I Heart Molly Ivins

[filkertom]

Especially today. She does pretty much say it all.

Okay, progressive/democrat/lefties out there: Who do you have good vibes about as potential presidential candidates? My first thought includes Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Russ Feingold, John Murtha, and Molly Ivins. (I think it's absolutely vital to have Paul Krugman as Treasury Secretary, but that's another discussion, which we'll probably have next week. Right now, focus on the presidential/vice presidential ticket.) I could make a case for Howard Dean, but I can already hear the barrage on that one, "the Dean Scream" and all that. And I could make a case for former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, but I don't know if he'd want the job.

And, please don't take this the wrong way, but: My friends who are Republicans? Please don't offer your opinions on this question. Reason being, we've already got more than enough Republicans on the airwaves more than happy to tell us how wrong, depraved, out-of-touch, etc., etc., we are, and what we should really do... to make Republicans happy.

Comments

[ericcoleman]

I think that Edwards needs to get out there again ...

a question..

[purplemoonwoman.livejournal.com]

Do you think that Hillary Clinton could do it? Part of me really wants her to.....

Re: a question..

[neadods.livejournal.com]

If she's as smart as I think she is, she's going to stay in Congress where there are no term limits and she can have a much more lasting impact on politics.

Dean looks good. The reason they're trying to make him look insane is because they know what a threat he is. I would have liked to see Pelosi do something but it looks like she's caving in.

Re: a question..

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I admit that I do not. Partly because she's a policy wonk (which is not a bad thing, but she's nowhere near the communicator that her policy wonk husband is), and partly because the Repubs have loaded her name with such baggage and venom. She's a smart woman who doesn't take a lot of shit, which means [a] the shit she has taken will come back to haunt her and [b] those who would haunt her with it will never forgive her just for being a smart woman, let alone being against everything they stand for.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

You can name any Democratic candidate you wish.
The American people will vote for them.

And they'll still lose.

Why? Because VOTES DON'T MATTER ANYMORE!

The Republican party and their supporters are now and will forever be firmly in control of the district planners, the electoral college and the voting machine manufacturersto guarantee constant victories and, if through some miracle a Democrat DOES get elected, enough media outlets to brainwash the masses into believing the victory was fraudulent and get it overturned.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Note my lack of disagreement.

[signy1.livejournal.com]

Anyone remember the Tweed Ring back in the late 1800s? One of the most infamous examples of widespread political corruption in American history. Boss Tweed had one particularly relevant comment-- "As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?"

One might think we'd have learned something from history. Guess not.

Re: a question..

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

What about Barack Obama? Or at least, if not, what's wrong with him?

Re: a question..

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

I think he needs to at least close out his term in the Senate, if not another one as well. He's rather young - 45 - and relatively inexperienced in national politics.

I really look forward to a Presidential candidacy from him, but I don't think 2008 is the right year for it. Give him another few years to build up more of a reputation in the Senate, and get a stronger sense of name recognition among average Americans.

Re: a question..

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

He's my senator and you can't have him.

[wayward-va.livejournal.com]

Right now I don't see any Democrat who could win. I think they should focus on state legislatures, governorships and the Congress. You don't build a party from the top down, you build from the bottom up. And the Democrats have a lot of rebuilding to do.

As for Hillary Clinton, I think she would make an excellent Senate majority leader. I just don't know if her ambition will let her settle for it or if, like Bob Dole, she will try and push it too far.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, the building from the bottom up is what Howard Dean has been doing as head of the party. He's been excoriated by the Beltway crowd for not being visible enough there, but to this point, he's done more for the Dems than any three others who've run the party in the last thirty years. (I'm at work, and don't have the link, but there was an excellent article on this in the last few months.)

Democrat not win?

[purplemoonwoman.livejournal.com]

Right now, honestly, if they put a brain in jar - who am I kidding? HALF a brain in a jar - up against any republican, I'd vote for him.

I don't care who the hell the democrats drag out from under a rock. If it means I gotta choose between voting for a bi-polar chipmunk with a bad rash, I'm doing it.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

We definitely don't know who will be the 2008 candidate, either for the Republicans or for the Democrats. It's way the heck too early. But I have some thoughts:

Every President since Nixon had experience in an executive branch: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 2 were all governors of states; Nixon and Bush 1 were Vice-Presidents. Therefore, we should look at former Vice-Presidents and governors of states for our best candidates.

