Kerry/Clinton ticket in 2008?

[PsycheCC]

I'm certain you all will tell me why this is a bad idea, but it seems to me to address a few problem that both Kerry and Clinton have separately. So let me have it! Is there ANY merit to this idea?

[DanCa]

1. A two senator ticket would be a nightmare however

it'll be a real good cash cow. That's all I can see it doing though.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Not just no, but FUCK NO!

Not both. Not either.

[ChiciB1]

25. I'm With YOU!!!

NEVER, NEVER will I go for Clinton! Sorry guys, after having watched BILL Clinton on the Al Franken show last Friday, any support for Hillary I may have had is NIL!!

I will give Clinton Kudos for ALL his Humanitarian Aid to Africa and his willingness to be front in center about the issue, but I was totally turned off by his comments about BushCo and the War In Iraq.

He basically was agreeing with them, but not in so many words. I think this is commonly known as "parsing" your words! My husband said he couldn't just go out on a limb and disagree with them, but I said to him... you as a WHITE male WOULD say something like that!!!

He's a Democrat of course, but I'm the political one in the family! I don't mince my words when it comes to certain things!!

I think there must have been some agreement between Franken and Clinton NOT to get political, but Franken did his best to push the issue. I felt Clinton was a little too uncomfortable and careful with his answers, IMO!!

[PsycheCC]

29. You're right, Clinton was pretty awful on Franken's show.

I don't know if it was his recent health trouble or what, but he has gotten awfully friendly with Bush#1 and unwilling to be critical of Bush#2, perhaps as a result. It seems odd, and I feel sort of deserted by my former president.

[Bucky]

61. not just F* No, but "Gosh Diddly Dern it Daisy May, shut the barn door NO"

I think any ticket starting with the word "Kerry" is a bad idea.

First time he says "I have a plan..." in Iowa in 2007 I hope he gets laughed off the stage.

[BlueIris]

3. I've been saying this will happen for awhile now.

I think it's a very promising option. I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

[MoonRiver]

21. There is ZERO probability that Kerry will get the nomination again.

He had his chance and blew it. Clinton has a good shot, but I hope she fails.

[politicasista]

53. Yawn. Can we focus on 2006?

[MoonRiver]

59. I'd be happy to if people would stop starting threads about 2008!

[PsycheCC]

64. Sheesh. Not trying to irritate anyone. I just keep seeing all these

threads about Clark, and I'm wondering if ANYONE still likes Kerry. I agree that 2006 is the current issue. To be honest, I mostly read Unlawful's threads on economics. I shouldn't have to be current on everyone's opinions in order to post a simple question.

[politicasista]

65. It's ok. He has his own group that is popular here.

That is the Kerry group here at DU.

[MoonRiver]

84. Sorry, I meant nothing against you.

I was just responding to a disparaging post I got.

[PsycheCC]

39. Me Too!

I just don't know how many others would.

[BlueIris]

99. Not touching the inflammatory and incorrect post about about JK,

but after reading about Hillary and Roberts, I rescind my initial enthusiasm. Screw you, Hill. I'm back to strongly disliking you now.

[wli]

4. the military question

The Shrubby blackshirts' military misadventures will necessitate a military cleanup. A highly competent military commander will be needed to spearhead the effort. This means Clark.

Of course, that also entails Bushitler has to step down from office, and odds are he'll declare martial law, castrate all the gays, imprison all the blacks, and cremate all the Democrats alive before he ever does anything like that.

[bowens43]

9. Nonsnese. I agree that a Kerry/Hillary tickeet would be bad

but no were near as bad as any ticket that includes Clark. The very LAST thing we need is a fucking general on the ticket. You talk about brown shirts being the problem and then you want to put a fucking GENERAL who has been shaped by 30 years of military indoctrination in charge?

Clark was overwhelmingly rejected by Democrats and with good reason.

Clark would be the best thing that ever happened to the Green Party. Democrats would vote Green in droves with Clark on the ticket.

