True, but the stated reason was his prostate cancer.
I recall thinking at the time, “Gee! Wonder what Hillary’s gonna do with her other two wishes?” 
Number 2 was for Kerry to lose in 2004. I’d watch out for a flare-up of skin cancer, if I was McCain.
I stand corrected, thanks.
Obama all the way. I don’t know if he can get elected, but this would be the first time I had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I actually believed in rather than choosing the least repugnant.
Update: Edwards has officially announced.
Recent article on Edwards from The Nation’s website.
I hesitate to get involved in this, as politics are not my thing, but: I guess I’m not really seeing why experience is so important. Do you really learn, grow, and improve that much as your political career progresses? It seems like the average voter kind of goes on vague ideas and likability more than experience, anyway. Obama seems so…fresh. In a good way. I think this country is completely sick of the same old shit, and Obama seems optimistic and promising. The black thing is probably going to mostly apply to die-hard pubs, who aren’t going to vote for a dem regardless.
I think a lot of the experience thing is knowing that the candidate knows how to work effectively with legislators (of both parties, preferably) to get what he wants passed. Somebody who doesn’t know how to do that is going to have to spend some very valuable time learning, and that means some of what he wants to happen maybe isn’t. It also means that the candidate has shown that he can take the other stuff that comes with office: media scrutiny, public relations, etc.
The importance of a candidate’s resume is something that I’ve grown more cynical about over the years, other than winnowing out the more obvious wackos (such as David Duke). Others with more knowledge will correct me I hope, but the past experience of Lincoln and Washington, for instance, didn’t exactly scream “Great President.” Someone like George Bush pere, on the other hand, seemed to have great resume, but was someone I considered to be just a bit above average.
What does that leave us with, then? Position papers and voting records? I’m afriad I agree with you, Renee, that for most voters, someone who “seems optimistic and promising” will have to be good enough.
Why Republicans specifically? Seems that it would apply to racists in general.
Screw voting records! Which one is Presidential Timber[sup]®[/sup]? Who has the firm set to his or her jaw, an eye for the future, and a firm hand for the wheel of the Ship of State? Which one inspires confidence in their ability to weather any storm, to stand toe to toe with the bullies of the world and not flinch, yet seems like a Regular Joe or Jo you could have a beer or coffee with and not feel uncomfortable? Most important, which of the people mentioned could you stand seeing on the news every night for four or eight years, whose face betrays a native intelligence but without a feeling of superiority, whose voice is pleasant and not grating?
Vilsack? Not with THIS mug! http://www.tomvilsack08.com/
Hillary? I’ve spent the last six years wanting to wipe the smirk off the face of the present occupier. I don’t want another smirker.
Edwards? The guy comes off as phony, like he was created in a politician factory.
Gore is presidential timber, now that he’s found the balls he misplaced in 2000. Obama, too, and a Gore/Obama ticket in 2008 and 2012 would make me very happy, followed by Obama/Whoever in '16 and '20. Not merely satisfied. Not able to swallow my gorge and pull the lever. Happy.
Of the stated four, Edwards in a heartbeat.
-
Clinton’s my Senator, and I used to like her before she turned into a middle-of-the-road, pro-war panderer since stepping into office. In November, I voted straight Democratic ticket – except for Clinton; I didn’t pull the lever for Senator at all. Just couldn’t stomach it. Anyway, her political maneuverings disgust me, and besides which, there ain’t no way she has a chance in hell of beating any Republican other than possibly Jenna Bush. Screw her and the DLC crowd that props her up as the frontrunner.
-
Obama? Ah, the other annointed frontrunner, God only knows why. So he gave a good speech during the convention. Big freakin’ deal. Other than that, he’s a handsome young guy with a not particularly distinguished or undistinguished record in his brief time in office. What is his big attraction? Oh, right, he’s black. Why bless my soul, he’s one of those here articulate black folk we all have heard about in the newspapers! He’s a sofa-sitting liberal’s dream, those who long to vote for an African American to show how liberal they are, but meanwhile don’t pay attention to the fact that he doesn’t actually have anything particularly interesting to bring to the table. Seriously, let him mature a bit in his office before running for Vice President, let alone President. (Plus, he’s a little too palsy-walsy with Joe Lieberman for my liking.)
Honestly, the more paranoid side of me thinks that the Clinton and Obama campaigns are being propped up by Karl Rove and other anxious Republicans. They’re creating all this “frontrunner!” media frenzy out of smoke and mirrors, and I sure hope the public realizes this. Eh, who’m I kidding.
-
Vilsack? I admit I don’t know much about him yet, but when I’ve seen in interviewed he doesn’t exactly wow me. Says the right things, but there’s no there there. The jury’s out for now.
-
Edwards. Yes, of the four, he’s my choice. I like his stance on the issues, although I’m leftier than he is – but on the core values, he’s right on target. Unlike Kerry, he spoke up for the Ohioans who were disenfranchised during '04. Looking at the package, he just works – he’s a smart Southerner who knows how to campaign and has been through the mill before. He kicked Cheney’s ass during the debate, which makes him no wimp. And he’s just as handsome and articulate as Obama, without coming across as a callow new Senator (although that’s what he was back in '04, go figure). Finally, his being a ‘failed’ Vice Presidential candidate against Bush/Cheney means nothing, not in this era where most of the people who voted for the Republicans in '04 are feeling serious buyer’s remorse.
All this said, who would I vote for with both my heart and my head? Al Gore, baby. He’s one of the only Democratic ‘names’ who never pandered to the pro-war crowd, he’s been speaking his mind with fire and intelligence. He has both international and domestic experience up the wazoo. Can you imagine what a sigh of relief the rest of the world would give if Gore were at the helm? Someone who cares about the world as a whole global community, not just as some roadmap to oil conquests? Holy cow, we might even get some of our respect back (though it’ll take a long time, alas).
