Is our best choice for nominee one of the announced candidates?

[calteacherguy]

Edit: Assuming we could chose anyone in the Democratic Party, is the one best equipped to lead our Party, America, and the world into the 21st Century among the current announced contenders?

[Colobo]

1. Of course.

[calteacherguy]

2. Why do you say, "of course?"

[Mojambo]

3. Not in my humble opinion.

Gore and Feingold are both better than almost all of the announced.

[Donnachaidh]

12. Gore and Feingold -- the DREAM team!

Those two would walk away with it. :bounce:

[cascadiance]

28. For sure!

[SharonRB]

4. Nope

Run, Al, run.

[Dinger]

5. Probably Not nt

[MH1]

6. Nope. Kerry or Gore would be better, I think. n/t

[applegrove]

7. I like the top three and Richardson. But Gore would be nice to have

in the race too. I'll never forget when he flew to NO during the Katrina crisis. He was Presidential. That being said..I still do not know who to favour. One of those 5.

[Pastiche423]

8. Nope

Gore is not in yet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. No , either Clark or Gore would be a vast improvement

They each have the stature, credentials, and experience needed to lead our nation at a time when issues of an international nature are becoming increasingly important PLUS they both have a progressive vision for America both at home and abroad. That is the winning combination in 2008. The Republicans are waiting to pounce on Hillary for being a Clinton, and on Edwards and Obama for being relative rookies at a time when we need seasoned leadership.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

20. Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but

Wes Clark deserves the US Presidency.

I gave Gore his chance for POTUS in 2000, and it ended then. For now, I'll support him 100% towards his commitment to reduce the dangers global climate change.

If not,..I'll need to learn SCUBA to find me treasures that were once buried near secret coves; and that'll really wave my flag. ~=];/

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. If Clark doesn't run I would support Gore over any of those announced

There is so such thing as a perfect candidate (not even Clark, lol). So Gore doesn't have to be perfect, just the best of the choices given us, and as it now stands I think Gore clearly would be if he ran and Clark didn't.

It's not like I have the power to propose a formal alliance, but I would suggest that all Clark supporters keep an open mind about Al Gore, and that all Gore supporters keep an open mind about Wes Clark. We all have a lot in common; we care about experienced and visionary leadership and are not confident that we can find it in the current field of Democratic candidates.

[rosesaylavee]

10. Gore, Kerry, Feingold, Clark

I know that Kerry is sitting this one out. Am holding out for Al though and hope that he will enter the race after he rests up from his book signings, global concert series - maybe September? Perhaps he will wait until after he gets the Nobel Peace Prize. :shrug:

[BlueIris]

11. Where is the "HELL, no" option?

Which is what I would have picked.

[blm]

13. "Best equipped' for the most serious problems - Gore, Kerry, Hart and Clark.

No doubt about it.

[SaveElmer]

14. Absolutely...and in fact...

This is the best field we have had in many cycles....

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. The numbers are tiny but...

...so far those who have responded to this poll, by a wide margin, don't agree with you. I think the polling question was asked in a neurtal enough manner. Hopefully it will get more participation.

[SaveElmer]

26. And it is in direct contravention of opinion polls...

Which consistently show Democrats are very satisfied with this selection of candidates...in the 55-65% range...very extraordinary!

[earthlover]

31. very extraordinary : like very pregnant? very unique?

[calteacherguy]

36. So, 45% being dissatified is good?

In any case, I think we may be comparing apples and oranges here. My question is not, "are you satisfied," it's what I posted in the OP.

[SaveElmer]

41. Actually it is quite good...

Nearly unprecedented...and indicates there is little clamor for a so-called "savior" candidate like Gore to get in...

[calteacherguy]

44. Have data? nt

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Most great Presidents aren't well liked as candidates

FDR and Lincoln weren't exactly well liked until they were in office.

Once in a while a candidate like Bobby Kennedy will come along and generate a lot of enthusiasm. But that is the exception, not the rule.

