Skip to main content

I had this in the straw poll thread, but since that one is getting crazy long, here's a new overflow thread.

Here's the official difference between a "fantasy" candidate and a real one, at this point --

While no one has officially announced their candidacy, and won't until 2007, every name on the list above has a leadership PAC or is currently running a campaign -- hence they are staffing up their political operation. Fantasy candidates do not have a political operation working for them.

Their respective political operations:

Bayh
Biden
Clark
H. Clinton
Edwards
Feingold
Kerry
Richardson -- currently staffing up for his 2006 reelection
Vilsack
Warner

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:34 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Clark/Warner/Feingold (none)
    somewhere in that comob we've got a winner.
    •  Agree (none)
      And I remain in the committed minority on this site unconvinced by Edwards.

      I'm totally down with Clark/Warner/Feingold.

      Clark/Warner in particular - two non-Washington-based politicians who, between them, still totally get international and domestic affairs.

      Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

      by dansac on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:31:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd throw Richardson into the mix... (none)
      in case he does run.

      "Oh, how I miss the days of Monica Lewinsky..."

      by LawSkoolPunk on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:36:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I actually considered (none)
      moving from my Edwards '08 position which I've held since last November (and was an Edwards '04 guy since early 2003) to Warner.  He's also an impressive Southerner--exactly what we need to win.  

      As for the other two you mention, Clark was amateur hour in 2004, so I'd have to see a marked improvement on the campaign trail this time around.  As for Russ, I fear that he's this year's Dennis Kucinich.  Sure, he's a Senator, but he's always been a maverick gadfly and he will likely not have the resources or the national platform necessary to crack the top tier.

      •  I'm tellin ya (4.00)
        Clark/Feingold in 2008

        That's the winning ticket right there. No mealy mouthed apologists. I just can't decide who should be pres/vice pres.

        •  Oh please. Get real. (4.00)
          That's a winning ticket for only the bluest blue states. In other words Republican To Be Named Later in a landslide.

          We've got to pull in some purple states. Ohio and New Mexico, for sure. Feingold? No way.

        •  You may be right (none)
          but not seeing it.  Feingold could be good if he got off the ground, which the crowded field, lack of resources, and an undeserved rep as some wacky liberal make it unlikely.  I never understood the appeal of Clark beyond the military resume.  Even in a field that included such dynamic personalities as John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman, Clark came off as uninspiring IMO.  Obviously, people can dramatically improve their presentation (see Gore), I haven't seen any signs of this with Clark.  He'll need it if he wants to be a player this time; nearly all of the top talent in the party look poised to run this time.
      •  Take a look at Warner's positions (none)
        the only real thing he's got going for him is the governor resume.

        Edwards has the issues, charisma, campaign ability, etc.

        He's got everything BUT the governor on the resume.

        Stick with JRE.

        Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

        by philgoblue on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:05:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They're all great Veep choices (none)
      Help us draft the most compelling candidate for 2008.



      Click to Sign the Petition

      Gore: the visionary, the statesman, and the noble warrior with unrivalled experience and accomplishments.

      Al Gore, for 2008. People are the Powerful!

    •  Why Feingold matters.. (none)
      The rustbelt is as purple as it gets. 1 out of every 4 2004 Bush voters, voted for Feingold.
      In the presidential election, it's ALL about the midwest.
      As a midwesterner, I can tell ya that people here respond to indivitualists, who have vision, are unabashed and honest about their platforms.
      Russ would sew up the midwest faster than anyone.
      Now, I don't know the status of Feingold's current marriage, but the divorce thing may carry a factor, but certainly not his politics.
      It's either we have the guts to nominate a true,  bold progressive, with good face time & persona, or
      watch Mcain landslide Hillary.
      •  In a Presidential Race (none)
        It's all about the country, not just a region.  If there is someone who could appeal to everyone, then we wouldn't have to worry about the region.

        Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

        by dansac on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:07:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He won reelection with a 55%-44% (none)
        Not exactly earth-shattering.
        •  what??? (none)
          Say what??

          Considering that Feingold was considered an upset win in his first election.  And that in his second election he was considered a dead-duck as the Rethugs targeting him as being out of step with his state.  Now in his third election he wins hands-down by 11 points, and the comment is that this "isn't exactly earth shaking"??????????

          What do you want, a Saddam Hussein / Bush family rigged election where he gets 99.9% of the vote?

        •  I like Feingold quite a bit, but (none)
          the most damaging numbers to his potential candidacy are these 10/21/05 Wisconsin poll results:

          18. Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)
          Hillary Clinton 34%
          Al Gore 20%
          Russ Feingold 15%

          John Edwards 5%
          John Kerry 5%
          Joseph Biden 3%
          Wesley Clark 3%
          Tom Vilsak 2%
          Evan Bayh 2%
          Mark Warner 1%
          Ed Rendell 1%
          Bill Richardson 1%
          Barbara Boxer 1%
          Undecided 7%

          Consider the facts that Feingold ran a statewide campaign just a year ago, and Gore has received nary an exposure during the last 5 years.

          There was a Nov. version of that poll where the numbers were (HRC: 31%, AG: 14%, RF: 13%), but Strategic vision pulled that poll from their index page for some unknown reason (perhaps errors discovered?)

          But my point still holds.

          •  Was that poll (none)
            open ended or a list of choices?  If it's open, it could be that people just aren't thinking of him as a candidate.  Or, it could be that people are happy with him staying on as their Senator.  I'd need more information before I could figure out whether this poll data is meaningful or not.
            •  from the (none)
              link, we gather these:

              -----------

              Below are the results of a three-day poll of registered voters in the state of Wisconsin. Results are based on telephone interviews with 800 registered voters in Wisconsin, aged 18+, and conducted October 17-19, 2005. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

              ...

              18. Who is your choice for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008? (Democrats only)
              Hillary Clinton 34%
              Al Gore 20%
              Russ Feingold 15%
              ...the rest...

              Undecided 7%

              -----------

              Read into it for yourself, but the presence of the "undecided" entry is important.

              To me, the poll does measure the opinion of the sampled democrats as to who would be the best Democratic candidate to field for the 2008 general election.

              IMO, Russ should at least have secureded a tie with Hillary (with about 30% each), if not have led it with 35-50% of the vote.

              •  Thanks for the link (none)
                One pertinent question is #17 -- Do you want Feingold to run for President in 2008? Yes 49%, no 33, undecided 18.  That's enough to infer that people are pretty ambivalent about his candidacy at this point.
                •  clearly such numbers (none)
                  can be read in many ways, and here is one way.

                  ---------
                  #17 -- Do you want Feingold to run for President in 2008? Yes 49%, no 33, undecided 18.  That's enough to infer that people are pretty ambivalent about his candidacy at this point.
                  ----------

                  Note that the question was asked of all the participants (Reps/Dems/Inds). Unless they polled at least the dems separately, it is hard to deduce too much.

                  My 'guesstimates':

                  1. most of the people that said "no" were probably republicans who could account for a 25-28% chunk in the 33% figure.

                  2. if the above is true, then most of the Dems and Inds do want him to run, but when the Dems were asked to compare him to other possible candidates, more of them found Hillary and Gore to be better choices.

                  I don't buy the logic that people like him so much as a senator that as a result, they don't want him to run for president. To the contrary, IMO, most people tend to think that if X is a great senator, then X should try and take the same attributes to the natural next livel, i.e. the presidency. Also, in this case, Russ will have served 4 of the 6 years of his senate term by 2008.
  •  Video of Warner in NH this weekend... (none)
    I though he did quite well - witty but in command of the room:

    link (scroll down)

    •  Competence Matters (none)
      After 8 years of George W. Bush, America will want a competent president.  Mark Warner can say, "Hey, I inherited a state that had been run by morons, and I put the house in order."

