More Gore

February 22, 2006 9:57 AM

Gore in '08? Several weeks ago, former Vice President Al Gore told the Associated Press that he “had no plans to seek the Presidency in 2008.” His words were eerily reminiscent of a quote from another former Vice President, Richard Nixon, who told the same Associated Press in November of 1965 that he “had no plans to seek the Presidency in 1968.”
posted by caddis (212 comments total)

I think he's got a better shot than Hillary.
posted by mullingitover at 10:00 AM on February 22, 2006

For the record, I also have no plans to seek the Presidency in 2008.
posted by thirteenkiller at 10:04 AM on February 22, 2006

What a spurious connection... wonder how long they had to dig around to find that... "heeeey person xyz said the same thing uh.. 30 years ago! And he went on to become the prez! Quick, stop the presses!"
posted by slater at 10:04 AM on February 22, 2006

Gore in '80? I'm all for it, if he keeps his newly found brass balls out for the long haul. But if his camapaign strategy or candidate demeanor from 2000 return, it's just a waste of money. Gore-bot, can you keep it hard this time around?

I'll only put my money on a true and steadfast fighter.
posted by mds35 at 10:05 AM on February 22, 2006

Interesting, hearing such comparison between Tricky Dick and Stiffy Gore.

So because Gore said he won't run, he will be considered to run since his statement is similar to Nixon's?

that's some twisted, yet oddly coherent logic.


Off a tangent, I spent the weekend in the belly of the beast---West Plains Texas. I spoke to a few proud ones who were convinced the next ticket will be McCain/Leiberman. I was actually surprised. Would so many deep southerns actually vote for a jewish VP?
posted by blastrid at 10:05 AM on February 22, 2006

When Nixon spoke up, someone had recently assassinated the sitting president. I can only hope the connection between the two quotes holds out and someone steps up to the plate on W.
posted by jonson at 10:06 AM on February 22, 2006

Neither Al nor Hillary have a hope in hell of winning the presidency for the democrats.
posted by mischief at 10:07 AM on February 22, 2006

Also, slater is right. That blog entry is lame and the connection is spurious as all get up. His words are also eerily reminiscent of quotes from scores of people who never sought election.

There have got to be far better indicators of whether he'll run or not. Someone else got more linkies?
posted by mds35 at 10:08 AM on February 22, 2006

Gore/Edwards? I'd hit it.
posted by mds35 at 10:09 AM on February 22, 2006

After seeing one of his recent speeches (the well-circulated one in which he criticized the wiretap order) I thought, "this man seems much more Presidential than I remember him being."

He basically lost '00 by a coin-toss. Many of the "center" Americans who will decide the 2008 elections remember the 90s as a better time than today.
posted by justkevin at 10:09 AM on February 22, 2006

Please no. We need somebody good looking and gore just ain't.

Good looks and a good personality are the most important features in a candidate trying to get elected. Look at Santorum. Totally nutters, but he's good looking, and look how far he's come.

No Gore, no Hillary, No Kerry. Please. Let us vote for someone who actually believes what they say and doesn't flop in the wind in a ridiculous manner.

I think Edwards could have beaten shrub in '04. Edwards would be a good choice.
posted by delmoi at 10:10 AM on February 22, 2006

jonson: Whoa, dude.
posted by mds35 at 10:11 AM on February 22, 2006

Let's examine the record of Democratic presidential candidates over the past 50 years:

Adlai Stevenson
John Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Hubert Humphrey
George McGovern
Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Michael Dukakis
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
John Kerry

The only winners on this list (except for Carter, who was elected in a backlash against Nixon and who couldn't even win the next election as an incumbent), are Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton, i.e. men with easy masculinity and charisma. If the Democrats persist in nominating a nerdy intellectual one more f$*#ing time, the Republicans will win no matter WHO they nominate.
posted by twsf at 10:11 AM on February 22, 2006

Well, Kerry could have beaten shrub in '04 as well, if he wasn't such a position pussy.
posted by delmoi at 10:12 AM on February 22, 2006

As much as I really like the new, more in-your-face Gore, I have to think the Fox pundits would salivate over a Gore run almost as messily as they are over the idea of a Hillary run. They both carry far too much baggage to be able to campaign effectively.
I just can't see it being a successful run.
Frankly, I'm having a hard time seeing anyone on the Dem side of things who stands a chance (from this, admittedly, early perspective)
posted by Thorzdad at 10:13 AM on February 22, 2006

mds35: Gore in '80?

I hope so! He'd be way better than Reagan.
posted by billysumday at 10:14 AM on February 22, 2006

I spoke to a few proud ones who were convinced the next ticket will be McCain/Leiberman.

For which party?

I'd take Gore over Hilary. I'm actually surprised the Hilary '08 thing is still around. It's clear she cannot win the national election. If she's nominated, it's only because the higher ups in the Democratic party want to lose.

I'd take Gore/Edwards.
posted by elwoodwiles at 10:14 AM on February 22, 2006

Obama/Edwards - too young? Too good looking? Too smart?
posted by mds35 at 10:15 AM on February 22, 2006

I hope so! He'd be way better than Reagan.

Touché.
posted by mds35 at 10:16 AM on February 22, 2006

McCain/Leiberman for a centralized, Republican ticket. One was sure Repubs could like Leiberman and Dems could like McCain.

Now they were the voters strongly influenced by personality. Look at Bush--it doesn't matter what he says anymore, substance is irrelevant. It only matters that he's confident and has strong convictions.

McCain is strong and confident, and this is what they'll look for.
posted by blastrid at 10:17 AM on February 22, 2006

Please, please, please let some charismatic, intelligent and moderate democrat magically appear from the woodwork before 2008 so we can stop the madness. I don't blame the parties for not being able to find a decent candidate, I guess, since they're largely stuck with whatever they have, but seriously, Gore, again? Doesn't anyone's memory extend back more than a year or two?

The winning strategy is not "Bush is so bad that anyone can win." It's also not "find the most boring orator on earth and have him recite statistics for the camera." Yet that's the best the D's could muster for two consecutive elections. It's just painful. And yet only a few years before the current unpleasantness (i.e. the Bush years), there were two consecutive elections where the Dems had all the right moves. What gives?

And Edwards? Please. Experience was at issue in '04, and he hasn't gotten any more of it since then.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:17 AM on February 22, 2006

jonson - not cool.

I'm nodding my head in agreement with mds35. The Gore that we've seen in the last couple of years has been a revelation. Presedential, masculine, intelligent, well spoken, funny, and approachable. If that's the guy that's running in 2008 he'll win in a landslide.
posted by bshort at 10:18 AM on February 22, 2006

I'd seek US citizenship just for the opportunity to vote Obama.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:18 AM on February 22, 2006

Is Obama really that good looking? He's a little goofy looking. The other thing about an Obama/Edwards ticket is that there's no "gravitas" there, both single-term senators.

The fact that MS Word's spellchecker suggests "Osama" for "Obama" dosn't help either.
posted by delmoi at 10:18 AM on February 22, 2006

Elvis's '68 Comeback Offers Clues for Timberlake.
posted by mds35 at 10:18 AM on February 22, 2006

Ooohh. How about Gore/Obama?
posted by solid-one-love at 10:19 AM on February 22, 2006

Edwards?!? *vomits*
posted by youarenothere at 10:19 AM on February 22, 2006

We still have some time before we see Obama on a presidential ticket.
posted by youarenothere at 10:20 AM on February 22, 2006

Obama is an investment to cash in when he's older. A premature loss now would ruin his building reputation for a future candidacy in say, 2018.

And you're right Jek, Edwards doesn't have the experience, just the charisma. And can that be sincere if it lacks the resume to back it?
posted by blastrid at 10:20 AM on February 22, 2006

Gore wouldn't win because the R's already have too many caricatures for him and casual ways to kick him around. Not as bad as Hilary, who's had years of demonization applied to her, but I'm surprised how many R's and folks off the street already consider him a sore loser, still think he spuriously claimed to have invented the internet, and is nothin' but blahblahblahboringcakes. It'd take a big change indeed and an insipid R candidate, I think, to make even the swing voters look past the caricature that his political opposition already has a head start on creating for him.

Personally, I'm hoping Clark gets the nomination. Military. South. Reasonably good looking and well spoken. Most important, not at all a butt of the talk-radio shenanigans of the last decade or two.

