Barack Obama?

Why not look to the West?

Barack is too young, and he has already stated that he will NOT make a run in 2008- it is too soon and he needs several terms in the Senate to learn.

Trust me, I would LOVE to see it, but you cannot force someone to run if they choose not to. I think he would make a better president than ANYONE either party has nominated in several decades...

Mark Warner of Virginia and Mike Easley of North Carolina are two Democrats who deserve more attention.

Don't knock Doyle just because he has no national profile. Kerry had no national profile either.

Don't knock Doyle just because he has no national profile. Kerry had no national profile either.

"The successes of Carter and Clinton were possible only because the South was still in transition from the Democrats to the Republicans."

Bull. A good messenger, with a good message, can win, regardless of where he is from.

"But Al Gore was no more capable of carrying his home state of Tennessee in 2000 than John Edwards was of carrying North Carolina in 2004."

Look beyond geography. Gore lacked Clinton's and Carter's gifts; he was a lackluster messenger with a lackluster message. And John Edwards was not at the TOP of the ticket, which makes all the difference: people may like or dislike a VP candidate, but their final decision is based on who's at the top of the ticket. Lloyd Bentson failed to win his home state of Texas in '88 - but had he been at the TOP of the ticket instead of Dukakis, he may very well have beaten fellow Texan George H.W. Bush; Bentson had a great amount of natural charm, and wit, that Bush Sr. lacked.

It's not inconceivable that Edwards, had he been at the TOP of the ticket, would have won the White House. Although I didn't realize it at the time, as I look back on the race, of all the Democratic candidates, Edwards really had the best message: a simple, straightforward theme - the Two Americas - based on the best traditions of the Democratic Party: fairness, compassion, and the moral responsibility we all have for each other. The GOP wins on values not because they have better values, but because they like to talk about values; while candidates like Kerry are much more comfortable talking about policy details, wonkery, than the simple, homespun values that are the heart and soul of the Democratic party.

Something we should keep in mind that the cabal currently in charge of the "Republican Party" are not Republicans but Hamiltonian Federalists, a species thought to have gone extinct about 1800. They are as alien to the Republican Party as the leftist of the left.

As a midwesterner I agree - none of the governors out here are especially 'Presidential'...

Secondly you don't need to be from the Midwest to carry the Midwest... Midwesterners are especially good followers if the leaders can lead...

I am not 100% sure about the South on that score and Bush is the poster child... he is no leader and they lined up in straight rows to follow.

The Dems will need to make the Midwest a strong hold but won't need to run Midwestern candidates to accomplish this...

Re:RoninPortland: I basically agree with you but would add one thing: They're Federalists who would feel comfortable in a theocratic state.

Lest we rip on Gore too much, it might be wise to remember that he, um, got MORE votes than W.

There's probably something to Mr. Lind's thesis, but I wouldn't put my entire kitty on it. What about a Catholic Senator named Kennedy?

This "Democrats are the Northeast" stuff is being taken too far by people who are over-analyzing the trends in American politics. It ignores the blue west coast, for one thing. And has anyone considered that the blue states have more of the bigger cities in them?

What the Democrats need to do is . . .

That is what everyone is writing and talking about. And to fill out the sentence, everyone adds his or her own agenda. As if the battled over the Democrats agenda is not itself a chronic problem. If history is any guide, not more than one in ten have any idea what they are talking about.

Your analysis stands on the assumption that MA and CA will always vote Democrat.

May I remind you that this was not the case in 80 and 84, where both states voted for Reagan. A weak conservative candidate opposed to a moderate Republican and people in MA and CA will vote for the Republican. For example, put Hagel against Easley and Hagel wins the two states no problem, particularly if people in these two states are perceived ostracized even as they are a strong force in the party.

BTW, among the 7 last democratic loosers, there are 3 from the MW (McGovern, Mondale and Humphrey), two from NE (Dukakis and Kerry), and two from the South (Carter and Gore). In addition, both MA candidates got more vote %wise than Clinton did in 92. So please with these simplistic explanations.

BTW, why not choose a candidate from the West coast as the three states from the West Coast are largely Democrats as well, and then build a solid base in the South with real Democrats that Dems in tha rest of the country will recognize as such.

Maybe there are no really good Democratic candidates for President at the present time- anywhere in the US.