Does your Favorite 2008 Prez Candidate have a ......

[Catchawave]

weakness? I mean, we can work on it here, before the 'thuglicans work on it in '08.

For starters, my fav is Edwards (domestic issues)/Warner (best governed state and a kudo for Kaine's win), as of today, they're just out there walking the talk, but both have serious '08 Pacs up and running :bounce:

Yes, my 2008 Dream Tickie, as of now, is an Edwards/Warner ticket. AND no, spankies to you DUers who say JRE is a one term wonder (uh, JFK) and Warner is a one term gov (uh, cannot succeed himself in vA).

Wanna play, all in good fun? Only one rule, you have to answer the hard questions without personally attacking the candidate or the troll, er, BUT that's a good exercise too !

Sidebar: I hope this is a DU bonding experience, if not, I know who's candidate supporters is behind the venom *snork*

[Rowdyboy]

1. I think both Edwards and Warner are qualified despite short public careers

However, give JFK his due. Not only a war hero, he had already served 6 years in the House and 8 years in the senate.

As to an Edwards/Warner ticket, that may be pushing it a bit. Neither has any serious foreign policy experience and the ticket would be seen as too southern/moderate. I know, Clinton-Gore pulled it off but they're the exception to the rule.

On the plus side, they're both able to self-finance and they are definitely easy on the eyes....

I'd lean more to a Clark/Warner, Edwards/Richardson or Warner/Bayh pairing

[Catchawave]

5. Didn't George have a short one too ?

Ahhhh, love the photos :)

[DemDogs]

13. Both wives are military kids

Weakness: neither served. But maybe age (post-Vietnam) and the wives make up for that a little?

[Texas_Kat]

42. Nope

[Awsi Dooger]

2. You have the same two choices as I do

Not necessarily in exact order. I was an Edwards guy for 2004 but Warner probably fits better in 2008, given the electoral significance of Virginia. I was also extremely impressed with Warner's introduction speech of Kaine last night. Much more natural and effective in that role that I expected, bordering on likable. He varied his tone and emphasis very well and had ideal timing, not stepping on his own applause lines like Kerry made an art form.

Edwards' weakness is it's 2000 and 2004 all over again. He can't win North Carolina, or Virginia with the possible exception if Warner is his VP. Edwards would need to win Ohio or Florida. Since each of those states defaults red by at least a point or two at base instinct, we're playing from behind again.

Warner's weakness is he probably needs a Kerry-like electability anointment in New Hampshire and Iowa. This time it would be astute but our voters may shy away from that approach after the handicapping flop of 2004.

[Catchawave]

6. It's a charismatic team ? Yes?

Not to mention bringing "people" back to the party ! We have 3 years, this is a great start. Would love to hear from other Dem08 supporters too!!!

[Awsi Dooger]

8. Extremely

I'm sick of de-emphasizing that or pretending it doesn't matter. It's always a big part of my handicap. I host debate watching parties every cycle. Last year my group judged Kerry the easy winner of every debate, but when I polled them on likability after debate three not one damn thing had changed from prior to debate one. That really numbed me and made me less optimistic about November 2. They respected Kerry but didn't like him. That doesn't sway votes.

[Catchawave]

14. Kerry was a nice enough and really talented guy, but

needs to fine tune that charisma factor if he chooses to run again in '08. Likability should be a factor in our midterms too, along with state ballot intiatives like:

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/minimumwage/

But I'll get more anal about this in early '06 :)

[LittleClarkie]

24. He's been working on the short sentence thing

And he's replaced the professor personae with an angry one that reminds me of Gore sometimes. But be the losing to Bush thing that make a good liberal angry.

[NCarolinawoman]

28. Back in 2000 the media said Kerry had loads of charisma.

Then in 2004 they said he DIDN't have charisma. I think many people were overly influenced by the whims of the MSM. Just like they made fun of his windsurfing, which is really not an elitist sport. It's just not a "good-old-boy"sport.

I think Clark has a lot of charisma, and I find Warner and even Gore are "likeable". Gore is just a bit stiff sometimes, as he was during the debates.

I really do think "still waters run deep"..

