There are a lot of Democrats who are considering a run for the Presidency. Almost all of them are more conservative, or centrist, than I would like. But, political differences aside, the crew does look stronger than in past contests.
There is the chairman of the DLC and governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack. I’m no fan of the DLC, but Vilsack has some attractive qualities. And his wife wins the contest of ‘Best Prospective First Lady’.
The New York Times has a write-up on Virginia Governor, Mark Warner, who raised $2.5 million for his presidential run last week. Warner can boast that his state was named the best-run in the country by Governing magazine, and he has the 80% approval rate to prove it.
Then there is good old Joey Biden. Joey hasn’t exactly been warming the hearts of progressives since George W. Bush came along. But he does know the issues, the game, the players, and he has all the requisite experience you’d like to see in a President.
Hillary is a juggernaut. She leads in all the early polling and she has successfully reinvented herself as a centrist candidate. The right will insist she is a raving liberal, but she is cleverly working to undermine that message by doing things like co-sponsoring a bill against flag desecration with Sen. Bennett of Utah. It’s all part of her attempt to appeal to red staters. Ha ha. I do not want Hillary to win the nomination, but I think it would be exciting if she became the first woman to win a nomination for President, and I think she could do the job competently.
John Edwards was disappointing as a vice-presidential candidate, but he has good name recognition, he has been through the process, and he is a serious candidate.
Gov. Bill Richardson has excellent credentials, and his hispanic/southwest heritage could be a real electoral college asset on the top or bottom of a 2008 ticket.
There is always Wesley Clark, who seems to win all the Daily Kos polls for some, to me, inexplicable reason. He has excellent credentials and an important voice. I think he might be able to rally a larger segment of the reality-based foreign policy establishment in the next go-round.
And then there is Russ Feingold. Russ was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He has been pushing for a timetable to end the war. We all know the work he has done to try to clean up the corruption in Washington. Russ is the only truly progressive candidate in the bunch. Progressive Senators do not have the best track record of winning the nomination, and the one that did, George McGovern, got his head handed to him. And he was a war-hero, not a twice-divorced lawyer. Is America ready for a man like Feingold? I hope so.
I didn’t mention Evan Bayh because I shouldn’t have to find something to say about milquetoast.
So, what do you think about our candidates? They all have certain flaws, but collectively they make up a strong field. I definitely don’t see the Republicans fielding a team that is in the same league. George Allen? Please.
I know enough about any of them to make a choice at this point — we’ve still got two years to go, after all, and the tinfoil part of me feels like it doesn’t matter who we pick, the Republicans are going to pull out their bag of dirty tricks so it’s best to keep the front-runners under the radar.
I think one of the reasons Wes Clark does well in polls over at dKos is because of the military aspect — there’s a feeling that our candidate has to be strong on military issues (to the loss of everything else) to counteract the Republicans’ claims that the Democrats are soft on “national security” issues. But how “secure” is our nation when the emergency rooms are full because people can’t afford regular health care, or parents can’t afford to send their kids to college, or people lose their jobs (and pensions) within years of retirement?
A strong domestic agenda is important, and can bring people to the polls. 3,000+ people died on 9/11/2001 — how many millions are without health insurance? That, not terrorism, is the greater threat IMNSHO…
you’re right about why Wes gets so much support, but it mystifies me. If I want a candidate with little history of fighting for progressive values I have a range of centrists to choose from who have run and won elections in their lives. Why Wes?
a “Fighting Dem,” or something like that. He appeals to the boys who like guns.
Less cynically, his military background makes him a strong candidate against Republican hawkery. (Or so it is argued, much less quietly after Kerry’s failure.) And Clark did run a grassroots-style Presidential campaign for the most part, which is very commendable.
But I’m with you BooMan. I think Clark is as good or bad a candidate as most of this crew, but less trustworthy because of his chameleon-like political past (and he’s still getting paychecks from FOX News).
And finally, presentation counts. Wes is still unpolished, has a difficult time discussing non-military issues, and looks like Skeletor. I think it’s wasted energy from the blogosphere, personally.
He’s a southerner from Arkansas, a retired four star general who fought a war against Serbia, and someone who Dems can tout as strong on National Security. He’s the new default “electable candidate” (although Warner is also making a strong claim there, too).
While I like many of the positions that Wes has been putting forward (especially on national security topics NOT involving Iraq), I don’t believe for one second that he’s invulnerable. I’ve worked with enough military folks to know that there are plenty of people ready to come out of the woodwork and accuse him of being a micromanager, a prima donna, and a “political general” (as if there was another type). There are lots of people from all of the services ready to trash his record as SACEUR and his performance running the war against Serbia.
Feingold is the only one of the above that would get me back in the Dem column. It’s time for more 3rd Party candidates because the 2 parties we have are completely insufficient.
the two major parties have rigged things so that no third party is ever going to have a chance. To make a difference a third party would have to not only overcome 150 years of intertia on the subject, but also convince at least 50 million voting Americans that they were a worthwhile alternative and to fund them so they could afford to win. I don’t see that happening.
I too would love to see a viable third and fourth party, but it’s not going to happen in my lifetime.
Our best shot — in my opinion, our only shot — is to infiltrate and subvert one of the currently existing parties and bend it to our will, and since the radical right has already done this with the Republicans, that only leaves the Democrats to work with.