[liberaliraqvet26]

10. I guess a "f-ing" general who...

was succesful, is progressive minded, a patriotic american, southerner and could not be labeled "soft on defense" by the freepers would be a terrible idea. We might actually win, how horrible that would be. <SARCASTIC>

[FourStarDemocrat]

14. That post is ridiculous.

You slander, yet know absolutely nothing about Wesley Clark, nor of his talents, experience, and accomplishments--not to mention his popularity among the Democratic grassroots.

[Clark2008]

18. Don 't know a thing about Clark, do you?

He's the ONLY candidate who spoke AGAINST the military industrial complex.

And, he's also "green," - won an Audoban Society award for spurring his troops to help save a desert turtle.

Clark also was not "overwhelmingly" rejected by Democrats. After only four months in the race, he placed first, second and third in every primary race in which he competed, except South Carolina, where he placed fifth. I hardly call that "rejection." Hell, he even beat Edwards in five of the nine races in which they both competed (before Clark left the primaries).

[high density]

38. You're uninformed

So do you think Michael Moore supports "brown shirts" and "military indoctrination?"

[CJCRANE]

45. I bet Clark

would root out the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo torturers in a heartbeat. He'd also try to secure the Iraqi borders and negotiate with Iran and Syria to stop the flow of foreign fighters. Plus he'd also try to bring in more multinational forces to share the burden.

(This is the impression I get from what he's said, particularly at the HASC hearing where he did the smackdown on Perle).

[sendero]

108. You...

.... don't have the slightest effing idea what you are talking about and it is abundantly clear you've never listened to Mr. Clark.

Dems did not "overwhelmingly reject" Clark, he simply entered the race too late and was an unknown quantity. Instead Dems chose a lackluster Senator in a time when senators never get promoted to president, and for good reason.

Nobody will ever put a pink tutu on Clark, they'll never get if off of the handwringing nuance boy.

[unlawflcombatnt]

5. Clinton's position on Free Trade?

Do you know what Clinton's overall position is on Free Trade? I know she voted against CAFTA, but how does she stand on NAFTA and the WTO? I'm hoping she's less of a free-trader than her husband was.

[idlisambar]

106. She is a fee trader

Her stance is virtually identical to Bill's.....

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Tr...

[tritsofme]

6. Two senators, both from the North East

Lets just look for ways to lose.

Which states that Kerry lost last time would this ticket have a chance at flipping?

More than likely this ticket would lose ground from 2004.

I don't think Hillary is interested in playing second fiddle either.

Besides which, Clinton would walk all over Kerry in a primary.

[Clark2008]

19. That's exactly what I was thinking.

However, I hope the Dems don't nominate Hillary as first on the ticket, either. She would flip no red state and might even lose a couple of blue states in a general election.

[HeatherG.]

49. I Don't Think Clinton Would Help Kerry Either

I agree with you that we will probably do worse in 08 if we have a Kerry-Clinton ticket. She would not be helpful in flipping any states. I still want Kerry to be nominated though. I am not sure I understand why you think Clinton would walk all over Kerry in a primary. She is not charasmatic. To me, she is less charasmatic than Kerry. Is it because her husband would give her advice, and she would raise alot of money?

[TomClash]

7. I'll vote for any Dem except

Lieberman.

[Massacure]

13. You forgot Poland, er, Zell Miller!!!

[TomClash]

20. He's NOT a Democrat

I don't care whaat that old fool says.

[liberaliraqvet26]

8. Haven't we had enough of Kerry?....

Clark/Clinton

or

Clinton/Clark

[second edition]

44. I DISAGREE WITH YOU, I'M ALLFOR A KERRY RUN! N/T

[Mass]

58. Right now, I have enough of Clinton (Bill or Hill).

Kerry/Clark or Clark/Kerry.

[ladjf]

11. Hopefullly the Democrats aren't that dumb.

[politicasista]

50. Hopefully Dems are smart to get behind visible Dems right now.

Hee, hee.

[lojasmo]

12. Can't think of a democratic ticket I'd be less likely to vote for....

Except Zell/Bayh.

