Gingrich, hands down. Huckabee and Palin votes will go to him in a majority and Daniel voters will split

LOL. There are No Daniels voters to split right now.

How many Obama voters were there in 2006?

I don't think Mitch is equivalent to Obama in celebrity, and I don't think Mitch wants to run at all, according to him.

Obama also said he wouldn't run in 2008 numerous times between 2004 and 2006. Daniels could change his mind.

But Obama and Hillary were popular celebrities.  Daniels doesn't have the cult-like following yet nor does he have a strong leadership position in the party like other potential candidates.  The only thing he has going for him as an ace card is his geographical influence.  He really needs a big personality to win a national election.

Its a shame and kind of ironic that the only reason that Muslims are looked as terrorists is because of Western colonialization of Palestine, and want self-rule and free immigration to jeruselum.  It shows that in this global world, religion is still a strong force in our daily lives and political lives.

No, the only reason Muslims are looked at as terrorists now is due to 9/11. No offense, but before 9/11, when many Americans heard the term Muslim, they thought about turbans, genies, and magic carpets. Also, Israel wanted to achieve peace for 20 years, and what happens in Israel and Palestine doesn't really get covered that much by the U.S. media.

I thought some of the motivations for 9/11 was because of palestine and western occupation.  I still don't understand why Israel is a theocracy.  Can non-Jews immigrate to the country just as easily as Jewish people?

Obama was more well known in 2004-2006 than Warner is now since the media made a much bigger deal about him. If you think Warner will run, go ahead. However, the best candidate doesn't always win and there is no guarantee that Warner isn't a wimp. If Hillary runs in 2016, we'll see in six years which one of us was right.

Warner will run basically because he will be the right age to run, and he won't wait until he is ready to collect social security.  Again, it has nothing to do with Hillarity's decision. 
If you are judging HIllary's chances based on her national polling numbers, you're in for a rude awakening.  Many candidates had leading polls nationally only to lose handily in Iowa, NH, or SC, such as Rudy, Dean, Hillary, while others have come from behind in Iowa like Kerry, Obama, Edwards.  Warner is well positioned because he is from a Swing state who can speak to socially conservative Iowa voters.  Hillary finished 3rd in Iowa behind Edwards, so how could she been ahead in all the national polls and lose to John Edwards???
You've obviously never worked for a campaign, so I'll tell you that GOTV is the reason people win in Iowa, NH, and elsewhere despite what the polling says.  As SOS, Hillary no longer runs a political campaign staff, while Warner still has a campaign staff ready and volunteers ready to canvas for him in Virginia and move with him to Iowa and SC.  Hillary cannot expect to be anointed to the presidency because she is more celebrity than substance.  Warner has the substance and executive experience.

Just because someone is the right age to run for President doesn't mean they are going to run. That is an overly simplistic view. Many Presidential candidates do collapse nationally over time. However, that is typically when their opponents have good arguments to use against them and what good arguments will Warner use against Hillary?

And Warner is no more socially conservative than Hillary, so I'm not sure why he would appeal to social conservatives better than Hillary would.

Hillary might not have a campaign operation right now, but she could easily restart one when she runs considering that she has 18 million supporters and large fundraising connections.

Many voters don't care for substance--it they did, then Biden, Dodd, or Richardson would have won in 2008. Even with her losses in IA and SC in 2008, Hillary won 18 million votes and almost beat Obama (and that was with her making many campaign mistakes).

Hillary will definitely be able to count on the support of most of her '08 supporters as well as on many black and female voters that supported Obama in 2008. Unless Warner can somehow get 20 million supporters on his side, I find it very unlikely that he will beat Hillary if he decides to run.

For all I know, Warner could be another wimp just like Gore and Cuomo were.

I'm not sure why you think Hillary has accomplished more than Warner.  Seriously, she served just 1 1/2 terms as a Senator and now SoS.  Warner will be a governor and a 2 term Senator. Just because Hillary is a "Big Name Celebrity" does not mean she has any accomplishments or leadership skills.  The recent Presidents have all been under the age of 60, and I think that trend will continue.  Anyone over 62 will be ready for Social Security and retirement and no one will think they have the health capacity to survive the stress of 8 years in office.  McCain and Dole lost big time because they were seen as too old.  Warner will be the spry youngster taking on the elderly Hillary.  Hillary is from NYC and basically the rest of the country thinks NYC is a liberal bastion and atheist.  Again, she may have had 18 million supporters, but Edwards and Obama had a lot of supporters as well, and they voted against Hillary for a reason.  Even, with 18 million voters, Hillary still LOST!  So there is no guarantee she will win in 2016.  People like change and they want a better future.  They don't want a retread who is wrong on the important issues (iraq).  I can easily say the Obama and Edwards voters will go to Warner and he will defeat Hillary, that's simple math, because 18 million voters still meant she LOST.  How do you even know Hillary will run in 2016?  It will be more likely that she will NOT RUN!  As for wimps, Hillary should have run in 2004 because after all, she had 8 years of White House internship as first Lady.  I'm not sure why you are so anti-Warner or you call him a "wimp."  That is a slanderous statement because he has made no indications he is scared of Hillary in 2016.  He has the resume, Senator, Governor, and wealth to mount a serious and credible Presidential campaign in 2016.  You are just scared of Warner because he is the best candidate to defeat Hillary.  He is running whether you like it or not, and especially whether Hillary likes it or not.

I think Crist should run for President.  He'd get the evangelical, hispanic, and gay vote.

