Warner's Dropout could signal a Gore/Edwards positioning against Hillary.

[KoKo]

Interesting comment from Tom Schaller on American Propsects Website.

--------------------



MARK DOWN. I’m disappointed that Mark Warner has dropped out of the presidential race. I think he would have made a good candidate, and hope he will consider running for Vice President, if asked. Many are already speculating that he will run for Senate in 2008 if Republican incumbent John Warner retires. I’ll presume he didn’t consider the presidential run just to build up a massive war chest of federal dollars he will then hold and dump into a Senate ’08 race, but whether that was his original intent or not, the latent effect is the same -- he’ll be locked and, um, loaded.

Who is the big winner in all of this? Al Gore, because the Hillary-alternative crowd now has one fewer choices on the menu. John Edwards is still there, too, of course. If Gore is smart he’ll invite Edwards down to Tennessee and ask him to put together a Democratic “greatest hits” ticket from 2000 and 2004: The better of the two presidential candidates and the better of the two veep running mates.

Gore-Edwards in ’08 would be tough to beat in the primaries and the general. And though I’m of course a strong advocate of the non-southern strategy, it works best with one (or more) southerners on the Democratic ticket. They can find newly-elected Senator (Mark) Warner a nice seat on the west side of the Capitol for the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

--Tom Schaller

Posted by Sam Rosenfeld on October 12, 2006 02:07 PM | Permalink

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/10/post_1643.html#013945

[bullimiami]

1. gore/edwards would be great. gore/hillary would be great too.

actually almost any 2 democrats that win would be great compared to el diablo and carbuncle.

[liberalmuse]

2. That would be a phenomenal ticket!

I hope, I hope, I hope!!!

[waiting for hope]

3. I've been screaming Gore/Edwards for months!

That would be a dream team...;-)

[LSparkle]

4. I am SO with you on this!

Gore and Edwards are my favorites in '08 and to have them both on the same ticket would be amazing. Gore has the international experience and the '00 popular vote, and Edwards is great on domestic issues (the "Two Americas" disparity, reducing poverty, rewarding work over passive wealth). I won't say unbeatable, but DAMNED CLOSE!

[ChiciB1]

5. Well, I Love This.... I Actually Picked This As A Team Sometime

ago. Even though I am a very strong supporter of Edwards, with Gore as a possibility I feel that Gore/Edwards is kind of MY Dream Team!

It will give Edwards the experience that he needs to then make a run as President. I REALLY REALLY like this.

And after I heard that Hillary made some comments that "torture" in certain terms may be viable it was just another minus in her column. I think it was on C-Span this AM but I'm not sure, but I KNOW I heard a discussion about what she said and there was a comparison being made between what she said before they voted on the "Torture" bill and what she said recently. They said she didn't actually SUPPORT torture by the statement, but that she felt that there were occasions that it might be used for "immediate" measures. I hope someone else heard it too because I really would like corroboration on this. I know I heard references to this though, but there was a caveat attached to the statement.

Gore/Edwards could be considered as "southern" and I would prefer it wasn't going to be tagged as Southern, but this being the case, it is the reason WHY this might be a winning ticket! The 2 of them together have a LOT to offer!

[snowbear]

6. Funny how the networks are reading different things into this...

A Democratic pundit on CNN said yesterday it benefits Evan Bayh the most --->

"Tweety" says it benefits Hillary the most --->

Others are saying it benefits these guys the most -->



I say.. 2008 will be fun!

[twiterpatted]

7. Gore/Clark is better. Clark on the ticket is a no brainer.

[Ladydawnelle]

21. CLARK / Clinton if not Gore/ Clark

Hillary could give up some of those millions she has saved up to Gen. Clark (as he's NOT very wealthy) and that would give her a shoe in VP spot....... 4 yrs or 8 to get really good at it......... then she could run as first female Prez! (she's still young enough, she can afford to wait)

If she was smart.

Otherwise I love Gore! Just not convinced he really wants it.

[DURHAM D]

8. I would like a Gore/Edwards ticket if it is Elizabeth, not John.

John puts me to sleep.

Elizabeth has more fire, more passion, and can connect with the folks.
Elizabeth goes with her feelings and has great instinct.

John thinks too much - wants to say the "right" thing.

[ChiciB1]

9. Elizabeth IS Fantastic! But I Went To Two Rallies Of John's And

HE ROCKED! What am I missing??? We were SOOOOOOO pumped and I can easily say of all candidates I've ever gone to see, his were the VERY BEST!!!

[DURHAM D]

10. Have you seen Elizabeth before a large crowd.

I saw them together in Raleigh in '04 and lucky enough to be on the front row. They were back home in Raleigh (just hours before the election)so she could see her personal doctor, although at that time no one knew about her medical problem. I couldn't figure out what they were doing campaigning together, much less in NC - a state they had no chance of winning.

