Who's got your vote: Kerry-Clinton or Feingold-Kucinich?

[mstrsplinter326]

Poll question: Who's got your vote: Kerry-Clinton or Feingold-Kucinich?

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton
-or-
Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich

If those were your ONLY options in the primaries (of course vp's aren't chose then but, just for kicks, vote like they were).\

[manhattanite]

1. Kerry-Clinton

Together they could probably beat any Republican.

[mstrsplinter326]

2. Hillary, in my opinion

is like running Michael Moore, only she's a more seasoned politican.

But they both carry unfair stigmas, I like her somewhat, but I don't think she can win shit south of the mason dixie line because she's not a populist... I dunno, just bouncing around ideas... thx

[Eagle_Eye]

3. Clinton is our best candidate

She can win with just about any one as a vice presidential running mate. Even Michael Moore (who would sure attract a lot of free publicity) would work. The country is divided 50 / 50. Forget about the votes we will not be receiving anyway and concentrate on getting all of the votes we know we can our top candidates.

[leesa]

55. You must be crazy! She would be obliterated by the RW.

They WANT her to run so they can skewer her. She would be a terrible candidate, probably the worst choice. She is also a warmonger and loves the corporations. Not much progress there.

[Eagle_Eye]

70. They skewer her now every chance they get

It is called 'Forward Defense'. The right wing fears Hilary, and will take every cheap shot available to prevent her from running. She has a large loyal following. Forget about getting any of those beer swilling rednecks to vote Democratic, get all the true Democrats to vote for the Democratic candidate. If we stick to our true beliefs we will win. If we try to please everybody at once, we will please no one and will loose again. Hillary is still the best person to run in 2008.

[XemaSab]

116. Hillary

May have a large, loyal following, but just about everyone in the country already knows how they feel about her. Most people have decided not to be part of her large, loyal following. I for one support her as a senator, but she's too conservative for me to rabidly support for president.

We'd be much better off running someone less well known, which includes basically everyone except Bill.

[youngred]

30. she made an interesting point on that recently

she pointed out that as divisive as she is, look at Bush and how he managed to win sa a much more divisve figure than she si

[Radical Activist]

40. Like running Moore but

you would get someone much more moderate. If we're going to all the trouble of electing someone with a reputation for being very liberal, why not do that work for someone who really is a liberal? Electing Hillary would prove we can elect any liberal we want, so I would rather accomplish that task for someone who has a better voting record and the conviction to take difficult stands like opposing the war in Iraq when it came up for a vote.

[Jersey_Lib]

71. Elect a red state liberal

would be more conducive to the country in 2008. We need a Kucinish, an Obama, a Richardson. We need someone that can openly say, "yes, I am liberal, I am against the war and I favor a system that benefits all Americans."

We have to break out from the wall that has bound us to a few states. We need an outreach program that extols the virtue of our beliefs and where we can project a clear and concise picture to the electorate.

Frankly, I am tired of hiding. I am tired of being condemned for my beliefs because the candidates I vote for are playing games rather than hammering home ideology.

Yes, I am aware that Obama is from Illinois. However, he is midwest which was decidely red.

[jswordy]

121. Hillary's negatives are...

...way too high for any reasonable strategist to give her any chance. But she is smart enough to know that by playing it coy with her cards, she can wield a lot of power within the party structure.

Unlike GWB was in his first run, she is a KNOWN nationally. Part of DUHbya's success was that, as a Texas guv, he was a little-known quantity and he could hide behind that the first time out.

Unless something drastically changes between now and the primaries, Hillary Clinton would get squashed like a bug by any one of several GOP nominees I could name. She would be DOA at the convention.

The very mention of her name as the Democratic candidate would drive to the polls every voter who came out to support Bush, and probably many more as well.

Plus, as much as I like and admire the Clintons, through the DLC they have become a part of the party's PROBLEMS, not it's future solutions.

[HeilChimp]

81. Hillary-Kucinich!!

So I guess my responce would be, combine the best of both worlds. Kerry caved too fast for chimpy and I want Feingold to stay in the Senate working on the progressive agenda.