Plus he's not the anti-Crist

Hello, Einstein. Crist is no longer even a Republican and I doubt he could become acceatable again in 2012 to have any shot at the nomination if rejoins.

Oh, and he need to win Senate race first.

I'm saying he should skip the Senate race and just run for president.  No one cares about stupid senators, they are just dinosaurs taking decades to craft a bill that no one likes.  He's a leader, and executive as governor.  He can run in the presidential primary and be more likeable than barbour, thune or daniels.  People in florida like him, hispanics like him.  Gays like him.  Evangelicals like him.  He's the perfect man for the job. He's married to a jewish woman. He is America.

So if Crist runs for President in 2012, which party should he run with? Many Republicans dislike him for being a RINO and many Democrats consider him a political opportunist who has no genuine political positions. Thus I don't see either party nominating him in 2012. Independents never win Presidential races so running as an Independent would not be a possibility for Crist unless he just wants to run for President and lose.

He only left the Republicans because they told him to run for Senate when he did not want to.  He still has strong supporters and friends in the GOP.  He needs to abandon the Senate race, unless he thinks he can win it.  He needs to focus on winning Iowa and SC.  He certainly a better candidate than Romney and possibly Barbour.  He's also a strong VP candidate but if he becomes Senator, he is a slam-dunk to be VP someday.

Gingrich, hands down. Huckabee and Palin votes will go to him in a majority and Daniel voters will split

LOL. There are No Daniels voters to split right now.

How many Obama voters were there in 2006?

I don't think Mitch is equivalent to Obama in celebrity, and I don't think Mitch wants to run at all, according to him.

Actually it makes perfect sense.

Since Judaism is a maternal religion, it's passed by blood by the maternal line. So, according to Jewish law (lore perhaps), Steve Allen was a Jew by blood.

I actually think Obama should be proud to be half-Muslim or to have a Muslim Father or to have Muslim sympathies.  Being Muslim is such a pejorative and its a code word for Terrorist.  But there are peaceful Muslims, and Obama's Father and African relatives are peaceful Muslims, and Obama would be a peaceful Muslim if he ever chose to practice as a Muslim. 

Many religions such as Judaism are passed down in the blood line, so I'm not sure why that same rationale can't be used for Muslim, Catholic, and Christian religions or ethnicities.  If someone has a FAther who is Muslim, it is rational to assume the son is Muslim if he shares the same name.  If someone is Irish or Italian, it is likely they are Roman Catholic. 

We live in a religious world, where people strongly practice their faith and have their personal identities tied to their Faith.  If Obama wants to celebrate his Muslim ancestry, he should be proud of it and not be afraid at Right-Wing critics.  Obama should be proud of his Father and proud of his African cousins.

I suppose you can say that all religions are typically passed down the blood line, or the family line. However, people always have the right to change their religions and many people often do that. Nowadays, there are many cases of people marrying others of different religions, and also many cases of children having different religions than their parents.

And I seriously doubt Obama cares much for the faith of his ancestors, or for this own faith for that matter. And as a side note, Obama's ancestors on his mother's side were Christian.

Well I believe Obama wrote about about Dreams of His Father, and I know Obama is proud of His father.  Obama is not ashamed of being a Muslim decendant and his Father's son.  He embraces his Muslim heritage and his Muslim family.  Obama has a Right to be a Muslim if he chose to practice.  His Father was born a Muslim and Obama needs to respect his Father's faith and the Faith of his ancestors and step-siblings.  Obama is proud to have Muslim blood and he should not be scared or afraid because Right Wingers taint Muslim faith with Terrorism.  Obama comes from a Muslim family on his Father's side and he has no right to be ashamed, this is America you can be a Muslim and still be President.

George Allen used to be ashamed of his Jewish heritage and his mother hid it from her children.  He has embraced his half-Jewish bloodline, and all Americans should embrace their bloodlines and not be ashamed because Right Wingers think you are a terrorist or un-American or un-Christian.

George Allen would have been wise to accept  his Jewish bloodline and learn from it, and the cultural achievements of Jews.  Think of what the Jews have given the West -- Einstein, Freud, Kafka, Mahler, Gershwin, Spinoza, Disraeli, Buber... Judaism is no shame. (I'm not Jewish, by the way). He might never have had that un-Jewish "Macaca moment" and he might have never let his staffers beat up a heckler.

...Islam has its virtues, too. Anyone who wants to see the difference between a world influenced by Islam contrasted to one clearly un-Islamic need only look at the contrast between Michigan Avenue in southwestern Detroit (sexually-related businesses, lots of liquor stores,  whores on the street) and Dearborn, where the businesses are more family-friendly, and where any wayward whores are picked up by the Dearborn police before they can ply their trade and public drunks go to jail, go directly to jail, and do not collect $200.  Sure, Dearborn is not even majority-Muslim, but lots of Christians and Jews happen to like things that way, too.

Its a shame and kind of ironic that the only reason that Muslims are looked as terrorists is because of Western colonialization of Palestine, and want self-rule and free immigration to jeruselum.  It shows that in this global world, religion is still a strong force in our daily lives and political lives.

Obama was more well known in 2004-2006 than Warner is now since the media made a much bigger deal about him. If you think Warner will run, go ahead. However, the best candidate doesn't always win and there is no guarantee that Warner isn't a wimp. If Hillary runs in 2016, we'll see in six years which one of us was right.

