Which '08 Fresh Face Stands The Best Chance Of Flipping Red States

[ruggerson]

This poll isn't about whom you DESPERATELY WANT to be President.

This is about you playing a cold, hardhearted political strategist and deciding which candidate, based on their resume, their rhetoric, their positions and their personality, can actually win in places like Arkansas, Virginia, Montana and Colorado.

I've restricted the poll to candidates who have never run for President before, as they stand best chance of creating a fresh impression with voters. (Note: Hillary is included based on the criteria, but is obviously far better known to the public than the others, thus not a fresh face.)

Remember this is not whom you fervently support. This is you playing a pure tactician.

[TayTay]

1. I don't see any of them doing it

It won't be done by one person. It will take a team effort from the Democratic Party and the implementation of the '50 State Strategy' to turn any red states blue. Pretending that a single individual can do this is foolishness.

That, btw, is tactics.

[ruggerson]

3. Wrong answer

A dark horse wins the Presidency by sheer force of personality. They then shape the party to adjust to their agenda.

Your strategy is great for a congressional election.

The Presidency is won by the cult of personality.

[TayTay]

8. No it isn't.

It is a grueling series of elections that bring people out to work. It involves the hard work of millions of people.

The way you exlained it, Tinkerbell could win with the the 'I do believe in fairies' hand-clapping technique. (Which went Republican last time anyway.)

The Cult of Personality is a media creation. It doesn't exist. A dark horse, by definition, is an unknown and can't win on the basis of being known. That is silly

[ruggerson]

12. No it will take one person with killer political instincts

All the organizational skills and "50 state strategies" won't get you anywhere without the right candidate who understands how to play the game on a national stage.

Bush had Rove. And they knew how to play the game. They didn't rely on the RNC or anyone in Washington for that matter.

Bill Clinton had Jim Carville. They knew how to play the game. They didn't rely on the DNC, or anyone in Washington for that matter.

Organization and turnout are incredibly important, yes, but in the final analysis it all comes down to the candidate and his/her personal political skillset.

[TayTay]

15. Your own examples disprove you

Bush had the backing of the RNC and the Christian groups and the entire infrastructure of theRepublican Party. When he assumed office in 2001, he had lousy poll numbers and without the artificial interference of Sept 11, 2001 would have been a barely 50% Pres in his first year in terms of approval ratings.

Clinton failed to get a clear majority of the vote. If he was put into office with a 'cult of personality' then it doesn't take much to make a cult. His first Pres race got him just above 43% of the vote and the second run got him around 28% of the vote. He also failed to rewrite any political agenda at all. What is his lasting legacy that is still going on in America? Where did this Cult of Personality lead and where are the present day benefectors of it in the Dem Party?

Plan a race with that goal in mind and you will lose for sure and certain.

[ruggerson]

18. Ah, I see, so you're not arguing

my point, but merely are disgruntled ideologically with what you perceive as the limitations of the poll, because your candidate presumably is not there.

If you feel Clinton did not leave a legacy of balanced budgets and relative peace and stability, then you and I are not standing on the same political page.

And go back in history. The Presidents who achieved great things achieved them by sheer force of personality and intellect. Not by "50 state strategies" or mere organization at the local level.

Great leaders emerge unexpectedly and are shaped by world and national events. They do not arrive solely through skillfully organizing precincts nationwide. Though that is certainly important, again, it is the candidate who wins it, not the precinct captain.

[TayTay]

21. No, I think Clinton won because it was a 3 way race

and that the tactics used in that race and the implication that he had a 'cult of personality' that put him over the top is silly, unproven and without any merit whatsoever.

You haven't proven your case. It remains in fantasyland.

As for great leaders forcing their ideas on the world stage, yeah, so did Hitler and Stalin and others. We happen to live in a Democracy however. That implies that there were helping hands in everything that a leader in this country ever did.

The 50 State Strategy involves people showing up to do the hard work and eventually introduce any candidates to their friends, neighbors, co-workers and others that they interact with on a regular basis. Without the workers, you don't have a candidate. Or perhaps you are next going to argue that all the fantasy candidate from D-Cult of Personality needs is a PR person, a makeup artist and TV camera. Good luck with that and let me know how it works out for you.

[ruggerson]

24. You've got to be kidding me

Are you trying to say that Bill Clinton's force of personality, his mastery at political maneuvering and skill at purveying public "empathy" are not what put him over the top?

