In 2008, I See The Roles of Kerry, Dean and Clark To Be Played By...

[THUNDER HANDS]

Clinton, Feingold and, well, Clark.

Clinton will be the 'safe' choice, the fallback choice, and most likely the establishment choice.

Feingold will ride a wave of Internet popularity and get a huge influx of netroots dollars.

Clark will be Clark, have a nice block of core supporters, but get drowned out by the 'heart' choice in Feingold and the 'head' choice in Clinton.

Just the way I see it, but I could be wrong.

For the record, if this is the case, I'm pulling for Feingold. I'd love to see him as our nominee.

I'd also like to see Kerry give it another shot, this time with the muzzle taken off his mouth. At the very least I'd love to see him in a debate with Clinton. I think that'd be an amazing debate.

[Guaranteed]

1. I'd say that there's a pretty good chance that Gore will be in there. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

19. I hope you're right!

If I can't have Kerry/Edwards I would really like a Gore/Feingold!! That would be great!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. I see (reading tea leaves)

a Clark/Clinton ticket.

And they will win.

[mattclearing]

5. That would be a very interesting ticket.

Hill for President strikes me as a very bad idea, but as Clark's VP, she'd be a solid pick.

Only problem is that it doesn't add any electoral votes, as she is Arkansas, and New York is already a given.

But as far as governing goes, I think it would be an inspired team, and I don't really like where Hillary has gone in the last five years.

[iconoclastNYC]

39. To me there is only one question: who will MOTIVATE our base.

We need 90% dem turn out to beat the Diebold.

Who can get on tv, and in rallies and inspire the legions of political apathetic that one good candidate can make a difference.

That's not clinton, its not Kerry, i'm unsold on Gore.....Dean was the closet thing we've had.

[mattclearing]

46. No, 90% turnout will not beat Diebold

We need a candidate that transcends political labels. I think Clark is just such a candidate. That way, we get a consensus election that isn't close enough to Diebold.

[Totally Committed]

47. I never thought of that! That's absolutely brilliant, as a

theory! :think: I commend you for having the sort of mind it takes to come up with a beauty like that!

TC

[iconoclastNYC]

60. Right....Clarke is Jesus....i get it.

*Yawn*...cult of personality claims another victim.

[mattclearing]

61. Charming comment.

You assume that cult of personality is why I like Clark. Perhaps you should learn to spell before making any assumptions about fellow DU'ers.

[Uncle Joe]

58. Al Gore has empowered us more than anyone.

He was punished by the corpwhorate owned MSM for precisely this reason. The same corpwhorate owned MSM that enabled the corrupt incompetent ones to power and cheer leaded our way to a war based on lies. I believe Al Gore is not only the best qualified person to save our nation and the planet, he is the most due.

[Goldeneye]

3. So if Clinton is Kerry,

who is Kerry playing? :)

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. oddly enough, Sharpton

really, I don't know. Kerry would probably play the role of Gephardt, I think.

[Goldeneye]

11. Sharpton makes a damn good speech.

And as Gephardt maybe he could carry MO.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. LOL

He can be the cute teddy bear. :) Or Elvis Presley?

[zapp]

4. Always forgetting Edwards

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. he doesn't have much of a shot

a one-term senator who failed in his bid for the vice presidency. I think Gore has a better shot of being the nominee in 2008 than Edwards does.

[zapp]

9. well everyone you mentioned has little or no chance. Except maybe feingold

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. of being the nominee, or being president?

[FrenchieCat]

29. No one has little of a chance according to whom?

And why would the twice divorced liberal Jewish Senator who voted "Nay" for every security issue there is have a better chance than others?

[ultraist]

18. Edwards polls far better than Clark for 2008

In actual valid polls. There are a disproportionate number of Clarkies online, who organize well. They do not reflect the general populus. Liberal blog online polls are often Clarked. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I'm just pointing out, that the majority of Dem voters do NOT feel Clark would do well in 2008.

