OK, who is it ? Clark, Hillary, Obama, Dean, Gore, Kerry ???

[kentuck]

I see various posts that declare with certainty that one of the above is the choice to defeat the Repubs in 08. Some suggest we need a "brawler", not a "chess player". Soem say if it's not Dean, they are going Green. Still others want to stick with Kerry. Is is impossible to get a consensus?

Personally, I think none of the above would unite the Repubs as much as Hillary and I don't know if she could actually unite enough Democrats. That's jus tmy opinion. Dean is a "brawler". He will fight. But we saw the last time how they tore him down so quickly. Obama is a new face, perhaps too new to the majority of America. But we cannot say that with certainty. Gore is the "populist" in the bunch. He has spoken truth to power when no one else would or could. But he is an outcast with the DLC types, I think. Kerry is still recuperating from his "loser" image of this past election. Perhaps with a little passage of time, we will all see what a great race he ran? Or perhaps not? Clark was a newcomer to the Party in 2004 but will have more credentials in 2008. He is a Southerner and a retired General. He is also intelligent. So who do we choose in '08?

[Politicub]

1. Maybe Hillary?

I saw my first Hillary for Pres 2008 bumper sticking on a car in the parking lot of where I work.

:kick:

[still_one]

6. because she voted for the 385 billion dollar budget bill

which was an awful bill, if she runs I will do everything to see she is defeated

[Politicub]

7. I will support the Dem nominee

Whoever s/he is. No one is perfect.

I don't know who I'm going to support in the primaries. I'll have to wait and see what hats are thrown into the ring.

Wes Clark has impressed me on his TV appearances as of late. I didn't pay that much attention to him during the primaries, but I think he's worth an extra look.

[still_one]

39. I won't, not anymore

they made too many mistakes during the first four years of *

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Loser image? He got more votes than any Democrat EVER!

This is where I can't quite GET my fellow DU'ers. THe guy come within a DOZEN electoral votes ... and suddenly he's damaged goods?

[kentuck]

3. Gore "lost" by 500 votes and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court..

Look how the people deserted him?

[Forkboy]

21. Image may not be reality

but it's something that comes into play regardless.

[mtnsnake]

23. Anyone who couldn't beat Bush is damaged goods.

[LittleClarkie]

41. So then anyone we would have put up against Bush

would have been damaged goods. The smear was going to happen regardless. And probably also the fraud. It could have been any of the candidates. I hate the concept of damaged goods.

What makes us so sure? If we knew what makes for a winning candidate, we'd have one. Why not take a page out of the Repub book and not turn on our own for failure.

[CTLawGuy]

30. perspective

Holding the Democratic coalition together was an intense hatred of George Bush, more than a love of Kerry.

Bush entrenched the US in a costly and ill-advised war that our candidate voted for and therefore could not credibly oppose, only say incoherently that he could have run it better.

kerry won in the primaries on the stength of his "electability" which stems primarily from his service in Vietnam, which he then harped on endlesslessly at the convention. Kerry gave few other arguments for why he was qualified to be president. Once the Swift Boat Vets came out, and Kerry failed to adequately respond to them, his lone trump card was rendered moot and his credibility in the minds of independents was crushed.

The fact that the campaign was about John Kerry's vietnam service in such a great proportion was a blessing for Bush, becuase then it wasn't about Iraq or the budget or the economy - Bush's failures.

[kentuck]

32. A poignant synopsis..

and one that many might agree with...

[LittleClarkie]

43. That's a bit of an over-simplification, I think

It started there, but that's not where it finished.

Starting in Sept. with the Temple U. speech and going through the debates and miscellaneous things like "Going Upriver" support FOR the man started to grow. Maybe too little too late, but I saw several ABB turn into Kerry supporters. It's revisionist to deny that many of us were growing quite attached to our guy in the last month or so and getting excited. Volunteers sure did come out of the woodwork because of that first debate. Note I do mean BECAUSE of that first debate, and that was ALL Kerry.

That's why it hurt so damn much Nov. 2. The man looked like a winner. If we had was ABB, he would have looked like Dole coming into the final lap.

To political junkies perhaps Kerry is damaged goods, but I don't hear that as much from the rank and file voters I've run into. Some have surprised me actually with their emotion at what's going on. I didn't expect some guy who works for a dairy, with a wife and two kids to go around calling Bush "Hitler." I certainly didn't expect the 70 year old wife of a veteran to say she feared for our democracy.

