What 2008 ticket do you currently support?

If the election were held today, which ticket would you support? If the ticket you would support is not listed, please vote "other" and tell us what ticket you would support.

Tell us why you would support the ticket you selected!

But I would happily take ANY ticket that involves the combination of names Clark, Gore, or Edwards.

It's all or nothing. Besides, he has the inner circle experience and has paid his dues. While I admire Clark, I believe he could benefit from being a VP for a while, say 8 years.. After that, he'll probably one of the greatest presidents of all time.

and that speech he made which is @ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100605A.shtml
blew us away.

The only thing is he's going to have to DUMB IT DOWN for the Amurican redstate folks! He cannot give speeches as a president like a professor! I wish it were not so...

I like Wes Clark and agree that he could use the experience under someone who has been there.

Whatta ticket!! woooooooHoooooo! :bounce:

Edwards/Clark #2

Or any combination thereof.

He needs a full platform.

I transcribed a speech I saw him deliver at Rider University where he talked about a lot more than just Iraq. It's in 6 parts here:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/blog/38
Also check out his position papers here:
http://securingamerica.com/?q=taxonomy/term/3
There are plenty of other things on that site that you may find interesting.

What media outlet will allow Clark to show his full platform?
His Securing America site includes concerns for veterans, free speech issues, family values, world affairs, environmental, global warming issues and his support for democratic candidates. Not too shabby a platform.

:hi:

Myself, I'd vote for any of those combinations of democratic tickets, because if we don't, we hand the vote to a republican, and far be it from me to ever vote republican. :thumbsup: :dem:

2006 is three times closer than 2008.

:D

Warner/Nunn, Edwards/Nunn.

Sounds like a winner to me.

Nah, we'll just let that DINOsaur rest......

Probably more so than any Democrat being mentioned, and he's very well respected by both sides. He's too old to run for president so we dont have to worry about him replacing the guy he runs with.

They have the dynamics for a real good team

Boxer - a democrats democrat with the fight to get it done and Clark with the military experience to slap the armchair generals into place.

has all the categories covered.

And most importantly, they communicate the same way. . .plainspeaking candor.

Please Democrats on high, DON'T pass up this golden combination, PLEASE!

:kick:

Absolutely!

:bounce:

No one has registered to run for president in 2008 yet. There are no firm dates for primaries yet. There is no one running in the primaries yet. I think I'll throw my weight behind Mary Poppins. She has as much going for her as anyone at this time.

On edit, That is Mary Poppins for Pres and the Chimney Sweep for VP

At this point, Feingold, possibly with Edwards. If we could clone Al Gore....we could have Gore and Gore....but we need a real fighter, and someone who will publicly scream that we must get out of Iraq and end this insanity.
But, it's really too early; let's see what develops in the next 6 months.

gracie76

and don't tell me they'd be "too far to the Left," because by then the economic realities will be so grim even the dunderheads will see the desperate need to bring back the New Deal (Edwards) and stop Big Business -- especially Big Oil -- from ripping off the public (Pelosi).

I kinda like Edwards in some ways, but he's hardly a Liberal, and Pelosi's a spineless PNAC sellout. Not exactly the ideal "liberal" matchup.

justify that? Please supply details. I'm especially interested since on one of the most pivotal votes this year, BOTH our Washington Senators (Murray and Cantwell) brazenly spat not only in organized labor's face but on the entire Left and in fact on all of working America by voting for CAFTA. By contrast, Pelosi not only voted against it but repeatedly and vehemently denounced it as viciously exploitative. As far as I can tell from studying her record, Pelosi is a dependable advocate not only for those of us who have to work for a living, but for all the chronically impoverished too -- elderly, disabled, minorities -- and is therefore radically different from most of her present-day Democratic colleagues. If you have contrary information, please share it.

Moreover, Edwards is the ONLY Democrat to dare speak specifically of returning the party to the principles of FDR -- in American politics, the equivalent of calling for acknowledgment of the historical truth of class struggle: as Left as U.S. mainline politics is ever allowed to get. That Edward's protests against America's murderous and worsening poverty were so de-emphasized during the 2004 campaign is merely evidence of the extent to which the reigning Democrats are as elitist as the Republicans -- wholly owned by the oligarchy and thus utterly indifferent to ever more savage economic conditions.

