Howard Dean/Barbara Boxer 2008?

I know it probably won't happen, but that doesn't mean a fella can't dream.

Now that would be a ticket I could get excited about.

he can't run for President. I think this may be more important at this point

Interesting... I have this gut feeling the scenario will play out as such:

EDWARDS and ?? Don't think he'll ever go w/Kerry again.
GORE/??
HILLARY/??

No way Gore/Hillary. Too much emphasis on BJ-Gate.

Clark/somebody!

Get someone who may actually flip a red state blue!

nt

He was the best choice in 04 and he will be the best choice in 08'.

Edwards added little to nothing to the ticket with Kerry.

we need in these tough times. Clark '08!

he didnt even win his own state. Your gut feelings are completely ridiculous.

Dean is going to make an excellent DNC head. He and Edwards are on the same page: Return to our core values and do not write off the south. After Dean dropped out, he said that he thought Edwards was the best candidate for Pres. The head of the DNC has a lot of pull on what candidates the DNC promotes. It will be interesting to see who Deans pushes for.

Clark is a war expert and he seems to be positioning himself for something like Sec of State. Every appearance he makes is about the Iraq war. I respect a lot of what Clark has to say, but frankly, I was disappointed that he talked up the Iraq *elections* and said they were a good thing. Clark didn't do so well during the primaries, in fact he did not win a single southern state and came in 3 and 4 with Edwards coming in second in nearly every state.

Edwards didn't win NC because the Kerry campaign wrote off the South. It's ludricious to blame Edwards for Kerry's loss.

He could not run.

I gotta tell you, between Dean and Boxer the two of them have "EMERGED" as the HERO'S of the year if not century! Imagine, they've passed all odds getting through to all of us. Passing the well-rigged media, and the rest of the neocons. They have spunk, guts - Personally, I do not believe we need any more politicians that bend, fold, wimp-up, etc...

We have to say it loud and proud, and stick with it. Guts! It's going to take guts. No more holds on boldness! I'm with you.

:thumbsup:

:kick: :kick: :kick:

Would Boxer be able to win in a national campaign though? Don't get me wrong, I think she is more then qualified to run and would love to see her run but I just don't know if the country is ready to elect a woman as President (I think this would also apply for Sen. Clinton, as well).

I'd love to see it happen though - It's a shame Dean can't run, but I think he will be better served as head of the DNC.

I wouldn't mind running Clark, but you know how much the GOP loves to go after men who have served honorably in the military - I mean look at how they went after Kerry with the Swift Liars.

based on fear of who they'll "go after." They'll go after anybody. The question is how strongly we can respond. In some cases, there may not be much we can do; in other cases, we've got enough to fight back with that we can ensure their mud doesn't stick.

"support the troops" until they run against you. :eyes:

Exactly - especially by people that didn't even serve in the first place!

They're all world class hypocrites.

I get what you are saying, though. I guess we just have to put our best candidate forward and not worry about what lies and spin the GOP/RNC will put out each day. I'm glad that (hopefully) we'll have Dean at the head of the DNC - he definitely won't go down without a fight!

I was just so heartbroken by what they had the audacity to do with John Kerry and I'm afraid of what they'll do to Wesley Clark (should he run) - I know I shouldn't, but it just infuriates me to no end that they are aloud to get a way with murder like that!

Sorry, I'll stop ranting now :)

(It's so nice to be able to say that!)

I'd be willing to consider Richardson because of what he could bring to the ticket.

I would rather not relive George McGovern, but thanks anyway.

n/t

Besides, we need Dean as chair of the DNC if we ever want to win another election.

As idealistic (and probably as honest) as those two are, the ticket wouldn't win. Boxer would be too big a turn-off in the red states and would probably be the cause as to why many there wouldn't vote for that ticket.

Plus, neither are Southerners. Without one on the ticket, the Dems can't win (in winning elections, Edwards was a step in the right direction, but didn't win his home state. John Breaux may have delivered Louisiana - or at least put it in the running).

There are several criteria I think that HAVE to be in the formula for someone to win the Presidency from both sides.

1. Southerner on the ticket from a state that he/she can win.
2. Non-senator - at least for Pres. (Hillary MIGHT be the only one that can break this trend).
3. Proven winner (any lost election on a statewide or national scale should automatically DQ; if Clark wants it, he needs to run for something somewhere).
4. Fresh face (not run for Pres. before. Not necessarily a disqualifier, but it's hard to win if you've lost before, unless you get the VP or something. Winning an election after losing Pres. may make eligible again).

