My Guess is 2008 Will Come Down to Hillary, Warner, or Edwards

Hillary's establishment support will give her strong poll numbers, but I don't think she's a lock on the nomination, given how many people have misgivings about her.

I think that the two most probable "anti-Hillary" candidates are John Edwards and Mark Warner. The same dynamic will play with them as that between Clark and Kerry - whoever beats Hillary in an early primary or caucus will likely steal the thunder from the other.

Of course, we're THREE years out, so anything could happen. It's certainly possible that Wesley Clark, Evan Bayh, or Bill Richardson or MAYBE Biden or Kerry may take those roles, but I think they have a longer shot than Edwards and Warner. Feingold will be an interesting player as well - my guess is he'll poll well in several states in the long pre-primary campaign, but that much of his support will transfer to Edwards in the actual voting.

Anyway, that's my very amateur, very early analysis that'll probably be wrong. But I'm just throwing it out there for kicks.

Gore is the one guy who really seems to have his act together. And he's not DLC.

He's wise to wait. He already has name recognition
so there is no need to rush things.
He is BY FAR the best candidate we have.

IMO he is the one, no contest.

It would be too easy for Bill to torpedo his candidacy, and he would do it with a smile and a wink if he needed to.

Gore should run again but I haven't heard anything that would indicate that he will.

Hillary has no support outside of Washington and the GOP. The rank and file know she is a lighting rod and would be unelectable, and the rank and file do the nominating. My amateur guess would be Kerry, Clark, and Edwards in no particular order. I don't know if Warner has that much recognition on a national scale.

Kerry has no chance;Clark has some; Warner will fizzle pretty quickly, unless he learns how to talk foreign policy and national domestic policy.

Hillary is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Edwards is the only one with the fundraising ability and national name recognition to put up a tough challenge to the Clinton machine. Kerry has that too but he doesn't have Edwards' talents, and Edwards seems to have totally escaped the baggage of 2004.

Hillary, Edwards, and Kerry have been through national campaigns - they have the upper hand to begin with, but only one of them has a chance of winning the general.

If it's not Clark, Feingold - or the longshot Gore (because I don't think he'll run) - then I'll be writing in a vote. None of those three will flip my state - Warner MAYBE - but I really don't want to vote for a corporist.

I will not vote for ANY DLC candidates. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I stay home on election day. Never again.

This Party has got to find it's balls and nominate a winner combo this time or we, as a Party, will cease to exist, and that goes double for our country. For my money a Clark/Feingold ticket would certainly motivate me.

TC

I'm still looking hard at Mark Warner simple because he's be in the thick of handling Republicans and Neocons... and it will take one hell of a solid backbone to outsmart and out survive what will be offered to handle in 2008! Google Mark Warner and check out his 1 term in Va and how what he did.

Just sayin'

but he doesn't even think it is important as to how we got into Iraq.

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

...then go on to say that you "like Joe Biden".

Um...ok. People have to scatter if Joe Biden and a camera and microphone are in the same room, because he'll mow everyone down with a hatchet to get himself in frame.

"Hillary is a shoo-in" stuff and compare it to the "Dean will be the nominee" most defintely, no questions asked, months before the first primary of the 2004 election. Dean was who the media wanted. Hillary is who the media wants this time. The voters might have some say in all of this.

I am hoping for some dark horse, maybe House of Representatives candidate to come out of the woodwork. Someone few have heard of. Someone who can turn this election on its ass and give us a winner in 2008.

Have no clue as to who this could be. It cannot be a senator. Even the current governors are too high profile for this senario. Carter came out of nowhere, so did Clinton. And that is what we need. Someone who is currently off the radar.

The only thing Biden has going for him is that he is a tad less tedious than Kerry. I just can't warm up to him much.