But I was hoping that last election, too.
posted by weston at 10:20 AM on February 22, 2006

err, sorry. make "2018" an actual election year....
posted by blastrid at 10:21 AM on February 22, 2006

Feingold 2007 will be just like Dean 2003, except with less crazy.
posted by empath at 10:21 AM on February 22, 2006

Obama will probably do something like run for Gov of Illinois first to get executive experience. Let's not waste him too early. He does need to get out of the Senate, though.
posted by empath at 10:22 AM on February 22, 2006

I'm not saying Edwards would make a good president, I'm saying he would win the election.

I'd really like to see Barbra Boxer run, personaly.
posted by delmoi at 10:23 AM on February 22, 2006

Wildcard: Richard Clark. Or Vallarie Plame. Heh.
posted by delmoi at 10:23 AM on February 22, 2006

As a super Demmy-Dem-Dem, I have to say that I'd never vote for McCain. He plays up to the evil side too often, even when they have treated him like trash. And Lieberman? Please. The GOP can have him. If he stays in politics long enough for the senility to take over, he'll pull a Zell Miller before it's all said and done.
posted by mds35 at 10:23 AM on February 22, 2006

Why not this guy?
posted by mds35 at 10:26 AM on February 22, 2006

Oh definitely. Sheltered R's might think it could work, but honestly the ones I spoke to could never have a clear objective outlook on a Democrat from where they're sitting. McCain/Leiberman could be the key to a winning Dem ticket. If the R's put those two up as a centrist offering, the Dem's could go way Left and take it over.
posted by blastrid at 10:26 AM on February 22, 2006

It all depends on who the Republicans put up as a candidate. I haven't even heard any names seriously being kicked around. McCain? Not a chance - the guy's an unstable looney, in spite of what moderate democrats would like to believe about him. A bona fide presidential race would only bring that out and wreck him.

So who is there on the R side? I honestly can't think of a single decent candidate. I predict another "lesser of two unfortunate candidates" election.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:28 AM on February 22, 2006

Please no. We need somebody good looking and gore just ain't.

al gore is hot.
posted by c at 10:29 AM on February 22, 2006

Oh good lord, not the Obama stuff again. I like the guy, but people talk about him like the Bill Brasky sketch from Saturday Night Live.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:29 AM on February 22, 2006

Experience? Bush was, what, a 1 time govonor?
When it comes down to it, Gore did win the popular vote in '00, even if he did appear stiff et al. If he has taken the 8 years to improve he could be a formidible challanger, but that is kinda moot. He says he doesn't plan to run, and this means most likely he won't.
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama trows his hat in the ring during the primaries, just to get his name out for the future... Hillary won't make it just as Rice won't for the repubs. I wonder if Russ Feingold will give it a shot? I like him a lot and he has decent credentials. But, in the end the Dems will have to have a strong southern componate to their ticket. If they can pick up a southern State with a handful of EC votes and not lose anything significant they have a shot. I don't know a lot about Warner but I'd bet early he is on the ticket somehow.
posted by edgeways at 10:31 AM on February 22, 2006

I think Gore could have a good balance of liberal policies on areas where moderates can support them (environment), with a centrist record and executive expertise.

A pro-environment free trader. How very... Blairite.
posted by athenian at 10:33 AM on February 22, 2006

I will not even consider Al Gore. It's more fun to crack the same tired fucking jokes over and over about how he invented the Internet. ROFL!
posted by wakko at 10:33 AM on February 22, 2006

Al Gore
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Barbara Boxer
Barbara Feingold
John Edwards

Even with this disaster of a President... looking at the list of Democrats mentioned in this thread, my guess is that the Republicans have no reason to be worried about their chances in 2008.
posted by three blind mice at 10:34 AM on February 22, 2006

McCain/Leiberman could be the key to a winning Dem ticket.

I don't know of a single Democrat that considers Lieberman anything other than either a corporate whore or a Republican in sheep's clothing. And I live in Connecticut. He may eke out re-election to the Senate this year based on his popularity with the GOP mainstream, but his star has fallen and fallen fast.
posted by psmealey at 10:34 AM on February 22, 2006

Since we are casting out possible names here and there for who might run:

Evan Bayh. Two-term senator, two-term governor, party insider, centrist, from the midwest with nods from Clinton. Personally I'm not a huge fan but he has his toes in the water.

There are probably a few dozen people who have said the exact same thing and didn't run.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:35 AM on February 22, 2006

Barbara Russ Feingold
posted by three blind mice at 10:36 AM on February 22, 2006

Even with this disaster of a President... looking at the list of Democrats mentioned in this thread, my guess is that the Republicans have no reason to be worried about their chances in 2008.

Come on. How many people considered (especially after his disastrous 1988 DNC keynote address) Bill Clinton a serious contender for even the Democratic nomination, let alone the Presidency, at a similar stage in 1990? A lot can (and will) happen.
posted by psmealey at 10:37 AM on February 22, 2006

He says he doesn't plan to run, and this means most likely he won't.

"If asked if he wants to be Prime Minister, the generally acceptable answer for a politician is that while he does not seek the office, he has pledged himself to the service of his country, and that should his colleagues persuade him that that is the best way he can serve, he might reluctantly have to accept the responsibility, whatever his personal wishes might be."
posted by athenian at 10:38 AM on February 22, 2006

Ditch the Senators and get with the Governors, dangit!

I'm not sure about the McCain/Lieberman stuff. Why would he go for the 'Loserman' in 'Sore/Loserman' when you have folks like Guiliani or Pataki (pending his loss in the primaries along with Romney and maybe Condi) waiting in the wings.

Gore seems to be playing the role that we hoped Dean would play for the Democrats, except without the crazy. He may be able to play up the outside the Beltway stuff that Bush used on him back in 2000 more in 2008.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:39 AM on February 22, 2006

So who is there on the R side? I honestly can't think of a single decent candidate.

I've noticed this as well. It would seem like a good time for Bush to be grooming a successor. I've been wondering if his excutive style is so autocratic that anyone with real leadership qualities gets beat down? I also wondering if we are going to see something like Rice/Gonzales?

Just throwing that last bit out there. Seriously, who are the Republicans looking toward?
posted by elwoodwiles at 10:39 AM on February 22, 2006

I think it's interesting that so many mefites still believe that candidates will make a differance in a race that will be decided by those doing the counting as opposed to those doing the voting.
posted by haikuku at 10:40 AM on February 22, 2006

totally inappropriate, un-American quote
posted by jonson at 10:06 AM PST on February 22

good post good idea thanks for the tip straight out of the Somali Warlord Handbook brah
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:40 AM on February 22, 2006

Gore
Dean
Kerry
Edwards
Nagin, when he did that post-Katrina radio interview
Gore
Obama
Dean
Hilary
Obama
Gore

So that's who we're going with this week?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:40 AM on February 22, 2006

I'd vote for Gore again, and I think he'd win, as he has already won the election once.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:41 AM on February 22, 2006

I know Gore has had a lot of jokes thrown at him... consider though that Bush had 4 years of quite a bit of ridicule slung at him and won.
posted by edgeways at 10:41 AM on February 22, 2006

c: you have a nice portfolio.
posted by delmoi at 10:41 AM on February 22, 2006

I also wondering if we are going to see something like Rice/Gonzales?

Bring on the lightweight liars! You could roll hours of tape with nothing but their unconvincing mendacities over the past six years.
posted by psmealey at 10:42 AM on February 22, 2006

Rice/Gonzales

that would be funny
posted by edgeways at 10:43 AM on February 22, 2006

Warner/Feingold
posted by rocketman at 10:43 AM on February 22, 2006

Mark Warner

Let's list the Republicans:

Rick Santorum
Bill Frist...

need I go on or have you already thrown up?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:44 AM on February 22, 2006

If McCain ran it would be amusing to see him baited until he lost his temper, if that little exchange of notes with Obama is any indication he has quite a little bit of temper boiling under that veneer. I hear him talk on fresh Air a month or so ago and was pretty disappointed in his speaking style
posted by edgeways at 10:46 AM on February 22, 2006

"Obama/... - too young? Too good looking? Too smart?"

Skirting the obvious, are we?
posted by mischief at 10:46 AM on February 22, 2006

Republicans who stand a chance: Rudy, McCain, and Condi, IMO. Of course being crazy as they are the'll probably go with someone like Santorum or Frist. Ugh.
posted by delmoi at 10:48 AM on February 22, 2006

Yeah, McCain is not a very motivating speaker. He seems like he has no *fire*.
posted by delmoi at 10:48 AM on February 22, 2006

I also wondering if we are going to see something like Rice/Gonzales?

