of where they are now. Not necessarily where they'll end up.

I'm starting to agree with them that Richardson may not run. And I agree he'd be a great veep choice.

Clark at no. 10 is ridiculous. Kerry at no. 9, sadly, is not.

What about the rest?

I fear that Clark is making the same mistake he did last time. He needs to hurry up and make up his mind!

Without Gore, Dean or Feingold, Clark should have had a monopoly amongst the netroots. But while he's still contemplating, people are jumping on the Edwards and Obama bandwagons. I think a lot of those supporters could have been his.

Biden and Dodd don't sound too exciting on paper, but they are two of the most experienced politicians in this race. They could get some very high profile endorsements from people they have a long working-history with.

I found Clark very appealing in 04 at first, but I don't see how he gets any traction in this race. With Edwards becoming the poster child of the netroots, Hillary carrying the establishment, and Obama getting the fresh face/post baby boomers vote, where does Clark fit in?

I'd prefer Clark to stay out and move for a spot on the bottom of the ticket or a cabinet slot.

This does not mean I see him as 10 (I'd put him ahead of Dodd, Kerry and Vilsack), but after the top 3 I really don't think it matters.

Hilliary's comments and ideals were very good after her retrurn from Afg. and Iraq.

Barack sounded good and on target in his senate speech today.

Edwards has a good stance, but not getting spot light right now.

My top 3 but have no order.

No one else is in the race as far as I am concerned.

I'd like to see either Gore get in, or Warner get back in.  One of them could easily get in the top tier.

Clark is proving that maybe he'd be best served as a SecState or SecDef.  I'd still put him above Kerry, though.

If Warner were behind Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Gore he'd be far, far, far, far away from being a factor.

I'm assuming that I'm only lucky enough for one of the guys I support to run for President.

What alarms me about Kerry at No. 9 is that it is an indication of how well the right manages the media "Freak Show" to totally destroy the public image of Democratic leaders. 

That Obama, Edwards, Vilsack, Dodd, Biden and Richardson are ranked ahead of them is, I think, because none of them have had the full "Freak Show" treatment, like Gore and Kerry have had, and like Howard Dean had to a lesser extent after the "Dean Scream."  (Biden got roughed up the last time he ran for President, but everybody has forgotten that for now.)

The column today in the D.C. Examiner, written by Jonah Goldberg, is an example of how this is still happening to Kerry. 
http://tinyurl.com/2...

In his column, Goldberg literally presents an image of Kerry as part of the Freak Show, calling him "Brahimin Lurch."  A freak.

He insults Kerry as a politician: "His political instincts are duller than a prison-cafeteria spork."  Oh really?  Yet somehow Kerry won the nomination last time around. Pretty good performance by someone with dull political instincts.

Goldberg sneers at Kerry's "impressive hair."  OK, I get it, we are supposed to again elect a President based on having a likeable face, accent and hairstyle.  Hmm -- how is that working out for us?

Goldberg makes a crack about Kerry windsurfing.  I've never understood how Kerry's windsufing got turned into something to hold against him.  The fact is, Kerry was and apparently is still a damn good athelete, for whatever that's worth.  And Kerry is a pretty good windsufer too, from what video I saw. 

Goldberg makes a challenge: "Quick: ask yourself what Kerry has accomplished after more than two decades in the Senate."  How about the BCCI investigation. 
http://www.fas.org/i...

Of course, with the Republicans in control of the Senate, Kerry didn't have much of a chance to accomplish anything.  Now let's wait and see what he can do with a Democratically controlled Senate and some seniority.

Goldberg indulges in more name-calling:  "dull-witted, gormless Boston aristocrat."  That makes me wonder what Goldberg is bringing to the table himself.  Why is Goldberg getting paid to write this drivel?

Goldberg has to admit that Kerry had an honorable military record.  "But", he says, "he returned home to disparage the troops . . . ."  That's a lie -- Kerry was against the war, but was never against the troops.  And by the way, was the Vietnam War a mistake, or not?  I think Kerry was right about that one. 

Goldberg earlier implies that Kerry was viewed as electable because of his spinelessness.  But how does that fit with the facts?  The manner in which Kerry opposed the continuation of the Vietnam War can be called a lot of things, but spineless is not one of them.  Nor was his military service spineless.  Going after BCCI wasn't spineless.  Running for President when you aren't that telegenic isn't spineless.

So how does Goldberg get away with implying that Kerry is spineless, or making these other vapid comments?  Answer is, not enough people call the so-called pundits on their BS.

