It will need to be someone not currently on the radar screen. The Deocratic party is one sick puppy thanks to the DLC. It is a party that has no constituency. I don't know who that is. Perhaps Steve Soto, my first choice at the moment.

Ron, your check is in the mail. :)

I want to see a candidate use clean energy/global warming as a wedge issue. Republicans are so closely tied to big oil and gas that they won't be able to tack to the center in the election. Mix in an economic competitiveness vein to the argument. "If we don't catch up on renewable energy, Europe is going to get all the contracts and jobs, when we eventually need renewables."

I think any candidate could do it too. Richardson may have the best experience in the area, but Hillary could do a fine job at it too.

Edwards seems to me to be the only one of the likely candidates who's actually willing to sound the kind of economic populist theme that I think the Democrats will need, and that Kerry sorely lacked. The trouble is, he's out of a job right now, and dealing with his wife's illness. I know he's taking a position on public policy and poverty at UNC, but I think he needs to find some campaign/ movement work to do between now and 2007. I think it would be very helpful for him to do something attention getting that is not directly related to his political ambitions, but that helps to build movement organizations he'd need to win.

Other than Edwards, I think Hillary would be a pretty strong candidate, and has proven herself very able in winning over small city working class and petit bourgeois voters in upstate NY. Feingold is also an economic populist, and also succeeds with small city voters, though for some reason I can't put my finger on he doesn't quite strike me as being a winner on a national scale. I'd love to see Brian Schweitzer run, but it would mean his giving up the state house. I've never seen Warner speak, but from what I've heard about him, I think he'd be a bit dull, and I don't see that his being a yankee transplant to Virginia would help Democrats with small city and southern working class voters, any more than Edwards or Clinton would.

All the Democrats that we have now are Republican-Lights. (except Ms. Boxer)

I wouldn't mind seeing John Garamendi, but I understand that CA might have a nasty insurance lawsuit that backfired so he might be busy.

The trouble might be in finding someone who will actually admit to being a "DEMOCRAT".

We need more news coverage of the adventures of Dr. Dean.

ABDLC

Anybody But Democrat Leadership Council.

That narrows it down considerably.... Will sleep on it.

Really difficult call this far out. I think 2006 will see the true bellwether come forward in response to possible changes in the political environment between now and then. With energy knocking the crap out of many people, I too hope this is going to be a real wedge issue. We can't hope for the general populace to get smarter. Maybe we can hope for the republi-cons to screw them so hard that the populace gets pissed off.

I don't know about that Steve Soto guy for prez. Is he a fundamentalist religious freak, or at the very least willing to play one in front of the public?

No Steve, I should be sending you a check, a campaign contribution.

I think Evan Bayh or Hillary are our best shots, but basically if Rudy or McCain get nominated we're toast. Luckily, I believe neither candidate is palatable to the psycho-conservative base, and therefore they will nominate a truly conservative candidate. If so, anybody we nominate has a great shot running against a capital C conservative, after eight years of the same.

Lets come out of left field, sorry, how about Tom Hanks. Really think about it. All those others have a lot of baggage and the senators have little chance of winning unless they're something special like Jack Kennedy. I don't believe you've got any real JFK's in the senate. Tom Hanks

I thought the best (pragmatic) ticket for '04 was Edwards and Dean, since Dean was a bit too conservative on some issues and eccentric on others, but he could provide the North-South balance on a ticket as a VP. Kerry was an empty suit, Gephart did not have the necessary presence, although he was more intriguing on issues and Lieberman... well, I saw Lieberman what he has been showing himself to be in the past month. So I expected Edwards-Dean ticket... Then Dean opened his mouth and tried to go sharp Left. Scratch those two. And the empty suit proved to be just that. Oh, well.

First, people I don't want to see anywhere near the nomination: Kerry, Dean, Hillary, Lieberman, Biden and Bayeh. Kerry is still Kerry, Dean has no chance and he's got a place to stay right now, and the rest have already sold out. From legitimate candidates with name recognition so far, that leaves just two: Gore and Edwards. I was rolling my eyes every time Gore opened his mouth in 2000. Then he started writing his own stuff and actually began to sound good. Even if he goes back to the speech writers and other hacks that helped him lose in 2000, he has proved that he can speak for himself--something that Edwards has not been able to do. So, my personal choice for the '08 ticket, at the moment, could well be Gore-Edwards (of course, Edwards would not want to go for VP for the second time).

The problem is that the party machine has written Gore off already. And Edwards has done very little to be visible following the loss, so he would have a hard time warming up again--Americans have a very short memory and they've already forgotten about him, about Republican gloating over his wife's illness and about what they thought of him. So, my ticket seems to be a loser off the top. Hmmm...

There is no one in the Senate right now worthy a consideration. That leaves governors. Iowa and New Mexico are not exactly high profile places and neither governer got much support nationally last time around, so you can forget about these two. The rest of the governors have been quiet, except for Granholm. I don't like her. So that closes off that direction.

That means we'll have to wait and see.

Perhaps because I'm in the newspaper business as a humble sportswriter, I believe in what the world of fun and games calls KISS, keep it simple stupid.
To the general public, if not us, Hillary Clinton is the leading contender of the Democratic party. For better or worse, if she runs and is not the nominee, people will think we're really chickenshit.
We could do worse. Policy differences aside, she's been pretested on Republican slime. It will be difficult for them to say she can't fight them Ay-rabs at the same time they say she's a bull dyke bitch.
Why not lead with your ace? We tried that electability deal with Kerry (whom I admire more than Ms. Clinton) and it didn't work.
Also maybe Bill O'Reilly would have an aneursym

Well, why would I believe that a Democrat can win the next election? Four more years will give the Republicans time to fine tune their stealing of the 2008 election.

