MyDD :: Speculation 2008

by kydem on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bayh (3.00 / 1)

Indiana is a bizarre state (I've lived there and in two of its neighbors). It's one of the most white, least immigrant states in the union, esp. given the level of industrialization of the economy, with a long history of jingoism. It has a horrible education system and you know you're in a different state the moment you cross the border. It has elected liberals in the distant past (Bayh's father), but moderate Republicans have done best in the governor's office and the Senate for many years. Mitch Daniels is the the current guv which is a bad sign.

One might suggest that Bayh could transfer his appeal to the South, except he doesn't really have to deal with race very much in Indiana. The state is far less progressive than any of its Midwestern neighbors and it's questionable how much appeal he would have within the region.

by rich on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bayh (3.00 / 1)

Rich, any other ill-informed stereotypes you'd like to bring out about Indiana?

You state that "moderate Republicans have done best in the governor's office". Not sure where you got that idea. Before Mitch Daniels election this past November the Democrats had held the governorship of Indiana for the prior 24 years. This includes 8 years of Evan Bayh as Governor.

Regarding the education sysem which you describe as "horrible", check the links below which contradict your claim.

I googled "Indiana Education Rank" and got the following as the first three hits:

Indiana Education on Web Ranked Best in Nation

NPRC's 'Gold Guide' Ranks Indiana Education Third in the Nation

Smartest State 2004-2005 (rank 17th)

From the first site which is to a press release linked off the U.S. Dept of Education:

Indiana's Education Web site and the state's use of technology for education are ranked No. 1 in the latest nationwide survey by the Center for Digital Government, a research and advisory institute based in California.

Rankings overall in the annual Digital State Survey also rank the state's official World Wide Web portal, "accessIndiana," as eighth, up from 26th in 2000 and 22nd in 2001.

"We are especially proud to jump from ninth place in the Education category and rank as the best in the nation," said Dr. Suellen Reed, superintendent of public instruction

From the NPRC site:

The Washington D.C. -- based National Policy Research Council (NPRC) has placed Indiana third in a national education ranking released recently in its "Gold Guide" resource. The guide is considered to be the definitive reference source for city and state rankings, and a powerful tool for understanding and improving America's communities.

"It's a tribute to be recognized for our hard work and have Indiana's achievements noted in such a prominent manner," said Dr. Suellen Reed, Superintendent of Public Instruction. "There remains work to be done, but we have achieved a great deal in Indiana, perhaps most notably our excellent academic standards and our assessment and accountability systems."

The "Gold Guide" ranked the following as the top ten education states in the country:

1. Minnesota 6. Connecticut
2. Massachusetts 7. North Carolina
3. INDIANA 8. Wisconsin
4. Michigan 9. Kansas
5. Texas 10. Utah

Rankings were calculated by NPRC researchers who searched over 16,000 sources and selected those city and state rankings whose methodologies were sufficiently rigorous to merit publication. To avoid individual bias during this process, a consensus among researchers had to be reached before a ranking was included.

From the Smartest State site:

Rankings overall in the annual Digital State Survey also rank the state's official World Wide Web portal, "accessIndiana," as eighth, up from 26th in 2000 and 22nd in 2001.

US News & World Report also ranks the Indiana University School of Education as the 18th best among all Universities in the US.

Disclaimer: The fact that I attended public school in Indiana and earned degrees from Indiana University is not the reason for this post (which was one of the most ill-informed I've seen posted on MyDD).

by Curt Matlock on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 07:36:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ouch (none / 0)

while curt's post may not address all of rich's points, it's pretty much a TKO in my book.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 07:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

take that second link w/grain of salt (none / 0)

curt, you might want to check your source on that second link. any survey that ranks texas 5th in education needs to re-examine their methodology. we're consistently ranked at or near the bottom in every education survey.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 09:29:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: take that second link w/grain of salt (none / 0)

I was expecting Indiana to be middle of the pack myself (not horrible) and was surprised to see it so high up. I didn't have the motivation to dig much deeper the first time but a new, more specific google on "Indiana Education Rank Test Scores 2004" came up with more confusing data.

The state seems to do better than average on 4th and 8th grade student reading and math achievement and worse on writing as judged by the NAEP test reported in this Summary of Grades By State report. It doesn't rank the states but provides the percent proficient on a given test. Compared against the average at the bottom Indiana seems to be doing fine.

SAT scores on the other hand show the state doing poorly at 41st. This is always explained away locally by the fact that the state has a very high percentage of students taking the test relative to other states which results in a lower average score.

Overall, things could be better but relative to the other states it is doing ok.

I just got worked up about that post because of the Dan Quayle syndrome. Since Quayle it seems there are endless comments about people from the state being stupid. Hey ... most of us here got better grades than Quayle so let it go America ... let it go. ;)

I'll give you an example that came up about Bayh. On Kos the other day I saw a comment claiming that Bayh was stupid and comparing him to Quayle. Bayh is alot of things, and one of them is smart. Anyway, people who oppose him should realize that calling him stupid probably won't work if we judge by our recent experience in losing to George Bush.

by Curt Matlock on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not into name-calling either (none / 0)

i hear ya. i just felt compelled to comment because that statistic about texas stuck out like a big red flag. ;)

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bayh (none / 0)

Although I am leaning toward Feingold right now, it would be a huge symbolic victory to take Indiana and turn it blue. It is one of the reddest states in the country, and if we win in 2008 without the south at all, simply by keeping all the present blue states and possibly taking Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, we can make the GOP talk about Northern values and how they cannot win without winning in the Northeast.

by Max Friedman on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark Can Be The Face Of Progressive Strength (3.00 / 2)

Even though I was a Dean supporter, the netroots shout out made me feel good. However--and please forgive me Clarkies--I was always convinced that his popularity stemmed from circumstances specific to the 2004 election, specifically terrorism and "electability." Thus, my gut tells me he won't run again, or even if he does that he will not have the same level of support, but he does at least seem interested.

I can't speak for all the Clarkies out there, but regardless of the Iraq War and the WOT, I think that it is absolutely vital for us Dems to shed the anti-war noose that we currently have around our necks. In some sense that means that yes, it was about electability, but it was more than that. I believe that our generation of progressives is much more realistic about the anarchic state of international affairs and doesn't deserve the "peace-loving hippy" label that is currently still attached to us. That doesn't mean that we will be pro-war or anti-war, just anti-stupid war, and anti-non-necissary war. We also aren't going around spitting on our soldiers, or blaming them for the mistakes that our President has made.

We are the party of strength, and it's time that we get a national figure that can embody this fact. (This is also why I want Anthony Zinni to run for office, though he would certainly face many of the same problems as Clark, stemming from their inexperience in national politics)

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:30:44 PM EST

Re: Clark Can Be The Face Of Progressive Strength (none / 0)

Clark didn't seem to know what he was doing in the campaign and didn't know where to stand on important issues. He was picked for electability and to run against Bush. Bush obviously won't be a factor in 2008 and I don't think that he will get a lot of traction and will not last long if he does run.

by Max Friedman on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark Can Be The Face Of Progressive Strength (none / 0)

Examples? Or are you just repeating the thug spin? I saw him speak very well on a number of issues...

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

agreed (none / 0)

i'll say this about clark. nobody criticised bush on the WOT like clark. i mean, he just nailed it over and over again, and the fact that he was a 4-star general really lent credibility to his arguments. over the course of his short campaign, i came to admire him for being so open about his love of country and pride in service.

i'm a deaniac, always will be, but i have a real soft spot for the general. the most memorable line he had - for me anyway - was during one of the debates, and in response to a question about the WOT and the dem's criticism of it, clark nailed it. he looked right into the camera and said simply "we'renot criticising the president because for attacking terrorists. we're criticising him because he's not attacking the terrorists." it was a very honest statement, and i appreciated him getting that out in the open.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 09:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: agreed (none / 0)

I really think Clark needs to run for Senate in Arkansas. If we could get both Zinni and Clark in the Senate then we would have two exelant spokespeople for the progressive view of security (which is pretty much the same as a military view of security-> a strong military but no stupid wars) and help us to shed the weak image of Democrats that they built up for themselves in the 70s and 80s.

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who has the message gift - that's the priority (none / 0)

Good golly, starting this up again. OK - first, I cannot imagine a remote possibility that Boxer or Biden could win the nomination, for several reasons each.

What I believe we should all look at is who gets furthest the fastest on coming up with big picture Message. Who can articulate Democratic values and a rationale for a Democratic Presidency, a Dem vision for governance. All other personal-is-political stuff ("I want X to run because X is a REAL reformer" "X gets it, the others don't" "X inspires me, so I'm with X" etc.) is a very mistaken way of looking at the Presidency.

I believe we need to congeal around who can Persuade. Really, I have no idea who that will be. My first guess is that Edwards has the most skills on this front. Hillary has an expert advisor, so that's her advantage. Of course, other candidates are always free to appropriate somebody else's message. That's the way it works. Who ever is savviest enough to either develop the best message or carry somebody else's message will have my interest.

by Andmoreagain on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:37:00 PM EST

Nobody imagined Boxer getting all those CA votes (none / 0)

A moderate Dem Gov. got swept out of office by an actor in mid-scandal a short time before Boxer crushed her opponent.

