Clark, Gore, Biden, Kerry, Obama, Bayh, Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards - In That Order - DISCUSS

[bj2110]

Now.

Begin.

It's around the corner.

Also nominated:

Kerry, Kucinich, Bayh

(Have included the noms now_+

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Clark and Gore for sure; Edwards maybe; Obama someday; Clinton and Biden, no way.

[IndianaGreen]

8. I fully agree with you, ocelot. Clinton and Biden, no way!

Although I think Obama can be a formidable candidate, except in the South where apparently racism is still very much alive.

[waiting for hope]

9. How about Edwards/Obama?

That would cover both sides of the country....

[Catchawave]

19. Sweet !

:hi:

[madmunchie]

34. Two guys with no experience and 1 term in office.....NO!

I think that the leader of the Free World deserves a little bit more in the way of credentials than 2 Freshman Senators, 1 who ran for President WHILE he was serving his 1st term in the Senate, and the other who hasn't completed his 1st term in the Senate yet. (Not to mention that Senators typically don't do well in Presidential Elections)

Both possible for VP, although Edwards would never be my top pick for anything except maybe Attorney General.

I think experience counts for something when we are facing such monstrous issues across the board.

[lcordero2]

2. Gore

And I hope the type of fight that was shown by Democrats infects him.

[blm]

3. Only if they pledge to open the books on BushInc. No more coverup Dem administrations.

.

[Catchawave]

4. Huckabee !

:evilgrin:

[marmar]

16. LOL...

President Huckabee? That doesn't even sound right. I picture a guy sitting in the oval office with a straw hat and no shoes or socks on.

[Spirochete]

40. You mean Huckabee Hound?

I used to watch his cartoons all the time. Guess you'd call him a Blue Dog democrat...

[inthebrain]

5. None of the above

Kucinich

[Hissyspit]

6. Draft Conyers. So Kerry or Dean out of the equation? Of those mentioned...

Clark and Gore are my guys. Hillary still very much in the doghouse with me.

[bj2110]

7. What are the top two nominees to add to this list?

List please.

Start now.

[MH1]

12. John Kerry, Evan Bayh

John Kerry because he's the most-qualified liberal candidate.

Evan Bayh because he's been raising money and seems certain to give it a go.

[wisteria]

10. Kerry is missing from the list. n/t

[zann725]

42. Not MINE! Or plenty of common folk.

Time will separate the REAL candidates,from the powers-that-be Wanna-be's.

[Auntie Bush]

11. CLARK...end of discussion. But if I must...

Clark, Perfect candidate!
Gore, He's not going to run and I'd prefer him to stay working for the environment.
Biden, lots of people don't like him...however I do. I think Clark has a much better chance of winning the General election.
Obama, to inexperienced in world and military experience. Besides I don't think the South is ready to vote for a black. Look what happened to Steele and Ford. Also, he's young and would be perfectly seasoned for a future election.
Clinton, Unfortunately, I don't think this country is ready for a woman...especially in a time of war. Plus she is too divisive. I want to win and the South won't vote for her.
Edwards, He has limited executive experience and no Military experience. I like him but Clark has the experience we need right now. Also Edward's young and we can save him for later.

[leesa]

13. Gore has so much more respect around the planet. It's what we really need

for healing. Gore/Clark sounds OK. Gore has so much experience as well, he will be able to cut to the quick. Like Clark, I think he has divorced himself from the beltway crowd so they can both function as human beings.

[madmunchie]

35. I agree with you 100%

[Island Blue]

14. Kerry or Gore - In that order.

We need (among many other things) someone with lots of foreign policy experience. Period.

[marmar]

15. Gore, Edwards, Clark, Obama....the rest I don't think have a chance.

I like John Kerry a whole bunch, but I think he's media-damaged goods now.

[skipos]

17. Damn, not ONE governor on that list.

We have had two senators elected president in the last century. IMO, that is because they have voting records that are easier to smear than the records of governors.

[bj2110]

18. Your suggestion would be?

[femmocrat]

22. Wasn't Bayh the governor of Indiana?

or am I mistake?

[Jai4WKC08]

51. No, but Clark is a non-senator

Why do voters prefer governors? Because they have executive experience in running large governmental organizations within an even larger bureaucratic structure. It ain't easy to cut thru all the bullshit to get a job done, so those who can are particularly attractive. I agree it also helps that they have no voting record to smear and twist.

All of which is true of Clark, AND he has the appeal of his military service, both at the level of the wounded combat veteran, and as the extremely competent war-fighter and strategist. He's also a southerner.

There are lots of reasons I support Clark other than electability, but he has no shortage on that score.

[femmocrat]

20. Gore/Clark '08

= "dream team" IMO!

[_dynamicdems]

21. Kerry is my first choice. Otherwise Bayh or Gore, if he changes his mind about running.

Clinton, Biden: no.

Edwards: like him, but don't think he's got a chance.

Clark: prefer someone with legislative experience for the Oval Office. Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, perhaps?