Mz Pip
:dem:

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

Bill Clinton was viciously witch hunted. He lied in a way anybody would who had been caught in an extra marital affair. It was a trap of final desperation, set when Starr could find ZERO to pin on the Clintons. The pig had to get down in the gutter to accomplish his ignoble goal. Considering that historical evidence indicates numerous presidents, e.g. Eisenhower and Bush I, had extra marital affairs, I hardly think that (what Clinton did) was an impeachable offense.

who can sweep us all off our feet, I think the only ones who will give her any competition in the primaries are Warner and Edwards. Warner is way down in the primary polls right now, but I think he'll be the one Hillary will have to fend off. I wish Clark would do better, but for some reason, he's not being taken as a serious threat.

I understand the appeal-to-center idea, but I think people on both sides AND center will feel better about somebody who speaks the truth and states their opinions openly, directly and without flinching -- even risking that some people won't like some things they've said. No wishy-washy approach to "center" -- just be honest and courageous. That's what I'd like to see, and I really think that'll go far.

So many people don't vote on the "issues" anyway -- they vote on confidence in "strong leadership" and/or "likeability" (and the other side works REALLY hard to make Democrats "unacceptable" in those areas, as we all know).

Competence, particularly in foreign policy, will likely be a big issue in 08, as well.

And I think the party deserves somebody who's fighting for our side this year, too.

I'm not saying these are necessarily candidates, but I think we need more people like Howard Dean and Paul Hackett; like Russ Feingold and John Conyers; like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Boxer; like John Murtha and yes indeed, Wesley Clark. They say what they believe whether we all (or the RNC) likes it or not, they don't let themselves get dragged into phony arguments, and they don't try to please everybody by being milktoasts. I think we need a good dose of that, along with competence, honesty, and all the rest, to attract the "center" -- rather than a package of compromises.

And that's where his strength will be - he'll be fighting for the perception that he's more electable than Hillary but more progressive than Warner.

But I doubt it'd help him, beyond the primaries. Nothing against him personally -- I think he's a good person and his wife is amazing -- but does he come across as strong and forthright, fast on his feet, looking people in the eye without blinking? I tend to agree with whoever it was that said as a VP pick he turned out to be like tepid water, doing no harm to Kerry, but "colorless, odorless, tasteless." I think he's nice, he cares about poverty and the two Americas, but that's all I see.

Having said that, I'd prefer even him over Warner.

Just my humble opinion.

<i>but does he come across as strong and forthright, fast on his feet, looking people in the eye without blinking?</i>

If you've ever seen him live, the answer to all those questions is Yes.

I mean no, I've never seen him live. Maybe it's different.

He seemed like a nice guy, but no more than that. To me he didn't light up the room--doesn't have the presidential gravitas or leadership I'm looking for. Would have made a fine vice president though.

Few Americans ever see a Presidential candidate live. That sparkle has to burn through the TV (Bill Clinton had it and forgive me, Ronald Rreagan had it)

is my guess. He lit up rooms before. He lights up rooms now. What's wrong with this picture?

The big thing is he stands for something. Of the three you named, he's the only one. When are we gonna stop nominating someone who has nothing to say besides Elect Me?

Kerry wasn't there when he campaigned and Kerry wasn't there when he debated Cheney. His specch at the DNC was the weakest of the three - which disappointed me because I had heard what a great speaker he was. His speech was a minor retooling of the same stump speech I had heard on CNN.

I think that Edwards did suffer from lack of coverage - which was not Kerry's or Edwards' fault. I do think that he should have been pushed to be more aggressive towards Bush, which is the standard VP role. For example, Edwards, as a Southern, could have been far more outspoken on the ridiculous "Kerry's going to take away our Bibles".

I'm OK with any D winning, even HC. There are worse things that could happen. My heart is with Kerry, but I would be thrilled to have Warner or Edwards.

Although she's not my first choice and I can think of several problems with a possible candidacy by her, I would be far happier with a Hillary Clinton presidency than a Bush presidency. And I have nothing against her personally, either.

And like you, I still like Kerry a lot and would love to see him as President. Maybe I'll support him in '08 if he runs. That said, I don't think he's likely to be the nominee.

My heart is with Kerry, although I like and respect several of our other Dems, too.

