No flamewars - just who do you want in 2008 for your Dem. Pres nominee

Me - I'm for Ed Rendell, current governor of PA.

This guy won BIG twice when he ran for governor, first beating the favorite Bob Casey Jr and then the republican Mike Fisher.

But this guy is awesome because he has what John Kerry and Al Gore never had - Charisma and Attitude. Ed Rendell would have never put up with the stuff that Gore & Kerry went through when they ran for office especially with those Swift Idiots. And Charisma is what made Bill Clinton highly popular especially with minorities. Ed has that same outreach in the city of Philadelphia when he was mayor and now as governor.

Plus, PA can't go throughout history with the worst president ever (James Buchanon). We can do better with Ed Rendell!

And btw, in the Democratic Brackets - Ed Rendell DEFEATED Hillary Clinton to get into the Sweet 16 (why a conservative like Mark Warner is beating him now is beyond me!!). She was ranked #1

http://www.calculusman.com/DemBracket/currentpoll.shtml

It is soooo far from now and there's so many choices. I just don't know who to support.

http://www.calculusman.com/DemBracket/sweet16.shtml

Ok, it was just a game - but still!!!

I don't get your point.... if you are alluding to Bill Clinton's election, then let me just say that the 1990s were another period in our history. Hillary is a hard sell now.. the world has changed! And, if you are talking about her NY seat... then, well all democratic elected officials win by defeating Republican opponents!

What does that prove?

I have no doubt that Texas is going to be the "home state" to the worst president ever. ;)

I have not made up my mind yet. I'm still scoping out the political landscape. Thank you for mentioning Ed Rendell. I will begin doing some research on him. I do think we will be better positioned if we run a candidate with executive experience.

To me - Reagan will always be worse that Bush Jr. If Reagan was never a president there would have never been a chimp for president today.

BUt you are correct. James Buchanon is in the bottom 5

I have a friend attending Eureka college on a Raygun scholarship. :puke: I couldn't accept ANY money named for Raygun. (Of course I wasn't planning on attending his alma mater, either. No offense to Eureka College.)

There are several strong choices. IF it were up to me (haha), I'd like to get a sense of who the repubs are going to run so we can pick one of our strong candidates who could best run against that individual.

So my question is who are the repubs going to run? Jeb? Rice? Frist? Ideas?

Wish I knew more about Rendell; think I'll start researching his background; I really do like Wes Clark, so at this time, he's my first choice for 2008.

I liked what I saw for a first impression. I'm also impressed with his wife. I liked this paragraph on her page.

"In the overall development of our children’s intellect, no other subject matter content holds as much promise or relevance – because we are citizens first and foremost! I firmly believe that our children deserve to be educated regarding the value of our democracy, how it is intended to operate and ways in which they can participate. It is a given that our basic freedoms depend on an educated citizenry and a learning process that has prepared us to participate and engage.

Kerry.

He's also proven that he has the appeal to win.

even though some people say he's too inexperienced as a politician - I think we NEED someone who is not an experienced (i.e. entrenched in special interests) career politician to get us out of the messes we're in.

that's cutting it close.

But '08 may be too soon. VP maybe?

VP would be a good start. Teamed up with a midwest or southern populist

but, unless we expose the GOP control of the media, they won't break through.

The media never allowed the real issues to be discussed. They did not ALLOW real research and facts about the Swift liars accusations to be discussed. Nightline went to Vietnam and got first hand accounts from the Vietnamese who were there and they matched the official reports but NO MEDIA NEWSCHANNELS would report what was discovered.

NO MEDIA NEWSCHANNELS would book the Chicago SunTimes manager who wrote an article refuting the Swift liars and describing exactly what happened because he was on the boat with Kerry....No one would book him for an interview.

1992 was the last election where there was any semblance of fairness to the media. The corporate media mavens are now firmly on the fascist bandwagon and will do all they can to protect BushInc.

As talented as Clinton is, he had a book, a promotional tour, interviews, and a 9-11 commission report to refute the media spin that he was asleep on the job and appeased terrorists for years. Yet, more Americans believe that he did nothing while there is noone tougher on terror than Bush. If silver-tongued Clinton hasn't broken through THIS CURRENT MEDIA, then who can?

We have got to expose the freakish control of the news media by the GOP.

until the current voting machines are thrown out.

Bush LOST the last 2 elections. Does't matter who the Democratic candidates are.... the Repubs will win.

Edwards.