Gore is an extraordinarily smart and passionate man (yes, passionate – view any of his speeches since 2002), and has positively blossomed since his last campaign. He’s divested himself of the Clinton/DLC fogeys who swarmed around him in 2000, and won’t let the mainstream media turn him into the fictional cardboard character they presented to the public. Read or view any of his interviews … the man is funny, extremely articulate, charming, self-deprecating, and has a breadth of knowledge/experience that none of the other Democratic candidates or Republican opponents can match.
He’s never been as admired as he is right now, and with good reason. Frankly I think the idea of a Gore administration is looking mighty sweet to everyone who’s seen what his opponent has done to this country and our standing in the world.
Personally I think a Gore/Edwards ticket would positively kill all comers.
I know what you mean. That grin looks like he’s channeling Glen Campbell. But once he loses that goofy grin (and is it any worse than old smirkazoid’s?) and you listen to him talk, he comes across as genuine. He’s been toughed a bit by 2004, and he stands for the same things that I do by and large. He’s my choice.
I know what you mean, Bob, but he has to switch off the gladhander personality permanently if he wants to move up the ticket. VPs are by nature and expectation political beasts but we expect our presidents to at least appear they are above the fray.
Well, every racist I know leans pretty far right. But my sample size isn’t that large, so maybe racists are evenly distributed between the parties. But I kind of doubt it.
That’s just because the GoP has had longer to warm up their Hate Machine ™ against Hillary. Really, those that HATE Hillary are those that wouldn’t vote for any Dem, no matter who he is. They are irrational, having their minds washed and hung out by the Religious Right wing of the GoP. They aren’t the “average Republican”, they are the Bible thumpers and Ditto-heads.
Note that I used the word HATE, not just “well, I don’t care for her much as she seems wishy-washy”.
I will admit she’s a tad more polarizing that some, but the GoP HATE machine will come up with plenty of HATE for any Dem. Note “Swiftboating”.
Yes, but their general attitudes can affect independent voters, who are seriously important in winning elections. There really isn’t any reason to give Rove any more material than absolutely unavoidable in choosing a candidate; it’s not the primary motivator, but it really does need to be considered.
I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton, but that’s a valid point. Any Democratic nominee is in for the same sort of villification and demonization she has already endured. Remember how many people thought Kerry was “electable” before the hate machine went to work?
Obama hasn’t been run through the hate mill yet, but you can count on it if he is the nominee. Expect the juvenile attacks on Obama’s name to be just a starting point. (The Republicans would have to handle his villification carefully, though, to avoid coming across as racists. Not that they seem too worried about that.)
I’m not ready to jump on the Obama bandwagon until I see how he handles himself on the campaign trail (if he chooses to run). Some people can’t handle the heat. I also need to know more about his positions and priorities. He is certainly the most charismatic speaker we’ve seen in a while. There’s a lot to be said for that in a presidential election.
For now, I support Edwards, and/or Gore (if he chooses to run). I agree with choie that a Gore/Edwards ticket would be the hardest for Republicans to beat.
That ticket would be followed closely in “electability” by an Edwards/Obama ticket IMO. Having Obama on the ticket would bring out the black vote in the general election, which might be enough to swing a close race-- and would have the added benefit of helping Democrats all the way down the ticket.
But Hillary is the most popular Candidate, so the GoP is going crazy trotting out plenty of “every HATES her, she can’t win” propaganda. All the “Material” Rove has on Hillary has already be used and re-used, they have nothing new. He’s got a file on Obama and Vilsack, and they’ll be "Swiftboated’ sure as sunrise if they get nominated. 2004 was rather close, it’s possible that the Swiftboating turned the electio. At least Hillary can’t be Swiftboated, nor can Gore.
It’s got to be either Kerry, Gore or Hillary. I pick Gore. I’ll live with ether of the other two. Obama can be Veep, sure.
I haven’t read the whole thread so someone else may have touched on this, but I feel that when folks voted for Nader in 2000, for example, they were, for all intents and purposes, voting for the ideals exactly opposite of what they believe in.
The way the Electoral College and presidential politics work in the USA mean that, IMO, a voter should vote in such a way most likely to produce a result that most satisfies that voter.
Simply put, don’t vote for a person, vote strategically for the result that best serves the nation, in your opinion.
Someone’s gonna win the White House— if it’s not possible for your guy, you must ask yourself, who will it be? Think ahead a little.
I was also very disapointed. Not because I love Bayh so much, but because I want the Democrats to have at least a whisker of a chance of winning the presidency in 2008.
Bayh was (is?) just about the exact sort of candidate the Dems need. He can come across as a little bland, but he’s an almost conservative Democrat. He’s a little Edwards-like in a good way, but he also has a lot more gravity. Edwards ain’t gonna cut it–no way.
I won’t even mention the two folks with the names almost-just-like-terrorists (Clinton shares a last name with a guy some right-wing nutjobs think was a terrorist, and Obama Hussein Barrack has a name similar to a guy we know is a terrorist------ oh, shit, I mentioned their names…) neither has atheist’s chance in heaven of getting elected.
So, Evan really should have stuck it out. Now the Dem’s best hope is the most Bayh-like dude left-- Vilisak. Either that or the Mystery Savior from Outta Left Field comes along, and that would hopefully be Gore.
In short, at two years out, we can see the same idiotic patterns forming for the Dems. May as well start slashing the budgets for school, health and welfare programs now–get some good practice in-- 'cause the GOPs are sticking around 1600.
Unless…
Bland has been killing the Democrats lately - Kerry, Gore, Lieberman, all very bland. Gephardt, too, and he couldn’t get off the ground in the primaries.