Biden, Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards

[SHRED]

I'm sorry but is that the best we can come up with for '08?

The media harps on these names as contenders for the Dems.
I hope not, but who else?
Sure it's early but the only one I can support would be Edwards, unless convinced otherwise.

[FARAFIELD]

1. EDWARDS

I feel the same way, we lost to Tipsy McDumbass simply because we nominated Kerry instead of Edwards. Edwards would have won every state Kerry did (including new hamsphire) and would have just needed to carry OHIO or even one southern state. We Blew it, i dont mean that as an indictment of Kerry, he would have been 1000X better than Bush, but the point is to win as well. If Hillary gets in it will be harder than hell to beat her in the Primaries, in fact it will be like Hart trying to knock off Mondale in 84.

[SHRED]

3. And if McCain goes against Hillary...

he will trounce her I am afraid.

The USA is not going, and is not ready to elect a woman. The reichwing controls the media too much for that.

The South and Midwest/West (red states) will in no way vote for her.

[skipos]

6. Hillary's biggest problem is that

about 40% of voters are already commited to voting against her. It would be impossible for anyone to overcome that.

[SHRED]

7. true

She has been tarnished, unfairly for the most part, but in politics, as in the USA at large, it's a lot about how you are perceived over substance.

We need candidates with both!

[itzamirakul]

59. You are absolutely correct in your opinion that 40% (or MORE!) voting

Dems are against Hillary. I know that I am and my family and friends are.

But here is where the power of the DLCs come in. These DINOS are the ONLY party reps that the mainstream media will recognize or give credence to. So, although there are hundreds of Dems right here on DU who are against Hillary, that voice will never be heard because the DLC has fixed it that way. Hillary was a Republican...a Goldwater Girl in her youth and I dare anyone to tell me that she has changed one iota other than the name of her political party.

The DLC and MSM both count on the fact that so many Dems still love Bill and will vote for Hillary just to get him back in the WH.

Unless we can get some national attention to the fact that so many of us are agaisnt Hillary, middle America Dems and Undecideds will just keep accepting what the MSM feeds them and they will BELIEVE that Hillary has the FULL SUPPORT of the party when she is far from it. And I also believe she is quite willing to lose to a Republican prez.

I really used to like Hillary, but since 911, she hasn't shown me one damned thing. When she began supporting the war, I was totally through with her.

[skipos]

5. I agree that Edwards would have won every state Kerry did but

he had the same problem that Kerry had, the lack of a electorally beneficial homestate advantage. Since 90% of pres candidates have won their homestate in the last few decades, it would be nice to have a dem candidate from a winable red state. While nominating someone from MA won't allow us to definitely pick up any electoral votes we don't normally win, NC is too unrealistic for any dem to win.

For 08 I really hope to have a great candidate from a winable red state. I'm sure many people are sick of losing elections by one state.

[win_in_06]

63. Are you overlooking the fact that Edwards didn't even carry NC?

[laureloak]

70. No DEMOCRAT could carry NC. Play fair. nt

[blm]

82. Kerry/Edwards won NC. NC was another state stolen by rigged machines.

.

[Dinger]

84. Edwards Seemed To Have More Fight In Him Than Kerry

I'm a Clarkie, however, if I had a choice between Edwards or Kerry, it'd be Edwards.

[skipos]

2. You may know that Lieberman was

the frontrunner early on for 2004.
I like Warner and Clark right now and, equally as important, I think they would both do well in the general election.

Alas, we have three years to figure this out.

[SHRED]

4. I could get behind a Warner/Clark ticket eom

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I could get behind the reverse, assuming I continue to feel favorable

toward Warner when he begins discussing National and International issues more. In my mind it is foolish to "support" Warner now, when his public focus has almost exclusively been on Virginia only, with so little known about his stands on many broader issues. However I think what is known already about Warner marks him (a little pun there) as someone to pay attention to.

I do like what I have seen so far, but there isn't much I think Warner can do between now and 2008 to get broader international experience under his belt, and I do worry about that. I know a lot about Clark, and I would like him at the head of our ticket.

