Seriously - whom would you wish to see as the Democratic Candidate

[Bullwinkle925]

run for the Presidency in '08?

[napi21]

1. I'm leaning toward Mark Warner.

I think any Senator is a dead horse. The last candidate to be elected directly from the Senate was Jack Kennedy. THAT WAS 45 YEARS AGO!

Doesn't that tell you something????

[AndreaCG]

31. No General has lost since Ike

That tells us something too!

[KBlagburn]

56. Alexander Haig lost

he ran in the 88 repub primaries. did'nt go very far.

[Bucky]

77. So did MacArthur in '48. But I think Andrea meant "once nominated"

Of course there have been generals nominated in the 19th century who lost--Hancock for one.

[leyton]

91. And no general has won.

That also tells us something.

[elperromagico]

106. Problem is, Ike had a nationwide reputation as a war hero.

Clark's credentials as a general are highly impressive but few Americans could find Kosovo on a map, let alone tell you who was in charge of NATO forces there.

In terms of resume, Clark possibly is the absolute best candidate the Democrats could have. His is the resume of an intelligent, compassionate man who has served his country honorably for all of his adult life. We all know, as well, how impressive his fundraising organization was during the primaries. There is very little doubt, as evidenced here on DU, that the General has a strong core of dedicated supporters.

Still, the question of political experience rears its ugly head. However, I'm not convinced it's a total negative. We all know how well Edwards, with only six years of political experience, did.

I'm convinced that the big thing that hurt Clark was his decision to pull out of Iowa. Of course, it was a practical decision based on his late entry into the race.

But I believe that Clark would have benefitted highly from Dean's drop-off in support in Iowa, possibly gaining a large portion of the support Kerry eventually got. Considering the similarities between Dean and Clark's positions vis a vis the war in Iraq, and comparing the military records of Clark and Kerry, I don't believe that is a ridiculous conclusion to reach.

Clark was doing extremely well in NH prior to the IA caucuses. Indeed, IIRC, he was running second behind Dean in most polling. A win in IA would have given him a huge boost. As it was, Kerry's win in IA gave him the Big MO; he went on to sweep most of the rest of the primaries and Clark was relegated to a distant third.

I've rambled on and on and on and on. I hope I've made some sort of point, though.

[MisterLiberal]

34. I don't know WHO I would want next time!

All the ones I thought were cool have either went soft and told us to open our party to Anti-Choice forces, the Religious Wackos (and I am starting to see a bunch of that on this very forum; leave your religion in the CHURCH! This is about POLITICS) or attacking our stance for protecting basic rights for gays.

Who does that leave? Dennis? Who else?

[iwantmycountryback]

40. John Kerry came damn close to winning

And he was a poor, boring candidate who ran a weak campaign against a wartime President. And he came 1 state away from winning. Feingold is a strong, exciting candidate who would most likely run an excellent campaign. He would much more be able to connect with voters on a personal level.

[genius]

54. Correction. John Kerry did win. This is what his victory looks like.

[genius]

53. Dennis Kucinich is the only man with the backbone to save America

Everyone else is an invertebrate by comparison.

[GreenPartyVoter]

100. Dennis is the guy for me

[leyton]

89. I voted for Edwards, but then Warner wasn't on the poll.

I think the whole bit about Senators being unelectable is overdone at best. For starters, Senators are often hampered by the manner of speaking they adopt in the halls of Congress - something I think we can agree does not plague Mr. Edwards. Also, the past three Senators to be nominated (Goldwater, McGovern, and Dole) were challenging popular incumbents and had little chance of winning anyway.

That said, I like Mark Warner, a lot. He's a popular and capable executive who may bring us a pocketful of home-state electoral votes (which Edwards would not), and he has appeal to the rural voters that so many Democratic politicians mistakenly write off. Had he been on this poll, I would probably have selected him.

[Imagevision]

102. JOE Wilson!

[KingFlorez]

2. I'm not focused on that yet

I'm focused on 2006 which is a higher priority now.

[evlbstrd]

3. No vote. Concentrate on 2006 midterms.

But I will say I do not want Hillary to run, and will not vote for her in the primaries. I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries last time around.

[norml]

4. OK, since you've stopped with the Hillary nonsense I'll be serious.

I want this guy to run.



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=democrat+%22tom+hanks%22&btnG=Google+Search

[Bucky]

79. Is that from Castaway, Apollo 13, or Forrest Gump?

[DanCa]

5. Wes Clark

John Kerry got us to the beach now it's the General turn to lead us in hth combat.

