Should we give the losers another shot at being President?

[Onlooker]

Fair or not, Gore lost, Kerry lost, and Clark couldn't even make it out the primary. Gore came across as too pendantic, Kerry seemed spineless, and Clark couldn't answer some basic questions. As much as I admire especially Gore, I think it would be ridiculous to give a proven loser a second chance, especially since they lost to a mediocre Republican.

Of the major candidates, that leaves Hillary and Edwards. Though I once liked Hillary, she now stands for nothing. She's completely insincere. That leaves Edward as the best candidate. I especially like the fact that he seems ready to make poverty an important issue. He's got my vote.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Gore, Kerry and Clark are losers, but not Edwards?

Remind me when he won the nomination...

[Onlooker]

4. He won a place on the ticket

And the leader of the ticket blew it. I really don't think you can ever blame a VP for losing an election. Hell, Nixon won with Spiro Agnew.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. But the voters didn't put him on the ticket; the party did.

He's just as much a "loser" as the others. Pick another reason, please.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. He was given a place on the ticket. He didn't win shit.

Sorry.

[rockymountaindem]

32. I didn't realize we all voted for him to be the VP nom.

Considering that didn't even bring us his home state of North Carolina, I don't see how you can construe Edwards' '04 campaign as any kind of victory.

[tritsofme]

2. Why does Edwards escape the stink of defeat?

Other than that, I agree with your sentiment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Ummm... wasn't Edwards one of the "losers," too?

Kerry beat him in the primaries, and he and Kerry lost the election together. So I guess that puts him in the same category as the others. There are many criteria for chosing a candidate; having won or lost a previous election is one of the least of them.

[William769]

23. Stop using common sense!

It confuses some here.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Nixon and Reagan lost, respectively, a general election and a primary

before eventually winning. Your point was?

[Onlooker]

8. Do you consider them great presidents?

I think they were very average overall, and they won because they were lucky (Vietnam War, Iranian hostage crisis). Maybe Gore or Kerry will be lucky, too, who knows, but they sure weren't the last time around.

[UrbScotty]

13. What?

What does losing and then coming back and winning, have to do with how good a president you are?

Do you honestly think that if Nixon had won the White House in 1960, he would have been any better of a president than if he didn't?

[dorktv]

7. Richardson of New Mexico if he runs...

[unblock]

9. excuse me, but the only LOSERS are shrub and darth cheney

[UrbScotty]

10. Edwards couldn't make it out of the primary either!!

And BTW, while we're at it: Richard Nixon lost and later won!!!

[Kerry fan]

15. IMO, neither Gore nor Kerry were "losers".

Election fraud was the BIG "winner". Even more so in 2004 than in 2000.

My dream is to see John Kerry in the White House but I could be almost as pleased to see a Gore/Kerry ticket. Poetic justice.

[muntrv]

11. Gore got more popular votes than Bush. The electoral college screwed Al.

Besides, what do you call the current crop in the White House? Winners?

[Rose Siding]

12. One of the reasons DU is here for you to post on is because Gore didn't lose.

[TayTay]

14. Edwards lost twice

He couldn't even make it out of the primaries, per the langauge of your post, and then lost again in the general election. He is a two-time loser, according to your logic. Why should he be given a second chance?

I profoundly disagree. I think all interested Dems should run and let the voters sort it out. The more who run, the better. Maybe we can even get some good discussions about what the Democratic Party stands for and where it wants to go.

Let them all run. What are people afraid of on this? It's called Democracy, we should practice it sometime, not practice the idiotic media game of 'the horserace.' Let them all run, let everyone give it their best shot and may the Party be the better for it.

[waiting for hope]

16. Edwards/Obama!

That's my prediction and I'm sticking to it. Edwards is fantastic, and if there were any skeletons, they would have been found by now. The best they can do is use the aspirations of a volunteer trying to score brownie points - lame.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. No way. I like them but they are rookies. Maybe in 2012.

Two inexperienced guys with exactly ZERO foreign policy experience while we're in the middle of the worst foreign policy clusterfuck ever, that's a guaranteed loss for the dems.

[waiting for hope]

20. Edwards has been spending some

serious time overseas, I think he has more foreign policy experience then the Shrub after six years. The last few presidents we have had have been Governors - what foreign policy experience does that job title bring to the table? Anyway, Edwards would be smart enough to surround himself with very smart and experienced people to assist.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Spending time overseas gives him more FP experience than Bush?

Hell, if that's all you need to be qualified to run for President, I guess I should do it, too. And Bush surrounded his stupid self with a lot of allegedly smart, experienced people. It didn't work.

[waiting for hope]

24. Here - do a bit of reading...

http://oneamericacommittee.com/about/america-in-the-world/

Please, if you consider Rumsfeld, Condi, Cheney and Rove smart people, I just don't know what to say. The people he surrounds himself with are loyalists, people that are willing to toe the Party Line and Agenda. The only one in his posse I would consider to be intelligent was Colin Powell, and look at where he is now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. I said "allegedly" smart. These are all book-smart people

blinded by their own ideology. But you have to admit they are smarter than Bush.

[waiting for hope]

28. I'll give you that....

but answer this: What foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have as the Governor of Arkansas and before he was in office?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Granted, not much.

However, in 1992 we were not in the middle of a collossal international disaster that will require the best minds we have to deal with. Clinton's issues were almost entirely domestic - he won on "It's The Economy, Stupid." And his foreign policy dealings weren't always right on, either.

If we weren't in such a mess right now because of Iraq, not to mention the rest of the Middle East, Iran and North Korea, and the additional fact that most of the rest of the world pretty much hates our guts, a guy like Edwards or Obama might be OK. But we need someone with really solid experience in international conflicts, not good-looking rookies.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Umm, doesn't Edwards qualify as a loser too,

under the criteria given in your post? Massive loser in the '04 primaries (as were all the candidates other than Kerry), and one half of a losing presidential ticket.

I'm not trying to bash Edwards here, just trying to point out the inconsistency in your post.

I think anyone who wants to run should run. Let the primary voters decide.

[Beam Me Up]

21. I think Gore can win. In fact, I think he did win.

The problem is getting the corporate owned media to fairly represent Gore. He could win hands down if they did. He is intelligent, well spoken, vigorous and conveys moral principal. The problem is, those who really rule us wouldn't let a man like Gore get anywhere near the White House because he would not be under their control. The other issue, of course, is verifiable voting. If we don't have that, it almost doesn't matter who we run.

[William769]

25. Edwards couldn't even win the primary.

He had his shot at the big league & lost!

[uppityperson]

26. Mr.bush is the biggest loser. Do we have to have hiim too?

[JNelson6563]

30. Gore won my uninformed friend

You need to quit feeding at the trough of the Corporate Media.

Julie

[951-Riverside]

31. Gore, Yes but Kerry FUCK NO!