[calteacherguy]

45. My question is not about who is well-liked. nt

[ksclematis]

30. Right on, Tom....

I just voted "NO"....I'm for Clark, and I hope I can vote for him in Nov 08.

[Bucky]

46. I think both the 2004 and the 1988 roster of candidates were stronger than this field.

of course the arguments here would be abstruse, academic, and subjective. But I don't for a second think the Democrats are running their "A Team" this cycle. I look at the stage and feel like something is missing--a feeling I did not get when there was a Dean, a Kerry, and a Clark in the race.

[PATRICK]

52. What is missing

Some big names who have been kept from running from regrettable reasons. that isn't good for the process. Some names who balked at stepping immediately into the second tier and be exiled from even being listened to seriously again.

But what is also missing is the shake up that Dean brought to a process that might have gone somnolently non-populist and an easier "victory" at least for Bush- which would have meant a powerful mandate cooked up with fake vote tallies. What is missing the actual debate getting to the hot core of the REAl crisis today in such a way the press has to at least notice it beyond the small stuff that turn people off. Something to prevent that same media from helping anoint a candidate before any vote is cast and squelching all enthusiasm in the process.

What the DNC or other leadership groups fear, risk, boldness, populism, hot confrontation as opposed to bean counting caution and calculation(which, if they in by any margin makes them arrogantly self-congratulatory) is as called for as impeachment and for many of the same reasons.

Can I mention Eisenhower, desired by both parties for having the right political stuff- a guaranteed win, an impregnable and "popular" image. Who was not our most shining speaker. All the charismatic, naturally talented and great leaders possess not an iota of that mile thick teflon and obligatory support. movie stars can fake it. Real leaders get pommeled by people not in awe of mere mortals. So if you submit to that game you blink, cringe, slink and follow polls instead of leading them. And the major news organizations will make sure this is how it is on behalf of corporate interests.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

15. no more betrayals, time for REAL Leadership...

[sellitman]

17. Gore is the one.

No one else comes close.

[jenmarie]

18. No,no and no!!

Clark or Gore are needed and necessary at this crucial point in our history. Of those two I hope it's Clark. I love what Al's doing now, and I think Clark could pull in more Independents and moderate Republics than anyone else. Plus, Clark's got the diplomatic and FP expertise we so need right now! I believe they are both respected internationally, so either one would win back a fair number of our former friends overseas.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Absolutely, yes.

:thumbsup:

[venable]

21. there is a misleading perception of 'potential' from the undeclared

in that the very act of declaring puts one in the category (with some people, not with all) of having 'ambition'.

Ambition, in the sense that people don't like.

Undeclared, or never mentioned, are those in whom we can place infinite possibility - ie they are not encumbered by the reality of political theatre and the hubris and compromise and actual policy that this entails.

The Undeclared are our dreams.

The moment they declare, they have feet of clay.

We've seen this in the past, as recently as 04, when highly esteemed citizens, eagerly anticipated, entered the race, only to be seen in that cold, harsh light as mere aspirants, and lacking, when as 'potential' they were wonderful.

It is an unfortunate part of our system that, often enough, those who should be president will never be because the very thing that makes them fit for the job also makes them uninterested in the process of actually becoming president.

given that, I look for the person whose actual positions and proposals match my vision of the world, and in that regard we are doing very well this time around: Kucinich, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, and my own very strong choice, Edwards.

As for Gore - he will never be more appealing than he is now. My fear should he get in, is that within weeks or days, he would revert to the guy that said Elian Gonzalez should not be allowed to return to his father in Cuba, the guy about whom Nader tells this story:

Nader saw him eating a chocolate ice cream cone. Nader asked, "Is chocolate your favorite?" Gore got fidgety and stammered, " Well, I like vanilla and...pistacchio, and I like strawberry too, and I like a lot of flavors...."

I worry about that.

[elleng]

29. Broken system

Unfortunately venable, you are right.

