What can we look forward to from the Democratic Party in terms of Presidential candidates for 2008. It appears now to be just a contest between Hillary and Obama. If the Democrats do this, they guarantee a Republican successor to Bush. I would hope they are smarter and wiser than that, but in my heart I don't believe its so.

A side note. I have been thinking lately about the Democratic Party and whether or not I identify with them. I some ways I do and some ways I do not. I thought Carter was a horrible President and bad for America. I liked Reagan and Bush I. I did not like Clinton and thought he was a poor President. Even though Bush II is a Republican, he is unlike past Republican Presidents and I could never support him. So what I am saying is, I am anti-Bush but I am not a Democrat. I am not even a liberal. I liked former incarnations of the Republican Party, and I condemn the sad state of the current Democratic Party. Perhaps I am a Republican at heart, but I am 100% against Bush and many of these current Republicans in Congress. What does that make me, other than confused?

Funny, I thought Carter was a good man, which made him less effective as a president. And I thought Clinton was a fucking bastard, which made him a more effective president. Have I mentioned that I am not in love with American-style (what passes for) representative democracy? I haven't seen the Dems bring anybody forward who I would vote for at this point. And I can't think of any potential Republican candidates I would hesitate to put before a firing squad.

I have watched and read some interesting takes on the Presidential election, the Dems, the Republicans...one of which was "Broken Government" ...I think thats what it was. Regardless, one street interview pegged it right. The lady said the dems entire line is against Bush. No plans, no idea's, just anti-Bush. The Republicans is based on fear. She was a Dem and said her party lacked definitive backbone and vision.

True that.....one lacks vision, one has vision yet is blind.

Unfortunately, it has come to the point where many Americans will settle for getting the car out of an out of control high speed spin first, then checking the road map.

On the Dem side, I think Janet Napolitano, the Governor of Arizona, has a real chance. Why?

1. For the last six years, the Democrats in the Senate have looked like losers.
2. There are no more big-time Democratic Congressoids (like Gephardt was).
3. That leaves the governors. There are only two large states with Democratic governors right now, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Michigan's governor was born Canadian, and is therefore ineligible. Ed Rendell of PA is a possibility.
4. That leaves the small state governors.
5. Napolitano is a centrist Democrat, and way out in front on the illegal immigration issue (not surprising.)
6. She is a popular Democratic governor of a predominantly Republican state (like Mark Warner, ex-Governor of Virginia, who bowed out).

Once upon a time, long, long ago, a Democratic governor of a small state did pretty well.

P.S. I have no idea if Napolitano is considering a run.

In my most humble opinion, Carter will go down in history as one of this countries greatest presidents!
Republican spin of course always tries to rewrite history to suit them.

Next. The claim that Hillary and Obama are the only two possible Democratic contenders for 2008 is, (being nice) extremely short sighted. For someone who claims to have once been a Republican, it some times seems that you haven't done much more than to rearrange your stripes.



Vision will come, with leadership. Did any of us see Pelosi on 60 minutes last night?
I for one was quite impressed and can fully understand why she might be the Republicans boogy man.

What I see with threads like this is not much worth writing home about.
Too many simply don't know, but that doesn't stop them from making some amazing claims.


Clearly both Parties have their share of whiners.

Several Governors seem to make some sense though Napolitano looks interesting.

At this point, my give a shitter of party platforms is broken. Im looking for a real leader with real ideas on what to do and real conviction on how to do it. If I hear one more "Bush bad, me good" Ill puke. I dont care what color, gender, party, or background is there. If he/she can lead with intelligence and a 360 degree view of the world, can look at our Military as something we defend our nation with and taxes as something the people pay but still own...Ill vote a person who stands on their own two feet. Hope one exists.

