15 Potential Nominees, Who's Your Pick?

[ArtVandaley]

John Kerry
Al Gore
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Wes Clark
Russ Feingold
Marc Warner
Bill Richardson
Hillary Clinton
Babs Boxer
Even Bayh
Joe Lieberman
Dennis Kucinich
Howard Dean
Tom Vilsak


In an ideal world, I'd pick Feingold, I don't think he'd have a great chance of winning though, it would depend. Right now, I'm thinking either Richardson or Warner (would have to know more first). I highly highly doubt Clark will run because his family was very repulsed by the political process when he ran last year, and his wife didn't want him to run as the VP for Kerry.

[Zynx]

1. I'd go with Warner, Clark, RIchardson, in that order.

[tx_dem41]

6. I might switch Richardson and Clark in the order...

but I think any of 2 of the 3 would be a great ticket.

[Kahuna]

25. That's the way I'm leaning right now. I would support Wes if he

chose to run. But I wouldn't be mad if Warner or Richardson came out ahead. It's a win-win-win, in my opinion. How great would it be to have three candidates that I can be enthusiastic about!

[RafterMan]

2. The story about Clark's wife

has no source and there is no reason to believe it is true.

Also, his son seems to want him to run next time around.

[For PaisAn]

3. Clark or Dean

hands down. I won't make any assumptions about Clark not wanting to run again even though you may be correct.

[ArtVandaley]

4. Whoever gets the nomination . . .

Should pick a VP with no presidential ambition whatsoever. Edwards was too afraid to get his hands dirty for Kerry since he wanted the presidency someday. Plus, we need to clear the path for Obama's run in 2016.

[MuseRider]

5. Sticking with Kucinich.

He is still fighting, still working and still right.

[genius]

16. Me, too. Dennis is the one leader I really trust.

[salinen]

7. Definitely

Joe Lieberman. He's just getting warmed up.

[MuseRider]

8. Jooooooooooooe

MENTUM!

[Kahuna]

26. I hope Mr. Slow-mentum, never warms up.

:D

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. Dean, Clark, Feingold, or Kucinich.

I want to eradicate the DLC first and foremost. That's my job these days. :hi:

[Toronto Ron]

10. Let's get rid of the unrealistic ones:

These are all good people (Lieberman at the bottom of such a ranking), but:

1) Hillary: Too divisive a figure.
2) Boxer: Unfortunately, I don't like the chances of a Jewish woman yet.
3) Kucinich: No charisma.
4) Kerry: Will be vulnerable to most of the same attacks, particularly the "northeastern liberal" bullshit.
5) Dean: Same "northeastern liberal".

These aren't my opinions of the candidates as much as how I think they are (or would be) perceived by the (largely dumb) electorate.

My preference is Clark.

Any dark horses not on that list? I've been hearing Mike Easley (NC Gov), but I don't think that's a good choice. Though he's done a great job, especially fiscally, he lacks charisma and dislikes campaigning. A pet peeve of mine, he's staunchly pro-death penalty.

[Comicstripper]

11. Let's Go Down The List : WHO WILL RUN?

John Kerry- Very possible. He clearly wants to be Prez, and he's not going away anytime soon
Al Gore- Maybe
John Edwards- Nah. Unemployed and inexperienced.
Hillary Clinton- I think she wants it, but not sure she'll do it.
Wes Clark- Only if he wins Gov. of Arkansas
Russ Feingold- I wish. But no.
Mark Warner- VERY possible.
Bill Richardson- Doubt it, actually. But maybe.
Hillary Clinton- Er....see above
Babs Boxer- Nope.
Even Bayh- VERY possible.
Joe Lieberman- Nope.
Dennis Kucinich- Nope.
Howard Dean- Maybe.
Tom Vilsak- Yes.

[Kahuna]

27. Good list. I pretty much agree with your assessments of who will..

or WON'T be in the game. Except, I'm pretty sure that Al Gore won't consider running. it's just too damned bad. He spent his political capital endorsing Dean, and it didn't work out too well.

Putting on my flame retardant suit. And this wasn't meant as a dig at Dean or Gore. This is just what I genuinely believe. If you want to flame me for having an opinion, have at it. But don't be surprised if I don't respond as my ignore list is quite lengthy.

[quaker bill]

12. Dean / Gore in either order.

Richardson, Clark, and Edwards, if Dean and Gore are not running.

[Rowdyboy]

13. Clark/Richardson/Warner/Edwards...in that order

Lieberman was far too humiliated to ever run again.

[Kahuna]

29. I also don't believe there's any risk of Joemental running as a

Democrat. :eyes:

[tedoll78]

14. Clark, then Warner, then Richardson.

My decision process is a bit weird. It's two easy steps.

Step 1: Supreme Court nominees-->
This is an elimination round. I first look at each candidate's statements on Supreme Court nominations, since this is my single issue (if you think about it, isn't really a single issue, since it touches pretty much every policy area possible). I'm looking for statements on:
- favorite of the current sitting justices
- least favorite of the current sitting justices
- praise for Souter/Ginsburg/Breyer/Stevens
- denigration of Thomas/Scalia
- promises to fight for his/her nominees

If a candidate doesn't make at least one of the above statements, he or she is eliminated.