Further, Democratic governors of traditionally Republican states show that they can work across the political spectrum. This gives a list of good candidates.

In my opinion, the following candidiates could win:
Vice President Al Gore
Gov. William Richardson (D - NM)
Gov. Janet Napolitano (D - AZ)
Former Gov. Mark Warner (D - VA)
Gov. Mike Easley (D - NC)

Although I think that she would make a good (not a great) President, I don't think that Senator Hillary Clinton (D - NY) could be elected. She's too much of a lightning rod for the right, and she doesn't have the easy charm that her husband does.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

Running Gore would be a rehash of 2000. You'd see the same old "Sore Loserman" stickers again, with the media against him.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Top of the list is Edwards. I like Warner as well, and Murtha only bothers me because, before he stood up and got counted, he was apparently all too hawkish. I'd add Senator Charles Schumer (NY) to the list. I wish he'd shown some more cojones, but overall, he's a good man. Under no circumstances do I want to see Hillary run; aside from the baggage she carries already, she really does play politics. But she'd be a GREAT Cabinet appointee.

I suspect that Jon Corzine (gov, NJ) is headed for a Presidential run, too. But he has to pull his state out of its fiscal tailspin before he can afford to abandon it, and 2008 may not be practical. (He definitely has the executive cred, though -- ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, as well as his current office, and of course, Senator from NJ, too.)

[adamselzer.livejournal.com]

I still think someone's gonna come out of left field and we'll know 'em when he comes. Or she, for that matter. And it still could be Obama. Or possibly Mark Warner, but nothing about him really excites me so far.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I wanted Edwards in 2004, and he's my first choice so far for 2008. He has the kind of charismatic TV image that looks like a President on TV -- something that Kerry never did, that Gore only showed a flicker of now and then, and that Bill Clinton and the Shrub both gush.

I think Hillary would be a great President but a terrible candidate. A successful candidate has to be someone that really fires up their own party while calming the opposing party somewhat. Hillary does more to viscerally stir up the opposition than any potential candidate, but I don't think she'd actually fire up very strong support from a very wide constituency. Democratic-leaning voters would vote for her, but not many of 'em would walk through fire for her, while practically every red-blooded Bud-light-swilling Fox-news-watching core republican voter would sacrifice their children to keep her from being President.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

See, I get none of that so-called charisma that The Idiot-In-Chief is supposed to have. People say he has it only because the pundits and talking heads on TV say he does--as if their corporate masters don't have a vested interest there. When I see him on TV, I want to see someone backhand that smirk right off his face: preferably his dad, with the phrase, "What the hell is wrong with you, boy?" When I hear that whiny faux-Texas accent, I want someone to shove a used sweatsock used down his throat just to shut him the fuck up. The only thing he rouses in me is shame for our country and revulsion for him personally, and for anyone stupid enough to vote for him--and more than a little nausea at how long it's going to take to fix all the damage he's done.

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting and a little disturbing that, in a nation of 300,000,000 people (give or take a few tens of millions), the names in contention number only a few.

Now, granted, the criteria, both legal and socio-political, do restrict the numbers substantially: Obviously the native citizenship and the minimum age limit of 35 knocks maybe a third to a half of that, to (say) about 150,000,000. And the real age-range is more like 40-65, with the "sweet spot" being around 50-60 upon entering office. So that knocks the numbers down to about 15,000,000. But answer me why it is — to be a viable contender for nationwide office — you have to be (1) male (down to about 8,000,000) and one or more of (2) the following (a) a Yalie; (b) the relative of a former President; (c) a Washington fixture for decades; or (d) a War Hero (which often includes (c)). Add to that the physical requirements to get elected: unusually good health for your age, an improbable physiological metabolism, and an immense drive (you gotta really want the job to take all the grief). Tall, decent looking, white, northern European Protestant stock with close geneological ties to the British monarchy is much preferred. Intelligence: optional.

Okay, okay, even with having a brain being optional, all that cuts the number of viable candidates way down; but still, there's got to be at least a hundred or so folks in that group who would make excellent US Presidents, right?

So, I'd take better than even odds that the Democratic presidential candidate for the 2008 elections will be none of today's mentioned individuals.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

I think that unless a candidate is a Washington fixture, or was a major part of the government of their home state, then that candidate is unqualified to run for President.

