The '08 Ticket

[ruggerson]

Yeah, I know, we're all concentrating on '06. But that doesn't mean we can't, as political junkies, take a few seconds to ruminate on the presidential prospects for '08.

If I was a betting man and had to lay money on the '08 ticket, due to the two new contests (NV and SC) which have been moved up the calendar to the same time frame as NH and IA, I would lean towards:

John Edwards/Mark Warner

And I think the Republican ticket will be McCain/some idiot(R)Governor

And I think we will win. And it won't even be very close.

[oasis]

1. Clinton/Clark.

[NativeTexan]

50. Strong possiblity......

....and one that I could live with. Clark/Obama I could handle too! Clark/anyone would work for me.

[Greyhound]

71. Flip the order and I'll buy it. But I don't think Hillary would. n/t

[rep the dems]

73. Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic Nominee in 2008.

[citizen snips]

2. Edwards/Warner

McCain/Romeny

[davidinalameda]

46. that's just plain scary

the Repukes will have to have someone approved by the Robertson/Falwell/Dobson crowd

even though McCain has made nice with Robertson, he's still suspect in the eyes of many rw religious con

[citizen snips]

64. yeah

but that is only if Karl Rove throws in his two cents we will see the same slime campaign against McCain in the 2000 repub primary.

[OneBlueSky]

3. two words . . . Al Gore . . . n/t

.

[venable]

4. Edwards/Dodd

v. McCain/Romney

[rep the dems]

10. I'm not sure Dodd would be the most logical choice for

Vice President.

[ruggerson]

66. He wouldn't be

especially with Edwards on the top of the ticket. Edwards would need a governor, not another senator.

Warner, on the other hand, would probably need an eminence grise type with foreign policy bona fides.

[GreenArrow]

79. Two senators,

both of whom voted for IWR...how novel.

[lojasmo]

5. Hopefully nobody who voted to allow bush to attack Iraq/EOM

[Renew Deal]

6. Warner, Feingold, Dodd, Biden, Clark, Hillary, Kerry, Richardson, and more

There will be plenty to choose from.

[Awsi Dooger]

7. I'll say Warner vs. Guiliani

I could go for Edwards/Warner but that really makes Virginia iffy. It's a safe state with Warner atop the ticket. Can't be understated how much the race is changed if we annex Virginia.

I know, they'll never nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate like Guiliani. That's the conventional wisdom on lefty sites everywhere. Meanwhile, I'm increasingly convinced it's dead wrong. I post on balanced sites and it's incredible how many of the far right and semi-far right posters are championing Rudi. Not wacko posters. Ones who know what they are talking about. They want to win as the top priority and realize '08 might have to be a compromise in terms of the best candidate in that regard. Plus they despise McCain. The state polls by Strategic Vision give Rudi a big lead among Republicans in every state they have sampled other than Michigan. I guess we'll keep ignoring it.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Giuliani polls well because they haven't started smearing him yet

The leaders of the religious wrong haven't fully geared up against him and if it looks like he might win, they will do just that. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. will go on TV and say that people who vote for Giuliani are going to hell and the wingnuts will buy it.

This isn't the 90's anymore where the religious whackos are merely faction in the GOP led by people like Pat Buchannan. Karl Rove spent four years energizing them and it worked for chimp in '04. The problem is that there was a backlash in that he made them into a serious political force as well. It will be almost impossible for a candidate to get the GOP nomination if they do not approve.

[Sparkly]

37. I'm not so sure the "religious right" would go after him...

I see them as tools of the corporatist GOP. They'll go along with ANYbody and claim they're "so close to Jesus they're on his speed-dial," no matter what.

I think if Giuliani claimed he'd "reformed" or "accepted Jesus" or "found his faith" or whatever and was saved and redeemed by it, they'd go right along.

I may be wrong... Just my hunch.

[davidinalameda]

45. they already have

what's her name-Phyllis Schaffley has already come out against him

[dogman]

47. Have you watched TV lately?

There was surprising coverage on MSNBC. Maybe not so surprising. There was a report on Kerik and the police charity fraud. I was thinking, how come there was no tie in to the bushco HMS fiasco and Giuliani? Then the next segment was about that exact subject and what effect that might have on the '08 GOP primary. Later, I'm not sure which channel, there was coverage on how the 911 commission had gone easy on Giuliani. I believe the swifting has begun.

[rep the dems]

74. Not to mention, the last office Guliani held was Mayor of New York

and going from Mayor to President is a pretty huge jump, especially having left office several years ago. I don't see Guliani getting the nod.

[zcflint09]

8. Wes Clark!

I hope that Wes Clark gets our nomination. His strong military background but liberal stance on social issues makes him a great mix to defeat whatever Repuglican comes our way. Perhaps a Clark/Clinton ticket?

