The two best Democrats we could run in '08 are Wesley Clark and Al Gore,

with, in my opinion, the edge going to Al Gore.

They are the strongest contenders we have.

If they run McCain, though, we have to run Hillary (and we'll still lose).

There. I have spoken. :)

Nixon waited 8 years and came back and I think Gore could do the same thing.

You think Hillary would come closer to beating McCain than Clark would?

What the heck are you smokin back there in B-N?

The only candidate the Democrats can run with the hop of winning would be Wes Clark.

BTW, maybe someone here knows this... I was told the other day that Gore had said categorically that he would not run in '08. I hadn't heard that. Is it true? Are there any Gorniacs here who know if this is true or not?

Thanks, ahead of time, for answering!

TC

Maybe he's enjoying his freedom too much. I think being liberated from family ambitions was cathartic for him.

That said, though he isn't my first pick, if he were to decide to run and got the nomination, I would have no trouble whatsoever working that campaign.

The only thing Gore has said about running since the 2004 election is in response to a direct question by a reporter during an interview; Gore replied "I have no intention of running", which is universally understood to mean in political circles "I want to run, but it's too early to say so". (If you don't believe me, check out the transcript of Tim Russert interviewing Condi Rice, where Russert asked her repeatedly "Are you really not going to run, or do you just 'not intend' to?". He asked her so many times that Jon Stewart did a piece riffing on it.)

If you ask Wes Clark, or John Kerry, or HRC, or Rudi Gulliani, or John McCain, or anybody else who is rumored to be considering a run, it's a 98% certainty they will say "I have no intention of running". And they will mean the same thing that Gore means when he says it - - "It's too early to tip my hand".

The reason some people mistakenly think that Gore has definitely announced he is not running are:

1.) Truthout ran a piece paraphrasing Gore's "I have no intention of running" quote as something different than what he did say.
2.) That idiot Chris Matthews broadcast an unsourced, anonymous rumor that Gore was not going to run.

If Gore definitely decides he will not run, he will NOT do so through a whisper campaign. In the past, whenever he has decided not to run for an office, he has ALWAYS either held a formal press conference or issued an official statement.

He has said repeatedly, "I am keeping all options open" but he also said recently that we all need to focus on winning in 2006 rather than 2008 right now.

Like it or not, Clark is not as high a profile figure as Gore, Kerry or HRC. Either of those three could hold off announcing a campaign until after the 2006 elections without having to worry much about losing their national profile or losing their donor base.

On the other hand, if Gore, Kerry or HRC personally say something as leading as "I'm keeping my options open", their potential opponents and the media will start cranking up the attacks. And what could Gore, Kerry or HRC do but launch a stealth campaign (promoting themselves or smearing the others) in return? Before you know it, you've got an early, open primary campaign which would almost certainly siphon off major amounts of cash from the 2006 elections, which nobody wants. A three year open long primary would allow the media that much more time to report which major donor had jumped ship, who was raising the most cash from the grassroots... every tiny misstep would be proof that their campaign was doomed to failure. (And every reported success would run the risk of backlash from the undecided Dems, who like to shop before they buy; the two elected Dems would also run the risk of hacking off their constituents, who actually elected them to work instead of run for President.)

Clark, on the other hand, can only gain from looking like he's running this early. He needs the exposure, he needs the grassroots excitement, he needs the positive rumors to keep the media and the donors interested. The same is true of Biden, Bayh, Bresden and others who may be considering a run.

You mean Phil Bredesen? The governor of Tennessee?

He's not running.

If he has, I missed it.

What I've seen a few times over the last couple months is him being talked up as a possible candidate by folks who are close enough to him that he smells like he's running.

Whether that speculation will get any farther than speculation or not... it's too early to tell.

Unless, as I said, I missed his press conference or interview where he said the magic words that really mean the isn't running.

We don't have any other Democrats around here to replace him!

(I'm a Tennessean)

He also has not come close to saying, "I have no intentions of running." He's kept his finance team from 2004 intact. And there are any number of articles that strongly point to another run.