If you look at the history of U.S. politics, the nature of the legislature and the executive almost force a two party structure. It’s been winner take all from the beginning, which encouraged parties to consolidate to better take advantage of victory and minimize the impact of defeat. By winning just one part of the government (House, Senate, or the Presidency), you can start to control the agenda and the resources. There’s no benefit to being a small player because you can’t be a kingmaker.
Under a Parliamentary system, the U.S. could probably sustain as many as 5 or 6 parties with a mix of regional and issue focused platforms.
I believe that, mathematically, any voting system is guaranteed to create two majority parties. However, other systems can provide for many minority or regional parties with bite – such as the NDP and Bloc here in Canada.
If you haven’t read Bob Cesca’s interview with Mark Crispin Miller, I highly recommend it.
Without open verifiable voting, we are a faith-based shell of a democracy. In Diebold We Trust.
The real villain imposing the “two-party” system is the US Constitution that liberals so love to worship. By imposing a winner-take-all system with no voice for the opposition, our deeply flawed founding document makes it impossible for a third alternative to wield the power that attracts constituencies. Add to that the anti-democratic amendment process, which can be derailed by any relatively small special interest group, and you have a recipe for non-responsive government forever.
Since only voices with some political power behind them get a serious hearing in the US, the result is two parties whose primary objective is to outdo each other in how well they can preserve the ignorance and irrationality of the electorate. Without a Constitutional Convention, I don’t see any prospect for the situation changing. Like so many national powers before us, we are declining because of our blind adherence to obsolete old rules.
I am not going to support either Hillary or Kerry. I believe that if we nominate either of them we will lose. I don’t intend to support an anybody-but candidate — I will find someone and throw my energetic support behind that person. But, today — in the early days, I’m going to say this:
Hillary is poison on the Iraq & Health Care issues. These are two of the most critical issues facing us today. And they both could be solved fairly easily if a president of enough moral strength, personal power & integrity and imagination came in to power. Someone who could pull the right people into a back room and make some deals. That person is not Hillary. She is damaged goods on both issues.
Kerry can’t speak a clear thought to save his life. We need someone who can speak from his/her(?) heart directly to the American People leaving nuance out of the final draft. Someone who can say what they mean and mean what they say.
Finally, I really mean it. Get out of Iraq. Healthcare for everyone. Two sentences: A Democratic Platform. If the candidate doesn’t support this — fuck-em.
Kerry can’t speak a clear thought to save his life. We need someone who can speak from his/her(?) heart directly to the American People leaving nuance out of the final draft. Someone who can say what they mean and mean what they say.
My God, but he used to.
:<(
I know. To quote that brilliant SNL sketch featuring Newt Gingrich and others: What the hell happened?
After the first term in the Senate, it all seems to go downhill.
Maybe you need to be in the Senate as long as Robert Byrd to get your voice back.
In October 2002, I was listening to CSPAN as Senators explained their votes for or against authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Hillary was particularly disgusting in setting Mr. Bush loose: in a long speech filled with bromides, she tremulously set forth the reasons why this was the most “painful vote” (or something to that effect) she had ever made. If it was really so tough, Hillary, why didn’t you do a better job challenging the reasons the champions of war provided for wasting our blood and treasure? Their mistakes were in plain view, if any one of you had cared to look. If we are to choose a Democrat president, we need a proven leader. She ain’t one. Leave her to New York.
Rumsfeld makes a rare appearance in the Senate and Hillary asks one question. Her one question goes something like this: “Do you believe it was appropriate for Karl Rove to say that liberals want to give the terrorist therapy….”
As my grandma said, fuck that fuckin’ noise. What’s Rummy gonna say, she thinks she can out grease that pig? She plays politics as Rummy and Co. continue to kill, torture, disfigure…
Please Tbone, what has New York done to deserve this?
We want her out and now there may be a primary challenge to her from the left, a labor organizer who is anti war–John Tasini (sp?).
Boo (and anybody else, for that matter), what are your thoughts on (a) Al Gore and (b) Gov. Schweitzer of Montana as candidates?
I suspect Gore’s “over it” and we won’t see any encouragement coming from him for the folks trying to draft him (unless someone knows something I don’t & cares to share it).
Is Schweitzer’s 15 minutes of fame over, or is he gaining traction / laying groundwork for a run?
And I think he could do it if he wanted. His new style is just what we need. And with his Senate experience, he might just know who to deal with and how to make the deals.
I also think the new Al Gore wouldn’t let himself be swift-boated. In fact, I think anyone who tried would regret it.
I don’t know enough about the governor to say anything.
I am a long time enemy of Al Gore. I worked for Bill Bradley. I have very little good to say about Gore. However, if he decided to run he would have a good chance and he would do a credible job.
Schweitzer shows no signs of running. But he could be a great surprise VP pick.
My wife and I have been watching “Commander in Chief” and thoroughly enjoying it.
“You know,” I told her, “this show was put together by one of Hillary Clinton’s staffers.” (I believe I heard that somewhere.)
“Oh yeah?” she said. “Do you think they made it so people would start to accept the idea of a woman president?”
I thought about this for a minute. “I think the American people would accept a woman president,” I finally said. “I just don’t think it would be Hillary Clinton.”
I really don’t know who I would be in favor of right at the moment. Feingold impresses me, but you’re right about the chances for progressives.
What we really need is Dean’s 50 State Strategy to be implemented and working, and to get Democrats into Congress next year. If we don’t start doing that it won’t matter who we choose, we’ll lose yet again.