      "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

      by tmendoza on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:43:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reverse reaction (none)
      I actually watched it, too, but had the opposite reaction.  I cooled on him a little, particularly because of his response to the mother who asked about her son going off to Iraq.  I thought his answer was really weak.  He gave all the safe answers about not enough armor, etc.  I want someone who will take a strong position.

      Previously, I voted for Warner, but have cooled off a bit because of his response.  I'll keep an open mind and see how he answers that question again.

      •  What was wrong with his response? (none)
        Was it not wanting a deadline for w/drawal?  
      •  I was looking forward (none)
        to seeing him. I thought he was boring, hilarious but boring and that's tough to pull off. Check out the C-SPAN show if you're interested in Warner. He does have a good sense of humor. Just keep in mind, at this stage of the game it's just the getting acquainted period. Candidates won't be giving any policy or platform specifics for a while yet.

        And I agree with your comment on the war response. If Iraq can't get a fired up response from a candidate then what can? Especially since Warner was answering such a personal question from someone in the hall.

        •  Yes (none)
          Yes, we certainly could never have a Democrat taking a position.  Definitely not until absolutely forced to.  Then it should be a position that is easy to squirm away from at the first opportunity.

          We certainly could never have the Democratic Party be a party of principle.  Its much better to pick our candidate on who has the best sense of humor.

    •  I really like Warner but... (none)
      What about his voice?
    •  Warner? No.. (none)
      I watched the NH Dem Caucus Luncheon too, on c-span, but
      a reporter did ask him whether he was running, and he said I have three daughters, 15, 14 and 11, and I have to see about a timeline here.  In other words, he wants to be home with his kids, not out on the campaign trail.
  •  too bad.. (none)
    We cannot mesh these candidates into one super candidate.

    A Southern Governor credentials of Warner mixed with the Optimistic, Uplifting Message of Edwards mixed with the strong Foreign policy credentials and leadership skills of Clark...along with the midwestern appeal of Vilsack..etc..

    America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand-Harry S. Truman

    by wishingwell on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:31:22 AM PST

  •  Gore (none)
    We can still hope and lobby for his candidacy.  The actual primaries are a long way off - there's still time.

    Gore / Clinton's a winner of a ticket.

    •  Please, no Hillary. (none)
      I'd like to see Gore run, but Hillary would be a thorn such as Lieberman was.

      Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

      by Skid on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:41:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gore would never (none)
      pick Hillary for his veep. Gore has seen the error of his DLC ways and is now on point.
      •  I think they despise each other. (none)
        And Gore would have good reason to. Very often, the media would build up HRC at Gore's expense. I'm not talking about just now, but the beginning of the Clinton presidency.  Talking about Hillary, Time said "this is a co-presidency and Gore is not part of the "co'"." They hated him even then. Then, in 2000, Hillary simply had (I'm being sarcastic here) to run for the Senate from New York, rather than waiting to challenge Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) in 2002 or Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) in 2004. Did she think she was too good for the "peon" states she was born in and lived in? In doing so, Hillary glommed a lot of attention and money that migght have otherwise gone to Gore. Then, after the SCOTUS ruling, Gore still grac iously re-enacted his swearin g-in of Hillary for the benefit of her supporters at Madison Square Garden, despite the fact he was probably hurting.  Then in 2002, Gore announced, after much speculation, that he would not run after all. Why? He seemed ready to make a go at it. It's only a theory, but I suspect Hillary propably warned Al that if he ran, she would instruct her donors and loyalists to shut their wallets to him (had Gore ran in '04, and like other popular vote winners the second time around, won, Hillary would have been shut out until '12). Now, in 2005, Gore has to watch Hillary being pimped heavily as the presumptive nominee because she is a "celebrity".  Now, Gore may very well be magnaminous about all this, but I sure wouldn't blame him if he did in fact despise Hillary.
    •  Gore/Clinton? No... (none)
      Your choice is Gore/Clinton?  Those same names lost in 2000.
      And you think a princess like Hillary will play second fiddle to Al Gore, the most boring man in politics?  What possible foreign policy experience does she have?  What has he been doing for the past four years?  I don't see this as a logical choice for a ticket.
  •  Feingold (none)
    then Richardson.

    I'm not enthusiastic about any of the other candidates.

    Bayh, Warner, Clinton: DLC
    Clark: military and unproven and other marks against
    Edwards, Kerry: 2004
    Vilsack: Vilwho?

    Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

    by upstate NY on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:34:33 AM PST

    •  Richardson (none)
      has been very active in the DLC over the years.

      What are all the marks against Clark?

      •  The poster already... (none)
        ...lists "military" as a mark against.

        Having come from a military family, that's one bias I'd love to eliminate in this party.

        Why is "military" a "mark against"?

        Booooo.

        'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

        by Maxwell on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 01:41:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Warning: exaggeration ahead. (none)
          Because "military" is often a code word for "Willing to support and increase grotesquely and stupidly large Pentagon budgets, with no relevance to modern combat or modern political situations".

          We're spending 5% of GDP on "the military".  That has to be cut in half, period.  There must be a better way.  "Military" politicians are completely uninterested in even trying to find it.  Until we elect a few doves, we won't ever even have the debate.

          "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

          by Odysseus on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 05:05:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think there's a difference between DLCers (none)
        They're roughly divided into two camps:

        1] Hard-nosed moderates who for various reasons don't always agree with the more liberal (or even mainstream) Democratic positions - think John Murtha.  The Big Dog too, in his better moments.

        2] "Triangulators"/Finger in the wind types.  The Big Dog in his worse moments.   And HRC is the epitome.

        I see Richardson as one of the former.  As far as Clark is concerned, I think he's good, but his inexperience in holding real political office is a real liability.

    •  As somwone who lives and votes in VA (none)
      and voted for Warner in 2001, where are you coming up with the DLC connection.  I don't recall the DLC avidly supporting Warner's campaign other than as a cheeleader on the sidelines.  Please explain your assumption about the DLC connection.
      •  What I'm basing this on (none)
        The article which highlighted Warner's attempt to paint the left wing of the party as a lunatic fringe. Warner does NOT represent my views. I'll vote for him, but he is one of my least favorite candidates. The article by his political handlers overtly stated that they detest Northeastern Liberals much more than they are against Southern Republicans.

        I'm not going to broach the Wesley Clark problems. It's been rehashed here multiple times, and it's not solely because his credentials are military. I share Fisk's and Counterpunch's views on Clark, and that's basically all I want to say.

        Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

        by upstate NY on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 10:28:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  re: Feingold & Richardson.....no. (none)
      I agree with some of your comments --  about Clark, Bayh, Warner, Clinton, Vilsack and Kerry.  And I was a Kerry volunteer in the last election.

      For the past year, every time the press wants a comment on a congressional, judicial or Iraq war story, they ask Sen. Joe Biden for his views.
      He's been all over the place, including The Daily Show (he's been interviewed by Jon Stewart three times in 2005).  He's been to Iraq to speak with military officials and spoke to the troops on the front lines.  He's been on Meet the Press, Face the Nation, even that other network that I never watch, Fox News.  Everybody on both sides of the aisle has worked with him and respects him.

      He says what he means, and he means what he says.  He doesn't let the Democratic Party officials tell him what to say or what to do.  

      If half the country is running on the conservative side right now, they won't want an ultra liberal like Kerry or Clinton and they'll do everything they can to undermine a Democratic presidency.  

      In order to get a Democrat elected we need a candidate who will appeal to some of the red state voters, who are becoming tired with the lack of leadership in this Republican Administration.

      Sen Biden is a natural choice for the job.

      •  Ultra-Liberal?? (none)
        In what universe is either Clinton ultra-liberal? They're the poster children for the DLC.

