What dem do you think will get the nomination?

[JeremyWestenn]

Now which Democrat do you want, but what Democrat do you think will get the nomination as our Presidential candidate?

Now, in full disclosure, I am a Hillary supporter and I believe it will be Hillary Clinton. I also believe the VP, for essentially whoever the Dems choose, will be Governor Bill Richardson(Barring his getting the nomination, which is hardly likely).

Your thoughts?

[Bluzmann57]

1. I honestly don't know

An awful lot can happen between now and August of next year. So it's impossible to make a prediction, at least for me.

[Erika]

2. Hillary-Obama

will be the ticket.

[JeremyWestenn]

4. My thoughts on that is that allthough it'd be a great ticket...

To quote my sister, to many minorities on one ballot. :\

[KingofNewOrleans]

9. If Obama gets the nomination

Some white guy will be the VP.

[job777]

16. ticket

Anyone but Hillary.

[TSIAS]

3. Clinton

I like Obama, but Hillary will be our next President.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Obama. He brings so much different and new and exciting. People are drawn to him.

[peace13]

6. Gore/Obama

[MADem]

7. I don't know. And that's not a hedge. I'm honestly undecided at this point.

And any one of the candidates could surge ahead or slip and fall on their ass.

If Gore jumps in, he's got it. And Lieberman won't get called up to the dais this time, either, the asshole.

Everyone assumes it's a contest between Hillary and Obama, but we've barely heard from Bill Richardson at this point, and he could be very formidable. He's very good in front of a camera, he makes it look effortless and he has enough experience that he knows how to choose his words. And, there's that ever-growing Hispanic demographic. A few Hispanics from the GOP might cross lines to make the point and put him in office, even if they don't agree with his views. And they might lie about it too--insist that they voted for the GOP putz, while secretly pulling the lever for Bill. I wouldn't rule it out.

I can tell you who will not win--Dennis Kucinich. I think he'll add a good deal to the debates, but he's not winning the prize.

One lousy bit of press can ruin a forward motion. We've seen that happen a few times lately. I think we need at least one debate and a couple of primaries before we can get a sense of how everyone will shake out.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. take your time. you will know when you decide in your own time.

[snowbear]