Although my original point was about WINNING elections, and debating Clinton's presidency is a red herring, I don't think you would find very many people who would agree with you that he wasn't a masterful politician.

You must by very lonely in that hole you've dug.

Btw, since you think Clinton was both a rotten President and a rotten politician, who are you leaning towards supporting in '08? Just curious.

[TayTay]

28. I see that you have learned debating from Repubs

Your technique of choice to make something up in response to things that people actually said. You believe that people who say that Clinton did not win based on a Cult of Personality are Clinton-haters. This is because you can't deal with an argument dead-on and have to make up the argument you wish was put forth. Too bad this debate seems to be too difficult on it's merits. Dems need to have it. The worst possible thing that could happen to the Democratic Party is to think that a Democratic Messiah is going to come in out of the desert and save us. Nothing will save us but good old fashioned hard work and effort and rebuilding neglected grassroots. This is beyond any one candidate and certainly beyond any Cult of Personality.

Clinton won because Bush I encountered bad economic times and because Ross Perot got into the race and b led off Republican support. This is a simple fact. Clinton, who does have good political skills, was the last man standing in that race.

But what is his lasting legacy besides the DLC? How is that legacy transferable to the rest of the Democratic Party. Great leaders, perhaps even outstanding leaders like FDR, leave a legacy like Social Security and such. What is Clintons?

[ruggerson]

29. Never mind, I can see that it is Kerry

which explains this entire sub thread.

So, I "learned debating from the repubs," eh?

And you learned ad hominem, puerile attacks from whom?

You're the one who wrote that Clinton did not leave a legacy (therefore bad President) and wrote that he only won by default (therefore not so great politician either).

They're your words, babe. Not mine.

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. I'd like you to explicitly quote any "ad hominem, puerile attacks"

Only one person has remained level-headed in this exchange, and it's not you, buddy. You have become increasingly shrill and insulting while continuing to refuse to debate TayTay's points on their merits. I fail to see how challenging your notion that Clinton won solely because of his personality and not because of discontent with Bush Sr. or the presence of Perot in the race or a strong campaign staff or any other factor is ad hominem or puerile. What IS ad hominem and puerile is your attempt to create a strawman by claiming she "hates" Clinton and then dragging John Kerry into the argument out of thin air in some bizarre attempt to "get back" at her for debating your assertations about Clinton.

If you are not prepared to defend the thesis you submitted in your OP without becoming so shrill and angry, maybe you need to take a break from DU.

[ruggerson]

70. The only shrillness and anger

I detect is in some of the posts by people very disgruntled with the construct of this poll. The OP is just a poll on an internet discussion board. But, it apparently raised ire amongst followers of some of the candidates who were not in it, who, when asked, wouldn't even own up to their own motivations. Your oh so valiant defense aside, if someone writes snarky remarks (ad homs like comparing a fellow poster to Republicans) or mere juvenile, inoffensive snarkiness like "foolishness" "silly" and "fantasyland", instead of responding with intellect and thoughtfulness, they should not be surprised if they receive the same tenor of remarks in return.

This is a discussion board. That's what happens occasionally. People have dust ups and move on. We do have different opinions, remember? We're democrats, after all. <shrug>

Btw, did you see this poll that showed that almost half the country would "definitely not" vote for Gore, Kerry or Hillary? Interesting how it jives with the point a lot of us are making and with this OP.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/index.html

[ChipsAhoy]

54. Good for you, Tay Tay

I appreciate your logic. I agree that there is no way that one person can pull us to the top. It's going to take a huge mass effort on our side. And one we CAN obtain.

PS: In reading the back and forth here, you are the one left standing. And you did it with class.

Good for you!

[windbreeze]

56. NAFTA...

he did bring us NAFTA didn't he...and isn't it having a lasting effect???

[Bucky]

46. Fact check: Clinton didn't win in '92 because of Perot.

Polling in November 1992 showed that Perot was pulling more support away from Clinton than he was from Bush. Remember that the final tally was 43% for Clinton and 38% for Bush. Early in the race Perot did hurt Bush more, particularly with his temporary pull out saying "the Democrats have got their act together." But after his reentry and by election day he was actually dragging Clinton down more.

Perot pulled 19% of the vote that year--not bad for a closet fascist.

In 1996, he only polled 9% and Clinton won more votes than Dole and Perot combined. Clinton won both his elections without regard to Perot's participation.

