2008 Presidential Hopefuls Test Waters

[Placebo]

In the course of three short months, the political system has come full circle: a presidential campaign, an inauguration, a State of the Union address and now this — another presidential race. A dozen or so ambitious Republicans and Democrats already are warming up for 2008.

Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards is taking on poverty and showing off a new stump speech. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has donated more than $250,000 to GOP causes, collecting political IOUs while planning visits to early voting states. Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana is hiring veteran operatives and talking up donors.

No list could be made without mentioning Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — two political Goliaths who cannot make a move without being accused of presidential posturing.

"Many, many people on both sides will spend the next couple of years putting themselves in a position so they can decide whether or not to run," Bayh adviser Anita Dunn said. "If two years from now, you're just getting started on building a political team, two things will happen: All the top talent will be gone and, more importantly, you'll start out with a team that's not cohesive," she said.

More...

[Moderate Dem]

1. I like John Edwards...

I voted for him in the Virginia primary.

But I don't know how he can get past his shaky performance against Cheney, especially when he's not in office.

And whether you thought he won or not, he did look kind of weak to a lot of people...

[jayctravis]

25. He's young.

He's getting experience, and will mature.

[The Zanti Regent]

28. Edwards again? No thank you.

His Bilderberger pals sure helped him a lot, didn't they?

Edwards and Kerry helped to put my only child in a VA grave. Screw both of them...

[DemDogs]

34. Neither would have done

what Bush did. I am very, very sorry for your loss.

[The Zanti Regent]

42. Bart Cop is right, Kerry and Edwards gave Bush everything he wanted

They gave him EVERYTHING, including the authority to send my son, my only child, to be killed in Iraq.

Both of them can go back to putting on thier pink thongs for Bush!

[AP]

45. Robert Kennedy supported his brother's vietnam policy.

When he ran for president, he barely criticized Vietnam. Instead, he talked about poverty, opportunity, race and class.

A lot of students supported McCarthy instead because he was building his identity around being anti-war. McCarthy lost.

RFK almost certainly would have won in '68, and he probably would have won because he would have made Americans put issues in the right priority, and at the top of that list would have been issues on which voters felt Democrats were much better: opportunity and poverty.

Instead, we ran a candidate who told voters that Republicans were right and that war was the most important issue.

Any of this sound familiar?

If you think Edwards would have gotten us into more wars, you really weren't listening to what he was saying about himself.

[The Zanti Regent]

51. I look at his record

and my dead son was as a result of it.

[AP]

64. In '68, had someone in your position felt that way and

refused to support RFK because of it, I think you would have been making a mistake.

Had RFK lived, he still probably would have won without the support of parents whose children had died in Vietnam and without the suport of anti-war students. However, it would have been unfortunate that those two groups couldn't see that supporting him would have been the most direct and successful route to peace and democracy.

I think the same is true of support for Democrats like Edwards today.

(You should see the list of good Democrats who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.)

[The Zanti Regent]

66. I don't believe you would say these things if you lost your only child

Just as callous as people telling me I can start again.

I'm 49 and my lady is 30. We've lived together for 10 years, and she took the role of mother after my wife up and left my son and I behind. My ex-wife just didn't want to be "bothered" anymore.

BTW, I'm an orthodox Jew and my girlfriend is a British African-American. We deal with the inherent ignorant racism of Jesusland on a daily basis. She draws a lot of faith from her buddhist practice, me, I feel like Orwell, getting more discouraged every day. We have no desire to produce a killing machine for the State. Our hearts were broken once, we will not let Bush and his Bonesman pal Kerry or his enabler Edwards break our hearts again.

I will have to live the rest of my life knowing that I should have done more to work for Clark and Dean. They were the only ones with a real shot at stopping the Jesusistas.

The consolation I have is that Dean is the Party Chair, if he had lost, I would have gone to work full time to secede California from Jesusland.

[AP]

68. I supported Edwards because I wanted fewer people to die for the profits..

...of big corporations.

And I don't know how many different ways to say this, but RFK and JRE were running the exact same kinds of campaigns.