Step 2: The Electoral Map-->
I then turn to the electoral map hanging on my office wall and weigh some options. The main premise: states won by either Al Gore or John Kerry's total 264EVs. Who can flip one or more of the Red States, either by his/her residence or by boosting turnout in a key demographic? Candidates must give me evidence that chances of a Red State flip are more likely than the others'.

====

So, judging by these simple criteria, Warner and Clark are neck-and-neck right now in my book. If Warner shows an ability to deliver Virginia, he might pull into first place with me. And Richardson is on shaky ground right now; I need to see evidence that his presence on the ticket would produce higher Hispanic turnout - and in our favor. But overall, I'd like to see the ticket have two of these three candidates on it. Who knows? My mind'll probably change. It's still too early.

[Sputnik]

15. Wes Clark

Without a doubt.

Depending on what goes down in the next few years, I'd like to see Barack Obama as his running mate.

[ArtVandaley]

19. Obama's not going on the ticket

He has stated enthusiastically that he wants to stay in the Senate for a long time. I think he should too. prepare for a 2016 run for the oval.

[RafterMan]

34. The Senate is a sausage mill

People go in as righteous and idealistic and come out as processed Washington products.

I hope Obama gets out while he has something left to give.

[Cheswick2.0]

17. Gore/Dean Gore/Clinton Dean/Clinton

Gore/Dean is my first choice.
Hillary gets added in because she has "it". Even if I am not thrilled with some of her votes, I would be happy to work for and vote for her. I saw her speak last summer and she is very impressive.

[Clarkie1]

18. Clark, because he understands what it means to be liberal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1375075&mesg_id=1375075

[goclark]

44. goclark!

My second choice would be Hillary!

We need to value women.

As I recall Clinton and Clark are pals.

[ArtVandaley]

20. I think a ticket w/ a 2 of these 3 would be great:

Warner, Clark and Richardson. I don't know about Clark for the top spot though. He didn't run a great campaign in 2004. Who knows though, he was inexperianced, he could have improved.

Warner/Clark
Richardson/Clark
Warner/Richardson



Dream ticket: Feingold/Richardson

[Clarkie1]

21. Clark isn't interested in VP, and never has been

VP is for politicians who have political motives. Clark's motives have always been patriotic as opposed to political.

The VP role would not suit him.

[iwantmycountryback]

22. Russ Feingold

Followed closely by Warner, Dean, and Clark.

[against all enemies]

23. I pick Joe Lieberman, for the Republican candidate.

Can we please stop with the Joementum movement. He sucks.

[fujiyama]

24. My favorite in that list

is Fiengold. He showed a lot of courage voting against the PATRIOT Act, being the only one in the senate to do so.

In fact, I think he'd make a very interesting candidate. He won the most votes of any candidate in his state this time, beating his opponent by 10+ points, while Kerry beat Bush there by about 1%.

Ultimately though, he'd face a lot of problems all senate candidates face though - his senate voting record would be scrutinized.

He'd be worth considering though for VP, considering he would almost definetelely deliver his state. After all, the state was close and 4 years from now it could go the way of Iowa. We can't let it slip and it almost definetely will be close in the next election.

I also like Gore, and being that he won, I almost feel he'd deserve the nomination...

Dean is a good guy, but I'd much rather see him as DNC chair. Plus I don't see the party nominating a northeasterner again, unless it decided to make a mess and nominate Hillary. Otherwise if he can't become chair, he might be more effective in increasing the influence DFA has on the party.

But practically speaking, I like Clark. I think he would make a strong candidate in '08. He was obviously a bit inexperienced and it showed - plus he got a late start. I think he did a great job stumping for Kerry this time. He has improved a great deal in recent months.

I also like what I'm hearing about Warner. I don't know too much about him, other than that he's a moderate southern governor. If that's what it takes to win, so be it.

I've seen and heard Bayh and I wasn't impressed in the least. I've also seen his record, and with the exception of his voting against the '01 tax cuts I see a very dull, conservative pretty boy.

Vilsack was pretty boring. He seems like a decent enough guy, but I don't know much else about him.

Barbara Boxer kicks ass, and I would vote for her...but I would guess over half the nation wouldn't. I don't see the nation electing a liberal woman from CA anytime soon. My guess is if a woman is elected, it'd be a conservative like CondaSleaza Rice.

Richardson is good. He has baggage though - all the stuff during his tenure as energy secretary would come back.

For some reason I just don't view Kucinich as a serious candidate, as much as I agree with him on the issues.

Then finally there's Kerry. I really like Kerry. I liked him before this campaign. I'll always believe he would have made a hell of a president (he had the potential to be one of the best) and the country really fucked itself by not electing him (well then again maybe he did win OH). But I think he had his turn. Plus, I'd imagine seeing many of the same attacks again. It's time to look to someone else. I also don't see a candidate from the northeast getting the nomination anytime soon, unless as it does somethin stupid and nominates Hillary.

