The perfect nominee for '08 is easy...

[WI_DEM]

Just find a candidate with Clinton's political know how and Carter's morals. Piece of cake. Right?

[PurityOfEssence]

1. You've basically described John Edwards, but I don't know if he's right

for next time.

I'm trying to back off of the speculation popularity contest, and since everyone's pretty shell-shocked and so very many partisans have been polite and unobtrusive, I think I'll continue to do so. The board's been pretty homey of late, and I'd like to thank groups like the Clarkies and Deanies for refraining from "I told you sos" and things like that.

Edwards goes out into the wilderness now, and we shall see how the economic and geopolitical cookie crumbles in the next few years.

It would also be sort of depressing to watch him fight it out with others--especially Kerry--in the primaries.

[NewJeffCT]

3. Edwards has already been framed

The RW propaganda machine has already painted Edwards as a "millionaire trial lawyer" Can he overcome that without a stage the next 2-3 years? When Edwards was a Senator, he could at least get on weekend news programs and get quoted in the newspaper about important legislation. What platform will he have to stay in the public eye the next few years?

Also, I know one very well educated person who dislikes just about everything related to Bush's policies, but voted Bush because he hates those so-called millionaire trial laywers and their frivolous class action suits.

[Julien Sorel]

18. Edwards *is* a millionaire trial lawyer.

The country seems to like him anyway. If that's the biggest knock they can come up with against him, then he has one foot in the White House already.

I read here where some talking head hack was trying to attack Edwards as a lightweight, citing his debate against Cheney. This was after the election, so there was no reason to keep going at him -- unless they were laying the ground for '08, which is what I think they were doing. The trial lawyer thing gets old, and I seriously doubt people care very much about it, and almost everyone at that level of politics is rich. So they will try to paint Edwards as a lightweight should he be the nominee. He's a bright, energetic guy, and he has four years to write position papers and give speeches and so on to dispel that particular attack.

Of course, being a lightweight never seemed to hurt Bush...

[NewJeffCT]

21. the rules are different for Democrats

Bush being a lightweight means he will be the "CEO president" that will appoint the right people (meanwhile while his appointed people run an Administration that makes Nixon's look like a convent.)

However, if a Democrat is perceived as a lightweight, then he is not fit to be president or vice president.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. Has Clinton's Charm, Not Know How

People often forget how throroughly Clinton understood the political process. Sure he could charm your pants off, but he also knew how to play the game. Unfortunately, the whole "pants off" part sort of threw the system out of wack (so much for healthcare).

[ShaneGR]

2. Probably Edwards

But he needs to get his ass elected to something, and quick.

[Killarney]

4. Mark Warner???

[WI_DEM]

5. don't know enough about him

maybe.

[liberalitch]

7. yea, baby!

[11 Bravo]

9. I was born and raised in VA

and live there today, and Mark Warner is the most impressive Dem politician I can recall in this state (especially now that Doug Wilder has officially lost his mind).

[Killarney]

15. I'd love to pick your brain for a moment if you'd indulge me.

I didn't know much about Mark Warner until a few months ago and the more I find out, the more I think he could be the guy.

So... is he popular in VA with both Dems and moderates?
How is he as a speaker? I've never heard/seen him speak.

His term expires next year, right? And he is not allowed to run again, right? Here is what I don't know about... if he runs for senate in 2006, he can't really run for pres in 2008 because he would have to start campaigning right after he gets his senate seat and that wouldn't go over well. But on the other hand if he does nothing after his current term is up, when he runs for Pres he'd have been out of the public eye for two years. Any other options?

[robbedvoter]

6. Diebold!

[Cheswick2.0]

8. how about someone who's politics we agree with and who has

a personality? I like/admire and respect Howard Dean. I love Al Gore (finest human being in politics and I agree with him on almost everything). I like Tom Harkin. I like Barrack Obama so far but please, no more one term senators running for Pres. Let's see what someone's real values are before we nominate them. It is important to see what a politician will do under fire over the course of a career. That is one reason why I never supported Clark.. not enough information.
Ed Rendell is very good at politics but I am not sure how he would come off nationally. People would probably get weird about his weight and his wife who is a judge and has a life of her own. And he is also kind of gruf like Dean. It is a pity that we have such shallow values in this country and yes, even in the democrat party.

[WI_DEM]

10. Dean is rough around the edges not as smooth as Clinton

but effective in his own way. I like Dean alot. Gore would be a great nominee.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. Yes, but I trust Dean more

I believe he means what he says and his values are more honest. Clinton is a "politician" and though I think he sincerely cares about people, he understands them less than Howard Dean does.

On edit, I don't think Gore could ever be as good a "candidate" as Clinton, but would be a much better President.

[WI_DEM]

13. true, Gore doesn't have Clinton's political charm

but yes, I think he would be a better president.

[GiovanniC]

14. I Think That There Is Plenty of Information About Clark

And his actions under fire, both literally and politically.

He's a class-act.

[leftynyc]

22. I agree about Clark

I supported him during the primaries and would support a future run as well.

[Perky]

12. I think what we really want and can unite the party is

someone like RFK.

Tough on Defense/brutal on crime. But sensibly liberal and fiscally responsible.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. Carolyn Kennedy n/t

[leftynyc]

24. I LOVE THAT IDEA

Don't think she'd do it though. She values her privacy too much.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. Howard Dean!

I'd also vote for Gore again, but I'm not sure how viable a candidate he would be after 8 years of Junior, knowing that no matter how bad that idiot fucks up the country, the mediawhores will spin him as the second coming of Christ.

[demwing]

19. I still think that a Gore/Dean ticket would rock the house.

[meow2u3]

20. We must inoculate the Dem nominee against Rethug attacks

No matter who we put up, the Rethugs will find something to smear him or her with--and they can't find anything, they'll simply make something up. Nothing is beneath these demons masquerading as human beings better known as the regressive Republicans!