While that would be entertaining, I think the Republicans' only hope is to field candidates who have absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration. That could be why Bush isn't grooming anyone -- being groomed by Bush for the presidency would be the kiss of death. Giuliani? Maybe, but it would be a super longshot. Pataki? Nah. Romney? The hatred of Mormons in this country (and the misconceptions about Mormon beliefs) is far too great for him to win the presidency - things haven't changed that much since his dad ran.

As for the "Gore already won once" and "Republicans fix the elections" comments, that's one of the attitudes that has moderate folks voting R, IMO. And you can't rig an election that's not a close one.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:48 AM on February 22, 2006

Santorum - going to lose his election
Frist - may soon come under indictment
Rice - The R's electing a black woman??? Not to mention image problems, crediabilty issues...

Roberts (KS) - Name recognition problems, pretty loopy
Jeb Bush - ???

others?
posted by edgeways at 10:50 AM on February 22, 2006

you can't rig an election that's not a close one.

And you won't have a close one if the candidates are easily distinguishable from each other. That's why the Dems need to avoid the centrist trap that the GOP hopes they fall into.
posted by mds35 at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2006

Forgot Rudy, he might do well nationally, but would have difficulty getting out of the primary
posted by edgeways at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2006

again.
posted by mds35 at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2006

I honestly can't think of a single decent candidate. I predict another "lesser of two unfortunate candidates" election.

I sadly concur.

that's one of the attitudes that has moderate folks voting R

I'd rather hear everyone talking about the gaping holes in our election security than some pro-war Democrat like Hillary.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2006

And you can't rig an election that's not a close one.

I don't get it, are you saying the last two elections weren't close?

Was the election where Saddam got 99.99% of the vote rigged or not? Was it close?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:51 AM on February 22, 2006

c: you have a nice portfolio.

why, thank you, delmoi!
posted by c at 10:52 AM on February 22, 2006

I'm throwing it out there right now: Evan Bayh. He'll do at least top 3 in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:52 AM on February 22, 2006

Rice/Gonzales

I think I'm glad I haven't had lunch yet. The mere conceptualization of whoremongery implicit in that pairing on the political level is enough to kill the appetite of entire large liberal enclaves.
posted by mephron at 10:53 AM on February 22, 2006

I'm throwing it out there right now: Evan Bayh. He'll do at least top 3 in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

But where else? How about states that matter like California?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:54 AM on February 22, 2006

arn't they adding a few more states between iowa and NH in '08?
posted by delmoi at 10:55 AM on February 22, 2006

Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico
15 years representing N.M. in the House.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Recent Envoy to North Korea.
Chairman of the Democratic Governors’ Association.
Multi-lingual. Of Hispanic origin.

What's not to like?
posted by grabbingsand at 10:55 AM on February 22, 2006

Warner will be the Democratic nominee. He already has the contacts and control of the party insiders to get him on the ballot. His qualifications are easily presidential, and he's been groomed for the part for several years, ever since his nomination for governor of Virginia (a red state, by and large I might add). His voting record is clear and concise, with very little to show any kinds of overtly leftist leanings, and he is a well spoken and well trained orator.
Gore will not be considered by the DNC mainly for his turn in 2001 after the terrorist attacks where he pretty much left the public spotlight. He also has a major hinderance, similar to Kerry. His wife, Tipper. Many of you may not remember the PMRC. Some of us, especially those of us who would be Democrats were it not for the over-zealousness of certain representatives in trying to appease the morality squad. You thought the Religious Right was bad? They're simple minded fucks stuck trying to create a Christian utopia. The real world keeps them in check. It's the Political Correctness jackoffs from the Democratic wings that will keep Gore, Hillary, and other sitting Senate/Congrassional Democrats from being able to get past the primaries without being slammed by 1st Amendment questions. These are the same morons who thing the F.C.C. is doing a good thing by constantly fining anyone who has a god damned sense of humor.
I'm all for rebelling and bringing down the system. Those mooks are all about the status quo and making the world safe for thier SUV's (maybe even hybrids, who knows) and thier offspring. Fuck their offspring.
And who in thier right mind would want to have to deal with any more Chelsea Clinton in the national media again?
posted by daq at 10:56 AM on February 22, 2006

Does he have intentions to run grabbingsand?
posted by edgeways at 10:57 AM on February 22, 2006

I'm tossing Iowa and New Hampshire out there because of their traditional status as the launching point for primary campaigns, not because of any particular significance borne by the electorate in either state.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:57 AM on February 22, 2006

I don't get it, are you saying the last two elections weren't close?

I'm making an observation based on the opposite: That they were close, and that the allegations that they were rigged would lose any teeth if they hadn't been close elections.

Was the election where Saddam got 99.99% of the vote rigged or not? Was it close?

I suppose I should have included a page or so of the implied qualifiers -- in the u.s., etc. Do you think anyone in the U.S. could get away with rigging an election if the rigged outcome was 99.9% in favor of one candidate? I don't.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:58 AM on February 22, 2006

The hatred of Mormons in this country (and the misconceptions about Mormon beliefs) is far too great for him to win the presidency

Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with 2 Nephi 5:21-23:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:00 AM on February 22, 2006

Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico
What's not to like?

Well, depending on whom you believe, there's that whole nuclear secrets fiasco with China.
posted by psmealey at 11:00 AM on February 22, 2006

feingold/richardson
posted by jessica at 11:00 AM on February 22, 2006

>>McCain/Leiberman could be the key to a winning Dem ticket.

I don't know of a single Democrat that considers Lieberman anything other than either a corporate whore or a Republican in sheep's clothing. And I live in Connecticut. He may eke out re-election to the Senate this year based on his popularity with the GOP mainstream, but his star has fallen and fallen fast.

Actually, I meant a McCain/Leiberman GOP ticket could be the key to a winning Democrat opposition.
posted by blastrid at 11:01 AM on February 22, 2006

Optimus Chyme: Yes, your hatred of Mormons is indicative of what I was referring to, as is your misunderstanding and incomplete/inaccurate representation of Mormon beliefs. With people like you out there, Romney doesn't have a chance. Thank you for illustrating my point.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:04 AM on February 22, 2006

Chill JekPorkins, you may be able to make a case of misunderstanding, but saying OC hates Mormons is a little harsh without back up material
posted by edgeways at 11:05 AM on February 22, 2006

It's unfortunate that Romney's not having a chance is not because he is a biggot and has dirty hands.
posted by mds35 at 11:07 AM on February 22, 2006

Pollo: But where else? How about states that matter like California?

Clinton got 47.5% in California in 1992.

But then again, given the knee-jerk regionalism exhibited for most of the year after 2004, perhaps the Democratic party is doomed to parochialism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:07 AM on February 22, 2006

/no clue what OC and JP are talking about
posted by mischief at 11:08 AM on February 22, 2006

Gore/Franken '08!
posted by mds35 at 11:10 AM on February 22, 2006

Nah, we need Franken to take out that dipshit Coleman in MN during '08, which he very well might
posted by edgeways at 11:12 AM on February 22, 2006

Richardson's nuclear secrets fiasco.

Of course, I'm not sure if this fiasco belongs to Richardson, or to the FBI.
posted by grabbingsand at 11:12 AM on February 22, 2006

Chavez/Galloway 2008

*ducks*
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:14 AM on February 22, 2006

/no clue what OC and JP are talking about

That's ok. A political thread is no place for a theology discussion. My point was re: Romney's political chances in light of his religion. OC, I believe, was trying to show that the prejudices against Romney based on his religion may be meritorious. Carry on.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:15 AM on February 22, 2006

Come on. How many people considered (especially after his disastrous 1988 DNC keynote address) Bill Clinton a serious contender for even the Democratic nomination, let alone the Presidency, at a similar stage in 1990? A lot can (and will) happen.

Heh. My High School US Gov teacher (also a member of the KS legislature) was invited to stand behind clinton when he was nominated. Figuring he'd be one of dozens of people, and that Clinton didn't stand a chance, he didn't think it was worth it to miss class. Apparently everyone else that was invited was thinking along the same lines and stayed home cause there were only a handful of people there in support of Clinton.

