MyDD :: The Great Thursday Presidential Poll

Permalink :: 129 Comments :: Post a Comment

if that's the list (3.00 / 3)

then i'm with clark, no question about it.

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

by annatopia on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 11:30:08 AM EST

Clark's defection to FOX was a body blow (none / 0)

Clark can nail Dubya between the eyes with every line he says live, but FOX runs the control room. They can take anything he says and edit him down to a soundbite they run over and over for the rest of the broadcast day that seems to attack Dems.

This is a real error in judgement. You don't trust the snakes at FOX. Anybody willing to trust their image to FOX is a person I won't trust in with the keys to the White House.

As even the right-wing denunciations of the latest Hillary smear shows, Hillary is now bulletproof to right wing opposition research. There is no dirt left to throw at her. She cannot be swift-boated.

Hillary has taken a fairly strong position on voting rights. That's by far my number one issue in the current cycle. Hillary is our best chance of getting rid of the Diebold machines now.

by afs on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 11:47:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I understand your concern (2.00 / 1)

but I think we need to reserve judgement until we see how he performs. Him crossing over at this point is unlikely.

Yes, yes, I know he was a Republican while in the military. But they all are for the most part.

He's on our side, I believe.

Let's wait and see what happens.

by cChalfonte on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 11:55:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter how Clark performs. (none / 0)

Clark may crush Dubya every time he appears live. Clark's great live appearance will be edited down by right wing producers to a soundbite that appears to attack Dems that runs other 20 times that day in updates.

Clark great once and then edited down to soundbite that seems to be attacking Dems running 20 other times a day throughout the FOX program day is real bad math for Democrats.

by afs on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It doesn't matter how Clark performs. (none / 0)

Doesn't happen that way and would be a violation of his contract as if it did. Just doesn't happen that way!

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

by BigDog on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry, but you are in denial about this (none / 0)

I can understand and empathize where you're coming from. I've been there when people I supported did really stupid things that were going to cost them dearly. I invested 5 years of my life into Gary Hart. It's really confusing and it hurts.

Nothing Wesley Clark wants is going to change the fact that Roger Ailes is going to manipulate Wesley Clark's image for every bit of advantage that he can get for the neo-cons.

by afs on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:44:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, but you are in denial about this (none / 0)

He'll try and Clark will win. Gary Hart fucked himself. Period.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

by BigDog on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 01:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, but you are in denial about this (3.00 / 1)

Unfortunately, Gary Hart did not just fuck himself.

by InigoMontoya on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 02:28:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 0)

Tell ME about that!

by afs on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 02:59:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It doesn't matter how Clark performs. (3.00 / 1)

uh, why don't you wait and see what actually happens before passing judgment?

mydd straw poll vote: 1. other (gore) 2. unsure 3. dodd 4. edwards 5. obama

by colorless green ideas on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because I know Roger Ailes (none / 0)

What Wesley Clark wants will not matter. Roger Ailes will use the magic of editing to make Clark say anything he want him to say.

by afs on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because I know Roger Ailes (none / 0)

Clark's first Fox appearance got very good reviews. This was a move that was dissed by more than a few, but I suspect that, down the road, it will be seen as shrewd.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php#more

by gsp on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 10:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ailes contols editing of soundbites/transcripts (none / 0)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that it doesn't matter how well Clark does in his one live appearance of a broadcast day. Ailes will control the editing of the soundbite highlights that Fox shows in other places during that same broadcast day, and Ailes will make sure the soundbites attack who Ailes wants attacked.

I've already shown that Ailes is already editing the transcripts of Clark appearances.

by afs on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:12:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It doesn't matter how Clark performs. (none / 0)

Besides, if this does happen, he can quit, go public, watch his resignation letter denouncing Fox's bias and underhandedness played over and over by MSNBC and CNN, and turn it to his advantage.

by Mimikatz on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 12:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FOX News is already editing Clark (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/18/153231/052

by afs on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again... (3.00 / 2)

Clark was never a Republican.

by wes wing on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understand your concern (3.00 / 1)

Clark was a registered Independent until he registered Dem.

by jen on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 10:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I understand your concern (none / 0)

They all are republicans in the military -
interesting statement.

Clark was a shill for the clintons and
the news media corporations.

Theres saudi money in this deal, blood
money. Fox news? You think he's primed
to run as a correspondent for fox news?

Think that would remove media corporate
influence from Govt.?

How about this interesting statement.
There are no republicans anymore.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i appreciate your concerns afs (none / 0)

but i'm going to with hold judgement on that for now.

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

by annatopia on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am at a loss (none / 0)

If you are going to support moderation and not progressives why not Hillary. She is the likely moderate to win the nomination.

Why support a guy with no public policy background--there is more to gov't than the military.

by aiko on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 06:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark's defection to FOX was a body blow (none / 0)

You really don't read well do you, AFS. That's not the way it works. When you work at a new outlet as a hired hand they don't use you like a 'news' interview. You don't get edited.

If you presist in presenting terribly erroneous concepts I'll have to assume you are a troll.

I've worked in TV. Was a film and TV major...worked campaigns where media was a real factor....know a little about it.

Stopped spreading erroneous info please.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

by BigDog on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't tell a broadcaster how broadcasting works (none / 0)

I was a syndicated radio sports talk host based in Vegas doing an evening show live from Bally's Hotel and Casino going out via satellite to over 100 markets and broadcast over the most powerful signal in Vegas. (for the record, my run ended when the group that owned Jim Rome, Jeanie Zelasko's radio show, etc. bought us and fired the whole staff and put their talent on our affiliates... Jim Rome is a BAD subject around me). Before that, I had engineered Minor and Major League Baseball radio broadcasts. Before sports, I did a few music formats in radio as well.

