Via the Stinging Nettle blog, I found this piece in Politics magazine by Marty Ryall, who managed Senator Elizabeth Dole’s unsuccessful campaign last year. Ryall’s main subject is the grotesque “Godless” ad that Dole ran against Kay Hagan in late October. He contends that contrary to widespread opinion, backlash against the ad did not cost Dole the election. Rather, the ad was “our Hail Mary pass” that ran only because they felt they had no other chance to win.

As you’d expect from an operative who worked on a failed campaign, Ryall goes out of his way to explain why Dole’s campaign was already in trouble before he came on in May 2008, and why she lost the election mostly for reasons out of his control. (For instance, Barack Obama targeted North Carolina and registered hundreds of thousands of new voters.) Ryall also claims that he and others intervened to make the final version of the “Godless” ad more fair to Hagan than the first cut. Whatever.

I was more interested in why Dole would have to resort to that kind of desperate attack. Ryall doesn’t explicitly address that point, but this passage in his piece suggests Dole simply had nothing else to say:

We knew we had three weaknesses. A report by Congress.org had ranked Dole 93rd out of 100 senators in effectiveness. She voted with President Bush more than 90 percent of the time. And during the two-year period when she was chairman of the NRSC, she only traveled to North Carolina a handful of times.

No doubt external conditions helped sink Dole. But if she had built up a solid record during her six years in the Senate, Dole would have had a better chance of withstanding the Democratic wave. At the very least she would have had a better final-week message for voters than, “Atheists held a fundraiser for my opponent.”

Democrats control the executive and legislative branches in Iowa and in Washington. Current economic trends suggest that they may face a challenging political environment in 2010. I hope they will draw the right lessons from Dole’s disgrace. Don’t blindly follow failed policies and do something substantial for your constituents.

Having a record to run on is no guarantee of victory if the prevailing winds are against you. My very effective 18-term Congressman Neal Smith (IA-04) lost in the 1994 landslide. But it helps to be able to remind voters of some big achievements. In the worst-case scenario you’ll lose with more dignity than Dole.

(Yes, I know it's really 18 and I'm two days late.)

What Changed?

Really, not much has changed. If you look at where things were last week (Obama gaining ground, McCain losing it) this week is just an extension of those trends. With two Presidential debates and the VP debates under the voters' belts (the polls haven't quite caught up to Wednesday's debate yet), the map continues to look very blue, even if some individual states are fluctuating.

Obama holds all last week's “likely” and “lean” states, with Michigan and Pennsylvania (38 EV) moving from “lean Obama” to “likely Obama”. FL, CO, NH and VA (52 EV) move from “toss up” to “lean Obama”.

West Virginia and North Dakota (8 EV) join the toss-up states this week, with McCain leading in WV by 2.8% and in ND by just .5% Of all the current “toss up” states, Obama leads in NV, MO, OH and NC. McCain leads in ND, WV and IN.

In a troubling sign for McCain, Montana moves back into “lean McCain” and for the first time, so does Georgia (18 EV combined).

Where they stand:

Obama:  Start picking out furniture and interviewing for your cabinet members. Only a major scandal or historic national event could derail the O train at this point.

The only question now is this: Does Obama focus on running up the score by campaigning for himself in tossup states and “lean McCain” states, or does he slow down and shift tactics.  He could, for example start holding rallies with (but really for) close congressional candidates, even in strong red or blue states. Or, he could slowly reduce his campaign schedule and start focusing on the transition team as some have suggested.

McCain: It's probably over. If McCain can win four or five of the tossup states  he can potentially avoid the election being called a “landslide”.

However, given what it might take to do that (serious $ and mud slinging), it might benefit McCain to focus on salvaging his reputation by ratcheting down the attack ads and vicious sentiment and running a more honorable and humane campaign. Like Obama, McCain may be able and better served to shift some resources and time to congressional races. 

According to 270towin.com, their simulation engine shows Obama winning 99.5%  of the last 1000 simulations, with an average electoral vote of 340 to McCain's 198.

If the election were held today, and  every state voted according to the latest poll average, Obama would win in a landslide–364-174 electoral votes.

What Changed?

After the outbreak of the financial crisis, one presidential debate (polling hasn't quite caught up to the VP debate) and a week of Sarah Palin public humiliation, the national map is looking much, much better for Obama.