/tangent

We should totally nominate Franken. Seriously

Get him nominated and I'll totally vote for him in the election.
.....
No, you have to nominate him first.
.....
No, you first. I said I'd back you up.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 11:16 AM on February 22, 2006

So, yeah. No love for Wesley Clark?
posted by weston at 11:16 AM on February 22, 2006

you can't rig an election that's not a close one.

How much of a split are we talking? http://presidentelect.org/e1988.html">
posted by haikuku at 11:16 AM on February 22, 2006

Oops Sorry,
posted by haikuku at 11:17 AM on February 22, 2006

Bayh/Obama in 08

mark my words....
posted by phredhead at 11:18 AM on February 22, 2006

The hatred of Mormons in this country (and the misconceptions about Mormon beliefs) is far too great for him to win the presidency

Wait, what Mormon beliefs are you talking about? The ones about the magic underwear, the ones about getting your own planet when you die, or the whole bigamy thing?

Oh, oh, I know: it's the part about the magic, talking hat, right?
posted by bshort at 11:26 AM on February 22, 2006

With people like you out there, Romney doesn't have a chance.

You brought it up, not me. Don't accuse others of intolerance if you don't want it pointed out that your holy book calls blacks "cursed." If you have a problem with the way Mormons are viewed and want to bitch about a pet politician's chances of election, maybe you should pull the beam from your eye and take a long hard look at your scripture.

OC, I believe, was trying to show that the prejudices against Romney based on his religion may be meritorious.

Precisely. I wouldn't vote for any Mormon who did not explicitly reject that passage and admit that the BoM is fatally flawed. But then I guess he wouldn't be much of a Mormon, then.

Oh, and Gore better not run because he's as much of a disappointment as Kerry. Fuck 'em both.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:27 AM on February 22, 2006

The whites, hispanics and orientals in the US are still too racist to elect a ticket that includes Obama.
posted by mischief at 11:27 AM on February 22, 2006

So Gore says he wont seek the presidency, which means he actually will, which also means he's a liar, and a flip-flopper.
posted by iamck at 11:28 AM on February 22, 2006

mischief, orientals are rugs, they don't vote.
posted by iamck at 11:29 AM on February 22, 2006

mischief, orientals are rugs, they don't vote.
posted by iamck at 2:29 PM EST on February 22 [!]

Heh. iamck, you win the Internet.
posted by unreason at 11:31 AM on February 22, 2006

Don't accuse others of intolerance if you don't want it pointed out that your holy book calls blacks "cursed."

The book says nothing about blacks. You need to read the book, or at least know what it's about, before making such pronouncements about it.

and bshort, yes, those mischaracterizations and misstatements are precisely the type of thing I was talking about. Would you mock John Kerry because he belives in magic cookies and wine that turns into blood? Would you mock Joe Lieberman because his religion believes in tying a little box to your forehead and in wearing magic underwear that hangs out from under your outer clothes? Bigotry against religious people is such crap.

Find me a political candidate who doesn't believe in anything that can be misstated and then mocked.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:37 AM on February 22, 2006

Mark Warner?!

Take a bad picture of him -- there are plenty out there to choose from -- add this idea, sit back, and watch him implode.

Bill Richardson is pretty good. He has some weaknesses on issues like taxes and border security, but he's not incredibly weak there, and his foriegn diplomacy skills could be very valuable indeed. He's also apparently told party leaders that he's going for it in '08...

I think he's the one to rally around if victory is the goal. It is likely he could win New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada, and his native Spanish could be very valuable if the Democrats want to win in Florida. Secure those four states and carry most everything that Kerry was able to get, and it's safe to say that winning the election would be pretty much a shoo-in.

So, here's an idea...
Richardson / Edwards ... or perhaps even better, Richardson/Clark.

I would argue that Clark would be more likely to help swing states over to the Dems than Edwards. He could put states like Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa into the blue column. Admittedly, that's not as many electoral votes as Virginia, Florida, Georgia, etc... but who cares? You only need enough to win. Best of all, the Democrats would look really good in the believability department.

Think of it as a "fuck the South" strategy. Make inroads in the centrist Midwest and Southwest states instead, and the rest will follow. Stop trying to impress the South with cornpone. Let them eat credibility and substance, until they learn to like it.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:39 AM on February 22, 2006

Clinton got 47.5% in California in 1992.

It was enough for first place and second place was a local boy, what's your point? He got 54% against Bush.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:42 AM on February 22, 2006

I saw Al Gore speak recently. At the Q&A afterwards, he was asked The Question, and said specifically that he viewed himself as a "recovering politician" (direct quote) and had no plans to run for office.

Roger J. Stone Jr. is a veteran of eight Republican Presidential campaigns.

Hmmm, an article written about possible Democratic presidential contenders by an inveterate Republican operative. I'm sure that such an article would be the best possible source of truth and guidance for non-Republicans, and would absolutely contain the writer's best, most honest assessment of the situation.
posted by jellicle at 11:44 AM on February 22, 2006

and bshort, yes, those mischaracterizations and misstatements are precisely the type of thing I was talking about. Would you mock John Kerry because he believes in magic cookies and wine that turns into blood?

Uh, yeah. Yes I would. Why should your superstitions be somehow immune to criticism just because you call them a "religion?"

Would you mock Joe Lieberman because his religion believes in tying a little box to your forehead and in wearing magic underwear that hangs out from under your outer clothes?

Yeah, I think that's silly too.

Bigotry against religious people is such crap.

First off, it's not bigotry. It's criticism of irrational belief. Did I misstate any Mormon beliefs?

Why should you get a free pass for believing in things that aren't based on any sort of sound evidence? Are you afraid to actually explain to others why you believe in the things you do?

Second off, do a little experiment for me. Tell your average American about what Mormons believe, and I'm talking about the actual beliefs here, not some sort of "we believe in peace, love and happiness" cop out. I bet you a dollar that they'll think you're crazy. If Romney tries to run in a national election then you can bet there will be a national dialogue about what a wacky religion Mormonism is.
posted by bshort at 11:47 AM on February 22, 2006

My worst fear is that Jeb will run. Actually, that's my second worst fear. My worst fear is that 50.1% of Americans are stupid and/or ignorant enough to vote for him.
posted by orange swan at 11:52 AM on February 22, 2006

You know who I would *REALLY* want for VP, if the Dems could get him?

This guy. You may remember him as the general who got up on a flooded streetlight and directed the first supply convoy into New Orleans after Katrina. He'd be the first African-American in the VP spot, too.

He'd kick ass, take numbers. Of course, he probably wouldn't want the job, but really, he should.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:52 AM on February 22, 2006

He'd be the first African-American in the VP spot, too.

Since when have the Dems or Repubs ever let a black guy run for VP?
posted by unreason at 11:53 AM on February 22, 2006

Pollomacho: But where else? How about states that matter like California?

My point was that Clinton's zipcode of residence in a "flyover country" state didn't prove to be a liability for him in the 1992 primary for a "state that mattered" like California, or the election for that matter.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:54 AM on February 22, 2006

Chuck Norris (insert joke here)
posted by blue_beetle at 11:54 AM on February 22, 2006

The book says nothing about blacks. You need to read the book, or at least know what it's about, before making such pronouncements about it.

I have not one but two copies. I've read it. In context it's clear that the author - Smith or God, you pick - believes that black skin is a curse. There's more, if you want it:

Alma 3:6: "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."

Add that to the fact that blacks were denied the priesthood until 1978 and it's quite clear that the LDS's history is marred by unapologetic racism. For you to deny that racism without making any other argument than "nuh uh you didn't read it" is laughable, and indicates that you have no substantive answer to the issue.

It's interesting that you mention Kerry and Lieberman: I think that both of those men are intellectually stunted by their faith and yes, I would definitely make fun of the Catholic Church's penchant for cannibalism and the Jewish faith's utterly bizarre rulebook. I think it's high time that America had a truly secular government headed by a truly secular President, instead of the endless parade of privileged white Christian males whose philosophical views begin and end at "if this ancient book says it's wrong, it's wrong."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:59 AM on February 22, 2006

bshort: yes, you completely misstated mormon beliefs, on all counts. No religion or belief should get a pass. All should be treated civilly and fairly.

If you'd like to know what you've misstated, email me and I'll tell you. I will not tell you anything about mormonism that you don't expressly ask about, and I sure as hell won't try to convert you.

Tell your average American about what Mormons believe . . . I bet you a dollar that they'll think you're crazy.

