The "fresh face" argument. Yes or No?

[politicasista]

Although I am focused on 2006 (and Kerry and other Dems are too), I was just wondering what you guys thought about the "fresh face" deal. I know here and in the MSM, blogspherians and pundits have been saying that we need a "fresh face" for 2008.

Although many don't consider Hillary a fresh face, I feel that there is one hurdle that Kerry may have to overcome if he runs again. It's the "loser" label (despite the trickery in Ohio), and the argument for experience vs. fresh face and eligibility.

Although a lot depends on the outcome of the 06 elections, I stand by my reply I made a week ago that I just didn't feel like thinking about 08. It gets tempting sometimes with all the 08 threads/articles.

I still think that by talking about 2008, we (not us) are playing right into the hands of Rove because this all takes the focus off the Bush administration and the GOP congress' woes. I am just for getting through the next two years alone.

I am new to politics (2 years) so all comments and opinions are welcome.:patriot:

[ProSense]

1. Three things:

Kerry addressed the running again issue on few occasions, pointing out that these same people deem it okay for McCain.

The MSM and pundits don't get to choose our candidates,luckily.

Fresh face? Those people are in the minority. Most people want Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Gore among other experienced candidates to run. Experience matters: watch how many prospective candidates are going to try to spin that they have experience across the spectrum of domestic and foreign policies, and have what it takes to run the country.






On to 2006, the Republican Party is falling apart.

[_dynamicdems]

A fresh face has appeal because of the excitement factor that is usually

attributed to anything new. However, when it comes to politics, experience usually trumps the fresh face. A great example was John Edwards in 2004. Everyone loved him until he was actually on the ticket and then the enthusiam gave way to talk about his inexperience. As much as I love John Edwards, in the end, he didn't generate many votes on his fresh face.

In 2008, experience will be crucial because we are in such a mess. I think in 2008, fresh faces will fade fast. Just a hunch.

Kerry knows what he's doing. I think that will garner him some of the votes he lost in 2004 to people who voted against changing horses in mid-stream. People have now had plenty of time to watch Kerry and realize he's capable, sensible and rational. The cautious voters who were afraid to change administrations in the middle of a war are still going to be cautious (even moreso after the second Bush administration) and they will look for someone tried and true. The majority of the country is more concerned with keeping the status quo than any radical reform in either direction. Most people don't want to rock the boat. These people will be afraid of a fresh face.

[Island Blue]

2. I couldn't agree LESS with the argument that we need a "fresh face"

After all, in '00 George W. was a "fresh face". Look how well he's turned out. (Do I really need to use the sarcasm smilie there?) What we really need IMO is experience. Someone who has been around the block a few times and who fully understands the complexities of the mess George W. Bush has gotten us into. We also need someone who is not afraid to do the hard work it will take to get us out of this mess. Of course my preference for '08 is JK, but there are a few others who have been around for a while who would probably do an adequate job.

I agree with you Sista that talking about '08 at this point takes the focus off of the * and the Republican members of congress who have enabled him for the past five years. I'm not looking forward to how nasty things are sure to get on DU and elsewhere after the '06 elections.

[muse]

3. A fresh face mattered when Bill Clinton ran.

So, there is that.

Those were some VERY exciting some times. How many of you remember that night when he won the election? The night the Clintons and the Gores celebrated in Little Rock? It really seemed important and exciting that we had fresh faces that time around.

I know I felt eurphoric and hopeful that night.

[Island Blue]

4. Point well taken.

However, that was before George W. Bush and his cabal came to town and fucked things up so badly. Times have changed, the qualities we need in a leader have changed - at least for the moment. Maybe some time in the future we'll need a fresh face again. Right now we need leadership and experience.

[muse]

10. Unfortunately Bush was not a fresh face for me.

He was the governor of my state. And, all too well known to me. He has made me miserable for longer than most!

I know what you mean, though.

I have had to put up with him for too, too long.

[karynnj]

5. The media likes a fresh face

because they get a new story to tell. But, they also kike a comeback story and in reality they never told Kerry's story in any depth, largely because he has way too much story. This shouldn't be a draw back. That it also has a certain theme through it - fighting corruption - doesn't hurt.

The other thing is that other than Warner, the others aren't new faces - Hillary and Bill are older faces than Kerry, Edwards is an old face too. Clark is a lesser known old face. The fact that Warner is getting all these profiles now could help or hurt. He might seem un new in 2008. Only if he really is very good could this help.

[Luftmensch067]

6. This seems as good a time as any to say thank you!

As everyone here knows all too well, being a Kerry supporter in early 2006 means hearing the same negative comments over and over. I always counter these misconceptions and try to educate the person I'm talking to, but sometimes the negativity out there feels overwhelming. It is then that I know I can always turn to this group for comfort, reinforcement and insight. Thank you, Politicasista, for asking this question, which is one of the most frequent responses I hear to the very mention of JK's name in conversation, when no reference to his running again has even been made! And thanks to all of you who have responded with such quiet reason and common sense.

I have heard people here and elsewhere say that they find JK calming, especially in these troubling times, because he clearly has thought through everything he says and because he knows so much, and because he cares so much. All of these are excellent arguments as to why he should run again in 2008, of course, but what I really wanted to say was that they are also the qualities I value in the DU Kerry Group. I find it so calming to come here and I take such strength and find such solace here.

So thank you, all of you! :grouphug: :yourock:

[ginnyinWI]

7. I was going to make a similar point:

The "fresh face" idea is fine in relatively good times, but these are times fraught with economic insecurity, social conflicts and of course, turbulent times internationally. When it comes down to it, people are going to go for experience over the novelty of a new person--especially if that person is a governor without foreign policy credibility. * may be setting this country up for a lurch to the left, and the Democrats--but one they know and can rely on to know his stuff. And we all know who that is.

The other requirement is money to run on--unfortunately this is still the case, and it limits who can run. But fortunately for JK, has shown he can do it easily.

[politicasista]

9. You're welcome!

Anytime. :yourock: :grouphug: :hi:

[emulatorloo]

8. I've had it with "fresh face" blank slate dumbass governors

Bush has ruined that concept.

I want somebody who has some experience, knows how to get things done in DC, and can hit the ground running.