2008 could be a re-run of 2004

[quinnox]

It sounds like Edwards and Kerry might both be interested in running again. Wouldn't that be something, if they both ran in 2008 again? Do you think Edwards would beat him this time, or would Kerry get a second chance at the brass ring?

Of course it also depends on what the rest of the field would be like, if Hillary Clinton entered or who knows who else. Maybe even Clark again.

[JuniorPlankton]

1. I believe Kerry is done

His loss this time will not allow him to be nominated again (he can try though)

[Mike L]

50. Kerry couldn't beat the worst president in 100 years.

Who would nominate him again? Edwards has a shot at it, but what we need is a Southern Governor to run in 2008.

[depakid]

60. No Southern Governors

That's THE VERY LAST THING WE NEED- a pandering Southern governor. That's a sure loser. Dems aren't going to win in the South- and they don't need to.

[quaoar]

65. Oh yes, let's lose again

Losing the entire South worked so well in the last two elections, let's do it again!!!!

[Griffy]

59. THIS ISNT OVER MARCH NOW... hit the streets ..

the revolution is here... this is NOT a drill

[ibegurpard]

2. Gore had a better argument for his renomination in 2004

Than Kerry would for 2008.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I would've supported the RE-elect Gore campaign under 2 circumstances...

1) 9/11 had not happened.

2) He had hired Clinton's strategists instead of Bob Shrum.

[andyhappy]

3. Kerry Finito

Good riddance man...I stood behind the guy, volunteered, phone banked, gave money and watched him wuss out on national TV time and time again. He made our party look like a bunch of losers.

I thought he was a fighter!

[Gyre]

4. 2008 w/o oversight reform =s PLACEBO election

And with dem majorities nowhere and a direct beneficiary of election fraud in the WH, representative democracy here is non-existant! My attitude towards 2006 and 2008 is I'm OUT OF IT.

Gyre

[VTdem]

5. It all depends on what Kerry does for the next four years

in the senate. What if he emerges as the leading voice against the Republicans? If hes willing to take a leadership role and attack
he'll be able to gain a lot of respect with voters by the time
2008 rolls around. As for Edwards, I just don't know how he's going
to get his message across and be heard enough to make a run in '08.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. There are many ways that Kerry can redeem his image.

All of them involve fighting like he has never fought before.

That statement is predicated upon the possibility that he is not fighting right now, for the election and voting transparency, in a quiet manner. Which I would thing he would be mad to not be doing so.

I do not think that the man is mad. I do think that the man is measured, thoughtful and estimating.

[VTdem]

7. Right. But let's say hes not going to make any attempt

to overturn this particular election, but he spends the next four years fighting to revamp the elction system for next time. Would he still have the respect of the Democratic voters if he "gave up" on this one, but dedicated himself to making sure it never happend again.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Respect is something that is earned and grows.

I would think that if he were to take the point on this issue, and brush aside the slings and arrows, he would garner great respect.

The sanctity of the vote is a gut-level issue. People grok it. Except for freepers, of course. Grokking assumes firing neurons.

[AuntiBush]

48. Interesting...

I like your ideals. Sounds right. Maybe I should give-up on Kerry, yet!

[Blue Wally]

10. Kerry is a "back bencher"

Kerry has never been a leader or a team player in the Senate. He has been pretty much a loner. Why it was so easy to criticize him for never having done anything of any note in the Senate.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Au Contraire, Kerry was very influential in the Democratic caucus

There's a reason that he was seriously considered as Gore's running mate and already a potential candidate for 2004 after Bush stole 2000.

[AuntiBush]

49. Loner is good though...

I know a man that's a piller in my state. He works alone, though he's been offered plenty of top jobs... he trusts but himself and can make decisions on his own. I rather like that - we're so use to gang-busters and political-looping, we need to give a lone-gunner a shot sometimes.

[Blue Wally]

63. We did and we lost......

Even if he had become president, Kerry, like Kennedy, would have had trouble with Congress. LBJ knew how the levers of power in Congtress worked and was very successful in getting his legislation through. Kerry, unlike kennedy, would have had the added burden of working with a Republican congress.

[marc_the_dem]

15. I agree

That is a distinct advantage that Kerry has.... Edwards will not have the same forum so it hard to say what will happen with him.

[AP]

22. The advantages Edwards will have:

He's going to start off with a higher profile, which is going to help.

Also, he's really going to look like a guy who cares much more about making other people's lives better than he cares about his own wealth or power.

I think that's going to connect with a lot of people.