I wonder what will make them all finally say "ENOUGH!"

[Julien Sorel]

48. Gee,

Kerry gave few other arguments for why he was qualified to be president. Once the Swift Boat Vets came out, and Kerry failed to adequately respond to them, his lone trump card was rendered moot and his credibility in the minds of independents was crushed.

Kerry won the independents, after Gore lost them in 2000. Imagine what Kerry could have done with the independent vote if he actually had credibility with them...

[still_one]

4. Definitely NOT Hillary

After she voted for the 385 budget nonesense this last weekend, along with quite a few dems, but NOT Kerry or Edwards, she does't deserve any leadership role

Hillary, and some of the other dems caved in, even though the bill had so much pork, cutting funding for students, and anti-abortion rules says everything about her, and many of the democrats

[On the Road]

5. I Agree -- None of the Above

Who would have picked Howard Dean to be the early front-runner this year? Or Clinton in 1992? Or Dukakis in 1988? Or Carter in 1976? Or McGovern in 1972? That tends to be the way it goes in nonincumbent elections.

Of the current crop, I personally think John Edwards has the best shot. Of the outsiders, Mark Warner looks good but he's got to trandscend the single-term governorship in VA and get another serious gig before 2008.

[kentuck]

8. John Edwards is a star....

Or so my wife thinks... :) And I agree his message is one of the best.

[lilfroggy]

11. Absolutely.

And despite what the Clarkies say (one said that they would live to their dying day to make sure "SOMTW" is not President because of their own inflated egos over Clark rather than what is best for the country....) Edwards would be a great nominee.

[TwilightZone]

25. Instead of attacking other Democrats, why don't you tell us WHY

Edwards would be a great nominee? Frankly, your post sounds a lot like the attitude that you're complaining about in the first place.

I like both Edwards and Clark, but they have a similar problem - limited political experience. The election, however, has turned into a popularity contest and experience seems rather unimportant to way too many voters, so their experience or lack thereof may be relatively meaningless.

Edit: typo

[Leilani]

46. Aren't you the uniter!

Classy post, not!

[cidliz2004]

54. Edwards couldn't even deliver his own state much less ANY of the

south. He was not the best choice for Kerry and it was proven by what he DIDN'T do for the ticket. He gives a great speech but has NO credentials on Foreign Policy that could be taken seriously. If we go to peaceful times then, yes Edwards would be a strong possibilty, but in war times Edwards doesn't even come close.

[elsiesummers]

60. At top of ticket Edwards would deliver NC.

I supported Edwards in the primary, but, in hindsight, I think Kerry needed to pick Gephardt as veep to bring Missouri.

I agree that the election would have to be about domestic policy for Edwards to win - but it is up to the candidate to frame the debate around strengths.

Kerry clearly believed that his strength was national security or he wouldn't have framed his campaign around his military history and instead would have moved the debate to domestic issues.

I don't think any of our candidates, not even Clark, can deliver the election if they (1) buy into the Bush election framework and battle on Bush turf (national security) and (2) don't bring a red state with a significant quantity of votes into the mix.

A geographical candidate, one who can pick off enough red states (at least one or two), is the ideal choice.

Would Gephardt have been able to win at the top of the ticket by bringing Missouri and Iowa plus the Kerry states?

Bush will try to make the election about national security but the only way for Democrats to win will be to reframe the debate to domestic policy.

[calimary]

61. I liked Edwards but found him underwhelming in two VERY critical events:

1) His acceptance speech at the convention. It was nice but... I watched, earnestly ready to sing his praises, and all I heard was Peggy Lee singing "is that all there is?" He just didn't connect as powerfully as he should have - especially for a successful trial lawyer whose final arguments tended to pack the courtroom with eager listeners. I'm still not certain what it was, but it left me very surprised and dissatisfied.

2) His performance at the debate with cheney. All I can remember is how many times I pounded my fists into the cushions, and sat bolt upright when cheney'd say something really off-base, leaving a Holland Tunnel-sized hole for Edwards to ram through, and Edwards did NOT pick up on it, did NOT drive the point home, did NOT score a win, did NOT draw any "blood," did NOT go in for the kill. And with bush and cheney, you just absolutely HAD TO go for broke. Kerry passed on some of those opportunities against bush, also, but not as much as Edwards did against cheney. There were, in fact, a couple of times when he could have asked for rebuttal time and he completely passed - so whatever cheney had said simply held - as presumed unquestioned fact, unchallenged, unassailed, un-debunked. There were many opportunities to set the record straight, and Edwards let quite a few of 'em just go.