[Donna Zen]

11. Absolutely.!

The CiC goes at the top of the ticket. And I agree with someone above who said no one who voted for this war....and they all knew.

Anyway, my ticket: Clark/Sebelius (a dream) No baggage, great honest people, a woman inline to run in 16. Perfection.

[Totally Committed]

36. Sebelius is DLC...

So, no way. I can't/won't cast a vote for a DLC-er.

TC

[Cosmocat]

43. That is my ticket ...

This country is going to be in a BAD way internationally, and Clark has the creds to clean the mess up ... He could pickoff a lot of independents and even some republicans who are not insane ... He has a way aboup him where he can challenge the right without enraging them ... And, as noted, he has very progressive viewpoints domestically ...

Put Hillary in as VP and that bring the big money to it ... It also would mitigate the decade long slander attack on her ... And, sets up, for the simple minded MSM, a nice Clark as commander in chief and Hill as the domestic wonk ticket ...

I think this is a DYNAMITE ticket ...

[dogman]

48. Clark definitely, maybe Clark/Sanchez.

I would like to see new blood in the running.

[Totally Committed]

52. Sanchez is DLC...

I support the "new blood" premise, but I hope we can find some "new blood" that's untainted by the DLC.

TC

[dogman]

54. Linda not Loretta.

I know Loretta is, she is a former (R). Linda as always been a Dem and was a Union Member. I don't think she is DLC, let me know.

[Totally Committed]

55. Thanks...

No DLC-ers on the ticket!

TC

[Totally Committed]

53. Clinton is DLC...

Respectfully.... no way, no how.

TC

[MrBenchley]

61. So are Bill Clinton, Kerry and Gore

[rep the dems]

9. I love speculating about '08.

I'm thinking maybe Warner/Clark for us, as for the pugs I really don't know. I'd like to think that they wouldn't run someone like George Allen or Sam Brownback but I really don't know. I remember Frist won that straw pull a few months ago, but I'm thinking by 2008 people will have kinda forgotten about him :shrug:

[flaminbats]

18. speculation is always fun..

I predict Colin Powell will run as a Democrat in 2008 and pick Feingold as his running mate.

hmmm...in 1963 Democrats were speculating that Kennedy would easily win re-election, but wondered if a southerner like LBJ could win the nomination in 68. In 67 Democrats speculated that Robert Kennedy would become LBJ's new running-mate, and would become our nominee in 1976. In 1960 Republicans were speculating that Nixon would easily beat Kennedy, and that Lodge would be the nominee in 68. In 73 they speculated Reagan would be the nominee in 76 while hoping Democrats would nominate Ted Kennedy. In 1992 I remember Democrats speculating the Clinton would lose, but that Dan Quayle would be the easy Republican to beat in 1996! In 1999, Democrats speculated that Gore would easily win..and Bush would do as badly as his father in 92.

but comparing speculation with reality over the years is like comparing fact and fiction.

[Clark2008]

57. Clark won't be anyone's Dick Cheney. That ticket will

never happen.

Besides, why would you make the foreign policy expert head of the Senate?

Clark would do better as President or Secretary of State.

[rep the dems]

70. Yeah, you're probably right

but as much as I like Clark, I worry that having never been elected could hurt his chances. We all figure having him as the nominee would win us southern states, but if the pugs run another southerner, who has held office, Clark might not be able to win them over.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Mario Cuomo

I'l let him choose any running mate he wants cuz I totally trust him.

No, that's not a serious suggestion. Just the dreamy ruminations of a quickly aging clown.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. He should've run in '88

Dukakis would've been able to beat Bush if it hadn't been for his blunders. Cuomo running a good campaign would've crushed Bush.

[Totally Committed]

34. He would have been an extrordinary POTUS!

Another FDR. Oh, how I wish he ran!

TC

[Sparkly]

35. I wish we'd hear more from him on the teevee tawk shows

I hope he's okay!! He was always SO brilliant at turning a phrase just the right way... Very succinct, always polite even when the gist of his remarks were very pointed.

[ruggerson]

13. I probably wasn't clear in the OP

but I was interested in hearing whom you THOUGHT was going to be on the ticket (both Pres and Veep), not whom you desire.

In other words, who do you think is quietly and smartly setting themselves up to win.

Again, if I had to guess, it's Edwards/Warner.

[CK_John]

14. 3 months ago, who would have picked Lamont to be leading.

So why do you waste time and energy on such stupid distractions. Who will be President and VP in 07 after the current pretenders resign or are thrown out in disgrace.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. Gore/Feingold or Gore/Kucinich nt

[wisteria]

16. I still go with Kerry. Of the two, Kerry was the one who was right

about all the issues that have now come to the forefront. He has an understand and a drive to help those less fortunate than himself just like Edward's. He came across better in all the debates he had and his recent speeches have just gotten better and better this year. Kerry is the one who has been tested and is able to take the heat.
Edward's heart is in the right place, but Kerry offers that and I really believe he is a visionary. We need a President like him with vision and ideas and compassion for the people.