I'm not saying it proves or disproves anything. I'm just saying that "conventional wisdom" is pretty much useless in the current environment. With every single Democrat getting labeled as "most liberal" in every race that's run, there is suddenly not much risk for Democrat that really is very liberal. When every Democrat is "most liberal," those who are actually actually most liberal get lost in the background noise.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody imagined Boxer getting all those CA vot (none / 0)

I see her as a complete nonstarter. I also like her very much. I live in Cal.

She is coastal, born in NY, tonally and spiritually of the 'enclaves', she is easily painted by all the stereotypes would I think stick easily and firmly to her, and finally, she would seem to have to run a base motivation campaign. Not a winner for us nationally these days. I cannot imagine her pulling in much of the midwestern and western non college and some college male vote. As for woman votes, they'd run up the score in states we already have.

Only reason why Hil might be better than Boxer is that Hil is smart about positioning herself and may take her hubby's message advice.

I am really, really prejudiced against anyone who reeks of coastal for '08 (And I'm coastal to the core, btw) I would include Hillary as 'coastal'.

by Andmoreagain on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:58:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody imagined Boxer getting all those CA vot (none / 0)

Boxer is the only Democratic Senator to vote to challenge Ohio. 40% of Dems think 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. I don't care if you think the elections were stolen, 40% of Democrats DO think the election was stolen, and are looking at all those potential candidates that did nothing to protect their vote wondering if they will surrender like Kerry did it the first whiff of a fight.

Boxer is going to be the only candidate in the field some Democrats will even consider voting for because of the Kerry surrender.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody imagined Boxer getting all those CA vot (none / 0)

Maybe I am a Cynic but I just don't buy the Boxer is the only one with Stones arguement on the Ohio vote. I commend her for her challenge, however, I tend to think it was somewhat orchestrated by Dem Congressional Leadership. They want to challenge, but they know they won't win. Instead of opening up the party as a whole to attack, they picked one Senator who has a leadership position (but not a top position - Reid or Durbin), who lives in a Blue Seat and who was not up for re-election for 6 years (in case it back-fired). This made Boxer a fine choice. I guess I feel the move was calculated and not Boxer being an independent.

Don't get me wrong, i like her and think she is a good Senator. I just dont see her winning the nomination. I still question whether some voters will vote against Hillary simply because she is a women...Boxer faces that issue, plus the fact that she doesn't have the connections or fund raising prowess of a Clinton or Kerry.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boxer stood when others wouldn't,. (none / 0)

It doesn't matter what the reasoning was Boxer was willing to put her political career on the line when others weren't willing to.

That matters. Democrats are tired of candidates without the guts to stand for their principles.

Kerry's surrender will be an issue. Kerry's Surrender prevented fraud from being proven, in order to provide the needed momentum for change. People feel that Boxer will fight long and hard enough if the GOP tries it again to prove fraud.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boxer stood when others wouldn't,. (none / 0)

You're making the blogospherically oft-stated "I want candidates to be fighters/backbone-owners above all else" argument. It's part of the "personal is political" thing because it's inward looking (one voter projecting his/her own desires outward). It works for a small segment of the Dem base. It is not a persuasion strategy. We need persuasion.

by Andmoreagain on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boxer stood when others wouldn't,. (none / 0)

Nope. I making an argument that some people think that the voting process has been so corrupted that the only way a Democrat can possibly win a national election is to prove fraud by catching the GOP making a mistake when votes are re-tallied. You cannot prove election fraud by throwing up your hands in surrender and conceeding before the voted were even finished being counted the first time.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boxer stood when others wouldn't,. (none / 0)

Well that's just it...Boxer was JUST re-elected convincingly. She is from a blue state. I just think her protest was not all that risky...not as much as a Durbin or Clinton would have been. It was a great gesture, but it would have meant more if she had the guts to do it in 2000. Standing up for her Principals is an important thing, but the Dems want to play smart politics. I have a feeling she isn't the only one who wanted to protest; I think some were told not too.

Again, not disaparaging her or her actions, I just don't see it as this great selfless event some people try to make it out to be.

I agree with you that Kerry's surrender will hurt him with some...It may help him with others though. Ultimately we won't know for a few years.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boxer stood when others wouldn't,. (none / 0)

What risk was Kennedy at? What about Leahy? Mikulski?

Boxer definitely put herself at more risk than any of those three would have. In 2000, election fraud didn't seem to be the primary issue at the time of the vote. A messed up court decision semed to be the primary problem. This time, the mechanisms of voting fraud were much more blatant and obvious. You had the chair of Diebold swearing to carry Ohio for Bush, and then the source code of the voting machine becasme publically known to be obviously badly flawed, etc. I'm not going to restate the whole case here, but you know the laundry list of problems. In January 2000, there was only rumors.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boxer stood when others wouldn't,. (none / 0)

Boxer is in an interesting situation. Given the expense of running in California, incumbency represents an especially huge advantage, as incumbents start out with great name recognition and good acess to $. I think Boxer generally is to the left of the median California voter, but in a presidential election which would bring out all the Dem voters in the state, the GOP knew that throwing $30M or so into an uphill fight wasn't wise.

Boxer's next go-round will in a non-presidential year (2006), and I sense she's putting herself out there as The Liberal of the Senate to attract big $ nationally.

by danielj on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boxer only won by 20 points... (none / 0)

...because she had no opponent.

Her opponent was the invisible man, who bought ZERO TV ads. ZERO.

She is not a good canidate for president. Her latest high-profile moves have improved her rep for liberals and hurt it with everybody else. Most normal folks think the Ohio protest was a disgusting folly, a waste of time (which, technically, it was, since they weren't actually trying to change the Ohio votes). She would win fewer states than Kerry. If you want a liberal in the White House, go for Feingold.

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Disgusting, eh? (none / 0)

Your use of the word "disgusting" against a Democrat says things about you, not Sen. Boxer. The fact that you are personally advocating the another progressive in the field, and publically use the word "disgusting" against Sen Boxer says even more. Having the rep of being willing to say anything against a fellow Dem is not a good rep to have in the party, Geotpf

The fact of the matter is there is a sizable group of Democrats right now that are so dismayed by the Kerry surrender that Sen Boxer is the only candidate they would support or work for. They feel completely betrayed by the Kerry. They will only work for a candidate they know will fight for the votes they cast. Voters know Boxer would fight to challenge voting irregularities and have full investigations if she was in that position.

Protection of American's right to vote and right to have all votes counted accurately is "disgusting", huh? Then you don't think too much about progressive values as a whole.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 11:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disgusting, eh? (none / 0)

Read my comment again.

I said "most normal people thought that it was a disgusting folly". I did not say "I thought that it was a disgusting folly". I do not agree with this train of thought-however it exists, and "normal people" vote. When I mean "normal", I mean non-liberal political junkies. It was a very bad PR move, IMHO. The reaction I got from people on both sides of the aisle who aren't political junkies was extremely negative. That was my point.

by Geotpf on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

I have lived in Wisconsin for more than 40 years, including all of Feingold's tenure so far.

I believe Feingold would make an excellent candidate, as well as President. With the other big names out there, I don't know if he can compete financially.

He is a good man, though, and he votes on his belief on issues, not on a crappy perceived liberal/conservative basis that most use. Often he pisses off conservatives, sometimes he pisses off liberals. But he votes and says what he believes, which I think is a strength.

by DDenver on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:43:02 PM EST

Re: Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

If he can't get the nom, maybe he would make a great VP choice. Midwest, Populist... Got the record to take over if the President is killed.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

The fact that Russ has no exec experience places him at the top of my rankings for VP, and therefore, my 2nd choice for President.

by kydem on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

Exec? You mean in some private corporation? If so, I'm not sure that's always an asset. A lot of CEOs have no patience for deliberative process, nor for getting input prior to decision-making (take a look at GWB, a former exec, for instance).

I think being a US Senator for two terms and running that office, very successfully, is at least commensurate, if not better, experience to be President.

Not that I have anything against Bayh - I see you've already made your selection.

I am not yet committed to Feingold, but I still think he would be fully qualified.

by DDenver on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

When I say exec experience, I meant as in Governorship.

by kydem on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

I too live in Wisconsin but I can't see Russ winning the nomination and don't thin he'd be good for Veep either. He's a maverick from a state that loves mavericks. But a president should be a leader, not a maverick. Also, he's always run really low budget ads that appeal to wisconsinites but I doubt they'd appeal to the nation as a whole. Finally, he's incredibly liberal and very easy to paint as such.

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

Those are interesting points.

1) "But a president should be a leader, not a maverick."

I disagree. I've had enough of people trying to hold their finger in their political wind to find out what they believe. Also, recent 'conventional' Demo politics doesn't seem to be doing us very well. Maybe being a 'maverick' is exactly what we need. More Dem Senators should have voted against Bush's War Resolution, and the USA Patriot Act. Then we would've had a clear position. As it was, they all caved, and the 'mavericks' ended up being right.

2) " he's always run really low budget ads that appeal to wisconsinites but I doubt they'd appeal to the nation as a whole."

Of course he has. He's only run in Wisconsin. And on a Wisconsin size budget. If he ran on the national level, the funding and the advertising would be done completely differently. This isn't a reason he can't campaign effectively for President, imo.

