The media in Iowa gushes about Obama most of the time. There's a fair share of Hillary garbage too, but she doesn't visit here nearly as much as Obama or even John Edwards. She does send out nifty little CD-ROMs with rehashes of her website on them though. That's good campaigning, I tell yas.

I think most of the hillbillies in Iowa (that beat their wives) use them as coasters or clay pigeons.

I get this sense, too, but I wonder how this is so when I personally don't know a single woman who supports Hillary Clinton. Maybe it's a regional thing. I'm very curious to see how successful she'll be in the end, especially since women - who apparently don't like her, at least in this part of the country - have outnumbered men as voters in every presidential election since 1964.

Democrats are dumb as fuck if they nominate Hillary. I think Obama or Edwards could get enough Republican crossover, Hillary never could, not in a million years.

I don't know if being VP would destroy a career anymore. Look how powerful Cheney made the office.

Well yeah, sure, if he acts in a manner popularly considered not befitting a Vice President, his career won't be destroyed (in the party anyways).

If Democrats want Republican crossover they really should nominate Richardson. Obama has some appeal, but believe me that Edwards is far too populist to appeal to many sectors of the GOP, with the exception of the already confused and fragmented Religious Right.

It would seem, considering the trends, that the Dems aren't even going to need a considerable amount of Republican crossover. The fact that Obama, Edwards and Clinton aren't from any state where gay marriage is (or was) legal is probably enough just to get him that extra ~5% of the vote it would have taken to elect Kerry over Bush. Appeasing at least a few of the otherwise fag-haters will win this election for the dems.

Yeah, I tend to like Richardson too (hooray southwestern politics).

If the Republicans nominate Rudy, the Democrats are going to need some crossover just based on his name alone.

I agree that Obama will be the one more likely to spur social change. Your comparison of Hilary to the "rich white men" around her is very accurate, too; I had never put it in those words, but they are quite applicable. She just seems a bit too focused on getting ahead to ever take a strong stance on any issue that I care about. It would be nice to see a woman president, just not Hilary.

You know, a lot of talking heads are starting to refer to Clinton as the Incumbency Campaign by sheer name recognition.

If the Republicans nominate Rudy (which it looks like they will), would that mean that we'd practically have two incumbency campaigns?

What exactly are you seeing that makes it look like the Republicans are going that way to you?

I think the CBS poll had him around 34%? I don't recall the specific numbers, but he was trouncing Romney.

The idea is that the majority of 24 Percenters are comprised of the Authoritarian Wing, and are looking for a strong man who will be able to push neoconservative intellectualism in the face of adversity, no matter how unmarketable it is in the general election. They need Rudy to be their Il Duce, because he's the only candidate who has the image of being tough on defense, no matter how easily deflated that image is when it comes under scrutiny.

For his part, Rudy really does understand the ideology and can pitch it effectively. The only problem is that nobody outside of the RNC is buying it.

Also the name recognition.

Looking at the poll I think you're citing (a Rasmussen national poll), Giuliani does have 24%. The problem with citing that as evidence as some kind of Giuliani juggernaut is the fact that it is a national poll, when the nomination process is decided in state caucuses and primaries. State polls show Romney leading Giuliani 32-20 in New Hampshire, and Fred Thompson leading him by less lofty margains in South Carolina and Michigan. The poll you're citing gives Giuliani a similarly unimpressive lead over Thompson, who had 20%.

Even if you see it, for right now, I don't.

John McCain just might have something to say about that.

As I understand it, McCain is perceived as being more crazy on defense. That he gives off this impression of being old and a little feeble.