Kerry has the biggest email list (potential to fundraise), and he's a quick study--he has shown he can learn from mistakes. I don't think he'd do a second campaign the same way at all--certainly not with the kind of advisers he had last time. (IMO those guys were stubbornly trying to run a pre 9/11 campaign, all about traditional Dem domestic issues. I was a strong supporter, but even I got impatient with that and wished he'd addressed Iraq more!)
I would not write off another run by him. As much as the MSM tries to ignore him (and they really are purposely ignoring him) and at the other extreme, as much as some on the left are angry with him, he still has many loyal followers and a lot of political capital. It's unusual for a former presidential candidate to still be in the running, but this one is. ;)

First of all, it's hardly three years out. The nominee will be known 2 years from today. The campaign will be underway, to some extent, a year from now. You'll already have the names and at least a couple of joint outings.

Maybe I'm way off but right now I discount anyone other than Hillary, Warner, Edwards or Gore. I can't draw the map to the nomination for anyone outside that block. All the anti-Hillary sentiment can't be discounted and most likely it will residue to actual vote count. Edwards was a better fit last time and I think he's doomed to run second again. But that won't mean VP. Gore has a much better shot than I thought six months ago. I expect he's sensing the opportunity. Actually, Gore was the smartest of the lot in 2004, for not running. He was incredibly vulnerable in that spot, a perceived loser from 2000 and with Bush holding every edge as an incumbent. In an open race his lack of charisma and somewhat odd persona don't hurt him like they would against an incumbent. He's also got the same advantage as Hillary in that he's already been Swift Boated, a national figure for more than a decade, so any attempts like reviving the internet or Love Story nonsense won't have as much impact. 2008 will be all about the proper course of the nation.

But I still think it will be Warner, although that requires astute primary handicapping which isn't our strength. When you're that popular in a red state there has to be a basis for it, and I expect that to play out once the campaign begins. His brief summations read better and more intriguing than any Democrat since Clinton. Plus I absolutely love his wise abstention from the Iraq debate at this point. Zilch to gain by taking a stand now. He's got an entire year to watch it play out and form his opinion and strategy. The rest of our crop is remarkably but predictably clueless in that regard, desperate to win the daily debate two years ahead of time, when it means squat if you're right, and can be pounced on down the road if you goof.

:hi:

Dammit, I just want a D to win! I truly believe that Rs will use Diebold to keep their presidential power, and give us enough Ds to be in the minority to give the appearance of a democracy. Sorry, I'm jaded now. But I will fight to get a D elected anyway.

There is a Democratic Primary before a General Election. For him to want us to vote for him because he knows how to keep his mouth shut so that he doesn't "blow it" is disgusting!

That's why I hate politicians.....they wait to see which way the wind is blowing...which is all you are saying although you are calling it "wise Abstention" (my ass!)

Just not now. I see no advantage of specifics now, especially since it's obviously not his background or strength. The Democratic debates will be well underway in mid-to-late 2007 so that's when Warner needs to get foreign policy proposals together.

I'm impressed! You guessed it just like they did (Although they will be squeezing Bayh in a bit later...and adding Feingold to the line up just to keep the lefties in line). Wes Clark....hell, they barely want to say his name.

to be pushing her too much. Geez, if they want her to run then .......

With Feingold or Warner comming out on top.

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

Midterms in November 2006-- a bit more than 7 months away.

Then by January 2007 or so--potential candidates will make their big decision. That's in 10 months.

Primary debates should get going by the summer of 2007--just over a year away.

The primaries are two years away from right now.

Finally, the general presidential election is two years, 7 months away from right now.

Agree with you--nobody can predict anything at this point--but we'll know a lot more next winter, once the midterms are done. But I think these will be exciting enough, in the meantime!

have for the last 6 months. It's ok to talk about 2008 but my worry right now is 2006.

This statement must be coming from the beltway, why else would it be so typically out of touch with the pulse of the rank and file?

I think Feingold will be competitive; however, I don't think that he's likely to win the nomination, although I think he may well poll very well in pre-primary polls and influence the terms of the debate.

Gore has a strong chance at actually getting the nomination if he runs. I don't think he will run, but he may, and he could probably join quite late and still be competitive.

from Right Wing Rasmussen report: 52% of the Democratic party supports Feingold, just over the past few days..

i think that's a considerable leap over HRC, if I'm not mistaken.. wasn't she at about 42% ?