Elizabeth totally got the crowd going and was speaking from her heart. John was OK - just not as passionate.

Elizabeth is the reason he ever got into politics - it is her life long passion. I watched her for hours on the Span in the run up to '04. She did a much better job of explaining Kerry's positions than he ever did.
She talks to the folk - not at them.

[KoKo]

12. Yes....was there for that rally...and

watched all the C-Span interviews of her. She was in a private home in Iowa giving a talk and she was fantastic.

[DURHAM D]

14. Ms. Dole is up in '08.

Shall we start a draft Elizabeth campaign?

[juajen]

35. I doubt she would be interested.

She is a good mother and has two little ones to raise. Maybe after they're older. She is great. I really love her.

[ChiciB1]

18. That's Where I Saw Her... C-Span And I Agree With You...

she talks to folks, NOT AT THEM! She was the "real deal" and I dare say a very cool cucumber! Not one to ruffle feathers and can hold her own as well as Hillary! I feel she's as accomplished as Hillary, but will sell so much better!

In case you're wondering and it's not coming through, I'm really really BIG for Edwards! This coming from a "boomer liberal" even surprised me!

If I got swayed to a Southern candidate I'm betting there will be many more. I have lived in the south for most of my life, however was born in PA and grew up in what was a typical Northeastern Liberal family! Only reason I've been stuck down here in the south for so long is because my father and my husband's father were in the military. We met in Texas and he was born in Florida! So for some very STRANGE reason I got dumped into these TWO states and haven't moved yet!

[Mass]

30. A much better combination, I agree.

[depakid]

11. I could go with a Gore/Edwards ticket

Not necessarirly my first choice, but one that could win.

[FrenchieCat]

13. So who's gonna have Al Gore's back?

John "the attack dog" Edwards?

Just asking?

[ChiciB1]

16. Me!!! PICK ME!!!

I know, not a BIG DAWG... BUT there IS time!!!

I'm SURE there MUST be people out there!

[karynnj]

20. Sure, just like he had Kerry's

[wyldwolf]

15. hmm.. after saying he was not interested in being VP, would he accept...

... the invite TWICE?

I don't think so.

[blm]

17. Has Gore indicated any will to open the books on BushInc?

According to Woodward, Gore said that he would reveal 2% of what actually went on those 8 years in a memoir of his own - that Clinton admitted that his book contained just 1%.

I'd have to expect that Clinton administration covering up for BushInc's major crimes is a great part of the 98% that would be left unsaid.

[KoKo]

25. Do you have a link to what Woodward says Gore Said? Even if you

have to do "some typing" to get the post in context?

[blm]

26. He said it on David Letterman. Some people here assumed it was about sex.

but listening carefully he said that Clinton told him that about 1% of what happened in his term made it into his book, so he asked Gore how much his book would tell when he writes it, and that Gore answered 2% - he claims it was a serious answer.


If Letterman has a clip somewhere or a transcript, that would probably help.

[KoKo]

36. Thanks.....maybe

it was what was covered up about Poppy/Reagan...but maybe they can't talk about all they know about the "Vast RW Conspiracy" that ruined the Clinton/Gore Presidency. Some of us think Monica was a plant... but who knows. Maybe Gore was joking.

I agree with you that Clinton should have followed up on all the crap that went before...but given what we know about the BFEE they may have felt it better to just "move along." That was Clinton's decision, though. And, after NAFTA was rammed through and the rest of the stuff that happened it's hard to know anymore what Clinton was really about.

I do trust Gore, though.

[paulk]

19. Mr. Schaller says -

"it works best with one (or more) southerners on the Democratic ticket."

Really? Edwards couldn't even bring in his home (southern) state in 2004. What is Mr. Schaller's definition of "working"?


It's time to ditch the southern strategy.

[KoKo]

22. He says that Edwards won the SC Primary...which is STILL Frontloaded!

I understand what you say and my mind "flagged" that comment also.

Edwards has spent alot of time going with a "Populist/Dem" message since the 2004 Selection.

It remains to be seen what his power in the North/Midwest/Western States are....but he's talking a "good talk...walking a good walk" even though he comes from MY STATE and I protested because he supported Iraq Invasion.

The book is open on Edwards "true loyalties" in my book....but if he has a "fire in his belly" to run (and his WIFE is a POWERHOUSE) then being on a ticket with Gore...would really be a good thing to see! :shrug:

[Mass]

28. Wrong place, sorry

[NCarolinawoman]

32. I dunno, KoKo01

I still get the feeling Edwards is not popular here in North Carolina. He still generates a heck of a lot of resentment and mistrust. He began to lose me with his lousy environmental votes.

