Those are the front runners at this point, although only Vilsack has officially announced - look to see the others announce their candidacy after New Year’s day.
Me - well, I want someone who can win.
My choices, so far, in order of those mentioned:
Oh, Bomber!
Of those four only? Clinton will take it without even having been offered.
Forget Edwards. The ticket will be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton.
Obama doesn’t have any experience. Hillary is just noise. I like Edwards, but Vilsack has excellen executive experience. I also like Kucinich because he was the only one smart enough to oppose the Iraq war from the start, but he works best as a gadfly and not as an executive.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think Obama or Clinton have a chance of going all the way. Of those four? Edwards.
Obama’s the only one with even half a prayer, and thankfully would probably make the best leader.
Edwards is just as green as Obama, but half as charismatic. Hillary is Kerry in a dress.
Vilsack is perhaps enough of a cypher to pull it off, but I saw him on the Daily Show, and between kidding around about Jon’s running “Aflak” gag he said some stuff about the Iraq war that I can’t really get behind.
He’s got much better legs.
Please, please, please–not a Clinton/Obama combo. That will spell certain doom.
Hillary? Too polarizing.
Obama? I think that he’s getting screwed by everyone pushing him so early.
Edwards? Blew his chances by running as VP with Kerry.
Vilsack? Not going to happen based on his Iraq plan.
Kucinich? Bwahahahahaha.
We’re fucked again. I’m worried that if the Dems don’t get their shit together, like now, people are going to start forgetting about what the Republicans didn’t get accomplished. Then it will be easy for them to fall back into voting for Anybody ®. Especially since we will probably still be heavily involved in Iraq; everybody knows the Republicans are better at keeping us safe. :rolleyes:
If I have to chose from the current crop, I guess I’d go with Obama.
My kingdom for a truly viable candidate.
I could see Obama winning, but not this time. Too green. Running, though, could help gain him cred in the next election. Then it wouldn’t be the first time people would hear his name associated with a national election, he’d be that much more senior in the Senate, etc. And if he runs as VP, then he’s riding a rocket to the top, I’d say (assuming that ticket wins). He’ll be interesting to follow.
I just don’t see Hillary winning. Doesn’t matter if the vilification / demonization is justified or made up out of whole cloth–it exists, and it seems strong. It’s hard to picture a scenario where she’d play to a significant group outside the base. The Republicans would have no trouble counter-campaigning with a strategy that pandered to all the fears about her “extreme liberalism.” And she is just not likeable–she’s as shrill and cold (IMO) as her husband was charismatic and engaging.
I believe the Dem’s ticket will have some Prez candidate yet to be determined, combined with Obama. Clinton ain’t playing second fiddle to anyone.
Left-of-standard here. Fantasy world? Aside from my now impossible Edward Said/ Noam Chomsky dream ticket, Kucinich/Obama. In reality, perhaps Edwards/Obama. Obama, of course, takes the reins after the two terms. And a thousand years of peace ensues. And candy-cane lamp posts and happy little elves and gumdrop trees and peppermint-sprinkled monkeys from my butt.
I’m not a Democrat, but if you don’t mind me chiming in, I’d say that Vilsack would probably be the best president. Senators make poor presidents because they’re not used to being decisive; they sit on committees and hide behind group consensus. Governors are used to making tough decisions and being the guy with whom the buck stops.
As for the others, Obama is just a flash in the pan. He has no experience, and the only reason anybody is talking about him is because he’s a likable black guy. The Democrats are keeping him on the back burner in case they need to run against Condoleeza Rice. Hillary is too widely hated; she doesn’t have Bill’s charisma, and her politics are too far to the left for a lot of people. The “Kerry in a dress” comment is dead-on. Edwards, well, he had his chance. Lightening might strike twice, but in politics that’s a pretty rare occurrence.
Vilsack: no chance. He simply has the temporary news from announcing first, and apart from being the governor of Iowa (and thus can bet no PR boost from the primary) doesn’t tout any real credentials.
Obama: VP, not Prez. He’s not experienced enough to be in charge, but he’s demonstrated bipartisanship in the US and IL Senates.
Clinton: far too widely hated to win, and I don’t like her hawkish positions.
Edwards: meh. His failed run for VP in 2004 both tied him to a loss and prevented him from getting attention in the Senate. I doubt he’ll have enough support for anything this time 'round.
Gore: I really think he could get the nomination. He has real credentials, and I don’t think semi-losing in 2000 will really have that much of an effect. However, it remains to be seen whether he will even run.
My ideal ticket(s): Gore (Edwards?)/Obama.
Oooh! I’d vote for that ticket.
I heard some Iowa poll numbers awhile back, after Vilsack announced. I was shocked that the Favorite Son came in last, among Iowans, at 14%. He’s been a quiet governor, hasn’t done anything wrong but hasn’t done anything that got him noticed either, even in Iowa.
Edwards did well in the Iowa caucuses in 2004 and came in first in this recent poll too. I don’t think running as Kerry’s VP hurt him. But all his energy since then has gone into social issues, poverty in particular, and poverty hasn’t been a popular issue since the 60’s (more’s the pity).
When I think of Hillary, what I remember most is her comment about Bill being a hard dog to keep under the porch. I’m afraid that’s how many people see her – a smart, capable woman married to a charismatic man who cheated on her, and she was okay with that, for the sake of their careers. I know – that’s shallow of me, but I can’t help it.
Gore/Edwards
Here we go again. The dems have a great opportunity to take the presidency because the GOP is not running an incumbent AND the present VP is not going to run.
However, they are about to shoot themselves in the foot again!
Obama. Are you kidding me? Completely inexperienced, very young and black.
Remember folks, the dems HAVE TO collect most of the swing voters AND even some Republicans to win the White House. And these people are not going to vote for Obama over whoever the GOP nominates.
Hillary. You can’t be serious. Shes a woman. She doesn’t have Bill’s Charisma. No matter what positions she takes on specific issues, Republicans and many swing voters will ALWAYS see her as a Leftist and will not vote for her.
Edwards and who ever else is in the present field have no chance against McCain or any other candidate the GOP offers up.
There it is; the election is already over unless the dems come up with some one else. And you know what? They aren’t going to. Hillary and Obama have already been chosen. Its already too late to find some one else.
SO FUNNY! That is exactly what I was saying in my head. Quite literally, that was what I first thought. Then I scrolled down and BOOM, ya said it.
Great minds and all that.
How about Bill Richardson?
Hit reply too soon.
I’d love to see Obama win. I do not like Hillary Clinton and would only vote for her if I had no choice. Edwards is meh. And I don’t know anything about Vilsack yet except that his name is awful (and I do think that matters when it comes to getting votes).
I think the Democrats are already in serious trouble. The media has already fallen in love with the drama of Clinton vs Obama - the first female candidate vs the first non-white candidate. The reason that’s a problem for the Democrats is that at some point the party leaders are going to decide “We need to get serious. We need a nominee who’s electable and neither of these two are it.” But at that point, any candidate who’s chosen - Edwards, Vilsack, Kucinich, Richardson, Clark - is going to seem like an uninspired second-choice.