... a Dem candidate has to have Republican votes to win a generral election, just as a Repub candidate has to to draw Dem votes. I like Feingold, but Joe Luchbox in Nebraska won't... at least he doesn't now.

in a run. I think he may surprise us all- whether he wins or loses.

a former one term senator, but he at least was the VP candidate. Not exactly fielding best in class there.

The 2008 primary is played on multiple fronts, money , key endorsements and the base. Hillary has name recognition and the biggest war chest because she is going to need it to overcome the base's aversion to her. Warner needs a foreign policy tutor and national security creds, can't take a strong position on Iraq because he is too timid and only knows project management. That one term technocrat can at least fund his own campaign because he is not enthusing the base. Edwards has more affiliation with the base after admitting casting that IWR vote was wrong and a moral failure of leadership. (Warner doesn't want to discuss the major American tragedy). Edwards showed courage in that regard.

Endorsements are a funny thing. Moran of Virginia talked about an Al Gore run. Maybe he hadn't heard Warner thinks he has the best briefing book and tutor squad for the role. Hillary will get the biggest endorsement of all from Bill.

The 2006 elections will determine endorsements as political favors are returned for those they felt helped the most on the campaign trail. Clark is in hot demand with the 2006 candidates. Hillary can raise funds. Edwards has become more populist and Warner takes one of the most awful political pictures I have ever seen.

I won't vote for anyone that voted for the war.

I want a liberal.

Because everybody wants to try and figure out who our next president is going to be years in advance. Usually they are wrong.

say in the matter, that it will all be done in the smoke-filled rooms.

Edwards is at least acceptable.

If Hillary morphed into Bill she would only be slightly worse.

Warner's chief virtue seems to be that he is inoffensive.

No frickin' clue 3%

Other 3%

Warner 12%

Vilsack 0%

Richardson 2%

Kerry 1%

Feingold 48%

Edwards 6%

Daschle 0%

H. Clinton 2%

Clark 15%

Biden 1%

Bayh 1%

will be likely to change their minds. I think Clark and Feingold voters are resolute now and will stay so through the 08 primaries. I think both candidates will be in the primary race for quite a while and will have a good handful of delegates at the convention.

I wonder also if Warner and Edwards will appeal to the same demographic in those primaries. Both are Southerners from north-Southern states and not from the deep-fried golf-Republican South of Jeff Sessions. I think these two guys are competing for the same vote and that Edwards has a leg up because he did better than even he expected in Iowa in 04 and that was with hardly any cash on hand. With more financing I think he gives it a real shot in 08 in those early primaries/caucuses. Warner has appeal on paper but my god that man is dull on the stump.

I believe Senator Clinton faces significant obstacles from other strong candidacies but the tripswitch would be a Gore announcement. If Gore places a few calls to party operatives in Iowa and asks them to withhold endorsements for Vilsack, Clinton, etc., I believe that would begin a movement toward him that would effectively defeat Senator Clinton's bid for the White House.

Gore (if he decides to run). Clark (whose supporters are so resolute). Feingold (because he is the Mo Udall of 2008 and, with Harkin and Boxer, the most vigorous Democrat against Bush). Either Warner or Edwards. And Senator Clinton.

It is possible if not exactly likely that there would be a brokered convention, owing to several strong and appealing candidates.

He had humble beginnings. Too much of a big deal was made out of Hilary. I don't think she'll win the primaries.

and his national security credentials are weak, IMO. If you don't think that the next Prez will not have to deal with foreign policy in a way that it has never been done before, you are wrong.

I don't want for Prez someone who couldn't see that this Iraq War was a folly until the polls recently turned, although he was on the Intelligence Committee. Edwards might be sorry about his vote now....but it is one of those votes that made us all poorer and sorry just can't make up for it (although I appreciate him seeing the light) nor be rewarded with the presidency...no matter his populist talk, since the treasury is broke anyway. He was part of the problem, and so I won't be voting for him for Presidenet just cause he now regrets it. Edwards, if he had what it really takes to lead should have known better at the time like many other senators that voted NO on the IWR (or at least didn't co-sponsor the bill as he did).