10. Clark if he runs.. if not.. Richardson or Obama perhaps..

But I do know one thing.. We need to watch the debates and they'll be TONS of them comimg up soon!

~~~

[KingofNewOrleans]

11. I don't know either

But with California moving up, it makes money more important.

I do think it's a virtual lock that a woman or minority will be on the ticket. There are quite a few choices/combination that could be made that would be sound from both a policy and political standpoint.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

12. Obama as of right now, but Gore is the big question

[incapsulated]

13. Depends who gets in

Not everyone has announced yet. Wait until the field is full.

[Kindigger]

14. I think

John Edwards, but would like it to be Bill Richardson.

[Doondoo]

15. Gore

[AtomicKitten]

17. It's Gore's for the taking.

And I'm hoping he'll do the taking.

[mnhtnbb]

18. Edwards will get the nod. Hillary will turn him down for VP and he'll

go with Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

23. and Clark will turn him down, and he'll go with Richardson.

[PresidentObama]

26. What makes you think Clark would turn down Edwards?

Not that I think Edwards would get the nod, he might. I'd prefer Clark ;)

[FrenchieCat]

27. Edwards and Clark is like Oil and Vinegar.......

although When Clark was asked about John Edwards recently on television, he was gracious......:
"Well, I like John Edwards. I think he has to be taken in as a very serious contender for the Presidency in 2008. He's a man who is clearly shown his motivation and his determination and, and one of the things that I think all Americans want and I think people all over the world want is they want the American President to be fully committed, his whole life, being and essence to the job and the public responsibilities that come with the office of the Presidency."
http://securingamerica.com/printready/transcript_061228.htm

But still, I believe that although they can be civil to each other, there is no great love lost between the two.

The reason for this?

When Gen. Shelton, who was a 3rd party associated with the Edwards campaign spoke an unsubstantiated smear against Clark to the press a week prior to Clark's announcement back in 2003; later the Clark campaign asked John Edwards to repudiate it....this was the response received from John Edwards.....

"Whatever your personal views on General Shelton, I'm sure you agree that he is a respected military leader who served our country with distinction". "

Wes Clark Jr. indicated a long time ago that this non-answer from Edwards said more about Edwards than about Wes Clark or Shelton. it illustrated that politics trumps good will as far as Edwards is concerned...and that smearing the good name and character of a same party opponent is par for the course, no matter how low it goes.

I believe that this exchange made any possibility of a coupling by those two impossible in reference to Clark ever serving under Edwards....since character and integrity equals the sum of a man...in particular, for one who served his country for 34 years and who's West Point Motto has always been Duty, Honor and country.

More details of this story here...http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/gen_clarks_band_of_brass_opini.html

[chimpymustgo]

32. Based on Clark's own words, and the way they seemed to get along together

during the candidate appearances, I'm skeptical of any real animosity between Edwards and Clark. I honestly think this is something fueled by some of Clark's supporters, who have been bitter towards Edwards since the primaries and VEEPstakes.

These are both smart, caring men, whom I believe could easily work together - for the good of the country.

[saltpoint]

19. I think your pick of Bill Richardson for the shortlist veep nom is right on.

For the top slot, I'm rejecting today's murmur that HClinton is like Ed Muskie. I understand the point raised, but I don't get the parallel. Plus, Senator Clinton is not an Ibogaine freak, as Muskie was accused of being by Hunter S. Thompson. Also I think she's tougher than Muskie. And I liked Muskie just fine.

But I don't see her getting out of Iowa in the first 3 slots. I think Edwards and Obama defeat her there, albeit with narrow percentages bunched together. And that's not even counting Al Gore's possible entry. If Gore jumps in, HClinton slips to at least 4th. That wounds her for New Hampshire's outcome a week later and kills any momentum she's enjoyed up to that point.

If Iowans in their caucuses have a choice of HClinton, Al Gore, Tom Vilsack, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, plus a respectable handful of other candidates, I think they choose Edwards on the strenght of his 32% there in 04; Gore because all Democrats know who truly won in 2000; Obama on the energy of many young acolytes and volunteers; Vilsack on the residual support he enjoys in his home state; and all 4 of these first before HClinton.

After the severity and bone-crunching meanness of 8 years of George W. Bush and Dick "Lizard-Soul" Cheney, I think an electable populist has the inside track.

Edwards. With Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, or Kathleen Sebelius as veep.

[Auntie Bush]

20. I think CLARK will get in the race and

I think he will win. I also think he will be tapped as VP by anyone who wins the nomination. If he wins...I think he will choose Richardson, Obama or Hillary for VP. IMHO

[Cameron27]

21. Without Clark or Gore running

I think Hillary takes it, with Obama a close second. With Gore or Clark in, the whole thing gets tossed in the air. MSM will try to ignore Clark for as long as possible, and because for whatever reason, the media doesn't like Gore, they'll start swiftboating early.

[SaveElmer]

22. Hillary -Clark