While the public is ready for someone completely different, it’s not HC. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is hardly anything different. Aside from the numerous trust issues with HC on the left and the right, we’re still in the era of fear. ‘Merica gonna want a daddy, not a mommy. A sane daddy.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton completely freaks me the hell out. No.
Well, I want change, and I’m sure you want change, but I’m worried that even if we think the American people want change, and even if the American people say they want change, they’re going to vote for more of the same for precisely the reason you mention — they want a Strong Father running the government rather than a Nurturing Parent.
If the American people really knew the issues, really knew what was at stake and really understood what it means to vote for Republicans, I think they’d vote Democratic. Unfortunately they don’t, and the Republicans have been so successful in getting their messages across (Liberal is Bad, Taxes are Bad, Democrats are Weak and can’t protect you) that we face an uphill battle in combatting the message.
And that’s assuming the election playing field is on the level.
I do not know a lot about several of the possibles on the list. So time, and more info will tell the tail on these. I am worried that Hillary might prove to be un-electable in a national race. I keep wondering to myself why folks are not impressed with Dean. To me he clearly states what is on his mind, is a bit left of the Centrist pack and has traditional Democratic views concerning the role of the federal government. Perhaps he is to straightforward for most, who have trouble with candor??
It is just that sometimes it takes too much effort to keep up with all the Democrats who are flipping their noggins over something else truthful he just said.
If you get past the right wing bloggers and websites who are making him their poster boy for hatred, if you get past the Democrats who distance themselves before they even know what he said….if you get past them to ordinary people you see something different.
People pay attention to him, even Republicans in our area. Some Republicans I know I have been impressed with his interviews a lot.
But here’s the rub…whatever little media we have left on the left of the dial are also busy NOT talking about him as well. And that’s the problem.
He had a huge warm reception in Florida this week-end. Some of our friends could not even get near him, though they had met him before. He was surrounded by people wanting autographs. Very popular indeed. The news won’t tell you that, though.
He won’t run, he said he wouldn’t. But it was so nice to hear a person speak in a real way. It was nice while it lasted.
If he can leverage the passion people feel for him into getting other Democrats elected to Congress next year and give us a shot at 2008, then I’m OK with that.
I’m also OK with him being a lightning rod for the wingnuts, since they seem to think that if Dean says “I like ice cream for breakfast,” all Democrats like ice cream for breakfast. Let ’em think that. If they are paying more attention to what the chairman of the DNC says than to what’s happening in the races Dean is organizing across the country, that’s good. It’s the first thing every magician learns. Keep people’s attention focused on the irrelevant stuff and you can get away with pretty much anything in places where they aren’t paying attention.
Saw him in Michigan about a month ago, and I echo your thoughts. If not Dean, then who??? Gore comes to mind, after that, the young Senator from Illinois (probably tooo young), then who?
I didn’t mention Evan Bayh because I shouldn’t have to find something to say about milquetoast.
Couldn’t have said it better, myself.
Mark Warner: Now there’s someone I’d vote for … he’s smart, can talk to damn near any audience (black, white, rural, suburban, urban, etc.), is pro-choice and hails from a southern state.
Biden: Oh, Boo. But I understand. I saw an old congressional hearing when he was thundering away at some Reagan nut–can’t remember who it was–but he was breathtaking. And he favored sanctions on South Africa when the Reagan admin–surprise of all surprises–did not.
I don’t know. You almost don’t want good people to even enter the Senate. As much as I want to get rid of howdy doody George Allen, in some ways I’m glad Warner’s not doing it.
The place just seems to suck away all your sense, all your passion, all your ideals. I DO know this is the real world we’re dealing with, but damn–hold on to something!
I’m with many “once and future” candidates: I’ll figure it out after the ’06 elections. Feingold is rising and is the only candidate thusfar who appears to stick to principle over politics. But like katie sez: democrats need a platform.
Here I think there is general agreement on three specific planks:
1. Bring our people home. The mandate for the multinational force (UNSCR 1546 [.pdf]) expires following the one-year extension asked for by the Iraqi government. Based on their internal polls, and statements by their current leadership, our people will be home for Christmas ’06.
Treated as an afterthought in most debates, it will be the people of Iraq that ultimately decide how best to move their country forward. Nearly unreported are the gains they have made in spite of the universally condemned policies of the Bush administration.
Democrats would be wise to point to the fact that our people on the ground are responsible for that assist, and have accomplished much without vests, armor, supplies, in chow halls run by Halliburton, and with 20,000 mercs unleashed on the populace.
Coupled with the tension between the various “D” orgs (SCC, CCC, LC, NC, NP), the complete lack of coherence justifiably paints the party as lost in space. The party will not have a shortage of candidates. But unless and until there is a solid platform, they’re just like the reeps: running on quicksand.
We deserve better.
I love this Living Wage thing. I’m adding it to my signature. Thanks!
At it’s peak the “minimum” reached 107% of the poverty line. Under Reagan it had dropped to 78%, while welfare payments reached 87%. The Republicans were actually paying people to remain locked in the poverty cycle.
Keep sayin: “working” and “poor” do not belong in the same sentence.
Someone remind me again — when was the last time a Senator became President? Kennedy? That was an awfully long time ago. Senators tend not to win, I think, because they have long, long track records. Personally, I think this is a good thing, but we all know what ends up happening — votes are taken out of context, twisted around, and used against the candidate. I don’t think anyone in the Senate (or who is knows primarily as a Senator)can win. Also, I think that those Iraq votes, especially the yes votes, are going to be terribly difficult to explain away.