Warner will run basically because he will be the right age to run, and he won't wait until he is ready to collect social security.  Again, it has nothing to do with Hillarity's decision. 
If you are judging HIllary's chances based on her national polling numbers, you're in for a rude awakening.  Many candidates had leading polls nationally only to lose handily in Iowa, NH, or SC, such as Rudy, Dean, Hillary, while others have come from behind in Iowa like Kerry, Obama, Edwards.  Warner is well positioned because he is from a Swing state who can speak to socially conservative Iowa voters.  Hillary finished 3rd in Iowa behind Edwards, so how could she been ahead in all the national polls and lose to John Edwards???
You've obviously never worked for a campaign, so I'll tell you that GOTV is the reason people win in Iowa, NH, and elsewhere despite what the polling says.  As SOS, Hillary no longer runs a political campaign staff, while Warner still has a campaign staff ready and volunteers ready to canvas for him in Virginia and move with him to Iowa and SC.  Hillary cannot expect to be anointed to the presidency because she is more celebrity than substance.  Warner has the substance and executive experience.

Warner did not think being a 1 term governor made him ready to run for president (unlike Romney) and he wisely declined to run after fishing around NH and Iowa.  I'm sure he knew John warner was leaning towards retiring, they are friends.  Warner is running because he will be a 2 term Senator, Governor and he is the RIGHT AGE to be president.  Hillary will be a very old lady and very vulnerable.  Warner does not need to attack Hillary to be successful or be a VP candidate, he just needs to make his own case.  Warner IS NOT SCARED OF HILLARY, so please stop thinking he is.  Warner is rich and does not need to Fund-raise a ton of money.
You are looking at polls in 2010?  Come on, in 2015, Hillary will be old, and every Democrat in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and Iowa know about Mark Warner.  In 2004, no one knew about Obama and he won in 2008.  Warner is far ahead from where Obama was in 2004 pre-DNC.

Warner WILL RUN in 2016 even thought you think he is wasting his time and money and is a "Joke Candidate."  He'll win because he will be a better president than Hillary ever would be.
So you are saying even though Hillary should have won in 2008, Obama should have beat her in Iowa according to polls.  By your logic, Obama should have folded his campaign because he was behind in national polls.  That is simply crazy talk.  Warner will be competitive in Iowa and will likely beat Hillary in Iowa, and SC.  I'm not sure why you doubt a politicians balls, but Mark Warner IS NOT SCARED OF HILLARY OR ANYONE ELSE.  He will run for President because he is the Right Age, the most qualified, and has the most Executive Leadership Experience.  It doesn't matter what Hillary does or does not do.  Hillary can bring peace to Israel, Afghanistan, and North/South Korea, and Mark Warner will still be running for president in 2016.  He will not chicken out, he is not AFRAID of losing like wimps like Gore, Bayh, and Mario Cuomo.  This is Real Life, and elections only happen every 4 years.  There is a tiny window for anyone to be electable.  In fact, Hillary should have run and won the Presidency in 2004.  She waited too long and the anti-Iraq voters over came her.  Hillary is NOT Electable, but Mark Warner is from a Red-state and will turn Virginia.  Hillary will lost Virginia, Florida, and possibly Ohio.  Obama won Ohio and Indiana, Hillary would have certainly lost Indiana.
Cheney and Kemp both had exploratorty committees, so they at least thought about being a presidential candidate.  A VP candidate is much stronger in the public perception if he has gone through the vigors and debated national and foreign issues with the public.  Gore, Biden, and Edwards got on tickets because they were Vetted by the Public.  It Simply is the sure-fire way to be seen as a serious VP candidate.  Bayh would be Hillary's VP choice, so basically Warner has nothing to lose in going head-to-head against Hillary in 2016.
Hillary is powerless right now, she has done nothing!  You may support Hillary, but I just think Warner is a better qualified candidate and will win a national election.  Warner will win the Red states unlike Hillary.  You are over-stating Hillary position in the Obama administration, should Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, or Madeline Albright run for president?  How about Tom Vilsack, Salazaar?  Being a Democrat would be enought to support Warner.
Warner is simply not concerned about Fundraising, name recognition, or supporters.  He will run because IT IS HIS TIME TO RUN. 
HE IS NOT SCARED OF HILLARY OR ANY OTHER CRAZY FACTORS.  HE IS HIS OWN MAN!
Warner may not beat Hillary, but HE WILL RUN BECAUSE HE IS NOT SCARED OF HER.  He will not wait until 2024 for "His Turn at the presidency"

Barbour may be a first-class political operative, but does anyone really thing he's electable nationally?

I guess not.

All Barbour needs is to win Ohio and Florida.  He will win Florida.

Thune is so popular in South Dakota the Democrats decided running anyone against him just wasn't worth the effort. That's something at least.

So that would mean Lugar should have been Presidential material in 2008 since the Dems failed to nominate an opponent against him in 2006?

I think Lugar was too old and even Lugar himself thought he was too old and didn't run.

Actually it makes perfect sense.

Since Judaism is a maternal religion, it's passed by blood by the maternal line. So, according to Jewish law (lore perhaps), Steve Allen was a Jew by blood.

I actually think Obama should be proud to be half-Muslim or to have a Muslim Father or to have Muslim sympathies.  Being Muslim is such a pejorative and its a code word for Terrorist.  But there are peaceful Muslims, and Obama's Father and African relatives are peaceful Muslims, and Obama would be a peaceful Muslim if he ever chose to practice as a Muslim. 

Many religions such as Judaism are passed down in the blood line, so I'm not sure why that same rationale can't be used for Muslim, Catholic, and Christian religions or ethnicities.  If someone has a FAther who is Muslim, it is rational to assume the son is Muslim if he shares the same name.  If someone is Irish or Italian, it is likely they are Roman Catholic. 

