Which candidate has the most "governability"?

[dsewell]

I attended a Virginia Dems breakfast this morning that had surrogates from 7 of the 8 remaining candidates (all but Sharpton, not for lack of asking his campaign), each of whom gave presentations and then in turn took questions from the audience. The recurrent word from all the surrogates was "electability": every single one made the case that his or her candidate was most electable in the general election. Even the (very articulate) Kucinich rep, in the face of all the polls, arguing that only the strongest contrast with Bush will bring in new and previously apathetic voters.

Well, we've all heard these claims many times by now. But I'm surprised that I haven't heard much talk about which of the Democratic candidates has the most "governability", if I can twist that word to mean the ability to govern, and specifically to get one's agenda through a Congress that is likely to be Republican-dominated? I posed a question like this to the Clark surrogate (okay, I was purposely lobbing a softball...), and he cited our governor Warner's relative success in dealing with a Neanderthal legislature as an analog to how he felt Clark might handle Congress. But would outsiders like Clark or Dean do better than old hands like Kerry or Gephardt? Who'll be able to get things done if elected?

[mlawson]

1. I expect about the same amount of 'cooperation' that Clinton

received after 1994, unless we can somehow get a Dem Senate and/or House, no matter which Dem wins the WH. The repukes are simply NOT going to roll over for any of us.

Of course, I imagine that my candidate, Edwards, would be the best governor, since he is well liked in the Senate, but that might be only wishful thinking.

[mzmolly]

2. Governors have the best ability to Govern as they've done it.

That's why America tends to elect them to the highest office.

Governor Howard Dean!

[Raya]

4. Where did you find this theory? So Funny!

[rucky]

3. Cooperation is not my goal

if the GOP still dominates the house & senate, I would be perfectly happy with gridlock. And i think the country would do better for it, rather than the tit-for-tat form of "compromise" that congress uses to push through tight bills: "We'll pack in our pork into the bill & you can get your watered-down social program" or whatever. Just watching 15 minutes of c-span to see how the Delay-led house is acting should convince anybody that these guys are unwilling and unworthy of compromise.

I'd rather see a president who's most willing to use the veto.

[patricia92243]

5. That's easy- only one candidate was a Governor who governed

[arewethereyet]

6. Edwards, hands down.

He can connect to the people and secure the mandate, he knows how DC works and is respected there. His agenda is centrist, populist and difficult to knock. And boy is he smart.