I’m going to forecast some Senate races in 2008. These are obviously extremely preliminary, but early polling data can give us a rough estimate over what to expect in the fall. And I decided to be gutsy and not lump them into “Democratic favored” or “leans” categories…

I’ll keep up with Senate race predictions on my new “Senate Races” section.

Democrats Keep: (11 seats)

Pryor (D-AK), Biden (D-DE), Durbin (D-IL), Kerry (D-MA), Levin (D-MI), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Harkin (D-IA), Baucus (D-MT), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Johnson (D-SD)

Republicans Keep: (14 seats)

Stevens (R-AK), Sessions (R-AL), Chambliss (R-GA), McConnell (R-KY), Wicker (R-MS), Dole (R-NC), Inhofe (R-OK), Graham (R-SC), Alexander (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Roberts (R-KA), Cochran (R-MS), Enzi (R-WY), Barrasso (R-WY)

Democratic Takeover: Close races but are currently trending Democratic takeover (4 seats)

Norm Coleman (R-MN) to Al Franken, John Sununu (R-NH) to Jeanne Shaheen, Pete Dominici (R-NM) to Tom Udell, Open Seat to Mark Warner (D-VA)

Republican Takeover (1 seat)

Mary Landreau (D-LA) to John Kennedy

Too Close: Close races with no clear front-runner (3 seats)

Bob Schaffer vs. Tom Udall- Colorado, Gordon Smith (R-OR) vs. No Clear Challanger, Susan Collins (R-ME) vs. Tom Allen

I put in the “too close” category because there are truly a few races that will be very close in November, or at least they’re trending that way right now. Republicans Smith, Collins, Sununu and Coleman are vulnerable while Democrats have their eyes on open seats in Virginia & Colorado. If everything goes as planned for the Democrats, they could walk away with a net gain of 5 seats in November, giving them a 56-44 majority in the Senate. It currently looks like, unfortunately, Mary Landreau (D-LA) will lose her seat. In the after math of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of New Orleans residents fled Louisiana, depressing the city’s Democratic electorate. Landreau squeaked by in 2002 (before Katrina). Now it looks like without the base that elected her, she will be unable to win in November. That’s the only bad news for Democrats–and the only reason she is vulnerable is because of the political implications of a natural disaster. Republicans are certainly going to be on the defensive this year.

Once again, this is where I stand as of right now. I’ll post more in depth info about some of these races and new predictions as the year progresses. Public opinion changes, events happen, controversies erupt: you never know what can swing an election.

The Clinton campaign doesn’t know what to expect in New Hampshire. Following a dramatic Iowa loss, the New York senator is bracing for her worst nightmare in the Granite State: an influx of independents (roughly 45% of New Hampshire’s voting bloc) and youth for the Illinois senator.

The latest polls from New Hampshire show an Obama surge, though the depth of that surge is unknown. What is known for certain is that Obama is up and Clinton is down. Looking at a graph from pollster.com we can gain a better understanding of where the candidates were as far back as early 2007: Clinton on top, Obama below.

Starting around October and into November, the Clinton’s developed a mentality that their firewall, should Obama or Edwards win Iowa, was New Hampshire. They assumed that their high numbers in the state would stall any candidates’ momentum. A memo was leaked from within the Clinton campaign last May suggesting a pull out from Iowa; it’s safe to suggest that Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn realized Iowa’s unfavorable climate toward Hillary.

But the firewall theory proved faulty. Hillary Clinton polled high only because people know her from 15 years in the national spotlight and once people started paying attention to the election, they reexamined their choice. Senator Obama was not well known nationally, and still isn’t if you believe he is 20 points behind. But in the early states where people were getting to know him, he became a sensation. The Clintons soon had a new title pinned to their backs: the establishment.

Last Thursday during Clinton’s concession speech in Iowa, she surrounded herself with Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, and Wesley Clark… it was almost something out of a wax museum… relics of the past, the old party gargoyles if you will.

Obama’s victory party projected something of a different tone. His speech was given before a youthful, alive and enthusiastic audience, and his very image and persona projected newness and change. He was not the candidate of the establishment; he was the new guy on the block–the Washington outsider, the change agent, who’s victory symbolized the power of overcoming expectations and running against “the machine.”