Just say NO
To Hillary

If the Democratic party can become a political party again (not a done deal, by any means), the most obvious candidate will emerge much further down the road, probably post-2006 election.

So, in addition to the question of what the Dem. party is in 2006, or thereabouts, two other items seem likely to determine a potentially successful Democratic candidate.

We should prepared to see the Republicans conduct an encore to 2000 again - big money being concentrated to ensure a particular person is chosen as their nominee, probably even before the 2006 elections, just as they choose GW Bush in 1998-99. That money is very unlikely to choose either McCain or Guiliani. Cheney really should be past consideration because of age and health, but one can't be sure. Somehow I can't see how Rice could gain the support of the farthest right of the GOP, but the neocons and money interests might get behind her. She isn't the obvious choice of those parts of the GOP that still harbor racist sentiments. Frist just doesn't seem to have an observable constituency.

The second non-Democratic party impact on the Democratic party's choices is what the state of our union is in in 2006, national and international. Things could blow up for the GOP on either front, or perhaps turn out well in political terms. I'd buy futures contracts that the GOP benefits from the next two years on both fronts. So the GOP is stronger, rather than weaker, probably.

I've put the above comments in place to avoid stating just a stark conclusion that none of the names now being discussed (H. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Bayh, Feingold, Biden - and others i've missed) seem to be capable of taking the ragged remnants of the once proud and successful Democratic party to victory against a money-driven and ideologically-based unity in the GOP unless the Bush fascade crumbles in the next two years - which seems unlikely in the current political and media environment.

I'm beginning to consider the prospect that it will be another generation before the Dems (or some other non-GOP party) can find the right combination of principle and personality to overcome the GOP, short of some national or international disaster that awakens the electorate to the need for real change along the lines of the 1932 election.

So, my choice is 'none of the above'.

We should definitely nominate John Edwards in 2008. The MSM gives him a bum rap for not "delivering" North Carolina, but if they expect that, they should go and ask Lloyd Bentsen about "delivering" Texas for Dukakis. People do not vote for Vice President, as we know. Hillary is too polarizing. We don't want her to turn into our version of W. I think she would have a chance of winning, but it would be a very narrow Bush-style win. Here's another reason we shouldn't nominate Hillary...President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Clinton...mind if someone else had a shot? Bayh is boring, and he voted for the bankruptcy bill. Richardson is similarly lacking in charisma and Vilsak...zzzz. Warner is also bland, and I think his efforts would be better spent unseating Sen. George Allen once he finishes his term as governor. We need to stop nominating bland candidates who won't stand up and fight. Edwards has passion and energy needed for a national race. He is the only Democratic politician out there now with the Clintonian touch. He was much better than Kerry and if we had nominated him, he would have won. Edwards' argument for change is just the message we need against the Republicans who will likely nominate a conservative Southern senator like Frist. Edwards will win the election if he is nominated, so the only question is whether or not we'll nominate him.

Let's look back on the last two elections. We lost both narrowly. Both times, we nominated a dull and boring candidate who could not articulate the themes of their campaign. So wouldn't it be reasonable to think we could have won if we had nominated a charasmatic and articulate candidate? Whatever we might think of Bush, his campaign had easy to understand themes and was well run. All our candidate next time needs to do is win the Kerry states+1 (Ohio). Edwards is capable of exciting people and getting them to like him. His message of change should resonate well after 8 years of Bush.

As I have mentioned in previous posts I really like Eliot Spitzer as an up and comer in the party. When people get screwed (as if they haven't already) economically in the next fours years, Spitzer can say he has been fighting for their rights all along. But with only 2 years gubernatorial experience (assuming he wins in 2006) I'm not sure he'll be prime time by 2008. Also, I have never heard him speak, so another longwinded New Englander (well close) could be a deal killer.

I also like Edwards. He has a similar record to Spitzer in fighting for the common man, and name recognition from the last election. The primary thing I worry about is his ability to improvise. As great as his campaign stump speeches are (probably the best of all the 2004 candidates), he essentially gave the exact same speech at the national convention. Did this tip his hand? Maybe. Also, as someone else mentioned above, he is out of a job and needs something to do. If Democrats were able to marginalize him because of lack of experience (6 years as a senator), imagine what Rovian Republicans will do if he is 4 years removed from his only 6 years of political experience. I know this is out of left field, but what about mayor of Charlotte for Edwards. I know it sound below any national candidate but, believe me that back-to-your’s-roots stuff really plays well in the heartland. A loss of course would mean an egg in the face, but I believe it could be worth it.

Hilary's triangulation is not the way to go. As much as I like Kerry, he now seems old hat and still longwinded. Biden is a sellout and will be mauled for it in four years. I only know some generalities about Vilsack, Feingold, Warner and Richardson, but I will say that if any of the three would run, it would almost guarantee a lock in their home swing state. Richardson looks the strongest, though.

My vote: 1: Edwards-Spitzer, 2: Edwards-(Vilsack, Feingold, Warner or Richardson).

In the meantime we need a heavy dose of Dean (and Soto, and the blogosphere and Media Matters) so there will actually be a foundation for the candidate to build on this time.

Doh, I can count. I added Warner latter, so, if Virginia would be in play, that would make four.

As far as the nomination goes, we absolutely must make sure Hillary and Kerry are not nominated. Kerry has been very infuriating lately. He is telling us that "nobody" could have beaten Bush because people didn't want to change commanders. It shows he has learned nothing from his horrible campaign and just wants to be president for the sake of his own ambition and cannot acknowledge his own mistakes. As far as Hillary goes, I think we need to move beyond the Clintons. She is not that good of a speaker and she is already defined as a polarizing figure (which was not the case with Bush in 2000). We must absolutely not let Hillary or Kerry get near the nomination. My preference for the nomination is Edwards, but I would still be willing to accept another candidate who spread the Democratic message well. Kerry and Hillary are the past of the Democratic party and it's time to move into the future.