[CTLawGuy]

4. Kerry and Hillary are both

too DLC for me.

And besides kerry already lost. And, no, he didn't actually win.

[manhattanite]

5. Only 118,000 Votes in Ohio

Had Kerry picked a Midwestern running mate or had better GOTV operation in Ohio, he would be President-Elect.

[CTLawGuy]

11. if he were running against someone other than Bush

he would have won 2 states. Dont underestimate the power of ABB.

Kerry needed a LOT of work and had many glaring flaws. Like voting for IWR and then trying to be against it, and basing the entire argument for why he should be elected on his Vietnam service, and his inability to relate to everyday people, despite his trying too hard.

[manhattanite]

14. Howard Dean

only managed to win his own state in the primaries and even then it was hardly a landslide. Nobody wanted the guy except for a few big mouths on the internet. What makes you think he could have done better? Even running against Bush, I doubt he would have won two states. Dean got a draft deferment for a bad back and then went skiing in Aspen. Compared to Dean, Bush looks like a war hero.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. yah yah yah

Dean would have kicked bush's ass. The primaries were a democratic party insider production resembling a primary.

[manhattanite]

37. INSIDER Al Gore Backed Dean and He Still Lost

"The primaries were a democratic party insider production resembling a primary."

Those were real registered Democrats voting, the same people who regularly show up in November to vote for their party's candidate. They spoke and they didn't give a damn for Dean, the candidate endorsed by the ultimate insider Al Gore.

[youngred]

39. It had nothing to do

with him being overhyped and the fact that the numbers just weren't there in a state like Iowa. It must have been an insider DLC (which is a former member of) hatcht job!

Reform the primary system but Dean lost because he couldn't play the political game (vs. Gep-Kerry) and people were afraid he'd get torn to pieces by Bush

[LittleClarkie]

96. (Waves paw at you) Bah.

And the Whiner 49ers strike again.

[Radical Activist]

42. Don't forget the corporate media

the corporate media promoted Dean relentlessly. That's who controlled the early primary. Think of how many times he was called the front runner before a single vote had been cast. oops!

[manhattanite]

51. The Dean Scream

Just in case someone needs to refresh their memory:

http://www.cycles3d.com/spacechads/dean_reloaded.avi

http://www.cycles3d.com/spacechads/dean_reloaded.wmv

[Radical Activist]

57. AFTER Dean lost Iowa

It was very appropriate that the corporate media helped take Dean down after they spent months propping him up as the only realistic choice for anti-war liberals. Dean lost Iowa BEFORE the scream. When the media saw their favorite son was going to lose they quickly jumped ship and turned on him. That's the nature of the media. It doesn't change the fact that he had been getting the most coverage and that AOL/Time Warner employees were one of his top contributors.

Just ask yourself, if Sharpton had made the same scream would anyone have cared? Even in defeat Dean got the most TV coverage. More than Kerry who actually won Iowa.

[WI_DEM]

59. The So-called Dean Scream

has been discredited even by the media--Dean was trying to be heard above the crowd. He has some passion, certainly, but that was spinned way out of proportions by the media. You know the media which does nothing more than protect George W. Bush who lied about the reasons for war in Iraq. A war Dean has been proven correct about time after time.

[WI_DEM]

44. Actually Dean got 62% in Vermont in the primary after he dropped

out of the race. That is a landslide. How many other candidates won even their homestates after dropping out? And thanks for bringing up the GOP talking points regarding Dean's deferment which is medically documented. Yes, Mr. AWOL sure looks like a war hero. Also why did you single Dean out to attack? The person you responded to said nothing about Dean in his response to you.

[American Tragedy]

88. Howard Dean won Vermont? Gee, who'd expect that?

As I said earlier, winning in New England, especially when you're from the region, is not remotely the same as winning in the rest of the country.

[demwing]

90. A few big mouths on the internet?

Forum rules keep me from calling you out.

[CTLawGuy]

93. wow

EVERYONE cares about what you did in vietnam... thats why they elected "draft-dodger" Clinton over veteran Bush, and then over veteran Dole. :eyes:

the only reason anyone cared about Vietnam was because Kerry kept bringing it up. Dean would have talked about something that was relevant to being president, like running a state, balancing a budget, providing health care, working with the legislature.

