This news is a week old, but Ryan Lizza did a cover story on Hickenlooper for the New Yorker, which is unfortunately only available to subscribers.  But Politico posts some excerpts here, including Hickenlooper insisting that he has no plans to run for prez:

http://www.politico.com/playbook/0513/playbook10594.html

He dismissed the idea that someone with his background and propensity for indiscreet comments could ever occupy the Oval O?ce. ‘First separated but not divorced Presidential candidate!’ he told me when I asked. ‘That would be fun, that would be good for the media.’

Because he says "He wasn't a good President" and then says "but Clinton is the best in the past quarter century"

If you think that all US Presidents since Reagan have been pretty bad (like Jeff apparently does) its not absurd to say Clinton was the best of them, even though "he wasn't a good President". In that case he was the best of a bad lot.  

Except Bushie seems to go into every presidential election undecided, but thinking that both candidates are good people, who he'd be cool with becoming his president.

BRTD vs. BDSM vs. BTK?

(True story: When I first saw BRTD's username 10 years ago, I thought it was some kind of riff on the BTK killer.)

Bushie, you should take some kind of video recording device with you on to Kenya, then film everything and record a commentary track.  Put it up on Youtube, and become an internet sensation.  You're a master storyteller, so I'm sure it would generate interest.  Maybe even get a reality TV show deal out of it.

Not directly a 2016 campaign ad, but Rubio's PAC is also on the air in NH, defending Ayotte on guns.  Clear play by Rubio to gain favor with NH Republicans:

http://therun2016.com/rubio-defends-ayotte-in-new-hampshire/

Rubio's PAC is making a six figure ad buy in NH, in support of Ayotte's vote on background checks:

http://therun2016.com/rubio-defends-ayotte-in-new-hampshire/

Again, this serves Rubio's political interests in an obvious way: NH is an early primary state.  It's in Rubio's interest to curry favor with GOP pols in early primary states.

Addendum to my previous post: Thune is another one who could plausibly be on the short list for both Christie and Rubio.  But again, you run into the complication that his Senate seat is up in 2016, so he might want to stay in the Senate, and not agree to be vetted.  (Not sure on whether SD law allows him to run for both.)  So many of the GOP's bench of possibilities for a national ticket are in the Senate, in a seat that's up in 2016.

PPP poll of Hillary Clinton's favorability/unfavorability:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/05/voters-trust-clinton-over-gop-on-benghazi.html

fav/unfav: 52/44% for +8%

Some subgroups:

men: 46/49% for -3%
women: 57/38% for +19%
Democrats: 84/13% for +71%
Republicans: 20/76% for -56%
Independents: 45/49% for -4%
age 18-29: 58/42% for +16%
age 30-45: 47/49% for -2%
age 46-65: 54/40% for +14%
older than 65: 47/45% for +2%

30-45 year olds continue to be her weakest age subgroup....in sharp contrast to Obama, who's always done worst among olds.

Kaine seems like the most likely option for Clinton.  Schweitzer is another strong option if he runs for and wins that Senate seat in 2014, and can actually show that he's credible on national issues.  Booker will inevitably be included on the short list (assuming he wins that Senate seat in NJ, which appears all but certain), but I can't see him actually getting picked in the end.  Not sure who else might be in the mix.  Maybe one of those Western Senators who are under 60 (e.g., Bennet, Heinrich, Merkley....has any of them done anything of note to merit consideration?)?

Between Christie and Rubio, I assume that Christie would be more likely to pick a "rising star" type running mate, while Rubio would be more likely to pick someone with experience.  Rubio is younger, looks a *lot* younger, and will still be a one term Senator in 2016.  Christie will be in the back half of his second term as governor.  Christie's also more likely to make a "diversity" pick, whereas that's less relevant for Rubio.

So yeah, Martinez might be on Christie's radar, but maybe Ayotte as well.....more likely Ayotte as Christie's running mate than Rubio's, because she's another one term Senator.  However, I suspect she might take herself out of the veepstakes completely, because her seat is up in 2016.  Cathy McMorris Rodgers is another possibility, and I wouldn't rule out Jindal either.  Not sure if Rubio himself would even agree to be vetted as Christie's running mate, since Rubio's seat is up in 2016, and Florida law doesn't allow him to run for both.  Rubio will skip out of reelection if he can be the presidential nominee, but would he do the same for VP?  Or will he assume that Christie's going to lose to Clinton, stay in the Senate, and hope that the country will be sick of the Dems by 2020, so he can take another shot at the presidency then, when he's in his second Senate term?

