I think our 2012 potential candidate field is better than 2008's

[Ignacio Upton]

While we have a good chance of winning in 2008, to be honest I'm concerned about our potential field of candidates (with the exception of Gore, and maybe Clark.) I just don't see our side enthusiastically getting out the vote if Hillary of Biden get nominated, and half of the field will likely be the same as 2004's. Unfortunately, many candidates I would like to say run for President are better suited to do so in 2012 instead of 2008.

Brian Schweitzer will be running for re-election for his second term as Governor of Montana, so unfortunately, he won't be able to run in 2008, as he will look untested. But in 2012 he'll be term-limited out of office.

Martin O'Malley could very win the Maryland Governor's race, and I've heard that he a charismatic figure. If he wins and does well as Governor (and gets re-elected in 2010) then he could be viewed as a Presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016.

Barack Obama will have more political experience under his belt, which is why I don't want him to run in 2008 when he will have only been Senator for two years. He'll have the same problem that Edwards had in 2004 (and will have again in 2008.)

Mark Warner has been thinking of running for Governor again in 2009. Under Virginia's constitution, Governor can't serve two consecutive terms, but they can serve two consecutive ones. He could also run for Senate in 2008 for John Warner's seat.

Eliot Spitzer is likely to win the Gubernatorial race in New York, and by 2012 (assuming he gets re-elected in 2010) he will have served for almost six years. Although being from New York and supporting gay marriage may be a liability, and considering that FDR was the last New Yorker to become President, that doesn't bode well for Spitzer in 2012 (or Pataki and Giuliani on the other side of the aisle in 2008.) Still, if he does well as Governor, then we can throw this conventional wisdom out of the window.

...What do you think?

[Herman Munster]

1. Hillary has much support

not at DU, but among people that don't post on political message boards. People who take the time to get actively involved in politics are a very small subset of the voter population.

[Ignacio Upton]

2. LOL, I don't think so

She's far too polarizing and without an enthusiastic base, she will lose. Also, I don't want any more of this dynasty shit. I hope that we don't spend every four-eight years alternating between Bushs and Clintons.

[originalpckelly]

5. Well there is that whole queen of the ice women thing...

That might turn people off to her. Can't shake hands with her because they will freeze and fall off.

[Herman Munster]

9. well that's you

Your opinion isn't shared by people that don't post at DU. Every single poll i've ever seen on the democratic primary field shows hillary way ahead.

[originalpckelly]

3. We need to look for someone else...

like Bill Clinton. He came pretty much out of nowhere. We need someone like him, and we should start the search now. I am really upset Warner didn't run, because he might have brought in Clintonian election results, as he did in Virginia.

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Yeah, in all honesty, I only really like Warner and Gore for 2008

Clark is in third, but he has some stuff that, while false bullshit, could be used against him in a swiftboating redux. I'm sure as hell not crazy about Hillary or Kerry or Edwards or "the rest."

[BOSSHOG]

12. I look forward to swiftboat trash taking on a four star general

[Herman Munster]

13. I look forward to republicans

trying to demonize bill and hillary clinton.

Hillary won't get swiftboated. She has 14 years of experiences destroying these fuckers.

[Ignacio Upton]

16. She'll energize their base while despressing ours

By running for President, she will also fulfill the cynical aspect of using her Senate seat as a stepping stone for the Oval Office.

[Herman Munster]

18. well then find a candidate that will beat her

May the best man or woman win. I am fully confident that Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 nominee. But if you don't want her, work for someone who you believe will beat her. Posting about her on a message board is an exercise in futility.

[Ignacio Upton]

22. I will

I'm anyone but Hillary (or Biden/Daschle/Dodd/milquetoast Senator) in 2008. If it comes down to Hillary vs. Kerry, we're screwed, so I'll abstain in such as scenario.

[BOSSHOG]

21. Cynical aspect of using a Senate Seat?

Who would ever do that?

[Ignacio Upton]

23. If she loses in 2008, I will NOT vote for her for her 2012 Senate bid

If she runs for a third term in 2012 after running and losing in 2008, she can run without my vote.

[BOSSHOG]

36. Okay teammate. You are free to do exactly that.

I assume you are a New York resident. I live in Mississippi. I'll trade you trent for Hillary any day and three times on Sunday. I'll even throw in a thousand fema trailors.

