We need a good '08 Presidential candidate, but I don't like any of them.

[FormerRepublican]

All the names people put forward as a good candidate - well, I don't like 'em. Maybe because they've been around too long and I wonder if they're corrupt. Maybe because I don't know enough about them. Maybe because I feel like they're not really representing me. I don't know.

But I do know that if we don't find an excellent candidate for President in '08, it increases the chances that Republicans can pull off a fast one and force us into 8 more years of this *. I really, really, really couldn't stand another 8 years of Republican slash and burn policies to kill Americans.

So, IMO, we need to do some heavy work to come up with an exceptional '08 candidate to put the 'pukes back in their place. Does anyone have any good suggestions, and if so, why do you think they would be a better and more effective candidate against the 'pukes than the alternatives?

I really want us to overturn this criminal cabal. We can't wait until the last minute, come up with an anemic candidate, and expect to win against the Republican Mafia.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Webster Green]

1. Re-elect President Gore!

My thought.

[ladjf]

26. I'd feel good about another Gore run. But, no Lieberman.

[Webster Green]

39. Indeed!............Holy Joe is a deal-breaker for me....

No way I would vote for any ticket with that asshat on it.

[ladjf]

46. Gore made two big mistakes in 2000 and picking Lieberman

was the worst.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

2. I'm right there with you

The only person I would feel 100% happy about voting for is Al Gore.

And I'm almost 100% positive that he's not going to run. I have issues with all of the other big names in the Party right now.

Maybe we need an unknown Governor to step forward like Clinton did in '92. (Schweitzer from Montana???)

I dunno...

[VaYallaDawg]

5. Maybe Warner from VA.

He's already doing some preliminary fund-raising I hear.

[capitalistdemocrat]

34. You Nailed It

Warner will be the nominee.

[FormerRepublican]

6. That's what I keep thinking...

I think I'm just so burnt out on all the scandal and corruption in Washington DC that I'm not sure I can trust any of the Dems there either. We need someone really good, and I just can't figure out who that might be.

[blm]

16. You don't know enough about Dems but feel comfortable saying you don't

trust any of them....seems too contradictory to start a sincere discussion.

[FormerRepublican]

21. It's not my job as a citizen to get the message out - it's the job...

...of a candidate and the party. And don't forget it's not just me who has to buy into a candidate, it's a majority of the country, who have in the recent past voted Republican. If I'm not hearing about good, viable Democrat candidates, then what do you think the non-Democrat voting public is hearing?

Don't take what I'm saying as an attack on Democrats - it's not. I'm saying we're not being effective enough to beat the Republicans, and that has me scared spitless.

And yes, I've seen enough of what goes on in Washington to wonder if the Democrats might have something to hide, as well as the Republicans. So if they've been in for a really long time, I look at them and wonder.

I mean, it's not like I've been watching the Corporations take over the country... :sarcasm:

We have to work together to win, and that means finding out where we're weak, and shoring up those areas to become strong enough to win. That means being realistic about where we are, and trying to make things better.

[Initech]

3. No matter who the Dems pick in '08, they'll be easily swift-boated.

Of course, the Rethugs are getting way too predictable with this shit!

[FormerRepublican]

8. But that's the whole point. We need to find someone who can deal with...

...that effectively. IMO, the reason why Kerry got swift-boated is because he didn't fight back effectively.

And most of all, WE the people, must forge on despite the horrible odds. If we don't, we're going to get stuck with another 8 years. IMO, THAT possible future demands we act in spite of all opposition!

[blm]

12. Media didn't LET his fight and articles exposing the SBV fraud get airtime

needed.

Name the one Democrat who has control of all the news networks' editting rooms.

[FormerRepublican]

22. Then maybe Dems need to start rebuilding those relationships.

The Republicans took over the media through political means. It will take political means to win the media back over to our side.

The relationship existed before. It can exist again. We just have to make the effort and be politically effective.

[blm]

27. GOP cronies BOUGHT the media, they didn't sweet-talk em into shilling

for them.