        Hell, on corporate welfare issues, Bill Clinton was indistinguishable from the elder George Bush. That's not any kind of liberal, much less ultra-Liberal. We really don't need another one of these new world order Democrats running for president this time around. So I say no thank you to Biden, Bayh, Lieberman, Clinton and their ilk. We need a real Democrat to run. This "rightening of America" has to stop and I believe I know who can help us stop it: Russ Feingold.

        I love Russ Feingold and will vote for him as many times as I'm allowed to. My only concern about him is that he is a senator. Legislators have a tough row to hoe when they run for president. We saw it last election with Kerry and we saw it a couple cycles back when Bob Dole ran. Their congressional voting records will always make them easy targets.

        My choice for the ticket is Feingold/Schweitzer. We own the coasts. These guys allow us to play for the middle of the country without caving on our principles.

        C

  •  Hey Where's Barack Obama ? (none)

    Why all the stale bread?
    I don't care what Buffet says but he's right about this. Barack Obama has widespread appeal. The stale bread in this poll come with way too much baggage. Why is Biden on that list at all?

    www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511200328nov20,1,5460141.story

      •  Buffett's enthusiasm for Barack Obama (none)
        reminds me that Warren Buffett was one of Arnold's advisors during and shortly after the Recall Election in California two years ago.  Arnold dropped Warren after Warren pointed out an obvious inequity in California's property tax law, the result of "Proposition 13," that allowed a much lower tax on a multimillion dollar beach-front hime here than on his half million dollar property in Nebraska.

        I have nothing but praise and admiration for Senator Obama.  However, not all of Mr. Buffett's political judgments can be trusted.  As I said, he backed Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has turned out to be a Democrat's nightmare.

        •  I'd hardly say... (none)
          ...Arnold has been a Democrat's nightmare, as state Dems have managed to beat back all of Schwarzenegger's counter-Dem initiatives, and have greatly improved their fortunes as a result.

          Moreover, Buffet sacrificed none of his principles nor softened any of his stances as a result of being named to the Governator's economic advisory committee.

          He stayed true to his vision, even while Arnold quailed from it.

          'Fie upon the Congress' - Sen Bob Byrd

          by Maxwell on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:06:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Leave Biden [DINO-MBNA] on the list (none)
      and keep sending the message that we know what he's about and will get no support from the middle-class taxpayers he's screwed over.

      -5.25, -2.26 "Free your mind, and the rest will follow..."

      by KilljoyTXinMI on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:39:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is ... (none)
      ... on the VP short list. He's too new to head the ticket.
      •  Obama won't take the VP spot (none)
        If the Dems win in 2008, then he is the presumptive nomine for 2016.  If not, he's our guy in 2012.

        "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

        by tmendoza on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:44:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What I don't understand (4.00)
        Why is Obama too new but people think that Warner, with just four years under his belt as governor, is not? Yes, I know Warner's term limited, but why does he not have the patience to run for the Senate and make himself even more qualified for a future run. He's still a young guy.

        I'm not saying 2008 is Obama's year, but I'm just more surprised at giving Warner such serious consideration. Hell, Barack also held elective office on the state level, too. He'd have more time in elective office by 2008 than Warner would have.

      •  As an IL voter, (none)
        I would rather have him as Senator for a couple more terms. He's right where we need him for now.

        Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

        by Skid on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:50:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm an Illinois resident I often (none)
          feel guilty about having two great Senators.  I think we can give one up for the sake of the nation.

          If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

          by Yoshimi on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:37:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama's too new (none)
            for a presidential run, and the Repubs, let alone other Dems running will key in on that fact. Look at the flack Edwards received and still receives.

            Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

            by Skid on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:44:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The difference between (none)
              Obama and Edwards is that Obama held elected office before he became a senator. Plus, he has more natural appeal than Edwards.
              •  Call me crazy, but (none)
                 I just want to see Obama earn the unquestioning quality and acheivements to run for President of the United States of America. Not that he isn't on that path, I just want him to be as strong a canidate as possible.

                Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

                by Skid on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:15:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Answer This Question Then (none)
                  Can we afford to wait?

                  2008 will bring a new face to the GOP. Don't bet that it'll be somebody who's been besmirched by association with Bu$hCo and their failures. The GOP's next nominee will either be a governor (not named Jeb) or a DC pol who will have created an image as a non-insider with the current regime.

                  Huckabee? McCain? Giuliani? Somebody else? Not sure what the name will be, but it'll be damned hard to paint their candidate with Bu$hCo scandals. Meanwhile, their candidate will still stand for the basic GOP credo: rich gettin' richer, and the rest of us footin' the bill, wave the flag, and look over there, an Ay-rab ...

                  Messaging (massaging?) the public will be of supreme import in election 2008. There's no other Democrat on the horizon right now who can hold a candle to Senator Obama. (Al Gore probably comes closer than anybody else.)

                  There are some rude facts we must face. The candidate must be telegenic, and must be able to inpire with words and deeds - not just the faithful choir members, but enough of the rest to erase any deficit caused by the drone of the MSM, the built-in GOP Diebold edge, and the preconceived notions held by the general public.

                  You just can't out-Q Obama.

                  BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                  by wystler on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:27:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The Presidency is not (none)
                    a novice job, regardless of how charismatic he is, or how many Americans simply vote on good looks or how "regular guy" a canidate is. Sorry if that upsets you.

                    Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

                    by Skid on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 03:36:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, (none)
            send one of them down here to Georgia. We need them here! :).

            The only thing to get more strongly rejected than Arnold's four propsitions were his last four movies- Mark Maron

            by jj32 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:33:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Obama is a star in the making (none)
          Obama is the real deal.   His fundraising abilities are second only to Hillary (for now).  I am not sure there is a rule about how long you have to serve in government before you can become president.  Bush was certainly no elder statesman.

          Obama is truly the anti-Bush:  intelligent, articulate, and compassionate.   His positions on the issues are very well thought-out.  I believe he would give any other Dem contender (including Hillary)  a serious run for the money.

          Obama would have the same advantage that John Edwards had in not being chained to a legistlative record.  However, he seems even more substantial on the issues than Edwards.

          It is still very early in the race and it is probably wishful thinking on my part to think Obama would consider running in 2008.  However, if he did come out, I think you would see a level of excitement that no other candidate could generate.

          Right now, they only real excitement being generated by a Dem candidate is coming from Hillary.   Unfortunately, that excitement is occurring on the other side, which is praying that she wins the nomination.

      •  Obama (none)
        CW says the longer he's in the senate, the longer the record, and the less chance he has. Whoever the presidential nominee is, Obama should be their absolute top choice for VP.  
      •  Why is Obama too new (none)
        when Clark hasn't held any office?

        Isn't Warner also new?

        Hillary Clinton is relatively new as a senator too.  

        If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

        by Yoshimi on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:35:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His youth, not his newness (none)
          I know we're all champing at the bit to have Obama as a candidate, but he's young--let's give him time to build a stronger national reputation.  Edwards's case is a good example of what not to do; he's in an awkward position to run again in a national election.

          "I'm not interested in that same liberal claptrap. That meow, meow, meow, ironic detachment." -- Stephen Colbert

          by SneakySnu on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:35:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It will not happen in our lifetime... (none)
            i hate to say this, but hillary and obama both have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president.    i love and admire them both, but, rather unfortunately, it just is not going to happen.  does anyone really believe that a woman and/or a black man could ever be elected by the majority of american voters?
    •  He's the subject of my diary (none)
      Which includes a poll on his plans to run AND a quote from Markos in the linked article on him.

      See here

  •  If you could ask Dick Durbin one question (none)
    Sorry, I know it's off topic, but in an hour I might get the chance to ask Durbin something, any suggestions?