General Clark said this recently:

"I was against the war in Iraq early on. I wrote the op-eds against it, I testified in front of…against it. I was cited in the Senate, and then when I ran it was like as though somebody said ‘ah, he’s running for office, you see – all of this was a smokescreen, he’s just out for his own ambition, forget about what he says, it’s how he uses it to advance.’"


Can this broken system be repaired?

[election_2004]

22. Nope

Richardson is the only one in the current field who I'm really excited about...and even he, I think, would probably make a better V.P. to Wes Clark.

[illinoisprogressive]

23. Obama

[Auntie Bush]

24. No, We need CLARK!

He's the best!

[snowbear]

49. Yes! What Auntie Bush said !!

~~~




~~~

[Cameron27]

25. Still hoping for Clark.

:-)

or Gore

:-)

[Rydz777]

27. Gore won before - and would win again in a landslide. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

32. I'd like to see Ted Kennedy in the White House over any of the candidates currently running

But he could never get elected.

[earthlover]

33. Clark!

Gore would be fine too.

I find it difficult to commit to one of the rest knowing that there might be at least a small chance one of these will run. I also see no particular need to commit right now. WHY? Plenty of time.

The hard part for Clark would be getting the nomination. He is by far the best candidate for the general election, but many Dems are afraid of military candidates and don't see past that. THey don't know that he is also among the most progressive of the alternatives. He was, after all, endorsed by both Michael Moore and George McGovern....not exactly conservatives! However this is part of the two-edged sword for Clark. His military background makes him perceived as moderate...this will help him in the general election, but ironically this same trait makes it difficult for some Dems to see that he is really a progressive.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

35. Byron Dorgan and Bernie Sanders

Maybe Jim Webb

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. These results surprised me a little bit

I expected No to come out ahead, but not by this margin. Even though the numbers voting here are fairly small, with this type of super majority voting "No", they still are significant I think.

[MrSlayer]

38. I fear we are going to turn what should be a sure win into a close loss.

By nominating the wrong person.

[FrenchieCat]

39. And as usual, we'll only realize it after the election......

[MrSlayer]

47. It looks as though many here won't.

But as for the general population I quite agree.

[calteacherguy]

40. Kick for the Sunday crowd...anyone still want to vote? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

42. Down to 16% saying our best candidate is already running.

Wow. I know that a small sample of posters at DU is not exactly representative of the Democratic Party, but still. Like I wrote somewhere (maybe here, lol) DU members are kind of Beta tester activists who tend to have our finger on the pulse of at least one limb of our Party before the wider public realizes it. We still are a minority certainly, but then again this poll so far is an absolute blow out.

I suspect most of those who are saying No want Gore in the race, many others want Clark, and others would like Kerry back as an option also. All three of these men are seasoned leaders who also have good progressive credentials. Even Russ Feingold, another good man with excellent progressive credentials who many yearn for, has a lot more experience in Congress under his belt than our current Presidential front runners. On a combined pragmatic and ideological basis I would much rather vote for Gore, Clark or Feingold than our current front runners, and I also think that John Kerry would make a better President than those now running, though I think the general public is not quite ready for an encore performance by big John yet.

[calteacherguy]

48. Kick. nt

[Awsi Dooger]

50. No, Mark Warner would have won in a landslide

He was the only candidate who could have changed the political map and carried many states we never dream about. I'm hardly the only one who thinks so. Jerome Armstrong of MyDD posted similar a few days ago. Of course, he left MyDD to work on the Warner campaign before Warner decided not to run.

[FrenchieCat]

51. According to Warner, he chose not to run because he felt that the 2008 election

would be about National Security.....and that this was his achilles heels.

I believe that he, Mark Warner is correct in his assessement, and that your prediction that Mark Warner "would have won in a landslide" had he run.....is incorrect.

Warner was smart enough to take his achilles heel into consideration when determining whether he could win if he ran, and unfortunately, you don't.

[More Than A Feeling]

53. Nope, Feingold would have been the best!

You are totally missing out on your best chance Russ!