We live in a religious world, where people strongly practice their faith and have their personal identities tied to their Faith.  If Obama wants to celebrate his Muslim ancestry, he should be proud of it and not be afraid at Right-Wing critics.  Obama should be proud of his Father and proud of his African cousins.

I suppose you can say that all religions are typically passed down the blood line, or the family line. However, people always have the right to change their religions and many people often do that. Nowadays, there are many cases of people marrying others of different religions, and also many cases of children having different religions than their parents.

And I seriously doubt Obama cares much for the faith of his ancestors, or for this own faith for that matter. And as a side note, Obama's ancestors on his mother's side were Christian.

Well I believe Obama wrote about about Dreams of His Father, and I know Obama is proud of His father.  Obama is not ashamed of being a Muslim decendant and his Father's son.  He embraces his Muslim heritage and his Muslim family.  Obama has a Right to be a Muslim if he chose to practice.  His Father was born a Muslim and Obama needs to respect his Father's faith and the Faith of his ancestors and step-siblings.  Obama is proud to have Muslim blood and he should not be scared or afraid because Right Wingers taint Muslim faith with Terrorism.  Obama comes from a Muslim family on his Father's side and he has no right to be ashamed, this is America you can be a Muslim and still be President.

George Allen used to be ashamed of his Jewish heritage and his mother hid it from her children.  He has embraced his half-Jewish bloodline, and all Americans should embrace their bloodlines and not be ashamed because Right Wingers think you are a terrorist or un-American or un-Christian.

I'm not age-blind. I just didn't view McCain's age as that big of a deal. An actuarial firm did a study where they projected McCain would have a 76% chance of surviving until 2017. And there was no guarantee McCain would have been reelected, so that would have decreased his chances of dying in office even more. I was more concerned about McCain's judgment and honesty than his age. Besides, Hillary would probably be in better health than McCain was in 2016 and she wouldn't be foolish enough to pick an incompetent VP. That should remove most concerns about her age. And I doubt most Democrats are that concerned about political dynasties. Hillary could just say that she'll be a different leader and President than her husband was. Having a President who isn't a Bush or a Clinton for 8 years should also allay some fears about political dynasties. You claim that Obama's lack of time in Washington helped him a lot. Well, Warner didn't serve any time in Washington at all before 2008. Thus, not being in Washington would have also helped him. Besides, Warner announced that he wouldn't run in 2008 when everyone thought Obama wouldn't run either. Thus, his decision was completely independent of Obama's decisions. Warner was just scared that Hillary was going to run and beat him. I seriously doubt Warner's name recognition is much higher than it was in 2006. No one remembers his speech from the DNC in 2008 since the media didn't make a big deal out of it and since Obama's, Biden's, Bill's, and Hillary's speeches overshadowed his. I agree that Hillary might not run, but if she does, than that would mean that things are going well in the country and thus I seriously doubt Warner (or many other prominent Democrats) would challenge her. Most of Hillary's opponents (with the exception of Obama and Edwards) were joke opponents who couldn't defeat her no matter how hard they tried. Just because someone has Presidential ambitions and it's their last chance to run doesn't mean that they are going to if the polls don't look well for them. 2008 was Al Gore's last chance to run and he definitely had Presidential ambitions (considering he lost by 500 votes in 2000), yet he chose not to run because the polls showed him losing to Hillary by a larger margin. What makes you think Warner will be any different? After 1924, there have been only two cases in the Democratic Party where the establishment candidate lost the nomination--in 1972 and 2008. And in 2008, Obama was an exceptional candidate and beat Hillary by a very narrow margin. Historically, it is very rare for establishment candidates to lose the nomination and 2008 was an exception to this rule because the issues that year did not favor Hillary. If Hillary runs in 2016, though, she will be the frontrunner and the issues will favor her. I'm not sure if Hillary will be SOS for all 8 years, but I don't think it matters since her close runner-up status in 2008 should be enough to give her the nomination if she wants it. Obama will not oppose her since he would not want to ruin his improving relations with Bill and Hillary and also because opposing a member of your own Administration is unprecedented in U.S. politics. And the overwhelming majority of Hillary's supporters will be around in 2016, considering that most of her support did not come from the very old. Warner will not win SC if Hillary runs since he isn't black like Obama. And most people over 30 (in 2016) will remember Clinton in 2016, at least somewhat, so he will still have a lot of influence among middle-aged and older voters. Being or running for VP doesn't help much in becoming President. Over the last 170 years, only one sitting VP (Bush Sr.) and one losing VP candidate (FDR) successfully became President. News flash: Not all Senators want to become President or VP. I'm not sure if Warner still wants either office. If he wanted to become VP, then he wouldn't have told Obama in 2008 that he was uninterested, since Obama actually seriously considered him for the VP slot. Just because Hillary doesn't have much power doesn't mean that she doesn't still have political ambitions, considering how close she came last time around. Carter and Bill Clinton were Presidents. Hillary wasn't. Thus, the comparisons between them are moot. Democrats would want establishment candidates in 2008 because that's traditionally whom they favored and because they would want someone to continue Obama's policies. Most Democrats did not support Nader and Dean--most Democrats supported Gore and Kerry--the establishment candidates who won the nomination. Hillary probably won't be the only candidate in 2016, but most or all of her opponents will be joke opponents who she would easily defeat if she ran. Also, Hillary won't make the same mistakes that she made in 2008. Again, if Hillary runs in 2016, then Warner will not run because he will not have an effective message against her and because he would be trailing Hillary in the polls by a lot. Obama only managed to defeat Hillary in 2008 by a very narrow margin due to exceptional circumstances and due to being a phenomenal candidate. Those exceptional circumstances will NOT be there in 2016 and Warner is NOT a phenomenal candidate like Obama was.