I like Spitzer too. He's a really good guy. In terms of strategy for Edwards: Bush had 6 years going into the presidency, same as Edwards. Reagan had 8, as would Hillary at that time. Edwards should emphasize that he is not a Washington insider and a career politician. Currently, he is director of a center to study poverty at UNC Chapel Hill. He's also giving speeches around the country. That gives him something to do for this year. Next year, he should vigorously campaign for the Democrats 2006 candidates. At the end of the midterms, he can start his campaign for President and he'll be off running until Election Day 2008. So the main question is what he'll do the next 2 years, since the two after that will be taken up with the campaign. The first stage of running is the primary, so "visibility" only matters in terms of making sure Democrats don't forget him. When he goes to Iowa and New Hampshire, there's a much better chance that he'll be recognized than an a Bayh, Warner, or a Richardson. In the campaign, Edwards should embrace his outsider status as showing he can bring change to Washinton DC. I expect he'll face Frist or another GOP senator, so it'll be easy to tie them to Bush and Washington.

The model for and Edwards 2008 campaign would be a Carter and Reagan style non-officeholder campaign.

I like Mark Warner, but I really think he ought to run against George Allen. Warner's chances of getting the nomination are not that great, plus taking out Allen would remove a potential Republican presidential candidate. Also, Santorum will never get a chance to run for president since he is likely to lose in 2006. He's basically in Daschle's position except that unlike Daschle, he's not a good senator for his state. Rudy and McCain won't get the GOP nod for obvious reasons. Frist is the establishment candidate, which is what it takes to be the Republican nominee. I'm betting he'll be nominated, which would be perfect for us since we can easily tie him to Bush's failed policies.

Another thought...
As important as it is to elect a Democratic President, we must also gain control of Congress. Clinton's major failing was that he lost Congress and never really tried to get it back, like Bush has done. It is vital that we be within striking distance of the majority after 2006, so we can elect a Democratic President and Congress. On another note, what is it with Reid and Schumer and this Senate nonsense. Why do we need anti-choice nominees in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, which are both favorable to the pro-choice position. I could have understood the DSCC wanting anti-choice nominees in Oklahoma and South Carolina (which did not happen), but Rhode Island and Pennsylvania? Come on! This idea that a contested primary could hurt our candidates is ridiculous. Schumer knows from personal experience that a contested primary didn't hamper his ability to defeat D'Amato.

I like Feingold, Edwards, and Dean (in no particular order). I'm intrigued about Warner (and Bahy until that stupid bankruptcy vote). I wish it were 2012 so we could realistically talk about Obama and Spitzer.

I know for sure that I am very concerned about Hillary running. I'm sure she'd be a good President, but I'm not looking forward to an even more extreme divide in American politics, plus the fact that the last 24 years would consist of Presidents from two families. That's not democracy, folks, no matter how much we pretend it is.

Here we go again! They never learn. She was on some news show with McCain, and she was even giggling like a 12 year old girl. Give me Spitzer - now there's a real no BS guy who likes making corporations accountable.

New moderate Hillary is in for the long run
Sunday March 13, 2005
The Observer

---------
Clinton hammered away at familiar conservative bugbears, calling sexual and violent images in the media a 'silent epidemic' that threatened America's youth.
-----------
Most significantly of all, she has embarked on a transformation of her public image from liberal feminist to conservative Democrat, strong on defence, espousing homespun values and with a fondness for prayer.
----
Clinton visited a youth charity run by the Reverend Eugene Rivers, a vocal opponent of gay marriage. That in itself would be strange enough. But Clinton also spoke of the role religious groups could play in social work, echoing President George Bush's controversial ideas on giving government cash to faith-based initiatives.
--------
she moved away from seeing abortion as solely an issue about a woman's right to choose.
-------
she voted for the war in Iraq and, unlike the ill-fated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, Clinton also voted for the $87 billion needed to fund the war. She has spoken up for the death penalty and condemned Syria in speeches no different in tone from those of many Republican hawks.
-------------
But some Republicans are licking their lips at the idea of a Clinton run. They command a masterful and brutally effective media operation fresh from two successive presidential victories.
------------
Clinton also faces the fact that Howard Dean, whose firebrand campaign for the nomination collapsed spectacularly last year, is now the powerful head of the Democratic National Committee. Dean's liberal wing of the party is unlikely to support Clinton's recent conservative makeover. Before Clinton can tilt for the ultimate prize, she may still have a lot work to do in her own party.
-----
Clinton's problem will be which version of herself becomes the accepted mainstream. If it turns out to be the spiky progressive, liberal on social issues, her strategists believe she will lose a presidential campaign.
But if it is the 'new Hillary', a muscular moderate who is tough abroad and church-going on Sundays, they just might start to believe she could end up in the White House in her own right. Hillary Clinton, after eight years away, will have returned home.

Since all elections are fixed, the situation is moot. Our votes are stolen, so why bother to even thin about a Democratic candidate? We know who will occupy Casa Blanca the next fifty years--Bush or one of his cronies. So let's concentrate on real issues, like bitching about the environment. Not'll that do any good, but it'll occupy us a while.

Since all elections are fixed, the situation is moot. Our votes are stolen, so why bother to even think about a Democratic candidate? We know who will occupy Casa Blanca the next fifty years--Bush or one of his cronies. So let's concentrate on real issues, like bitching about the environment. Not'll that do any good, but it'll occupy us a while.

Fix the voting machines.."fix" as in make sure they are verifiable, not "fix" as in the losing candidate wins.....