...I'm looking for a chaismatic, plain spoken, poplist leader to emerge from the wilderness (no Party insiders please) who can craft and deliver a simple message of Economic and Social Justice for America because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

This man would need to be a Teddy Roosevelt Trust Buster, an FDR economist, a John Kennedy figurehead and spokesman, a Robert Kennedy Jr. environmentalist, and a Martin Luther King reformer.

Aside from that, I'm willing to compromise.

:shrug: I may know in two years

...have already chosen their guy and have planted themselves solidly in certain political camps. The proselytizing and cheerleading has already begun. Will they be blind to an emerging champion? There is so much good talent in our Party that hasn't yet been examined.

or in 1989 that Bill Clinton would win, or in 1985 that Dukakis would be nominated, or in 1977 Reagan would win, or in 1973 that Jimmy Carter would win, or in 1969 that McGovern would be nominated, or in 1965 that Nixon would win, or in 1961 that Johnson would win in a landslide?

I remember being a fanatical Dean supporter long before the primaries, but ultimately voting for Kucinich because Dean dropped out. Not only is it silly to start rooting for candidates who may never run, it's best to see who does well in 2006.

I'd be fine with Edwards, Gore, or Kerry again. I like Clark. The only one I'm lukewarm on is Hillary - too much triangulation for my taste.

I really like both of them. I'd be happy to support Kerry again. However, at the moment I'm leaning towards Edwards b/c his political instincts are better than Kerry and I worry that Kerry may have a tough time shaking the perceptions of him that were shaped during the presidential race.

Beyond that, maybe Clark. Quite possibly Hillary - I'm not nearly as anti-Hillary as the rest of DU. I'll wait it out. I could conceivably support her. Main thing counting against her is that I think we need to move beyond the dynasty thing.

is as anti-Hillary as the rest of DU.

I just stay away from Hillary threads on this site.

I'd like to see the reaction on DU if she were to win the presidency. Frankly, it might make some Freeper responses look calm.

Kerry. Edwards. Feingold. . Boxer. (first tier choices, not in order)

In my dream political state, Bill Moyers and Alexis Herman are president and vice president.

On the off chance that Dennis does not become the 2008 nominee,
I could happily support Russ Feingold or John Edwards.

you pumped him up well. sounds interesting. not remembering much about him

i am pretty easy

i believe kerry won in 2004, so i am not left with he lost an election. he won an election in my book

i think we have a wonderful well of perspective presidents

Wesley Clark.

TC

Rendell's good... Feingold's good... Bredesen is good...

:shrug:

hmmmm ... oh, gosh, I don't know ... what the heck. I think I'll go with Wes Clark... ;-)

I will have to keep an eye on Ed Rendell. I like Clark and Feingold and am open to most others.

a) mandates paper ballots, and
b) removes the voting and counting processes from private corporations

Ideally, Howard Dean, but he says he isn't running. Every President since 1976 has either been a governor or a sitting vice President, and obviously I'm not endorsing Cheney.

Let's find a governor/ex-governor who is not in league with Corporatists and the neocon treason agenda, and win this damn thing. And we have plenty of time to find one.

A governor from anywhere but the Northeast. I don't want to write off the South and West from the get-go next time.

A moderate Democratic governor who can talk to the gun nuts and the pro-lifers is essential, IMHO. I don't have a name of course, but that's my ideal profile.

Anything can happen between now and then. I'm more concerned about the '06 midterm.

Interesting answers though. :)

For VP:

Warner
Rendell
Schweitzer
Bayh

As usual.

Except Lieberman. Seriously, I'd take almost anyone, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Boxer, H. Clinton, Bayh, Rendell, Warner, Kucinich, FDR's Zombie, you name it.

It's much to early to call, but I'm leaning towards Clark. (I supported Dean in '04 primaries. I'd vote for him again, but he'll be busy running the DNC, most likely).

Two of the major reasons:

1. Because, to borrow a line from another Clarkie:

"He's the president we were promised when we were children."

I say that as a thoughtful adult.

2. Because I firmly believe that unlike almost anyone I can think of, he really both believes and follows the dictum:

"Duty, honor, country".

I'd love to have one as pres and the other as vp. I know it won't happen, but I can dream.

and as should probably be clear from my sig line.

no offense to ed rendell, and i think he would be the first to admit it, but he is just an overachieving ward heeler. his style reminds me of boris yeltsin's, boorish.

there is a plus in rendell. he has had mayoral experience. that brings everyday life of people right into his lap, so he is aware of how policy affects the people on an intimate level.

First I look at the policy:

The War? The Patriots Act? NCLB? Privacy? etc.