He DOES have the Southern thing going for him.

He DOES have that appeal and being photogenic, with an equally appealing and photogenic family doesn't hurt a bit.

He DOES have far less "loser stench" on him than Kerry does, not being the leader of the ticket.

But I'd hoped for, and expected, SO much more from him - with the faith I had in his intelligence, potential, eloquence, and his upbeat campaigning. I've gotta be honest with you, though. I was actually disappointed in him. And yes, you DO have to wonder when the guy doesn't carry his own state.

I think I might lean toward Wesley Clark next time. Frankly, I'd still love to see Howard Dean in the White House, but I'm pretty sure that will remain a dream out of reach. All the enemy will EVER have to do is pull out that piece of video of him "screaming," dammit.

Kerry, unfortunately, DOES have loser-stench all over him now, plus he's compromised himself with many of his most fiery followers by conceding too soon. They won't forget - or quickly forgive - that one. They'll be sure to remind everybody how he promised to fight for every vote. Furthermore, all the enemy would have to do is haul out the same attack playbook that worked for them last time. They won't even need kkkarl rove. There'd be MORE of the swifties, MUCH MORE of that accursed John O'Neill (the ONE AND ONLY positive note to come out of this election - that Kerry's loss means we will NOT have to suffer that resentful little pissant schmuck for the next four years, every time somebody on the Pox "news" network needs a Kerry critic to provide spin), and we'd never hear the end of "he voted for the 87 billion dollars before he voted against it" - which, honestly folks, was NEVER effectively explained or dispelled. At least not to ill-informed, quick-n-dirty soundbite, simple-minded "heartland" America. Whatever got your goat against Kerry this time would come back, in spades, in four years. And I seriously wonder if, by then, he'd have figured out how to respond to it.

Sigh...

I supported Kerry with everything I had. I desperately wanted to see the magnificent Teresa Heinz Kerry as First Lady - with all the formidable benefits that she brings to the table. I wanted desperately to see the kind of people in position around the presidency whom Kerry would bring into office with him or appoint once he got there. It would have been SO superb, and SO beneficial, and SO healing for women, for veterans, for education, for the environment, for sensible foreign and economic policy, for everybody else with whom we have to share this planet. But I fear he's been fatally compromised.

Hillary, too. MUCH AS I LOVE HER, and I would not hesitate to vote for her myself, I think she's damaged goods, nationally. All we'd see is a rehash of EVERYTHING Clinton-bashing that we had MORE than enough of during the Clinton White House years. It's a shame, and it's our country's loss, but we'd lose the "uppity woman haters" in droves - and there are still WAY too many of those types out there, including the fundie contingent. You say Hillary and you instantly wave a red flag in front of an already angry bull.

I think Wesley Clark has the inside track.

But four years IS a long time. And it'll certainly seem a lot longer than that, even, as we slog through the agony of george w. bush. Somebody else may surface. I like Obama a lot, too, but he's still young and may need a few more years' seasoning on a national level - especially to offset the sad truth that there are too many voters out there who will reject him simply because of his skin color. That said, Obama is well worth watching. He might, however, make a superb running mate in four years. And eight to 12 years from now, he just might be unbeatable on his own.

[cidliz2004]

63. Excellent Post

I really agree with what you said. Edwards is a shining star, but he is not in the right time and the right place. We are entrenched in a disasterous Foreign Policy, led by this administration. Edwards does not have the experience and/or expertise to be an effective leader. Most people did have Iraq up thier in thier minds in the the #1 or the #2 spot for voting.

Clark would also be my choice. He is from the South, a 4 Star General, a Washington Outsider, Has credibility from fighting in Vietnam to running the war in Kosovo without a single loss of American Life. His credibility oozes with the International Community, they know and respect this man more then Americans. Clark has a chest full of awards from many many foreign countries.

So, yes, 4 years is a long time, but during the time from now and then, we need some strong voices out their and we need some strong leadership, because this fight will not be easy and it will take expertise from many fronts.