I like Al Gore's speeches on the environment....and without clean air, we're ('pubs and dems alike) deadsville anyway....

There's no way you can compare Edwards to Bentsen. There is the same gap between the two as there was between Bentsen and Quayle. Edwards is soo like Quayle. You nominate him, will knock him him down. Again, what's wrong with Tom Hanks. Seriously, Tom Hanks.

Absolutely none of the above.

Because anyone I'd like hasn't a chance of winning without becoming a 'muscular moderate' or other such nonsense to be elected. They'd have to sell their values out to the highest bidders to get nominated. They'd have to get on their knees to the moderate power-brokers of the party and pucker up.

I'd gladly take: "It's Takes a Village"-era Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and an undead Paul Wellstone.

And we'd absolutely have to clean up the electronic voting mess in the next 4 years, which is not going to happen.

I believe what we need is a strong governor with a bully pulpit and a history of streetfighting with Republicans.

Ed Richardson comes to mind. He is the most Clintonesque of all the candidates mentioned so far in the best sense of the word. He's the guy you can most imagine downing BBQ in fleabitten small southern towns and looking natural doing it. Or, more importantly, downing tamales in fleabitten southwest towns if we are looking at a Southwest strategy this time around. If we take the 2000 and 2004 electoral map and swap Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado the election goes to the Dems.

After living in Texas the past 2 years I've come around to the idea that you can't understimate the importance of having a "regular guy" candidate. Say what you want about Bush, but that is how he is seen by much of the masses. While I liked both Gore and Kerry, I thought Gore came across as a bit too "wonky" and Kerry was far to patrician.

As for Hillary? I have nightmares about waking up in a room full of humorless Hillary supporters. I want a candidate who knows how to have fun. Who has a sense of humor. I can't imagine a more humorless candidate than Hillary.

Who do I really want as my candidate? How about the Jimmy Smits candidate on the West Wing? That's who I want.

Way to go Kent. Go "Santos"! Alan Alda could also fit the bill, maybe too much "Hawkeye" there. Tom Hanks anybody?

Jeb Bartlett

I would gladly support any democrats that stands for the values I believe in. Unfortunately, the field becomes smaller and smaller everyday:

- Clinton and Biden are out the field because they decided to give praises to Bushś international issues.

- I have a negative feeling for most Southern politicians as they tend to compromise too much with the right.

- Edwards never really impressed me.

- I would gladly support Feingold if he runs, or Boxer. Except for them, I would have to fall back on Kerry again. I have to say that Feingold got my attention in pushing a bill against death penalty, which is a litmus test for me.

The NO! List:

Biden, Lieberman, Hillary, Feinstein, ..., any currently elected Democrat.

When the GOP gets around to returning the country to a franchise based on ownership of property - like it was when the ink on the Constitution was still wet - all of this is going to be a moot point. The wealthy corporatists have taken over, and we can like it - because we aren't willing to do anything about it that requires us to give up our television.

After all - how can one wage a revolution in defense of one's nation if one is worried about who makes the next cut on American Idol?

The Republican propaganda machine will destroy almost every Democrat mentioned above. The Democrats need a candidate that has the charisma of Clinton but is not a woman, Jewish, Catholic, black, trial lawyer, etc., because the Republicans will use prejudice and fear and ignorance against any candidate in those categories. Personally I like Spitzer but a Jew will have no chance. For example, one of my friends (Lutheran) said during the election that Kerry (Catholic) wasn't a Christian.

Diebold, Republican Propaganda Machine, MSM and Karl Rove. Really think we can win?

Only someone with the guts of Dean could conceivably win, and even that is doubtful.

I'm pleasingly surprised to see Eliot Spitzer's name brought into the fold here.
For the gentleman who has never heard Spitzer speak, there are plenty of his speeches online which can be found through simple google searches. I'd recommend viewing the speech that he gave at Georgetown Law School this year.
His perspecitve is awe inspiring,and he is anything but a long-winded slow talker. The man has more energy than a "Nucular" fusion. It isn't his energy that I found most impressive, but his comprehensive understanding of the right's agenda that I find most compelling about him. He recognizes the plight of the middle class, and so compasssionately wants to do something about it.
I'm too young to remember RFK, but from what I've read, Spitzer seems to be a carrier of that torch.
I too would like to see him on a ticket in 2008. The Edwards/Spitzer ticket would be formidable!

Am I allowed to make my perennial nomination of Hillary?

Springsteen, Edwards and Obama.

Scott is onto something:

'I want to see a candidate use clean energy/global warming as a wedge issue.'

The 'peak oil' problem will be pivotal in the next election. The candidate with the concern, vision, and a path to the solution for America's energy requirements will be my choice. Peak oil refers to the point when world production of oil (and natural gas) goes into decline. The U.S. reached the peak in 1970, and many countries, including Canada are now in decline. World peak oil is estimated between 2004 and 2010. Once that peak is passed, energy prices will explode much higher ($50 a barrel will look very cheap). Gas at $2.00 a gallon is like free energy compared to what is coming. Higher prices means declining standards of living, and a scramble to find alternative energy sources to power cars, trucks, airplanes.

None of the potential candidates have addressed this imminent and massive approaching disaster. But believe me, they will. By 2008 the depression will have begun, and the emphasis will shift from religion, abortion, gay marriage, red vs blue, social security, etc. to concerns about maintaining a semblance of living standards.

Who will be the standard bearer?

what happens in 2006 could define the type of candidate needed in 2008.

Brian Schweitzer, Governor, MT.

Knows how to kick Republican ass.

I was thinking about Edwards. I don't think Kerry will get a second shot. Even Nixon waited 8 years. Kerry already gearing up for 2008 disturbs me.