No anti-war candidate was going to win an election in '68 or in '04. But candidates were running who wanted to win so that people would stop dying in imperial wars, and the ones who were running the smartest campains were RFK and JRE.

[The Zanti Regent]

70. No they were not.

Edwards sent my son to die and there is no way you can't say he didn't do that.

Let him go back to his law practice, he had a chance to do the right thing and he didn't do it.

[AP]

73. That same attitude towards RFK in '68 (had he been nominated) would

have guaranteed four more years of Nixon and Vietnam.

And, by the way, the anti-war candidate who ran that year and lost had voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. So, it doesn't look like even the anti-war voters in '68 thought that voting for a war resolution was the equivalent of sending sons to die in Vietnam.

Seriously, if you're entire interpretation of whether a candidate is going to send Americans off to war is based on the IWR, I strongly suggest you take a look at the '68 race. And for what it's worth, I think that if you think any Democrat other than Joe Lieberman was running in order to engage in further imperialist war efforts, then you weren't paying attention to what the candidates were saying about themselves.

[The Zanti Regent]

86. The fact is Bilderberger Edwards lied and my child died.

Nothing you can write can change my mind.

Skull and Bones Kerry and Bilderberger Edwards did what they were told to do and they laid down for the Nazis.

Those are my last words on this.

[AP]

91. At Bilderberg, Edwards gave a speech that said the attendants and the US

can't keep on doing what they've been doing and FP and Economic policy needs to be focused on lifting the citizens of foreign countries up, and not at making the oligarchs wealthier.

It was the same thing I said as a VP candidate and says today with his poverty, opportunity and work center at UNC.

It got a reception similar to Sharon Stone's at the Davos conference: a lot of rich people said, yes, this is true.

If you don't want a president who thinks like this, you're missing a tremendous opportunity.

[silvermachine]

74. Wrong....

<<<No anti-war candidate was going to win an election in '68 or in '04.

Bullshit. If the Dems had run one in '04, we would have won.

[AP]

76. Why didn't that work in '68? Vietnam was much less popular, yet

running an anti-war candidate didn't work at all.

A democrat running primarily on the issue of war in an environment when most voters feel safer with Republicans BECAUSE they have a short fuse is a recipe for losing.

FDR, HST, JFK, RFK, Clinton, and basically all winning Democrats have the same formula: address militarism as an issue by saying, "of course we'll keep you safe" and then move on to prioritizing issues on which Democrats are very strong, like poverty, work and opportunity. If you convince voters that you're not weak on defense and that other issues are more important than "war" (as a non-ideological, detached, free-floating issue) then you, as a Democrat, are going to win elections.

Even during the war, FDR said we shouldn't be afraid, and that opportunity and work was what made America strong. JFK ran as a bigger anti-communist than Nixon, but didn't run with anti-communism as the focus of his campaign. He ran on progressive Democratic values, like opportunity and looking after the working person. Clinton said "it was the economy, stupid" every time Bush tried to convince voters that FP was the most important issue. RFK barely talked about war, and instead focused on race and poverty, and he almost certainly would have won with that strategy.

I just don't see how an anti-war ("I would not have fought this war, and I will pull us out of Iraq") candidate could have done any better than the Democratic nominee in '68, who ran on a similar message, against a much less popular president and a much less popular war.

And it would be hard to run on this message even if you had a ton of charisma and you were extremely good at foregrounding strong progressive themes. The evidence: RFK. If anyone could have run an anti-war message that was secondary to foregrounded progressive strengths like poverty and opportunity, it would have been RFK. But even he saw the risk of distracting voters with an issue that was perceived as a weakness for Democrats. And he was right, anyway. Framing war as an issue of "yes or no" makes no sense to most voters. But framing the problems in America as problems about class and opportunity and building up the middle-class, and building up democracy, once addressed, would also address war, since war is not really about, "yes or no, should we do it." War is usually a decision made undemocratically for the purpose of shifting huge amounts of wealth from one class to another, and I think if you had a president like RFK who would have been committed to shifting wealth in the other direction, it would have, as a consequence, stopped the war. Whereas, candidates like McCarthy who are only running on the idea that they'll pull the US out, without addressing the bigger issue of which direction economic, political and cultural power flow, would never succeed (even if they did beat very long odds and get elected as an anti-war Democrat running primarily as an anti-war candidate).

[adigal]

93. My heart goes out to you

and no one can judge how you feel about anyone. I cannot imagine being in your shoes.

[Khaotic]

80. Robert Kennedy DID Throw Down on Vietnam

http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/kennedy2/vietnam.html

Don't just read the words of Robert Kennedy at the link above, listen to them (hopefully the audio on the site works for you).

I wish MORE people knew about that interview.

Gee ... I wonder why it's never aired.

Proliferate THAT!

[AP]

92. Eugene McCarthy was the anti-war candidate. RFK went to SA and to...

...Apalachia and used those two trips to define his candidacy: race and poverty, work and opportunity.

Sound familiar?

[DemDogs]

33. He was great against Cheney

All the pundits thought he would get eaten up, but instead he more than held his own, and if you looked at Cheney's hands in that debate, you could see it. Cheney was completely surprised by the strength of the Edwards' performance, which is why he started to lie about meeting him, to deflect from the fact that they had played on even ground.

[iamjoy]

39. Edwards Made A Huge Error In That Debate

one that he wouldn't necessarily make (or have made) at the top of the ticket.

John Edwards acted like he was debating Dick Cheney. But he wasn't. I mean, not really. He was debating George W. Bush's proxy, and was supposed to be doing it as John Kerry's proxy.

Notice how Cheney would attack Kerry and Edwards would respond with a statement about Cheney and Haliburton?

I mean, it's just my humble opinion, but during the Vice Presidential debate the candidates are trying to show they are fit for the job, but mostly promote the presidential candidate & his plan.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

43. He did lie about meeting him...

and Edwards didn't call him on it. In fact, wasn't it Mrs. Edwards who pointed it out to Cheney afterward on stage? The day after we all saw the photos of Cheney and Edwards together (a prayer breakfast and swearing-in ceremony come to mind...), but the Smirk-voting masses aren't reading Salon or frequenting DU. They probably liked authoritative Uncle Dick putting Young John in his place.

[LibDemAlways]

78. That would have been a

memorable debate moment. Edwards catching Cheney in a lie. Imagine the daggers coming out of Cheney's eyes as Edward's reminded him of their prior meetings at Elizabeth Dole's swearing in and the prayer breakfast. Edwards blew a golden oppportunity.

[shamalama]

72. Edwards/Clarke

[The Sheik]

2. I'm going for Bayh/Richardson'08

[Moderate Dem]

3. I don't know about that...

Picking a ticket that might actually win?

Are you a real Democrat? (lol)

[Placebo]

5. Funnest thing I've heard all day.

And so true, to boot. :D

[Dickie Flatt]

6. how disappointing that would be

[AlCzervik]

7. i agree totally. blech.

[Southsideirish]

4. Gore/Boxer.

Its "balanced" and beautiful. We owe it to Al and he would be a magnificent president, especially for the environment which will really be screwed up by then and we will need an environmental master at the helm. Go AL - we love you! And Barbara B. must be rewarded for her great spunk - we love you, too, Barb!

[Quixote1818]

8. Clark/Richardson

We would get the rural vote and win the southwest: Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada.

[Mark E. Smith]

16. That's The Dream Ticket For Me

Wesley Clark is the brightest star this party has. And this time I think he'll be seasoned enough politically to get it done.

Clark/Richardson, with Dean running the machine and firing this party up like it hasn't been in years.

[Quixote1818]

27. Welcome to DU Mark!

Be sure to go to the Wesley Clark message board on DU.

[croat]

38. Clark 2008

I greatly admire Wesley Clark, and he has my support 100%. My dream ticket is Clark/Obama in 2008.

[Clark2008]

83. How 'bout Clark/Warner?

Richardson's a bid slimy and Obama needs to stay in the Senate.

