The rest of the media can't stop talking about it, here is your chance.

Who will be the best Democratic candidate & why?

the more I see Chuck Schumer the more I like him, I think he could get through to a lot of "joe six pack" types

other than that I would love to see Dean make a very aggressive run, embrace the scream as a mantra, get Boxer and Conyers et al screaming with him, and go for it

I cant see a "why cant we all just get along" run doing any better than Kerrys

SCREAM WITH DEAN

Chuck Schumer will never, never, never appeal to Joe 6 pack.

he did me

I doubt that I would ever support Chuck Schumer in the primary election simply because of what he and Harry Reid did to Paul Hackett in the Ohio senate race, but I would support him if he got the nomination. However, I think that a New York "liberal" would be a very hard sell to the southern red states. The Republicans are very good at playing the "liberal, elite, yankee" card. I think that John Edwards or Gen. Wesley Clark would be harder for them to demonize.

I am not paying any attention to the media tantrums regarding 2008 until I get done with the 2006 congressional elections. Let's get our priorities straight here.

I'm kinda partial to Gore-Conyers, but it's way too early to worry about right now.
My focus is on the Congressional and Senate races this year.



Mac

i'm with mac. deal with the immediate while clones are grown in the think tank for transplantation of new spines to old candidates.

and if i can bounce one off holmey...is not worrying about '08 now a diversion, a loss of focus, energy and significance from '06. and is that not playing into the other side's game?

and, lastly, if you are going to be progressive, should you not be thinking outside the box, challenging the mumble-mouthed media instead of encouraging me-too and hand waving adolescents screaming i know the answer, call on me....?

what say you?

Amen, brother.

I agree that Schumer will never win the Joe Beer Can votes. I live in Kentucky and I know what kind of voters we are talking about here!!

WHAT ABOUT JOE BIDEN??

I think Joe speaks his mind and he does not seem to hold anything back. He is the one that has actually confronted GWB to tell him that Cheney should be fired. Accordind to him he has meetings in the oval office with Cheney in the room and he still made these suggestions. I think that is an example of being a stand-up guy.

However I still like John Kerry alot. Don't forget that he almost won in 04. It wasn't a landslide victory by any stretch of the imagination. I know that it doesn't mean much now, but I think he is a great prospect!!

Why did we relect a guy with no combat experience in the middle of a war, as oppossed to a former veteran in Kerry.

Kerry clearly stated in the debates what his ideas and plans were for all of the issues. I didn't hear any ideas from Bush, other than to just keep doing things the way the way we been doing them. The Bush methods haven't worked in 5 years!!

Are the plans the same procedure as aging a bottle of wine, that maybe in 10 years the tax plan, the health care issue and others will be ready to consume and start working???

Matt M. ( Union, Kentucky)

Well.. I have to agree with some of the others.. it is too early still.

My "early picks" are General Wes Clark, and Gov. Mark Warner. (I really don't care which one leads up the ticket (yet), but hey, we have a LONG ROAD ahead of us and it will be interesting to see which our our picks actually decide to run!)

Anybody who can win. I am thinking Wesley Clark. Whoever gets the nomination, it cannot be someone from the Northeast, because that person will never win.

Does it really matter? Quest for 2008 is 2 years and 1 major election away. I think it'd be far more useful to keep track of the contested mid-term elections and their impact on the overall composition of the House/Senate. Focus, people

LPB

My dream candidate would be Russ Feingold, since he seems to be the ONLY one in the Senate who gets it. I would have a difficult time supporting Schumer if they repubs ran anyone that wasn't a Bush cline. Schumer just seems like a disingeuous worm who tries to play politics more than anything else. If you thought the righties could pin a flip-flop image on Kerry, that would be nothing compared to what they could do to Schumer.

Past history shows Governors do much better than Senators.

The last sitting Senator elected on the first try was JFK.

Carter & Clinton both went from Governor's Mansion to White House.



Mac

As did Reagan and Bush(43).

You're right. Name a bona-fide leader in the Senate on either side of the aisle. Maybe Hillary, other than that no one. Kerry? Please.

How come no one is looking at more governers? Warner in VA might be the best choice. Or, Richardson? He's too dissheveled to be thought of as being presidential.