[Ignacio Upton]

43. I'm assuming that she will win her re-election for Senate in 2012

Although I think it would be close if she loses in 2008, because then she will have just fulfilled what her detractors on the right (and many on the left) have been dreading about her since 2000: that she is just using the Senate seat as a pawn. I'll vote for her if it's close, but if she runs in 2008, loses, and then runs for re-election in 2012 and it's not close, she doesn't get my vote. I hate being used and realizing the worst in people I want to trust.

[RB TexLa]

35. The answer is: 100

The question is: How many Senators wake up every morning thinking they can do a better job than whoever is President.

[BootinUp]

17. lol. Could be interesting. n/t

[BOSSHOG]

4. Our 2012 candidate will be the incumbent

[Hippo_Tron]

7. We're going to be getting a lot of new blood this election

Think about this... Shrub, Santorum, and Frist were all a product of the GOP sweeps in 1994. If there is a dem sweep this November we will be bringing in a lot of future potential for the national stage.

[Ignacio Upton]

10. That's why I mentioned O'Malley and Spitzer

I wonder if there are any major figures on the Congressional level who could run.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. I'd look at Jon Tester

Admittedly Tester's campaign methods seem to be enacting what was pioneered by Schweitzer, but it's always good to have a backup if Schweitzer decides he doesn't want to run.

Sherrod Brown is another possibility although I'm told he likes being a legislator and not an executive. It would be great to have someone on the ticket from Ohio. Ted Strickland would be great as well, but unfortunately he's about 10 years too old. Also, I'd keep my eye on Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio. He's only 33 or 34 now, not even of legal age to run for President but he's really made a name for himself in Ohio politics and was seen by many as a more electable candidate for the senate seat than Brown (although Brown is doing a pretty damn good job right now). I think that we will see him succeeding Strickland or taking down Voinovich and then on to the national stage.

[Ignacio Upton]

40. I'm reluctant to support Senators running for President

Obama is an exception because he's a good speaker, and if he is really looking to run for President, he will be smart enough not to vote for things that can be construed against him.

[Ladydawnelle]

8. Montana's Brian

I just watched cspan2 and Brian speaking about energy policies and he was exceptional!!!

He would be a GREAT VP in 08!

I pray someone gives Gen. Clark some money so he can run again. WE can't do Clinton or Clinton-lite again puhleaseeeeeeeeeee! I'm just sick of mega-millionaires running the country.

I want someone with a proven record and some gravitas!! Not just a pretty face (edwards) or a famous husband (guess who?) LOL.

We'll be stuck in Iraq for another 5 yrs if Hillary, Kerry, Edwards or MOST DLC candidates win the primaries. We need to get OUT NOW!!!

Montana's Governor is really impressive. I'd vote for him in a heart beat.

[Ignacio Upton]

11. I wish he had run for Governor in 2000...

Or had beaten Burns then (and he almost did.) That way a "Senator Schweitzer" or a Governor Schweitzer who already served two terms would be a very viable 2008 candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I have a feeling that Schweitzer is glad he didn't win the senate race

He's not a big fan of Washington and enjoys running the state much more. It's entirely possible that it's just an image he's trying to portray and if it is, he's doing a damn good job of it. Plus Jon Tester will make a great senator.

[Ladydawnelle]

20. To be honest

After listening to his GREAT innovative (working) ideas on bio-fuels, clean coal, etc.......... I'm more worried some RICH SICKO OIL Company will be gunning for him.

With his ideas, it will be a LOT easier than I once thought to get OFF the mid-east oil teet!!

And those billionaires running exxon, mobil, etc are NOT gonna like it one bit!

I hope this guy has body guards. AND has already paid for a few patents for his GREAT ideas!!

I bet he's already met AL GORE too! It would be a logical conclusion. ;-)

[sandnsea]

24. Brian Schweitzer is a millionaire

And Hi-Line ranchers (like Brian's parents) have always been wealthy too. Bill Clinton came up harder than Brian Schweitzer. I like Brian a lot, but one can have money and values too.

[WildEyedLiberal]

30. Really?

Gee, because Kerry's been calling for a withdrawal from Iraq for over a year now... isn't it amazing how many people on DU just don't seem to pay attention to something that's been in the news for over a year.

Try educating yourself before making dumb statements.

[Ignacio Upton]

39. He had his chance in 2004

And he blew it. And he's been (wrongly) painted with the flip flopper and panderer brush extensively, to the point where if he supports withdrawal it will look like (in the eyes of many voters) like he's just panderings and changing his position for political reasons. He and Hillary, along with Biden/Daschle/Dodd are candidates that will not get my vote in the primaries.