3) " he's incredibly liberal and very easy to paint as such."

Oh, well, god forbid we should have anyone the Repubs try to paint as "completely liberal" on the ticket. That just means anyone to the left of Zell Miller can't be considered. I don't think we should choose a candidate based on the fear that Repubs will call him/her a 'liberal' as they are bound to use that tactic no matter who it ends up. We need to more effectively fight the tactic, not try to shy away from good candidates because we fear it.

Sorry, fellow cheesehead, but I just can't go along with you on being against Feingold. Not for those reasons.

by DDenver on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His TV ads are OUTSTANDING (none / 0)

They are low budget, but they are quirky, funny, to the point, and wildly effective. He could run a national campaign with these same ads and win easily.

Here you go:

http://www.russfeingold.org/multimedia.php

Oh, and we can't have this discussion without THE interview with Feingold:

http://www.progressive.org/May%202002/intv0502.html

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold Would Be Good (none / 0)

Who thought that Dean would be able to compete financially. A candidate no longer has to depend on the big- ticket donors, they can now do it if they get net-roots support and small donations.

by Max Friedman on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Progressive w/o voting rights issue = no traction (none / 0)

No progressive is going to get any traction that did not attempt to investigate voting irregularities and fight for election reform. Progressives are too furious about this issue. Anyone that attempts to get their support without track record of a strong record on this issue has no chance of getting traction as a national candidate of party progressives.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 11:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

comments (none / 0)

Overall, good cattle call.

Point of difference:

Even though I was a Dean supporter, the netroots shout out made me feel good. However--and please forgive me Clarkies--I was always convinced that his popularity stemmed from circumstances specific to the 2004 election, specifically terrorism and "electability." Thus, my gut tells me he won't run again, or even if he does that he will not have the same level of support, but he does at least seem interested.

As a clark04 supporter, it's very difficult to not take this as an insult. One could very easily make the same claim about Dean - that his campaign was a pure out-growth of the peculiarities of 2003. Need I remind you that Clark was the only candidate who was drafted into the race. It was every bit the grassroots movement and small-d democratic uprising that DFA was, if not moreso.

I'm stunned by how much $$ Bayh has banked right now. Feingold is going to be a force if he runs, but I think that people have to understand that Feingold isn't Wellstone, nor is he Dean redux. He's always gone to the beat the beat of his own drummer. He's one of the Senate's true mavericks. Given how demanding that some of the netroots can be, I wonder he'll be able ultimately, to pass all of their tests. Hillary's cachet isn't name recognition, it's that she and Bill control so much of the liberal big donor money. Clark will have a difficult time this next go around, but he definitely can win the nomination. He stands out in terms of nat sec credibility, and if Iraq is still the mess that it promises to be, the General is going to be real attractive.

by blueflorida on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:44:07 PM EST

Re: comments (none / 0)

Don't view that as an insult. I was a Clark 04 supporter as well, but Chris may be right. Clark's biggest hurdle isn't his resume but his lack of campaign experience. I wish he had the time to run for a Senate or Governorship and then run for President, but obviously that won't happen unless he postpones running until 12 or 16.

That being said, he definately could win and is definately not as Controversial as Hillary is. I see him running but probably dropping in Febuary...I also forsee a VP or Cabinet position (Defense, State, Homeland Security) in his future.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: comments (none / 0)

I would see him droppping out much sooner than that. I would predict that he would drop out in the fall of 2007, like how Grahm dropped out in fall of 2003.

by Max Friedman on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: comments (none / 0)

Maxgray,

I hate to tell you but Clark has more initial support than most of the people who are going to run in '08, so to say he's gonna drop out early like Grahm is silly. The Clark Troops are ripped and roaring to go, let me tell you. Now, we can argue whether he would win the nomination or not, but he will NOT DROP OUT THAT EARLY, NO WAY NO HOW. Again, we can argue over the merits of his nomination, but to say he has no chance is being ignorant of the support he will have going into primaries.

by JAmbro on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:16:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Kucinich and Dean (none / 0)

"One could very easily make the same claim about Dean - that his campaign was a pure out-growth of the peculiarities of 2003."

Yeah, probably. Of Kerry, Clark, Dean and Edwards, I think Edwards is the only candidate for whom you probably cannot make that case.

"Need I remind you that Clark was the only candidate who was drafted into the race."

Not true. Kucinich was drafted into the race.

by Chris Bowers on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:23:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My rankings (none / 0)

Think you have over-valued Feingold because you like him.

Clinton
Bayh
Edwards (would be a disaster)
Warner
Richardson
Boxer
Kerry
Feingold
Clark
Biden (won't happen, so skip 10)

by SGlennW on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:51:20 PM EST

Re: My rankings (none / 0)

Seems fair with a couple of corrections... Clark above Warner and Richardson. Boxer behind Clark. Clark has retained loyalty from his campaign troops, and will start with a strong organization. Boxer has developed loyalty from recent stands and will be in the news a lot in the next couple of years. Warner has shown some real ego weaknesses in VA with his public war with Doug Wilder. Warner's war with Wilder loses very serious strength in the Black community in the South... which his campaign will absolutely depend on to be strong. That's the sort of thing that ends campaigns to end before they start. Richardson has never seem all that astute politically.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My rankings (none / 0)

I would buy moving Clark up if I thought he had the staying power. I don't think so, but wouldn't mind being wrong. I see your points on Warner.

As for the post below about Edwards, my feelings are in no way based on bias against him. He was someone I liked quite a bit early on. However, I think he would not have even won re-election in North Carolina and was overmatched nationally. I rank him as I high as I did because his VP slot gives him positioning, but as far as ability to win, I don't see it.

by SGlennW on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My rankings (none / 0)

Think you have undervalued Edwards because you don't like him.

Thanks for the objectivity (wink)

by Andmoreagain on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My rankings (none / 0)

I think you are WAY over valuing Bayh at this point of the race. Not saying he can't raise his stature, but he is not the second from the top right now...Not even close.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Senators do not win! (none / 0)

That leaves Warner, Richardson, Clark and maybe, since he is out of the Senate, Edwards....

I pick Richardson.

And I agree Edwards will be a front runner, Kerry will be old school, and Hillary--bless her heart--I am tired of dynasties and I wish she would just take over for Teddy Kennedy--the permanent Senator-out-spoken-liberal-sage.

by aiko on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:55:16 PM EST

Re: Senators do not win! (none / 0)

Bayh was also a two term Governor during Indiana's peak growth times.

The New Democrat

by demburns on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:58:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They can when a single issue fight is brewing (none / 0)

Voting rights and election reform could take over the next national election cycles, at least on the Democratic side. Candidate who can prove they will really fight on the issue, not pay lip service, are going to have a serious advantage in the coming election cycles.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They can when a single issue fight is brewing (none / 0)

Sorry to say this, but voting rights will never be a signal issue in a Presidential campaign. Can't come remotely close to kitchen table economic issues, which were obscured in '04 only by the war and by the ostensibly not horrible current economic situation (e.g. positive GDP growth and it's attendent headlines)

But the basic costs of living (health, educ, housing, secure retirement) are only getting harder to reach. Making voting rights the center of the liberal argument to enable these issues is too far removed down the logic chain for people to go for. People care about their wallets. Not the way I wish it was, but it is.

by Andmoreagain on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They can when a single issue fight is brewing (none / 0)

The right to vote and have the vote counted accurately has never been an issue before, now that it is, and now that many understand this issue must be achieved before any of the other things can be done... well... we'll see. I think conventional wisdom is out the window in this environment.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:37:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not an issue with the mainstream (none / 0)

People already think thier votes are counted fairly, or at least close enough (in thier minds), and I have seen nothing that contradicts this. (Cue ten million people troll rating me because I believe Bush actually won Ohio.)

The only people who are really concerned with it, for obvious reasons, are African Americans, and they vote for our guy 90% of the time anyways.

If that's your number one issue (or in your top ten), you will lose-fair and square, with no Diebold computers needed.

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

20% of US believes 00 and 04 elections stolen (none / 0)

20% of Americans means roughly 40% of Democrats that think the US Presidency has been stolen twice. If you claim you've heard nothing on this, then you don't listen to pay attention to progressive media like Air America. Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy pounded this issue every day for 2 solid months on their shows.

If you wish to live in denial, that's your right. There's enough Democrats living in the real world to know that voting rights and election reform come first as an issue before any of the other issues can be addressed.

Tens of thousands of voting irregularities... all benefitting Bush. If you wish to ignore the fact that cannot be a coincidence, we'll just shove you out of the way as we move on to fix the problem.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 11:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a bit high (1.00 / 1)

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm

The Harris Poll. Nov. 9-14, 2004. N=1,014 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Overall do you think that the election process for the presidential election was or was not conducted fairly?"

Was Was Not Unsure
% % %
ALL
81 16 4
Republicans
95 4 1
Democrats
68 27 4
Independents
83 15 2

16% of the public (overall) agrees with this statement, and 27% of Democrats. But it doesn't matter what percentage agrees with it-it only matters whether or not it's true. Yes, there were irregularities and outright fraud. No, they didn't change the outcome of the election.