[wisteria]

66. i agree with you on Clinton's win. n/t

[fishwax]

45. the problem with the cult of personality is that the personality moves on

and sometimes the party has difficulty doing so. Bill Clinton is a perfect case in point. You mention Clinton's "legacy of balanced budgets and relative peace and stability," but those lasted less than one year after he left the scene.

I agree with you, to an extent, about the need for a charismatic personality, but the problem is that in the late 90s we failed to build a solid ground-up infrastructure while we had the advantage of being led by a political wunderkind. That's why we've not fared well in the last three election cycles. But the personality/charisma/momentum certainly has power, which is a large share of why I worked for Dean in '04.

The 50 state strategy will make it easier for whoever wins the dem nomination in '08, I have no doubt. And if we'd had that strategy in play following the y2k election, then Kerry would've won. I'm certain of that.

As far as the poll goes, I'd pick Schweitzer from among your choices, though I think any number of candidates are capable of flipping a red state or two, if the party structure doesn't abandon those states and the candidate doesn't back down.

[wisteria]

65. It take the party to support and sell the person. n/t

[Warpy]

9. Schweitzer has DONE IT ALREADY

He knows what it takes.

Those inside the beltway elitists will never listen, though.

[wisteria]

64. I agree, except I will say Kerry could achieve this with help in 08! n/t

[Sadie5]

2. Evan Bayh

Even though he has been a Senator from my home state for some time I have a problem supporting him as he voted with Bush 90% of the time. Only when he decided to take a stab at '08' did he change his voting habits. But if he were the Dem candidate running for prez then darn right I would support him.

[Totally Committed]

4. None of them, sadly....

I sincerely believe it is Wes CLark who has the best chance of flipping ANY Red State.

TC

[merci_me]

16. Agreed n/t

[Straight Shooter]

5. Brian Schweitzer. Straight talker.

Got that nice good old boy mixed with the common man image, but he sure stood up to bush over the National Guard. Also he has, IIRC, one of the highest ratings of a governor. Not bad for a Dem governor in a red state.

My instincts tell me he's the one. That's all I can add, except to say check him out.

[politicasista]

6. None of that will matter until we fix Congress and the voting machines

flame me if you want, but that's the truth.

[rwenos]

7. All We Need is One

(With apologies to Lennon - McCartney) --

All we need is ONE medium-sized Southern State, or to flip ONE medium-sized red state.

The classic political analyst formulation: a moderate Democratic southern governor.

I'm not much of a fan of Southern political culture -- but that classic theory has given us the last two Democratic Presidents.

[politicasista]

13. I am a southerner and I am tired of being charmed

I want someone that is not only sincere, but is honest, competent and loaded with years of domestic and foreign policy experience. One who will look after everyone and focus on civil rights issues like voting rights, affirmative Action, education, jobs, health care, the environment and so on.

I liked the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years, but sooner or later we need to understand that there will never be another Bill Clinton. Bill had a gift for being charismatic and compassionate (i.e. I feel your pain), but it is time for us and the Democratic Party to stop seeing their candidates/nominees through the Bill Clinton prism, if we do, we will continue to lose and wind up disappointed every single time.



My two cents.

[election_2004]

57. Hear, hear!

Members of the Democratic establishment need to get it through their heads that we can't simply bring back the Clinton Years via Hillary!

[Cosmocat]

10. Clark ...

I know you probalby don't want to hear it, but outside of maybe Warner, he has the best chance, by far ...

Feingold is jewish, pretty much the same as being black to 90% of the "base" in the red states ... Also, working on his second divorce, SURE to be a rallying point for the bible thumpers ...

[Redstone]

11. Besides me? Nobody. And I don't want the job.

Redstone

[jackpan1260]

14. I really like Feingold, but he is going to have a tough time flipping

a red state if he is at the top of the ticket.

[grytpype]

17. John Edwards. Edwards/Clark 2008 = we win.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. Warner is the simple answer, and the correct answer

This shouldn't be limited to fresh faces. Who has the best chance, period? The answer is still Mark Warner. By virtue of Virginia, his home state and giving Warner a 74% thumbs up.

Montana doesn't belong on that list. No one on our side can win Montana, outside perhaps Schweitzer and that's very doubtful even if he's the nominee. Vast difference winning a presidential vote in your state than a gov vote, especially when the state tilts Republican in presidential races by more than 10%.

