Best General Election Candidate... 2008?

[nickshepDEM]

Poll question: Best General Election Candidate... 2008?

Not interested in who you are supporting, who deserves the nomination, or who you would like to see run. ;)

Simple question: IN YOUR OPINION, who is the best (best chance of winning) general election candidate we have to offer?


p.s. If you wanna' discuss 2006, start your own thread. ;)

I vote Bayh. He has an impressive record as governor, oozes strong midwestern values, serves on the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee, recent polling data shows that he would carry Indiana, and IMO, his style of politics would playout well in the mid and southwest.

[LaurenG]

1. Feingold

I think he's only begun to show us his stuff!

[hippiechick]

73. My dream ticket; Gore/Feingold

:loveya: 8 years of Al to fix shit and allow Russ to grow into his a more statesman-like pair of shoes, then 8 years of the "Cheesehead Prez" :)


I LOVE THE SOUND OF THAT TICKET !!!!

[BOSSHOG]

2. General Clark

Go ahead haters, swiftboat him, make my day. I see General Clark as a team player and I think he would surround himself with an incredible team from the party.

[LaurenG]

4. I like him too. nt

[Mass]

3. Kerry.

[TayTay]

7. Kerry.

[MH1]

17. Kerry.

[BlueIris]

26. Kerry.

And I'm going to start making bets with people about this, honestly. Come January, 2009, I'll be rich.

[Fabio]

31. Kerry.

[globalvillage]

47. Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

56. Kerry.

Kerry

[zann725]

75. Agreed! Kerrry.

Why was he even left out of this poll? The one a day or two ago, he had a substantial portion of the votes among the possible candidates?

[sandnsea]

82. Kerry

[Warpy]

5. Other: Brian Schweitzer

He's a maverick westerner who will be his own man and reject the kind of "help" the DLC will offer with its handlers and platform and he'll campaign on populist economic issues.

Any of the above who won't do the same is simply unelectable.

[nickshepDEM]

6. I left him off for obvious reasons.

He's not running in 2008, but I sure wish he would.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. He is definitely someone to keep an eye on for the future. n/y

[LittleClarkie]

57. If you were only including those who were running

Then you missed some folks. Feingold and Kerry for two.

And if actually running was a criteria then Gore doesn't belong on the list. He's not running either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Unofficially Kerry has about 14 votes here so far

He should have been on this list. I understand that there aren't enough DU poll slots available to list everyone, but Vilsak, Richardson, or Bayh could have been dropped to make room for Kerry. Probably Vilsak, and obviously not Bayh since the OP poster votes for Bayh.

Kerry believers have done a good job of making their point though, lol.

[CTyankee]

30. I like him, but isn't he in his first term as governor

and now you have him running for president? Give him some time to do his thing, he has a lot of support out there as I understand it. Don't get me wrong: I don't dislike him. I think he's great. I heard him on Al Franken's show a while back and loved him. But he's too new at this point. I'm sure he'll do great in office, tho, and be a viable candidate later.

[Teresa4ChrisCarney]

8. what pretty pole graphics

I voted but I'm not sayin. ;)

[bigwillq]

70. Hi!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[hopein08]

9. Edwards because he will have been out of the DC loop n/t

[queenbdem87]

10. Warner

He's very popular in virginia, has amazing fundraising capabilities, and is not a career politician.

[skipos]

38. Warner

though there are others too.

[Wesin04]

46. Not a Career Politician?

He made his millions with Nextel before he went into politics, but for the past 10 years or so he's been running (against John Warner for Senate in Va), then for Governor, now for President. It seems it's turning into a career--he's not going back to the cell phone business.

[MADem]

11. OTHER--"Too soon to tell!"

A lot of times, the hot runners two years out become the has-beens once the primaries heat up. A stupid misstep, a false rumor, an idiotic statement made when someone is exhausted, can totally screw up even the most coordinated campaign. And then, there's the Rove treatment!

But all of your choices have something to bring to the table--I hope they all get out there and start flapping their jaws...it will be interesting to see the range of ideas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. General Clark. It's one of two reasons why I so strongly support him

I am fed up of two things. Spineless Democrats and losing to Republicans. Clark is my answer to both problems, and finding one candidate who I can rank so strongly on both fronts is a real blessing. Some folks may have seen ABC's recent 2008 'Invisible Primary Ratings', which was to no ones surprise mostly a pack of conventional wisdom favoring Party insiders, in other words certainly not a hot bed of Clark sympathizers. Though they overall ranked Clark low in the pack in handicapping who will get the Democratic nomination (10th), even this group of mainstream thinkers put Clark 5th in Electability (After Warner, Clinton Edwards, and Bayh which shows where their heads were at) and they placed Clark First in Wartime Leadership/Anti-terrorism Credentials.