[karynnj]

36. Kerry , outstanding person, statesman - weakness: the media

Watching the Senate, Kerry is by far one of the most charismatic people there. He has a life story that if it were fiction would be criticised for being almost cartoonist, placing him as the principled moral liberal fighting the forces of evil at least 3 times. (once would make a good movie)

He is articulate and statesman- like when appropriate and dryly witty and snarky at other times.

But, I like other Kerry people have praised him in millions of posts, and that's NOT the point of this post. Ignoring the Terror issue, the thing that hurt him the most was the media was totally behind Bush. It is highly likely our 2008 candidate will face this too.

No matter who is the candidate - we need to find a way to get out who he is. Many candidates (not Hillary) that we can pick are less known to the country than Kerry was. He had 2 really good ads in the primaries that showed who he was. The media for the first time in my memory did not spend the week before the convention positively talking about the candidate's biography. (MSNBC had a show just dealing with his anti-war days - very nice, but certainly not what was done in past years. Frontline had a nice double biography and CNN had a pretty weak one. ) In hindsight, at that point the Democrats needed to put out ads on his biography to make up for this.

There is no reason to expect better treatment next time, so starting when the candidate is known - we need an ad campaign and all the Democrats pitching in to tell their personal knowledge of the candidate. (For example - Kerry was an author of a Kennedy/Kerry bill that was the precursor to the CHIP program that expanded health care to poor childern and much of Clinton's COPS program was Kerry's and was based on stuff he's done for years. A short Clinton ad on this in say May, 2004 would have really helped. Clinton saying Kerry was a hero in Vietnam wouldn't.) Sorry for the Kerry example - but I needed an example where a couple easy points weren't well made that could easily have been done with the right person. They are mentioned in his acceptance speech - but a 30 second ad would have highlighted it.(the COPS program reflected a committment to underprividged youths that Kerry consistently and extensively supported and worked on since he was a proscecutor in 1976.)

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Yeah, me too

I think I still prefer Edwards who seems to have more charisma than Warner. But could some see it as slickness? Also while his trial-lawyer career seems to have been genuinely responsible, he'll be vulnerable to swift-boating on the "ambulance-chaser"-charge and he'll have to make peace with the medical community - the AMA could do a lot of damage to him if they decide he's going to threaten them.

On the other hand, Edwards did emerge from the '04 races with the highest positives of the 4 national candidates (Bush, Kerry, Cheney, and Edwards).

With Warner I guess weaknesses would be charisma and a lack of foreign policy experience, which is also an issue with Edwards. Edwards has somewhat more foreign policy experience from his time in the Senate and frankly I'd trust either of them with foreign policy, particularly if matched with a strong staff. But it will be an issue.

I don't think a pairing of them would work that well. Either would need a running mate of the Cheney-model - someone older, well-respected, with lots of foreign policy and governing experience.

I like the idea of Edwards/Clark or Warner/Clark. Or Clark/Warner (I doubt that Edwards would take VP again - he'd probably drop out of politics if he lost the nomination again).

[UrbScotty]

3. Feingold: Two divorces

Neither half as messy as Newt Gingrich's.

[Catchawave]

7. I'm not worried about messy personal stuff...unless we

run our guys against McCain and Guiliani....that would level the field.

[karynnj]

34. You certainly don't have to worry about it with Guiliani

Guiliani is on his third marriage and the break up of his second was covered in detail in the NY papers - the slimiet thing was announcing his divorce before he told his wife they were divorcing. His wife, a public person, was met by the press asking for comments. The break up was because he was getting serious about his long time girl friend. It also came out that he had had a previous girl friend who he put into a lucrative city job. Feingold has to be an angel compared to this.

[flaminbats]

30. Doesn't Feingold oppose the death penalty?

Some may view this as the responsible position for any officeholder, but politically it is a huge disadvantage. Hypocrisy is the Religious Right's middle-name. Maybe it was ok for Bob Barr to be divorced three times, but whenever a Democrat does it..they are only trashing family values. :eyes:

No human is without serious flaws, but what makes any candidate worth voting for?

[Mr_King]

4. I support...

John Edwards, now the clear "weakness" if you want to call it that was that he was only in the Senate for 6 years (one term) and there for he doesn't have a lot of experience. But if you look at past elections that doesn't really matter.

Even though Gore really won in 2000 he's not in the White House today or the years between 2001-2005. But for the swing voters that voted for Bush voted for him despite the fact that Bush had only been in politics in his own right since 1994 and Gore had been in politics in his own right since 1976.

