I can't think of one senator I'd be confident in running for '08

[fujiyama]

There are a few good senators. I think Feingold would be an interesting choice (but I could easilly see some problems with a lengthy vote record). Boxer is the greatest, but she wouldn't stand a chance in a GE.

These last few days I've seen some really bad choices tossed around - Hillary (she's not the nominee yet regardless of what we've been told), Blanche Lincoln (wtf?), Landreiu (she likely has the worst record among Dems in the senate along with the Nelsons), Bayh (boooring), Biden (hahaha not even worth commenting).

This really isn't just about ideaology. I'm dead set against what the DLC policy makers are forcing down our throats (especially with From and Marshall's recent paper), but at the same time I understand that the DLC itself is a diverse organization with different senators (Kerry is quite liberal, even though he's part of the DLC though he's had his chance already). If there was a decent DLC candidate that didn't repeat From and Marshall's talking points I could live with that.

Let's start looking at some of those red state governors the party has. I understand some of these possible candidate may be a bit moderate (for my taste as well), but I don't feel the same sense of doom, I feel with those I mentioned above.

One in particular is popular in his state and actually has some real accomplishments (Warner of VA). Wes Clark is another candidate that has showed competance. So how are the governors of KY and TN? Aren't they Dems? What about the Kansas governor? How's she doing? What about Napalitano of AZ?

I just want to widen the net. I think we're looking too closely at the senate, especially at a time when many senate Dems have little to offer in a GE.

[JaneQPublic]

1. Sitting senators rarely win the presidency.

In the past 100 years, only JFK and Warren G. Harding went straight from the Senate to the White House.

Perhaps it's the paper trail of votes that can all too easily be used against them.

So I agree, it's wiser to look to governors, ex-VPs, generals, etc. as our presidential candidates.

[safi0]

17. There were the

Only Senators in the past 100 years to not run against an incumbent. Which is what will happen in 2008

[FrenchieCat]

23. The last time there was an open field....

in 1952, a General Won.

JFK, a senator, beat Nixon, who was a VP incumbent vying for the Presidency.

So the 2008 race will be like closer to 1952....than to 1960.
Also, in 1952, we were in a war (Korea).....in 1960, we weren't.

Governors can be good, a la 1992....however, a 1992 climate will not be what we will be facing in 2008.

Warner doesn't strike me as a forceful leader, which may be what will be required to win the war against our democracy, and clean up the International mess (that has effected our budget and our domestic policies)in 2008. Hell, I don't even know Warner's stance on Iraq.....hell, I don't even know if he knows his stance on Iraq. What I do know is that a Governor, untested in Foreign policies is what we got in 2000....and lookit what happened!

Warner may appear Clintonesque on paper (although Clinton was more than a one term governor and much more charismatic)....but 2008 won't be a Clintonesque election....cause the issues won't be "it's the economy stupid"...it will be, "it's the whole fucking enchilata and facism vs. democracy".

[LiberalFighter]

32. Senators that became Presidents

It takes more than being just a Senator.

Below is from an earlier post of mine. For a clearer picture of the Presidents past political experience go to this link.

James Monroe
1783-1786 Continental Congress Member
1790-1794 Senator
1794-1796 Minister to France
1799-1802 Governor of Virginia
1803-1807 Minister to France and England
1811-1817 Secretary of State
1814-1815 Secretary of War
1817-1825 President
-----------------------------------------------------

John Quincy Adams
1794-1794 Minister to the Netherlands
1797-1801 Minister to Prussia
1803-1808 Senator
1809-1811 Minister to Russia
1814-1814 Peace Commissioner at Treaty of Ghent
1817-1825 Secretary of State
1825-1829 President
1831-1848 Representative
-----------------------------------------------------

Andrew Jackson
1796-1797 Representative
1797-1798 Senator
1798-1804 Justice on Tennessee Supreme Court
1812-1821 War of 1812 / Battle of New Orleans
1821-1821 Governor of Florida Territory
1823-1825 Senator
1829-1837 President
-----------------------------------------------------

Martin Van Buren
1821-1829 Senator
1829-1829 Governor New York
1829-1831 Secretary of State
1831-1831 Minister to England
1833-1837 Vice President
1837-1841 President
-----------------------------------------------------

William Henry Harrison
1798-1798 Secretary of Northwest Territory
1799-1801 Territorial Delegate to Congress
1801-1813 Territorial Governor of Indiana
1813-1814 Brigadier General US Army, Commander in Northwest
1816-1819 Ohio Congressman
1819-1821 Ohio Senate
1825-1828 Senator
1828-1829 Minister to Colombia
1841-1841 President
-----------------------------------------------------

John Tyler
1811-1816 Virginia House of Delegates Member
1816-1821 US Representative
1823-1825 Virginia State Legislator
1825-1826 Governor of Virginia
1827-1836 Senator
1841-1841 Vice President
1841-1845 President (Never Elected)
1861-1862 Confederate States Congress Member
-----------------------------------------------------

Franklin Pierce
1829-1833 New Hampshire Legislature
1833-1837 US Representative
1837-1842 Senator
1847- Brigadier-General Mexican War
1853-1857 President
-----------------------------------------------------

James Buchanan
1815-1816 Pennsylvania House of Representatives Member
1821-1831 US Representative
1832-1834 Minister to Russia
1834-1845 Senator
1845-1849 Secretary of State
1853-1856 Minister to England
1857-1861 President
-----------------------------------------------------

Andrew Johnson
1830-1833 Alderman of Greeneville, Tennessee
1834-1834 Mayor of Greeneville, Tennessee
1835-1843 Tennessee State Legislature
1843-1853 US Representative
1853-1857 Governor of Tennessee
1857-1862 Senator
1862-1865 Military Governor of Tennessee
1865-1865 Vice President
1865-1869 President
1875-1875 Senator
-----------------------------------------------------

Benjamin Harrison
1861-1865 70th Indiana Infantry Colonel, Brevet rank of Bridadier Colonel
1881-1887 Senator
1889-1893 President
-----------------------------------------------------

Warren G. Harding
1900-1904 Ohio State Senate
1904-1906 Lt Governor of Ohio
1915-1921 Senator
1921-1923 President
-----------------------------------------------------

Harry S. Truman
1922-1924 Jackson County Court Judge
1926-1934 Jackson County Court Presiding Judge
1935-1945 Senator
1945-1945 Vice President
1945-1953 President
-----------------------------------------------------

John F. Kennedy
1941-1945 Navy PT-109 Commander
1947-1953 US Representative
1953-1960 Senator
1961-1963 President
-----------------------------------------------------

Lyndon B. Johnson
1931-1937 Congressional Secretary
1937-1949 US Representative
1949-1961 Senator
1961-1963 Vice President
1963-1969 President
-----------------------------------------------------

Richard M. Nixon
1947-1951 US Representative
1951-1953 Senator
1953-1961 Vice President
1969-1974 President

[w13rd0]

2. Have to agree with you...

...a senator would be an unwise choice (again)...

And the GOP may very well foist one of their senators up in the GE. Oh, and Napalitano can't run, I think she's foreign born or something.

[Wetzelbill]

6. Napolitano is from the U.S., Jennifer Granholm of Michigan is from ....

Canada originally. Well, she was born there anyway.

[Totally Committed]

3. If we are talking SENATORS....

Barbara Boxer is the only one with moxie, heart, and soul. But, she has been rendered the political equivalent of plutonium by virtue of her Leftish stand on the issues, her unwillingness to back down, and her sex. This country is not ready to elect a woman as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. Sorry, it is not. I had hoped to see a woman POTUS in my lifetime, but alas, it will not be. (This applies to all females. Even Senators from northern states who used to be married to a President.)

Wes Clark is the candidate I plan to support, should he run. He is an amazing person. Strong, intelligent, articulate, compassionate, Patriotic, but according to some blog on BullMoose yesterday, he's now considered too "dove-ish", too "antiwar" by some??? I'll take that! Who wants another President out to take on the rest of the world one country at a time? It is the military man in Wes that hates war as much as he does. I think it makes him an ideal candidate. I pray he decides to run.

[Ishoutandscream2]

24. Absolutely. A so called Washington insider

doesn't have a chance. Clark is the perfect candidate. No one can bring up his voting record, and it doesn't hurt to be former military.

[Wetzelbill]

4. Oh I so wish Brian Schweitzer would run....

but he's only in his first year as MT governor.

I wouldn't mind seeing John Edwards get in there. He doesn't have a long voting record either.

Napolitano is a good woman, but she'd never appeal to enough people probably in a primary or GE.

Wes Clark is still an interesting choice.

Joe Wilson would be nice but he'd never run. :)

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. I would like to second the nomination of Gov. Brian Schweitzer

here is a link to the Draft Brian Schweitzer petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/DraftSchweitzer2008/

here is a link to a yahoo news article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_us/montana_governor

"Montana Gov. Mentioned As 2008 Contender By BOB ANEZ, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jul 20, 2:59 PM ET

HELENA, Mont. - Gov. Brian Schweitzer sits in his Capitol office, scanning a recent Roll Call article in which pundits float his name as a possible presidential contender. They say the "rancher-politician from Big Sky Country" might be the Democrats' "best shot to take back the White House." Schweitzer tosses the article aside. "These people are kooky," he says.


Schweitzer, in office barely 200 days, has drawn unusual attention for the new chief executive of a state usually on the sidelines when it comes to national politics.

His victory as a Democrat in a historically Republican stronghold helped bring him to the attention of Democratic Party leaders. Smarting from their losses in 2004, the Democrats have been looking to successful candidates in typically "red" states, hoping to find a winning strategy."

[Wetzelbill]

10. hey you're in Saudi Arabia

what's it like there and what do you do if you don't mind me asking?

Funny, Brian Schweitzer worked their for many years. He was an agronomist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. as a respiratory therapist--feel free to write-I'll try to answer more

[Horse with no Name]

20. Did you work at Baylor in Dallas?

I know some RT's that went back to Saudi with the sheik when he was released from the hospital.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. sorry, it was not me

[Clark2008]

19. "These people are kooky."

:rofl:

That just struck me funny. :7

[election_2004]

26. By the beginning of 2007....

Schweitzer will have been governor for barely two years, by the time candidates begin announcing for 2008.

I could see Schweitzer in the White House someday, but not 2008. He needs two terms as Governor of Montana under his belt first.

[election_2004]

27. In defense of Lincoln....

Dupe

[fujiyama]

29. Schweitzer is great - forgot to mention him

but I'm not so sure he'd be interested in running with less than one complete term.

Either way, whatever I've read about him I like.

[Island Blue]

5. Just remember,

a red state governor has gotten us into the huge mess we are in now. Granted he was a Repuke state governor, but a governor none-the-less. We are going to need someone with experience and knowledge of how Washington works to help us get out of the mess I'm afraid.

I know folks often like the idea a a governor becoming president, but how many examples of that turning out really well do we actually have? In modern history, Carter (bless his heart) was not a very effective President and Reagan and Bush II just make me shudder. You could say Clinton held his own, but I think the world has become a whole hell of a lot more complicated in the 4+ years since he occupied the WH (thanks to its current resident).

I think we should be looking for the person who can do the job most effectively. Period. Whoever it is, he or she is going to have to make a lot of very difficult decisions that will surely piss a lot of people off. There is a big mess in Washington right now, and we better be damn sure the next President is up to the task of cleaning it up! Maybe for now we should drop the labels and start looking at the person.

[Wetzelbill]

7. oh gosh probably the exact opposite

we need somebody who isn't from Washington. Clinton virtually cleaned up everything despite getting hammered on for 8 years. That Bush ruined it is no knock on him. If anything somebody from Washington would be the least effective at the job. They are all partly responsible for us being in this mess to begin with. Name one Senator that you would have full confidence in cleaning up all of this stuff? One that can get elected anyway. I can't really say I have faith in anyway inside the beltway Senator to get the job done.

[MH1]

13. Clinton "virtually cleaned up everything"?

'splain, please.

Haiti?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1159809,00.html

NAFTA?

Welfare "reform"?

Fucking personal stupidity and self-indulgence that gave the repukes an angle to attack him and cripple Gore's campaign? (the media did much more to hurt Gore, but Clinton started him out with an albatross).

Just for starters, cause I'm too lazy to look up all the rest.

Hey, I'm a pragmatist, and Clinton was a damn sight better than any repuke alternative. But methinks you laud him a little too highly.

[Wetzelbill]

15. oh he had a lot of flaws

No doubt, but he cleaned up our deficit and so on. His big problem is he was too much like a Republican sometimes. But if you think any Senator who has a chance at getting elected would do much better than go ahead and find one. I can't think of one. If you think being a Washington Insider for years somehow makes somebody a better candidate than a Governor then feel free to vote for Joe Biden or Max Baucus or somebody of that caliber then.

[fujiyama]

37. I agree we should look for whomever can do the best job

but that's the exact reason why I'm not impressed with the current senators that are presidential hopefuls.

The names I see are Bayh, Biden, and Hillary and none of them have much to show in the way of accomplishments (though I'm unfamiliar with Bayh's tenure as governor). Their senate records are the usual mushy middle showing mostly a tendancy to pander to one group or the other (usually being a corporate interest of some sort).

[election_2004]

38. I agree about Biden and Hillary....

Bayh at least has gubernatorial experience, and that is significant.

Ideologically, he's a little too conservative for my taste, though. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't make a productive president.

I'm not concerned about a candidate being "mushy middle" if they have a grain of sincerity to their name (and Bayh seems to)...I'm more worried about what would happen to Bayh's U.S. Senate seat if he was elected to the White House.

[MadisonProgressive]

8. Robert Redford

[Jack Bone]

12. what about Kucinich?

He's got 1 round of Dem. Primaries under his belt..and alot of name recognition w/ the delegates...we shouldn't 4get about him..

[Lone_Wolf]

14. I agree with you post 100%... We need to think outside the box.

The DLC's pro-corporate stance my raise them lots of corporate cash, but we get stuck with many pro-corporate policies that hurt the avergae working person.

Quite frankly, I don't trust many governors either who often are tied with business interests in their own state. People throw out Wes Clark's name quite a bit, but I just can't bring myself to support someone who endorses the use of cluster bombs. His corporate ties also bother me.

When there aren't very many fish left in the barrel, then maybe it's time to find another barrel. Michael Moore has suggested us taking a look at celebrities. I think Michael Douglas could pull it off. He's got the name recognition, he seems to have a good grasp of the issues, is articulate, and comes across as being "Presidential."

[FrenchieCat]

25. PLU-EAZE....

Cluster bombs my ass! Clark was a general fighting a war to prevent genocide.

Please provide your link where Clark supports Cluster bombs. Then please provide links where Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, et al do not.

Then Provide the Corporate ties that Clark has.

IF you're gonna poo-poo somebody based on what you say, at least provide the back up.

In speaking of Michael Moore, he supported Wes Clark during the '04 primaries. So you want us to follow MM's advise on celebrities, but not follow is actions of endorsing Clark?

Go figure! :shrug:

[Lone_Wolf]

40. Clark admitted he used cluster bombs...

Below is the link where Clark says he used cluster bombs. Before you overreact again, show me where I said (outside of your imagination) that Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry did not support the use of cluster bombs. If I didn't say that then let's please just stick to reality.
Secondly, it is possible to like Moore's idea of using a celebrity without being thrilled in his choice of candidate as they are two different things. I am aware of the fact that simpler minds might not be able to distinguish the two as being separate. Go figure!

Here's a transcript from Democracy Now! about Gen. Clark's use of cluster bombs on civilian infrastructure.

Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! correspondent speaking from Concord, New Hampshire.

Since the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark has not answered any in-depth questions about his targeting of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia, his bombing of Radio Television Serbia, the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium, the speeding-up of the cockpit video of a bombing of a passenger train to make it appear as though it was an accident and other decisions he made and orders he gave as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander.

This weekend, we had a chance to ask Clark some questions he has never faced before. After a rally where Clark was filming a TV commercial for his campaign, Jeremy and I made our way to the stage. As we attempted to question General Clark, we were told by his press people that he would not be taking questions from reporters. As he was heading backstage, Jeremy approached Clark.

* Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill.

JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted uranium...

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure did.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

[CarolNYC]

42. Hey, thanks for the democracy now link....

...That is a great interview. Jeremy asked some tough questions and Gen Clark shook off some "handlers" to make sure he took time to answer them. I suggest people go and watch the video rather than just read the transcript. I know at least a couple of people who came to respect and eventually support Clark because of the way he conducted this interview.

But I'm not sure his admitting he used cluster bombs should be considered his endorsing their use....Do you have a link where he actually endorses their use?

Hey, I have to tell you, it was hard for me to come to terms with supporting a lifelong military man at first...but then I dug deeper and the more I saw, the more I liked...Are there still some things I don't totally agree with him on or wish he'd take a slightly different stance on? Sure....But I've learned to see things from more than one side and I don't think that's a bad thing.

And, after learning as much as I could about the guy and meeting him numerous times, I have as high a respect for him as for anyone I've ever known in my life....for whatever that's worth.

[fujiyama]

33. Michael Moore is a great filmmaker

but I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to recruit actors for president.

Michael Douglas is a cool actor, but seriously, even Reagan used a lower office as a stepping stone (he was governor for a while). If an actor is interested in politics, all the power to them, but they should probably run for another office first.

Seriously speaking, that really only leaves governors, senators, and house reps - basically politicians. Also, it's inevitable that many politicians have some relationship with business. THat's the nature of power. Those with it tend to associate with others that have it. The important thing is that the politician is able to disagree with the corporate agenda when it matters.

[seabeyond]

16. i can think of a lot of senators and representitives i would have

confidence in. i could bring out a long list. our people are smart, and oh, 90% more honest and trustworthy than bushcos.

i dont have the knee jerk problems with our dems many do. i dont have to agree with their decisions 100%. they dont have to follow exactly what i want for the nation. i can look at them as a whole. since paying close attention the last handful of months to our democrats, i personally am impressed with our people. i would be happy to get any but liderman and a few others in there.

and they dont have to be charismatic, and show boaty, and i dont have to sit and have a beer with them, nor do they have to be a friend

[Pithy Cherub]

18. Political succession planning has changed for the 21st Century.

Political ambition has not.

The legislators that have a strong ideology are those that have the strongest base or constituency on both sides of the aisle now. Many view congressional legislative experience as a (the singular) stepping stone to the White House. Legislating is all about compromising but leading is all about being authentic and credible. Power to those that "triangulates" compromise the best or cut outrageous Faustian bargains are clearly from the 20th century. That type of experience no longer fires the passions of the people. The current legislators didn't get the memo because they rely heavily and sometimes exclusively on mainstream media so are trapped in a race to the bottom.

What's really changing is the American public. Polls show a gravity propelled declining regard for mainstream media and politicians. Senators who use the traditional model and carefully hone their image and votes for purposes of being president are finding ever so slowly, that it is no longer enough. You have to passionately stand for something and be willing to fight like David against Goliath to win hearts and minds in the 21st century.

The advent of new communication to a wide audience that is not corporate controlled is causing a jolting 8.0 earthquake that politicians are sleeping through. The use of the word passion(Bayh cracked me up saying it on C-SPAN at the DLC meeting) is no longer enough. Do politicians live it, breathe it display it more on behalf of the people or on behalf of corporations? That is what the potical calculus will be about not whether you hail from the cesspool of congressional compromise.

The internet is changing the political succession planning because no legislator is in charge of it, the people are.

[wli]

22. the net is not being ignored at all

The neofascists are incrementally censoring it all the time, and sponsoring regular raids on whoever bothers them.

[election_2004]

28. In defense of Lincoln.....

...some of her votes have been disappointing to those of us who would like to see her run, but it's not just about voting record.

And name one Governor or "outsider" who has a perfect or near-perfect record.

Lincoln would have MASS APPEAL with a broadest array of constituencies.

She's certainly not the only Democrat who could win, but right now, she's my favorite prospect.

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Feingold is my U.S. Senator, and back in 2003, he personally saved me from suicide. So I have a lotta political love for Russ. But realistically, he would be much better as the vice-presidential pick (for a number of different presidential candidates).

[fujiyama]

30. Thanks for the info...

BTW, I wanted to apologize for my tone in the other thread. It's still early and you're just giving info on a candidate you like. I may disagree but it was unecessary to be so dismissive. I've just been frustrated that so many senators (that too many with poor constituencies like Lincoln and Landreui) have voted for so much of Bush's agenda.

