Looking to Play a Cheap Democratic Long Shot?

Senators are also in a very different branch of government in the legislative than the executive. I mean how often do you see Presidents become Supreme Court Justices, or Justices become Congressmen?

Senators are also Washington insiders. They are already part of the establishment, and thus if you are looking for a change (aren't we always?), then you wouldn't look their way except for more of the same.

On the other hand, voters have shown a preference for candidates coming from executive branch positions of either governor or vice president. This makes sense, since the candidate would not be changing their branch of the government. Governors are also Washington outsiders and are seen as candidates that could actually make a change. VP's on the other hand are not exactly outsiders, but they can at least campaign on the successes of the President that they served under.

being a Senator means stacking up a history of votes, which can be dissected by opponents for inconsistencies or political landmines.

another thing is historically congress has always had the lowest ratings of the three branches. Congress is almost always corrupt, since the very beginning, of from time to time they will clean them selves up a bit and put on a new suit, but it is still the same jerk wearing it.

Hilary could be the best senator we have.. but she is still a SENATOR.

Great seed, thanks. I have the book, didn't realize they have a website. I like Bill Richardson. He seems like a reasonable man, even though I don't agree with all of his positions. I absolutely agree with the analysis that as a governor, he has the advantage of not having a voting record that can be manipulated. This is exemplified in the whole "I voted against the war before I voted for the war" nonsense from Kerry. Sure, people who closely follow politics understand that there is a lot of gamesmanship involved in congressional voting. But taken out of context, a NO vote because of a last minute amendment still appears to be a policy position on a given issue.

What the article overlooks, however, is that as junior Senators, both Clinton and Obama have relatively sparse voting records. Traditionally, Senators who throw themselves into the presidential race have been wizened D.C. veterans (Kennedy, Dole, Gephardt) with long and convoluted voting records.

Further, Al Gore would have essentially the same advantage should he enter the race. Yes, he was formerly the Senator from Tennessee, but that's ancient history. He never had to vote one way or the other on the use of force in Iraq.

There is a certain irony here, if you think of it. Senators are perhaps the most skilled politicians out there. They certainly have had more time to hone their skills and knowledge of national issues than any governor is likely to. And yet they seem "unelectable" precisely because they are so involved in the political process.

But with Vilsack gone, he is the only decent Democrat left.