[WildEyedLiberal]

48. So it's OK for Democrats to repeat Karl Rove's lies?

Because Rove created the "flip flop" crap, that gives DUers the right to regurgitate it? What about the Swift Boat lies - is it OK for DUers to peddle that bullshit too?

If you think ANY candidate is immune to the rightwing character assassination machine, you are seriously naive. I recall you saying you support Gore - do you not recall how "wooden" and "boring" and "dishonest" Gore was in 2000? I do. Who cares if it wasn't true, you seem to be saying, as long as people believed it - well people believed it about Gore, too.

So why support Gore, then? He too is "damaged goods." Unless you believe, as I do, that being subjected to the smears once - smears which have later been debunked thoroughly - makes them MORE immune to the smear machine than a completely untested candidate.

Kerry's position on Iraq is not complicated. You can read it very succinctly on his website and in the many speeches he has given. He is for withdrawal. He has renounced his IWR vote. It really cannot be clearer.

[Ignacio Upton]

52. Gore won the popular vote and ran eight years ago

People are more likely to forget things like that. Also, Gore can run the "I told you so" arguement about Bush better than Kerry can. When Kerry criticized Bush on things that he was right about, he did so in debates and press releases, but not much beyond that. He disappointed me in not attacking Bush enough on national security (he never mentioned Bush's flip flop on supporting the 9/11 commission and Bush's obstruction of it. Nor did he mention how Bush fucked things up in the months leading up to 9/11, or about cuts in funding to counterterrorism both pre-9/11 and post-9/11.) His "Grand Canyon Statement" was also a tactically stupid decision too. And after he handled the swiftboat lies (he knew about their bullshit for YEARS! Where as the smears against Gore were based on quotes he said in the more recent past and were sprung on him almost instantly.)

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. He mentioned ALL those things

There's a REASON you only saw his positions in the debates - that was the only meaningful media coverage he received in the entire campaign. To actually find out what he said at specific rallies and speeches, you had to look it up on the internet or actually be there - and most people didn't. Because the media didn't cover it doesn't mean he didn't say it. Kerry dominated in the three debates - unlike Gore - and criticized far more of Bush's policies in his campaign than Gore did in his 2000 campaign. I specfically recall Gore agreeing with Bush about 30 times in the second debate. Kerry made mistakes in 2004 - the Grand Canyon (where he misheard the question, but reporters were all too eager to report his comments, but not his clarification), and his response to the Swifties (prompted by inept management via Cahill and Shrum), but Gore ran a much, much worse campaign on all levels. Bush should never have won in 2000 - pre 9/11, he couldn't pull out the terror/war/fear card, and everyone made fun of him as a buffoon. 2000 shouldn't have even been close. Also, the Gore smears weren't just invented in 2000 - the "invented the internet" smear and "Love Canal" smear all came from decades-old statements Gore had made.

Kerry could actually run an entire campaign on "I told you so" moments - he was right about Bush giving up on bin Laden at Tora Bora; right about engaging North Korea; and right about the civil war in Iraq, among many other things.

Yes, Kerry made mistakes. But Holy God, so did Gore. And so will any candidate we nominate. If you are on a quixotic quest for the perfect candidate who will run a perfect campaign and make no mistakes, you will be searching for a long time. That is why I trust either Kerry OR Gore, both who have weathered the smears once before and learned and grown and become wiser since their past runs.

Also, I find it highly ironic that you say "Kerry blew his chance" while eagerly embracing Gore - I don't care if it's been 4 or 8 years, they both "had their chance," and it's just not intellectually honest to say that one "blew it" while the other magically is allowed a second try.

[Radical Activist]

54. I've been impressed by him too.

He might make a good candidate someday.

I would point out that Edwards six years in the Senate gives him a longer voting record than Clark's zero years in elected office and zero times getting elected to anything. Edwards is much more than a pretty face. He has a lot of very intelligent things to say and he has experience as a great campaigner that Clark doesn't have.

[Ignacio Upton]

57. Edwards was only really there for four

He started campaigning in early 2003 and couldn't attend many of his votes as a result. Personally I think he should have stepped down so North Carolina Governor, Mike Easley, could have appointed a replacement. Unfortunately, Edwards' Senate seat is now held by a Republican, which doesn't exactly look good in terms of Edwards' personal gravitas.

[BootinUp]

14. So far away

Its so far away....(Isn't that the words to a song?)