This is not a litmus test, but there are political positions that are deal breakers for me. This is not about the "who" as much as the "what" and the "how"?

Fail round number two, and what is the use? Should I vote for someone because they are so "inside" that they can raise piles of tainted corporate money? Besides, it is difficulty standing up for what is right and just without a backbone.

Second, comes the elect ability:

Is the candidate likable? What regions will be in play? What current GOP demographics can be put in play? While this criteria is secondary, winning is important.

Finally, ability to govern:

There is no money in the treasury today, there will only a bathtub ring when bush is through with us. Who can build coalitions? Who can increase the base? Who has a vision for our sad, sad country? Who will make returning to a system of checks and balances a priority? Who believes in small "d" democracy to the extent they will spend some political capital doing what is important for the "common good" vs the corporate agendas. Talking left and voting right doesn't count.

Wes Clark has not failed any of these tests, and I do not rule out that there may be others. I will not waste my vote on another supporter of the Iraq War or the Patriot's Act. Nope. Never again. If we don't stand up for our core beliefs, if we are satisfied with a position as a cash cow-roots, then we will get the politics-as-usual government we deserved rather than the government we need. I do want my country back.

I need more cow bell!

and skipped Kathleen Sebelius (also a female, midwest, dem Govenor).

:applause:

Wes Clark,of course!

This coming from a former Philadelphian who remembers him as assistant DA, DA and Mayor Rendell.I also supported him in his bid for Governor of Pa.Rendell is certainly popular in the Philadelphia area, he is capable of raising large sums of money and he knows his politics. He is also a likable guy. He does however, have some bad habits,has been known to "put his foot in his mouth" and comes across as a bit shady. He also is in no way very progressive.IMO, he practices "old time politics". I think he would be much more effective as Governor of Pa, working behind the scenes to energize our Democratic base and bring on board new recruits. Now, I'm willing to go with John Kerry again for President. Why should our President be cast in the mold of Clinton and Bush?

a GREAT second!!

Look at the cheezy smears the neo-cons and the "anti military at all cost" folks have after 3 solid years to try and manufacture dirt. Some of you want an elected official? I say anyone with a voting record of any sort will have it twisted by the highly paid PR professionals in the republican think tanks. Pick yer Senator and toss them in with the lions.

Every non rabid Republican I meet gets a funny look on their face when I mention Clark and they blurt out that they could have voted for him. His position papers and personal beliefs were only slightly to the right of Kuchinich and he uses the truth like a razor.

I want a fighter who can win. I don't care to see this country ceded to the fascist theocrats just because some people think that voting for a career politician is more "politically correct"

So would some other Democrats, but no one has announced so this is all very premature.

...a Jew could never get elected president. Still, I would vote for him in a heartbeat...I agree with almost every vote he casts.

I think he is the best chance that the Democrats have to win.

for me but just might appeal to moderate voters, but I would prefer Clark though. :dem:

n/t

Wes Clark

'nuff said.

will he still do Eagles Post Game Live?

we long lost brothers? And the fact that he does talk football after games shows a connection to the common man and could help him with NASCAR dads. Been to any shows lately?

was the Electric Factory in Philly. I believe it was 2 years ago? I might go see them at the warped tour as well. Go Birds..

i played rugby at Temple U

moving to pittsburgh just in time to catch them on the warped tour. I listen to Fields of Athenry to get me going before a game, especially if there are a few limeys on the opposition. You still play? If you're still in the Philly area check out Media RFC they are a good bunch of boys to play with.

good choice. I havent played in around 3 years I might be interested tho. I played second row.

is even more fun with men's club than it was in college. You still in Philly?

1. Wesley Clark
2. Russ Feingold
3. Barbara Boxer
4. Dennis Kucinich
5. John Conyers

A liberal as all hell ticket that will kick your ass!!!

In reality, I'll see who runs. Edwards and Feingold both look good.

Is the man for me...has been since 2003
windbreeze

He just seems respectable. I figured with his name recognition and the hella economy we had under Clinton...he just might win. I hear Wes Clark, all the time. He seems to have a devoted following. To be honest I don't know very much about him. He was a General? That seems good in times of war. The military seems to be an entity that would be tough to be Commander and Chief, of. (ignore grammar) Every rank and file military officer, FBI, CIA, Whatever that new Highest security, over everybody else, homeland security, is filled with ass-kissers who have sworn an oath of allegiance, not to this constitution, bill of rights, or our federation, but to the Republicans and their neo-con agenda. I'm scared they have taken over for good and their network of spy vs spy will infiltrate every segment of society that holds any opposition and try to nullify it. Actually I'm very scared. Could a Gore/Clark ticket function or is there too much ego over who would be vice president. Off rant ...:rant:

