After much research & consideration, I've who the best '08 tickets are...

[Rosco T.]

take your choice...

Warner/Edwards

Clark/Edwards

Warner & Clark are 'outside' Washington (no House/Senate baggage), are well spoken and articulate.

Edwards has the charisma to match either one, and with a few VP years under his belt will be well fit to take on the top job.

'Dems my choices and I'm sticking with them.

[silverstateD]

1. Warner/Richardson

The Dream Team

[Rosco T.]

2. I'll give you that for third...

Edwards already has a LOT of public exposure, I don't think the 'trial lawyer' crap really stuck. He's more of a joe-everyman in appearance and talk...

[Clark2008]

61. You're kidding, right?

Seriously, everyone I know thinks the personal attorney crap stuck.

I don't know a soul who thinks he's a "joe everyman." Maybe it's because I'm in the next state over from NC, but people around here call him "Senator Gone."

How 'bout Clark/Warner? Or Clark/Richardson?

Hell, I don't care as long as Clark heads the ticket. :)

[Rosco T.]

3. self delete - stuttering mouse click..

[xxqqqzme]

4. dream team for the DLC.!

[silverstateD]

9. Sorry.....

Just want to win elctions. Who do you sugest?

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. Uh, how about a DEMOCRAT?

[Clark2008]

63. Clark's not DLC.

Just so you know.

Go to their website. His name is NOT listed.

They may claim to like him, but he's NOT a member. He's too liberal for them. Oh - and he had the least amount of corporate donations in the 2004 primaries.

[flpoljunkie]

70. DLC's Al From: "Our candidates, Clinton, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh..."

All members of the DLC, he replied, when prompted by the C-Span interviewer. From said all these candidates emphasized the following in their July DLC speeches.

l. Security
2. Opportunity
3. Responsibility
4. Reform

Same old DLC bullshit ideas about how the DLC thinks Democrats can win elections.

From's embrace of all these candidates really turns me off. And the way he refused to embrace Dean as DNC Chair really pissed me off. He did it twice--once at the beginning and at the end.

Link to C-Span video. It's the first selection, 45 minutes total from 10/25/05. The part cited above starts near the end of the tape at about 34:15.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Al+From&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit

[shraby]

10. Richardson blocked the recount in Arizona

by charging an exorbitant amount to recount..then the machines were cleared for another election real quick negating a recount even if the money could have been raised.
I couldn't back Richardson whatsoever.

[silverstateD]

13. You mean Bill Richardson....

Govenor of NEW MEXICO????

[shraby]

55. Oops. Me bad.

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

12. Trust me...You DON'T want Richardson!

I'm a native New Mexican, so please trust me, you don't want Richardson!

[silverstateD]

15. Why?

You bold assertion leaves me wanting to know more.

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

21. He blocked the recount in NM for one,

Second he often avoids progressive Democrats that try to talk to him. Not me, I've only met him once, and he's not a warm individual.
He is good at negotiating with other countries, but he lacks a lot when it comes to serving his own people. He's part of the problem with politics, not the solution. He says he wants to protect our border, yet he gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrates! Moron!
He only does what serves him best, not the people! If he were elected to serve us in Wa. I'm sure we'd live to regret it!

[rwenos]

26. Driver's Licenses

The hesitancy to grant driver's license to illegal immigrants puzzles me. I live in the Los Angeles area by the way.

But wouldn't it be better to know where the illegals are, and have some basic license testing, than to have the mess we have in LA, with 20% of the drivers unlicensed, uninsured and DANGEROUS?

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

30. They are dangerous here WITH driver's licenses!

The license here doesn't help them become good drivers. They don't stop at red lights or stop signs, and they are terrible drivers.
Maybe it would help to keep tabs on them, that is if our police dept. weren't corrupt!

[rwenos]

32. Who ARE You?

Every post you make rests on wild generalizations ("They" are all dangerous." "The police are ALL corrupt.")

Are you here just to poke holes in our ideas, or do you have a coherent political world-view at all?

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

42. I've lived in NM all my life...

Born and raised here. Our police dept. is under investigation. They got rid of the old police chief because of a big scandal in the evidence room.

As for dangerous illegal immigrant drivers, they're every were, and yes, they're a nuisance. Another thing is that our insurance rates are some of the highest in the country, because most of them are uninsured!

Just in the past couple of years our crime has skyrocketed. An 11 yr old girl was raped and murdered in her own bedroom on Monday night.

It used to be a wonderful state to live in, but not anymore.

[Baconfoot]

57. So, you check for a green card when you see a brown person driving poorly?

:eyes:

[silverstateD]

27. I am just talking about VP but

your points will be taken under advisement

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

31. Thank you...

that's all I ask. If you could talk to the majority of New Mexicans, I'm sure they'd tell you the same.

[Wetzelbill]

94. from what I know of Governor Richardson he's a typical DLC guy

Weak on lots of issues, completely status quo and more part of the problem than the solution. He's ok, I suppose, but not really somebody we would be ecstatic at having as President or VP. Not by any means.

[JPZenger]

106. Would you rather have illegals driving without being tested?

It is a tough decision whether to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. However, it gets down to a safety issue. I would like every person on the road to have been tested and to at least know they can read road signs and know basic rules of the road.

