Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Players in 2008 - My Thoughts (SORRY!!)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mr715 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:17 AM
Original message
The Players in 2008 - My Thoughts (SORRY!!)
Yup. Its me again. I'd like to get your thoughts on MY thoughts here, on the leading contestants for the race to the democratic nomination. Let me know what you think and I'll try not to insult anyone like I seem to unintentional do on this board. Curse my moderate politics!


Hillary Clinton:
Pro: Massive name recognition, loads of money, machinary in place, extremely deft politician, female
Con: female (unknown effect on electorate), polarizing, perceived as too liberal by the right and too conservative by the left, no foreign policy exp, NE liberal senator

John Kerry:
Pro: lots of money, high name recognition. incredibly experienced and intelligent
Con: poor campaigner, seen as "loser", high negatives, the botched joke, NE liberal senator, Catholic

Al Gore:
Pro: name recognition, passionate advocate for a number of issues, "high ground" winner of 2000
Con: 2000 election redux baggage, southern

John Edwards:
Pro: good looking, wealthy, charismatic, name recognition, Washington outsider, populist
Con: trial lawyer, dismal 2004 campaign performance, little experience, poor Senate attendence record, southern

Barack Obama:
Pro, good looking, charismatic, African-american, incredible speaker, Midwestern
Con: no foreign policy or military experience, African-American

Chris Dodd:
Pro: Experience
Con: No name recognition, NE liberal Senator

Joe Biden
Pro: Great familiarity with foreign affairs, good looking, charismatic, NE moderate
Con: Mixed party support, elderly, plagarism charges

Tom Vilsack:
Pro: popular with executive experience, governor of midwestern state, unique history
Con: no name recognition, no foreign policy experience, little establishment support, catholic

Dennis Kucinich
Pro: Midwestern, devoted supporters
Con: no chance of winning, no money, no establishment support, no name recognition, mixed record as executive, unconventional philosophy, unattractive


From what ive listed here, I think the strongest ticket would be Al Gore / John Edwards or Al Gore / Barack Obama.


M
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well,
it's been nice knowin ya. :hi:

Seriously, nice work, you've given this some thought.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vexatious Ape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. Unfortunately I think your right.
I'll be pulling for Kucinich, and I swore to myself that I will not vote for another free trader--like Clinton, or Kerry or Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ray of light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. no Clarke? No Richardson?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. Don't Start With That "Clarke" Shit, Please?
People who don't like Wesley CLARK spell it that was as a dig. Kind of like bu$h using the term "Democrat Party."
If I'm wrong, I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'll add one that you have "forgotten", as does the Media most of the time....
Wes Clark:
Pro: Attractive, Washington outsider, Southerner, Expertise in foreign affairs and National Security and peace treaties and winning wars, military experience, was right on Iraq, incredibly intelligent, executive experience, devoted supporters, perceived as moderate but is generally progressive, cross party appeal.
Con: No corporate media support, name recognition issues, "Poor campaigner" meme.

From what we've listed here, I think the strongest ticket would be Wes Clark/Barack Obama or Al Gore/Wes Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Stop reading my mind!
"I think the strongest ticket would be Wes Clark/Barack Obama or Al Gore/Wes Clark.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr715 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. + Clark and Richardson
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 03:33 AM by mr715
Wesley Clark
Pro: Military and Foreign Policy Experience, Intelligent, Washington outsider cred, southern
Con: Poor campaigning skills, little domestic policy experience

Bill Richardson:
Pro: Western, Executive, Hispanic (Untested)
Con: Name recognition low, hispanic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. Can't buy the "little domestic policy experience"
Clark is an educator by training and experience. He taught economics at a prestigious university. He teaches at another university now. As a senior officer, he ran schools, hospitals, built roads... the list is long and I've posted it many times before. Suffice to say he was essentially the mayor of Ft Irwin CA for two years, and the governor of the American military community (civilians and families too) in Europe, Africa and in Latin America for a total of five.

I don't agree with you that Clark has poor campaign skills, but that is more a matter of opinion. If you are wrong, it will become obvious to all soon enough. If I am wrong, it will never really matter.