I sometimes hate politics.

[57_TomCat]

23. I hate to sound pessimistic

but two confirmed losers on the ticket no matter their qualifications would be a big present to the other side.

Edwards has more of a chance due to losing the VP slot only but his very limited political history would haunt him. Gore is simply a footnote on the parties history. Neither Gore nor Edwards could deliver their home states when they ran and I fear such a combo would simply guarantee a win for the right side of the race.

[KoKo]

24. That Said by you...What would be Your Ideal Ticket for '08? n/t

[57_TomCat]

37. My ticket would have

Clark running for president. I could see Edwards as a VP but still fear his inexperience would be a detriment. Hillary would be a conservative backlash magnet. A good VP option for me has yet to rear his head.

[Catchawave]

31. With all due respect,

weren't Nixon and Reagan losers going into their successful wins for the Big White House?

Also, didn't Carter and Clinton come out of nowheres'ville for their successful runs? (Hint: Popular Southern Governors)

Just trying to learn the rules of the political games :hi:

[57_TomCat]

38. Nixon Maybe...

A lot of solid evidence shows that Kennedy had some "push" from Chicago at the ballot box to win Illinois and the Whitehouse at the "last minute". Nixon backed down and let the vote stand. In later years he was vindicated by revelations of ballot box stuffing in Illinois and held on to the high ground for his run in 68.

Reagan was never a party nominee for president. As such he could bide his time.

Gore won the popular vote however the Florida situation killed him politically in my opinion. He fought the good fight but was beaten on several points. In the final counts conducted by newspapers after the fateful decision by the Supreme Court he still lost the Florida tallies by every legal measure. It was not widely disseminated but still did not support his cause. Those situations in my eye taint him as a candidate now. I am sure those stories would be brought back up through out the campaign.

I truly believe the party needs to go with newer blood and follow the more moderate Clinton model of his later years in office.

[PeaceProgProsp]

27. Gore would have won in '00 if he put Edwards on the ticket then

(and Edwards was on his short list). I think Gore was looking for someone friendlier to the banking industry than Edwards (as Lieberman is) and was surprised that a NC Senator wasn't very close to, e.g., Bank of America.

Gore is a new man today, and maybe he cares less about Wall St than he did prior to 2000, so maybe he would want to team up with Edwards. But I don't see what Edwards has to gain from this. I'm pretty sure that Edwards could beat Gore outright and have the luxury of picking a more interesting VP.

Anyway, who picks a VP in an open primary?

[Mass]

29. Speculation, speculation - thank you pundits for such a laugh. May be

we can let the people decide.

Because Edwards was such an exceptional VP candidate last time around.

sarcasm:

We were lucky to have Dean and Clark to defend Kerry, because it certainly did not come from Edwards.

[David Zephyr]

33. Well, the thinner the crowd the better.

I don't want to have a contentious primary season in '08.

[Ninja Jordan]

34. Edwards won't play second fiddle twice.

IMO




Gore-Clark is the real ticket. JRE for AG.

[zulchzulu]

39. I think I've heard Gore say he isn't running in 2008 a dozen times

In various interviews, I've heard him say he is not running... I could do an assemblage of the soundbites...

As for Edwards, I thought he wasn't that great of a VP candidate.

Either way, both should run in 2008 if they want...

[frogcycle]

40. Gore/Clark

Gore never says he isn't running. He words it carefully like "I have no plans to run". He leaves the door wide open.


Gore has made a couple of really hard hitting speeches about the screwed up mess of the current so-called administration. I don't know how much energy he'd want to put into digging out past crimes, but he has made it clear he considers our very form of government to be at risk. And of course Clark is way outspoken on that. HE is ready to put them all in front of a firing squad right now.

These two are, to me, the most obviously intelligent and sincere "concerned citizens" wanting to set things right. I'd pick Gore for the top spot, but could live with it the other way as well, although he might not go for that.

I could also live with either one of them as Pres, someone like Edwards as veep, and the other in a senior position. There is not an official position senior enough; Cabinet positions seem to be compartmentalized. The veep spot is flexible enough to be almost a co-president role (as demonstrated by the current pair). On the other hand, the one not in the office could have an unofficial role - just "senior advisor" - if the egos would stand it, that is what this country needs. A coalition of the best and brighest teaming up to fix the massive mess, with one as the "team captain". Can you imagine having Hilary/Bill, Clark, Gore, some of the other top brains, all putting their heads together to sort out this shit? Call in senate and house leaders frequently and truly consult.

Maybe they could all go somewhere and shoot craps, or play poker or something, to see who heads the ticket, then lock arms and campaign like hell for that person.