Today's GDP Poll: What type of person do you want running for Prez in 08

[LynneSin]

Poll question: Today's GDP Poll: What type of person do you want running for Prez in 08

Not who, but what? A Governor, a senator, a political outsider. This isn't to name names but to get an idea of the type of candidate you want on your ticket. Also this isn't about the stance on issues - just experience. Now vote and discuss

[Wetzelbill]

1. it won't happen but I'd love to see MT Gov. Brian Schweitzer run

[LynneSin]

2. I'd like to see him on the big ticket

I'm still holding out for Ed Rendell!

[Wetzelbill]

4. Just for the coolness of it a Hillary Clinton-Jennifer Granholm ticket....

But Granholm probably can't ever be VP either. I don't think so anyway.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. former-Senators have a bad success rate when running for president

Governor it is.

[Wetzelbill]

5. Yeah what is it only JFK and Warren Harding were the only

sitting senators in the last century to get elected president.

[LynneSin]

7. LBJ was a senator

but he kinda got into office by default and then won re-election

[Wetzelbill]

8. yeah, but he wasn't running straight out of the Senate either

Nixon was a senator too, in that case.

[Island Blue]

6. A Governor / Former Governor won't do this time.

The mess that has been created there by the * Administration is just too huge (and will certainly grow during the next 3+ years). We are going to need leadership in Washington that can hit the ground running to figure out how to begin to clean up the mess rather than someone who has to spend time just learning which buildings are which. Maybe then, Washington will be a safe place for Governor's again!

[Wetzelbill]

9. actually Governors are probably better suited

because they actually get a bigger hand in making policy and making a difference then senators do. Senators play more of a political game in Washington, sometimes they get bill through, sometimes they are held up, some are in the minority and it's tough to get anything done etc. A governor is sort of a Mini-President, they already have experience as a chief executive and as commander-in-chief of their National Guard. They are required by law, to balance budgets and they have much more hands on experience then senators do. Frankly, I don't trust any Dem senator as far as I can throw them; virtually all of the ones who are contenders helped get us in the mess we're in. Senators usually have more foreign policy experience, but it isn't anything that couldn't be over come by extensive tutoring in the years before a presidential hopeful may announce their candidacy, Governors are more likely to hit the ground running then Senators are because they are used to doing it anyway. Senators aren't. They have a 3 day work week and then head off to golf, raise money, meet with lobbyists and go to cocktail parties.

[acmejack]

11. It depends on which State

Some States have a Constitutionally "weak" Governor, where the real power lies with the Speaker of the House and the Lt. Governor. See Texas as an example.

Most Governors simply do not have the Foreign Policy acumen to move directly to the Presidency, IMO.

[Wetzelbill]

14. yeah you're right, Texas' governor is like the 5th most powerful office

I don't think anybody has the foreign policy acumen. They all revert to the status quo anyway. Governors can be just as good as Congressman by doing private study. I think foreign policy is the weakest link for everybody which is saying a lot. Carter and Clinton are the preeminent statesman in the world right now and they were both governors with no FP experience. The only president in my lifetime who had any FP credentials was Bush Sr, and he wasn't any better than Clinton or Carter. So I think it makes more difference who the individual is. You're right, governors have no real world foreign policy experience, but I think that is easily made up by your choice of NSA and Sec. of State, as well as your own personal study.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Where are Governors gonna get the money....

"to balance the budget" and implement all of those neato programs that they will promise during a campaign? Raise Taxes...and call it a "going back to 8 years prior to Bush"? Do Dems really think that this strategy will fly....after all of this time? What about in the general voting public's mind? Does anyone think that we will be able to "Sell" that? :eyes:

I say get a candidate that can go cut the pentagon budget were all of our money is....that's what I say. Only one Democrat can do that, and actually fight back the criticism that would come with that kind of action. Someone with the Gravitas to intelligently explain it and justify it...without having to prove that they are "strong" on defense.

Most Dem politician would have to prove him/herself strong in F/P-N/S arena......so, unless we come up with a brilliant idea (ooh-ooh-ooh...I have one) there's no way to get our hands on any of that 400 billion that goes there....to the pentagon every year!

It's really that simple! :shrug:

[WLKjr]

10. In my time, I have only seen Gov. get elected.

if you take out the first bush at least.....

[jojo54]

12. Someone who is NOT greedy, malicious, self-righteous....

war-monger, a drunk...........is that possible.

Plz feel free to add to this list. Not quite awake yet to think of all the words that could make this likst a mile long.

[chapel hill dem]

13. Many bills in the Senate are voted on multiple times as amendments

are added and then modified or deleted. I suspect almost every Senator has voted FOR and bill in one iteration and then voting AGAINST the bill as porky or unrelated amendments are added.

I really do not want to hear or see the "flip-flop" label attached to the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate. It really hurt us last time.

[chapel hill dem]

15. "and" should be "a" in the first sentence. Sorry! nt.

[mikehiggins]

16. Anyone, as long as his name ends in Clark

Seriously, after what we are going through now the 2008 election simply cannot be "business as usual" for the Democratic party. Hopefully, if "those people" are unable to get rid of Dean we might just have a chance of seeing a new, revitalised party take the field. I, of course, would prefer to see Wes Clark as our candidate because, blah, blah, blah, yammer, yammer, yammer, you've heard all the reasons over and over again.

I will not support a GOPlite candidate, which some would like to see, OR a beltway incumbent. We can only win with an outsider, whether a wonderful, warm ex-NATO commander, or one of them there governor types. Someone who can come to the OVal Office with at least moderately clean hands and someone who won't be looking to do anything to show that he has a bigger cock than his dad.

[evolved Anarchopunk]

17. anyone but hillary, and i make this bold statement

completely absent of personal conviction.

I beg you voting populace,

i beg you DU

Do not back Hillary she is poised to take a dive, THE dive that Rethugs have been planning for her since before the last election.

[Totally Committed]

18. Your poll is misleading...

Worded as it is, my chosen candidate would fall under two categories, thereby splitting his vote -- depending which way it is read.

Maybe it was an oversight, I dunno. I still think all these polls serve no purpose but to disrupt and divide at this point.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

19. I ain't votin'

Cause Wes Clark is a political outsider....not a Gov, but has run for office...so, supporters of his will be "diffused" in their voting.

Governors = unless one has had a previous position in where they have had F/P-N/S experience, then a Govenor is the wrong kind of candidate for 2008. We are at literally at war (both overseas and politically in this country)...and 2008 ain't gonna be a redux of the 1992 election.

Senators = I'm just tired of Washington politicians in general. Most are followers, not leaders....just ask their highly paid "consultants", their poll takers and their PR point team...who are the ones telling the politicians what to do. If these politicians have to ask "mother may I?" prior to making a move, thye are not true leaders.

Maverick = Yep....that's what we need. Someone out of the box and someone strong.

Democrats = Need to stop trying to play it safe, or playing it loud. Play it smart by giving the opposition what they don't expect. Sometimes I wonder if the Dem politicians are just scardie-Cats....cause many of the Dem voters are too. We talk a good game, but when it comes time to strategize, we most times stink!

[Totally Committed]

23. I'm with you, Frenchie!

It's Wes Clark in '08, or we Democrats shouldn't even bother. I want to win the next election.

TC

[ThomWV]

20. Anyone, As Long As its Al Gore

He has a proven record in winning Presidential elections.

[PeaceProgProsp]

22. I want someone who can win. Don't care so much what they've done.

Do care what they stand for.