Helped us not one damned bit in the southern states.

Ditto for 2000. Having Gore at the top of the ticket didn't land us a single southern state.

That's cause Gore and Edwards were goofy and couldn't win their home states (Edwards' senate seat is notoriously a one-term seat, and Gore had been absent for eight years).

So, yeah, make that an addendum - a southerner that can win his home state without much effort.

Couldn't win 'em with a northerner, either. The right westerner may break the rules, but it couldn't be from a blue state.

How many Democrat presidents have won without winning a southern state or won without a VP southerner?

This is common knowledge. Blaming Edwards for Kerry's loss is ridiculous. People don't vote for VP.

Look again at the primary results and see how well Edwards did as well as the polls for VP pick.

I love the idea of Boxer at the top of the ticket, but I don't think there is any way a liberal woman at the top of the ticket would win in 08.

There was no chance for Edwards to have really won South Carolina. On the other hand, John Breaux as VP had a better shot at winning Louisiana than Edwards in SC.

So the rule should be "Pick a VP candidate who can win his home state."

Prime example? LBJ. Kennedy loses without a Southerner, especially in that dicey period.

Is it against the law to resign the DNC chairmanship and begin a presidential campaign?

Has there ever been a governor or senator who pledged to his state, "I will complete my term of office and not run for anything else" and then ran anyway? Did it make one whit of difference?

Show of hands--how many here would not vote for Dean solely because he'd "promised" not to run if elected to the DNC chair?

I'm just surprised to see you advocating it. Since Dean's absence from the candidate field can only be a positive for Clark.

So let me turn your own question around.... Let's say the General ran for Governor of Arkansas in 2006 and won. Should that keep him from running for President in 2008?

Obviously no elected official keeps all their campaign promises, for various reasons, but I'd rather they did keep some of the basic ones like that - promising to serve a full term in one elected office. Which is not to say I wouldn't vote for Clark in such a hypothetical situation.

In any case, there will be no Senators at the top of the ticket in 2008 and definitely no two Senator ticket. Senators can't win, whether they're worthy like Boxer or not so worthy like Hillary doesn't matter.

It's executive branch experience that wins out in the end. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and yes even Junior were all governors. Poppy was Vice President, as was Gore who "almost won" :eyes:

What we need is a governor or ex governor, and one who's nose is not buried in Al From's ass. This is why I suggested that the General might want to move back to Little Rock for a while

"I'm just surprised to see you advocating it. Since Dean's absence from the candidate field can only be a positive for Clark.

Not sure what you think I'm advocating. I'm just posing the question because so many seem to think that Dean can't run in '08 if elected to DNC chair.

I do believe that most Deanies wouldn't give a tinker's damn what he'd promised, and that the vast majority of the primary voters wouldn't even be aware he'd been DNC chair, much less he'd promised not to run. And I think Dean knows that as well.

"So let me turn your own question around.... Let's say the General ran for Governor of Arkansas in 2006 and won. Should that keep him from running for President in 2008?

I believe it would, whether it should or not. I don't think he'd run for governor unless he intended to accomplish something there (for the state of Arkansas that is, not for his political career). If he runs for president, he's gonna start in early to mid-'07, just months after what would be his inauguration date as governor. Wouldn't leave much time for running the state.

And if he had promised the people of Arkansas to finish his term, that's what he'd do.

But then, Clark is not a politician.

"It's executive branch experience that wins out in the end. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and yes even Junior were all governors. Poppy was Vice President, as was Gore who "almost won" :eyes:
"What we need is a governor or ex governor, and one who's nose is not buried in Al From's ass. This is why I suggested that the General might want to move back to Little Rock for a while."

We don't need a governor, but we do need executive experience. As you correctly point out, BushI and Gore were not governors, but as VPs they had some limited executive experience, or at least the illusion of such. Clark has plenty of the real thing. There's nothing a governor does that he didn't do as commander of the American community in Europe, and to a lesser extent in Panama.

Oh, and he doesn't have to "move back to Little Rock"--he lives there now and has for some time.

He lives there and heads up City Year in LR.

Clark would serve out the full term if he won the election, in fact unlike politicians, Clark does keep promises. As Michael Moore observed: Clark never learned to lie.

Finally, I don't understand this litmus test that one must first be this or that--a politician. Everyone on this board would object, and rightly so, it someone said that a candidate for the presidency must--absolutely must have served in the military or negotiated treaties--or be a foreign policy expert before considering a run. Even though the office demands that knowledge because of the nature of the separation of powers.