For Rubio....I continue to think that Kasich is a very strong possibility for Rubio's running mate, assuming his reelection for governor in 2014.  Rubio, as a young one term Senator, will probably want something like an elder statesman as his running mate, but the GOP bench of elder statesman who would be plausible on a national ticket is actually rather thin at the moment.  Maybe Kasich is the closest thing there is.  Second term governor of a swing state who also has ample Washington experience from his nearly two decades in Congress.  Ticks all the relevant litmus test boxes, but isn't going to scare swing voters in the way the most extreme elements of the party might.

Portman's another option similar to Kasich (and is presumably more up on national issues than Kasich is, now that Kasich's been out of Congress for so long), but it remains to be seen whether the gay marriage issue might kill his chances, and there's the complicating factor that Portman's seat is also up in 2016.

And no, Rand Paul is not going to be considered for one second by either Christie or Rubio.

[Chris Christie]

Christie:
Susana Martinez
Chris Christie
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
John Kasich[/center

Christie's apparently a big enough man to fill both spots on the ticket.  Kind of like buying two plane tickets, because you're too big to fit in one seat.

A few excerpts from the script, including a sex scene (SPOILERS):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/13/some-of-the-juiciest-bits-of-rodham-the-hillary-clinton-movie-biopic-sex-scandal-more.html

Pages 3-4.
The screenplay’s opening description of Yale law student Hillary Rodham is less than flattering, to say the least. Early in the script, she’s seen tutoring Robert Reich at the Yale law school library while Joe Lieberman campaigns for his run for the Connecticut State senate. She is described as a blonde with an “awful haircut” whose face is obscured by a “hideous pair of Coke bottle glasses,” and is, in totality, “the valedictorian of the ‘look-like-sh**t school of feminism.’” Bill Clinton, meanwhile, is described as a “Viking” with a “full mane” and “six-inch beard.”

Pages 18-25.
Hillary and Bill go back to her apartment and “devour each other,” as Bill presses Hillary against the wall, tears off her blouse, and “buries his head into her cleavage.”  Their tryst, however, is broken up several times by messages playing from the answering machine, and never comes to fruition. Later on, Hillary complains about her sex life with Bill to two friends, claiming Bill is just using her for her D.C. apartment. When asked if the two have sex, she replies, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘sex’ means.”

Pages 89-91.
Bill Clinton’s mother, Virginia, disapproves of Hillary. She believes a woman needs to know her way around the kitchen but Hillary, according to Bill, doesn’t know how to cook. Later, she says that Hillary is “just a phase” for Bill, before pressing her to wear something prettier for her boy. Hillary ultimately is pressured into changing into a tight-fitting blue prom dress. Later, Bill Clinton’s half-brother, Roger Clinton Jr., 18, asks a group of people, “Who do you think f%$ked more women? Bill or Hillary?” to laughs from a crowd of Bill’s friends. Roger Clinton Jr. is depicted as a stoner who smokes marijuana out of a bong.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/China+imposes+trade+banking+sanctions+Korea/8374243/story.html

China is imposing unprecedented trade and financial sanctions on North Korea, but it is unclear whether the net is tight enough to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program.

Last week, China’s four largest state-controlled banks announced they are suspending business with North Korea’s Foreign Trade Bank, in line with instructions from Beijing.

And reports from South Korea say China has stepped up customs checks on goods destined for North Korea, which is seriously inhibiting trade.

Why would Syria want Turkey in the war? Color me skeptical.

Pro-Assad bombers doesn't necessarily mean bombers taking orders from Assad.  They could just be members of some pro-Assad militia lashing out at Turkey for aiding the rebels, not really thinking through the geopolitical consequences.

The presidential and vice presidential nomination system was so different before the 1970s that the reasons for why this would have happened back then were probably different.  But in terms of why there's been this difference post-1970s.....is part of it just the type of person who got Cabinet level appointments in the Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations vs. the type who got Cabinet level appointments in the Republican administrations of the same era.

The administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush included several people who either had already run for president or would eventually end up on a national ticket.  So you've got former UN ambassador and CIA director Bush put on the ticket in 1980, former HUD secretary Kemp in 1996, and former SecDef Cheney in 2000.  They had all served in the House as well, but their most recent political office had been some Cabinet level appointment.  Maybe the corresponding Democratic administrations just weren't as interested in appointing people with national political ambitions to their Cabinet, for whatever reason?

In any case, that difference might have faded now, since several Obama appointees are discussed as options for higher office some day.

Rather, people say it's time to end it and get beyond it because it was so long ago.

If he'd served his time, and had been out of jail for some time now, had gotten back to making movies....then fine, his crime was awful, but he paid the price for it, and it's in the past now.

But of course, he didn't pay the price for it.  He became a fugitive, and avoided serving jail time when he should have, when he was in the prime of his life.  Sorry, but no free pass for "it was a long time ago" if you never actually faced the music for your crime.