Tell your average american that American Idol sucks and they'll think you're crazy. I don't think your average American is exactly a reliable gauge of what's crazy and what's not. But you don't even seem to have any idea what Mormons actually believe (you think we believe in magic underwear? We don't) so I think you're betting based on incomplete information.

But I'm not discussing Mormonism in this thread. If you want to know what you got wrong (everything) and why, drop me a line, and I'll be happy to discuss civilly and not proselytize.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:01 PM on February 22, 2006

Just throwing that last bit out there. Seriously, who are the Republicans looking toward?

I think the Republican nomination is McCain's to lose, even with all the fundies out there that hated him in 2000, because Republicans, more than anything, want to win.
posted by gyc at 12:05 PM on February 22, 2006

All should be treated civilly and fairly.

...which is exactly what I did.

If you'd like to know what you've misstated, email me and I'll tell you.

Why don't you just explain it here? That way you can show everyone how you were right and I was wrong.

I don't think your average American is exactly a reliable gauge of what's crazy and what's not.

That's a pretty ignorant comment. People don't vote for crazy.

But you don't even seem to have any idea what Mormons actually believe (you think we believe in magic underwear? We don't)

You, sir, are a liar. Mormon Magic Underwear
posted by bshort at 12:07 PM on February 22, 2006

But I'm not discussing Mormonism in this thread.

You do this every time. You started the discussion about Mormonism. You drop in some little note about how bad you guys have it or some other controversial topic and as soon as someone calls you on it with solid data you wig out and retreat to the old "you can email me" tactic. There's a reason Romney has no chance, and that's because his branch of Christianity is even more insane than the original, and the only place for him to succeed is in Mormon-dominated areas.

It's like acting surprised that the Branch Davidians didn't get a Senate seat. Yeesh.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:07 PM on February 22, 2006

It's like acting surprised that the Branch Davidians didn't get a Senate seat. Yeesh.

There are plenty of Jews in high office though, despite their minor minority status and the prevalence of misunderstanding and outright antisemitism.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:14 PM on February 22, 2006

So who is there on the R side? I honestly can't think of a single decent candidate.
Newt Gingrich.
After BushCo bankrupts the place, that whole "Contract on America" bunch stands primed to make a comeback.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:21 PM on February 22, 2006

Christ on a stick, there was a *gasp* non vicious political discusion on MeFi, then this crazy thing happened. We need like, a virtual cage match area.
posted by edgeways at 12:24 PM on February 22, 2006

Could you two argue about Mormons and the status of their underwear someplace else? We're trying to have a political discussion here.
posted by unreason at 12:25 PM on February 22, 2006

After BushCo bankrupts the place, that whole "Contract on America" bunch stands primed to make a comeback.

Hmm, funny that those promised term limits are up now, but they don't seem to be going anywhere. I guess that "contract" was as good as the bullshit it was written on?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:25 PM on February 22, 2006

Heard Gingrich speak recently and it made me realize how much the political landscape has shifted, he sounded sane compared to the current flavor... not that I'd vote for him. Gingrich would have difficulty with his high profile divorce and affair with a much younger aide... But who knows
posted by edgeways at 12:27 PM on February 22, 2006

Tell your average american that American Idol sucks and they'll think you're crazy.

No, they'll just think you're a misanthrope, or worse, one of those weird people who don't have a TV.

BTW, I believe we'll probably see a Mormon president before we see a Jewish one.
posted by rocketman at 12:34 PM on February 22, 2006

Tell your average American about what Mormons believe . . . I bet you a dollar that they'll think you're crazy.

I'm a big 'ol agnostic liberal, but that seems like a weak point. The dominant religion of this country is people who "really believe" a man was the son of god sponteneously gestated in a woman's womb who rose from the dead and will return upon Armageddon.

The current President is a born-again Christian; he "really" believes more than half the American people are going to Hell. It's not like Mormonism really dives that much further off the wacky scale. To paraphrase David Cross, Genesis reads like a D&D sourcebook.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:44 PM on February 22, 2006

It honestly shouldn't be this hard to beat a Bush^(TM) any year. But I really wish we weren't using polling machines that can be hacked by five year olds.
posted by uni verse at 12:44 PM on February 22, 2006

The dominant religion of this country is people who "really believe" a man was the son of god sponteneously gestated in a woman's womb who rose from the dead and will return upon Armageddon.

Southern Baptists think that anyone that isn't Southern Baptist is going to hell. That includes Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists.

Do you really think you're going to get them fired up to vote for a Mormon?
posted by bshort at 12:50 PM on February 22, 2006

This entire thread is evidence that the Democrats are in trouble for '08. Gore/Edwards? You have got to be kidding me. It's even more depressing that they'll have to sweat this one out even with the minute apprival ratings for the current administration.
posted by cpchester at 12:52 PM on February 22, 2006

God, I hope Gore isn't the choice.

It seems pretty clear that McCain will be the GOP candidate. Why not? I think he'll be tough to beat.
posted by OmieWise at 12:55 PM on February 22, 2006

Heard Gingrich speak recently and it made me realize how much the political landscape has shifted, he sounded sane compared to the current flavor...
I thought the same thing. He's been working behind the scenes writing policy over at the Pentagon, so he's in good with that side of the neocons. I think he's in good with those R's who have a problem with the crazy spending, too.
I'd never vote for him either, but I've been thinking more and more that he could possibly be a viable candidate. That divorce and affair thing might hurt him some, but I'm sure Pox News will be able to convince enough people that it doesn't matter...or it didn't actually happen.
Keep an eye on him, gang.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:55 PM on February 22, 2006

It seems pretty clear that McCain will be the GOP candidate.
Not if the neocons and fundies are still holding sway in the party. McCain was never on either group's xmas card lists. I'd say the way the machine ganged up on him when he ran the last time gives one a good indication as to his fortunes in the party as it currently stands.
However, if a miracle happens and the neocons are swept from power in the party, then McCain might stand a fighting chance. But don't hold your breath.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:59 PM on February 22, 2006

It seems pretty clear that McCain will be the GOP candidate. Why not? I think he'll be tough to beat.

I sort of feel the same way, and consequentially have almost no interest in the 2008 race simply because it's almost a foregone conclusion that if McCain gets the nomination, the election's his.

I'm not really interested in the Kerry-esque "most electable" issue for the Democratic field. Unless someone truly inspiring comes along in the next year, I'm resigned to already accepting that John McCain will be our next President. That disturbs me, because he's one of the most conservative sitting Senators in Washington.

At the same time, there is a very, very small handful of people I could imagine being a worse President than Bush, and as none of them believable have a chance of winning, I'm not as afflicted for 2008 as I was for 2000 and 2004.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:00 PM on February 22, 2006

Er, I'm sorry for bringing Romney up. I didn't mean to spark a Mormon debate. He's always getting dinged around here (Boston) for spending more time focusing on a potential presidential bid than actually spending time in state. I think he only became governor because of the wacky inclusive debate format and the fact he has a penis. After the bunglings of Swift and Shannon O'Brien's soccor mom'd campaign, his faith didn't enter much into the question (Other than, 'If he becomes governor, will we still get St.Paddy's off?').

He may be stepping into a similar scenerio on the national stage with a bungling, scandal ridden incumbant on the way out and a disorganized opposition who is unsure of their message.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 1:03 PM on February 22, 2006

Romney? The hatred of Mormons in this country (and the misconceptions about Mormon beliefs) is far too great for him to win the presidency

Some faiths have a strongly hierarchical leadership, and others don't. Judaism, Islam, and, say, Baptist-ism don't have a strongly hierarchical leadership. If you don't like what one leader says, you're free to just follow another who's more to your own liking, and still be a perfectly good Jew, Muslim, or Baptist (viz: Carter leaving the Southern Baptist Convention). Mormonism and Roman Catholicism are more strongly hierarchical: if you don't like what the Pope or the church leaders of Mormonism say, you can't just follow some other Pope or some other set of Mormon leaders and still be a Catholic or Mormon in good standing.

The fear is not (just) that Mormonism or Catholicism is crazy. The fear is that, at least in his head, his eternal soul depends on doing what a church hierarchy demands of him, so he is likely to do what that church hierarchy demands of him rather than commit apostasy.