I wouldn't be putting my money down on anyone at this point. There are just too many what ifs.

Hillary has Bill, money and recognition, and she is extremely impressive in those important
one-on-ones that will dominate TV talk more and more as the primary season draws near.

Edwards still has his looks and has credentials, but was disappointinigly undynamic during
the 2004 campaign. It remains to be seen if that was his decision, or if he had reins put
on him that would not be there if he were the candidate.

Clark is a guy I like personally, but is very stiff in a public forum. He is very bright
and thick skinned, so I would have no problems with him in the Oval Office--it's just that
I don't see him going through the campaign BS to get there unless he has matured as a candidate.

I have never met Feingold, so all I know about him is what I have seen on TV and in the papers.
He certainly has the guts, but I don't even know if he has the desire, or the toughness needed.
No opinion on him.

Al Gore not only has the smarts, but also knows exactly how to do the job, and would be welcomed
by just about every world leader out there--an REAL head start in that job. All he has to do is
say BOO! and everyone except Hillary will quietly melt into the background, hoping to be picked
as VP. At this point, he would not be seen as a "loser," but as the one that the country was
cheated out of in 2000. That 36% rating for Bush Lite means there 64% to be had elsewhere. So there
is 36% of the electorate who would vote for a ticket of Charles Manson with Jeffery Dahmer as his
running mate as long as they ran on the Republican ticket. Not even the abolishing of Diebold
machines would change that. Al Gore also happens to be an EXTREMELY impressive guy in person.
Probably THE most impressive of the bunch (again, I don't know Feingold or Warner, and I discount
Bayh for now). Unless HIllary is re-elected to the Senate with over 70% in New York this November,
I think even she would not beat Gore in the primaries unless Bill Clinton plugged for her full time,
and even then it would be a toss-up (IMHO).

I see Warner as a long shot--so far. But in 1990, who knew Bill Clinton? There is a LOT of water to
flow under the bridge before 2008. I'm perfectly content to watch it flow for a while before jumping in.

I see two important things that have to be done before the 2008 election, or it's all wasted effort.
First, keep up the pressure on exposing Republican sleaze wherever it is found (not too difficult, is it?),
and abolish the use of Republican-programmed electronic voting machines. My brother works on top secret
computer projects for the Defense Department, and he tells me that those machines can be manipulated
with the greatest of ease, and if no forensic testing is done on them afterwards, then no one will
detect the tampering, and whaddya know? The companies, Republican-owned and -operated companies, EVERY
ONE, do not permit independent forensic testing of their equipment after election tallies are reported.

From today's "The Hotline. National Journal's Daily Briefing on Politics":

"Listen To Wes Clark...Seriously

"Too many people handicapping the Dem field aren't paying attention to Ret. Gen. Wes Clark. The guy has a monster travel schedule on behalf of other Dems. He's still the to-go talking head for Democratic national security events. He's doing the party's national radio address this Saturday.

And now his podcast is right now the most popular political podcast in the nation..."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

Sorry, don't mean it like it sounds. A lot of people I respect really like Clark. I just don't like to have General in the White House. Although Ike did warn us all. So maybe I have to rethink it.

OK, here we go, didn't a lot of people pick Kerry because of his military background. I liked him for many other reasons. But his military background turned into a negative. Because he took the high ground and didn't fight back. I'm sure with Clark running they will find some foreigner saying Clark burned his family during the war. Bank on it. But maybe he could handle it and turn it around. Let's hope we have a war room that can get on the air. I won't hold my breath. Media love war to make money.

Kerry's military background was used by some against him, though it still proved an asset with others. But what he Republican hit men counted on was that a sizable population of Veterans had been fed angry propaganda against Kerry for years saying he sold out his brothers in arms after be became a protester against the Viet Nam War. Kerry's anti war days were always more prominent in the publics mind, both on the left and on the right, than were his literal war days. That was the back drop to the Swift boating, a back drop that can't be used against Clark.

