Here's an idea....

[lucidmadman]

Why don't we NOT have an ex-Governor as candidate? Why not someone with Washington experience? Someone who knows 'where the bodies are buried'? Someone with allies from past battles. Someone 'technically proficient' in politics as it's done these days in Washington.

[brainshrub]

1. I have no idea what your talking about.

I suppose your talking about H. Clinton. I'm not a big fan of hers. I'm glad she isn't running.

[question everything]

3. Look at who were the past presidents

In the past 80 years, or so, and certainly in the past 30, except for papa Bush, all the presidents were former governors:

FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr.

The rationale being that they are experienced in running an executive office. Or, as we saw with both Reagan and Dubya, they are well behaved, can follow orders and with Reagan even know how to deliver.

This has been a major attraction of Dean.

[no name no slogan]

6. But most small-state governors do poorly their first term as President

...because no matter what anybody says, the State House in (insert state here) is NOTHING like the US Congress, no matter which way you slice it.

For example, look at the Carter and Clinton administrations: Carter was infamous in his dealings with Congress, and his staff (many who were vets of Carter's GA days) were clueless in trying to deal with it. Which, in turn, caused Carter difficulty in trying to get his agenda through, even with a Democratically-controlled House. That's a large part of why Carter was so ineffective as President.

Clinton had the same problem in his first two years. He was used to dealing with the Arkansas state house, which was nothing compared to the US Congress. Even though he had Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, his program stalled because Clinton COULD NOT effectively deal with the Democratic leadership.

Of course, it got much easier for Clinton after 1994 when the Repubs took over. He simply adopted key Republican issues as his own, and passed their agenda for "smaller government", more prisons, less social services and more tax breaks for corporations.

Governors don't make the best presidents. Especially if they've never played the "Washington Game" before.

[Rose Siding]

2. Because Washington politics is primarily corrupt?

and if someone knows 'where the bodies are buried', and hasn't spilled yet, aren't they part of the problem?

[morgan2]

7. and state politics is not?

please get real

[displacedtexan]

4. What an interesting idea!

HHHHHHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Maybe someone who actually understands those pesky "Washington Insiders?"
Maybe someone who is ready to be president tomorrow (and doesn't need on-the-job training?

[sandnsea]

5. Governors since 1976

The country has been in a downhill slide ever since. I agree, it's time to get somebody who knows how the nation works and how we work with the international community. Who knows the right person to go to when a bill needs passing or somebody is holding it up. I want things done and I want them done in a hurry. It's not the time for outsiders.

[Jerseycoa]

8. I agree the ticket needs just that

in the VP. The commander-in-chief, in these times, needs foreign policy and diplomatic experience and has to know where the military bodies are buried, which explains my choice in the first place.

[onecitizen]

9. and who do you have in mind? nt

nt

[lucidmadman]

10. I have in mind a Kerry/Gephardt ticket...

...there, I've said it. Bash away.
I'm thinking of how things are going to be this coming August. I'm trying to imagine what I want to see.
I'm seeing a ticket that says competent/solid vs one that says dumb/sleazy.
I'm trying to remember that there may be cabinet changes between now and then. Maybe sleazy will be gone. But he won't be forgotten. Maybe GWB will try to clean things up for appearances sake, but the PNAC gallery/oil corporados will still be around...
In my mind's eye I see Kerry/Gephardt as a choice the undecided might go for...
OK, bash away...