Hillary or Russ? 08

[usregimechange]

Who would you rather see run for Dem. president in 08?

[Clark2008]

1. Neither

Wesley Clark.

We're gonna need a general to get us out of the mess Shrub will continue to get us into in the Middle East.

We're also gonna need someone who knows what it's like to be working class.

[usregimechange]

3. Than Clark/Fiengold? or Clark/Hillary nt

[krag]

4. Upstanding Guy

Lousy politician. Next.

[usregimechange]

6. His state keeps voting for him... nt WI is a battleground and

he wins there big. explain...

[Clark2008]

7. Good. I don't want a politician.

I want a stateman.

Besides... he wasn't a lousy politician. The corporate media told you to believe that. Nothing I saw told me he was.

[Radical Activist]

10. Statesman is another name for a dead politician

I wish I could remember who said that.

The fact that Clark did poorly in the primary might suggest that he's a lousy politician. He just barely won only one state and his speaking still is only compelling to his most devoted supporters. Running for President isn't time for amateur hour. And by amateur I mean someone who has never run or been elected to office before.

[iwantmycountryback]

16. I think Truman said that

And yes, Clark didn't really know how to campaign well. He was a rookie. But now that he has experience at the game he should do better in the future. He is clearly very qualified and he would be a great president. Right now my top choice is Feingold but Clark would be good for me.

[w4rma]

20. Lets not turn this into a sniping match.

Gen. Clark is a fantastic speaker also. Note, I support Sen. Feingold for his fighting the Patriot Act, voting against gun control, voting against the Iraq War Resolution, and voting against NAFTA and most other "free" trade agreements with countries that pay slave wages.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Clark entered late and had crappy people running his campaign

January - September = key fundraising period as well as running around in Iowa. Clark entered in October. More importantly, Clark entered in October with NO MONEY. Dean had raised millions by that time and had already dominated the grassroots money supply. Kerry mortgaged one of his wife's houses for cash. Clark didn't have that luxury. I also have to wonder if Clark was waiting for a Clinton endorsement that never happened and how that might have changed things.

Nonetheless, if it were Clark or Feingold, I'd have to pick Feingold. Clark's a good guy and I agree with him on a lot of issues. But the simple fact is that I've seen Feingold in action and I like what I've seen. Clark would make a good running mate and if done properly, that ticket could very easily make Louisiana and Arkansas swing states and those are 14 electoral votes that the GOP can't win without.

[Borgnine]

2. Neither

Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, or even John Edwards would all make better candidates.

[usregimechange]

5. Damn it, I choose forced choice for a reason. nt

[Upfront]

8. Neither!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Prodemsouth]

9. Neither- both are unelectable - Fiengold would make an excellent VP

n/t

[iwantmycountryback]

18. How is Feingold "unelectable"?

If he didn't appeal to the common man, I don't know who could. He doesn't accept any PAC money. He votes against all congressional pay raises, and when they pass, he returns the raise to the treasury. He is one of the poorest senators in the Senate. He is a maverick, the only US Senator to vote against the patriot act, he opposes NAFTA and the war. He is a populist and that's what this party needs right now.

[Prodemsouth]

19. Actually, unelectable was more directed at Hillary than Feingold.

I think introducing Feingold at the top of the ticket would be too risky- in other words he is Jewish- I don't think most Americans would vote for him at the top because of that. I think he would make a fine President-but I don't think many could get past him being Jewish. I don't want a test case in 08-like AL Smith in 1928...hmmm just thought of what happened later 1929, then 32. We need to win in 08. Some of the things that Feingold has done for instance voting against the patriot act will make him a ripe target for charges of being soft on defense. When you are running for President you got to worry about what the things can do to you in view of many Americans. Sometimes you have to worry about what 10% here thinks or 8% here thinks. My dream ticket Clark/Feingold in 08- Let the country get to know him better and he will be a reasonable prospect for President in 2016.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Bigots vote Republican, Jewish peoples' votes are up for grabs

Granted Jewish people lean Democratic but I think that Bush did very well with the Jewish contingency this year for a Republican. And here's the thing, since Russ isn't a Christian, if anybody question's his commitment to god, we can label it as an insult to all Jews.

[Prodemsouth]

28. What good would that do- it may cause a controversy, but in the end

people will vote the way they vote.