Here's something I posted about Clark here before:

A General in Politics

I think Wesley Clark is the antidote to, not an aspect of, any perceived "problem" anyone might fear about military influence in America. Clark through his carefully reasoned statements, embrace of public debate and the importance of dissent, advocacy of a model of international cooperation over international domination, stress on the critical role of diplomacy in resolving international disputes, and passionate repeated emphasis that force should only, only, only be used as a last resort, reorients the aura associated with the military that jingoist propaganda attempts to capitalize on. There is nothing that more thoroughly discredits civilian chickenhawk efforts to glorify War as a means to pursue nationalistic policies than a thoughtful well spoken General contradicting each and every one of their carefully rehearsed arguments.

Clark is the man best able to put the military back into the role first established for it by George Washington. In that way he is like an Eisenhower for the current times. The fear articulated is the General Douglas MacArthur path not taken. I hear that fear and respect that fear, but it was MacArthur's peer, Dwight Eisenhower, who restored the militarys proper civic role in the publics perception, and Ike was invaluable to our Democracy in having been able to do that for us all. But there is another maybe even more critical role that Wes Clark is playing for our Democracy right now. He is powerfully challenging what had increasingly been becoming "conventional wisdom", that the military is linked to the Republican Party. That linkage was not accidental, nor is it a side event in the American political struggle that is shaping this new century.

The Republican Party has done everything in its considerable power to link itself to the military, and the military to itself. That, I hold, is a threat to our Democracy. Americas military has historically been non partisan. If the public is ever successfully sold a bill of goods that says support for the Republican Party is equivalent to support for our Military, then our Republic will be in grave danger. General Clark has provided a strong Democrat Party persona to challenge the Military equals Republican equation. He does so at a critical time when George Bush is running around the country using the American military as his personal stage prop. Wes Clark is helping restore an essential equilibrium to our political system at a critical time in our history.

Clark would never use the military for partisan political purposes, because at his core he's not a politician. He's a patriot.

New Hampshire Public Radio did a series of long free ranging interviews with Democratic candidates for President prior to the 2003 NH Primary. They were conducted by host Laura Knoy for the show, "The Exchange". She had each major candidate on twice, the first time explored background and general beliefs, the second time specific issues. This interview with General Clark was conducted on November 5, 2003, which was her first interview with him. It is still available to be listened to at their archive at:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

At about the 35:30 point in the interview a caller asks Clark about Ike's comments on the military industrial complex. This is my hasty attempt to transpose those comments, not an official transcript:

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."


It is an amazing interview by the way. I urge folks to share this link with people you know who want to know more about who General Clark is.

I haven't seen that quote before. Interesting.

I think we have in place a lot of the mechanisms to do this already, but there is neither adequate funding, or enough commitment. Programs like the peace corps need to be expanded, but we need to go beyond that to really strategize and act to achieve peace, which means improving healthcare and reducing poverty worldwide, as well as a global commitment to the environment.

No Repub is gonna bring out a foreigner to accuse Clark of war crimes. It leaves them WAY too open to criticism for the war in Iraq. The war that Clark fought resulted in an estimated 500 civilian casualties and not a single allied combat death. Just let 'em try to compare the two.

That is not to say they won't try to "swiftboat" Clark. In fact, they tried during his '04 campaign, by bringing out other generals to impugn his integrity, mostly anonymously. I'm sure it will get worse if he should run again, especially if he wins the nomination. But they will do the same, one way or another, to whomever we nominate. And Clark will fight back. That you can bank on.

As for Kerry, it was not his military background that was a negative. It was the protesting he did after the war. Now, you and I might think he was not only justified, but in fact obligated to stand up for what he believed in after he got back from Vietnam. But the average voter was at best ambivalent about it all. Many of 'em saw it as a betrayal of his brothers in arms. Others were too easily persueded by the venom from the Swiftboaters, who truly despised Kerry for what he did.

"I'm sure with Clark running they will find some foreigner saying Clark burned his family during the war. Bank on it. "

It's never about issues it's about BS stuff. What is interesting to me is Bill Clinton had some stuff they dug up about him, maybe really more substantial than Kerry yet he managed to keep the media focused on the issues. That was against Bush's dad. Dole wasn't a dirty campaigner like W and his dad.

