I am left wondering why Warner opted out. My wild guess would be that he has some skeleton in his closet, and that one of his Democratic rivals quietly pointed it out to him.
If that is indeed the case, then he will not be viable as a VP choice either.
Of the remaining field (or potential field), I would be partial to Gore (1st choice) or Edwards (2nd choice) and I would like to know more about Bayh.
I see Obama as a good VP pick this time around, and a good Presidential nominee down the road. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, to see him throw his hat into the ring in '08. I would be tempted to support him, though his inexperience is worrisome.
HRC would be a disastrous mistake. Richardson has some oddball resume padding I don’t understand and which I find irksome. (His claim that he was drafted as a baseball player.) Feingold is a non-starter. No appeal to the center.
Come on now, rjung. You are politically astute enough to realize that you can gauge someones ideological bent by looking at how they are viewed by others who have a stated political benchmark. These ratings are done by dozens of groups.
Of course another possibility is that you just don’t like his assertion and you think asking for a cite that is difficult to quantify will somehow undermine Martin’s assessment of Finegold.
I don’t see why Giuliani is considered a serious contender. He’s on his third marriage, it’s pretty widely known that he was having an affair with his current wife on his second wife, and in fact announced he was divorcing his second wife in public before he even informed her. He’s a shithead, and I really don’t understand why everyone wants to line up and kiss his ass.
I think the next Democratic candidate may very well not be on anybody’s list at the moment. Not that it matters. Unless the Dems can find a way to make the hippies stay home during the primaries, we’re going to get the same old same old.
If Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Bill Richardson become the nominee, however competent they may be, they won’t withstand the last bastion of American racism and sexism, the anonymity of the voting booth. That might hurt Giuliani’s chances as well, since his last name ends in a vowel that’s not a silent ‘e’.
In fairness, weren’t they cheating on each other? I thought they had already had a marriage in name only for years?
The religious right will strongly resist Rudy’s nomination IMO for all the reasons you suggested. I keep thinking that McCain/Giuliani will be a compromise ticket as McCain will at least be tolerable to the Religious right. I am sure they would prefer Jeb Bush.
Rudy was down at the scene almost immediately. He did more than could be expected to handle the situation. His administration built up the response team that did such a great and heroic job. He reached out to the Construction Unions to get more help in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. They responded in huge numbers and with equipment. Compare is calm response to Cheney disappearing and Shrub, running like a scared jackrabbit because the Secret service strongly recommended it. For hours after the attack, the only voice of calm and leadership was Rudy. He did a magnificent job. Compare what he did to every leader involved in Katrina.
As far as what he did beside 9/11, he turned the city completely around. A city that had businesses leaving in droves and steadily declining tourist trade became the safest large city under his administration. It became a major tourist attraction again and the entire city became safer for everyone living in the city. Not just the Upper Class area, but even the worst areas of the city saw crime drop precipitously. Along the way, he pissed off many of the residents but he did turn the city around. Rudy’s biggest problem is he gets angry and pisses people off, he is a socially liberal Republican, which means he will have a tough time being nominated, no matter how much, I want him to be nominated. He might be too much of a New Yorker to play well in the sticks. You cannot win the Job of President with only the Tri-State area.
An Edwards -Feingold ticket would be attractive. Toss Obama into the mix. Except they are all too centrist for my taste. If real campaign financing change does’t come ,it is all irrelevant. No matter who wins the lobbiests will still run the government.
I am not sure Hillary wants to face the savagery she would receive. It would be at a new level of ugly and personal.
Good points about Giuliani, What Exit. I agree that he’s gonna have a lot of problems with conservative activists in the primaries, and that’s where the nomination is won (just ask McCain, who could easily have beaten Gore in Nov. 2000 had he only won the GOP nod). In addition to Rudy’s marriage problems, being pro-gay rights and pro-choice, he’s also pro-gun control. He’s gonna have a very, very hard time winning the Republican nomination, 9-11 heroics notwithstanding. I personally think it’ll be out of his reach.