I LOVE Spitzer. And I love Elizabeth Edwards--damn shame she's never held government office. She's the most articulate about all the "right" positions. Sorry, but Hillary disgusts me. I'm from New York, and her support of Bush's war and other things sickens me. She's a master at articulating all the reasons why something is a bad idea, and then covering her ass and voting for it anyway if it's the majority view. Or looking to see which way the wind's blowing--witness the Gonzales nomination. I'd take Link Chaffee ofver her any day--despite his occasional following of the pack, he had the guts to say no to the war and fight this jackass in his pro-polluting bills. How I wish he'd dwitch parties, and let his inner knee-jerk liberal out. C'mon Link--you can do it.

I can't believe the support for John Edwards here! Edwards was GARBAGE during the presidential campaign, why would you want to give him even more responsibility for the ticket??? Edwards, Boxer, Biden, Feingold, etc. all have good policy positions, but if you think they can win a national election, you have a serious drug addiction that is obscuring logic. Hillary can win a a national campaign. Evan Bayh can win a national campaign. Gore and Kerry might be able to win a national campaign. Anybody else, I just don't see it.

john kerry

plus the fact that the last 24 years would consist of Presidents from two families. That's not democracy, folks, no matter how much we pretend it is.

I'm surprised more people don't talk about this. It's actually an inherited aristocracy, or dynasty, and it's antithetical to democratic ideals. Anyone who assumes power in this culture becomes a rich fatcat (witness the Clintons), and I'm tired of being ruled by rich fatcats.

That aside, Hillary is still toxic, thank the lord. She's as ambitious as he was, maybe more, and I'm tired of meglomania too.

Please not Hillary: stopy the Bush/Clinton dynasties. Plus, she's a careerist pure and simple; her current triangulation is more evidence.

No to all DLC types: They're the reason we've moved to permanent minority status. (Recite Truman quote)

We would be lucky to have Russ Feingold. He may be better than our nation deserves at this time. Drawback: Jewishness -- but it hasn't hurt him in the heartland, but granted WI is not MS or SC. I worked to elect him last year and so many republicans who barfed at Kerry couldn't stop singing the praises of Russ, and he really IS a regular guy; you literally could have a beer with him. Combine him with Edwards (If he can stay in the public eye) and it's a great team. Spitzer is a great law and order liberal (please clone him).

Barbara Boxer. I'm proud she's my senator. Love her but may be too polarizing. And a senator (rarely are senators elected). Maybe as a VP, if there's a societal meltdown where enough eyes are opened to the ways the GOP has screwed us.

Kerry: give it up please.

Clark: might have a chance if he will brush up on domestic issues, especially economics (next election will not be a war and peace one, unless there are dramatic blow ups). It's likely the bankruptcy bill, overextended consumers, high oil prices, falling dollar, trade deficit, and national debt will start to really reach the public consciousness.

Biden, Lieberwhore, Bayh, other sellouts should have a special place in hell to reside.

On Bill Frist: What is the appeal of this guy? Deer meet headlights. Ever see him give a press conference? Like he's a third grader who has to give a book report on something he never read, and is about to get spanked. No charisma at all, not even the kind Smirky has (to some people). Empty suit all the way. Please nominate him, GOP.

Cory,

That might be our exact problem. The people who are in the most ready and able position to run a national campaign are exactly the people who should not be running. Try and tell me Hillary takes better positions on issues Feingold.

"Edwards was GARBAGE during the presidential campaign"

He had a MESSAGE for his campaign, which is something Kerry didn't have. If you have complaints about him not being visible enough, blame KERRY. He's the guy who was in charge. Also, this defeatism regarding our electoral chances is ridiculous. If we are worried about close elections being flawed, we should nominate a candidate who will win by enough to where voting system problems will not be a factor. Edwards was the only Democrat who could have won. Dean would have been crushed like McGovern. And comparing Edwards to Dan Quayle is absurd. Edwards is a smart, self-made man. He also doesn't say dumb things like Quayle did and John "I voted for it before I voted against it" Kerry. And giving the same Two Americas speech was better than doing like Kerry and making speeches that were meaningless and incohert drivel. At least you could tell what Edwards stands for.

The GOP will almost certainly nominate Frist. They are suckers for the establishment candidate. I do not think Hillary can win a national campaign. Also, I don't think we need the Clinton style of triangulation anymore. We need to stand up for what our party has always believed in (which Gore and Kerry were horrible at) and then we'll win.

Posted by bushsucks at March 13, 2005 01:40 PM

Edwards was worthless. He was a utter disappointment and this is not surprising. It was actually difficult to have a more empty message. The only thing he has been good at is at giving the same speech again and again and again. At the end, I was fed up with it.

However, I take his wife everyday. She is a smart and articulate lady who should run for office herself.

Boxer, Feingold, Durbin, or Kerry. At least if you think the party should stand for something progressive.

If you think we have to fold in front of the right wing part of the party, dont hesitate: Clinton, Bayh, or Biden will do.

