Whom do you want to see win the nomination?
Who do you think will win the nomination?
Bill Richardson
Richardson was the first name on my mind as well. It’s way too early for me to have a fav, however.
Barack Obama
Hey now! Stop trying to steal my new senator! He hasn’t even been inaugurated yet!
Bill Richardson sounds good, but I don’t know all that much about him. Is our country ready for a Latino president? Or is it okay because his last name isn’t Gonzalez or Rodriguez?
'08 is too early for Obama. I think he would be better in '12 (or '20 when a Dem gets re-elected in '16) 
.
I think '08 is Hillary’s year. If not Hillary, then maybe Daschle?
Tom Daschle?
You’re kidding right?
The Democrats were unsucessful when they ran a Senator from South Dakota before. And that guy hadn’t just lost his re-election bid!
For the record, senators aren’t inaugurated. They are sworn in.
Effectively, both presidents and senators are sworn in, but inaugural refers to a big fancy ceremony and senators have a much simpler ceremony and they don’t get to make a speech during it either.
I’d like to see Wesley Clark or Dennis Kucinich, but they’d have to be better prepared than this time to win the primaries.
It often comes down to who has the better network inside the party, so it will probably be Hillary Clinton-John Edwards, or vice-versa.
My opinion doesn’t matter anyway. By the time Indiana’s primary rolls around in May, the candidate has already been picked.
Right if you lose in South Dakota, you are a shoo-in to win the entire nation. :rolleyes:
I’d like to see Wesley Clark win the primary. I thought he had the best shot out of all the primary candidates (even though I voted Kucinich), and was surprised that he didn’t do better. And, if he decides to switch parties (which is totally unlikely), John McCain would practically be a shoo-in.
The Democrats would be idiots to run Hillary; she’d never win. Of course, that just means that they’ll wind up running her anyway.
It needs to be somebody that would stand half a chance in states like Ohio and PA, so I don’t think Hilary Clinton is a good idea.
It needs to be somebody with some solid experience, so I think that Obama is a couple of elections away (and yes, I do think that this country would vote for a black man).
My thinking is, the best candidates out there who might run are Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson. The guy I’d like to see run, who probably won’t, is Al Gore.
No, not the 2000 version of Al Gore who bored us all to tears every time he opened his mouth. I want the 2004 fire and brimstone version. That guy would have won in 2000 (or 2004).
Okay, so maybe he did win in 2000…
It will have to be a moderate for the candidate to have a chance.
Hillary Clinton is not electable. Clark proved that he is not viable this last time. Kucinich has no chance at all. It’s too soon for Obama, too late for Al Gore.
Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson are two that would have a shot. Bayh will have to be careful with his Senate votes, however.
I think one of those two will have the best shot, but a lot can happen between now and then.
Of course, if Hillary decides she wants to run, I doubt there will be any primary opposition, as most other prospective candidates would rather end up being found in Fort Marcy Park.
Read a blurb recently that said Brad Pitt was interested in political office. Maybe he and Arnold will face off in '08.
I like the new Gore, and I agree he has amped up his fervor. Seems like that stick that used to fill his rectal cavity has snapped and he is no longer trying to please everyone.
I like Hillary, and the thought of her winning and watching Republican heads imploding at the news would be worth the pain of 2000 and 2004. In reality though, I think she will run a good primary campaign, but not get the nomination.
I think Russ Feingold would make a decent president, but I have no idea how electable he would be.
You guys who think Hillary is ‘unelectable’ forget one thing: she has proven to be a great, great, great, great campaigner. She got her cad of a husband elected President twice, despite ample evidence of his perchant for pinching. Hillary’s own ambitions are all but acknowledged, as the two are sometimes referred to as ‘The President and Mr. Clinton.’
Also, she can legitimately claim to have the moral high ground over, say, potential Republican candidate Giuliani. Her protestations to the contrary, she ‘stood by her man’.
Edwards/Obama.
I voted for Dubya both times and here is my advice for Democrats.
Choose John Edwards. He was far superior to John Kerry and is easily “electable”, which should be an important part of the decision. Hilary Clinton can’t win against any average Republican candidate.
She enrages Republicans too much for the Democrats to convert many red States.
I’ve never understood these sorts of quotes. Bush somehow survives enraging Democrats at least as much.
PS – I’d like to see former Oregon Governer John Kizhapper run.
Hillary got Bill elected? That’s news to me.
I think Mark Warner sounds intriguing. He’s the governor of a red, Southern state (Virginia), and least when I read about him, was popular and got things done, kept the budget balanced, that kind of thing. Democrats would like those things, and he’s another very educated guy, but it appears he has the ability to connect with lots of voters and doesn’t have a manner that turns people off. I’m not a Virginian, but I think he sounds good if what I’ve read is accurate.