Anyway... I don't need a guy who did a TV internship to tell me how broadcasting works, thank you.

You are filling this board full of false info regarding the way TV news uses soundbites of interviews done live, but then is later cut into soundbites for other programming. Why do you think you see soundbites of interviews that Soledad O'Brien and Bill Hemmer do during CNN's American Morning show all day long on CNN? Because CNN edits soundbite highlights they want from the live interviews Hemmer and O'Brien do in the morning and repeat them in other CNN programming all day long... just as I described.

BigDog, as I said up thread, I understand and empathize where you are coming from. I invested 5 years of my life into Gary Hart and watched him Rice it away stupidly. Days your guy makes a screw-up that will cost them dearly is a damn tough day to get through. I'm sorry you are having to go through it.

That said... you really need to back off on this. Roger Ailes is a snake, and unfortunately, Wes Clark has just set himself up to be the next one to get snakebit.

by afs on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell a broadcaster how broadcasting work (1.00 / 1)

And you were a small time radio guy who doesn't know shit about TV NEWS commentary staff.

They do not 're-edit' out of context their own commentators and replay them on other programs.

If that happened once and wasn't retracted Clark would take a walk.

If you were worling in TV today like my friend who just left Fox TV News as a producer then you might know shit. Right now you are a failed radio host with no experience in an entirely different medium saying something different than anyone eles.

Take the hint and since you are the only salmon in the water check what stream you are in.

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign

by BigDog on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Out of context editing is done ALL THE TIME (none / 0)

In the M$M, on a nearly daily basis, in fact. The last two Dean controversies were caused by editing his quotes out of context. Kerry's campaign dealt with one bad re-edit after another non-stop piled one on top of another.

The management of a M$M outlet can and do put anything they damn well please on the air now. The talent shuts up about it. Clark is nothing but air-talent to Roger Ailes. Contract... bwa-ha-ha-ha. Clark will do as he's told or he'll see himself slapped with a very expensive breach of contract suit faster than you can say "Rupert's lawyers on retainer."

As for your attack on my career, I was on the air when both the Tyson rape mess and Jerry Tarkanian's firing from UNLV happened. I was both anti-Tyson and anti-Tarkanian... and as I said we were based in Vegas. I was NOT the most popular guy on the staff. Sure makes people listen, though. I never had a ratings drop my entire career. The worst I ever did was a flat book early in my career at an Oldies format station... Anyway, my phone lines stayed packed, and I got half a dozen calls an hour calling me an idiot better worded than that weak effort you just wrote. Definitely NOT a BigDog effort. BigDog looks like more of a YapDog. I also noticed you had to respond in terms of the career memories of a friend, not yourself. Looks like I was right about you being nothing but an intern, huh? Looks like intern was as far as you ever got.

by afs on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 10:16:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One last thing. (none / 0)

My radio career didn't end because I failed in it. My radio career ended because after the network buyout and lay-off, I went back to school in SoCal to finish my mass-com degree to move into management. While doing that, I was attacked on a golf course in Rancho Santa Fe, and permanently disabled with damage to the cerebellum (lower brain) as well as nerve damage in my neck.

San Diego Sheriff Dep't. thinks that I was attacked by a one of those thugs who gets paid to lead illegals north. Said he got lost on the trails and panicked when he saw people. I don't know. I still don't remember the attack to this day.

by afs on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 11:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One last thing. (none / 0)

wtf! I play golf all the time. Someone hit you with a club or something?

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:55:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Got hit with something damn hard (none / 0)

Like I said... I have no idea what. The last thing I remember was hearing footsteps behind me, then it went dark, then I woke up flailing around in convulsions on an ambulance guerney. It was pretty messed up.

by afs on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 03:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FOX News is already editing Clark (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/18/153231/052

by afs on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 03:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He can gain support (none / 0)

I think it is brilliant. Those guys love a guy in a uniform and short hair. A whole lot of people who would have believed lies about Clark will now have to believe lies about someone they have come to know. A lot harder.

by tchoup on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 11:59:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if that's the list (none / 0)

I'm with you. There was a documentary on the 2004 candidates during the primaries, and while I'm a self-confessed whore for Kerry, Clark was AWESOME. He has the charisma, and the air, of a president.

And if the noise machine attacks a decorated GENERAL, there could be serious trouble, no?

by thejill on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 03:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if that's the list (none / 0)

ah, so this is where the innoculation myth
starts.. you're assuming that media companies
are ETHICAL

Interesting...

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:56:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if that's the list (none / 0)

Not so much that they're ethical, as that unless my admittedly naive and idealistic view of the American public is completely incorrect, at least most people will respect Clark's position enough to see that bashing of his military service is solely a political play, and will discredit the mudslingers in their eyes.

'Course, I could be wrong. And probably am.

by thejill on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 03:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if that's the list (none / 0)

You would think that attacking a triple-amputee war veteran would have made serious trouble, wouldn't you?

They have NO SHAME, and their lack of respect for those who actually serve is evident every day.

by segmentis on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 01:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dick Durbin for President ! ! ! (none / 0)

Senator Durbin was my first choice in 2004, but he took his name out of the running by early 2003.