[SHRED]

26. yes...reverse of course!

This would be a very strong ticket.

[laureloak]

71. I wouldn't support Clark since he works for FOX. n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

76. Clark is serving the Democratic party at Fox

And the nation.

A blind man could see it.

[laureloak]

80. He's serving himself. Period. No Democrat should go near FOX.

A blind man with a brain knows that.

[Jai4WKC08]

81. Dean has no brain? Kucinich? Rangel?

Those are the Democrats I can remember seeing on Fox recently. I'm sure there have been others.

Fox has a larger market share than all the other 24/7 cable news networks combined. About a quarter of Fox viewers identify themselves as Democrats. Add in independents and moderate Repubs and you have the majority of the Fox audience.

None of these people think Fox is biased. Many have bought into the GOP propaganda that the rest of the media is liberal and only Fox is "fair and balanced." I guess the rest just like bright colors or the coverage of bullshit stories about celebrity crime and missing white women. Ok, so they're either stupid or very ill-informed (well, except for the more than a few who are forced to watch at work). But it doesn't matter why they watch. Fact is, they do. And they vote. You want them to only hear the news from the RW shills who are the Fox staple?

Have you ever actually watched Clark on Fox? Or read any of the accounts at Newshounds.org? He kicks ass. Shows Hannity and O'Reilly for the lying, whining assholes they are. Sets the record straight on the news programs. And by being a semi-regular, they can't diss him after his segment is over, or on any of the other shows either. It's a brilliant strategy.

But sure. Let's have strong, articulate Democrats stay off Fox. Let 'em speak only to people who already support Democratic policy and vote for Democratic candidates. Yeah, that's a great way to win back the Congress in '06. :sarcasm:

I can't see where you get your "He's serving himself." Clark's Fox appearances are doing a helluva lot of good for the party. Sure, I hope it will help him in '08, but probably not so much in the primaries. It may actually hurt him, and he knows it. He's doing it to change perceptions of Democrats in general, and that helps us all.

[laureloak]

I can overlook guests but not an employee of FOX. I wish all

Democrats would stay away from FOX.

[laureloak]

89. delete

[JDPriestly]

27. It's like a footrace.

The middle-of-the-roader "centrists" like Hillary get out in front first. But, as the finish line approaches, the "competitors" call out resources that the "centrists" don't have, like a compelling drive to win, conviction, the strength they have stored by working harder at practice and the organization they have put into their effort, making sure they ate and drank the right amounts, etc. At some point, the "competitors" pull ahead, and one of them, the strongest one, the one who was best prepared and who has the best inner and outer support, crosses the finish line first.

The middle-of-the-roaders, the "centrists" poll high and they get lots of money for their campaigns early on. But, they don't get the enthusiastic support from the activist grassroots, and that is why, if we grassroots activists choose a candidate early on and get out and work for that person, we can push that person to the top.

Look at what happened to Dean. Sure, he did not get the nomination, but he is leading the Democratic Party now, not because he polled high, but because he organized a movement that gave him the energy to spurt past that finish line first with regard to the race for that job.

Here is my assessment based on my experience in California. Of all the candidates in the race at this time, Clark, Kerry and Edwards, not necessarily in that order, are making the most grassroots contact and are trying hardest to organize activists to support them. Bayh and Warner also have support. Dean would be first on the wish list of many, but his supporters are resigned to accept his decision to be party head and not run. Not one activist I know, and I know lots of them, has mentioned Hillary's name as a viable candidate.

Wishing for a savior dream candidate to appear on the horizon and dark horse it to the nomination is unrealistic. That person would not have the name recognition in the general public, could easily be smeared with lies by the Republicans before Democrats could even get his or her story out there, and might actually have some long forgotten horrible scandal in his or her past that would distract the public until election day. We are going to have to work with the candidates we have.