Nominate Dean = no swift boaters.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. And hired James Carville instead of Bob Shrum

That was his KEY blunder.

[manhattanite]

58. Agreed.

[youngred]

61. No, Hiring Shrum at all was a mistake

he's a nice guy but an awful campaign manager.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. I'd have made him a deputy speechwriter or whatever

But certainly not a strategist.

[LittleClarkie]

97. Bringing him on later certainly helped, but agreed

No more Kennedy/Dukakis loyalty in hiring.

If he tries again, and I hope he does, I hope he can get people like Carville.

But I suspect Carville will work for ol' Hillary again.

[Hippo_Tron]

98. If Hillary has Carville I might actually vote for her in the primary

If someobody that I actually like, say Feingold or Durbin runs, I'm definately voting for them. But if it's between Hillary and somebody that I don't particularly care for, I'm voting for her. If anybody can make her president, it's Carvillle.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Hmmmmm... Interesting responses...

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

17. If you posted this poll at Free Republique, Sen. Clinton would be...

...way out ahead.

NGU.

[Joanne98]

7. i'm drafting elliot spitzer

we need a crime fighter for president

[WI_DEM]

49. He might be ok some day, but being Atty Gen of NY is not enough

qualification towards running for president.

[AntiCoup2K4]

8. I will not vote for Kerry again and I will NEVER vote for Hillary

Her treasonous standing ovation of the Chimp when he LIED about Iraq being "the central front of the War on Terra" was the absolute last straw.

For that matter, I will not vote for another DLC ticket, period.

[manhattanite]

15. Karl Rove loves people like you.

Yeah Kerry and Clinton are such bad people. People with your attitude put Bush in office by wasting votes on Nader in 2000. Thanks a lot.

[Cheswick2.0]

20. you don't know how the other poster voted in 2000

What are you talking about?

[Radical Activist]

46. No, people like Kerry and Clinton put Bush in office

Because they didn't challenge him when they should have, they didn't call him the liar that he is, they didn't have the courage to do what was right but seemed unpopular at the time. If Kerry had voted against the IWR he would have won this election. He wouldn't have seemed like such a flip-flopping hypocrite to most voters. But Iraq is just one of many issues. Hillary has been a moderate disappointment.

[InvisibleBallots]

83. Karl Rove loves the DLC

He couldn't have done it without their spineless concessions.

[serryjw]

101. Wake up and smell the roses......

voting DLC is voting Republican. NEVER again!

[serryjw]

102. You have to have more than 48 posts

to insult us....You have no idea how he voted.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

18. OK. So I guess you don't mind losing elections.

n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

22. Is Kerry going to be inaugurated in January?

Guess you don't mind losing.

[ClassWarrior]

26. Tell me - who's the enemy??

Whose fault is it that the election was stolen?? Kerry's? Or Bush**'s?

Huh? Answer me that...

NGU.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

89. Kerry lost. It sucks like hell.

But we will lose again if we take your advice.

[ClassWarrior]

25. Please remember DU's 11th Commandment of Politics...

"Thou shall not speak ill of any Progressive in public."

Of course, I'd question whether or not the DLC is Progressive. But Sen. Kerry is most definitely a Progressive.

NGU.

[manhattanite]

27. The left is too divided.

That is why we lose.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[manhattanite]

29. Wrong.

I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary. I would never waste a vote on Nader, Cobb, or any other spoiler. I do not make statements like I will never vote for _____ or I will leave the party if _____ is nominated. Those are the statements of crybabies and spoilers who help Republicans get elected by keeping the left divided.

Edited.
This is a response to your first message before you completely rewrote it.

[ClassWarrior]

34. You think the Radical RW isn't divided??

The only reason they've had any success at all is because of the unholy alliance between the fundies and the corporatists. If those neanderthals can bury the hatchet for the perceived greater good, then so can we.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

60. No answer?

NGU.