Also, I wish you would please clarify what YOU mean by "Left." No offense intended, but I know far too many Washingtonians for whom "Left" and "pacifist" are self-righteously proclaimed to be synonymous: not only an absurd position (see especially the writings of Leon Trotsky on this subject) but also reflections of a doctrinal absolutism and intolerance one normally finds only on the Right.

Forget about it.

It's simply not possible in the current state of the world for someone to walk into the White House without a single day of elected office on his resume. Clark may be an impressive candidate in many aspects, but unless he's VP or governor first, it ain't gonna happen.

Not saying I wouldn't vote for him if he were the nominee. I would. And that's more than I'll say for Hillary, or a Kerry rerun. But the fear obsessed red-staters wouldn't. Hell these people beleive gay marriage is a big enough threat to the country to warrant the re-"election" of the worst piece of fucking shit to ever occupy the White House.

And their fearmongering and Swift Boat Sliming would easily trget Clark's inexperience. Would he fight back more than Kerry? God, I hope so. But that wouldn't matter much when the whore media reports only the slime and not the response (see "Dean scream, Iowa 2004")

As a sitting Vice President in 2016, Clark would be a much stronger candidate than he is now.

I don't think the average voter gives a rats ass whether someone has held elective office before. In fact, most of 'em would probably prefer someone who is not a career politician.

Now, the Democratic primary voters cared very much in 2004. We wanted so badly to beat Bush, we were afraid of nominating someone without a record of winning elections. Clark was green enough, and got such a late start, that the media was able to portray him as a poor campaigner and the voters ran scared to someone who looked more electable.

I think we'll still care about electability in 2008, but not as much--some of that will depend on how strong the Repub front-runner looks. But regardless, Clark has learned a lot in the last couple years and I think you're gonna see a completely different campaign than the one he ran in 2004. If he can win Iowa or NH, or come in a close second behind whoever is the native son (Vilsack or Bayh in Iowa, for example) then sweep Arkansas, chalk up a few victories in the South... I think Democrats won't worry too much about his lack of prior campaign experience.

I do agree we'll see the "Swift Boat Sliming" in spades, but I think that'll happen to whomever we nominate, and like you say, the media will only aid and abet (and in some cases, instigate). Either we pick someone who's a fighter or we might as well all stay home.

Clark is the best fighter we have. And he knows what's coming on that score, since he got more than his share of GOP slime during the primaries, he saw up close what they did to Kerry, and he learned all about the media's complicity. He will either have a plan or won't run at all. I'm putting my money on the former, because to tell the truth, I think Clark is itching to go up against the Noise Machine. That's part of the reason he's on Fox--he just loves to take apart the O'Reillys and Hannitys and show them for the buffoons they are.

Not sure who yet. But I'm sure he'll find someone capable.

I don't think the 3 vps listed would work for him. Gore wouldn't want VP again, and probably ditto for Edwards. There are better choices than H.Clinton.

And noone is doing more for the liberals and this country right now. It is a disgrace that you don't even have a Kerry Edwards choice on your post!

But I don't think Kerry would run again. Then again, Gore has said he wouldn't run again, but the chorus of calls to draft him seems to get louder by the day....

As a North Carolinian, I love John Edwards... But he is weighed down by his unfortunate support for the IWR, as Kerry was. Gore is not similarly tainted, and Clark has spoken the truth about Iraq loudly and often. That's why I listed Gore/Clark first, and it appears most responders agree that Gore/Clark is a solid ticket.

I personally feel that Hillary Clinton is similarly afflicted with the IWR/DLC bug. Pro polls put her way out in front of the field, but I think by the time the rubber meets the road for 2008, Iraq will be a radioactive issue; if you were for it, you're going to have serious problems.

Perhaps I should run another poll on who should run the 2008 campaign; THAT decision just might be the most crucial one of them all. I think Howard Dean should step down from his DNC position and run the 2008 campaign. I think he will bring the right attitude (give them unrelenting hell and raise tons of campaign cash) to win the race decisively enough to render Diebold shenanigans unable to defraud America again.

