Presidential choices for 2008?

Now give this poll a little thought. Be honest and vote for the best candidate!
IMO, our candidate should be well qualified, likable,experienced in governing and listening to the people. Our candidate should have leadership qualities and integrity. This candidate should also be able to maintain long tern relationships and reach across the aisle and work with those in the opposing party. It would also be a plus if this candidate had similarities to the ideals of both Lincoln and Jefferson, but had a message that related to more modern times. physical attractiveness is also desirable. And a smart, kind,caring and beautiful wife would also be a plus. This candidate will be refereed to as candidate A.

What a sexist shit this is!

President's were married. I did also include caring and smart. I assume a woman can be all of these things and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so I meant this to be relevant to the person she is rather than her physical features. And, I will confess, I did have a certain candidate's wife in mind when I posted this. Please except my apologizes, My comments were meant to be non-sexist.

"I assume a woman" can be president. :)

Not really out to flame you - just asking you to think a little further.

beauty, this is about the quality of the human being (which for me is part of beauty a lot more than any physical quality).

and in real life, Hadassah Lieberman is a lot nicer than Holy Joe, and Teresa Heinz is better on issues than John Kerry.

but I don't know of any issue where her position is far from her husbands. If the media would have covered how significant her own accomplishments are and showed what a kind person she is, there would be a President Kerry.

In retrospect, an ad on both their accomplishments on the environment, concluding with the fact that their attendance at the RIO conference led to friendsip, love and marriage would have been a really good idea. (That they both when to Sunday mass their could be thrown in.)

Bill Clinton seems to be better-liked than the Triangulatrix.

Second, all women are beautiful.

Now that we know what a shit VP candidate he had, there is no doubt he'd win in 2008.

He had another denial of his yesterday in which he says he won't run for President but won't shut the door on politics altogether.

The day Gore forms a PAC or an exploratory committee, then we can discuss his assets as a nominee.

Check thread by DoYouEverWonder in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2178839

Gore Not Planning to Run for President

March 20, 2006, 8:43 PM EST

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. -- Former Vice President Al Gore said Monday he's not planning to run for president in 2008 but hasn't ruled out a future in politics.

"I'm enjoying what I'm doing," Gore told an audience at Middle Tennessee State University, where he gave a lecture on global warming.

"I'm not planning to be a candidate again. I haven't reached a stage in my life where I'm willing to say I will never consider something like this. But I'm not saying that to be coy; I'm just saying that to be honest -- that I haven't reached that point."

Gore, a Democrat, in 2000 lost to President Bush in one of the closest presidential elections in history.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-gore-speech,0,4052108.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Saying that right now you are not planning to run for President is NOT the same as saying there is no way you would ever consider running again.

Has Hillary said "I am planning to run for President in 2008".

No. Nobody has said that yet.

Why? Because it's too early.

Gore doesn't even have to make a decision until 2007.

In Gore We Trust
www.algore.org :)

Gore says he is not running for President in 2008. Why can't you even respect the man for not wanting to put his family through another campaign?

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/03/21/gore/index.html

Al Gore in 2008?

We'll take it as a maybe: Al Gore, speaking Monday at Middle Tennessee State University, sounded awfully equivocal about his plans to make another run at the presidency. "I'm enjoying what I'm doing," said the man who beat George W. Bush in the popular vote in 2000. "I'm not planning to be a candidate again. I haven't reached a stage in my life where I'm willing to say I will never consider something like this. But I'm not saying that to be coy; I'm just saying that to be honest -- that I haven't reached that point."

"I haven't reached a stage in my life where I'm willing to say I will never consider something like this."

You think that maybe having been a US Senator and Vice President he might be talking about running for Mayor of Nashville?

Joe Lieberman?

candidates and pick the one who more closely represents cadidate A.

:rofl:

And for those of you who care about such things, he has a beautiful family, too.

Gore/Feingold
Gore/Edwards
Gore/Kerry

All 3 work for me.

across the aisle and work with those in the opposing party" part makes me suspicious.