The public wants change. The time is right. Let's don't be too squeamish about tried and true candidates. Kerry, Clark, Edwards, and a couple of others really want to win. That's half the battle. The Republicans, in spite of their money, are going to be very battle-weary by 2008, and we will just be getting into the swing of things. If we get a decent candidate and get behind him or her, we can win big in 2008. Our time is coming. If we get a moderately liberal candidate in there, we can change the debate and start talking about liberal/progressive issues. Let's stop fighting amongst ourselves and get ready to win big in 2008.

[Kahuna]

8. None of those, please. Thank you.

Clark and Warner!!!!

[peace frog]

12. Ditto... Clark and Warner

The two candidates most likely to capture public enthusiasm were left off the list!

[benddem]

19. double ditto n/t

[Southsideirish]

23. Triple ditto. n/t

[thefool_wa]

10. There's always Kucinich

Ok, so that was a little tongue-in-cheek.

As to McCain, the only way he should run is as a Demo or an independent. I like the man, but I think we can agree that almost anyone put in power by the republicans from here on out will end up just another puppet of their warmongering, corrupt ways. I just don't see McCain going in for that and they won't put him in power if he doesn't. Unfortunately, I agree that he would TROUNCE Hillary.

To answer the question: The press will under-rate the administrative and legislative experience that Hillary got in in her 8 years in the WH and her subsequent time in the senate, but her and Uncle Bill back in the WH could put things right again, I truly believe that.

Hillary is the only choice. All we can hope is that they don't do something like putting Condi against her if she gets the nominations. But you have to think that the mystique of the GUARANTEED first woman president might restore some of the hope that is waning in all of us. The race alone would be a thing of wonder.

[still_one]

11. There is new blood coming aboard

Here are potentials with groups working for them:

Richard Clark
Russ Feingold
Bill Richardson
Mark Warner
Evan Bayh
Tom Daschle

and others

Hopefully the media will NOT decide our candidates

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. I assume you mean Wesley Clark?

I don't think Richard Clarke is in the running.

But Wes Clark? Hell, yes!

[still_one]

21. absolutely

I was just trying to say that 2008 is a long way off, and there is a lot of potential candidates in the sidelines

The candidates that the MSM is pushing I do NOT think represent the majority of Democrats

[Brundle_Fly]

53. Bill Richardson???!?!!?

get me a rope!

[adriennui]

16. fantasy combos

bayh/boxer
clark/ feingold
edwards/obama
clark/granholm

[still_one]

22. my choice from your list would be clark/feingold

[we can do it]

14. Gore/Kucinich

[Mass]

15. Happy Thanksgiving,

And if you insist: Kerry.

[StephanieMarie]

17. I used to like Bill Richardson until he put an end to the

investigation of vote fraud in the NM '04 election. Now I don't trust him.

[pstans]

18. Feingold

He is a principled leader who is against the war, for a balanced budget, and is the only Senator to vote against he Patriot Act. Feingold came out in September calling for troops to be out of Iraq in 2006, months before Murtha did.

http://www.russforpresident.com

[Dunvegan]

20. Gore/Kucinich...

...*sigh*...there is a true fantasy ticket.

[Southsideirish]

24. Love Gore, don't like Kootch. He threw his support in Iowa behind

Edwards, a pro-war guy at that time. Never made sense to me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. This is the reason why we do have to consider 2008 early

Not to the exclusion of the 2006 elections of course, or by tuning out current important issues, but we would be naive to assume we can all walk onto a level playing field in January 2007 to begin sorting through the potential 2008 Presidential candidates. Going all the way back to the mid seventies, Jimmy Carter developed a four year plan to run for President, and that was before consolidation of the media and the front loading of Primaries made it so difficult for more than one or two leading contenders to get serious consideration before the New Hampshire vote.

As recently as Bill Clinton, a relatively unknown long shot could emerge from New Hampshire with a decent showing (Clinton came in third there I believe) and use that as a springboard to seriously contest a nominating process that stretched out over months. In 2004 it was virtually over before a single ballot was cast, with our ticket essentially determined by people attending caucuses in Iowa and that outcome trumpeted by the National media.