EV rich states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota (47 EV) move from “toss-up” to lean Obama. Montana and Louisiana (12 EV), move from “lean McCain” to “likely McCain”. West Virginia, which had been flirting with the “toss-up” category, moves back into “lean McCain”.The toss-up states remain roughly the same otherwise, although it seems one could safely move some around. Obama hasn't led in Missouri since polling began, likewise for McCain in Colorado. 

Nationally, the trend moves from “lean Obama” to “likely Obama”. Obama now stands at his best position since the campaign began, 8 points over McCain in the poll average–50-42.

Where they stand:

Obama: Not much to say this week. It's all good news. If I were him, I'd start picking out furniture for the Oval Office and what tie to wear on inaguration day.

His only bad news isn't that unexpected. Montana and Louisiana, which were little more than icing on the cake, slip comfortably back into McCain territory.

McCain: Titanic, meet iceberg. This has to be McCain's worst week in this campaign to date. The only ray of hope is that McCain as a candidate thrives when his back is against the wall. However, he needs a major “Hail Mary” to get him out of this slump, and honestly, I'm not sure what that could be at this point.

His only bright spot is the potential that the financial crisis will be bumped from the headlines by foreign conflict or terrorism. Either that, or he could pull Osama Bin Laden out of a hat on prime-time. 

According to 270towin.com, their simulation engine shows Obama winning 96.2%  of the last 1000 simulations.

If the election were held today, and  every state voted according to the latest poll average, Obama would win in a landslide–333-205 EV.

Well, we're 10 days closer to E-day, so here's an analysis of where the race stands.

What Changed?
The number of “leaner” states has dropped dramatically. Oregon and New Jersey (22 EV together) have moved from “lean Obama” to “likely Obama”; Arizona, North and South Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, and South Carolina (74 EV) move from “lean McCain” to “likely McCain”.

A few states have, however, moved back into toss-up territory.  Minnesota and Pennsylvania moved from “lean Obama” to “toss-up”; Florida, Indiana and North Carolina move out of “lean McCain”. Maine moves from “likely Obama” to “lean Obama”. In a big blow to McCain, West Virginia moves from “likely McCain” to “toss-up” and Louisiana moves from “likely McCain” to “lean McCain”. (More on all this later.)

Nationally, the trend is strongly in favor of Obama. The country as a whole moves from “toss-up” to “lean Obama”, in the wake of polls showing Obama up by as much as 5-8 points over McCain.

However, while this is good news, a disturbing fact remains. If the election were held today, and every state voted exactly as the latest poll suggests, and there were no recounts or lawsuits, the result would be:  a 269-269 tie.

Where they stand:

Obama: Obama has a lot going for him. On a macro level, the continued focus on the national economy only helps him as voters strongly prefer him to McCain on that issue.

On a micro level, I think the best news is in the latest polls out of West Virginia. A poll released by CNN/Time shows McCain over Obama 50-46%, with 4% undecided with a margin of error of 3.5%. This represents a HUGE improvement from polls taken in February which showed Obama in the 30% range. Considering that Bush beat Kerry by 13% there in 2004…this is a big shift. It also bodes well for Obama's chances in southern Pennsylvania and Ohio.

If Obama has a problem area, it seems to be in northern states. McCain is in the lead and gaining in New Hampshire and Montana, and is up 10 points from his low in Maine to pull within 10 points there. McCain is also gaining ground in Washington, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

McCain: McCain lost his mojo (pre-suspension). The bloom seems to be off the Palin pick, and the economy hurts his chances more each day.
If there is a silver lining for McCain, it is that he seems to have locked in the base in several states that were looking a little pink. He reversed downward trends in many states, including Texas, Arizona, South Carolina and the Dakotas. He's also starting to pull away in a few places like Montana, Missouri and New Hampshire.

McCain is losing major ground in the Mid-Atlantic States. He has lost ground this week from Pennsylvania to North Carolina–key states if he hopes to win in November.

As of today, it's 50 days until Election Day. Here are some analysis' of where the race stands right now.

