I don't think Hilary would be a great choice either. I dig her, personally, but I know quite a few Dems who don't. Interesting, though, on Gore. Hmmm.
As far as the gops go- Haley Barbour is doing his pre-campaign rounds. He's definitely running.
As far as Hillary goes, I think you're wrong. The Hillary haters aren't going to vote for a dem anyway, and she has the added advantage of having all of her baggage already out on the table. The dems who don't like her now will be reminded of the glory years of her husband's administration, and it sure would be nice to have him back in the White House.
p.s. The Gore/Feingold idea is interesting. It just might work. Feingold hasn't been afraid to stand up to those in the dem leadership who might as well have an "R" after their names.
Strong Feingold partisan here. First, it's pretty lkely there'd be someone on staff who'd return my calls.
While Russ has never used the "L' word, he's been pretty solid playing defence on drug war escalation bills going back to his days in the State Senate.
Only Dem to vote against the Clinton/Gingrich Omnibus Crime Bill, with the "60 New Death Penalties" for offences as trivial as marijuana cultivation.
Sponsor of privacy legislation again, back to State senate days.
He can't be painted as "tax and spend." There's a track record opposing pork from both sides of the aisle.
Okay, Tom. I don't always agree with you, but this time I actually think you've flipped your lid.
Gore? You've gotta be kidding or crazy.
It is, indeed, like the rest of the world has been put on hold - no news here, unless it relates to Katrina or Roberts. Incidentially, I have often wanted to do a quick survey of news reports that relate to the middle-east versus the rest of the globe. My hunch is that there is a heavy emphasis on the middle east - but for what? Isn't Brazil as important as Israel? I mean, the jingoistic nature of the American media as well as the ego centric nature of bloggers is completely exasperating.
Anyway - there are many people that would make good presidents -with the W, Rove and Co as our most recent example, the bar is low. What we need is someone with a plan. And based on Gore's last speechifying (quoted today at my location if your interested in catching the link), it appears that he is good at rhetoric and short on plans.
What we really need is someone from New Orleans - an unknown to rise up from the quagmire and toss their hat into the ring for an upset.
You indeed are correct - the repubs have no one. And, pretty much they lost their shirts on the Bush gamble.
Janet Napolitano does not strike me as a good idea (although getting her out of Arizona is tempting). One of her biggest issue is education (I may poke my eyeballs out with a fork the next time I hear her yammering about all-day kindergarten) which leads me to believe that she may well pick up the No Child Left Behind ball and run with it. She has been very vocal about putting cracking down on border crossings and collecting more money from the federal government for border-related expenses, and making sure Arizona's military bases do not make it onto the dreaded base-closing list. She has hopped on the investigate-gas-prices-for-evidence-of-gouging bandwagon. Any excuse or no excuse at all is just fine with her for declaring a state of emergency to get the tax dollars flowing. She has also been busy pushing to have all medical records in the state easily shareable in electronic format. Not that I can say she's worse than the alternatives from any party.
From a strategic standpoint, though, I will say that she is quite smart. For example, instead of letting Republicans beat her over the head repeatedly at inconvenient times with the no-gay-marriage bat, she basically told them, "Pass the ban, I'll sign it, and then let's get back to putting all sorts of money for education back into the budget."
I've deep misgivings about Gore. (I wouldn't vote for him, but I don't plan on voting any more, anyway. I don't have any old fashioned brown soap to bath with, which would be required after such an act.)
However, I agree with Ben. Feingold is better than he seems to many, even with crap like McCain/Feingold on his record. As the formet LP candidate who ran against him in '98, I am familiar with the territory.
Also, although he doesn't use the "L" word in public, he has used it in private conversations. He is aware that there is a constituency which has potential for him. There could very easily be far worse people in the White House. In fact, he seems the most likely, least objectionable result (a sort of maximin).
However, in my opinion, it is "too late" for anyone to do much good politically. I doubt any real lasting improvements will come through politics, if they ever have. The "crash" seems inevitable and will likely be a very positive event, overall, from some future vantage point.
i dont agree with you on hillary but the others i do. were gonna have to put all of our cards on the table in 08. its gonna be getting very interesting in the up coming months. i very much enjoy your blog! laters
Personally, I will be SHOCKED if Hillary does NOT get the Dem nomination.
Call me a "conspiracy theorist," but I believe that Kerry was intended to take a fall (he didn't fight election fraud, just conceded) so that Bush would piss off enough moderates who would then, vote Shillary for Prez!