The latter has been the Democratic soft spot for decades now, every time people start worrying about what is going on in the world, and I have little doubt that people will be worrying in 2008. If the Republicans nominate McCain by any chance Clark is the only Democrat who can go toe to toe with McCain. Republicans can never make a case stick that Clark is over his head in the area of international affairs and national security. And Clark can never be typecast as a Northern Liberal by the Republican Party, but to his advantage, Clark will never be typecast as a Southerner either, because believe it or not being a Southerner is not a universally loved distinction in America. Clark has enough Southern roots from growing up in Little Rock that Southerners can recognize their values in him, but Clark has an All American appeal, because he is associated with an All American institution, the U.S. Army, not just a single State in the Union.

The Republican Party will try to slime anyone they run against no doubt at all about it, but one thing is forgotten about how they managed to swift boat Kerry. Their poison fell on fertile ground. Prior to seeking the 2004 nomination to most Americans John Kerry was never associated with valor in combat, he was associated with leading anti-war protests. And to a large group of Americans he was more closely identified with Jane Fonda than John Wayne. Add to that Kerry's long Senate record which could be twisted out of context to make it seem like he did not support the military, and the political assassins had all the opening they needed to work with. Clark does not come with either of those significant vulnerabilities to attack.

Wesley Clark is fluent in the language of Patriotism, it comes naturally to him so it never rings false or sounds awkward to listeners when he uses it, but Clark uses that language to describe a different sort of Patriotism than the snake oil being sold by conservative and neo-con Republicans. He naturally speaks an inspirational language that American voters are conditioned to respond to , but he communicates Liberal ideals with it. Clark will make the Republican Party defend every inch of Red America. They will not be able to take the Veterans vote for granted. They won't even be able to take all of the religious vote for granted because Clark can speak sincerely and convincingly of tolerant religion also.

Clark cuts through spin and tells people what he really thinks and he does so without being condescending. That is a lot of how John McCain got his high standing with the public. Clark is a straight talker and voters respond well to that. And Clark is light years better on the stump now than he was during the first two months of his 2004 run when he got most of his Press Attention. Dueling with the FOX news shock troops has sharpened his game considerably, and at the same time, a lot of centrist viewers of FOX have gotten to respect Wes Clark, which will make it harder for the Republicans to get them to mindlessly accept lies about Clark.

As our nominee Clark will finally be freed from the trap that the media now puts him in, whereby they never ask his opinion on any matter other than National Security. Americans will soon discover that he has thoughtful powerful proposals on energy independence and the environment, on racial justice, on progressive taxation and single payer health insurance, about government support for new technologies and much much more. Clark will proudly feature Liberal Democratic programs in a platform protected against Right wing attacks on his national security credentials. Wesley Clark can not only win in 2008, he can help redefine American politics, carrying strong Democrats into office with him in elections all across the nation.

[xkenx]

28. As usual, Tom, a great analysis. To piggyback,

when the general public gets to see the human Wes Clark, the response will be overwhelming. The following represented the "Clincher" for back in 2003.

--I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

[NCarolinawoman]

40. There have been 12 Generals who have served as President of the USA.

I don't think the media knows their history any better than most of the kids in middle school or highschool.

Yes, Wes Clark speaks the language of Patriotism; and quite literally, he speaks the language of Russia. I believe that being able to speak Russian nowadays, would come in mighty handy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Spanish fluently also, which ties back to the electability question. n/t

[karynnj]

68. Dr Rice speaks Russian too

I think speaking foreign language is a good thing, but clearly not a major requirement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Spanish is more useful to actually getting elected n/t

[Sensitivity]

71. Liked Clark for V.P. Any analysis of why he did poorly in primaries?

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. Sure. 1) He didn't 2) It was mostly about Iowa...

