2008 is a chance for the Demcrats to run their **best** candidate, not the most electable one

[Stinky The Clown]

Yesterday I put up a post about my assesment of the 08 presidential field as it exists today. In the opening of that thread, I also made the somewhat bold statement that we **will** win in 08. I came to that consclusion recently after looking at their field of possibles.

As deep as is our bench, is how thin is theirs.

Quite simply .... they got nuttin'.

J.E.B. Bush? Not a chance. Stupid Brother ended the Bush regime for a generation. Forget what anyone's base thinks, the country as a whole just won't go for another Bush.

Rudy's too whacky for the Republic's base.

McCain's lastest call for more troops in Iraq was his final act. Even the Republics are running from that. Plus, no matter what, he's just plain too old. And he's looking it. And his panderings have become the stuff of legends.

Mitt? Hahahahaha ...... Next ......

Frist? No one will vote for a cadaver. And even if they'd think of it, they won't get past the ghost of Terry Schiavo.

Condi? Nope.

Two who will come on strong, as I see it, are Chuck Hagel and Haley Barbour. Hagel's got the Senate stink, so he loses points off the top for that. I also think people view him as a McCain MiniMe and won't take him as seriously as they might. Barbour worries me. he may turn out to have the best chance of any of 'em. But I think that garrolous accent will be his undoing. I know its silly, but I think the country's over it with the strongly identifiable regional accents.

So that's one reason why I think we'll win.

But then there's the general mood of the country. While I've said before and will say again that our 06 win was not a landslide, but instead a toehold (yes, I know we won virtually everything and lost not one incumbent seat). We won on the combination of the strengths of our candidates and on the country's anger with the Republics. So long as Il Dunce keeps his Midnight Cowboy boot heels dug in and worries only about his legacy, the mood toward the Republics at large won't change - except maybe to get meaner.

On the whole, the mood of the country strongly favors our side. I see that as a generational opportunity to win with our very best candidate, not the one who can flip thyis red state or win over that voting bloc.

I would urge everyone who's inclined even now to support a candidate to rethink and make sure the person you're supporting is the VERY best person for the country. The Democrat will be elected in 08. Our job now is to make sure that Democrat is the best one we can find.

No .... I am NOT espousing ANY particular candidate. I'm in 'find the best one' mode.

[Duer 157099]

1. If only Gore would run

I know you think he won't, or he has said he won't, but I think he'd be the best of the bunch.

[amitten]

3. DItto. Gore would have it in a landslide, I think. n/t

[dpbrown]

11. The world needs Al Gore as the President

I hope he knows that.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Yesterday you said Gore has the best chance (if he'll run).

I agree. And I think he's the best potential President we have. He is so obviously a man of vision--always has been but they made him hide it last time--that he can rally the entire country to a heroic effort to change the Way Things Are (but shouldn't be).

[Stinky The Clown]

4. What I said in yesterday's post had a subtle but meaningful difference ....

..... my calling a Core/Clark ticket was, in my view, the ticket with the very highest chance to win by the very biggest margin.

What this thread espouses is the best person for the country, even if they win in a squeaker.

That's not to say that Gore might not be the best person .... just to say the goals of that thread and this are somewhat different.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. I don't know that the difference was all that subtle between the 2 threads,

and my purpose here was, first to affirm your judgment on his ability to win, and second, to express my own view that he not only can win, but would make the best President for these times. Not since maybe Jefferson has there been such a congruence of attributes--best candidate and best person for the job--in one politician.

[Infinite Hope]

5. I'll take the most electable of the 3 best.

So we can have both chambers and the presidency. The most electable Democratic president might not agree with liberal Democrats on everything, but they will agree on most things which is much better than having a Republican. We need the most likely person to make real progress. That encompasses not only a progressive message, but an electable person. My list would be (in order of electability, IMO):
1)Edwards
2)Clark
3)Gore

Edit: What I do like is that for 2008, Dems have many candidates with good name recognition and who are also very electable and have a base that they've built up since 2004, whereas Republicans have a bunch of newbies with virtually no organization. I think Dems easily are the favorites for 2008.

[1932]

6. I wouldn't underestimate the Republicans. I thought Bush was a terrible

candidate. I thought Gore was going to clobber him and we'd have eight more years of Democrats in the White House.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Yea tho I walk thru the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil ......

.... cuz I'm the baddest motherfucker in the valley!

When Bush ran, we were coming off Blowjob Central and they played that smoke and mirrors crap with Bush to the hilt .... and to good effect.

When he ran the second time, the cries of Boo! Watch out! Terror! Incoming! worked and the populace cowered.

06 was the turning point. They lost their mojo because all they had was tricksters and chicanery and a total lack of scruples.

Our win in 06 showed what we have. And its **real** strength and **real** patroits and **real** gravitas, and **real** bona fides .......

We are, indeed, the baddest motherfuckers in the valley.

[1932]

12. Ok. But taking the Republicans seriously isn't the same as fearing them.

And Bush is a worse candidate than any you listed in your OP.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying we shouldn't be afraid to run a hard-to-elect Democrat because the Republicans are going to field a worse candidate?

Do I have that right?

[Stinky The Clown]

13. The best Democrat would not be hard to elect.

Think about it ......

[1932]

15. Is my characterization of your argument correct?

Are you saying that Democrats shouldn't worry about nominating someone who will be hard to elect because the Republicans are running duds?

[babylonsister]

7. If we honestly voted 'best' vs. electable, I'm going with Kerry.

I know there are lots of people who don't like him for whatever reason, but we heard his platform two years ago, and he had solid ideas that, had the election been fair, would have been partially implemented by now.

[Webster Green]

8. Best and most electable: Al Gore

Hope he runs!

[1932]

14. I think Kevin Phillips makes an excellent argument about why Gore (and Kerry)

are not good candidates for the Democrats on page 387 of American Theocracy.

Here it is at http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/067003486X/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop/002-7593254-8792836?v=search-inside&keywords=Lieutenant+Governor&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Go%21#.

Read it. I'm curious what you think about it.

He says that the sons of privilege are ill-suited to challenge the politics of privileged descent.

"Inbred and sclerotic vie as appropriate descriptions of the two parties' selection processes. Such continuity of power elites suggests little capac- ity for challenging the status quo."

Democrats need to nominated someone who isn't from a powerful political family, whether it's the Clinton family or the Gore family, or the Kerry-Heinz family.

[JohnnyLib2]

10. Competence, competence, competence is needed

to replace this godawful bunch and start the U.S.'s second reconstruction.

No name is at the top of my list yet, but track record, experience, COMPETENCE and ability-to-clean-up-messes seem all important.

Hmmm, maybe one of those CEO's who specialize in turn-arounds will pop up.
We can work on the $40 million bonus later, LOL.

[wiley]

17. After polling a few friends with no attachments to any one

I've realized that many seem to think that Gore is just a little off. It's tragic that the MSM stank paint is sticking, since his environmental agenda is exactly what is needed right now.

Wes Clark has the potential for the broadest possible appeal to voters, save for die hard leftists who refuse to recognize his progressive, very pro-environment roots and his stunning success at using the military as a tool for peace and diplomacy. People want a sane, stable, progressive problem solver with experience in an area other than fighting political battles in sh•t holes or acting like a messianic fool.

I also think that he would run well with either Obama, Edwards or Clinton but that he might chose O'Malley for VP.