This should be about John and Elizabeth Edwards.

Gore, perhaps as a similar second choice.

Great! :thumbsup:

Clark has never been elected to office and has never governed - note: I'm not questioning "leadership" which he has.

The only one I see with all of these is Kerry - Gore being a second possiblity.

Gore was a VP...so I would certainly give him credit for governing.

Candidate A. What's up with the wife thing. Is this a subtle anti-Feingold dig?

Who can that possibly be?

Commander in Chief, both of the Southern Command and of Europe...and what he did was exactly that; govern the personnels and their families who fell under his geographical assignment.

Who else has "Governed"? John Kerry, John Edwards haven't (senators are legislators, and do not "govern"...and they are both "2004 General Election" losers. :shrug:

If what is being specified is elected "Governing".....then that would leave only Evan Bayh, Mark Warner and Richardson.

Clark won't work because he falls in that lost in 2004 category.

A peculiar way to judge a candidate, IMO.

represents us positively on a number of issues- not just one issue.

I'll make my choice from among real people, with real names and real faces.

I'm looking for someone with the courage to oppose the rw/corporate agenda.

Someone who will unequivocally:

support single-payer not-for-profit universal health care

support media, campaign, and election reform

support sustainable energy and agricultural solutions

oppose NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO

value peace over war, diplomacy over aggression

oppose the Patriot Act

protect all civil liberties

abolish the high-stakes testing and other destructive policies embedded in NCLB


This someone should have been doing this all along. Not someone who just discovered these issues, but someone who has a history of consistently working to move them forward.

I don't give a shit what the spouse looks like, whether there is a spouse, or what gender the spouse may be. And, as far as I'm concerned, physical attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, colored by the person under the skin. The most perfect physical specimen is not "attractive" if the person inside the skin is ugly. I really don't give a shit whether the person's physical "house" meets someone's "fashion standards."

There are a few out there who fit the bill. I'd like to see my primary ballot loaded with them, so that no matter who ends up with the nomination, I could be comfortable campaigning for that person.

"It doesn't get covered by the corporate media (imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt, tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. Over 65% of all Americans believe that the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

would put their votes where their issues are, we'd be able to move forward !

who represents ALL or most of your ideals. I also want to clarify something I have already clarified earlier. Beauty is indeed in the eyes of the beholder, and my reference was meant to imply a person's inner beauty. I also applaud your open mindedness in regards to a partner or lack of one. Unfortunately, many in America look for a partner for the President and are inclined to have them appear and act a certain way. There is. however always room for change.

Finally, there was no reason to get hostile over the poll. This poll is to demonstrate that unfortunately, many people, even those here at DU, do not vote issues, but more to the point,they vote for a candidate for the wrong reasons.For example, one issue, geographic location,or even just personality. This is how we go stuck with Bush in 2000 and 2004. Let's hope people wise up in 2008. Our country is at stake.

No hostility intended, wisteria.

I'm often blunt to the point of abrasiveness, without any offense intended, when I'm responding to stress. Even if the stress has nothing to do with the conversation.

I agree with your observations re: voting for issues, or not, and voting for candidates for the wrong reason. As you can see, my focus is on issues, not personality! Still, if I were to choose the characteristics I'd like to see in a candidate, they would be, in no particular order:

courage
integrity
empathy
humility
consistency
eloquence
commitment
action
cooperation
knowledge

Read this and the accompanying linked story by Ezra Klein

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/20/22221/8279

If you don't take Lt Governor - Kerry was the executive of a company - since sold but it's still in business since at least the early 80s! The cookies incidentally are fantastic!

what you mean about "Pysical attractiveness" and "Beutiful wife". You forgot handsome husband.

Clinton's when you mention handsome husband. Of course this is not meant to be sexist either, so I will explain that hadsome- as is beautiful is meant to describe the person's inner beauty.

talking about the past because you said the 2008 election. Inner beauty doesn't matter to me, I just want them to have some of the liberal principles that I do.