[Rockholm]

15. Why do low posters always ask this question?

[globalvillage]

23. Likely, they are more representative of the general population

And not influenced by the anti-Kerry, anti-Clinton sentiment that is so prevalent here.

Just my guess.

[Catchawave]

16. I admire them both, but.....

I think, we need to keep our eye on Gov Mark Warner of Virginia.

[PsycheCC]

51. Governor Warner Does Look Interesting.

I've heard him speak a few times and heard others speak well of him. His web site is pretty interesting. He might get my vote if he runs. I think I heard a rumor that he's considering it, right?

[Catchawave]

81. Hey PsycheCC..!!!

...definitely a rumor with 2 more years to fine tune! Check out the Virginia DU State Forum. I have a very open mind for 2008 also.

[PsycheCC]

116. Thanks Catchawave! I'll wander over and look around.

[second edition]

56. I'm not inthrawed with him at all. he isn't qualified enough for Pres. n

[Catchawave]

85. Hmmm, more qualified than say.....

CLARK ? Ya just never know 'bout these threads, d'ya?

[wisteria]

92. Clark's not as qualified as Kerry! N/T

[SunDrop23]

17. Clinton/Edwards anyone?

Thoughts?

[Clark2008]

22. That's almost as bad an idea as the one in the OP

Edwards didn't reel in any red states, either.

Red-state moderates won't vote for a "slick lawyer" even if he does stretch his accent to meet theres.

[Yupster]

32. Clinton-Richardson

is what my chrystal ball is saying.

Of course it also said Garza for Supreme Court too.

[politicasista]

48. Why would Edwards want to be VP again?

[Mass]

60. I would probably sit this one

What is attractive here? Edwards certainly did not help Kerry.

[AmericanDream]

102. Edwards is in his element as the main guy... not as VP...

I think that Edwards is bad VP material.... he likes to run the show, and not just be the attack dog. However, I can see an Edwards/Clinton ticket... because Hillary can do the attack dog stuff (yeah, she's got just the shrill voice for it). A reporter from NC talked about Edwards selection as VP in 04 and said that people around him do not think that is a very good idea and they worry about it because as a lawyer he was the guy presenting to the juries, the guy laying out the case, and the guy putting together the strategy for a case. Hence, he has worked his life as the first chair.... and I personally think that he was great in the primaries when he was running the show, as VP he was mainly relegated to the background by the Kerry staff.

So, I don't think he would take it again because frankly he looks and works better on the top of the ticket. Plus, I think he has great crossover appeal that a presidential candidate will need in 08. As for those who criticize his work in 04 as VP candidate.... I would say that I don't know a single person who hated the prez candidate and still voted for the ticket simply because he liked the VP nominee.... that doesn't happen... but I do know a lot of moderates and republicans who said to me on the trail that they would vote for Edwards if he was on top of the ticket.

[mary195149]

24. I think that's a winner!!

Kerry didn't blow the election. They stole the election!!
And with all the discrepancies, we don't even have a media that wanted that story out. The fact is, it doesn't matter who runs. If the voting machines don't have a paper trail, then we will be finished. The administration is starting to lose some ground, finally, and they cannot afford to lose the next election. They won't let go of the power they have cheated so hard to get, but even more so, they know if they are to leave the white house, it will come out what this administration was doing behind closed doors over the last 8 years. They know they will all be put behind bars!!

[zulchzulu]

31. When I saw Kerry with Clinton last week on news, it sure looked like...

...they were trying something out. Kerry looked great and Hillary seemed comfortable playing "second fiddle" when they announced Rove should retire.

It's way too early to speculate however. Let's focus on kickin' some ass in 2006 first.

[PsycheCC]

34. Interesting, I didn't see that. You're right, we need more seats in

Congress in 2006 to hold off the Bush agenda.

[MH1]

40. Worth watching

Here's a post with a brief clip of the Kerry/Clinton thing. Where Kerry says Rove should be fired and Clinton, asked if she agrees, is smiling and says "I'm nodding."

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view...