It will be the strongest field in my lifetime for the Dem nomination, but I think Gore clearly the best:

1) policy-- solid on traditional Dem issues, but the strongest of any candidate on the environment and first to speak out against the war (September 2002);

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=123

2) vision thing-- he has advocated for action on global warming since *the 70s*;

3) foreign policy credentials-- again strongest and that's a big deal in the 21st century;

4) charisma-- drives MoveOn crowds wild, excellent stump speaker, better electoral percentage of black vote than Clinton;

5) experience-- again best, both political and governmental;

6) electability-- never been beaten, despite what the GOP and our mainstream media friends may say.

The best Democrat of my lifetime, straight up.

A proven liberal.

fiscal responsibility, open government, and conservation of finite resources..how radically liberal. :eyes: But now one must be a bribed warmonger to become an accepted conservative.

n/t

I view Carter as one of our best conservative Presidents. He believed in fiscal discipline, energy conservation, a government that is accountable to the voters, and using our military and those who serve solely for national defense..not world domination.

Conservative - inclined to keep things as they are, opposed to change, cautious..moderate, free from novelties fades, having the power to preserve from harm or decay, conserving or preserving.

Liberal - generous, plentiful, abundant, broadmindedness, not narrow in ones ideas, giving the general thought, not a word for word rendering, favorable to progress and reforms.

OK, sure.

As for Ted Kennedy, I think he ran for President because he felt that his last name entitled him to sleep in the White House.

Bush felt that his last name entitled him to sleep in the White House.

I have never heard a Republican provide a list of accomplishments for Bush as Governor or President. All we hear from these neocon flakes is bigotry and negativity, but never ideas for funding their wars or covering uninsured workers.

Argue against me all you wish, but why argue against Thorndike and Barnhart Dictionary?

Carter was robbed of his fair chance. No President could have avoided the economic slump after Vietnam/Watergate. A second Carter term might well have prevented the creation of Al Qaeda and definitely the arming of Saddam Hussein.

And Reagan could be elected to a second term at 75 when his mind was already failing, then Carter, who has shown that he is physically and mentally strong, is fine at 85 (in 2008). I mean, isn't Byrd considering yet another six year term in 2006? He'll be 89 in 2006. Sure, Carter will have to be sure to pick a capable VP if the worst should happen but he has experience in the White House that's unmatched by any eligible Democrat and the respect and affection of the world community.

to someone who chose this party based on personal political ambition.

has ALWAYS practiced Liberal policies during his Military days. Being in the military...he was A political. Don't forget he worked and voted for Clinton and Gore. His heart and core beliefs have always been Liberal. Since when does someone have to be a born Democrat in order to run for President? However, if the South and Republicans think like you...and think he is a Born-Again Democrat...he'd have a better chance of winning the Presidency.
Remember...Reagan was a Democrat and the Repubs forgave him.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK has the BEST chance of winning the general election. Let's make it easier for him to win the primary.

Fresh faces into the mix, both of whom seem to be pretty good at reaching out to the groups we need.

Clinton's negatives would preclude her winning against anyone except a lightning bolt, and I don't see Trent Lott or Tom Delay running.

Kerry and Edwards had their chance. I really don't like saying that, I admire Kerry tremendously, but his campaigning ability is like Texas weather, overly prone to long droughts in the late summer. Also, northeasterners are unelectable at present (and before you accuse me of regional favoritism, look at my name). Edwards didn't connect in the debate with Cheney, and his leaving the Senate can't possibly be good for his career.


Obama needs some grey hair.

Richardson is the strongest of the remaining top-tier candidates. His talking style lacks the fire of the two I listed, but he could do quite well.

When the Right Wing Noise Machine winds up to tear apart our next candidate, I hope that whoever it is, he or she will use this quote:

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred."
-FDR, October 31, 1936 Madison Square Garden.

Our next candidate should use that quote to frame our issues. That FDR and The New Deal is what we stand for. That the Republicans stand for corporate welfare, war-profiteering and voter suppression. In short, The Screw You Deal.

The fight is on and we cannot let up or allow ourselves to have a candidate who tries to play both sides against the other.

The Republicans have chosen their side. Fuck them and let them keep their side all to themselves. Hopefully, they'll end up screwing themselves.

Gort

-nuff said.

Far and away the most eloquent Dem I've ever seen. I love that guy!