"our candidate should be well qualified, likable,experienced in governing and listening to the people. Our candidate should have leadership qualities and integrity. This candidate should also be able to maintain long tern relationships and reach across the aisle and work with those in the opposing party."

If you ever wanted the definition of Senator John Kerry, that was it above.

Kerry's candidate A!

There is no point of reference, so we don't know how to go about verifying any of what you said about him. Also, the other options are all referred to in an obviously derogatory manner, and I'm sure I could dig up something like... "'lost' in 2000, must shed public reputation" to refer to your guy.

I like Al Gore, don't get me wrong - but please, don't resort to these cheap, dishonest tactics to make your point.

This poll is complete bullshit. There is no way to say that candidate A isn't also one of the other less desirable selections.

relevent. IMO, some people would vote for the other choices, simply based on one issue or an assumption of a winning formula for another. Where do you stand? Do you vote for a candidate based on "issues compatability with characteristics noted in the original post or do you vote for someone described in the other catagories?

go for the candidate that is the latest anti-Bush or is a governor etc. Candidate A, with the added progressive voting record who presents themselves as a President of the people, should IMO appeal to a majority of voters. This is not always the case though and even the original description isn't considered. We got a President Bush in 2000 and 2004 because people didn't even consider the original attributes of the candidate both times. They voted on one issue or characteristic.

The point of this poll, I hope is to get people thinking more about who and how we elect our Presidents and what an important part they play in this process.

C'mon, you admitted it yourself, you were describing Kerry. Just have a sense of humor about it and move on. It's a silly, obviously skewed poll.

as I was told when I wanted to link people to a very informative - non-inflamatory thread. :)

I assume though that there could be one of these polls for each candidate - where traits supporters assign to the candidate are given. (I believe months ago there was one where the ideal candidate was described in a way that fit only Clark.)

But I think it's silly to start a poll like this and then try to pass it off as serious, as you started to do. I don't post in these poll threads, generally, no matter who they are about. I just found it funny that it could, indeed, describe Gore, which I don't think was your intention. You need to be a lot more specific, clearly, lol. :)

but I seriously was told not to link like that. If you read the Kerry thread - you could see it was in fun - I think many of the personal characteristics could and should be assigned to virtually all leading candidates because it should take a minimum of that to reach the level of being considered.In a real choice of course you would want their issues and accomplishments.

I didn't take the whole thing seriously at all, but I felt it was starting to go there because of accusations and defenses. I actually thought of doing my own silly 2008 poll, but then I decided not to because I was afraid people would think I was starting a fight with this poll and on and on....

:silly:

Bill Clinton :evilgrin:

Except he's not available
:shrug:

Not fair in automatically elinimating Hillary from a chance at Candidate A, unless maybe Bill can learn to dress up in drag or something.

As far as the beautiful wife thing, I'd have to go with Clark. Clark would seem to fit Candidate A in the other regards, too.

and maybe even more.

In the rest of the "qualifications", he blows the rest of them away. That's why we're having such trouble all agreeing on who our perfect candidate is. No one we currently have listed comes close to being that, with MAYBE the exception of Al Gore, who right now is as offically as much of a candidate as Bill Clinton is.

and I don't exclude others. Clinton as brilliant, charming, and charismatic, but integrity was not his strong suit. For one example, he advised Kerry, who had a 20 + year record of supporting gay rights to back all the state gay-bashing amendments. I honesty think it would have hurt Kerry - Kerry has intregrity and it shows in his stands, doing this would look like what it was. Clinton's values were elastic enough to have done this - sold it as state's rights and it wouldn't hurt.

BTW, I wanted to say, "Those three you listed are as "blank" as anyone", but I couldn't come up with a corresponding adverb for integrity. For example...

honor: Those three men are as honorable as anyone...or

dignity: Those three men are as dignified as anyone.