JC

My vote would be for General Clark.
The right loves to paint any Dem as being a light-weight, touchy feely, pinko, with questionable leadership skills and little patriotism. Their mindless propaganda, unfortunately, gets roughly half the voting population to believe them.
This tactic cannot work with Clark. With his resume, background, knowledge, and connections, the typical tactics cannot work. With Clark, and I think only with Clark, the election becomes as much about the GOP as it does about the Dems. There is, in short, little chance the right can scare people into voting against the Democratic Nominee with Clark, as happened with both Gore and Kerry (not that the GOP actually won, but the vote was close).

I sincerely hope the General will run in '08

At least Richardson is articulate, unlike our current leader.

Yeah I know the midterms are what is important right now, but it's still fun to think about.
As a Southerner, I can tell you that another Democratic candidate (especially Hillary) from the Northeast will NOT have a chance. Sure, the GOP is running the country into the ground, but the rednecks down here (and in the midwest) will vote GOP no matter what. So the Dems MUST appeal to the southern white man who is not so committed to the far right--just like Dean said. Thus, Wesley Clark is the best choice to win. He could garner the moderates in the south and midwest in a way Kerry could not. Man I hate right wingers.

GORE, GORE, GORE ...GORE FOR 4!! and in 2012 it will be "4 more for Gore" that we will be yelling! He is willing to say what has to be said...watch how he is making his positions known...clearly and steadfastly

Gore/Clark '08 A Turn to a Greener Economy, A Nobler Presence....

and he is calling a spade a spade still about the 2000 election...any serious Dem candidate for Pres has to address the issue head on like a bull before summer '08

I would love to see Gore run again. I think that the Americans were much better off in the 90's then they are now and it's not that long ago that they don't remember.

I truly don't think the Puritanical American Conservatives (bi-partisan) are ready for a woman. Any woman.

JMHO.

I would like to see Gore give it another go. He may not come across as the warmest or most likeable guy on the block but at least he has the smarts to get the country back on track. He's had eight years of experience at running the country successfully, he knows how it's done.

I don't think the country is ready for Hillary although my dad, who is 68, said he would vote for her, no problem. However, she might be a good vice president. I'm getting kinda tired of seeing two white guys hold all the power.

I would like Russ Feingold to run for President. He is the only one with the leadership and chutzpah,moxy, guts, and courage to stand up to this administration. He is his own person. He doesn't get intimidated and fights right back. He listens to the people. He is super bright. I think He would be the one of the greatest presidents in our history. He has my trust. He is from a new school and not influenced by lobbyists. I have seen and heard him at the hearings and he does not pull punches. he's the man!!!

On that note why not look at all 50 states and see where they land on issues of poverty, education, evirionment, crime ect. And find the govenor that has the best record and put him or her up for president.
Jim

[quote=Patti,Mar 16 2006, 09:19 PM]
I would love to see Gore run again. I think that the Americans were much better off in the 90's then they are now and it's not that long ago that they don't remember.


They forgot instantly. That's why we are left with the trash in there now. Morons have short memories, almost by definition.

I would love to see Robert Byrd elected. He's been the most outspoken advocate of the common man, and the most outspoken critic of Bush.

It will never happen, though. He's too old, and his past KKK affiliations will haunt him for the rest of his life, even though that was over 50 years ago.


Paleo Liberal

First, I'm not for Hillary to lead, but I like her very much. We need to reward courage. Not Dachle, Not Conyers, Not Feinstein, Not Dean, Not Obama (too soon), Not Boxer (too soon). I like and respect Kerry, but he's being to mealy-mouthed about Bush's failures and criminality. I like Feingold. Now there's courage. I like Governor Thompson of New Mexico a lot. He and Feingold could do a run together.

What do you think?

Why can't we just have Obama running anyway. Why is everybody always saying it is too soon? Maybe he will change his mind and decide to run!!

We need strong leaders now, not later!

I would like a Feingold/Obama ticket or vice versa

Matt M.

President Bush will pass the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and most likely Iran to the next President. As I look at the current administration, not one person laid down their life in battle for this country. Due to all these conflicts, I think the next President should be from the military and know battle. Therefore, I support Wesley Clark. I can also think of about 6 former Generals who should replace Rumsfeld.

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FEINGOLD '08-UNLESS YOU HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH YET.

Gore rules, everyone else pounds sand!

I would like to see a Gore/Biden(sp?) - Gore/Richardson - Gore/Obama ticket, but as long as Gore is the first name I am cool with it.

Holmey, you gotta get Al Gore on the show to promote 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

Everyone else pounds sand???????????????????????

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. I would think a person who hates George W. Bush so much would not insult people like Russ Feingold, who actually stand up to Bush and the Repug cronies. You are starting to sound like a Repug yourself. Pick the one you like, and then start insulting (swift boating) everyone else. Exactly what is it about Feingold that makes him a sand pounder? Or were you just spouting rhetoric?