Sadly (and I know next to nothing about this) he must have a skeleton or two in the ol' closet ... cuz he coulda run and won years ago. I always wondered why he didn't.

that's a dream ticket.

without out a doubt for me at this point in time. But I will support whoever gets the nod to run in '08.. like many have said though, its way early.

and this would one of the commercials....

Fade in with a background of various senators and congresspeople talking on the senate and house floor, but their words are muted (mouths moving)...Close up on a mouth as it continues mouthing words....

(voice over)
We've heard a lot of talk coming out of Washington. (close up of mouth still showing)

They debate, they fuss and they fight. But in the end, it is us who must live with the results......

(screen changes to children in the classroom, then soldiers fighting in Iraq, then a factory with a "closed" sign on the door.

Next the image of the counter keeping track of our deficit climbing by the second)

(voice over)
We've given Washington more than a chance, and by now we understand that Washington has been part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Well we've got a message for YOU, Washington. America needs a leader that will look after American's interest, and not continue the fight of petty party politics. We will no longer be satisfied with empty partisan rethoric.....we DEMAND workable solutions.

We must unite as a country and work together for peace, hope, prosperity for all of our citizens and for the future generations.

Wes Clark comes on and says...."I want to restore the American Dream before it falls out from the reaches of most Americans. America's greatest strength is the determination of it's people. Instead of talking AT you, I will listen TO you and THEN speak truth to power. I will make them listen to what America truly wants....positive and constructive progress for each and everyone of us.
Join me..... Together, we can do this."

(voice over with a footage of Clark listening intensely to a person speaking at a town hall, and Wes shaking his head yes)

(Quiet female voice)Maybe it's time for America to send a general to win the peace in Washington. Together and united, we can change the direction of our country. We have always had the will, but now, we've got the way......we can send a warrior for the people, and give Washington a real leader. This is OUR chance to restore the American Dream.

(Screen shows a logo of "securingAmerica.com"......and shortly after, a logo that simply says.....Clark for Americans in 2008)
"Washington shouldn't be about Washington, it should be about US.
America, it's now in OUR hands. Together, We CAN do this."

get de-throned due to widespread scandals.

are my preferences. But hey, if you know my history you know that I will be throwing my support behind whatever is under Democrat on my ballots, even if that Democrat is dead, or a talking box of hair. Go, Hair! Sometimes the best offense is...not being a Republican!

but would had Durbin to my preferred list.

He'd be my choice for president, but as for nominee... his chances for getting the nomination seem pretty low right.

I think rather than introducing someone to the national stage for the elections, the democrats will take whoever steps up over the next three years and proves themselves as a natural leader of the minority. So it could still be Kerry, or Clinton, or my favorite pleasant-surprise-of-the-year Harry Reid.

Or we could go with some unknown governor, they seem to do well actually.

He's not so far removed from the average joe, nor would he be percieved that way, imo. He has electability in "Rural America". He's untouchable by the NRA (if not endorsable). Imagine a presidential election where the NRA was silent. Or even endorsing OUR GUY. I don't want to argue about the NRA here. Like them or hate them or anywhere in between, to not - at least - acknowledge the damage they can do as an opponent, is gross ignorance. With one of the highest lifetime voting records of any seated U.S. Senator on conservation, he would OWN the sportsmen vote like no presidential candidate in a long time. His commitment to the environment is no secret.

He voted against Patriot act.

Opposing Drilling in ANWR.

Civil Rights/liberties - outstanding lifetime voting record.

"I strongly believe that the civil rights of all individuals should be vigorously upheld regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, genetic make-up, or sexual orientation." Russ Feingold.

Women's Issues - EQUAL PAY, EQUAL RIGHTS, REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. Right off his page.

Has experience holding a significant political office.

The more I learn about Senator Feingold, the less willing I become to vote for anyone but him. The man has nothing to hide and very little to attack in his senate voting reord, that I can see. His voting history is a good reflection of his STATED position on any given issue, and thats integrity folks. Integrity sells, especially when combined with being on the peoples side of the issues. He is a CLASS ACT.

Feingold 08

Right now, he's the guy I'd pick. Warner has been successful in business, successful in government (he actually raised taxes in a red state and balanced the budget while providing more health care, education, blah blah blah), and has a proven ability to bring purple and pink voters into the party.

Still, my mind is open, and I'll see what the candidates are doing when the primaries come around. The Democrats threw the kitchen sink at Howard Dean last primary season and used kid gloves against Bush, so the challenge is identifying someone who is able and willing to go all the way. Kerry was able but didn't seem willing, while someone like Clark seems willing but wet behind the ears.