You think any real Democrat could tell GE they'll make more money for the defense divisions than a Republican president will?

[FormerRepublican]

35. If GE believes Dems will be in charge, then you better BELIEVE they'll...

...jump ship!

They follow the power, and we're advertising to the world how powerless we are to stop the Republican money machine!

[blm]

37. GE assures that Dems WON'T be power and that is why you won't hear about

voting machine fraud as an issue.

A Democrat would have to be a corporatist frontman for the GOP fascists to get positive support from GE.

Waste time on arguing WHO instead of fixing what's really wrong? No way - EXPOSE the GOP control of the media and the voting machines. The public is ready for the truth.

[FormerRepublican]

38. OK, since you're arguing the media controls the message and is supporting

'pukes, HOW are you going to EXPOSE the crooks stole the election? HOW are you going to get the people to believe their votes don't count unless they stand up for voting machine accountability or paper ballots?

That's really my point. It's not enough to talk about what's wrong. We need a strategy to address it and overcome it so we can win.

If voting machines are an issue the prevents us from ever being elected, then we should be funding mail to the American public to show them proof about what's gone wrong in our electoral system. We need to have ads in newspapers. We need to band together on the internet to make sure important information gets broadly disseminated.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? We need to be more effective at strategy, or the Republicans are going to win. They'll put Rove or one of his ilk on the spin machine and our message will die. They already have the power, and we're not exerting enough of our own to wrest it back.

[blm]

41. It has to be a concentrated effort by the Dem party to take every

opportunity they can to expose how the corporatists work.

Right now, Bush cronies are working to break up KnightRidder, the second largest news publisher. KnightRidder's DC bureau is the only one who reported that WH was cooking the intel books back in 2002, and also reported the DSM story.

That is how BushInc works behind the scenes. Democrats have to use every means available and what little honest press is left to expose the GOPs methods of deceiving the public.

[FormerRepublican]

42. We also need to be using alternative means to get the message out...

...if the media is compromised. We need to be more effective at using the internet in a systematic way to get the message out. We need to use more traditional means that can't be corrupted by the Republicans - direct mail, local ads, etc. We really, really need to work the grassroots hard and spread the message word of mouth.

We can fight the corruption if we develop an effective strategy and work it.

[blm]

44. True - and there are opportunities with broadcast media now that weren't

there just a year ago.

We now live in a postKatrina, postFitzgerald country, and some of the biggest names in media fear being exposed as WH shills.

[Initech]

20. Exactly. The one guy we picked last year didnt get it...

The Republicans seem to use this tactic every single election (like they did to McCain in '00 that led to the "election" of Commander Cuckoobananas). We need to get somebody who will see through their dirty tricks.

[havocmom]

4. Greeley gave some good advice long ago

go west

[lojasmo]

7. I can only imagine voting for Gore or Feingold EOM

[FormerRepublican]

11. And the reason why I wouldn't vote for either of them is because...

they haven't been effective in fighting the Republican machine.

We need someone who can advance what we believe in, and they're not going to be able to do that unless they can take on the Republicans and win.

I haven't seen that with ANY of the currently known names.

[lojasmo]

17. Feingold got 65% of the vote in WI

a 50/50 Kerry/bush state.

He's the only senator to have voted against both the IWR and the USAPATRIOT act.

[FormerRepublican]

23. I've heard of Feingold, but don't know that much about him.

Why do you think he would be an effective candidate against the Republicans? Why isn't he vocally fighting their agenda now (cuts for the poor, bloated military budget, etc.)? Is he out there talking about these things, and I'm just not seeing it? (I live in Utah, so maybe the media just isn't reaching here? What plan could address this problem?)

[stray cat]

36. He has been going to Iraq and down to southern states

He was very effective going against a Bush clone in WI in 2004. He spoke straight and effectively and made the typical republican attacks look stupid. Feingold was targeted by the Bush administration. They said he was unpatriotic because he voted against the patriot act. He said the reason he voted against it was because he actually read it!