[car54whereareyou]

90. My dream ticket?

Clark for president, and my ideal pick for vice president would be someone like Al Gore, someone who will bring real gravitas to the partnership. Assuming Clark runs, I know he will pick someone like that, someone who can stand on their own two feet and give as good as they get.

[Dinger]

52. Clark For Sure

We should thatnk our lucky stars that we have another chance for General Clark to lead our country.

[GOPBasher]

82. That would be an awesome ticket.

Richardson is a popular governor, and governors are usually who become President, not congresspersons. Plus, he's very popular in a swing state, from the southwest, which will help us win there, and he'll get out the Hispanic vote big time. I love Clark too, and he'd make a great addition to the ticket.

[necso]

9. Yawn.

While politics has taken on an aspect of (nearly) continual campaigning for President, there could well be more to the phenomenon.

With DFA as a (one) model, national figures could seek to reform their Party, increase activist participation, invigorate and involve the grassroots, drive the Party's message, help selected candidates, etc, etc -- without this effort being solely devoted to their own Presidential futures (or even their political futures -- but that may go too far) .

It remains to be seen how these figures will actually use their organizations (PACs or whatever) in the future. Personally, I am interested in what John Edwards will do now -- while he still has some chance to recreate something of his following and organization of the primary days. -- And I imagine that the text of his speech will become available soon.

As far as I am concerned, it is way too early to be thinking about the particulars of 2008. There is much work to do before then, and it is normally expedient to use those tools that are at hand (or can be quickly developed) to effect near term work -- at least where these tools are, or can quickly be made to be, effective.

[Placebo]

10. I have a question about something in the article...

when it says, "New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has told party leaders he will run."

When did Richardson running in 2008 become set in stone? Or have I been off of DU for too long?

[Dhalgren]

11. I wonder who else might be running, I mean

besides Democrats and Republicans. I am really going to have to look at the whole field before making a decision.

[VegasWolf]

12. Fool me once, twice, three times and I'm going 3rd party. Gutless

democrats didn't even fight Ohio, Gonzalez, etc. I am
going to vote for someone I believe in next time. Unless
of course, Dean is on the ticket.

[BamaLefty]

13. So You Like The World We Live In

Sure, GOP voters hurt us... but people like you who will vote Green (or anything but Dem) will be the true downfall of our party.

But hey, if the shoe fits, put that bad mother on.

[Dhalgren]

22. How long is that song going to be sung?

If you don't like the candidate a party puts forward, vote for someone else - it's called democracy. If a party wants my vote, I'll look at the platform, I'll listen to the candidate and if the bill isn't filled, I'll go elsewhere. A losing party (in a fair election) is simply the party that failed to win support of enough voters. You want more voters, win them.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

41. How much more down can "our" party get?

The Rs control three branches of government and the corporate media. My fear is that this insanity will not stop until those Social Security checks stop coming - then everyone but that top 1-2% will be a damn Democrat. The downfall of our party will be because Dems do not fully comprehend that the Rs view this AS WAR and will stop at nothing to win. (McCain, Cleland, and Kerry immediately come to mind. There's quite a bit to like/dislike about McCain, but just think if we lived in a world in which SC primary voters didn't get sucked in by the "illegitimate black baby" crap pulled by The Rove Machine.) This books sums it up, frighteningly so:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1585423424/qid=1107728209/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0902555-6188032?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[VegasWolf]

57. The shoe is on!!! I will never again vote against my conscience

for the *good* of the party. Fuck that!

[union_maid]

14. I'll probably go for Clark again

I figure he's a smart man and will have learned a lot about presidential politics by 2008. However, I'll be wearing my Anyone But the GOP button for sure.

Still, in the immediate future it's 2006 that counts right now.

[98geoduck]

15. I'm thinking Zell/Liebermann myself. That way we could rap up the south

and Jewish vote in Florida. Yeeeha

[genieroze]

21. I hope you are joking, at least about the Zell part. eom

[Dhalgren]

23. Why? They are both elected (and re-elected) Democrats.

They are members of your party, after all...