How do we even know gay marriage will be a wedge issue in 2012?

Things could be quite different if the repuke coalition falls apart.

[Ignacio Upton]

19. Here's a possible scenario:

We nominate a shitty candidate (think Hillary or Biden) and the GOP runs someone like McCain or Romney or Hagel, as a reaction to doing so bad in 2006 (assuming this year they lose the House and/or Senate.) McCain/Romney/Hagel wins partly because he chooses a wingnut for VP. We have to deal with four years of McCain or Romney or Hagel, who might not run again in 2012 due to bad health. Or his wingnut VP becomes President (ie. maybe Sam Brownback.) I'm worried about 2008, because frankly, we don't have a good field of candidates outside of Gore and Clark.

[Ladydawnelle]

26. Clark/Schweitzer sounds like a BRILLIANT ticket to me

oR Gore/Schweitzer

Gore/Clark
Clark/Gore

what's wrong with those? I say "skip" the primaries and GET REAL and RIGHT TO IT!!


(dreaming of course)

[BlueStater]

33. I think Schweitzer has already said he isn't interested in 2008

Although I suppose a VP position is always up in the air.

[BlueStater]

31. "we don't have a good field of candidates outside of Gore and Clark"

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

[Ignacio Upton]

32. In my opinion

n/t.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. This is predicated on losing in 2008.

There won't be much of America to salvage if we lose in 2008.

By the way, Brian Schweitzer said he might support Mitt Romney in 2008. You'd seriously support a "Democrat" who cross party lines and support a lying weaselly "moderate Republican" for ANY office, let alone president?? How is Schweitzer any different from Lieberman?

Screw 2012, screw 2008. 2006 is NOW and there's way too much at stake to be spending all our time playing stupid political parlor games.

[Ignacio Upton]

27. I think he was joking

n/t.

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Why do you think he was joking?

He didn't say, "oh, I'd support Romney... when hell freezes over!" He said he would consider supporting Romney if he ran in 2008, and that he liked him. That's not too ambiguous. At best it shows a serious lack of judgment on Schweitzer's part.

I don't his appeal anyway - like every other random blogosphere phenom, he made some statements against Bush, and now he's the new potential savior? Sorry, I want more than just anti-Bush soundbites when I vote for President of the United States. I am sure he's good for Montana - he can stay there and help it turn blue, then.

[BootinUp]

34. I don't know anything about Schweitzer except what

you just said assuming its true.

So when I say I don't like him, you now know why. :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. It was from an NYT profile of him

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08governor.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1160766626-CbhMLDOqu0fo5XAkVlZdnw

Pertinent paragraph (though it's very long and worth reading if you're interested in him):

Schweitzer remains an iconoclast; he says he supported John McCain’s presidential bid in 2000, though he has since soured on McCain because of the way he has courted the religious right, and he says he is now intrigued by the possibility of a presidential run by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts, in 2008. “If he gets the nomination, I might support him,” Schweitzer told me.

[Ignacio Upton]

46. In fairness to Schweitzer

He lives in a pretty red state. However, his actual views on issues and how he's governed put him way to the left of the DLCers.

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. Yes, he does

And that's why I think he's a good fit for Montana. That doesn't mean I want him as president, though. Montana suits his style very well, and if he can help bring about a new Democratic populism to the West, I am all for it. But the qualities that make him appealing in Montana are not necessarily the qualities I want in a national leader (no disrespect to Montanans).

Basically, Schweitzer appeals to Democrats because he's a liberal Marlboro Man. It's all about the image - he's a big burly gun-totin' meat-eatin' Western cowboy Democrat. And while I understand why some people see that image and think that it's what we "need" to break out on the national stage, I am deeply uneasy at making heroes of politicians simply because they have a good image. Schweitzer is great for Montana but talk of the presidency is both premature and rather unsettling in its implications of shallowness.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. There's substance behind the style with Schweitzer as well

Schweitzer spent years in Saudi Arabia studying fuels and is going around the country promoting coal liquification as a possible renewable energy source for the future. Energy is easily one of the greatest problems that our country is facing and will become even more of a problem in the future. It's also a problem that leads to a lot more problems in terms of national security.

Believe me, I wouldn't even give Schweitzer a second look if I didn't think there was more to him than an image. That's why I was never a Mark Warner fan. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter wouldn't have made great Presidents if all they had were southern accents. Both of them were brilliant and very good leaders. I believe that Schweitzer shares these qualities as well as an image and that's why I think he would make a good as well as electable President.

