Democrats who can and can't win the '08 presidential election, IMO.

[Cyrano]

Let me preface this by stating that I will vote for any Democratic
nominee for president in '08. Having said that, here's my list of Dems I think can't win, and those who can.

Can't Win:

1. Hillary. The Republicans have spent 12 years vilifying her and I believe there are just too many independent, and/or swing voters who bought the crap they were being sold.

2. Barak Obama. Anyone who thinks that the majority of voters would vote for a half-black man doesn't grasp the depth to which racial prejudice still exists in this country. I doubt if he can win any southern state, or redneck votes in blue states. I don't think that people of that ilk would vote Dem even if Obama was the choice for VP.

3. Nancy Pelosi. The "San Francisco Liberal" label is code for "far left wing, fanatical, commie, lesbian." Here again, too many independent swing voters have bought a wagon load of wingnut crap.

4. Dennis Kucinich. It will be too easy for the wingnuts to cast him as just another "George McGovern, anti-war-type sissy."

5. Howard Dean. "The Scream" will be played non-stop to prove that he's "totally insane."

Can Win:

Al Gore, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, John Kerry, and some who haven't even been mentioned yet. The Democrats have enough ammunition to fight off the attacks on these men, assuming they can find the balls to do all out battle with swift boaters and others of their ilk.

These Can/Can't wins don't represent my personal preference, but merely my personal opinions as to whom I believe is electable. But whoever the Dem nominee is, I will vote for her or him. Were I ever to vote for a Republican, may I be struck by lightning before I could cast that vote.

And before flaming me, please try to remember that this is a country that voted for Ronald Reagan -- twice. And they also voted for Bush Sr. (Junior's two stolen elections don't count.)

[David Dunham]

1. Gore is the best we have. Kerry is a dead man walking for 08.

Edwards does not play well in the North and could not carry NC in 04. He underperformed as a VP candidate too. Hillary has a chance to win.

[brentspeak]

2. Why does Edwards not play well in the North?

There's nothing about him that would cause the North to be prejudiced against him.
Hillary, of course, has absolutely zero chance to win.

[BOSSHOG]

9. I'm not so sure

Hillary is dead in the water right now. Zero chance?? Not to be argumentative but I don't understand that. She has successfully run for U. S. Senate twice. She has been in politics all her life. She knows how to work elections and win elections. She knows how to fight. I am a Clark supporter now and will be through the primaries (and hopefully beyond) but I look forward to swiftboat attacks against Hillary. If anyone can stand up to them and fight back, its her.

[brentspeak]

13. She ran successfully...in NY state. Against very weak opponents, at that.

She knows how to win elections in a state that traditionally sends Democrats to the U.S. Senate, and against opponents who would have trouble competing for a county freeholder position. She would be dogmeat in at least 42 other states. I agree with Clark, though. The public is sick to death with politicians, and might just go for a general once again.

[WI_DEM]

31. He played pretty well in both Iowa and Wisconsin as I recall

[edwardsfeingold08]

17. Weird logic

Gore lost his home state in 2000 at the top of the ticket. Edwards lost his home state at the bottom of the ticket. By your logic, shouldn't Gore be a weaker candidate?

In my opinion, '08 is not '00 or '04. It's a new situation and both Gore and Edwards could win their home states.

Additionally, Kerry/Edwards played pretty well in the north in '04. If you're holding Edwards responsible for the loss of NC in '04, you should give him credit for the dominance of Kerry/Edwards in the northern states in '04. Right?

[Dawgs]

3. John Kerry? Oh man that's funny.

I know many Republicans that like Obama and hate Kerry. I guess we know where you stand.

[brentspeak]

4. Explain.

[Dawgs]

7. Explain what?

You chose Kerry as one of your top four. You explained why Hillary and others will lose, but not why your top four will win. Kerry almost blew it for us in this past election and yet you still choose him as a top candidate. Why would anyone think he would be a good choice?

