Which Southern Dem. Governor is Presidential Material?

Phil Bredesen (TN)




Mike Easley (NC)




Mark Warner (VA)




Kathleen Blanco (LA)




Bill Richardson (NM)




Brad Henry (OK)

If I see another 'Evan Bayh' thread I am going to :puke:



:hippie:

As I said on another post, Bayh is essentially the same thing as Bush.

An empty headed pretty boy stuffed shirt whose living off his daddy's legacy because he is incapable of holding a real job.

I used to work for State Gov't here and saw the fallout of dear Evan's governating skills. My DOG is a smarter, better and more decisive leader than Bayh will ever be.


:hippie:

When he took office he upset alot of people in NC by holding back some funds, but it was necessary due to the deficit he inherited. Now, many understand why he did what he did, and the state is better off for it.

it matter if they have the courage of their convictions, and stand up for what they know is right, and STICK TO IT.

We CAN win a nationwide race-- even with another Northeastern Liberal-- if our candidate:

1) Doesn't allow the Repubs to frame the debate. Who the fsck cares what Kerry did in 'Nam? NOBODY DID, until he decided to focus on those four months in a Swift Boat, instead of his 20-year Senate career.

2) Isn't afraid to take unpopular positions, if s/he does so for moral reasons and NOT political expediency. People like Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, JFK and FDR do/did, and even their worst enemies admired them for it.

3) Offers the American people a vision that is distinctly different from that of the Repubs-- in other words, don't campaign on THEIR issues. Who cares if Kerry would fight Dubya's disastrous wars better? Why the hell are we STILL fighting an immoral war that should have never been fought, and can't be resolved until we withdraw?

4) Knows that real change doesn't come from being 'pragmatic', but by being decisive, bold and visionary. If MLK were pragmatic, African-Americans in the south might still be riding in the back of the bus.

A candidate's geography doesn't mean sh!t. Al Gore and George McGovern both lost their home states.

I don't give a damn where a candidate comes from-- all I want to know is where s/he plans on taking us.

That's a completely differnet mindset than the South.

Mike Easley is the best of the bunch. Mark Warner wouldn't do nearly as well as Easley.

he would help get more of the Hispanic vote which is going to become more and more crucial as the years go by.

has the whole John Wayne thing going for him. I dunno bout that second guy, though- he's hanging out with kids. Too much of a wuss. We don't care about kids anymore. The third guy has a good, strong jaw. Very pure genes there, very German. I like that. The fourth- a woman? Come on. And Bill supports the UN. Bad move. And the last guy looks like his wife is propping him up.


Mmm...by the pictures, I have to go with the first guy. Yup, that's our next presidential nominee! Good ole...lemme check his name...Phil Bredesen!

YEAH!! GO BREDESEN, 2004!!!

:P

I ask because Bill RICHARDSON ain't delivering NO Hispanic-vote or nothing else.

Don't look only at the South. The most important thing is that our candidate is from the same region as the GOP candidate. If John Kerry had run against, say, Mitt Romney, the Republicans wouldn't have branded him a "New England liberal." Let's say Mike Easley gets the nod. If the Republicans nominate someone from a Northern state, Easley will be branded as an "old-fashioned southern fart who isn't sophisticated enough to be president." So, it's not so much where they're from, geographically, so long as we pick someone with enough gravitas to avoid branding from the right. That's how Kerry lost it, the GOP defined him before he could define himself. Remember when Edwards was picked, and within minutes the RNC had a website up calling him "an inexperienced, disingenuous trial lawyer"? We need someone who either is already positively defined in the public eye (Clark), or someone who is naturally able to dismiss such characterizations (Bayh, through charm, or Dean, through his energy). I think that, if Clark were elected Governor of Arkansas, he could run for president (and win). Hands down. He's smart, aticulate, good-lookin', and principled. But he needs an elected position. (Sure, Eisenhower was elected just as a general, but the GOP is known for their hypocrisy.)

He's a pretty liberal New Yorker as point of fact, yet he's managed to get elected in Tennessee, which wouldn't even back its son for President.

Mark Warner's good too. Easley also. And let's not forget Edwards.

Blanco and Henry are much too far to the right to be effective presidential material.

All that being said, let's not get into a "Southern boy"-only mentality. So much talent in our party is from outside the South. There are plenty of midwesterners, and, YES, northeasterners who would be good. Kerry very nearly made it and I think had there been some tweaks to his campaign and the message, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The issue with Southernors is message and how we convey that message. We can overcome regional origin. Having a Southerner leading the ticket is great - if they're truly the best candidate.