Except that Huckabee is a major player in every red state, and Obama may still have more money than Clinton.
Also, Giuliani was the front runner in early 2007 not McCain. As Larry King says "Look it up in the book!"
I disagree, as anonymous points out, the challengers to McCain and Clinton are in better positions than they were in January of 2007. They're still behind, but they're high-card against low-pair behind rather than K-J off-suit against pocket aces behind.
Hey, apropos of nothing, Shelley Berkley -- the NV Congresswoman who just endorsed Hillary -- has a high heel shoe in place of the mouse cursor on her campaign website.
On this point - I agree w/ the irony that had one been tuned out of the campaign and suddenly became interested, he/she would find the same front-runners.
That having been said - there has been a lot that has changed. The top three on the GOP side in the beginning were McCain, Mitt, and Rudy - so memorably described as "Rudy McRomney". Huck was a nonfactor. Fred was even less of a nonfactor, because he wasn't running at all.
On the Democratic side - it's a little more settled (ironically, because the Democratic side generally has the more volatile nomination process.) It was HRC, Obama, and Edwards - and now it's the same three. None of the second-tier Democrats got anywhere. At all. Biden, Dodd, Richardson - all experienced, veteran politicians- all out of the race after NH. And never drew any meaningful traction.
Marc Ambinder, an Atlantic associate editor, blogs about politics and Washington. He might also write the occasional post about aviation, national security, and cognitive neuroscience. Mostly politics, though.
| 
Except that Huckabee is a major player in every red state, and Obama may still have more money than Clinton.
Also, Giuliani was the front runner in early 2007 not McCain. As Larry King says "Look it up in the book!"
Posted by Anonymous | January 9, 2008 3:40 PM