[enid602]

5. Clark

Isn't Warner from VA? I can't see two southerners on the same ticket. Clark, though is sold; he would appeal to midwesterners, northeasterners and westerners alike. He might also be able to put the reigns on the industrial-military complex, solve Iraq, and return us to pre-Bush international relations. Edwards would be effective on social programs. I hope Clark would appoint Bill Clinton as US Ambassador to the UN. That would piss a few people off.

[Rosco T.]

6. Clark has the military experience, Edwards has the social experience...

let them 'divide and conquer' the problems this country will be in and it's a win/win. With Clark there is no 'soft on terrorism' bull-pucky.

[enid602]

7. terrorism

And he might even spend some money protecting our ports, transit systems, etc. That would be a change.

[rwenos]

8. "I Can't See Two Southerners on the Ticket"

Yeah, that would be a tragedy. Kinda like Clinton/Gore in 1992.

Hey, I'm from California, I have very little use for the South generally. However -- I WANT TO BEAT THESE PUBBIE BASTARDS!

I want to know more about both General Clark and Governor Warner. Warner smells like a winner to me, if he has the skills.

[silverstateD]

11. Well said.

Why is it that people won't learn from history?

[wabranty]

100. Name some great Californian Democratic Presidents

Southern-bashing just doesn't help the Democrats.

[Jai4WKC08]

56. I can't see two white men on the ticket

Clark/Ford, Clark/Sanchez, Clark/Obama, and probably a whole lot of other combinations work for me.

My dream ticket is Clark/Rangel, but Charlie is probably too old. Same for Conyers. Both great men tho.

[loyalsister]

58. 2004 redeaux.

No way.
We need a newcomer at least at the top of the ticket.
I think we're better off if the pres. nominee doesn't have 2004 baggage.
BTW- Clark is no southerner. The only people who perceive him as a southerner are those who want him to be so that he can benefit from the geography. I talk to many people who ask where he's from and are surprised to hear Arkansas.
Passing him off as a southerner is as disingenuous as passing Bush off as a Texan.

[Clark2008]

64. Uhhh... what?

Clark is perceived as a Southerner. I know because I AM a Southerner.

The man says, "WaRshington," for Pete's sake.

He grew up from age 3 in Arkansas. I really don't see how YOU think he's not a Southerner. The good people of Tennessee and Arkansas sure consider him a Southerner.

[loyalsister]

74. Warshington

"warsh," etc are also midwestern pronunciations.
My grandma who is very much not a southerner- South Dakota to KC to Las Vegas uses it.
Go figure my suggestion that people who want him to be southern are the people who support him in the first place and your handle.
A person is culturally where they spend the majority of their adult years. He has been all over he is more like a midwestern conglomerate or internationalist than a southerner.
I have talked to southerners who call it both ways. A former Oklahoma rancher I know says it's false advertising. As does his son who is the hard core Okie to the bone.
There are things about Clark you can't have both ways.
He's a military man, sure. But it can only go so far. In order to consider his "southerness" as a value he needs to have been claiming it and doing something about it for a very long time.
It's an American ideal. An international southerner is an oxymoron.

[Jai4WKC08]

78. What a ridiculous notion!

Of course Clark is a southerner. He grew up in Arkansas from the age of three. He returned to Arkansas immediately after he left the military. His mother was from Arkansas. His mother's people were from Arkansas. The extended family he grew up in is all in Arkansas. No one, including Clark himself, knew anything about his father's family from "up north" (Chicago) or cared. The step-father who adopted him at age 10 was from Texas, but lived and died in Arkansas.

Leaving the state to join the military has NEVER been considered the same as just taking up residence in another state. You join the military with a "home of record" entered into your records and it stays the same throughout your service, no matter where you're assigned or for how long.

More importantly, EVERY state claims its sons and daughters in the military as their own. And with pride.

Read a newspaper report when a soldier from the home town has died in Iraq. The whole community grieves because it's one of their own. And that applies equally to a private who's been gone a year, or an officer who's been away for 20.

Sorry, but you're totally out to lunch on this one.

[loyalsister]

79. huh?

What does anything you have just said have to do with demeanor that creates the actual perception of a southerner? I am talking about culturally southern. He is not perceived as a southerner. Only people who care enough to do history of his biography call the man a southerner. The Clark worship here really gets old.

[Jai4WKC08]

81. There is no "southern demeanor"

Southerners come from all levels of economic strata and educational backgrounds. There may be some characteristics that are culturally southern, but they vary throughout the region and among the sub-groups of people who live there.

You may want to pigeon-hole Southerners into some sort of comic stereotype, but most people do not.

And yes, Clark is widely regarded as a southerner, by people who know no more than that he's a general from Arkansas. Granted that most people don't even know who he is, but among those who do, he is considered Southern. Your saying differently doesn't make it so.

Btw, nothing I said has anything to do with "Clark worship." There's nothing worshipful about simple facts, and nothing particularly glorifying about being from the South.

But since you don't like or can't refute my argument, you attack the motive behind it. :eyes: That gets really old too.

[loyalsister]

82. demeanor has nothing to do with education or economic strata

It is similar to disposition (that would include things like general behavioral attributes as well as actions based on mores in the context of culture. Clark is as easily midwestern as he is southern. I am not pigeon holing into a comic stereotype.
It's people here who keep trying to say people from the south are going to identify with the guy. Any idiot knows that it takes more than being born there to identify with people. People around here- Missouri have no idea he's "from the South" because he's been all over most of his adult life.
I've heard your argument, and the one that says that since he's a military guy and a telelvision personality he's from nowhere\everywhere.
He's pretty much generic to everyone except those who really want him to be president.