[IndianaGreen]

103. Progressives don't vote for the PATRIOT Act or for a war of aggression

which is what our adventure in Iraq really is, a criminal war of aggression.

Progressives don't vote for trade agreements that favor the corporations over the workers, which is what NAFTA is.

Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich voted against PATRIOT, IWR, and NAFTA. They are progressives, while Mister Kerry hasn't been one in a long time.

[zulchzulu]

9. Gee whiz...two bad and unlikely matchups

Kerry...yes. Hillary...nuh uh. Feingold...yes. Feingold AND Kucinich...hmmm...not a chance in the US.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Feingold/Kucinich? YES. Kerry/Clinton? NO WAY.

Kucinich + anyone? Yes.

[manhattanite]

12. Kucinich + anyone = snowball's chance in hell

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Probably. But, that's probably true of any Dem candidate.

So, why not run one of the best rather than the DLC(R) pablum candidates the Dems have been running since '92?

[Lenape85]

79. Exactly my sentiments

Both have proved that they can be progressive and still win. I mean, Russ Feingold was the only senator who voted against the patriot act, and he still won re-election by a respectable margin.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

16. A tough one,

but I'd vote for Feingold-Kucinich, only because there's really no way Kerry will win again (as much as I like and respect him), and Clinton has too much baggage. I like Russ Feingold, so despite Kucinich (nice guy, but much too far to the Left) I'd have to pick the second option. I just hope these aren't our only choices.

On edit: Pragmatically, neither of these choices have much of a chance. Clinton will lose. I really doubt Kerry's chances at a second try. Feingold has a shot, but Kucinich would never win the Presidency, so being a veep choice wouldn't help much.

[Cheswick2.0]

19. prediction...... none of them has a chance of being on the ticket except

Hillary and I don't think she will be either.

[Pithy Cherub]

23. Would remain an undecided voter til the very end...

;)

[marcologico]

24. Kerry-Clinton (Bill)

I don't think Hillary is going to help anyone get elected for the time being, except maybe another republican. Bill on the other hand could put Gray OR Angela Davis in the California governor's mansion if he wanted to.

[Divine Discontent]

31. wake UP!

do you people really think that the people of this GREAT country are going to put in a candidate like Kucinich? He's awesome, but would win like 32-38%, he's too odd & left leaning for America's CURRENT mentality.

I like Hillary, but other than a VP for a really strong candidate, I'd say no... like John E. & Hillary???? NO. Love em both, but never would win.

Perhaps, oh, I don't know....

CLARK - FEINGOLD ??????????????? :think:

[mstrsplinter326]

41. America is liberal

The assertion that we are not is a flat lie.

Stupid White Men and People's History of the United States refute this lie with substatial evidence.

We are a populist nation with a desire for community. Kucinich = Populist.

[youngred]

50. we are

but the Right wing has managed to spin it so that we don't think we are and revile anyone who points out that we are

[ClassWarrior]

53. America is Progressive.

But other than that, I agree.

NGU.

[American Tragedy]

87. There's a little problem with that . It's called the Constitution

Try the last paragraph of the Twelfth Amendment.

[deminflorida]

32. Clark/Warner....

no-one else, comes close.

[Jersey_Lib]

33. Obama might be the way to go

What about Obama/Richardson or vice versa?

[youngred]

36. Richardson couldn't deliver NM this year

which has cooled me on his national prospects, but I think he is very important in leading the fight to win the SW off the Republican L and is providing the best message and possibility for the Dems to start going on the offensive against the Republicans

[WI_DEM]

56. Richardson wasn't on the ticket

There is a difference. By your logic, then that disqualifies Gov. Vilsack who "didn't deliver Iowa" or Gov. Napolitian who "didn't deliver Arizona", or The Democratic Governor and Senior Senator from NC who "didn't deliver North Carolina."

[marcologico]

63. you got it

Where the heck was Richardson in the NM recount fight? AWOL, that's where.

[youngred]

64. No

He was in charge of the campaign there and promised his state which was a swing state. Richardson basically IS New Mexico politics, and after being in charge of the campaign and running the convention he couldn't swing it.

