously absent from Webb's victory party on election night. And then there's the Jerome Armstrong phony - but potentially damaging - brouhaha. Is Warner's "netroots" strategy running into a bit of turbulence?
George Allen
Unlike the rest of his rivals, Allen has a tangible goal in front of him that we'll be able to judge him on in '06: his re-election. There's lemonade to be made out of the Jim Webb challenge. Allen already sports the best election resume of any of his '08 rivals; no one's had tougher races. If Allen can beat Webb on the seminal issue of the '08 election -- Iraq -- how does Allen not paint himself as the party's most electable conservative? If Allen wins re-election, he may look back on Webb as a blessing in disguise.
Webb is a "blessing in disguise" for Allen? Well, that's an interesting, contrarian viewpoint to the Webb camp's assertion that "Jim Webb is George Allen's Worst Nightmare." Time will tell, but my guess is that "worst nightmare" is far closer to the reality of the situation than "blessing in disguise." That assumes, of course, that the Webb campaign raises sufficient money and utilizes the "netroots" to the max during the next 4 months. If so, Jim Webb will be the next US Senator from Virginia, and George Allen will be...bored in retirement, I guess.
If I were on the Warner campaign, I would advise them to campaign relentlessly for Webb helping Warner keep a positive spotlight in the election cycle. And with a Webb victory, Warner gets more fresh attention and praise from the media and Democratic activists. That's something that will deservedly boost his presidential bid.
If Allen wins, the republicants will tie Warner to this to claim they have turned Virginia back to red (whether Warner campaigns or not).
If Allen wins a very close race and Warner hasn't been seen as helping Webb (indeed, doing all he can) it will cripple him with national Dems in his Presidential bid.
If Webb wins and Warner is seen as not having done all he could to help (especially by national Dems) he gets no mojo from it.
Warner has nothing to gain by staying out of this race but if he does what he can he and Webb wins he gets even more 'coat tail' credit than he did for Kaine's win last fall. This could be what separates him from the other 'not Hillary' candidates in the primaries.
Warner has a stake in this race and I'm sure his campaign realizes this. He must/will do all he can to help Webb defeat Allen.