The DLC loves to peddle garbage about how the Democratic Party is dying and we need to be more like the Republicans to win elections. Well, take a look at our Senate candidates last year, who tried to be Republicans. Given the choice between Republican-lite and a Republican, people will choose the Republican. Tom Daschle said that he loved Bush and voted with him 70 percent of the time. Well, if everyone loved Bush, then why not elect the guy that votes with him 100 percent of the time. In South Carolina, our Senate candidate tried to take Republican positions and ran just 3 points ahead of Kerry overall. In Oklahoma, our candidate was a man who would qualify as a conservative Republican in any other state. Well, he lost too. It's just like the "me-too"ism of Dewey when he ran against Truman. Bayh and his DLC buddies need to take a hard look at that. Clinton won mainly because of his personal appeal, which is something they don't recognize. Another DLC flawed line of reasoning is that we must nominate a governor from a state Bush won, because they know how to speak to real Americans. The Republicans would do what they always do and call the guy a liberal tax increaser who was weak on defense. And if this red state governor was not a good enough candidate to counter that message, he'd lose. For example, if we nominated Warner, the Republicans would say that he is a lying far-left tax increaser who broke a promise not to raise taxes. If Warner ran a bland campaign and didn't have a coordinated response, regardless of where he's from, people would believe the attacks and not vote for him. A candidate's personal qualities are far more important than the state they are from. Then the DLC tells us that the Democratic party is hopeless and we must completely change what the party stands for in order to start winning again. Last time I checked, we were 18 electoral votes from victory and 3 votes away the time before that. Since we nominated a bad candidate both times, common sense should tell us that a good one would have at least been able to change 60,000 votes in Ohio or 537 in Florida. We need to tell the DLC that the problem is the messenger, not the message.

"Edwards was worthless."

Who was Clinton before 1992? He was an unknown Southern governor who gave a long, horrible speech at the 1988 convention. Who'd want to nominate that kind of candidate? I agree that Edwards should have had a couple other speeches than "Two Americas," but compare that with Kerry. Kerry's speeches were incoherent and led you to think he believed in nothing except John Kerry. Did you ever read Edwards' Real Solutions? My guess is no. He was the first candidate to declare he'd vote against the 87 billion, which Kerry only did after Edwards. In the Senate, Edwards fought to have a Patients Bill of Rights passed. Can you name any major legistlation Kerry worked on in his 20 years in the Senate? So what would you rather hear, "Two Americas" or "I voted for it before I voted against it"?

President Bill Frist aka President Pete DuPont. LOL

On the Dem. side I was and am an Edwards man. I hope he's very active next year in the midterm campaigns, it's a great way for a future candidate to get IOU's.

Posted by bushsucks at March 13, 2005 02:16 PM

I certainly would not want to hear Two Americas again. This speech is dead.

For the rest, I have no wish discussing with somebody carrying the RNC talking points. However, I will give you a few legislations among those Kerry fought for in 20 years:

- Program COPS,
- SCHIPS (he wrote the initial program for children healthcare)
- CARE Act (Aids/HIV)
- Environment (ANWR, ...)
- Veteran Programs including Agent Orange, POW/MIA in VietNam,
- Affordable housing,

to quote just a few.

I forget of course BCCI, Iran/Contra, and he voted against the Bankruptcy Act in 2001 and 2004.

The interesting point is that I would not support Kerry in 2004, but Clark, if he runs, but this does not change anything in the fact that you are wrong concerning Kerry.

Posted by bushsucks at March 13, 2005 02:16 PM

I certainly would not want to hear Two Americas again. This speech is dead.

For the rest, I have no wish discussing with somebody carrying the RNC talking points. However, I will give you a few legislations among those Kerry fought for in 20 years:

- Program COPS,
- SCHIPS (he wrote the initial program for children healthcare)
- CARE Act (Aids/HIV)
- Environment (ANWR, ...)
- Veteran Programs including Agent Orange, POW/MIA in VietNam,
- Affordable housing,

to quote just a few.

I forget of course BCCI, Iran/Contra, and he voted against the Bankruptcy Act in 2001 and 2004.

The interesting point is that I would not support Kerry in 2004, but Clark, if he runs, but this does not change anything in the fact that you are wrong concerning Kerry.

It's unfair to blame Edwards for not being more visible as a Vice Presidential candidate. He took orders from Kerry and his campaign. He did what Kerry wanted him to do. Kerry was afraid of Edwards overshadowing him, so they made Edwards invisible. They could have had Edwards saying all sorts of things about Bush, like Cheney did, but Kerry chose not to. The whole "he couldn't deliver North Carolina" argument is equally stupid. Kerry did not choose to contest North Carolina. He never went there and they did not let Edwards go there often. So any surprise they didn't win? Kerry was in charge, so what Edwards did in terms of where he went and the speeeches he gave was up to JOHN KERRY. So if you have a problem with it, it's John Kerry's fault. Also, you might like to know, Edwards told Kerry not to concede so quickly, but Kerry ignored him. With the "Two Americas" thing, Edwards did not get far enough into the Presidential race to be able to branch out. I think Edwards deserves serious consideration in 2008 race, and everyone should keep an open mind about him. I am open to good Democrats like Feingold running, and I hope he does as well, because we need real Democrats contributing their ideas, not cynical triangulaters like Hillary.

Is there any reasons why Edwards' s supporters have to carry RNC talking points.

If your guy is so great, he will run in 2008 and win the nomination.

If Clark wants to be President, he needs to run for another elective office first. The only generals who can just run for president outright are heroes like Grant and Eisenhower. Clark is far from having the stature of either. He should run for governor of Arkansas, serve a couple terms and then run. He'll be a much more credible candidate if he does that. As for Kerry, he's yesterday's man, just as he was yesterday's man in the election last year. Clark flamed out early in the primaries last time, so he'll have a tougher time of being taken seriously if he runs in 2008 without having sought elective office at all.

I'm not trying to carry RNC talking points. I'm trying to point out that it is unfair to blame Edwards for the 2004 loss or to call him shallow. Calling him shallow was an RNC talking point. They loved to say he was just an empty suit and had nothing inside (which is clearly false). I think up and coming Democrats like Edwards and Feingold should receive consideration. However, Democrats of the past such as Hillary and Kerry need to be avoided.

Kerry was afraid of Edwards overshadowing him, so they made Edwards invisible.

Can you name any major legistlation Kerry worked on in his 20 years in the Senate?

Those are RNC talking points.