[genieroze]

59. And you're not? I would never vote for DLC repugnantkin lites.

Why have two DINO's, I would rather have the real thing.

[BamaLefty]

50. Sounds Great!

:eyes: Hehe...

[msongs]

17. clark strong maybe,:-) Richardson from NM?? never................

he sold us out in New Mexico and did not fight to count the last vote, or many votes for that matter. tried to sweep everything along without serious investigation, based on what I have read in MSM and of course on mild mannered internet sites like.....DU LOL

but for pres, never as a dem.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[car54whereareyou]

89. Clark for Sure!

But agree with you about Richardson. As for Kerry or Edwards - no more senators please! Historically, they have as much of a chance as a snowball... Voters want someone with executive experience as their president.

[Renew Deal]

18. Feingold, Warner, Clark are my top 3.

Not in any order and I am open to others.

[amandabeech]

19. None of our southern governors?

I would think that one of them, Warner & the govs of S.C. and Tenn. (?), would be on the list.

[Larkspur]

20. So how is Edwards going to keep himself relavent for a 2008 Prez bid?

He's out of the political sphere and not running for any office at this time. And remember that he already was considered politically inexperienced when he was a senator running for Prez last year, so being out of the political realm for the next 4 years just adds to his "unelectible" stature.

Is going on the speaker tour really a viable way to keep a 2008 Prez bid alive?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

24. Was he even that relevant during the...

2004 VP bid? I liked his "two Americas" message, but couldn't warm up to the messenger. He's way too green on national security and defense. Seems too much the slickie boy. "Evil trial lawyer." And hell, he didn't even bring in NC. And enuff with that annoying thumb's up!

[Liberty Belle]

31. Reframe: "Consumer protection lawyer."

He helped sue big corporations that hurt children, mostly.
Like the little girl who had her guts sucked down a swimming pool drain because the manufacturer was too cheap to buy a 1 cent screw.

Edwards held up the part in the question, and it was the drain manufacturer who got screwed.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

36. I'm sure that was a fine courtroom moment...

and I'm all for suing big corporations who hurt children, but I don't recall anyone from the Kerry/Edwards campaign taking charge and re-framing "evil trial lawyer." We do need to control language: estate tax, anti-choice, corporate media, consumer protection lawyer, etc. Smirk's mantra re "it's your money!" needs to be stopped asap; someone (hopefully Dean as DNC chair) needs to start driving home the theme of working toward the common good, defining what makes a society great, etc. In s-i-m-p-l-e terms, of course. And in terms that will register with an increasingly affluent society (whether perceived or real) -- not just those struggling to get by.

[Liberty Belle]

37. True. That's why we need Dean at the DNC.

No matter who the '08 candidate is, we can count on Dean not to let the RNC get away with negatively framing the issues.

So if a weak-meat candidate fails to set the record straight, I'd expect to see Dean out there giving interviews and organizing the masses to shout out the truth. Yeeeeeeeeeeeah!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. Agreed. I mean, "Yeeeeeeeeeeeah!"

February 12, 2005 can't get here fast enough.

P.S. "Weak-meat candidate" - good one!

[Liberty Belle]

44. Maybe they should call the newspaper "The Dean Scream."

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeah! Knock 'em over the head with their own ridicule.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

48. That is a great idea! Shows we have a sense of humor...

and sends a major FU to his detractors. Another DUer suggested immediately donating to the DNC once he is selected - get the bat going. Hmm, I think my car needs a "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeah!" or "Dean Screams for Me" bumper sticker next to the anti-W sticker...

[w4rma]

54. Why not start now, instead of verifying their rhetoric by using it?? (nt)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

56. I'm not verifying anything - I thought the...

quotation marks took care of that. "Trial lawyers" (evil or otherwise...) have been on the Maladministration's hit list since Day 1 - why the Kerry campaign gave them ammo by choosing Edwards is beyond me.

[AP]

47. If we have another great depression, talking about poverty...

...makes him very relevant.