[Jai4WKC08]

90. My turn to say... huh?

You say demeanor "is similar to disposition (that would include things like general behavioral attributes as well as actions based on mores in the context of culture."

WTF?

No, seriously... what does all that mean?

Using an on-line dictionary, I find that demeanor is defined most simply as "the way a person behaves toward other people." Disposition has several definitions having to do with behavior. Both words generally pertain to individual and not regional or cultural characteristics. So I think I'm justified in saying there is no such thing as a southern demeanor or disposition. If you think otherwise, you sure haven't explained it here.

So the question remains: what does either one have to do with being Southern? What specific behaviors do you think Clark, or any other politician, would have to exhibit to be recognized as Southern? What about Edwards, for example, other than what I consider an exagerated accent, makes him seem more Southern?

I grew up in GA, and still have family and friends there, so I know a little bit about southern accents. Clark has one, altho it's muted, no doubt by living all over for so many years. But it is NOT mid-western, not even close. So what else is there?

I left the South at age 22, to join the military, and was stationed mostly away from the South (one tour in TX, one in VA) for 21 years. When I go back to GA, no one thinks I sound Southern. But people everywhere else do. I suspect that's true of Clark to some extent. I find his accent is much more pronounced now than it was before he moved back home, but it's not as strong as those who never left.

I don't know what part of MO you're in--perhaps it is one where people think of themselves as Southern, so they are less likely to recognize Southern in someone when it is not more obvious than in themselves.

I, on the other hand, have for 13 of the last 16 years lived eastern KS, the last 6 years about a half mile from the MO border. I go into Kansas City MO frequently, and have attended more than my share of MO party events.

Mostly I've found that people in these parts, on both sides of the state line--to include registered Democrats--have no idea who Clark is, so of course they have no opinion on whether he's Southern or not. But among activists who do know him, not a one would think he is anything else. It wouldn't even occur to them to doubt.

I don't see that as good or bad, btw. Non-urban mid-westerners would probably always prefer a southerner over someone from the northeast, but otherwise I don't think they really care.

Your premise seems to be that we Clarkies are somehow trying to "morph" Clark into something he is not. I guess you think being southern is a big political plus (and I wouldn't disagree) so we want to jump onto a bandwagon where we do not belong.

But the facts speak for themselves. Clark IS southern, whether he is perceived that way (as I know he is) or not. Seems to me more likely that you are trying to strip his southern roots from him so your guy can lay sole claim to the "honor." To that, I cry foul.

[loyalsister]

115. sigh....

Here's the thing. Typically, the idea behind a candidate from a southern state is to take advantage of the way the candidate connects with people. This is supposed to encourage Oklahoma, and Texas to claim him as a son as well as Arkansas. This is what he doesn't have.
He's just a cult of personality that people keep labeling with supposed candidacy advantages.
He is very smart. But, I don't think that is all it takes to make a candidate. He doesn't get in the trenches with people and he doesn't talk to people at a level that is based in their reality.

Mo is known as the northernmost southern state. A good part of it is pretty southern culturally. The accents are more midwestern, until you get down in the bootheel where they grow cotton.
The dixie belt runs through my area and we have Grant and Lee public schools on opposite sides on town.
We just had a legislative battle about flying the confederate flag. The confederates won.
So, it is a very strange state. KC has this sort of southwestern flavor, the southeastern part is deep south. St. Louis is much more urban than the rest. And, the northern part runs right into Iowa and you eventually can't tell the difference.
As far as presidential picks I have seen good things here and there, but I am waiting for someone who convinces me that they have a plan.
I know for damn sure that I don't want a cult of personality for a candidate.

[Jai4WKC08]

116. "Sigh..." indeed

Actually, "lol" is probably a better response.

You don't know what you're talking about.

By definition, a "cult of personality" is when a political leader attracts people based solely on on personal traits, a "fandom" sort of phenomenon, as opposed to actual accomplishments, leadership, and so forth.

So one hand, you say Clark doesn't connect to people, then you turn around and say he only has a "cult of personality" following. Total non-sequitur.

The one thing that strikes me most about your posts, but especially the last one, is that you don't really know anything about Clark. Your comments are based upon what you want him to be, not what he is, and it sounds to me like much of it is just aping what you've heard other anti-Clark people say. So you're really not worth the time to continue this discussion. Have a nice life.

[NCarolinawoman]

93. His roots grow deep in the South.

I see him as a true Southerner, but a well-traveled man of the world. Maybe a Cosmopolitan Southerner. But he grew up poor and is a man of the land. I'm sure he could put on a syrupy southern accent if he wanted to but he chooses not to. (By the way I'm speaking as someone who started out in the South, spent a good bit of my adulthood in the North East, but have come back to my roots where my numerous North Carolina relatives live.) My relatives have a wide range of accents, some much stronger than others, and they still consider ME a Southerner, as I do.

Bill Clinton, who sounds a lot more "Southern", has chosen to live in NYC. Clark has chosen Little Rock. That's why I'm saying his roots grow deep.

[Texas_Kat]

118. Clark is definitely perceived as a southerner

just because his accent isn't exaggerated doesn't make him less so.

Take it from this southerner, not only are his vowels pronounced with that Southern flair, he also speaks the language of the South.

