I don’t deny that Clinton’s political enemies could distort and mischaracterize her statement successfully; it was poorly worded in a world in which people don’t care about honesty in political debate. I simply deny that it is accurately characterized as Marxist.
Daniel
I still think, if he can steal a win for Senate next year, Harold Ford is the first black president.
I can meet you there. Now that that’s aside, what about the idea of Gore? His Democracy speech could be made into some of the best PR ads the Democrats have seen in a long time. With the right person at the helm of his campaign, he could win. And most importantly of all, if he did win, he could make a difference in plugging the holes through which our civil liberties are evaporating. What other candidates could (and would) do that?
I think we should vote for someone who rose up from the ranks to become successful on her own terms. Someone who knows what the people want and provides it, unstintingly. Someone who has show breakout talent and ability far beyond her peers.
I propose Jenna Jameson.
Seriously, Gore or Edwards would work just fine. They won in 2000, and this time I have to think the Dems will be a lot more alert to electoral shenanigans by the Pubbies.
Who?
I’d be fine with a Gore presidency. However, I’m afraid he enters the race with two millstones around his neck:
But if he can grapple past these twin troubles, he’ll likely have my vote. Heck, if he gets nominated and can’t grapple past them, he’ll likely have my vote. I think both should be non-issues, but I worry that they’d play out in a major way in a race.
Daniel
I did that once and now there’s a restraining order! 
Is it? Bush has no more charisma than one would expect of “the boss’s son.” Rather less, in fact. He’s amiable, with the regular-guy appeal of an aging frat boy (minus several points for sobriety), but that’s a long way from charisma. (And his veep has the charisma of a rotting dog carcass!) Bush made a stiff like Kerry look charismatic by comparison, IMO. Didn’t much matter.
I like the idea of President Gore, and as the speech you linked to shows, he can be charismatic when he isn’t letting his handlers tell him what to do. Also I think a lot of the Clinton era baggage that held him back in 2000 would seem like small potatoes to the 2008 electorate.
But I don’t think he wants it. He’s more or less gone into retirement since 2000, and has stated he doesn’t want to return to politics. If he did want it, I think he would’ve started being more active in the Dem party and making more statements on public policy over the last few years, especially since 2004. This is what Nixion did in his road back from loosing the '60 election. We’ll see what he does during the 2006 election, but as Gore seems content to sit on the board of a few businesses and make the occasional speech during the campaign seasons, I think he’s had his fill with public office.
Heh, that’s the problem with Ford. A lot of people say that. He’s a congressman from Tennessee and a member of the Blue Dog caucus who ran against Pelosi to become minority leader. He gave the 2000 keynote speech at the convention… I doubt he’ll run for president in 2008, though. because he’s already announced he’s running for Frist’s seat in the Senate.
Wild card: Marcy Kaptur
Based on that alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition), he would be way, way too conservative/centrist for me – but I guess the first black president, if ever we have one, will be conservative. A Colin Powell first, a Jesse Jackson later. Anyway, according to the Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ford:
I think we should just dispense with elections and let one of the networks run the “Who Wants to be the Next US President” reality show. We start with 20 contestants, and each week we vote some out until only one is left. 
We’ve had that show for decades. It’s called “The Primaries”.
I’d settle for a steel cage death-match. If nothing else, you can put it on pay-per-view and turn the proceeds over to the winner to fund the campaign. 
And to spite Bricker, 
I’ll say offhand that I don’t have any problems with an Obama nomination. I think he’s too frosh to get it, but I wouldn’t go nuts if he did.
Unless we’re all but out of Iraq by 2008, Iraq’s still going to be a major issue then. It would help to have a Presidential candidate who’s got a coherent position on the issue that will ring true as circumstances continue to go south. Not essential, perhaps, but very helpful.
The two that have such a position are Gore and Feingold. Both were against the war from the get-go.
Those Dems that voted for the war have to make sure they’ve got a solid rationale for being where they are, whether they’re for ‘staying the course’ (whatever that means) or for some sort of phased withdrawal. If they were pro-war and pro-course, if you will, then when Iraq’s an even worse mess in 2007, they’re gonna have trouble in the primaries.
My top choices are Gore, Edwards, and Feingold. Edwards’ strong domestic bent may somewhat shield him from the need to take a strong stand on the war. And I like what all three stand for, although I don’t know as much about Feingold as the other two. My main reservation about Feingold is that I’ve never heard him speak, and charisma is definitely a part of the game.
I think Gore would be better in this department than anyone would imagine. I think he’s had a chance to become himself over the past few years, rather than inhabiting a cardboard cutout of what he felt Al Gore should look like. I also think 2000’s baggage will be little regarded in 2008, although the wingnut bloggers will surely pull out all their Algore jokes. (Invented the Internet, Love Story, Love Canal, brown suits, etc.) His Clinton problem will also be a long way in the rearview mirror.
While I think a great deal of both Sen. Obama and Gov. Schweitzer, I’d like to see them hold off until they’ve been in office a bit longer. If the Dems don’t break through in 2008, they both ought to be in play in 2012.
Dean’s promised not to run in 2008; that was part of the deal when he took over the DNC. I take him at his word.
I’m a Virginia expat, living across the river in Maryland; I still have a much better feel for VA politics than MD politics. And I must admit I don’t understand what excites people about Mark Warner. I think he’ll get lost in the crowded 2008 primary field, and I wish he’d decided to run for George Allen’s Senate seat next year. If he ran against and beat Allen in 2006, then he’d be considerably higher on the Dem pecking order in 2012. (And Allen’s 2008 luster would diminish, too.)
Hillary’s prettier than most of the DLC Democrats, but aside from that, what’s to get excited about?
Biden? I’ll vote Green before I vote for Biden (D-MBNA). Gaaaah.
No Senator has won since Kennedy. That’s 45 years ago, to let it sink in.
It’s got to be a Governor, name recoginition this early isn’t that big of a deal to me. I’m in New York and had never heard of Clinton until a year or so before the election.
My real question is who would Jenna Jameson have for a running mate?
I would be for Feingold also. Whatever his chances, I don’t think his views will be much of a handicap. The public is moving toward his views of the war and the Patriot Act.
I would like Gore also but don’t think he has much interest any more. Fate dealt him a bad hand in 2000 and I believe he doesn’t wish that to happen again.
Also, the visit to Fred Phelps. But I agree with you. He’s come a long way baby. Americans will pile on a weakling, but Gore has demonstrated that he can stand up, dust himself off, and continue to fight. Americans like that in a person.
If the Dems pick Gore in '08, they will deserve every defeat they get… and then some. His screaming “How dare they…” speech that **Liberal **so loved sounded like the ravings of a lunatic to me. Surely the Dems have **someone **presently in government who’s better than Gore. Surely.