[elsiesummers]

64. I agree about Edwards convention speech - but was coopted by Kerry, IMO.

I always loved Edwards stump speech but IMO the Edwards acceptance speech was a Kerry product, not an Edwards product.

We went to Iowa for Edwards - but my husband was totally bummed by the post veep pick Edwards saying "He's sold out to the Kerry camp - sold his soul to be veep" - and I definitely found the changes in Edwards after Kerry picked him to be a real downer.

He did not have his usual fire when delivering the convention speech - it was a dissppointment to me - but I think it was because much of it was not his material.

There was no way NC was gonna vote for a Massachusetts Senator. If that was what Kerry thought Edwards would bring - well that was not going to happen - especially after the swift boat stuff - any shot Kerry had at NC or VA was gone. This wan't Edwards fault - it was because Kerry was the nominee.

I still think that Edwards at the top of the ticket would have brought NC. Would he have brought all the states Kerry brought? I don't know.

I'm left thinking we need a Red State Dem to win - maybe Edwards (depending on how he is polling in NC, maybe not) Bayh, Breaux, Warner maybe Gephardt. We need just a little more territory. Edwards is the only one on this list who is liberal enough for my taste, but frankly, I don't think that should be the criteria any more. Maybe Richardson could put us over the top with the Latino population in a couple of states.

Geography, geography, geography and demographics.

I don't see where or how Clark would have gained EVs that Kerry didn't gain, accept in Arkansas, which wasn't enough. It's not that I don't like Clark (he's the only one, other than Edwards, who I gave to in the primary). I just don't see where he was going to add to the number.

[Kilkenny5]

72. Amen

I never understood the Clark love on this board. Yes, he's a smart man but he really didn't impress me.

Maybe they'll pass the "Arnold Amendment" in time for Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to run for President.

[nickshepDEM]

9. I think if Hillary runs...

We will get ABSOLUTLEY DESTROYED. Alot of republicans are hoping that Hillary runs because they will chew her up and spit her out. She would carry alot of the Female vote but not as much as everyone thinks and she would get little to none of the male vote. Everyone will be using the philosophy "A woman cant run this country."

I like the idea of a Gen. Wesley Clark and Mark Warner ticket. Bush attacked Kerry's ability to fight the war on terror. What will the Republicans have to say if you throw a 4 star GENERAL at them for christ sake? They will try to attack Clarks ecomomic skills but Warner will be right there to back him up, so they can get that sh*t out of here. Clark is from the south and although Warner was not born in the south he is Gov. of Virginia, this should help to possibly carry a couple southern red states.

Also I have this little itch that would like to see Kerry run again but only if he is Guranteed victory. I think he would make a hell of a president and would do his best to unite this country.

[newyawker99]

51. Hi nickshepDEM!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ewagner]

10. Situational: too soon to tell

We will pick the proverbial "man/woman for our times." What ever the circumstances are in 2008.

[bookman]

12. The best candidate...

.. will be one who is not a member of congress. A governor may be our best choice. Wes Clark may fit that category also.

We even snipe here about this vote or that vote and most know it is more complex than that.

[janx]

13. 2006

I'm much more concerned about 2006 right now. It's fun to talk about the next presidential election, but I think we have some work to do for 2006.

It's sooner than we think. ;-)

[JI7]

15. agree, especially since 2006 will probably affect who runs in 2008

[JI7]

14. no matter who runs there will not be any agreement among DU members

even if all those who run are those who never ran before there will be internal fighting among the party members and supporters of various candidates.

[kentuck]

16. But is he/she a "secular humanist" ??

Or some such argument that the Repubs will bring out in '08? We have ot have a candidate that can counter such charges directly and forcefully. If not "secular humanist", it may be "flip-flopper" again? Whatever it is, it cannot be ignored. It must be countered.

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. I suspect Dean and Edwards will be the last 2 standing

It'll come down to those two, IMO.

[KerryDownUnder]

18. I say Clark And/Or Hillary

But not necessarily in that order ;)

Clark was just too much of a newbie last time around...give him a few years and he'd be ready with his resume neutralizing whatever benefit the Republicans think war gives them.

Hillary is naturally the front-running darling of the media, but, then again, the media backlash is already starting.

Obama is a solid and fresh face for the Democrats, but I think he should be wary of following Edwards and appearing too eager for the top job. Let him run in 2012 or 2016 after getting a term or two under his belt in the senate.

