Edwards simultaneously lost the VP and his senate seat this year and is now unemployed, he has a serious loosers halo to shake. Also, if he was inexperienced this election cycle, 4 years on the side lines will make him more so. Finally, I think his image as a great campaigner is largely overblown, I can’t imagine he will win the nomination, though he seems bound to try.
The Hillary rage thing is overblown. The hardcore Repubs who still hate Hillary after 8 years will manage to work up a hate for anyone that wins the Dem nomination, just as they did for Kerry this cycle. Amongst the more moderate set, the tarnishing of her image from her health care thing and Monicagate has long since been eclipsed by Clinton nostalgia.
I also think Hillary would have the advantage of being a media darling, simply because their are unlikely to be any new negative stories. “Her husband had an affair with an intern!!” will hardly make headlines. Ditto for Whitewater, etc. People will talk about it, of course, but thier won’t be the same public focus as thier was on “new” scandels like Bush’s DWI or Kerry’s Swift Boat stuff.
Yup. Hillary is a republican wet dream. Please, democrats, if you’re not going to come to your senses and run on issues using a little common sense and not simply a full helping of ridiculous liberal indignation, nominate Hillary. She’ll simply help expedite the downfall of your party, and accelerate the ascension of a third party to replace it, hopefully one whose members live in the real world and offer a practical alternative to the 'pubbies.
No, he didn’t. Get over it. The more people like you harp on this, the more your side looks like imbeciles. Just…stop. Stop being idiots and stop marginalizing yourselves. The last thing I want to see is a one party “democracy”.
I think you do understand. Actually, you summarized my point for Democrats. Since a Republican who enrages(Dubya) can win the election, you really need to choose a Democrat who can convert some of those red States. Bush just won. If you choose someone who enrages Republicans, you’ll probably lose even worse than Kerry did.
If Edwards is such a great campaigner, why didn’t he do better in the primaries? It’s true that he was an unknown when he started, but when it comes to the thing that counts - you know, winning - he hardly did any of it. He’s a good campaigner, I don’t know if he’s amazing. Bill Clinton was probably as unknown as Edwards was in '92, but he actually managed to win. That said, experience may help him. But he needs to find a way to stay in the public eye for the next four years.
It would make sense for the top couple of guys from this year to try again in '04. Edwards, Dean, Clark, maybe even Kerry. Kucinich and Sharpton had no chance the first time, so who knows, they may give it another shot.
People have to get over Obama. I think he’ll be a very good Senator, but they have to be kidding about 2008. You think he’s going to jump from an Illinois State Senator to VP in four years? Not a chance. Jeez, Edwards got criticized for inexperience, and at least he was at the end of a full Senate term. Obama is younger and even less experienced. He’s off in the future. In 2016, he’ll be 55 and would be finishing his second term in the Senate. That might work.
I’m not sure what ridiculous liberal indignation has to do with Hillary. She seems to have done a decent job of reaching out to Republicans during her time in the Senate.
Whichever prominent Democrat can, in the next two years, express in simple words his or her progressive beliefs and goals AND what it is that makes his or her party the one that best protects and advances the interests of most Americans, AND can make a convincing case of the great and growing misdeeds of the party now in power AND call them on those misdeeds when they happen, AND can get progressive issues a hearing in the conservative-owned-and-run mass media, AND can raise buckets of money…that is the person I’d like to see nominated for president.
And this is why the Democrats have consistantly gotten their asses handed to them in presidential elections, winning the majority of the vote only one time in my almost 40 year lifespan.
She has a record as a hawk on the war on terrorism. When Hillary destroys the Republican in the debate he will lose all his manhood and the Red Staters will despise him.
That sounds like a non-answer to me. I don’t like Hillary and I don’t want to vote for her for President. I didn’t vote for her in NY in 2000. Now what did you mean?
From what I’ve seen thus far, Richardson looks good. Let’s face it. With the pubs eating away at Dem control of the industrial Great Lakes region, we have to open up some traditional Pub territory to win. Richardson would give us a leg up on New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, maybe even Colorado, all of which are fast-growing states. As for running mate, Obama would be a decent choice, he’d certainly deliver a great speech at the convention. Martin O’Malley (mayor of Baltimore) seems like another decent choice, he’s popular in the city and it would give the ticket a good geographic spread.
That’s who should win. Who will win is Edwards. A great public speaker, appeals to undecideds and moderates, and can raise truckloads of money.
Of course one year ago no one had heard of Obama. And in '97 no one had heard of Shrub. So who knows. Maybe that woman who won the San Diego mayor’s race will run for governor of California and smack up Arnold in 2006, get nationwide recognition … but probably not.
Not really, no. This is IMHO, and I am giving my opinion. I haven’t the slightest idea what you are even implying is wrong with my posts, they are exactly appropriate for this forum, indeed, that’s why this forum was created, to give us a place to air our opinions without the rigid demand for cites found in GD. Honestly, WTF dude?
What I mean is that the Dems have just been given a graphic demonstration of the fact that in general, the liberal take on things is not one that the majority of Americans agree with, and their response, at least in the substance of the cries of outrage we’ve heard since the 3rd, has been to vow to cleave even harder to liberal positions in the face of that opposition, in other words, to marginalize themselves further. IMHO this is not a good thing for the country. I want the Dems to be a strong, viable alternative to the Pubbies, and right now, they’re not. If they were to nominate someone like Hillary Clinton in '08 they would only be widening the gap even further, driving themselves straight into political oblivion, baffled the whole time as to how it happened.
Read the title of the thread. Read the OP. Unless you are Democrat with a recommendation for the 2008 race, you are off topic. Statements like "The more people like you harp on this, the more your side looks like imbeciles. Just…stop. Stop being idiots and stop marginalizing yourselves. " have no place in IMHO.
Second warning.
Wait a second, I AM a Democrat, I just happen to be a conservative one. My recomendation was that Hillary will be a disaster of a candidate. I am confused. Am I now being warned for asking for clarification? I honestly didn’t understand what you were talking about, so I asked you to explain. You said “Nuff said?”, a question, and it wasn’t “'Nuff”, because I didn’t understand. I still don’t, not really, what I said was not any kind of a personal attack, it was a general statement, but you set the rules and I’ll try to follow them as best as I can. With that in mind, and realizing that I am ONLY ASKING SO THAT I DON’T BREAK THE RULES, could you please elaborate as to why my statement is out of line? There is no forum stickey outlining a rule that I broke, and I couldn’t find anything in the FAQs covering this. Also, could you please clarify why I am being warned, and why this is my “second” warning, to the best of my recollection, I have never been formally warned in the whole time I’ve been here. Thank you.
I like this idea. Maybe Feingold could run with McCain! I like McCain, I can’t understand why Republicans voted for Bush over him. It crosses party lines, but we already know they can work together.
Seriously, to win the 2008 election, the Dems need to nominate a Southerner. Past performance indicates that the only electable Democrats are from the South. I don’t know about John Edwards running again and I can’t think of any other Southern Democrats at the moment.
Edwards has a clear, easily understood argument for voting Dem. He’s also got the Elvis factor.
Richardson would help nail down the Hispanic vote. If Kerry had done as well there as Gore did, he’d have won Colorado, NM, and NV, and would be President-elect.