MSNBC's First Read Blog:

Obama: 233; McCain: 227; Toss Up: 78

Likely Obama: 172 EV (the usual suspects)

Lean Obama: 61 EV (IA, MN, NM, OR, PA, WA)

Toss Up: 78 EV (CO, MI. NV, NH, OH, VA, WI)

Lean McCain: 67 EV (FL, IN, MO, MT, NC)

Likely McCain: 160 EV (the usual suspects)

Slate Election Scorecard:

Obama: 240; McCain: 227; Toss Up: 68

Likely Obama: 161 EV (the usual suspects, plus IA)

Lean Obama: 79 EV (WA, OR, NM, MN, WI, PA, NJ)

Toss Up: 68 EV (NV, CO, MI, OH, VA, NH, US at large)

Lean McCain: 131 EV (AZ, MT, ND, SD, TX, MO, AR, IN, NC, SC, FL)

Likely McCain: 96 EV (the usual suspects)

With all this Palin family drama, on top of the charges of sexism being thrown about all over the place…I thought I would offer an analysis of Palin that is completely free of those issues. Just a straight look at her career, facts and the numbers–starting with a look at her time in Wasilla.

Palin in Wasilla: City council 1992-1996; Mayor 1996-2002

About Wasilla:

pop 1990: 4,028

pop. 2000: 5,469

pop. 2007 (est): 9,780 (+66% since 2000)

83.9% White

FY 2007 budget: $9.9m 

Mayor's salary: $68,000

Wasilla average household income (2007 est): $47,900

(Sources: City Data, US Census Bureau, City of Wasilla)

Notable Events during Palin administration:

1996: Palin defeats incumbent mayor John Stein. Palin focuses the campaign on her ideology, her church service, and membership in the NRA. Anti-abortion flyers are circulated. The state Republican Party runs advertisements in the race, which has traditionally been non-partisan. Palin heavily emphasizes that she is a born-again Christian and that, with her, Wasilla will have “its first Christian mayor”.

Sarah comes in with all this ideological stuff, and I was like, ‘Whoa,’ ” said Mr. Stein, who lost the election. “But that got her elected: abortion, gun rights, term limits and the religious born-again thing. I’m not a churchgoing guy, and that was another issue: ‘We will have our first Christian mayor.’ ” “I thought: ‘Holy cow, what’s happening here? Does that mean she thinks I’m Jewish or Islamic?’ ” recalled Mr. Stein, who was raised Lutheran, and later went to work as the administrator for the city of Sitka in southeast Alaska. “The point was that she was a born-again Christian.”(New York Times article, linked below)

 
1996: Shortly after becoming Mayor, Palin approaches Wasilla city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons about banning some books at the local library. Palin never specifically mentions which book are to be banned. Emmons flatly refuses, and is fired. 

1997: Palin fires police chief Earl Stambaugh. No reason is given. Stambaugh and Emmons are both prominent local Democrats. Stambaugh had headed the police department since its creation in 1993. He is also a 22 year veteran of the Anchorage Police Department.

1997: Over 100 citizens attend a meeting to propose forcing a recall of Mayor Palin. In response, Palin re-instates Emmons (after Emmons agrees to Palin's plan to merge the local museum and library, with budget cuts for both). Stambaugh is not reinstated. The issue of library censorship is not pursued. Palin tells a local paper that the conversations about banning books she has had with local leaders were “rhetorical”.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. (New York Times article linked below)

I was reading this post by Fmr. Clinton Labor Secretary (and current Obama supporter) Robert Reich that lays out three scenarios for why Hillary is staying in the race. Here are the condensed versions:

1. The Clintons still think they can win.

2. Hillary is positioning herself for a run in 2012 or 2016.

3. Hillary is looking for the best deal from Obama. (I would add the DNC to this deal-making)

Dr. Reich's analysis concludes that it's a mixture of all three, and I agree. I also agree that by this point, most of her motivation has to be coming from the second and third. With that in mind, I want to look at some very specific things she might be negotiating for.

Short Term Goals:

    1. Campaign Debt Relief

     Hillary is in hock by at least $21 million dollars, and she's written off millions of dollars in personal loans. Obama, on the other hand is sitting on over $200 million dollars and a massive donor list. While campaign finance laws mean that he can't simply write her a big Publishers' Clearinghouse sized check–he can fundraise for her and let her in on his donor list. And, as this LA Times article suggests, many Obama supporters would be glad to write Hillary a check if she buries the hatchet. Just as long as she doesn't bury it in Obama's back. 