Al Gore is my first choice. Everyone else is in the perifery at this point.

If Gore doesn't run and Feingold is the nominee then I will be out knocking on doors and working phone banks and writing checks and doing everything I can for him. Even if Hillary gets the nomination I will do the same thing.

Gore has a lot of things working in his favor

Maybe that makes me more like a republican - that I will back and work for anyone that gets the democratic nomination.

But what I meant by pounding sand is that in the primaries if Gore does run I am working for and backing him.

---This is not what "everyone else pounds sand" means.

I think you should work on the accuracy with which you speak. You and Al Gore both.

Russ Feingold.

and mainly just to spite Al Qaeda and other American enemies it would be amusing if Joe Lieberman was his running mate.

Do we have any choice besides career polititians?

Well I prefer people with experience as opposed to...what's her name again? She has that famous last name. Evita. No, no, that's not it. Carpetbagger...no I don't think so. Anyway it's starts with an "H."

I don't see any other candidate anymore that measures up!

I want Feingold and Obama in '08.........there is no one else that I see!

Matt

They are men of integrity, willing to stand for what they believe is right regardless of opposition. They are also honest and compassionate.

This makes them completely unsuitable for the throne.

Hillary wants the crown and sceptre, and my guess is she'll represent the Democratic party in 2008 in the bid to win them. I think she'll fail, but perhaps I am too pessimistic.

There is only one ticket that has a chance to win the White House for the Democrats in 2008: Governor Mark Warner (Virginia) and Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana).

1. Warner is Center-Left and Bayh is more Conservative, so you have a solid ideological balance.

2. They would turn two traditional red states into blue states (Virginia and Indiana). There are a sizable number of electoral votes in those states. Considering how close the last two elections have been, that might tip the scales in favor of the Dems.

3. A southern-midwestern ticket would help the Dems be more competitive in the south and midwest, forcing Republicans to spend more money in those states than they would like. This would hurt their chances in purple states (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico).

4. Warner and Bayh should win all the traditional blue states (the Northeast, the West Coast and the Industrial Midwest). I think Kerry had trouble in some of those Midwestern states in 2004. I don't want a repeat of that.

To make a long story short, Warner-Bayh have the best potential to win and also govern effectively once they take office. All the other candidates discussed on here (Clinton, Clark, Feingold, Gore) would lose 40+ states and doom us to more neoconservative bullcrap for another 4 (maybe even 8) years.

LET'S GO WARNER/BAYH '08!!!

You have the right person for likeability, but the media has not been kind to him in the past.

Too bad Nodak. We are not moving to the middle this time. "Warner is Center-Left and Bayh is more Conservative, so you have a solid ideological balance."

How is a left leaning moderate and a less left leaning moderate a "solid ideologial balance?" Sounds to me like a conservative Democrat and a Lieberman Republican to me.

Here's the thing. Any extreme moderates can win, but not if I have anything to say about it. You are choosing RED state Democrats. But Red State Democrats aren't representative of the party, because they are barely Democrats. If we run a middle of the road campaign, I and others, will jump ship. Why? Because I'm not going to vote for someone who disagrees with me 40% of the time.

IN YOUR WHOLE POST, YOU DIDN'T MENTION A SINGLE VOTING ISSUE BEYOND GEOGRAPHY. I DON'T WONDER WHY. BECAUSE IT ISN'T THEIR ISSUES THAT YOU CARE ABOUT, IT'S THEIR PARTY. I AM THE OPPOSITE. I'M ALL ABOUT VOTING ISSUES, AND COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE PARTY OR GEOGRAPHY. IF THE PARTY THINKS THE BEST WAY TO WIN IS ALIENATE THEIR BASE, WE ARE IN FOR ANOTHER LONG HALL.

Feingold '08 -- QUITE SIMPLY THE BEST MAN FOR THE JOB.

Or as Dr. M. says, a man with integrity, who stands up for what he thinks is right regardless of the opposition. THE VERY DEFINITION OF GOOD LEADERSHIP.

J_dogg82,

Your post is exactly why the Democrats can't win national elections anymore. It's not that our ideas are bad or that the neocons have good ideas (most of their ideas are terrible). It's that we keep backing weak Presidential candidates and picking poor leaders at the national level (Howard Dean, nuff said).