So, based on that, I eliminate: Clinton, Biden, and Byah. Feingold is someone I like, but he’s a twice-divorced Senator from Wisconsin who’s on the liberal end of the party. I don’t think he has a chance. Kerry wants to run again, but he and Edwards are already losers, so I don’t think either will get the nomination. Edwards may have a slim chance, but I don’t see him winning the nomination — I think people will be afraid to vote for him, and his experience is a little thin. I’d want him in the Cabinet, but not necessarily at the top (yet). Plus, both he and Kerry have the whole Senate thing.
That leaves: Richardson, Clark, Warner, Vilsack. Vilsack ? I yawn just typing his name, and then I start thinking about Dukakis, and then I change the subject. Richardson has a wonderful last name (mine!), and seems competent. Somehow I see him as more of a VP pick, but I’d be happy with him.
I like Wes Clark. I think he was way out of his league last time, but I think he’s learned a lot. And, I think there’s something to be said for putting up someone other than a Senator or a booooring Governor. I also like Clark b/c I think he’s very capable to standing up to Republican smears. I believe he’s the one who threatened to punch some Republican blowhard not that long ago? He’s credible on national security (which we shouldn’t overestimate), seems good on non-military issues, and doesn’t have a years-long paper trail to hold against him. I really think we could do worse.
In the end, though think we should all start brusing up on Warner, because I think he’s going to be the nominee. I think the Dem establishment wants him, and they always seem to get who they want these days. I don’t know much about him, but he seems to have a lot to recommend him.
As a Green, I’m necessarily a kibitzer in this conversation, but two thoughts about this list immediately come to mind…
In short, the list of likely 2008 presidential candidates highlights a lot of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party today. In my estimation, Item #2 would be a lot easier to change than Item #1. But if I were a Democrat, I’d be working actively to change both. The quadrennial class of centrist presidential candidates doesn’t just happen by accident. It reflects deep facts about your party that won’t change by themselves.
>>Once again, the leading Democrats have a significant charisma deficit.<<
As a Green sympathizer, I hesitate to reopen the old wounds, but jeez– I wish the Greens would take the charisma pill. Nader? Please. This last guy (whose name escapes me)? Both make Kerry and Gephardt look like FDR in the charisma race except to hardcore lefty policy wonks.
So what’s the problem with lefty candidates? We used to have populists like Huey Long and Jesse Jackson, but they’re either ancient history or they go nowhere. It’s like for the left side, charisma is grounds for dismissal instead of enthusiasm, so the best we can do is triangulators like Bill Clinton.
Your notion that it’s all about the money is indisputable for the big parties, but why do you think third parties seem incapable of developing populist lefty candidates who can appeal to the real needs of ordinary Americans? Your outsider perspective would be most valuable on this conundrum.
No. For party insiders, charisma is grounds for dismissal. Dean had charisma galore, and got stabbed in the back by party insiders and a massive bag of dirty tricks.
Yup, that’s why they anoint walking corpses like Casey…
Yup, dems like to consider themselves above caring about charisma. They sometimes take it to the level where they fight against it.
(This is also sort of a reply to CabinGirl, above.)
I think it’s more complicated than that. They don’t trust charisma. Charisma is unpredictable, especially since it tends to come coupled to principles. And principles mean that the rules the lobbyists and consultants learned no longer apply.
Charisma is risky. These consultants would rather run a sure loser like Casey than a risky winner. Because then they know the outcome and can plan for it.
I think the state of Green presidential thinking reflects a some of the same things we see on the Democratic side. You’re 100% correct about Nader. He had a lot going for him as a candidate in 2000 — a track record of effective activism and great name recognition — but he’s both charisma free and is himself a political rationalist to a fault.
I’d also agree with your larger point, that the left (or at least the white, middle-class left) has been pretty damn suspicious of charisma for decades. Most of the obvious exceptions to the pattern come from communities of color: Jesse Jackson, MLK, Cesar Chavez, etc.
Certainly the problem runs pretty deeply in my party. David Cobb (the last Green candidate) is also not exactly brimming with charisma, but I think he at least understands that politics is about emotion as well as thinking. Indeed, I think Greens in general understand this. But those that have put themselves forward — or are sometimes discussed — as potential presidential material are generally not charismatic. A partial list: Peter Camejo comes across as the sectarian leftist infighter that he’s been throughout his life (to watch him speak is to hear phrases like “it is no accident that…” even when he doesn’t utter them); Kent Mesplay (who sought the nomination last year) comes across as a sort of environerd; Lorna Salzman (along with Camejo a placeholder candidate last year for Nader) has truly negative charisma.
But at least as far as the Greens are concerned, I think we at least understand we have a problem, which is another way of saying that our problem lies as much or more in our pool of candidates as in our not understanding that charisma is a necessary part of successful politics.
Luckily, at least some of our elected Green officials are more charismatic than Nader or Cobb. Matt Gonzalez, who almost won the SF mayorship and served on the SF board of supervisors, is a forceful and effective public speaker. Jason West, the Green mayor of New Paltz, NY, also cuts a pretty good figure.