Well, McCain's age and senility were certainly an issue.  While I do think Hillary is smarter than McCain, another younger upstart can beat her in Iowa and SC.  Warner did not run because the Senate seat opened up.  There was room for only one Newbie, and that was Obama.  Warner was also scared of Hillary in 2008, but with 2 terms in the Senate he won't be the scared puppy in 2016.  It will be Warner's Time and Hillary's will be in the sunset of her political life.  Again, Warner would have lost to Obama in 2008 if he ran, so he chose to run for the Senate seat, which he was polling far ahead, he knew that he can win the presidency in 2016.  Obama's "Change and Inexperience campaign" was very risky, and frankly, he got lucky that Edwards sucked off 1/3 of the voters in Iowa.  If it was just Hillary vs Obama in Iowa, Obama might have lost.  Frankly, you are foolish to think that Democrats don't know who Warner is, are you even registered in the Democratic primaries?  People in SC know Warner, and people in Iowa will soon know him as well.  Why the heck would the other Senators not run in 2016 because they are scared of Hillary, Come on, they are real men, not wimps.  Hillary is old, she is yesterday's news.  Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were not scared of her, and no one else will be scared of her in 2016.  Maybe you are on Hillary's payroll, but She WILL NOT have a uncontested 2016 Democratic Primary.  Sometimes you get lucky, no one predicted Kerry would beat Dean.  No one thought Obama would beat Hillary.  You naively overestimate Hillary's power.  Al Gore is boring and he should not have lost to Nader, he does not deserve a second chance.  I actually think Warner would be Obama's choice to replace him in 2016 rather than Hillary.  Warner is younger and has more Executive experience.  Warner is from a red-state and can actually win a National Election.  Hillary is from a Blue-state and I question her strength in any Red-state.  Especially if she has a strong Republican rival, she WILL lost the swing states.  Obama cares about winning elections, and Trust me Warner is stronger in a National election than Hillary because Warner can actually win Virginia.  Even if Warner wants to be VP, no one will think he is ready for it unless he has a presidential campaign.  That's a fact, every viable VP candidate ran a presidential campaign.  I would bet Hillary chooses Bayh over Warner if that were the case.  Warner was not ready to be president or VP in 2008, that is why he ran for Senate.  Warner will be ready in 2016, and he IS the FRONTRUNNER IN 2016 and NOT Hillary.  Hillary is SOS, she should be going to North Korea and other hotspots, she has simply done nothing of importance.  Hillary needs to go to Israel and bring peace there like Bill almost did and not let George Mitchell run the show.  Face it, Hillary is a lightweight and has no power or importance.  If Warner is a "joke candidate" in 2016, then so be it, but Warner wants to be president, as I have repeated over and over again.  He will run in 2016, no matter what Hillary decides.  Just accept that Warner will run in 2016 because he wants to.  It doesn't matter if Warner loses, he wants to be president someday and you can't sit out like that wimp Bayh and pray you get chosen as VP.  Warner is a better candidate than Hillary.  Warner has executive experience and he is from a Red state.  He will be the new "Bill Clinton"

Actually it makes perfect sense.

Since Judaism is a maternal religion, it's passed by blood by the maternal line. So, according to Jewish law (lore perhaps), Steve Allen was a Jew by blood.

I actually think Obama should be proud to be half-Muslim or to have a Muslim Father or to have Muslim sympathies.  Being Muslim is such a pejorative and its a code word for Terrorist.  But there are peaceful Muslims, and Obama's Father and African relatives are peaceful Muslims, and Obama would be a peaceful Muslim if he ever chose to practice as a Muslim. 

Many religions such as Judaism are passed down in the blood line, so I'm not sure why that same rationale can't be used for Muslim, Catholic, and Christian religions or ethnicities.  If someone has a FAther who is Muslim, it is rational to assume the son is Muslim if he shares the same name.  If someone is Irish or Italian, it is likely they are Roman Catholic. 

We live in a religious world, where people strongly practice their faith and have their personal identities tied to their Faith.  If Obama wants to celebrate his Muslim ancestry, he should be proud of it and not be afraid at Right-Wing critics.  Obama should be proud of his Father and proud of his African cousins.