Culturally, "duty, honor, country, faith, family, courage" speaks to the South quite well, thank you.

[elsiesummers]

87. You say "We need a newcomer at least at the top of the ticket."

Which candidates are you thinking of? I'm curious since you suggest no one with 2004 baggage, because I think you may be right. I think Kerry had his shot, Dean isn't running, Gephardt and Clark are also rans, and Edwards is going to have a tough time proving he has the experience (though I don't think he's tainted with loss).

By the way, I generally agree with your assessment that Clark doesn't have a Southern demeanor. I don't see this as either a political plus or minus but simply that this is so. Regionality, IMO, is only a plus for those who have a political base and specific group of voters who have voted for the candidate before that they bring to the table, such as Gephardt/Missouri.

I posted my ideas/theories on possible tickets as post #85.

[tritsofme]

14. Edwards would be mocked as the perennial Democratic VP candidate

Besides which he is probably not interested in the #2 spot again either.

I personally don't think he has the qualifications for the job, after being a part time senator, and spending the rest of his time their plotting his presidential bid.

I would support the other two candidates you listed in a heartbeat.

[rwenos]

16. Edwards Needs to Be A Governor

I love the guy, he's a trial lawyer, I'm a trial lawyer. But if he wants to be President, he should get elected governor of NC. If he can't get elected governor of NC, what use is he on a national ticket?

[Captain Hilts]

18. GOOD point! Especially if he plans to keep the Beatle wig hairdo. nt

[Awsi Dooger]

44. Right, Edwards will never be a candidate for VP again

For just the reason you mentioned. Any ticket that places Edwards on the #2 slot simply isn't realistic. If someone else wins the nomination Edwards will be low on the VP list, if on it at all.

Edwards has every qualification for president, as far as I'm concerned. He's likeable and therefore electable. I'll take my chances from there. Anyone who earns a major party nomination is afforded stature and benefit of a doubt via that nomination. There is no such thing as a lightweight if you're the nominee, that's one of the many things we didn't grasp last year. None of our 2004 candidates had an ideal background. That was one of my greatest frustrations throughout 2003 once the field had been named. Edwards would have been much better perched as a North Carolina governor but I'm not sure he could have won that position, other than an ideal year and opponent. When Edwards ran for senator in '98, there was no gov race. I guess Hunt was governor at the time, because I think he preceeded Easley.

Right now Warner would be my top choice based on potential to win Virginia and its pivotal 13 electoral votes.

[tritsofme]

47. Want to win Virginia?

Nominate Mark Warner.

Edwards probably couldn't have even won reelection in NC if he wanted to.

The GOP picked up the seat after he left.

Edwards is yesterday's news, and Warner keeps looking better and better to me.

*edited because I didn't realize your Virginia comment was in relation to Warner.

[elsiesummers]

85. Agree - Edwards will not be in #2 slot in 2008.

Either Edwards will win the nomination or he won't be on the ticket.

[Captain Hilts]

17. Clark/Richardson. nt

[rwenos]

20. But Would Clark/Richardson Sell in Dixie?

This would be my dream ticket. Clark is a southern general, and Richardson is a Westerner, from a small state so no one has to be scared of a . . . . Californian. Clark has strong foreign policy credentials, appropriate to the top of the ticket, and Richardson has domestic policy credentials. The fact that Richardson is Hispanic will be appealing in Southern California, Arizona, and Illinois, and may even put Texas in play.

There will likely be no Texan on the Pubbie ticket in 2008, and no Californian. This forbodes ill for Pubbie electoral math.

[JPZenger]

103. I Like Richardson/Clark

I like Richardson/Clark personally. Richardson has incredibly well-rounded experience and an ability to relate to the common folk. Richardson is not only a successful governor (NM), but also helped to avoid a major war between the U.S. and North Korea. He also has experience as a cabinet secretary, UN Secretary and a congressman.

[jenmito]

19. I like Clark/Biden

I don't like Edwards. He seems too plastic to me. "Two Americas." That's it. I know this may make me many enemies, but little things bother me about him...just like the way he always touches his face or lifts up his fists and his jacket looks too small or something. I call the face touches right before he does it every time. It's annoying. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, and I would again if necessary, but it was really ABB for me. Sorry! I'll duck now...

[rwenos]

22. Would Be a Strong Ticket

Biden is a good communicator, and from a border state, which may help pick off Virginia, West Virginia and Florida. The electoral math looks MUCH better for ANY Dem ticket with those three states.

Do you think Biden would be more likely to help in those states, than Richardson would be likely to help in Arizona and Texas, also electoral-vote rich?

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

25. Biden is an ass...

Did you hear what he said about ScAlito?

And Richardson probably wouldn't even win his own state! A lot of NM Democrats can't stand him!

[rwenos]

28. So you Hate both Biden and Richardson . . .

Do you have a better idea for #2, assuming General Clark is #1 on the ticket?

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

35. Yes, can't stand either one of them.

Sorry, but for right now I would go with Edwards, unless someone else can suggest someone new.

[jenmito]

29. I think Biden would be likely to help

Win the election. I think he's been very outspoken and IS a very good communicator. I love the passionate way he gets when he's speaking about something he believes in really strongly...like when he said, "You know why we have the Geneva Conventions? To protect my SON!" And he talks through his teeth with an angry smile. I love it! :)

[tritsofme]

23. What does Biden bring to the table?

I'm pretty sure the Dem candidate has Delaware sewn up, or we're really in trouble.