As for speaking tours, that's what Abe Lincoln did after losing a senate race in '58. He went on a speaking tour on slavery -- the relevant issue of the day. Prior to running and losing his senate race, he had been a one-term congressman a decade earlier, and that was the limit of his federal experience.

sometimes, being an accomplished, persuasive advocate of the progressive side of the most important issues of the day is a pretty good qualification for being president.

[RockStar]

26. He is a flip flopper I rather not vote if he or Kerry runs..

Anyone that doesnt have the balls to fight and just takes it in the ass is a loser in my book..

[xxqqqzme]

29. If we don't do something about 2006,

2008 ain't gonna matter much.

[anarchy1999]

30. I'm sorry, but I'll go for Edwards in a heartbeat.

He could have made it this time and maybe mistakenly, but I believe he is prime for 2008. But then again, that is just me being silly, voting machines and all........ in a beter world. I'd like to see Edwards/Kucinich. I'm a dreamer, what can I say?

[ernstbass]

35. I agree - Edwards had charisma that Kerry lacked

and he would have done better than Kerry

[Clarkie1]

62. I hope we don't go voting for the most charisma n/t

[AuntiBush]

63. I'm with you. Edwards would get my vote!

In a heartbeat. It's a gut feeling I had watching him, knowing we had the wrong guy in the driver's seat. Now, had it been EDWARDS/KERRY we would have gained the south w/a snap of the finger, and the Moral voters, as well as family-oriented.

And in that Cheney debate, Edwards kicked-butt. I was never so proud. He also rated high-fives here in my state in several media interviews.

:thumbsup:

2nd choice: GORE/BOXER

Hmmmm.... but, alas, we must make it through 1 very tough year before we can really feel any hope again. Iran is closer than we think. And if the neocons have their way, we won't even have a soup line to stand in, literally.

[cyclezealot]

32. Evan Bayh...About as much a sell out as Dianne Feinstein.

Bayh. I probably would sit on my arse over that sell out...
The only Pol I trust..Dennis Kucinich..Principals first. Otherwise , I can do fill my time with more fun things during the primaries..Unless. someone like Feingold , Durbin comes along.

[Phelan]

46. Uhm, get your facts straight

" The only Pol I trust..Dennis Kucinich..Principals first. "

He didn't happen to change his view on abortion just before his presidential primaries... its a good thing that abortion is a topic nobody really cares about right?
P

[cyclezealot]

60. Might get your facts straight.

I have heard Dennis Kucinich grilled over choice..I accept his decision...He comes from a large family...Raised Catholic. He has traditionally accepted Catholic doctrine..
He has a sisters who over the years argued with DK over choice..DK was raised with so many sibblings, they lived in cars when rent money was tight...Real story...
And still he believed Catholic doctrine..A man of principal. Respecting human life truly...Had he not accepted his beliefs growing up then,in that case, I would be suspicious of him..
His family turned him around when he evaluated his life's struggles and those of others...I am sure he still has personal conflicts with choice, but feels his religious doctrine has no right to impose upon others...A stand of principal of which I am impressed with.
Maybe , you should explore candidates' personal journey's rather than just the headlines...DK's growth on choice is heroic not something of which I disagree, as a pro-choice family..
His background on choice leaves choice in safer hands than from what I now read about from Hillary.
Besides, I will take DK's so called flip flop on choice over Bayh's stand on helth care or trade..Bayh does not have the guts to stand with the working men in Seattle , 1999. Go DK...

[Phelan]

84. I am sure the timing was coincidence

Not that he really gained anything from it,
as much as I respect the Kooch, the chances of his becoming President by popular election are about the same as me sprouting wings and flying of to Valhalla.

[hippiechick]

75. Bayh is a waste of skin.

Doesn't have a real opinion of his own, everything's geared toward whoever his audience at the moment is.

He ran Indiana with smoke and mirrors and left a big friggin' MESS.

He's a brainless pretty boy in a nice suit, following in daddy's footsteps cause he can't get a real job. Just like the current Squatter at 1600.