I'm not asking you to support Schweitzer (everyone has their preference) but I would take a closer look at him.

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. Thanks

I will look more deeply into him.

[Ladydawnelle]

49. the word here is "MIGHT"

he said he MIGHT support him.

big fing deal

I just watched him for an hour on cspan 2 and the dude KNOWS his stuff.

I still want Clark but he's not getting any funding I guess.
I hate that money is so important here.

We get stuck with weak kneed wealthy candidates instead. It's ashame.

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. Why would a Democrat even CONSIDER it - that's my point.

As I said, at best, it shows a serious error in judgment on Schweitzer's part. He either knows nothing about Romney - in which case, why does he have a favorable opinion of him - or else he actually likes Romney, which is worse.

Nice classism in your post, too. I guess you would have hated that wealthy SOB John F. Kennedy. Not to mention that aristocratic dilettante Franklin Roosevelt!! :eyes:

[Ladydawnelle]

64. I save my HATE for PUGS

I'm just tired of being POOR and tired of being told what to do by wealthy white boys who barely know the meaning of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches!

Yea I'm a bit jaded. But I served 6 yrs (honorably) in the military am now disabled (not from war) so I feel I have as much right to JUDGE as the next peon.

JFK had his baggage too and had he been running these daze he'd never pass the muster. HE was quite the womanizer from what I've read. Perhaps that is the KEY to a GREAT President? One that fools around. pfffft. I'm not buying it.

I served while CARTER was President and beyond. Now, THAT was a decent man! And he is STILL working his butt off for this country. Can't say that about many.

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. Thank you for your service

And you are 100% correct: JFK would **NEVER** get elected in today's climate. Not a chance. His philandering is pretty legendary. However, I think that just goes to show the sad state of America's media today - while JFK's womanizing was not a good thing, it had no bearing on his ability to be president. Back then, the media respected the office of the president enough not to trivialize it by turning it into a tabloid festival. It's actually really interesting - a lot of JFK's positive legacy can be contributed to the positive media coverage he received in his lifetime, while today's politicians, many of whom are actually MORE progressive and have LESS baggage than Kennedy - eg, Kerry and Gore, both of whom have never had a sexual or corruption scandal - are demonized in the tabloid press. It's a sad commentary on America today.

[Ladydawnelle]

74. We agree

So what do you think of Clark?

IF Hillary was really smart she'd give some of her money to WES than hope he'd pick HER for VP. Then in 4 or 8 yrs she could swing in as the first female president with plenty of "good" baggage and Bill C will have faded from the lime light (hopefully).

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. I like him a lot

Kerry is my definite choice, but if he were not in the running, Clark and Gore are the only other two candidates on my short list. They are the only other Dems besides Kerry that I see having the intellect, gravitas, experience, and wisdom to lead America in the wake of Bush's destruction.

[Ladydawnelle]

79. Thanks for your honesty!

I will relent and agree.

Although I still think CLARK is ahead of Gore and Kerry (in my mind) and from watching literally every speech he's ever given (that I can catch) and realizing this guy is still out there busting butt helping candidates all over the country.

NOT cuz he's power hungry but cuz he CARES about this country and he's WISE enough to know where he's needed........ and willing to STEP UP!

Of course Gore is too. He's grown some REAL ones in the last few years. I am very proud of his environmental work. Loved the movie!!

Actually going to see another movie this weekend (invited from move on) called "Iraq for Sale" the war profiteers!

Should be inspiring.

[WildEyedLiberal]

82. Yeah - Kerry sent out an email about Iraq for Sale too

I am going to a showing tomorrow night. It should be great.

I apologize if I said unkind things to you upthread. You are a very sincere and committed Dem and I'm glad we had this exchange. I respect your passion for Clark very much - I understand your inspiration as it is the same I feel with Kerry. That's really what it is for me with Kerry, Clark, and Gore, and why I consider them to be above the field - they are doing this because they CARE about America, not for politics or self-aggrandizement. If any of them is elected, we will be in good hands.

Peace.

[Ladydawnelle]

83. Agreed and Thanks

I'm a little WILD EYED myself these days so I understand.

Peace to you! ;-)

[Ladydawnelle]

42. I'm deadly serious

Not playin any games here.

And don't be tellin me WHAT to do.

Kerry is crazy if he trys to run again. If you have proof Brian said that - oh well.