Obama now has the big momentum that may just carry him through New Hampshire. He is popular among independents and Democrats alike–a coalition builder who very well could win the Democratic nomination. The Clinton strategy: stall him. Should she lose in New Hampshire her campaign will focus on winning “closed-ballot” states where independents are closed from voting in Democratic primaries. The reality is that despite a competitive Democratic primary, Hillary wins over more party-line Democrats than Obama. Her lesson from Iowa: resist the independent vote and narrow the universe of potential voters to just party Democrats. Good for her campaign, but not for the party.

But with so much excitement coming from Obama, is this really the strategy we as a party want to pursue? Block our expansion by nominating a polarizing candidate who’s unfavorables are through the roof? Is that the kind of bitter, ill fought, mudslinging general election we want in 2008? And why take swipes at a guy who’s building the Democratic base, forming coalitions among those who don’t traditionally vote in primaries or elections: the young, the poor, minorities. Groups who came out in huge numbers for the Illinois senator in Iowa.

Because really, a big tent coalition like that can beat any of the Republican candidates in ‘08, and we can’t afford to lose again.

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton announced today that she’s forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee. On a quaint living room couch, Clinton revealed her intentions to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008 stated that, “[while I] can’t visit everyone’s living room, I can try. […] Let the conversation begin; I have a feeling it’s going to be very interesting.”

Clinton joins a crowded field of Democratic contenders, knowing full well that recent Fox News’ Opinion Dynamics, and CNN polls of likely Democratic voters put Clinton just ahead of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Clinton’s announcement was anticipated, and according to CNN, the reaction in New Hampshire was dismal.

The Saturday morning announcement surely made a political splash- appearing just four days after the Obama announcement (attempting to shift the constant media focus off Obama), and just one day before the Sunday talk shows.

The first New Hampshire debates will be hosted by CNN April 4-5th of this year.

Early Smear?

Just as Clinton’s announcement was made public, another story had developed out of the blogosphere; Clinton’s hired hands have begun researching fundamentalist Islamic ties in Barack Obama’s past. Unnamed sources in Clinton’s camp, who consider Obama their “most formidable opponent” have reported off the record to the conservative media outlet Insight:

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.[…] The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama’s years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Insight, “Hillary’s Team has Questions about Obama’s Muslim Background.” 17 Jan. 2007

I’m fairly skeptical of this report’s validity namely because it’s coming from a right wing media outlet, however because there is a very real chance that his Islamic ties may haunt his presidential aspirations, the issue needs to be addressed.

Firstly, if Clinton’s campaign has released this information than for decency’s sake they need to publicly claim responsibility for it. If her campaign is attempting to play on the unjustified assumption that an Islamic education equates to terrorist training, than it would be a tragic kickoff to her campaign for president.

Secondly, I’m glad this is being addressed early amongst major media enterprises. The sooner Obama can clear this alleged bombshell, the quicker he can pour water over it and continue; better now than in the October before the November election. This does not however, mean that I expect Bill O’Reilly’s & Rush Limbaugh to let it down soon. Right-wingers will always criticize him and other Democrats, but fortunately their criticism will only be echoed around conservative circles.

Lastly and as previously stated, I personally don’t see the validity of this claim. On top of being reported by an unreliable source, it simply cannot be true. Obama did address this “issue” in his book the Audacity of Hope, stating that he was educated in an Indonesian Madrassa for two years, but his mother gave him a secular upbringing more concerned with his learning of multiplication tables and ABC’s than any particular god. I suppose it’s easy to assume that just because one attends a Muslim school, they must be a terrorist or a modern day Manchurian candidate.

Thus we are left with two options- you decide which you believe regarding this report. Either,

1. The report is true. Clinton’s campaign leaked this information to a right-wing media outlet to discredit Obama early in the game and offset his presidential aspirations and raise questions to his past before his presidential decision.
2. The report is false. It’s the illogical nostalgia of the right wing media to automatically assume that just because Islam had an influence on one’s upbringing, it automatically denotes terrorist extremism.

Either way, someone out there is conspiring against Obama- be it Clinton’s staff or right wingers- and Obama will just have to learn from this: Welcome to Presidential Politics.

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton announced today that she’s forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee. On a quaint living room couch, Clinton revealed her intentions to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008 stated that, “[while I] can’t visit everyone’s living room, I can try. […] Let the conversation begin; I have a feeling it’s going to be very interesting.”

Clinton joins a crowded field of Democratic contenders, knowing full well that recent Fox News’ Opinion Dynamics, and CNN polls of likely Democratic voters put Clinton just ahead of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Clinton’s announcement was anticipated, and according to CNN, the reaction in New Hampshire was dismal.