[PsycheCC]

62. I DID see that. Thanks for the link.

[politicasista]

54. I have been saying that, but only few pay attention.

[sendero]

109. They stole it..

... and Kerry let them. Enough said.

[napi21]

26. I don't want Kerry AGAIN! Sure he's a smart man, but

his responses during the campaign were many times, just dumb! He was playing lawyer instead of an American running for President.

The one thing comes to mind. I voted for it before I voted against it!

What the hell kind of answer is that? Flat out come out and way I voted for it and that was wrong!

[unlawflcombatnt]

30. Kerry: I voted for it, before I voted against it.

Napi121,

That statement by Kerry was unfortunate. However, Kerry's interest in honesty got the best of him there. He made it quite clear why he voted for it, and then against it. Upon researching his story, he was VERY consistent on that. Unfortunately, many voters were never aware of the real story, thanks to our Right-Wing dominated media.

Kerry's positions were well-documented, and supported by facts and history. But they were also very nuanced. And these nuances could not be quickly and easily communicated to the majority of voters. I think Kerry would improve upon this if he ran again.

In contrast, Bush's message was so simple as to be a non-message. "Stay the course" and "we need to be strong" have almost no meaning. But they are easy to understand, and voters liked that.

There are things I didn't like about Kerry, but many more that I did like. I researched all of the statements he and Edwards made during the presidential debates, and 100% of those statements were completely accurate or very close. His only "flip-flopping" was changing his position when factors related to his previous position were changed. For example, he voted for the money for Iraq with the assumption it would be paid for with increased tax revenue. When he realized that Bush had no intention of increasing revenue to pay for this, he changed his vote. Kerry even went as far as to draft a bill/amendment that would have funded the extra money by rolling back the tax cuts (though this was defeated.)

The very things that caused Kerry to get a "flip-flop" reputation are strong points. Kerry is clearly willing to change policy, if it is ineffective or counterproductive. In contrast, Bush pursues policy based on blind ideology and a pre-determined agenda. He makes no changes, regardless of how bad his policy is. Bush policy has nothing to do with addressing problems, and everything to do with serving the special interests of corporations and the wealthy. Bush's policies were best described by Paul Krugman as "solutions in search of problems" to fix. Kerry would have changed policy to solve problems. This is a very good characteristic, which is completely lacking in the current administration.

Kerry's integrity is second to none. He was a legitimate Viet Nam war hero, which is very well documented in publicly available U.S. Navy records. It's no mystery why the Bushites couldn't even "create" some kind of scandal in Kerry's past. There were none. The best they could do was hire a bunch of jealous, disgruntled Viet Nam veterans to lie about Kerry's record. The "Swift Boat Veterans for Lies" claimed that the official Navy records were wrong, and that Kerry had made them up. Kerry didn't defend himself aggressively at first. He assumed no one would take these lies seriously, since the naval records, which were publicly available, clearly backed up his story. This was an unfortunate mistake.

My biggest reasons for supporting Kerry were his economic positions. Unfortunately, he did not make these as clear as he could have. He definitely favored rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2%, and favored a balanced budget. Basically he would have moved our economy away from the Supply-Side economic mythology that the current corporatocracy embraces. Almost all mainstream economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz, favored Kerry's economic policies. Few supported those of Bush. (Much of what I have posted on this board regarding Economics is an attempt to explain Kerry's economic policies, or at least my perception of them.)

I think Kerry is against unrestricted free trade, though his voting history suggests otherwise. I think he has changed his general position over time. He voted against CAFTA. I think he would have worked very hard to reduce outsourcing.

There were a couple of things I didn't like about Kerry. One was his tendency towards big government spending. However, most of his "big-spending" positions would have had no effect, because they never would have passed in Congress. In addition, Kerry said any of his policies that couldn't be afforded would be changed, or even eliminated.