I dug up some info showing the effect of the Iowa caucus on New Hampshire tarcking polls in 2004.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/

On December 17th 2003 Clark was tracking at 8% of the NH vote with Dean at 45% and Kerry 20%. (Clark had dropped from 11% recorded December 3rd.) The January 2-4 numbers though put Clark at 12% in New Hampshire. For the 4th through 6th period Clark tracked at 16%. For that same period Kerry was down to 13%. For January 8-10th Clark was up to 20% in New Hampshire while Kerry went down to 10%, and Dean was at 35%.

During the January 12-14 period Clark hit 24% in New Hampshire, Kerry was rebounding to 15% and Dean was at 29%. Kerry wasn't rebounding because of his campaigning in New Hampshire, he was rebounding because of his campaigning in Iowa with all the National media attention that was receiving. You see the Iowa caucuses were about to be held on January 19th, less than a week away, and the National Media was finally paying attention to the Democratic Horse Race. I remember it well, every night the political news focused on the fight for Iowa and the Democrats who were campaigning there. Clark wasn't one of them of course.

For the January 16-18 NH tracking poll, taking it to the very eve of the Iowa Caucus, Clark had slipped to 20% while Kerry had risen to 18%. Edwards who had been stuck at 3% a week before had risen to 8% with Dean down to 28%. Then came the Iowa caucus with Kerry and Edwards finishing One and Two. The NH tracking period for January 20-22 showed Clark still hanging on to 20% but, surprise surprise, Kerry was starting to really surge, up to 31% while Edwards climbed to 11%. By the January 24-26 poll Clark had bottomed at 13%, Kerry was at 35% and Edwards was at 15%. Dean had rebounded to 25% after bottoming out in the mid teens right after the Iowa caucus. When New Hampshire actually voted on January 28th Edwards, even with all his new media attention, had slipped back to a shade over 12% of the vote and Clark edged him out for third place. Kerry won of course with over 38% and Dean got over 26%

It was all Iowa. Iowa and the non stop media coverage of Iowa, and the media focus on Kerry and Edwards and all the "momentum" they "developed" in Iowa. Without Iowa, Clark was poised to come in First or a very close Second in New Hampshire, in the first real vote of the year, against two neighboring New Englanders who had been stomping in New Hampshire for a year each. Clark got very little national media coverage starting the week before the Iowa caucus, until the day he withdrew after winning one Primary and coming in second in three. After Iowa it was all "John John" and "Dean Scream". Though he finished fourth in New Hampshire, the media decided that John Edwards should be considered with John Kerry for the Democrats who left New Hampshire with "momentum" coverage slot.

Unlike all the other Democratic Candidates, Clark had approximately a year less of campaigning. Everyone else had a year's head start on Clark to get their campaigns up and running and tuned up for the contests. The Democratic candidate debates had already started before Clark even declared as a candidate. That is the main reason he did not contest Iowa, he didn't have enough time to do virtual door to door campaigning in both New Hampshire and Iowa in the time allowed him.

Even on February the 6th, when Clark dropped out of the rest, he was still polling in second place in Wisconsin:

WISCONSIN POLL
Likely Democratic
primary voters Feb 6, 2004
Wesley Clark 15%
Howard Dean 9%
John Edwards 10%
John Kerry 41%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Al Sharpton 2%
Undecided 21%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/wi /


WesDem, another DU poster, once made these observations about Clark's campaign in an old post:

"Clark entered the primary race a year or two after everybody else was running.

He was a novice candidate who ran in a field of ten that was 80% elected officials or former elected officials.

In a four-month long campaign, and before withdrawing on 2/11/04 and endorsing Kerry, Clark competed in 13 states.

He won Oklahoma over experienced campaigners.

He came in second in Arizona, New Mexico and North Dakota ahead of experienced campaigners.

Third in New Hampshire, Tennessee and Virginia ahead of experienced campaigners.

Fourth in Missouri and South Carolina ahead of experienced campaigners.

Fifth in Delaware, Maine, Michigan, and Washington ahead of experienced campaigners."

Clark decidely bested the former Minority Leader of the House of Representatives,Dick Gephardt. He trounced the Democrats former VP candiate Joe Lieberman, and also Senator Bob Graham, a very seasoned former Governor from Florida who was very popular in that Reddish State. Clark also arguably did better than Howard Dean overall but there is no point in having that argument. Nuetral media studies conclusively showed that Clark got far less free media exposure than either Kerry, Edwards, or Dean. I think Clark did very well against those odds considering that it was the first time that Clark ran for any political office and that he barely knew his own campaign staff when his campaign started.