Ftr, I like some of Polanski's movies, but obvioiusly find him to be an awful person.  I think the long time that has passed since he first became a fugitive make his actions worse, not better, for reasons I explained three years ago in this post:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=120482.msg2576595#msg2576595

I hope everyone has enjoyed their day with their Mom.

Gee, thanks for rubbing in the fact that my Mom lives on a different continent, and I can't spend a day with her.  



We did have a video chat though.

EDIT: Actually, that's a good point Bushie.  Considering that even the move to Utah apparently made you homesick...when/if you move to Kenya, make sure to get a computer with a camera in it, and see if you can do the same for your parents, so you can have video chats over Google+ or Skype while you're away.  If you're actually not moving until 2016, then all the better.  That stuff will surely be pretty cheap by then.

I think the exact opposite is more likely: As the prohibitive frontrunner, Clinton contests every primary and caucus, because she kind of has to.  To skip some of them would be a sign of weakness.  However, whatever challenger or challengers she has will have to pick and choose which states to contest, and it wouldn't shock me if they skipped Iowa and let her win unopposed there, instead focusing on NH.  Iowa's got that brutal 15% viability threshold, which means that votes for your candidate at a given precinct don't count if they don't account for at least 15% of the vote there.  That results in longshot candidates getting horrendously low statewide totals.  (See, e.g., Richardson's, Biden's and Dodd's statewide %ages in Iowa in 2008.)

So, assuming that Clinton remains the heavy favorite for the nomination into early 2016, whatever challenger she has might want to just skip Iowa and go straight to NH, hoping that NH's history of strong showings for maverick candidates will be more fertile ground for their campaign.  Even if her challenger can't actually defeat her in any primaries, they could at least hope for a moral victory of a 30%+ showing in NH, a la Pat Buchanan's moral victory in NH in 1992.

Sex with children being legal is worse than SSM being illegal?  Mubarak killing peaceful protestors by the "tens of thousands" is worse than SSM being illegal?

Paul brought this up again in Iowa btw:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/rand-paul-hillary-clinton-benghazi-91195.html?hp=r4_b1

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Friday that he considers Hillary Clinton “absolutely responsible” for failing to stop the chaos and bloodshed at the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, last September.

Speaking to reporters ahead of his address to the Iowa GOP’s Lincoln Dinner this evening, Paul accused Clinton of ignoring diplomatic security as secretary of State. He expressed disbelief at suggestions that Clinton should be absolved of blame because diplomatic security-related cables never got to her.

Clinton is “absolutely responsible,” Paul said. “She was in charge of the State Department. She was asked repeatedly for increased security for Benghazi. Some of the media have been reporting that because she didn’t read them she’s protected – she wasn’t responsible because she didn’t read them? I fault her absolutely for not reading the cables.”

Congrats Phil.

Does your mother know that Bushie wishes her a happy Mother's Day?

Watch from about 2:00 to 2:45:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j-76eLz1hc

[Another thread that we can bump in three years to laugh at ourselves.]

Now that Florida appears on track to move its primary to Super Tuesday, it looks like the most likely ordering for the opening round of primaries and caucuses, the once that come before Super Tuesday, is:

Iowa caucus
New Hampshire primary
Nevada caucus (though they might switch to a primary)
South Carolina primary
Arizona & Michigan primaries on the same day

It's obviously early, but that looks like the preliminary lineup.  Assuming that holds up, anyone want to offer super early predictions on who wins each of those on the GOP side?

[Assume whatever you think is realistic regarding who runs.  But my default field of candidates includes Christie, Jindal, Rubio, Paul, Santorum, Walker, either Cruz or Perry, maybe Carson and maybe McDonnell.  I don't think Bush or Ryan will run, but you can predict whatever you like.  Or apply the "$1 million test"...imagine that someone offers you $1 million to correctly predict each of these six contests, without any foreknowledge of who's running.  What would you guess?]

You can do the same for the Dem. side too, but I assume it'll be awfully boring if Clinton runs.  You could try predicting the scenario in which she stays out of it though.

Paul never flip flopped on drones. Who/ what is your news source?

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flop

And they would be wrong.

"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

Justify this statement.

IIRC, he later tried to clean up that statement, clarifying that what he meant was that if there was some kind of emergency situation in which a perp was threatening someone with a gun, some kind of a scenario in which a police officer would ordinarily fire on the suspect, it really doesn't matter if it's a cop or a drone that fires at him.  But he contrasted that with the particular use of drones that he was filibustering against, which was shooting at a terrorism suspect who was *not* that second in the middle of threatening someone's life.....that is, the form of drone use used against Awlaki, where the guy was just sitting around at home or something.