Reply #6: The Democratic list is pretty weird

[karynnj]

Bill Richardson always seems to be put on these lists - but there seems nothing to recommend him to be President. He has no real appeal or strong suit and he has baggage.

Seeing that he didn't even put Kerry on the list, saying he's in a race with Frist to lose the most buzz makes no sense - as they've given him no credit for buzz for a year. My candidate for that would be Warner, who already seems to be cooling down - with some non-impressive Sunday performances. (Frist might be the right Republican choice, but I would pick Romney. He's had a set of high profile puff pieces, but I think people will see through him.

I really don't see Edwards taking it. He has nothing he didn't have in 2004. People rejected him then based on lack of substance, though they liked his perceived personality. His convention speech was a disappointment - his standard (focus group tested) stump speech that he didn't deviate from may have been the basis of his whole effort. His debate wasn't impressive - and left an image of being a bit unsubstancial. I really don't see how he improves on 2004.

The biggest mystery is why Feingold is left out. There is no one from the whole left to center of the party. As Clinton will at least start out as a big power, it would seem that the openning will be on the left. I think Feingold will be a slightly more successful version of Kuchinich. From the list the only one who really could fill in the space between Clinton and Feingold is Kerry. (I also think that's the spot to be - which may be why Edwards - contrary to his short record - is trying to move there.)