General election Poll 2008 - Who wins?

[FrenchieCat]

Poll question: General election Poll 2008 - Who wins?

Please give a short synopsis of what the 2008 election issues will be.

Who Wins and why?

[autorank]

1. Clark/Warner: Competence, intelligence, fighting spirit

[Radical Activist]

2. Edwards - Feingold

In either order would be the winning ticket. Economic populism from the south and midwest. They would present a vision, not just an alternative.

[Dying Eagle]

3. good call Rad

I like a Edwards/Feingold, But I may have it the other way around. Edwards will be out of the spotlight till 2008. I think Russ will make alot of headlines voting against *ush policies in the next 4 years.

[Radical Activist]

24. Edwards does have the problem of having

no position anywhere. What he really needs is more governmental experience, but he has no way of getting that right now.
Feingold's position in the Senate is good as long as he doesn't become too cautious and start making bad votes. I think several candidates made the wrong vote on Iraq and some other issues because they were planning to run for President. Kerry probably would have been the Democratic primary frontrunner all along if he had voted against the Iraq War. Feingold has a good record for taking brave votes and I would hate too see ambition make him wimp out.

[suigeneris]

47. Clark has an advantage in not having a voting record

that can be dissected. Even Dole said he never found a way to defend his own record. Nobody from the congress can.

As for the perception of leadership ability I think Clark's record in the military is stunningly effective.

[Radical Activist]

57. That's something else I don't like about him

I went around in circles with Clark supporters on this issue already, but I like having a voting record so I know what someone truly stands for. Someone without a voting record has a much easier time pretending to be something they are not. The fact that Dean was a Governor with a short voting record allowed him to pretend to be a liberal. How do I know Clark isn't doing the same? There's just no way to know. It makes him a wild card.

[car54whereareyou]

84. What don't you like about him?

Look at his military record. He enthusiastically promoted women and minorities because he believed in their capabilities. This did not make him a particularly popular guy in the military because the bigoted establishment thought he was just kissing ass to get promoted. He showed exceptional management skills in assessing problems and resolving them. He turned around base operations that others could not, because he listened to people and acted on what he learned. This did not make him a particularly popular guy in the military because others resented his succeeding where they had failed. One of the things that I really admire about him is that after Vietnam he didn't turn his back on the military; he spent his considerable intellect & energies doing everything he could to reform it. He is a hero and our country owes him a considerable debt.

[corbett]

4. Interesting Choice!

No one could claim that Feingold hasn't passed meaningful legislation. He's superb!

[nickshepDEM]

5. edit: messed up

[Clarkie1]

10. Economic populism...I like it.

Why do you think that is the best ticket to deliver that message?

Do you think someone like Clark, who grew up in a low-income single parent household and spent most of his life (unlike Edwards) making less than $50,000 could deliver that message effectively?

[Radical Activist]

15. Listening to their speeches

Both Feingold and Edwards have very effective populist messages and they seem to get it. I think they can deliver a progressive message in a way that the average American in the South and Midwest will respond to. They have shown their ability do that in WI and NC. I also think a ticket with a Southerner and a Midwesterner would be very effective. We need people who know how to appeal to the heartland and have shown that ability by being elected in a heartland state.

And yes I think someone like Edwards who came from a middle to low income family background and did very well for himself (just like Clark, who isn't living in the poor house these days) can effectively deliver that message. I saw Edwards speak to crowds of rich white people in New Hampshire about race and class issues in an inspiring way and have them cheer wildly when he did so. That is exactly what we need.

Clark has a good message, but his speeches don't have the same inspiring theme of populism I hear with Edwards and Feingold. They take it to the next level. Clark may be able to do that with more experience campaigning, but he still has some of the authoritarian military stiffness when he speaks.

[Clarkie1]

16. Hmmm...interesting take on things.

I'd like to see a ticket that delivers a populist message effectively and has the national security/foreign policy experience and expertise to take that issue away from the Republicans.

That would be the ideal.

[Radical Activist]

23. We had someone very strong

on national security issues in 2004. It didn't work. I believe we need someone who can inspire people with a message that speaks to core progressive values. I think Feingold and Edwards can play to our strengths as a party instead of simply trying to compensate for our weaknesses.

Kerry proved you can't win simply by defining what you are not. We won't win by saying we are not weak on national security or that we're not as bad as the Republicans. We have to be FOR something that motivates people and corporate money has made most Democrats unwilling to do that. Feingold and Edwards are good at telling us what we can support, not just what we should be against, like so many others.

[Clarkie1]

25. Kerry was NOT very strong on national security issues

Quite the opposite. He looked like someone trying to look strong on defense by running on what he did as a lieutenant in the army 30 years ago. It actually gave believablity to the Republican meme that dems are weak on defense but try and look like they aren't. Being a soldier 30 years ago and serving part time on the senate intelligence committee cannot overcome the liberal New England senator/weak on defense label. That's what we learned.

Kerry was a lietenant for a few years long ago. Clark was recently Supreme Allied Commander of Nato (four stars, congressional medal of freedom). That's like comparing apples and oranges as far as national defense/security credibility.

The Republicans have successfully defined themselves as the strong defense/security party. That's why they can get away with someone as incompetent as Bush...they don't need a national security/foreign policy expert candidate because of how they have defined their party. If you're the Republican nominee, by definition you are strong on defense/security no matter who you are.

Not so with our party. We Democrats have been successfully labeled as the weak defense/security party. Unsure and undecisive in a dangerous world. We have to compensate for that. We have to become a "full-service" party to do that, and also be perceived as a full-service party.

I absolutely belive we need to be FOR something. We need to be FOR our liberal values and agenda. It's not a choice between being for something or compensating for our weaknesses. We have to do BOTH to win and carry our message forward.