[IndianaGreen]

37. At least Edwards wanted to fight for every vote in Ohio

rather that concede the election before all the votes were properly counted. We now know that Edwards will fight!

[Leilani]

38. We know he will fight?

I know nothing of the sort.

Why isn't he fighting now?

[IndianaGreen]

41. His wife is sick

and we should respect that.

[Leilani]

44. Hold on,

I truly hope Mrs Edwards makes a complete recovery, & I wish her nothing but the best, & I have expressed that several times here at DU.

But the Edwards have not exactly gone into seclusion. They have been out & around D.C., appeared on Larry King last night, are booked for New Hampshire fund raiser next month, were at the Kennedy Center the other night.

(And I'm really happy she is WELL enough to do those things)

The Intel Bill on the Senate floor was voted on the other day...lots of Senators made speeches about the pros & cons. Neither Kerry or Edwards made the debate, however I believe they both voted Aye. I know Kerry did, because I watched the entire thing.

So, it's hard to have it both ways. Edwards is politicking for 2008.
But the Grand Silence on the vote continues.

[AP]

52. They both voted.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00216

And I'm not sure what's so awful about Kerry and Edwards not giving speeches about the bill.

Here's a list of the people who spoke. There are plenty of democrats who aren't on that list.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:9:./temp/~r108gPkDPL::

[IndianaGreen]

36. Kerry change his ways from the way he has been for the last 20 years?

Let's face it! Kerry's legislative milestone was the BCCI scandal and that one took place 20 years ago.

What if he emerges as the leading voice against the Republicans?
Is Kerry going to join the Congressional Black Caucus in challenging the Electoral votes from Ohio? If he is going to sit on his ass as he did 4 years ago when the Florida votes were challenged, he won't be worth voting for dog catcher in 2008.

[Radical Activist]

8. Kerry, Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gore

It could be a whole field of people who ran before. I'm sure we'll get some new faces as well. Thank goodness. It would get boring without some new people.

[marc_the_dem]

17. we'll have boatloads

of newbies from both sides... 2008 promises to be quite a show.

[Radical Activist]

18. It will be fun won't it?

I love it when both sides have a competitive primary. People get to see the real diversity of views that are out there along with all the ideas that the corporate media usually hides away.
It should be very entertaining to watch.

[WI_DEM]

11. Gore could run under the "Nixon formula"

Nixon lost a very close election in 1960 and sat out '64 and then came back in '68. I wouldn't rule him out.

[marc_the_dem]

19. Reasonable

That seems to be a reasonable assumption. If Iraq is still a factor in 2008 that would make it almost uncanny.... Nixon won in the midst of an unpopular war...

[Hippo_Tron]

51. There's a difference, Gore's campaign was an embarassment

Yea he really won the election but it should've been WAY outside of the margin of error. Gore was an intelligent man who had an active roll as VP in a very popular administration to run on. His opponent was a Governor from Texas who never held a responsible job in his life until he was governor, never served in the military, and sounded like a fucking idiot. Gore blew it. He lost the debates to George "I need to sound like a fucking moron to appeal to 'common folk'" Bush. In contrast to Clinton's electoral landslide, Gore lost the four southern states that Clinton won, he lost West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire and BARELY squeaqed by in Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. He lost his home state that Clinton WON! I understand that Florida was close and that Florida was stolen. Bottom line, a Bush win in Florida shouldn't have mattered.

[Leilani]

54. I think some of the Clinton scandal hurt Gore

He was hurt, in that he separated himself from Clinton, & lost his valuable help.

OTOH, the Clinton scandal affected some voters, & they wanted a change.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Monica Lewinsky didn't do jack shit politically...

Yea, we lost some political ground over it but Republicans lost more for impeaching the president on bullshit charges. Clinton left office with a higher approval rating than when he entered. Gore ran away from Clinton for no reason, hence his horrible VP pick like Joe Lieberman. He should've run on Clinton's economic success and picked somebody like Paul Wellstone for VP to get the Nader voters.

[Killarney]

12. I think it needs to be someone that hasn't already been defined.

which would rule out Kerry, Edwards, and most certainly Hillary (the most defined of them all).

[robbedvoter]

23. Ha!Ha! How long it takes the media to "define" anyone? A month?

[Killarney]

26. I was kind of hoping that this time we could work hard to

define our candidate ourselves.

Naive, I know. ;)

[JI7]

13. i think it might depend on McCain

if it looks like mccain will run in 2008 and if it seems the party will unite behind him then many democrats will put off running in that year.

the thing with the Republican primary is that it is predictable. almost the entire party unites behind a candidate over a year before the iowa caucuses takes place as they did with Bush. if this happens with mccain then i can see some democrats putting it off.