The media already have their favorites, that is clear. However if enough grassroots activists work hard enough for the people they believe in, we can still set the stage for a possible outcome we can be excited about. For someone to win without insider support they need dedicated supporters both on the net and ultimately on the ground. Supporters who know the issues and where their candidate stands on them. Supporters who can refute lies told about their candidate. Supporters who will raise money for their candidate, and write letters, and talk to neighbors, and make trips to the earliest Primary States to help their campaigns there.

If we do not mobilize early the selection will be made for us and without us.

[Kerry fan]

29. Kerry 08...

Kerry did not "lose" to Bush. He "lost" to the fraudulent mahines. Any idiot can see that.

Edwards could not even win his own state. At the time of the election his numbers as a Senator in his own state were as low or lower than Bush's are now. If he had run for reelection for his Senate seat, he was expected to lose.

I like Edwards for his policy ideas. but, imo, Kerry has far more experience and leadership quality.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. I hope you know I wasn't making an anti-Kerry post

I was just making an observation on the process. Believe me had Clark run in Iowa and come in first and had that then led to a media steam roller sweeping him into the nomination, I would not have thought any less of Clark for that.

Because both Kerry and Edwards were on our National ticket last time, for better or worse they are both guaranteed to have high name recognition for 2008 if either or both run again, which I assume both will. That means they both will get serious coverage at the very least, though that isn't necessarily a promise of positive coverage.

[IndianaGreen]

34. We should concentrate on taking the House in 06

As to 08, after the earlier primaries, we should rally around the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Well I feel lucky in a way

You of course know that I want Clark to run in 2008, but what he has asked his supporters to do is concentrate on the 2006 Elections (which I would have done anyway) so I have no conflict. In doing so I am still usually identifiable as one of Clark's supporters but the work I do for other Democrats stands on it's own. If Clark gets some recognition for inspiring other Democrats to be active in 2006 that's great too, but the bottom line is my energy is directed toward making a difference in 2006. That's our next hurdle.

[IndianaGreen]

36. We need to take the House so that Articles of Impeachment are filed

and hearings are held on the crimes committed by the Bush dictatorship.

BTW, Clark held his own rather well in the Hannity & Colmes show.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Yup, and Yup. The Republicans are actually scared. n/t

[DanCa]

28. General Clark. He has what it takes to appeal to both blue and red states

[SHRED]

31. yes he does

[sandnsea]

32. A centrist,

Clark, Warner, Edwards. A centrist candidate wins the day.

[...of J.Temperance]

69. Your three candidates are my favorites too :) Edwards, Clark, Warner

I love the three of them, but I've always just ADORED John Edwards, he's so talented, he can speak from the heart, he's intelligent and I think he's got some good ideas on how to move things forward and solve problems.

[AmericanDream]

79. I'm with you on Edwards... Edwards/Warner is a winner all the way! nt

[IndianaGreen]

33. No, No, Maybe, Maybe!

The first two on your list suck big time!

We shouldn't let the media that lied to us about WMDs tell us who we should nominate in 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Of course, I believe that those listed are all tainted....

as senators who gave Bush a blank check.

Biden is far the worse. His personality grates on me somethin' terrible. He does steal from others and gives not attributions. He's a "Show horse" and I can't stand that. Humility is not a word I would ever use when describing Mr. Credit Card Plugs.

Look, I have always wanted to like Edwards, but he co-sponsored the IWR with a list of Dems who just aren't progressive. Why is his name listed with theirs? He saw him go too far in condoning our actions in Iraq during the IWR vote. His speech on the floor and his op-ed shortly thereafter really did mimic the talking points that the Bush admin used to get us into the mess that we are in. I just don't trust John Edwards in regard to our foreign policy matters. He misjudged things much too much. Sure, he's sorry now, but that was such a collosal error until sorry is just not enough, IMO.