    2. Seat the Michigan and Florida Delegates

    As Dr. Reich points out, this would be a huge moral victory for Hillary. It would also keep Michigan and Florida happy, avoiding a convention rules fight and sore feelings in the general election. If nothing else, it would allow Hillary the high note on which to end her campaign and change the media message, which otherwise dwell on her “failed campaign”. Not to mention that it would put her in good standing in those state should should she take a run in 2012 (God forbid) or 2016.

    3. A Hand in Choosing Obama's Vice-President

    If Hillary can't be Obama's vice-president (and it's looking like a remote possibility that she can), she more than likely wants to be in on the selection process. If she's positioning herself for a 2012 or 2016 run, she needs to keep her position as the preeminent female Democrat. Obviously it's going to make a political comeback down the road much more difficult if she has to square off against Vice President Kathleen Sebelius in 2016, (or VP candidate Sebelius in 2012). 

    My guess is, she would like to see a VP candidate who is sympathetic to her and appealing to her supporters, as well as (and this is key) someone who would make a backroom pledge to step aside in either 2012 or 2016 should Hillary want to run again.  Evan Bayh, Wes Clark, and Bill Richardson would all fit the bill nicely.

A lot has changed since I offered my last predictions on who the next vice president. For starters, both parties are fairly certain of who their nominees will be. Alliances have shifted; political fortunes have risen and fallen. We've seen some early signs of what the general election will bring. Therefore, there's no reason not to start talking vice-presidents. In Part I I'll take a look at possible Obama vice-presidental picks, and in the interest of fairness, I'll look at some McCain picks in Part II. The links are to some YouTube videos that illustrate the person's personality and style.

Heavyweight contenders: 

VA Sen Jim Webb: There's a lot of buzz surrounding Sen. Webb right now, and for good reason. He brings a lot to the table, first and foremost of which is deep military and government experience as a Vietnam vet and fmr Sec. of the Navy. He's a fresh face, from a swing state, and a macho Democrat who personifies change. Plus, what better for a candidate who looks to heal the racial divide than a Vietnam veteran who is happily married to a Vietnamese-American?

BUT, Webb does have a few black eyes. He is often gruff, and could have the possibility of making gaffes on the trail. He also has been married three times and may have skeletons in his closet. Plus, considering a sitting senator hasn't won the presidency since Kennedy–should we run a Senator/Senator ticket?

VA Gov. Tim Kaine: Gov. Kaine was one of the first public officials to jump on the Obama bandwagon…before there was a bandwagon. He's a popular and successful governor of a southern swing state to boot. On top of that, he has a sterling record: missionary in Honduras, graduate of Harvard Law, lawyer specializing in cases of people denied housing based on race or disability and crime-busting mayor and governor who got the state through the Virginia Tech tragedy. On paper, he's perfect.

BUT, he's only been governor for two years, bringing up the experience question. Also, he carries little name recognition outside of Virginia. Further, he's only passable on the stump–not a great orator.

NM Gov. Bill Richardson: Recent convert to the Obama camp, Gov. Richardson has long been touted as vice-president to whoever the nominee would turn out to be. To make a long story short, he's got experience out the wazoo. He's also Latino, offering the potential to make a historic candidacy even more historic. He's also well-known around the country, can be firebreather on the stump and a generally good-humored person with a very fashionable beard.

BUT, a lot of the country has an opinion of him as a political sycophant (as seen best on a pre-Iowa SNL skit). He's also known to make gaffes and is often hit-or-miss when he speaks. Also, it remains to be seen if a Richardson veep run would alienate the Clinton camp, still sore over his defection.

After this interesting exchange at last night's debate (around 2:21), many are starting to wonder if Hillary is preparing to concede the nomination. This insightful New York Times article points to several signs that this moment may have signaled the beginning of the end for camp Clinton.

Plus, the common wisdom suggests that any kind of Michigan/Florida credentials fight would be disastrous for Clinton and the party, and a superdelegate victory might be just as harmful. Other events could conspire to nudge Hillary out of the race as well–a shrinking war chest, an Edwards endorsement of Obama, or another Bill snafu, for example. Add that all up and it looks like bad news Bears all around for Hillary. 

So that raises the question: When will Hillary drop out and concede?

I'm curious to see how everyone thinks this will all play out now that we're definitely in the end-game of the nominating season. What's her exit strategy? Should we even be counting her out at this point?

Barack Obama is sitting pretty ten days before the Nevada caucuses, having snagged the endorsements of the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union as well as the Culinary workers and their parent union, UNITE HERE. UNITE HERE is the first national union to endorse Obama.