As for Edwards, we have to agree to disagree on the man. In any case, if you are right and he accepted a deal with Kerry where he would stay in the shadow in order to be the nominee, I still blame him as nobody forced him to be the VP nominee. Of all the potential candidate, he is the one who campaigned the most to have the place.

This is why I dont think he should receive consideration.

I think the only Democrats who should be ruled out as far as the nomination goes are the corporate sellouts, such as Biden and Bayh, etc. The whole triangulation and dynasty things make me very wary of a Hillary candidacy. And Kerry had his shot and lost. But as far as everyone else goes, they deserve a shot. Some people might have been unimpressed with Edwards, but he should be given consideration. If in 1992 people all dissmissed Clinton because of the horrible speech he gave at the 1988 convention, we would never have had one of our best presidents. A good campaign between strong, real Democrats will make our eventual nominee stronger and be good for both the party and the country.

"In any case, if you are right and he accepted a deal with Kerry where he would stay in the shadow in order to be the nominee, I still blame him as nobody forced him to be the VP nominee."

There is no way Kerry would have told him he'd be invisible in advance. It was not some sort of "deal." It's something that ended up happening after he was selected. Kerry could have told Edwards to go out make speeches that included extremely harsh attacks on Bush. But Kerry did not do that. And if you were Edwards, would you have turned down the nomination to serve your country as Vice President?

When you are VP, you are not in charge. You take orders and do what the #1 says.

So why didn't Kerry mention all of this stuff from the Senate then? When he ran against Bill Weld in 1996, he struggled to mention anything he'd done as a senator for his state when it came up in a debate. I believe that even though Kerry was a bad candidate, he'd have made a good president. Same with Gore. But unless we run a good candidate, we'll never get a chance for them to be president.

Posted by bushsucks at March 13, 2005 02:58 PM

Until 96, Kerry was largely letting Kennedy deal with subsidies for the state. He had been there so long and was not willing to lose his influence on this domain. Most of Kerry's actions before 96 had more a national impact that a state impact. That may explain the Weld-Kerry point.

For 2004, Kerry did speak of most of these subjects (except BCCI and Iran Contra, an error IMHO). But, as for many things during this campaign, the media did not report.

One thing I will give Bush credit for is that in 2000, he knew how to package his time as governor for the public in 2000. Kerry's people should have developed some basic themes they could emphasize about what Kerry did in the Senate and what he'd then do for America. The decision to emphasize Vietnam at the convention gave us no bounce, where as emphasizing the Democratic agenda for America would have done the trick, and he'd probably be sitting in the Oval Office right now. I am sure that in 20 years, his campaign people could have come up with a simple story line of what he did in the Senate. But again, they failed to do that. Any senators running for president in the future would do well to remember it.

Whoever our nominee is in 2008, they need to be run a good campaign. Our last two campaigns were poorly run and left us just short of victory. There needs to be some kind of "campaign school" we can send political strategists to, where they practice the art of rapid response and crafting a message for a camapaign. We need to fire the Washington DC consultants who keep losing congressional and presidential races. Lucky for us, Bob Shrum has retired.

Re: Clark flaming out statement...

Running up to Iowa, Clark was very strong. In fact, I think he had moved into second place in New Hampshire. However, his advisors made a strategic mistake in skipping Iowa, and as we all know, none of the other candidates were able to catch Kerry after his surprising victory there.

If the primary schedule had been different, we may have seen a different race. For example, the Clark campaign was really the only one up-and-running in Alabama, and polls showed the General would have received large amounts of support if the Alabama primary hadn't been so late. In essence, if Alabama had voted following Iowa or New Hampshire, the landscape may have changed.

That's really just an argument in favor of changing the primary schedule, though. The real reason I believe in Clark is the fact that he brings fresh ideas to the table. Additionally, Clark would be able to reverse the impression that Democrats are weak on national security. I know a lot of Democrats don't want to admit it, but coming from a red state, I can firmly attest that people actually believe that lie.

Anyway, I will support Wes if he runs. If he doesn't, I can't even begin to think of whom I would support. Certainly not Kerry. Edwards didn't bring anything to the ticket. Hillary can't win nationwide. Biden is from the Senate (as are Kerry and Hillary), and we haven't had a lot of luck with senators. Maybe we should look out west to someone like Brian Schweitzer (sp?). I'd even consider Al Gore, though unhappily.

I'm a Vince Lomarbi (sp?) Democrat. I want to win.

bobby kennedy, jr.

hell yes, we want wes!

Hillary won't win, and probably shouldn't win. The question is can the GOP win with a Cheney/Rice ticket? Or, given four more years of screw-ups, will the GOP vote manipulation machine be able to give them the electoral votes under any condition. Kerry won't win, and frankly, given the current crop of possibilities, I'm not sure who could. Maybe the country would elect Gore again? Gore/Clark?

Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana.

A good populist with crossover appeal. Get away from these Beltway guys. The Senate ruins people.

John Edwards DOES have some possibilities but he needs to keep his name recognition up in order to be a viable candidate. It would require a Jimmy Carter-est candidacy. Can he do it -- I don't know enough about him to say one way or another. Based on his VP campaign, NO...but, other parts of me, based on his Senate experiences, say YES. He could become the type of "crusader" that could provide an extremely-effective voice against the Republicans.

Evan Bayh, despite his Bankruptcy misadventure, still has some very interesting drawing abilities and, from his time at home in Indiana, knows how to appeal to Republicans without "losing" his Democratic-ness (if that can be a word). He's a moderate with cross-party appeal. But, his "name" recognition is somewhat limited and he'll need to elevate his game in the Senate to get that recognition. And he is trying to do that right now, as evidenced by his NO to Rice as Secretary of State. Bayh's other problems could be financing (which could be fixed with help from the national organization) and his lack of appeal to the more-liberal aspects of the Party. If (and it's a big IF), the name recognition and financing issues could be solved, I believe he could be an extremely viable national candidate and a big-time headache for Republicans. But, he would have to survive the Democratic primaries AND be paired with a liberal-attractive VP (I like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, to name a few). Bayh could steal some states in the Midwest and possibly the South, yet keep the present states with the addition of the right VP candidate.