Unfortunately, I have this intuitive feeling that Edwards is not as sincere in his beliefs as he "puts on". He seemed to have transformed himself into a 2 fingers up in the air populist, but yet he co-sponsored the bill that drained our treasury dry, hence this Govt. can afford fewer programs that were in place to help those who needed them the most.

So in essence, the contradiction that Edwards created is that on the one hand he wants to "work" to get rid of poverty, but on the other hand, he co-sponsored a bill that made America poor. Doesn't add up.

Hillary; I'll be damned if the first woman Prez gets it because her husband had it. That stinks! Can't find nothing other than Bush's and Clintons' to run this country? That stinks too!

John Kerry just doesn't do it for me in that he can't seem to capture my interest at all. I've tried to watch and listen to him, but somehow, I keep drifting away. He makes a lot of sense about a lot of things, but he still leaves me cold. If he was the nominee again, of course I would support him, but I just pray that we don't do that to ourselves again.

[dtotire]

40. Warner Is The Most Electable

I believe that Mark Warner would be the most electable candidate. He has been a successful businessman and a successful governor. He has no skeletons that the Republicans would be able to stick on him. He has said that he supports the basic goals of the Democratic party. He has no foreign policy experience, but neither did Clinton, who had a better foreign policy than Bush. Bayh would also be a good candidate, but I feel Warner has the edge. For a running mate, I would select Kerry, who has had a great deal of foreign policy experience, speaks a few foreign languages, and would do a great deal to restore our image abroad.

[FrenchieCat]

44. I'm sorry, but....

when you say..."He has no foreign policy experience, but neither did Clinton, who had a better foreign policy than Bush", none of that is good enough for me.

Clinton did not run nor was he elected during a war. And him not having any foreign policy experience did not help him at all.....just ask the 800,000 Rwandans that died because Clinton couldn't "stir" up the hornet's GOP nest for fear of what they would say about him.

Bush and no foreign policy experience....well what can I say that isn't already apparent?

NO, 2008 will not be a reduc of 1993 nor will it be election 2000. To somehow compare and put at par the experiences required then and now..... when our world is not the same as it was (whether we think so or not, it isn't) is not an insightful political strategy, IMO.

But have a very great Thanksgiving anyhow! :hi:

[Auntie Bush]

51. Ditto for me Frenchie! You say everything I think so well.

Are you a mind reader?

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. Edwards is the only one out of those 4 I would even consider.

But we can do better.

Gore/Edwards

or

Gore/Clark

for example.

[CANDO]

41. I will not vote for Hillary

We are out of our minds if we nominate her. I don't think the country could stand a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton string of administrations.

[howmad1]

46. Does that mean you'll vote for any rethuglican running against her?

That would be pretty stupid, dont'cha think. Even dumber not voting at all.

[ChiciB1]

67. You Didn't Ask ME The Question.... BUT

we better get the ball rolling RIGHT NOW and put the fires out for her as a nominee!

I don't even want to have to make that choice! It scares me to think that I WOULD sit out an election. But I did it once before! DID not support Johnson!! Not that I could have voted then, but I WOULD NOT HAVE voted for him back then!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TriMetFan]

43. Any of these three would make me happy!

Gore, Kucinich or Clark

[karynnj]

45. Kerry is by far the best of this group

[Kahuna]

50. Best at what?

:shrug:

[leftchick]

61. I agree

I can't think of anything...

[MH1]

47. Yep, Kerry is. He'll be an excellent pres, and by 2008

many 2004 Bush voters will be deep in buyer's remorse and realize what a mistake they made.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

48. Kerry

[SunDrop23]

49. Kerry/Edwards a second time...?

[ngGale]

54. You took my thoughts...

right off my keyboard. Why not...they were both great and have automatic, name recognition.B-)

[Jai4WKC08]

77. Name recognition is automatic by the general election n/t

[saltpoint]

52. Feingold should be considered. His first Senate primary election was --

-- something of an upset.

I'll support a Democratic ticket with any of these people on it but some more enthusiastically than others.