I was very disappointed at Warner’s withdrawal from the race. At this very very very early stage (two years is an eternity in presidential politics), I liked him best of the likely Dem nominees: a bright, capable guy, a very successful businessman, who did good work as governor of Virginia for the sole term which the state constitution permitted him, and was able to get his lt. gov. elected after him. A savvy Dem politico in a Red State who won the NASCAR vote handily, he seems to have a lot of Bill Clinton’s skills but none of his moral failings. I agree with Spoke- that the “I wanna spend more time with my family” explanation is a little iffy, but for the moment, at least, I’ll take it at face value. Especially if it means he’ll keep the door open to the VP nomination in '08.
As to the others, here’s my handicapping, FWIW:
Hillary Clinton is absolutely anathema to a big enough chunk of the electorate that there’s virtually no way she could win in the general election. She’d lose worse than Kerry to just about any GOP candidate. I also think having a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot every four years since 1980 is unhealthy for American democracy.
Bill Richardson will get zapped for his weight, his visits to North Korea, Monica Lewinsky, Wen Ho Lee, resume’ padding, and the security breakdowns at Alamagordo.
Evan Bayh is neither brilliant nor interesting on the stump, is from a Red State, and won’t be able to go all the way to the convention.
Wesley Clarke had his chance in '04 and blew it. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he’s a better candidate or has a more compelling message now.
John Kerry - ditto to the Nth degree.
Barack Obama - A bright, inspiring guy, but still just a first-term senator. And racism is still enough of a factor in American society, I’m sorry to say, that a substantial number of voters just wouldn’t vote for him. Enough, in a close election such as we’ve had lately, to make the difference. I wish it were otherwise. Ask me again in '12 or '16.
Joe Biden - A has-been senator and plagiarist (Neil Kinnock, anyone?) from a tiny state. Not gonna happen.
Russ Feingold - Too liberal and, to some, shrill. I don’t think his Jewishness necessarily keeps him out of the White House - Leiberman has already opened that door - but neither would it help.
Al Gore - I just don’t see it. He ran a kinda stumbling campaign in 2000 and then got mugged in Florida. A 2004 campaign would have been seen as a grudge match. A 2008 campaign? He seems a bit past his sell-by date, IMHO. No major party has renominated a losing presidential candidate since Nixon in 1968. He’s damaged goods now, unfair though that seems.
John Edwards - I think he’d be the best of the bunch. He had a pretty good primary run in 2004 but I agree he didn’t seem to help the ticket much that fall. He did some good work in the Senate, has an inspiring personal story and has been tirelessly visiting New Hampshire and Iowa lately. If the race comes down to Hillary and someone else (as I think it very well might), he’s the “someone else” who is probably best-situated to stop her, IMHO. An Edwards-Warner ticket could be a winner; didn’t seem to hurt Clinton-Gore that they were both sons of the South.
Another month (how much will the Congressional elections outcome shake things up, anyway?), another year, and it’ll be a whole new ball game. But I’m looking forward to the ride.
Right. The Dem’s are going to need to run someone who can’t be “swiftboated”. I think that all the negative publicity about those three (and I prefer Gore myself) is because the GOP wants the Dems to run someone new, as I have no doubt at all they are working feverishly on a “swiftboat” campaign for every other name out there.
I have heard "Well, you can’t run Kerry or Gore, they’re losers". Riiight. :rolleyes: Kerry lost by a very narrow margin after being “swiftboated”, whcih won’t happen again. And- Gore really won.
I’d like to see the Dems find a candidate who can win the general election, not just the primary. :dubious:
If the Dem powerbrokers were really smart, they’d get Gore and Hilary into a room, offer Gore the 1st slot on the condition he only runs for one term, allowing Hillary to step quietly into power. Hillary has scads of money, but has quite a few that hate her (mostly because of GOP propaganda). Gore has nowhere near the warchest, but he is well liked and a southerner. “DreamTeam”.
What the Dems have to do is stop listening to GOP lies and propaganda. Kerry and Gore aren’t “losers”. Yes, there are a lot of dudes that really hate Hillary- 99% of whom wouldn’t vote for any Dem anyway, so who gives a rat’s ass?
The idea that Kerry lost because he was “Swiftboated” is laughable. He lost because he ran a lousy campaign.
Does anyone know why Warner dropped out? The story in the paper today didn’t say.
Biden is running for sure, and so is Feingold. I admire Feingold a lot and agree with him on quite a few issues, but he’s waaaaaaaay to liberal to win in the general. Biden’s got a lot more name recognitionand is probably more electable, but I still like the “red state” Democratic governors best. Bayh would be an ideal candidate in many ways except he just seems to lack passion.
I cannot find a cite for it, but the News or the Post was reporting something along those lines when she accepted the role in The Vagina Monologues against Rudy’s wishes. I was lead to believe they were already not close before with affair with Judith Nathan.
No senators. Please, no senators. Executive branch experience only; no others need apply.
Swing voters (the ones who matter) vote from their gut and need to be able to envision a candidate as President before they would vote for him. That’s easier to do for a governor, who is basically the President of his state, than a senator, who is one of a group of 100 bloviators.
That’s why Giuliani scares me a little more in the general election than Mccain does.
Among the Dems, however, that leaves a too-short list. Bayh, Richardson . . . I dunno who else.
The 2012 list is a little better; it would include Brian Schweitzer of Montana, Elliot Spitzer of New York, and Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas, who would be a good VP choice for 2008 for one of the aforementioned senators.
I think McCain is one of the few would could shake off he curse of the Senate. He has so much name recognition and he often acts more like an executive than a Senator. BTW, I’d put HRC in that category, too. Her problem (other than that so many people hate her) is more that she’s from NY, not that she’s a Senator. No Northeast Liberals, please! Doesn’t matter if they’re really liberal or not-- if you’re a Democrat from the Northeast and your name isn’t Lieberamn, you’re a liberal. Of course she isn’t really “from NY”, which opens another can of worms…
He served two terms as Governor of Indiana, cut taxes and was apparently very popular. (That’s the same general resume that Warner had.) He’s now in his second term as a Senator.
The thing about Clinton is that I don’t know if there is any issue she will be completely unable to deal with. I’ve predicted that Iraq will be a problem for her, and I think it still will be, but she has dealt with her votes skillfully to this point. As far as the Northeast thing goes, she was born and raised in Chicago and lived in Arkansas for 20 years. Maybe that will help.
You’ve got a pretty good political ear-- do you sense the same thing I do about Bayh: he seems like a dispassionate observer rather than an active polical player. I think his background and politics are near perfect for the Dems, but something about him just isn’t right. He seems to lack the fire in the belly that you need to fight a presidential campaign.
Thanks muchly.
There’s so much time left, but you do have to wonder why people were so much more interested in Warner when the two are so apparently similar. When I was reading up on Bayh (I haven’t examined him closely) to answer GargoyleWB’s question, I was a little surprised by the resemblance (However, the only Iowa poll numbers I could find were four months old, and showed both Warner and Bayh way behind the people with name recognition.) Why the lack of excitement for Bayh? Is it a big state/East Coast thing? Maybe it’s because he left the governor’s office eight years ago, but yes, there seems to be a firepower problem. If he can’t perform in Iowa, I can say that he’s screwed right away. Shades of Dick Gephardt, maybe - there seems to be something about midwestern Democrats that doesn’t excite the party at large these days.
Hey, it kept me from voting for her in 2000, but for most people it was a non-issue. I’m just saying she has a better answer for the ‘Northeast liberal’ charges than Kerry did - she even campaigned for Goldwater as a college student, although I don’t know if Democrats will be enthused to hear that.
Although you have to expect some other candidates to emerge. I hope the Democrats make more of an effort in the South in '08, but I don’t know if they will really count on many returns there. Looking at things now, they may expect more from the Plains states and the Midwest, in addition the usual big swing states.
Evan’s got my vote!