I didn't like his position on immigration. Unfortunately, it appears the elite of both parties are in favor of increasing immigration and allowing amnesty. At least Kerry suggested prosecuting employers who hire illegal immigrants. And prosecution of illegal hiring by employers is the only action that will reduce illegal immigration. This is certainly something Bush would never do. Bush wants to provide employers with as much cheap labor as possible, so they don't have to waste their money paying American workers a reasonable wage.

Kerry's biggest weakness was his excessively nuanced positions. However, this was a reflection of his desire to be honest and accurate. It was harder to follow his positions, compared with Bush's simplistic distortions and deceptions. Kerry had a lot to say, and had trouble simplifying it enough to be easily understood.

Kerry was criticized for not pushing harder for the recount. However, this was a result of his correct assessment that an honest recount would never be performed. His days as a district attorney made him aware of the futility involved. He was ultimately proved right. Ohio re-count law violations were numerous, and no actions were taken on those violations.

I'm open to supporting a better candidate, but I don't see any at present. I definitely would support a more pro-American labor, "protectionist" oriented candidate. I liked many of the positions of John Edwards. However, it appeared his "electablility" was less than that of Kerry.

At this point, I'd still vote for Kerry, but I'm not sure about Hillary Clinton.

[MH1]

36. Spot on.

I would only add that Kerry's recent electoral experience prior to 2004 - running for Senate re-election in a state that knows him well - was probably too easy on him and he took too long to adjust to some of the things that happened in the 2004 campaign, like the total absence of substantive media coverage of his actual positions while they bashed him for totally stupid stuff, distorted his actual statements, and gave free airtime to smears that were totally lacking in any factual merit.

I don't know how we fight the media filter next time. But Kerry is a smart man and I'll bet he has a few ideas. I wouldn't count him out for 2008 just yet.

[second edition]

52. Complicated issues can't be explained in two words.

The media deliberately mis-played his responses. Lessons learned now.

[PsycheCC]

27. I agree with many of the criticisms listed, but I also appreciate the

few of you who seem to have a more open mind to this option. One of you said that perhaps "low posters" ask about a Kerry/Clinton ticket because we are more representative of the main stream views of both Kerry and Clinton. Obviously, I like this reasoning.

While I see the problems of the two Northeast Senators and Kerry's previous run baggage, I also agree with the poster who said that many Americans still support Kerry and think the election was stolen, not lost. Yes, he is smarter than he is accessible in his speech, but Kerry is concerned about the effects of trade on American workers. For this reason at least, average Americans see him as an ally, I believe. This is no small feat in today's climate of politicians from BOTH PARTIES bought out by big business.

I don't think Kerry is perfect, but I like his views better than others often mentioned here. I do wonder about Governor Warner, as someone mentioned above. I haven't done much research yet, but what I hear so far is interesting.

Finally, to be honest, as deserving as she may be, I don't think Clinton can win, and we cannot afford to lose another presidency. If, however, she were to win with Kerry, she might look forward to her own successful run in eight years.

Expressing an opinion here is like tossing red meat into the lion's den, but this is mine, and I welcome the inevitable remarks about my lacking intellect if they come along with some insight I may find interesting.

[BornaDem]

28. Senator Clinton would never run in 2nd place to...

a known loser in presidential politics like John Kerry and besides, she won't be running in the VP spot, but at the top of the ticket. She isn't going to choose Kerry for the 2nd spot either.

[second edition]

57. Yeh, she does strike me as being full of herself! n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

33. You're kidding, right?

Can you say 'fuck no'?

I'm not in the 'Bash Hillary' or 'Hate Kerry' clubs. As individuals, I like them both. I think they're both fine Dems. I want them to stay in the party and in their respective offices. But running them in 08 would be a horrible mistake. Much as I liked (and worked for) Kerry, he's had his chance and he didn't deliver. We can all cite a bazillion 'whys' .... but the plain fact is, he lost.

Hillary Clinton is a great Senator and I really, really like her. I think she's being very misguided with some of her recent stances and rhetoric, but I can forgive her cuz I do think she's trying for the nomination, no matter what she says. I also think she would be one hell of a president. But the time is not right and given her age (she's just a year or two under 60) her time may never come. There are plenty of other people who would have made extraordinary presidents who's time never came either. It isn't a tragedy. Its just life. If she were to run, any repubs that would consider a dem would be right back to the memories of the Bill Blow Job and she'd go down in flames.

We need candidates with name recognition and no heavy negative baggage. Kerry is now saddled with the Swift Boat crap and Hillary is saddled with the name 'Clinton'. Like it or not, that's how it is.

[PsycheCC]

35. Losing once doesn't preclude Kerry from running again, and I

think he could get past the Swift Boat and flip-flop baggage from the last time. I didn't realize Hillary was that old, though. I'm open to other ideas, but I don't see Clark, or Clinton (as anything but VP).

Governor Warner's web site is interesting. I like what I've heard so far, both from him and from others about him.

[Stinky The Clown]

66. Actually, I think Clark can lead a ticket .......

....... for a lot of reasons, but that's not the point of this post. There are many Clark threads to read if one wants to talk about Clark.

[wisteria]

93. I don't think Clark is strong enough to lead a ticket! VP maybe.n/t

[Mz Pip]

37. How badly do we want to lose???

Exactly what Red States will we pick up with this combo?

No way would this be a winning ticket.

Mz Pip

[snowbear]

41. Makes you wonder...

...If some people start Kerry/Clinton or Clinton/Kerry threads just to get people riled up here?



PsycheCC: T.G.H. ..... (tain't gonna happen)

[PsycheCC]

46. Not trying to rile up people. I'm actually new enough that I didn't

know this was a "hot topic" of sorts. The idea occurred to me, and I knew from what little experience I do have posting my own threads that criticism would abound. I just wanted to know what the criticisms would be, and whether anyone besides me might like the idea.

But I think you're right Larissa, it isn't going to happen. I just hate to let go of Kerry. He's awfully smart, and I think, a person of integrity.

CatchtheWave, I think, mentioned Governor Warner. I've been looking over his web site. I might let Kerry go for someone like Warner.

[Mass]

72. Ignore those who think they know it all

Continue to post what you think. Some will always think they are the best and vilify those who do not agree with them. Strange liberals, indeed.

[PsycheCC]

74. Thanks. Kind of you to be encouraging.

One just has to develop a thick skin to post here. I knew that before posing my question. It is sad though that people who are supposedly on roughly the same side of things can't be a little more respectful of each other.

This is something I notice on almost every thread I read here, and certainly no one on this thread has been terribly unkind. As a former teacher, I must admit my bias toward treating everyone with courtesy. A little kindness goes a long way when trying to open young minds. People in "the real world" tend to discount its positive effects.

[IChing]

75. Well, why don't you comment on the 2006 tread?

if you are respectful.

[Mass]

76. As if she was the only one doing that.

[PsycheCC]

77. I asked a simple question. I wasn't aware there was a ban on

discussing 2008. I do agree that 2006 is the current issue. All you need do is ignore my question if you don't find it worthy of attention.

[globalvillage]

82. Your question is completely legitimate.

And I would support that ticket.

[Mass]

71. This shows the large level of tolerance on DU (not)

It is sad that so many so called liberals cant simply ignore these types of threads if they do not like the premises. This says a lot of some people here, and explains probably why so many other threads are so disappointing when it comes to more important issues.

Except that, it is a mute point. 2006 is what is urgent.

[sendero]

110. Oh by all means..

.... we should stick to the happy talk and let the K/H boosters have an uninterrupted back-slapping mutual congratulations party.

Sorry, that's what is wrong with this country - people just want to hear what they want to hear. It doesn't work in countries, it doesn't work in companies and it won't work here.

Maybe folks who want a cheerleading party for their favorite should post in the Lounge.

[MoonRiver]

115. When someone asks a question, it is completely legitimate to answer.

Just because some of the answers don't reflect your world view is no reason to try and shut us up.

[PsycheCC]

42. Well, aren't Ohio and/or Florida are about all we need to pick up?

With accurate voting machines and equal access to them, either of these could go blue, I think.

I'm not sure worrying about picking up red states will serve us well. I think we need to worry more about getting democrats to the polls. Perhaps many have suffered enough under Bush's version of a "robust economy" to finally do something about it.

[IChing]

43. 2009 is a long way to go think about 2006

2009 is when the next president takes office,so this fantasy is worthless ..
2006 is the key.

[politicasista]

47. That's a good ticket, but can we focus on 2006?

Why do we continue to lose elections? Could it be that we constantly badmouth good dems who are speaking out and being visible? Or just bitter over the primaries? Kudos to the repukes, they know how to fall in line, while we have to "fall in love" with our candidates.

P.S. This isn't directed at PsycheCC, but the posters who are against those Dems who are visible and fighting this criminal administration.

[Panda1]

55. Agreed, focus on 2006 first.

State by state....who's up for re-election, ratings, open seats etc.

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/Retire06.htm

[hijinx87]

63. two senators on the ticket was part of the problem in 04.

we'd have to be stupid to try that one again.

[JNelson6563]

67. Oh please no!!

I would withdraw from the political arena. Won't work my guts out to lose again.

Julie

[PsycheCC]

70. I worked for him too! I just think he could win it this time.

[Mass]

73. He could or not depending of the circumstances

Nobody knows and, IMHO, it is too early to talk about 2008 except in a musing way.

Kerry did a very honorable run which, in every country except this one, would allow him to run in 4 years if he wanted. For some reason, we think we need to reinvent everything everytime and do not understand the need to build on something.

It is sad, because it certainly explains why most of our presidents are not that great (certainly nobody since Roosevelt and he had 4 terms to become great). Rather than improving and preparing their runs for years, they just run six months, cannot be tested as statemen, and ultimately finish being deceiving.

(I am not saying this only for Kerry, but also for Gore, Dean. and Clark, all of which now understand what a race is and could build both a strategy and a set of policies. But, once again, better choose an unknown governor or a one term senator than a stateperson that could be a great president).

[PsycheCC]

79. I agree with you. And believe me, I was only posing the Kerry/

Clinton question in a "musing way." (Nice word choice, by the way). I just had the thought and wondered what people would think of the two of them together. I do spend time working on things that matter, such as CAFTA, and I do believe that 2006 is the current focus.

As I said earlier, I mostly read the economics threads and didn't know I would offend some people by even asking the question. I expected people to hate the idea, just not the question itself. Anyway, thanks for your interesting responses.

[wisteria]

94. I worked hard for him too. I would do it all over again! n/t

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dansolo]

68. No Senators!!

I don't want to see any Senators running, because they invariably tailor their votes, if they show up for them, towards their Presidential aspirations, and not based on their actual views and that of their constituents. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are both guilty of this thinking. The only exception to this that I see is Russ Feingold, who I believe will not alter his views (and votes) because he may be running for president.

[hijinx87]

87. how about no retreads in 08?

the current VA governor has "winner" written all over him. he could swing a few red states.

what's wrong with that?

[NancyG]

69. They're Democrats.

I vote for them. Whatever to end this Hell.

[autorank]

78. Good idea, here's a better one: Gore/Clark -- oh yea, kickin' ass

populist style. Tennessee-Arkansas, our magic electoral combination.

Lets go for the f'ing gusto. Run an all South ticket, guns, red meat, economic populism.

I'm tired of play it safe, cautions DC legislative Democrats. My god, did you see Feinstein today on Meet the Moran's or one of those shows, an abbomination, a wimp, a Republican.

[wisteria]

95. Gore has been on the sidelines to long- he isn't current any longer.

It will be very hard for him to run again.

[autorank]

103. Read this from his Georgetown Speech, 6/24/04. He's ready

Al Gore, Georgetown University, June 24, 2004
http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article36.htmlv

“If the Congress becomes an enfeebled enabler to the executive, and the courts become known for political calculations in their decisions, then the country suffers. The kinds of unnatural, undemocratic activities in which this administration has engaged, in order to aggrandize power, have included censorship of scientific reports, manipulation of budgetary statistics, silencing dissent, and ignoring intelligence. Although there have been other efforts by other presidents to encroach on the legitimate prerogatives of Congress and courts, there has never been this kind of systematic abuse of the truth and institutionalization of dishonesty as a routine part of the policy process.”

