We shouldn't nominate a Senator in '08

[WI_DEM]

I think the country wants somebody who has executive experience but not Washington experience. Yet most of those running or contemplating a run on both sides are Senators. Bottom line is that the last Senator to be nominated and actually win the election was JFK (yes, there are those who will say Kerry won the election in '04, but even Kerry didn't fight hard to prove it).

The Democrats have only won twice since 1964 with Governors: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Prior to that FDR was a governor of NY and Woodrow Wilson was governor of NJ.

The last Senator prior to JFK to win was Harding in 1920.

That said a Senator could make a good balance on the ticket as Vice President. Both Carter and Clinton selected a Senator to run with them.

This is just my opinion.

[blm]

1. No Dem wins unless we expose GOP control of media and voting machines

before 2008.

[WI_DEM]

2. That is possible too

I think we are making some headway on the media and '06 will tell us if we can make headway on the other issue.

[emulatorloo]

3. I just love that blank-slate recordless "outsider" governor we have now!

<sarcasm>

I want somebody that can hit the ground running, knows how to get things done in DC.

[WI_DEM]

4. Well

FDR certainly was sure footed when he was elected in '32, of course he had huge democratic majoritites to back him up. Clinton did ok in Washington but Carter came in as an outsider and stayed an outsider.

I think Warner or Clark (just two non-Senators who might run) would be able to come in and take command. But it remains to be seen. Kennedy, the last Senator elected, had a very hard time dealing with a House and Senate which was of his own party.

[democrat_patriot]

5. General Wesley Clark

eom.

[melissinha]

6. I always wonder about that.....

So whats the deal with Bill Richardson?

I know about Vilsack i lived in Iowa when he was first elected, but am not too sure that his name isn't a little too ethnic, not that that should have anything to do with it.

[WI_DEM]

8. he is another possibility

plus he does also have broad experience in Washington. But Richardson would be able to bring NM back to the democratic camp (we lost it in 2004 narrowly after carrying the state in '92, '96 and '00) plus he might be able to compete in other western states like Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.

[melissinha]

26. it would be a good counter candidate to McCain

And he's a Governor.

[crispini]

7. I agree, I do think the country is tired of the "Washington insider"

and a Senator has a long record of voting history to be dragged out of the closet and distorted.

[RDU Socialist]

9. Gore is the best option

He has the experience in the executive branch. He could woo the libertarians who are sick of this war because his stances have seemed to sound like Robert Taft instead of Woodrow Wilson, and paleocons who favor smaller government and military isolation would vote for us instead of supporting the War Party.

[WI_DEM]

10. I think after 8 years away from Washington

he is another person who could step up to bat. That and the fact that he actually won the 2000 election--in popular vote that is without dispute.

[RDU Socialist]

25. he would follow, almost exactly, nixon

only without the being an asshole thing.

[politicasista]

11. We need to stop worrying about 2008

At a time when we have an criminal, incompetent, lame duck president. The last thing we need to do is play the media and Rove's game. This is why they want us talking about Hillary and 08 because they know that it takes attention away from Blinky, Iraq, and other far more serious issues that are facing this country. This is why I am saying we need to focus on getting Dems in office for 2006. 2008 can and take care of itself.


These 08 stories are meant keep dems divded. We don't need to play the repukes game.

[WI_DEM]

15. Good God

this is just a message board. Five minutes looking over this won't deprive anyone from working on '06. Just how is anybody working on '06 when they are spending time posting on DU anyway? I'm already working for my local congressional and senatorial candidate in '06 as a volunteer (Farmer's markets begin end of April and I'll probably be at every one of them on Sat. AM's up until the end). To sum up it is a pet peeve of mine that whenever someone on DU mentions '08 automatically someone has to come on and say--you can't talk about '08 until after '06--as if the candidates themselves aren't already positioning themselves and organizing already!

[Catchawave]

12. I have a feeling it'll be outside the beltway too

Could be Warner-Huckabee ? Both wildly successful govenors with crossover appeal.