[brentspeak]

10. I'm not the OP.

I think you meant to respond to the OP. I just wanted to know what you meant by "I guess we know where you stand."

[babylonsister]

44. Pls. explain how Kerry 'almost blew it' in the past election.

I had no clue he was so all-powerful; he misspeaks once, and the fate of the democratic party was in jeopardy?

[Cyrano]

16. Dawgs, I don't stand for or against Obama or Kerry. My OP is merely

a personal opinion that says more about the American public than it does about any potential candidate.

[Inuca]

45. I happen to like both Obama and Kerry, but..

... did you stop to ask yourself WHY those many republicans love Obama and hate Kerry?

[Dawgs]

5. Interesting that out of your four top candidates, three are...

considered to have already lost in previous elections.

[BOSSHOG]

6. We may yet to have heard of the Dem Nominee

Some obscure congressman may reach up and grab the ring.

I'm with the General right now, but I do believe that if Hillary runs, her attackers will be in for an awesome fight. I've yet to warm to her but if she comes out swinging and taking on the right wing hate machine and taking it down, she would be formidable. And the right wing hate machine is not going to attack her on anything substantive so her task would be rather easy and she has proven she can speak loudly, long and often.

[Dawgs]

8. "The Scream" proves Howard Dean is "totally insane".

Wow, you really do think that Americans are dumb.

[Cyrano]

20. Yes, I really believe that far too many Americans are that dumb.

[andykef]

53. They are

Americans ARE stupid that is the point!!! Americans re-elected Bush and the World will take along time to forgive them. 3 MILLION more people voted for Bush over Kerry they sanctioned Bush's War and his Presidency.
Dean blew it because he showed a side to him that frightened the voters and played into the hands of the corporate media. The same with Kerry and his joke.
The GOP will destroy anyone with a weakness Kerry and Dean showed weakness and therefore are not good enough for 2008.

[cali]

11. I'll toast ya like a marshmallow over a campfire for this one.

First of all, 2 out of the 5 you listed aren't running- total red herrings. Why bother to list Dean and Pelosi? It's silly. I think you are dead wrong about Obama. Yes, there is still deep seated racism in this country, but let me point to Harold Ford's close race in TN. He lost by something like 2 points and got a lot of white votes in TN. Times are changing. Obama is a uniquely gifted candidate, and I agree with those who state that he has the kind of charisma that hasn't been seen for some time.

I also disagree with you about Hillary. I'm no fan, but underestimate her skill and power at your peril.

John Kerry cannot win. He'd be an excellent candidate. He's a terrible campaigner.

I do agree with you about voting for whoever the nominee is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Howard Ford couldn't win when there was a strong anti-GOP tide

Imagine how much he would have lost by if it were a normal year.

[cali]

21. Howard Ford.

You don't even know the candidate's name, for christ's sake. He did remarkably well in a southern state. He's not obama. Gore lost his home state of TN. Obama would not lose his home state. That's just a few of the differences.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. He certainly did do well, but he did not win

I'm not sure that an African-American candidate can win a major state-wide election in TN.

[Cyrano]

25. I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat. Nonetheless, I still think that bigotry

runs far too deep, even in this day and age, among far too many Americans. I wish it were not so. And I would love to be proven wrong.

There is nothing I'd rather say than the words "President Barak Obama." I just believe that a majority of American voters would not like to hear those words. (Damn, there's never a magic wand around when you need one.)

[KingFlorez]

22. It's Harold Ford

And even if he didn't win, he did remarkably well as a Democrat in a southern state.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Remarkedly well doesn't equate to any electoral votes

McCaskill, Webb, and Ford all ran as moderate Democrats in southern states. The only difference between the winners and the loser was race. All it takes is a small percentage of racists to lose a close race.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Tennessee is also more red than Missouri and Virginia

Kerry got 42.5% of the vote in Tennessee, 45.5% in Virginia, and 46% in Missouri. That may seem like a small amount except for the fact that Ford only lost by 3%.

I'm not doubting the possibility Ford's race hurt him in Tennessee but I'm saying that place him in a state that's ever so slightly more blue and he might have won.

The only way we are taking Tennessee in '08 is in a massive landslide or possibly if Gore is our nominee and Tennesseans are more warm to him than they were last time.

[KingFlorez]

41. I didn't say it did

Tennessee is still a Republican state, it's quite difficult to overcome the Republican strength. Racist voters didn't tip the race, because they were going to vote Republican regardless of who the Democrat was.

[sandnsea]

12. Really too far out to say

All sorts of things can happen in the next 2 years that could shift the type of President the country wants. However, I really disagree that the country wouldn't elect Obama. Those who wouldn't vote for him aren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway. People under 45 will be thrilled to vote for ABB - Anybody But a Boomer. If he can spend the next 2 years building a concensus for his political philosophy, he could sail right into the White House on the biggest wave ever. He's better than Bill, just not sure when it's in his best interest to run, now or in 8 years.

[savemefromdumbya]

14. registered Democrats will pick Hillary

I think that is certain

[KingFlorez]

18. John Kerry can't win

He couldn't win in 2004. And the fact he refused to defend himself against personal attacks makes him a poor candidate.

[demdiva]

38. This argument is repeated over and over but it makes no sense to me,

So the Republicans were able to attack John Kerry unfairly in 2004. What does this have to do with 2008? This argument never makes any sense to me ... because now, two years later, everyone knows that the Republican Party was corrupt and these attacks were baseless. Senator Warner even said so on the Senate floor. And that was ALL they had on Kerry. That's it. BASELESS attacks. After an entire presidential election, where I guarantee you people were looking for much worse (and trying to make other lies....like the intern) stick ...that's it.

[KingFlorez]

42. It has everything to do with 2008

They'll attack him all over again and he probably won't defend himself. He was afraid to stand up and fight back, we don't need a candidate like that.

[demdiva]

43. That is just simply not true

...He's not afraid to defend himself. He has and will defend himself from baseless attacks. John Kerry is still a good candidate in my book

[Ganja Ninja]

19. There are only two Democrats that I want to see run.

Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. They are the two people that I think are a safe bet to clean up W's mess the fastest.

I don't think Hillary is as poisonous as people think and it's looking better for her as time goes on and GOP fortunes fall.

The rest appear to me to be VP material. Not that any of them wouldn't make a good president but I would prefer to see one them in that role and my preference is Clark among those.

Overall the ticket I would like to see is Gore/Clark.

[WI_DEM]

26. IMO

can win:
all of them--even Hillary and especially Obama.

I'm leaving Pelosi and Dean out of it because they aren't running, and so I don't know why they would be included.

In order of who I think has the best shot of winning:

1) Barack Obama--a new fresh face and very charismatic. His lack of experience is nothing compared to Bush's or even Adlai Stevenson, Abe Lincoln or Wendell Willke when they were nominated by their parties. I think this country hungers for new faces, new ideas and somebody who can actually speak to the American people.

2) Al Gore--Gore seems to have changed since 2000. He is experienced and respected. He was right on Iraq and actually did win the 2000 election. Activists in the party like him. His draw back is that he is well known and many people have formed an opinion of him and his disapproval rating is about as high as his approval rating.

3) John Edwards--for many of the same reasons as Obama. He also has an issue which is Kennedyesque (RFK) in poverty. Great family and terrific potential first lady in Elizabeth.

4) Wesley Clark--He may be able to blunt some of the military appeal of a John McCain. While he has never held elective office he has lots of experience in the military. This might be a plus. Could conceivably compete in some southern states.

5) Bill Richardson--if we were going to nominate someone just on experience it seems like Richardson might be the man: congressman, UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, Popular Governor, diplomatic trouble-shooter. He comes from a part of a country which is getting bluer and as a latino he represents a fast rising voting bloc.