In many ways, people like West and Gonzalez point to the way out of the Greens’ charisma problems. We need to develop plausible national candidates organically rather than through celebrity hunting for the next Nader. And the more we select national candidates who are elected officials who have won office via the kinds of grassroots based, retail politics that actually gets Greens elected, the more our candidates will be charismatic. Until then, the biggest stock of homegrown Green candidates are unelected activists whose skillsets are often rather different.
Wasn’t Edwards a disappointment because Kerry had his thumb on him during the entire campaign. Edwards was a way better speaker and far more charismatic than Kerry.
And remember, as the problems in Ohio revealed themselves, Edwards was the one who said that we would challenge election results, and Kerry was the one who nixed it.
I agree about Edwards. I haven’t decided who to support yet, but I’m getting sick of Dems saying Edwards was a weak campaigner. Last Oct. when I searched online or in the back pages of the paper, I found him giving great speeches. It’s not his fault that they only showed Bush, Kerry and Cheney on TV. If anything blame the DNC.
Also, if it isn’t too difficult, wouldn’t a poll where you can rank your top 3 (including a write-in, if you wanted) be more useful this early on? I could see where that might be hard to do.
I was for Clark, but his recently articulated stance on Georgie’s War has given me much pause.
Warner? I wait until I hear what his stances are before forming an opinion.
Hilary Clinton? No fucking way. Might as well vote Republican. Her recent posturing to the Idiot Right is enough to make me puke. Her running mate should be Joe Lieberman. Fuck Hilary.
I like Feingold. It’s all about the war and undoing the mess BushCo has made, to me.
…they should really just pack up and give up.
The idea of giving the nod to yet another pro-war candidate who is already tacking to the “center” on issue after issue is disturbing enough. This strategy for winning elections has been tried over and over again, and it doesn’t work. And on the rare occasions it does work, you’re stuck with GOP-lite.
All that is bad enough. But to choose Hillary Clinton is truly nuts. While the electoral artgument for choosing a centrist is weak to begin with, in this case the centrist is already defined as a dangerous radical by much of the electorate.
Hillary is truly the worst of both worlds. The only, and I do mean only, things she has going for her are that she’s a woman (it’s long past the time that we should have serious female presidential contenders) and that she’s blessed with a truly vile set of enemies. But just as the wingnuts are wrong on Iraq, Intelligent Design, and taxes, they’re wrong about Hillary Clinton. She’s a run-of-the-mill corporate militarist centrist, not a “dangerous” radical.
Richadson is a horrible phoney. He can’t remember if he was drafted by the Kansas City Royals. BULLSHIT!
Then he tells Democracy Now that the deaths of 500,000 children during the Stupid Iraqi sanctions was worth it.
He’s a fucking clown. So is Hilliary.
The only guy who sounds any good is the poorest senator in the senate (if it’s possible to be a “poor” senator) Russ Feingold.
To me, it is Al Gore’s time. Obviously, we know that he ‘won’ the 2000 election, in the process gaining more popular votes than any Democratic candidate in history. I think he also won himself lots of good will among the general public by the gracious way he handled the Florida debacle and his ultimate ‘defeat.’ He then did the right thing and removed himself entirely from the public eye. Gradually, though, he has reemerged in a new role: the voice of conscience on the left. His speeches for MoveOn.org have been the most articulate and devastating attacks on the Bush regime and Iraq from any prominent Democrat. He obviously has the resume and name recognition. And unlike John Kerry, who is consigned to the ‘loser’ bin forever, Gore has a very legitimate and well-known record as the undisputed ‘winner’ in the popular vote in 2000.
And for his running mate? BooMan, how could you leave Barack Obama off your list???
Gore/Obama ’08. Oh BABY does that sound good to me. Anyone else?
for such a ticket. But I don’t see it happening, nor do I trust Gore’s born-again feistiness once he’s a real candidate again. Still, there are much worse possibilities.
I really doubt Hillary would be a good President. She’s insane if she thinks she’s going to appeal to red staters in any way – the fact that she’s a Clinton damages her chances there, and the fact that she’s a female Clinton who’s still married to an adulterer totally destroys them. If she gets the nomination, I think we’ll see a repeat of 2004 in 2008… Coupled with anti-abortion measures on the ballot, to be sure to turn out the misogynist crowd against her. And a general dilution of the Democratic party message by her constant rightward repositioning.
Even worse, though, would be if she did manage to win. I think that she would wind up so deeply in debt to the right-wing that her Presidency would either be a one-termer followed by a virulently right-wing candidate, or a repeat of Bush’s. I really doubt a Clinton victory would have coattails in Congress, which is what the Democrats really need right now.
It seems to me that whoever is picked, they should not be a Senator. The voting process in the Senate is so complicated that the Republicans could twist a candidate’s voting record any way they wished. Of course, the GOP would just make up stuff if they needed to, but why make it easier for them with another nominee who may have “voted for something before they voted against it?”
I think we should look to the Governors around the country and see what they’ve got to offer. Bill Richardson’s time as head of the Dept of Energy wasn’t exactly a home run, considering the Chinese spying scandals at Los Alamos, among other things. I don’t know a lot about Vilsack, Warner or the others.
I like what little I’ve seen of Brian Schweitzer in Montana, but so far I have yet to hear him say anything that sounds like “I’m interested in running for President.” In fact I get the vibe that he’s more interested in getting Montana moving than he is in doing anything on a national scale.
But as we are all saying today, it’s early yet and we have a couple of years to see what happens.
I think it really doesn’t matter a whit until after the 2006 elections.