[newswolf56]

6. By 2008, Edwards' "two Americas" campaign will speak loudly...

to most of the electorate: I expect the economy to be that wretched. I don't care for some of Edward's policy stances -- his anti-gun views badly hurt the party in rural America -- but he's the ONLY candidate focusing on our nation's dramatically worsening poverty. I believe that by 2008, Bush's assault on working families will have made that poverty into THE election issue, with even the war secondary. (That is, if the Republicans don't find some rationale for suspending the elections -- which as economic conditions worsen to the point of increasing domestic unrest, they are ever more likely to do.)

Though I make no claim to the economist's wisdom, mere common sense says the combination of skyrocketing fuel prices and our government's dependence on Chinese credit will bring about U.S. economic collapse that will make 1929 look like a mere recession. In fact I believe all the outsourcing and concentration of wealth is above all else the plutocracy's preparation for the debacle: moving the means of production to realms where it's easier for brute force to suppress rebellion with maximum bloodshed.

What will be very interesting is the response of China: will it be true to its burgeoning capitalist ethos and tell the rest of the world to Foxtrot Oscar, or will it revert to its underlying Marxism and respond accordingly?


Edit: for clarity.

[formernaderite]

23. I'm leaning toward Edwards myself,

if it has to be a Senator. I do however believe we need to "hire" an executive..someone from the Governors office.

[1932]

25. Anti-gun views? I vaguely remember him sounding pro-gun...

...he said something about "growing up with hunters" in one of the debates, which I thought a lot of anti-gun violence Democrats might not like when I heard it.

But then again, wasn't there something about how the campaign manager, who ran Warner's governor's race on a pro-gun message and worked with Bob Graham's campaign, who flirted with the Edwards campaign until Edwards said that they didn't understand the race Edwards was trying to run (presumably, he meant they wanted him to run a campaign appealing to moderates on Second Amendment issues, as Warner did, while Edwards wanted to appeal to the same voters with an economic message).

This is all very hazy, but those were some things I remember from the campaign. However, I'm not sure that E. was anti-gun. I think he was running as pro-gun rights, but he just didn't want to make it a main focus.

As for the economic thing, I don't think it will be gas prices and China credit that is the problem for the US economy. I think the problem will be the widening gap between rich and poor. I think that's was the central economic problem that precipitated the Great Depression. I think that's the economic problem that is becoming a huge risk factor again.

[newswolf56]

29. Edwards' growing-up-with-hunters speech was a essentially a defense...

of Kerry's anti-gun platform: semi-auto ban disguised as an "assault weapons ban," universal mandatory registration, end to all gun shows, DC/Canadian style mandatory storage (all guns to be disassembled and locked up unless actually in use, even in residences without children -- such a storage measure suicidally absurd in cougar/bear country or other areas where quick access to a firearm is vital for survival {the Canadian law has already gotten several people killed by bears}). With Edwards' rural roots, if he were running as the top of the ticket, his gun policy might be a lot more rational.

While the Great Depression surely widened the gap between rich and poor, its primary cause was the collapse of the stock market due to huge purchases of inflated-value stock on credit: clearly analogous to the U.S. government financing its operations on borrowed Chinese money. Another collapse is thus inevitable. The underlying cause of the Great Depression was malicious Franco-English destruction of the German economy -- once the world's healthiest -- via the Treaty of Versailles: inflation so bad a can of coffee literally cost a wheelbarrow full of paper deutsch marks -- the same crisis that gave the Nazis their jackboot in the proverbial door. As always, the plutocracy was virtually untouched by the Depression: according to relatives, some of the wealthy in Boston even made it a point to flaunt ostentatious outdoor Christmas decorations -- as if saying "hurray for me but screw everybody else" -- while the poor were literally starving on the streets.

Periodic ruinous economic crises are one of the defining characteristics of capitalism, but from the Great Depression until until the Reagan era, government jobs programs and the availability of social-services relieved much of their viciousness. Now all those programs are gone -- methodically destroyed by DemoPublican politicians in the interest of shifting more money to the plutocrats. As to gas prices, it was skyrocketing fuel costs that plunged the U.S. into the worst post-Depression economic crisis: "stagflation" -- a vicious combination of inflation and shrinking employment that struck in 1973 and lasted until about 1984, including the Reagan recession, which in some parts of the country including Washington state was a genuine depression. It wasn't Reagonomics that saved us from stagflation; it was merely that fuel prices stabilized and the downcycle finally played out.

Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who genuinely cares about the poor -- a fact that is going to stand him in very good stead when the Bush assault on working families reduces most of us to abject, Great-Depression-style poverty.


Edit: typo

[Hippo_Tron]

44. Umm, do you have a link to Kerry's "Anti-gun platform"

Because I think that's a crock of shit.

[newswolf56]

51. Here are two links. One is to the 2004 Democratic Platform, the other...

is to a Conservative source that links mostly to the National Rifle Association, which tracks the firearms-related voting records of all politicians (and therefore endorses the few pro-gun Democrats too).

The Democratic source is here:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/platforms/D2004platform.pdf

The relevant quote in the Democratic Platform is on page 18, which notes support for "reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

The Conservative source, which is very complete, is here:

http://kerrysenate.com/gunvotes.htm

Just as I take the American Civil Liberties Union's word on matters related to the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments, I take the NRA's word on matters related to the Second Amendment. I belong to both organizations, and have for decades.

[CAcyclist]

86. That's Not An Anti -Gun Stance

Anti-Columnbine Massacre stance, maybe, but not anti-gun.

No one needs assault weapons. No one.

[newswolf56]

110. What about people too disabled (or crippled by arthritis) to crank...

a bolt, jack a lever or rack a slide? "Assault weapons" as defined by the expired law are merely legal semi-automatics (each round requiring a separate trigger pull) with certain military cosmetic features. And even many of the arms specifically targeted by the old law have vital usefulness: they make superb home self-defense arms for people who cannot shoot effectively with handguns, especially those who live in rural areas where cougars or bears (which require heavy caliber weapons) are not part of the threat profile.

Moreover -- despite the deliberate semantic confusion created by anti-gun zealots -- fully automatic weapons have been effectively outlawed since the National Firearms Act of 1934, which remains in effect.

But the recently defeated law for which Kerry et al voted was far worse than the expired "assault weapons" law. Indeed the new law was a genuine backdoor semi-auto ban: it would have prohibited many sporting arms made specifically for big-game hunting and competitive target shooting -- not to mention completely disarming people whose physical conditions leave them unable to cycle manually operated firearms.

In other words, to say that "No one needs assault weapons. No one." is really to argue that "No one needs semi-automatics. No one." -- which is the same as arguing that "No one needs wheel chairs. No one."

[Texas_Kat]

87. Hmmmmm

"Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who genuinely cares about the poor -- a fact that is going to stand him in very good stead when the Bush assault on working families reduces most of us to abject, Great-Depression-style poverty."

You're kidding right?

No other Demcrat care about the poor and disenfranchised in the good ole' US of A?

That kind of over the top rhetoric won't win any friends (or voters, either).

[AmericanDream]

95. he is the only one talking about it...

For one, I believe he was talking about the democratic leadership. And, secondly, Edwards is the only one who talks so passionately and boldly about it. Most demoratic leaders do care about the issue, but they fail to speak about it fearlessly as a top priority to build a movement around it... some of them have even bought into the stupid "poor people are useless morally challenged drug addicts" or they at least believe that such an image that is being imposed by the republicans on average americans is too hard to counter. Regardless of what you think of Edwards, his work in the past few months deserves praise.

[barb162]

55. The Two Americas "thing" didn't work even in Ohio which has been

ravaged by unemployment. (Values etc took precedence)I was amazed. I think Edwards is my favorite candidate by far out of the ones listed

[1932]

58. I was in Ohio for that primary and although 2-Am didn't win it, I wouldn't

say that it didn't work.

It got him over 1/3rd of the vote (to Kerry's 1/2).

The guy was personable nobody with a biography that, until he became a Senator, wasn't very different from the father of someone with whom your kids go to school.

Where'd that 1/3rd of the vote come from? It came from that speech.

[barb162]

59. okay, other things (Rove's BS) worked better

including stealing votes

[Nite Owl]

7. Not really sure yet

'06 is where we need to set our goal. If we can get a dem Congress, either house if not both than '08 would be easier. I'd love to see Barbara Boxer but realistically I don't know if a woman could make it to the Presidency yet and this is too important to experiment.

[MrSlayer]

8. General Clark.

He would be tremendous as President and with a cooperative Congress could be legendary. Too bad the Pukes own the voting machines and the vote counters.

