What Could Have Been and What Should Have Been -- Re-cast Your Vote [POLL]

[demdiva]

Last night I was at a birthday party and I got into a discussion with another guest at the party, let's call him Larry. Larry is a republican lawyer in DC (although in between jobs right now) and in his late twenties. Larry and I are both friends of the birthday boy, but have never met before.

As often happens at DC birthday parties, the subject of the 2008 election came up. And I thought a couple things Larry said were interesting, especially for a DC republican. This is my assessment of what he said about some republican and democratic presidential contenders:

McCain: "I love McCain but he can't win"

Giuliani: "I love Giuliani but he can't win"

Hillary: "I hate Hillary more than anyone. I'd do anything to stop her from being President."

Frist: "I don't love Frist but would probably vote for him if he ran. I would definitely vote for him if he ran against Hillary".

All this talk strikes me as standard fare from a republican, but then Larry says something that both surprises and interests me.

Bush: "I have my reservations about Bush. The wire-tapping thing worries me. The Abramoff scandal, Cheney's response to the shooting, FEMA's response to Katrina. All these things concern me."

Kerry: "I like Kerry. I didn't vote for him in 2004 because I'm a republican, but I wouldn't have really minded Kerry being President. In fact I think Kerry would be a good President."

So in other words, this man, a DC republican lawyer and one-time Bush supporter, who I believe to be politically-interested, politically-savvy and even politically-aligned, pretty much tells me he thinks that President Kerry would have been a better president then President Bush. Maybe, if the election were re-held today he would even re-cast his presidential vote for President Kerry and I don't think he's the only one! Why can't the talking heads be discussing this instead?

Why right now, when just over a year after a presidential election the president's approval numbers are plummeting, when there's so many republican scandals that I have trouble listing them all, when were stuck in an un-justified war on foreign soil . . . why isn't any of the sentiment about who SHOULD be president being voiced in the media? Not "who can win?" Not, "who can lure red state voters?" Not, "who's the best counter to this republican or that republican", but who is really the best person for the job?

Commentators (and dare I say some DUers) treat office of the presidency as if it's the trophy awarded to the team that "got the ball into the end zone" with two seconds left in the game. But it's not. The office of the President is perhaps the one single job that affects millions, maybe even billions, of lives. People literally DIE when the wrong person is elected president. And still, over a year after the election any of the substantive talk about who SHOULD be President has gotten lost in the post-game recap.

We've listened to too much sore-loser rhetoric and un-helpful blasting of campaign mishaps. "Kerry should have hired different consultants . . ." "Kerry let himself be branded a flip-flopper..." "Kerry didn't gain support from the south..." "Kerry should have countered the Swift Boat attacks earlier . . ." blah blah blah. But there is no question in my mind that Senator Kerry would have been a better president then President Bush. (And don’t even get me started on Vice President Edwards vs. Vice President Cheney)

While I see the danger of playing the "what could have been" game, I wish the talk about Kerry could at least exist in the present, if not in the future. And I also understand there are a lot of critical operations, infrastructure, and message issues that the democrats have to grapple with now, so I'm happy that's being discussed. But, I also wish that there would be SOME discussion about what President Kerry would be doing and who President Kerry would be if he were in the White House. Maybe then, instead of trying to construct substance from the democrats there would actually be substance from the democrats, and we could get the public to vote for the candidate of substance in 2008.

So re-cast your vote. Any and everyone can run. Who do you think SHOULD be President?
Not "who is raising the most money?" Not "who is the best campaigner?" but who is really the best person for the job?

[demdiva]

1. I only had so many spots

"Other" might include Obama, Biden, Bayh, Kucinich and Feingold

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Hard choice

between Dean and Clark. Dean had great plans for the domestic agenda, but I think Clark would have been better on the international scene.

[Pharaoh]

5. Dean will suprise us all I think....

[FatDave]

10. I like Dean a lot

I liked him when he was running on '04, and I like him even better now. I think he does a great job standing up for the Democratic party and democratic ideals. He also takes no shit from TV talking heads.

Remember how much momentum he had at the begining of the '04 campaign? He was the favorite by, if I recall correctly, a pretty good margin. But he came in 3rd in Iowa and 2nd in New Hampshire, and at that point, it's a done deal.

Which brings me to the question I ask every 4 years: Why in the hell do Iowa and New Hampshire get to have so much power in choosing party candidates? It just doesn't seem right.

Nothing against Kerry, I think he would have made an outstanding president, it just seems so odd to me that he seemingly came out of nowhere to win IA and NH.

In '08 I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, but I'd much rather vote for Dean, Clark, Kerry or Edwards. Obama would trump them all, but I don't that's likely.

[benburch]

3. Where is the BEST Choice? Dennis Kucinich? nt

[phusion]

22. Exactly!! n/t

[hfojvt]

45. I like DK

but he can't win :hide:

[baldguy]

4. Republican? Late 20s?

I assume he voted for Bush?

