The Way I See It, There Are 10 People In The Running For 2008

[THUNDER HANDS]

I ranked them in the order I think is most plausable.

1. John Kerry (Massachusettes)
2. Al Gore (Tennessee)
3. Mark Warner (Virginia)
4. Evan Bayh (Indiana)
5. Bill Nelson (Florida)
6. Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
7. Harold Ford Jr. (Tennessee)
8. Hillary Clinton (New York)
9. Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania)
10. Russ Feingold (Minnesota)

In my opinion, this crop of ten would put the 10 that we had running this year to shame. The debates between them would be fascinating, especially between Kerry and Gore.

Either way, I think we'll be in a much better shape next time than we were this year.

[TheWebHead]

1. add Vilsack and Edwards

I think Harold Ford is too young, not married, and would be a better choice to take Lamar Alexander's spot in the Senate when he retires, or if god forbid Bill Frist is elected prez in '08. Bill Nelson might run just as a defensive move so he doesn't have to run for reelection in '06 - since Jeb & co will have a big target on him in an increasingly red state. I'd be surprised if Gore ran again.

[libertad]

3. Will he be old enough in 4 years? Maybe. Gore/Ford might be good.

It would certainly help in the South and with African-American voters.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Both from Tennessee

Unless Gore changes his residency to somewhere else, probably Virginia, they're constitutionally ineligible.

Actually, I'm not sure. Either it means that they can't be elected or it means that Tennessee's electors cannot vote for both - they can only vote for one person from their own state.

[Zynx]

2. Russ Feingold is Wisconsin, not Minnesota.

But I agree that this would be the strongest field we have ever put forward.

[demwing]

4. And Dean, unless he choses to pursue DNC Chair

and I hope he does.

Bill Richardson would make an excellent VP.

[Zynx]

6. Bill Richardson for VP no matter who is at the top of the ticket.

I think a Warner/Richardson ticket would have some real strength.

[Guaranteed]

34. Can someone explain to me how Dean being the DNC chair

excludes him from running for president?

[NYCGirl]

35. He'd have to sign on for a four-year term as head of the DNC, which would

preclude him for a run in 2008.

[Guaranteed]

36. Can't he do both at the same time? nt

[hughee99]

43. I don't believe that he can

since the head of the DNC would control DNC resources, I think it would be (and probably should be) seen as a conflict of interests.

[demwing]

44. BullGoose - I'm not sure if he can, but the article I read on this said

That Dean was weighing these two option - POTUS or DNC Chair.

My take on it is that Dean himself is saying its either/or.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Wes Clark not there.

I suppose he should get elected to another office first?

[Julien Sorel]

7. Harold Ford is focusing on the Senate.

Personally, I don't think he's in a postion to run for the presidency until he proves he can win a statewide election in Tennessee.

Edwards should be on that list, and Dean is behaving like a candidate. Clark isn't completely out of the picture, either, and Mike Easley gets a lot of talk.

[VOX]

8. John Edwards should be on the list.

He will be positioning himself for another run at the presidency -- you can bet on it.

[Leilani]

9. Why am I not excited?

I like Harold Ford, but he's too young.
Frist is retiring...Ford should go for the Senate.

Russ Feingold is too honest...he could never win.

[JohnKleeb]

10. Ford is going for the senate

[THUNDER HANDS]

11. yeah, probably

but it wouldn't hurt for him to try to run to increase his exposure. He could always go back and try for the Senate if his bid goes nowhere.

[JohnKleeb]

19. I really think Warner would be good

one problem is that he cant be reelected, this damn state has one term limits on governors.

[Tweed]

12. Okay, they will decide themselves. Why don't we all look at 2006?

Enough with looking ahead already! We won't have a strong base in 2008 if we don't do well in 2006. By the way, Russ Feingold is from Wisconsin.

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. yeah, sorry bout that

As for 2006, there's not much to do. Both parties have pretty entrenched incumbants who are running for re-election.

Unless there's some major platonic shift in the next two years, don't expect for the Senate to change much.

As for the House, we ain't getting that back until, at the least, 2012.

[Tweed]

41. I didn't say anything about winning the House back

I guess you only want to do 'glamor' work. You only want to win the House back as opposed to getting a couple of seats at a time. That's a good strategy. I hadn't thought about just waiting till 2012 and THEN taking back 17 seats. I guess that makes sense though. :eyes:

Santorum is an entrenched incumbant? Do you seriously think any state that went Kerry and almost booted out Specter is going to not give Kerry a challenge? Do you think that the people of Maine and Rhode Island are going to keep their Senators who support Bush? Bill Frist is running is 2006. We have a popular Governor (Phil Bresden) and Harold Ford, Jr. who could run against him and win. We certainly won't get them out in 2006 if we think they are 'entrenched'.

[njsketch]

13. As a Republican...

I have been lurking on DU for quite some time. I guess when I accumulate enough responses I'll post a thread that I think you will appreciate about why I think 2004 is only a temporary setback for Democrats.

I think the Democrats have one sleeper candidate, however, that can provide a counter-weight to Hillary Clinton.

I would not be surprised to see some chatter about Kathleen Sebelius in 2008, either as a Presidential or VP candidate. She is the governor of Kansas, and has a good reputation.

Has anyone else heard about her?

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. I've heard of her

but I think any Democrat from Kansas should stay in Kansas. If someone can win there I'd like to see them continue to win there.

