Hamster reports that Ed Case has won the Hawaii congressional election to replace Patsy Mink who died before the November election. His take on Case: "Case is a moderate Democrat who will probably side with Democrats on most issues, but don't expect him to reflect the occasionally radical liberalism of the late Patsy Mink, whom Case is replacing."

Tom Daschle is very close to throwing his hat in the ring for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Mr. Daschle is to return to his home in South Dakota this weekend to review his decision one more time with friends and advisers, his associates said. But they said that over the last few days Mr. Daschle has expressed an increasingly strong desire to challenge Mr. Bush and has concluded that he needs to move quickly to catch up with Democratic rivals who have been lining up political supporters and financial backers for months. Mr. Daschle would announce a decision sometime over the next few weeks and immediately begin traveling to primary states, his associates said."

MSNBC is reporting that John Edwards is days away from a decision as well.

And here's a factoid from the MSNBC article: "No Democratic ticket has ever won the White House without a Southerner or a man associated with the South on it. The last three Democratic presidents, Lyndon Johnson of Texas, Jimmy Carter of Georgia and Bill Clinton of Arkansas, have been from the South."

According to a new CNN poll,

"With Al Gore now out of the race, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the top choice of Democrats for the 2004 presidential nomination if she chooses to run, according to a new CNN/Time magazine poll."

Our view: Run, Hillary, Run!

Instpundit's view (via e-mail): I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans said "run, Hillary, run" too.

Al Gore announced on 60 minutes tonight that he will not run for President in 2004. You can read the transcript here.

"Gore made his announcement tonight in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," saying, "I personally have the energy and drive and ambition to make another campaign but I don't think that it's the right thing for me to do."

Conn. Senator Joe Lieberman, Gore's vice presidential running mate in 2002, has said he is likely to run if Gore declines. Mass. Senator John Kerry and Vermont Governor Howard Dean have also thrown their hats in the ring.

"Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) are actively exploring whether to run."

That's a pretty crowded playing field and it's still early. We'd like to see a more left-leaning Democratic candidate with some libertarian sensibilities get on board. We wish we could think of one.

Update: Katharine Seelye in the New York Times examines Gore's Saturday Night Live Appearance, just one day before his announcement he won't run, looking for signs. What she finds is that Gore is now comfortable with himself and his decision and yes, the signs were there in the show.

Here's more on the wide-open nomination race and who's likely to join the fray.

Friends of Al Gore say he won't run again for President.

"In a notable shift of sentiment, several associates of former Vice President Al Gore said today that they were becoming increasingly convinced that he would not run for president in 2004 and would instead announce in early January that he was stepping aside to allow a new face to challenge President Bush."

And, consider this:

"Further, while Mr. Gore has never been much of a traditional political player, he has, by every account, not made the kind of preparatory telephone calls a candidate for president might typically place in anticipation of an announcement. For example, Donna Brazile, his campaign manager in 2000, said she had not offered him any advice on what he might do, because she had not heard from him in months.

"I haven't reached out to talk to him, because my number is listed," Ms. Brazile said. "I haven't heard from him. I've been talking to Gephardt. I've been talking to Lieberman."

The Des Moines Register reports that Democrat Tom Harkin is about to take a turn to the left.

"Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa plans a series of speeches in January designed to move the Democratic Party leftward after setbacks in last month's midterm elections, and establish himself as a leading liberal voice."

"Harkin, a 1992 Democratic presidential candidate, said that he is not interested in the nomination for himself this time, but wants to urge Democrats to express real differences with congressional Republicans and the executive branch - for example, on tax cuts advocated by the president."

"With the death of Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, Harkin becomes one of the most left-leaning members of his party in the Senate. Harkin was deeply upset by Wellstone's death in an airplane crash, calling him his best friend in the Senate and breaking down at a news conference after the crash."

"While Harkin is not calling himself the new Wellstone, he's also clearly interested in pushing the party to reject any notion it must moderate to win votes."

That's been our advice too. But if Harkin isn't interested in running, who is he figuring can take the left/progressive lead for the Democrats?

(link via Political Wire and Daily Kos)

A final recount of Colorado ballots for its new congressional seat concludes with Republican Bob Beauprez winning the seat by 121 votes over Democrat Mike Feeley, making the race the closest congressional race of 2002.

In other election news, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), a Baltimore lawyer and former Maryland state legislator, has been elected chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. Cummings is a death penalty opponent.

"The 39-member, all Democratic caucus elected Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) as vice chair; Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) as second vice chair; Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) as secretary; and Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.) as caucus whip. "

Daily Kos ranks the Democratic Contenders this week. And he's added Gary Hart to his "watch list."

Kos is also looking for contributors to his new collaborative blog, Political State Report. You can read about it here. It is scheduled to go live after the new year. He needs conservative or libertarian writers from pretty much every state except Texas. I need left-leaning writers from AL, AR, AZ, AR, DE, GA, HI, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MT, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OK, RI, SC, SD, VT, WA, WI, and WY.