I highly doubt Clark even will run.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. I don't think Clark would do well either

Not enough people know him I think. He doesn't have much experience either in anything else. I vote on experience and what they have to say and ideals and things like that. I like Clark but I think he should try something else first. At least Edwards had a record I could look at. I've also a few times heard the name Phil Bredesen (Tennessee governor) but someone asked an assistance or something like that of his and he said he didn't think Bredesen would run for president since he isn't a campaigner or anything like that. I hope he stays in Tennessee cause the state could use him again. :)

[faithfulcitizen]

25. LOL, Edwards has experience and Clark doesn't?

:rofl:

[CarolNYC]

37. experience

I never do understand why people think that legislative experience is needed for the Presidency or why people value legislative experience over executive experience for the Presidency. Maybe people just don't understand the differences between the executive and legislative branches of the government....:shrug:

[Totally Committed]

40. I really like what Edwards has been saying about poverty lately, but...

His "experience" consists of getting elected Senator of his state and immediately beginning to run for POTUS. And, for the record, he didn't deliver his state in the GE.

TC

[Totally Committed]

23. Look, I think it's fine to tout our individual candidates, but...

why always bash Wes to do it?

TC

[FrenchieCat]

28. Just pointing out that polls are based on name recognition

and that Edwards WAS the VP pick.....while Clark came in late, and apart from some publicity prior to entering, for much time thereafter, he was ignored....as he is still except by the Internet community.

When Wes won the KOS poll last month (and the month before), CNN forgot to mention that he won the poll when reporting about it on the air. They mentioned 2nd place "no Friggin' clue with 10% less than Clark....

I don't doubt Clark will run, but maybe we'll be manipulated as we tend to be--again.

Out of all of them, Clark is the one that could cut our 400,000 billion defense budget to deal with the giant deficit. Maybe that will be his platform.

Wonder what Edwards' would be, Poverty? Where's he gonna find the funds to cure it? Just asking.

[peace frog]

8. Great overview

and I agree Clinton would be the strongest candidate of the ones you mentioned, although I think she would lose to McCain if he runs (and he will).

Now, if Gore enters the race that does shift the picture around a bit. I think he might be the key to a Dem win if he chooses a very popular running mate. Oh please, let it be so!

[soleft]

15. I don't think McCain would beat Clinton

Hillary's got Bill - that's a huge advantage. People want him back in the White House, and if it takes electing Hillary, that's what they'll do

[peace frog]

44. The polls disagree with you...

... and they reflect what voters actually think. these results can change with changing future circumstances, but as of today McCain trounces Hillary in the polls.

[zapp]

10. Hillary just plain sucks as a candidate.

I would not vote for her. Have no respect for her, and she would have to come out and work hard to get mine.

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. I wouldn't knock her campaigning skills

If she proved one thing in her race for NY, which I covered back when I was still a reporter, its that she knows how to run a race. She learned a lot from Bill.

I wouldn't underestimate her, I hope the GOP is, though.

[Totally Committed]

14. Frankly, I find your characterization of Clark

as an "also ran" in '08 offensive.

There are many of us here, on this board and elsewhere, who support Wes, and would not agree with your assessment.

I'm glad you have found your candidate in Feingold. Russ is a good man, and a great public servant, but that is no reason express your support, in such a snarky way, at Wes's expense.

Just my opinion...

TC


On Edit:

Currently at Kos, with 10900 votes cast:

If the 2008 presidential primary were held today, who would you vote for?

Richardson 3%
Edwards 10%
Biden 2%
Clinton 8%
Kerry 2%
Clark 35%
Warner 3%
Bayh 1%
Vilsack 0%
Feingold 19%
Other 3%
No Freakin'Clue 6%

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/19/14255/0043

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. i never called him a "also ran"

I'm just saying the guy will find himself stuck between the irresistable force in Hillary and the probable immovable object in Feingold.

I think Clark is a good man, but if one is going to run for president, they should have SOME governing experience, especially since domestic issues will probably trump military ones in 2008.

Clark is an excellent VP candidate, though, IMO.

[Totally Committed]

17. No, you didn't, but your post implied it...

Since the VP's traditional role is "President of the Senate", how does his lack of (your quote) "SOME governing experience, especially since domestic issues will probably trump military ones in 2008" make him qualified to do nothing but run the Senate?

He is uniquely and ultimately qualified, imo, to be President. He has military experience and diplomatic experience, making him a fine choice to fill the President's traditional role of "Commander-in-Chief". He also has an advanced degree in Economics (he was a professor of Economics at West Point), which will make him qualified to get this country back in shape economically, post Hurricane Katrina and the Bush Administration.

Clark will make and extraordinary President at a moment in time when someone only as uniquely qualified, politically unencumbered, and courageous as he can fill the leadersip void left by this catasptrophic administration.

In the capacity of "President of the Senate", perhaps Feingold would be a good fit. (If you are offended by that, maybe you can begin to understand how someone like me feels when you say the same thing about Wes.... Just a thought.)

TC

[ultraist]

24. Online polls vs. Real polls, Clark comes in very low in real polls

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

Hillary Rodham Clinton 40
John Kerry 16
John Edwards 15
Joe Biden 9
Wesley Clark 5


If the Democratic primary for president were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, and Evan Bayh, for whom would you vote?" N=638 Democratic primary voters, MoE ± 4

Hillary Clinton 33
John Edwards 14
John Kerry 14
Joe Biden 6
Bill Richardson 5
Evan Bayh 5
Wesley Clark 5

[faithfulcitizen]

27. yes, and in early polling of the last election, Lieberman was the man.

[CarolNYC]

33. Exactly....

Considering how well Lieberman did, I wouldn't think that polling well in "real" polls at this point would be considered a big plus...

[whometense]

55. Absolutely right.

And he was the man for a very long time, as I recall. Early polls mean less than nothing. They're just plain misleading.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Polls, shmolls.....

Its the way our our media keeps us in line.

If they say Hillary's name enough times, why wouldn't she win them?....as some only know her name, and not many of the others....except for the already ran Kerry/Edwards team.

Considering that and that Biden is on the major networks just about every Sunday, I'd say that Clark is polling pretty good in 2005 for 2008....considering that the sheepled masses pretty much do as they are expected most of the time.

[returnable]

38. Grassroots activists are the ones who vote in on-line polls at Kos...

...and they are certainly more reflective of the Democratic base who will actually vote in the '08 primaries than the general populace surveyed in Polling Report.

Remember, Dean wasn't registering on any "real polls" either in the early going. Had we listened to the likes of Polling Report in '02-'03, Joe Lieberman would've been our candidate. And we all know how well the Joementum turned out, don't we?

Clark is still a dark horse cuz of the media's obsession with Hillary (as is everyone else), but he's a much stronger candidate than the so-called "real" polls indicate.

[Totally Committed]

43. Great post!

I highly agree.

TC

[rockymountaindem]

41. Yet all the major polling organizations put Clark at around 5%

Check www.pollingreport.com if you don't believe me.

[FrenchieCat]

45. It's good that you are what they like....a poll believer.

If we all are to believe in these polls, we might as well hang it up and just hand it all to Hillary.

Defeatist I ain't.

Polls will be the death of us all, as these polls include the totally uninformed.

Are you really expecting folks here who are informed on the issues to give up who they believe would be most effective in 2008...as we end the 3rd quarter of 2005? because a poll told them so? :shrug:

[rockymountaindem]

48. I'm not expecting anyone to give up on their fave candidate.

I just don't think it's realistic of some people to act like DU represents the wider Democratic community. Just because Clark wins polls on Kos and DU doesn't mean he's going to win or lose in a real primary. The same goes for any candidate. If Clinton were tearing it up in the blogosphere I wouldn't give that a lot of credibility either.

[CarolNYC]

50. No, it's probably not realistic...

to act like DU represents the wider Democratic community....It's even more unrealistic to think that the numbers in the "real polls" now will necessarily mean much when the primaries roll around again...else we'd be talking about Lieberman as our last nominee, you know?

[rockymountaindem]

52. Definately.

Yeah, I remember that Lieberman was leading in all those polls. However, it's probably not so great for someone to be at 5% either.

[Totally Committed]

53. That is based on name recognition only...

Online grassrooters who know Wes and what he stands for, put him at the top of the online polls time after time. The "sheeple" who answer these polls know only a few politicians by name, and that's the the "name" candidates are doing well now... for the moment.

Wes is working hard to get his name and face out there. He is travelling all over the country for Democrats, the Party, and for his PAC. It may take a bit more time, but his name and face will be a recognizeable entity by the end of the '06 election cycle to almost everyone. Then, his "real" poll results and his online polls results will beging to be more and more alike.

What I would be worried about is if he was polling in single digits and it was just weeks to the Primary season. That wouldn't be good.

TC

[CarolNYC]

59. We'll see, I guess,....

if it means anything at all, if the General decides to run, and who knows if he will. Right now, he's focusing on winning some races in 2006 and helping the Dems formulate and express their message. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good place to put the emphasis right now. If we don't win some seats in 2006, especially considering the mess the Repbulicans have made of things right now, I'm not sure there will be much left to try to save in 2008. :(

[FrenchieCat]

51. So as far as what you are saying, its the "net" that has no

credibility?

And the poll pushers who's winners are only winners because they generate media attention are credible!

So the media is credible, and the net isn't...according to your analysis.

Interesting, to say the most!
Hope yours is the opinion of only a small number of Internet activists...otherwise, we're truly fucked!

[faithfulcitizen]

20. I think you underestimate Clark and his supporters...

bigtime. Clarkies support Wes Clark with thier head and heart. And the internet support should be obvious... second only to Dean in 2004, Clark dominated internet fundraising. (not to mention DU and every other blog)

I haven't seen a lot of "true believers" in Feingold. Yours is a first for me. :shrug:

[Totally Committed]

26. You tell 'em!

Wes has inspired far many more people than you think. But, I guess it will only be time that will tell.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

31. That's right...time will tell, and until then

the OP will speculate based on his desire....and so will I.

What the mind can conceive, we shall achieve!

[lojasmo]

32. I'm all the way behind Feingold. EOM

[Totally Committed]

34. I think Russ is a great Senator

But he has been divorced, not once, but now twice. In the Southern "Red" states where there are many "values" voters we must win over if we are to win, this will be an automatic no-go. This is not a criticism of Feingold, it is just the truth as it exists at this moment in time.

These are also voters who are extremely concerned about National Security, and a lot of them voted for Bush, because they felt he would keep them safe. Russ's voting record will not sit well with them.

We have to, as a Party, get real about who and what we support if we are going to win in '08. I love Russ, but in my heart, I don't think he'll be seen as electable.

TC

[Armstead]

35. Played by Fred Gwynn, Dabney Coleman and Robert Redford

Sorry, my bad

[iconoclastNYC]

36. What we need is a fourth choice to split the

Establishment, DNC block....so that Feingold or Clark can sneak in and win it.

Else we need a Perot to siphon off the moderate dems....

[IndianaGreen]

42. Larry, Curly, and Moe?

Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation to slam those three. :hide:

Russ Feingold RAWKS! :yourock:

[Guaranteed]

56. Moe is their leader. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. And we are not even over 2005 and things are changing so

fast that you and I will be surprised by who will actually run and who will not... these speculations are not doing anybody any good

by the way I hope you like President Bush (jeb) if they can get the stench away, or President Frist, or President for Life Dubya Bush... that is also in the realms of possibility, if the cabal gets its way... and diebold gets to vote.

[LittleClarkie]

54. Compare their voting records

Clinton is to conservative to be Kerry. Besides, Kerry's gonna be Kerry.

Feingold may be too nice to be Dean.

And well, Clark certainly has a shot at being Clark, but let's hope he's a Clark with better organization.

[kerrygoddess]

57. Kerry will be Kerry and he's never had a muzzle on his mouth ...

We know that. Too bad other's don't.

[karynnj]

62. Nor has he ever needed one

It's amazing that RWers screaming about his Brown speech aren't quoting a single line - Brooks rambles on for 5 paragraphs, ranting that Kerry was saying Bush is "rotten", "loathsome" and "evil" - three words Kerry never used. He simply said what Bush did, if Brooks wants to characterize those actions as rotten, loathsome, or evil; Kerry might agree, but he didn't say that.

I am glad he is on our side, because someone with the ability to make a speech that is as harsh a review of Bush's actions without using a single questionable statement would be a tough opponent.