All Biden brings to the ticket is baggage, 35 years worth.

[jenmito]

33. He has experience...

And he speaks out. VPs rarely are good for carrying a state. The presidential candidate being from the South would do the job.

[tritsofme]

41. He's been in the Senate since Nixon was president

Eventually, experience gives off diminishing returns.

He can't really expect a place on the ticket this time, he just wants another reason to get his mug on the Sunday shows every week.

[jenmito]

43. I disagree.

He's always someone you can count on to come out strong against whomever he's questioning or whoever questions him. He would make a strong VP in my opinion but we all have opinions, don't we? :)

[Lasher]

46. Fair enough

But there's one thing I really like about Edwards: He wasn't born rich.

[jenmito]

60. Yeah, that's a plus,

But I don't think that would be enough and to ME he STILL seems a little "plastic" in his presentation.

[ticapnews]

54. Not a big fan of the Senator from MBNA

Earlier today I posted the donations he has received, just in amounts exceeding $200, from MBNA between 2000 and 2004. That's just one credit card company, of course, there are others that donate generously to him.

I like Clark/Boxer, but doubt it would happen. A couple of weeks ago I listed a handful of Congresswomen who would be worth looking at. I think for 2008 we need to look outside the Senate for our ticket.

[Captain Hilts]

59. THANK YOU. No MBNA whore for me. nt

[jenmito]

62. I don't like that, either...

And I'd LOVE to see Boxer as VP, but I think she'd somehow be painted as a "radical" by the right, stressing how she's "one heartbeat to the presidency" or something after smearing her. I don't know any other congresswomen I'd rather see than her, but I don't think it's gonna happen.

[Texas_Kat]

65. You never can tell

Boxer attended at least one Clark meetup in 04.

[AzDar]

83. Sorry, didn't duck fast enough. Biden is a sellout. Bankruptcy "reform"

alone should get him tossed out of Congress on his arse; really not even a Democrat,imho.
Biden? Hell to the no!!!

[JPZenger]

104. Biden Makes Me Unconfortable

Biden was a perennial candidate and never really impressed most people. Watching him speak just makes me unconfortable.

[paineinthearse]

24. 2006!

2006

[AtomicKitten]

34. Gore/Obama

Sorry, it's the obvious choice.

[rwenos]

37. Isn't Al Damaged Goods at This Point? nt

*

[Uncle Joe]

67. No he is the truly elected and yet denied President of the United States

and the person with the moral authority to be reelected as he has not had an opportunity to fulfill his duty to the American People.

[henslee]

80. I agree. And everyone loves a comeback.

[jenmito]

38. Obama is a rising star...

But I don't think he's ready yet.

[Lasher]

48. That's what people said about JFK (EOM)

[tritsofme]

50. Jack Kennedy elected to the House in 1946

And he was elected to the Senate in 1952 beating Republican titan Henry Cabot Lodge.

I'm sure Mr. Edwards is right fine fellow, but he's no Jack Kennedy.

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

40. Gore/Clark

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

[AtomicKitten]

45. I think they both would be terrific.

I think Gore would kick ass, and Obama has state senate experience. They both are intelligent, progressive, articulate men.

Don't get me wrong. Clark would be a brilliant Sect'y of State. I'd like to see all the Dem stars, and there are many, shine in key cabinet positions. And the piece de resistance would be Kucinich in the newly established Department of Peace.

And then we would begin full-on investigations into the prior administration.

[Steely_Dan]

39. Clark/Edwards

...I think it would be a winning team. And you're right....Edwards would make a great president after a few years as VP.

-P

[Contrary1]

49. Clark/Boxer...what's your take on that one? n/t

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

51. Clark/Boxer sounds good...

Okay, I would get behind, the General, Boxer, Edwards, Gore, and possibly Obama, but I don't want to see Biden, Lieberman, Richardson, or Hillary anywere on that ticket! Also, I don't think Kerry should try again. We need a fighter not someone who gives in!

[BikeWriter]

77. Freak'n A! I'd vote for that.

[OneBlueSky]

52. for a lot of reasons, I think Gore would be the best candidate . . .

paired with either Clark or Conyers . . . or maybe Obama . . .

[Proud2BaLiberalMom]

53. Yes, Conyers!

I would vote for him in a heartbeat! :applause:

[mrgorth]

66. Brian Schweitzer/Mark Warner

[dolstein]

72. I'd vote for that -- I'd vote for Warner/Schweitzer too.

NT

[dolstein]

73. Let nominate two candidates who never served in Congress

NT

[Wetzelbill]

95. Now that isn't a bad idea

:)

[Silent3]

68. After what the Republicans have done to America...

...for the last five years, if there was any justice and good sense coming out of the American electorate we should be able to run a box of rocks and a jar of old bacon grease against whatever the Republicans run, and still win.

Back in reality, I'm afraid that against Limbaugh-esque poison in the air, religious wingnuts, and corporate media tactics we'll have a tight race even if we run the best Democrats we can find.

[Nye Bevan]

69. How about Warner/Clark?

I didn't think Edwards added much to the ticket last year other than boyish good looks and a good speech on "two Americas".

I think if Kerry had chosen Clark as his running mate he would be in the White House today.