[WI_DEM]

28. Dean is an independent thinker

with Gore second and maybe Clark third.

[JHBowden]

30. Warner.

I want to win. I love Dean and Clark, but they have to convince me they are really ready for primetime if they run again.

[ruggerson]

31. Warner will bring us back the White House

The congress will take years. But President Warner will be the beginning of the next generational realignment.

[AP]

32. Whichever one is better than John Edwards.

If Warner goes up against him, I hope Edwards triumphs solely on the fact that Edwards has never been a businessman. I hope people think in 2008 that wee need someone who has successfully sewed corporations rather than someone who has made millions of dollars off a corporation.

[Quixote1818]

33. Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Warner, Richardson, Boxer, Bayh, Vilsak

It the above order

[juajen]

35. Clark in a heartbeat

N/T

[morgan2]

36. Wes Clark is the probably the best choice

if the election was coming up now. He has the best record and a very straight forward way of talking to the camera. If we've learned anything from this election, elections aren't about issues/being right or wrong.. its all about attitude and the feeling the people in the middle get from you. Most of these people dont really know reprecusions of most policies, and are gonna find things they like/dislike on both sides. To get the people in the middle you have to present a confidant image of yourself. Convince them that you know what you wanna do. Just saying you have a plan won't cut it, sorry Kerry.

[Nimble_Idea]

37. It's Funny that you don't have the actual 2008 nominee on that list

:)

[CBHagman]

38. I like a lot of them personally, but...

...in a perfect world, I'd pick Kerry, Edwards or Clinton. I like Clark but would prefer him as VP.

Kucinich is a good man, but I do not believe he is electable, and that reflects the problems of the country and the media -- i.e., shallowness, lack of values, etc.

Warner and Richardson have advantages due to their executive experience, but don't forget that Richardson was secretary of Energy during some very public and embarrassing security problems at the department labs. An opponent would have absolutely no trouble exploiting that, I'm afraid.

And let's see how Warner does cleaning up the mess in Virginia. In fact, look for there to be a lot of messes to be cleaned up in various states in the wake of GOP governorships.

[Julien Sorel]

39. Nominating Richardson brings something everyone should think

about: the potential to lock the hispanic vote in our corner for a long time. It's the sort of thing that transcends the results of any one election, because the hispanic population is growing, both in numbers and economic clout, and they are situated in key states: Texas, Florida, Arizona, California, and New Mexico. Even though I don't think he'd make a great candidate, for that reason alone I wouldn't shed a tear to see Richardson as the nominee.


The rest of this stuff is just electoral hangover, IMO. 2008 is a long ways away, and looking at that list, the only real candidates (Lieberman and Boxer aren't running) I can't imagine supporting are Dean and Hillary, for their matchless ability to drive the other guy's voters to the polls.

[Riddler]

40. Wes Clark! But why is Joe Lieberman on the list?

I thought we were talking about REAL Democrats!

[thedailyshow]

41. Dean, Edwards, Clark, and Warner

[Renew Deal]

42. Warner, Fiengold, Richardson, Clark, Dean, Kerry, Vilsack, Bayh

Edwards, Gore, Kucinich, Hillary, Boxer, Hillary, Lieberman

That's the approximate order.

[DemWitch]

43. Decisions, decisions

John Kerry... Had a shot, NEXT
Al Gore... See above
John Edwards... Not, look for him to become a Dem Power player though
Hillary Clinton... LOVE, LOVE, LOVE her. Won't run for prez. Maybe NY governor though!
Wes Clark... No way. He's had enough.
Russ Feingold... Possibility. Will have the "L" branded to his forehead.
Marc Warner... Very likely, depending on if he heads DNC or not. If not, look for him to throw his hat in.
Bill Richardson... Very likely. Well liked, charismatically challenged
Babs Boxer... WAY to liberal, not a prayer
Even Bayh... Could be. Look for him to be sniffing around.
Joe Lieberman... Goddess save us if he even tries.
Dennis Kucinich... Even if he does throw his hat in, not a prayer.
Howard Dean... See John Edwards
Tom Vilsak... More than likely new DNC Chair... but if not, very likely candidate.

Add in Janet Napolitano... I think you might hear some rumblings from AZ.

Anyway... my choice top to bottom... Warner, Napolitano, Vilsak, Richardson...

All of this depends on if RNC decides to let McCain have his moment in the sun this round or not. If McCain runs, we might as well hang it up for the White House, no matter who we run.

We need to be concerned with the House and Senate more than the White House at this point.

[flaminbats]

45. A grand group..at your own peril

Bob Kerry-another Vietnam vet..
Al Bore-not again!
Kerrey Edwards-might work next time
Billary Clinton-two heads..one freak
Was Clarke-once a general
Macane Feingold-sounds familiar?
Mac Whorner-another southerner?
Ann Richardson-think Rio Grandiose
Barbed Boxen-don't even try
Btich Bay-an ugly place to live
Gore Leiborman-already trashed the hanging chads
Dennis Miller-a prefect ticket
Nathan Dean-RNC or bust
Tommy Fillsak-time for some neoblood?