Just curious to see where everyone is on 08

I have changed my mind resently. Also, we really need to focus on 06 congressional races but forgive me.

Gore a close second.

Biden and Clinton both a get BIG :thumbsdown:

that the Repubs are checking us out.

I don't know who the top pollsters interview because I don't know a sole Dem in real life who wants her to be our nominee.

If Dennis doesn't get the nomination, I'll try to convince him to run on an independent ticket with Ron Paul as the VP. If the two-party system doesn't get us the best candidates, the votes can tell the two-party system where to go.

If he doesn't run I'm for Gore... If HE doesn't run, Dean... If HE doesn't run, Feingold...

For now - Support Eric Massa - NY29!!

http://www.massaforcongress.com/

He can do it, he just needs $$. Every little bit helps!

keep up with '05 where we have a governor to elect.

Anyway, all of the above will probably run, but I betcha a candy bar the frontrunner will be someone we never heard of, and the field will be full of other unknowns. Got the full list of Democratic Governors?

Besides, the other guys don't have anyone to run yet, either, and we're not going to set up candidates in a vacuum.

Here's my scenario-- next year Cheney quits with "health problems" and they put in a squeaky clean VP set to run in '08. If Shrub is impeached or forced to quit, that sets him up even better for a run.

Then we get the '06 elections and see just what the mood of the country REALLY is.

January '07 the new Congress sits and they may or may not impeach Shrub, but that's when TPTB will start the hard thinking about how to handle '08 in view of the Congressional elections and the new VP, who will almost certainly run.

We'll see about Mark Warner, but he'll have to convince me that his strings aren't being pulled by the DLC.

Brian Schweitzer is awesome, but 2008 is way too soon for him to run. Future Governors Jon Corzine and Elliot Spitzer may one day make great candidates for national office, but not right now.

BTW, people kinda got the message after Clinton and Carter that some "unknown" Governor can jump into the primary and blow away all of the "insiders". That's why the media now tails Governors months and even years before an election year so that they are not so "unknown" anymore.

n/t

a replacement Vice President isn't "chosen" from the masses....There is a specific line of succession for the elective offices. Unless there has been a constitution change, the Speaker of the House would succeed the Vice Prez, who is also Pres of the Senate. After the Speaker would be the next ranking member, etc. etc. That is how Gerald Ford (R-HR) became President: Spiro Agnew (VP) resigned, or was booted out of office, and Ford became VP; then, when Nixon resigned, Ford acceded to the Presidency.

It's been a lot of years since my last history lesson, and I am open to be corrected.

(and I'm not going to look it up) the Succession amendments and the Presidential Succession Acts (sic) only speak of what happens when the President is booted or dies. If there's a President actually in office when the Veep goes, it's pretty much like a Cabinet appointment to get a new Veep.

But, I could be wrong about that. Just don't have time to look it up to be sure.

I want a tough hombre that can kick some ass while smiling....with no sweat off his brow. A true diplomat that can unite our country as effortlessly as getting Billy O'lielly to agree with him.

Will the media give him any attention unless they absolutely have to? I doubt it....

So it will have to be a people supported campaign.

Gore didn't win Tennessee in 2000. That's problematic for me, regardless of Florida.

I like Gore and would vote for him IF he won the primaries for sure....but I think he should have ran in 2004, if he was gonna run again. To me, that was a timid choice he made on that score. If he felt strongly that he and our nation had been wronged...considering how badly Bush's performance had been, I'm amazed that he deliberately chose to sit out on the most important election in a lifetime. It makes him appeared to have been intimidated...and coming back now, would look like he's running cause the "coast is clear".

be solidly Clark (again) in 2008, should he run.

:hi:

and will be solidly for Al Gore in 2008, or 2012 or 2016 or 2020 or any other year, the he wants to run.:hi:

voted for John Edwards

clean up all these messes that bush* laid.

Here's how I see America in 2009 onwards ...

President Al Gore
Vice President Barbara Boxer
John Kerry - Secretary of State
Wes Clark - Defense Secretary
John Edwards - Attorney General(?)
Hillary - Senate Majority Leader


www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net/
:)

Wes Clark cannot serve as Sec. of Defense. He has not been out of the military for 10 years -- which is the requirement.

TC

I guess we will have to wait ... or change the rules ... or let him switch places with Kerry for a couple of years.