[dback]

71. How about Clark/Bayh? Edwards should be governor first.

Let Edwards get a little more experience under his belt politics-wise (I know his law career is sterling).

Clark/Bayh, we lock up the South and Midwest.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. What a pointless bit of mental masturbation this is

:eyes:

[snowbear]

76. Yeah but the good news is....

.......we only have to come up with these possible scenerio teams for 36 more months!

:7 :7 :7 :7 :7

[Wetzelbill]

97. oh lord, put a bullet in me puhleeez......

that is a looooooooong time. :)

[elsiesummers]

84. Here are a few ideas that I know will be stomped on.

First, while I am a HUGE Biden fan I do not think he brings anything regionally to any ticket. He has so much stature that he really is a top of ticket guy only, so unless he wins the primary (highly unlikely) I don't think he's going to be on the ticket.

Secondly, unless Clark runs an entirely different sort of campaign and has gained enormous political accumen, I don't think he's going to be on any ticket (and I did donate to him last time, though Edwards was my first choice.) If Clark runs a real campaign next time and proves that he is politically savvy, then I am more than open to him in either position on the ticket. Clark has a good international resume and a good appearance, although a bit mild mannered. He just hasn't proven himself as a politician yet so he will have to wow.

I would love to be presently surprised by any or many candidates. I really want to see a Democrat win and the type of Democrat that wins is truely not of particular importance to me. I have no criteria in terms of war support, anti or pro DLC credentials, or national or executive experience, except as it affects ability to win. I believe that a good and smart person will make a good president.

I am undecided at this point, but here are some ideas:

My preffered ticket at this time: Edwards/Feingold. I think they are both vibrant, charismatic, liberal. They are young in appearance and could sweep the nation with a sense of a new day in politics in a sort of Clinton/Gore way. Edwards/Warner would be another possibility but seems to convey too much of a DLC feeling, IMO. Also, I saw a recent clip of a Warner interview and found him a dissappointment. Edwards/Bayh might be too pretty and lack a feeling of grit - and Bayh is a difficult choice - he might bring Indiana but is this guy dull or what?

Since there is a strong possibility that Hillary will win the nomination here are possble tickets: Hillary/Richardson; Hillary/Bayh or Hillary/Warner. Richardson is the only one of these three VP choices who appeals to me but I'm trying to look at the ticket in terms of winning rather than personal preference.

Richardson/Warner. I think this ticket would offer strong Regional strength. Unfortunately, neither one of these guys is physically attractive and this does count for something.

Anyone think Daschle is running (I ask because of his front page ad on DU)? I could see a Hillary/Daschle ticket as a possibility.

Does anyone think that there is any possibility of a ticket without Hillary at the top? She is not my choice - but I tend to see her as inevitable.

[FrenchieCat]

86. Your case on Clark.....

in where you said...."Secondly, unless Clark runs an entirely different sort of campaign and has gained enormous political accumen, I don't think he's going to be on any ticket (and I did donate to him last time, though Edwards was my first choice.) If Clark runs a real campaign next time and proves that he is politically savvy, then I am more than open to him in either position on the ticket. Clark has a good international resume and a good appearance, although a bit mild mannered. He just hasn't proven himself as a politician yet so he will have to wow."

Of course Clark would run an entirely different sort of campaign! Doing otherwise would show no "learning curve"!

1st: He would not start his campaign 4 months prior to the first primary, while others had been campaigning an entire year!

2nd: He would compete in Iowa.

3rd: Clark loudly endorsed both Tim Kaine and Chris Coleman (mayor/St.Paul), both whom won their race last night. He was featured in advertisements for them, had his people donating money, foot soldiers on the ground, etc....in fact Tim Kaine's message on Faith was directly from Clark. Further, Clark was also a large figure behind Paul Hackett. He was the first and the loudest endorser for Hackett.

4th: Clark led the charges to put Ed Schultz on AF radio. It was his Wespac behind the campaign of outrage to change that decision.

5th: Clark is the Dem's National Security strongman whether some are willing to acknowledge this fact or not.

6th: Whether Clark is mild manner or not is more a subjective perception than anything else. He puts those who need to get put back in their place without often having to raise his voice, but they end up "in their place" nevertheless. I call that effective articulation....not mild mannerism....coz when a General has to raise his voice to get attention, that's scary nut does garnet "at attention" reactions. He does this rarely, and that's a good thing.

So if you find Clark as mild manner, I find it possible that you may have mixed him up with a true mild mannered Clark-- Clark Kent!



As far as Edwards goes, he has problems with perceptions as it relates to gravitas, foreign affairs, and sincerity on some of his concerns, which is unfortunate and possibly unfair, but is a problem nevertheless, as noted here:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100

[elsiesummers]

88. How Clark does after declaring he is running will answer, IMO.

I do not think the case can be made either for or against Clark at this time. I think he will have to prove himself in polls against other candidates. If he runs a strong campaign (and I have no idea if he will or not) we will only see what he is capable of come the six months prior to Iowa and New Hampshire.

I want to see the best candidate win and I have no idea who that is at this time, though I think Hillary has a running start on all the rest. Clark fits my two overarching but basic presidential criteria of being (1) intelligent and (2) good. Specifically, he impresses me with his intelligence and large knowledge base and Clinton like command of facts and I do not think he is evil like * so Clark would work for the good of America and mankind. I assume that regardless of campaign outcome Clark would be part of the next Democratic administration.