The Saturday morning announcement surely made a political splash- appearing just four days after the Obama announcement (attempting to shift the constant media focus off Obama), and just one day before the Sunday talk shows.

The first New Hampshire debates will be hosted by CNN April 4-5th of this year.

Early Smear?

Just as Clinton’s announcement was made public, another story had developed out of the blogosphere; Clinton’s hired hands have begun researching fundamentalist Islamic ties in Barack Obama’s past. Unnamed sources in Clinton’s camp, who consider Obama their “most formidable opponent” have reported off the record to the conservative media outlet Insight:

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.[…] The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama’s years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Insight, “Hillary’s Team has Questions about Obama’s Muslim Background.” 17 Jan. 2007

I’m fairly skeptical of this report’s validity namely because it’s coming from a right wing media outlet, however because there is a very real chance that his Islamic ties may haunt his presidential aspirations, the issue needs to be addressed.

Firstly, if Clinton’s campaign has released this information than for decency’s sake they need to publicly claim responsibility for it. If her campaign is attempting to play on the unjustified assumption that an Islamic education equates to terrorist training, than it would be a tragic kickoff to her campaign for president.

Secondly, I’m glad this is being addressed early amongst major media enterprises. The sooner Obama can clear this alleged bombshell, the quicker he can pour water over it and continue; better now than in the October before the November election. This does not however, mean that I expect Bill O’Reilly’s & Rush Limbaugh to let it down soon. Right-wingers will always criticize him and other Democrats, but fortunately their criticism will only be echoed around conservative circles.

Lastly and as previously stated, I personally don’t see the validity of this claim. On top of being reported by an unreliable source, it simply cannot be true. Obama did address this “issue” in his book the Audacity of Hope, stating that he was educated in an Indonesian Madrassa for two years, but his mother gave him a secular upbringing more concerned with his learning of multiplication tables and ABC’s than any particular god. I suppose it’s easy to assume that just because one attends a Muslim school, they must be a terrorist or a modern day Manchurian candidate.

Thus we are left with two options- you decide which you believe regarding this report. Either,

1. The report is true. Clinton’s campaign leaked this information to a right-wing media outlet to discredit Obama early in the game and offset his presidential aspirations and raise questions to his past before his presidential decision.
2. The report is false. It’s the illogical nostalgia of the right wing media to automatically assume that just because Islam had an influence on one’s upbringing, it automatically denotes terrorist extremism.

Either way, someone out there is conspiring against Obama- be it Clinton’s staff or right wingers- and Obama will just have to learn from this: Welcome to Presidential Politics.

Of course, there is another story to be told, by the millions of Americans who are going about their business every day. They are on the job or looking for work, starting businesses, helping their kids with their homework, and struggling with high gas bills, insufficient health insurance, and a pension that some bankruptcy court somewhere has rendered unenforceable. They are by turns hopeful and frightened about the future. Their lives are full of contradictions and ambiguities. And because politics seem to speak so little to what they are going through- because they understand that politics today is a business and not a mission, and what passes for debate is little more than spectacle, they turn inward, away from the noise and rage and endless chatter. A government that represents these Americans- that truly serves these Americans- will require a different kind of politics.

Obama, Barack. Audacity of Hope: New York: Random House, 2006.

Last Tuesday a new candidate emerged among the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls. In a style reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama echoed a message of humility, while maintaining a discrete reverence for our democratic system and American values.

Obama is widely considered by those in the media and the blogosphere as a viable contender against Hillary Clinton’s political machine. Though he only announced the formation of a Presidential Exploratory Committee, many outside observers (and several campaign insiders) have reported that Obama will announce his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States before a crowd in Chicago on February 10th.

Some speculate that Obama’s popularity grew from his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Since, he has been a Senate Superstar whose inspired the curiosity of millions, and earned a reputation as a bipartisan, centrist leader who truly is committed to serving the American public.

This blogger has no intention of refuting this image- as I believe- this reputation is justifiably earned. .

Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, represents a genuine character that’s faithfully committed to fighting for the American working class, preserving our environment and protecting our civil liberties. Obama’s career has been founded in such things; after graduating from Columbia University with a B.A. in International Relations, Obama moved to the south side of Chicago to work as a community organizer. A couple years later, Obama moved back out east to earn his J.D. at Harvard Law School, becoming the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review- only to return to Chicago to initiate a voter registration project.

