Don't count out Feingold, he didn't vote for the Iraq war and he also didn't vote for the Patriot Act. I wish he hadn't voted for Roberts, but we will have to wait and see how disasterous that vote is. If it turns out he's another Scalia then Feingold is toast, but we don't know that yet.
I'd like to see Al Gore run again and win again.
Posted by Donna at October 11, 2005 02:13 PM"So let’s think about putting people at the top of the ticket who can:
·Run an aggressive and values-based campaign to clean up Washington;
·Place Main Street ahead of Wall Street;
·Push for energy independence, tax fairness, and health care solutions; and
·Reject profit opportunities for GOP campaign contributors paid for with blood treasure."
*****
First you dismiss John Edwards, and then describe his agenda.
So which is it? BTW, Edwards doesn't live in DC anymore. He's totally outside of government. And...here's the kicker...the guy actually inspires people.
Posted by thunderhawk at October 11, 2005 02:16 PMOne other thing...Yepsen is hardly "wise." He's considered a running joke in Iowa.
Posted by thunderhawk at October 11, 2005 02:17 PMClark/Feingold
Posted by at October 11, 2005 02:22 PMI agree Edwards will be outsider and not an inside DC person. But it will be easier for others to do better.
Though is there a reason you excluded Richardson and Vilsack?
Vilsack has even launched a new website and been blogging at Dailykos and TPMCafe.
Posted by marsblog at October 11, 2005 02:26 PMOh and Axelrod is Vilsack's consultant, his first big win was 1998 with Vilsack.
Posted by marsblog at October 11, 2005 02:27 PMPlease, no one who supported the war. they all are obsolete and have no chance, particularly among the democrats. hopefully from somewhere unknown to us now, a statesperson will appear, who will lead us....... one can only hope.
Posted by jim oleson at October 11, 2005 02:30 PMIn my opinion, it is fine for a Democratic candidate who voted for the war to come out against it now. The only reason anyone voted for this ill-founded war was because they were fed fear-mongering and lies about WMDs. It is perfectly acceptable for a candidate now to say, "Yes I voted for the war but I was given bad information by the current administration. Knowing now what I did not know then, I can no longer support the war in Iraq." We can't let the Republicans get away with saying Democrats are soft on terrorism, that's a bunch of BS.
I like Edwards a lot. It's a problem that he is not currently in office, but I'd like to see him run again. The work he is doing through the Poverty Center in NC is a fine example of Democratic morals.
Posted by ann at October 11, 2005 02:47 PMI couldn't agree more. I want both sides of the ticket to be outside the beltway.
Posted by James at October 11, 2005 02:48 PMEdwards/Obama in 08...
Sort of rolls off the tongue...
Posted by Roy Batty at October 11, 2005 02:55 PMKerry in 2008...HAHAHAHAHAHA Kerry was an absolutely horrible candidate. And as for "conceding" before Gore did, the situations were extremely different. Gore won the popular vote and trailed by under 1,000 votes in Florida. If he'd ever asked for a statewide hand count, he'd have won. Kerry on the other hand lost the popular vote and was trailing by over 100,000 votes in Ohio. There was absolutely no way that margin could be overcome through recounts. As for being wiser, Kerry has shown he makes the same mistakes over and over again. He ran a campaign with little focus for the primaries and after almost losing, he did the exact same thing against Bush. He'll do the same in 2008. No way he gets re-nominated.
Posted by bushsucks at October 11, 2005 03:00 PMMe/Mary in ought eight!
Posted by Duckman GR at October 11, 2005 03:02 PMI'm with Roy. He's my best and only friend.
Posted by Pris at October 11, 2005 03:06 PMIf Gore could continue to speak as a candidate the way he has done for the last couple of years, I think he could inspire a lot of support, however I think losing the White House (even though it probably was stolen from him) may be too much baggage for him to overcome.
Posted by Dale at October 11, 2005 03:07 PMGore/Obama in 2008'?