Personally, I could give a tinker's damn for 99% of the politicians in this country or the world. They are currently, with rare exceptions, doing a piss poor job of representing people while doing a fine job or representing the corporations.

Why must we believe him, when so many politicians have made essentially the same promise?
Would you vote for him if he ran anyway?

:shrug:

Where did that come from? You either believe him or you don't. I believe him. Your opinion may vary.

He's trying to carve out a nich for himself and god only knows what he'll do after that. I don't give a tinker's damn what the deaniacs say. The man is not to be trusted.

I give Dean credit for doing alot of really good work for this party, and I am expecting him to do a good job as party chair.

Now, I'm reserving judgement until I see what he really does with the position. I will of course alter my opinion if I feel that he really isn't coming through, or if he goes back on his word, but I'm honestly not expecting either thing to happen.

At any rate, it's looking like he is going to end up being DNC Chair, and I think that it's only fair, and to the good of the party, that people give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any problems with your being sceptical, but I would hope that you would be openminded enough to at least wait to judge until he has actually done something in that position.

I apologize if I appear to be snapping at you, and of course I'm always happy to see another Clarkie on board here, but I think the General would agree with me about this. Let's at least give the man a fair chance and wish him well. It's in the interests of all of us in the Democratic party that he do well in this position. We can re-evaluate later, based on his actual performance.

At any rate, welcome to DU wesrose.:hi:

The primaries are over, why such nastiness and ad hominem attacks against other DEMOCRATS?

I stand with Dean for Chair and he has said he will fulfill his role as chair which means not running in 08. At least give him the benefit of the doubt.

He wouldn't be the first politician to break a promise, even if he did, but I think he sees the chairmanship as a job where he can be effective in restructuring the party and is sincere about this.

for President if he is elected chairman.

wasn't Edwards a sitting Senator? was Kerry? was Graham?. I may be wrong but isn't about most running for President holding some office? So is it etched in stone/indelible ink that Dean can't run? Was this agreement exacted in life long blood, if so why and was this the way in the past and will it be for future Chairs or just for Dean? If he is able to turn this party around then I say he earned the highest office in the land for his reward. I'd say he earned it just by injecting some much needed spine to a spineless party. Time will tell what the future holds for Dean though as he may just have his legs cut out from under him before he even starts to walk in this Chair position..

Than just someone holding office as governor or congressman.

If a governor tells his state, "I'll serve out my term and not run for president," and then breaks that promise, it reflects on his or her integrity, imo, but it's really between the candidate and the people of the state. Usually, the people don't care too much, because they like the idea of their governor or senator being president, or making a substantial run at it. And if they do care, and the guy or gal doesn't win, they can always vote him/her out of office the next time.

Clinton is one who promised not to run for president if re-elected to governor, and then did anyway. He admits it in his book. I really like Clinton as a president, overall, but it was a sort of foreshadowing of some of the problems he would have later on. Not that Clinton is the first governor to do it, and will hardly be the last. I'd be willing to bet Bush did the same in TX, but I don't know for sure.

The chairman, otoh, is at least theoretically in a position to make decisions that could influence the next primary season. LOL--if he isn't, he's not a very good chairman. Could be all to easy for him to set things up to favor his own bid, or the bid of someone he's closely allied with. So it SHOULD be a much more problematic if Dean doesn't live up to his promise not to run, or if he ends up as VP to whoever wins. Not a pretty picture.

and he promised not to run in 2008

run for president in 2008.

I'm until next Saturday to celebrate.

THe Kucinich people weren't dumb. THey knew that the Chairman cannot run for Pres. You're looking at 2012 at the earlies.

not to run for president in 2008 if he gets the chair position.

too early man. i'm liking too many at once.....i feel like either Kerry/Boxer, Kerry/Clark, one of those combinations. yes sorry i still like Kerry. you can arrest me if you want for it :D

Kerry has a certain Swift Boat Liar to mop the floor with in Massachusetts in 2006 (I think?) before he thinks about running for President again. :)

with Dean really kicking ass as the DNC Chair, but I certainly respect your own feelings on the matter.

It's clear that there is already alot of jostling for position for the '08 primaries, but I would hope to keep primary wars to a minimum, at least until there are actual declared candidates.

In the meantime, I respect anyone who posts about their preferences, or fantasies of the ideal ticket, and don't like seeing others try to denigrate either the activity, or the choices.