should Sen. Kerry run in 08? I believe ex Sen Edwards political career his about over, Sen Hillary Clinton could be a possibility, but she got think twice, she got a job for life my choice would be Sen Kerry, he still got 4 years in the Senate, next election could be against a Joe Blow, let's not forget President Regan had main attemps before he won the presidency NO TROLLING ON THESE THREAD
Your memory doesn't go back to Gerald Ford, then. The GOP was a shambles and Ford had less charisma than Lieberman and he'd just pardoned Nixon, outraging everyone. Carter was a pretty soft target, too.
Yep. McAuliffe is horrible. Absolutely horrible. In fact, most of the party "leadership" doesn't have a clue how to actually lead.
Kerry? Uh... no. This might be rather short-sighted thinking, but what about an experienced Dem governor of a "red" state? (Yeah I know Edwards was not a factor at all in the South, but still...) I don't know of any Dem gov who has any sort of national profile apart from maybe Bill Richardson (NM) and the outgoing gov of Washington, Gary Locke. If you know anything about the electability of: Gov. Mike Easley (just won re-election in NC) Gov. Brad Henry (OK) Gov. Phil Bredesen (TN) Or any other Dem governor you think might have a shot, let us know.
Albert Wynn, who's a black congressmen from Maryland (used to be my congressman until they redistricted a few years ago) has been in office for about 3 or 4 terms. He's become a very influential member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Not saying he's a potential pres candidte, but that he is a good candidate for leadership within the party itself.
I think that's a major oversimplification, and in some ways a distorsion, of what's actually going on. First, according to the exit polls, self-described moderates went for Kerry by a ten point margin in the election. That wouldn't happen if his party had, quote "largely abandoned the center." I think your sense of where the center is might be off a little as a result of living in a state where Dr. Tom Coburn is considered mainstream. Second, according to the same polls, Kerry won among people in income categories below $50k, and Bush won all those income groups above that. So, I think that your statement that the average "working family" American is now a Republican, while pointing to some real problems the Dems have, might also be a little exaggerated. Third, I think the Democrats face a major problem in mobilizing "working family" voters around economic and pocketbook issues, one which has little or nothing to do with decisions made by the party's leadership, nor with the cultural messages the party adopts. That problem is the absence of institutions or organizations to organize or mobilize those voters as an effective political pressure group. Labor unions probably once served that role to some extent, but they become less important every year, and nothing has emerged to replace them. Think about this - we have organizations that represent seniors, gun owners, immigrants from different places, environmentalists, business owners, industries, religious people, civil libertarians, etc. Does any sort of influential organization exist specifically to unify and mobilize people whose primary concerns are job security, wages, day to day expenses, paying for college, and health insurance for their children? I can't think of any, offhand. And that makes things a lot harder for a political party trying to run on an appeal that's centered on pocketbook issues facing middle class, working class, and lower class families. I haven't given this question much thought until recently, but I'm starting to think that it's the biggest obstacle that the Democrats face, despite the fact that the media practically never mentions it.
Obama's too green. (Er, inexperienced, not environmental.) Let him complete a full term in the Senate, then maybe run for IL governor (um, okay, just looked up to see who the current IL governor is, Blagowhatever seems to be fairly young and D so maybe that's not such a good idea...)
Kerry wasn't that bad, really. He got about five million more votes than Gore, remember. The problem was that Bush increased his 2000 support by a larger margin. He wasn't ideal by any means, but was definitely one of the better candidates available at the time (and proved it in the debates, I think). And Bush was not even close to the most vulnerable incumbent in history. Just looking at somewhat recent elections, I think Ford, Carter, and Bush I were all clearly worse off.
Maybe General Wesley Clark?? I have had some moderate Republican aquaintances of mine, tell me that they would have voted for Clark over Bush in a heartbeat.
why you always pick on me about my grammar? some guys don't even write in english but that's ok like I said before, I went to a Bush grammar school we just have to do better http://elections.channel.aol.com/
There was a column in the Washington Post today saying that Al Gore would actually be a good choice in 2008...I disagree with it, but I can see how people can think that.
if you have Aol you can read the following http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20041104071309990015 nothing change from a couple days ago
The next democratic candidate must be of following 1. White handsome male at least older than 50 2. never divorced 3. have kids and a wife like Laura Bush 4. smooth talk like Kerry 5. Yale or Harvard graduate 6. former governer or congressman or diplomat or soldier 7. church goer, gun lover, car racer 8. clean personal and political history Can this person be found in three years?
Any Democrat who says we can manage to take back either the House, Senate or White House within the next four years without making drastic changes at the highest level of the party is absolutely certifiable.
And that, my friends, sums things up in two simple sentences. The DNC is run by a bunch of morons, who call the people who voted for the party who now controls every branch of government. So who are the morons here?