I liked Dean a lot and still think he would have made a better general-election candidate (all of the "capturing Saddam doesn't make us safer" talk was, politically, simply way before its time) but the media just don't like the guy for whatever reason.

Gore and Kerry could both be battle-tested candidates that can win (or win again), but there's something unexciting about both of these guys. Just my opinion, of course, but I'd like to see some new faces.

[napi21]

19. I don't think it will be any of the above.

I still think it will be a Governor, and maybe one lots of us are not familiar with. I sure had never heard of Bill Clinton before he ran.

[mtnsnake]

20. Obama, Dean, Hillary, or Clark should be considered. Not Kerry

I think Dean is the best fighter for us, I think Hillary is the best politician, I like Clark a lot, and Obama just wows me.

[Mutley]

24. I liked Clark in the primaries

but I live in Maryland and he didn't make it that far. I would like to see him try again next time. I like Hillary but I don't think she has much of a chance. Mostly I think it's too soon to tell.

[Carolab]

47. WAAAAAAYYY too soon for Obama

Jeez, he's just getting started.

BESIDES, GOVERNORS are the best candidates and win most often.

Hardly EVER Senators, REMEMBER?

[cidliz2004]

55. Clark/Dean Dean/Clark Warner Biden Not Hillary Not Obamma

Hillary although I love her is too polarizing a figure and Obamma needs some seasoning it is way too early for him to try to go for the White House.

[elsiesummers]

66. Lllove Biden but Delaware - no new EVs, Dean/Vermont doesn't help either

I am a huge Biden fan (would have supported him in the primary if he had run) But: Dean and Biden only bring the same Electoral map that we just got with Kerry - so they cannot win.

If Clark only brings Arkansas plus Kerry map he cannot win - he has national security credentials but that won't be enough. I don't see where he brings new states - he doesn't bring a new region or new interest group.

Hillary might have enough star power to shift things, bring some nonvoters (like Arnold does for the Repubs) but she will also turn out the Republican base - very difficult to predict how a Hillary election would go but I'm not hopeful.

We need a candidate who either brings new EVs or ads to the demographics (appeals to an interest group).

[briankup]

69. I think Obama is bay far the best person in the party at the moment....

I say he should run while he is still young and vibrant.

[TwilightZone]

22. Yes, it is impossible to get a consensus.

Simplistic, but true. We couldn't even agree on Kerry AFTER he was our nominee, and I don't expect the '08 primary season to be any less abrasive than the one for '04.

A lot may depend on who emerges on the Republican side. If it's someone like McCain, we may need to counter with some military experience - perhaps Kerry again or Clark.

I like Clark, particularly with a couple more years of experience under his belt. His appearances late in the primaries and during his time supporting Kerry were very impressive. His resume is pretty tough to beat, and he's emerged as a very personable guy.

This is, after all, a personality contest, whether we like it or not.

[From the south]

26. Will Harold Ford Jr be old enough?

I think he is a up and comer from the south

[fujiyama]

29. He's supposed

to be running in '06 for the open seat left by Bill Frist.

It'll be a tough race. I hope he makes it. That'd be a hell of an accomplishment.

[jojo54]

27. We're still embroiled in 2004

Let's not forget that Kerry just gave his approval for his team to start the recount suit. Personally, I believe that if enough balls are grown in the next few days, we'll all get to see the monkey hung by his tail, or more appropriately, stood up on a crate, naked with electrical cables attatched to all the right places. Then all the people who voted against him can take turns zapping him! OUCH!!

[fujiyama]

28. It's still way too early

and you didn't mention the other possibilities - southern governors like Warner, Easley, and the TN gov (forgot his name).

We'll get a better idea over time. As of now I still like Clark and I've heard good things about Warner.

[progressivebydesign]

31. Gephardt. or Gore.

Gephardt would have been the best choice this time, but no one here accepts that. A midwestern, squeaky-clean, moderate, with a fire and brimstone delivery, would have been a great choice. He got fucked over by the other democrats (one who shall remain nameless, because he was our eventual nominee).

Gore was screwed over by the powers that be in the Party. He would have wiped the floor with Bush. But.. we were told by the suits that we weren't bright enough to choose our nominee ourselves, so they pushed him out.