In 1992 people choose Bill Clinton who had only been Governor of Arkansas for a total of 12 years against a guy like George H.W. Bush who was President for 4 years, V-P for 8 years, Ambassador to China, Director of the CIA, Chairman of the RNC, and a Congressman from Texas.

Both Reagan and Carter were FORMER Governors when they ran for President.

So if experience is the thing that is most important when it comes to winning the White House Kerry would have won in 2004, Gore would have won in 2000, Dole would have won in 1996, Bush would have won in 1992, Mondale would have won in 1984, Carter would have won in 1980, and Ford would have won in 1976.

Now Edwards' opponets both in the Primaries and in the general election will say, well experience is more important now then it was in elections before 9/11. The thing is in 2008 9/11 will be 7 years ago, the Iraq War would be in it's 5th year, and the nation will be in more debt then in any other time in history. When it comes right down to it voters care more about whether they have food on their table and a roof over their heads then they do about a terroist attack that happened 7 years ago. The GOP won't have Karl Rove and the Bush name directly involved in the campaign in 2008.

Remember New York City and Washington, D.C. the two cities affected by 9/11 the most voted for Kerry in big numbers in 2004.

[WI_DEM]

9. Actually JFK was in his second senate term when he ran

for president. But I like both Edwards and Warner, but I personally wish that Warner would run for the Senate next year against Allen, Warner would be a shoo-in.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Why don't you tell us what your favorite's weaknesses are? n/t

[Catchawave]

12. LOL n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

19. That was an honest question

You're asking everyone to analyze the faults of their own favorites, and then you're chiming in with comments.

But I don't see you saying anything about the flaws of your guy.

Strikes me as sort of hypocritical.

[SheilaT]

11. They ALL have weaknesses.

It's something I said over and over again in the lead-up to last year's election. What matters is how any perceived weakness is handled, not the weakness itself.

Republicans are incredibly good at ignoring their weaknesses. Look at every single upper level person in the Bush administration and their personal military records. Yep.

Each and every one of them is vastly more flawed (in my biased opinion) than any of our potential candidates, cabinet members, whatever.

Thomas Frank is out there talking about these things. I heard a talk he did recently in Seattle and it's very enlightening on these matters.

[Catchawave]

15. Oh yeah, let's speak "politics" :)

Good grief, look as the weakest human ever, GWB, someone any liberal would embrace and understand ANd HELP, but up to a point....how did he become a two-term 'resident?

[SheilaT]

35. He became "president"

precisely because Democrats were 1)exceptionally bad at bringing those to the fore, 2)exceptionally bad at allowing Gore's and Kerry's weaknesses to be exploited by Republicans, and 3)allowing Republicans to completely set the agenda and control the language of all debate.

Until we take over the language of politics and until we learn to stop the petty squabbling that so easily divides us, we're going to continue to have trouble getting enough people to understand our viewpoints, its strengths, and the horrible weaknesses of the Republicans.

Just think of how they name the talking points of their agenda: No Child Left Behind. Clean Skies Act.

One down side to DU is that for the most part we're all preaching to the choir here, but you certainly do get to see the divisions within the Democrats also.

[tritsofme]

16. JFK had been in Congress since 1946

He's no basis for comparison.

[Clarkie1]

18. Once again, you make mistatements and represent them as fact.

John Kennedy won two senate terms.

John Edwards is no John Kennedy. He's not even in the same league, not even close. His greatest weakness is that he lacks executive, administrative experience. He's not a proven leader, not even in the senate.

Clark's greatest weakness is the prejudice some on the far-left have regarding soldiers who dedicate their lives to serving their country. It's not a personal weakness, it's a weakness in others.

[Mr_King]

22. I see...

rip Edwards to elevate Clark. Kinda like what Rove did to McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Primary.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Yeah.

Saying that someone lacks administrative experience is a whole lot like insinuating that he fathered an illegitimate child, or betrayed his country while a POW.:eyes:

[Clarkie1]

26. Yeah, kinda like saying the Earth is flat...

If you going to make a post, at least post something credible.

