Shall we start fresh?

[question everything]

Perception means a lot and I have to question the wisdom of having past "losers" run for Presidents. And this include Gore and Kerry and Dean and Edwards and Clark and other former candidates.

Blame it on Florida or Ohio, Diebold and other tricks... the fact is that they lost and in our society this means a lot.

Unless one of them can completely remake himself, and I am thinking the perennial loser - Richard Nixon. Though of course, we, Democrats did help him.

In this line of thinking, Gore and Edwards seem to have charted a new path. CNN was full of buzz today of whether Gore is "campaigning" for the OSCAR or for the White House.

I don't know. I have no doubt that before the end of 2007 we will have new candidates whose names have not been mentioned on DU, or elsewhere. And I hope that some of them will generate excitement and will bring fresh faces and fresh ideas.

[mike_c]

1. I agree with you except about Gore....

The perception will likely work in the opposite direction for Al. Lots of people wish they had voted for him in 2000-- many would jump at the chance to correct their mistake, assuming, of course, that he runs a fire and brimstone campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

4. he promised to 'let it rip' if he ran again

And I agree many would love the opportunity to correct the shameful judicial coup d'etat that occurred in 2000.

[question everything]

7. GQ: Al Gore Movie Star

From http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5179

[AtomicKitten]

8. he looks good

Ya know, I heard a pundit a while back say that if you see Al Gore lose weight, that means he's running. This photo IMO is a good sign.

Thanks!

[LittleClarkie]

2. Eh. I don't get why "new" is supposed to be magic

I suppose it's easier to keep looking for a candidate fresh out of the wrapper, but I think some of our former candidates were pretty spiffy too.

[politicasista]

3. You think the media will go easy on the "fresh candidate"?

You think they will be above the lies and smears of the media? In other words, you think they won't be swiftboated? Or what happens if they concede defeat and you call them "spineless," or say "they caved" will people here back them up? Or will they crown them as "heroes" thinking that they are perfect?

[question everything]

5. No, of course not

And I was thinking of the voters not the media.

Take Obama, for example, and I am not excited about him now since I would like to have more than just charisma. But however someone - a friend or a foe - will describe him, the world "loss" or "lost" will not be there. And, unfortunately, in our society, with buzz words, these words mean a lot.

This is how Bush was described: a "popular" governor who won twice.. (not being a Texan I cannot attest to his popularity, or lack thereof).

[politicasista]

9. Voters are going to look for someone that can offer the best solutions

for Iraq and here at home. Voters are going to rally around the candidate that can walk, talk, and chew gum on both Foreign and Domestic Affairs.

It's nice to have a darkhorse candidate, but we need grown ups in charge more than ever. Katrina and Iraq have exposed the incopetence of this criminal, dishonest administration and GOP congress.

It is going to take more than charisma to fix the mess.

[sandnsea]

6. Why are you helping brand anybody a "loser"?

Those are all great candidates. It's the right wing that wants to brand them as losers, what kind of spineless wimp lets them do that? Is Ali a loser? He lost 4-5 fights you know.

[question everything]

10. Trying to anticipate the mines

This is why in general I don't think that a senator is a good candidate, while an executive - governor, mayor, CEO, general - is better.

Voters will want to look at the track record of how a candidate assembles a staff, designs and implements plans and is a real "decider."

The Senate is designed as a debating chamber. And when you debate and legislate, and if you are not blinded by a tunnel vision of ideology, you will "think loud" you will ask questions, you will suggest one thing and will end up voting on something else. Intelligent people understand and respect this process. But, as we saw with Kerry, for the general population, with an attention span of a few seconds and with a comprehension level of 6th grade - such a debate can be presented as indecisiveness.

[politicasista]

11. It's too bad the lefty or Democrat pundits didn't help get his message out

Where is the blame at them? I hate the GOP, but at least they stayed on message, while the lefty, Dem pundits sat on their behinds (with the exception of Clark, Cleland, Dean, and Al Sharpton) and did or said nothing (i.e. Swift Boat morans).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2992929#2992952

[sandnsea]

12. Why don't you anticipate some balls instead n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

13. Any body who voted for the war is off my list.

Anybody who can fix it is on my list Clark, Gore, and way in the back, Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I agree, and for the same reason.

Gore, Clark, Obama - and any combination thereof.

[politicasista]

15. Anybody that works to get us out of Iraq is on my list

As well as works hold Bushco. accountable. Not those who let him get away with his lies and play along with media spin.

And I will not bash those who are working to make that happen just to promote other candidates.