When a candidate strongly adheres to a faith that has a strongly hierarchical leadership, I think it's reasonable to demand a clear and distinct statement from him that if there is a conflict between what being President demands and what their faith -- as defined by that hierarchical leadership -- demands, that they will buck their leadership even if doing so condemns them to eternal damnation. With someone who is a strong adherent to a nonhierarchical faith, this isn't as much of an issue -- there's no set of external leaders that their faith demands some sort of obedience to, only the candidate's own set of beliefs, which might rightly be a subject of public discussion.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:06 PM on February 22, 2006

If Bush could win (or "win," whatever) in 2000, Hillary could win in 2008. She's a very divisive figure; so was Bush in 2000.

If Jeb Bush runs (or Frist gets the nomination), we'll get to hear all about Terri Schiavo again.

McCain's "Straight Talk Express" is bullshit, he's really conservative, and he's a coward for sucking up to Bush after the way the Bush campaign treated him in 2000. Any moderate who'd vote for McCain thinking he's a moderate is a sucker.

Mark Warner is scary-looking. He sounds great on paper, but I was really unimpressed when I saw him.

Wesley Clark would make a great Secretary of Defense (is he allowed, though?) or VP, but he was too timid and late to the game in 2004.

Edwards doesn't have the experience, just the charisma.

Edwards has as much experience as Bush did when Bush was elected in 2000.

al gore is hot

Or not. (Apparently he looks like Michael McKean now.)
posted by kirkaracha at 1:08 PM on February 22, 2006

"She's a very divisive figure; so was Bush in 2000."

Bush divided a country; Hillary divides the democrats.
posted by mischief at 1:14 PM on February 22, 2006

I predicted Warner/Feingold nearly a year ago on Linkfilter, and more recently here.

I'm not sayin' it'll happen with absolute certainty, but everything that's gone on in the past 10 months has just strengthened a Warner/Feingold ticket.

I also like Richardson.
posted by darkstar at 1:22 PM on February 22, 2006

Never underestimate the power of a grudge match.
posted by cookie-k at 1:29 PM on February 22, 2006

I still dislike him, his wife, the PMRC, the horse they rode in on...

...Hillary isn’t much better.

Hopefully, Badnarik runs again.

But I’d vote communist before I’d vote Jeb Bush, Hillary or Gore into office.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:01 PM on February 22, 2006

It's a shame Gus Hall isn't around anymore...
posted by Fezboy! at 2:05 PM on February 22, 2006

Whatever the outcome it will be an interesting process. I don't know if I will vote this time or not, was pretty burnt out the last time through, but I kinda enjoy seeing how it plays out. I am more concerned with the mid-terms than the presidential as it is all still so hypothetical. A year and a half is near infinity in American politics, we can rule some people out but very few of them as the process is so twisty. Wish it was all compressed into 6 months or less, completely publicly funded and we where allowed no-confidence votes. But that is just pipe dreams.
posted by edgeways at 2:06 PM on February 22, 2006

You, sir, are a liar. Mormon Magic Underwear

bshort, where's the "magic" part in the associated Wikipedia entry?
posted by weston at 2:06 PM on February 22, 2006

And also:

~ ~ Wesley Clark, people! ~ ~

Is he really that awful of a candidate that I have to mention him a third time here in the thread in bold text to spark any discussion about the guy?
posted by weston at 2:08 PM on February 22, 2006

Yes.
posted by anomie at 2:10 PM on February 22, 2006

Um, why?
posted by weston at 2:15 PM on February 22, 2006

I can not put my finger on it, and am not trying to disparage Clark, but I have/had a hard time seeing him as President. Who knows, perhaps if he throws his hat in gain I'll change my mind, but at some level he failed to connect for me
posted by edgeways at 2:17 PM on February 22, 2006

Clark's no Stormin Norman.

He's a good guy and a good candidate, I guess, but I can't shake that thought. He needs to open up more and give us some military hooyahs. I think he came off kinda wimpy last time around.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:24 PM on February 22, 2006

Everyone riffing on the Mitt Romney thing, from JP's "everyone's biased against Mormons" to OC's "Mormons are really crazy" seems to be overlooking one salient fact: Mitt Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts, for pete's sake, which is neither a Mormon hotbed specifically nor an especially religious state in general.

JP, if you're still reading this thread, I think anti-mormon bias has died down significantly, especially among people who actually know any Mormons. Mormons come off as rather more pious and clean-cut than most other Christain sects, but that's about it. I think the fear of appearing to be religiously insensitive is a way bigger factor than some residual discomfort with Mormonism. At least in most places.
posted by rkent at 2:28 PM on February 22, 2006

edgeways, this is not an attack at all, but one of the reasons that we're in the buggered mess we're in is because people valued candidates less for their abilities and more for some nebulous personal "connection" with them. Candidates should be viewed as job applicants, not potential BFFs.

I've voted for Gore before; I don't regret that at all, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. But since he says he isn't running, I seriously favor a strong candidate to re-establish our friendships in the world abroad. That means Clark and/or Richardson. (I'm very interested in following Feingold as well.)
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:28 PM on February 22, 2006

I'm with you darkstar, but maybe the other way around. I think Feingold would be a strong candidate with solid midwestern credentials (I don't think being southern is a necessity any longer, since things have been so bad. Why bother?). But LA (due to Bush fucking over the state) and VA (Kaine wins governorship on Warner's heels in a thoroughly red state) is good news. The problem is Hillary--I don't think she or anyone around her will check her ego. She's done a great job as a NY senator, but all that positive feedback has given her a complex. Primaries are nothin' but show, usually, but they're going to be critical, absolutely critical in this race, if only to get her out of the running as soon as possible. And if she cherry-picks Obama to run with her, that could be hard to do.

Feingold's problem? Divorce. Two of 'em. Granted, the hypocrisy of serial philandering Republicans castigating Feingold for this is delicious. But that and his Judaism will be made into issues--expect plenty of hateful websites and mailings to go out, and guys like Ken Mehlmen saying, "Gosh Chris, the RNC had nothing to do with this mean spiritedness. Republicans are about inclusion!"

And the McCain/Lieberman ticket? Bullshit. This is Republican spin through and through--it won't fucking happen, and it gets thrown out there in the vein of "The Democratic party is so divided that this is their only chance." No thank you, that's a lie. Given Iraq, Katrina, the debt, mid-terms (probably won't take back either the house or Senate, but thrilling to watch Republican candidates hiding whenever Bush comes to their state) and the first time in a while an incumbent hasn't groomed a VP to run, things are looking up. I like Warner (D) too, but it might be too early for him a la Obama.

And why hasn't Senator Warner been mentioned for the R's? He's actually higher up the wish-list than McCain is, more palatable to the fundies. I'd put my money on him if I had a gun to my head. McCain is going to run, and he's going to blow his frigging top when he realizes he's been sold out by the social conservaties behind him. Warner knows how to play ball, and is much more willing to carry water for his masters.
posted by bardic at 2:45 PM on February 22, 2006

I think Finegold is the best shot Democrats have in '08. Obama's too young, not to mention that his race is still an issue, how regrettable that may be,. I think it'll take a black Republican to be the first black President, although Obama is very very charismatic.
posted by gyc at 2:45 PM on February 22, 2006

Okay.

Richardson / Feingold. That's your ironclad.

(And hey, I really like Clark. I do. He's got the charisma, the carriage, that kind of Paul Newman crossed with Dale Jarrett thing going ... but I really don't think he'll make another run.)
posted by grabbingsand at 2:45 PM on February 22, 2006

(And a Republican primary pitting fundies like Santorum and Brownback vs. social moderates like Giuliana or Pataki? Priceless.)

PS Feingold was on Bill Maher's show recently--he's got the look and the skills, IMHO. The senator thing is a definite problem though.
posted by bardic at 2:47 PM on February 22, 2006

Feingold's cabinet:
Richardson as Secretary of State
Gore as AG
Clark as Defense Sec.

First SCOTUS nominee?
Bill *FUCKING* Clinton, looking miraculously tanned and fit, as if he could live forever. . . .

Lieberman? No cabinet spot for you, douchebag!

Ah, politics. I love the wankery. It really is Hollywood for ugly people, and we're just buying the tickets and/or voting.
posted by bardic at 2:57 PM on February 22, 2006

Richardson/Feingold - Blue Governor in a Red state, and every liberal's favorite Senator (except for Obama, which goes without saying).
posted by Medieval Maven at 2:57 PM on February 22, 2006

Please no. We need somebody good looking and gore just ain't.

Announcing the HubbaHubba ticket for '08: Gore/Kerry*
*Heinz
posted by rob511 at 3:01 PM on February 22, 2006

Gore as AG

Um, I realize that being an attorney is not a strict requirement for an AG, but were you joking?