If you are sure, really sure, that there was organized, widespread election fraud, and the other guy won, and such fraud will occur from now on, and the courts will do nothing to stop it, I'm interested in your war plans for the coming civil war, because that's what you should be preparing for, instead of posting here. You're not willing to take up arms against the government? Ok, then you are either a coward, or you are, in fact, not sure that the election was stolen. Nobody is sure that the election is stolen. If you think you are, you are deluding yourself. There is absolutely nothing even closely resembling proof that the election was stolen. It's all bullshit conspiracy theories. I've seen all the various theories-they are all sound and noise, signifying nothing. None of them can overcome a 100,000+ vote deficit in Ohio (except the old "the voting machines were hacked" bit-which is probably unprovable without a whistleblower no matter what you do-and didn't really directly affect Ohio anyways). Kerry lost. He did predictably worse than Gore+Nader in 2000, by a couple points or so. Gore+Nader-1 or 2 points is very near what Kerry got in most states, from Utah to Florida, from California to Ohio, from New Hampshire to Alaska.

Reruning this battle is pointless and distracts our side immensely. Besides, if the election is stolen, why are you even posting here? It doesn't matter who we nominate, they will win anyways. Why bother?

by Geotpf on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senators do not win! (none / 0)

Maybe we need Frist to win the GOP Nom... ;-)

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senators do not win! (none / 0)

campaign slogan: Support a GOP Senator for President in 2008

by aiko on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bet McCain would break the mold (none / 0)

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain will get crush on the GOP side (none / 0)

Probably by Frist.... but certainly by someone on the far right wing of the GOP.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain will get crush on the GOP side (none / 0)

I know he won't win the nomination. But he could win the election and he's a senator.

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:30:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

y'know, Hillary will win if she runs in 2008 (none / 0)

The more I've thought about it the more I've come to this conclusion. Hillary will win if she runs in 2008.

She has perfect name recognition, better even than Kerry's among the general population.
Her name invokes the happier times of the 1990s - and who, D or R or I or L, is not nostalgic for those better days?
She already tried to fix health care before it reached the crisis point it's at today.
She handled Bill's infidelity just about as well as anyone could in her situation, and got a lot of sympathy. More importantly she stuck with him and patched things up, and by all accounts they have a happy marriage again.
She would draw a lot of women to the polls as the first woman at the top of a major party ticket.
She would have the complete, unified, poison-spewing hatred of the far right and the neocons. The kind of hatred that borders on (or more likely jumps entirely across into) irrationality. Believe it or not, that's probably a good thing.

I really think she's a near perfect candidate in terms of winning the election. A minor downside that she's a Senator, not a governor, but I think she can overcome that.

The only real problem is that she is unpopular with some people on the left, and we might lose party unity over her. I'm not sure how much of a danger that is.

by drewthaler on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:58:17 PM EST

Re: y'know, Hillary will win if she runs in 2008 (none / 0)

The other worry I have is that the press has only lightly been through her closet and have missed some skeletons...concentrating on Bill instead. I am a little worried there may be some nasty surprises out there. I love Bill and Hillary, but lets be honest, they did have a lot of questionable (to put it nicely) events happen between the two of them... Whitewater, Travelgate, the furniture taking when they left the office...I wonder if there are some tied to her that have not gotten out yet.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

all of that stuff (none / 0)

Was questionable only in the sense that their political opponents took a bunch of thin air and cooked up a question. My understanding is that most of it has been shown to be false, and besides which, nobody except the right wing actually cares. Seriously. I can make up the same sort of non-scandals:

Did Jeb Bush profiteer from the hurricanes in 2004, by granting no-bid contracts to close friends to repair the damage?

Did shoddy work done by his friends left over from previous years cause the 2004 hurricanes to cause more loss of life than they otherwise would have?

Did he really walk into a damaged motor home on a tour of the area and steal some jewelry from the ruins, and stuff it in his underwear?

Well, I don't know -- did he?

Maybe if we start talking about it and beating it to death in news cycle after news cycle, we might find out. Oh wait, actually, if we start talking about it and beating it to death in news cycle after news cycle it WON'T MATTER what the truth is.

The GOP has gone through the Clintons' closet a lot more than the press has, I'll guarantee that. About the only real thing they found on Bill that did any damage was Monica, and even that people didn't really care about. That was a slight negative for Bill, but as the woman who was wronged and came through it, it'd actually be a positive for Hillary.

by drewthaler on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:44:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: all of that stuff (none / 0)

Well damaging and illegal are two different things. Travelgate (I hate what watergate has done to the media...what ever happened to creativity) was an embarrassment and may have some questionable legalities, but not enough to really be able to nail them. Same with Whitewater...ultimately a lot of circumstancial evidence...

Remember, one can make up scandals but there still needs to be at least some sircumstancial evidence to link the two...or a conspiracy by the media to perpetuate the myth. Either way, something even remotely questionable could hurt her campaign..Look at the SBVFT. Total BS, but enough circumstancial evidence to hurt Kerry in the court of Public opinion. There are a lot of people looking for an excuse to vote against Clinton.

It is just a concern. i think she would be a good candidate.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: y'know, Hillary will win if she runs in 2008 (none / 0)

No way they're tied to stuff that hasn't come out yet. The GOP spent millions of both private and tax-payer money investigating the Clintons up to Wazoo. She has been accused of murdering a man for christ's sake! Everything the GOP had on her, regardless of whether or not it was true, has come out. And she still has a 56% favorable rating! I didn't think she would win until she gave her abortion speech last week. Now, I know she will.

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: y'know, Hillary will win if she runs in 2008 (none / 0)

I have to disagree for one sad and cynical reason:

This country does not elect a left-of-center woman to the Presidency. Maybe in my lifetime, but not now.

I wish it weren't so, but it is.

That said, I don't like Hillary for President because of the combination of her lack of personal administrative experience and the dynastic reasons discussed above.

by Kimmitt on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

backlash (none / 0)

I agree that if times were "normal", whatever that means, the odds of a female President getting elected would be very low. But Hillary might be in a unique position to take advantage of the growing anti-Bush backlash, and I'm sure she knows it.

by drewthaler on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore (none / 0)

What is your basis for saying Gore isn't running?

by DavidNYC on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:59:41 PM EST

Re: Gore (none / 0)

I was also wondering that. According to multiple sources on www.algore-08.com, he is thinking about running. Given the amount of change he's gone through as a public speaker and leader, I think he could be a very strong candidate. He's shifted to the left somewhat, probably more true to his nature, and he acts like himself--he's funny and charismatic. Remember his speech from the Convention in 04? I thought it was excellent.

by Covin on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seven Senators (none / 0)

I know this isn't news, but Senators just don't make good Presidential candidates. It's been over forty years since Kennedy, and we've tried with McGovern and Kerry while the Reps tried with Goldwater and Dole.

Senators have to run against their voting record. No matter how good their service in the Senate has been, there are going to be votes that were made as part of political deals, votes that can be used to manipulate a Senator's actual record ("Senator X voted to raise taxes 240 times in eight years"), votes that can be made to look opportunist or sour-grapist.

Maybe it can be said that the Senator jinx only applies when running against an incumbent President (as it did in all four of the above examples). I don't know. But I am hoping we nominate Mark Warner, even though I don't know much about him, because he's a southern Governor, and that's the only kind of Democrat that has won the White House in the last 40 years.

by nocloset on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:08:03 PM EST

Re: Seven Senators (none / 0)

What about former senators who go back and become Governors? What is you opinion on that.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton (none / 0)

Got the "Governor X signed 240 tax increases," too. Governors have to sign bills, too, and those can be as easily twisted as votes.

by Drew on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

senators don't win (none / 0)

i want to win

by aiko on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Superstition. (none / 0)

Expect to lose if you base your decisions on it.

by Drew on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seven Senators (none / 0)

You can win if you're not in the Senate a long time. Kennedy was a senator for eight years. Kerry was a senator for 20, Dole was a Senator for 28, McGovern for ten but his record wasn't used against him as much as his very liberal views were in the campaign, Goldwater was a senator for 12, but he didn't loss because he was a senator, he lost because he was a right-wing nut job. If you're only in the senate for eight years, you can win.

Also, the reason being a senator is so deadly is that the other side uses the candidates senate record to introduce the candidate to the public in the worst way possible. Hillary is already well known by the public.

Likewise, the greatest damage from Kerry's record came from his votes in the 80's, which was a completley different era. Hillary's years in the senate have been almost all after 9-11.

I really don't think this Senate thing stands up under scrutiny. Harding, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all served as Senators.

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

did kerry really lose... (none / 0)

...on account of his voting record?

or just on account of two bad votes: war powers resolution and $87 billion appropriation.

and was it really those votes, or how poorly he justified them (until late in the game)?

by jethropalerobber on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean won't be... (none / 0)

if he wins DNC Chair. If he doesn't become DNC Chair then it is a very real possibility... depending on who does win DNC Chair and therefore which faction of the party ends up holding the nominal reigns of power.

Why do you say Gore will not run?

Another possible name to throw out there... Chuck Schumer.