How will he win the second time. We don't want another Adlai Stevenson (sic?). He's already been pegged as a flip-flopper. I saw him speak in Denver and, while not a bad speaker, he's not great. Kerry's the epitome of the liberal democrat trying to appeal to the conservative live-life-easy American crowd. We need candidates who inspire the people into thinking patriotically- someone like JFK, for instance, who doesn't promote middle-class tax cuts and no national responsibility, but someone who talks about how great America is, how we need to play a part in America's development, and how the Republicans haven't done justice for America. In fact, their tactics have gravely threatened America's well-being (see the cover story of the most recent Newsweek, about how the next century belongs to China.) Say the Republicans betrayed the American dream.

We need a strong leader from the South who will be able to grab red/purple states and put them into the blue column of victory in a time of war when those
voters are looking for tough conviction on national security as well as compassionate vision on domestic issues.

That's why I support Wes Clark.

Kerry has made the conscious choice to float the rumor that he was considering a run, and escalate the rumors to the point where "everybody knows" that he's running. The press he's gotten as a result has been lukewarm at best.

I thought that's what he had said, but I wasn't sure. And thank you, Little Clarkie, too.

I appreciate it!

TC

Who would have predicted either Carter for 1976 back in 1973 or Clinton for 1992 in 1989? While there are definitely a couple of horses in the race already, there might be a surprise or two ahead.



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

Governor Brian Schweitzer. Keep an eye on this guy. He seems to be a straight shooter and he told bush to screw himself in so many words. From what little I know of him, he seems to be a "regular guy". And he could possibly carry the Mountain states, which would put the Dems over the top. Not disagreeing with you, just sayin' keep an eye on this guy (again). I think he's a rising star.

Did you see the interview in Salon?

And that's two years into his governorship. The backlash from his home state will be huge. Schweitzer needs a little more experience before he can run.

I was wondering, because from the Salon interview, he didn't strike me as a guy who would want to leave there for DC. Do you have any insight?

Governors need to be in their home states governorning, whereas Senators can usually get away with doing half of their job to run for POTUS. Any state who elects their governor to a full term in office is going to be pissed off if that Governor starts a presidential bid half way through his first term and focuses on that instead of addressing the state's issues.

He's going to be pretty old by 2008 (late 70s, maybe). I mean, anything's possible, but it's just an observation.

for starting such a forward looking thread in this forum. Exit stage right. :hi:

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

Or Gore&bozo, Shrub will f-ck things up so bad the next three, unless kkkarl invents a new tragedy, even the ? % will vote survival.Al punished the world by not running in 2004, we'll forgive.

:eyes:

DTH

:P

They write well, speak well, care about the right things, have great families, etc... I'm not sure what you're referring to with that remark. We've got a wealth of great people in our party, and these are definitely two of them.

I could not agree more.

TC

Or any other DLC/PNAC puppet senators.

to promote your candidates. I would support either Gore or Clark if they got the nomination. I would also support Kerry or Hillary under those circumstances.

Kerry has a known liberal record going back to his adolescence. Compare Gore to Kerry when they were both in the Senate, Gore was a moderate to conservative Democrat, while Kerry was one of the more dependable liberal votes. Clark voted for Nixon and Bush when Kerry was risking his career fighting them harder than almost anyone else. Hillary was considered to be the most liberal person in the Clinton White house.

Yes, I know you can claim that Gore and Clark have moved to the left - I'm sure they have. You forgive them whenever you disagreed with them - but hate Kerry whenever he is slightly different from where you stand.

It's fair to be against Kerry because you feel that he can't win or because you don't like him, but it is not fair to call him what he is not. He is not a DLC/ PNAC puppet Senator.

Hillary is not qualified. Period.

his name is listed on their membership rolls, and so is Edwards, so is Hillary. Gore is not. I don't think this means they are "DLC/PNAC Puppets", but they are -- all three -- members, fwiw.

TC

Thankfully, Kerry is the furthest left of the DLC roster and maintained a strong left voting record throughout.

Thankful because I am glad that there are some in the DLC who pull from the left to counter the more centrist Democrats.

prior to 1992. Gore's Senate record is far far more centrist than Kerry's. Whether Kerry joined the DLC or not - his record indicates he is not a puppet.

Clark is not an elected official - thus he never would be listed as such, but he praised Bush in pre 911 2001. If your looking for a liberal from (Kerry, Clark, Gore) one of them obviously has angered the RW for the last 30 years and has been bashed for something by them!