How come there isn't a corresponding adverb for integrity? Like "integrified" just doesn't work and it's not even a word I don't think.
:shrug:

It's weird that there is no adjective that conveys the meaning of "having integrity". I did a google hoping I could find one. The results are amusing and sometimes unusable:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown Study... a folded San Jose Mercury and asked me, "What's the adjective for integrity? ... Integrity, integral: Allie may have been the wholest person I've ever ...
www.pseudopodium.org/kokonino/brown.html - 49k - Cached - Similar pages


Word Fugitives archivesI use "integral" as an adjective for "integrity." I think that the true sense of "integrity" includes being true to oneself. Betsy Newman ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I love the definition of being true to oneself, it doesn't lead to an adjective. Some of the definitions of integrity - honest, sound, morally upright, and righteous, are adjectives - but mean something slightly different to me, especially the last 2 which seem society dictated rather than the core personal values of a person. Your honorable is similar to that.

Integral doesn't work at all.

Hope this at least slightly amuses you - as I'm sure this thread was done because of the sudden appearance of too many polls again. Thanks for the question as it intrigued me enough to look and in the process found a meaning of integrity that would likely be more appealing to use than "integrity" itself. "Being True To Oneself".

Thanks again

First, I have to say yes, it did amuse me. Thank you. It amused me enough that I decided to do something similar to what you did and I came up with a result that was also very interesting, to say the least.

After I read your post, I did a similar google search. However, I think what we're looking for is an adverb, not an adjective. So, I googled "adverb for integrity" and I put the 3 words in quotation marks, exactly as I have them here. Google came back with only 11 results and only 2 that showed, but both lead to the same webpage, one that I think you'll find interesting, as I did. Try the same search yourself if you have a minute, and you might be surprised at what the result is. It has to do with a conversation about Rush, Clinton, and Bush! In it, a couple of people are comparing Clinton-hating to Bush-hating. LOL. It's only funny because it was the only result of the google search on those 3 words that I searched on.

Anyway, the particular part of their conversation that makes reference to the words I googled, "adverb for integrity" is this:

" Bush, OTOH, ran almost entirely on himself. "Dignity" and "integrity" are abstract concepts, and hence are meaningless unless connected to an individual (for a linguistic exercise, try to come up with an adverb for integrity; things, not actions, have the quality it seems)."

I think you'll find the rest of what they have to say pretty amusing, too. It's quite the coincidence that by doing a search on "adverb for integrity", Google comes up with only one resulting article, but it's an article that just happens to be discussing something that's relevant to our daily discussions on DU. Here's one more snip from that conversation:

"If (and it's a big if) hatred can ever be described as rational, Bush-hating is far more rational than Clinton-hating ever was, because...."

I'll let you read the rest of it yourself to find out the "because" part.

If by any chance you have trouble finding the same link, let me know. I'm sure you won't, though. Just google "adverb for integrity" and make sure the 3 words are in quotation marks.

BTW, I agree you found a good one in "Being true to oneself"....and thanks for inadvertantly getting me involved in the linguistics of "integrity". ;)

:)

Pretty silly poll.

choices and not A more appealing?

Because you don't list a SINGLE ONE in your description of Mr. Ideal Candidate.

of the positions we do and is a candidate for the People. That you ask suggests that you are an aware voter, which is one of the points I am trying to relay. To often, people vote for a candidate based on one issue or because they think everyone else is voting for that candidate. see my post #28.

Fuck "likeable."

likeable: read spineless, worthless piece of shit.

Nope. I'm voting for the ugliest, meanest, angriest son of a bitch we've got. Someone who will reach across the aisle with his or her boot and shove it right up some Republican assholes.

And I hope the presidential spouse is an unattractive, unpleasant, angry, militant hard-core lefty who will tell the right wing to go get fucked, whomever he/she is.

I'm not joking.

Someone like Warner, Bayh, Richardson or Vilsack, and not someone pretending to be a moderate like Hillary.:patriot:

Why do you feel Hillary is pretending to be a moderate?

Pelosi in '07!!