Would Kerry be the best potential President the Democratic party could offer to the country in 2008?  I can't tell.  And Goldberg has offered less than nothing on that question.

But you're wrong about Kerry.

Democrats still like Gore and the Clintons despite what they've been put through.

Dean has been skewered by both sides and his supporters still stand by him.

Kerrys support evaporated because, unlike Gore, Dems blame him for his defeat against Bush. And look at the consequences.

Kerry basically did what George Allen did last year. Republicans hate Allen now because of his sluggish clumsy responses to the charges against him. Not the charges themselves. Even if Allen eeked out a win against Webb, his presidential ambitions were over after his performance.

I'm not a Kerry supporter for the 2008 race.  I like Richardson and want to hear more about Vilsack at this point.  I don't think that being a Senator is a particularly good preparation to be President.

But if "pundits" like Goldberg go without any critical reading, that only gives them more weight when they go after the next slate of Democratic candidates. 

Further, trashing Kerry indirectly impeaches the judgment of the people who supported his candidacy and who voted for him ultimately in 2004.

To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, winning isn't a sometime thing, winning is an all the time thing.  If we get lazy and let brainless hatchet jobs like this go by without comment, the collective reaction will be too slow and weak and uninformed when it really counts.

You raise a good point.  Is what happened to Kerry different from what happened to George Allen?  Or did Allen get the Freak Show treatment too?

I see a difference, but I will leave that for others to parse out. 

Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler shows us how to take down the Freak Show:
http://www.dailyhowl...

I see the #1 spot as being a toss-up between Clinton and Obama.  Clinton will have the cash, but Obama, being a relative unknown, will has the greater growth opportunity.

Edwards is also in the mix.

As far as Clark is concerned, his position at #10 seems right to me.  Clark's biggest negative is obviously money, or rather the lack of it.  His position now reminds me of Webb's in May of this past year.  He could beat any of the folks in the current field if he was able to gain something close to financial parity (a huge "if").

I like this discussion that no one is name-calling among the choices. Let's keep it up, and urge the Party and the netroots to present these choices as first,
(1) ALL of them are leaps ahead of what we have now; yes, that's a low bar to rise above, but better than that, they all have platforms, principles and strengths for the public good.
(2) The challenge is to find out who among them is best for these times and the terrible mess we're in.

All of them have made sacrifices for their families and income to work in public service versus their other careers of law and medicine, etc.  Clark could be a millionaire/billionaire Iraq contractor, Obama could be a very wealthy litigator and speaker. When Hillary graduated from Wellesley in 1968 she was named as one of Life Magazine's young people to watch; instead her friend Sara Ehrman would try to talk her out of moving from her big city life that had gone from Chicago to Massachusets to Arkansas. (Say what you will about her ambitions, but that should be the definition of love. I can't think of any man I would follow to Arkansas.)

I am still holding out for MARK WARNNER.

First Tier
1) Barack Obama (Obama still has the buzz)
2) John Edwards (Edwards has great Netroots support)
3) Hillary Clinton (She's Hillary Clinton both neg/pos)

Second Tier
4) Joe Biden (Sounding great as Foreign Relations Chair)
5) Wesley Clark (If he runs, he will be the #2 Netroots and the National Security Candidate)
6) Bill Richardson (Negotiated a peace agreement in Darfur)

Third Tier

7) Tom Vilsack (He needs to focus on getting his name out there)
8) John Kerry (Kerry has so many hurdles to get over, but he still has money)
9) Chris Dodd (I don't think we are going to nominate a New England liberal)
10) Dennis Kuchinich (Ahh Denny, he always makes the race interesting)

Wild Card
11) Al Gore (I don't think he's running, I am almost certain of it however should he run the entire race is shaken up launching his way to the top tier. Just don't hold your breath. He likely will not run again.)

Remember, because of his Google stock for being one of their Board of Directors, he is now worth around a half-BILLION dollars and could easily fund his own campaign if he had too..... plus the name recognition he already has......

http://www.huffingto...
The comments that follow are interesting in that so many talk about a "Webb for Pres-08'" or a "Webb/Obama- 08" ticket.
  I for one hope that notion is dashed.  I want Webb for Virginia.

That notion of running for President in 2008. I am sure he's probably flattered and he would make a great National candidate but I think he's enjoying working for Virginia in the U.S. Senate.

I personally think Vilsack and Dodd are ranked a little high.  And I wonder if the Latino community is going to rally around Richardson, making him a stronger player in the field.