The issue of her being a Senator is irrelevant BECAUSE she is a Clinton. A Senator by any other name would not have a chance. The Clintons are as powerful as the Bushes (Read the book "Bush, Clinton, and the CIA".)
Selfishly, I hope Hillary wins 2008, just as I was glad Bush won both 2000 & 2004. Each of these whores bring us one step closer to revolution!
Jeez, it is a sad state of affairs when libertarians are stuck hoping for Al Gore to win the presidency.
I'm one libertarian who is really only concerned with how we will survive ANY of these choices, and I even went to school with (for one year, I'm younger than that!) one of the ones you listed.
The interesting thing to see would be for the D's to actually nominate someone who IS still a Democrat, in the mode of Adlai Stevenson, JFK to some extent, Gene McCarthy, et alia. The last time they did (McGovern in '72) they got trounced so badly they ran away and hid in the center of the spectrum, and have been trying only to out-GOP the GOP ever since with their lame-ass candidates.
I'm halfways to Sunday on Wendy's argument, but I don't like the heightened contradiction one bit.
Do you really think who wins matters in the Big Picture?
Anthony,
I'm not sure which libertarian you think is "hoping" for Al Gore to win the presidency. The post you're commenting on was intended to suggest that he's a candidate who could win the presidency. Big difference.
In the normal course of things, I am less inclined to hope that a particular candidate wins the presidency than to hope that some other particular candidate doesn't.
Tom Knapp
I agree Tom that Hillary would be a poor choice for the nomination (good choice for me)but not for the reason that she is a Senator. I think that the Senator jinx is irrelevant considering there has never been a woman president. You could say that women do EXTREMELY bad in seeking presedential nomination.
I will let you guys in on a conservative secret. No conservative or middle of the road southerner will ever vote for a northeastern liberal no more than a norteastern Dem will ever vote for a Texan. It is a cultural thing.
Now the problem for the Dems is that if you cannot win the south then you have to win 80% of the rest of the country to win the election. The bad news is that the Dems have distanced themselves so far from the south over the last 6 years that they have no front runners that pose a threat. The south will not vote for Hillary. Al Gore...only if things have changed since 2000 when he could not even win his own southern home state.
On the GOP, I am even in the air about this one. I would like to see Jeb Bush or Colin Powell personally, but they say that they are not interested. Condi, I think would jepordize the southern votes so politics will not give her the nomination unless it is against Hill, which is unfortunate because I think that she would be great.
McCain and Rudy I dont think have convinced the GOP of their abilities.
Tommy Franks? Maybe...
Sen. Waner? Hmmm...
My hope is with Jeb, of course that is with assuming that the Iraq effort has been dubbed a success by 08.
Morg,
You write:
"No conservative or middle of the road southerner will ever vote for a northeastern liberal ..."
So ... are you saying that northeastern liberal George W. Bush (born in Connecticut, educated at Yale, governs like LBJ on crack) won the south through fraud rather than with genuine popular support?
The GOP has its ass in a crack. The only two plausible nominees who would have a chance of beating any of the plausible Democratic nominees are McCain and Powell, and I neither of them would be likely to win the nomination.
And speaking of LBJ, have a look at this:
http://www.multied.com/elections.../
1964state.html
... and tell me about how northeastern liberals won't vote for Texans.
Regards,
Tom
So do you honestly think that GWB is a northeast liberal because of where he lived as an infant and where he was schooled?
You know what I was getting at. Southerners could care less if the man went to Yale or not. All that they know is that he is the former governor of TX and the man that was keeping them from being governed by John Kerry.
You see Clinton came across as a 'refined southern gentleman' promising to lead by the democratic core values of the old democratic party. Some southerners can be sold on this. Ross Perot and Bush Sr's "no new taxes" didn't hurt matters either. When all was said and done though, Clinton only won with 40 some percent of the vote. So dont believe for a second that Clinton was ever a heavily favored president in the eyes of the American public.
Also back then the Dems did not allign themselves with Michael Moore and the Hollywood crowd, which I think is what did them in back in 04.
Think about this, Democrats started losing elections 11 years ago with Newt's "contrat with America" and they have not recovered yet.
Newt is smart man, so dont be suprised to see him on the campaign trail.
I forgot to mention that if you want a sure fire chance to see a Dem in the White House, then nominate Zel Miller.
I would even vote for him.
You see? I am not totally partisan. 
Draft Lee Hamilton.
Commenting by HaloScan