[bdot]

49. Hopefully next time...

they won't have so many people running for President. I don't want it to be like the Republican party where they tell you who to vote for, but I wouldn't want to see the Democrats run so many people that after the primaries are over, they are out of gas, broke, and look like morons because they beat each other up so much.

[w4rma]

53. Gore, Edwards, Feingold, Clark. Any of those are fine with me. I'd have to

toss a coin to decide, even.

[rucky]

55. No more white males, please!

it's time for a change.

[Placebo]

79. That narrows the choices quite a bit.

I hope you have someone specific in mind.

[maddogesq]

58. With Apologies to Steve Earle: The Clark revolution starts now! NT

Nuff said.

[politicasista]

61. Edwards, Clark, and Gore are good.

Love the Kerry bashing. I wouldn't give up on Kerry also. Sorry.

[mmonk]

65. Of those listed

only Edwards could be a possibility for me or John Kerry. Will there be any anti-imperial candidates or is that hope really gone forever?

[AP]

67. I think this quote reveals an anti-imperial attitude:

{this is the transcript from one of the debates}

JENNINGS: I'd like to continue in this vein a little, if I may.

Senator Edwards, many people, I think, believe that the greatest security threat to the United States in the 21st century is the possible confrontation between the West and Islam.

Now, I know and take for granted, having heard you before, that you respect Islam. But could you take a minute to tell us what you know about the practice of Islam that would reassure Muslims throughout the world who will be listening to you that President Edwards understands their religion and how you might use that knowledge to avoid a confrontation, which, as Tom alluded earlier, might indeed end up sending sons and daughters from New Hampshire to war.

EDWARDS: Well, I have been in these parts of the world. I have been in Pakistan, met with President Musharraf, been in Afghanistan, met with then interim chairman — interim head of the government Karzai. I have met with other Islamic leaders around the world, discussed with them the problems that their country and their people face.

I would never claim to be an expert on Islam. I am not. But I do believe that Islam, as in a lot of other faiths that we as a nation embrace and lift up, that I have shown respect for faiths that are different than mine my entire life. I think I do understand the tragedy of the day-to-day lives of people who live in Arab countries, who live lives of hopelessness and despair.

I think that contributes to the animosity that they feel toward the United States.

And part of our ongoing vision — my ongoing vision for America includes getting at the root causes of that animosity toward the United States, which means being able to communicate, not just with the leadership, for example, in Saudi Arabia, but being able to communicate directly with the people...

JENNINGS: Do you think, Senator...

EDWARDS: ... to express...

JENNINGS: Do you think that we suffer and will suffer at the policy level because we do not know enough about the practice of Islam?

EDWARDS: I think we have a responsibility when we deal with the leadership of these countries. Our relationships, Peter, have been at the leadership level. And we see the results of that. We have ongoing relationship with the Saudi royals, with President Musharraf, with Chairman Karzai. We have relationships with the leaders of these Islamic countries.

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people.

Second, find opportunities. For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans.

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=257&topic_id=95&mesg_id=188&page=

[yebrent]

69. Clark, Warner and the new Gore, in that order.

Clark and Warner have the best shots in the general election IMO, but unfortunately they probably don't have as good of a shot as Gore, Edwards, Kerry and some others in the primaries.

I sure hope we are a bit more strategic than letting the media and GOP crown a northeastern anti-war liberal as the "most electable" this time around.

[Montanan]

71. If Dems had a Karl Rove, it wouldn't matter who the candidates were. n/t

[The Donkey]

77. It's way too early to have to decide, but . . . .

If I were voting again today, I'd have to go with Clark. In my opinion, the most salient reason he didn't win in the last go-round was that he didn't get in until September of 2003, several months after everyone else, and only a few months before the primaries. He was the last candidate to declare. Therefore, most of the endorsers, high-level strategists and donors had already committed to other candidates. This just proved to be too much of an obstacle to overcome for someone who had never sought political office before. Having said that, he did do amazingly well once he got his legs under him, winning Oklahoma and coming in second in several other states.

