Gotta say I’m a tad bummed about this. Kim points us to a CNN story reporting that Mark Warner, the popular ex-Governor of Virginia, has decided not to run for President in 2008.
I’m deeply ambivalent about Hillary Clinton. I don’t think running the same candidate twice in a row is a good idea. Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Bayh, Vilsack … good men all, but oy. Maybe Bill Richardson? Wesley Clark? Or, of course, Russ Feingold, the progressives’ dream candidate whose “baggage” has been remarked upon as a cause for concern?
What do you think?
Please share widely!
I was very involved in the Clark campaign in 2004, and would expect to be again if he choose to run. So far the most he has said on the subject is “I am not not running,” and is instead focusing on getting his endorsed candidates elected this year. He still has a very active website, blog and PAC at http://www.securingamerica.com if anyone wants to take a look at what he is up to these days.
Allow me to be the first to say, it does not matter WHO wins the nomination, Barack Obama will be the VP candidate, and that is probably why he won’t run.
<
p>
He has nothing to lose and everything to gain as VP candidate.
<
p>
He has WAY too much to lose running as the Presidential nominee. As Edwards proved, it’s way too much a battle to run as a 1st time senator.
<
p>
Barack gave a great speech, it will take more than that to come out on top during the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire.
<
p>
Barack as VP, though, pretty much guarantees 16 years of Democratic presidency. Because if the Dem nominee wins, with Barack as VP, then odds are good they will be reelected–I mean hell, Dubya got reelected.
<
p>
Then, with 8 years as VP under his belt, nobody in the country could beat Barack Obama. It’s an easy enough plan, and a good plan. Pretty sure it will be the plan.
<
p>
Also, allow me to be the first to say that Colin Powell will be running for the Republican nomination and will probably win.
<
p>
Why? Because with the Iraq war as bad as it is the Republicans will be forced into finding someone who will be perceived as “strong on war, but opposed to Iraq”. Hello? That’s Colin Powell. Also, because they will have a crowded field, and their chances will be slim, the party insiders will be playing real-politik and the idea of a candidate who will split the black vote will appeal GREATLY to them. Sorry Mitt, you’re a loser anyway.
If we’re running against McCain, he’s a good one to make the case against what would be essentially the Bush economic policy and a still-dangerous foreign policy. Against anybody else, I like our chances in general and Edwards’ actual concern for the non-rich puts him ahead of the others for me.
.. but I’m watching Edwards with great interest. From what I can tell he really, really “gets” labor, and for me that criteria is absolutely key. Labor is not just another constituency or issue interest group. It is a community and a force for spreading the we’re-all-in-this-together ideology that has become the cornerstone for our movement. Edwards’s support for labor appears to be genuine and appears to go quite deep.
<
p>
Of course, we’ll see. Part of me really wants to support Feingold or Clinton.
<
p>
The larger part of me doesn’t care about any of this, since I’m more interested in getting our long-term house in order. That’s another story. đŸ™‚
My favorite by a mile. A grown-up sense of foreign affairs that surpasses anything any other candidate offers (with a partial exception of Clark). Richardson has negotiated treaties in places most people can’t find on a map. The fact that he has a populist touch and knows how to reach out to Hispanics is just bonus.
<
p>
Mind you, I wish he kept his hands to himself a bit more…
I would like to like Richardson too, for all the reasons you articulate. There’s just one thing, though, he couldn’t even deliver his state for Kerry. C’mon, when you your THAT good, you ought to be able to deliver a state to Kerry Healy, for cryin out loud. Pres candidates have to run on their own–admittedly–but New Mexico is not Arizona (for which we’re all grateful) and Richardson’s organization should have delivered for Kerry.
A good man? Surely, you jest. Anyone who didn’t vote against the Bankruptcy Bill can’t really claim to be a good man (or woman).