[1932]

17. Edwards/Boxer vs. McCain/Frist

with the Dems winning.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[newyawker99]

28. Hi C-note!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ArkySue]

40. Where's Vincent Hamm???

"The Top 10 Things I Would Work On As President"
by Vincent Hamm
http://www.h4p.org/topten.html

[Hippo_Tron]

20. I think it's McCain or George Felix Allen Jr.

My scenario assumes that George Felix Allen Jr. survives his senatorial re-election in decent shape, which may very possibly not happen. My scenario also assumes that Rick Santorum loses his re-election bid. Should he survive it, I would count him in as a potential frontrunner. A darling of the religious wrong who can win re-election in a blue state will certainly gain some attention.

Essentially it is going to come down to whether the primary voters will accept someone who agrees with the religious wrong 90% of the time instead of 100%. George Felix Allen Jr. will be the frontrunner of the candidates that completely tow the line for the religious wrong. Should George Felix Allen Jr. not do too well in his Senate race I think that Frist will probably end up filling his place for the 100% crowd. Giuliani and Romney don't stand a chance IMO because the religious wrong will eat them alive. Hagel won't stand a chance as a maverick because McCain is a lot more well known and well financed. I wouldn't count Newt Gingrich out completely, who is BTW, a hell of a lot smarter than any of these clowns but I simply think that he doesn't have enough friends to get anywhere.

As for our side, I think it's still wide open.

[d_b]

23. Gore/Feingold

[ndcohn]

24. if i had to pick today

I'd bet on Clinton or Edwards, likely choosing Obama or Warner to be VP

speaking of... Obama/Warner would be a wonderful ticket...

[FrenchieCat]

25. Go ahead....pick the guy

Who didn't see Iraq for what it was miles away for the top of the ticket, and a guy who has not foreign policy experience to boot for the bottom!

If after all that we have experienced since 2000 and how this world is all shook up, you think that two guys; one wrong on the war (including his co-sponsorship of the IRW) for so long that it ain't even funny, and a guy who has yet to get his ears wet on issues of national security to win the white house......you are in for a rude awakening!


Give Democrats a knife and they'll slit their own throats! :eyes:

[saltpoint]

58. Looks like your own finger prints on the knife in this thread, FC,

as on many other threads in which you assert the virtues of your guy and slam other people's choice.

As rude awakenings go, fair consideration of strengths might be more effective an electoral strategy than territorial petulance. Clark's good. So's Edwards. So's Kerry. So's Feingold.

See how it works?

The blue team is blue. Why not root for it?

[Texas_Kat]

76. OC, even intramurals

are competitive.

[saltpoint]

77. Vigorously competitive, sure. Pointlessly spiteful, no.

If Voter A's guy or gal is unable to inspire affirmation from the same team players on demonstrable virtues, then Voter B's denigrations constitute a foul.

In basketball, you can't foul. You can't stand on the sidelines and make assertions that your own team members suck. Or rather, you CAN, but you don't usually last very long in the game. A good coach would show you the door.

[sandnsea]

26. Still nobody better than Kerry

He's proven to be right in everything he said in 2004. The Democratic Party is stupid not to hold him up, and Al Gore, and just say "told you so", over and over until it gets through people's thick skulls.

[JNelson6563]

27. Gore. Far and away Gore.

He's the man.

[SharonRB]

44. I agree, but if he doesn't run,

then Kerry is the man. Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Feingold. If Gore runs, then Gore/Clark or Gore/Feingold.

[JNelson6563]

51. Count me out

Kerry could have my vote but nothing else. My energies will go toward a different race if Kerry's our candidate again.

Julie--never wanting to make same mistake twice

[nsd]

75. Definitely Gore.

My dream ticket is Gore/Clark.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Gore/Obama

eom

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Johnson / Boortz 08

Johnson / Boortz 08 *Saying F U to the American People*

This ad made possible by FAIRTAXERS UNITED

[CatWoman]

41. on another thread, someone mentioned that Johnson looks like

Homey the Clown.

I laughed my ass off!!!!

SLAP A COP FOR JESUS!! VOTE FOR HOMEY!! :D

[globalvillage]

31. Kerry/Clark

would be excellent. I'd love Kerry/Boxer, but I think Kerry/Clark is the winning ticket.

[Mass]

32. Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Feingold.

I would also say Durbin, but he is not running.