Think about it....

The candidate will have to have been anti-Iraq war from the "git-go". Democrats won't accept anything less and the country will be very anti-Bush by '08. That makes it Gore, Dean or Kucinich. I expect it to be another close election, electoral college 280 something to 250 something. But the Democrat will win. The Rethuglican nominee will be Jeb Bush. The Bush Crime Family is not ready to give up power yet.

The Bush crime family will give up control of the GOP when the non-Bushite Reps. wrestle it from their cold dead hands.

Well, Kerry's vote for the war resolution certainly didn't hurt him in the primaries. Wes Clark is a good guy, but he should remember from the Kerry/Cleland example that being in the military does not protect you from cheap Republican attacks. Clark should run for governor of Arkansas. That would really make him a good name. If he won, he'd most certainly be considered for VP. As for Edwards, his campaigning as VP was largely the work of Kerry's campaign people deciding not to utilize him. Now that he's in charge of his campaign, I expect he will do much better.

I like Mark Warner a lot. He seems like a decent guy and while he is DLC, he seems more independent than a typical DLCer. He is a strong Governor who turned Va around. He actually campaigned for Kerry and spoke out against Bush, so he has a pair. His "Why I am a Democrat speech" is great I think. If not him, Schweitzer looks interesting. Obama and Spitzer will realistically be 2012 and beyond. Hopefully beyond, if you know what I mean. :).

First of all, as much as I like Hillary, she is unelectable and she still has to get past 2006 and a possible Giuliani candidacy for Senate.

There are too many rural white men that won't accept her and she will repeat the red state-blue state phenomenon. Evan Bayh doesn't have the personality, although he would make a fine president and his appeal in the red state of Indiana shouldn't be ignored. Al Gore is done. Lieberman is done. John "Breck Girl" Edwards is done. John "knot on a log" Kerry is finished, but apparently it is easier to run for president than to stop running for president.

But there are some interesting people out there who could make a good run at the White House. Here is my list in no particular order: Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Diane Feinstein, Sam Nunn, Bill Bradley (remember him), Joe Biden, Shiela Jackson Lee (Yeah, I actually said it!), and General Wesley Clark.

Rendell knows how to win in Pennsylvania and he has a great personality. He was a good mayor of Philly and has been a good governor. He also has access to money as former chairman of the party.

Bill Richardson would ameliorate the hispanic gains made by the Bush administration. As a former ambassador and cabinet secretary, he is definitely qualified.

Diane Feinstein is one of the few liberals with credibility in the heart land and it would lock up California early without having to spend any money. She is tough, smart, and experienced. We could do a lot worse.

Sam Nunn. Former Georgia Senator has been out of the limelight for a while, but has bi-partisan appeal and a Southern drawl. His integrity is unquestioned and his experience in military and foreign affairs is especially valuable right now.

Bill Bradley has great rock star appeal and gave Al Gore a run for his money in 2000. He may be too nice of a man and may not have the tough chops, but he is likeable and intelligent. Former basketball player for the Knicks and a Rhodes Scholar.

Joe Biden is perhaps one of the best debaters of the bunch. A regular on Sunday talk shows, he's tough, intellligent, handsome, well-known, and articulate. He would be a tough one to beat and he is considering a run. He is good buddies with John Kerry and John McCain.

Shiela Jackson Lee is a representative from Texas. She is African American, and is a great speaker. She is intelligent and straight forward and seems to have the chops and toughness and you have to love the corn rows! I've always been impressed by her and her demeanor. If she doesn't run, she could be a great VP candidate.

Wesley Clark is a great candidate the second time around. I think what he learned in 2004 will benefit him if he runs again. He got knocked off his horse for some inconsistencies during the primaries and actually won Oklahoma. do not underestimate him he was the supreme allied commander in Europe during the bombing of Kosovo which deposed Milosovich and he was a VP possibility this past election.

If it were legal for the Canadian-born governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm to run, she would eb tough to beat, but that won't happen unless Arnold gets the right to run as well.

I haven't read all the comments, but I would liek to hear what the people think about General Wesley Clark.

This guy is not ashamed to be a democrat at all, was the only candidate in the D primary who had a specific plan for Iraq, has his masters in economics, philosophy, and politics, is old enough to not look like a light-weight (Edwards) but still good looking enough to not recieve the immature criticism Kerry recieved, a war hero (and it would most definitely backfire on Republicans if they tried to smear HIS military record), appealing to the South, and is a well-spoken man. The only thing I can see that would put him over the top for President would be if he ran for Gov. of Arkansas, then ran for President.

The war in Iraq is still very far from over, but the mainstream media is trying to ignore it. They know that the war won't be a strong talking point for Republicans in 08 (and probably in 06 as well for that matter) so the media is trying to hide it away behind Terri Schiavo and runaway brides. If more effort is put into pushing the war in Iraq to the forefront of election issues, then Clark has it won no matter what republican candidate is up against him.

His tax plan is to just raise 5% for those who make over $1 million. It gets the money needed to fund the country without running on the "I'm gunna raise your taxes" platform.

If we change the way taxes are conceived from an affliction that needs to be relieved to the funding that gives you the luxuries that don't just occur, and push the war back in the spotlight, he's got it.

We have to just attack the Republican Pro-Big Business agenda head on. Campaign with ideas like "Businessmen make money off of wars, Generals just try to win them."

I like Phill Donahue ;-) He's probably too smart to run though.