We have to win one of these three states in '08: Ohio, Florida, Virginia. Otherwise, pack it up. I'll continue to handicap Mark Warner as the best hope. We shouldn't be bashful of taking advantage of a favorite son roll in a vital state.

Let's put it this way; if the GOP were in our shoes Rove and Co. would mandate Warner as the nominee and squeeze out everyone else, by whatever dirty tactic necessary. Deny or downplay that at our own peril.

[ruggerson]

42. I have no problem with Warner

and if I were handicapping the race right now, I would put him as the odds on favorite for the nomination. Very, very smart people are quietly lining up behind him, many smart folk on the "internets" are not so quietly lining up behind him. He is getting much better on the stump and a year from now should be quite ready to take the country by storm.

I disagree with you though about Schweitzer. Not only would he take Montana, he'd swing Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico into our camp and have a very good shot at OH and AZ.

The country is going to be thirsty for AUTHENTICITY. The key ingredient for '08. The one who has it in spades is Schweitzer, with Feingold a close runner up. Warner comes across as very likeable and very earnest, both of which are big pluses.

[Awsi Dooger]

43. I might be underrating Schweitzer

I've seen him and been very impressed. Probably I put too much stock in the numbers, and we can't get to 40% in Montana in a presidential race lately. That's really a positive assessment of Scweitzer and if you're right he's got a big future with the party.

I don't know about Warner being odds-on. That means more than 50%. I think 4/1 is about right. He's still got work to do on the stump, as you say.

Plus there's the hurdle I'm most worried about: the primary voters and the electability angle. That was the rationale behind Kerry and they got burned.

So, will they reject that logic next time and therefore dismiss Warner? I think that would be masochistic beyond description. IMO, Edwards and likeability was most electable in 2004. Now it's legitmately Warner for 2008, via the importance of Virginia, but if our early primary voters don't accept that, or focus there, we're stuck with a more vulnerable general election candidate again.

[ruggerson]

47. I think, if anything

we are even MORE thirsty now than in '04. Electability will be what dooms Hillary and gives rise to Warner or some other heretofore unknown.

Kerry won Iowa and thus caught momentum for NH and beyond, because he was perceived as more electable and more presidential and more seasoned than Dean. This time we must marry electability with authenticity. Had Edwards gotten a little more press and money in Iowa, he may very well have won it, and history would have been different.

The only real challenge to Warner is Edwards. The race comes down, imho, to Edwards, Hillary, Warner, a dark horse (Schweitzer) and Feingold.

Of all of the above, I'm most comfortable with Edwards or Warner or Schweitzer on top of the ticket and Russ as a VP for any of them.

[Awsi Dooger]

48. I agree with everything

I'm convinced Hillary will be rudely dismissed, stunningly so. Almost a Gephardt-type failure. Not in terms of percentage, but relationship to expectation.

I think the top three will be Warner, Edwards and Hillary with someone else fairly close, maybe Feingold since he's the darling of the far left.

At the end Warner wins it with Edwards runnerup again. Which has got to be a sickening feeling.

But this time Edwards is not considered for VP, nor would he consider taking it.

I can't isolate a VP choice but I hope it's strategic. Maybe Bill Richardson would make sense. Carrying Kerry's states plus the home states of that ticket, Virginia and New Mexico, would equal 270.

[PWRinNY]

20. For this poll - Feingold

Though I think John Edwards is the best choice for us, for this poll I have to say Feingold, because he's very fair and his record shows it. He stands up for the people over the party, and does the right thing.

While Boxer also does, I don't think a California liberal (and female) would stand as much of a chance as a mid-westerner. But put her on the ticket with Edwards - you'd have one VERY happy Dem here! :)

[MoonRiver]

22. FEINGOLDFEINGOLDFEINGOLD! FEINGOLDFEINGOLDFEINGOLD!

But only if Clark and Gore don't run.

[zalinda]

23. Sorry, but no one knows any ot them

They would have to start from day one putting themselves out there. And the press can also start from day one putting lies about them out there. Since no one knows who these people are, who do you think Joe public will believe............the media. Remember ALL polititians lie, according to "some" people.

It's better to go with someone the public knows, so the media has less lies they can spin.

zalinda

[politicasista]

25. Exactly

It's time for people to stop expecting a fresh face wave his/her magic wand to make lies/smears (made up or not) disappear, cause it won't happen. The same fresh face is going to have the same propaganda machine thrown at them just like Gore and Kerry had.