In 2016, Hillary would be younger than McCain was in 2008. McCain's age wasn't much of an issue in 2008, and considering Hillary has even less health problems than McCain, her age won't be much of an issue as well. Not all Democrats are against nepotism and political dynasties--Hillary did get 18 million votes, after all. If Obama appoints her to the Supreme Court, then obviously she won't be running in 2016, but I don't see him doing that. In 2008, Warner had the advantages of being a fresh face and an electable moderate, two qualities which many Democrats wanted that year.
Also, Warner was Virginia Governor for just as long as Obama was in the Senate. Thus, Warner did have the necessary experience to run for President in 2008. In 2016, he will still have low name recognition and would be trailing Hillary in the polls by huge margins. Also, there would be no strong argument that he could use to explain why he would be a better President than Hillary. Not all rich guys and politicians want to be President. It is a very stressful job after all. Besides, what's the point of spending tens of millions of your own money on a losing effort? There is no point. Mario Cuomo sure didn't run for President, and he had great chances to win in 1988 and 1992. Also, thinking about running for President and actually doing it are two totally different things. Not many politicians can handle giving 10-20 speeches a day almost every day for a year or two. Extremely heavy campaigning like that is too much for many politicians, and thus many of them decide to never run for President. Heck, some Congressmen this year retired just because they had competitive races for the first time in a long while. Also, Michelle Obama opposed her husband running in 2008 because of the stress and pressure on their family resulting from a Presidential campaign. Politicians are human too, and many of them don't have the heart or desire to conduct a Presidential campaign. Obama will support Hillary in 2016 unless Biden also runs. At the very worst, he will remain neutral. Obama is simply not going to oppose a member of his Administration, though. Warner will have a very steep hill to climb in 2016, possibly a steeper hill than in 2008. Hillary will have almost 18 million supporters in 2016, most of whom will stick by her no matter what. Even some Obama voters would support Hillary since she is a member of his Administration and due to Bill Clinton's influence. It would be extremely hard for Warner to establish such a huge base of supporters and also to fundraise as much as Hillary would. Also, Warner would have no effective message against Hillary and he is much less charismatic than Obama. It is pretty rare for runner ups to be picked as VP. The only times since 1940 that this occured was in 1960 (for the Dems), 1988 (for the GOP), and 2008 (for the Dems again). Biden's Presidential campaign in 2008 was a completely joke, though, so he doesn't really count. I don't think running for President necessarily increases one's odds of being picked for VP. There are other ways of increasing one's odds at the VP slot, such as personally lobbying the winning candidate. Besides, I'm not really sure if Warner even wants to be VP or President now. He was never close to becoming President and I'm not sure he even wants the job anymore. I doubt he is losing sleep at night due to the fact that he never became President. I'm not anti-Warner. I think he would make a decent President. I just don't think he will run with Hillary in the race. Many people here thought Warner would run in 2008 (which would have been a great year for him)--he didn't. Speculating about Warner running in 2016 on an obscure political forum doesn't mean that he is going to run. Again, if Hillary runs, then the country is doing well and Warner would have absolutely nothing to run on. Democrats are going to want someone from the Obama Administration, and Hillary fits the bill. Thus, if Hillary runs in 2016, I seriously doubt Warner will run as well.

Well, you may be age-blind, but I was worried that McCain would die and leave Palin in charge during his 4 years in office.  I'm sure many people had the same thoughts. In fact, I think you are very wrong that McCain's age was never an issue, even if subliminally or about his senility.  As someone who preferred Obama over Hillary, I would say it will always be a sticking point about nepotism and dynasties, particularly with the disaster of Bush Jr.  While Clinton 2nd would have done better, Democrats wanted a completely New Face.  Only "One Person" can be that New Face and the obvious choice was Obama given his 2004 speech.  Warner would have just been Obama-lite in terms of freshness and changeyness and more experienced than Obama.  Remember, it was Obama's lack of time in Washington that he promoted Grassroots Change.  If it were only Warner vs. Obama, Warner would have still lost because Obama carried the mantle of "Change for the sake of Change."  Warner is simply not as exciting as Obama in 2008.  But in 2016, Warner is a red-state Democrat and well known nationally by all Democrats, he gave a speech at the 2008 DNC convention.  Warner is MY Frontrunner for 2016, with Cuomo in 2nd.  Just because Hillary is famous now, doesn't mean the votes will be there in 2016.  A lot can happen by then to America, the economy, and to her life.  She will be older and I doubt she has the stamina for another tough race.  Biden would run, Kerry might run again, Bayh would run, Cuomo would run.  I just find it comical that the Democrats would all fold and let her run by herself, because as we saw in 2008, a person can come from nowhere and become a dragon-slayer, and Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, etc were not scared of Hillary in 2008 and no one else will be scared of running in 2016.  Obama won because he was the anti-Hillary, someone who was anti-war, liberal grassroots lefty, Howard Dean wing of the party supporter.  Warner can win Iowa and SC.  Cuomo wins NH.  Warner is well-liked, successful, smart, competent, executive, and financially competent. Do you know nothing about Mark Warner?  High school class president, attended GWU in DC, interned with several Democrats, Harvard Law School, ran for Senator, ran for Governor.  Trust me, I guarantee you he wants to someday be President, take it to the Bank. 
As for spending money, Bloomberg spent 100 million on his re-election because no one else could do a better job.  Its about a rich man's ego, but Warner is also a competent and experienced executive.  Do you think that Hillary will be SOS for all 8 years?  I doubt it and I doubt Obama owes her his explicit support.  Hillary's supporters were older and might not be around in 2016, and Warner just has to win Iowa and SC to be in the drivers seat, just like Obama.  WJC will be a very old man in 2016 and no one will care about him as much.  Warner does NOT need to fundraise, he is rich!  Biden, Dodd, and Richardson ran without much fundraising.  Unlike Hillary, Warner has to answer 3 am calls as Governor of Virginia, he is far more of an executive leader than Hillary has been.  Biden, Edwards, Gore, GHWB, Cheney all attempted to run for president and had the quasi-prominence to serve as VP.  You might not be old enough but Biden ran for President twice!  You obviously know nothing about Warner because if he didn't want to be president or VP, he would not be a US Senator.  In my opinion, it is likely that Warner is running, and Hillary IS NOT running in 2016.  I just don't think Hillary wants to be president anymore at 68.  As SOS, Hillary has zero impact of America's economy.  Biden has more influence than Hillary.  She's completely powerless in Obama's administration.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have done more than Hillary.  Why would the Democrats want "establishment politicians."  This is the same group of people that voted for Nader instead of Gore in 2000, supported Dean in 2004, and Obama in 2008.  IF Hillary runs in 2016, she will not be the only candidate.  Its foolhardy to think she would be the only candidate.