Clark did not excell as a candidate last time - but he was new to politics. I have no idea what his political learning curve is since this is yet to be seen. Only he can show that he knows how to use the media to his advantage, stay on message, and not say anything when that is the best political choice. Also, he will have to formulate a larger message/theme that reaches everyone - I think he had difficulty with the raison d'etre of his campaign last time but that does not mean he will have this proble in 2008.

I see various problems with every single candidate, though some problems are bigger than others. There are no perfect candidates. Clark the politician is less of a known quantity than some of the others running and I'm more than willing to be favorably surprised. I have an open mind about Clark and about most of the candidates, though I do have some preconceptions regarding many of the possible candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

92. Thanks for your feedback on my post, which appears reasonable

and intelligently communicated.

However, putting balanced perceptive to what truly happened during the 2004 primaries...I will say that Clark, as a political novice, did certainly have a clear message....whether it was picked up as such or not depends on one's perceptions. His focus on National Security indeed affected the outcome of the primaries, as it refocused the importance on a candidate having foreign policy experience as a prerequisite to run against *, something that Howard Dean did not possess.....which I believe is one of the reasons that Dean didn't fare as well in Iowa, although there were certainly other factors that affected Dean's popularity in Iowa (the scream came after the fact).

Further, Clark's message on values combined with National Security ended up being exactly what the general election was indeed about. So I am of the opinion that Clark did definitely impact the 2004 election. Whether most Democrats understood the Clark campaign's approach to the issues is more at question. I think they did not, until too late.....and certainly way after the primaries. Of course the Dems' understanding of what the GE would be truly about was not helped by the corporate media, who made sure not to publicize what many of us should have known, and what Clark predicted....that the GE would be about security and values.

It should also be important to note that Clark did win a primary state that was not his own....the only candidate to do so apart from Front Runner and winner John Kerry....and he did so without the help of free positive publicity ....something that both Kerry and Edwards received in spades from the Iowa results onward. Further, Clark also came in 2nd in 3 southwestern states (again without media assistance), and fared well in NH, considering that he came in third after 2 New England natives and before Iowa 2nd place winner Edwards. To note, Wes got out of the race gracefully after understanding that he would get no positive free media (something that one must have to affect the masses) and worked about as hard as anyone could have during the GE for John Kerry.

So all in all, I believe if one were to examine the Clark '04 Campaign, understanding it's limitations by not competing in Iowa and having started very late and the candidate being an absolute Novice and Democrats questioning his party credentials.....actually Clark should and did imppress the Democratic leadership, regardless of the Corporate media meme which proclaimed him "not ready for primetime"...something that was a deliberate ploy to deny Clark any dues for his performance, which was a disingenious assessment not deserving.

Anyways...that's how I and many Clark supporters see it....
But in the end, you are certainly correct in stating that the future will tell all. That's true, and so we shall!

In conclusion, it was a pleasure discussing this particular issue with you.....please know that! :hi:

[elsiesummers]

98. I am looking forward to good Democrats in the WH in 2008!

It will be terrific to see our country get back on track with an administration that I'm sure will include both Clark and Edwards.

It was nice talking to you too, Frenchie Cat:hi:

[elsiesummers]

91. BTW, I agree on the Edwards downside, but the field is imperfect.

I agree that Edwards has "problems with perceptions as it relates to gravitas, forign affairs" but not on sincerity. In fact I think he aces sincerity.

I don't think your first two perceptions are unfair.

This is why I am not firm in my support of Edwards.

I do perceive the Clark problems as bigger than the Edwards problems. Specifically, Clark did himself no good in the last election whereas Edwards gained momentum and visability. I would be happy with either of them as president, but I do not see in Clark the ability to build an effective campaign (to win). I could be way off base on this and we will see.

I do personally prefer Edwards' domestic focus to Clark's international focus, but this is my own bias, and I acknowledge this. I will probably never be as drawn to a candidate who is primarily international in focus, but this is probably my own failing as I am not well travelled. In terms of appealling to me personally, any candidate will do this with a domestic agenda - but I am just one voter. I found Clinton most appealing when he knew the price of a pair of Levis and Bush didn't. This was a long time ago and I did not pay as much attention to that race, but that is how I view campaigns.

I think both Clark and Edwards have experience issues regarding the nature of their experience. Neither has been a Governor and Edwards was only a Senator for one term, though both have proven themselves successful human beings. Cheney is a perfect example of how relevant experience does not equal good governance. Both Edwards and Clark have an upward climb in terms of improving perceptions of relevant experience.

I do not see any perfect candidates but because I don't want to be negative I'm not going to list the faults of every candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

108. I think that there is a view that is catching on, and is proving

to be true...that international policies directly affect domestic ones.

The money that we have spent in Iraq could have been spent on domestic policies.....that has been proven a fact when it was revealed that FEMA had been defunded in favor of increasing funding for Iraq via the Homeland Security Budget.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/levee_funding/index_np.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007023.php
Without security issues addressed forcefully, domestic issues take a backseat...which is what the 2004 general election proved. Voters' treasure physical safety first and foremost.

Also, I do not think that you are giving Clark his dues on his domestic agenda. His tax program was much more representative of what Democrats should be offering to Americans as was editorialized in this article.... http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

Considering that our defense budget has now been increased to 490+ Billion per year, a budget filled with pork and a great source of drain on our treasury of monies that SHOULD be available for domestic programs....having a slew of domestic programs to offer and campaign on .....but having no approach to fund them short of increasing taxes (still not popular or appealing rethoric)is not an affective election strategy for Democrats, IMO.