[ClarkBayh 2008]

78. Clark waited to be drafted

& didn't compete strongly in IA or NH.
This time should be different.
Unless Hillary tells him not to run.

He is the Hillary alternative.
Smarter than Ike, better looking than Gore, more likable than Kerry.

Clark 2008

[whometense]

13. Kerry's not even on the list?

He's still my candidate.

[MH1]

18. Hmmm...wonder why?

He's still mine, too.

[davidwparker]

14. Gore would be good as I don't think he would be that keen on

covering up what * did. I can see the Clintons doing the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil act now that Bill hangs out with the * Crime Family.

[whometense]

16. That same thought

bothers me.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Clark....

Cause he's the only one that will Cut the Pentagon Pork and put his finger down on the Military Industrial Complex, and restore our reputation all over the world. Why? cause the knows where the bodies are buried....and he's got the guts to do what is needed, cause he is not owned. Other Dem candidates will have to prove their Security Creds, and so they won't touch the untouchable.

Clark, with nothing to prove will do what needs doing!

How many Democrats OR Republicans speak like this?
Interview with Laura Knoy:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

(Not an offical transcript, but) a transcribed version of what Wes Clark said:

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."
----------
Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
"We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/
----------
"I think that the Greatest threat to American people - what they really have to worry about is the threat to liberty and Democracy right here in America."

"they thrived on scaring the American people."

"Am I right there has been no color-coded terror alert since Since John Kerry lost to George Bush in November 2004? "
Wes Clark quotes in his latest PodCast...among other things said (as Clark interviews Nick Lampson, Tom Delay's opponent in the fast approaching 2006 elections)!

Have a listen....

http://media33b.libsyn.com/podcasts/clarkcast/clarkcast...

IT'S THE POLICIES, STUPID!

(edited to fix broken link)

[fedupinBushcountry]

19. KERRY

n/t

[Texas_Kat]

20. General Wes Clark

.... without a doubt.

[wisteria]

21. How could you omit Kerry? If he runs he has my vote!!! n/t

[karynnj]

22. Where's Kerry?

Many on this list are far behind him in electability. I have many Indiana friends and family - his name NEVER comes up.

[ginnyinWI]

23. Gore or Kerry--simply for their experience

Both have run for president already, each is very smart and able to learn and change tactics.

Gore has practically made a complete transformation since 2000 in his approach, and would be a very strong candidate.

Likewise Kerry, who has learned things along the campaign trail that he would use to great advantage.

Any other candidates will have to learn as they go and rely, perhaps too much, on their campaign managers (a dangerous proposition, as we've seen).

[FrenchieCat]

24. The wisest of us learn from other's mistakes, and not always from our own,

So I say, it definitly doesn't take a "twice ran" in order to win it, as most "winners" of Presidential Races will tell you.

[LibDemAlways]

25. I'd love to see a

Gore/Clark ticket.

[Sensitivity]

29. Not listing KERRY is indication of why Dems fail to build dominant

momentum. Will we ever be willing to learn from other democracies re. how to build a party
and movement? It starts with consistency of principle and consistency of leadership.
Without rallying around a leader over a long period, without building them up, from grass roots
idolizing to mass media strong image projection, it is very hard to bring to a large majority of the public along.

A party loosing an election can be a good thing, if only the intervening time is used to further
build up the leader and sharpen the distinctions and let the public regret their error in in
judgment.

[MH1]

35. Thank you.

Well said.

[wisteria]

50. Exactly! Wonderfully put. n/t

[MrSlayer]

32. General Wesley Clark

See post 12, I can't say it any better than that.

[Seabiscuit]

33. For P/VP, any combination of Gore, Clark, Feingold and Edwards.

[dtotire]

34. Warner is the most electable

He would carry more of the Red states and bring more voters into the party.

[Awsi Dooger]

59. That's right

Warner will be our nominee if we prioritize winning. It can't be understated how vital Virginia is. Scary that posters here don't understand the basic electoral college math. If you annex those 13 electoral votes then Ohio or Florida are not necessary, as long as you can win one among these four: Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico. Along with holding the Kerry states, of course, which is not automatic but very feasible.

2008 figures to be extremely close in the popular vote, based on historical trends when one party has held the presidency for two straight terms. It's essential to isolate the candidate who has the most permutations to win in a 50/50 atmosphere. Everything in that regard points to Warner, IMO. As long as we need Florida or Ohio we are the underdog. Not requiring either one makes us the favorite. I'll take my chances with the math in our favor and let everyone else debate trivia like issues.