I then looked at the rest of the field, where John Kerry and Howard Dean seemed the best. After the cheese-steak incident (which became a metaphor of John Kerry's ineptitude) Howard Dean was the man. But they both had problems -- for Howard Dean, it was get a grip; for John Kerry, it was dial it up. Neither one ever did, and here we are.

Dick Durbin was a keynote speaker at the first Take Back America conference, and he told a story from his youth -- about the first time he saw the County Courthouse in Saint Louis, MO. He talked about the slave auctions held there, and the injustice of not giving Ronnie White a hearing for a seat on the federal bench -- because John Ashcroft put cheap racism above fairness.

The speech was a stem winder, and it was clear that Dick Durbin gets it -- he understands logic, and rhetoric, and how to move an audience. It's no accident that he's the Senate whip, and Barak Obama's mentor. In fact, it was Dick Durbin that blazed the trail for Democrats like Obama in downstate Illinois.

John Kerry's acolytes keep telling us that Kerry was a strong closer. That was pure crap -- just another way of saying he is a lousy politician, who's managed to wake up and pull his chips out of the fire at the last minute -- in Massachusetts, no less.

No such problem with Dick Durbin -- as I recall, he won re-election with more than 70% of the vote. A Democrat from the Land of Lincoln will not abandon Missouri, nor lose in Iowa and Ohio.

Go with the best -- Dick Durbin for President!

by ck on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:06:50 PM EST

Re: Dick Durbin for President ! ! ! (none / 0)

I like Durbin, but to be fair, he won re-election against a weak opponent in the year of the Dems in Illinois... 2002 was the years the won all but 1 state office, following all of the GOP scandal. I like him and would support him, but don't judge his chances on those re-election numbers... they are more of an annomaly.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clarity of message.... (none / 0)

I think there is a tendency on this blog to confuse moderation with lack of clarity... i.e., somebody like Bayh doesn't stand for anything, while Feingold draws a bright line...

IMO, this brand of thinking is flawed. In a presidential election, clarity isn't generated by position on the political spectrum; it comes from the candidate's message itself...

Consider the succinct clarity of the following statement:

"We need a new declaration of independence in this country, a declaration of energy independence, because it is not right that we are as dependent as we are on places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and Russia. It's not good for our economy. It's not good for our national security. It's not good for our imbalance of payments and we need to do something about this to set our children free"

This comes from Evan Bayh... And imo, it is so, so true... Energy independence should be our single most important goal -- with it, we no longer will have to coddle corrupt regimes (the very type of alliance that created Osama Bin Laden); we'll create millions of jobs here at home; and if we win the "independence race", we'll lead the world in exporting the technology...

I'm just asking you folks to not give up on the moderates...

Hank

by HKingsley on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:08:40 PM EST

Re: Clarity of message.... (none / 0)

Oh, and btw, it will make us much, much greener...

hank

by HKingsley on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Attacking Bush (3.00 / 1)

My complaint is not with their policies as much as it is their silence on Bush administration failures.

Criticizing Dean for criticizing Republicans is bizarre. Warner stepped on his anatomy and so did Biden and Lieberman when the criticized Dean.

Have you got any links to moderate Dems slashing out at Bushco? I'm looking for Bad Ass Democrats, not oatmeal mush moderates. Kerry, Biden and Lieberman are all dinosaurs.

Job One is kicking Republican butt. The more, the harder, the better.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Attacking Bush (none / 0)

I'd settle for Democratic candidates without severed spines...kicking ass just means I like them better in the primary.

by risenmessiah on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 04:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Was Feingold's divorce.. (3.00 / 2)

.. such a blow to his chances that he no longer deserves to be on the list?

by abramcf on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:31:27 PM EST

Re: Was Feingold's divorce.. (3.00 / 1)

I really hope not, cuz I would vote for him, and I think he's better than any of the candidates mentioned.

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Feingold's divorce.. (3.00 / 1)

i think that's the CW, but i'd still support him if he got in the race.

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

by annatopia on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:35:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Feingold's divorce.. (3.00 / 1)

I think it would be a good idea to put him there anyway, just to see how much support he still has. I think he would probably get in the top 4 or three anyway.

I think some people are taking it as a bigger blow to his chances than it really is. Feingold is a guy who you can root for, because you actually like him.

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Feingold's divorce.. (none / 0)

But Bush's AWOL and brushs with the police don't matter?

by mperloe on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Feingold's divorce.. (3.00 / 1)

I hope not. I think Feingold has to bide his time at least until after the 2006 election. Divorce is a tremendous emotional and mental stress under the best of circumstances. It depends as much on how much spirit he still has for the chase as it does on whether or not the divorce itself hurts his chances.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Feingold's divorce.. (3.00 / 1)

Let me add another voice to the "I hope not" group... because among that bunch above, there's not a one I'd get excited about supporting. Will I support one of them? Of course, but that's true for anyone but a DINO like Lieberman.

Still, didn't we learn our lesson with Kerry last year? Trying to go for the "electible" centrist is a good way to NOT get the kind of momentum we need.

by nkedel on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold! (3.00 / 1)

Feingold Feingold Feingold! Feingold Feingold!

Although perhaps the fact that he isn't even on the list here suggests an even broader lack of traction outside the lefty blogosphere. Maybe that brief explosion of Feingold mania a few months ago was more of a burp.

by Crazy Vaclav on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:36:19 PM EST

Re: Feingold! (3.00 / 1)

Well, not all the candidates have a whole lot of name ID outside, but so what? That doesn't mean they couldn't eventually win.