[johnaries]

80. How about Gore/Clinton, since we had 2 Clinton/Gore winners?

Personally, I'd rather see a Gore/Kerry ticket. After all, both of them already won!

I can't tell if the poster suggesting Gore/Clark was kidding or not, but that's not a bad idea, either.

But, it won't matter at all if we don't do something about election reform and get rid of the rigged voting machines!

[election_2004]

83. Neither...

Lincoln/Warner in 2008!!!

http://www.lincoln2008.com

[Upfront]

86. Just The Thought

makes me sick.

[Gyre]

88. Kerry couldn't do it before with a photogenic dark horse mate

what makes you think he's gonna make it with the running mate independents and republicans despise almost uniformly?

But I'm sure our party will find some creative way to throw away yet another opportunity. They're used to losing and retaining their seats. Nothing will change until that does.

Gyre

[bunny planet]

89. I'd prefer a Kerry/Clark ticket.

or Gore/Clark, Gore/Kerry (the revenge ticket), or Gore/Boxer, Kerry/Boxer. This is fun, but 2006 is way more important right now.

[BlueIris]

101. Kerry/Boxer (or Kerry/Conyers?) would be lovely.

And "Gore/Kerry (the revenge ticket)" is an awesome expression, so you may consider it stolen.

[DrFunkenstein]

90. Two Gi-Normous Egos Don't Make For a Peanut Butter Cup

Don't ask me what that means. But it's a bad idea.

[wisteria]

91. Kerry all the way!! Clinton- not so sure! n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

96. Feh. What a terrible idea.

With that ticket we could just about guarantee that our next president will be Jebbie Bush or Dr. Frist-Mengele.

[QC]

97. No, there is no merit to this idea. None whatsoever. n/t

[genius]

98. Hillary is backing David Dukes Roberts for Supreme Court. She's out..

I don't back segregation-supporters.

[BlueIris]

100. One can only hope. This was it for me and her. nt.

[Jane Austin]

104. Every time I see this thread subject I shudder.

n/t

[darkism]

105. Kerry won once already and gave it up...

...and Hillary couldn't win even if we had Diebold on OUR side.

...so no.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

107. Good God, NO!

Just... NO!

[halobeam]

112. Someone mentioned the Kerry/Clark ticket.

I love that idea.

[RunningFromCongress]

113. That's not a bad ticket, IMO clark is good/great ONLY as a VP nom.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

114. Check out this thread regarding the 2004 election

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... And you might want to check out the whole forum. We can't begin to think about future elections until we secure voter reform to guarantee fair elections. Throughout the US steps are being taken to add more machines to count the votes.....or should I say, machines without paper receipts, with no way to verify your vote? Machines that are owned by a Republican that promised Ohio to Bush in 04. If you want to think of the future, you better step up to the plate today and help with election reform!

Is it me or do you become upset when you hear talk of what we can do to
run better campaigns, etc?

WE DON'T NEED BETTER CAMPAIGNS WE NEED HONEST ELECTIONS!

Every time I am around Democrats who start talking about 06 and 08, I explain to them that with a machine counting their votes, it doesn't matter how they campaign. I think people are waking up as well. Put it in terms they understand.

An ATM machine gives you a receipt, the bank knows at any given time how many people withdrew $100 and how many withdrew $200. If they have an error, the look at their totals, and call and ask you to bring in your receipt.

Voting on a machine is the same as going into a room with a panel of republicans and telling them who you want to vote for. At the end of the day, THEY will tell you who won.

Also, if you are talking to a Republican, ask them how they would feel about Diebold if Teresa Heinz Kerry or George Soros bought the company? And tell them, it could happen....so do you really want this system counting your vote?

We cannot begin to think of 06 and 08 until we have honest and fair elections.