[longship]

9. Him

[Texas_Kat]

10. General Wesley Clark

And I'm dead serious.

[Debs]

11. Dennis Kucinich

His integrity and intelligence is what is needed to bring the electorate back from total apathy

[howmad1]

112. Well, O.K.

How about a Clark/Kucinich ticket?

[PeachyDem88]

12. The General

Wes Clark is going to get my first-ever primary vote.
God willing, he'll get my first-ever vote for president.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

13. Until we have Paper Verifiable Ballots it is a moot point.

We won in 2000, we won in 2004. Without paper ballots our wins will never be acknowledged.

Frankly, I would vote for the first candidate that screams from the top of their lungs......."THE 2004 ELECTION WAS STOLEN!" I have no faith in those who are sweeping it under the rug.

[Clark2008]

33. Welcome to DU, peachy!

:hi:

And you're supporting a great man, to boot!! :hug:

[Booster]

49. Welcome to DU, Peachy and thanks for coming on board to help

us - it's going to take all of us.

[FourStarDemocrat]

69. Welcome to DU PeachyDem88!

I agree with your choice there too. :)

[IndianaDemocrat]

14. Evan Bayh ....

Young, telegenic, with a personality and VOTING RECORD that will be attractive to the Moderates and Middle America.....

Looking at the choices, I have to wonder if we ACTUALLY want to win another election, or get beaten handily again??

[iwantmycountryback]

41. I know of a young, teleginic Midwestern Senator

who actually IS a Democrat. Bayh make a decent Democrat to have from Indiana, but he does not belong on a national DEMOCRATIC ticket. Russ Feingold is who I'm talking about. A strong Democrat who will have strong appeal to the Midwest. Putting Bayh on the top of the ticket would be compromising our Democratic principles, even though he may have a better chance of winning. I'd rather stick up for principles than win, though Feingold can do both of those.

[AmericanDream]

60. He will totally demotivate the base.... and LOSE!

the republicans win by energizing their base... and we are always looking for the guy who will look good to the moderates rather than the one who will stand up for us. For once, let's select someone we can proudly stand behind and be energized about... and then we can turn out the independents and those who don't vote by carving the right message and being the enthusiastic foot soldiers for that message. Of course, we don't want a lightening rod but we need someone who knows how to talk about core democratic ideals in an appealing moderate tone... Bayh doesn't even have those ideals. He will never get my vote... I actually believe that McCain is more liberal than him.

[pox americana]

15. Conyers/ McKinney

Those two are dynamite. Absolutely fearless.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. Wouldn't that be something?

Two actual DEMOCRATS on the ticket?

I wish. :(

[Zero Division]

16. I'm still interested in a possible run by Russ Feingold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

A solid, but independent-minded liberal who seems very electable to me.

[Cocoa]

27. I second Feingold

he'd be a great candidate and a great president. :bounce:

[flaminbats]

47. Feingold can win all the states Kerry did..plus Iowa

I have another idea..maybe Feingold can switch parties and run in the Republican primaries. Liberals need a voice in the majority party, and running a candidate in the Presidential primaries is the best way to make an entrance!

Conservatives felt powerless in the Democratic party of the 60's. So first they backed Goldwater, then Reagan, and eventually helped Republicans win control of Congress. It takes time..and even some failures, but success without persistence is like a tree without a trunk.

[cascadiance]

94. Feingold would be my choice too...

I wouldn't mind seeing either a Feingold/Clark or Feingold/Boxer ticket.

Feingold's done so much that is good for this party and this country that it just needs to be sold more. He was responsible for "Feingold-McCain" (said that way intentionally!), which even though in it's present compromised form isn't adequate yet, in spirit is THE issue that government needs to fix (corporate corruption of our government), before constructively fixing other more visible and important issues that Corporate America doesn't want us to solve.

He's also THE candidate to support our civil liberties and rights with his many different stances over issues like The Patriot Act, Communication's Decency Act, Total Information Awareness Program, the Clipper Chip, etc.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/TIA/feingold-s188.php
http://www.universaltransparency.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=72
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Newsletters/EFFector/HTML/effect08.16.html#letter

[IndianaGreen]

18. Dennis Kucinich

Dennis is the one that best represents my views, assuming Bernie Sanders does not run.

[RebelOne]

21. Yes, he has always been my first choice.

But too bad he doesn't have a chance.