I agree that the whole senator thing is a problem, generally. That's probably why Warner's name isn't out there much, too. But it's all craziness since the party really doesn't get to decide who its candidate is. I agree that this "Gore might run" stuff is a) bull and b) probably put out there by the republican machine.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:02 PM on February 22, 2006

(I think Bill as a Supreme gave it away, but some people need to have these things explained.)
posted by bardic at 3:12 PM on February 22, 2006

If we want to win, here's to people like Gov.s Warner & Schweitzer. Governors win presidential elections, Senators (usually) don't. Sure, I'd love Obama, Feingold (who I will totally vote for in the promaries), Clark or even Clinton, but if we're gonna win, it's pretty much down to Warner. Hillary for veep, that I could see.
posted by moonbird at 3:21 PM on February 22, 2006

Hillary would sleep with Bill again before she'd ever run as veep. And I like her, but she'd be a disaster if she got the nomination. It wouldn't be impossible for her to win, but the turnout would have to be way low, as in the fundie vote not turning out for the first time in eight years because they're lackluster about a social moderate like Giuliani, hypothetically. I'd vote for her, but I hope I don't have to.
posted by bardic at 3:26 PM on February 22, 2006

This may be helpful.
posted by moonbird at 3:32 PM on February 22, 2006

Nice link moonbird. And since so many helpful R's have been giving D's advice about whom to run (WaPo had a piece by Chuck Todd recently advising D's. So much for the "librul media."), here's my suggestion for R's:

Michael Jesus Archangel. He's your man.
posted by bardic at 3:41 PM on February 22, 2006

Wulfgar!, no worries I don't take it as an attack, and for the most part I agree with you. I think in reality though politics is a big popularity contest. I might be off base in this assumption but I think Bush got as many votes as he did was becasue of a certian style, the "I could have a beer with this guy" factor. Even if he is a teetolar, same with Clinton. Policy is a veener put on the candidates to make it seem they actualy are knowledgable. It is not just looks (Quayle wasn't a bad looker but failed in sincerity). People seem to need that extra je n'sais pas to complete the cycle.
My wonky self would love an election sans posturing and style, but it aint happening anytime soon, plus one needs to think of the ability to inspire.
Perhaps that was what was missing for me vis-a-vis Clark.

Pardon the random formlessness of this, chalk it down to job disatisfaction this week.
posted by edgeways at 3:44 PM on February 22, 2006

"Obama/... - too young? Too good looking? Too smart?"

Too black. Too strong.
posted by soiled cowboy at 3:49 PM on February 22, 2006

Wow, didn't know the Prohibition Party was still around
posted by edgeways at 3:49 PM on February 22, 2006

"... that kind of Paul Newman crossed with Dale Jarrett thing ..."

He drives fast and speaks with a Southern drawl while eating popcorn and boiled eggs.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:04 PM on February 22, 2006

Phillips Exeter/Princeton BA/Harvard JD grad donning baseball cap and attending Nasker event is teh new kissing babies, for both R's and D's.
posted by bardic at 4:09 PM on February 22, 2006

If we want to win, here's to people like Gov.s Warner & Schweitzer.

moonbird, you shut your mouth about Schweitzer. We ain't done with him yet.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:14 PM on February 22, 2006

Personality cults are sad and ugly things.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:36 PM on February 22, 2006

All of this is interesting, but for the fact that Hillary has the nomination sewn up. While she's not the 10:1 favorite that Gore was in 2000, she's not a lot less certain.

Why? The nomination is first and foremost about quantity of money, and secondarily about quality of organization. Hillary will have all the money and all the organization -- the consultants and special interests. She'll have Bill Clinton, one of the best politicians in American history, backing her up every step of the way.

Those who say, "but wait, look at what Howard Dean did" should recognize that what Dean mainly did was fill a vacuum left by the atypical absence of a clear establishment favorite in 2003. You had Edwards and Clark working as good looking, Clinton-esque moderates. You had Lieberman polling well on name recognition. You had Kerry appearing weak on both the left and the right. And you should remember that once the establishment decided it had to pull together around Kerry, how quickly everyone else, Dean included, collapsed into line behind him.

Hillary knows that she's not terribly electable, but I'm sure she hardly cares: the choice between 20% of a chance of being President and 0% of a chance of being President is no choice at all for the Clintons, even if the likely cost of that choice is 4 more years of a Republican President.

However, 2012 might be a good election for her. If Roe vs. Wade is reversed between 2009 and 2012, as is likely to occur if Bush is succeeded by another Republican in 2008, that will suddenly give a Democratic woman candidate a pretty tangible issue to run for President on...
posted by MattD at 4:43 PM on February 22, 2006

er, think late '06 to '07 for the next Roe Vs Wade SCOTUS case.
posted by edgeways at 4:56 PM on February 22, 2006

I still think Hillary won't get out of the primaries
posted by edgeways at 4:58 PM on February 22, 2006

i dont think the country is ready for the first female or black president in history right now. it's gotten if anything more conservative lately. plus it's wartime. please just run someone who can win. an actor. anyone. just not what we've been getting.
posted by Miles Long at 5:16 PM on February 22, 2006

Hilary Clinton? If I wanted to be bitched at about videogames for four years I'd just move in with Jack Thompson.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:28 PM on February 22, 2006

*seconds edgeways* Clark has the charisma of a rock. A very smart well-spoken rock, but he's just very uninspiring. And yes, I've seen him in person, as well as several televised speeches. He'd make a great Secretary of Defense though.

I'll go with Warner/Feingold right now. Feingold appeals to the liberal base who'll turn out during the early primaries and Warner is one of the most successful governors Virginia has ever had. His bipartisan appeal is what got Kaine elected. If the Dems nominate a senator for the presidential slot again, they deserve to lose.
posted by longdaysjourney at 5:30 PM on February 22, 2006

Any interesting possible choices from the Clinton Administration we haven't thought of?

Stephanopoulos ? Robert Reich? Warren Christopher? Madeline Albright? Bruce Babbitt?

Babbitt would actually be a pretty good choice, if they could drag him out of his private life. He ran for president in '88, but never had the funding/attention to try again.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:49 PM on February 22, 2006

♥ Republicans for Voldemort in '08 ♥
posted by uni verse at 6:38 PM on February 22, 2006

bshort, where's the "magic" part in the associated Wikipedia entry?

I should have been more clear: More information about the mystic properties of Mormon temple garments.
posted by bshort at 6:58 PM on February 22, 2006

Mark Farner gets my vote, every time.
posted by sidereal at 7:04 PM on February 22, 2006

Warner/Feingold or Richardson/Feingold would both make strong tickets. They also have the benefit of the "sounds like a President's name" name.

I mean, think about it. Can you imagine yourself saying "President Dukakis"? President "Kucinich"? "President Bayh"?

You need someone who not only has the experience, the looks, the money, the connections and the charisma (sorry Clark), but also someone whose name actually sounds presidential. Something generically classic: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bartlett, Warner or Richardson.

Hey, this is marketing!
posted by darkstar at 7:55 PM on February 22, 2006

gyc how do you figure an African-American presidential candidate would have to be Republican to win? Most blacks still wouldn't vote for a Republican, and there'd be a big block of Republican core voters who might just stay home. In short, you gain nothing, and have a lot to lose.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:04 PM on February 22, 2006

Bartlett.

Well, we can dream, right?
posted by Medieval Maven at 8:07 PM on February 22, 2006

So who is there on the R side? I honestly can't think of a single decent candidate.

McCain/Snowe.

Mark my words.
posted by anastasiav at 8:21 PM on February 22, 2006

I'd vote for Gore. Or Joe Biden. Not Hillary.
posted by effwerd at 8:34 PM on February 22, 2006

biden???? really? his talk is good, but his votes are horrendous.
Hillary too. She's running to the right, and ignoring the real anger and betrayal that millions of us voters feel about elected Dems caving over and over and over, to things that hurt all of us...

Feingold is the only true progressive, but he has not lead anything and that is telling...it only takes one person to shut either house down, and he didn't do it. They're all useless--even the good, honest ones. For the first time ever, i've decided i'm sitting home in november, and it kills me, but--until every bad thing is stopped, and my party wakes up to the fact that the other side doesn't play fair, so you shouldn't either, i'm sunk--actually the Alito thing proved it--it's not politics, and it's not a game--people are being hurt--all of us are, and while now it's just us gays, next it's single women, and also it's everyone who's not white and christian and straight..
And shit like this, where my party who used to be a banquet shuts us out showed how bad it is: Dems to homos: re-closet yourself in 2006

I've never felt more not part of this country than i do now--even more so than i did after Kerry caved (which many of us knew he would).