Warner, as governor of Virginia, worked with a legislature that was controlled by Republicans and turned a deficit into a surplus. He helped upgrade technology and education across the state. He has been active in coming up with solutions to outsourcing of jobs. He was effective in a tough situation. And please don't paint Warner as a DINO just because he's from a Red State. I Google'd his name and found a web site that listed some of his positions on issues. I didn't agree with all of them, but most of them made sense. He is no Zell Miller (A DINO in the truest sense of the word and a traitor to the party). And let's not forget, Bill Clinton was a southern governor from a conservative-leaning state (Arkansas). That turned out pretty well, don't you think?

Bayh has been a popular governor and senator in Indiana and is probably ready for higher office. Sure, he's probably more conservative than either of us, but people care more about the top of the ticket than the bottom. Also, it helps to have some ideological balance on your ticket (why do you think Bush picked Cheney in 2000?).

I hate to tell you this, but your hero Russ Feingold will lose 40-45 states if he gets the Democratic nod for two major reasons: 1) He's too liberal, 2) He is a senator, and no sitting senator has been elected to the Oval Office since JFK in 1960. I don't think it's impossible for a senator to get elected, but I have always believed that governors make better candidates and better presidents. Recent history bears that out.

I think the Republicans are actually in position to make the same error. They should nominate John McCain (conservative credentials with cross-party appeal) or Mitt Romney (blue state Republican governor, helped cut a deal on health care reform in his state), but they probably will pick a right-wing, neocon like George Allen. If they pick someone like Allen and we pick a solid candidate, we will regain the White House. But if we pick another weak candidate (like Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004), we can look forward to another four years of Republican misdeads.

WARNER/BAYH '08

KICK OUT THE BUSHIES!!!

First, "too liberal" presumes liberal = bad, and that's exactly what you're supposed to think. Second, if you think Feingold is "weak", you haven't studied the man. Third, neither party will lose so many states. America is too partisan, too fiercely divided; the last two Presidential elections have been very close and the next one will be also, regardless of which side wins. Fourth, it isn't so much that governors make better candidates or Presidents, it is that Senators have a voting record to run against. It's an incredibly uphill battle winning out of the Senate. It can be done, but I will concede it is unlikely Feingold is the man to do it. Fifth, America's mood swings like a bolo. If Bush's popularity continues to tank, if the economic upturn continues to exclude the middle class, if the death toll for Mr. Bush's gratuitous war continues to mount, America may be ready for someone completely different. Someone honest, dedicated. Russ Feingold.

The last seated Senator to win before JFK was Harding in 1920.

Dr. Morbius,

I didn't mean to imply that "liberal = bad". The same rule applies to conservatives as well. There are Republicans that are "too conservative" to win the White House, just as there are Democrats who are "too liberal". I believe that there are a lot of liberal ideas that are good for America. But in order to implement them, we must win elections (the White House and Congress). And that means being able to sell these ideas to the people and overcome all of the neocon brainwashing that has taken place over the past 25 years. We need idealistic candidates who can sell those ideas to the people come election time and who are pragmatic enough to get them enacted by working with people from the other side of the aisle. If a candidate is too far to the left or right, they will not be able to accomplish these things.

Based on what I know of him, Mark Warner has the tools needed to get things done for America (something we don't have in the White House now). I could be wrong on that, but all I want is a candidate who can win and clean up the mess that the Exxon-Mobile administration has gotten us into. If Russ Feingold ends up getting the nod, I will support him 100%. I just have doubts that he can win a national election. I just don't know if he can win some of those swing states that will put the winning ticket over the top (Ohio and Florida for example). We need a candidate who can be competitive in the South and Midwest and who won't have any trouble winning the traditional blue states. Otherwise, we won't win. And I don't think we have to sell our souls to a DINO to accomplish this.

Liberal? What makes him liberal?

His 87% fiscal responsibility rating? The fact that AARP says he's a "warrior for the protection of social security." The fact that he is Jewish? The fact that he is LOVED by midwest farmers?

I vote for the ISSUES. Not the state they're from.

You don't like that he is a Senator. HE IS EXTREMELY WELL QUALIFIED, and much more knowledable about governing at the Federal level than a Governor. He has gotten MAJOR legislation through over and over when others have failed because he knows how to work with the people on both sides of the aisle.

Just look at the comitees he's on.