Posted by Dartanyon at October 11, 2005 03:08 PMIt's way too soon for an Obama run. Besides, I live in Chicago, and I don't want to lose him as a senator yet.
Posted by ann at October 11, 2005 03:11 PMIOW, we need a Jimmy Carter for the '00s.
Posted by N in Seattle at October 11, 2005 03:14 PMThe best candidate will very likely be someone whom no one has ever heard of, especially those inside-the-beltway types. No one had ever heard of Clinton, did they.
Posted by Tibor at October 11, 2005 03:19 PMI want to win Congress back in '06, impeach these criminals from top to bottom, throw many in jail, seize most of their assets, kick them to the curb, execute a few, and then it won't matter in '08 because Nancy Pelosi will be President, run, win, and bury these fascist liars for good with stakes tipped in Silver and Garlic right through the heartvoid.
Maybe Pelosi/Soto '08!
Posted by Duckman GR at October 11, 2005 03:28 PMBill Richardson! Good speaker, great personal story, magically becomes Bill Richardson Lopez for Latinos (who will all vote for him, regardless of prior party affiliation), and no trail of Senate votes.
Posted by abf at October 11, 2005 03:30 PMGore would be interesting. I think he'd have a good shot. Bumper sticker:
America Deserves a Do-Over. Gore 2008.
Posted by muckdog at October 11, 2005 03:32 PMAs with any politician, there is the inevitable trade-off between a recognized name and the inevitable baggage almost all high-profile candidates seem to bring with them.
Running with someone outside of the beltway has many benefits, but the unfortunate truth is that too much campaign time and energy is then wasted on 'brand recognition and definition'.
Conversely, running with a known quantity means trying to hide the skeletons from time to time. And the Great Orifice Party is very experienced with skeletons, both generating and exploiting them.
It would be truly amazing if you could find an honest, clear-headed, inventive, intellectual and secular candidate (the polar opposite of Shrub), who could stand on his/her principles, and convey them in a meaningful way, with the good of the people being of paramount importance to them. Until that day arrives, we are always going to have to settle for trade-off candidates.
For myself, I couldn't/wouldn't vote for *any* Dem who voted for The War or the USA PATRIOT ACT. If such of them were gullible enough to be schnookered by obvious lies and cartoonistic "intelligence" they have no place in public office. I have no faith in anyone who falls into lock step without putting the evidence through their critical thinking colander to strain out the mendacity. That's my $0.02, FWIW. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at October 11, 2005 03:42 PMWhile I know some have their doubts about Richardson, he has several things going for him. In addition to what abf noted, and the fact that he is a southwestern governor, New Mexico was very close last year. Also, following up on abf's point about Latinos -- I think they are way overdue for some big-time representation (fastest growing population with probably the least representation). One caveat -- he'd have to run on a premise similar to Villaraigosa's of inclusiveness.
Posted by dorita at October 11, 2005 03:57 PMThe most important point as I see it, is to make sure that the campaign management comes from OUTSIDE the beltway. I eagerly supported Edwards, both when he was my senator and in last years run. Clark is also impressive and some of the DC outsiders like Warner could be good.
Overall, the biggest threat as I see it is the "coronation" of Hillary. America has had enough of dynasties and in 2008 people are going to want a clean break from the past. Having someone named Clinton on the ticket would be seen as a sign that the Dems. are not serious about new ideas and rightly so.
BTW, I would like to see Obama devolop more as a senator first, his early voting record has been too inconsistant and pro Bush for my taste, but I think he could be a good candidate later with some maturity.
Posted by rlp at October 11, 2005 04:25 PMThere you go rlp, Obama would be just like Edwards. Pretty light. He needs much more seasoning. 2012 would equip him better, more likely 2016. That would place him at the twelfth year in a national post. Not offending the rule of fourteen, but after that he's done. Should stay a senator. Look to a governor to lead you.