The others could have done soething, Vilsack failed a bit in Iowa with the GOTV, but Kerry didn't spend enough time there thinking it was an easy victory. There was never an expectation of winning AZ or NC so that isn't really up either

[WI_DEM]

76. Actually Kerry was in Iowa more than he was in NM

even in the last few days. I can't blame either Richardson or Vilsack. They were not the candidate. People were not voting for them. The days when a governor could "deliver" a state are long gone.

[youngred]

118. No, they're not

Richardson is insanely popular in NM, as is Vilsack in Iowa. If the days when a person can deliver a state for someone else are gone then why do politicians ever appear together? Why was Bush so intent on getting McCain's backing? This is just a disagreement of opinion, but coattails are still huge in American politics and ignoring that, as Kerry did, will cost us

[Jersey_Lib]

66. We need a Governor

To run for higher office. Especially one who has been in the national spotlight.

"There is a difference. By your logic, then that disqualifies Gov. Vilsack who "didn't deliver Iowa" or Gov. Napolitian who "didn't deliver Arizona", or The Democratic Governor and Senior Senator from NC who "didn't deliver North Carolina.""

Richardson has been in the spotlight and is well known by Americans. Obama on the ticket kills the perception that the Democrats no longer care about minorities.

Richardson would deliver and Obama will make a difference in states like Florida, Missouri and possibly Ohio. Plus Obama is still young enough where his persona and ideology can be molded to better identify with the country.

Recycling what we have now will not win us the White House. We need to start thinking outside the box and come up with candidates who can represent America.

[youngred]

67. I agree

I'm just not sure Richardson is the answer he looked like last year.

Warner, Obama, Vilsack, Richardson, etc etc....we have 2 years to figure out our next candidate. I'd like to see us focusing on the issues and fighting Bush right now

[Radical Activist]

69. What has Warner done?

Besides being safe and moderate enough to get elected in Virginia? I'm not familiar with him or why he is being spoken of as a candidate.

[HeilChimp]

84. yeah, run a couple of closet repugs

Captain Kosovo and Gun Nut Warner. Yeah, that's a winning ticket. Maybe we can have Zell Miller for Sec. of State while we're at it.

[Radical Activist]

35. Feingold/Kucinich!

Best ticket idea I've heard in a while. We need a good heartland ticket to bring back progressive populism. They both come from swing states, they both provide a REAL alternative to the Republicans and a compelling message besides being ABB. We need people with conviction like these two. It might even be better than Edwards/Obama.

[mstrsplinter326]

43. Thank you!

I like the resurgence of populism in both of them and they have a lot of Obama's pragmatism.

Sorry about the ism's...

[Radical Activist]

38. More evidence of low liberal self esteem in this thread

I am really sick of all the liberals who won't even try to elect one of their own because they're convinced no one else agrees with them. Republicans win because they don't have this problem. Do you see the Republicans questioning their values and abandoning their conservative candidates just because they lose one or two elections? No! They work harder and keep promoting their ideas until the whacked out crazy ideas of yesterday are the mainstream ideas of today. That's what Reagan and the Christian Right did.

Every time a real liberal runs they don't get half the support they should because other liberals are sitting on their butts moaning about how no one that liberal will ever get elected. Well guess what, YOU are more to blame for liberals losing than the Republicans. Thanks a lot!
Liberals have the strength to win if we get some confidence in our ability to win and start working in a unified way.

We're never going to win if liberals don't have the balls to fight for their own candidates. Stop being the kid that got picked last in dodgeball and fight!!!

[ClassWarrior]

47. First of all, we're Progressives... second, I think most of the...

...perceived "low self-esteem" on DU is disruption by trolls. Most Progressives I know are pretty damn secure and confident in their values: responsibility, opportunity, caring, and hope.

NGU.

[Radical Activist]

52. I hope that's true on DU

But I speak from experience working on progressive campaigns when I say that Kucinich is not the only candidate who has suffered when liberals who agree with him on the views sit on the sidelines because they're convinced that someone that liberal can't win. I see a lot of those comments on DU as well. We have a lot of power on the left that is not being utilized because we can't even agree to back one of our own.