Ever heard the expression, "Only Nixon could go to China?" That's because Nixon was already perceived as stong re: China so could carry a progressive China policy forward.

We could sure use a liberal general to carry our progressive policies forward, don't you think?

[xkenx]

49. Thanks, Clarkie1. Best

explanation yet for why Wes Clark as progressive strong on security.
Keep it coming!!

[Radical Activist]

56. The President is a diplomat,

not a general. Kerry's foreign policy experience gained as Senator is extensive and perhaps deals with more issues that a President will have to face than a general. You're argument is that running a war hero couldn't overcome the weak on defense image in '04, so next time we should run an even bigger war hero to overcome the weak on defense image. I would never advocate making the same mistake twice.

My main point still applies. We won't win by playing to our weaknesses. We won't win by NOT being weak on defense this time. Clark has a great bio, but we have just proven that you can't win with a great bio. It just doesn't work. Clark has not shown the ability to convey an inspiring political vision beyond having a great background, certainly not to the extent that Edwards or Feingold can. Clark does not play to our strengths as a party.

[FrenchieCat]

59. President is a Diplomat, not a General?

What if the General is a Diplomat and becomes President? I don't get your point at all!

You say, Kerry's foreign policy experience gained as Senator is extensive and perhaps deals with more issues that a President will have to face than a general.

You are plain out flat dead wrong.

General Clark co-negotiated the Dayton Peace Accords

General Clark was involved in the negotiations in the 1995 North Korean treaty

General Clark negotiated with 19 countries' heads of state during the Kosovo War.

General Clark negotiated with Milosovic and Maldic prior to the Kosovo war.

The point you miss is; it's not the great "bio" that counts, it's what's in it. what's the substance, the achievements that represents what you have done in with your life.

General Wes Clark has done plenty in the field of Diplomacy. More than Kerry, I might add. Clark plays to the strengths that we should have but don't seem to generate the perception of as a party.

A senator faces more issues than a General might? I beg to differ. A Senator is one of 100 club members that debate and vote (hell, sometimes didn't don't even bother to read the bill).

A general, and in particular, this General faced issues that dealt with life and death and was the one making the decisions. Not as a member of some debating team hunckered down in some hall in Washington.

Where was Kerry in reference to Rwanda? What did he do about that issue?

Plus, it's not about being "War Hero", it's about National Security experience, Stupid.

[Radical Activist]

60. Yes, I've seen his resume repeated many times on DU

The great background experience you mention (aka a great bio) isn't enough to motivate most voters. That's why Clark only barely won a single state in the primary.

A President doesn't make decisions on his own without negotiating with others. The Presidency is not like the military where everyone is trained to follow orders. People who are accustomed to the military management style often have a hard time adjusting to political leadership which is based on building consensus, not obedience and discipline. That makes someone with a political background better prepared to be President than someone with strictly a military background.

[FrenchieCat]

62. You obviously don't understand the role of either Generals nor

of Supreme Allied Commander, and even of Presidents.

SACEURs don't make decision on their own without negotiating with others. General Clark reported to President Clinton on the one hand, and to the Defense Secretary on the other hand, and to the head of states of the allied countries on his foot. His job was to build concensus between the 19 allied countries and also with the Pentagon prior to making any moves. That would be 10 fingers, 9 toes. He was also negotiating with an actual dictator at the time too, so I guess that takes up the last toe on the left foot.

The President IS the Commander in Chief. SACEUR IS The Supreme Allied Commander in Chief. Both are executive positions, not legislative positions.

When you say, "People who are accustomed to the military management style often have a hard time adjusting to political leadership which is based on building consensus, not obedience and discpline."--that is your opinion. I don't know what this statement is based upon other than a speculative opinion that might be used to stereotypically pin General Clark into a box. The problem is that General Clark is not typical General.....as has been discussed many times....and as we all know, opinions are a dime a dozen.

Your statements are actually quite ironic, and to some degree, disingenious. I would recommend that you should inform historians and the 12 Generals that became Presidents on how Legislators, Senators, and politicos make the best presidents, ASAP. Also makes sure to tell voters ....cause to date, they seem to have a real hard time in electing Senators as Presidents.

Your opinions arelike a bio, IMO. Useful only they present actual substance.

[Radical Activist]

63. Yes, it is my opinion

I was expecting another recitation of Clark's stupendous achievements during his career, yet again. Maybe I don't understand the role of a general, or maybe you don't fully understand the role of a President. That is a matter of opinion. Negotiating with allied countries as opposed to opposition Senators and Congressman and hostile federal bureaucracies are in fact very different tasks.

Three Presidents had strictly military backgrounds. Grant was considered one of the worst Presidents, Eisenhower warned against making Generals into Presidents, and the last died shortly after taking office. You can save your history lesson for someone else.

Perhaps your judgment is too heavily swayed by your devotion. Cults of personality are unhealthy. Now you can go ahead and tell me about something else great Clark did, which is the only response Clark supporters seem to have to any criticism. Doesn't that fact that you go to his military background over and over suggest that Clark doesn't have much to offer beyond that? That's enough for some people, but not others.

[FrenchieCat]

68. You can make your point....but why make this a personal attack?

Eisenhower warned against making Generals into Presidents

That statement is simply not true. Eisenhower warned against those who would enrich themselves and the military industrial complex, aka, warning against those Presidents too timid to draw a line on the power of the pentagon and the corporations that enrich themselves through war.

Negotiations call for diplomacy and certain skills that bridge across any specific matter. Whether legislative or matters of war and peace, the skills are basically the same. Again, you want to box in the General because you prefer someone else. Your arguments make a good read, but are substancially disingenious.

Matters of War and Peace are of great importance, and some might say of equal footing or greater footing than with other issues these days. You wanting to minimize General Clark's life accomplishments and yet aggrandize some senator's 20 year career is pretty cylophanic.

[Clarkie1]

85. You confuse "being a war hero" with being leader of NATO

They are quite different. As Supreme Allied Commander Clark was engaged with many world leaders at the conference and dinner table to a far greater extent than Kerry has ever been.

I'm not advocating running a "war hero" because they are a war hero. That was the problem we had with Kerry - being a war hero 30 years ago is not sufficient if one is labeled a democratic liberal. War hero 30 years ago didn't give Kerry the necessary gravitas or credentials in the post-9/11 world to overcome the labeling. You missed my point entirely.

The way to avoid making the same mistake again is to nominate a candidate who liberates us to play to our strengths. A nominee like Clark wouldn't have to spend hardly any time defending their national security/foreign policy credentials, so would be freed to focus on the very issues that are most important to you.

Not only that, such a candidate makes it more likely that liberal/progressive domestic policies will be implemented because the type of people that voted for Bush have a positive image of 4-star generals, and thus are more likely to listen to a reframing of the issues. The problem with Kerry is a lot of people didn't even listen to what he was saying because of the image they had of a flip-flopping Northeastern liberal democratic senator. The label ended the debate before it even started. That's why eventhough Kerry "won" all three debates he lost the election. He couldn't overcome the label.

What sort of connotation do you think words like "four-star general," "Supreme Allied Commander," and "first in class at Westpoint," have for a Reagan democrat? The first step to making our party the majority party...a clear majority party...is to get people to listen to our progressive message. That starts with the messenger.

[IntravenousDemilo]

61. He could probably do a better job of articulating a...

...populist economic vision than some rich ninny who doesn't understand the first thing about the economic situation of the majority of Americans who also make less than $50K per annum.

[Radical Activist]

65. You're right

Which is why I support someone from a lower income background like Clark, Edwards and Feingold. Don't forget that Clark is a very wealthy man today as well. I don't think we would do well with another new england elitist millionaire who was born into wealth like Kerry or Dean.

[Adelante]

6. Why'd you pick Warner? nt

[FrenchieCat]

29. You mean to pair with Clark?

Because two outsiders; A General and a Governor, both from Red States that could easily turn blue seemed like a good match.

[Adelante]

48. Okay, thanks

I have to study up on Warner, because I hadn't been thinking about him for a Clark VP. Maybe you're right, though. :hi:

Maybe between now and then, we can figure out the best ticket to win the GE, and not have that essential point lost in the primaries like last time.

[nickshepDEM]

7. Bayh/Richardson

Their populist campaign delivers all the Kerry states (minus NH) and they pick up Indiana, West Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico.

[Hippo_Tron]

13. Disagree

None of those states are by any means a lock (with the exception of New Mexico) neither are the close Kerry states such as Minnesota, Wisoncsin, and Michigan.

Bayh is not particularly populist and any way and they will use his money to paint him as an eliteist. Indiana is a VERY Republican state and will not necesarilly go for Bayh just because it is his home state. Ohio will always be a swing state with a GOP leaning once again and there's no reason that Bayh could do better there than Kerry. Nevada is the same as Ohio. As far as Iowa goes, I think that Kerry has more clout with organized labor than Bayh does, especially considering that he upset Dean in the Iowa caucuses. If Kerry couldn't take it I don't think that Bayh could.

West Virginia is a posssiblity but WV is a state that really any Democrat should win in.

[nickshepDEM]

20. The lean Republican states would be neutralized by Bayh.

You have to look no further than his 2004 re-election.

"Bayh’s Indiana base

Bayh is that he is a bona fide centrist Democrat, who is ideologically a moderate liberal populist. According to the CNN exit poll, in his senate race last fall, Bayh enjoyed the support of 35% of Indiana’s Republicans and 37% of her conservatives; thus, confirming that Bayh commands much bi-partisan and cross-ideological appeal. Bayh also commands overwhelming support from Indiana’s ideological moderates and independents. Being a successful Democrat in Indiana, proves his 'electibility'" -Democrat Hawk.

BTW, recent polls show that a majority of Iniana voters would like to see Bayh run for president and would seriously consider voting for him.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Some things to consider on Bayh's re-election

1) His opponent was a college professor with no personal money, raised very little money on his own, and had no help from the NRSC.

2) Bayh was a two term Governor. Senators who were Governors often have an easy time getting re-elected just as if they had been sitting in the Senate for several terms. George Voinovich of Ohio is a prefect example.

3) Bayh has his father's name recognition, another popular Governor and Senator from the state.

4) And here's where the shit really hits the fan. Bayh's opponent was black. Every bigot in Indiana voted a split Bush/Bayh ticket.

[nickshepDEM]

38. Some things to consider on your interpretation of Bayhs re-election...

1.) Bayh has been eleted 5 times in the state of Indiana (Secretary of State (once), Governor (twice), and Senator (twice)). It didnt matter who the GOP ran against Bayh. They were going to lose regardless and that is exactly why they ran a professor with no money and very little help (a straw man).

2.) Bayh was governor for 2 terms and received approval ratings as high as 86%. So its only logical that the state of Indiana would vote for him in a Senate race.

3.) Sure, his fathers name probably helped in his first 2 elections, but after that it was probably more of his own credentials that got him elected. By the way, Birch Bayh lost re-election to Dan Quayle. He couldnt have been that popular.

4.) See #1.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Oooh a good debate

Alright let's see...

1) You make a good point, Bayh has done well running for statewide office in Indiana, there is definately something to be said for that.

3) I believe that Dan Quayle was carried in on Raygun's coat-tails. True, that means that Birch Bayh was definately not a beloved figure, at least of the time of his re-election, but nonetheless people knew his father and having that name certainly can't hurt considering how few Democrats there are in Indiana.

Oh yea, I forgot to mention that Bayh has a ton of money in a personal fortune which certainly can't hurt his chances.

Here's the bottom line. Bayh may be able to, for many reasons, beat Republicans for statewide offices in Indiana. But if Bayh had been the Dem nominee for President this year, I don't think that there's a snowball's chance in hell that he would've beaten Bush in Indiana. There are simply too much religious conservatives who love Bush too much. Not to mention that they would've spent $200 million calling him an ultra-liberal just like they did to Kerry.

To a lesser extent I think that this goes for 2008. Frist, Santorum, or whoever else runs will play the guns, god, and gays card and there are enough religious conservatives in Indiana that it will work.

[nickshepDEM]

50. I will concede that Bayh is not a shew in to deliver Indiana,

but he would definitley make the GOP work one thousand times harder than they did against Kerry to win the state. The GOP will be forced to pull away alot of time and money from the normal battle ground states like Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, New Mexcio, etc. and focus it on a state that they normally right off as an automatic 11 EV's. I think Evan Bayh would have that affect on alot of states.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. I think that Indiana would certainly be in play

But I think that is about all that he brings to the table. Nobody outside of Indiana really knows who he is. This isn't really a problem per-se, as a moderate-conservative leaning Democrat should still have an advantage in red states. The problem is that you can bet that the GOP will spend $200 million on ads saying that Bayh votes like Ted Kennedy.

My real problem with Bayh is not his moderate/conservative leanings, but he seems like a complete lightweight. His only real accomplishment is winning in a red state and it's not like he's managed to sell any progressive ideals to the people of Indiana, he was elected as a moderate/conservative. In his senate career, I can't really think of any big things that he has really accomplished.

The other problem that I see with him is a problem common to a lot of senators. There's an old saying that all Senators want to be President. Bayh is pretty obviously considering a presidential bid as we speak. With this in mind, his votes for the next two-three years will be tailored completely to make himself look like a top presidential contender. The problem is that this can be used to make it look like he doesn't really stand for anything. Kerry was the very good example of this. Kerry focused too much on making himself electable in the two-three years leading up to his presidential run and really stopped fighting for the things that he championed earlier in his senate career.

[WI_DEM]

87. I agree with all your points except

the slap at Birch Bayh. Birch was running for his fourth term in a very conservative state and without downplaying his liberalism. He won three Senate terms as a liberal in a conservative state which must say something about his political appeal.

[nickshepDEM]

89. My goal wasnt to knock Birch Bayh.

I was trying to make the point that Evan isnt living off of his daddy's name anymore. If I offended anyone by those comments, Im sorry.

[faithfulcitizen]

22. Agree

Sorry, but Bayh's support in Indiana is STRONG and Kerry's was not, period. Clark, Lieberman, Edwards, & Gephart are Indiana-types, not Kerry. Ohio is similar to Indiana as well, just has more population centers and is therefore a swing. Bayh would do very well in Ohio and throughout the midwest in a way Kerry could not. Of course, I'd prefer Clark/Bayh, but I don't know if that's very likely. But I really think Bayh will be on the ticket, nevertheless.

[FrenchieCat]

30. I think that's a snooze ticket myself...

Lacking any charisma whatsoever. Bayh looks good in photos, but that's not enough.

[nickshepDEM]

32. I see it as a "buck stops here" ticket.

Sure, Bayhs lack of charisma would hurt him a little bit at the start, but its nothing a little coaching couldnt fix.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Well it's whatever works for you....

Just remember that whatever ticket we are left with has to beat the Pub ticket. That's something many tend to forget.

Unfortunately, I think that Richardson has more baggage on him than any of the other prospects.

Saw him today on Hardball, where he was saying that Bush was doing the "right thing" about Syria (WTF?).

Anyway, good luck. Repub lite certainly is always a possibility.

[Leilani]

8. Me too!

Why'd you pick Warner?

[Clarkie1]

9. FrenchieCat, with all due respect...

And I have a great deal of respect for your thoughtfulness, intellect, posts, and mutual support of Clark.

I have no idea what the issues will be in 2008, so much depends on events we probably have not even imagined.

I think the focus needs to be on doing what we can to help keep Clark's message and vision of a "full-service" democratic party alive in the media and within the democratic party for the foreseeable future. That's the only way we can win in a post-9/11 world.

The biggest national security issue is not terrorism; it's energy independence. That's about all I'm sure of regarding the future.

I don't know what the biggest issues on voters minds will be in 2008, but I hope they will be the most important ones.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Just thought that this poll might be interesting....

It pairs some Republicans that we haven't thought of together. Elizabeth Dole as VP on a ticket with either Hagel or McCain on top would be hard to beat. So it's not just a question of the Democratic tickets that I show, but look at the Repug pairings as well.

This is not serious....just a poll.

[judy from nj]

11. Clark/Warner

There will be two issues: 1) Bush's foreign policy will have made us a pariah in the world, and the next president will have to try and fix that, and 2) Bush will have wrecked the economy with huge and growing deficits, monopolistic powers for corporations, and unethical behavior in federal agencies like the FDA, FCC, etc.

[cestpaspossible]

12. I don't think any of those tickets are likely.

Of course, I don't understand the obsession on 2008, either... isn't there a special forum for that?

[FrenchieCat]

34. Do you mind?

Don't vote, and don't show up in the thread. It's not like I've ever done a presidential poll....so I think that we will survive this one. Kos has polls about 2008 up the yang yang. Why don't you go there and complaint.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Feingold/Clark BUT I could very much live with Clark/Feingold

I've explained on several occasions why I think that Russ Feingold would be a great candidate but I'll do some once again.

First off, Russ would get the base out to vote and out to do the grassroots organizing for him. We love him. We love his positions on almost everything, especially that he had the balls to vote against the USA Patriot Act. Arguably the only person who could've do a better job of this would be Paul Wellstone.

Secondly, Feingold has integrity and even Republicans admire for it. Everybody knows that he got elected and re-elected without PAC money and was the co-author of a succesful campaign finance reform bill.

Third, Feingold just won re-election to the Senate by 11 points in a state that Kerry won by less than half of a point. That means that there were thousands (perhaps a million?) Bush voters who also voted for Feingold.

Fourth, we get get the Jewish vote. And as far as bigots go, that might've been a concern 10 years ago but the GOP has succesfully rounded up the vote of every single bigot that they can.

As far as Clark goes, I think that he is our best shot (with the exception of Warner on the top of the ticket) to win some southern states.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Actually, I like a Clark/Feingold ticket....

a little more than a Clark/Warner ticket. But I don't know if, during a General election, Feingold would have as effective as he is when he's dealing strictly with Dems.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. I don't know what you mean, Feingold has to get elected from Wisconsin...

Which is a place where there are Democrats and Republicans. As I said above Feingold has proven that he can reach out to Republicans and Independents which is shown by his margin of victory compared to Kerry's margin of vicotry in Wisconsin. Not to mention that a VP candidate who can get the base out is a good thing as well.

BTW, I don't think that Warner brings much to the table as a VP candidate. As a presidential candidate he definately has potential in the red states but conservatives aren't going to vote for Clark/Warner because they like Warner.

Feingold gets out the base for Clark and gives him a big help in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa which have become ever-increasingly more red. With these states more safe, Clark can focus on the battlegrounds and create new battlegrounds in the south like Arkansas and Louisiana.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Like I said...In agreement with you, as I prefer that ticket anyhow...

But, I am looking at the repugs making Feingold out to be an ultraliberal....with "no" votes on just about anything dealing with War on terra and defense legislation over the years. However, if he was on the ticket with the General, it would be hard to distort his stance, that is true.

Guess it would depend on the Democratic war room rapid response, and the energized base (could be real energized with Clark and Feingold on the same ticket, to be sure. If we can fight back effectively and put the Pubs on the defensive, then Clark/Feingold could be a hell of a dangerous kick-ass ticket.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Oh I get what you mean, now

Here's my thoughts...

It doesn't matter if Barbara Boxer or Ben Nelson were running, Republicans would still portray them as an ultra liberal and they would still be very effective at it. My stance, if they're going to portray the candidate as an ultra-liberal we might as well have someobdy who is an ultra-liberal in the VP slot who can get out the base.

Feingold also has really more of a Progressive/Populist voting record than a liberal voting record, that can be very useful. He voted against almost every free trade agreement (something that Kerry certainly couldn't boast) and that's a big plus with almost everybody except big corporations. He voted against the Iraq War and opposed entering it and given how big a failure the war has turned out to be, that is definately starting to look like a plus. Not to mention that he authored the first successful campaign finance reform bill, which ispopular with everybody but the far right. Also, he actually has a few significant major votes that he has casted with the GOP. He voted YEA on Condi and was the deciding YEA vote to get Ashcroft out of the judiciary committee and on to the floor. He casted these out of principal. He also voted NAY on renewal of the assault weapons ban, it gets him in good with the farmers who are rightfully against national gun control. Gun control may be practical in urban areas but in rural areas there are legitimate reasons to own a gun.

The only two big ones against him are the Patriot Act and that he is pretty good on gay rights. Russ doesn't champion any federal law to legalize gay marriage or anything and says that it should be left up to the states. Like Kerry he voted NAY on DOMA and NAY on the FMA. But the big thing with Russ is that when he was aksed this question on Q and A on C-Span about a week ago, he didn't immediately respond with "Well first and foremost, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman" like almost every other politician does. He did mention that, that was what he was taught growing up but he said that basically it should be left up to the states and that society functions better when there are more loving families. Basically in not so many words, he isn't afraid to admit that he has no problem with two loving homosexuals getting married, which is something that the GOP will try to use against him.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, it could be a killer or it could help. The Patriot Act's support, like the Iraq war has definately startened to weaken since the Act was passed. There are definately a LOT more people who oppose many provisions in it now than there were when the vote we held. But here's where it could help. When you cast the lone vote against the anti-terrorism bill right after 9/11 that shows some serious BALLS. I think that people, especially Democrats, are really looking for somebody who has that.

[CatholicEdHead]

17. Need Kucinich/Fiengold up there

so no vote for me with the current options.

[Donna Zen]

18. The money crunch:

Mario Cuomo said that with bush's tax policies, it will become increasing difficult to elect a Dem. to the White House. Why? Because our best issues need funding. Without money, it will be very hard to advance a Dem agenda. Try running on a tax-roll back. One of the groups where Kerry lost votes that had gone to Gore in 2000 was with people making over $100,000, the point at which Kerry said he'd roll-back the bush fuzzy math.

Of course there is money hidden in the Pentagon pork. The question is, who can get it out without flipping the entire country into a red state? Bill Clinton had to appoint a republican to Defense just to have a sorta working relationship. Kerry was considering doing the same.

You want a populous agenda? One more time: only Nixon could go to China.

There are many reasons why I like Wes Clark, but even if I was only luke-warm, I would be realistic about what can be done about this country's messed up budget and priorities. Clark would have to govern--so would anyone else on this list--that means money for the issues the Dem. base cares about.

Clark/Warner

[JHBowden]

19. Warner/Bayh will win in 2008

I don't like Bayh either, but he will probably be on the ticket.

[nickshepDEM]

21. I like that ticket .

Warner/Bayh or Bayh/Warner...

[ZootSuitGringo]

44. Geeze Louise,

that is such a DINO weak fare! Yuk!

[dolstein]

72. Bayh won't be at the bottom of the ticket

It doesn't make any sense. Bayh wouldn't be able to move Indiana into the Democratic column as VP, and if Warner won, we'd lose Bayh's Senate seat.

[EST]

26. If those lazy appeasement muffins would get the lead out

and fix the damn problems with the elections, including taking a strong stance on the fraud that has already occured, any dem ticket would beat any thug ticket-going away.
My personal choice would be Boxer and Pelosi. Or Boxer and durn near anyone.

[woodleydem]

27. You forgot about Hillary

You can't have a 2008 Democratic poll without Hillary. If and when she announces that she will run, the media will give her 24/7 coverage, and trace her every move. Her fundraising prowess is unparelled and she will be awfully tough to beat in the primaries. I have my doubts about her ability to win nationally, although I don't buy the "she's too polarizing" argument. This country has never had any qualms about electing polarizing figures--just look at our last two presidents!! I would rather have a Warner/Bayh ticket, but a small part of me wants to see Hillary get elected because she is so hated by conservatives. Another Clinton in the White House would send many Republicans off the edge.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Since Hillary is in ALL of the polls

everywhere out there, I thought we'd look at the landscape without her. Feels good to me!

[borg5575]

46. But what about Boxer to head the ticket?

Why didn't you give us that choice?

I also don't understand all of this Clark support. As a general in the US military he was an obedient servant of the military industrial complex. How can we trust him after that?

[xkenx]

51. To have made that comment shows that

you have not learned much about Wes Clark's life. That is unfortunate.

[elsiesummers]

71. Clinton plus Edwards, Clark, Bayh, Richardson, Warner all seem likely

IMO these seem truely possible tickets. I'm not saying that these are tickets I would support in the primary.

Even Clinton/Breaux seems possible - would target Kerry states plus Louisian.

I think Clinton/Clark would run on national security - Kerry states plus Arkansas not enough - so electoral math could be a problem.

Clinton/Edwards - double star power - could run on the economy and Bill's economic record - would target the Carolinas and VA.

Clinton/Bayh - targets Kerry states plus Indiana.

Clinton/Richardson - a Latino on the ticket would help against Jeb.

Clinton/Warner - Targets Kerry states plus VA - pro/Business Democratic platform - emphasis on balanced budgets.

These all seem like possible tickets and this is why I posted them.

I have made none, zero, decisions about who to support for 2008 primaries.

[elshiva]

28. Kucinich! Where is Kucinich!

Everyone nowadays forgets the good ol' Kooch, cos there's nothing to flame about! Good ol' Kooch, doing his job as a great congressman and vegan and does not get talked about!

[FrenchieCat]

36. Sorry about Kucinich.

I was trying to be a bit realistic. OK?

[no name no slogan]

54. Oh, but Clark IS "realistic"?

What elective offices has he held?

How many major cities has he been mayor of?

How many well-funded Republican incumbents has he defeated?

How much taxpayer $$$ has he saved by fighting against big business?

Name on piece of legislation has Clark sponsored?

How many truly visionary policies has he come up with?

Who paid of his ENTIRE '04 campaign debt by last Noveber, with all-volunteer contributions?

Who has consistently stood up for the people throughout his ENTIRE political career? And if you want to get cheap, who HAS NOT supported Reagan/Bush and made fundraising appearances for Repubs?

And even better yet, who stood up for his issues and supporters until the very end, and had more delegates to last year's DNC in Boston?

:eyes:

Your cheap shots at Kucinich (yes, THAT is how it's spelled) just shows how little you actually know about him and his record. And it also gains you no new 'converts' to Clark 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

64. Clark was the only candidate who won a state other than his home state,

apart from John kerry...and done DESPITE the fact that Clark was smeared and ignored by the right the extreme left....and yet he still managed to outdo Edwards (no.2) until he was so silenced that many didn't know he was still running.

Is there a rule that says that one must have held elected office prior to running for President? I didn't think so. If so, then the rules must have changed since Eisenhower ran in 1952....in what was, by the way, the last open dual primaries Presidential election (no incumbents running) held until this upcoming 2008 election.

Kucinich is not "God", just like Clark isn't. You can be sensitive if it suits you. I don't have a problem with that at all. You think Kucinich winning the presidency is a reality, and I don't. I think that Clark winning the presidency is a reality, and you obviously don't. Think we can agree to disagree on those two points.

Plus, as a person of color, and as a woman, there are certain stances that Kucinich has taken in the recent past that I didn't care for at all. In those times, he certainly wasn't standing up for m e. You may like him, and that's great....But I am not you.

Presidents are not legislators; they make policy, and use the bully pulpit and negotiation skills to push legislation, which is not the same thing.

Who paid of his ENTIRE '04 campaign debt by last Noveber, with all-volunteer contributions? Who did that? Clark paid off his campaign debts prior to November 2004....so what's the point there?

[no name no slogan]

70. Hey, I'm not the one starting all the fscking Kucinich threads

So please don't accuse me of repeating the "Kucinich is God" mantra. In fact, I sure as hell don't see Kucitizens posting new polls and threads every day about Kucinich.

Oh, and despite your rantings Clark DIDN'T win any states-- that's a fact for the recordbooks. Nor did he bring any delegates to the convention.

Is there a rule that says that one must have held elected office prior to running for President? I didn't think so. If so, then the rules must have changed since Eisenhower ran in 1952....in what was, by the way, the last open dual primaries Presidential election (no incumbents running) held until this upcoming 2008 election.

Read your history. Generals make lousy presidents. But if you think Eisenhower and US Grant are good presidents, that's your opinion.

Plus, as a person of color, and as a woman, there are certain stances that Kucinich has taken in the recent past that I didn't care for at all. In those times, he certainly wasn't standing up for m e. You may like him, and that's great....But I am not you.

Hey, I never asked you to agree with him. So, he didn't always vote the NARAL party line before 2001. General Clark used to support Republicans, and was in charge of a military operation that committed warcrimes against Serbian civilians (Geneva Conventions? WE don't need no steenking GENEVA CONVENTIONS). Hey, I didn't agree with stance on the war, either, but I never said his election was "unrealistic". Everybody candidate has their plusses and minuses.

And for the love of Allah, already, spare me the whining about Clark's treatment by the 'big bad media'. Clark got PLENTY of coverage, especially considering he didn't even HAVE a platform until he officially entered the race. Just more proof that the media is shallow and vapid, when it can hype a political neophyte with no platform into a possible presdential contender.

Kucinich, OTOH, was systematically IGNORED by the major media. Don't believe me? Go investigate it yourself. Here's a good place to start.

And BTW, Kucinich financed his campaign almost entirely with INDIVIDUAL contributions. In fact, his largest single contributor was a union who donated approx. $12,000. The transparency of his fundraising puts everybody else's to shame.

Presidents are not legislators; they make policy, and use the bully pulpit and negotiation skills to push legislation, which is not the same thing.

Um, maybe you've heard of Cleveland, OH? It's one of the largest cities in the nation? FYI, Kucinich was elected mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31, much to the chagrine of the powers-that-be. In fact, he lost his job because he refused to sell the municipally-owned power company to a big corporate utility-- an act which has saved the people of Cleveland hundreds of millions of dollars, to date. In fact, it was this same corporate utility who caused the summer blackout of 2003 in the NE US.

And BTW, even if you're the executive, you STILL have to be able to work with the legislative branch. Look at Jimmy Carter-- an excellent governor of Georgia who couldn't get ANYTHING through Congress, even though both houses were solidly Dem. Look at Clinton-- he barely got any progressive legislation through Congress, either.

The President is NOT a General. Congress is NOT his lapdog. Government involves compromise. The last four years of mismanagement illustrates that point.


Despite what you and some of the rabid Kool-Aid drinkers on every side say, Clark has as much chance in 2008 as anybody-- including Kucinich. The election is STILL 44 months away, and a lot can change in that time.

I would not count anybody out if I were you-- nor would I take to calling potential candidates "unrealistic" choices, either.

[FrenchieCat]

75. Is that dandruff that I see up, or whaaaa?

I don't need to rant, but thank you for suggesting that I could, if required.

Your mentioning that my poll not including Kucinich wouldn't win any Kucinich fan? and, what's new?

You said...Oh, and despite your rantings Clark DIDN'T win any states-- that's a fact for the recordbooks.

What are you smoking? Your recordbooks along with your history books need to be audited quick! Clark gave his delegates to John Kerry, cause he knew how to face reality.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/candidates/1771/
January 27, 2004:
3rd in New Hampshire - Presidential Primary
John Kerry, 39%; Howard Dean, 26%; Wesley Clark, 12%; John Edwards, 12%; Joe Lieberman, 9%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%; Al Sharpton, 0%

February 3, 2004:
2nd in Arizona - Presidential Primary
John Kerry, 43%; Wesley Clark, 27%; Howard Dean, 14%; John Edwards, 7%; Joe Lieberman, 7%; Dennis Kucinich, 2%; Al Sharpton, 0%

4th in Delaware - Presidential Primary John Kerry 50% John Edwards, 11%; Joe Lieberman, 11%; Howard Dean, 10%; Wesley Clark, 10%; Al Sharpton, 6%; Dennis Kucinich, 1%

2nd in New Mexico - Presidential Caucuses John Kerry, 43%; Wesley Clark, 27%; Howard Dean, 14%; John Edwards, 7%; Dennis Kucinich, 5%; Joe Lieberman, 3%; Al Sharpton, 0%

2nd in North Dakota - Presidential Caucuses John Kerry, 51%; Wesley Clark, 24%; Howard Dean, 12%; John Edwards, 10%; Dennis Kucinich, 3%; Joe Lieberman, 1%; Al Sharpton, 0%

1st in Oklahoma - Presidential Primary Wesley Clark, 30%; John Edwards, 30%; John Kerry, 27%; Joe Lieberman, 7%; Howard Dean, 4%;Dennis Kucinich, 1%; Al Sharpton, 1%

in reference to this comment of yours: The President is NOT a General. Congress is NOT his lapdog. Government involves compromise. The last four years of mismanagement illustrates that point.
I would call this a rant. I didn't say that the President is a General? Again, what are you smoking that would get you so excited and have you responding to points that I did not make?

Again, sorry to have slighted Kucinich, considering the backlash! (although in observing the percentages he won in the races as above noted, I'd say maybe it's Kucinich that didn't win any states. Isn't that right?)

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

82. Low? Clark doesn't have a chance, good man or not.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but he didn't win before, he won't in the future. That has nothing to do with my "little teeny heart" or its happiness. It's just a recognition of reality, just as I recognize that my guy in the primaries never would win in this political climate.

If reality offends you...I don't know what to say, except to wish you well and go about my day.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Clark/Warner

Okay, lemme try to dust off the crystal ball. Mine's always a liddle cloudy, but maybe if I move over here where there's more light .... 'kay ... dat's better .......

