Inspired by this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=337829 Who would you pick as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? Dean? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Kerry (again)? Some currently relatively obscure Dem governor?
From the little I know of the four candidates you suggest, I’d go with Obama. Man has got a Clintonian charisma that just knocks you off your feet. The other four you name have too much baggage to be viable, I think, and I don’t know which unknown governor would do a good job.
But Obama seems brilliant, charismatic, quick-witted, and (I believe) principled; that’s the kind of person I want in front of our party.
He is all of that, but he’s only a freshman senator, and still will be a freshman senator in 2008. I think we need somebody with a little more heft. (Which could be a governor – for some reason, governors have a better track record than senators when it comes to winning the presidency.) And by all means, don’t limit yourselves to those I named in the OP!
I’m not sure of a particular person, but it needs to be someone who’s been a governor of a southern or midwestern state. I personally wouldn’t mind HRC except that I think she’d be competely ineffective given that Congress will still be run by the GOP most likely. Then again, an ineffective President sounds kinda nice… Gridlock is our friend.
This may be a fair point; certainly politicians would try to use his freshness against him. I really wonder, though, how well they could make it stick: is there any research showing that people won’t vote for a less experienced Presidential candidate, everything else being equal?
And everything else isn’t equal. If there’s someone else on the scene who’s almost as quickwitted, thoughtful, charming, and eloquent as Obama, then I’m more than happy to consider them. But currently, he seems to me to outshine other Democrats to a very large degree. I"ll risk his inexperience if nobody else can come close to his other qualities.
I am one of the disgruntled Republicans who is unhappy with the direction of the party. If the DEMS nominated Evan Bayh or Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, they may get my vote.
I voted for “ABSTAIN” in 2004, so I’d actually like a candidate.
Obviously, I hope you’re wrong :). It’s still early, and the party has time to change from its directionless current path–and I’m for damn sure not the only one speculating on Obama’s chances, now.
Reading that quote, think about this: do you think the Clintons are likelier to support Hillary or Obama in 2008? That’s not a trick question.
I meant Hillarian in the sense of bold advocacy on behalf of Marxist philosophy tenets, with zingers like “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
I really like Gore, and didn’t even realize it until I read one of the best speeches of modern times: Democracy Itself is in Grave Danger. For that alone, he gets my vote. He just needs a Democratic Karl Rove.
That’s Marxist? Huh. I could’ve sworn that, all through the Cold War, our country taxed individual citizens (“Took things away from you”) in order to fund public projects (“For the common good.”) Heck, I coulda sworn that our country has been taxing people from the beginning. Before Marx was born, even!
That Hillary doesn’t sugarcoat it is a sign in her favor, not a sign of Marxism. Of course, maybe she was just referring to that famous Marxist Adam Smith.
No. Not to say I never would, but I am not as overwhelmed with him as everyone else.
I’ve seen a lot of people give good (not great) convention speeches.
The only thing I know about him is that he seems like a personable guy. I have a positive opinion of him, but let’s not annoint him the next Clinton or Reagan just yet.
He needs to do something other than exhibit charisma before he is put on a pedestal.
(Not trying to be critical. He may turn out to be the next Lincoln or Roosevelt. He just hasn’t done anything yet.)
As for Warner, if he wins re-election (I think his term is up in 2006), he will be at exactly the same level of service as Bush. Six years as governor of a large Southern State.
And even though Edwards served six years as a Senator, I think gubernatorial experience is more valuable as training for President.
I’m betting on Richardson of New Mexico. International experience, Hispanic with a common Anglo name, dynamic speaker. Is a governor (like most of the recent Presidents). Bush the first was only president in last five who was not previously a governor.
May I also point out that every elected president since Kennedy was either from the South or the West and Richardson is from Southwest (a little of both).
:rolleyes: Hillary is for a more progressive income tax. There’s a long, long distance between that and collectivizing industry.