    "To any sheriff or peace officer of the State of Texas; Greetings: You are hereby commanded to arrest: Thomas Dale Delay" -Warrant for Tom Delay

    by who threw da cat on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:35:56 AM PST

    •  Does he regret caving in to (none)
      the right-wing smear tactics of taking his "reminds one of Nazi Germany" out of context? As a supporter of his, I know exactly what he was saying.

      Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

      by Skid on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:53:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As the Senate whip (none)
      does he have a sense of which direction the Senate Democrats are going on Alito?

      If you take yourself too seriously, no one else will.

      by Yoshimi on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:41:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kos, I posted this on the other thread... (none)
    but is having a leadership PAC a true test?

    Half of Congress has leadership PACS... that doesn't mean they are all running for president, does it?  Perhaps the test is in the amount said leadership PACs actually raise...

    And as for the "fantasy candidate", i.e. Gore, I think Gore's situation is unique.  He wouldn't need a political operation if he declared before the primaries.  After all, he's the former VP and 2000 nominee...I think an operation could easily be built around him, and fairly quickly.

    The world is made for those who are not cursed with self-awareness. -- Annie Savoy, from "Bull Durham" Yeah, and George W. Bush is living proof.

    by wmtriallawyer on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:37:04 AM PST

  •  Warner is an attractive candidate ... (none)
    ... and he reminds me of John Kennedy early in the 1960 primary season. However, 2008 will not be 1960 because 9/11 and Iraq have happened. So, Warner has a very big disadvantage the way things stand right now. He has no national security and military experience. I don't see the American people electing another novice in national security and military affairs after the mess Bush has made. If Iraq goes away by 2008, which seems doubtful (even if we withdraw, things will be threatening there in three years), then Warner may be our savior. However, right now, it looks like we need someone who thinks globally and has experience operating globally.
    •  a Governor is Commander in Chief (none)
      of his state's National Guard --- that's something, and more executive than sitting on an Armed Services Committee, e.g. ;)

      "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." Marge Simpson

      by PhillyGal on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:42:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but ... (none)
        ... being Commander in Chief of Virginia does not exactly qualify one to run on a national security and defense platform. If that type of experience really amounted to something nationally, then Gov. Blanco would be our man, since she has had more recent experience under fire. Warner's lack of military service will be a big disadvantage no matter how it is portrayed. Remember, at this point we are talking about who will run against probably John McCain. We need someone who can match McCain's military persona. Clark, for instance, can do that. A 4-star general who won a war trumps a prisoner of war any day, at least in command experience, and that's what the election will be about as things stand now.
        •  a Governor trumps a Senator, (none)
          and a General trumps them all ;)  it's crazy early, and things will change in 2 yrs.

          "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." Marge Simpson

          by PhillyGal on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:41:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not trying to udner-estimate (none)
          McCain, but I doubt he will be the GOP nominee. The base doesnt like him. And I kno on one particular issue(immigration), he support guest worker, which the base hates. He sponsored a bill with Ted Kennedy to make it law. So John McCain and Ted Kennedy agree on immigration. The GOP primary ad writes itself.  

          The only thing to get more strongly rejected than Arnold's four propsitions were his last four movies- Mark Maron

          by jj32 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:35:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It is his greatest weakness... (none)
      but I would guess that - if nominated he'd pick a Veep w/ experience quick - like Clark - to bolster the ticket in that regard.  

      Also, if he explains his beliefs well and points to his experience w/ trade missions abroad and homeland security in Fed-heavy Northern Virginia, I think he'd satiate concerns on that pretty well.  

      •  That sounds familiar ... (none)
        You wrote about Warner ... but I would guess that - if nominated he'd pick a Veep w/ experience quick - like Clark - to bolster the ticket in that regard.

        After Bush and Cheney, I don't think the American people will fall for that trick twice in a row. This time they will want the real thing at the top of the ticket. So, think about Clark/Warner!

        •  There's a huge difference... (none)
          between Warner and Bush.  One can govern, the other cannot.  And, of course, there's an even bigger difference between having a neo-con like Rummy as aide as opposed to smart general like Clark.

          Anyway, I'd love a Clark-Warner ticket too.  I think Clark is perhaps the only top ticket candidate where Warner could bring in Va as the Veep.

    •  I dont know about lacking national security (none)
      credentials. He is the governor of a large state, with a port, and which houses both the Pentagon and CIA(I think). Especially being elected two months after 9/11, I'm sure he had to deal with national seurity matters. Now, foreign polciy, yeah, that's a weakness.

      The only thing to get more strongly rejected than Arnold's four propsitions were his last four movies- Mark Maron

      by jj32 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:32:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whether you favor Russ Feingold or not... (4.00)

    You should sign up, and contribute, at Progressive Patriots. He's doing a lot of great work supporting candidates ala DFA, and promoting his efforts to bring the troops home.

  •  Nice Group (none)
    Man, do we have a lot of great candidates on our side!

    Inevitably, one of the crappy ones will float up to the top and get the nomination.

    I just hope it doesn't happen this time around.

  •  Rape Meets Torture (none)
    Caption this.

    [Insert witty quote here] OK?

    by The Bastard on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:39:57 AM PST

    •  "Uncle Genghis sends his best..." (none)

      "To die. In the Rain." -Hemingway on why the chicken crossed the road.

      by curatorius on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:43:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  BACK to the 10th Century (none)
      Complete with Rape, Pillage, and Religious prosecution.  Brought to you by your Wingnut Leadership.

      ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

      by NevDem on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:03:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "The US establishes another military base... (none)
      in the former Mongolian Empire."

      Jorge's a renegade, there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

      by nailbender on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:20:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Remember (none)
      Rape and pillage first, then burn.

      "The truth is a noble cause".
      -BOHICA

      by BOHICA on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:25:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well there it is... (4.00)
      ...just like I said - TO THE RIGHT OF GENGHIS KHAN.
    •  "How Much DYa Want for Your Outfit?" (none)
      Just add a codpiece and the shrub can announce "Mission Accomplished" from a phony pony. Buck Fush, because regardless of what he wears, he has no cloths.

      Bush/Rove: Co-Conspirators in an On-Going Criminal Enterprise

      by vetfordean on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:43:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  my caption (none)
      Please take the damn picture quickly so the dirty darker man will stop touching me.

      Yes, I went there.

      ~Me oportet propter praeceptum te nocere~

      by CWalter on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:12:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mongolian Horde gets US Army outsourcing bid (none)
      President Bush announces the hiring of a new outsourcing client for the US Army.  From now on, the Mongolian Horde Security Service will have the no-bid, cost-plus contract for all US Raping and Pillaging operations.  Review of the Rape of Baghdad shows that the US military is now incapable of handling such operations on their own.  

      Senior vice-presidents of Mongolian Horde Security expressed amazement that residents of Baghdad have been allowed to Rape and Pillage their own city.  This represents a new low in the Raping and Pillaging industry, and the Mongolian Horde SS have guaranteed the US Government that any future raping and pillaging operations will be conducted in a much more professional fashion.

  •  What's the point of the straw poll? (4.00)
    I thought it was to gauge where the Kos community stands on who they support out of possible candidates.  If that is the case, Gore should be included.  There has been much more 'talk' in the media about Gore running than most others on that list and Gore has yet to say he is not running.  What would it hurt to combine the `no freaking clue' and `other' category, to include Gore?
  •  Related (none)
    Obama has Hopefund.

    Anyway, All America has some great stuff and I like how Forward Together's PAC blog links to all the other PAC blogs.

    Evan Bayh 2008
    Miller for KY Governor 2007
    http://kydem.blogspot.com

    by dsolzman on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:42:09 AM PST

  •  A PAC is strictly arbitrary (none)

    as an excuse for excluding certain candidates.