If I judged everyone I met on ONE or two things they EVER said I'd be as guilty as the next person for being "closed minded."

Perfection is not possible on any level.

And the ONLY way we are losing in NOVEMBER (which is the real importance) is if the diebold machines are rigged!!

If that happens we might as well ALL move to Canada or where EVER. It's OVER.

[WildEyedLiberal]

58. I do have proof - see NYT article

You are free to support Kerry or not, I don't care. But that doesn't give you license to take liberties with the facts. Kerry supports withdrawal. Period. He has for over a year. This is not a secret or a new revelation. You may have heard of the Kerry-Feingold resolution - if you haven't, I'm sure a DU search would educate you. Or you can simply go to Kerry's website.

Perhaps you should take your own statement to heart: "If I judged everyone I met on ONE or two things they EVER said I'd be as guilty as the next person for being "closed minded."

[Ladydawnelle]

67. When Kerry won the primaries in 04

WES Clark asked his people to go aboard and we did.

I supported Kerry. HE MAY bring home SOME of the troops but it is moot as he'll never win.

He's been around Washington TOOOOOO long and it's just MY feeling that he'll be slammed again and AGAIN not have the QUICK turn around needed to fight back.

He's slow. It's his style. NOt a fault. Had he won I would have been happy. I still would rather he realize he's NOT Presidential material. NO matter HOW much he wants it or his wife wants it or what ever.

it's my opinion...... so be it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

70. Clark was one of Kerry's best surrogates

You are entitled to your opinion, but... Kerry is an intelligent man who learns from his mistakes. Give his recent speeches a listen, and try to catch him the next time he's on one of the TV pundit shows - he has become FAR more aggressive and concise in his language. He has definitely learned and improved on his public presentation since 2004 - he knows that if he is going to have a chance, he has to adapt. And I think a Kerry run in 2008 would be 200x stronger than his run in 2004.

And one other minor quibble... Kerry is a very distinguished stateman, which makes him excellent presidential material. You can argue over whether he's good CANDIDATE material - and again I urge you to check out his recent appearances and see how his style has improved since 2004 - but he would make an excellent president.

Peace.

[Ladydawnelle]

72. I always listen to Kerry

He still puts me to sleep. But I do like him.

I like John Edwards too as well as the REST but for PREZELDENT I'd like to have someone with NO past VOTING record to be thrown in his face. With NO X husbands to be reminded of, with NO baggage. I know that's hard.

WES CLARK is light years ahead of Kerry (imo) both in speaking, intellect and past performance. HOw come you don't like him? Let me remind you they don't give STARS to just ANYONE. Or they didn't USED TO!!! He has also had war experience that Kerry only has memories of.......

Now days who the hell knows.

[WildEyedLiberal]

77. I do like Clark

But I disagree with your assessment of Kerry. Kerry is a great speaker - his past several speeches have been outstanding. They give me chills because they strike at the heart of what America is truly supposed to be about.

You really can't criticize Kerry's intellect. He wrote a book about international terrorism 5 years before 9/11 and his investigations into BCCI/Iran Contra show a tenaciousness and ability to connect the dots - as well as the courage to uncover corruption, even if it makes him unpopular in his own party - courage that I think is very, very rare.

You really can't compare Clark's military experience with Kerry's. Kerry enlisted and volunteered to serve in Vietnam, where he served his tour bravely and won many decorations, whereas Clark went to West Point and chose to pursue the military as a career. Kerry could have become a rich private lawyer but instead chose to pursue public service, taking down mafiosos as a district attorney and uncovering corruption as a US Senator. Not to mention his actions protesting the Vietnam War. I still support Kerry because he has laid out comprehensive and far-reaching plans for Iraq, health care, energy policy, and diplomacy. He's a brilliant statesman, a VERY honorable and decent (read: noncorrupt) man, and a real patriot. I am proud to support him.

None of that takes anything away from Wes Clark, who I have immense respect for - he is a Rhodes Scholar and a decorated four star general, and a great guy. I will say that Clark and Gore are the only two candidates I would give serious consideration to if Kerry chose not to run. But I support Kerry because he really articulates for me what the promise of America is and could again someday be.

[Ladydawnelle]

80. Ok maybe it's the lawyer thing

I just don't trust lawyers (much).

Yes he has a great record. But, he's also got some crappy votes on record that will be thrown in his face (over and over).

Not to take away from HIM but to think of what the EVIL side will be doing to tear him down again. AND PLEASE GOD don't let Schrummy anywhere NEAR him!