Not giving up on my #1 guy, Edwards, he's working really hard on the trail of poverty issues right now, and damn proud of him.

[WI_DEM]

16. Edwards with only one Senate term, I think qualifies as a

non-Washington insider.

[Catchawave]

22. Absolutely !

He's wonderful :loveya: He's got 700 college kids signed up to help him over spring break in the NOLA area. With hopes he brings us luck in 2006 too as he's sure putting the fire in the bellies of the young people !

[stray cat]

13. The same argument could be made for nominating a southerner

I think alot of senators lose because they act and sound like senators instead of a common person. We can't nominate someone who only speaks like a senator on the floor.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Gore encapsulates all of our best options.

He has the best overview of any candidate. And his absence from DC has allowed him to grow into the independent thinker he is now.

Are you listening, Al? Do your nation a solid and step up and take the job you rightfully won in 2000.

[madame defarge]

17. Read about Mark Warner...

NYTimes Magazine section yesterday had a great article about him...with grassroots support, he could win out over Hillary, who has the political machine behind her. He's smart, successful, moderate... Yeah, I don't agree with his stand on all issues, but we need someone who can pull in the majority of Americans -- on all economic levels. Warner has that potential...pro-business (to win the fiscal/pro-corporate Republicans) and good values/priorities on healthcare, education, etc. (to win average Americans). He does lack foreign policy experience...a huge down side, especially since he'll inherit a huge global mess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312bwarner.html

[WI_DEM]

18. I'm giving him some thought

He is a new face, a successful governor of a red state which is trending democratic. He could very well win those 15 electoral votes in 2008.

As far as fp experience, it depends on who you put in around you. Clinton didn't have great fp experience and did pretty well. Though a running mate with fp experience would be a plus.

[madame defarge]

19. Warner - Feingold! n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

20. My opinion is that charisma, vision, and capability come first

Not having a clear voting record (that senators do) and being an "outsider" are both good things but they are far from the only thing. Being a Governor and an outsider doesn't make a winner. A large amount of the nominees who have lost throughout the 20th century were Governors. In fact, unless you count Chimpy in 2000 as a "win", no Governor has won an open presidential contest in the 20th century.

People alwyays use Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as examples. But keep in mind that not only were these men charismatic southern governor, they were also some of the most brilliant and capable men to ever be elected president.

Mark Warner, who to begin with doesn't have the charisma of Clinton or Carter, hasn't shown me that he has the intelligence that Clinton and Carter had. Maybe he will define himself in the next few years, but so far I'm not impressed.

Governor Schweitzer on the other hand, seems to be more in the mold of Clinton and Carter. Not only is he a popular governor of a red state but he is also a very intelligent guy who went to grad school to study fuels and spent many years in Saudi Arabia. He is currently leading a project on coal based fuels as an alternative to oil. My point is that unlike Warner, Schweitzer is already taking a leadership role on national issues and is already sounding like a national leader. Warner talks soley about his record in Virginia, which is unquestionably impressive but being impressive in Virgnia doesn't mean that you will be impressive nationally. Unfortunately Schweitzer was only elected Governor in '04, so '08 is pretty much out of the question.

[WI_DEM]

21. On the other hand we have several charismatic outsiders

to consider too--Edwards, Clark, Warner, Richardson--and yes, Gore if he runs.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. I edited my post which now covers Warner

Richardson is definately a possibility if personal baggage doesn't ruin him. His experience in the Clinton administration shows that he has national experience.

Edwards should have run for another term in the senate before running for president. Americans, and particularly those in his home state, view him as an opportunist now because he pretty much positioned himself for the VP spot which some argue was because he didn't believe that he could win re-election.

I think that Clark could own almost any Republican simply because of his military credentials and I still believe that he should have been our nominee in 2004. Whether he will run if Hillary is in the race, is a different story.

[WI_DEM]

24. do you think he is inclined to support Hillary if she runs?

could end up as a Clinton/Clark ticket?