But the domestic policy experience is not just opinion. Clark has a deeper background in all that stuff than any senator, and more than most other politicians as well. If you get the opportunity to hear him speak some time about subjects of his own choice, you will know that it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kiouni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. Its funny that you list Unattractive
and attractive I didn't realize how much of a role looks played in the election until I talked to my sister (a frosh in College) and her friends back in the last elections and they voted for bush because he was better looking then kerry! burned me up but hey if looks can buy you 5 votes then your already 5 votes ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Bush better looking than Kerry?
Well looks are in the eye of the beholder, but anyone who votes just based on looks should just stay home and not vote. I personally think Kerry is a nice looking man. And, I don't find Edwards attractive at all. And of course,what will your friends do if Senator Clinton is the candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. I don't think that it is attractive as with models
but being personable, feeling comfortable in one's own skin. Bush, as a frat boy, always appear to be at ease, except when debating. Yes, the smirk, the callous appearance.. we, who seek substance, are appalled by this, but regular folks open up. This was the greatness of Clinton, of course. His warmth and openness to everyone, his ready smile and jokes make him the popular man that he still is.

Kerry and Gore, while highly intelligent, appear to have hard time to smile, to be spontaneous. They appear too... serious and to preach on time. We, who seek substance, love this about them but for the average voters, who need to be addresssed at sixth grade level, they are intimidating.

This is why, in 1996, it was Steven Forbes with his goofy smile who won the NH Republican primary, ahead of sour and dour Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
7. Gore/Obama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
8. Well, I think Americans can look past smears and see a great man, I go with Kerry.
I want a real leader who isn't concerned about polls and political moves. I want experience. Oh, and you list Biden as attractive and not Kerry? Come on now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
10. Why do you repeatedly have "southern" in the CON
for Gore and Edwards? IMO, "southern" is a big 'ol PRO as it is more likely to draw Southern voters, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Clinton and Carter were southern too...
:hi: crispi !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Clark is southern too, plus his name begins with a "C" also!
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist, lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. because, unfortunately, that is the prevailing opinion here.

I try to overlook such limited mindsets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr715 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Yup
Sorry that was in error. Shoulda been in pro
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KKKarl is an idiot Donating Member (662 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
11. Al Gore is not running
But it would be great if he would reconsider. If we go by your assessment & with Gore being left out of the equation we will have either a Edwards/Obama or an Obama/Edwards. This would be a great only one way at this point in time that would be Edwards/Obama. Edwards having the strong southern roots & accent. Obama bringing in the African American vote & strong blue states being strong blue states as usual will probably mean a landslide against any other combination. Obama/Edwards will not bring in the Southern vote (in fact it may scare the Southern White vote because Obama is black) just like Kerry/Edwards did not so that would be a more competitive combination for the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
13. Why is Gore's southern roots a negative?
The only Democrats to become President since JFK were southerners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
15. Heck, I could live happily with either of those tickets.
And I agree with you that Gore should be at the top - WHATEVER. It's just time. He's needed. Needed desperately. And needed NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. How did you manage to list Dodd, Vilsack, and Kucinich...
...without mention of Clark or Richardson? Clark and Richardson, along with Vilsack, share the distinction of not being Congressional Democrats, and Congressional Democrats have lost Presidential campaigns for Democrats since 1960. Clark and Richardson also have some of the best credentials and resumes dealing with international issues at a time when the United States is involved in two active wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and potentially on the threshold of two others (Iran and North Korea). The ommissions are glaring to my mind, especially when I look at some of the Democrats you did give consideration to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
18. Rebutting the "con" for Edwards
Being a trial lawyer means that he is a fighter. Will react immediately to any swift-like attacks.

Dismal 2004 campaign: he did well when he was still in the race, that's how he got 2nd in Iowa, beating neighboring son Gephardt. After that, he had to do what was told by Kerry and, apparently, he was having his disagreements that, so far, has kept to himself.

Poor senate attendance can probably be a positive. I don't think that any Senator can win the white house unless, of course, both candidates are. There are vast differences between the skills required to be a legislator and an executive. And, I suppose, if McCain will be the nominee, he will run more on his military experience.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
22. Since you asked:
I agree with most of your observations. I would add:

Hillary Clinton:
Con: Too viciously hated by republicans to swing any votes; must wade through one of the bloodiest campaigns in history. Putting up with a cheating husband (sorry, but for wives who've dealt with infidelity, this is real; ya think there might be a few of us out there?) Pro-war. DLC.