Obama is the only candidate who has truly devoted a career to grassroots organization helping average Americans on a community level accomplish their dreams. Instead of taking a six figure salary after graduating from Harvard Law School, the very fact that he would return to Chicago to aid destitute families is evidence of his outstanding commitment to public service and leadership. For this reason, he is a new generation of leadership and change we need in 2008.

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, MA there was one man who vocally challenged John Kerry’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States: Dennis Kucinich. As the state delegations cast their votes for the nomination, Kucinich was a lonely voice of opposition amongst the largely pro-Kerry crowd. Despite the fact that he received but a few of the Ohio delegation’s votes, his opposition can be seen as symbolic. Kucinich after all represents the hard-line left of the Democratic Party- and as he prepares to seek the nomination yet again, his calls for complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could possibly give him sway amongst the hard-line lefties in the Democratic primaries. Unfortunately, this is not true of the American people.

Most Americans want to see victory in Iraq, or at least says our president. But according to the December 13, 2006 Washington Post, “ Nearly eight in 10 Americans favor changing the U.S. mission in Iraq from direct combat to training Iraqi troops” reports a Washington Post-ABC News survey. The problem is this is exactly what our generals are doing. The Iraqi military is still building, but not fast enough- and while army generals work toward strengthening Iraqi security, Americans see body bags and complete chaos in the streets of Baghdad. Perhaps this is why the war has grown so incredibly unpopular, and perhaps this is why viewpoints such as Kucinich’s have become increasingly enticing.

The war is now the focal point of the Kucinich for President 2008 strategy: capitalize off the unpopularity of a war by proposing a solution.

As a congressman, Kucinich is calling for Congress to immediately cut the funding for the War in Iraq, but the incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has diluted this extreme proposal. Pelosi at least recognizes that despite the fact that this president’s approval ratings may be in the lower twenties, and despite the fact that eight in ten Americans favor a shift in strategy, they don’t want to see the lives of 3,000 American troops to go to waste. Pelosi’s recognition of this fundamental understanding puts her at an equal playing field with the president- but where they differ is what ought be named the “way forward.”

Kucinich’s proposal for the “way forward” is far too drastic. Even though he may appease the hard-line Democratic Cindy Sheehan’s in the primaries, I believe there is a sizable crowd among Democrats with common sense. For this reason I know that Kucinich won’t even be competitive in the lead up to 2008, and why I believe his campaign is destined for failure.

First of all, Kucinich simply isn’t an attractive personality. He is boring- in both his ideas and his character. His plan to cut and run is not novel and in fact presents itself as (at least) a solution, but simply doesn’t work. If American’s learned anything from Vietnam, it’s that cutting and running is a waste of money, material and most importantly, human life.

Secondly, Kucinich’s voting record is way too liberal. He is an anti-war, pro-ACLU, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood Democrat. Consider his voting record with the following interest groups by the acclaimed, credible Project Vote Smart:

1. Abortion: Kucinich votes with Planned Parenthood 56% of the time/ NAPAL Pro-Choice America: 100% of the time (2005)
2. Federal Funding of the Arts: Kucinich votes with Americans for the Arts: 90% of the time (2004)
3. Taxes: Kucinich votes with Americans for Tax Reform (anti-tax increasing lobby) 10% of the time (2005)
4. Business: Kucinich votes with the Small Business & Entrepreneurial
Council 13% of the time (2004)
5. Energy: Kucinich votes with Campaign for America’s Future (alternative energy lobby) 100% of the time (2006).
6. Environment: Kucinich votes with the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100% of the time (2005).
7. Foreign Policy: The Citizens for Global Solutions, a lobby which “[…]envisions a future which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone” gave Congressman Kucinich an A+ rating. (2005)
8. Gun Control: The National Rifle Association gives Congressman Kucinich an F rating. (2006).

If lobbies are any prediction of how a Congressmen position themselves on the issues, it is easy too infer that Kucinich is incredibly liberal. He may be supported by some in the Democratic primaries, but ultimately a man who is more liberal than John Kerry himself will not secure the nomination because his voting record easily attests to solid liberal extremism. If Democratic delegates learned anything from the Walter Mondale campaign of the ‘80’s, it is that extreme liberals are not popular, and are easily defeatable, and for this reason gives me proof that Kucinich cannot win the nomination, nor the presidency.

So this leads me to my final reason why Kucinich cannot win the nomination: most Democrats realize that his run is more symbolic than realistic. Kucinich himself states that he is in the race because he believes the party has grown out of touch with its roots, and Democrats understand his sentiment. Inevitably, he is running to represent that hardliner liberal voice of the Democratic Party, but modern delegates (especially given the incredible rise of conservative Democrats inducted into the party in the recent mid-term elections), know that an electable president is not a Walter Mondale, but a centrist—a compromiser. Kucinich is the last throw of liberalism in a party that has an increasingly large tent- and his run in ’08 will be seen as such.

Kucinich was expected to run. He is a familiar face who (like Vilsack) announced his intentions early to gather as may resources as possible. Unfortunately for Kucinich and Vilsack, many of those resources will be waiting for Obama and Clinton if and when they decide to run. Hopefully soon.

Reaching the end of 2006, political observers already have their eyes on 2008. Yes, it is time to start thinking of potential presidential candidates- and in a cycle where the possibilities are infinite- several names are already rising to the top amongst broad speculation.

On November 9th, former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack filed papers with the Federal Elections Commission to run for the presidency of the United States. Vilsack is the first to declare his intentions, while other prominent Democrats such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh are still considering runs. On the Republican side, popular figures such as Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are also considering runs and are expected to announce their intentions in the near future.

The most important question still remains, “when?” When will these candidates come forward with their intentions to run for president, and how soon can we expect a defined crowd of presidential hopefuls? Hillary Clinton has been playing her cards masterfully as at every opportunity she has glazed over the question stating that she is “serving New York”, or how about Barack Obama’s recent avoidance of the question with, “I am going to wait until after the legislative recess.” Everyone is putting it off; everyone except Vilsack.

The reality is presidential politics is like a complex game of chess. There exists only so much money and resources, and the strategy at every moment of the campaign is largely significant. Sure, there are individual contributions- but the amount of PACs and private donors a candidate must secure is considerable. Therefore, in announcing Vilsack’s intentions earlier than anyone else, he is working toward securing resources that later presidential candidates will make competitive.

Vilsack’s strategy has one advantage and one complication. Outside of Iowa, he is a political unknown; a Democrat who is not recognizable beyond the farm country outside of Des Moines, Iowa. In the history of presidential politics, presidents have come from these places. They have been governors of states, who during their campaigns worked to build an image, a platform and a strategy for the future that average Americans can identify with. Building an image separate from the scum of Washington, DC and based in the great old American heartland is just what makes a person electable- and Vilsack’s campaign may very well capitalize on that. In announcing his intentions early, the Iowa governor has the ability to build his image, secure a base and position himself on the issues long before anyone else. PACs and big private donors can begin to examine him now, because later the field will only get more crowded with hopefuls, and his message more diluted.

The shortfall in announcing early: more time to be ripped apart. The longer a bleeding human floats in the middle of the tropical sea, the more likely they will be bitten, if not ripped apart by a shark (or several sharks). The longer Vilsack remains in the field (now 2 years) the more likely the media can rip him into pieces, and the more likely he will say something stupid not only before the general electorate, but before his base. Remember that in order to win the presidency, the first step is winning in the primaries, and in order to do that, a hopeful must move to the right or left to appease the base, then move to the center to be elected by the American people. Well, in announcing his intention early he stands a greater chance of saying something that may alienate his base, or the people in general. This only complicates his campaign.

However, Vilsack ha one interesting thing working for him: he has kept an avid connection with media sources. First utilized by Howard Dean’s 2004 Presidential Campaign, blogs have become an outlet for presidential hopefuls to get their message across. Not only is Vilsack keeping a blog, but he is also advertising himself on youth social networking sites as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube. His campaign has been very centered on trying to secure an energized youth (the effectiveness of which remains to be seen.) Irregardless, his ability to not screw up will be incumbent upon his ability to transmit a unified, clear message- and if he can go two years without screwing up, his (un)name recognition may work to his favor.

I do say “may” with caution. In the primaries he (may/will) face political populars Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- and though presidents may have come from outside of Washington since the time of JFK, there are always exceptions (especially when considering the powerchest of Clinton’s money and the powerimage of Obama). There are no rules, only exceptions- and in presidential politics it’s all about the game. If Vilsack can play chess right, he may make it to the primaries, but if he finds himself against Clinton or Obama, his chances (even if he announced his intentions early) are scare to secure the nomination.