Has been my prediction all along...and I see no reason to change it...

Obama has the next best chance...

I think Richardson will overtake Edwards and make a run...

[FrenchieCat]

24. If Clark gets in and Iran becomes an even bigger issue, i.e., a surgical strike

occurs, he could win, as long as the netroots gives him the support, because the media won't unless forced to. Iowa could be Clark's break. Iowa looks at candidates closely....and in that close up, Clark becomes an attractive candidate who encompasses qualities from all of the others; he's southern, progressive and good looking enough(Edwards), he's tough (Hillary), he's an outsider who's right on the war and not stale(Obama), he's got the foreign policy chops who has negotiated peace(Richardson), plus he's won a war (no one else). Of course, he's domestic policies proposals would have to stand to the test....which I think they would.

If Clark stays out, then I believe that it is Edwards' to lose and Richardson's to win coming out of Iowa. Iowans are going to look at the state of our nation at the time of the caucus, and if we are still in Iraq, and if Iran is on the front burner, than Richardson will come out as the surprise in the top slot (as Kerry did the last time), followed by Hillary, then Edwards, then Obama, then Vilsack. However, if Obama can excite enough new voters, i.e., young people, then we could see an upset in the larger states on February 5th, i.e., California....although Iowa will still probably put in first place someone like a Richardson (due to Obama's perceived lack of experience).

Democrats as a whole are not reknowned at being real big at looking at the lay of the land and understanding that when at war, choose an experience hand....in particular if an unexperience hand is polling high on the other side. However, Iowans will not choose to nominate a novice that's already made mistakes or has no experience to come out as number 1. Iowans will look at who the Republicans are offering. If it's a McCain, experience on the Dem side will rise as a premium.

Of course this is just sizing things up 1 entire year ahead of time. Plus everything would change if Gore got in. Although still stiff, the qualities that gore offers; unparallel experience and already served in a near capacity will trump other candidates qualities.

The VP will be chosen based on the lacking qualities of the nominee....i.e., Edwards and Obama will attempt to locate a foreign policy expert with electoral benefits....Edwards might pick Richardson (to cover the south and the southwest), and Obama might pick Clark (to cover military/foreign policy deficit and bring in status quo appear)...Hillary would pick Mark Warner...and Gore would pick either Obama or Clark depending on issues raised about Gore during the campaign (if McCain, then Gore picks Clark). Richardson would pick charisma in the form of Edwards if Romney gets the GOP nod, or Richardson would pick Clark if either McCain or Huckabee are the Republican nominee. Both Clark and Edwards help him in the south.

[PresidentObama]

25. Obama. Gore for sure, if he gets in.

Would love for it to go to Obama, but we'll see. Not sure I'd count Hillary Clinton out either, but I think she'll be in a much different place in the polls in a year. Edwards could also be a factor!

[Superman Returns]

28. Obama, Clinton, or Richardson.

Richardson is going to be the surprise candidate in Iowa. Not sure if he will win, but I for some I see him cooming out strong despite lack of media attention. I don't think Obama will do that great in the first caucus.

I don't think Edwards will make it simply because S.Carolina is do or die for him and between Clinton and Obama's strength in the African-American community, I don't see him pulling it off.

When Vilsack loses Iowa he will end his campaign.

Biden and Dodd will be non-factors, though if its gonna be one suprise candidate from this group, it will be Dodd.

And until Clark or Gore jump in, I'm not going to say.

[benny05]

29. Not 100% who will win Dem nod

Even though I'm backing Edwards.

Nonetheless, I think that unless Clark is the nominee, the VP nominee will be someone with military experience. I've said it either here or JRE's blog that since 1932, the winning ticket (either Dem or Repug) has had someone with military experience or connections.

1932-1948: FDR (undersec of Navy) and most of his VP nominees, including Truman, were in WWI or served
1948: Truman (WWI)
1952: Eisenhower (WWII) and Tricky Dick (I think also WWII)
1960: JFK (WWII)
1968: Tricky Dick
1976: Jimmy Carter (Navy)
1980: Reagan and 41 (WWII)
1988: 41 (WWII)
1992: Big Dog (no experience) and Gore (Vietnam)
2000: Chimpy (National Guard faux experience, but connections thru 41) and Grumpy (Sec of Defense)
2006: Le meme chose

My ideal ticket, which way too early to predict:

Edwards/Webb (both Born Fightin', but Webb has the military gravitas; Mrs. Edwards is the daughter of a Navy Pilot during Korea and he also taught ROTC)

Second choice: Edwards/Reed (Rhode Island, who also served in the military) or Panetta of CA (who is likely to be Clinton's nom, I think, if it isn't Clark and served in Vietname)

[fuzzyball]

30. HILLARY CLINTON...

.I can bet monet on it

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Al Gore

VP, most likely Obama.

[Bucky]

33. I sincerely hope it's not Senator Clinton.

She's just about my last choice among the major candidates. I fear she's in good position to nail down the nomination. The crowding up of all the primaries into February means that big money media campaigns, not the person to person retail politics that can make an outsider the nominee. This is how we got some of our best presidents in the past while the domination of big media mostly leads to inside-the-beltway cronies.