I'm with those who believe Kerry/Edwards defeated Bush/Cheney and that Gore/Lieberman defeated Bush/Cheney.

Also I'm with those who believe a very long and difficult year lies ahead for members of Dubya's administration -- a torrent of bad legal and political news -- and all of it richly deserved.

[Dunvegan]

55. A few things in favor of Gore in 08...

1. America will be exhausted by scandal and corruption...and may welcome an intellegent, diplomatic, and elder statesman like Gore.

2. Gore has been part an administration that governed during a phenomonally successful economic period. Gore was one heartbeat from the presidency for eight long prosperous years. And not a whisper of scandal regarding him.

The moral and ethical contrast with Cheney is breathtaking.

3. The swiftboating of Kerry is still a little too fresh to some swing voters. Vicious nonsense (I still don't understand how a single soul could be sold that the AWOL candidate is a "hero", and the guy on a boat in the Delta with fire from the banks is a coward.)

Yet it got traction not all that long ago. I think the meme isn't quite totally dead yet in the heads of the true Redlanders.

Just like the Clinton scandal proximity cost Gore a few thousand votes once upon a time, Kerry still has to "transcend" the swiftboaters, and it may take a little more than three years to do so decisively.

4. Speaking of scandals, the "Rehabilitation of BigDawg" does help Gore.

5. Must have a Southerner as the candidate. A Northern democrat would have to have the brilliance and the machine and the "Camelot charisma" of a Jack Kennedy for a successful 2008 election.

6. Gore is relaxed and accessable now...entirely straight-forward and concise. He seems most comfortable being himself, finally. He's become a populist and a sage, yet is far more engaging and warm than before.

7. I really like Theresa, but I think some of the more xenophobic, anti-European voters will shy away from Kerry because of her. Makes zero sense, but we've seen how doggedly insane the right has been (sheesh, still is) regarding Hillary. Tipper is someone swing Republicans (*sigh*) would probably feel more comfortable with as a First Lady.

8. Gore wasn't in the position where he had to make a decision on Iraq with the "non-intellegence" on a vote. No one knows what Gore would have done had he been in Congress...but the fact remains that because of his political remove during the vote on Iraq he was exempted from the frey.

Gore can approach the issue of the war cleaner than any of the other possible candidates simply because of his situational recuse.

(Okay, asbestos suit on...fire when ready. :) )

[saltpoint]

57. Hi to you, Dunvegan, and thanks for your points on Gore.

You make a strong case for a Gore run in 08 and I for one would support it if he wound up as the nominee -- provided he chooses someone other than Joe Lieberman to be the veep nominee.

Appreciated the points you laid out, too. On JFK -- he did have the charisma but without those dead Democrats voting in Cook County, I'm afraid we would have had Richard Nixon in the White House in 1960. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was beginning to calcify even before he ran again in 1968. Frightening.

But I think fair's fair, and while I'll support a good Democratic ticket over just about any Republican ticket no questions asked, I do ask questions in the primaries. If Gore announced, he would likely thwart Senator Clinton's bid, or at least make it a steeper climb for her campaign to win traction (and fundraising dollars).

John Edwards is a very appealing candidate. I thought Dean would win in Iowa last time with Edwards finishing second, but missed the boat on Dean. The people I know in Iowa LOVE John and Elizabeth Edwards. I don't mean just politically. I mean they LOVE these people. He remains very appealing and Southern-yet-modern. And after 8 years of Laura Bush's cardboard shallowness, Elizabeth Edwards would make a positively heroic First Lady.

I think the pressure on Gore to run will be considerable. I expect him to jump in. I figure he's already making private phone calls to Democratic county chairpeople, asking them to withhold their endorsements until he makes a final decision with Tipper.

[karynnj]

60. JFK would have won even if he lost Illinois

Go back and look at the EC numbers. I think Elaizabeth is fantastic. I though Edwards had too slim aresume in 2004 and it won't be much better by 2008. I also think that his very pro-war stance even as late as the Oct 2003 (7 months AFTER the invasion) Hardball needs to be looked at. In that interview he said the war could be justified for many reasons. I think we need to know in his case, we need to know the circumstatnces that he now believes for future crisises he would find war a solution.