[election_2004]

31. It's frustrating...

I apologize ahead of time for this being long-winded, but I want to clearly articulate myself for your own reference and for the interest of anyone who happens to be reading this.

It frustrates me too, for the same kind of reason you cited in your last sentence...because I don't agree with Blanche's votes on every piece of legislation...but if you want a candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time, the only way to achieve that is to run yourself. Which I can never do, because there's no way the public would elect a gay polytheist to public office. :P

But people tend to overlook what an asset Blanche would be to the rural and Middle American outreach as part of the "50-state strategy" on a national ticket. However, most Talking Heads won't even CONSIDER her in the first place, because the MSM is so obsessively focused on rehashing HRC's and Al Gore's namesakes (and, to a lesser extent, Kerry's and Edwards's). It's just so transparent, and getting worse, it makes me completely sick and ashamed.

I dread the prospect of any of these candidates running again. A Hillary Clinton nomination would lead to an unprecedented GOTV mobilization from the Far Right, and she would all but guarantee GOP net gains in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House (meaning even if she became president, the Democrats in the red states would be screwed). I want to pull my hair out that so few Democrats seem to realize this.

An Al Gore candidacy would spur almost as high of the conservative GOTV effort as Hillary's would, plus it would focus on *revenge* rather than dealing with what we (as a country) need to deal with. And while I personally like Kerry as a candidate, and he was the first Democrat I ever voted for in a presidential race, I think there's too much of a negative stigma associated with him for him to be the nominee again. Edwards, in my opinion, is probably a decent person, but has no real standing from which to run in '08. He'd be too easy for the GOP to characterize as "inexperienced."

So there are days where I feel it would be so much easier to just lie down and not wake up - - because it feels like fighting not only the Religious Right, but also the "journalists" who feed on sensationalism and their enablers in the media. It's like a two-front battle, fighting two different groups (one being shrill and vocal yet an obvious minority fringe, and the other being powerful and far-reaching) who each have their own agenda.

But I remind myself that that's not practical (to give up), because, as an American, why should I let other people (who could personally care less about me) determine my future just because it's politically-convenient for them to do so?

That's why I push/endorse the people who I'm pushing, despite opening myself up to accusations of being a "DLC enabler" or a "pawn of the corporatists." I actually despise several power players in the DLC...Al From makes me want to vomit, and Joe Lieberman is one of my least favorite politicians in the country.

And again, I make no claims that Blanche Lincoln is "the only one" who can win or put the country back on track. She's one of several (and in my opinion, with the right running mate, potentially the strongest). I think there's also a lot of potential for candidates such as Clark, Warner, Bayh, Richardson, Bredesen, Vilsack, and Feingold (but, again, Feingold would work best as the V.P.) - - I just think that, ultimately, Lincoln is the one who can inspire the most new voters and attract crossover voters with her appeal...and yes, the fact that she's a woman definitely will help bring in new voters, but it's not like I'd seriously consider just *ANY* female candidate solely due to her gender.

I just strongly believe the only way we can bring our country together is if the Democrats nominate a new messenger...it has to be more about simply *winning* the White House...it also has to be about electing someone who's going to be EFFECTIVE (and yes, that means being able to work with the less-insane of the Republicans in D.C.) - - otherwise, if there isn't a candidate who represents this necessary flavor, the Democrats won't be getting any support from me at the presidential level.

[LSdemocrat]

34. I think extended time in DC ruins the electability of politicians

Most politicians who have spent years in DC come out sounding like they're from a different planet, completely detached from the concerns of ordinary Americans. That is the main reason it took so long for Gore and Kerry to get their respective presidential campaigns on track.

My advice to DC-based prospective presidential candidates: Spend as little time in DC as possible and start talking to real Americans instead of listening to self-serving DC political hacks.

[DanCa]

35. Another Reason to vote for Wes Clark

Just think Clark Conyers.

[election_2004]

36. Conyers

Actually I think Conyers should be tapped as AG. He'd make a kick-ass Attorney General.

[geek tragedy]

39. Governors & executives have accomplishments; Senators have voting records.

No Senators in '08.

[KBlagburn]

41. Agreed, considering no senator has been elected president...

since JFK. Thats 44 years and 10 presidential elections and not one sitting senator. And the only former senator was LBJ.