Why isn't he in Iraq?

[RevCheesehead]

6. Russ Feingold.

[EFerrari]

43. I voted for President Gore again but Russ has been doing

some very find work. This Green would walk for him. :)

[Dhampir Kampf]

7. Warner.

Not only, can he win in the South, which I know you were pointing out we shouldn't vote JUST because of that, but he actually ran a good term in VA. He had a budget surplus, and really moved things forward in VA.

My second vote would've been Edwards, I love him too.

[skipos]

8. Warner or Clark. nt

[Totally Committed]

9. I voted for Wes Clark, but my vote hasn't shown up yet...

I keep getting an error message saying I should notify elad. Is that happening for any other candidate? Just wondering.

TC

[FatDave]

11. What, you expect a vote for a democrat to be counted?

Have the past 5 years taught you nothing?
:sarcasm:

[demdiva]

13. LOL

[Totally Committed]

15. LOL! ----

It is a tad ironic, isn't it?

TC

[demdiva]

16. I should have mentioned my name is DemDiva Deibold

[Clarkansas]

12. Voted Clark but like Warner too.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Gore should unquestionably be President.

This should be his second term.

Feingold is up for 2008.

[A Brand New World]

18. That's my opinion too. President Gore would have been

elected for his second term in 2004 if not for Florida corruption in 2000. I voted for Kerry in 2004 but in a perfect world he would not have been on the ballot.

[demdiva]

17. I find it surprising that Gore has so much support

Not that I have a problem with Al Gore, I don't. But I just don't hear a lot of talk about Al Gore anymore. Besides being a former VP and a environmentalist, what does Gore have going for him?

[globalvillage]

19. I've had similar experiences

But vehemently anti-bush*. Every 'r' I know thinks he's a moron and/or a danger to the country.
Most of the republcans I know seem to have a fairly positive opinion of Sen Kerry.

I chose Kerry, BTW.

[dysfunctional press]

20. It HAS to be Gore- you can't go back to '04 without revisiting '00 first.

and it HAS to be Gore in '08...if you haven't seen his global-warming special on LinkTV- do yourself a favour and do so.

if you do, i won't have to tell you to spread the word.

http://www.worldlinktv.org/programming/programDescription.php4?code=global

[Catchawave]

21. Edwardswarnerfeingold :)

Since I can only vote for one, these are the ones I'm supporting as of today :hi:

[saltpoint]

23. Giuliani and McCain didn't even make my prelims. I'll support the

Democratic ticket unless Zell Miller and Holy Joe Lieberman are somehow involved with it.

As I've posted on DU before, I believe it's entirely possible for Senator Clinton to surprise me and win the party's nomination, but my instincts say she will be out-caucused in Iowa and outflanked by progressives in New Hampshire.

General Clark could make a serious go of it if he has the well-funded on-ramp this time. Not competing in Iowa killed him last time.

Senator Edwards is going to stun a lot of folks. He pulled 32% of the Iowa caucuses in 04 to Kerry's 38%. (Dean 19%, Gephardt 11%). After the torrent of sleze and lying from the Bush administration, John and Elizabeth Edwards will present a compelling performance in citizenship.

Al Gore could run, and if he is persuaded to, he will defeat Senator Clinton real quick and real convincingly.

At this point I predict that John Kerry will not seek the presidency again, which is not to say I don't blame red voters for allowing themselves to be frightened by Bush's phoney terrorist alert-level press conferences and all the rest of it. A President Kerry would most certainly not have chosen John Bolton to represent our nation at the U.N.

[demdiva]

24. I think Kerry will definitely run in 2008

He has money and he hasn't faded into oblivion like past presidential contenders (sorry Gore Guys)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=68303&mesg_id=68303

[dysfunctional press]

27. i will never waste another vote on that man.

if by some sick twist of fate he becomes the democratic nominee again- my vote will go third party.

[demdiva]

33. See this is my point

This is not about your vote being "wasted". I'm not asking "who's the best candidate" I'm asking "who would be the best President?" You don't have to agree with my choice, but this is exactly why I wanted to ask this question in a new way.

Listen, I like the political strategy game as much as any political junkie out there, but there's a more important matter at hand.

[dysfunctional press]

38. Kerry would not be the answer to either question-

"who would be the best candidate?" or "who would be the best president?".

Russ Feingold is the only senator that might be the right answer- but i don't think that the eventual candidate will come from the senate.

whatever the outcome- Kerry doesn't get my vote. ditto hillary c. and little johnny edwards.

[demdiva]

41. And as I said it's fine to disagree

I just want to move the question beyond "who is the best candidate"

[saltpoint]

28. Hi to you, demdiva, and welcome to DU!

I'll accept a Kerry candidacy without any problem at all, don't get me wrong. It's just that right now I don't think the support is there on the part of various states' party operatives. That alone wouldn't -- and shouldn't -- stop anybody from a presidential run. But I don't think Kerry would have placed first in Iowa last time without Vilsack's support, and this time Vilsack may himself run as a favorite son in the caucuses.