Who knows - maybe Al will want Wes for his running mate?

All I know for sure is that Gore would make the best President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

TC

From January 2009 until June 2010, Wes Clark can be National Security Adviser to President Gore. Then he can take over as Secretary of Defense. I'm sure they can find someone else to fill that position on a temporary basis ...

But I guess all of that is up to the next President. To be honest I will celebrate whether it's Gore or Clark!! :)

He's not SUPERLEFTY liberal at all...whereas I think most DUers are left of left. I know what appeals to me about him...just that he's a straight-talker and next-to-impossible to perceive as a wimp. Is that most of the appeal? What else do you guys like about him?

at the risk of his reputation and career.

Rwanda - He sounded the alarm to a tone deaf White House, who because of fears on what had happened in Somalia allowed the macheted death of 800,000 Rwandans.
Kosovo - He fought the pentagon to fight that war in a way that would lessen civilian casualties. In so doing, he was retired early.
9/11 - He had a different plan to fight terror. A plan that makes way more sense than the one we ended up with (going into afghanistan)
He also blew the whistle on those who were attempting to get him to implicate Iraq as responsible for 9/11, refused, told and was ridiculed.
Iraq - He testified before both houses of congress and counciled against this elective war before it was fashionable.

or what?

Clarkies have been accused of many negative things is why I asked....that others, i.e., Kerry supporters, Dean supporters, tc... have not been.

So is "good organization" or bad?

I notice a lot of new posters sporting Gore avatars and starting up threads talking up Al Gore. Is that good or bad?

It's fine to be organized.

It's not so fine to be rigging polls.

You would be in a far better position than I am to decide which
is going on here.

Tesha

for almost 2 years now. I have to wonder if people will ever realize that there is nothing sinister about it. Do you think I know all or nearly all of the 60+ people who have voted for him in this poll so far? Not likely.

You don't see enough Clark supporters on these boards to think that it might add up the number of votes in this poll?

From where I sit, I see no "rigging".
Please explain the "rigging" process you are referring to.
Thanks.

insinuate, accuse, and then this? I know this couldn't be "it"? :shrug:

When a poll goes up on DU, check what the results are within an hour of the poll being posted. Then check again a day later.

Unless the supporters of another candidate are "rigging" the polls in that first hour, you'll see that Clark usually gets a lot of support in the first hour of the poll, or even in the first 10 minutes.

If the polls are being "rigged," then you should see Clark at the bottom of the polls, and then suddenly surge several hours later. This is not the case. The results later on mesh well with the results that are within an hour (even 10 minutes) of the poll's posting.

This means that these are the actual true sentiments of DU'ers. Unless you actually believe that Clark supporters are superhuman and able to "rig" every single poll all over the internet within the first 10 minutes of any poll's creation, 24hrs a day.

Your assumptions are in err. The fact of the matter is that DU'ers like Clark. We don't need to rig a poll. Enough of us DU'ers like Clark that he comes out ahead. It's as simple as that.

and I just really trust him to do what he thinks is best for the country. Hokey huh? ;)

Which is to our advantage if he can make it to the general election.

He's about as strong as we can ever hope for in defending civil rights and liberties, very much a populist on economic issues, and downright green as far as the environment is concerned. He does tend to be more fiscally conservative than a lot of other potential '08 candidates (we probably need that with the deficits BushCo has run up), but on the other hand, his vision is extremely long-range and he's not afraid of investing now for benefits down the road.

Most of all, Clark is a "classic" liberal when it comes to our democratic system of government. Political philosophy is something he takes very seriously, it being one of the subjects of his Oxford study and of what he taught at USMA, and he sees the greatest threat to the US right now is that we are losing the very principles upon which the nation was founded.

Mostly what appeals to me about Clark is his integrity and courage to stand up for what he believes in--guess that equates to what you said about his being "a straight-talker and next-to-impossible to perceive as a wimp." Because he does speak the truth, always, and is never a wimp about anything.

I also admire his intelligence. Not just how smart he is, altho there's that too, but also the WAY he analyzes a problem, processes and evaluates new ideas and information. Clark is a deep thinker, with a broad perspective, and imo one of the great intellects of our age. Yet he is also a man of action. You don't find that combination often enough.