Thanks to all of you who have responded!

I like Gore, but they will use the same crap on him that they used last time.
I like Kerry, but same deal.

They were afraid to use the heavy artillery on Edwards since he doesn't dish out dirt and it would rebound on them.
Edwards just has that "quality" about him which almost appears as a "gift". It is genuine and heartfelt and I noticed it ripple through the masses when he would speak. I don't know what it is, but I wish I could manufacture that stuff! It doesn't hurt that his family is so likeable.
John Edwards is doing great things on the Two Americas theme, and working to eliminate poverty in this country.
Boxer is in addition, quite intelligent and outspoken.

Hampshire lately? And he is more visible. It isn't for nothing!

Nice to see you posting in this thread though. I was going to skip it because of the obvious bias in the OP and poll options, but then I saw your comment. I still want them because their the best people for the job.

That would be a ticket I could very enthusiastically support.

I've always liked Gore. And Clark is a good man...can truly bring a lot to the ticket. I would see that arrangement as similar to Clinton/Gore...Clark would have enormous influence as a Vice President.

This is just a hypothetical, but I think Schweitzer could neutralize whatever soft liberal crap they throw at Clinton. He would be a excellent contrast as far as personality perception and probably very reconcilable with her as far as policy...

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

very much!

n/t

Clark/Obama or Clark/Feingold

Hackett for Senate!
Corzine for Governor!

Gotta admit I voted Clark/Clinton up above because it seems more realistic -- but Clark/Obama would be my ideal.

Great for the immediate future and the long term future.

Ah...what the hell...against McCain or Hagel, it might just work.

I just saw Edwards' most recent interview on TDS last night, and I was once again reminded how rhetorically smooth he is--and how intelligent. I really adore him, thought he DID add the necessary Southern element to the ticket last time, as well as other expertise, I would want to see him paired up with JK again--if for no other reason than the fact that they do work well together. I love Kerry, but I'm told it can be hard for him to collaborate with others at times. He and JE seemed very comfortable together, and that's important.

Clark...so many people have assumed, I think, that he would translate to Joe Ex-Republican as "strong on security" and would therefore help the Dems win against someone like McCain. I just don't know that this is true. And I would be worried about what the Republicans could come up with as a smear campaign against Clark. It's not like Wesley Clark is a bad potential candidate or anything, I just don't think it's the electoral lock many think. And if it meant no Edwards? I'd be sad.

I love my gov.
What a hottie!

although I don't personally think that Hillary would be good for any ticket, and I think there are better choices than Edwards as well, so I went with "other".

:dem:

Biden/Obama

Too fucking early. None of these people have announced and I object to this poll on the grounds that it is masturbatory.

I would take Al Gore and Elmer Fudd at this point,I think Elmer would be a vast improvement over Cheney.

Clark/and anyone he damn well choses?

And he'll chose well.

People vote for the top of the ticket, and we need to be able to campaign everywhere, we need to make the republicans fight for the south--enough of this: handing it over to them, and when we're in the WHouse, we need to know that the corporations don't pull the strings. Finally, we need to have someone who can knock on the Pentagon's door and demand they turn over the pork.

I can dream can't I?

You didn't have Clinton/Gore!! hehehehe

J/k... I dunno .. Maybe Edward's/Conyers or something...

I like Conyers a lot, and if he ran, I'd really like it -despite his age! He's such an affective congresssman!

in the office as well, Go Hillary !!

:kick:

I wanted Clark to win the primaries in 2004, but if Gore runs in 2008 then I support Gore, and Clark will be my second choice.

Edwards as VP would be a backup choice.

I will not vote for a neocon warmonger corporatist ticket.

Vim and Vigor!!!!!

Lock up the South, the Midwest, the military vote, and the farm vote, plus the Blue States, and you've got an electoral landslide.

Maybe swing Arkansas, and even that is not a given.

Any state with a big military-academy presence--Clark can help swing them. I'm not saying it'd be easy or by a huge margin, just that little bit extra.

Yeh, that's the ticket.

Kerry for Ambassador to UN.