Frankly, I think the corporate Democratic whores deserve four more years of Bush... so they can be forced to get their noses out of their fucking lattes, and figure out what America is really like now, and DEAL WITH IT!

[elsiesummers]

62. I am an Edwards supporter, but in hindsight, I agree!

Gephardt would have brought the Kerry states plus Missouri and Iowa and maybe Ohio - so a win.

Gore could have run a completely different campaign - a grudge match - and definitely would have passed on the National Security test since he was VP and had already passed the National Security test. He might have won. I don't know if he would have won because the campaign would have been so different and because I had some real problems with his gentlemanly campaign in 2000 - but I think he had a real shot.

You are right about 2004.

2008 may be an entirely different matter. I'm left thinking that geography, like the kind that Gephardt brings to the table, is the real answer. We just need one or two red states to put us over the top.

Perhaps John Breaux with Lousisiana or Evan Bayh with Indiana, or Mark Warner with VA... We need geography on our side. (No the DLC type Democrats are not my first choice but I'm being pragmatic about geography).

[JohnKleeb]

65. gephardt would have made a fine nominee or running mate

I mean that, the man is suberb on most economic issues and pretty socially liberal, dont like some of his foreign policy views but i am gonna miss him in the house.

[UpsideDownFlag]

33. Obama is too junior. give him some time to season. nt

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

34. Clark! eom

[ThorsHammer]

35. I like Obama in 2012

He has the charisma to attract a lot of the moderate and swing state voters, but would be much better with 4 years of Senate experience and exposure at a national level. He's already been getting a fair amount of press, and should have good name recognition by 2012.

I'm not sure if Dean and Hillary could do much better than Kerry did with the swing states. The far right has probably already started pre-emptive attacks on her, and would likely do anything they could to prevent her from winning.

Warner is a very interesting candidate. He lacks a national name (as compared to a Clinton, Dean, Edwards), but could help a lot with getting some moderate states. I still can't figure out how Clark didn't make it further this time. FWIW, I think a Kerry/Clark ticket could have been pretty solid and helped a lot with the 'security voters.' Edwards is a real wild card for 2008. He clearly has the charisma and name recognition, but also loses some of the limelight as he won't be in office anymore. If Bush continues on this path of invading countries (many threads mentioned Iran), I don't think the GOP would have a prayer in 2008.

[lojasmo]

36. I will support Dean, Clark, or Gore among this list.

[evilqueen]

37. Imagine this...

Jon Stewart v. Arnold Schwartzenegger

[liberalpragmatist]

38. There's plenty of time

It's fun to speculate, but so much depends on the next 4 years. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The nomination will sort itself out in a few years. In the meantime, there's the little business of opposition we need to do.

[LittleClarkie]

45. Indeed, why do we need a concensus NOW

Why can't we let it grow organically.

[woodleydem]

40. If we want to win, it will be Mark Warner

Warner has the credentials as a governor. He has shown to be a fiscal disciplinarian as well as someone who relates to rural voters. He also ran L. Douglas Wilder's campaign and knows how to run a sharp, efficient campaign. Having spoken to those who have worked for him, they say they have never met a politician as politically savvy as Warner. His term is up in 2006, and Virginia's constitution has one-term limits for their governors. But he is chairman of the National Governor's Association, and anyone who is planning on running for President in 2008 needs to start seriously organizing and fund raising towards the end of 2006. The Washington Post ran a front page article about him about two weeks ago which quoted prominent Republicans who feared a Warner run in 2008. You slap on Evan Bayh as his running mate and you have a ticket that will be pretty much unbeatable.

[newyawker99]

52. Hi woodleydem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Califooyah Operative]

42. All of them will join to form a Super Candidate! nt

[LittleClarkie]

44. The Franken-candidate

Igor, fetch my toolkit. Mwahaha.

[Jawja]

49. None of them.

Try Mickey Mouse.

Until the voting machine problem is solved and election fraud becomes front and center, it won't matter who runs against the criminals.

[Felix Mala]

50. Kennedy Retires, Cosby Runs for Senate '06

Bill Cosby for President in '08... Picks Wesley Clark for VP...

(Or Colin Powell)

[leyton]

53. Clark, but really Warner.

Hillary and Dean will not get the nod because too many Dems see them as polarizing figures. Obama, Kerry, and Gore will not run again (though I would like to see Gore run again, I doubt he will, and I don't think Kerry could get nominated again). That leaves Clark.

