GrrlScientist is an evolutionary biologist, ornithologist, aviculturist, birder and freelance science and nature writer. A native of the Pacific Northwest, she relocated from Seattle to NYC with her parrots after earning a BS in Microbiology (emphasis in Virology) and PhD in Zoology (Ornithology) from the University of Washington. In NYC, she was the Chapman Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History for two years, pursuing part of her "dream" research project by reconstructing a molecular phylogeny of the parrots of the South Pacific islands. GrrlScientist and her five parrots are currently relocating to Germany, where she will continue writing her blog while also writing a book and learning German. (Meanwhile, her parrots will continue to nibble on her extensive personal library.) If you appreciate GrrlScientist's writing, you can help pay her living expenses by hiring her to "blog" your conference, speak at your club or write articles for your publication (or by clicking on the Paypal button below). If you read an essay on this blog that you especially enjoyed, please nominate it for inclusion in 
Bush/Cheney have managed to torpedo the GOP's credibility for the most part, so I am thinking of the Democratic possibilities for the presidential run in 2008. So far, we have;
- Clinton -- I'm still waiting to be impressed by her
- Edwards -- quiet, a true class act, there's nothing wrong with him that I am aware of
- Gore -- after his loss in 2000, who knows if he'll ever run again
- Richardson -- relatively unknown but so far, appears to be a good, strong candidate
- Obama (pictured) -- another class act, looks best to me so far, but I haven't read enough about him to form a strong opinion
Who else do you see out there, for any party, that might present an interesting candidate for the presidency?
Comments
Clinton's re-alignments with the right on the Iraq Madness, birth control, and so forth, alienated her most ardent supporters. She won't be electable unless she reverts to views she had in the early to mid 1990s.
Posted by: llewelly | December 3, 2006 11:18 AM
You know I am a big Edwardsian. I'd like to see either Richardson or Obama as running mates with him.
Posted by: coturnix | December 3, 2006 12:46 PM
With Russ out, I guess - for the moment - I'm with Edwards. Obama is too new to know anything about yet. He's keeping his head down, and who knows what he really thinks?
Posted by: The Ridger | December 3, 2006 1:06 PM
Lately have given the Dens 08 ticket some thought. Share your opinion of Edward's feel obama is the best choice as Edward's vice-president...that IS a very interesting ticket. Not that Obama needs more experience, 10 years s in Illinois . State Politics is like 30 elsewhere!
Al Gore could be our new Sec. of SCience!
We need a Populist , the 'common man', both Obama and d Edward's fit the description well..
Now that we have decided the ticket I, I consider unbeatable, we should get-busy! If we don'ter. change election financing, and voting machine fraud, it won't matte
Posted by: judy roth | December 3, 2006 1:39 PM
Well, Iowa's relatively unknown Gov. Vilsak may warrant further study.
For an interesting take on all the Obama adulation, see The Ridiculousness & Danger That Is Obama '08 --by David Sirota--at
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1202-20.htm
Posted by: certhia | December 3, 2006 2:02 PM
I really hope Gore runs. He's the only dem with clear ideas and a platform. If anyone can bring about the age of energy independence in the United States, it is Gore.
Edwards is a lightweight and the wrong man for the time. He'd get taken apart by, say, John McCain.
Obama is a compelling and *sincere* politician who can really connect with people, but like others, I don't think his moment has arrived yet.
And Hilary seems to want to win more than anything in particular, and as much as I'd love to see a woman make a run for the white house, she just doesn't have the juice, nor the sincerity, to win people over.
Posted by: Michael Murray | December 3, 2006 2:38 PM
I've always liked Wesley Clark.
I also don't see the excitement for Obama. As far as I am concerned, he still needs seasoning and executive experience.
Posted by: Ahcuah | December 3, 2006 2:48 PM
Richardson for President. Governor (big plus) of New Mexico (Democratic breakout state in the mountain west), Hispanic (new target group), sound on energy.
Posted by: Alex | December 3, 2006 3:25 PM
Why has no one mentioned Nancy Pelosi? Since I am so far away, am I that out of touch? She seems consensus-seeking and yet very true to her professed ideals and those of her constituency.
Posted by: Alethea | December 3, 2006 4:51 PM
Obama doesn't have the national exposure, but could be a VP candidate. Gore is not likely to be supported by his party, even if he comes back after the t(h)rashing he got last time he ran. (He'd be good for a Cabinet post, though.) Pelosi is too scandal-ridden, notably by her husband, plus she comes across as a Hillary wanna-be. Hillary herself has drifted too far towards the right. Clark is a possibility, but personally, I think if the Dems had a clue they'd let Howard Dean out of the closet, maybe with Obama as VP.
Other possibilities might come from the Clinton Cabinet, or from agency heads fired by Bush (maybe that Forest Service guy?).
Posted by: David Harmon | December 3, 2006 6:32 PM
I agree with David. Let Howard Dean out of the closet. He'd make a great president!
Posted by: Paguroidea | December 3, 2006 10:43 PM
I really hope that Obama runs - I think Hillary will further divide the country and that there needs to be fresh blood for the country to rally around. While I do like Gore (and to a lesser extent Kerry) I don't think putting either of them on the block again will rally people.
Posted by: starfitz | December 7, 2006 6:46 PM