Ok... adding Gore and Schumer... here is my own take on early favorite (not necessarily my own) daughter/son status:

Clinton
Kerry
Gore
Edwards
Feingold
Boxer
Schumer
Warner
Richardson
Bayh
Clark
Biden

I added spaces to indicate:
section 1 - top tier name recognition candidates
section 2 - serious senate candidates
section 3 - outside shot candidates

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:12:03 PM EST

Re: Dean won't be... (none / 0)

I don't think that Schumer has a real chance of winning, though I live in CT (the NYC part, so we follow him here), and he is a great Senator. He is the way that the GOP defines the Democratic Party. He is a liberal, Jewish, Senator from New York. I am personally for Russ Feingold right now because I think that he supports us and has a chance to win.

by Max Friedman on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean won't be... (none / 0)

I'm a big fan of Feingold. I don't know if he is "too liberal" to have a chance either but I'm hoping he jumps in and makes it real interesting.

I threw Schumer in there because I know he has ambitions. He wanted to run for Governor (a stepping stone to running for Prez) but took the DSCC job instead of challenging Spitzer (good thing for all). I don't know if he'll try to go from DSCC to Prez or what but the man clearly has ambitions.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 08:56:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my thoughts (none / 0)

I think Hillary would make the best Veep candidate - she's an attacker, she's intelligent politically, it reminds people of the Clinton years without the baggage and difficulty her being on the top of the ticket would include. I'd like to see one of our red state governors like Warner or Richardson or even Bayh at the top, because they'll win and won't be as attackable as Hillary. Man, this'll be fun to watch.

by freejared on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:25:20 PM EST

Pacific NW Portal launches (none / 0)

I know this is off topic, but I thought I'd help spread the news about the new Pacific Northwest Portal - the new information gateway and media center for progressive Oregonians, Washingtonians, and Idahoans.

View a "newswire" for each state as well as the nation, and check out the top 4 headlines from 12 different blogs - 4 from Oregon, 4 from Idaho, and 4 from Washington - including Evergreen Politics!

The site also includes a directory of progressive sites in the northwest and a very comprehensive list of newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations for each NW state.

Check it out at www.nwportal.org

Visit Pacific Northwest Portal, the region's premier news source

by nwprogressive on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:30:45 PM EST

Dynastization is very very bad (2.00 / 2)

If Hillary runs in '08, here's what our Presidency looks like:

1980-1984: P Reagan, VP Bush
1984-1988: P Reagan, VP Bush
1988-1992: P Bush, VP Quayle
1992-1996: P Clinton, VP Gore
1996-2000: P Clinton, VP Gore
2000-2004: P Bush, VP Cheney
2004-2008: P Bush, VP Cheney
2008-2012: P Clinton, VP xyz
2012-2016: P Clinton, VP xyz

I am VERY creeped out by the increasing nepotism and familial ties to power in our society, within companies, fame, media, and politics.

Nothing against Clinton, but as a party, we should oppose this trend strongly

by Matt Stoller on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:35:41 PM EST

Re: Dynastization is very very bad (3.00 / 1)

Fair point. It isn't why Hillary is not my first choice but it is a valid point.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary (3.00 / 1)

It is not accurate to accuse people who don't support Hillary in 2008 of carrying water for the Republican Noise Machine. Hillary has been demonized by the right as a radical communist. To make herself politically viable, she overcompensates by swinging too far to the right. She has become quite a hawk. That is why many progressives don't like her. Many progressives have a visceral revulsion to the weasels in the party who sucked up to Bush's war agenda in order to go along with the irrational post-911 patriotic fever for their own political careers. Can't we ask for a nominee who speaks truth and educates rather than triangulates? Is that "carrying water for the Republican Noise Machine"?

miasmo.com

by miasmo on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dynastization is very very bad (none / 0)

I agree in general on your point but i think we should start opposing this trend strongly AFTER we win elections. right now Democrats should accept basically any and all ideas that get us back into the White House

The Kohlman Observer: If you don't know you better ask somebody...or go to The Kohlman Observer

by kohlmanobserver on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dynastization is very very bad (none / 0)

That's if Hillary somehow wins. Here is a much, much more likely scenario if Hillary gets our nomination.

by Newt on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dynastization is very very bad (none / 0)

The Republicans are worse then the Democrats through:

Ford, Dole
Reagan, Bush
Reagan, Bush
Bush, Quayle
Bush, Quayle
Dole, Kemp
Bush, Cheney
Bush, Cheney

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dynastization is very very bad (none / 0)

I agree, American politics should not be dominated by 2 families, the Clinton's and the Bush's. I think that the voters would not go for a continuation of any of these families and if either party nominates a Bush or Clinton, then they will lose.

by Max Friedman on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dynastization is very very bad (none / 0)

here's another way to look at it

1964 Southerner
1968 Californian
1972 Californian
1976 Southerner
1980 Californian
1984 Californian
1988 Southerner
1992 Southerner
1996 Southerner
2000 Southerner
2004 Southerner

by jethropalerobber on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Current Favorites (none / 0)

As of right now I would say...

Clinton
Kerry
Edwards
Clark
Richardson
Warner
Feingold
Bayh
Boxer
Biden

However, Once 2007 gets underway and we see who the candidates are I would go with this as the pecking order:

Clinton
Kerry
Richardson
Warner
Bayh
Feingold
Clark
Edwards
Boxer
Biden

A lot can happen and this will probably change. Clinton and Kerry are obviously two initial fron runners, although I think Kerry will falter from that. I think Warner and Richardson will be up there along with Feingold, all of which will take away support from Bayh. Edwards will be toast (as much as I like him) if Kerry or Clinton runs and Clark (another one I like) needs to learn how to stump if he expects to make a serious bid.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:36:15 PM EST

Feingold '08 (none / 0)

Feingold is the best shot at victory for Democrats, and for progressive politics.

by jre on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:39:29 PM EST

Re: Feingold '08 (2.00 / 1)

bullshit

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:22:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold '08 (none / 0)

I think Feingold would have a good shot at winning if he really ran hard on trade and he could given his voting record. Also he's a very principled individual and I think that also would help him. My worry about him is he could possibly be labeled weak on defense, especially because of his Kosovo vote which Chris talk about earlier, which also worries me. As Kerry's vote against the first gulf war was something that worried me.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Kosovo vote could be spun easily (none / 0)

Just have plenty of quotes from Thugs opposing the war (there were a bunch). Feingold could also go all Libertarian/black helicopter on the vote; IE "I don't think our troops should be sent under the command of a foreign organization like NATO for non-vital reasons". He could also emphasize that a Democrat was in office and he was voting against a Democrat's war (help him with independents, to show his obvious maverick streak). It's not fatal-that is, if it's brought up at all. It might actually be a plus if the country is really sick of Iraq/Iran/Syria/whatever by 08.

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean as DNC Chair/Clark for Prez... (3.00 / 1)

That would be my dream come true .... no more Senators for Prez.

by ZennedJim on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 02:43:46 PM EST

Why Not Gore? (none / 0)

If Al Gore runs with the same bravado he has these past two years, I don't see why he wouldn't be viable. His credentials blow everyone else out the water, quite frankly.

Senator Clinton would be a disaster. I like her, but a Hillary Clinton run would make Kerry's run seem like a cakewalk. She has way too many negatives from the right, moderates, and even some liberals.

Clark is my sleeper candidate.

The next election, if we're smart, will be about personality and biography. Positions on issues just dont matter.

by owillis on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:24:30 PM EST

Re: Why Not Gore? (3.00 / 1)

Haven't we been bored by gore enough already?

Stick with Clark, he's a winner!

by Alex Urevick on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't Forget Rendell (none / 0)

He will deny it going into his '06 re-election but Big Ed Rendell is not to be discounted. He would lock up Penn. which could be troublesome otherwise and can appeal to midwestern swing voters. With that said I'm still a Clark man. Had he not flubbed the war question and had he gotten in in time to compete in Iowa we would be having a different conversation right now. Clark would have won all of the Kerry states along with Arkansas, Louisiana and Tenn.

I find this talk cathartic so here's my list:

Clinton--Just no denying it's hers for the asking.
Bayh--can the electability argument fly again?
Clark--Possibly guilty of sentiment here.
Edwards--Didn't screw himself last year, didn't exactly shine either. Possible future chancellor of my alma mater UNC (Go Heels!).
Warner--Has a long slog on name recognition but is a good fundraiser.
(Tie with Warner) Ed Rendell--See above.
Feingold--A very solid VP choice.
Kerry--Don't you get the e-mails? Is still running in my book.
Biden--He connects better than almost any other Dem. out there. The "Europe get over it" stuff was brilliant.

Not-So Crazy prediction #1: Whoever it is is going to have to match up well against a McCain/Rice ticket.

Really Crazy Prediction #2: And that Ticket will be the unity ticket of Clinton/Graham (Lindsay that is of S.C.)

This was fun.

by Welsh on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:32:25 PM EST

Re: Don't Forget Rendell (3.00 / 1)

I still think Bayh is a stretch at 2. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet for him being that high.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Forget Rendell (none / 0)

Bayh has a national constituency as chairman of the DLC. He's young, smart, and telegenic. He's respected on security issues. He was the keynoter at the convention in 1996. He won by a bigger margin than bush in Indiana. He's a former governor. His dad is Birch Bayh.