[Leilani]

32. McCain will NOT get the Repub nomination

He is against tax cuts, & the Fundies hate him.

Guiliani will not get the nomination either.

Watch Frist, Senator from Virginia, (Allen?) & some unknowns.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Frist keeps getting named as a possible, but I don't think

he can make any serious headway. He looks like a fundie, he acts like a fundie, he talks like a fundie, and he probably smells like a fundie. He has absolutely zero dynamism or charisma.

While I don't *get* Chimpus Khan's appeal, its there. He and his handlers made a man of a mouse and sold it lock stock and barrel. But they had good raw material. A loose, lanky hard drinking, good ol boy with a strong family name.

Frist has none of that.

Frist will not be the nominee ........ unless the country becomes a new kind of dictatorship ...... a dictatorship by a cabal and not by a titular head. A dictatorship where rigged voting is used to make masses feel involved. Then Frist could make it and be the neoashkroft. ***That*** scares the shit out of me.

[Leilani]

45. Well, Frist gives me the creeps,

but hey, who thought Dubya would be Prez?

The party faithful seem to like Frist, although he has been less than stellar as Majority Leader.

George Allen (Va) is being talked about. He was the chair of reelecting Repug Senators. He's also very smarmy.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. Allen would be more in line with their notion of a leader

A malleable empty suit. Where Chimpus Khan had this wild west schtick going, Allen could do a whole sports themed thing, what with his dad having been this big high mucky muck feetsball coach and all ........

But most important he's dumb as a rock and has a wonderful, albeit sickeningly smarmy smile. And, although a product of southern California, he has that afected southern twang going.

........ right out of central casting.

[amandabeech]

14. New faces, please.

Personally, I like many of the "old candidates," but they have problems that have kept them from winning.

I like Edwards, but I still have concerns about his experience in the public sector.

Other than him, we need to take a look at the Midwestern and Southern governors frequently mentioned here.

Of course, who knows what will be going on in the country and the world by 2007-2008. Sometimes unexpected folks really rise to the occasion and must be considered for "promotion," even in politics.

[robbedvoter]

24. Lie-proof perfection candidates. Diebold proof too. Smart.

[Walt Starr]

16. Losers should not be given second chances for the presidency

Seriously, Kerry would only lose bigger in 2008.

No more Senators, we've proven the case against running a Senator!

[Leilani]

20. Looks like Joe Biden is running

so he's a new addition.

Kerry of 2008 will be same old Kerry of 2004. I'm not going down that same road again.

Edwards? He added so much to the ticket...NOT!

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Spare us Joe Biden

I like the guy a lot, but as a pres candidate? I don't think so. He's much more effective as the part-time opportunist attack dog he's so effectively been for his entire senate career.

[robbedvoter]

25. Only to people who thought 2004 was an actual election

[Liberal Chad from WI]

27. NO CLINTON

i love the clintons thru and thru, but she will never win the red states. we need a moderate democrat from the south like bill clinton was. i hope we pick the right canidate.

[Kitsune]

28. No way in hell would I vote for Kerry again.

He wasted my vote once already, I don't intend to let him do it again.

[GRLMGC]

29. Please, its 4 years away

It's useless to predict the future considering how the climate will change. I didn't know who the candidates were in 2001. I had no idea. I thought Gore was going to run again and it turned out that he didn't. I'm going to wait and see before I make any decisions about who I think is going to run.

[lojasmo]

30. Kerry, Edwards, Biden, and Clinton

Four peas in a pod.... :puke:

[Zinfandel]

31. As long as they continue have their electronic voting machines with

no paper trail, owned and operated by these same corporate republicans...it will continue to be the same...Democrats always just losing by a few points.

This is a plain fact.

[Leilani]

33. Whoever is the nominee in 2008

must sign a pledge to never, ever, go anywhere near Bob Shrum.

Actually, it should be the Dem platform: NO BOB SHRUM

[IndianaGreen]

34. Let's run Harold Stassen! Oh, he's dead... and he was also GOP

albeit a very liberal one.

Let's try something other than the tired same-old-shit that has brought us defeat after defeat!

Kerry-Edwards had their chance!

[Leilani]

35. Hear! Hear!

EOM

[janx]

42. A lot changes in four years.

I don't think it'll be the same. Kerry might try to run again, but I honestly don't think he'll get much traction after the disappointment of this last botched election.

But we might find a more exciting process. There may well be more grassroots activity.