[kodi]

19. Al Gore, the man who knows how to get America back on its feet.

the combination of his knowledge of insider politics, progressive and populist stances, and understanding of the importance of science in our lives, makes him heads and tails above the rest.

the rest of the world looks on at us in bewilderment asking, "why in the hell don't the americans let this guy run their country?"

[OneBlueSky]

20. Robert Redford . . . or maybe Bobby Kennedy . . .

for sure someone who isn't in office anywhere at the moment . . . no senators, congressmen/women, governors, etc . . .

[imenja]

46. the Kennedy's have had enough tragedies for thirty families

I would want to see another risk running for the presidency

[BoneDaddy]

22. Thank God ...smart folks

Why do people still keep pushing Hillary into the spotlight. Hillary Clinton, whether you like her or hate her would be the worst, least viable candidate to put forth in the next election as she is virtually unelectable outside of any blue state. Why would we make this same mistake?

If you think Hillary will sway millions of women who voted for Bush, please give me some of what you are smoking cause it is a pipe dream.

And please stop with the whining about "why do people in the Democratic party want to keep knocking down Hillary?"

If you do not know the answer to that question, I don't know what to tell you.

[mvd]

24. Boxer is so popular a Senator that I'd say Kucinich

His seat wouldn't be as risky. I know, people will say he can't win, but I'd sure like him to have a chance. When Mondale lost, he was facing a popular (:puke:) Reagan, and Dukakis just plain ran a lousy campaign against Bush I.

[hyphenate]

26. I still would like to see Kerry

in the White House. If it weren't for the GOP stealing the election through corruption, lies and other felonies, he would be there already.

Perhaps the best ticket (for me) would be Al Gore and John Kerry together. They both deserve it. But I know RL isn't fair, and never has been, so this is just a pipe dream on my end.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

84. Me too.

And I would solve the problem of who on top etc problem by letting the primaries decide that -- whichever of the two got the most would be the top of the ticket and the other one the bottom.

They should then form their cabinet too and have ten to twenty principals barnstorming the entire country.

I suspect even Diebold then will not be able to take away the election from the Dems.

[BornaDem]

28. John Conyers

[tokenlib]

30. Clark is the best qualified...and our best hope for the future

Education in economics and other areas, experience in diplomacy as well as the military. He tells you where he stands and is not so much a politician like Hillary and the others who will "kiss ass" with groups and segments of the population that will in the end "stab them in the back."

His common sense on the environment, taxation, and health care would be welcome. He is a great gift to the Democratic Party--and if we turn him away again in favor of "milk toast" politics as usual--we'd better get used to the political wilderness.

AND,he deals with the relationship between FAITH and ISSUES like few others. Kerry was obvious in picking up some of Wes's lines during the campaign. And we need that too!!

BUT, if we fall flat in 2006--we are SO SCREWED!! So first things first!! And the General knows THAT too!!

[Bullwinkle925]

32. Good point.

[BlueStateModerate]

35. Other - Brian Schweitzer

Governor of Montana. This man could be a real consensus president. I'm willing to bet he would get 60% of the popular vote. He's a wise and fair man.

[iwantmycountryback]

42. I love that guy

But there's no chance he will run in 08. He'll basically have been a Governor for 2-3 years by the time he starts to run. No way.

[election_2004]

36. Blanche Lincoln

It's important for the nominee to deliver a national message effectively in *SOME* of the red states that could be flipped.

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Lincoln/Warner 2008!!!

[IndianaDemocrat]

62. Red States Flipped? On What Planet Are YOU Living on?

On My Planet, we are having trouble even keeping the legislative seats we STILL HAVE! MANY rural Counties didn't even field Democrat CANDIDATES for office in my area, in areas that no Republican ever had a hope of winning in 20 years ago...

Job #1 is WINNING ELECTIONS, and that isn't going to happen with what is perceived to be an Anti-Family agenda, Conspiracy theory's, Irrational Dissent, Christian-Bashing and Worst of all, appearing weak on security....

Out here on the line in the Red States, we are now LAUGHED at for simply admitting we are Democrats, and despite some of the exuberance on these boards, it's getting WORSE, not better....

[IndianaDemocrat]

63. Red States Flipped? On What Planet Are YOU Living on?

On My Planet, we are having trouble even keeping the legislative seats we STILL HAVE! MANY rural Counties didn't even field Democrat CANDIDATES for office in my area, in areas that no Republican ever had a hope of winning in 20 years ago...

