So Barack Obama is inexperienced.  Is that really a big handicap when it comes to seeking the 2008 Presidential nomination?

Obama is still in his first term in the Senate.  Prior to that, he had served eight years in the Illinois Senate.  Is that the profile of a Presidential candidate?

You might be surprised, though, that lack of experience in elected office has not been that big of a problem for many past candidates.  By the end of 2008, Obama will have held elective office for 12 years -- or twice as many years as George W. Bush had when he took office, and twelve more years than Dwight Eisenhower, who famously won the Presidency without having ever held elective office.

With the most recent state-by-state Senator approval ratings from SurveyUSA, I'm noticing a pretty disturbing trend.  Senators' approval ratings don't really mean that much in the grand scheme of things.  Sure, voters in Pennsylvania didn't like Rick Santorum, and he lost handily.  Then again, voters in Montana hated Conrad Burns, and he nearly won.

Lincoln Chafee, on the other hand, just weeks after losing reelection has a 51% approval rating in Rhode Island.  Jon Kyl won reelection despite a 46% approval rating.  Isn't it strange how more voters disapprove of Kyl than approve of him, yet more of them voted to give him another term in the Senate?

According to politics1.com, Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) will run for reelection in 2008.

Stevens, who will be 86, will be running for his seventh full term in the Senate.  Having been appointed in 1968, he's the most senior Republican in the Senate.  Domenici, first elected in 1972, will also be running for his seventh term.  Domenici will be 76 in 2008.

Domenici's decision to run for reelection likely takes one potential pickup off the table for 2008.  With Domenici out, Democrats would have had a legitimate shot at taking a Senate seat in a true bellwether state (since statehood in 1912, New Mexico has voted for every Presidential popular vote winner except Jimmy Carter in 1976.)  While we wouldn't have a great chance of winning an open seat in Alaska, it's a better shot than we have against Stevens, who is as safe as they come.

So write off Alaska and New Mexico -- but we should still be good to hold the Senate.

With the recent news that Russ Feingold will not be running for President, I'm at a loss for who to support.

Hillary Clinton, with her lurching to the right, does not appeal to me.  Tom Vilsack, the only announced candidate at this point, is probably not going to win the primary.  In fact, many of the whispered candidates do not excite me at all.  Joe Biden?  No way.  John Kerry?  Not really.  Al Gore?  No thanks.

So who do you like in this race?  Who should carry the banner for Dems in 2008?

Nobody has looked at the impending governor's races for the next two years yet, so here goes.  Three state houses are up for election in 2007 with 11 more to come in 2008 (including Vermont and New Hampshire, the two states that still elect their governors to two-year terms.)

A quick rundown of the seats:

Solid R: Mississippi, North Dakota, Utah
Likely R: None
Lean R: Vermont
Tossup: Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Washington
Lean D: Kentucky, Delaware
Likely D: Montana
Solid D: New Hampshire, West Virginia

More below the fold...

Politicians like to be in the majority.  That's a given.

After the 1994 Republican sweep, two Democratic Senators and a few Democratic Congressmen switched parties.  Part of it was to be in the majority, and part of it was to bolster their own chances for reelection.

It's been a long time since we had a Republican switch parties.  Even before they took control of Congress, there weren't a lot of Republicans who switched to the Democratic Party.  The last I can remember is the Congressman from NY-01 who switched and then lost in the Democratic primary.

But will we see some now?  I heard a rumor today that a Republican Senator (not sure who) has made a deal with the Democrats to switch parties after the election.  If it were true, that would give us a 52-48 majority (or 51-48 if you don't count Lieberman.)

Any thoughts?  On a personal note, a state Senator here in Tennessee who was elected in 2002 as a Democrat and switched parties in 2004 lost his bid for reelection last night.  That was great.

If the election had been held two weeks ago, we would have won.  We would have taken back the House with a big majority, taken the Senate with a slim majority, and at least come close to holding a majority of the governor's mansions.

But the Foley story seems to have died down a bit, and the only Republican seats that truly seem to have been put in jeopardy because of it are Foley's seat and Tom Reynolds's.  The Senate races have been affected little by it, and while the dialogue now seems to be mostly focused on Iraq, it seems that our gains won't be as great as they would have been two weeks ago.

Anybody have a poll on this race?  Politics1.com shows polls from the Casper Star-Tribune and Mason-Dixon for the gov and Senate races, but nothing on the House race, which I've heard may be closer than we thought.  The polls:

Senate
Thomas (R) 67%
Groutage (D) 26%

Governor
Freudenthal (D) 63%
Hunkins (R) 30%

But nothing on the House race.  Anybody know?