In September, the national SEIU was very close to endorsing Edwards, but backed off and left the decision to state chapters. Since then, 11 state chapters of the SEIU have backed Edwards, and four or five have backed Obama.

We are seeing the consequences of Iowa failing to deliver for John Edwards. The Nevada unions were ready to jump in for him if he had won here. He also would have been helped in Nevada by the California SEIU, which has already endorsed him. But now that the Nevada SEIU is behind Obama, state chapters backing other candidates can’t send their members to campaign in Nevada.

Edwards was never likely to do well in New Hampshire, but he would have had a real shot at Nevada with union backing. Now he is forced to focus on South Carolina, where he is substantially behind Obama and Clinton in the polls.

If Obama does win the nomination and the presidency, I seriously doubt he will do much for labor unions. That would interfere with his posturing as the bipartisan president pushing a unity agenda.

But it isn’t the first time labor unions have picked the candidate they viewed as most likely to win, rather than the candidate most likely to become their champion. That’s the way the world works.

UPDATE: Over at MyDD, Jonathan Singer wonders if these endorsements post a danger to Obama by raising his expectations in Nevada, where he has trailed Clinton in the polls:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user greenmountainboy was just in Nevada and has this to say:

The union workers and precinct captains are PISSED that their leaders pulled this crap of not supporting Edwards. They continue to run house parties for him and love the man. The power structure (Clinton and Obama) know that if Edwards gets any roots in ANY ONE of these states they are in for a real fight. If that happens watch how quickly Clinton and O’Baby join forces for “change”.

There has been a flurry of blog posts and news stories talking about the entrance polling and the results of the caucuses.  The basics we know include things like record turnout and a surge in the number of youth showing up to the Democratic caucuses, as well as ‘no party’ folks changing their registration to Democrat.

I don’t have the capacity nor the will power to significantly examine all of the results county by county, candidate by candidate.  But I can direct you towards some very interesting information.

First of all, if you’d like some detailed results and would like to see some maps, feel free to check out CaucusResults.com which has the detailed information about the results courtesy of the Iowa Democratic Party.  If you provided some information to the party prior to caucus night by visiting IowaCaucusResults.com then you should’ve received an email notification with a password so you could log in.  If you didn’t and would like to be able to see the information, feel free to email me and I can get you logged in.

Secondly, one of the big things that we’ve seen talked about is the amount of youth turnout for the caucuses.  Whether you call youth 17-24 year olds or 17-29 year olds it seems pretty clear that folks my age showed up and participated.  Iowa Student Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) put out a release talking about the numbers (which can be found here) and it clearly shows how the youth support was another cushion of support for Barack Obama.  The Register examined the same thing here, while also noting the evangelical Christian support that helped Huckabee.  The Register also provides a county map that shows which candidate won which county, including counties that are “ties” (at least according to percentage totals).  The breakdown follows like this:

• Barack Obama: 41 counties
• John Edwards: 29 counties
• Hillary Clinton: 25 counties
• Ties: 4 counties

Looking specifically at the four counties where there were ties, they were ties because the number of delegates for first place were evenly divided.  Three were tied for Clinton and Edwards; one was split for Clinton and Obama.

Finally, and I think this is one of most fascinating posts and discussion about the caucus results, go over to the Daily Yonder and read their post about how Democratic and Republican candidates did in rural Iowa.  Edwards’ strategy focused heavily on rural Iowa, and while it paid off for him a bit, it wasn’t the deciding fact simply because of the turnout Barack Obama was able to bring about in both urban and rural Iowa.  Fascinating piece of information alert:

“Both Edwards and Clinton won more votes in rural Iowa than in urban Iowa.”

I’ll leave that little bit of information to you guys to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things in this presidential race.  Any other interesting demographics or information you think we should talk about?

I’m not sure why this story wasn’t reported more or that no one was really covering this event, but it looks like Iowa Secretary of State Mike Mauro has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

“Mauro made his announcement Wednesday at an event in Des Moines, according to a Clinton campaign statement. He says the New York senator stands out among the other candidates and doesn’t have a “learning curve.”

Mauro says no one is more qualified or ready to lead than Clinton.”

This isn’t that big of a deal for Clinton’s campaign, but it is worthwhile to note that Clinton now has an elected statewide Democrat supporting her candidacy.