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Forget Rendell (none / 0)

Rendell is Philadelphia guy in state with a big divide, so while he'd very likely carry PA, I wouldn't be so sure about OH, etc.

by danielj on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Forget Rendell (none / 0)

I can't see how a unity ticket is workable if McCain were the Republican nominee. What faction of the Republican party would oppose him? The conservatives, and the conservatives won't run with the Dems.

by danielj on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:35:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If McCain wins the nom... (none / 0)

...and is still in good health, we will probably get blown out, no matter who we nominate.

by Geotpf on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Forget Rendell (none / 0)

I'm not all that sure about Rendell. I from Pennsylvania I think he'll win reelection, he comes off very well I'm not sure if a secular Jew can win nationally. Rendell would be one of the most charistmatic possibilities though.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:01:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was impressed by Wes Clark. (3.00 / 1)

And every time I see him, the more impressed I am. He's a feisty little bugger who doesn't take any crap, and he's really passionate about national health insurance. People like him, he's genuine.

I wasn't too thrilled about his sudden "conversion," but he certainly grew on me.

by soopercali on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:38:48 PM EST

Re: I was impressed by Wes Clark. (3.00 / 1)

I wish he had a term or two as Governor or Senator under his belt. If he did, he would have been a Slam Dunk candidate in 2004.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was impressed by Wes Clark. (none / 0)

Yitbos and anyone who think Clark doesn't have enough experience:

I know this a traditional line of thought, but please just stop and think. He was in the Army for 34 years, 34 god damn years, and a 4 Star General for the end of it. Do you realize that if he had gotten to the general election, he would have TROUNCED Bush on Bush's most important issues. Yeah, he'd need to prove his domestic capabilities, but right off the bat we take away the Republicans main issue, National Security. Could you imagine if they didn't have that?

National Security will be THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IN 2008, don't even think otherwise.

by JAmbro on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the issue (none / 0)

I have to respectfully disagree. The leading issues in 2008 will be repairing the damage Bush has caused to the economy (the GOP certainly won't phrase it like that, but that'll be the reality of it), and fixing health care.

Those were already huge factors in 2004, and Bush isn't going to do diddly to improve either one over the next four years. Sad to say, right now it looks like things are going to be so bad by 2008 that those two will rule over all other issues.

by drewthaler on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the issue (none / 0)

Drewthaler,

It would be real nice to agree with you that the economy and healthcare are the issues in 2008 because if you were right, any democrat would win. Those are OUR issues. If you think the republicans are not going to make national security issue #1, what will they run on? I mean come on, the repugs will do EVERYTHING in their power to make nat'l security and the WOT at the top of voter's minds in '08. Clark all the way.

by JAmbro on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm keeping my eye on Feingold (none / 0)

He may be a Senator, but I'm sure he can't wait to talk about his voting record. He's lots to be proud of, little to "explain." He's an honest, straight talker. With him, you know what you're getting. He's an authentic progressive populist and a fiscal conservative. Always has been. And he may be a maverick, but he's not wacky.

I like him. He's true blue.

I'm already suspicious of Bayh. We can't suffer another which-way-is-the-wind-blowing opportunist.

by lisaeo on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:45:08 PM EST

One thing on Bayh (none / 0)

Bayh looks like a poor-man's John Edwards. That might work in some campaigns, but it doesn't work when the real John Edwards is also in the field of candidates.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing on Bayh (none / 0)

Interesting statement...I thought they were about equal in terms of looks. One could also say that
Bayh's advantage over Edwards is that he will have had nearly 22 years of governmental experience going into '08 as compared to Edwards'six. Of course, not that experience means anything anymore.

visual comparison:

Evan Bayh of Indiana

John Edwards of North Carolina

by blueflorida on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing on Bayh (none / 0)

Hey, now, don't start posting pictures of the candidates or I'll be forced to post one of Clark...

by ICantBelieve on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:34:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing on Bayh (3.00 / 1)

just for that...you deserve this...

Wesley Clark of Arkansas</center>

by blueflorida on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:47:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing on Bayh (none / 0)

:)

by ICantBelieve on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:52:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing on Bayh (none / 0)

Edwards is so fake. Bayh has substance and he could actually win reelection in his state.

by skipper2379 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's got to be Clark (3.00 / 1)

Clark is the best candidate. He's the best candidate because he's liberal and a southern general who was raised a baptist and reads the bible every night. Of all the candidates who ran in 04, Clark was a liberal as anybody except perhaps Kucinich and Sharpton.

Just like only Nixon could go to China, only someone like Clark can win back the presidency for the Democrats.

If you're a Democrat who doesn't want to move toward the center in order to win back at least 51% of the vote, Clark is your choice. Clark is LEFT of Bill Clinton but will win more of the moderate vote because he went to VN and spent 34 years in the military, because he really is religious, because he keeps his pants on.

Wes Clark is a gift to the Democratic Party. If only the Party could recognize it. We could have so much power if we went with Clark. He doesn't scare off the middle like other candidates do. He unites people. He'd unite probably 65% of the voters in this country. Talk about a mandate! We'd have a mandate ON OUR SIDE if we went with Clark. We'd have it and we wouldn't have to give up one single inch on any issue.

by ICantBelieve on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 03:55:05 PM EST

It all starts in Iowa (none / 0)

Unless the primary/caucus schedule is changed, Iowa will again pretty much pick our nominee. Yuck. I think that would favor Warner. Iowa has not favored second acts (Bush I beat Reagan in 80, lost in 88). That will work against a lot of this list. They have gone for Midwesterners and southerners frequently (Feingold, Edwards, Warner helped). Warner may have feuded with Doug Wilder but he has worked wonders with Republican legislators. Warner will have 2 full years to charm the notoriously fickle hawkeyes.

I don't know much about Russ Feingold but he doesn't strike me much one way or another. He will be helped by the Iowa factor. With another schedule more ties to the real world, Barbara Boxer would catch fire. I don't think Iowa will help her and I think it will be poison for Hillary. Iowa strongly rejected Teddy Kennedy to stay with Carter.

Richardson has dropped a lot in my estimation with his stonewalling on the 2004 vote recount, failure to hold his state in the Dem column. He strikes me as a perfect "paper" candidate but somehow lacking what it takes. Maybe he'll be the VP nominee as a sop to the Hispanic community plus a real effort to take a few states in the mountain west.

How can we get ourselves out of this jam?

by David Kowalski on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:04:39 PM EST

Iowa also elects Harkin (none / 0)

Any state that can regularly sends Tom Harkin back to DC can select a good progressive in a caucus.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vilsack is probably running (none / 0)

If an Iowan is running, everybody suddenly ignores Iowa, because the poll gets skewed (unless somebody manages to beat the Iowan-then they win the whole ballgame). New Hampshire may decide it (because isn't the next one North Carolina, which has Edwards to skew that one).

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Feingold runs... (none / 0)

...my resume will be right after yours in getting to his office. I'm all about starting a Draft Russ movement. I think he's a dream progressive candidate for a Presidential bid. He wouldn't back down from anyone.

The Kohlman Observer: If you don't know you better ask somebody...or go to The Kohlman Observer

by kohlmanobserver on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:06:20 PM EST

There already is a Draft Russ website (none / 0)

http://www.draftruss.com/

It started a month ago, with a blog entry pointed toward MyDD, in fact.

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 10:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Progressive w/o voting rights issue = no traction (none / 0)

The Progressive wing of the party is too upset about voting irregularities. A Progressive that can't show a track record of fighting for voting rights has no chance to gain traction among party progressives. There are progressives that don't see voting rights as a huge issue, but not many. The vast majority of the real footsoldiers of the party are incensed about election problems, and only a candidate that demonstrated they worked hard on this issue in the past has a chance of rallying the the vast majority of the progressive wing of the party.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 11:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So progressives will only support... (1.00 / 1)

...Boxer or Kucinich? Lovely. This is the type of shit that causes us to lose elections (think Nader 2000).

In any case, I disagree. Progressives will love Feingold (who's done nothing special voting rights wise)-and he'll draw in moderates and independents with his maverick straight shooter everyman squeaky clean image.

Boxer or Kucinich would not survive the nomination process, and if they did, would lose 40+ states in the general.

by Geotpf on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

Clinton--I don't understand the netroots revulsion of HRC, either. the worry I have with her is that I'm afraid that she has the potential to motivate and unite the right for '08 they way they were for this last election.

Clark--I like Clark, but he'd need a lot of help to become a better campaigner--he's young enough that I'd rather see him take another office prior to running for President again. maybe Arkansas Gov. in 2006 with the possibility of a Senate run in '08.

by benchcoat on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:14:51 PM EST

Re: asdf (3.00 / 1)

Clark wasn't really a bad campaigner. I think that was a meme spread by Rove because he didn't want to take him on in the general election. Clark got into the race late, so his staff was pretty much leftovers. Even so, his stump speech was pretty darn good. Everyone who met him loved him. Remember, he won Dixville Notch. He's impressive in person. If he just gets some exposure, everyone will love him.

by ICantBelieve on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark just made a mistake regarding Iowa (none / 0)

Clark got hammered before he got out of the gate because of his miscalculation on Iowa. Clark should have made an effort there. Clark didn't, and it cost him.

Clark shouldn't have a tactical error held against him in 2008. He should get a fair shot to win the support of the Party.

by afs on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 11:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

omg. There was no Rove work there. I like Gen. Clark, but even his former staffers and anyone who followed the race for 5 minutes knows he was not a good campaigner.

by owillis on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

owillis, rove had a lot to do with some of the crap that festered it's way onto the tv news about clark. They did not want to go against Clark because it took away Nat'l Security as Bush's main appeal. If Clark was the nominee, Bush would of had to run on more domestic issues, which Rove did not want to do, for obvious reasons. But convincing America that Clark could not take care of domestic concerns would have been the angle they used. Foreing Affairs would have been off the table. This is why Rove did not want Clark as the nominee.
We liberals get so influenced by the right in so many ways, sometimes without even knowing it, its sick.

by JAmbro on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

I'm a huge Clark supporter, but to lets be honest, he wasn't a great campaigner. I don't think he was as bad as he got painted by the MSM, but I defenitely think he needs some more experience before the next Pres run. Clark for US Senate from Arkansas anyone? He could still run in 08 but he'll have a bit more debate and campaign experience.

Clark is brilliant, but experience is priceless...

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

Alex, my repsonse above was more about Rove than about Clark's skills at campaigning. Well, sure, he needs more experience, he's not a politician. But look how fast he learned. There are very FEW people that could do what he did in just a few short months. I truly believe that if he had gone to Iowa, it would have been a whole new ballgame. Not that he would have won definitely, but it would have been a new game. But let's be honest, Edwards is a good campaigner, but he has virtually no experience, just the senate for a few years. Whereas Clark doesn't have experience campaigning, but he's got a shit load of other stuff. My feeling is that we're not ever going to find the "perfect" candidate, so let's go with one that fit's as many conditions as possible. For me, that's Clark.

by JAmbro on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

You don't have to convince me- I want clark for President in 08!

GO WES GO!

That said- let's run him for Senate first in 06. That way he can take a seat from the thugs, get some national exposure and experience, and if he doesn't get the nomination in 08 we'll still have him in the Senate...

by Alex Urevick on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

hey alex, sounds good to me. this country needs a guy like Clark around, whether it's the senate, house, governership or the presidency!

by JAmbro on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:37:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

uniting the right - so what? (none / 0)

I think after 04 we have to take it as a given that the neocons will be doing their damnedest to unite the right every election. So what?

If anything, the smart thing to do is to make it into a judo move. Get the rabid far right wingers so pissed off that they start making mistakes. Big ones.

by drewthaler on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Senators don't win. (3.00 / 1)

First, I adore Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. They are rock sold Senators. Progressive Georgians would give up peaches and baseball for any one of them. But, our chances at winning are considerably worse if we run a Senator. Since 1900, only two sitting Senators have won the US Presidency. Their voting history and being insiders work against them. Besides, we need all the Democratic Senators we can get. Let's keep them there. Now, Governors, they make great candidates - Richardson would be fantastic. And Generals, oh yeah! Wes Clark. Richardson or Clark should be our mantra.

by CatherineAtlanta on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:15:07 PM EST

Feingold isn't an ordinary senator (none / 0)

Feingold takes his iffy votes in the senate and attacks them head on. His TV ads are amazing. His opponent attacked him on "opposing tax cuts". He countered with an ad entitled "Responsible Tax Cuts", which showed his votes for various tax cuts filling the screen.

http://www.russfeingold.org/multimedia.php

Plus, unlike, say, Kerry, Feingold votes consistantly in a non-wishy washy way. It's not like bills a governor signs or supports aren't attacked-remember Dukakis and furloughs?

Also, he is the anti-insider. Being an insider infers somebody is a rich, aloof elitist (again, like Kerry)-something Feingold is the exact opposite of. He's an every man-and the poorest man in the senate.

Now, if we are fighting ten wars in 2008, Clark is probably our guy. But if we are done with this terrorists-are-scary-so-let's-invade-the-world-bullshit, or the country is at least sick of it by then, then Feingold is our man.

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 09:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lots to like about Wes Clark (3.00 / 2)

New blood, super smart, attractive to moderates and red states, self made man, can run as outsider, strong on defense (obviously), truly compasionate.

by aquanut on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:33:46 PM EST

2008 Dems Presidental candidate (none / 0)

Yes, Boxer appears too liberal by the standards of the 2000 and 2004 electorate.In all too many circles liberal [add leftist]is still a dirty word. While at the same time conserative carries no stigma. If nothing changes in the next 4 yrs. a Boxer run in 08 would appear hopeless. However, change is also part of the real world;and not all change is gradual.Between 1916 and 1920;1928 and 1932;1964 and 1968;1976and 1980;and even 1988 and 1992 there was in all these short periods of time a significant change in the mood of the electorate. It could very well be that by 2008,the electorate will be feeling the pain that the neocon policies entail. After all the Amer.people voted to support the troops not for perpetual war.They may like tax cuts but not their costs[slashing of services and benefits].This is without factoring in Bush's playing around with Social Security. Come 2008 the term conservative may no longer be without stigma;and to be labeled liberal may no longer mean you are dismissed out of hand. I for one am old enough to remember the sharp contrast in the mood of the electorate that took place in just 4 yrs.time between 1964 and 1968.The party in power[the Dems] droped over 18 pts.[61% to 43%]in 4 short yrs. Both the tone and rhetoric of the 1968 Pres. election seemed more like 40 yrs. removed from 1964 than only 4.In 1968 Nixon ran as a conservative [this was the start of the Republican southern strategy]. In 1960 he ran as a liberal and was on the defensive against Democratic charges of him really being a conservative.There is no doubt that if Nixon had run in 1964 instead of Goldwater he would have been a stronger candidate;positioning himself as he did in 1960[and as he did in 1962 when he ran for governor of Calif.]. By 68 it was Humphrey [the Dem] who found himself on the defensive for being too liberal[sound familar].He was accused of being too soft on crime,civil rights[blacks],the peace demonstrators,you name it. The tone of the 68 election more resembled the politics of today [Kevin Philips was right about the importance of the 1968 Pres.election] than the elections of 60 and 64[just 4-8 yrs.before]. I have lived long enough to know that asking whether or not the 2008 Pres.election will resemble 2000 and 2004 or be something different all together is not a question without merit.Lets not underestimate the damage the current administration is capable of doing to the conservative popular image.Before dismissing Barbara Boxer as a viable Presidential contender let us first see what the mood of the electorate is like in 2008.

by al o on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:38:55 PM EST

HRC (none / 0)

I agree with Chris and Kos that many in the netroots have been too quick to inhale the right wing spin on HRC. There's no reason to vilify her, IMO.

At the same time, I don't know that there's much to recommend her as the nominee beyond name recognition.

She's always looked very stiff as a public speaker to me, and has a hard time projecting warmth (like Kerry). While I don't swallow the whole moral values as the fall of the Dems meme, I do think we need to nominate people who have a natural ability to communicate effectively to rural and low-income voters. Gore couldn't do that, Kerry couldn't do that, and HRC can't either.

Plus, it's hard to imagine being more poorly positioned from a Dem standpoint than being a Senator from New York. If the Repubs have been successful portraying Dems as effete leftists from the Northeast, well, it's hard to see how HRC could work herself out of that box, as she's pretty much the prime example of what they're talking about.

Another issue, I think, is that the media will absolutely hate her (the NYT still defends it's Whitewater scribblings, after all), just as they hated Gore, and that puts us at an immediate disadvantage.

All in all, I have to believe we have better options for 2008.

by danielj on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:48:08 PM EST

Re: HRC (none / 0)

Plus, it's hard to imagine being more poorly positioned from a Dem standpoint than being a Senator from New York.

...Perhaps being a Senator from California?

I hate to say it, but I don't think that Sens. Clinton or Boxer have a chance, even if Republicans have a total meltdown (fingers crossed) between now and 2008. Frankly, there are way too many people in this country who simply aren't ready to vote for a women, let alone an uppity liberal woman. As a ULW, I'm very disappointed by this ... If Iowa goes first in the primary season, these two are especially screwed.

That said, I like Clark-Richardson if I can't have Clinton-Boxer. If I'm going to be watching a lot of TV, Clark-Edwards... ;-)

by mlr701 on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

don't be so self-defeating (none / 0)

I've heard that "nobody will vote for a woman" comment several times now. And I just don't get it. What is UP with that? If you go in planning on defeat, of course you won't win.

Sure, all the bigoted Republicans in the country won't vote for her. But they wouldn't have voted for her anyway. You can pretty much chop 30% of the population right off the top of any electorate because they hold opposing views.

Really -- how many Democrats consider gender to be an issue that would prevent them from voting for a candidate? How many moderates? How many liberal Republicans? How many people under 35, in fact?

It's nowhere near as bleak as you paint it. The Dems are, in fact, the party of equal rights, and the country has come a long way since 1982. You can argue against Hillary all you want for many worthwhile reasons, but I refuse to let you do it on the basis of her being a woman. :-)

by drewthaler on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: don't be so self-defeating (none / 0)

http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm#President

Running for President

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 25-26, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).

"Do you think the United States is ready to elect a woman president?"

Yes No Unsure
% % %
1/25-26/05 56 39 5
6/30 - 7/1/98 51 43 6
.

"If your party nominated a woman for president, would you vote for her?"

Yes No Unsure
% % %
ALL 61 14 25
Democrats 76 7 17
Republicans 48 20 32
Independents 59 15 26
Men 59 15 25
Women 61 14 25
.

Trend:

6/30 - 7/1/98 55 16 29

It's certainly not fatal-in fact, these numbers are a bit better than I would think. However, I think the first (black, hispanic, female, etc.) president will be a Republican, due to the "gun bonus" Republicans get (that is, Republicans get a bonus on an issue that involves guns-the right to bare arms, crime (although Clinton neutralized this well), terrorism, war, national security)-because a woman will be perceived (unfairly) as being weak in these issues.

by Geotpf on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 05:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's interesting about those numbers (none / 0)

39% of the people don't think the country is ready, because that's still the conventional wisdom. Makes sense. After all, it's never been done before.

But if you look at it, it actually sure looks like the country really could be ready. Only 14% said they themselves personally would not vote for a woman.

Remember that this is a blank slate, an unidentified generic woman with a generic political affiliation. My personal feeling is that "Unsure" in this case probably means that they would at least consider it on an individual basis according to the candidate. That seems to me like an effective absence of gender bias.

Sure it's reading between the lines a lot, but then again I'm posting in a thread where we're speculating about what'll happen four years from now. :-)

by drewthaler on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 08:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Same Mistake? (3.00 / 1)

This thread is interesting. It is hard to find a single post that advocates one candidate or the other based on what they think or how they vote on issues.

Instead, the posts (including my own) focus more on who we think will have the best chance to win.

Maybe that's what we should base our votes on, I don't know. That's what we kept hearing during the primaries in 2004, and look where it got us. I'm not sure anyone is good at figuring that out, whether it's because Senators never win, mavericks never win, skeletons in the closet, etc.

It's just interesting that no one seems to be talking about these candidates having positions, or differing positions, on any issues.

by DDenver on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 04:58:44 PM EST

Re: The Same Mistake? (none / 0)

To tell you the truth, according to Lakoff, it's not the issues that are important. It's who can best "frame" the debate. People don't vote for their issues, they vote their identity. And I think that's Clark. Clark can activate the "nurturant parent model" in the middle of the road voters. They will be able to identify with him. He will be able to make them feel that they share a value system. It worked with me. Sh*t, if a general can convince this peace-loving liberal to drop everything and support him, he can convince anybody!!!

That said, as far as issues are concerned, Clark is very liberal. I agree with him on almost all issues. There are a couple of small things that I disgree with him on, but those are things that Clark would never "get to" during his Presidency, even if he were to get a second term. Hence, I disagree with him theoretically on a few issues, but practically, I disagree with him on no issues.

So, what does that leave me with, personally? I see Clark as the ONE candidate who can win without giving anything up.

by ICantBelieve on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No more Senators (none / 0)

After the success we had in the DNC race, effectively eliminating from contention the choice of our party's congressional leadership, Tim Roemer, I propose we should start early "veto"ing any Presidential candidates who are Senators, since history has resounding shown that these guys have very little chance of winning. Sure, they can do the fundraising and have the name recognition to win a primary, but they cannot win a general election, whereas others can.

Here in the blogosphere, we should tactfully but forcefully encourage such candidates to stay out of the race, and if they enter, support others. We say: No offense; we need you in the Senate anyway; it's just that you probably won't win, and that'd be bad for our party, for the American people, and for the world. So we, members of the reality-based community, being very serious about this choice, regret to inform you that for your primary run you will recieve very little, if any, funding or field organizers from the net-roots community; in fact, we will actively support other candidates.

This is not a stop-Hillary movement, nor is it intended to hurt or help anyone else. Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Kerry, Biden, Boxer--these are all great Democrats, but WE HAVE GOT TO WIN IN '08. So it might be better that they not win our party's nomination.

KyDem, I love your guy, but I don't see why he would be the exception to the rule. Biden, Kerry, and Hillary all suffer from a double-disadvantage being both Senators and hailing from New England. No Dems from that region have won since FDR (a governor, and before that Wilson, also a governor)--and the electoral map looked pretty darn different in those days.

As for the cattle-call speculation, this would leave us the very respectable field of Clark, Richardson, Vilsack, Rendell, Warner, maybe some other darkhorses, and possible Edwards and Gore, depending on how the rule takes shape. Since Iraq will in all likelihood remain as a prominent election issue, I see Clark as being a very strong candidate amongst that bunch; though, if Tim Kaine wins his '05 race, the very popular Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, might become the front-runner.

But what do the rest of you think about a blogosphere-based veto-Senators movement?

by Colorado Gringo on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:12:16 PM EST

Add (3.00 / 1)

John Corzine.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 05:25:31 PM EST

Re: Add (none / 0)

Corzine is an intersting pick. I figure he'll be my govenor by the end of this year. I doubt he'd run though. I think he'll stay in Jersey for now, and maybe down the road run for preznit. He is a good progressive candidate that can also get big business on our side, those are attractive qualities. NJ loves him to be honest.

by JAmbro on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How about... (none / 0)

Bredesen?

by DonBinTN on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:26:29 PM EST

Re: How about... (none / 0)

Loved that New Republic article... Bredesen has a great story...apparently he played a big role in the Southern DNC meeting.

I'd like to see him, Edwards and Warner draft a strategy memo, "How Democrats Revive in the South".

But I haven't seen him give a speech. Does he have any star power?

by CT Lex on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about... (none / 0)

Because Edwards has so much experience in reviving the south?????!?!? They guy didn't run for re-election because he would've gotten his ass kicked and he put a total of ZERO states in play for Kerry by being on the ticket.

Warner maybe but Edwards??!?!?!

by alexm on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Using your list candidates will be in two groups (none / 0)

The first group will raise tons of money and will therefore draw up all the political talent in the country. The second group will be niche candidates at best who will be repsected for what they have to say but at most will be candidates of politicla statements and causes rather than viable and electable choices.

Clark - He's the only candidate from the 2004 field without the loser label on him. What his campaign accomplished in just 4 months is nothing short of amazing and if you make an argument for anyone else in the field you're either ignoring EVERY SINGLE post-election poll and all 6 major exit polls that show that by almost a 2 to 1 margin the most important issue was national security or you believe in the leadership and competence of the Bush team and they will make national security either less of an issue or a non-issue because of their success. He's also from the south which is a mandatory qualification for the democratic nominee so we can at least make them spend money is places like AR, LA, VA, TN. plus, i believe McCain's the nominee in 2008 and can you think of anyone who matches up against a war hero like McCain?
Warner - Everything i've heard says he's running for Allen's seat which make him an even better Democrat in my opinion. Picking up that seat should be more important than expanding his resume' (Attention John Edwards). If he does run he's going to be a force. Only he and Clark make the electoral map difficult for the Republicans. Clark/Warner would be a ticket that could bring a landslide.
Clinton - She does have a path to victory but it's a bit far fetched for me considering the case I just made for Clark. Just as Michael Moore MAY have cost us votes (Not my argument) by being the person that moderates associated with what our party represents the same COULD happen with Hillary as our nominee by making Rush and other hateful voices become the same thing for them. I don't buy it and furthermore there is no way you'll convince swing voters to turn over the prosecution of the war on terror to a woman. It's sad that it is a fact but it is.
Edwards - As much as I want to believe that being cute can make people forget about simple facts like 1. One term Senator with ZERO foreign policy and national security credentials. 2. See #1 over and over and over again. To make an argument that Edwards can succeed where Kerry failed is an exercise in fiction and a complete disregard of his (lack of) effect on the 2004 electoral map. Good looks and a good stump speech didn't do anything for Kerry in 2004 and it will not produce anything close to Kerry's numbers in 2008.

Teir two candidates :

Kerry - He'll very quickly learn that the majority of votes he recieved (75%) were AGAINST Bush and not FOR him.
Bayh - In 2004 we all joked that we didn't think there was anyone more boring or uninspiring than Gore and then we got Kerry. In 2008 we'll ask the same question and realize that Bayh could cause the creation of a new word for "boring" as it doesn't seem to describe how un-inspiring Bayh is. He's a moderate Republican not a moderate Democrat who wins in a red state because of his name and he won't bring anything on the map to the table. He will however bring a Senate voting record. Next.
Biden - Senator from a blue state. Who is this guy kidding?
Feingold - We just did this and his name was Kucinich. Add in to the fact he was one of 3 Senators to vote against military intervention in Kosovo and you've got a great Democrat handicapped by his voting record.
Richardson - His candidacy will be a race for the VP slot. No more, no less.
Boxer - Not running.

If we want to win then we better nominate Clark or Warner. If we want to make believe our base is larger than theirs then let's nominate someone who handicaps our chances right out of the gate. We just did that in 2004 so I'm sure 5 million Dems just forgot to vote.

by alexm on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 06:29:45 PM EST

EVAN BAYH IS FRICKING DEMOCRAT (none / 0)

EVAN BAYH IS FRICKING DEMOCRAT.

HE'S NOT ZELL MILLER FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.