Being President isn't something that people can jump into. Both Clinton and Bush 2 had serious problems with their first year or two in office. (I don't remember Reagan's early years. And Bush 1 had eight years to watch Reagan.) Both of them had executive experience, and they were STILL snagged. How much worse would it be for a real outsider?

[kakita-shisumo.livejournal.com]

I'll toss out my personal fave, somewhat unlikely as she is: Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Russ Feingold, definitely. He's a brilliant liberal who knows how to run a winning campaign. It seems to me the voters are crying out for a candidate with integrity, and that's Russ.

[brithistorian.livejournal.com]

I second that! I keep throwing Feingold's name out every time I get involved in this conversation - glad to see I'm not the only one.

[jrtom.livejournal.com]

I doubt very much that either John Murtha or Molly Ivins are foolish enough to _want_ to run for president. :)

NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is one I've heard as a possibility. Not sure he can point to much in terms of executive experience, though.

I don't want John Edwards. Nice guy. But I don't see him as being sufficiently experienced, and I noticed during the primaries that he really didn't generally have that much interesting to say, after he got past the duck-billed platitudes (sincerely meant, I'm sure, but . He's a good speaker, and I don't have any reason to doubt his character, but I don't buy him as the chief executive of the US. (I'd actually argue that his inclusion on the ticket is part of what lost the Dems the 2004 election.)

Wesley Clark...again, I don't have any reason to doubt his character, but I don't see him capturing people's imagination, either. I could see him as Secretary of Defense, though.

I like Howard Dean, but I'm not sure that he understands how to connect with the electorate as a whole.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is not someone I'd feel comfortable with supporting. Among other concerns, I don't think that we need another polarizing candidate--and I think that she would be almost as much so as Bush has been.

Al Gore is a tempting possibility. I like the stances that he's been taking since the 2000 election.

I'd rather like to see John McCain as either Vice President or Secretary of Defense (in a Democratic administration). (Not that he'd be likely to accept the latter position.) I don't agree with his policy positions, but I generally admire his integrity (not always, granted).

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Spitzer will take his shot later. First he's going to get elected governor here, and handle a term or so. That will establish his bona fides at the executive level, hopefully under an Administration no longer hostile to and ignorant of the real world.

2012, or more likely 2016 for him. If he does as good a job as governor as he's done as AG, he'll be an excellent candidate.

[naja-pallida.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit late to the party, as usual... but I personally think its going to take the presidential candidate, whoever it may be, to cross party lines and name a moderately popular Republican as his running mate. At the very least, picking someone with a seriously rosy nape (ala LBJ). Unfortunately, the Republican party is quick to blast anyone who toes the line. Last election I was praying to the nothingness us Godless heathens pray to that John McCain would somehow end up Kerry's running mate.

No matter what people seem to think though, I don't think Hillary Clinton can win. She is too hated by far too many people, on all sides of the fence... and her biggest stance thus far as a senator has been against pixelized boobies in a video game. Not really what I consider speaking for the people.

Overall though, I can't say that I personally see any real strong standouts in the Democratic camp, at least not any that seem to be nudging their way to that particular run. A Mark Warner/Blanche Lincoln ticket would make for interesting tv. A lot of people compare Warner to Clinton in most of his political views, and he does have pretty impressive popularity in state of Virginia which could carry a lot of weight with anyone looking at the electoral college. Lincoln is pretty popular in Arkansas as well. I'll just try not to refer to them as the Southern Democrats.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

There are no moderate Republicans any more. They all fall in behind Karl Rove. Even, perhaps especially, McCain, who has made oh so many noises about integrity and accountability, and then let the White House use whatever it is they have on him to kick his ass into submission. McCain is the Repub's Joe Biden -- big talk, no walk.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

I don't think it matters so much _who_ the Dems run for pres, as it does who is steering. The Gore campaign was bad, the Dems advisors tried everything they could to make Gore lifeless, bland and "Republican Lite". The Kerry Edwards campaign was worse. When the republicans smeared Kerry, the advisors told him to ignore it, until it was too late, then offer up weak whining as a defense. Worse yet, after both those failed campaigns, who does the Democrats re-hire as official advisors? The same people who led them into failure.

I do know one thing, if the dems win in '08, I'm buying stock in companies that make paper shredders and hard drive destroyers. The Bush administration will probably double the deficit just buying those two items.