His Dad was and African Muslim.

That doesn't mean that Obama himself is a Muslim by religion, though.

For many people, ethnicity and religion are tied together.

I suppouse you'd say I must be a Catholic because I'm a Pole

I think Poland is pretty diverse, with a large Jewish population.  Countries like Ireland and Italy have large Catholic populations. A lot of Arabian People are Muslim.

There have been almost no Jews in Poland for over 60 years now. And again, it's foolish to make assumptions about one's religion based on where one's ancestors came from. Some of Kerry's ancestors were Jews, but Kerry himself is a Christian. No one accused Kerry of secretly being a Jew.

I think Kerry would be considered ethnically half-Jewish since his father was Jewish.  I guess it would be wrong for me to assume that people living in Israel are Jewish.

Most people in Israel are Jewish. But yes, it would be wrong for you to assume that someone is of a particular religion just because some of his/her ancestors came from a particular area/country. Some people's religion is different from that of their ancestors.

Actually I think there are more Muslims in Israel depending on where you put the borders.  Pretty soon if Israel wants to be a democracy it will have a Muslim majority.  There aren't that many Jewish people who convert, but Kerry's father converted to Catholicism but I don't believe a Jewish person can change his ethnic background.

I was talking specifically about religion. Religion and ethnicity are two different things. A person can change his/her religion. And Israel has more Jews than Muslims by far. Palestine is Muslim majority, on the other hand.

I suppose you can't really tell anyone's religion just by their last name, but you can tell their ancestors ethnicity and religion. Some Jewish Leaders even consider George Allen Jewish because his mother was Jewish.

That's beside the point, though. Someone could have a different religion than his/her ancestors and it would be foolish to assume that just because a person's ancestors belonged to a particular religion, that this person would also belong to that religion.

Yeah, I'm not sure why some Jewish leaders would consider George Allen Jewish just because his mother is Jewish, that's kinda weird.

I think Crist should run for President.  He'd get the evangelical, hispanic, and gay vote.

Plus he's not the anti-Crist

Hello, Einstein. Crist is no longer even a Republican and I doubt he could become acceatable again in 2012 to have any shot at the nomination if rejoins.

Oh, and he need to win Senate race first.

I'm saying he should skip the Senate race and just run for president.  No one cares about stupid senators, they are just dinosaurs taking decades to craft a bill that no one likes.  He's a leader, and executive as governor.  He can run in the presidential primary and be more likeable than barbour, thune or daniels.  People in florida like him, hispanics like him.  Gays like him.  Evangelicals like him.  He's the perfect man for the job. He's married to a jewish woman. He is America.

I'm not afraid of Hillary. I am a realist, though. Obama only narrowly beat her in 2008, and that was an election where change and Iraq (both of which favored Obama) were huge issues. If Obama is reelected and Hillary decides to run, then things are probably going well in the country and thus Democrats are going to want someone with experience and ties to the current administration. Who's better to fit the bill than Hillary? No one. If the issues and atmosphere in 2016 favor Hillary, then I doubt Warner would run.

He sure didn't in 2008, when many Democrats wanted a fresh face (and Warner fit the bill). Warner would have no appealing message like Obama did and unlike Obama, he would be unable to compete with Hillary's massive fundraising.

Besides, Hillary would get full support from the Obama administration if she decides to run. I'm not sure Warner even wants to be President and even if one is rich, running for President is still a very stressful job and not many people are up for it. If Hillary doesn't run in 2016, then Warner could definitely run, though. I just doubt he'd want to compete against Hillary.

I'm also a realist and Hillary would be quite old by then, and she will also have to face the same issue of Dynastic rule and Nepotism that is despised by Democrats and embraced by Republicans.  I actually think Obama should nominate her for Supreme Court justice.
Hillary should have won in 2008 given her money, but Obama got higher name recognition and anti-war momentum.  Warner had neither the national name recognition or anti-war stance.  He simply was not ready, but in 2016, Warner would have won 3 elections in Virginia and be the right age to serve as President.  He's also very rich so money and fundraising is not essential and will not scare him off.  All Rich guys want to be president.  I find it hard to believe axelrod, gibbs, etc will jump on hillary's bandwagon of DLC politics.  Warner has wanted to be President all his life, I doubt he'll give up now that he is so close.  I'm really surprised you're so anti-Warner since everyone here considers him a national contender. I doubt stress is going to scare him off, thats a lame excuse for anyone.  If that's the case, he should just retire and live on a tropical island somewhere.  Also, anyone who wants to be considered as VP absolutely needs to run for President, since being VP means having the experience and mental preparation to take over the Presidency.  We've all seen inexperienced VP candidates really tank their ticket like Palin, John Edwards, Quayle.  If Warner wants to be considered Hillary's VP, then he absolutely needs to prove to the American public that he has the experience, knowledge, and presidential readyness to serve as VP.

His Dad was and African Muslim.

That doesn't mean that Obama himself is a Muslim by religion, though.

For many people, ethnicity and religion are tied together.

I suppouse you'd say I must be a Catholic because I'm a Pole

I think Poland is pretty diverse, with a large Jewish population.  Countries like Ireland and Italy have large Catholic populations. A lot of Arabian People are Muslim.

There have been almost no Jews in Poland for over 60 years now. And again, it's foolish to make assumptions about one's religion based on where one's ancestors came from. Some of Kerry's ancestors were Jews, but Kerry himself is a Christian. No one accused Kerry of secretly being a Jew.