    Makes it difficult to gauge support for Gore, which might encourage him to run if it is strong, by not allowing people to vote for him. Sounds like the kind of scam I'd expect in the GOP.

    Pipe dreams are not an exit strategy.

    by TrainWreck on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:43:10 AM PST

  •  Feingold = SHORT (none)
    Uh, with all this buzz generated about Feingold on the progressive blogs, I would just want to drop this little tidbit on y'all, at the risk of being very superficial and mean-spirited:

    Most people know Feingold isn't a big guy, you can see that from TV.   People can sense even from the boob-tube that he's not Bill Bradley.

    A lot of people probably think he's like 5'8", 5'9", right?

    Well, here's the low-down on this guy.   And I mean the REALLY low-down!  I'm 5'8.5" and I literally TOWER over this guy.   I used to see him several times a week while working in the Senate, both inside and outside the Senate office buildings, walking on PA avenue, etc., surrounded by young interns and staffers, etc. all of whom towered over him.

    Yikes!   I was literally shocked that he is about 5'5" (no joke).

    Now I totally realize I'm being a major superficial asshole, etc. here about his lack of height.   As a guy whose not tall, lack of height I'm sure has hurt me in different ways.

    Howard Dean (5'8"-5'9") and Jimmy Carter (5'8") were at the low-end of what the public will accept as a presidential candidate.

    (And I would also add that getting elected to the Senate and being elected President are two different things, with different types of public expectations.   Too bad for short people!)

    But we're talking about risking a presidential election here.  

    And for those who say "Hillary is only 5'6", that's different, she's a woman, and people just don't expect a female presidential candidate to have to look like Geena Davis.   Chances are Hillary will be running against a male.   If she runs against Rice (5'8"), the height differential might hurt, especially if Rice wears her stiletto-heeled boots! :)

    But pit Feingold against an average sized male candidate like McCain, and it'll be a gross mismatch on TV.    Put him up against a taller candidate and he'll look like Mini-Me.

    "Americans' failure to appreciate the power and cunning of the business lobby is the single biggest cause of the erosion of our standard of living."

    by vegasobserver on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:44:09 AM PST

  •  Here in California (none)
    we are blessed (cursed, actually) with a celebrity who is planning to run for reelection as Governor next year.  We Democrats are heartened by his low ratings in opinion polls, but we worry that we don't have anyone with celebrity status to run against him.  I can see how celebrity attracts voters who otherwise may not vote at all and in that way sway an election.  I still can't understand the attraction that G. W. Bush must have had for voters in November, 2000.  He was definitely not a celebrity.  What attracted voters to him?

    We need to figure out the right answer to this puzzle before we can make an astute choice for a Democrat to run in 2008.  Mr. Bush is not noted for his intelligence, his learning, his charisma, his ability to "feel the pain" of ordinary people, etc.  His success may lead Republicans to put up another dummy to run in 2008.  How do we beat the Republican dummy?

    Or, the Republicans may nominate someone like John McCain who has the reputation of being scrupulously honest.  McCain would be hard to beat.  I can see him outpolling Bush.  Who do we have who can beat McCain?

    We can hope that the Republicans will nominate Bill Frist.  He would be easier to beat than McCain.

    •  The Terminator is terminated. (none)
      I think the shine's off Ahnold. The referendum handed his ass back to him, wrapped in pwetty blue ribbon.

      If the Republican nominate Bill Frist, I promise to personally follow that asshole all over the country with a huge sign with a picture of sweet kitties saying "Why did you kill me, Bill?"

    •  McCain as a Republican (none)
      I don't think McCain will get that nomination without breaking up the Republican coallition.  My Republican buddies (yes, there's constant strain) hate McCain.  

      I wonder about McCain as an independent....

      But I don't think he's the one to worry about.  Then who is?  Well, that's the good thing: I don't think the Republicans have any GWBs in their ranks this year . . . that is, someone without too much baggage who can unify their coallition.  

    •  We should plan for McCain (none)
      being the nominee, but I doubt he will be the nominee. Most likely it will be George Allen, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, or Haley Barbour.  

      The only thing to get more strongly rejected than Arnold's four propsitions were his last four movies- Mark Maron

      by jj32 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:37:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huckabee (none)
        Isn't he pretty good friends with the Clintons?  That'd be enough to sink him in the primaries, LOL.

        In Vietnam, at least Bush had an exit strateg(er)y.

        by BlueEngineerInOhio on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 01:18:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  hehe, he might be (none)
          I think Bill called him to do a campaign against childhood obesity. HE agreed, but I remember in some interview, he was trying to distance himseldm, saying something like, "Oh, yeah, I know him, but we never talk or anything, his call was a total surprise." I think Huckabee is also pro-choice, or comfortable with Roe, so that would hurt him, if true.

          The only thing to get more strongly rejected than Arnold's four propsitions were his last four movies- Mark Maron

          by jj32 on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:40:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Only way to beat someone who perceived as honest.. (none)
      Is to run someone who actually is honest. A Feingold/Clark ticket would be one of the few paths to victory vs. McCain. Against Guiliani, I can only see Feingold and Hillary competing versus him, only those 2 have the ability to hold dems together in the NorthEast.
  •  It has to be Clark... (none)
    Or no one....
  •  "better" poll here (none)
    I posted on the poll story, but it might get lost among the 300+ commens there.

    http://betterpolls.com/...

    -10 to 10 rating of the same choices, counted using better election methods including IRV and Virtual Round Robin (Condorcet)

  •  lovely (none)
    All of these people either "got fooled" by the worst liars ever or have near-zero name recognition.

    If Gore and/or Dean are not on the ticket, you can forget beating a "maverick" Republican such as McCain.

    (note the quotation marks)

    Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by racerx on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:46:43 AM PST

    •  Uh, Clark has name-recog. (none)
      McCain will get smeared out of the Repub primaries by a hardliner. Think campaign 2000 deja vu.

      Can anyone tell me why my American flag was made in China?

      by Skid on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:01:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  McCain is Pro-War and Occupation (none)

        McCain has the same line as the losing line Kerry pushed: I can fight this war better than shrub.

        McCain is not the answer.

      •  Compared to who? (none)
        I like Clark, but I would guess that his name recognition among the general public is probably in the 20's. He will have a hard time against HRC or JK or any of the name-brand democraps.

        Gore or Dean would have been much stronger choices, but the powers-that-be have taken those two off the plate.

        Makes me think the whole thing is being rigged.

        Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by racerx on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:08:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What about... (none)
    ...other Dem governors up for re-elect in 2006? Wouldn't they, like Richardson, have an operation geared to that effort right now? Thinking of people like Sibelius and Napolitano.

    "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

    by ChurchofBruce on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:46:55 AM PST

  •  Gore is SHOULD be in any list (none)
    Hmmm - I seem to recall that a certain Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election then won eight years later.  And RMN had a disastrous Calif governor's race in between.  I am convinced that Gore has been carefully positioning himself with his speeches and statements.  There are a few "unofficial" Gore2008 websites plus he has the broadest name recognition with fewer negatives than Hillary Clinton.  My guess is that he would be a powerhouse in Iowa and New Hampshire and probably sweep the Super Tuesday South.  The timing of the primaries favors Gore.
  •  HILLPACK hearts Joe! (4.00)
    So Clinton's PAC (though Paid for by HILLPAC and not authorized by any candidate or candidates' committee, whatever that means) lists Joementum among the 5 or 6 endorsed candidates!

    The Candidates

    (Pause for inevitable "stop the Hillary bashing" comments... :)

    Honestly, you'd think she would at least avoid teaming up with Lieberman...