BTW, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[liberalpragmatist]

21. Welcome

About being a republican - are you a moderate or liberal Republican? Did you vote for Kerry. If you voted for Bush I personally wouldn't mind having you on the board if you were a thoughtful, moderate voice, but other posters might have a problem with it and you'll probably want to talk to the moderators about it - the general rule (and we're pretty accomodating) is that you should generally support Democrats, especially at the national level.

But glad to see you here! And I'm looking forward to reading your post.

[carpetbagger]

39. Sebelius could do it.

I agree with your assessment. However, for Sebelius to beat Clinton (and I doubt Clinton will actually run), she'd have to narrow the field quickly, or win the Iowa caucuses.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

45. Hi. Welcome to DU.

pull up a chair ( I guess you already have been sitting in one!), and feel free to keep posting!

:hi:

Interesting thought there- about Sebelius. From the little I know about her, I like her.

[newyawker99]

46. Hi njsketch!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Joe the Revelator]

15. We're really going to leave Warner off the list and add Gore?

Come on people.

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. he's No. 3 on the list

right behind Gore.

[JohnKleeb]

20. you were wise to put him on there

hes sorta like Edwards, a self made guy.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. yeah, an Edwards with executive experience

Which is what John really needed. He could have captured the nomination this year if he had a solid record to run on.

Not having seen a lot of him, I just don't know what's Warner's "charisma" factor is.

Anyone know?

[JohnKleeb]

23. he seems to be pretty charismatic

does good with the rural voters which should be a huge plus. Hes no liberal but hes not the wishy washy moderate hes being made out to be by the anti centrist southern people.

[Joe the Revelator]

31. Wow, I'm Blind...

completely and utterly sorry.

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. Zell fucking Miller just endorsed about half your list on FAUX News

And that is exactly why Warner. Bayh, Nelson, and especially that Moonie Ford will never get my vote.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. have you checked their records?

At worst their down-the-line moderates. They aren't DINO's in the least bit.

Any one of those guys would be practically impossible to call a liberal, but they're hardly conservative democrats.

Moderates, all of them.

I'll take a moderate Democrat over an extreme right wing Republican, which, you know, is what is going to be running in 2008 now that the Fundy's think they own the party.

[JohnKleeb]

27. If wanting more students to go to college and trying to do so makes

Warner bad and repub lite, then I dont know what would make him a bad guy. Yes he is a centrist, but hes not a conservative exactly either.

[MsTryska]

48. What does DINO mean? nt

nt

[jackelope72]

49. Democrat In Name Only n/t

[MsTryska]

50. thank ya jackelope! nt

nt

[Joe the Revelator]

32. Did you ever even check their stances?

Vote for who you want, i'm playing to win at the moment.

[tishaLA]

38. Why do you call Ford a Moonie?

I know he's VERY centrist, but I don't know about any Moonie bullshit.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

Imagine a Feingold/McCain ticket?

Guys on both sides of the aisle would shit themselves........

[AG78]

25. But if they're running against

1. Diebold
2. ES&S
3. Sequoia

Does it really matter?

[Q]

28. We're one week, post election...

...but why all this talk about 2008 and the perfect candidate?

- It seems to me that the Dem party is so divided that we should come to a consensus on a platform before we attempt to pick a candidate.

[THUNDER HANDS]

29. we can't make the platform

we can only choose the candidate. The party itself has to choose the platform and its vision.

[arcos]

30. Feingold is from Wisconsin, not Minnesota n/t

[baldingrockwarlord]

33. none of those ten...

...will matter a hill of beans in '08 unless EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM (and us!!) do something to address these voting problems now. Even if none of them want to stick up for Kerry at this point, if they don't stick up for democracy NOW, they can expect "more of the same " in '08.

I'll go you one further- If any of them cared about democracy, they'd do something now, so that in '08 they will be able to say they didn't just lay down and do nothing. If we don't deal with the "NOW" right now, there may not be a "later" to win. The repugs not only have control of the White House, Senate, House of Reps, AND the SCOTUS, they now have control of God and Jesus! At least in most of the public's mind. Scary.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi baldingrockwarlord!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bleacher Creature]

37. Ford will be 38 years old

Technically, he'd be eligible.

Realistically, not yet.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Your list just got shorter for me anyways...

I took out all of the Senators and Representatives listed...which left me with

Warner
Richardson
Rendell
Gore (Vp trumps senator)


Now....in a time of war (Extra...War on Terror still raging in 2008), which of these would I trust?

Warner -- seems soft and soothing....very "mommy" party type. We need a "Daddy" party type figure

Richardson -- getting bad reviews in New Mexico. But we do need the Hispanic vote back....so consideration for VP is better. Plus he does have a few skeletons in his closet.

Rendell -- Seems very tough....no nonsense. But not very presidential in appearance, and appearance count....so no go for me.

Gore -- Sorry, just won't win. He blew his stateman status when he endorsed Howard Dean when he should have let Dean do his own lifting.

Wes Clark(not listed as a choice) -- Southern 4 star General who is a born leader. Entered too late to contest Iowa.....but still won Oklahoma with all of it's conservative Democrats. He's a true warrior and the type of fighter that the Democrats need. He is the "Daddy" that could make the GOP cry "Uncle". We don't want to be the mommy party anymore.....let's turn the tables!

[hughee99]

42. I also think you'll see

Rev. Al again, along with possibly DK, they won't have a shot, but I'm sure the'll be around during the next primaries.