A landslide change creates one playing field.
A status quo creates another
A reaffirmation of GOP control still another.
Frankly if the latter happens – I don’t think the who the Dem candidate will matter, we will have always been at war with eurasia.
And I’m trying to be pragmatic – but the “clever” stuff about backing a flagburning amendment I see more as completely totally betraying principle. And if you’re willing to completely betray your principles for momentary gain… well… why should I trust you on anything else?
I’m increasingly feeling there is no fucking way Biden or Hillary gets my vote – not even if they win the nomination. Which puts me in a hell of a spot really.
but again – nothing matters but 06 – and all this “positioning” by folks like Hillary – I think actually harm our chances in 06. What we NEED is a hard backlash against the far right. Cooperating and seeking compromise on bullshit issues in a play to appear centerist… yeargh
that doesn’t help
I say we concentrate not foremost, not first, but exclusively on 2006 at this point. Get Congress back under Democratic control and let America see the contrast. Then let’s start worrying about 2008.
Yes. Recent prez elections make it clear that we won’t get any real discussion of issues, much less any useful policy proposals. We have to depend on state and local candidates to do that labor and take those risks, and if they succeed, THEN the national candidates will creep into the tent.
We need to back populist candidates who will rip the Bushies a new one in 06 by making clear the terrible damage wingnut policies have done to America and to ordinary Americans. Any candidate worth consideration should be able to make an effective case for resetting out priorities in a whole new direction. It ain’t that hard, given current realities.
If we manage to support outspoken, attractive candidates next year 08 will take care of itself.
You forgot that Evan Bayh is hot. He is from that great red state of Indiana where he is very much loved.
the only Dem who has a chance is Gore.
The. Only. Chance.
Period.
People are moved by emotion and what a beautiful campaign that would be… what if. What if Al Gore had become President in 2000. He would not have ignored “bin Laden determined to strike in US. He would not have forgotten New Orleans. He would not have been bought and paid for by the oil companies. He would not have leaked a CIA officers name. He would not have sent your sons and daughters to Iraq. He would not have gutted the social safety net… as you can see, the marketing potential is phenomenal… and that’s just off the top of my head. And people would start to look back over the last 8 years and say… you know what… NO HE WOULDN’T. What a different country it would have been if those 657 votes in Florida had gone towards Gore. 50 million + 657 = much different world.
And he’s from the South. And he has mucho experience. And he went to Vietnam. And he’s finally learned how to give a speech without people falling asleep.
Everyone else has too much baggage — voted for the war, too centrist, too ‘liberal’, no experience, etc. etc.
I think Gore would do it if the people just wouldn’t stand for anyone else to lead the party. And I’m pretty sure he’d wind up with Dean’s support too.
His running mate could be Obama, although I think Obama needs some more experience first, and is a valuable voice in the Senate atm. My pick is Gore/ Clark or Gore/ Edwards… maybe even Gore/ Feingold, but that might be pushing the liberal label a bit too far with both of them on the ticket.
Oh… and if those bastards tried to steal the election again he most certainly would not take his ball and go home. “Constitutional crisis” be dammed. He’d stand up for the people.
I love Al Gore. His speeches over the last 2 1/2 years have articulated a clear, progressive agenda and response to the Bush administration in a way that no other Democratic leader has come close to doing.
Along with everything that Spiderleaf says, I think Gore’s experience in the executive branch also makes him one of the very few people out there with the ability to start cleaning up the horrendous mess the Bush Administration has made on every front.
We don’t have time for someone who needs a learning curve to figure out how to be President. Gore already knows.
I totally agree. I haven’t seen the passion from anyone else.
I agree with you. It would have huge emotional resonance and obviously be a catharsis for liberal America.
I voted for Bill Clinton because I liked this environmentalist Senator from Tennessee so much. Then he kind of played the good soldier as VP for eight years. Then he won the Presidential election. Then they took it from him. He has been appropriately outraged and intelligent ever since.
I just don’t think he’ll run. But I would vote for him.
I just don’t think he’ll run.
I think he’s enough of a patriot that if the rank and file Dems started a campaign to draft him into service and basically refused to accept anyone else (ie. Biden, Clinton, etc.) since they have basically been collaborators with the GOP the last 6 years, he would do it. But he would need to know he was needed and that as a true patriot he had no choice but to save the country.
I actually think it would be a catharsis for independent America as well. Hell, maybe even the true conservatives who have seen the neocons turn conservatism into fascism in front of their eyes, while they played the good soldiers and voted for the guy they thought would have a beer with them and sit on the porch…
And I’ll certainly be urging him to run.
he’s a “loser”. I think he’d have made a superior president, but if he ran, the election would be about him defending himself from the loser meme. I fear his time has passed.
Umm, he most certainly is not a “loser”. He got 50 million more votes than Bush. That’s just a fact. And if you think Americans are so stupid to not realize he got more of the popular vote than did Bush and that the SCOTUS determined who the “loser” was then I really think you should just accept your new Republican theocracy and move on.
I am having a really hard time not laughing my ass off at that comment… right, Gore would be so much more unpalpatable to Americans than Hillary, Biden, Kerry, etc. That’s just too funny.
Enjoy the next 50 years of the Bush family.
First of all, Gore won by half a million votes, not 50 million. It took him 4 or 5 years to suggest that Bush’s “win” was illegitimate. Can you hear the GOP screaming about that flipflop, and the media dutifully parroting it ad infinitum? As far as the intelligence of American voters, well, we reelected Bush — ’nuff said.