(Kerry argued over the nuances of a VOTE, but spoke against war before the invasion and decried it as soon as it happened. Kerry would not have taken us to war.) I would want to feel the same about Edwards in the future.

[saltpoint]

72. Understood. I would like to see a really solid investigative

reporter do a piece on Edwards.

Warner's name keeps flickering in some accounts as a more electable alternative to Sen. Clinton, but I need to know a lot more about him, too.

If I controlled the universe -- and it's just a matter of time -- I'd have Bill Moyers as president. He's about the only famous Texan I want in the White House.

[ClayZ]

56. Gore /Kerry as Co Presidents to make right what was stolen. KICK

Eight Year Term, no questions asked. The rethugs can sit down, SHUT UP and do what they are told!

:kick:

[ginnyinWI]

58. Kerry is still the best choice

Not only is he the best qualified, he has instant name recognition and over 59 million people already voted for him. That, and what he's learned running the last time gives him a definite head start, should he choose to run.

[Odin2005]

62. Edwards-Clark

Any canidate from the North-East is unelectable because of all the "Taxachussets Librul" BS the Repugs will spew. Also, the average Joe votes on image and charisma, not issues (Reagan ring a bell?) and Edwards has that (I know several people who voted for Bush who would of voted for Edwards if he would of been the nominee, too many people found Kerry to "elitist", and dry).

[ChiciB1]

64. EDWARDS, EDWARDS, EDWARDS!!!

Unless something HUGE happens, and unless SOMEONE with cojones jumps out at me.... WELL it's EDWARDS!!

I have many reasons, but won't go into detail right now! But it's been Edwards for me for quite some time!

[IndianaGreen]

65. Wes Clark can run circles around the four of them combined!

I am not a Clarkie, yet I recognize that he is head and shoulders above this bunch.

Edwards is better than the other three.

Kerry is better than the remaining two.

I don't know who sucks more, Biden or Clinton.

[Dances with Cats]

66. Edwards,

n/t

[globalvillage]

68. Kerry. n/t

[wiley]

73. Bleak House

[nickshepDEM]

74. Warner.

[Ferret Annica]

75. I still like John Kerry

I was impressed by him whether I completely agree with him or not.

Of course, knowing he is smart enough to know the bicycle is the most noble machine ever invented counts allot with me. ;-)

[Crazy Guggenheim]

78. None of the above. BTW, I did support Edwards right after Dean

dropped out. *But*, Edwards does not seem to be a brawler.

[Dying Eagle]

83. Why not Feingold

He is everything we want and more

FEINGOLD 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dfgrbac]

85. Let's decide for ourselves!

Instead of voting for who the media selects, let's read and listen to what the candidates say and vote for the best among them - not who the media says is the front runner.

Each of us should make up our own mind, especially in the primary! Don't let media sway us.

[LWolf]

86. No.

You can add Clark, Warner, and Kerry to that list. No to all.

Who else? My choices might include

Barbara Boxer
John Conyers
Jim McDermott
Cynthia McKinney
Daniel Akaka
Jim McGovern
Dennis Kucinich
Jon Corzine


I'm sure there are more. Why not start with a fresh list?

[guidod]

87. None, thank you...

Enough of the same old names, how does Pres. Mark Warner sound?

[LiberalPartisan]

88. Evan Bayh perhaps?

[EndElectoral]

90. Why not Bill Moyers?

[wisteria]

91. Kerry 08 !!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[nini]

92. I want to know why the fuck we are fighting about 2008 when 2006 ..

is around the corner and way more important at this point.

These never ending primary wars come off as flamebait and are never prodcutive. Considering how important the 2006 elections are I cringe at all the attention everyone is giving this. Not directed at this OP as much as the board in general. It really baffles me the amount of bickering over all this at this point.


end rant