Political observers are reading the tea leaves to determine which GOP Senators are contemplating retirement. In addition to Colorado Sen Allard, as many as seven more (nearly a third of the 22 seats they are defending in 2008) are rumored to be considering leaving Congress. They are: Cochran (MS), Craig (ID), Domenici (NM), Hagel (NE), Inhofe (OK), Stevens (AK) and Warner (VA)

Last week's immigration vote may have provided some clue as to who is calling it quits and who is gearing up for a campaign.

From today's St. Petersburg Times it appears the Sunshine State Democrats are not backing down in their battle with the DNC over the seating of Florida delegates at the party's convention next year in Denver. Under party rules the DNC could cut the state's delegation by 50%.

The state Dems find themselves in a bind created by the GOP-controlled state legislature, who moved the primary date for both parties to Jan 29, 2008, jumping ahead of the Feb 5th start date approved by the DNC in 2006. One of the DNC committee members who voted in favor of the 2008 nominating process, Diane Glasser of Broward County, is quoted in the story, "I think it's atrocious, what they're doing to us. They can't disenfranchise our people."

The state GOP must be enjoying this. I realize Jerome posted about this 10 days ago, but I've got a few questions I hope some here can help answer: If the DNC backs down, what might other states do?

Will the next president be like Ike (Eisenhower), emerging as an attractive and experienced presidential choice to a nation weary of war?

Or will the winner in 2008 redefine their party as Britain's Tony (Blair) did in the mid-1990s, establishing the foundation for a new governing majority in America?

Or will a third party choice arise similar to Ross (Perot's) 1992 populist-driven candidacy, scramble the political matrix, and attract enough support to enable a candidate to win the White House with less than 45% of the popular vote?

These three wildly different scenarios were proposed recently by an influential political scientist as possible precedents for the 2008 presidential contests.

Make the jump to learn the who and the WHAT???!!!

This is the second of three posts analyzing Michael Barone's cover story "Open-Field Politics" in the current issue of The National Journal. In the article Barone, lead author of the Almanac of American Politics, is working hard to rewrite history, diminish the importance of the 2006 midterm results, and resurrect the Republican Party.

It is important to note that Barone, a conservative political scientist, has undue influence on shaping the worldview of the 'Inside the Beltway" crowd. He claims to be the first pundit/political commentator to describe America as a 49% nation - a country evenly divided between two partisan factions. Through his writings in US News & World Report and The National Journal (not to mention his appearances on Fox News) he presents his conservative "spin" on election results, typically hyping Republican advances and diminishing Democratic gains. Often, these ideas become the conventional wisdom of the DC political class.

Why is this important?

This week's National Journal cover story, "Open-Field Politics" is written by Michael Barone, long-time author of The Almanac of American Politics. It is a lengthy article that merits considerable discussion and analysis among politically active Americans. He makes some broad observations about recent election results, the current presidential campaign, and the new political playing field that may have emerged from the 2006 midterm results.

Barone is a member of the DC punditocracy and in recent years his analysis has become increasingly biased toward conservative partisan views. He is a semi-regular Fox News talking head and he posts over at Townhall.com. This fact makes it all the more important to review his article, as it reveals how the conservative "thinkers" are hard at work framing the current political climate.