Reply #12: My take:

[ZootSuitGringo]

EVAN BAYH — Senator who is too conservative, too stiff, and too accomodating to GOP to win Dem primaries. Could win general election on imagery though, as long as the GOP candidate is a lightweight too. He doesn't have the where-with-all to fight the GOP smear machine though. We might be 25% better off with him in office as opposed to opponent, as he would cow to GOP pressure at every step. Watch the military defense budget bloat, and cowardise to do anything about recalling tax cuts. Foreign policy would somewhat improve, but he's an unknown quantity who has bowed to GOP previously to vote for the IWR and everything else wanted by the GOP on Foreign policy.

JOE BIDEN — Bullshiting "finger in the wind" Hawk Senator. He stands for nothing and everything all at the same time. Vanity candidate who is a legend in his own mind.

WESLEY CLARK — Has an upward battle in the primaries due to many Democrats who are scared shitless of military anything. Would neutralize national security issue for the Dems better than any other. Has a chance to win primary if he starts early, mobilizes his grassroot support, gets some insider backing, southwest and southern states have primaries earlier than before, and the country continues on it's patriotic/terror war/invading foreign countries/culture war downward spiral. Stands a good chance of winning a general election as a non-partisan uniter (who actually leans left). Would be the best bet in being the one that can deflate defense budget to apply those funds to domestic policies. Would fare well in all states, including the red ones and purple ones. I think he is the one that would bring honesty and transparency to the WH.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON — Hate to say that this country is not ready for a woman president who's resume is heavy with being a President's wife and a one term senator from a blue state. The media want's her, and she knows it. She is also aware that the media would crucify her once she got the Dem Nom, so she may be smart enough not to run. If she runs, she sucks all of the money and momentum out of the room. I wouldn't support her until the general election, but she would still lose.

JOHN EDWARDS — Can't carry his own state. Doesn't help us in any of the toss up regions IMO. Until he realizes that his IWR vote helped made this country poorer, and that Foreign policy activities directly affects our domestic policies in the short and long run, he won't get my primary vote. I consider him a lightweight that would have a hard time in a general election against just about anyone. The matching outfits with John Kerry really made him look like a tool without his own personality. His wife is an asset, but not enough of one to win the general election. His mannerism can be grating and a turn off to voters.

RUSS FEINGOLD — Russ' liberalism and principled stances looks good in a Dem primary, but becomes a liability in the general election. His votes against most military interventions and defense systems going back quite far is not a plus in the general. Even the one war that the Pope supported (Kosovo)as a just war, Feingold voted against. This will make him the most vunerable (of the potention candidates)in the National Security area in this post-9/11 election. He has a good chance of winning the primaries, and has a 90% of being smeared as "weaker than Kerry on defense" during the general. The fact that he is Jewish and a Senator will also play a role in Dems losing the 2008 election if he is the nom. President Feingold would be a radical move that I don't see this country making just quite yet.

JOHN KERRY — Kerry is a good guy, but has been branded a loser. Democrats will not give him a chance at a re-do. The Fool me once, fool me twice mantra will stick in the mind of the mass primary voter who didn't get wind of the "voting machine" implication. Considering that many had doubts about Kerry, even after he won the Nom, will make it harder for voters to cast another vote for him.

BILL RICHARDSON — Viable minority candidate, although there may be too many skeletons in his closet; most which will come out during the primaries. He's does not have the presidential imagery qualities that many voters look for. His part in the "Lee" case sunk his VP chances back in 2000 and will revisit him in 2008. He could make a good VP candidate as long as lights don't shine too bright on his past mistakes (that were never really cleared up).

TOM VILSACK — We will never elect a President that has "sack" in his name. He is bland, unenergizing and stands for nearly nothing. The lack of National Security and Foreign policy creds of any kind and his lack of any real accomplishment (beyond a law passed for English only education) really makes him one of the weakest potential candidates out there. He would be the "invisible" candidate.

MARK WARNER — Warner should run for senate. He is also bland, appears weak, and unexciting as a national candidate. He would have made a better candidate in 1992. He could win the primaries just on Dem's fears of electing anything but what the GOP dictates, and might win the general election as long as the GOP opponent is also bland and inexperienced in all foreign matters.