[ohtransplant]

36. Kerry

is an excellent candidate and would be an excellent President.

[PresidentObama]

37. John Kerry

[IndianaGreen]

39. I support Feingold but I voted for Gore in this poll

and it wasn't on who was going to win the general election, which any Democrat short of a stay-the-course type can win. I picked Gore because he is the only candidate that can deal with all of the problems our nation and the world is facing. The war must end the moment a Democrat takes office! No buts, no excuses, no triangulation! Our military will be as exhausted by Iraq on January 20, 2009, as the French were by Algeria and Vietnam in 1954. If we want to salvage what's left of the military, we must end the war and the troops home immediately and unconditionally.

The biggest threat to our nation and the world's security will not be Al-Qaeda or terrorism in general. The biggest threat will be climate change and its effect on sea levels, global temperatures, crops, weather, and sources of potable water, to mention just a few. Al Gore is the only person in this country that can step up to the plate and take charge immediately.

That's what I think!

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. In that regard, Gore or Clark.

They are the only Democrats, whose judgment I trust, who have sufficient executive command experience, combined with broad international experience and personal high stature in the world, coupled with a deep appreciation of how global issues of environment, health, and poverty are also central to our own security in the world.

[karynnj]

67. I agree with your observations

about the issues. In addition though there will be major issues dealing with the economy and the deficit. I agree that Gore could step up on these 3 issues (your 2 - environment and Iraq and the economic issues). I disagree that he is the only one who could.

Kerry's most recent comments on Iraq - that we are in a civil war and we need to get out - are what you want there. (Gore likely is in the same place, but I've heard nothing on Iraq from him.) Gore's book "earth in balance" and his work with Kyoto etc are great. Kerry has long term (back into the 70s as a private citizen) credentials on the environment. His 2004 plan that a massive effort on alternative fuels could help the environment, create jobs, and get rid of the stranglehold of big oil really put this together nicely. Kerry's work on the Finance committee and his consistent backing of a legal approach to the LIV deals with the fact that we may no longer have the luxury of funding pork.

It's possible that another candidate could satisfy all of these issues. (If Hillary changed on Iraq - she could lean on Bill's credentials and claim positions in these areas.) I also think most candidates expand to have positions on everything when they become the nominee - that don't reflect past work. For example, given his history, Clark was not on record before he ran on things that weren't part of his job. He did, as a diligent candidate, develop positions on those issues.

[FellowDemocrat]

41. Bayh/Warner 08!

The subject says it all.Although, i'll vote for basically any Democrat.

[greendog]

42. Gore/Feingold...

...though I'll be happy to support Clark if he "catches on" early enough to stop Hillary.

[Kerry fan]

43. President Kerry.

[judy from nj]

48. Wes Clark

n/t

[BootinUp]

49. We can kill two birds

with one...

because Clark is surprisingly liberal to people not familiar with his policy positions. He will take away the illusion that our party is weak on National Security. He connects with people because of his sincerity and intelligence. He can go all the way.

General Clark is a 1966 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he graduated first in his class. He holds a master's degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar (August 1966-August 1968). He is a graduate of the National War College, Command and General Staff College, Armor Officer Advanced and Basic Courses, and Ranger and Airborne schools. General Clark was a White House Fellow in 1975-1976 and served as a Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He has also served as an instructor and later Assistant Professor of Social Science at the United States Military Academy.

http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm

[AtomicKitten]

51. Funny how these polls vacillate.

What does that mean, really?

Oh, Gore in 2008.

[second edition]

52. He isn't listed, but I would like to vote for Senator Kerry.

He does still have a lot of support. I received an unsolicited positive response just the other day from a store clerk. I had a Kerry button visible and the clerk said, oh, I like him. I really like him a lot. I hope your right for Kerry in 2008. I also want you to know that this is not the first time I have received this type of positive response in regards to Senator Kerry.

[Adelante]

53. General Wesley Clark

I don't understand why Kerry's not listed, either :shrug:

[Wabbajack]

54. Warner, btw

do you have that Indiana poll data?

[snowbear]

55. Speaking of Warner..

NickDem was always his BIGGEST supporter on here!

Now he's saying Bayh?

What happened Nick?!?