Russ could probably do well in IA or NH, because the people who vote in IA are pretty hardcore, and NH, 61% (in the dem primary) have a favorable view of McCain, so they would at least recognize him for campaign finance reform.

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold! (none / 0)

If the DLC manages to drive out Howard Dean from the DNC Chair position, we could have a Dean/Feingold ticket.

How about Feingold/Boxer or Dean/Boxer?

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold! (3.00 / 1)

As much as I would enjoy voting for such a ticket, a Clark/Feingold or Feingold/Clark ticket would be a sure liberal winner.

by Hannula on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 04:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark is no liberal (2.00 / 1)

by Madman in the Marketplace on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark is no liberal (3.00 / 1)

A lot of liberals here seem to like him

by Hannula on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:37:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark is no liberal (none / 0)

who says they're liberal. Chris Matthews says he's a "liberal".

by Madman in the Marketplace on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 08:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clark is a liberal (none / 0)

His positions on the issues are very liberal indeed. Granted, he's never held office, so he does not have a voting record to back up his positions, but he sure sounds like a liberal to men.

A Feingold/Clark ticket would be great, IMHO.

by Geotpf on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:40:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure he sounds like a liberal... (none / 0)

...to women to. :-P

(That last word is supposed to be "me", not "men". LOL.)

by Geotpf on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold! (3.00 / 1)

http://www.RussForPresident.com

enough said.

www.RussForPresident.com

by peacenik23 on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 12:28:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold didn't defend Boxer day of Ohio objection (none / 0)

There were a whole bunch of Democrats that rose to defend Boxer the day of the objection to the Ohio vote. Boxer was the only vote cast in the Senate to object to the Ohio's electoral votes.

Hillary Clinton did defend Boxer. Feingold did not.

That said... further research find Feingold did join John Conyers in a brief related to the Ohio recount...

Congressman Conyers, Senator Feingold, and 17 Other Congresspersons file Amicus Brief Opposing Ohio Elections Contest Sanctions Motion

On February 14th, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Senator Russ Feingold, and 17 other Congresspersons filed an amicus curiae brief in the Ohio election contest suit, in opposition to the sanctions motion brought by Ohio attorney general Petro.

The brief recommended that the Court not sanction the attorneys who brought Ohio election contest in Moss v. Bush (no.04-2088). Mr. Conyers offered the following statement:
"The attorneys in this case had reason to believe that the election results did not reflect the will of the electorate. In good faith, they brought a case based not only on statistical probability but the depositions and affidavits of computer experts, statisticians, and election volunteers. In only a couple months, these attorneys have amassed over 900 pages of evidence.
"While we take no opinion on the underlying case, we firmly support the right of citizens to challenge elections results in court when they have a good faith basis to do so. Truly, Secretary Blackwell's attempt to sanction these attorneys is meant to send a message to anyone who dare challenge his questionable election administration. For our democracy to work properly, we can't allow this sort of intimidation by state officials."

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohamicusbriefpr21405.pdf

Anyone know why Feingold was MIA on Boxer's defense?

by afs on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where's Schweitzer? (none / 0)

A lot of us are dead serious about Brian Schweitzer.

We could do a lot worse.

Now-- if McCain is the nominee, my belief is it would be pointless to run either Schweitzer (maverick westerner) or Clark (military experience/character) against him - people voting on those criteria will go with McCain.

Here are some intruiging tickets:

--Schweitzer/Richardson

Two western governors. One hispanic. Guarantees us NM, MT, NV, CO and makes AZ insteresting.

--Schweitzer/Clark

If it appears Schweitzer needs a foreign policy boost greater than what Richardson provides (remember Schweitzer spent years in business in the middle east- that counts).

Remove Schweitzer and my top choices:

Mark Warner. Probably wins us VA. Paired with Clark probably helps in AR as well. We could do worse.
John Edwards/Wes Clark. Same dynamic- not sure Edwards brings us anything electorally- but that's a darn good ticket.

By the way, I see the GOP race shaping up as follows:

The wingnuts aren't going to let their one sure thing, McCain, have it.

The second choice, Guiliani, will likely end up as veep (but they're still not winning NY).

So who is the nominee?

I think CO Gov Bill Owens. Why?

From a purple state trending blue.
Solidifies the west, where the Republicans are looking shaky.
Kind of like W, but add 20 IQ points and some Ritalin.
Wingnuts and Xians like the guy.

Now-- I think Warner/Clark or Edwards/Clark can beat Owens/Guiliani easily.

Would you hire George W Bush to be YOUR latex salesman?

by jgkojak on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:40:09 PM EST

Re: Where's Schweitzer? (none / 0)

I really don't know about Owens. the dems won the state legislature and the national gop won't be happy about that.

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:43:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Schweitzer hates Washington (none / 0)

He will never run for senate or president.

by Geotpf on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But he already did... (none / 0)

Have his feelings about the city changed since 2000 when he almost went to Washington as Montana's senator?