[Pithy Cherub]

26. None of the above.

[thatsrightimirish]

27. Warner

I think we would win Virginia easy. And if we win in Virginia, Nevada would be the only state we would have to switch. I'm not saying we don't campaign everywhere but it would be electorally smart if Warner were the nominee.

[Awsi Dooger]

39. Nevada or one of several other states

Keeping all of Kerry's states is not a given. Let's put that out front. Especially New Hampshire. Wisconsin.

But let's say you did. Mark Warner would win Virginia by 2-5 points as a favorite son. That's how it looks right now, and by reasonable estimate. The new math with Warner as nominee: Kerry's 252 + Virginia's 13 = 265.

The magic number is 270.

I'm going to post this often until it is more accepted around here.

The next closest states in terms of the 2004 vote were Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Each of them has at least 5 electoral votes, the elusive number.

I guess the argument is Warner is too inexperienced or bland or vulnerable or unknown, or some/all of the above. That he can't be trusted even to win our base, let alone expand on it.

That's why I'm a gambler and a handicapper. We can take the safe path like 2004 and blame Diebold for the next four years, or we can gamble on greatness with Mark Warner, and let the other side worry about vote count oddities in obscure counties for a change.

[thatsrightimirish]

41. Oh I know

I think we agree that he can win Virginia. I was just saying with Virginia's electoral votes all we need is Nevada. I think he can win in Florida, New Mexico, Colorado etc. And with more liberal person for VP I think everyone would be happy.

[Awsi Dooger]

44. I knew you knew

Just always looking for an excuse to stick in that 252 + 13 + 5 = 270 :)

We need to win dammit.

[Clarkie1]

30. Lousy Poll. Clark, obviously. n/t

[faithnotgreed]

31. why was obama left off this list

im not one of his strongest supporters but it seems odd that he wasnt one of the options
why was that

[ruggerson]

32. my bad

I'm sure I missed a couple of folks who are rising stars. I think Obama's definitively ruled out running, but I should have put him on regardless. (editing period has expired)

[faithnotgreed]

34. ok - thank you

i appreciate the response

i had wondered if it was because he hadnt declared his intent to run but then others on that list hadnt either (incl hillary) so i didnt know the criteria here

thanks again

[iconoclastNYC]

62. "Red state" eom

[ArkySue]

33. Wes Clark!

Invalid poll.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. Yes but Hillary Clinton is simply NOT a "fresher face" than Wes Clark

OK, I understand your criteria, and how Hillary technically fits it, and I know you know that she's not really a "fresh face", but good lord the woman has already spent eight years in the White House. Hillary has 100% name recognition for a reason. She is the least "fresh face" the Democrats can offer except maybe Al Gore who also spent 8 years "in the White House" and then ran for President himself, and I bet you most Americans still consider Al to be a "fresher face" than Hillary.

I think there's a vast difference between running for a Party's Presidential nomination and actually running on a national ticket in a General Election. Clark stopped getting much free publicity during his 2004 campaign after the Iowa caucus results became known, which is when most regular Democrats started to actually pay attention to the race, never mind anyone else. The amount of attention given to a major National Party Presidential ticket member dwarfs any publicity given someone who only ran in some early primaries. And Hillary was one of the most talked about First Ladies in American history. There are many things Hillary Clinton can be called, but a "fresh face" isn't one of them. She's done Presidential campaigns and she's pretty much done most of the Presidency also.

OK, just had to say that. Carry on with your poll :)

[ruggerson]

36. Interesting that she's losing this particular poll to far lesser knowns

no?

I like many things about Hillary. Her ability to be a catalyst for winning over a few red states is not one of them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Yup, I think she's as much of a "Red State Flipper"...

...as she is a "fresh face", and you already know what I think about that, lol.

[saltpoint]

38. An interesting poll, ruggerson. Using your criterion that we vote

as tacticians and not our personal preference, I voted Evan Bayh, with Schweitzer a respectable second. Bayh I think is very electable, although I personally would prefer Schweitzer, Feingold, or Boxer from your list.

I think we have a lot of talented Democrats.

[ruggerson]

40. I like Bayh, OC

but the few times I've seen him talk, he's about as interesting as watching paint dry. Perhaps he's gotten better, but he will need to ramp up the charisma quotient in order to garner real interest, imho.