<
p>
Feingold is a man I could get behind, though his statements during the Israeli incursion in Lebanon weren’t inspiring. I could vote for Clark, but not with enthusiasm. Edwards is a big-time mheh. Seriously, the guy has won one major race – and didn’t run for reelection because he would have clearly lost (which is why he was so gung-ho about running for President after 1 term… it was his best opportunity since he’d never be Senator Edwards again). Edwards has great populace rhetoric, but I’m afraid it’s just that.
<
p>
Obama has been a huge disappointment and I hope all the rumors of him running in ’08 are untrue… until he steps up and stops being a DLC-style Senator, I couldn’t vote for him.
<
p>
UGH. WHERE ARE ALL THE DECENT CANDIDATES?!
<
p>
Let’s hope over the two years we’ll get something better because, at this point, Hillary Clinton is almost looking like the smart idea. Heck, I may even be able to get behind a 64 year old John Kerry if he runs as an anti-war candidate and leaves all the idiot consultants behind.
<
p>
where is that coming from?!
Barack endorsed Lieberman, that’s a DLC play. You can excuse it any number of ways: mentor, etiquette, blah, blah blah.
<
p>
Check me on this. Did Barack vote for the Bankruptcy Bill?
Link
Well that’s good news. Hard to imagine him going for that, like I’m sure Lieberman did. But early on in his career he did a very surprising DLC type vote. I can’t remember what it is now–time to dig up my old copies of “The Nation”
“The Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill-conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action.
<
p>
“In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning.””
<
p>
From Obama’s new book.
<
p>
He was a great candidate, then he got elected.
My top absolutely is Barack Obama, and if he runs (which seems to be increaingly likely) I’m solidly in favor. There are other candidates I like if he doesn’t run: Edwards, Richardson, Clark. Boxer or Gore if they run. Maybe Feingold, though nothing exciting there. Ambivalant also about Clinton, though it would be better than running Kerry again.
The last thing I want is another Southern moderate. Bill Clinton was a terrible president and I always felt that Warner was another “triangulator.” While I LOVE Russ Fiengold I am firmly in the “Anyone but Hillary” camp.
The Republican party is FINALLY in a shambles. Not the least of it is a continuing erosion amongst Evangelicals. Unbelievable but true. Many are leaving the religious right. At this point, I believe its only 4 percentage points (in that community) but hey–it’s a start (and apparently, it’s growing).
<
p>
Now, who is the one person, the ONLY person in the entire country who could unite the Religious Right, inspire them to take action, and get them to turn out in DROVES in the kinds of numbers AND MORE that allowed them to carry the day for Dubya? Who? Not Falwell, Not Robertson, Not Dobson, but the Democratic Party’s own Hilary Clinton.
<
p>
Blogs like this are good for a reason. We should make our case and hash out our differences EARLY then get behind someone so that we are a united front against Hilary.
He’s not running.
<
p>
He just got elected to the Senate. He might accept a VP slot if the nominee picks him (which I don’t find nearly as certain as some other people here seem to think), but it makes perfect sense for him to intend to serve out his Senate term, and possibly run for re-election to the Senate as well. Everything he has done and said so far indicates that is his intention, too.
<
p>
So maybe in 2016 or something like that. By then, we’ll be supporting Deval Patrick for president, anyway đŸ™‚
Like Edwards, like Clark, like Feingold very much.
<
p>
Couldn’t vote for Biden, Dodd, Bayh, Clinton or Vilsack. DLC folks aren’t getting a vote from me…Obama is working his way into that category as well. Dodd and Biden (D-MBNA) just aren’t my type.
<
p>
Bill Richardson is in the maybe category.
Funny how Kerry’s not really considered a serious candidate for 08 even though he’s clamoring to run. Who would be with him?
<
p>
Who’s going to get the “upstart” label and be able to pull off what Patrick did with the Reich momentum and use the Dean momentum to his/her advantage?
to be Dean’s successor, no?
this ticket would DESTROY. Clark has gotten the campaign trail down pat now, Obama is perfect because he doesnt have the baggage of a big senate record the GOP can destroy. he has to run sooner than later. what they did to Kerry proves that.