Job #1 is WINNING ELECTIONS, and that isn't going to happen with what is perceived to be an Anti-Family agenda, Conspiracy theory's, Irrational Dissent, Christian-Bashing and Worst of all, appearing weak on security....

Out here on the line in the Red States, we are now LAUGHED at for simply admitting we are Democrats, and despite some of the exuberance on these boards, it's getting WORSE, not better....

[IndianaDemocrat]

64. Red States Flipped? On What Planet Are YOU Living on?

On My Planet, we are having trouble even keeping the legislative seats we STILL HAVE! MANY rural Counties didn't even field Democrat CANDIDATES for office in my area, in areas that no Republican ever had a hope of winning in 20 years ago...

Job #1 is WINNING ELECTIONS, and that isn't going to happen with what is perceived to be an Anti-Family agenda, Conspiracy theory's, Irrational Dissent, Christian-Bashing and Worst of all, appearing weak on security....

Out here on the line in the Red States, we are now LAUGHED at for simply admitting we are Democrats, and despite some of the exuberance on these boards, it's getting WORSE, not better....

[election_2004]

81. So are you saying....

...that you believe Blanche Lincoln would be perceived as "anti-family," a "Christian-basher," "weak on security," a "conspiracy theorist," and an "irrational dissenter"?

What planet are you living on?

[Adelante]

37. Wes Clark

:)

[iwantmycountryback]

38. Barbara Lee and Sheila-Jackson Lee?

How can this poll be serious if they are on the list. I think they do a great job, but give me a freaking break, there is not a chance in hell they are running for President. And I'm pretty sure that Al Gore is not as well, and Barbara Boxer probably won't.

You have to have RUSS FEINGOLD on this list. Straw polls on Daily Kos on myDD show him behind Clark and right with Hillary. He is actually a serious candidate and is a terrific Democrat. He and Clark would make an excellent ticket, and it doesn't matter IMO who leads the ticket.

[CarolNYC]

104. I could be very happy with a Clark/Feingold ticket....

...and a team like that in the White House. I really, really like Russ...and I love the General. For me, although Clark in the number two spot on the ticket might help, I'd prefer to see him in another role if he wasn't in the running for President...like SOS or something where he could use his skills and experience and the great respect world leaders have for him to help get this country and this world out of the mess it's in.

I echo those, though, who cry that we do have to concentrate on 2006....

[NewJeffCT]

39. wish is different than who I think would win

I'd love to see Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer from the Senate, but I don't think either could win nationally...same with John Conyers in the House.

[ScamUSA.Com]

43. BILL RICHARDSON

or any other SOUTHERN GOVERNOR

[Mark E. Smith]

45. Clark

There is nobody on that list that I wouldn't vote for. But nobody there has anywhere near the mass political appeal of Wesley Clark.

It is too serious a matter to entrust our nomination to anyone else.

[dolstein]

48. Nobody from Congress, that's for certain

I'd go with Wes Clark, Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack or Mike Easley. As much as I like John Edwards and Evan Bayh, I think that having a Senate voting record is too much of a drawback.

[Kal Belgarion]

50. President Gore, of course! (nt)

[Steely_Dan]

52. Mario Cuomo

No one has ever expressed the philosophy of the democratic party better.

-Paige

[KBlagburn]

57. I have to agree with this point.

But I believe he really missed his opportunity in 88, when we got Dukakis. That was horrible. Although I did vote for him over bush.

[AuntiBush]

61. I'll Always Support Kerry, BUT, We Need Clark (like) RIGHT NOW!

A.S.A.P.

[kick_them_hard]

65. Any DEM Govenor will do

and any Democrat Govenor in the midwest is better. We need new faces. I say screw all the last nominees and start fresh. And forget freakin senators!!! They show a paper trail too easy to twist...just like they did with Kerry. Get a Dem govenor and start prepping him NOW!! or we will lose again.

[ScamUSA.Com]

80. exxactly!!!

There are so many people that I would love to see as president, including Conyers, Cobb, Boxer, but stragegy is the key, and a Dem Gov from the midwest or south actually would have a chance to win, and the experience in a top position.

[mtnester]

75. I agree with you Auntie

Had he been the choice with Kerry as the VP nominee...

the rest goes unsaid

[AuntiBush]

98. Close Your Eyes and Imagine if Clark Had Been Up There in 2004

Awww... think of it. President Clark reporting for duty. Just don't re-open your eyes 'cause you're back to our nightmare.