    Actually they all make me sick -- look at their web site names:

    Bayh -- allamericapac.com
    Biden -- unitedourstates.com
    Clark -- securingamerica.com
    Edwards -- oneamericacommittee.com
    Feingold -- progressivepatriotsfund.com
    Kerry -- Keeping [surely some mistake -- Ed] America's Promise
    Vilsack -- hearlandpac.org
    Warner -- forwardtogetherpac.com

    Jeez, I would tend to support anyone who had voteforme.com instead of all this patriotic crap...

    As for Kerry, didn't he promise to make sure every vote was counted?

    </curmudgeonly rant>

    I would be more upset if I weren't so sedated...

    by Paolo on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:49:34 AM PST

    •  Americasux.com was taken (none)
      Seriously, though, while the patriotism of the politicians can far too easily veer into tackiness, you have to expect that anyone who wants to seriously run for President is going to use the stock language.  

      The question is, which candidates can actually make patriotism something real and animated by the best of America, by what we want America to be, because we love it so much.  Who is a true liberal patriot?  (Because liberals are the true patriots).

      That's the test of a good candidate, to me.

      Packer, you Republican cannibal, I would sintince ya ta hell but the statutes forbid it.

      by BrooklynRaider on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:03:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not Gore nor Kerry (none)
    Why? Because the lost and will be precieved as such... Is the question: Who would you like to see as President? or: Who would you like to see running in the general election against the Republican candidate for POTUS.

    It ain't Kerry or Gore or even HIllary. Has to be CLARK.

  •  What would be useful (none)
    This is something I think would be very useful, but I don't think I'm going to do it.  So I'm just going to hope to inspire someone else to with my laziness.  =)

    Other than the candidates that ran last year I suspect a lot of voting has to do with name recognition and vague feelings about whether they would be a strong candidate.  What would be cool would if some of us were to make a list of the candidates and get their positions on various issues (boiled down to 1 or 2 sentences).  This would help us get a better idea where they are one issues, not just personalities.

    Agnosticism is no excuse for indecision, it is a catalyst for action. It demands an ethics of empathy rather than a metaphysics of hope and fear.

    by Agnostic Oracle on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:51:11 AM PST

  •  Clark/Edwards (none)
    Clark:  Security moms and dads - no way we are out of Iraq even if we start troup withdrawal.  Leadership Image from military background. Well grounded in foreign relations (and building them).

    Edwards: Good Economic message: 2 Americas, people are beginning to see that now (just ask someone without health insurance). Good for the Domestic agenda.

    But I'd opt for Richardson for VP if he gets there.
    Lock on the hispanic vote, (but I grew up in NM so I'm biased, but we praise common sense).

    ... the watchword of true patriotism: "Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." - Carl Schurz; Oct. 17, 1899

    by NevDem on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 10:58:00 AM PST

    •  Richardson is running, and he'll do well (none)
      In fact I think he's got a great deal of credibility in the southwest, not just in New Mexico. Moreover he's been very useful in the North Korea talks, giving him a strong credibility as a statesman, possibly drawing great contrast from the current administrations complete lack of diplomacy.

      Also, some speculate that Jimmy Smits is doing for Richardson what Gina Davis is doing for H. Clinton. Not that I really buy into that too much.

      Btw he is definitely running. When asked he remarked to our (LA) NPR station off-mic "Is it that obvious?"

      •  I like him too (none)
        But I bet the media won't give him a fair shot...can't count on NY Times and washpo now a days.  Dang, I wonder how long I'm going to be in a funk with those two...sheesh

        Don't push me 'cause I'm close to the edge

        by Cat4everrr on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:16:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  re: Richardson (none)
      If Richardson turned down John Kerry in 2004, I see no reason why he'd accept it in 2008.
  •  Warner link doesn't work (none)
    at least right now, it doesn't. It googles, but clicks through to a 404.

    He might be an interesting candidate if his servers were up.

    The children of the poor perish in their beds, while the blastocysts of the wealthy are preserved for all eternity

    by CarbonFiberBoy on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:06:46 AM PST

  •  Prespective Candidates (none)
    How about Clark/Edwards that would be an interesting combo!!!!
  •  Chris Dodd (none)
    ... has a Leadership PAC too that he formed shortly after the 2004 election. It's called CHRISPAC. It doesn't have a website but both Roll Call and Hotline have had stories about him gearing up for exploring a 2008 run.
    •  God help us... (none)
      God help us if Dodd has a presidential PAC.  

      Reid has a "leadership PAC" too...  Searchlight PAC.   But it doesn't mean he's running for president.   Although it's a good bet the idea of Reid for President or VP will get floated somewhere in the next few months.  

      "Americans' failure to appreciate the power and cunning of the business lobby is the single biggest cause of the erosion of our standard of living."

      by vegasobserver on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:35:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Senator? (none)
    Look, I like H. Clinton very much. But when was the last time a U.S. Senator (who was still in the Senate when they made their presidential run) won the Presidency? Can't remember? Neither can I. Ditto on Feingold.

    I worked for Richardson while he was Secretary of Energy. I think he's a great. If he ran, I'd probably quit my job and try to work for his campaign.

    •  What did... (none)
      What did Goldwater, McGovern, Kerry, and Dole all have in common?

      Well sure they were Senators, but moreso they were all "out of touch with America". So was Dukakis, so was Ford.

      your arguement is void.

      •  I agree with the first post (none)
        Senators have too many votes on record. We'll get stuck with flip/flop or "voted for it before I voted against it" again. This goes doubly if they voted for the Iraq debacle. Parlimentarians just aren't seen as strong leaders by John Q.

        It has to be a governor or a general.

    •  Andrew Jackson? (none)
      He was a pretty good Preznit.
    •  JFK (none)
      ...and I don't mean John Forbes Kerry either :-)

      In fact, every president since Kennedy has served, at one point in their career, as either Governor or Vice-President. In fact, Nixon is the last president to ever in his career serve in the Senate (and that was for two whole years).

      Part of it, however, is getting nominated. For the Repubs nominating a sitting senator, before Dole, you have to go back to Goldwater. And before that, you have to go all the way back to Harding. The Dems, before Kerry, last nominated a sitting senator with McGovern.

      "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

      by ChurchofBruce on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:48:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Every President since (none)
        FDR has been been a veep or a governor, excluding JFK and Eisenhower. Exactly two senators have won the presidency since 1920 (JFK and Harding). Hoover was a cabinet secretary and Coolidge was a governor.

        Having excutive experinece really, really helps. This is a stature thing, not a statistical anomaly.

        If you have got a boss, you need a union. Read www.purpleocean.org/blog/

        by BartBoris on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:31:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Senators? (none)
      Maybe its true that senators havent done well (though the sample size isn't exactly large).  Those who believe senators cant win typically point to the need for compromise and negotiation as the reason they do poorly.  Feingold has always stood for his beliefs, even if it means being the sole vote on a popular bill (eg, the patriot act).  Feingold simply doesnt have politically opportunistic votes.

      This could lead to charges that he is a lone wolf out of touch with the mainstream.  But then the bill his name is most closely attached to in the average person's mind is the Feingold-McCain campaign financing reform bill, and McCain, like him or not, is viewed by most Americans as one of the most honorable politicians.

  •  I voted Warner (4.00)
    although it was a difficult pick, b/c I also like Clark as well.

    I was surprised but I enjoyed Warner's speech on C-SPAN's "Road to the White House" program last evening. I liked how he turned cell phones ringing into a laugh line--"chaching!!" LOL!!

    I had heard him give speeches before and found them to be a bit boring, but this time in New Hampshire, I saw a bit more personality. Actually, I thought he did a good job during Kaine's victory speech on election night too.