One of several strong Clark/somebody tickets I'd like to see.

But not Clinton or Edwards, sorry. For a multitude of reasons, not the least of which being their unapologetic support for the war--makes them incompatible with WKC imo. So I voted "other."

I really like Loretta Sanchez--she's smart, she's attractive, she's got chutzpah, she's liberal but doesn't appear extreme to the average uninformed voter, and she's been one who's been working with Clark on making the Democrats a "full service party" (strong on national security issues without abandoning Democratic values on the domestic front). And even tho she's from a blue state, I think she could bring back a large portion of the Hispanic vote in many states, a demographic that the Repubs have worked so very hard to take away. Only down-side is that they're both Catholic, which unfortunately could be a problem, especially if certain elements of the Church turn on 'em like they did Kerry.

In any case, I have perfect confidence whomever Clark might choose would be the right man or woman for the job.

:evilgrin:

I think it's pretty obvious why I'd love to see that ticket... It would be nice to see a democratic sweep... all of those pretty states in blue. One nation, under (insert deity, or lack there of) indivisible, with liberty and justice for all! :)

I would like to see Wes Clark on top of ticket...with Obama as VP? :)

they would bury any gop ticket.

The only polls that make sense are for the top spot. These tickets are all just imagination at play. There is no Clark/Gore, for one thing, and that would probably be number 1!

Clark has a REAL military background (and in this culture of preemptive, and continous wars, people are inclined to believe one who knew how to use diplomacy rather than military might, and Clark is rumored to have been a Republican once-upon-a-time--at least, that's what some right-wingers still believe), but he lacks the political experience Al Gore has.

Both are from the South (Tennessee and Arkansas) and we can't forget that there are more than enough people out there still pissed off that the SCOTUS effectively overturned the highest Court in Florida--most pro-states rights advocates, and about ALL liberals, democrats and progressive groups.

A Gore/Clark ticket would be perfect for 2008.

The Intellectual Orator and the Straight Talkin' General

I know...it isn't possible...But one can dream.

-Paige

together on one ticket! That would be my dream ticket, too, except for the order. Mario should head the Senate as VP, and Wes should head the country as our "Commander-in-Chief", but that's only my opinion.

These are two of America's finest, no doubt about it!

I have Republican friends who are huge shrub supporters who tell me that they are resigned to Hillary's victory in 2008. I like her but think we'd be better off having her as VP first. Besides, if we add her popularity, especially among women's groups, to the leftover passionate support for Kerry, we're looking at a landslide.

The main reason? Well, this might get this post deleted but if Kerry ran with Senator Clinton? Assassination Proof Ticket. That's important.

I like Joe Biden.

Every election comes down to the same 20% of the voters in the middle, and the ones who really decide do so for the most specious of reasons. It matters if our guy or gal lacks good TV presence.

Gore, Hillary, Kerry - all too weak in that regard.

-----
my progressive political cartoon
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

He thunders these days! I love it!

Give us all a break. There is an 06 between then and now and none of us have any way of knowing what we will be faced with in 08.

Clark and anyone else...Clinton, Gore, Edwards, etc.

Focus, people. If we do not win back at least the House in 2006, there will be no 2008 election.

Now repeat after me:

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 ....

But a ticket with a governor and senator might work - eg feingold and richardson or warner.

I could live with edwards on a ticket, except he stuck up for his IWR vote. One of his constituents posted it here prior to 2004 elections.

I hate that Hillary is "pandering" to the American taliban.

As for people who've already run and "lost", I just as soon would hear some new voices and see some new faces.

Fixing the fucking voting machines before 2006

If you don't do that there will be no 2008

:banghead:

See from now on elections will be like the oscars and emmys - while everyone will know who was the most popular... ultimately we have to leave it to the "professionals" to tell us riffraff who was *really* the winner.

poorest decision ever - nothwithstanding, I have no strong opinion on the VP.

I note that my second favorite candidate is the last VP candidate, John Edwards. I didn't think much of Edwards at all in our last primary season, but he's growing on me. I like his style.

I am still not convinced however that we live in a democracy anymore, and I am depressed to think that the next election, like IMO the last two, will be fixed.