Personally, he's someone who fascinates me as someone who could capture the hearts of America, not to mention helpful in that whole Western strategy. If he's made it absolutely clear that he's not going to run, I don't want to get my hopes up.

by thurst on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's true (none / 0)

But recently, he has made some very insulting things about Washington (said he needs to shower every time he gets back from there, that sort of thing). Hmmm.

by Geotpf on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:51:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Richardson - foreign policy boost (none / 0)

"If it appears Schweitzer needs a foreign policy boost greater than what Richardson provides "

Wasn't Richardson the boy genius diplomat/negotiator of the Clinton administration? How much of a foreign policy boost does one need? Bush couldn't even name the three main ethnic/religious groups in Iraq two months before the invasion started.
Dems need to start making reality-based arguments and loudly rejecting the total bullshit frames set up by Republicans and the corporate media.

miasmo.com

by miasmo on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 01:50:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop leaving Feingold off these polls (3.00 / 1)

Geez.

by Geotpf on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:50:12 PM EST

over at todd teagan's page (none / 0)

there's a report of a possiible alliance she's making with rubert murock. Scary. Its quite impressive to watch her and bill navigate the twisted and convoluted power centers of our country. They certainly seem to know what they are doing. From what I've read, she already has most of the institutional fundraisers on the east coast and the mid-west sown up.

with bill paving the way for her, I'd say polls like this are almost an exersice in futiliy. Really, they would be more worthwhile if they excluded her, on the off chance that she does run. Otherwise, I have a hard time not seeing her methodically sow this one up.

by descrates on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 12:54:26 PM EST

Re: over at todd teagan's page (none / 0)

Long time no see. descartes. Welcome back. Hillary's problem is the "liberal robust military hawk" business. I don't see an Iraq hawk having a prayer in a Democratic primary by 2007. All the Democratic hawks better turn into realists in a big hurry and start demanding an exit strategy from Bushco.

Biden is already toast. I'm not sure he could win re-election in Delaware. Kerry the same. The era of liberal hawks is already kaput.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:18:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: over at todd teagan's page (none / 0)

GaryB, unlike you I have but a miniscule standing in the blogosphere but I'll make book with you: if Hillary wants the nomination, she gets it. $$$$, staff, organization, star power...she'll get 2,000 people in a ballroom when anyone else is struggling to get 100 people at a Holiday Inn.

Descrates nails it, if she runs, HC will methodically sew everything up. It'll be like throwing your high school football team against the New England Patriots or whatever. Never confuse the blogosphere with even the primary electorate. Your gnashing your teeth and ranting will have as much effect as King Canute telling the tide to hold back.

How about it? A $100 towards a mutually agreeable charity, e.g., Move-On?

by InigoMontoya on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 04:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: over at todd teagan's page (none / 0)

Boatright might have a presence... but his standing is up for debate, you Boatright Sockpuppet.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Biden is quite safe in Deleware (none / 0)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a66f3841-accd-4bea-acc3-dfaff08d8149

65 Approval, 27 Disapproval.

by Geotpf on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:55:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: over at todd teagan's page (none / 0)

I think Hillary has this--we all know she is really a lot more liberal than she is acting--going for her.

Her move right will not discourage liberals.

It may however discourage progressives if we organize like hell for the next 2 years.

I don't support her but I agree she is like a machine and could be unstoppable.

by aiko on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 06:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold isn't out of the doghouse yet (none / 0)

The divorce doesn't matter to me, the ghost of John Ashcroft does. I'd vote for him in the general election but Feingold's whimp-out on that issue turned out to be as much of a folly as could be imagined.

It's still early but anyone who dumps on other Democrats (especially those who have fight in them, Dean) have put their worst foot forward. Scaredycrats don't win.

by EnochW on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 01:17:51 PM EST

I have a counter to this (none / 0)

Imagine if Ashcroft's nomination was killed.

Bush would have to nominate somebody else. My guess is he would nominate the same person he nominated to be Ashcroft's replacement: Gonzales. And this would be before the torture memos, so there would be no reason to be violently against him.

Who is better, Ashcroft or Gonzales? If forced to pick, I would have to say Ashcroft.

Ashcroft was (barely) qualified for the job.

Gonzales was not (he thinks the president should be above the law, and, in theory, it would be his job to investigate the president for any malfesance).

Feingold voted against Gonzales.

Basically, I think Feingold made the right choice here.

by Geotpf on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 01:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

scaredycat seems a tad inappropriate (none / 0)

Not that this is news to anyone here, but this is a guy who was the LONE vote against the Patriot Act at a time when the country was still in the post-9/11 haze-fervor and people were ready to swallow an alarming number of liberties and he did it with his seat up for grabs in less than 2 years. That should immediately balance the Ashcroft vote.

In any case, it wasn't a "scaredycat" move or a "whimp-out," but easy to buy as a principled stand in that his philosophy places very high standards for rejecting appointees. I didn't like it one bit, I wouldn't share his philosophy, but it doesn't mark him as scared.

by thurst on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: scaredycat seems a tad inappropriate (none / 0)

Well, he believes that generally a President should get his Cabinet picks. It's just a personal belief of his. He voted for Bolton as U.N. ambassador previously. Changed his mind when the intel stuff came out.

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 0)

And it is fairly courageous to stand up for your beliefs like this, even if they go against your party and personal prefrence.

Basically, Feingold believes, unless there is an extreme, fatal flaw in a canidate, the president gets to pick his cabinet. This means he will vote for people he despises, on principle.

by Geotpf on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 12:00:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold isn't out of the doghouse yet (none / 0)

Well, even if he voted against it, it would have gone to the floor (I know it would have been a tie, but I belief half was enough at that point for cmte votes).

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Draft Gore (3.00 / 1)

Please.

by poemless on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 02:55:05 PM EST

Re: Draft Gore (none / 0)

Into the military or to lose again. Gore never was able to articulate a unified vision of the America he wanted to see. He never got beyond seeing us a bunch of special interests groups each of which needed to be pandered to in one way or another.

Gore would likely be a great leader, but as a politician, he just did not get it. That said he did win the vote. That just wasn't enough to become president in the last two elections.

by mperloe on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Draft Gore (none / 0)

Have you heard Gore speak in the past 3 years or so?