If Gore hadn't run against Clinton (which was just his first mistake), and the votes had been recorded faithfully, than he would be viable--now, after 6 years of damage, he's useless.
posted by amberglow at 9:43 PM on February 22, 2006

I'm considering running for President in 2016. Hey quonsar, wanna be First Lady?
posted by davy at 10:11 PM on February 22, 2006

When Al Gore called for 'respect for the rule of law' and NOT *ENFORCEMENT of the laws", he is just as interchangeably nasty as any other of the seatholders of the white house.

Lets start enforcing the laws, starting with the Congress and the Congress-Kritters and their kin. The laughter value of the RIAA backed laws VS congress-kritters would be worth it!

They're all useless--even the good, honest ones.

Yes. Personally, I was hoping to win the powerball *JUST* so I could run for congress and use the megaphone of money to play 'angry peasant' and say things no standing politico could say. Not that I'd expect to win. Say things like Ron Paul have said about the budget, Feingold have said about civil liberties, Bartlett about energy/oil. Statements like "I shall vote for no law without reading it", "No interaction with lobbyists about any congressional business unless it is recorded and that recording placed up on the web site", "Any legislation submitted will state exactly what the law is meant to do". Changing voting to instant runoff. I figure the recording lobbyists would assure my 1 term status, or more correctly, my never getting into office.

Given you hold a small candle for Feingold, have you visited www.fightningbob.com Amberglow?
posted by rough ashlar at 10:19 PM on February 22, 2006

Comments: 193

Times the word "Diebold" has been mentioned: 0

but then, McCain (or Jebby) probably don't even need Diebold to beat the politician who got to endure the most savage attacks in contemporary American history (with the possible exception of her husband)

the Republicans are actually looking forward to Hillary running -- not a good sign. but maybe, just maybe, as pointed out above, the Democrats will get lucky for once and the Fetus Folk will spike the ball and force a Roe vs Wade reversal before November '08.
posted by matteo at 1:24 AM on February 23, 2006

"Obama/... - too young? Too good looking? Too smart?"

Too black. Too strong.
posted by soiled cowboy at 6:49 PM EST on February 22 [!]

Hilary -
Too loud, too proud.
posted by caddis at 4:31 AM on February 23, 2006

""Obama/...?

Too odd a name--and three sylables!
posted by ParisParamus at 4:57 AM on February 23, 2006

amberglow: She's running to the right, and ignoring the real anger and betrayal that millions of us voters feel about elected Dems caving over and over and over, to things that hurt all of us....

And shit like this, where my party who used to be a banquet shuts us out showed how bad it is: Dems to homos: re-closet yourself in 2006

If Gore hadn't run against Clinton (which was just his first mistake), and the votes had been recorded faithfully, than he would be viable--now, after 6 years of damage, he's useless.

Dude, the last call for the banquet was 1998. I honestly don't get this irrational ego-worship of a man who spent a large chunk leading up to the 2000 election attempting to silence any critical discussion of his betrayals of the left.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:30 AM on February 23, 2006

insomnia_lj, you probably knew Albright was born out of country, can't run, not that I'd expect her to in any case even if eligible
posted by edgeways at 9:57 AM on February 23, 2006

Comments: 193

Times the word "Diebold" has been mentioned: 0

i did say "election security"
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:09 AM on February 23, 2006

Well, people have talked about changing the rules so that Schwartzenegger (I don't think I spelled that right; oh well) could run . . . and personally, if we're going to change the law so that he can do it, I'd rather have Albright in office than him. Her, I respect.
posted by Medieval Maven at 10:11 AM on February 23, 2006

Stewart/Colbert in 08!
posted by nakedelf at 10:12 AM on February 23, 2006

Dude, the last call for the banquet was 1998. I honestly don't get this irrational ego-worship of a man who spent a large chunk leading up to the 2000 election attempting to silence any critical discussion of his betrayals of the left.

Who's irrationally ego-worshipping anyone? I 'm hating them all and we've all been betrayed by them (except Feingold). Gore ran away from Clinton when he ran before--it was a mistake--one of many he made--along with picking the DemocraticRepublican Senator Lieberman as running mate.
posted by amberglow at 10:22 AM on February 23, 2006

for 08, I want Edwards and someone new--maybe some woman governor or something. No reruns or spouses of former presidents, and definitely no sitting Senators.
posted by amberglow at 10:23 AM on February 23, 2006

regarding the changing the rules so Schwartzenegger could run: As a constitutional change it would also require ratification by the States, which has not been a quick process in the past. So no one from out of country is getting elected in 08 for sure. I didn't always agree with Albright but I respect her tremendously.
posted by edgeways at 12:55 PM on February 23, 2006

If we ever did change the rules, there should be a waiting period (say, 30 years?) so it wouldn't benefit any current politician.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:29 PM on February 23, 2006

If Arnie gets to run so will Jennifer Granholm.
posted by caddis at 2:38 PM on February 23, 2006

I know I've suggested Warner/Feingold, but I've been thinking more about Gore. I sometimes wonder if the common human trait of "shunning the loser" is undermining the Dem chances and that Gore could actually be a positive choice.

Namely, Gore actually won the popular vote in a Presidential election, once. That means he's a very popular guy (or at least once was) and able to "win" the majority of the vote. Yet now, because he's seen as a loser, many Dems wanted to throw him on the ashpile and find someone "new and refreshing" (i.e., completely untested).

Given the hatefest that's brewing against the Republicans right now, it seems a little strange that Gore would be completely dismissed by some because of his "negatives". Both Nixon and Reagan lost a presidential bid before they were successful - Reagan twice!

The Republicans (and I've been one all my life until just recently) seem to understand that if you have someone whose ideas you believe in, and he's otherwise still viable, you stand behind him and keep promoting him until you're successful. Eventually, your perseverance pays off. The Dems seem much more inclined to write off their heroes who have been tarnished by momentary defeat, making permanent what might have otherwise only been a temporary setback to success.

In church, when a believer stumbles and commits a sin, for example, some people rush to distance themselves from that person and castigate them. It's called "shooting the wounded", in pastoral care terms. The more constructive approach, as the wiser understand, is to stand beside the fellow and help bring them back around, after which they, and the community, will be even stronger.

Not that Gore's loss is a sin, of course, though many folks probably feel that his failure to pursue victory was unwise. But I do wonder whether the negative attitudes against Gore now are actually preventing the Dems from seizing an excellent opportunity to field a candidate with very strong viability, one whom they could well get behing. ANF right a historical injustice at the same time.

I was against Gore in 2000, much to my great chagrin, now. I'd certainly vote for him if he ever ran again. Perhaps it's time for the Dems to reconsider the disposable hero strategy and embrace one of their giants.
posted by darkstar at 11:05 PM on February 23, 2006

I also note that Gore is now polling second behind Clinton in favor among Dems.

"He is pure on the war and his issue, energy and climate change, is becoming increasingly relevant. The real fight of 2008 may be Clinton v Gore."

Morris writes more in The Hill: "History indicates that candidates who won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College have all come back to win revenge in subsequent elections."
posted by darkstar at 11:10 PM on February 23, 2006

It's not that Gore's a loser, but that he's old news. We can't turn the clock back to 2000, as much as many would like to. He should have done much better than he did too.

Gore is not the future.
posted by amberglow at 8:20 AM on February 24, 2006

and, of course, listening to Dick Morris is a fool's game. He's been pushing Hillary the hardest, and now Gore too? Nope, and nope.
posted by amberglow at 8:23 AM on February 24, 2006

And i think we're going to be up against McCain/Rice or McCain/Allen.
posted by amberglow at 8:25 AM on February 24, 2006

I'm sorry, but "old news" seems like a weak way to dismiss a political lion who won the popular vote only 5 years ago.

Neither Nixon nor Reagan did as well as Gore in their first attempts. Yet they became President in subsequent races.

I'm sure there were folks who argued as you do that they were "old news", too. But it seems that take on things has been demonstrably proven wrong, twice in the modern era.
posted by darkstar at 11:30 AM on February 24, 2006