Obama: too soon, but maybe one day! He's one to watch.

Kuchinich: this just won't happen because he's too liberal for a large segment of our population to take seriously.

[CarolNYC]

27. legislative experience

Just curious...Why do you think legislative experience is important for someone running for the executive branch of the government? Executive experience should be more relevant than legislative experience, no?

[_dynamicdems]

36. People like to write off legislative experience, but I think it adds quite a bit to a

candidate's resume. It's not just about experience though. The combination of the qualities of an individual plus the various experiences they bring to the table are part and parcel of a good President.

Legislators learn to work in cooperation and in dissent with the Executive Branch. This is good preparation for the Executive Branch, where the opposite situation will be required. It is how our government works. I happen to think it is good practice to first be on one side of the equation before attempting to handle the other (more difficult) side. I'm not saying this is the only factor to consider or that it is a prerequisite, but that it should be weighed accordingly. My selections are based on who has both the personal qualities and the best overall sum total of a variety of experience. Experience as a Governor, while not legislative, is also something to consider because it gives an indication of how the person will govern.

You are right: Executive Branch experience is very valuable. VP Gore would bring both legislative and executive experience to a run, which is why I consider him on my short list. You could count Hillary's experience as First Lady as executive experience, but I don't put her on my list because I don't think she is the best person for the job.

Legal training and experience are something I also consider. A candidate with a strong knowledge of the law is important when you consider the appointments that will be made in the Judiciary Branch. Again, I'm not saying that I'd only choose someone with a legal training, only that it is one more factor to consider.

Military experience and or knowledge are also important. And so is diplomacy. A President does not have to be a veteran, but he or she should have demonstrated knowledge of the military and of issues of war and peace. Diplomacy is non-negotiable. A President must understand the concept of diplomacy and the more experience he or she has had abroad the better.

[troublemaker]

23. My heart says Gore, but in terms of electability I'd look at Biden/Clark

If I could wave a wand I'd take Gore/Clark, but I honestly think Gore would have a tough time getting elected.

Biden gets a bad rap around here and it's probably deserved, but he's a ruthless street-fighter type and has one of the most jaw-dropping personal stories of any politician... America would find it fascinating, though perhaps too sad.

(When he was first elected to congress he flew into DC to set up his office. His wife and kids were comming by car a few days later. They were all killed in a car wreck on the way to DC, so he got his life-long dream and lost his entire family at the same time. So, having nothing left but his duty, he threw himself into his job. The rest, as they say, is history)

[femmocrat]

24. Did you forget Vilsack?

He has or will announce... although he might be a better VP candidate, IMO>

[bj2110]

26. Clarification required. Your favor is por.

[AlGore-08.com]

25. Gore, Gore, Gore and Gore. In that order.

Next question? ;)

[AtomicKitten]

45. I would put Gore first followed by

Gore, Gore, Gore, and then possibly Gore.

[Liberty Belle]

28. Pelosi's my choice. Why don't you add her to your list?

[Crunchy Frog]

31. She's kind of busy right now.

I like her where she is.

[bj2110]

29. Clark, Gore, Biden, Kerry, Obama, Bayh, Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards, Pelosi

New nom.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. I like a Stewart/Colbert ticket myself,

though I'm not sure Colbert would ever be willing to play second fiddle to Stewart again. Maybe Olbermann then? :shrug:

[Mass]

32. Kerry,Gore , Obama, Kucinich,Clark ,Biden, Bayh, in that order for me

[politicasista]

33. Kerry, Gore, Obama, Clark

Just those four. Anyone that is anti-corruption is a-ok with me!

[zann725]

41. Kerry/Gore, OR Kerry/Feingold.

All the rest, not the best...

[mitchtv]

37. Gore for me

VP=Edwards/ Clark/Richardson/

[Donna Zen]

38. Clark and

anyone who didn't vote for the IWR, or voice support for bush's war. Anyone who wants to be president has to have good judgment because we have no idea what the future holds.

[Auntie Bush]

49. What Donna said...I agree whole heartedly!

[thatsrightimirish]

39. I agree with Gore on many issues

But will he be able to carry midwestern states like Missouri and Ohio. Will he be able to carry places like Colorado? And will unions strongly support him because of his record supporting free trade?

[Tatiana]

43. Clark - YES, Gore - YES, Biden - HELL NO, Obama - not yet, Bayh - NO, Clinton - NO,

Kucinich - not in a national election, Edwards - ehhhh, maybe, Kerry - NO

P.S. Where is Warner? I think he should be in the top 5 candidates for the Dem ticket.

[benny05]

52. Warner, just like Feingold

Decided to support the party instead and isn't running. Perhaps you could start a different thread on VP candidates.

[bobbie]

44. Move Kucinich to third and dump the rest

Anyone who voted for Iraq is toast as far as I'm concerned. And Obama's a newbie.

[Apollo11]

46. In Gore We Trust

It's interesting to return to this topic in the light of last week's election results.