I think he has a clear vision of what he wants to see for America. I also think he is a much better politican than he was in 2000.

Personally with it unlikely that Dean will run in 2008 due to his charimanship of the party I'm a Gore 2008 man.

Still unless some Benedict Arnold like Lieberman or Biden gets the nomination I'll work hard for whoever ends up on the Democratic ticket.

by ces on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Draft Gore (none / 0)

Completely agree.

Bleeding Heartland - Iowa's Progressive Community-oriented blog

by ItsDrewMiller on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 09:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold (3.00 / 0)

I was almost certain that he would be on a poll here. He was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001, a firm stand. Come on, put him on, let's see how'd he do.

Max Friedman

by Max Friedman on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 03:08:55 PM EST

bayh (none / 0)

Indiana: Ranked #2 in bankruptcies per capita and #5 in bankruptcies per household.

Our Democratic Senator? Voted for the bankruptcy bill.

That was the final straw. I know I'm repeating myself here, but no way in hell will I work for that spineless DINO. Oh he talks big now and then but show me something he's DONE. Show me a bill he's pushed and taken the lead on that was a truly Democratic Party bill. I'd really like to see one if there is one.

by descolada99 on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 03:11:45 PM EST

Re: bayh (none / 0)

...you're missing something bigger here.... he can tout two terms of executive branch experience -- running the governorship of a red state... Senators seem like they're dead in the water no matter what they say about their records in presidential contests...

Former governors can say, I oversaw... or executed... or enforced... or calmed... as much as you're hooked on the bankruptcy bill, with all due respect, energy is a much bigger problem...

hank

by HKingsley on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 03:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bayh (none / 0)

Bayh voted for the bush tax cuts, was on an Iraq liberation cmte (quit recently).

Not a reform democrat.

He also voted for Bush's medicare reform bill

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Talk to me about Warner. (none / 0)

What's the story on Warner? What's his claim to ~~fame~~ public salience? What's he got?

by thejill on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 03:49:35 PM EST

Re: Talk to me about Warner. (none / 0)

Other than being a Southern governor with a "D" next to his name?

Warner is famous because he helped to run Nextel from basically a non-entity in the celluar market into the only national firm left that did not have a landline business originally. They did merge with Sprint after he left...but the man knows lots of people in the telecom industry and he has that sense of gravitas as governor. He really worked hard to address revenue and spending problems in Virgina...at a time when the state was crawling out of being a backwater and fast becoming a very important state in terms of economic vitality to the country.

by risenmessiah on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 04:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Talk to me about Warner. (none / 0)

Here's a good rundown:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8062256/

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Warner's. (none / 0)

Appeal is that he has been successful in fiscally turning around VA and that he is a straight shooter. Not much in the way of charisma and has oversized cheekbones and massive teeth (practically an inch long from what I have heard)

www.draftmarkwarner.com has a list of reasons he should be the nominee in 2008.

by strrbr on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 04:14:50 PM EST

Feingold Dammit! (3.00 / 1)

I also wish Feingold had been on the list.. He doesn't get much in the way of mainstream news coverage either, but he should.

Tennesseans for Russ Feingold

by schwompa on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 04:22:16 PM EST

Why No Anti-War Candidates (none / 0)

Why are there no anti-Iraq occupation candidates on the list especially with the polls showing almost 75 percent of all Democrats believe we should start withdrawing troops now.

People repeatedly say they remember hearing that Gore is not running but then Google searches only find one rumor on this reported by Chris Mathews. Gore is certainly doing everything he would want to do if he intended to run or preserve the option of running.

I'm with Ariana Huffington on her statement that I'll have one litmus test for my 2008 candidate, that candidate has to have a strong postition calling for a withdrawal of our occupation forces. Gore was strongly and vocally against the invasion in his Moveon speech. Feingold voted against the invasion authorization and all the rest have some variation of the invasion was a good idea, Bush did it badly, but now we are there and have to see it through crap.

Let's be honest. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law because there was no imminent threat. It wasn't a good idea then or now. We are not there for a short time because we are spending a fortune building PERMANENT military bases to replace our former bases in Saudia Arabia.

The Democrats who voted for the authorization were duped and need to stand up and admit they made a mistake and take their political lumps.

But the point of this post remains why not at least include some anti war candidates in our internal polling.

by AlanR on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:17:27 PM EST

Re: Why No Anti-War Candidates (none / 0)

Um, Alan, Clark has been against the Iraq debacle from the beginning.

by JAmbro on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 08:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately not (none / 0)

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

Factcheck.org has a piece that pretty clearly demonstrates that Wes Clarke was on both sides of the war in the beginning. On October 9, 2002 the Associated Press reported that Clark said "he supported the congressional resolution that would give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq although he has reservations about the country's move towards war." More significantly, on April 10, 2003 just after the fall of Baghdad when it appeared that the illegal invasion would be successful Clark wrote an article that appeared in the Times of London that called it "a great victory".

I would love to be directed to someplace where Clark is currently quoted as unequivocably supporting withdrawal of our forces.

by AlanR on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 10:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately not (none / 0)

Perhaps you should read his Congressional Testimony instead. He was clearly against the war. The Republicans are quoted as saying, "Wes wants to wait."