[Q]

114. If they so 'secure'...

...why are they (like you) running away from the word 'liberal'?

[StephanieMarie]

45. We can't keep running Senators!!!

We need a governor. How about Richardson?

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Why can't we run Senators?

I'm assuming that you are going to argue that Senators have a long record that can be used against them when it comes time to campaign and Governors don't. I have two words for you: Michael Dukakis.

[Jersey_Lib]

68. The issue with Senators

is that they have no leadership experience and that is what Americans are looking for. A Governor can say he/she has x amount of experience leading a state while his esteemed opponent has spent x amount of time doing what?


Really, it is how you package the candidate. It almost worked for Kerry. He was one press conference away from the Presidency. As soon as the SBV story hit, he should have held a press conference and slammed them. The campaign wanted to use Vietnam as his leadership experience and rather than slam the SBV stories as lies, they chose to wish it away.

[chyjo]

62. What a loaded question

Of course Feingold and Kucinich. Why not add in a Gandhi/Jesus ticket to make it even more unrealistic.

[Radical Activist]

65. I wonder who would win that poll

If it were between Gandhi/Jesus and Feingold/Kucinich. I'm guessing they would be pretty close on the issues. Jesus might be more of a socialist though.

[mstrsplinter326]

73. My money is on F/K

Because RR would make sure jesus were never aligned with a non-christian... as sad as it seems to say that....

[mstrsplinter326]

72. Yeah, but there are people who choose the other side....

Just my point... 29% of the people here would vote for Kerry-Clinton in the primary. Yes that ticket is unreal and awesome, but only 7/10 DUers agree.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Why I choose the "far left"

(as defined by the DLC, "center" as defined by most Europeans)

The Busheviks have taken the country so far to the right and wreaked such havoc on our social fabric that half-assed "moderates" won't do the trick.

[lojasmo]

75. Neither Kerry nor Clinton will EVER get my vote....NEVER!

[The Flaming Red Head]

77. Already lost 2008 vs already lost 2008

gee I dunno.

Don't the Republicans get to pick who loses against them, now?

[mstrsplinter326]

78. who would be preferable?

Jesus? Thich Nhat Hahn? Gandhi?

The Feingold-Kucinich ticket would be like Bullworth-Martin Luther King, Jr. or Wellstone-Chavez or Jon Stewart-Dave Matthews (Ooo, I like that one).

[The Flaming Red Head]

80. We all know the party is over and so is democracy in the US

So it doesn't matter anymore does it?

[mstrsplinter326]

108. Well, A part of me agrees

But I would contend that the party and the democracy never started!

As much as I agree though, I feel we've got to fight anyway. I couldn't NOT fight, even if I tried.

[American Tragedy]

85. I love Feingold

However, none of these are ideal, since they are all members of Congress with voting records to distort and take out of context.

And Kucinich... Kucinich would be a mistake. He's just not right for contemporary presidential races. He has extremely limited appeal in the American electorate, unfortunately.

[latteromden]

86. I will never vote for Hillary... I'm on, oh, what should I call it, an

"extended stay" in the Democratic Party. They run Hillary on any ticket, and I go back to where I was before - leading my local Green Party caucus. In that case, the Green Party didn't "steal" my vote. The Democratic Party forfeited it.

So, I figure that leaves Feingold-Kucinich. How cool would that be? (If you're not quite sure, the answer is "very")

[MrSlayer]

91. I'd go for Feingold and the Kooch in a heartbeat.

I happily voted for Kucinich in my primary because Clark was long gone by April.


Hillary should never be a consideration for anything above Senator. She would be a disaster as a Presidential/VP candidate.

[KansDem]

92. Won't matter, really, if Diebold is still in the game...

The winner for the general election will be:

(Insert Name of Republican Here)/Diebold 2008
A Winning Combination!

A little frightening, to say the least...:scared:

[NoPasaran]

94. I'd just drink hemlock

And save myself a lot of heartbreak and bother this time around.

[LittleClarkie]

95. I can't vote for either. Please, sir, may I have Kerry/Feingold?

Or Feingold/Kerry?