So ..... issues in '08:

Crystal ball seeeeez ..... six of 'em .........

1. The economy. Great Leader Chimpus Khan's Ponzi scheme will start to become clear to even the most ineffective checkbook balancer among us. We'll have a Dem base that is screaming for a change in our fiscal direction and in the programs that were unfunded by the current cabal. Even the fiscal conservatives and moderate Repubs will be up in arms over the deficit. There'll be lots of demands for money. That money, in any significant quantity resides in a five sided building in Arlington, VA. Only one of the candidates has the creds and the keys to go after it. Wesley K. Clark.

2. Fambly Vay-yoos. Yup, they'll still be there. The whackos on the far right have been given some real hope and won't shut up. They're lost. But the echo chamber will still be heard by the less passionate on this issue .... those who want better teevee and better "morals" and all of that, but aren't cultish about it. I'm admittedly not completely familiar with the personal stories of each of the people you listed in your poll, but it seems to me, again, one person stands out. Again, for me, that The General.

3. Social Justice. After eight years of a megafuck by the right, the populace will be close to the torch and pitchfork state. Several candidates could be strong in this area. Among them: Gore, Kerry, Clark, Feingold, Boxer, Edwards. Maybe Warner, maybe Landrieu, maybe Bayh, maybe Richardson.

4. The War in Iraq(tm). I sense it may be even hotter by then than it is now. Someone has to come up with an exit strategy, and has to come up with one right now. I see, once again, only one candidate that has the combination of military and (international) political skill to pull one out of their hat. You guessed it. Wes Clark.

5. The (larger) War on Terror(tm). This one's real. But, unless there's another 9/11 (I think that is doubtful. The last one was a lucky shot ... not that they're not trying to do another one, but I don't think they'll make it ... unless they're invited in :tinfoilhat: ). The best defense is a strong national program with real border protection **and** strong **international** cooperation. Guess who? Clark. Now, if we *do* get another attack, this issue rises to the top of the heap. And **we** win. They've blown all their bluster on being "strong on defense" and "resolute" ... "dead or alive" ... all that shit. But if it happens again, that flushing sound will be their credibility going down the national toilet. Clark or Gore get the nod if this happens. Clark for experience. Gore for prescience.

6. Which brings me to the final uberissue we'll face, our international reputation and our international relations. Several could do the job here. McCain, Hagel, Kerry, Gore, and Clark all come to mind.

Now, why do I say Warner as veep yet not include him (escept once) in my analysis above? Because he has little national name recognition and little in the way of specific experience on some of these issues (like defense and national security). But he's a strong and popular Democrat in a red state. He's next door to my state, so we hear a good deal about and from him here. I think he's a good guy and can come on strong in a national campaign. I'm hoping he sits out the primaries and works behind the scenes to get his name out to any and all candidates as a possible veep choice. If he gets the veep nod, he will, at the very worst, do no harm (he's campaigned, he's an experienced politician, and he's a grownup). As an expectation however, he'd help any one of the Dems in the red states. He won Virginia in the same way Dr. Dean says we can win the red states ........ he showed up. In the southwestern panhandle of Virginia, for example, where no one of either party *ever* shows up. He won those (probably inherently red) counties handily.

Okay, the crystal ball's cloudin' over again. I'm outta here .....

[FrenchieCat]

43. Thank you...

You answered the poll in the exact manner I requested. I like your analysis. Makes sense to me!

[AntiCoup2K4]

45. Gore/Clark

[NoPasaran]

52. Who's that "Fritz" character

You've got paired with Jeb?

[txaslftist]

53. Clark/Feingold nt.

[John_H]

55. Clark/Hillary beats Giuliani/Owens but if its

Powell/Frist we're in trouble.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. But what happens with New York if it's Giuliani/Owens?

New York is the third biggest electoral prize in the country and is a solid blue state. If we have to even spend money on this state, however, we are at a serious loss because TV time costs a shitload in New York.

[leyton]

58. Gore / Warner

Mainly because they'd make a number of Southern states competitive (hopefully including my own!) and because Gore would not pull any punches the second time around.

Also I'd say an Edwards ticket. Edwards is probably better at presenting a vision than Gore, but he has less experience campaigning (and in government).

[BamaLefty]

83. No, NC Would Still Be Red

Why do we continue to fret over our trouble in the south? I never hear Republicans crying about how the stink it up in the northeast and pacific coasts?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

66. Clark/Boxer '08.

I'll be damned if I put two southerners on the ticket just because those stubborn assholes won't vote for anything that wasn't bred in a slave state.

[Dems4HowardDean]

78. Hillary/Clark

You should include hillary..

[HootieMcBoob]

79. I chose Clark/Warner but...

I would rather Clark/Richardson

[independentchristian]

81. Neither

Edwards and someone other than John "sold out" Warner.

[ArnoldLayne]

86. I really believe Evan Bayh/Warner or Richardson

would be a good ticket in 2008 to beat Frist or Santorum. I wish they were more to the left but the reality is most Americans are moderate. Even guys I work with Wheeling-Pittsburg Steel in Eastern Ohio USWA 1223 are middle of the road Democrats and surprising some are even moderate Republicans. :kick:

[WI_DEM]

88. I'm warming up to Evan Bayh

His votes this session of congress have been good, his overall record while not as liberal as a Kennedy or a Feingold is still pretty good and he is the only one on the list who has proved he can be consistently elected in a "RED" state. I think that Warner might make a good VP nominee if he doesn't run for the Senate, though I hope he does run for the senate. I also wouldn't be opposed to Richardson or Clark as a possible VP candidate.