[FrenchieCat]

58. Must have been that Times Cover....

Unfortunately, It was gastly! LOL

[nickshepDEM]

61. No, I still support Warner, but unlike some people here...

I know that my favorite candidate has his flaws and may not be the absolute best candidate. There are plenty of votes in this poll for poor CANDIDATES.

Its just my opinion that Bayh would be a very, very strong general election candidate.

[Clarkie1]

60. I'm busy with 06'....but what happened to Feingold?

I think the guy is great, but is he not the "flavor of the week" anymore? ;)

Like I said...busy with 06' trying to take back CA-11th congressional district and kick Arnie out. I am refraining from comment on 08' until after the November election.

[skipos]

64. While he is very popular around here

there are a some people who think he has some electoral challenges. I am not saying I agree with all of these worries but others might. Some may be worried that Feingold is...

A senator. Senators have had trouble getting elected for the last few decades. Kennedy was the last one.

From a state (WI) that we typically win. Presidential candidates typically win their homestate, so it would help the cause if our nominee came from a winnable red state.

From the north. Democrats have had better luck with southern candidates for the last few decades. Why that is is up for debate.

Jewish?!? I can believe this is an issue in 2006, but some people think it might be.

Twice divorced. It is pretty stupid that voters care about this crap, but they often do.

Alas, he does excite democrats, and maybe that's all that matters. I dunno. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Not so much twice divorced; Single, But there are some DU volunteers

I understand who are willing to help out the cause with Russ, lol.

[skipos]

62. ALRIGHT! Warner has moved up to 3RD PLACE in a DU poll!!!

:woohoo:

[MH1]

74. Heh. Without Kerry listed.

Count the Kerry write-ins. I count one more right now than Warner votes. Figure there'd be a few more votes if Kerry was actually listed (there usually are in DU polls) - there's a reason people put a lot of effort into getting on the ballot.

[ClarkBayh 2008]

79. This isn't a popularity contest anymore

Credentials matter.
Bayh has been a governor and a senator.
Warner served one term as governor.

Sibelius is an interesting option after Bayh.

[ruggerson]

66. Nick, you forgot Schweitzer n/t

[nickshepDEM]

80. He's not not running in '08... If he was...

You can bet your ass he would have been included...

[ClarkBayh 2008]

76. Heartening to see some common sense in the party

for once.

The best general election candidates have a shot at winning head to head against the republican & carrying 300 electoral votes. Hillary, Kerry, Gore & others clearly cannot or did not fit the bill.

Bayh has no military experience & troops will still be in Iraq on election day 2008. The next election is again a showdown for commander in chief, nothing else.

Based on these criteria, one need only look back to 1952 when the Republicans started their takeover of military issues to see that General Clark is the only logical nominee.

[nickshepDEM]

81. Military experience doesnt supplement elective experience...

Bayh serves on two very important committees, The Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee. More than enough to make up for his lack of serving in the military.

[FrenchieCat]

83. Kinda of like the members of congress saying......

"I was just in Iraq"....like that's supposed to mean anything!

Bayh served on "two important committees" and still managed NOT to see through the bullshit called "The run up to the Iraq War" obvious manipulation that the Bush admin stirred us in.

What makes you think that bayh is anykind of fucking leader? What did he do that would make one think that following him will put us in a better place?

Please explain, instead of acting like serving as a politician in some fucking hall somewhere is the only credential one needs to be the leader of this "used to be a lot more free" Nation?

[nickshepDEM]

84. Of course...

serving as a politician in some fucking hall should not be the most important credential.

The most important credential in running for POTUS should be... Having your paycheck signed by Rupert Murdoch!

Clark 2008!

lol. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

85. So you want to push DLC Red Staters Bayh and Warner....

But having a voice on Fox is what? Not of any use?

That statement of yours shows a lack of political insight....in acting like you don't understand the power of the media. And when we don't understand the power of the media, we can't win.

Ironically, Both Bayh and Warner, politicians you push.... represent the compromising Politicians that you want because of the exact reason that they appeal to Republicans and Republican leaning Independents.....

So on the one hand you want to sell us a 2008 candidate who "can work across the aisle"...but on the other hand you don't understand that it is because of the media that you are pushing that kind of candidate. Figures! :shrug:

[lojasmo]

77. I voted Feingold, but....

Gore is the best choice for the 2008 generals.

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. I suspect Al Gore would be the strongest candidate

this is not an answer to who I personally favor the most. I think that dispassionately, Al Gore is the strongest.