Wes' lack of experience really showed and very soon after he jumped into the race. I heard him speak several times and met him three times. I came away each time thinking that Wes was damn smart, would make a good president, and--at the end of the day--actually had the best policy proposals (many of which were genuinely more progressive than his rivals'). To re-read some of those policy papers, especially on health care, taxation, and a new federally-led American volunteerism is to believe more strongly than ever that America missed a golden opportunity to set the nation back on the right track by electing Wes Clark to be President. But, from each of those encounters with Wes, I also came away thinking he was too untried and inexperienced as a candidate, as a campaigner. Sadly, it's often true that the best choices for who should govern are not always the most "winning" choices in terms of the ruthless and exhausting game of electoral politics, especially at the national level.

Importantly, I also never ceased to be reminded by each of these encounters with Wes that the SAME thing happened with me relative to Gore in 2000! (This despite the big differences between the candidates on many levels.)

I met Gore the same number of times in 2000, once in a special hour-long, closed-door meeting with about 40 other LGBT Dem leaders and thinkers from across New York state. I was ON FIRE for Gore in many ways: he was shatteringly intelligent, which came across in person especially strongly (intelligence is seldom translated well into the world of sound bites).

But, he just proved to be a horrible campaigner.

Somewhat to my own surprise, I'm increasingly gravitating towards Hillary.

First of all, she's more likely to actually run, I think, than Wes or Gore--certainly more so than Gore. Also:

Inthe context of the post-Bush republic voters will face in '08, I think Hillary may be exactly the palate (sp?)-cleanser Dems and huge segments of Independents and swing-voters may want.

The nation will be in a sorry state. The Bill Clinton years, in retrospect, might look more golden than ever, especially in terms of just sheer COMPETENCE.

Hillary is constructing a persona and record of COMPETENCE and of a sort of matriarchal strength that, importantly, resonates as fairly masculine and practical, not homemaker-ish (a la Liz Dole), or stereotypically (in the unjust sense) feminine (e.g. the awkwardness and even dilettante-like quality of Condi Rice). Also, after four more years, the extremism of Bush will be, I hope!, genuinely recognized as extreme. Extreme and profoundly un-american in its impracticality. What Hillary may be best represent at that point, especially since she's positioning herself as a moderate, is a comforting commonsensicalness America will be thirsting for.

Finally, Hillary is more likely, I think, to make the Right overplay their hand. Many wingnuts go apoplectic at the mere mention of her name. And screeds about Vince Foster murders and lesbianism will not endear an American electorate exhausted by Bush extremism with Republican commentators sounding extreme in their attacks.

But, who knows. Maybe American will want unity more than anything. That seems to be the conventional wisdom. (I'm not sure about that, though. My bet is going to be that America won't be selecting the President based finally on a "Who can unify us?" concern but a "Who can get the job done/get us out of these messes?" concern.) If so, Hillary may not be the best choice.

Edwards might be the sleeper. I don't know. He proved to be a poor debater but a overall good campaigner. His rhetoric on the notion of an America that rewards wealth, not work, seems to have the potential to resonate DEEPLY with huge segments of the population. He's white; he's a man; he's attractive; he's Southern; he's successful; he created a large network of donors who are still committed (not that Hillary hasn't created the same thing; but, Gore's donors seem very gun shy).

So, in this poll discussed above, as in the current one, I voted Not Sure. There are so many variables, and it's so many, many, many political lifetimes between now and 2007, let alone 2008, that I think it's very difficult to be fully intellectually honest relative to any deep conviction right now for a particular possible nominee. Vague preferences I can understand. But for unshakeable certainty about a particular choice right now, I just don't think it reflects reality as it is right, which is a landscape dominated by too many unknowables and variables at this point.

I'm leaning toward Edwards.

The entire american political apparatus is beholden to those that would steer it by the ring of its nose, if only to take small snapshots in time of "trends".

If you give me that each poll could reflect a trend in that moment, then I can prove there is life after death easily. Each statement must be true, but the inferences (for example,  ones ability to infer american displeasure with the 10,000 page bill system now in place, from one administration to the next..) must be drawn only from the small moment in time one is looking at the poll.  As such, predictions and trending right now are not a scientific but political statement.

What, you say, not true - ? Behold each statement is true in the next proof.

Proof of life after death:

After death, there is mourning
after morning comes a night
after knight, comes the bishop
after bishop, comes the pope
The pope has serious convictions
After a serious conviction, you get life

Therefore - life after death.

QED

  http://tinyurl.com/7u69a

but then, I'm not a betting man.

2- in the end, the war will still be on in 2008 and we will need to offer someone who can navigate between the extremes of bug-out and a stay the course (forever) choice. Ike offered just that in 1952.

3. If the GOP offfers McCain, we will need someone who can match the military experience.

Just like a six-sided die, you either get a 1,2,3,4,5, or 6. Never a 7. It's not built into the plan.

But sometimes life throws you a 7.

I see this whole straw poll as pointless since the options 'someone else' or 'none of the above' are unavailable. Close-option polls only work to steer the results.

For me, General Clark has the most vision of any Democratic candidate, especially in regards to foreign policy.  He would wipe the floor with any of the potential wingnut candidates and would take McCain's national security edge and shove it down his throat.  Clark's tax policies might have enough appeal to individuals who have traditionally voted against their own economic interest to crossover and support a Democrat.

There isn't another candidate in the field that can fire up the liberal base of our party and peel of potentially millions of Republicans, especially if the unthinkable happens and McCain/Giuliani/Rice get the nomination.  

Having Governor Warner, another big idea, visionary candidate, as his number two would swing Virginia in our favor.  If you add Virginia and Arkansas to the Kerry States, we win.  Clark/Warner also puts Lousiana, North Carolina (ravaged by ecnomic policies of this adminstration), West Virginia and Montana into play.  I suspect Clark/Warner or even Clark/Feingold would win via landslide against any candidate excluding McCain (even Hagel), and even with McCain on the top of the ticket, they'd win handily.  

However, whoever does get the nomination would be wise to either give Clark the second spot, or to annouce him as a Secretary of Defense.  I thought that would have been a great move for Kerry - to say, "running against this guy, I respected him, and I saw that he understands the problems facing our military and people support him, etc., so if elected I will name Wes Clark as my SecDef."  That way, you can have Clark campaigning for you, and bolster your foreign policy cred.  Someone like Feingold or Warner would be wise to do that.

Of course, all of this straw polling is pretty useless anyway - who knew who Howard Dean was in 2002?  Or who Bill Clinton was in 1990?