"Clark seems willing but wet behind the ears." Ears don't stay wet very long once out of the shower. I do think he has the intelligence and TIME to grow or dry off. Please listen to him carefully...do lots of research...keep your ears, eyes and heart open and you could change your mind. I really believe that!

The most important motivation for supporting Warner is that he is a proven political winner. He has advanced our values in a red state which is not an easy thing to do these days.

Thousands of Dean fanatics "believed" in their candidate, and look how that ended. We need to start thinking with our heads on the left and not with our hearts.

I'm still open to most of the candidates next year, including Clark, Kerry, Feingold, Clinton etc. But if I had to pick today, I'd select Governor Warner.

He came very very close this time, and I think he could win now that he has experience, and because attacks on him will seem stale the second time around.

Gore is a proven winner, both as a campaigner and as a public servant.

1.) Gore started his 2000 campaign (one month after the impeachment attempt, and after 8 long years of Republican smear campaigns) 20 points behind "any Republican" and went on to win the election.

2.) He was outspent by Bush 2 to 1 - - this was before McCain/Feingold, the 527s which spent hundreds of millions of dollars on 2004 were not created or even legal yet. (The top four liberal 527s alone spent over $226,000,000 dollars on the 2004 campaign - - that's beyond what the Kerry/Edwards campaign spent.)

3.) Gore's victory was despite the most hostile press coverage of any candidate in modern history (perhaps of any Presidential candidate ever). But despite all of the negative coverage, his approval ratings remained well above 50% for the entire 2000 campaign, and remain so today. (The only time in his whole career it was below 50% was during the last few days of the Florida recount, and that was barely below 50%.) In other words, Gore beat the GOP spin machine before most folks on the left even realized there was one.

4.) Gore's resume is the best of any potential candidate. He served eight years as a Congressman, eight years as a Senator and eight years as one of the most powerful Vice Presidents in history. His accomplishments in office are impressive: to name a very few, he chaired the first chaired the first Congressional oversight
hearing dealing with toxic waste clean up. He co-sponsored early legislation to study global warming and was an original cosponsor of the Water Quality Act of 1987. He cast the deciding vote for the 1993 Clinton Administration Economic Plan which changed record federal deficits into record surpluses - beginning the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, with over 18 million new jobs created and the lowest African-American and Hispanic unemployment on record. Gore has been recognized as a leading expert on arms control from the early 1980s. As Vice President, he worked to combat nuclear proliferation, negotiating the deactivation of over 5,000 nuclear warheads in Russia and the removal of nuclear weapons from the Ukraine. He presided over the first U.N. Security Council session on AIDS, the first ever devoted to combating a health crisis. a Congressman, Gore cosponsored the Civil Rights Restoration Act. He was an original cosponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1990, the Equal Remedies Act and also an original cosponsor of legislation to create a federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Gore played a leading role in the creation of the national organ donor network, the V-chip, and even Newt Gingrich acknowledges Gore's crucial role in the development of the Internet.

5.) Unlike other proposed candidates, Gore has consistently opposed all of the worst of the Bush admin's policies - - and he's been one of the earliest, most vocal critics of each proposal. Gore first spoke against the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act before Congress voted on them - - and has continued to speak out forcefully against them and other Republican outrages (he's speaking again tomorrow against Frist & the "nuclear option"). He opposed Bush's entire domestic agenda during the 2000 campaign, calling the difference between their platforms "as clear and stark a contrast in this election as I have ever seen in my lifetime".

6.) Unlike other proposed candidates, Gore has a natural appeal to "values voters" - - not only is he Southern, his personal integrity and his commitment to his family were one of the main reasons Clinton considered him for his VP. And Gore's commitment to his religious faith is equally well known - - Gore is a liberal Christian, who has spoken out against the religious right many times.

I totally feel your pain. Well, except I can understand all the reasons why you're probably in more pain, but hopefully you know what I mean. Still, those are some good arguments. And you know, I strongly feel that 2008 is going to be a whole new game. So, why not Gore? I'd vote for him.

and I have to agree with you.

He's always had the brains, but over the last few years he's found his mojo.

suffered by men like Gore and Kerry, who ran, and won and then didn't get to serve. They had both, by the end of their campaigns, made the admirable transitions from men believing they could be elected president to men believing they could be president. A person can't just revert from that evolution, I would think, go back to the place they were in before making that leap from politician to world leader. It must be very frustrating for them to have to live like that, knowing they're emotionally, psychologically and philisophically "ready" to run an entire nation, and not being able to utilize those unique skills in the way they should have been allowed to.