    I like his record in VA on education, the budget and jobs, particularly in rural communities. If he works on a nice healthcare package, I think he could have an attractive domestic agenda. His foreign policy credentials are a bit weak, but I don't think that foreign policy will be a big issue as it was in the 2004 election campaign. I'm thinking that we're looking at a redux of the 1920 presidential campaign, where domestic politics (read isolationism) was the big campaign theme. I may be reading the electorate wrong, but I think Americans will reject Wilsonianism part II/the faux Wilsonianism of the Bush II era . . . .

    Whoever the next president is will have to have experience in cleaning up BIG messes and I think Warner is that person. It's going to be a tough, thankless job whoever gets it. Not knowing how bad the next 3 years will be, I wonder if the challenges will be as difficult as when FDR took office in 1933? Most likely. It will probably be worse than in 1933, b/c the next president will have to deal with both foreign and domestic challenges.

    Another reason why I voted for Warner was b/c I think that he has the same type of sunny optimism that FDR had, when he confronted the Great Depression. FDR was hopeful and possessed a can do attitude and I believe I see the same quality in Mark Warner. I like the fact that he failed in several business ventures and even his Senate campaign against John Warner but he was still optimistic and carried on until he succeeded at Nextel and the Virginia gubernatorial race. The next president is going to need to have that type of optimism. He's going to have persuade the nation to stick by him through the long haul, b/c it's really going to be REALLY difficult to clean up all the mess that GWB has created.

    I guess I'm looking  more at character attributes more than a policy platform b/c I question how much the next president will be able to do--at least in that first term!!

  •  Feingold First, Feingold Always (4.00)
    No other man has the same accomplished voting record.
    No other man can inspire a generation and a following like he can.
    No other man espouses the same integrity that Feingold espouses.
    No other man has the guts like he does.
    No other man can bridge the gap between the Socialists and Moderate Republicans.
    No other man can be a President as good as Feingold

    Set aside the fantasy-land of "being electable" and actually go for someone who should be president.

    •  Is this a joke post or what? (none)
      "bridge the gap between the Socialists and the Moderate Republicans"?

      What "Socialists" are you referring to?

      Progressive Dems don't use that word to describe themselves.   But wingnuts and neocons use that word to describe progressive Dems, so that's why you worry me.

      And "fantasy-land" about "electability"... Duh!   How about bridging the friggin' gap between PROGRESSIVE POLICIES and electability?

      "Americans' failure to appreciate the power and cunning of the business lobby is the single biggest cause of the erosion of our standard of living."

      by vegasobserver on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:52:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes it's all about labeling (none)
        And sorry to inform you that a very large portion of the Democratic "Base" and definetely the Leftist Activists are indeed in one form or another a Socialist (whether a Social Democrat or a Democratic Socialist). Personally I see Americans running away from this word from the early Cold War, similar to how the Democrats have lately been running away from the word "Liberal" (which again is another misused American term) and calling themselves Progressive. But having an arguement about labels is an entirely different arguement.

        If you really want a president who supports 'Progressive Policies' that can also win (seeing as how Feingold has won every election he's ever been in, usually up against the odds), look at Feingold. Simply said.

  •  Progressive Patriots? (none)
    Feingold is the person on that list closest to my political heart, but I can't stand the name of his PAC.  Can you imagine a Republican PAC called "Conservative Patriots"? No, of course not, because that would be a redundancy according to stereotype, just as according to Republican propoganda progressives/liberals aren't patriotic because they dare to criticize Bush's debacle in Iraq (merely the current reason for questioning a liberal's patriotism).  We should not feel the need to state that we're patriotic.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

    by Bragan on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:08:01 PM PST

    •  Lots of corny names going around... (none)
      Lots of these PAC names are silly and/or egotisitical... starting with Kerry's in 2004 - "Citizen Soldier".   WTF?

      "Americans' failure to appreciate the power and cunning of the business lobby is the single biggest cause of the erosion of our standard of living."

      by vegasobserver on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:10:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's awful (none)
        I realize this sounds terribly glib, but that PAC name alone is almost enough to know why Kerry lost.

        Sure would be nice to see a PAC called ProudLiberal, or LiberalValues, etc.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

        by Bragan on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:19:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  My dream team? (none)
    Clark/Clark '08!

    Wes and Richard, that is.

    Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:51:45 PM PST

  •  Where is (none)
    Richard Clarke domiciled?

    Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 12:54:39 PM PST

  •  Clark's Abortion Comments (none)
    I think Clark's ultra-extreme comments on abortion will make it more or less impossible for him to be elected, especially with video of him saying he supports no restrictions or regulations of any kind until the head is coming out of the womb.  Now, I'm pro-choice and am proud my party is, but there's pretty much no way in hell I could cast a vote for Clark after seeing that interview.  Clinton and Bayh would do much, much better on this issue in the general public, and make no mistake -- in 2008, we absolutely, positively need some of the so-called "values voters" or we don't stand a chance.  Someone who's pro-choice, but recognizes that abortion is still a significant thing, is our best shot.
    •  Not only Clark (none)
      Gore also opposed ALL restrictions on abortion during the 2000 campaign. It certainly didn't hurt him.

      But I think it is not so important, because most restrictions are placed on the state level. I could even live with a pro-lifer Bob Casey or Harry Reid as president, as long as they only appoint pro-Roe judges and press for a health exception in the partial-birth abortion ban.

  •  Warner All The Way (none)
    Mark Warner does show a great optimism, and I believe he is the real choice for 2008.  Wesley Clark is a great man, but I don't think that wearing a different NFL jersey in every city you go to is a way to win the White House.  He also showed a clear lack of knowledge about the issues, and an inability to keep up in debate in 2004.

    Warner can connect with all types of people, and appeals to people all over the country.  He does not speak with a drawl, but appeals to southerners.  He knows how to reach out to rural voters, and talk about the issues that affect them.  And, I agree with his statement that we cannot just try to win 16 states, and then get lucky to get that 17th to win.  We have to have a President that can appeal to all people, in all parts of the nation.  We can't really claim a mandate, even if we win, when we don't carry a single southern state, or a midwestern or plains state for that matter.

    •  Nobody can appeal to all parts of this nation (none)
      or ANY nation. Human beings have too many polarizing views. The only reason this is maginified in the US is because of the insanity called the electoral college.

      Win the Northeast, win the upper Midwest, win the West Coast, and get a Floridian VP to help win Florida.

  •  Hillary must not be the candidate! (none)
    If she does, I believe we will lose big-time. The country will not get behind her, too much baggage and I don't think the country will go for a woman yet.

    I agree with those that say we need to shut the DC media down when they keep hyping her. It is playing right into the GOP's hands. They knew she'll lose.

    I voted for Clark, but I do think the Feingold/Clark or even Clark/Feingold would be great.

    As much as I adore Gore and his opinions, I just keep wondering if the country -- Joe six pack if you will -- would be willing to embrace him after he lost once already. Can his image be repaired enough? I'd vote for him, though...

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

    by Dunbar on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:36:01 PM PST

    •  Only the far-right red states (none)
      are not ready for a woman, and we have no chance at those states anyways. I want to see Hillary wait till 2012, but that's because I think Kerry deserves another shot. Hillary is relatively popular in Florida, she's from the midwest, and she's guaranteed to sweep the Northeast (except NH) and California. So I don't see how you can be so sure she'd lose.
      •  Good God (none)
        How in the fuck could you want to give Kerry ANOTHER SHOT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  And I'll be damned if Hillary gets to be president.  I'll vote for a Republican or stay home before I'd vote for her.

        Its people of your ilk that are why the Democrats don't control a goddamn bit of this government anymore.  You're in love with people who have no heart.

        •  My ilk (none)
          "vote for Republican"

          "stay home"

          I'm the reason Democrats don't have control anymore? You're advocating not even voting for them!

          Feel free to join Zell Miller. We don't need ya.

