If someone doesn't emerge soon, will we be left waiting for Obama in 2012?

[mtnsnake]

I don't know. It seems to me that our current field of candidates leaves something to be desired. Yes, there are good people in it, but not one of them can be considered a strong favorite to win in 2008, and it just shouldn't be this way. You would think by now that we'd have 2 or 3 people who would be considered certain winners over anything the repukes put out there, but no, we just haven't had that certain someone or somones emerge, have we?

Don't get me wrong, I like Hillary, but just the fact that she's considered to be on top of the pack of our candidates, well what's that tell you about our pack?

You can go right down our list of our Democratic candidates, and there isn't one who you can say with absolute certainty would win if the election were held today. And that's sad, considering how ripe for pickin the Repukes are right now.

I know there are some people here who aren't too pleased with Barack Obama, but I honestly can't see any other Democrat who has his ability in inspiring a large group of people. This guy is so intelligent, comes off as such a good person, is so charismatic, and is such an eloquent speaker that I think he's just what we need to restore the honor and dignity to the United States that Bush has taken away. I would love this guy as my president because he's everything that Bush isn't.

What a shame "it's too early" for him. Or is it?

[Arkham House]

1. No. Obama in 2008!

The Dems *have* to win the White House in 2008. Obama is the only person out there whom I *know* can beat the Repubs. Put him in any debate with any of them, and he leaves them nothing more than a pile of ashes and a puff of smoke. He's the best speaker I've seen in politics since JFK--well, maybe Cuomo, but he never ran. If Obama doesn't run in 2008, he;ll never get to the White House. This is his chance.

[mtnsnake]

3. That would be nice

and I agree with you when you say "He's the best speaker I've seen in politics since JFK--well, maybe Cuomo"

:toast:

[TankLV]

40. NO Obama in 2008!

Let him remain in the Senate.

[chancew]

2. Interesting

I don't think he will run in 2012 but that's just my opinion, especially if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

[ristruck]

4. As a recent ex Repug.

There is absolutely NO chance that there will be a Republican in the white house for the next 8 years or more. I will give big odds on it. If you want to know how bad it is for them I can tell you that dozens of us home schoolers who had been staunch Repugs are planning to vote for a progressive this time around. They is going down and down big. Dems take back the house this cycle and the Senate and White House next cycle. Then you will see 8 years of Democratic rule.

Kucinich or Feingold in 2008.

[bilgewaterbill]

8. DK all the way! nt

[mtnsnake]

25. I'd be happy with him as president, but do you really think he could win?

This isn't about someone who makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's about someone who makes us feel all warm and fuzzy, and someone who we'd be confident could win in the primaries and cruise on to win the presidential election. Unfortunately, I don't think Dennis has a chance. This country is too fucked up in the head to accept a Dennis Kucinich for president, who would probably do as good a job or better than most of them.

[ristruck]

33. DK CAN WIN

Yes he absolutely can win.

The landscape has changed. People are VERY hungry for someone with true convictions and the policies and ideas he stands for are what this country needs at this time. He is not a politician and that is what can get him elected. He needs to be bold, honest, cast the vision, speak the truth, and people like us need to stand strong and not compromise for "someone who can win". That will just give us a status quo approach with minor changes.

He can win because he is smart enough to do the job.
He can win because he has the right ideas for the problems we face.
He can win because he is different than the other politicians.
He can win because he is consistent.
He can win because we are sick and tired of the same old business as usual crap.

This is just my opinion.

[mtnsnake]

35. If everyone believes as strongly as you do about this,

then it is possible. It's nice to see your passion, and it would be even nicer if you turn out to be correct.

[OhioBlue]

28. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[rwheeler31]

5. Huh

What is wrong with Fiengold,Boxer,Leahy,Kerry,Durbin, Warner,Jackson jr,Mckinny?

[crispini]

29. Is Jesse Jackson Jr. actually considering a run?

He'd be AWESOME. :loveya:

[mdmc]

37. Leahy? Really? Jessie Jackson...McKinney!!!

I'd like to see Leahy emerge. My God, imagine living in an Mckinney's America? Heaven!

[AtomicKitten]

6. I would support him in 2008, although only if Al Gore declines to run.

I agree he would be a breath of fresh air.

[NativeTexan]

7. Well, I think her at the top tells us.........

........that intelligent people, with great political skills, with experience in having to fight back being "slimed" already, who knows not only how to take a punch, but how to return one as well.....if she is at the top....then, if she isn't what Dems want as a candidate, then those below her had sure as hell better start using her as an example and start learning from her. I haven't committed either way, although, after the 90's I call myself a "Clintonian" Democrat. But I also haven't ruled ANYONE out from MY list, except maybe Lieberman and ANYONE named BUSH!

[Scout1071]

9. Thy name is Gore.

He must run.

[1932]

32. Gore's '00 VP choice disqualifies him, IMO

If Joe's the best CT can do, fine, But it was a very revealing choice.

[AndyTiedye]

10. It Isn't About Candidates, It's About the Media and the Voting Machinez

It does not matter who we run, it does not matter how much the Repubs screw everybody.
If we can't do something about the media and the voting machinez, we cannot win.

With a fair media and fair elections, we cannot lose.

[sellitman]

38. Nice to see someone else with their head screwed on straight

If Diebold is calling the shots we could run JFK and we would loose.