I predict it will be Biden/Clinton, or Biden/Boxer. After a lot mental regurgitation/mastication/regurgitation, I find myself reasonably well pleased with either team.

Clark. Clark is awesome!

For VP? Gore or Feingold would be good.

I'd settle for Feingold/Clark, or Gore/Feingold though.

I'm most attracted towards Edwards as a candidate in that he reaches me on a gutt level with his anti-poverty, pro-labor, pro-worker rhetoric - and his quick wit/intelligence. I do have some reservations about him but at this point I see no perfect candidates and Edwards is the most appealing. (Disclaimer: I supported Edwards in 2000).

Rendell:

I can see why you like Rendell - I was living in PA when Rendell was elected Governor and I really enjoyed watching him in the debates - very feisty and machismo - always on message - never stumbles - and he is socially progressive but manages to frame progressive economic rhetoric in soothing terms. His machismo, his burly quality, (sort of a Democratic version of Fred Thompson, image wise) I think it could play well against most of the potential Republican nominees and lay to rest the stereotype that Dems are too nuanced (mealy mouthed, wishy washy) which has been unfortunately perpetuated by MSM and the Republican party - with all too much help from Al Gore and John Kerry and the DLC.
(Apologies to Gore and Kerry because I like both of them - but they really made the mistake of way too much nuance and complexity in a sound bite world).

I worry that Rendell is a bit too North East in persona. This has been an electoral problem lately (also concerns me about Biden, for example) - and Democrats need a candidate who brings a swing demographic or region to the table.

Predictions: If I was a gambler (not based on my personal preference), I'd bet that (1) Hillary will be the nominee and that all that will be left for us to discuss is her (2) potential running mates - which I would predict as Warner, Richardson or Bayh.

So I don't think I'm gonna get the sort of candidate I would prefer but I'll back the Dem ticket regardless.

Sorry...won't matter if we don't get voting mess cleaned up and focus on 2006 and running good candidates that give us a shot at taking house and senate back.

I won't even think about 2008. It's off the radar. And, it's annoying that folks keep pushing candidates here as if we would all follow some person just because some folks are acting as premature Campaign Ops.

But, not dissing you for your post, because you did make it open...hope it doesn't go down in flames though...if some OP's show up. :D

He reminds me of a Classic pit bull, who will tear off your leg and not let go till you say you're sorry. Plus, I like "not politics as usual" for a fresh new start for the Democratic party (our old image is tore up). The same ol' same ol' of going back to the 1992 strategy will backfire, in my opinion. Clark is a qualified established maverick and that's what this Democratic party needs to win voters back and change the perception of the Democratic party.

I think that people can see in him a part of themselves; whether it's southerners, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Military personnel, those looking for a grandfather or daddy type, those looking for a liberal, those looking for a handsome presidential type, those looking for Foreign policy experience, those looking for an outsider, those looking for an intellectual and wonk, those looking for a regular "up by the boot strap" guy, those looking for one who talks values, those looking for a bad ass, those looking for a steady strong leader, those looking for an independent thinker (who voted both Rep and Dem), those looking for a commander in chief, those looking for an honest man, those looking for a multinationalist uniter, those looking for one strong Democrat who's not just a party hack, those looking for reasonable conservatism (in perception only), and those looking for change. Clark sure fills a lot of slots. I just hope that the Democratic party has the courage to follow through on what could really work.

Rendell looks sweaty and kind of like a mob boss. I can't envision him as President, and I doubt that the majority of voters will too. I know for sure that he would bomb big time in the South.

Clark/Boxer, Clark/Sanchez(Loretta), or Clark/Feingold, would work for me.

because we can turn the tables on the pugs on a couple of points with him.
First of all, we can use the same line they used when we tried to discredit * service record by stating "They tried that last time and it didn't fly".
Also, we know what ammunition they are going to use against him and we can better control it this time around.
Besides, according to what I have read, Kerry WAS a winner--* just stole the election. Why not give him another shot to take what is rightfully his?
I think he should pair up with someone like Lloyd Doggett--I think they would be a great team and very tough to beat.

A ticket with both would be wonderful, as both are fighters and aren't going to let a bunch of bs like the smear boat ads go by without a response.

There is no stopping Hillary - she will win the Democratic nomination. It's scary because I don't think she has a prayer nationally unless she is lucky enough to run against someone like Tom Delay.

:hi:

:kick:
Kerry failed the test of conviction...listened to his handlers and not his gut. Clinton was a gut man, Ray gun was a gut man. Don't pander to me and I will listen.