Though I'd like to see Mark Warner on this list. I'd pick him.

[Dinger]

56. If The Recounts and Investigations Fall Through, Then It's Clark

He simply has it all.

[JHBowden]

57. Warner is the guy to beat.

A self-made businessman, Warner should be able to buy the primary with his own money if he needs to.

[kentuck]

58. "a self-made businessman" ????

Does he have any other conservative qualifications??

[woodleydem]

68. He's more than just a self-made businessman

He is pro-death penalty and pro-guns' rights. He also sponsored a NASCAR team I believe. He is a strong fiscal disciplinarian. When he took over as governor of Virginia, he inherited a $5 billion budget debt, and in two years has erased it. He also worked with a Republican-dominated legislature and pushed through $1.5 billion in tax increases. He is an outstanding campaigner, and is very popular in the rural areas of Virginia. His approval rating is over %60 in a solidly Republican state. He previously ran L. Douglas Wilder's campaign, and having spoken to people who have worked for him, they say he is one of the most politically savvy individuals they have ever met. He is also chairman of the National Governor's Association, so he has considerable executive decision-making experience.

[FrenchieCat]

70. So what are Mark Warner's....

Qualifications in reference to National Security, War and Peace, experience with Foreign policy, Defense, etc....?

Try not to forget this is 2008 election (war on terra, war on terra)...not 1992.

Mark Warner seems a little soft in the area that killed Kerry during this election--National security and strong leadership capabilities.

We have to make sure that we are looking at the the BIG picture....not just some of the dots.

A Former NATO Commander really is a larger force for the Repugs to rekon with than a one term Virginia Governor. It ain't just about Values and geography you know...it's about strong leadership and the world.

I say Clark has more of what democrats need to represent them in the the 2008 election. Mark Warner as VP would be a plus.

But can we get Clark to run.... is the real question.

[Blue_Roses]

59. NONE. That is not until after the votes

have been counted and the machines fixed where there is NO CHANCE of hacking.

[lessthanjake]

67. Its not going to be any of those

Hillary just cant win i am sorry. I dont even like her.
We'd be fucking retards to nominate obama after only 4 years in the senate.
Dean has already been destroyed by political criticisms. I like him but i dont think so.
Gore no.
Kerry no.

Clark could win but i dont think itll be him.

[ChiciB1]

71. I'm Still a Liberal Democrat!

This is way too soon! I guess I may be out of the loop a bit, but I thought Kerry was Great... in person! I got to see him in Tampa the Sunday night before the election and he really came across well.

Most of us there that night saw such a difference from the "canned" TV coverage. He was personable, compassionate, caring and one look into his eyes you could see empathy and great depth. It's unfortunate that American's only want charisma! I don't think he'll ever get nominated again, but the man I saw that night was a man I trusted. I'm more than depressed at where we are now, but I won't compromise my beliefs simply because "our media" tells us we HAVE to.

I would vote for John Kerry again, in a heartbeat, I shook his hand and looked into his eyes. I will miss him.

But who's next... not Hillary. I really respect her, but can you imagine what will happen?? I also have great respect for Joe Biden, but Liebermann really turns me OFF! Richardson of NM is fantastic too, but I don't think he'll go for it! I REALLY respect him!

[angrydemocrat]

73. Kerry

If Kerry runs again I would be willing to bet money that he does get nominated again. Oh sure there are plenty here at DU that disagree but all I got to say is time will tell. First off 2004 isn't over yet regardless of what some want to beleive. Second there are still far to many Kerry supporters more than what some around here want to believe. DU is not the only blog out there discussing this. There are several blogs out there for Kerrry that are going full speed. Someone mentioned independents well don't think there aren't plenty of those out there. Go to independentsforkerry.org see for yourself they are going full steam. Dick Bell one of the men that worked for Kerry and was in charge of the blog at the original Kerry-Edwards blog has started a new blog for Kerry supporters at www.democracycellproject. net go check it out see for yourself. The point is not only is there supporters here they are all over and plenty of them. So it is to early to count him out.

[ChiciB1]

74. Thanks For The Link

It's Gooooooood to hear this news. You read what I wrote, so you know how I feel. All the negative stuff has a way of putting one off a bit. For me, Kerry was a "real deal!"