If I can say I will support Clark in the general election, who voted for Nixon and Reagan, is it too much to ask that you, even if you would never vote for Kerry, at least not refer to him as supporting PNAC or being towards the RW of the Democratic party.

But he is a member of the DLC. He took too much advice from them last time around, as they're still under the mistaken impression that they were right and we were wrong re: Iraq.

:hi:

Personally, I'd support Clark in '08.

as the best combination we have.

Hillary would also be a good choice.

Here, have a pizza.

Gore&Clark would make a great ticket, but what about the ? % that still think the world is flat, or was that PHat .

Lets try not to enforce these stereotypes please :grr:

So much can change so fast.

I'll be going with Kerry, even if it means I have to go down with that ship. No surrender. I'm not angling for the most likely to win or looking for "undamaged goods". They'll all be damaged once the Repubs get done with them. I want who I want, because I wasn't wrong in 2004. He would still make a damn fine prez. I just gotta figure a way to get him there, is all.

But that's me. I don't expect everyone to understand. We won't be nearly as unified, even superficially, in 2008 I suspect unless the other side runs Jeb. So we'll all have our favorites.

That said, to declare this early who our strongest or best people are is just premature.

really care about anyone more than he cares about Wall St.

Arthur Levitt has some unflattering things to say about Lieberman while he Levitt was SEC chair.

Lieberman was very actively opposed to Levitt's attempts to reform public audits.

Gore. I just think he can get the job done in the time ahead. That is my gut feeling.

I also want to say that from what I see happening in this country, I still believe there is too much sexism. A large number of people in this country are just not ready to see a woman be President. This, in itself, would be enough to eliminate Clinton from contention, but she is also a very polarizing politcal figure. This is just my opinion obviously based upon my individual observations.

Personally, I like Boxer better than Hillary anyway.

Some of the primary contenders I see:

Gore
Kerry
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Biden
I am sure there will be many more than that.

Olaf

Joe would be a nice counter weight for Al's, straight ass persona.

...to the Party.

:hi:

identity. Where's a moderator when you need one?:hi:

:)

but you had to be kidding about Gore. You can't win re-running a losing candidate either and I don't see Clark as a stronger candidate than Hilary. Clark might be strong enough for a VP candidate but not a winning president candidate.

She has nothing she really stands for. Americans are looking for strong, principled leadership nowadays, and that's something that she's severely lacking. That's not the DLC's specialty.

On the other hand, both Clark and Gore have shown great leadership over the past couple of years. They've made the cases for their respective visions for our country, and they are both presidential. Clark has excellent foreign policy experience and charisma, and Gore was Vice President during 8 of the best years this nation has ever seen.

They're the best we've got. Put them together, we might even have a winning ticket.

name recognition. I'm not sure about the polls but I thought they ran Hillary against some possible republican candidates and she led the way. Gore, on the other hand had a credibility problem with truth and he was educated beyond what freepers could understand...and then their was that little FL problem...lol

But you know that the "I created the Internet" and all the other stuff will come back to haunt him...again. I don't want a repeat of 2000 and I think that's what you get if run Gore again, IMHO.

The only variable that I can't predict is how bad mainstream America is going to hate Republicans after 8 long years of fascism and religious extremist favoritism by the current administration. But this works for any Dem running for office as well.

Gore would not be my choice, but I absolutely resent and detest that any Democrat would repeat the RW lies about any Democrat. Al Gore had a Reputation as a "boy scout", which was part of the reason he was chosen by Clinton. Bush made up numbers and facts during the 2000 campaign - as he still does, but the media ignored it. Al Gore was one of the people who wrote the legislation that led to the ARPA net back in the early 70s, the ARPA net expanded and became the Internet. Gore obviously didn't invent it.

What you really had is a basically honest Gore running against a Bush who is blatantly dishonest about his plans, his values and even his history. The Republicans took small misstatements, called them lies, then blew them up to be major character flaws. (Imagine everything you said for years was taped and reviewed, assuming your an honest person - you're still going to find occasions where there were small lies or where you simply were wrong, no lie intended but what you said was just in error. On the latter, I know I've spent hours explaining the difference to my children.)

and of course he never said he "invented the internet."