I think Obama might do well altho he doesn't have much of a record to make any decisions on yet. He's probably not as liberal as some of us would like, and that would probably be in his favor as far as being successful. He does seem to be the one guy around with that elusive quality we call "charisma" which for better or worse is a huge factor for Americans. Often presedential candidate are not those who would have been predicted two years in advance, and rarely do they come from the house or the senate. I don't think any party will be able to turn us around unless we find a way to get big money out of politics, because to be successful you have to sell your soul to it. And we might not be patient enough to realize it will take a very long time to undo the damage of the Bush years.

As far as im concerned the democrats voted us into despotism

Sorry, even though I understand the motivations behine this comment,
it's very narrow field thinking. One in which more understanding, or broadening, might eliminate.



To say "the Democrats" is a blanket statement and it is extremely unlikely for any blanket statement to be anything more than marginally true.

You're certainly becoming more diplomatic aren't you?

I'd also take a good look at the governors the Democrats have to offer. Unless Al Gore decides to step up to the plate, in which case he would probably be one of their strongest contenders. I'd take a look over to Wesley Clark to take a second run at the Presidency.

Hillary = disaster. Won't get the nomination (God, they wouldn't be THAT stupid, right?)
Obama = nice guy. Kinda a phony in my opinion. Not enough experience. He's black (I'm sorry to say it, but chances are that won't make him a winner). Next.
Kerry = Please, no...
Edwards = Eww.
Clark = Decent shot, if he could come up with a convincing platform and national security strategy. Seriously.
Feingold = This is probably the only Senator that has a chance. And I would love it!
Gore = says he won't run, but he might be the strongest contender out there.

Other than that, look to a governor. History shows that Governors do better.

Wow, not a real shining list there. Don't be surprised if they are dumb enough to go with Hillary or Gore, but mostly the prelim list youv'e given is full of a bunch of retreads, been there done that with damn near all of them.I agree with your assessment on Obama as well, alot of style but is there any substance to the man? I don't think the race card plays into it as much as it did 20 years ago,but can still be a factor. Feingold would probably be portrayed as being "too liberal". A younger guy like Edwards might get the nod...but who will he be up against? Guliani? Powell? Cheney ( just had to throw that up)?

I think the more people keep seeing the same jokers on tv and in the print , the more they'll get tired of them , on both sides. The climate is such right now that if the media can hold off annointing a candidate, someone(I have no clue who) could sneak out of left field and shock us all. Hopefully they're not bought and paid for by the time we get them.

There will be other names pop up, especially if November is a blow out and the Dems get both houses back.
Many names will pop up. It'll be just too attractive for many people to refuse it.
And ya never know. Between now and then, Pelosi could be the current incumbant! (not likely, but possible)

I like Feingold a lot.
Gore would be Good, though I don't know if he could get over the negative image.
Hillary doesn't have a chance. If only New York could vote, easy. But nationally? Not a chance. not even with a billion in campaign funds.
I like Edwards, but he's hooked to Kerry.
Kerry? Stick to sail boarding.
Obama. Hell of a speaker, not much history to call up.



My Fav Governor I have stumped for many times already.
Gov Brian Schweitzer.

He's a a Democrat in a Red State. Score 1
His second in command is a Republican who he chose Score 2
He's been an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration Score 3
He's actually been able to get both side of the state isle to work together, set, game, match!

There's been some inner circle discussion of Brian running in 08. So far? No comment!

If he's as good as you say, Sky, he sounds like he'd be a fine choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer

http://governor.mt.gov/

http://www.brianschweitzer.com/

And best of all, he doesn't look like a doofus!

This is the man he replaced.
Left the state under a dark legal cloud, is now one of Bushco's henchmen.

Marc Racicot, his personality just screams shady used car dealer.

I am only concerned with the power behind the puppet. If a candidate comes forward, I want to know where his/her power base comes from. The candidate is the face of illusion. I trust Howard Dean to sort out the party mess and steer the best candidate.

Do you honestly believe Howard Dean is in control of the Democratic Party and charting its future course? Howard Dean is nothing more than the spokesperson for the Democratic Party. He is its "face", but he is not behind the wheel. Assuming there even is a driver, the real leadership is a powerful consortium of Democrats in the Congress led by Nancy Pelosi, Reid, Hillary Clinton, and others.