The strongest ticket will be Edwards and Warner.

Edwards has good name recognition, an easy-to-understand theme, an ability to grab Reagan Democrats/Clinton Republicans, and comes from a region that the Dems have done poorly in recently. He should be able to win states like West Virginia and Ohio with his two nations theme.

Warner similarly comes from a border state, has a high likeability factor among independents and Clinton Republicans, and like Edwards is young and articulate.

That tandem can win.

wouldn't matter who's on top and who's on bottom.

so to speak.

Edward is a great idea guy. But as a candidate he was a snore.

Doesn't matter who we run. We are cursed by five percent of morons that will stay home rather then vote for a Democrat.

Is there anyway a human being with a functioning brain would look at the damage Republican control has done to this country and stay home or vote for a third party candidate.

So I guess I'll waste my time as well as the rest. Feingold, Gore, Warner, and anyone else with a D next to their name.

Edwards wasn't going to win Florida. The state economy was excellent compared to the national economy. But switching 60,000 Ohio votes in a horrid state economy wasn't out of the question, given a much more upbeat campaign than Kerry presented.

Do you think that Hillary may be carrying a bit too much "lead in the saddle bags"? Eg. White Water etc

gone the way of old, tired, worn out saddle bags.

There will be a complete turn-around when it's time for the next presidential election.

John Edwards is a one term Senator. He couldn't even pull is own state. He didn't run for the Senate again because his chances of re-election were slim. I just do not see him as being qualified. My choice is still John Kerry. This country is going to be a colossal mess in 2008. I truly believe he will be the most qualified to get us out of this mess. John has a lot of foreign policy experience and he understands what war is all about.

Thanks but no thanks to Hillary, Warner and Edwards.

and more dems should do it. All they have to say is they were lied to and that's why they voted for the war.

rewarded with the presidency in my book.....I mean, Edwards regretted only in November 2005....

That's way too late for a "leader" to see the err of a decision made 3 years earlier....that even I knew at the time was wrong.

I want a leader that knows before I do the wrongs of war that didn't have to be fought in the first place. That would make that leader smarter than me....and that's what we desperately need!

that decision?

as I did.....so yeah, it's Edwards' fault for buying the bullshit (considering that he actually co-sponsored Lieberman's bill which was the IWR.

I am not naive and neither is John Edwards. At the end of the day....Edwards understood that going into Iraq was more for Geopolitical reasons than simply because of WMDs....






John Edwards didn't say....Hussein faces The United Nation...he said faces a united nation...so he also understood that we were going in unitarily.

Even a year later after NO WMDs had been found, Edwards was this (in an interview on Hardball):

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there's a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don't think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn't believe-But you weren't misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the "don't tread on me and if you don't we'll leave you alone." We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn't get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't.

I don't think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush's approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn't work with others. He doesn't build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we're seeing what's happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.

So no....Edwards doesn't get rewarded in becoming the President with my vote....because he just is not a leader.....and in fact, as he talks about poverty, he forgets to mention how this many billion war has provided an excuse to cut some of the most useful programs for the poor.

Edwards is not presidential material.

UNLESS rank-and-file Dems get behind a genuine traditional Democratic candidate and kick the party's corporatist-sellout, warmongering DLC-oid "leadership" out of the way. NO, that candidate wouldn't be Warner, or Edwards, or Clark, or refried Kerry. We also need to get the word out, despite all the BS from the media, about neocon-in-moderates'-clothing McCain.

Chances of this happening? They sure don't look good right now. Best prospect? Possibly Al Gore, whose positions on key issues are quite different, and more in the realm of traditional Democratic principles, than they were in 2000.

The rest is immaterial!

What are you doing to help Dems win this year?

Warner would at least turn some purple areas blue, and possibly turn some red areas purple.

Hillary would not. Edwards is old news.

I doubt that it will come down to them. I think the media is pushing them, but I do not think lower level party members want them to run or win.