That means that Gov. Culver and Lt. Gov. Patty Judge are the only statewide elected Democrats not endorsing someone.  Iowa State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller have endorsed Barack Obama.

I’m not sure if there are any other major Iowa endorsements left, but things are really beginning to get locked up now.  Two weeks out and we’re down to the field game.  

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

A while back I wrote a diary on how tax reforms proposed by John Edwards would help the middle class. I am returning to the topic of Edwards and the middle class because I still occasionally see bloggers claim that his campaign is mainly focused on issues affecting poor people.

As it happens, a direct-mail piece that arrived in Iowa Democrats’ mailboxes late last week focuses on “The Edwards Economic Plan to Strengthen the Middle-Class.” I’ve reproduced the text of this mailer after the jump and added some thoughts.

With all the attention being given to who's going to be the Democratic nominee for president, I thought I'd continue my series of giving odds for stuff and offer my odds on who will be the Vice Presidental nominee for the Democrats' 2008 ticket.

NOTE: For the purposes of this scenario, one of the top three Democratic contenders wins the nomination. It's just easier for me to form a picture that way. Also, who ever wins the top job doesn't pick one of the other members of the Big Three. So no Clinton/Obama or Obama/Edwards tickets. Sorry.

3-1 Evan Bayh Centrist, Midwesterner, charming, handsome democrat. A former governor, present senator…what's not to love! He has endorsed Hillary, but did it early and quietly enough that it shouldn't stop someone else from picking him up. He balances out everyone except Edwards, who doesn't need a handsome middle aged white man to balance the ticket. Goes best with: Hillary, Obama.

4-1 Wes Clark Washington outsider, tough military image, competent on the stump–he could be perfect. Yet he has no political experience and has been seen hitting the bricks for Hillary. Also he has a perfect job lined up already–Secretary of Defense. Goes best with: Hillary, Obama, Edwards

7-1 Bill Richardson Diplomat? Check. Governor? Latino? Check. Check. Lots of connections? Check. Reliable? Depends. He's got a lot of perks, but he sometimes stumbles on the stump and could end up more trouble than he's worth. Did someone say UN Ambassador? Goes best with: Hillary, Edwards.

10-1 Joe Biden Like an old car, he's got a lot of perks–but high miles. He's also making some very sharp stabs at the competition right now, especially his favorite punching bag, Hillary. He's charming, experienced and he deserves it–but I have to imagine he'd be very high maintenance. And he could always be Secretary of State… Goes best with: Edwards, Obama

10-1 Chris Dodd The dark horse. Or should it be white horse? He's got a nice resume, and knows how to bring the brimstone on the stump. Yet will he want the position? Also, with his presidential campaign going nowhere, will the winning candidate look elsewhere? Goes best with: Edwards, Obama

12-1 Ted Strickland The popular Governor of Ohio, Strickland is an interesting case. He's only been Governor for a year, but he's popular and likeable. Although nobody outside of Ohio's ever heard of him, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation… Goes best with: Hillary, Obama, Edwards

15-1 Jim Webb The ultimate dark horse. The ultimate outsider. He's got a tough resume and image, perfect for a campaign looking to strike a manly, rugged pose. He might put Virginia in play, but he's a major loose cannon. And while he successfully danced around some skeletons in his senate race…the light shines much brighter on a Veep candidate. Goes best with: Hillary, Obama, Edwards.

20-1 Tom Vilsack Tommy Boy is as plain white bread as they come. He's a compitant campaigner and a nice guy, but yawn inducing. Plus, since he's so close to Hillary, it'd be hard to see him getting in elsewhere. Sorry, Tom, this ain't your year. Goes best with: Hillary

50-1 John Kerry He's got name recognition and he's been campaign tested. However, he lost. And the Republicans still have the Swift Boaters on speed dial. Maaaaaybe you better stay in the senate, John. Goes best with: Obama

500-1 Al Gore Been there, done that. Goes best with: Hillary, Obama, Edwards, on a ticket by himself–serving as his own VP, inventing the internet.

Who do you think it will be? Is there anyone I've left out? Would one of the Big Three pick another of the Big Three? 

Dennis Kucinich submitted a clear statement to Democracy For America Presidential Pulse Poll, outlining his bold leadership as the Progressive candidate in this election. As I can't really improve upon his clear and compelling words, I need only quote his letter: