I think if Dean has any sense in his head he’ll try to limit the number of Democrats seeking nomination in '08.
Have you been asleep for the past two days?!
And did you see “ole Howard” on The Daily Show tonight? BOO-YAH!!! 
I like Howard Dean and I always have. Highly intelligent, politically moderate, way more charismatic than the obnoxious John Kerry. But he’s probably not electable now. I never got the big deal about the scream. So he went WOOH! Who hasn’t yelled before. I just think it didn’t play well on TV. Of course as George “macaca” Allen can tell you, these days you really gotta watch what you say on TV.
I wish Warner hadn’t bowed out. 
Howard Dean gave up his shot at being President, if you want to believe he had one, when he became head of the DNC. I think he’s better suited to that role than the Presidency anyway. Presidents have to reach out across the aisle and make friends. Chairman can say pretty much whatever they want with minimal consequences: Dean called Republicans “evil” and more. If he managed to get the Democratic nomination somehow - and make no mistake, he has enemies in the party- how would he reach out to the Republican voters he’s insulted?
It’s a funny thing. Dean had a moderate record as Governor of VT and got support from the left just for his anti-war stance in 2004. Now, the majority of people are against the war, making that stance un-radical - but Dean is stuck on the left.
I can’t find a cite, but I recall that when Dean ran for chairman of the DNC, he pledged that if he won, he would not rund for president in '08.
Howard has stated many times that he will not run because he is party chair. I take him at his word. Whether or not he is the father of the 50 state strategy is immaterial, he aggressively went after the entire map and the Democratic fundraising was up to the task under his watch. I think we owe him a world of gratitude for all that he has done in giving Bush some adult supervision.
He will not be the nominee in 2008 but of course there is no shortage of well qualified people. The party’s success at every level is going to be determined to a large degree on how it handles the reins of power in Congress. If Pelosi runs the House as well as I know she can, then the pre-election scare tactic making her out to be the Princess of Darkness is going to look quite silly and might even make more people receptive to the notion of a progressive presidential candidate.
Exactly. If you think about these things too much it’ll give you an aneurysm. There’s the reality, which tells us clearly Dean ought to appeal to loads of centrist Americans, and then there’s the fantasy world much of the electorate actually inhabits (I probably have my own special version). Dean’s a screaming pinko freak who “hate(s) the Republicans and everything they stand for”, and so on. Forget about how he actually governed. Forget about his actual positions on the issues. For whatever reason, perhaps a certain lack of charisma that makes him more susceptible to gaffitis, the guy’s a public-relations loser among the voting body who he would need to appeal to to win. What can you do?
Thing is, if Dean were so appealing, why couldn’t he get any traction in the 2004 primaries? “The Scream” wasn’t what killed him, it was just the last nail in the coffin. He lost and lost and lost to John Kerry, a man with the charisma of Zombie Hitler, a man who lost to GEORGE FREAKING BUSH.
I personally can’t understand why Dean lost to Kerry. Dean’s not an out of touch liberal, he had a good record in Vermont, he seemed to have a pretty good organization. But when the primaries rolled around his candidacy popped like a soap bubble. I suspect his “combative nature” made him too many enemies among the Democratic party powerbrokers and they kneecapped him somehow. Dean would have cleaned Bush’s clock, in my opinion. But…I guess I’m not a typical Democratic primary voter, because that’s not what actually happened.
As the only viable ant-war candidate, I was really disapointed when Dean imploded in '04. He brought some good ideas to that campaign, and spiced things up a bit. But the press is a harch mistress. They loved him to death, then dropped him like yesterday’s news. They were the ones who made a big deal about “The Scream”, which was just a cheer to get the crowd motivated. I have to say, though, that I like Dean the candidate much better than Dean the DNC chairman-- he’s said some really bonehead things since he took over that job.
I don’t think he has an eye on running again, though, and I take him at his word when he said he wouldn’t do so if became DNC chairman.
Name 3. Actually, let me amend that, it’s not hard to find 3 qualified Democrats. Name 3 who have any real shot at winning a national election (as of now that is. Certainly things can change by '08. If we expect any kind of contest, they better)
1 Al Gore. Nixon proved you can try again 8 years later. The parallels are striking- lost as a sitting vice president in a controversial finish, come back in 8 years with an unpopular president stuck in an unpopular war.
2 Bill Richardson.
3 John Edwards
I don’t think he could. I don’t think he even wants to be. After losing in the primaries in '04 he wanted to maintain influence while not necessarily being hugely visible. He has that now. He has a huge influence on the face and direction of the Democratic Party, and if he were to run again, he’d have to give it up. He’s more of a strategist now, not a politician.
Let’s hope that’s where the parallels end! 
I am happy with Dean as a Democratic strategist (and I’m particularly glad to see that he is pursuing a national strategy and not ceding the South). So if he stays in that role I would be content.
On the other hand, I think he would make a fine President if he were to take the notion. Unfortunately, it seems he has been pretty effectively smeared. It’s sad to see that even some Democrats have bought into the Republican demonization campaign against the guy.
Gore, I’ve said myself on these boards that he could run again. Richardson is a solid choice too, I’ll grant you. Edwards I’m not so sure of, he couldn’t even win the primaries last time. I’m encouraged to notice that not one of the men you mention is the traditional NE liberal that Dems have liked to trot out lately. This election saw the Democrats woo more independent and even conservative voters. We had conservative Democrats (I’m not alone!) and even such an unlikely animal as a pro-life Democrat elected. What I’m waiting to see is if this is a trend away from the loonie left (and if so, it’s about Goddamned time), or simply a momentary opportunism aimed at taking advantage of the weakened GOP. If it’s the former, that’s good news. If it’s the later, then these mid term gains may ultimately prove to be fleeting.
How on Earth could Gore run again after putting out An Inconvenient Truth? What better ammunition could he have given the opposition than what will easily be characterized as a feature-lengh tree-hugger screed? By the time the pubs are through with Gore, he’ll be anti Baby Jesus himself, for burning incense and driving up greenhouse gas levels. I simply can’t imagine Gore wishes to run again. He’s hitched his wagon fully to the batshit-crazed birkenstock-wearing moss-eating ecoterrorists.
Is there no one better the Dems can come up with??
Have you seen the film?
If people care about the issues he talks about, his strong stance could be a positive.
I’m not saying Gore could win, but it’s conceivable that the movie could be a positive. We’ll see where public discourse on the environment is at that point. I bet alternative fuels will be a hot issue in the next election, and who is in a better position than Gore when it comes to that?
No, but do I have to? Isn’t it bad enough that he made one at all? I mean, first he writes books about how the enviroment is more important than American business (just work with me here), and now he puts out a movie about the ills of capitalism and shows it at film festivals…in France??