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.

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]

Agreed. What are your thoughts on her as a VP?

I'm kind of unenthusiastic about her as anything other than a Senator, really. I'd like to see Edwards give it another run. Dean is ineligible for the 2008 election, as he committed to his position as DNC chair, which he'll hold until early 2009. But even so, I feel like his candidacy in the general election would be full of the same anti-Northeastern invective that we saw leveled at Kerry. (I really wish people weren't just willing to accept "Massachusetts liberal" as an insult in its own right. Sigh.) The South has long been the Democrats' biggest problem in terms of votes. A lot of this has to do with the fact that the right wing has been far more willing to give their conservative Christian base what they want, and I don't think that's ever been more clear than in the last ten years. And the last Democratic president to be from somewhere other than the south was JFK, and I think that's largely because he had enough charisma, and the all-American war hero aura, to capture most of the South. (He also had a Southern senator for his VP candidate.)

Anyway. I'd like to see an Edwards/Clark ticket. I also think it'd be nifty to see Gore give it another run - he's lost a lot of the stiffness and lack of charisma that he was criticized for in 2000 - but his recognition and association with the Clinton presidency could give him trouble.

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.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Note my lack of disagreement.

Re: a question..

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I'm also not as happy with him as I might be. He has had nothing to lose by voting against the Repubs, but has voted with them several times on key issues.

[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.

Re: a question..

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the fact that the press just plain doesn't like him. No, he's honestly near the top of my Secret Wish List. And running him with Clinton -- Bill, who can still legally run for Veep -- would very likely kick the ass of anyone the Repubs put up.

I don't think Hillary would be happy as Veep. I could easily see her as Director of Health and Human Services, though. I think she'd kick ass and take names there.

Re: a question..

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

Bill Clinton running for VP would be an issue. The Republicans would be all over the "What if the President were assassinated? Term limits!" etc.

[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.

Re: a question..

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

They would indeed, but the issue would be smacked down almost instantly. The 22nd Amendment very clearly says:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

(italics mine) Nothing here about transition by way of vice-presidential ascension.

[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.)

[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.)

Re: a question..

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but Amendment XII states:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

I'm pretty sure that a constitutional law ruling would conclude that the 22nd Amendment, as well as the age and citizenship requirements spelt out in Article II, consistute "eligibility to the office of the President".

D'oh! Which Is Why I'm Not A Constitutional Lawyer

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

That's what I get for forgetting that part. Thanks for reminding me. Point moot, Big Dog's outta there.

And Why I Might Have Been

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

I actually contemplated law as a few years before studying to be a programmer instead. Same grueling attention to niggling details that will screw you over if you're not careful, fewer opportunistic asshats trying to do the screwing.

[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.

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.

[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.

[kakita-shisumo.livejournal.com]

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