(I also feel that Kerry-Edwards defeated Bush-Cheney in Ohio, and so I feel that Kerry -- and Gore before him -- were denied their rightful destinies.)

You're right also on Kerry's having some money to spend, and he could make effective use of it. But I don't think Gore can be shoved aside easily. I think he's the nominee if he decides to go for it, and jumps early enough.

Dammit, welcome to DU!

[demdiva]

29. That's a interesting point

And as I posted before I'm a bit surprised by the raving support for Gore . . . but it's something to keep an eye on.

And, thanks for having me!

[karynnj]

39. Gore has said pretty emphaticaly that he won't run, Kerry has

said it's "way too early", but is doing things that first of help others in 2006 and incidently help him if he runs. Your conclusion the Gore will and Kerry won't run is based on your desire for this to be the case, but the opposite appears to be true.

[saltpoint]

42. karynnj, I don't believe you and I have discussed what I want to

happen in U.S. politics. Have we?

My guess is that Gore will be coaxed and drafted into a run and that Kerry will wish to but finally won't.

Who knows? It could be Evan Bayh by 15% in Iowa and he might go on to the nomination.

Maybe Senator Clinton will kick butt in Des Moines and push everyone else out.

My support for the Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2008 was long-standing and emphatic. If you use the Search tools on DU and check out my board posts on both Kerry and Edwards from early on, I think you'll see where I stand on the good Senator from Massachusetts.

[karynnj]

46. Agreed that anything could happen

and I get your point - and it is not differ from what I said: it is your wish, not necessarily your best guess. Then again, my best guess is that Bill will succeed in promoting his wife. Obviously, I post way too often for you to take that as my "wish".

I can't point to DU posts, but I supported Gore/Lieberman as you did Kerry/Edwards. I think the playing field changed enormously in those 4 years and who knows what things will look like in 2008.

I would be lying if I said the reason I want Kerry to win was most electable. I simply think he is the man I can see handling the enormous problems that will still be there in 2008. Gore was a VP and Senator, the areas where he is knowlegable overlap Kerry's. In fact a 2000 (WP I think) summary of potential VPs for core mentioned they were too similar in their seriousness and their depth of knowledge, but though Kerry could also bring some flair to the ticket.

In 2008, where I see Kerry's advantage (over Gore) is that he (assuming he continues to) will have presented the same intelligence, reasonable, diplomatic face to the public for nearly 5 years. The fact that he keeps his head high and doesn't get drawn into fights looks good. He also has a fantastic reputation on reform - we can't let McCain take that - and Kerry has Welstone/Kerry, a real campaign finance proposal to counter McCain/Feingold (which did as much damage as good) and when McCain gets his lobbying reform - Kerry has BCCI (where some funds of the banks from the Keating 5 may have been laundered.) Now, as before in terms of similarity, Gore was a "boy scout" for years.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. AL GORE. Far and away the best man for the job IMHO.

He's clear on Iraq, he's smart, he's capable, and most importantly he has a handle on the #1 National Security issue of the 21st century- the ENVIRONMENT.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Anyone who thinks Guiliani has a chance in hell at the GOP nomination

doesn't understand just how much control the far right religious wackos have over that party.

[zonmoy]

30. I would be torn between

kuchinich, nader, and feingold.

[PhilipShore]

31. Al Gore

[leftofthedial]

32. Kucinich

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. Wow! "other" votes have have more than Hillary

[demdiva]

35. Yeah I'm surprised Hillary isn't in the top five too!

I'm also surprised that Gore is. Kerry / Clark / Dean doesn't surprise me much.

[demdiva]

36. DU. Why not Hillary?

I didn't vote for her either, but I'm surprised she's not in the top five. Why didn't you vote for her (or why did you?)

[cascadiance]

44. Why SHOULD we vote for Hillary is the better question!

[ginnyinWI]

37. John Kerry, of course.

Kerry would be the best president for right now. He has the foreign relations experience, knows the Middle East very well (better than the current Sec. of State) and also has the answers to our domestic problems: education, health care, crime, and the environment.

He also knows Washington--the ins and outs--and would not need any "on the job training" like a governors do when they get elected to the presidency. In today's world, we can't afford any mistakes due to inexperience with national/international affairs.

Of course he should be our president now. And Teresa would make a remarkable first lady, on a par with Eleanor Roosevelt.

[progressivebydesign]

40. Gore is the answer. n/t

[jsamuel]

47. Poll is pointless without Feingold

Polls at Kos have shown Feingold in the lead. Taking him out seems to make the rest of the poll skewed.

[WoodrowFan]

48. GORE

lots of good choices there, but it has to be Al Gore!!!! By far the smartest person on the list and the one with the best vision. (IMHO)