:hi:

Anyone else who runs with Wes as vp is just gravy.

There is a lil something for everyone in that ticket.

I can't think of where they differ much.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Paul Wellstone would smack you in the mouth.

Charisma and attitude in spades.
As well as character, courage and compassion.

(And more cowbell.)

at this point. I like what he is saying and how he is saying it. I'm also a big Elizabeth fan. But I'm not firmly committed to anyone just yet. It is too early.

They're winners! That is if they're running again..if not, then I will support whoever would make a good Democrat President/Vice President

I mean, it's cool with me if that could be possible but...I don't know...might be some tension. Might not. They made a great team. Right up until the end. Nothing against Kerry OR Edwards for reportedly doing what each man felt he had to do on election night but...after everything I've heard and read, including some posts on this site, I'm just doubtful they could or would want to kiss and make up in order to fight round two.

I know their familes are close, but I think they are too or are they not? I heard that Jack and Emma Claire still come to visit Momma T and spend time together.

Senators! You've still got my vote ::kisses::

thats the way, uh huh uh huh

Being pragmatic here. She can win and it will do more to piss off the radical right fascists than anything else that could happen.

But the most intriguing is I think Clark offers the greatest opportunity for a break through political realignment toward the Democratic Party. Clark dissolves the traditional Republican advantage on national security/foreign affairs. Clark heals the rupture over Viet Nam that shifted many working class military families Republican (Clark fought there with honor but says that dissent is at the core of democracy). Clark is comfortable talking about religion AND calls the Christian Right the Cristian Wrong for distorting Jesus' message of love and compassion. Clark fits the profile that Independent voters relate to. An accomplished proven intelligent leader who is not identified as being shrilly partisan (his past Reagan vote helps with this constituency). Clark is not shy to fire back when attacked, and his use of humor in that regard is perhaps the most devastating that has come along since Reagan (or his script writers) deployed it so well. Clark is not a North East or West Coast politician, so he can catch the Republicans off guard in trying to type cast him as "out of touch".

Then there are the reasons why I think Clark would make a good President, but I'll save that for some other time.

No doubt about it.
He's a gift. Let's recognize it.

I would like Rendell but I also love Clark. I would vote for Barbara Boxer in a heartbeat.

In fact, a Clark/Boxer or a Boxer/Clark ticket, either way, would be dreamy:)

But, I would also vote for Kerry again. I just think he doesn't get across as well on the 30 second spot. It's sad, but nuanced commentary doesn't cut it on the tube. And he will never, ever, get the white, working class male vote, I do not care how many times he gets decked out in a hunting suit. And we need some of that vote to win.

I don't think Hillary is as poisonous as people seem to think. I'm still not sure people would support a female for president though, and I can't help but feel the Clintons' moment has passed at least on that level. Could be wrong of course. Lots of people HATE them, though, which is a drawback when trying to win votes:)

I'll bet there are other good people out there. Durbin, for example, is TERRIFIC, a great Senator.

another one, which had strayed:)

I'd take a Clark/Boxer ticket in a heartbeat. But what the hell is the difference. If we don't address voter fraud in the next 18 months, the repukes are gonna win hands down. Remember, the repukes play to win at all costs. If you think they will give up power to a strong democratic slate, you are all dreaming.

Unfortunately, I'm not hearing any Dems making noises about fixing voter fraud on a federal or state level. The 2006 mid-term election will be here before we know it. If every legitimate vote is not counted, if there are no paper trails, then it won't matter a hill of beans who the Dems run. We'll be stuck with repukes till 2024.

;(

Iraq and in the Ukraine, we should have them here.

say no more!

A true environmental president.

We'll see much more I'm sure and perhaps more of you will come to understand my belief in him.

Hey I LOVE Kerry, but I don't think it will happen again. And for me HILLARY is burnt toast!!!

Schweitzer, Edwards, Clark though I think Clark would be a better VP.

I think he's got the charisma to win.

He can connect with people, and that includes disaffected Republicans.

Keep your eye on him over the next two years -- he will *not* be a wallflower.

With Wes Clark or Barbara Boxer as VP

If he decides not to run, I would probably get behind a Dem governor. This guy Schweitzer looks really interesting. The OP sings Rendell's praises, I don't know much about him, but if he's that good he sounds interesting as well.

DTH

I was a big supporter of Wesley Clark in late 2003 based upon his resume - until I saw what kind of campaign he ran. I am also suspicious of anyone who has so many people around him who didn't like him. The accusation that people in the military were jealous of his intellect only goes so far.

eom