[Mr_King]

31. Just admit it...

You ripped John Edwards just to make Wesley Clark look better.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[LittleClarkie]

29. Does Clark have a weakness that IS him, and not perceptions OF him?

For me, Edwards' weakness is that somebody taught him to talk like a huckster. I saw on CSPAN what he was like before he ran for president. I liked him better when he talked like a lawyer, and didn't do the "aw, shucks" thing. His strength is his compelling background and his signature issue: the two Americas.

Clark appeared to be somewhat weak on domestic policy and may be politically naive. Strenghth: I know some Republicans who say they would have voted for him. Loyal as all hell. He speaks well, appears strong, and has quietly been getting stuff done on the Hill. If he doesn't get Prez, I'd like to see him get SoS or some post like that. Too much potential to waste.

Kerry weakness: he gets off to a slow start in his campaigns. Toward the end, he looked like a winner. But we need to get a cattle prod or something to get him going earlier. Strength: experience all over the damn place. Small business, foreign policy, lawyer, and also quietly getting stuff done, at one point with Clark I remember.

Feingold weakness: Jewish (I can't believe that), twice divorced (can't believe that's a liability either, sigh). Maybe considered too liberal. Strengths: some folks like a maverick, and Russ has been known to go his own way on occasion. Appears sincere and honest and thoughtful without being stuffy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Not having held elective office is his biggest legitimate weakness

Clark would be a stronger candidate if people could point to his years in the Senate or in a Governor's Mansion along with his stirling international record in the military. That is simply true. I am confident of Clark's credentials to be President but sometimes needing to have that discussion with people new to Clark is a distraction from discussing what he does bring to the table. Of course there is a positive aspect too in that Clark can not be pegged as a traditional politician at a time when many no longer trust traditional politicians, but a short prior career in politics would have made Clark stronger. Plus he's had less time to practice running for office than what most Presidential candidates bring to a race. That was more of an issue in 2004 but one can still cite it. And less politicians owe Clark favors since he has not long been part of the system where big name Democrats raise lots of money and then dole it out to lesser known Democrats.

Clark also has a tendency toward trying to actually answer questions asked of him, which sometimes keeps him from turning replies to all questions into opportunities to repeat chosen talking points, which is standard operating procedure in politics it seems. Clark is learning how to do some of that now without loss of his own personal integrity in the process, so this may yet turn into a net positive.

I also feel that the opening post to this thread was not even handed despite the intent expressed.

[DemDogs]

37. Same old same old from you

Actually Edwards is smarter than JFK, has a better story than JFK, is a much better speaker, and has exactly the same amount of executive experience (and that a three dollars will get you a latte).

[Texas_Kat]

43. It's interesting that you think Senate experience

is executive experience..... or maybe it was a clever way to say neither JFK or Edwards had any.

In the immortal words of Lloyd Bentsen: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Clever or not, 'self-serving' comparisons between the two are likely to sound as ridiculous to others as they did to Bentsen when Dan Quayle tried it.

[Adelante]

20. Yeah, right, Catchawave

We're going to play this game with you. We were born yesterday. :eyes:

[nickshepDEM]

21. Sure does... Lack of 'experience'.

There's no denying Mark Warner lacks in the foreign policy department. He also lacks overall experience. However, he has been highly successful as Governor and as a businessman. That wont matter to the GOP though. They will hit him hard as an one term Governor w/ no grasp on international issues.

This could play right into Warners hands though. He could run as the 'not so life long politican.' He takes a business approach to Gov't and I think the voters will like that. Actually, if VA is an indication, they will LOVE his approach.

As far as foreign policy goes. I truely believe if he presents himself as a strong leader the people will overlook his lack of foreign policy experience. A solid VP pick would help, too. Cheney did wonders for Bush in 2000.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[leetrisck]

32. Whatever the experience level, the Presidency is

a whole new ballgame. Could (& would) support any one of these potential candidates plus many others.

[win_in_06]

33. A weakness that will be expoited on Edwards

is the fact that he did not deliver his home state in '04.

He should be prepared for that one.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. And that he disappeared completely as VP candidate.

That man brought NOTHING to our ticket in '04.

[Sparkly]

38. "I know who's candidate supporters is behind the venom"

I just love "DU bonding experiences" like this. :eyes:

[wiley]

41. "Wanna play, all in good fun?"

For starters, you said nothing about your "tickie". What's with the "tickie" and "spankies" thing anyway?