Here are some of my thoughts and observations ...

1) Gore won in 2000, overcoming unhelpful media coverage and despite Clinton's abuse of power over a vulnerable intern. A hefty margin in the popular vote and only defeated by what I would call wide-scale theft in Florida (like not counting thousands of unambiguous overvotes where people first pulled the lever for Gore and then also wrote in his name). If the SCOTUS had paid any attention to respecting the intent of Florida's voters, Gore would still be President today. I think we all know this, right?

2) Gore did not seek the nomination in 2004 partly because it was too soon, and partly because he sensed that the Party and the Country did not have any appetite for a re-run of the 2000 election. But Gore's not running in 2004 does not necessarily prevent him coming back in 2008.

3) At this point, Gore is the most experienced and qualified potential Presidential candidate. Simply put ... he would be "the best person for the job". Probably the biggest barrier to him securing the Democratic nomination is the question of whether he has the personal appetite and ambition to run for office again and be at the center of a national election campaign. I can see that if he really doesn't want it, then it will be impossible to draft him, because everyone will pay attention to people that are genuinely interested in running (like Clark and Edwards).

4) If Gore would run again, it would have to be for President. The idea that Gore would run for the VP slot after holding that office for 8 long years is simply not credible. But that doesn't exclude that he would serve in some other capacity - in the cabinet of a future Dem President. If we can't have Gore as our President, then I like the idea of Gore serving as special adviser and "international ambassador" on climate issues. Maybe also environmental protection and sustainable development.

5) Gore does not have to make a decision until the fall/winter of 2007. He can afford to wait on the sidelines, watch other candidates coming forward, and see how the wind is blowing. Given Gore's history, it doesn't make sense for him to enter a crowded field, starting out in 3rd or 4th place (behind Clark and Hillary). He can only enter if it looks like people are really calling for him to run again, and the Party would be ready to unite around his candidacy.

6) Kerry is not as strong a potential candidate as Gore. Most people believe he lost the popular vote in 2004. Most people believe he was for the invasion of Iraq (and the PATRIOT Act) before he was against it. He has negatives around his personal history and around the way he talks. He has the image of being from the "north-eastern liberal elite". He is not able to tell a joke properly - even if you think it is appropriate to make jokes about the Iraq War during an election campaign (which I do not).

7) Clark is a great communicator, but lacks political experience. Would make a great Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser or maybe Secretary of State. But if Gore refuses to run - then I agree that Clark would be a strong contender for President.

8) Edwards is another effective communicator - even if some people find him too slick. But he is simply not as well-qualified to be President as Al Gore (if Gore can be persuaded to run).

9) At this point, all we can do is keep Gore's name out there as a potential contender for President. If Gore sees that millions of people are calling on him to run, then that will make it more likely that he would change his mind about seeking the nomination. But of course - a strong grassroots campaign still does not guarantee that Gore will decide to enter the primaries.

So, in light of the above, I recommend to you all the following pro-Gore sites:

www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com
www.climatecrisis.net
:-)

[LWolf]

47. Ok. Gore and/or Kucinich. None of the rest.

I am not interested in any of the other offerings, and will not donate, campaign, or vote for them.

[karynnj]

48. Kerry is my first choice

The others in order are:
Gore, Clark, Bayh, Obama, Kuchinich. I really don't want Clinton, Biden, or Edwards.

[seabeyond]

50. kerry, clark, .... those are my two. would like to see kerry/clark

[mtnsnake]

53. My first choices: Clark or Obama, then Gore if he were to run, then Hillary

My sentimental favorite would be Gore, but I think with him being out of the political scene for so long would make it an uphill battle for him.

If Obama does decide to run, and Gore doesn't, I think Obama will win the primaries with a great chance of going on to win the presidency.

edited to add: I would LOVE seeing Howard Dean in the picture, too. I think he would make a fine president. If only Iowa had turned out differently, we'd probably be enjoying the second term of President Dean instead of Gangleader Bush.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

54. Lets look as this with logic

We know if Kerry won Ohio he would have been president. So really there is only one swing state. Ohio looks like it could be in the bag for a good democratic canditate. They are moving towards the left in that state. New York may be a problem with Guiliani. New York city would ike to see there former mayor get elected so if we win Ohio & loose NY we will still be in the same boat with a republican president (I belive Guiliani is going to get the nod from the repubs). So I would say Hilary is the only logical answer. She will be able to take Guiliani in NY because she is popular there & one of their own in the senate. Also ohio should swing for her as well. Maybe she can get Clark to run as her VP because a good military man will seal it in those states that may try to swing Guiliani's way because he is popular.

[opihimoimoi]

56. I could live with that...Hill is a solver...not a BSer

[Adelante]

55. Wes Clark

I'm rather done with Senators as I imagine things. I'm looking for executive ability over all. However, if that's what we get as a nominee, so be it, I'd support any one of them, if I had to again. Bleh.