-Committee on the Judiciary
-Constitution Subcommittee, ranking member
-Committee on Foreign Relations
-Africa Subcommittee, ranking member
-Committee on the Budget
-U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
-Special Committee on Aging
-Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

Education:

Harvard University Law School, Juris Doctor with Honors, 1979

Rhodes Scholar, Final Honours School of Jurisprudence, Magdalen College, Oxford University, Bachelor of Arts with Honours, 1977

University of Wisconsin - Madison, Phi Beta Kappa, Bachelor of Arts with Honors, 1975

He is a REAL candidate. Do not dismiss him based upon what the Right says about him.

J_dogg82,

Like I said above, if Feingold gets the nod I will support him 100%. His qualifications are impressive. My only concern is that he will lose based on perceptions that he is too liberal and that the neocons will use his Senate voting record (like they did John Kerry) to paint him in a negative light to the voters. Perception = Reality in politics and this is something Feingold will have to overcome if he wants to win.

Liberal doesn't equal fiscal irresponsibility; look at what has happened to the federal deficit and debt under neocon leadership.

I don't listen to what the right says about any Democratic candidate; they'll always pull out the "tax and spend liberal" card when talking about a Democrat no matter who it is or what his voting record says. My opinions are not formed based on what the neocons think, their playbook hasn't changed much in 25 years (same old crap).

My only point in all of this is if our candidate doesn't win, it doesn't matter what he stands for. We need a candidate who can embrace the center and capture it without abandoning Democratic principles. That will allow us to regain power and clean up the mess our country is in. If Feingold is the man, that's great. If Warner is the man, that's also great. I personally think governors make better candidates and better presidents, but I could be wrong in this case. Anyone we can get elected will be better than what we have right now.

Screw it...

GORE/FEINGOLD - '08

Why?

Because Gore won last time, anyway - and now that he's a movie star too, his name recognition should REALLY go through the roof!

As far as Feingold goes, he'd obviously be the token "Northern State" guy on the ticket, and the guy who'd appeal to the MORE progressive wing 'o the party, as well as a guy who even some Republicans have admitted to believing is a fair-minded, consistent, and respectable (rather than blindly partisan and rabidly ideological) legislator.

I'm new here and this is exactly the kind of discussion I've been wanting to get it on with fellow Dems. Just to add my two cents from Texas:

1) I would agree with a previous post that another Dem from the northeast would spell doom again in November. They just don't play well with the rest of the country outside a 250-mile radius of NYC.

2) Hillary will lose in '08. She may well be a good candidate, and could possible turn out to be a fine president, but we need to face the facts that she is tainted goods. Right or wrong she is a lightening rod and liberal lightening rods do not win general elections. If we are serious about winning in 08, then stear clear of Hillary.

3) Gore - sorry, but no dice. He's tainted as a loser. In today's politcal world, you are forever tainted a loser when you lose a general election. See Mondale and Dukakis for illustrations on this one. I like and respect Gore a lot, but unfortunately he's not a winner in 08. Like with Hillary, the GOP salivates when it thinks of Gore an the nominee.

4) Feingold - close, but no cigar. I like and respect Feingold's integrity, which is what will be his greatest appeal to folks. Unfortunately, it won't be enough to overcome the "liberal left" tag that the media will allow the GOP to smear him with, which we all know does not help a candidate in the south and midwest. Is Feingold an attractive choice as a running mate? Possibly.

5) Wes Clark - nope. Strength is that he's a respected military leader and a southerner, but no political novice will win in 08. Definitely needs to be a part of someone's cabinet though.

6) Warner - 50/50. Good moderate to conservative southern Dem, which will play well in the south and Midwest. Good record as governor, attractive family man. But as wooden as a nbroom stick with just as much personality. He'll need an extreme personality makeover in order to win. Also, is he too conservative for some of the Democratic base? Very possible, which could cost him the nomination.

7) Edwards - see my previous post on Edwards.

8) Bayh - looks good so far. In comparison to all other current potential candidates he's got the best shot of winning, regardless if you agree with his politics. Former two-term governor and current two-term senator of Indiana, he wins elections ina red state by huge margins. Voted against Roberts and Alito, voted in favor of Levin's Irag redeployment resolution. Attractive family man, chruchgoer, he's got the potential to carry lots of the midwest and several southern states. But needs to work on personality. A running mate like Harold ford, Jr. could put him over the top.

9) Mike Easley - darkhorse. Two-term governor of North Carolina. Like Bayh, he knows how to win big in a red state, but is such an unknown that it might prevent him from serious consideration.

These are just random thoughts from a Texas democrat. By no means am I an expert or political guru, just my humble opinions and observations at this moment in time on the field of potential candidates.