Even though I've watch Bob on some night time news shows and he's NOT bad I still don't think HE or even Terry Mc did Kerry any favors in 04!

I'm a new fan of Howard Deans and a member of the DNC blog as well. I have a lot more hope for 08 than I did for 04. We have some intellect in the steering area this time. If RAHM will get the hell out of the way! That one bugs me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

81. You're very correct about Shrum and McAuliffe...

... they did Kerry NO favors. McAuliffe has since agreed to work on Hillary Clinton's 08 campaign... take from THAT what you will.

I think Kerry realizes he had a bunch of maroons as advisors, and if he runs again, he'll go with people he's known and trusted for his whole life, not the popular "consultants" that he unwisely picked in 2004.

And if it makes you feel any better about the lawyer thing, he chose to be a DA for a few years before entering politics, rather than trying to get rich quick in private practice.

Dean is light years better than McAuliffe by a long shot. For one thing, he's in no one's pocket (see McAuliffe, Hillary). I really hope we can pull this out in 2006 and 2008 - America NEEDS a Dem majority.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. I will judge Schweitzer when he actually carries out on that statement

In 2001 Zell Miller said that John Kerry would make a great president. We all know how that turned out. I honestly can't imagine Schweitzer endorsing a loser like Romney and so for now I'm going to look at it as empty rhetoric based on the idea that there isn't a chance in hell that Romney will get the nomination. But if he were to actually carry out on that statement, he would definitely lose my support.

[WildEyedLiberal]

56. True enough and I wouldn't throw him under the bus

But that said, he's a seriously weak candidate for 2008 - his qualifications seem to consist of looking like the Marlboro Man. We've had a photo-op presidency for 6 years, and look where it got us. Not that Schweitzer is anything like Bush - he's a REAL cowboy, for instance, and obviously has good positions on issues - but the point being, I think electing presidents on image over substance has proven to be disastrous for America.

Also see my post #53 - just the fact that he'd muse out loud about Romney - or any Repub - gives me serious misgivings.

[skipos]

28. We need good candidates that are non-senators from flippable red states

With our likely 06 Gov. pickups of Colorado, Ohio, and Arkansas, that adds to the 2012 possiblilties.

[Ignacio Upton]

29. Isn't Ritter pro-life?

I would still vote for him, but I don't think a pro-life Democrat could get nominated.

[skipos]

66. Here is a quote from Ritter

"I'm opposed to abortion as a matter of conscience for me, but our agenda doesn't involve changing the law."

I don't know how pro-life that makes him, but your point is taken.

[Ignacio Upton]

75. If not for being pro-life, he would be a great candidate for 2012

Oh well. At least he'll help make Colorado blue in the long run.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. Unfortunately, Ted Strickland is 65

He'll be too old to run for President in 8 years and edging on too old in 4. If he were 10 years younger there would be a definite possibility of it.

[Ignacio Upton]

45. Strickland and Beebe will be too old

As the other poster mentioned, Strickland is 65, and Beebe is the same age as Clinton, which would make him 66 in 2012 (this is really the last election where someone born in the 1940's can make a serious run for the Presidency without their age being questioned. I think that in 2012 or 2016, the candidates running will be people born in the 1950's or 1960's.)

[skipos]

65. McCain is 70 years old and it isn't stopping him from running (yet)

I hear ya though. Maybe they are too old.

[Ignacio Upton]

76. We should raise his health as an issue

Not to sound cynical or anything, but McCain will be almost the same age that Reagan was IN 1984. Not 1980 when he beat Carter, but in 1984 when he beat Mondale. Also, if McCain manages to get nominated, he wil likely have to choose a wingnut (I'm thinking Sam Brownback) as his runningmate to placate the wingnuts. Now what if McCain dies in office or has to step down because of poor health? Then we'll get a President at least a bad as Bush, if not worse. I can't see McCain being as bad as Bush, but he sure as hell won't be a decent President. If you want to convince people on our side of the aisle who may flirt with voting for him, tell them about the idea of President "Wingnut runningmate."

[Radical Activist]

51. Wrong. The 2008 potential field is much better than '04.

Who did progressives have to choose from in '04? We had Dean, who wasn't really a progressive anyway, and three also-rans that were never taken seriously by big donors or the press.

This year, we might have three or four candidates who have been very effective in speaking out on progressive issues: Gore, Edwards, Feingold and Obama. All are great campaigners who know how to reach out to the public and all have high potential to do great things in office.