[saltpoint]

51. If you can believe it, Bayh's better now than he used to be as a speaker.

We definitely agree that there's still room for improvement in that category.

He sounds prepared and dutiful but not very spontaneous. But it's worked so far in Indiana, so I think it could spill over into Iowa.

[sandnsea]

49. Based on this poll, Schweitzer

Only thing is, I don't know if he's ready to run for President or whether the country would trust that someone from such a small state could manage the country and national defense.

As much as many think we need someone to appeal to the south, I think there is also a backlash bubbling in the rest of the country, where we're sick to death of having to cow-tow to southerners who continue to shove their southern baptist values down our throats.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Based on how the GOP are playing it......

It ain't about a "fresh" face....it's about a face that understands War and how to defeat the enemy (and I ain't talking bout AlQeada!)

And from what I've seen, That ain't none of the above! :eyes:

[Adelante]

52. A Red State speech -- TEXAS

Watch this speech and tell me Wes Clark should not be on any list about flipping red states.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JpMV2G3TajA&search=wesley%20clark

I dare you :)

[Texas_Kat]

69. That speech

Harvey Kronberg (one of Texas's best political writers) thought so too:

Highlights from the Democratic convention
6/19/2006 3:04 PM
By: Harvey Kronberg

More often than not, political conventions are games of meeting or exceeding expectations.

Obviously, Texas Democrats face challenges, including high turnover in party leadership, lack of funds and lack of statewide election success.
But Democratic conventions are coming back to life. Both numbers and enthusiasm have continued to grow since the darkest days of a decade ago.

Democrats can almost taste the opportunities this November. Convention keynote speaker and probable presidential candidate Wesley Clark hit all the right licks in his 6:30 p.m. speech by kicking off the convention with a stemwinder that had delegates on their feet, chanting "Enough is enough."

But the marquee speech should have been gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell. Instead of rolling right from Clark's standing ovation into the Bell speech,...

http://tinyurl.com/qkmsy

Harvey is an honest broker of political news in Texas. He's the 'political junkie writers' writer'. Most politicians get a big yawn, but not WKC. From Harvey.... this is amazing praise. He's seen enough to know "authentic" firsthand.

[Telly Savalas]

53. What do you mean by "flip red states"?

If you mean getting them to vote for a guy with a "D" after his them, then our best bet would be to get a conservative Republican to switch parties and be our candidate.

If you mean getting red states to support liberal policies, then it would probably be helpful to pick somebody who actually supports and can articulate a progressive agenda.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Best to have both. Clark '08 n/t

[Geek_Girl]

58. I prefer Russ Feingold

But I'm afraid only a southerner is going to flip the south. So I voted for Warner. After the last election I've pretty much come to the conclusion that some people in my area are actually bigoted toward people from up North.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

59. My hard core republican sister...

the one who used to think Dick Cheney was sexy...
the one who believes Christian beliefs should be taught in schools...
the one who has voted republican since 1976...

told me that she would vote for Obama if he ran because she is disgusted with how things are being conducted.

[Auntie Bush]

60. Wes Clark is the only one that can win the South or red states and

he will be a fresh face to many. Lots of people didn't even watch the primaries before Wes dropped out.

Wes could get the religious vote, (Jewish, baptist & Catholic) He's certainly strong on the military, Masters in economics, intelligent,
Strategist, negotiator, lots of administrative experience and he doesn't lie.

I frankly can't see how anyone couldn't recognize what a prize he is to the Democratic party. He's just what we NEED! He's the only one I could trust to get us out of Iraq. We NEED Wes Clark!

[iconoclastNYC]

61. Feingold

A strong defense of privacy and civil liberties is the key to peeling off paleoconservatives from the Republican coalition.

Paleocons fear unrestricted Government power more than they fear "liberals."

We should pick a candidate that has gone to bat for civil liberaties. Feingold is the best choice.

[wisteria]

63. Where is Kerry's name? He could actually achieve this in 08. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

67. I think Warner MIGHT have a chance.

The rest are likely a waste of time.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Warner has a nice, fresh face

until he opens his mouth and brings back nuances and consultant-run campaign into the national debate.

[ruggerson]

72. If he comes across as manufactured

I agree, he won't make it.

There are sparks of passion and "realness" I see in him which bode well.