The frustrating thing was that his campaign didn't get out in front and shoot down all those lies. It was a clean campaign, high-road all the way, but it as if they thought ignoring the smears would make them go away (or that answering them would elevate or publicize them).

I think we learned a lesson from it, and Kerry's campaign did better -- I was happy to see the "debunker" -- but again, the delayed response to the Swifties seemed to be based on the notion that responding would fuel it and not responding would minimize it.

What they did to Gore was criminal in its dishonesty, and they were just warming up then. I say, no more highroad, no more letting a single smear go by unchallenged. Turn each one around to backfire on the liars.

Kerry fought off the SBVT twice in th espring, but they returned in August with th ebook that had 100s of lies and claimed to be sworn accounts by 100s of people who served with Kerry. The attempt by Kerry's campaign to dispute all significant claims took a week or two - which in today's world was too long. The decision (esp of a former Prosecutor) to dispute al the charges, rather than To immediately attack the overall premise is understandable.

Democrats really need to look at what happened here - because where Clinton and Gore had a series of "bombs" thrown at them it was like Kerry's campaign was hit by a cluster bomb - that broke into 100s of attacks. They did well to recover to the degree that they did -

We have to accept that no matter who we run, it could be Jesus Christ on the Cross, and the RW will try their sorry shit. We have to be very ready.

why should Al, believe me,we need him.

and we all know that. Maybe we ought to put all this candidate angst into action making sure that we can vote fairly first?

I too would like to see Gore run again. I have confidence in him and I know he is an environmentalist and someone upstairs damn well better start being one.

Gore did not loose the election 2000. It was stolen and he put up a great fight. The SCOTUS appointed Bush.

:hi:

eom

Shit, we had one who kept registering under different names, but they made it too obvious, because it was always in ALL CAPS, like "HILLARYSUPPORTER" or "HILLARY2004" or "HILLARYISGOD" or whatever.

It was actually comical that they thought they were fooling anybody.

McCain has sold out this country for his own political gain. Only Clark would have the ability to call him on it.

That b.s. "Kerry and Hillary on top" crap has to go.

We need to W-I-N....!!!!!!!!!!!! :headbang:

n/t

It allows for and encourages it in everyday language, which the in turn makes it "mainstream," which then spreads the truth like wildfire as far as the eye can see and the ear can hear. I like it!

What happen to fighting a corrupt, criminal in chief sitting in the Oval Office? Hungry children, jobless parents, children without health insurance, seniors worried about social security? What about 2006?

I know all the Kerry, Hillary haters love this thread, but we need to be supportive of Kerry, Clark, Gore, Boxer, Kennedy, Conyers, and the rest of the Dems who are fighting for us.

Stop fighting the primary wars and worry about 2008 after 2006.

I've been trying to make that point for a while. What will it matter if we win in 2008 if the Republicans pick up Congressional seats in '06 and '08?

Also, for now, we need to come up with coordinated negatives about every major Republican out there. Last year, we had some fantastic negative ads aimed at Bush, but they were all over the frackin' board... some on Iraq, some on deficits, some on the environment, some on this & others on that. Every Republican negative attack ad was the same variation on "John Kerry is an unprincipled flip-flopper who can't be trusted with national defense..." They were focused and the idea that Kerry was a flip-flopper became the meme on him.

However, the party elite, in my opinion are behind Hillary. Don't expect the DLC or Clintonites to back Gore. Gore and Hillary have been at odds since 1992. They personally do not like each other. Should the party elite prevail, Hillary will tap Clark for her running mate. She will think she needs a strong military type to balance the ticket. I do not think rumors that the Clintons talked Clark into jumping in for 2004 were exaggerated.

I also think behind the scenes Hillary and Bill did not care if Kerry lost because it only enhanced Hillary's long-term prospects.

If Gore does run, I would RUN to the polls to vote for him. I would also consider taking a year off from work to work on his campaign. I would do anything to see Gore sitting in the Oval House.

Unless you are a David Mariness fan, you might not know Clinton offered Gore a co-presidency if he would run with him in 1992. During the Clinton impeachment debacle, many Washingtonians said Gore was running the government because Clinton was too depressed to do so.