Anyone who wants to know the cold hard facts about this can check out the debunker on the CCN website:

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2005/6/17/41110/0267

And the best link in there is the story from the Washington Post after this year's HASC hearings, where the WP creditted Clark with saying, "I told you so to Perle":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html

Sorry, you just don't have the facts on this one. It's funny that you'd take on people who've followed him for years, people who joined his campaign because of his anti-war stance, when you're not even familiar enough with him to spell his name correctly.

by ICantBelieve on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow (3.00 / 0)

just another long list of "centrists" and Vichy Dems. How about we celebrate the diversity of the party a little? Where the hell is Feingold? Dick Durbin? Barbara Boxer?

This need to marginalize the left of the party, to pretend it isn't there, just goes to show that it STILL hasn't sunk in why the Republicans have been kicking our ass for decades.

What's it going to take, another pathetic loss after another wimpy shiftless campaign by yet another DINO before some change in strategy happens?

by Madman in the Marketplace on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:35:34 PM EST

Random Thoughts (none / 0)

I had some scattered thoughts when going through this thread...

My sister worked for Dick Durbin and I will beging working for him in a couple weeks. What I have heard is that he likes being a Senator because he really isnt a celebrity (he can take the CTA and not be noticed) and have a normal life. Plus his wife doesnt want him on the national ticket. So I dont think Durbin is gonna be on the '08 ticket. If its a real liberal we're hoping for, maybe Feingold will run, though I think a guy like Bayh has a better chance of winning.
I dont think Owens from CO will be on the GOP ticket. If you're looking at govs, it'd probably have to be Rommney from MA or the governor of Minnesota (Pawlentry?). Both blue state govs to their credit.
Bill Richardson HAS to be on the ticket. He's a popular governor from a Purple state, he can get the Latino votes, he's well respected and known, and the southwest is the new battleground anyways. He's my Veep.
Sure this poll sample is small and from some hard core libs, but I'm surprised by Hillary's lack of support and Clark's overwhelming support.
My guess for '08: Bayh/Richardson vs. Allen/Rommney. Bayh is the darkhorse, a senator and former governor of a really red state with a huge warchest. Kerry doesnt have a chance in hell, Clark- I dont think- can garner the support, I dont think Dems trust Edwards, and ultimately there will be an anti-Hillary backlash within the party. Bayh is my darkhorse.

by AC4508 on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bayh-Richardson (3.00 / 1)

A DLC wet dream. It'll having me pulling the Green level.

by Paleo on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lever, that is (none / 0)

by Paleo on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't (none / 0)

Bayh/Richardson is a million times better than anything on the Republican side. Choosing to vote for the Green is choosing not to vote.

(Now, if you live in a non-swing state, it really doesn't matter, though. Heck, I voted for Harry Browne (the Lib) in 2000-but I live in California.)

by Geotpf on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

every one of them (none / 0)

is a recipe for another loss. EVERY one of them.

there's been some weird Clark thing bouncing around the net for the last couple of weeks. He's a shitty candidate, and in three years when the bodies are stacked like cordwood, a "warrior" is NOT what people are going to be looking for.

by Madman in the Marketplace on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 08:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: every one of them (none / 0)

when the bodies are stacked like cordwood, a "warrior" is NOT what people are going to be looking for.

Do you mean GI bodies (not sure) ? If so, very simple answer:

Korean war => Eisenhower.
Iraq war => ?

A "warrior" is very much in order.

by Fifi on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 07:35:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what's wrong with bill richardson? (none / 0)

i mean it seems to me you'd have an unbelievable hispanic bonus which would be a boon in a lot of really key states. Plus, he has that western genuity.

I don't like the "pick a southern democrat" strategy because I think it feeds in with the fact that our party is kind of a bunch of panderers and crowd pleasers. Let's face it, the bulk of our party is not southern and when we pick a southern nominee it feels like we're trying too hard to say "see! we're just as down home and traditional family and all as the GOP!" people don't buy it.

I'm saying this as a Democrat from Georgia.

by snaktime on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 05:36:36 PM EST

Re: what's wrong with bill richardson? (none / 0)

i personally think he panders too much. like with cutting taxes. he always brings that up. He brings that up more often than health care or education nowadays.

by teenagelunatic on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 06:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's wrong with bill richardson? (none / 0)

Well cutting taxes is going going to appeal to anyone, I don't care who you are. Unfortunately, the Bushies chose to cut the upper bracket instead of those of us who don't have as much money.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 04:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Richardson (none / 0)

Too DLC. I could live with as VP, as long as the top of the ticket was not a DLCer.

by Paleo on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson (none / 0)

I'll tell you... If you guys just automatically shun DLC candidates, we're gonna lose a lot of moderates... Where do middle ground people like myself go? ... Maybe the Dem party isn't for me anymore...

hank

by HKingsley on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 09:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson (none / 0)

I agree with your point, BUT the GOP sure as hell isn't paying any attention to the moderates either. Unfortunately, there are not enough power players out there to actually form a viable third party.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 04:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards (none / 0)

He's populist, he's likeable, he's southern. He's a winner.

by Paleo on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:05:10 PM EST

I voted "other" (none / 0)

for several reasons.