In the meantime, we should use all the local activity we can muster to get good candidates elected in 2006. We'll need that support later.

[TayTay]

43. Who knows!

2008 is a long way away. Conditions will change and that will produce whatever slate of candidates both sides get. 4 Repug Senators are seriously considering running, Frist, McConnell, Hagel and McCain. Who know if they will actually make the jump or not. I don't care if any Dems who ran before run again. They have to go through the money raising process and then go through the primary process, which is grueling. It's so far off and so many changes will happen between now and then.

The conditions will be so different. We are apt to go through a period of war fatigue. (The public gets tired of the war effort. Happens after every war. Sometimes happens during a war when the war itself is murky and the goal of the war is uncertain and keeps changing.) Who knows what the economic situation will be. If layoffs continue and real wages keep falling, that favors an economic populist. And so forth and so on. Who knows?

Let anybody who wants to run, run. The more people the more debates. That used to be a strength of Democrats.

[AuntiBush]

47. Kerry OUT! Edwards/Dean

Ticked that Kerry took the high road! At least GORE fought to the bitter end. Edwards and Dean...toss up. Any thoughts?

[Clarkie1]

53. Edwards is a weak candidate and would lose the general election

Chiefly because most of his experience in life is not in a position of national or international leadership.

Kerry is a non-starter, and Hillary would be a big risk. Her winnning the General would be a long-shot at best.

We need Clark or someone else who approaches his caliber.

[Yupster]

57. My early prediction

Hillary throws her hat in the ring and the field dissolves away. She wins the primaries before they even start. No contest at all.

I don't get any feel at all for the Republican field though.

[NuttyFluffers]

58. if we still have an america 2007 i'll let you know.

until then i'm more worried about all the fraud and evil that's been going on to destroy america.

[fujiyama]

61. We have a lot of time...

We may see Hillary entering the field.

But I don't think she'll be an automatic winner in the primaries. As we saw this time, the talk of "electability" may be one reason that helped Kerry, whether it was true or not.

There's a great chance, that Hillary may have great early success like Dean enjoyed, but in time people may question whether she can really win. I think the voters in Democratic primaries will not nominate another northeasterner. In Kerry's case, voters were impressed with his war service and long experience in the senate.

As we get farther away from the Clinton years, the Clintons' clout may fade. We may see some interesting up and comers entering the field. We may also see several southern governers run (like Warner of VA or Easely of NC or Bradeson of TN). I don't know much about these people, but I'm sure we will over time.

There is always the possibility that Kerry and Edwards may make a deal, that if one enters, the other will not. Even Lieberman, who isn't liked by most (and understandably so), was decent enough in stating that he would not run if Gore decided to again.

Personally, I'm not so sure I'd like to see Kerry. I like him. I think he would have made a great president...but he had his chance...

The only person I think has a decent chance in '08, that ran this time, would be Clark. He had a rough start - got in the game late, was relatively inexperienced...This really hurt his chances. But he really improved over time. He was a great surrogate and campaigner for Kerry.

The security situation will still be precarious and most likely fucked up after another 3 years to say the least. Clark's foreign policy experience wouldn't hurt.

[FrenchieCat]

62. I agree Fujiyama...

Clark is the only one that ran in 2004 that could actually win in 2008. Clark is southern and NOT a Senator. The fact that he ran before also gives us a leg up on what the attacks on him would be.

Also, many voters never got a chance to know him because he didn't get much press. Hell, some didn't even know he was still running after mini Tuesday....where he did quite well in States we could use.....Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota....he even won Oklahoma--which shows that those conservative Democrats that have been voting for Bush actually could vote Clark much easier than others...and don't forget Dixville Notch in NH. Maybe it's the mano-mano General Daddy party perception Clark generates. But Clark is very progressive...so that makes it even better. If we ran those "moderate" Southern Governors...The left would be dealing with true moderation (there a large faction of activist that wouldn't want that). With Clark, we get our cake and Ice Cream too.

Red Dog Democrat.
Takes no sh*t....
and kick ass in the Red States.

[bluestateguy]

64. Neither one of them will be nominated

Kerry will quickly realize that he has no groundswell of support as a former has been candidate. He'll be like McGovern in 1984 trying to make a comeback, or Humphrey in 1972. There just won't be anything there anymore.

Edwards would be viable if he were still a senator, but since he's out of power he has no official platform for the next three years on which to stand, and he'd be vulnerable on the experience issue.

My early favorites who'd I'd like to see nominated would be Gore, Clark or Mike Easley.

[patricia92243]

66. Insanity= doing same thing over and over and expect different results!!