All that aside and looking purely at qualifications, I see no one on the horizon who is as qualified as Gore to lead this Country. He was the leading Dem, aside from Carter, who stood up and spoke out against the war on Iraq while all other Dems lined up to vote for the resolution. He also campaigned on putting the social security surplus in a "lockbox." While this was a source of great ridicule during that 2000 campaign, I doubt anyone is laughing now. During the last two years of Clinton-Gore, that surplus was left untouched. It was agreed across party lines that the Government should not have been spending that money and from hereon would not.

The fact we are sitting here now talking on the Internet about this subject is a credit to Gore. When the Cold War ended and the crude Internet used by the military and intelligence agencies was no longer exclusively needed by them, the decision was made to "give it to the people." Congress was approached about writing legislation to effectuate this, and the only person truly interested in the subject was Al Gore. Later in 1992, I heard his speech about how the use of the Internet would evolve for use by the people. He did literally coin the phrase "Internet Superhighway." His speech on that subject was riveting.

I would love to see Gore run and appoint Dean to his cabinet. Dean has said he would not seek the presidency; but he didn't say if he helped a Dem get elected, he would turn down a cabinet post.

Finally, Al Gore is not truly a liberal. He has been called such because of his protective efforts on the environment, but also because his opponents use that word to slur candidates they want to discredit. Think about how they painted Dean a liberal in an effort to "taint" his candidancy. Sad but true, many people do consider that a dirty word. During the 90s Gore was regarded as a Conservative Democrat, primarily because he was regarded as a hawk on the first Gulf War. He made a televised speech explaining to the Democrats who had voted for him why he would support this war. He was one of the few Dems who did.

If Gore does not run, he will still be regarded as a statesman and eventually be regarded as a National Treasure in the same vein as Jimmy Carter. Al Gore is a one of a kind.

There are some NEW Dems out here on the block.

Many don't realize how radicalized the Republican base has become. We'll face someone like Governor Owens or Senator Allen.

they call him a RINO.
I disagree about Gore and Clark too. Richardson, Warner or Bayh have better chances. And Hillary Clinton is still a one term senator, with no ther gov't experience. First lady doesn't count.

... argument from me.

Americans have short attention spans. Also, the Republicans already have the oppo research on these guys. We need some governor, preferably liberal, from the great lake states to cement those votes in, or else some representative. Someone new and fresh.

in some people's minds, "new and fresh" = "inexperienced and untried".

You can't satisfy all the people all the time.

TC

Bush beat Kerry when he was outspent...

Gore started out 20 points behind "any Republican" and went on to beat Bush.

Gore had the most hostile press coverage in modern history - - and Bush's coverage was fawning - - and Gore went on to beat Bush.

Gore had a disunited party, and Bush had a united party - - and Gore went on to beat Bush.

$15-16 million in general campaign funds and another $6-7- million in that
recount fund.

The DNC was furious when they found out, as I recall.

BTW, let em run McCain. There will be NO support for the Republicans after the next three years of shit hits the fan. McCain will be luck if we take him in as a Democrat.

Excellent thought!

the smears on gore in 2000 would not go unchallenged this time by a democratic paty apparatus headed by howard dean.

al gore suppoted howard dean in the primaries because he saw in dean both a man with whom he shared values, but in a candidate who would take the fight to the GOP.

I have always believed that the best chance for a gore 2008 candidacy was with howard dean running the DNC.

so much of what al gore warned about in 2000 has come to pass and he can run two campaigns simultaneously, one against the past 8 years, and the other aginst a republican who wants to contunue the essential polcies of the past 8 years. al gore would be able to run against a real GOP policy history where he did not have that before.

regardless of the fact that george bush will not be gore's opponent, gore can pick out the bush mistakes and point out how wrong his past opponents were and project that onto his 2008 opponent. the GOP candidate either would have to repudiate the bushevik adminstration and incense his supporters, or defend things not of his making.

the GOP may not admit it, but i think they would rather face clinton than gore in 2008

Also, by the end of 8 years of BushCo, Inc., a lot more people are going to be looking back at the Clinton/Gore years as a Golden Age.

Don't understand why you think Hillary would do better against McCain....