[iwantmycountryback]

25. I still think he is electable

Wisconsin is a pretty rural midwestern state, and he won by 12 points this year and Kerry barely won at all. Yes many people will believe voting against the Patriot Act is being soft on defense, but they probably won't vote for him anyway. I think many people are starting to worry about the constitutionality of it. He is also an economic populist, which would make it easier for many to vote Democrat, because when they see there's little difference in economic policy between the candidates they'll vote for the Repub because of his social views. Feingold is also very much the common man. The Jew factor does worry me, but I also believe most people who wouldn't vote for him for solely that reason are in red states. There are many Jews in Florida, to put that into consideration.

[Prodemsouth]

27. We need to win "red states" that is why we are not seeing Democrats

in the white house. So we are going to need some of these voters you are dismissing. Wisconsin is still a "blue state" because Gore won it in 2000.

[Radical Activist]

11. Midwestern populist

Russ would be good. He would make Wisconsin and the upper midwest states safe so we can spend our resources trying to win red states. There's no reason we should have had such a close battle for Wisconsin and Iowa. Minnesota should not have even been a swing state. Kerry spent too much time defending states Gore won in 2000 and not enough time trying to win Red states, other than Ohio and Florida.

[usregimechange]

15. Agreed, and Fiengold may be strong in other mid-west states nt

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Yea, why isn't Minnesota a safe blue state?

I know that in 2000 Nader did very well there and thus Gore barely won it, but isn't Minnesota traditionally a very left leaning state? How the hell did Coleman get elected there and why is Dayton's seat going to be competative? I always thought that Minnesota was a solid democratic state. Wisconsin and Iowa I understand being swing states but they shouldn't be first tier battle-ground states, Kerry should've won them by at least 3-4 points.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Since Senators can't get elected, how about Dean/Feingold '08?

I think that's a winning ticket :)

Or would be, in a world without Diebold and the corporate whore of Babylon media.

[Radical Activist]

13. Some people say New England elitists can't get elected either

John Kennedy disproves both of those notions. Broad statements like "x or y" can't get elected don't mean anything if you can't back them up with solid logic. Just because Senator Kerry didn't get elected doesn't mean no one can.

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. John Kennedy didn't have to fight Diebold, Mediawhores and the DLC.....

...or he would have never won either.

The South has dominated politics for far too long in both parties. It's absolutely intolerable that one region of the country holds all the power in DC.

Dean & Feingold on one ticket might themselves be from "blue" states, but their message would be one that would play in so-called Middle America, except the deepest pits of Freeperdom, and NOBODY in this party is gonna reach those idiots.

[FREEDOMRULES3]

14. neither

Edwards/Obama

[zulchzulu]

17. If Russ needs a bodyguard...

...I'm there.

Although I think America doesn't deserve Russ, I'd do ALL I could to make sure he becomes President...as soon as we fix the BBV problem.

[elshiva]

23. Too Early to Choose, Hon

I like Feingold and I LOVE Hillary, but also love Obama, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Kuinich...
I'm too sad to think about Hillary not winning cos she's a woman or Obama cos he is black or even Dean cos he from da Nurf...

[infusionman]

29. Hilary has too much baggage.

[elshiva]

30. Yeah and She's

A W-O-M-A-N. WH= glass ceiling central

[WindRavenX]

32. And it hasn't brought her down

That's a GOOD sign. Kerry's "baggage" (which he really didn't have) really hurt him, but Hillary has a coat of teflon on her: Karl Rove can do his worst, and she CAN come out of it undamaged.

[Clarkie1]

31. I casted my vote against Hillary

[Charon]

33. Dem. president in o8?

I do not think either has a solid shot. Warner from Virginia is a better bet.

[noonwitch]

34. I think Hillary would be a great president

I also think some freeper types would be continually attempting to assassinate her throughout her presidency, and the GOP would treat her as they did her hubby and investigate every thing she ever did. The public knows her baggage, it's not shocking and new to anyone. Her record as a Senator is strong so far, and much more recent history. I would love to see her as President partly to see a strong woman in the job and partly to watch the right wing totally freak out.

If the GOP run Frist or Santorum, I think she'd stand a good chance of winning. If they run McCain or Rudy, she wouldn't.

[Grip]

35. Dear God! Those are choices?

Ah, great, I am still looking for the canidate that is going to represent me and mine.

[fujiyama]

36. What candidate represents you?

and yor issues?

[fujiyama]

37. Is there a question?

One candidate voted for IWR, PATRIOT Act, the recent budget, and a lot of other crap Bush proposed.

The other voted against ALL of those things and won a swing state by 10%.

Hillary Clinton would be a disaster and I see not one compelling reason to run her. That would quite honestly be one of the dumbest moves the party could make.

[JHB]

38. Hillary in '12...

...for a THIRD SENATE TERM.

Keep her where she's strongest.