OK , who's going to be the best candidate in 2008 ?

[kentuck]

I ask this facetiously because we have seen what seems like dozen of posts in the last few weeks about every possible candidate that might run as a candidate. Would it be Hillary? Or Dean? Or Kerry again? Or Gore? Or Feingold? Or Boxer? And nobody saw any problem with discussing any of these candidates, even though some folks thought it was divisive and too early to discuss such possibilities. Then, once a person says he might run in 2008, people shit a brick?? Where's the disconnect?

[brettdale]

1. Diehold

Diehold will be the best candidate, because they will decide that the GOP candidate will win the election.

[trillian]

2. You left out the best.....Wes Clark!

:patriot:

[snowbear]

4. yeah.. whatz up with that?

You did leave someone off that list..

[katinmn]

12. There's been a Wes Clark Group now for months

[dogman]

3. The Democratic candidate

I hope.

[Moderator]

7. well said! n/t

[Dave Sund]

5. Clark

I'm not someone who's been pushing him too much on these boards, but I've concluded that he's easily the best candidate. He's a progressive, from the south, with National Security credentials that no Republican could possibly match. His only knock in 2004 was that he wasn't an experienced campaigner. He'll be seasoned by the time 2008 rolls around.

[longship]

6. Please, Not...

Not Hillary, Not Kerry (either one), Not Nader, Not anybody from the DLC.

We need an electable candidate. That means somebody from outside the DC mainstream. Doesn't have to be a progressive, but it does have to be somebody who will speak out openly on issues without taking a poll, or doing a focus group.

I suggest Wes Clark, but would support anybody, including those listed above. I just don't think a centrist can win against the Repuglicans.

In the meantime, we have another, possibly more important election approaching, namely the 2006 Congressional election. Maybe the operative question should be,

• "How are we going to take back the House and/or Senate?"

[Dave Sund]

8. Why we're talking about 2008, and why it's not a distraction...

We're in a lull right now. Most of the candidates for 2006 haven't even announced yet. Many of the primaries aren't for another year. We can talk about potential 2008 candidates without distracting us from 2006 or the matters at hand.

[katinmn]

14. Discussion is good. How are you going to learn about a candidate

unless you dig into what they really stand for?

[karynnj]

9. Probably because to some degree it's risky

I would guess that there will be more attention to what an announced candidate says and does. This has some advantages as it raises their visibility (except for Kerry or Hillary), will ensure that they are included in the early polls, and allow them to act openly as candidates. The downside is that it means that they don't have the luxury of testing and developing a stump speech quietly, so that it is as good as it can be before it's exposed to the glare of the public spotlight. Any action or statement that doesn't play well will get more attention.

It might also change the timing of when the media first sees, and often falls in love with a candidate. Think of the end of 2003, when almost every news magazine had Howard Dean on the cover with positive articles - only to put Dean on the covers again in Jan, 2004 with "does he have a bad temper" stories. The real question is seeing that the press is fickle, if they profile Clark (or Hillary) in 2005, will they still love him in 2008? (Kerry never had the benefit of being the press darling in 2004, so I doubt they will suddenly like him in 2008.)

[Meeker Morgan]

10. To early to say but ...

... not Hillary.

A white man from the south is best. I'm sorry if this sounds racist and sexist, but that describes the last three Democratic Party presidents. Go with what you know works and avoid the losing grand gesture.

It doesn't imply a Zell Miller mossback. What's your opinion of Jimmy Carter?

Also, gotta hit 'em on the economy, that's how Bill Clinton got elected.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. We don't have any white men in the south anymore

What people forget is that we have lost a TON of ground over the last four years. Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennesee, and Virginia all have two GOP senators. All of those states have a GOP Governor except NC, Tennesee, and Virginia. Neither the NC Governor nor the Tennesee Governor have any really exceptional talent like Clinton did, both are boring speakers. Warner (Governor of Virginia) is a possibility but I have some doubts about him. Louisiana has one dem senator and a dem gov both are lightweights and both are women. The only other southern white male officeholders that I can think of are Mark Pryor who was elected in 2002 so chances are slim that he'll run and Bill Nelson of Florida who may very well loose his re-election. The guy that a lot of people really had their eye on was Roy Barnes, Gov of Georgia, who lost because of the stupid confederate flag issue and because of Diebold machines.

[Sparkly]

11. You do make a good point, kentuck.

:hi:

[JPZenger]

13. Bill Richardson - Governor of New Mexico

The best candidate is Bill Richardson. He has the right mix of foreign policy, congressional, administrative, state and federal experience. He also has the ability to relate the average guy on the street. As one person noted, he's one of the few politicians who really seems comfortable in blue jeans.