This cycle, he will have four years to prepare (rather than four months), and after letting his intentions be known, will have a much better organization in place both structurally and financially.

I was watching him on Hardball last week and am still amazed at his grasp of all things foreign policy-related. Additionally, the domestic messages and issue papers created in his previous campaign will still be relevant for the next presidential election cycle.

Of course, there are several candidates that would make good presidents. However, at this stage, I'm a Clarkie until further notice.

Having said that, let's all get together and work on 2006 to help set the stage for whoever becomes our candidate in 2008!

[Khaotic]

81. RFK on Vietnam

For all those that think RFK would have cont. Vietnam had he been nominated and defeated Nixon.

http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/kennedy2/vietnam.html

Above is a link to an interview on his feelings on Vietnam.

RFK would have been one hell of a president.

[Khaotic]

85. 22nd Amendment Revoked; Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 Amended

I think the 22nd Amendment will be revoked and you can bet Shrub will run for reelection in '08.

The media will be a buzz w/ everyone focusing on a Clinton reelection bid, but it won't happen. I don't believe Bill will go for it.

While everyone is focusing on Clinton few will focus on the real nightmare, another four more years of Shrub.

Look for Bush to pick up Schwarzenegger as his Vice Presidential pick after the GOP is successful in amending the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5) so foreign born U.S. citizens can run for President.

As I see it (bookmark this thread now) it will be Bush/Schwarzenegger for the GOP in '08.

For the Democrats ... amending the Constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5), will allow Governor Jennifer M. Granholm (D-MI) to run for the nomination (she was born in Canada). Don't under estimate Granholm. She's VERY sharp and is pretty popular in Mich.

After a pretty fierce Dem. runoff I think she stands one hell of a chance of coming out on top.

So, while everyone may believe that Hillary would be the first female presidential nominee for a party, I think Granholm will end up with this honor.

As her VP running mate ... Sen. Evan Bayh.

While Bayh will end up losing to Granholm in the race to get the Dem. nomination, he will accept her offer to go in as her running mate.

2008: Granholm/Bayh v. Bush/Schwarzenegger.

The winner ... Bush/Schwarzenegger.

After four more years of Bush the economy will be a disaster (yeah, even more than it is today) and Bush's approval numbers will be at a record low.

Look for another war, another attack on America, and a dismal outlook for Dems in 2006.

Electronic voting will become the norm and 3 times as many Americans will be E-Voting in '08 than were in '04.

Regardless of unemployment, U.S. troops dying abroad, and a horrible economy, the Bush manipulated corporate media will tell a completely different story.

Powell's replacement at the FCC will make Powell look like a Fairness Doctrine worshiper. Media consolidation ... you haven't seen anything yet.

If anyone thinks things are looking Orwellian ... step aside, the show has just begun.

I think a Granholm/Bayh ticket would be great, but the lone Democrats left in Congress have to get some balls and fight the good fight.

Since they weren't united in voting against Rice or Gonzales I don't see how they'll be united in voting against whoever Bush nominates to head the FCC, or what FCC ruling further loosens media ownership rules.

If nothing is done about the election problems, and it won't, the GOP will role through '06 unchecked and '08 will be a joke.

If Dean can turn around the party and won't hesitate to send some gonads up some of the throats of those that continue to be GOP'lite, then media consolidation could be stopped. Maybe there could be some real journalism again and some of the scandals that are taking place will get real air time (yeah, it's a dream).

If REAL election reform takes place and all U.S. citizens are registered by simply breathing air, and if the election is held on a weekend, and e-voting is tossed out the window, and optical scanners are held in check, then we might have a real election with a real winner.

Then folks, we could see a Granholm/Bayh presidency in '09.

I think it would be a good first step, but a long haul to cleaning up what Bush and the neocons will have done to America in the next four years.

[cobaindrain]

87. It'll come down to Edwards vs. Bayh

to be honest I'm torn between the two, leaning Edwards but I might switch to Bayh.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

88. WE CAN'T EVEN VOTE ANYMORE!-BBV-REMEMBER?...N/T