The advantage that Wes Clark has over most other potential Dem candidates is that he doesn't have to "prove" himself "tough" on national security and defense....and in fact is the one Dem that carries the kind of gravitas that would allow American voters a real conversation on Defense pork and how to trim it.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005

Whether we like it or not, the Republican's trump card is security (the fact that the WH can and most likely will orchestrate whatever they feel they could get away with to place security on the forefront of voters' minds right before a presidential election cannot be underestimated--a fabricated "attack" from Syria perhaps....no matter how badly they may be faring at the moment).....
http://www.alternet.org/election04/20853/
http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2477/newsletter_info.htm

The Democratic trump card is domestic policies.....this is where the Dems are strong according to all polls and conventional wisdom.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=269&contentid=251929

So if I had a choice of offering up a candidate that could moot the trump card of the opponent, or a candidate that would offer what we are known to be strong on anyways....personally, I go with strenghtening our weakness as opposed to re-enforcing our already strong point. Voters want BOTH safety and good domestic policies...

In the end, it will be all about strategy....but certainly, I want to think out of the box, and having a candidate that offers new approaches to old problems is something that I believe would work better than offering the same old solutions. Certainly, you would agree that defunding pork in the defense budget, if offered by the right spokesman, certainly could alleviate some of our treasury woes and the fact that domestic social programs are being cut to the bone as we speak.

[Jai4WKC08]

112. As usual...

I agree with everything you've said, Frenchie.

But I also think Elsie has a good point when she says, "I will probably never be as drawn to a candidate who is primarily international in focus, but this is probably my own failing as I am not well travelled."

I think a LOT of Americans, on both sides of the aisle and in the middle can be described this way. Many, especially center-to-right, care about the international, but only in so far as they think it affects their personal safety. That's why they were so easy to scare into voting for Bush.

Those leaning to the left, and therefore making up a large part of our party, are more likely to think of their security in terms of domestic and economic terms. Perhaps because they are more threatened by no health coverage than by terrorists, or maybe because they are distrustful (and rightly so) of what the Repubs tell us about what the international threat is.

Either way, I never cease to be amazed at how little the average American knows or cares about the rest of the world until he perceives that it might affect his life directly. Any candidate who runs based on his experience with and ability to handle the internation piece is gonna have to communicate to the voters why they should care.

I think Clark knows that, fwiw. But I also think that when he tried to do it in '04, it fell on deaf ears with most Democratic primary voters. Maybe the fact that the '04 general election was largely determined by national security and the war will have some effect in '08; I'd like to think so. But I dunno. Voters can be pretty dense.

[xxqqqzme]

89. GORE/CLARK

[Wetzelbill]

96. Biden/Lieberman or Bill Nelson/Evan Bayh

Oh! just kidding, I probably gave you all a heart attack. Man, I just got nauseated typing that.

How about one that would never happen. Brian Schweitzer/Jennifer Granholm

:)

[JPZenger]

99. Warner Needs National Experience

I hope Warner runs against right-wing-nut Allen for the Senate. Warner is young, he can run in 2012 pr 2016. Warner needs national and international experience. For the Dems to run a one term governor without any international experience for President would be death. I don't think Warner is qualified to even serve as VP yet.

[snowbear]

102. He's =NOT= running for senate... And oh btw...

A dirtball by the name of Mistah Bush won with a HORRIFIC record as a Governor only.

At least Mark Warner's record as Governor is stellar.

[FrenchieCat]

111. I understand.....

but I do agree that International issues are not going to go away, and that Mark Warner's experience in that realm leaves a hole in his resume.

Considering that 2008 will not be 1993, we must understand that national security/foreign policies is not a strong point for Democrats. To offer a candidate that echoes what we are already known to be strong on and highlight our perceived weakness does not necessarily spell out a winning strategy, no matter how attractive Mark Warner might be on the domestic front in Virginia.

If we are to assess truthfully, then we must understand these shortcomings of our potentials.....

It's important!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

101. 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

Anyone who can lead the party to victory in 2006 deserves attention for 2008. Until then, fuggedaboudit. Sheesh.

[snowbear]

105. Yeah, but... here's the deal...

..the 2008 threads are gonna happen whether they're too early or not.

No one here forces us to read the '08 threads or polls.. :shrug:

[wabranty]

107. Focus, people! Focus!

Let's win the 2006 elections first. If we can take back the House and/or Senate, then we have proven to the American people we are strong enough to win the Presidency. First a message, then the House and Senate and then the Presidency - in that order.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

109. Right! Win 2006 to get fair elections in 2008!

[FrenchieCat]

110. Very true....

election reform
supporting 2006 candidates forcefully and financially....and dealing with media bias
and coming up with a sound platform and strategy for both 2006 and 2008!

Those are what we must do! All......not just one!

Amen! :headbang:

[Cats Against Frist]

113. I've always liked the Clark/Edwards ticket

I agree with you, very much.

[chaska]

114. Edwards had his shot. He's done ... at least for the forseeable future.

[derby378]

117. What about Feingold/Clark?

Thanks to Gore and Cheney, we're getting used to VPs who carry more weight at the White House. Clark would be an excellent "hands-on" VP.