He said if the South won't vote democrat the best thing to do is to go South and ask them why instead of listening to political hacks and the media. - so thats one things he is up to.

He also put together a progressive patriot Pac and they are funneling donations to progressive candidates to build up a progressive political infrastructure.

[FormerRepublican]

40. Sounds like he's got some good strategy and is working to implement it.

That's very good. That's what I'm looking for. What can WE do to help him?

Even if he doesn't run for President, what he's doing is the kind of work I'd like to support so we can see some results.

[lojasmo]

80. 65% in a 50/50 state is pretty effective.

From Truthout:

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold on the Patriot Act Conference Report
By Senator Russ Feingold
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Thursday 08 December 2005

"I will do everything I can, including a filibuster, to stop this Patriot Act conference report, which does not include adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms. The version of the Patriot Act that was signed today is a major disappointment. I appreciate that it includes four-year sunsets on three controversial provisions, but merely sun-setting bad law is not adequate. We need to make substantive changes to the law, and without those changes I am confident there will be strong, bipartisan opposition here in the Senate.

This isn't about stopping Patriot Act reauthorization. The President could sign Patriot Act reauthorization legislation into law tomorrow if the House would just take up and pass the compromise Senate bill that was approved unanimously in the Senate earlier this year - a bill that includes important and reasonable privacy protections. The conference committee had the opportunity to fix many of the provisions of the Patriot Act to which Americans across the political spectrum have voiced their opposition over the last four years. Unfortunately, they decided not to listen. This battle is not over."

[stray cat]

30. The fight can't be carried by a single candidate, impossible

The right wing has taken years to quietly build their infrastructure. Fighting it can't be the task of one individual. No single voice will ever be loud enough. To use the term in a nonreligious sense, a democratic political savior is unlikely to appear. All of us imperfect ones will have to get our act together and fight productively and wisely.

[blm]

33. Exactly - Joe Montana couldn't do what he did without his FRONT LINE.

.

[FormerRepublican]

43. Then we need to be working harder to build our infrastructure.

We have to develop a strategy that's effective in fighting the tactics of the Republicans. That's the bottom line. If we don't, we won't win.

IMO, that result is unacceptable. That's why I started a discussion to try to figure out what we can do - and also to identify prime candidates who are effective in carrying out the strategy of the party.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

49. Gore wasn't effective?

He got more votes than Bush did.

If it weren't for widespread voter purging and nepotism in Florida coupled with the intervention of SCOTUS, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

I don't think that his loss was due to Gore's ineffectiveness as a candidate.

(Edited as I got a stat wrong...)

[FormerRepublican]

53. Unfortunately, getting elected is what it takes to be effective.

Gore actually has a few points on his side since he was the first person to really experience the 'puke machine on the "serious crook" setting. I give him more of a pass than the rest for that reason.

But we now know how the 'puke machine works. What is Gore doing now that increases his ability to challenge them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

55. Well, for starters --

I think that there's a certain population of this country who feels like Gore should have been the President for the last 5 years and that by electing him we would sort of put history back onto its correct path so to speak.

But, the main thing is that Gore didn't draw an overwhelming majority primarily because he was painted as dull, stiff, boring, etc. whereas Bush came across as a fun-loving good ol' boy. Since the defeat, Gore seems to have learned a lot about life and his entire demeanor has changed. Witness any recent appearance on SNL or Letterman to see what I mean. He's genuinely funny, loose and --dare I say it-- charismatic. He has completely overcome his Achille's Heel.

Couple this with his experience as VP for eight years, his innate intelligence and the foresight he showed in the 20th century with respect to 21st century issues (the environment, technology (the internet) and alternative energy particularly), and I think he'd be a lock in 2008.

[FormerRepublican]

56. I agree that there are a lot of people who'd like to make the stolen...

...election right. That would help, since it adds to the existing base before the campaign starts.

I guess part of my frustration is coming from the failure of our elected officials to challenge the massive corruption going on in Washington. I learned to respect John Conyers BECAUSE he has consistently challenged the wrongs committed by the Republican party.

What we really need is to have ALL our people working together to do the same thing. I think it's critical to have party unity in the run up to a Presidential election. We also need a candidate who is strong enough to lead others into doing the right thing. There are way too many folks who are more than willing to cave to Republican tactics. We need effective strategies. We need to have a clear message that resonates with the public. And we need a candidate who can articulate that message, and effectively challenge the Republican response.

If Gore's the man - can't he get out there in front and speak for us?

[AmericanDream]

9. Too bad... because I do think we have a good pool for 08. n/t

[FormerRepublican]

13. Yet none of them are effective at getting themselves heard.

We need someone who can make themselves heard, or what we believe in doesn't mean squat. It'll just be buried by Republicans.

[blm]

10. The problem is the GOP control of the broadcast media and voting machines.

Controlling the media means defining ANY Dem nominee via booking of guests, distribution of airtime and editting rooms.

Controlling the machines speaks for itself.

[FormerRepublican]

25. OK, we know what the problems are.

Now what do we do about them?

We can't just say the problem is insurmountable and there's nothing we can do. That just hands over a win to the Republicans.

We have to say - here's the problem, and here's what we're going to do about it.

It's the second half that's missing!

[blm]

29. The GOP control of media/voting machines needs public exposure

and that is something the Democratic party needs to do NOW, before 2008.

[FormerRepublican]

45. Exactly!

And if the folks working at Democratic party headquarters don't have ideas on how to do that, they we need to be feeding them ideas and encouraging them to do something NOW so we don't end up losing 2006.

[AX10]

14. Clark!

[FormerRepublican]

28. OK, why do you think Clark would be effective against the Republicans?

That's really the core of the battle - whoever we have as a candidate, has to be able to take on the Republicans and win.

What do you feel Clark has done that demonstrates his ability to do this? What can WE do to help?

[snowbear]

52. Wow.. you really ARE a former Repub!

You know nothing about General Clark !?!?

I'm shocked at your post Former REPUB. Why should you like anyone 3 years out?!?

We have absolutely -0- idea who will be running in either party! It's all ASS-umptions right now.

Sad post.

[FormerRepublican]

54. Are we in power right now? No.

Since we're not in power, and the Republicans are busy collecting power for themselves (including through crooked means), then it is incumbent upon us to develop effective strategies and encourage great candidates if we want to win.

You're certainly entitled to disagree with me, but I think we've been ineffective in fighting against the Republican machine and our issues are not getting addressed (cuts in programs for the poor, etc). We've also heard silence from Washington while the Republicans engage in more and more brazen criminality. If what we're doing now is not effective, then what can we do better?

If Clark is the candidate to win for us, then it's not just me that has to be convinced. It's the voting public who has voted Republican in the last few elections, and they'll be a lot harder to convince than I am.

It's not enough to say - hey, support this Dem candidate. We need to know that candidate is better than everyone else, we need to know that candidate can fight the 'pukes and win, and we need to know that candidate can win over the voting public that has previously voted 'puke. Then we'll win.

[AmericanDream]

47. Clark has very few political skills... I doubt he can survive the GOP

machine. He might be a good guy as so many clarkies tell me, however, he doesn't have the political skills needed to defeat the freeper machines. I think Clark as VP would be great.. but he is too inexperienced with politics to be on the top. His 04 campaign was very disorganized as I observed it. In fact, I believe he hasn't even ever run for anything, except for President. So, he might have substance, but I'm not sure the General has the skills.

[CarolNYC]

72. Well,

yes, he hasn't learned yet how to lie....or to tell people what they want to hear when he knows or believes differently even if he knows what he will say will not be popular....or to wait until it's "safe" to voice something that he thinks needs to be said when it's not so safe to say so. And he dares to say things like this: "There are always people who don't do their homework and want to label people....Don't worry about it. It's not about who you're with, It's about the right thing to do." And he refuses to put selfish concerns or even party concerns above the good of the country.

You may be right and it may not be possible to win now without such skills but if that's what he's got to learn to be a "successful" politician, then I don't think I want him to be one.