[Sparkly]

33. Clark/Feingold.

I think '08 is going to hinge on foreign relations, strong diplomacy, knowledge of what a military is FOR and not for, and re-establishing the principles that USED to garner respect around the world... If ever there was a time to "think outside the box" and get past the idea of "President School," this is it. And The Liberal General fits the bill 100%.

[Auntie Bush]

38. Now you're talkin'!

[Clark2008]

60. That's my dream ticket.

But, in order for that ticket to happen, we Clark supporters have to work harder and smarter than anyone else. We know how the media likes to ignore Clark.

[ArkySue]

39. ACK!

No Senators, and no one without foreign policy experience....not in these days and times.

[rep the dems]

42. All right I've decided that for now I'm going with

Warner/Clark vs Frist/McCain. Warner will win the electoral vote 283-255, thus making him the next President of the United States.

[reprat]

49. If we Dems mean what we say,

How about this.....Edwards/Barak. Wouldn't that just wipe the smile off of every Republican's face in the country!!!!! MMMMMMMMMMMMMGood!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Clark2008]

59. Keep dreaming. Clark won't play Dick Cheney to Warner's Bush.

Sorry.

He may, however, work as Secretary of State. He cannot be Secretary of Defense. The law requires the Def. Sec. be out of the military for at least 10 years. As of 2008, he'll only be out eight years.

[Clark2008]

56. We won't win with Edwards/Warner

No national security experience there and, as with 2004, that will be the biggest issue.

Besides, Dems already beat Repubs on the issues these two are known for. We need a trump card with our corporate media's love of Repubs.

[Dying Eagle]

62. FEINGOLD / MURTHA!!!

Feingold: Anti-War, Voted against patriot Act, Bankruptcy, Energy and all other Bush disasters since day one.

Murtha: Anti-War, VETERAN, Well respected, good record, Experience!!

and they will beat... Frist/Rommney

[Totally Committed]

63. You realize, aside from his anti-war stance,

Murtha is pretty far to the right on most other issues? He's even anti-Choice, and that would rule him out for me. I respect him, but he's not Presidential ticket material. We need someone whose beliefs are broader, imo.

TC

[Dying Eagle]

65. True but,

I believe we need a Left-Center to balance out the ticket and not make it so hard for people in Kansas, Arizona, Florida, and other "pink-purple" states to vote for this ticket.

Trust me i am so far too the left you need a telescope to see me from the center, but America isn't "YET". So if it means going to the center with the VP to get........PRESIDENT FEINGOLD.........I am more then OK with that.

[Totally Committed]

67. We need to stop identifying those like Murtha as "Left-Center".

With all due respect to both him and you.... He's a good man, and I admire his position on the war, but he is as far Right as one can go in this Party in every other one of his issues.

Please... tell it like it is. Delusion is for the other Party.

TC

[Dying Eagle]

68. I understand...

your point, but he is not as "far right" as a Dem can get. Zell Miller still holds that benchmark. Murtha has some progressive views. If he wasn't he would not be a Democrat and he would be fighting for his seat like Lieberman is.

Murtha:

* supports "immediate" withdrawal of troops from Iraq

* supports stem-cell research

* strongly “pro-labor”, and opposes both NAFTA and CAFTA.

* opposes Bush's tax plan and Social Security privatization

* opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment

These are hardly the potions of a "Right Wing Republican" and is a contradiction to your statement that.....

"he is as far Right as one can go in this Party in every other one of his issues."

I am sure we can both agree that we would like to have the two most Liberal people in America at the top of our ticket, but would that win us back the Presidency, I highly doubt it. We need a winner, because another 4-8 years of a Neo-Con government will for sure be our end.

I know a lot of people were upset about the idea of Kerry picking McCain back in 04' but even with the fraud committed by the Repukes in Ohio, we would still have a Kerry administration right now if that had taking place.

We just need to win. Show America that the Dems are the best for America and over the next few election cycles bring America over to the Left to stay.

[rep the dems]

72. They wouldn't win the GE.

The repub ticket would just call them way too liberal, and even though both of them are proud liberals, we wouldn't be able to win over any states that we lost narrowly in the last 2 elections.

[thatsrightimirish]

69. edwards/richardson

that would be good

[cgrindley]

83. No one would vote for Edwards

He's a personality free tort lawyer. He is the enemy of all things good in the world.

[cgrindley]

78. Gore/Obama vs Guliani/Swartzenegger

Now that'd be a battle worth watching.

[SaveElmer]

80. However not possible...

Schwarzanegger was not born in the U.S. and is therefore ineligible to run for President or Vice-President

[cgrindley]

82. Do you believe that the Constitution is valid on that point?

There is a comma fault. No president has been legitimate since well since a long time ago.

[SaveElmer]

81. Clinton/Sibelius or Clinton/Clark...

Would be my guess now!