I already have both bumperstickers on my car :-D

[w4rma]

100. I'm in the same boat you are. I can't vote for either and I'd support that

ticket in the primary.

[Placebo]

99. Hillary '08

She ain't gonna be no stinkin' VP, she's gonna be my President!

[LSdemocrat]

104. Kerry-Hillary, just for Hillary

I don't have a particularly high opinion of Kerry.

[njdemocrat106]

105. Kerry/Clinton

out of the 2 choices. I think Clark/Warner will be our best chance at winning in 2008, though.

[fujiyama]

106. I'd prefer the second ticket

but as someone else suggested, I really think a Clark/Feingold ticket would be great.

I like both of them a lot. It'd be a tough choice between them.

Kucinich is a good guy, but it's not really his ideaology that I think would sink him. It's that he seems "out there". I like him. I'd vote for him...and I'd work like hell to get him elected, but I know he wouldn't have a chance in hell. He just SEEMS goofy. I just don't think it would be a good idea to have him on the ticket.

[mstrsplinter326]

110. I agree, he does seem goofy and ideological

But I think he's a flawless candidate. Which is why we should run him. It's time to stop conceeding to the terms of the other side, you know what I mean? I would rather lose by 15% running a REALLY, REALLY liberal candidate, than lose by 1.5% with a candidate who vacillates on the draft, and offers a six month outsourcing notice as a solution.

And if we lose by a lot like I described, come 2012, we'll look like champions and win by 20 or 25%. Populism is the only answer for the Democrats at this point.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

107. Hillary is the kiss of death in 2008

If the repukes could select our canidate it would be Hillary the most likely to be the victim buried by a repuke landslide. Personally I think she would be a good canidate if she wasn't named Hillary Clinton.

[Moloch]

109. We would lose EVERY state with Kucinich on the ticket...

The man couldn't even carry his own district in the primaries...

[Ian David]

111. Kucinich is a nutball

I'd rather have Howard Dean again.

[mstrsplinter326]

112. Yeah, nutball

Crazy f***ing populists who stand up strongly for american workers...

[youngred]

119. heh

Perhaps you'd care to listen to the man rather than the stereotypes.

[mstrsplinter326]

120. Agreed

just like I posted before...

<Sarcasm>
Crazy f***ing populists who stand up strongly for american workers...
</Sarcasm>

[Yuugal]

113. Clark - anyone

Anyone except Hillary that is.... The right wing is already plotting, planning and praying for "Hitlery" to be on the ticket. She has a bland speaking voice and a DLC voting record. No thanks.

I'd like to see Clark-Feingold but not Feingold-Clark. Running on a senate/house voting record is hard as hell because many times you have to vote against something so they will change it. Later you vote for the same bill with the add-ons and its a golden opportunity for the other side to trash you.

We need a governor or a general. Whoever it is needs to have a spotless past but not dwell in it. They need to have been successful in their field but not filthy rich. Most importantly, they need to stay on message: living wage/health care. Anytime the press asks about guns, god, gays, abortion or the like our candidate needs to utter the same one-liner about that subject they always do and then launch into a description of the benefits of a living wage/health care for all. Stay on message!

Instead of swinging to the right to pick up a few percent we need to work on the 40% of people who don't even bother to vote because they are sure the system is so crooked that it can never benefit them to bother. Bush proved he could steal 3-5 percent but the mess that was left from the tampering shows that there is only so much you can steal before it becomes obvious to all. Better election process + flawless candidate on message = victory.

[txaslftist]

115. Dean/Feingold, anyone?

[imabadman]

117. Since other names are being mentioned,

how about Mark Warner?

[robbedvoter]

122. Clark - liberal & credible.

[IndianaGreen]

124. Except that he defended the School of the Americas

which is the premier training center for torturers, murderers, and death squad wannabees.

While we may disagree as to Clark's role in the illegal Balkan War, there is no dispute that Clark allied himself with a school whose graduates have amassed a large record of human rights violations in their native countries.

[Bridget Burke]

123. Ask again in 3 years.

Let's see who's proven their worth.