As for VP, I really think, that although he may help the ticket win, it really would be such a waste for him to serve as VP. If he's not the President, he needs to be in some position where he can put his experience and expertise and considerable skills and knowledge into practice on an international level. President of the Senate just isn't going to cut it.

[Loonman]

15. Not only a great candidate, a great campaign manager

Who ever managed Kerry's campaign should be dope-slapped for being stupid. Only an idiot can run a losing campaign against Bush.

[lojasmo]

19. If you'd read Cahill's letters

you'd understand that she was much more of an activist than Kerry was.

Kerry blew it, not Cahill.

[blm]

32. You mean media didn't DISCUSS Cahill's letters the way they did Gillespie

and Mehlman's letters?

Now why would they do that?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Get someone who communicates well with ordinary people and

who has ideas to start solving the everyday problems that beset ordinary people.

Lose the Beltway consultants and ask activists in each state what issues people are talking about in bars and coffee shops and church basements and on the sidelines of Little League games and in the locker room and on the bus and wherever else people gather and chat.

Then devise feasible, easily-explained plans for dealing with three or four issues that come up in every state or most states. Leave the rest to position papers that stay on the website. Avoid acting "wonkish."

Set the agenda. Bring your carefully crafted agenda out before the Republicans have a chance to bring theirs out.

Refuse to be distracted, although you should respond to slanders quickly and make the opponent look evil and craven for even attempting that tactic. "Yes, ladies and gentleman, my opponent lied about and distorted my record, and I expect an apology immediately."

If the Republican opponent brings up wedge issues like guns or gays, dismiss him in a way that suggests that you think he's an idiot. e.g. "Why are you getting all worked up about people's private sleeping arrangements when we have people dying for lack of health care?" "Why do you keep lying and saying that Democrats want to ban guns? Don't you have anything important to talk about?"

That's what should happen.

But I fear that the Beltway Scaredy-Cats whose main object in life is to gain power without offending the Republicans or the corporate donors will rule the day.

[FormerRepublican]

48. I agree.

[ladjf]

24. In principle I agree with you. However, name recognition is a

huge element in the formula for success. You are right in that we can't wait very long to find someone. Short of that, I believe that we could win with Gore. He has matured philosophically since 2000.
And he's definitely not a crook.

[FormerRepublican]

50. Gore has been ineffective against the Republican machine in the past.

I'd need to see something from him showing he's become more effective against Republican tactics before I'm willing to support him.

Name recognition is important, but when we're talking about President, you need a pretty effective political machine to win.

[Darkhawk32]

31. ANNOUNCEMENT: Darkhawk32 for President in 2008!!! n/t

[FormerRepublican]

51. Well, you're on DU, so you've done at least one thing to be effective...

...fighting the 'pukes! :)

[xkenx]

57. Wes Clark

inspires people like no one since Bobby Kennedy. Wes Clark has been assaulting Bushco on Iraq since well before the war. Wes Clark has gone into the FAUX News den and ripped new assholes for O'Reilly and Hannity. Wes Clark. When asked at a campaign rally how he would respond the the RW smears, replied(not remembering he was on camera)
"I'll beat the shit out of them." When the MSM complained about his harsh language, he corrected himself to say "I meant to say I'll beat the LIVING shit out of them."

[FormerRepublican]

58. LOL! I can get behind that sentiment!

[xkenx]

59. Even though Wes Clark is one tough hombre,

he is also a caring compassionate Progressive.

I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.

[FormerRepublican]

60. Thank you for telling me this.

We need to hear these kinds of stories about our candidates.

[DemCam]

61. There you go....

put's one in a pickle, huh? wanting that perfect candidate.

[WI_DEM]

62. I don't think Clark and Feingold have been around too long

at least not as presidential candidates. Clark made a run in '04 and Feingold has never run.

[MellowOne]

63. Re-elect Gore or Kerry

Give them back what was stolen from them.

[nickshepDEM]

64. Have you already rulled out Warner, Vilsack and Bayh?

All would be solid general election candidates, but are often ruled out here on DU because they are... Get ready.... DLC.

[FormerRepublican]

67. I think what I need to do is spend more time really researching the...

...candidates to see if I can find someone promising.

Maybe it's the fault of the Republican spin machine that I'm inadvertently exposed to on a daily basis when I read the news, but the Dem candidates I've seen so far all seem so blah... They're not passionate about the issues, they don't stand up and fight, they don't seem to really push the issues they believe in.

I think I'm suffering from roll-over-itis from watching all the Dems in Congress roll over for the 'pukes. (sigh)

I enjoy reading the opinion of others on DU about the candidates, though. I'm glad we have this opportunity to discuss this.

[TriMetFan]

65. First we got to think about 2006.

Nov. 2006 is just about 11 months away. We got to fight hard and get back the Congress and Senate first then worry about 2008. Because if we don't focus on what is important which is 2006 we will not win back our Nation.

[FormerRepublican]

66. Unfortunately, they're both important and we must multi-task.

If we don't we risk losing ground to those we despise on the other side of the aisle.

[wiley]

68. Interesting Name

Some Democrats attacked Wes Clark for being a Republican who switched his registration in the past few years. Clark was never registered as a Republican, however. The truth didn't prevent some people from continuing to attack him. It's nice to see someone with a name like FormerRepublican even get a hearing on this board. Watch your step. Don't ever run for office as a Democrat. They'll eat you alive regardless of what you actually say or who you are.

[FormerRepublican]

70. Not in Utah. I think here, the only Dems who can get elected ARE...

...former Republicans.

But I know what you mean. I think for the right people, however, they would get heard. In politics, attacks are the name of the game. An effective pol can deal with and counter attacks, and win respect in the process.

IMO, Democrats are far more tolerant and accepting than Republicans.

[TriMetFan]

71. Yes they are both very important! Here is the big But.....

If we don't win the Congress and Senate in 2006 we will not win The Presidency in 2008. The Nazi-Republicans have complete control and they are willing to strangle our Nation to death. Also it doesn't help a group like ours that has some pull to be fighting over 2008. If we're to focus our energy into winning 2006 we would be taking a major step to win in 2008.

[EndElectoral]

69. Too many here only think of polticians...Bill Moyers..

[thatsrightimirish]

73. HMMMMMMM...

I say a Clark/Anderson in 08

Rocky Anderson being the mayor of Salt Lake City Utah. Just throwing it out there.

[BlueIris]

75. Welcome to DU.

May your stay here be sweet. And blessedly...other things.

[BlueIris]

74. Do some real research and real independent thinking

before you decide if any of our candidates are actually "corrupt." It may be that you haven't spent enough time being a "former" Republican for the brainwashing to have worn off yet.

[Vinca]

76. I'm pretty much in the same boat, but Warner is starting to stand out

for me. I don't think we can win with any of the "also rans." It needs to be someone fresh to the national scene. I'm not concerned that long-time Democratic politicians might be involved in shady dealings. Compared to Republicans they're saints. I am concerned with voters looking at a candidate and thinking, "Oh, no, not him again."

[Hyernel]

77. Either Wes Clark, or a governor.

Senators. can't. win. period.

Members of Congress are tainted with the stink of politics. We should not run them for POTUS...ever.

[JABBS]

78. Edwards-Warner

It worked in 1992 and it can work again. Two moderate Southern, well-spoken Democrats. Edwards has good name recognition and a good rep among the party faithful. Both he and Warner would appeal to independents and Clinton Republicans.

Hillary would have no chance, in large part because she would spend too much of the campaign defending herself against vicious rumors spread by the conservative noise machine. Kerry won't rally the faithful for another run.

Biden would be a decent #2 also, but I think it would be better to have him campaigning for the ticket, with the promise that he'd be given a key role in the new administration. Same with Clark.

[skipos]

79. Clark and Warner complement eachother well.

Clark's foreign accomplishments, Warner's domestic accomplishments.
They both speak in a down to earth, easy to understand manner that is missing in most politicians.