John Kerry:
Con: Seems to be unable to recognize the core of the issues until AFTER he's voted. Coming out "against" Bush administration policies after the fact is not impressive.

Al Gore:
Pro: He's smart, he's got the most experience of any contender, he's likable.
Con: NAFTA/CAFTA.

John Edwards:
Pro: He's likable.
Con: pro-Iraq War, co-writer of Patriot Act.

Barack Obama:
Con: Keeps voting to give Bush more war funding. Voted for free trade. Voted for the bankruptcy bill. Voted for the admin's right-wing choices. There's more, but that's plenty to add.

Chris Dodd:
Con: No name recognition is right. I've never even heard of him.

Joe Biden
Con: Voted for IWR. Voted for bankruptcy bill. Voted against predatory lending limits. Voted to confirm Condi. Says he thinks it's great that there's not much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Tom Vilsack:
Con: Not enough information to make a choice, and seems a little unwilling to commit himself to positions on issues.

Dennis Kucinich
Pro: no corporate strings attached, consistent labor supporter, best positions on all issues
Con: not mainstream enough to get the support of his own party

Out of this group? Gore/Kucinich, at least until more information comes to light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr715 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Well
I think I covered all those points except the partisan ones. As a democrat those positions may be important to us but Im trying to list each candidates quals independent of their political stance

I also dont think Al Gore has more experience than Kerry or Biden or Dodd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. More experience in the WH,
and possibly more administrative experience than Kerry or Biden. I stand corrected; those mentioned have extensive experience, just different than Gore's. I guess I'd have to break down their actions and votes, one at a time, to rank them as far as *good* experience, lol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mr715 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. well
thats unnecesary.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Well
Did you think before you wrote that which I quoted?? I found that statement to be astounding. Revealing too.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr715 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Yah, I did.
Kerry, Biden, Dodd have been around since before the Christ. I think their political experience is equivalent or greater than Al Gore's, though Al Gore's experience is nothing small.

I posted an honest review of what I think the candidates bring to the table. I dont see why you have to attack me personally for my thoughts particularly when I am asking for corrections and consideration.

How very humane of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I thought your OP was pretty good
even though I disagreed with minor points.

The quote I took issue with, and that you apparently STILL stand by, reveals a depth of political ignorance I guess I was surprised by.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dben88 Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Nice
Nice only listing cons. That's what we need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Actually, if you are a discerning reader,
you will notice a few things:

1. The OP asked for my thoughts, without qualifying "pro" or "con." Are you denying that request because you judge that it's not "needed?"

2. Before adding thoughts, I clearly stated that I agreed with most of what the OP had already stated. That would include the "pros."

3. It is false to assert that I "only listed cons." I also included 3 new "pros."

4. Just who is "we," and when did that "we" appoint you to be the supreme judge of what is needed? I don't think the thread was about "need."

If you think someone, or some group of someones, "needs" something, why not say what you think the need is, rather than what it is not?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andykef Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
25. Vilsack: Dark Horse?
1. Rodham-Clinton Vs Obama = Media race neither are going to be elected President IMO. Rodham-Clinton, too divisive. Obama, not experienced and U.S. not ready.

2. Edwards = the best candidate had he (a) won the Cheney Vs Edwards debate in '04 which he did not and or (b) be in some kind of political office for the last four years which of course he has not.

3. Gore = the best candidate to run to beat McCain. Can win!

4. Vilsack = a second look. He is a Governor and thus not beltway. he is attacking McCain/Bush on Iraq. He is the dark horse in the race.

5. Biden = good pick VP for inexperienced Washington candidate.

Conclusion GORE/OBAMA or GORE/RICHARDSON or GORE/VILSACK
if not then perhaps VILSACK/BIDEN '08


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
26. I would dispute Biden as good looking and charismatic
Bleh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Someone said Biden was good looking ? ..LOL!
I only scanned this thread so I didn't see that, but how funny!

Then again, the poster named "Kiouni" said her sister thinks Bush is good looking!?!?!

Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. It's in the OP as a plus for Biden
I don't share their taste in men, it seems. When Biden starts yelling, he's nearly as simian as Bush in some of the pictures I've seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Hey.. on second thought..
I found this photo..



I suppose he isn't THAT bad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Getta of town!
Now that's funny! LOL! Hell, I don't even find Stallone attractive, then or now....meaning Biden's face on Stallone's body isn't gonna do it for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC