Finding our leader (the 08' nominee?) Time for ACTION!

[RedTail Wolf]

I'd love to hear this forum's thoughts on who that should be and why? Personally I think we need a STRONG voice who is concise and can deal with Roveish politics, ie: FIGHT BACK HARD!. I voted for Gore then Kerry, and both of those guys are polling very badly as far as "Who would you NOT vote for? Gore (won?) that poll and Kerry was 2nd I think. So where is our next leader. I like Feingold but he lacks charisma, and we all know that our candidate must be charismatic, an easy speaker, with an ability to express big ideas in concise ways. Just like Bush has done. We can no longer send guys out there with such heady ( even if correct) ideas that turn voters off because of the rambling "plans" to get things done. I am really interested in seeing what the majority of you think. Who will be the 08 nominee in your opinion? I give no list as I'd like to see your personal ideas not limited to a list. If Feingold was a bit more fiery and interesting as a speaker I'd jump on his wagon. I'm totally undecided about this. I look forward to your choices and explanations for them. Also what issues do you place as the most important. For me it's Iraq, Health Care, Education, Minimum Wage, enforcing the 9/11 commission's recommendations, stooping wire tapping, and finding someway to get a wining strategy on immigration.
Thanks for taking part if you choose to. I need some help finding someone I can support with contributions and time. WE MUST WIN by a large margin so they can't steal it again. The time is now! Why do we think we can just be anti-Bush and win.....it wont work in 06 or 08 imho. 98% re-election rate in Congress?.....We need a drastic move and quick! Who is the Dem superhero? Where is he/she? We need you now!!!!!!!!!! We need a leader that can charm the entire electorate, with sound ideas, and the ability to deliver a message without rambling on and on! PLEASE give me your thoughts on the person, strengths, why they are the right person, and persuade me why they will win. I noticed Clinton 2 years before he ran and KNEW he'd be President! I don't see anyone like that out there! Show me!!!!! PLEASE We need a FAST response to Cut and Run, that phrase might swift boat us for the next cycles. Lost of concerns , can't wait for your collective wisdom!
RedTail Wolf

[dubeskin]

1. I personally would like Boxer so far

Not only is she my senator, but has pretty much opposed Bush in all. I'm not to sure on the best public speaker with the most charisma is. I don't really pay attention to those kinds of things. Basically if there is a small "D" next to their name they have my vote.

[RedTail Wolf]

2. These small d's with no charisma have lost of helped them steal

the last two Presidential elections. We need charisma, integrity, and mass appeal. I love Sen. Boxer, she votes like I would! She is progressive, but can she win? Not so sure but thanks for at least getting into the question. RedTail Wolf

[dubeskin]

3. I think maybe she actually could

I think maybe this country is ready for a woman president. It would dramatically change how everything looked. Bus we do need those traits, and you are right about them helping steal the election. We just need someone to dramatically step up against the movement, someone to rally us all together. Almost like a General Washington to help keep our spirits alive.

[AndyTiedye]

4. That Poll Was Terrible News All Around (Except good That Jeb's #s Sucked)

ALL our frontrunners have prohibitively, unelectably high negatives. Negatives take many years to go down, if they ever do.
Kerry's negatives are even higher than when the Swift Boat liars were out there lying, if these polls are to be believed.
The polls show any of them losing to any of the front-running Rethugs, despite peoples' expressed disdain for Republican rule.
The Media has really done a job on us.
Will we have to run some completely unknown candidate just to get out from under crushingly high negatives?

[dubeskin]

5. Pardon, which poll are you talking about?

[Awsi Dooger]

7. There was a poll with percentages a few days ago

A national '08 preference poll with "definitely would," or "definitely would not," vote for a particular candidate. Kerry, Gore and Hillary had very high definitely nots, in the 47 or 48 range. The definitely would numbers for them were much lower, maybe in the low 20s.

I didn't put much stock in the poll but it's been oft-discussed here.

[Awsi Dooger]

6. My number one issue is winning the electoral college

Mark Warner = best chance
John Edwards = second best

The other so-called issues will take care of themselves. That's always my belief. Nothing on DU is more cumbersome or irrelevant than debating issue difference between our presidential candidates. You don't get to the level of potential nominee without broad strength on the issues. And a nominee of a major party is afforded an automatic benefit of a doubt on the issues. No one will agree with me but I'm used to that. Get a Democrat in office and I'll take my chance on the issues.

Obviously it's different in the senate. I'm hardly comparing Lieberman's mindset and priorities to Feingold's and claiming no difference.

Charisma is not as important in an open presidential race. You'll almost never knock out an incumbent if the challenger lacks charisma, unless the incumbent cooperates with an approval rating in the 30s. In an open race the course of the nation is at question, not comparison to the incumbent. Gore would have fit much worse if trying to evict an incumbent. Likewise Mark Warner, who is picking the ideal time to run, and I love astute handicapping.

I'm one of the few DUers who has switched candidates from 2004 to 2008 when the initial choice is still viable. And it's hardly random, or dissatisfaction with Edwards, my 2004 pick. Edwards would have been our best shot in '04 due to charisma and its potential pull from the center and soft Republicans. We ignored that handicapping truth in favor of a resume. For 2008 the key is best chance to win the electoral college in a 50/50 scenario, which '08 figures to be based on the current polarized era plus the history of elections after one party has held the White House exactly two straight terms. Only '88 among the five most recent examples wasn't a popular vote coin flip.

I've posted this dozens of times: Warner via Virginia's 13 electoral votes provides the springboard to reverse the margin for error, Avoiding the uphill necessity of Ohio or Florida. Not a given we hold all the Kerry/Gore states especially New Hampshire, but if we did then Virginia plus one more among Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, or New Mexico puts us in the White House.

How 'bout a Warner/Richardson ticket? That really puts the GOP up against it, assuming our ticket can carrry the two home states.

Given that Democratic ticket, the Republicans are virtually forced to win all these states: Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada. Even if every one falls their way, they most likely would also need New Hampshire. So that's virtually zero margin for error. I'd love to force them into that desperation mode for a change.

[Donna Zen]

8. Wes Clark is a leader

He takes "no shit," and how much can they really hand out to him? You think they want to talk about National Security with a four star? No. They are left to talk about domestic issues, and that is when we win.

Home state: Arkansas

Masters in Economics from Oxford

Ran all domestic functions for the equivalent of small state.

By the world's standards: A foreign policy expert.

Against the war and unafraid to tell people why.

A charismatic speaker: listen to his speeches don't listen to Begala and Carville (DLC).

No political baggage. America loves her GIs.

Do you want to win? Or are you making the case for your pre-selected favorite? There is nothing wrong with having a favorite, but just understand yourself. Wes Clark is a leader, and he also a candidate that will take us right to the WHouse, by cutting a wide path through the republican base. Clark can realign that base, and that changes everything.