Posted by peter at October 11, 2005 04:57 PMrlp, I'm with you on Obama; I like him, but he's still a bit green. Needs to grow a bit. But all the qualities put forth above describe Edwards perfectly. He's dang charming, he's smart and saavy, his wife is a positive boon in her own right, great speaker, and on and on. Basically, he's a product that would be an easy sell to a lot of people. He seems young, but that's a bonus, too. And the smears rolled off his back like water off a duck. He's the only one of the whole crew that had the Elvis to win hearts and minds in the last election season. I think he and Dean could work well together to make a new Dem message to sell to this disgruntled populace.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 11, 2005 05:06 PMAll right, I'll bite. As much as I am distressed to agree with MUCKDOG, I think Gore would win the election. Pair him with Richardson or Edwards and I think his new campaign style, hard learned from his previous reliance on DLC type "advisors" is passionate and genuine enough to earn a second chance. Goddamnit, he WON the presidency in 2000! NO ONE could have predicted what a complete fuckwit Bush could have turned out to be in 2000. He won, he fought for it and then conceded for the best interests of the nation, as we understood it in 2000. That is class, not the instant collapse of Kerry in 2004.
Since then, he's had time to reflect, grow and understand where he went astray. He's a damn good speechmaker now, and I tend to agree with almost every thing he has to to say. He's completely outside the beltway, has been right on most issues and is trying to fight the good fight, now. GORE + anyone in 2008 is a winner!
Posted by DeminNewJ at October 11, 2005 05:33 PMGore + anyone? Can we at least exclude the execrable Joementum?
Posted by ran at October 11, 2005 05:46 PMI'd take Gore, but didn't the press hate him? That hurt him quite a bit. As did Joe.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 11, 2005 05:57 PMI'd take Gore, but didn't the press hate him?
We won't get fooled again.
Posted by pete townsend at October 11, 2005 06:07 PMI agree with iamcoyotes comments on Mr. Edwards. As a southerner he could possibly find a opening in the republican southern voters and the Nascar fans. You must find a way to garner southern votes if you have any hope to win in 08.
Posted by The Old Man at October 11, 2005 06:07 PMWhat about a "Southern Strategy"? Is it OK for Democrats to campaign in the South, or will we get called names and have to retreat. My hope is that there is enough organizational muscle to make for interesting campaigns everywhere. Maybe Bill Clinton can be "born again", take a new Christian name like Ebidiah Big Dog and run again.
Posted by obelus at October 11, 2005 06:07 PMObelus
A southern strategy is not only O.K., but is a requirement to win. Just talk to us, tell us the truth, and learn the names of the Nascar drivers. If you do not like us, then wait until you leave before you hold your nose.
[Gore] won, he fought for it and then conceded for the best interests of the nation, as we understood it in 2000. That is class, not the instant collapse of Kerry in 2004.
And remember why he conceded - it was after Joemomentum cut him off at the knees. No Joe. So my only concern with Gore is where was his judgement when he picked Joe for VP? Otherwise, I really like the guy even more than I did in 2000.
Posted by Mary at October 11, 2005 06:28 PMThere is only one issue that matter in 2008. Integrity and honor. Remember W used it now Dems should re-use it. Use traitorgate to win elections. Warner or whoever runs in 2008, must talk about Traitorgate and how Republicans in Congress ignored it when we probably lost substantial number of assets overseas.
Posted by john at October 11, 2005 06:54 PMThe Old Man's right, you have to be comfortable in the south, be able to speak the language. People can tell the difference. Edwards is a known quantity in that respect. And I think Jon Stewart would endorse him, which would go a long way.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 11, 2005 06:56 PMAny of y'all think ALGORE knows the south, forget it. He lost his home state, same goes for John Edwards, lost NC by 13 points. That southern strategy will get you worse results than Kerry did in the south. John Edwards has no depth. Great two Americas theme, nothing afterwards. Look to him like you looked at Dan Quayle. Enough said!
Find a governor or two to move into primetime. Governors make better presidents, research it. Senators, only a few, got to be very special.
Posted by peter at October 11, 2005 08:26 PMNo Southerners on the ticket, please!
The South is going to enter the 21st cenutry the same way it entered the 20th and the 19th- kicking and screaming because its betters have gotten tired of its treason.