I think Gore/Clark ticket are vitually unbeatable even against McCain. Gore/Clark grab at least 2 southern states. That's all she wrote folks. We were stupid to not nominate Clark in '04. I am as guilty as the next guy, I really thought Kerry was our guy. Our new strategy has to be a)no possible skeletons, and b)we need at least one southerner on ticket, preferably in top spot. It's no time to get a female to run, we have to get control back first. A female will alienate too many swing voters in the south. Just my 2 cents.

"Our new strategy has to be a)no possible skeletons, and b)we need at least one southerner on ticket, preferably in top spot. It's no time to get a female to run, we have to get control back first. A female will alienate too many swing voters in the south. Just my 2 cents."

I agree on all counts here, except...

It should be a Clark/Gore ticket, and here's why: Clark need to be in the spot that is has CIC responsibilities (POTUS), and Gore is an ace legislator, and is better as the head of the Senate (VPOTUS).

Just my 2-cents-worth.

TC

Not a bad idea. We need a new and exciting face in the top spot in the White House to recoup our reputation in the world (Clark has more international honors than my dog has fleas) and Gore has proven himself an excellent VP.

Why not? It would be a kick-ass team! :kick:

These are all good Deomcrats, that is sure. But I think we need new leadership to retake the Whitehouse. I am personally very pleased with what I see from the Gov. of New Mexico. Bill Richardson. He is hispanic, can at least be seen as a moderate. He has a lot of pluses going for him. I know we have to win in 2008 and I don't think people who lost past elections and primaries ar the way to go.

Nothing against Richardson, but he's been around awhile.

someone who has new ideas. Whether is is how we convey our message or whatever our message is not getting votes in the south and in many parts of the midwest and west. We can not cede those votes. To be blunt about it no democrat has won the presidency in living memory with out carrying at least a few southern states. And I think a southerner, midwesterner, or a westerner who is somewhat of a moderate will have a vastly better chance of that then a New Englander. And as for most of those discussed on this board they had their chance and could not close the deal. It is time to try someone new.

on a national stage, now makes him old hat.

Reminds me of the guys that want to exchange the current wife, for a new model.....1 year into the marriage. It's a superficial and obnoxious way to pick a president....playing into the habits of the throw away lightweight junk food generation.

I'd like to think that many times, the old generation had it right...and the new is nothing but clones in a row. It's like when I hear the young people loving James Brown, Sam Cooke and Marvin Gaye. Well Hel-lo....I used to listen to James Brown and the rest back during their first turn at greatness.... when most folks had not clue of who they were. And now, they're down as ones with the supercool sounds.

I think at the end, the young turn to the classic for real guidance. Why deal with imitation, when you can go for the real thing?

Ain't nothing like the real think baby.....ain't nothing like the real thing. Yeah! Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby...ain't nothing like the real thing!

Now the late comers without a clue will associate this song as the jingle to the Coke commercial.

The folks with real taste and know-how, will associates this song with Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrel...words and Music by Nickolas Ashford and Valerie Simpson

It's a classic standard...which usually means, the better of the best.

TC

...however, right now, I just hope and pray that Elizabeth recovers. Livestrong Elizabeth!

While John Edwards is no longer a Senator, he is still working toward lifting people out of poverty. I'm proud that I supported him last year, and will continue to do so in the future.

With that said, I would support Gore, Clark, Dean, Kerry, you name it! In my opinion, there is really a surplus of great leadership within the Democratic party.

AL
AL
AL
AL
AL!

:7 :7 :7

I would not count out Russ Feingold. He has presented a clear alternative to the Republican Party and should be allowed to run. We do not have to run Hillary if McCain runs. Why would you say that? We could run a number of Democrats against McCain and still win. Feingold is one of those Democrats. I contend that even Gore could win against McCain, especially if Gore picks the a really good running mate. So just to clarify I am still supporting Russ Feingold for an '08 run.

Good thinkin'.

Bush the first time around, and since then discovered, personally, the value of real leadership and what it means.

even though he has a very strong base and dedicated followers I don't see it happening.

they've run outta goods. Look at the field we have now ... Clark, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Boxer, Kucinich, Conyers, Jackson (both of em!) so MANY strong Dem leaders ... Harry Reid ... Big Dog ...if we continue to work towards regaining power in 2006 and 2008, what a wonderfully positive impact we can have. There is much to look forward to my friends.