We need someone completely new and fresh as President. A washington outsider. Someone with new ideas to solve old problems. A strong leader. Someone who respects human and civil rights. Someone who is good for America. That person could come from either party, or from outside the two major parties. Its about the person, not the party. For President especially, the party should not be a priority.

Brian Sweitzer...impressive guy from all I have seen. Down to earth, very smart, good leader. The lady from Arizona...got to do some checking on her but....I would not object to a woman with backbone.



Maybe the two above fall within that realm. Its been done before. Clinton, Carter....

It's ironic that most of the women with the stature to become President have been Republicans. Elizabeth Dole, Nancy Kassenbaum, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, possibly Condoleeza Rice. The only Democrat woman I can think of that I thought really had what it took to be president was Ann Richards. Maybe Hillary Clinton. I doubt I would vote for her, but she got within striking distance by a very unusual path.

How soon we forget. Geraldine Ferraro, but she was married to the mob. She could have been a heartbeat away as the VP on the Mondale/Ferraro ticket.

The proposition that Geraldine Ferraro was not of the stature to become president is best supported by the fact that she lost.

Well Dole, Kirkpatrick, Rice, et al haven't even run, so what is your point.

My point is that it appears to me that the Republicans have produced more women of the stature to run for President than the Democrats have, which I find ironic. I would point out that Ms. Ferraro hasn't run for President either.

Their stature is in the mind of the beholder.

Yep, that's pretty much what I meant when I said-

Specifically, Dean is the head of the DNC. the DNC is only one group within the Democratic party.
Examples. Dean has no control over the DCCC the DSCC, or the DLC, and there are more democratic orginizations within the Democratic party. This is not the case with the Republicans. Though there are many support groups, the RNC is the heart and mind of the Republican party. Without the RNC, there is no Republican party.

I assumed we all knew this already!




Contrary to what AFW says, we don't just need a new face. We need competance and a fighter for progressive ideals. I don't care who this is. It can be a man or woman, Liberal or Conservative, black or white or red or yellow or brown, Jew, or gentile, Muslim or Buddhist, business man, lawyer or farmer. What ever, where ever they come from, I don't care even they are well known. As long as they do the job which they were elected to do, and they do it competantly!



Hillary might very well be a competant president, but because I don't agree with her views and her values, I would not vote for her, unless the option was one of these current Neo-con Republicans. I mean, Hillary or Santorum? Without even thinking, Hillary.



What we need more than anything else is for someone to actually do the do and return class and civility to the white house. We desperately need someone in the house that gives a sence of knowing what they are doing. That can express them selves using more than one and two syllabal words, and can even repete quotes accurately. Someone who through their actions lets the entire world know that they are using much more intelligence to make decisions, and is much less likely to made world altering decisions based on what their guts tell them.

Sky:

If you thought that the better candidate for President was the Republican one instead of the Democratic one, would you vote for the Republican? Or would you automatically vote the party-line, because a bad Democratic is better than a good Republican? Be honest.

That is such an excellent question, AFW.

Yes.


Unfortunately in todays reality that is just shy of impossible.






Edit to add.....


I haven't always voted strictly party.
My current attitude came about as a result of the Reagan years.
I came to the conclusion that there was noi such thing as a good Republican,
and until one proves me wrong, that view will remain.

Understand, I am certain there are a few Republicans, especially at the local level that are good political people. I am refering only to those political people that come into my personal field of view, a prespective that I fully admit has it's built in limits. I mean I know alomst nothing about local county politics in say, Georgia, so I have to admit that because I don't know all, it's always possibel there are awesome good Republicans.

My view though, is restricted to my world, my reality, which I have equally assumed for every living human being.

If the Republican was Ron Paul, and the Democrat was Zell Miller... maybe.

The mere fact that one supports Bushism is proof that they're not ok.

Yeah, I know you weren't asking me.

If the party has gone extreme, is it safe to vote for their candidate? Voting for the candidate can be a trap. You might be voting for the image. What does a candidate have to agree to for his parties support.

Candidates are allowed to be President for their party. The deal is worked out beforehand, and he/she carries out the agenda.

What you describe here Southpaw, describes politics.
The name of the game is the deal. Everything is a deal.
It is this aspect of dealing, as I see it anyway, which is why politicians are generally considered to be pond scum just above used car salesmen, just about even with Lawyers.


When dealing with the monster, be sure you understand the realities of the monster.

Yes, very true. I was letting speculation get the better of me.

In any case, I'd stay home rather than vote for John McCain.

John McCain is a very good example. It would be easy to vote for his image/persona, but naive to think he is not selling out as a puppet. I would consider his party, rather than his image.

To tell you the truth I actually think that Obama would make a good candidate in 08. The main criticism of him I see is that he hasn't been in politics too long, but that can be used to his advntage. Someone who hasn't been in politics for a long time is less likely to be corrupt. Although he is not as liberal is I would like him to be, that could work in favor for him because he would apeal more to middle of the road voters that don't like the Republican leadership, but don't want somebody on the far left to be president.

However, I truly believe that if the Republicans manage to hold on to congress in the upcomming midterms, there WILL NOT be a presidential election in 08. Bush will probably make up some bogus terrorism threat that most of the ignorant American public will swallow, and use it as anexcuse to deliver the killing blow to our democracy. Hell, he might even do that if the dems take congress back too.

Welcome to the Forum JML.



Lack of experience can also be a liability. Politics, especially upper level national politics is a very nasty monster. Having the ability to make a deal with out selling your soul, or those of your constituency, takes a lot of experience. And experience is another way to say learning from your mistakes.

I have survived a life time of screwing up. I think I have learned enough now to know that I think I might rather prefer to screw it down once in a while.
Variety is the spice ya know!

I listened to some of his talk on several occasions as well as what people around the country think of him. Right now, he is considered a Fad. To my knowledge, he has not introduced any meaningful legislation, nor opinions that separate him from the "Bush is doing it wrong crowd". If he is to be anything, he is going to HAVE to take some pretty firm positions that WOW people. Outside his element, he comes across as,....boring and non-energetic. He went to Kenya. SO?

I promise you, unless he rises several notches and comes up with some thinking that is seen as problem solving and dynamic, he would NOT be perceived as a good candidate. Its not just the dems he has to impress and they do need to be impressed, there is a host, literally millions of conservatives who are pissed off and willing to listen to a person with a plan. To get THAT support, his usual bland vanilla soft spoken approach wont work. Just my opinion though.

Dear Anti:

As a Democrat, I take exception to the mantra that "Democrats don't stand for anything." Democrats stand for human rights, economic justice, protection of Earth and all its inhabitants, fiscal responsibility, protecting minority rights, quality education for all, affordable health care and prescription drugs for all, reducing the gap between haves and have-nots, ending tax breaks for the rich, preserving Roe v. Wade, raising the minimum wage, banishing the death penalty, separation of powers, campaign finance reform, recommitment to international cooperation and adherence to treaties, a moratoium on name-calling ("axis of evil"),restoration of diplomatic relations, renouncing "the nuclear option", retrieving America's moral compass, reconsidering the Electoral College, funding R&D for renewable eneregy, populating the Executive branch with professionals not cronies, respecting the separation of church and state, a speedy but carefully planned end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and abolute renunciation and cancellation of any and all plans to attack Iran and Syria, with or without "strategic nuclear weapons." I've just gotton started. Shall I go on?

Sorry Titan, but some of us, (who are recovering Republicans) tend to see a few things we don't like,
and then paint the whole picture that same homogenized color.

Some of us don't, but some of us do.

I would suggest that Obamas lack of a record can be a good thing. He is still outside of the political machine. Hes a brilliant and motivating man and id vote for him in a second.

A lot of people won't vote for something unknown. Especially for national office.