The New York Times begins a series on 2004 presidential prospects with a profile on John Kerry of Massachussetts. The Times describes Kerry as "a three-term United States senator with a résumé steeped in foreign affairs. He is a decorated Vietnam War veteran who later became an antiwar leader. He is an articulate, telegenic and wealthy candidate known to savor a fight on the political field."

Daily Kos has some extensive, original analysis of the Louisiana Senate race and Mary Landrieu's win, and of the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond controversy.

The Associated Press reports that Mary Landrieu has won the Louisiana Senate Race:

"Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu beat back a fierce Republican challenge led by President Bush and won a second term Saturday, giving her party a midterm consolation prize that limits the GOP's Senate majority to 51 seats. Landrieu fended off Republican Suzanne Haik Terrell, the state elections commissioner who touted herself as a close friend and ally of the president. With 98 of precincts reporting, Landrieu had 624,214 votes, or 52 percent, and Terrell had 587,423, or 48 percent."

Anyone have an idea of which Republican senators we should be lobbying because they might not always vote their party line....such as on judicial nomination issues? Or is it hopeless, will every critical issue come down to a 51-49 vote with the Republicans and Bush Administration winning?

Massachussetts Senator and presidential hopeful John Kerry is looking better and better to us. He was interviewed Sunday by Tim Russert on Meet the Press about his opinions on the death penalty. Here's what he said:

MR. RUSSERT: David Broder wrote a column in June which I want to show you again: ”[Sen. John] Kerry is also a man who opposes the death penalty, wants to restrict access to guns and voted against the resolution approving the start of ground operations against Saddam Hussein in 1991—just what you would expect from Ted Kennedy’s partner and Michael Dukakis’s running mate, the Republicans will surely say.”

The Congressional Quarterly does an analysis of key votes and let me show you. Over the last four years, Kennedy and Kerry voted exactly alike 100 percent of the time over your 17 years in the Senate now. You’ve voted, like, 93 percent of the time. Will you have Senator Kennedy’s support for your presidential run?

SEN. KERRY: Well, it’s up to Senator Kennedy to make any announcement about his support, but Icertainly would want it and I would welcome it. I think he’s an extraordinary legislator, and the fights he has fought are fights that have made a difference to the quality of life of our fellow Americans. I differ with him on some issues. He knows that, and I think you have to look at those issues. I voted...

MR. RUSSERT: But won’t you be branded another Massachusetts Ted Kennedy liberal?

SEN. KERRY: I think, Tim, as people get to know me in the course of this, they’ll know the things that I have fought for and the things I stand for. I was a prosecutor. I’ve sent people to jail for the rest of their life. I’m opposed to the death penalty in the criminal justice system because I think it’s applied unfairly, as even Republican governors have determined, and because I’m for a worse punishment. I think it is worse to take somebody and put them in a small cell for the rest of their life, deprived of their freedom, never to bed. Now, I think that’s tougher. Let me just finish.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, why shouldn’t Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma building, or if John Muhammad is convicted of being a sniper here in Washington—why shouldn’t they receive the death penalty?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I think that, as I said, you know, different people have different opinions about what’s worse. I’ve seen people die and I know what it’s like to almost die. I don’t think that—you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you’re alive and you’re deprived of your freedom each day and you’re in tough circumstances—and I’m talking about tough circumstances. I’m not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I’m talking about tough. But if you’re deprived of that freedom for the rest of your living days until God decides to take you, you know, that is tough, my friend, and I think that plenty of people think that.

Now, I don’t think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people. Over 100 people have been released from death row in America in the last year with DNA evidence and other evidence showing they didn’t commit the crime for which they had been committed, some of them in jail for 10, 15 years for a crime they didn’t commit.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have a moratorium on the death penalty until there’s further research.

SEN. KERRY: I’ve said that previously. I think we need to look at it. But more importantly, Tim, that’s not affected at the federal level. That’s not where the crime of this country is fought. It’s fought state for state by state prosecutors. That’s where it’s done. And I would honor, obviously, the laws of those states and that’s the way we should proceed. But far more importantly, are we going to do the things in this country...

MR. RUSSERT: So if a state had a death penalty, you would respect it?

SEN. KERRY: Of course. You have to respect the law. The law of the land is the law of the land, but I have also said that I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. And just as I, in a war, was prepared to kill in defense of my nation, I also believe that you
eliminate the enemy and I have said publicly that I support that.

MR. RUSSERT: So you would have an exception in your moral opposition for terrorists?

SEN. KERRY: That is correct. It’s not moral. I have said that I object to it on the basis of the way it’s applied and the way that it’s not the toughest punishment, but I do believe with respect to terrorists, that is correct.

Other Kerry news:

In Cleveland Tuesday, Kerry came right out and said it: Bush is using Iraq as a distraction from the nation's economic problems.