*Spelling boo- boo

[BluegrassDem]

11. I wish Obama already had a term under a his belt

I think there's no question that Obama will win the Democratic nomination whenever he runs. There's just not too many politicians that come along that is so awe inspiring like him. He's smart, charismatic, an eloquent speaker, youthful looking, and handsome. He's the total package. Not to mention, he has close to 80% approval ratings. He's the only black politician in American history where he has white people tripping over themselves to get close to him. This is unheard of. He has something that is very captivating.

[mtnsnake]

12. Wow!

Speaking of eloquent, you're not bad yourself. I think you just nailed it, concerning the magic of Barack Obama.

[Czolgosz]

13. Obama gives a great campaign speech, but there's not much behind the words

[Divine Discontent]

14. that's what I'm concerened with also... n/t

[BluegrassDem]

17. Well he's only been in office for a year

give him some time. He needs to get his feet wet. I think he'll do a superb job.

[BluegrassDem]

18. Well he's only been in office for a year

give him some time. He needs to get his feet wet. I think he'll do a superb job.

[politicasista]

15. Why don't you focus on 2006 first?

How we love to play into the hands of our enemies.

[mtnsnake]

21. We need to do both. Waiting until the last minute for '08 could be costly

I don't know. Maybe you think that one of our current candidates has it all locked up or something?

[OneBlueSky]

16. we need a serious "Draft Al Gore" movement . . . and soon . . .

and we need to convince him to run on "Five Principles," i.e. . .

1. Telling the Truth - no matter how disturbing or painful

2. Upholding the Rule of Law - both US and international

3. Protecting the Environment

4. Refusing All Corporate Campaign Money

5. Government Of, By and For the People

everything else will fit nicely within this structure, imo . . .

[mtnsnake]

22. The reason Gore's name keeps surfacing is because we don't have

any other candidate in mind who seems like a shoe-in to go against the repukes and beat them.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a serious "Draft Al Gore" movement if things stay as they are now.

[tom_paine]

19. Until we can get a trustworthy, inspectable voting system

there will never again be a Democratic Emperor.

(President being an archaic title of old Free America)

[FrenchieCat]

20. WANNA

see me pull a rabbit out of my hat?

Give it up....this ain't fairy tale land!

Your perfect candidate is not just gonna simply appear out of thin air.

Let us all grow up and understand that sometimes what is needed is right under our nose....

Just understand that you may think that Clinton came out of nowhere....and so you think that's how it's supposed to work...but it actually doesn't. 1993 Clinton was before the 24/7 news relay team telling you who it was gonna be. Clinton was before the Internet, etc.

So when you pine for that special unknown someone to come and sweep you off your feet....just know, that really can be nothing more than a fantasy.

Wait till after 2006...and while you wait...watch and listen to whom is helping candidates win, who has said things that ended up happening, etc., etc., etc.

[mtnsnake]

23. LOL, I don't expect "fairy tale land"

I do expect to see a list with a name or two on it that we all feel confident could win the '08 election. Is that expecting too much?

[liberal N proud]

24. Don't we need to concentrate on 2006 first?

After November, there will be 2 years to identify a viable candidate.

[mtnsnake]

26. Yes, for sure, but you're wrong about the number of years we'll have

"After November, there will be 2 years to identify a viable candidate."

I wish there were, but there won't be. There will only be 1 plus a little change.

Besides, if we had a more viable potential candidate BEFORE November of this year, I think it could have a real positive effect on the outcome of the 2006 elections.

[liberal N proud]

27. OK - I stand corrected - we will have 1 year to id a candidate

I still think that is enough time, in fact I think it could be better, the closer to 2008 we identify a strong candidate, the less time KKKarl and the reich wing has to build a smear campaign against that candidate.
Most Presidential candidates are not clear front runners until November, December of the year prior to the election.

[the observationist]

34. I agree

The more time we give the repugs to formulate one of their brilliant strategies the harder it will be to win. We should let it rest until after the 2006 elections.

As far as Obama Isn't it a little difficult to elect a Senator to the Presidency? Senators are notorious for changing their positions on issues. In six years Obama will probably have voted differently on the same issue.

[depakid]

30. No one even knew who Howard Dean was

until he gave that speech on what would be February of 2007. Even then, it took another 8 months before it became clear that he was the frontrunner (and should have been the nominee).

As far as Obama is concerned- he's a rookie, and an opportunist of questionable sincerity. He's not going anywhere for a long time.

[opihimoimoi]

31. What are we moaning about?? There are mucho plenty peeps way better than

Bushy Boy.

Gore woulda been a way better Leader than W. Sure he is a bit stuffy and kisses for 12 minutes at a time, but at least he thinks and listens to warnings.

Kerry got swift boated with distractions and lies but, likr Gore, he has a proven track record of ACCOMPLISHMENTs...Bush a record of disasters...

Dean is a wonderful candidate, and, of course Hillary is too.

There is no White Knight who will win automatically. It is us Dems and Indies who must MAKE IT HAPPEN...which is whot the Pubs did for Bush. The difference is this: We choose our candidate better...as best as possible, we make sure our candidate can do the damn job and not be an EMBARRASSMENT.

[mdmc]

36. dude,,,we are so far from 2008...

wait for the landscape.

There is only Al Gore and Rudy Guliani to "wait" for. Unless we get another mihop event, we should take 2006, 2007, and 2008.:kick:

[TankLV]

39. You can wait for him I won't bother.

There are MANY more qualified persons to run than him, IMO.

He can stay right where he is - in the Senate for a few years to learn a little.

Too inexperienced and says too many stupid things for me.