          •  I swallowed my pride (3.00)
            and voted for Kerry in 2004, even though I despised that backstabbing asshole.  But look what good that did?

            Did you not see the poll after the total fuckup by Bush with Katrina that showed every single former President back to and including Jimmy Carter would beat Bush in a general election scenario?  They put Kerry up against him AND HE STILL LOST!!!!

            The American People can't stand Kerry!  They'd rather a man who lets thousands of people die right in front of him be President than Kerry.

            The man held onto campaign money, OUR CAMPAIGN MONEY, towards the end of the election so that he could save it for next time.  He gave up before he even lost.

            Jesus Christ!  How could you vote for him again?

            And yes, I've had enough of the DLC wing of the party that says that you can just put any conservative Democrat up for nomination because the left-wing of the party will vote for any Democrat.  That's unacceptable.  And why is it okay for centrists to be unhappy with a candidate and not vote for them but its not okay for a real liberal to be unhappy with a candidate and not vote for them?

            I will put all my effort into making sure Hillary and Kerry cannot win the nomination.  And then if they do, I swear on my life that I will not vote for President.  The DLC wing has got to learn their lesson somehow, and I'd much rather put my efforts into getting a Democratic house than putting a hawkish, pure politician Democrat with no heart into the Presidency.

      •  Hillary (none)
        Hillary is from the Mid-west????  When did she last live there?  I can't imagine too many midwesterners voting for her just because she was born there.

        Hillary is from NY.  And I'm sure any Midwesterner would tell you that.

        Kerry is a candidate of about the same stature as Dukakis.  He just ran against an idiot who should have been forced to defend a record of cronyism, war and recession.  He failed miserably in that campaign.  Note.... everything that is dragging the Republicans down today was there last year.  Except maybe Hurricane Katrina.  And even then the head of FEMA was already the bozo who's only background was being the lawyer for a horse show group.  Don't exactly remember the Democrats attacking on that one.

        Quick, what was Kerry actually for?  All I remember was him running around saying "I have a plan."  Never could communicate what changes he would make in nice simple language everyone would remember.  Of course a lot of that is that as a corporate Democrat, he really didn't want to change much that the Republicans were doing.  Just tweak it around the edges.  Ie, he wanted the troops in Iraq.  In fact he wanted more troops in Iraq.  He just thought they should have better body armor.

        So Kerry wasn't in a position to say the things that would resonate with voters and would be rememebered.  Examples like:  "Its wrong that we are in Iraq and I vow to get out asap."  "The solution to the health care crisis in this country is a national single-payer plan."  etc etc etc.

        Kerry had a sitting duck as a target, and consistently refused to shoot anything meaningful at him.

        I can't believe the Democrats would repeat the Kerry mistake a second time.

        •  Kerry lost as much as bush won (none)
          No more PREP SCHOOL / YALE twerps!!!  (That includes Hillary).  The Dems need to represent regular people and cut the patronizing crap.  We lose red states because a lot of people (plenty in blue states too) don't want to be told what they need and/or that they'll be taken care of by big daddy/momma.  (Gun laws too.)  We need to get over that "we know what's best for you" schtick and stand up for actual ideas and beliefs.  I don't know much about Warner.  I like Richardson, Edwards, maybe Clark.  I love Feingold, but I don't think he can win.  Obama's too new on the scene.  And please let's forget about Al Gore, when push came to shove he let himself get shoved.  I think Dean would have beat Bush if he'd been nominated, Kerry sat back and said nothing when he got swifted, Dean would've hit back harder.
          •  re: Kerry lost (none)
            Re your comment about how Dean would have beat Bush -- maybe,
            but he had no foreign policy experience and frankly the point is moot right now, as they gave him head of the Dem Party if he promised not to run again.
    •  If (none)
      If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm absolutely positively voting Green.  In fact, no only voting Green, but volunteering Green and contributing Green.

      Same goes for a lot of these candidates.  I'm sick of DLC, pro-corporate, pro-military, pro-war candidates running the Democratic Party.  If the Democrats nominate another one, I'm gone for good.  I'll take it as a clear message that anyone who's not DLC isn't welcome in the party.

      •  Note (none)
        Note:  Since I'm sure the mention of the Green party will send some Democrats into emotional tatters, my point is this.

        I agree we need unity to defeat the Republicans.

        What I'm sick of is that the leadership of the Democratic Party picks some awful pro-corporate, pro-war candidate and then decrees that everyone else must unify behind this jerk.  

        So, what I'm saying must happen this time around is that the selection of the nominee should take into account that the nominee needs to appeal to groups beyond the people who pay big bucks to go to a DLC fundraiser.  

        How about a nominee that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party can actually support with some enthusiasm?

        If the Democrats refuse to ever take a big part of their base into account when picking a nominee, and continually pick nominees who believe in pretty much the opposite as to what most of that base believes, then it should be fully expected that this base will either support another candidate or just stay home.  I'm really, really sick of getting crappy nominees shoved down our throat, then getting beat over the head with some stupid argument that says I should like and support this jerk just because they have a (D) after their name.

        I'm voting for a candidate who's views I agree with in 2008.  Its up to the Democrats to nominate someone like that if they want my vote.

  •  You missed Christopher Walken (none)
    America needs more cow bell!

    (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

    by Steve4Clark on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:40:00 PM PST

  •  If PACs (none)
    indicate who may be considering the presidency then here are a couple more

    Barbara Boxer/  PAC For a Change http://www.barbaraboxer.com/

    Tom Daschle/ New Leadership for America
    http://www.newleadershipforamerica.com/

    Fight. Just Fight. Fight until you feel you have nothing left. Then fight some more.

    by EMKennedyLucio on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 02:55:43 PM PST

  •  Yuck (none)
    Yuck, everytime I see one of these lists, I'm inspired to go see whom the Greens might run in this election.  

    Is this bunch of schmucks really the best the Democratic Party can come up with?

    Admittedly, I'm probably being fair as I haven't given these bozos time to launch the campaigns where they reinvent themselves into whatever the focus groups say they should appear to be.

    From the list, Feingold, Edwards and maybe Richardson are the ones that don't send me running for an air-sickness bag just by looking at the names.  

    But there's not a name on that list that makes me jump up and go Wow!  Its more a question as to which of these might be the lesser evil to run as a greater evil but still lesser-evil-than-the-rethugs after they move to the hard right for the general election the way the Democrats always do.

    I enjoyed reading the quotes from Robert Kennedy yesterday.  When I look at this list, there isn't anyone even close to being able to talk about America the way he could.

    Anyone know any good psychics or medicine men who could bring Bobby Kennedy back from the grave?  Even as a relatively souless and braindead zombie, Bobby Kennedy could put this field to shame.

    Off to Google to see what the Greens are up to.....

  •  Bayh (none)
    Few will agree, judging from the number of votes he received, but Evan Bayh would be a perfect candidate in 2008, and the only one of these men that I think would be a guarantee winner. He's certainly not perfect. He's more conservative than I am. But if we want someone with mass appeal, he's the guy.
  •  Iraq observation (none)
    There are 7 senators listed:
    • 3 (Bayh, Edwards, Warner): cosponsors of the IWR.  
    • 1 (Hillary): voted for IWR, and remains a strong war cheerleader
    • 2 (Kerry,Biden): voted for IWR
    • 1 (Feingold): voted against IWR

    This means our leading candidates are 3 of the 8 Democratic cosponsors of the IWR, and 6 of the 27 Democrats who voted for the IWR.  

    Liberal and moderate Americans today are against the war.  Yet almost all of our candidates are way to the right of America and the party on Iraq, which will probably remain the single biggest issue of the next decade.  

  •  Please post a poll .... (none)
    Kos,
    Please post a poll on who we would least like to see.

    Does our government working for you?

    by mperloe on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:57:38 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site