I think Kerry would be considered ethnically half-Jewish since his father was Jewish.  I guess it would be wrong for me to assume that people living in Israel are Jewish.

Most people in Israel are Jewish. But yes, it would be wrong for you to assume that someone is of a particular religion just because some of his/her ancestors came from a particular area/country. Some people's religion is different from that of their ancestors.

Actually I think there are more Muslims in Israel depending on where you put the borders.  Pretty soon if Israel wants to be a democracy it will have a Muslim majority.  There aren't that many Jewish people who convert, but Kerry's father converted to Catholicism but I don't believe a Jewish person can change his ethnic background.

I was talking specifically about religion. Religion and ethnicity are two different things. A person can change his/her religion. And Israel has more Jews than Muslims by far. Palestine is Muslim majority, on the other hand.

I suppose you can't really tell anyone's religion just by their last name, but you can tell their ancestors ethnicity and religion. Some Jewish Leaders even consider George Allen Jewish because his mother was Jewish.

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

Cuomo's wife did leave him and cheat on him, but she was a Kennedy. 
Bayh's a wimp, hopefully he'll grow some stones and run for president, because he badly wants to but no one seems to like him in that way.  He's sucking on Hillarys milk and is her boy toy whipping boy praying for the vp slot.
Warner will run, he's not afraid of Hillary, plus he's rich so it doesn't matter.

I doubt Warner would want to run against Hillary's campaign machine. It would be a futile effort and he would really fail to distunish himself in any way. Besides, I doubt Warner has Presidential ambitions at this point (he might have had some before 2008, but that time is gone now) and I doubt he'd want to subject himself to the stresses of running a very long campaign.

wow, that's a lot of guessing about warner.  Unlike you, most people aren't afraid of Hillary including Obama and Biden and they beat her, so sometimes people get lucky.  Again, Warner's rich so why does he care about wasting time or money, he's got the rest of his life to be a senator but realistically only 1 chance before he gets too old to win the presidency.

His Dad was and African Muslim.

That doesn't mean that Obama himself is a Muslim by religion, though.

For many people, ethnicity and religion are tied together.

I suppouse you'd say I must be a Catholic because I'm a Pole

I think Poland is pretty diverse, with a large Jewish population.  Countries like Ireland and Italy have large Catholic populations. A lot of Arabian People are Muslim.

There have been almost no Jews in Poland for over 60 years now. And again, it's foolish to make assumptions about one's religion based on where one's ancestors came from. Some of Kerry's ancestors were Jews, but Kerry himself is a Christian. No one accused Kerry of secretly being a Jew.

I think Kerry would be considered ethnically half-Jewish since his father was Jewish.  I guess it would be wrong for me to assume that people living in Israel are Jewish.

Most people in Israel are Jewish. But yes, it would be wrong for you to assume that someone is of a particular religion just because some of his/her ancestors came from a particular area/country. Some people's religion is different from that of their ancestors.

Actually I think there are more Muslims in Israel depending on where you put the borders.  Pretty soon if Israel wants to be a democracy it will have a Muslim majority.  There aren't that many Jewish people who convert, but Kerry's father converted to Catholicism but I don't believe a Jewish person can change his ethnic background.

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

Cuomo's wife did leave him and cheat on him, but she was a Kennedy. 
Bayh's a wimp, hopefully he'll grow some stones and run for president, because he badly wants to but no one seems to like him in that way.  He's sucking on Hillarys milk and is her boy toy whipping boy praying for the vp slot.
Warner will run, he's not afraid of Hillary, plus he's rich so it doesn't matter.

I think Crist should run for President.  He'd get the evangelical, hispanic, and gay vote.

Plus he's not the anti-Crist

Crist would not win over evangelicals due to his waffling on abortion and other issues. I'm not sure how well he'd do with Latinos if he ran as a GOPer since the Republicans alienated a lot of Latinos in the last 5 years. As for gays, they are too small of a voting bloc to make a difference. And your pun isn't funny.

He should have a slogan "I'm Pro-Crist not Anti-Crist"

His Dad was and African Muslim.

That doesn't mean that Obama himself is a Muslim by religion, though.

For many people, ethnicity and religion are tied together.

I suppouse you'd say I must be a Catholic because I'm a Pole

I think Poland is pretty diverse, with a large Jewish population.  Countries like Ireland and Italy have large Catholic populations. A lot of Arabian People are Muslim.

There have been almost no Jews in Poland for over 60 years now. And again, it's foolish to make assumptions about one's religion based on where one's ancestors came from. Some of Kerry's ancestors were Jews, but Kerry himself is a Christian. No one accused Kerry of secretly being a Jew.

I think Kerry would be considered ethnically half-Jewish since his father was Jewish.  I guess it would be wrong for me to assume that people living in Israel are Jewish.

I don't get why he's deemed better (or different) than Pawlenty.  Also don't get why people think he'd be a strong general election candidate.  At least Thune's fundraising and evasive answers suggests he's probably running.  Daniels keeps saying no.  Could he be lying?  Sure.  But there's no real reason to think Daniels is running.

Daniels isn't running but he is a strong candidate for vp being from the midwest.
Thune has close proximity to Iowa and evangelicals.  He's the senate version of Dubya.

First it was Daniels, now it is him. Any particular reasons?

Maybe there are a lot of Thune staffers trying to stir up the rumor mill and momentum? 
I think Barbour will beat him, but I don't work for Barbour or any other candidates in office.  I've met some of them before.
Thune is young and evangelical, he might even be vice president some day.