The good, the bad, and the ugly of potential '08 candidates

[Yukari Yakumo]

Good:
Obama - A rising star of the party. His lack of experience in Washington will more of a blessing than a curse, as I bet the general public is going to be very tired of D.C.-types by 2008 rolls around. If he's an excellent choice for the ticket, be it for Pres or V.P.

Clark - Another non-Washington type. Military background will be helpful winning over red states. Perhaps better used as the running mate if not the candidate.

Gore - Although a career politician, but being eight years removed from Washington will help. He can probably best capitalize on any anti-B*** sentiment also, which, by '08, will probably be massive. His famous lack of charisma would need to be dealt with though.

Bad:
Kerry - No matter what excuses we may have, truth be told, he blew it in 2004. He epitomizes the "Do Nothing" Democrats that let BushCo brutalize everything America stood for at home and abroad. Unable to capitalize on a weakened B*** and ineffective to counter attacks by his cronies.

Edwards - Though not a member of Congress now, he's not far enough removed to escape any anti-D.C. sentiment. Plus he would be probably have difficulty winning over swing states.

Biden - A Senator for 32-years. That alone should be reason enough not to pick him. At best, a V.P. candidate if the nomination could be viewed as lacking experience.

Ugly:
H. Clinton - Polarizing figure that'll alienate EVERYONE. She will not get any support from the right side, and I doubt she'll get much support from the middle. To highlight one of the ways she'll alienate her own party, Hillary, along with Lieberman, is one of the few politicians who has allied themselves with the lunatic, anti-gaming lawyer Jack Thompson. She has more liabilities than anyone, so picking her would practical guarantee four more years of a Republican in the White House.

[William769]

1. Oy vey!

[David Dunham]

2. Hillary, Gore, Bayh (whom you omitted) and Kerry are the leaders

Hillary, Gore (if he runs), Bayh, and Kerry will be the leading candidates for the nomination in 2008. Each has a network of supporters already in place across the nation and the capacity to raise lots of money. Hillary, Bayh, and Kerry already have large money in the bank. Gore can raise money quickly like Dean did in 2003-2004, and I favor him if he runs.

Obama's boomlet is almost over. With less than two years experience as a senator, he will not get very far, especially because national security issues will still be front and center.

Edwards, due to his weak performance as the VP nominee in 2004, and Clark, who is nice but not going to get much support, will not be factors in the end.

Feingold, if he runs, will be the Kuchinich of 2008.

[babylonsister]

3. Says who? nt

[David Dunham]

6. To win the nomination, one needs a national group of supporters

Hillary, Gore, Bayh, and Kerry have them already -- the others will not have comparable organizations or support. Obama should concentrate on building a good record to run in the future.

[babylonsister]

7. I agree about Obama, but

the VP slot might not be a bad idea. We shall see.
But the OP's opinions obviously don't match mine.

[evlbstrd]

4. Please.

Can we not get through this election before we start arguing about the next one?

[blm]

5. THIS proves you are no history major, "Epitomizes do-nothing Democrats"

You can't name a lawmaker of the last 35 years who has investigated and exposed more government corruption than John Kerry has.

Your analysis is grossly immature and uninformed. In fact, it was do-nothing politicians who sat on their hands while Kerry was exposing the growing global terrorism threat and how they were funding their terrorism and then wrote his warnings in a book The New War (1997). Too bad. Had they been more interested in terrorism than Whitewater and Monica, they would have read Kerry's book and heeded his call to track terror networks more thoroughly.

BTW:

Bush is the most PROTECTED President in history - more protected by the media than Ronald Reagan, even.

Don't even PRETEND that wasn't a factor - GOP control of media was a huge factor.

The DNC's failure to secure the election process in 2002 and 2004 made certain that the RNC's vote stealing efforts would work - yet again.

You blame the guy who WON? Try blaming the collapsed party infrastructure that failed to secure the votes Kerry earned.

And start reading REAL books and REAL records.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. Thank you.

John Kerry has been THE most consistent politician representing us since the Vietnam years. I will go to my death believing that he actually won in 2004. Instead of blaming him, we should always put the blame where it belongs -- on George Bush, Dick Cheney and Carl Rove. Now, there's an axis of evil.

[saltpoint]

9. What a nasty little post.

Shame on you.