Speculation 2008

by Chris Bowers, Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:20:19 PM EST

Obviously, there is much greater buzz surrounding several more pressing topics on MyDD, but with all the press coverage of 2008 over the past two days, a post on this subject was obligatory. In the extended entry, I discuss the ten Democrats who seem most likely to run (and no, Al Gore and Howard Dean are not among them).

  • Sen. Evan Bayh (also a former Governor) Looks like he is running. By stepping out of the Fainthearted Faction and voting against Rice, he has made some moves that would appeal to the base. He also has small but existing netroots support. Now, according to Time, "lining up a finance team and arguing that he can win in some red states." As a loud and proud New Democrat, he might appeal to the more "moderate" wings of the party's intelligentsia.

  • Sen. Joe Biden. Biden has been in the Senate forever, although he was elected at the youngest possible age (he turned thirty between his election in 1972 and taking office). Thus, he would still only be 66 on January 20, 2009. He regularly threatens to run, including a brief stint in 1987 before he was taken down by a plagiarism scandal. He has just about the safest seat in the entire Senate, and has been in the Senate for the majority of his life, so my money is that he is just threatening again.

  • Sen. Barbara Boxer. Boxer is a prodigious fundraiser ($26M in 1997-1998!) who has made a lot of people online very, very happy of late. At the very least, there will be a draft Boxer movement. Money, California, and netroots could combine into a strong candidacy.

  • General Wesley Clark. Much to my surprise, Clark seems to be testing the waters. According to Time, he "is telling potential supporters, according to one he called, that he "learned from his mistakes, he knows it takes more time and preparation than he put in--and that his wife is fully on board," which wasn't true the first go-round." I remember watching him the day he withdrew from the primaries (February 11th), and he just did not seem like he had enjoyed running for President much, saying something like "he was obligated to run" because of the Draft Clark movement. 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.

  • Sen. Hillary Clinton (former First Lady). Obviously, as she leads every poll on the subject, including those with Kerry (she did the same in 2004, including those with Gore), and her name in Clinton, she would become the instant frontrunner with wide support among many different wings of the party. Now, kos and I have both recently tried to quell the bizarre netroots hatred of her, but those who insist on carrying water for the Republican Noise Machine are having none of it. If she runs, I sincerely hope more people will come to their senses by 2007. She would be extremely difficult for anyone to beat.

  • Sen. John Edwards. As Joe Lockhart noted in USA Today yesterday, "the No. 2 person always runs." An extremely articulate speaker and very much liked among the netroots, Edwards also boasts the best favorable / unfavorable ratio of any nationally prominent Democrat. His position actually reminds me of Kerry's before 2003 when there was still Gore and Clinton speculation: if a couple of big guns do not run (Kerry, Clinton) he will become the early frontrunner.

  • Sen. Russ Feingold . Clearly, Feingold is thinking about it.
    U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told the Tiger Bay Club of Volusia County on Friday that he'll decide whether to run after "going around the country" working to return a Democrat to the White House.

    In Bush's first term, Feingold opposed the president's policies on the Iraq war, USA Patriot Act, Medicare reform, education policy, environmental regulation and abortion rights. He made clear he was leaving his own presidential options open after a club member asked if he plans to run.

    For now, Feingold said, he wants to be "part of the process" of identifying a candidate likely to succeed George W. Bush in 2008. That involves helping to create "national organizations of people to make that happen," he said.

    A decision to run hinges on "whether I feel I'll be the best candidate to win," he said, adding, "I'm not going to even worry about that right now."

    Feingold would be a big hit among the netroots and among labor. With his name best known nationally from the "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform act, he has insurgent potentially written all over him. I admit that I am leaning his way, even though he was one of three Democrats to vote against the authorization of the air campaign in Kosovo (I believe that we must step in to stop genocide). Still, unless something changes, the second I hear his consideration take it up another notch, I'll probably send his office my resume.

  • Sen. John Kerry. Time writes: "The good news for John Kerry is that he didn't pull an Al Gore. Instead of moping around after the election, putting on weight and growing a beard, the 2004 Democratic nominee is back attacking Bush's health-care plan, skewering his nominee for Secretary of State during confirmation hearings, and booking a comeback interview on Meet the Press. The bad news for Kerry, if he wants to try again in '08, is that there's a boatful of other Democrats already testing the waters with the party's top fund raisers." Personally, I do not think Kerry is serious about running again. Instead, I feel by keeping the possibility open he has found a way to keep a prominent national image. Besides, with Clinton, he would not even be the frontrunner, as she trounces him in all polls on the subject. If you have 100% name-recognition and you are not the frontrunner, not even really that close, then you will not win the nomination.

  • Gov. Bill Richardson. As the head of the National Governor's association being just one line on his mile-long resume, no conversation about possible Democratic candidates could take place without him. According to Time, he is "definitely thinking about it [running]." Very visible and super-electable (at least by 2003-2004 definitions of the term), the main question might be whether or not he can be exciting. Very much worth watching.

  • Gov. Mark Warner. As a young Governor of the only Southern state trending in our direction, his timetable works perfectly to either run for Senate or Governor. Much hinges on the 2005 election as well. Perhaps even more than Richardson and Feingold, Warner creates complicated electoral math for the Republicans. Personally, I hope he runs for Senate, because I feel that is more pressing than 2008. I suppose we will all know soon enough.
Here is a very tentative cattle call of these ten, purely in terms of their odds to win the nomination (and knowing whether or not they will run plays a factor in those odds):

1. Clinton
2. Edwards
3. Feingold
4. Richardson
5. Warner
6. Bayh
7. Boxer
8. Clark
9. Kerry
10. Biden

Comment, make your own rankings, whatever. But just to stop you before you start: Gore and Dean will not be running.



Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 174 Comments :: Post a Comment


Bayh (2.00 / 2)

Bayh also has a $7 million war chest from his very successful Senate re-election in 2004. Bayh received a higher percent of the vote in Indiana than did President Bush. Indiana, for all who did not know, last went Democratic in 1964.

The New Democrat

by demburns on Mon Jan 31, 2005 at 01:28:51 PM EST

Re: Bayh (none / 0)

He got more than Lugar as well.
The Kentucky Democrat
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:

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:


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.

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.
Max Friedman
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)

Future Majority / Young Philly 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.
Max Friedman
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...
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
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.
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
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.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.  

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.  
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.
The Kentucky Democrat
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.
The Kentucky Democrat
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.
Max Friedman
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.  

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.  
Max Friedman
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.  
  1.  Clinton
  2.  Bayh
  3.  Edwards (would be a disaster)
  4.  Warner
  5.  Richardson
  6.  Boxer
  7.  Kerry
  8.  Feingold
  9.  Clark
  10.  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.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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...  ;-)
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.  

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.
Support Regina Thomas, GA-12
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.
Support Regina Thomas, GA-12
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:

  1. Clinton
  2. Kerry
  3. Gore
  4. Edwards

  5. Feingold
  6. Boxer
  7. Schumer

  8. Warner
  9. Richardson
  10. Bayh
  11. Clark
  12. 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.
Max Friedman
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.
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
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.

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 Jeb Bush, VP xyz

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:

  1. Ford, Dole
  2. Reagan, Bush
  3. Reagan, Bush
  4. Bush, Quayle
  5. Bush, Quayle
  6. Dole, Kemp
  7. Bush, Cheney
  8. 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.
Max Friedman
by