I’d love to see Gore in the White House. Your attempt to peddle him as the absolute only alternative to a permanent Bush dynasty does no good for his cause.
Your attempt to peddle him as the absolute only alternative to a permanent Bush dynasty does no good for his cause.
Really? How so?
I see it as “standing for your convictions”? Isn’t that what gets Republicans elected? Loyalty and conviction… or should we just hold our noses and hope the red states will love Hillary? Just like they loved Kerry. Please.
So give me one Democrat that could actually get elected against McCain or Jeb then… and hint, the solution is not to become “republicans-lite”.
And hey, you’re the one who called him a loser so I think the onus is on you to back that up with a suggestion for a “hero” the American people could get behind instead. Throwing out flippant statements when I actually had a rationale for why he would be the only choice is highly ridiculous.
How can you say he is a “loser”? Everyone in America knows he “won” in 2000. Everyone. Regardless of hanging chads or the intricacies of the electoral college, he won the popular vote, plain and simple. Undeniably. That will HELP him in 2008.
That, and his credentials, his articulation of the key issues, his newfound passion, and his name recognition. As much as I like Russ Feingold on most issues, just think about the average American: Russ Feingold, or Al Gore? Gore has such a huge advantage over the entire field, except for Hillary, in that regard. And Kerry, of course, except for KERRY has the ‘loser’ meme attached to him. Justifiably.
Gore/Obama 08. Oh baby.
there is only ONE name on that list I will vote for: Feingold.
If I wanted to vote for a Republican I’d register as one.
I will withhold my vote from the Presidential line if any one of the other ones is the nominee.
big talk. I say the same thing every four years, and (almost) every four years I end up holding my nose. And they know it. If it’s Hillary or Biden, tho, I may have to change my pattern.
I’ve done it before (2000, and go ahead and blame Nader for Gore’s shitty campaign, really shitty running mate and complete unwillingness to FIGHT for his win) … and I’m ready to do it again.
I talked myself into overlooking how shitty Kerry was. I filled in that little bar on my ballot, then I watched Mr. “I’ll fight for every vote” concede his punk ass THE VERY NEXT DAY then run off to Europe. I watched my fellow Americans get treated like flea-ridden dogs in the cold winter rain in OH, people who stood FOR HOURS, and all of that talk of contesting the vote evaporated like “I promise to call you tomorrow” after a drunken tumble.
NEVER
FUCKING
AGAIN.
The Republicans can fucking have this country if the Dems can’t get their shit together and if we lefties can’t get OUR shit together to make them. At least they WANT IT.
We are a danger to the world, and that bunch of enablers above is the best that the “opposition” can put forth?!?! We deserve to be cast out of the community of nations. We bring shame on all of our foremothers and forefathers for the creature this country has become.
I will not vote for a shadow Republican ever again. I’ll vote Green or Independent or write in Lazarus Long if I have to, then I’ll set up a beach chair, a big cooler full of beer and a picnic basket of barbecue and watch the collapse. As Michael Moorcock said … enjoy some breakfast on the ruins.
Never again.
I’m certainly not voting for anyone who isn’t working to stop the war. And I have a long memory.
I also say this every four years, but I’m not voting for the enablers. Twice I’ve managed to keep my promise. And I sure as hell am not doing GOTV for some of the names on BooMan’s list. We’ll see what happens in 2008, but if we don’t elect some good leaders in 2006, it won’t matter anyway.
This country has a just couple of general elections left, IMHO.
I agree, but sadly I’m not sure it’s not already too late.
As I tell my wife in my more honest moments–since our move to Vancouver fell apart–“You know we’re going to have to leave this country at some point.”
It is his country, after all 😉
very good idea.
Of the many things I have a hard time forgiving Bill Clinton for, his failure to pardon Leonard is at the top of my list. Much more important to pardon friends of contributors than actually serve justice.
eager, campaigning for Kerry through his wife Christy, to dismiss all progressive positions up and down the board during the Iowa caucuses. It has often been quipped that he would be an unpopular politician, but for his charming better half. I’ve seen him speak twice, and mostly agreed with what he was saying, but his delivery had no conviction.
Biden and Hillary Clinton are dead to me. Yes, Joe has an anger management problem that he has used to good effect in the past against Republicans who deserved it. But he has been in Washington so long he no longer even understands what the word principle means, and he is all too eager to undercut true Democrats. Hillary I might have voted for years ago, simply because I think having a woman in the White House is important. No more.
Feingold I like very much. I even cotton to his confirmation votes, because he has a consistent justification for them–I disagree with his deference, but he has an intellectually honest argument for it. But I couldn’t imagine America electing a vegan (Kucinich), and sadly I’m not sure we’re ready for a Jew either. I say this as a vegetarian and the only goy in a large Jewish family.
Edwards…feh. Clark I have already defamed above. Warner I don’t know much about, although early fundraising prowess simply makes me assume he’s bought and paid for. I hope I’m wrong about that.
I’m not necessarily a Clark supporter, but the problem with most other democratic candidates is their complete lack of charisma. get someone that you like AND has personal charisma and you have a winner in all senses of the word.
Dems like to think of themselves as cerebral and above such things, but the truth is that it is not only required to win the presidency against a strong contender, it is required for the job. I want a president that other world leaders like.
Let’s look back a few years.