What I keep pointing out over and over again is that the average person doesn't base their vote on experience. The public has chosen the less experienced candidate for President in the general election over and over again. For many voters, a candidate with less political experience is a positive. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion with Obama and Edwards because it doesn't matter. They're better now than they will be in '12 when they've had all the courage and new ideas driven out of them by the beltway croud.

[Ignacio Upton]

55. My response:

With Feingold, a twice-divorced secular liberal Jew will not get elected in this country (when I say "secular liberal Jew" people think of Barbara Streisand in that sense.) I like him too, but he's unelectable.

With Edwards, he'll be portraryed as a Democratic version of Dan Quayle (which is bullshit, but that's what the meme will be.) His lackluster performance against Dick Cheney in 2004 is reason enough for me not to be enthuisatic about him.

With Obama, he has the same problems as Edwards, only he has even less experience in the Senate.

[Radical Activist]

59. Experience still doesn't matter to most voters.

It may matter to you, but it won't matter on election day.

Your statement that Republicans will portray Edwards as Quayle is complete speculation. Quayle had a reputation because he said stupid things. Edwards comes off as very intelligent and articulate. I don't see the comparison happening. Every candidate is going to be portrayed as something ugly by the Republicans. That's no reason to let them choose our candidates for us. I also think its completely unfair to judge a brilliant campaigner based on one performance, which wasn't bad at all.

I think you need to stop letting the media and Republicans tell you what it means to be electable and start listening to the Paul Wellstone message of what is electable. It takes courage, conviction and a message that connects with the average voter. Feingold, Edwards and Obama all know how to do that. We picked the safe "electable" candidate that was supposed to be impervious to Republican attacks in '04 and look where that got us.

Kerry losing proved that message and delivery are more important than a great biography and experience. Reagan and Clinton proved that as well.

[Ignacio Upton]

63. I know this sounds like a cliche but:

9/11 changed everything...at least in the sense that some voters want someone with national security experience. Of course, Edwards does have enough experience, but a meme, or collective theme, can undercut this. I know that Warner doesn't have that experience, but he hasn't/is harder to demonize as being Quayle-like. However, Edwards could be a strong candidate, but it depends on who the Republicans nominate. If it will Edwards vs. McCain, I can see McCain winning easily based on the Quayle comparisons.

[Radical Activist]

84. Its a cliche

that the Republicans made into a cliche. Why should we adopt it?
I really don't see Edwards misspelling potato or saying stupid things in public the way Quayle did. Edwards would have to do something dumb at some point to make that comparison stick. I don't see any basis for your argument on that point.

[truebrit71]

69. In 2012 President Clark will be running for re-election...

...after four superb years rectifying many of the evil done by his recently incarcerated predecessor....

[Ladydawnelle]

71. What a WONDERFUL DREAM

^5 to THAT thought!

NOW who's gonna give Wes the 10 million he needs to run? If Hillary has half the brain of her HUBBY she should be donating it to him by now. Hey, then he can pick HER for VP and in 2012 or 2016 she can be the FIRST female Prez?

hmmmmmm??

[politicasista]

73. I think this thread is an insult to Gore.

and I like and respect both Gore and the General.:) I think it is very insulting that you are bashing democrats who are very much qualifed in an effort to promote these two good men, which is unfortunate.

We haven't even gotten to November 2006, yet people are already obsessed over 08. We don't know who's running until the election results are in and the things cool down.

We don't know what the world and the political environment will look like two years from now, even though it will be a gigantic mess for whoever to clean up.

We don't even know if there is going to be a fair election in 08.


I would rather focus helping candidates win in 06 instead of fantasizing about 08. I would like a Democratic controlled Congress first before we can get a Democratic president.

[Radical Activist]

85. I was getting the impression

that the OP was going out of his way to make weak dismissive comments about most of the candidates. When people have a favorite candidate they usually have an easy time of making a small flaw in a rival into a huge disqualifying one. There's always an excuse why the others aren't as good, whether it makes sense or not.

[oldboy101]

86. Hillary and Obama in 2008!

Hello Ignacio,

I see you are still promoting Gore, your personal favorite, while dissing other major Democratic candidates. I don't mean to start a war over this but saying that Hillary is not electable just is not so.

She may not be the favorite candidate here at DU but across the country she is widely respected. The die-hard Republicans may hate her, but they are a distinct minority. I would love to rub it it their faces when they wake up and find that she is our new president!