Posted by Brian Jenkins at October 12, 2005 12:40 AMWTF is it with the weblogs taking David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register seriously?
I'd post links, but I refuse to give his ideas any broader circulation than they are now. Both Daily Kos and The Left Coaster have front-paged an article he wrote Tuesday stating that the Democrats would be in an advantageous position to headline Kerry again in 2008.
For the last time - Yepsen is a centerist hack! His reputation exists only because of Iowa's caucuses, his ability to sweet talk and brown nose national political journalists, and his knowledge of good Des Moines resturants. He's a big fish in a small pond.
Ladies and gentlemen, David Yepsen's wetdream is to be the pundit king of Iowa. Is that any reason whatsoever to pay attention to his opinions?
Next time I see him in A'Dong, I'm going to kick his metaphorical shins.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 12, 2005 04:33 AMSteve,
I agree for the most part, but I actually think Al Gore (if he's actually thinking about running and it's not just rumors) would meet most of your criteria.
1) He'll have been out of DC for 8 years.
2) He's been a persistent and vocal critic of the Bushies, including on Iraq, so it'll be harder to tag him with the "You were wrong too" angle.
3) He's been critical (at least implicitly) of those in his own party who haven't challenged Bush. (Why do you think he endorsed Dean?)
4) He seems to have learned his lesson in 2000 and would probably run a far more aggressive campaign in the future.
I think 2 & 3 have also won him support from the party's progressive "Base" that he didn't have in 2000 (when the refrain was "there's no difference between Bush and Gore"). Having the "base" on your side won't win the election by itself, but it's a key starting point. If you can't lock that up you're toast. Ask Karl Rove about that. (Hopefully when you visit him in a federal prison.) This would also negate the "Nader factor" in a future run.
Other advantages Gore would have:
5) Instant name recognition.
6) An instant fundraising base.
7) With peak oil around the corner and global warming getting worse (and with Americans now feeling the consequences directly) the environmental and energy focus that he supposedly wanted to run on in 2000 would be the perfect centerpiece for a campaign and could unite both progressives and even many conservatives (if framed right, a la Schweitzer's appeals to sportsmen in Montana). Aside from being good policy, a strong environmental/energy based campaign would solve the problem of people wondering what the campaign is about.
Gore's biggest handicap would be ingrained media hostility. The beltway media types always hated him and gave him hell in 2000. They might be even more insufferable in 2008 because by then he's in a position to say "I told you say." And the arrogant beltway pundits don't like hearing that that they were wrong, which is what a Gore victory would be saying.
The wild card is his link to Clinton. Although his campaign made many mistakes, I think it was the fallout from L'affaire Lewinsky and impeachment that made a lot of independents turn to Bush in the hope that a Bush presidency would mean no more constant scandals every day in the news. (I know, hah hah, but I think a lot of people were thinking this.)
Will this be a factor in 2008? Possibly but I doubt it for 2 reasons (I like lists and bullets points if you haven't noticed):
1) He might be running against Hillary. A Gore-Clinton contest in the primaries would certainly break that link that many voters have in their minds.
2) Americans seem to have an attention span of about 3 minutes. I think a lot of the bad blood towards Gore from the Clinton years and the 2000 hatchet job the media did on him might have dissipated by 2008.
As someone who's never held elected office, Wes Clark would also be a potential "outsider" candidate.
I agree that most of the Senators who would be President (Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Biden) are non starters. The one possible exception to this would be Russ Feingold - he's got the honest- corruption-busting-man-of-integrity shtick down pat. The fact that he got a lot of crossover republican votes in Wisconsin is a good sign of his potential to attract swing voters.
Posted by NJ Brian at October 12, 2005 05:44 AMDepending on the outcome of the fitzgerald hearings [key indictments] I sure would find myself more than willing to vote for him.
Posted by kjohn1 at October 12, 2005 10:42 AMLets pick a duo who will at least win their own states this time around.
Posted by at October 13, 2005 07:34 AM