[joanski0]

66. General Wes Clark.

Without a doubt!

[Toronto Ron]

67. Clark/Feingold or Clark/Warner

I hope the good General is taking note of all these polls here and on dailykos.

[bowens43]

68. Anybody but Clark or Clinton

[CarolNYC]

101. Hey bowens, from your posts, you seem woefully uniformed about Clark

Can I ask you to check out some of the resources in this thread before you pass judgment?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6296

Or are you one of those who wishes to know as little as possible so you don't run into anything that conflicts with the opinion you've formed?? I hope not.

Thanks!

[MidnightWind]

70. Anyone who can win

and not another John Kerry style candidate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. Howard Dean

why was he not included?

[Cha]

103. Because Dean said if he were elected

to the DNC Chairmanship, he would not run for Prez in 2008.

[Walt Starr]

72. I don't think anybody on your entire list is electable

Mike Easley of Mark Warner are really our only two possible candidate who could win.

[evolved Anarchopunk]

73. Clark Landsliiiiiiiides another poll...

mmm mmm mmmmmmmmm.

you know it

you fuckin know it.

Wes Clark does not put up with Puke bullshit. He won't play "games" like miz clinton over there. Over where? Over there.

KEEP YOUR NOSE CLEAN CLARK, AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN '08 (w/ dem congress)

[Bucky]

78. We won most internet polls on DU last year too

Including such gems as greatest general in history, greatest Nordic thunder god, and favorite flavor of ice cream. This tells us more about internet Democrats than it does about Clark's real world popularity.

[Larkspur]

74. Al Gore. He's done a terrific job of rehabilitating his progressive image

He strongly opposed the Iraq War when the DLC clowns voted for it and is doing a great job promoting our need to be environmentally smart.

David Podvin's June 2005 op ed called "Ressurrection" http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/050609_Resurrection.htm sums up why I would enthusiastically support a Gore 2008 Prez bid.

[UrbScotty]

76. Feingold/Clark or Clark/Feingold.

;-)

[Gemini Cat]

82. Clark or Boxer. nt

[Bucky]

83. DU this poll!

Oh wait, never mind.

[leftofthedial]

85. dennis kucinich

[LittleClarkie]

88. Is he making any noises about running again?

I haven't heard.

[leftofthedial]

93. not that I've heard

[realFedUp]

90. Howard Dean

I don't care if he isn't going to run. I wish
he would run again. I'm pretty fed up with the
whole bunch in DC.

[Cha]

105. That's why I'm liking Clark..

I'm "realfedup" with the bunch in Washington,too.

I don't know everything there is to know about Clark but from what I do know..I like. That's how I started out with Dean and before that Gore.

When Kerry was the Dem winner I went with him and got to really believe in him, but right now I'm leaning Clark. Be interesting to see what changes there are in two political years.

I don't know if can take another one of those DEM primaries :P

[manly]

92. candidate

Gov. Schweitzer of Montana.

[election_2004]

96. Gov. Schweitzer...

Schweitzer will be running for reelection as Governor of Montana in 2008.

He would have to start campaigning in early-2007, at which point he would barely even have been Governor of Montana for two years.

[sleipnir]

97. Feingold.

n/t

[wiley]

99. Clark/Obama

Unbeatable. Clark/Warner would be okay too.

But we really need to focus on the 2006 elections, on every level in every state. Even school boards.


:toast:

[Imagevision]

107. Joe Wilson,

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catchawave]

109. I agree EugeneDebs....Edwards!

Though I think at this point and time, Mark Warner looks like the best shot!

Welcome to DU :hi:

[JHBowden]

111. Schweitzer or Warner

I want a Democrat who is a proven winner in a red state.

[zulchzulu]

113. It's way too early to really tell...but Kerry stands as a strong choice...

...to me.

I like Clark, Feingold and Edwards...maybe Warner...maybe Richardson...not real happy about Hillary as the nominee...or Bayh...or Boxer (who I love)...

It's all about matching who will be the Repug to run against...Frist (no problem), Hagel or McCain could be dangerous...Cheney or anyone the present White House are toast (including Powell)...no woman would be nominated such as Dole, Hutchison...no dark horse will unveil as long as the same Repugs are on the thrown.

Kerry continues to prove he should have been President...he's a leader...he's on the attack...and from videos I filmed of him along the uncovered media campaign trail in the last few years, he is on my side. Without a doubt.