Feingold - Sinking Fast
Edwards - Unemployed
Clark - Possible
Warner - Over-rated
Richardson - Longshot
Clinton - Juggernaut

Exit Iraq (No strategy involved, just support the troops and bring them home), National healthcare, pro conservation/alternative fuel energy policy or straight Green party ticket in 2008!

by Seldom Seen Smith on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:17:16 PM EST

feingold-schweitzer (none / 0)

northern tier/western strategy populism, gun rights+anti-patriot act keep the libertarians happy, grassroots volunteers and $ flowing, anti-war at a time when the war will be extremely unpopular (hawks will play at a huge disadvantage by the time this has run its course), veep with fluent arabic proficiency and reg'lar folks charm, and a presidential candidate who will sell liberal ideas like universal healthcare, civil liberties and little-guy economics unapologetically.

by wu ming on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 11:49:08 PM EST

by wu ming on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 12:03:42 AM EST

Re: feingold-schweitzer (none / 0)

Intriguing combination. I think I like it.

by Rural Populist on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 04:37:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a no brainer... (none / 0)

Governor Warner.

by nickshepDEM on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:37:49 AM EST

Feingold (none / 0)

Seen him in person twice in the last couple weeks. by my sense of smell, he's running.

Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012

by benmasel on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 12:12:52 PM EST

Straw Poll: WI Dem Convention (3.00 / 2)

Obviously a home court advantage, here's the results from wispolitics.com

Total votes: 299

Russ Feingold: 116 votes (38.8 percent)
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 59 votes (19.7 percent)
John Edwards: 32 votes (10.7 percent)
Bill Richardson: 27 votes (9 percent)
Evan Bayh: 20 votes (6.7 percent)
Mark Warner: 12 votes (4 percent)
John Kerry: 5 votes (1.7 percent)
Ed Rendell: 3 votes (1 percent)
Tom Vilsack: 3 votes (1 percent)

Write-ins:
-- Tammy Baldwin, 1 vote
-- Barbara Boxer, 2 votes
-- Howard Dean, 3 votes
-- Al Sharpton, 1 vote
-- Gen. Wesley Clark, 10 votes
-- Joseph Biden, 2 votes
-- Dennis Kucinich, 1 vote
-- Barack Obama, 1 vote
-- Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, 1 vote

Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012

by benmasel on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 12:17:16 PM EST

Re: Democratic Candidates (none / 0)

I don't like Bayh but Dorgan is much more of an unknown than Bayh.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 04:39:01 PM EST

There is no good choice here (3.00 / 0)

I am not happy with any of them. A year ago I would have been all over jumping up and down for Clark. Now I am just discouraged.

Clark's going to FOX and there is no way to spin that as a positive.

by Wesgal on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 05:17:45 PM EST

Really? (none / 0)

2004 proved we cannot win a base war. We need a nominee with crossover appeal. Does Hillary have it? No. Does Kerry? Stop laughing. Edwards? A little. Clark? He already did BEFORE he started being beamed into 8 million homes a night. This is a big picture move and there is absolutely no downside to this for anyone involved.

When his poll numbers rise to the level of our VP nominee in 2004 I hope you remember this post....

by alexm on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 09:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Al Gore (none / 0)

I think Al Gore should be included on these 2008 prez preference surveys. I'd bet he'd be high on the list.

by Pat on Fri Jun 17, 2005 at 11:20:07 PM EST

Richardson (none / 0)

The west is moving Democratic fast and a western candidate/president would help that along.
Hispanic-enough said
Governor not Senator--I am firm believer that a Senator will not be elected president (Hillary and Edwards are not in the Senator catalogue becasue their other work-first lady and 2004 candidate-- which out paces the Senator baggage)
Great foreign policy experience
Nice personality helps on TV
and finaly i don't care about the DLC tag--some people are meant to govern. He is an adept administrator.

by aiko on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 06:19:03 AM EST

Whats so hard to understand? (none / 0)

The country wants out of the quagmire named Iraq and Wesley Clark is the only one with the insight how to accomplish that...he has to verbalize an exit within a set timetable. The UN needs to go in! Hillary is of course high on the list, I would love to see a Clark/Clinton ticket. Though I do not know if she would accept a #2 spot...I think it would be great though, the country could get used to a women in the role and then she could move on up in 2012.

by lja on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:38:55 PM EST

Re: Whats so hard to understand? (none / 0)

I think the reverse is actually one of the higher probabilities if I had to order a Daily Double right now: Clinton/Clark, Clinton/Richardson, Clinton/Schweitzer (definite third option) being the three possibilites suggested most often by the I Ching and my own gut feel. Between Clark and Richardson, it comes down to who Clinton thinks adds the most and covers any weaknesses.

In crass electoral terms I like Richardson because it virtually guarantees the take-back of New Mexico (pushes EV to 257). I think Bush fatigue will also yield a take-back of Iowa for most Democratic candidates, pushing the EV to 264. At which point, Colorado does the job just as well as Ohio or Florida and I think Richardson's appeal to Hispanic voters may be enough. Ditto Nevada. Colorado's 9 would make it 27-fucking-3.

And while I would like more of bulge for a "mandate", I'll take it as a start.

by InigoMontoya on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:07:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where's Feingold? (none / 0)

I'm a Clarkie, but Feingold is a really good choice. I think he should be there too. I hope something as irrelevent as a divorce won't ruin his chances. I'd love to see Clark and Feingold team up.

by ICantBelieve on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 12:52:53 PM EST

Re: Where's Feingold? (none / 0)

We really need someone who doesn't have to fight the morality police constantly. We need to get the message out, explain the issues, and keep the OTHER guy working against the MSM.

That said, I'd offer my firstborn for Clark/Feingold.

by thejill on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 02:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

use ranked voting (none / 0)

Should do this as a Condorcet poll.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 09:23:57 PM EST

too early (none / 0)

I think it's too early to play this game, but I do thaink anyone and everyone who actually has leadership qualities should step up. The more people we bring into this the better in my opinon.

DAGGER