You should read his positions on the issues. YOu might not say that anymore. The beauty of Wes is he doesn't come off SUPERLEFTY liberal at all, but his positions were enough to make me, one of the most SUPERLEFTY liberals here get on his bandwagon and never look back!

http://clark04.com/issues/

TC

at Wes Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH, right after he announced his candidacy. How he handled a hostile question from a woman who had been abused while in the military was simply amazing! He sounded like Bill Clinton, without the "Aw shucks" country boy
shtick. My God, what we have here--a genuine progressive hard-as-nails war hero patriot with grace of demeanor and caring of heart.
To know Wes Clark is to become a dedicated supporter. Finally, enough DUers have finally recognized this, hence the poll results.

He has intelligence, courage, vision, integrity, humor, compassion. He grew up poor, he tells it like it is, and he's from the South. What more do we need?

and when George McGovern said that Wes was his kind of Democrat, that was good enough for me.

I like him because he's a life-long military man who is AGAINST this war...among all his other positive attributes. :D

I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy.

That’s what we created in this country. That’s in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn’t founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can’t lose that in this country. We’ve got to get it back.
-- Wes Clark - September 5, 2003
--------------------------

Sadly, if he convinces the bulk of the Democratic party that he really is a Liberal, which seems to be required to get the nomination, he may lose the indys and repubs who currently think he could not be a "true" liberal since he was a 4 star General. They would vote for him based on the same stereotype the far left holds against him.
What a crazy country we have become.

If we do not win back the house and senate in 06, the 08 elections will be more of a sham than 00 and 04.

FOCUS YOUR ENERGIES ON ELECTION REFORM, and issues of greater importance, such as Rovegate, the Downing Street Memos and the war on Iraq.

Staunchly in the Clark camp - as a whole (not everyone, of course).

:grr:

:shrug:

He's already got a cool nickname!!

:smoke: :thumbsup:

Is it too late to add to the categories above?.... :crazy:

Dump the Criminal Republican Cartel in the house in 06

which means he probably won't win
Was polling a group of the superactive this past week and 3 out of the 4 of us were for Hilary only me not being for her. Kind of had me surprised there.

:toast:

ask me again in 2007.

Biden and Clark are my alternates.

Being a "Fox news contributor" is giving him great exposure to those who'd probably never see or hear of him otherwise and he comes across brilliant every time, like last night on O'Reilly. He was just what the country needed in '04 and he'll STILL be what we need in '08! He came on right after they finished a segment about Hillary running vs. Rice. Clark is quietly doing his thing to prepare for '08 without major speculation/criticism.

While Warner is a fairly conservative Dem, I think he would be a very competant president and would have a great chance of winning. Experience does not equal a presidential election victory.

Gay penguins for America.

any combination of those four would be fine. If I knew more about where Warner stood on the issues of the day, I would be open to considering him as well.

(And rightly so)

as they don't seem to get elected.

but Kerry easily locked up the nomination for 04?
I am a Clark person myself, but I have always wondered this.

And after Iowa, it was all over.

That's why!

has my vote in any Democratic primary. His experience in the military and his innate intelligence makes him the man for the times.

John Edwards #3.

Please God No:

#1) John Kerry
#2) Hillary Clinton

has my vote in any Democratic primary. His experience in the military and his innate intelligence makes him the man for the times.

if he chooses to run. I have seen Mark Warner speak twice recently, and read some good info about his tenure as Governor in VA. He is very, very impressive--not at all a "tool of the DLC." He has wowed Dems and Repubs in VA, and would be an excellent ticket-mate for Clark, IMO.

I'm still upset that he had clearly won the Presidency, and never went to the White House, and was denied his rightful place in the line-up in 2003!

Too many people bought the corporate rightwing media's bull that Al Gore would've been too "controversial" a candidate, and the stupid DNC agreed.

The rightwing's biggest fear was laid to rest with help from Terry McAulliffe at the DNC when they pulled their support even before he could officially announce his run.

Instead, the DNC supported Democratic candidates (remember that they didn't support Howard Dean--the other candidate that was openly opposed to the Iraq war--either, and had prominent Democratic advisors on all the shows to show unease with a Dean candidacy!) that supported the war thereby diminshing their credibility during the campaigns against this chickenhawk creep in the WH.

I hope that now, with Howard Dean at the helm, Al will get his chance to run, although I don't envy the huge load of work he would have to move in order to clean up the mess this inept pResident and his cronies have made, although I believe he's the best one to do it.