Carter v. Ford – Carter was a smiling friendly southern boy, Ford though nice was tarnished by Nixon and could not overcome that.
Carter v. Reagan – Carter was no longer smiling. He looked worried all the time. Reagan wasn’t ever clued in enough to worry, and when he did he had his acting to fall back on.
Mondale v. Reagan – I recall that someone said that Mondale had all the personality of a sponge. That about sums it up when you put him against an ex-hearthrob actor. Mondale only won Minnesota, his home state.
Dukakis v. Bush – It would not have taken much of a candidate to beat Bush Sr., and Hart probably could have done it. Instead we got Dukakis, who was big on the issues, but wasn’t exactly likeable.
Clinton v. Bush – While not as lopsided as Reagan/Mondale, it is against an incumbent war president.
Clinton v. Dole – or should I say Clinton v. dull.
Gore v. Bush – While Gore is not in the same category as Dole, Dukakis and Mondale, he was about on par with the first Bush as far as charisma goes. It just wasn’t enough against Good Ol Boy charm. Yeah, Gore did “win”, but not by as much as he should have against a likeable idiot.
Kerry v. Bush – It wasn’t the swift boats that did in Kerry, it was that every time he opened his mouth people wondered what the hell he was saying. He just wasn’t all that likeable. On the other hand, George is still an idiot, but a likeable idiot.
You may like a candidate’s position on the issues, you may like their record and how they think, but you need to find one with those qualities that can actually win the charisma vote. The charisma vote may be small, but it is almost always the deciding factor at the presidential level.
the charisma war in a matchup like Clark vs. McCain? Clark vs. Jeb Bush?
Maybe I’m just negative, but charisma isn’t what I think of when I think of Wes Clark. I admit to being in an apparent minority on that.
booman,
thanks for a positive presentation. i don’t think it’s too early to get people thinking. one can only hope, though, that the people in this thread who say “if x is the candidate i’m not voting!” will grow out of that attitude. how many people had that attitude in ’04? or ’00? and do they feel at all responsible for what happened?
if we aren’t ready to make compromises and work with whoever grabs the brass ring we can easily be disenfranchised once more.
the republicans would love it.
we’re not going to get a knight in shining armor. it sounds like some people either expect this or are still living the fantasy that just maybe it will happen. we need to be pragmatic and tough. otherwise we can expect another republican administration.
barring a HUGE blunder or bad health, Hillary has already won.
That’s what I think, anyway.
For good or for ill.
She is one HELL of a politician…a political pro and the real engine behind Bill’s rise to prominence. She has performed some kind of publicity miracle in transforming herself from the person who said things like this:
“I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.” Hillary Clinton, 1997
Nixon should have been impeached for bombing Cambodia
In Hillary’s opinion, Nixon was “evil.” [An office-mate during her time on the Watergate Committee] says that she believed that Nixon should be prosecuted or impeached not just over Watergate but over his conduct during the Vietnam War, specifically his order for the secret bombing in Cambodia, which she saw as immoral and even criminal.
Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p. 90 Dec 9, 1999
to a generally “acceptable” centrist candidate, and she has already raised SO much money that she could quite conceivably lock it up just on bucks alone.
Will she win if nominated?
i think so.
Will she be a “good president”?
Dunno. She may have made too many promises to get where she is today. She is one smart and determined politician, though, and my sense is that she is playing the long game.
The patient game.
At heart…shhhh, not too loud, we don’t want the “moderate” right to hear…she is a radical.
We shall see…
AG
My 2 cts. I think Hillary would make a great president. Don’t know if she could win, but she’d make a good president. Competence and intelligence are sorely lacking in today’s Republican leadership.
I love Al Gore, especially in his new, fighting incarnation. I think he’d make a great president.
Not so sure about Clark–I just never could see the appeal, although lots of people I admire do.
Feingold–gee, sure, but I don’t think he has a chance to get the nomination.
I will vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. After these last years under Bush, I’ve become convinced that the only chance we have at salvaging whatever democracy we have left is to get the Republicans out of power.
It would be nice to have a Democrat who is smart, can read, can speak in whole sentences, and, hey, throw in a progressive idea here and there. But, bottom line, any Democrat.
I’d really love to see our electoral process open up. Get rid of the electoral college (or at least eliminate winner-take-all aspect). Push for run-off elections at local and state levels to foster some ability of third parties to take root. And make sure that all votes are counted fairly and that all Americans can vote. Getting rid of Diebold and all touch-screen voting, making sure there’s a paper trail, holding elections over several days or weeks are also important things to work for.
But get a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in control of at least one house of Congress.
Otherwise, as a nation, I think we’re doomed, and I hate to feel this way because I have two kids in college who are going to have to shoulder the burden of the consequences.
I am really very fearful that another Republican will be “elected.” We are already skidding down the slippery slope to dictatorship by a terrifyingly powerful oligarchy…if we’re not already there.
I don’t think there’s anybody close to the MT gov right now in the Demo hunt with the ability to communicate and win over middle America. With maybe a running mate name Richardson? Campaigning in cowboy boots and fluent Spanish across the west? Yow! That would deliver their own two states for sure. And they could lose the entire South and still win!
Both those guys have extensive experience living and working overseas, including the Middle East, which neutralizes the “foriegn policy experience” joke. Add Schweitzer’s comittment to ending foriegn oil dependence and corporate influence in DC, and you’ve got a lock on the controlling issues as well!