6) Tom Vilsack--his big obstacle is being nominated, but if he is, he might make an effective general election candidate. A former marine. Good record as Governor. Tall and imposing, but kind of boring--that is one of his drawbacks. Comes from a key region of the country and a state we only narrowly lost in 2004.

7) Evan Bayh--again his big obstacle is being nominated. If he is he has broad experience and is attractive and comes from a key electoral part of the country. Drawbacks is, again, a lack of charisma and appeal among the democratic left.

8) Hillary Clinton--she can win, but it wouldn't be easy. She has high amount of people who already know her and has formed an opinion about her. Her strong point would be the uniqueness of nominating a woman which might appeal to activist women, but as Gerry Ferarro proved in '84 it doesn't mean that women will automatically vote for her. There is a question if she could compete in the south and may even have a tough time in some blue states. Her other strong point is her name and an effective campaigner in Bill Clinton.

9) John Kerry--The big problem is that many people don't seem to like him, according to polls, he has a high personal disapproval rating. He seems to put his foot in his mouth (not as much as Bush, but the media doesn't pay any attention to Bush's gaffes). He got 59 million votes in 2004, a record for a dem, but many people thought that was an election we should have won (and may have, but even if Kerry took Ohio he would have lost the popular vote to George W. Bush!).

10) Dennis Kucinich--the top choice of the angry left. A man of passion and integrity. But many don't take him seriously. There is a question if he could put together a winning coalition of democrats, independents and disaffected republicans to actually win a general election.

[Brazenly Liberal]

28. You're wrong about Obama

Not that racial prejudice doesn't still exist. It does and it's just as ugly as ever.

But there's some weird kind of disconnect with Obama.

When we moved from a major city to this sleepy farming county, we were shocked and disgusted at the level of overt racism that exists here. Two typical examples:

** A neighbor mentioned that some drug dealers had driven past his house twice that day. My husband made a joke about what's he up to that he has drug dealers visiting him twice a day. "Oh, no, these weren't anyone I know." "Then how do you know they were drug dealers?" "Three n_____s in a Beamer. What else could they be?"

** Several years ago, a school not too far from us had a racial incident that was serious enough to shut down the school for several days. There are no black students at that school and, as far as I know, none who want to go to that school. They managed to have a major racial incident because a couple of 15 year old girls were dressing in a style other students thought was "too black."

And yet, Barack Obama is wildly popular around here.

[Cyrano]

33. Sometimes, I am ashamed to be a member of the human species.

Unfortunately, racism, tribalism, religion, us-vs-them-ism, and even politics, seems to be an alien trait embedded in human beings.

I don't know whether or not I will live long enough to see a black president, a Muslim president, a Jewish president, a Hindu president, a Shinto president, an atheist president, or anything other than a white, Christian, male president.

I can still recall the lyrics to Bob Dylan's "Blowing in the Wind." Yet, it seems that humanity advances only in the "art" of war. As far as peace, tolerance, and just basic humanity, we seem to be stuck somewhere in the far distant past.

There are species other than us who eat their young. Are we doomed to never learn anything? If so, then we deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs?

[Brazenly Liberal]

37. I don't want to hijack the thread

but I have a theory about racism and other forms of xenophobia. While it can be - and is - taught, that wouldn't account for the hideous degree to which it persists in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I believe it is an atavistic trait. Basically, a racist is a throwback to a time in the prehistoric past when survival meant recognizing immediately who was one of your tribe. Not in terms of black or white skin, but more generally who "looks right" A lizard brain reaction that is resurfacing at a time when it is no longer useful and is, in fact, harmful and self defeating.

By this theory, calling a racist a neanderthal would be just about right. And sometimes I wonder, as you do, if humans are doomed to become extinct by virtue of our own inability as a species to learn and evolve when it matters.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. It all depends on who the GOP nominates, if they nominate Sam Brownback

I'd even say that Kucinich could run a competative campaign against him. I think that Hillary, Obama, or anyone else nominated would crush Brownback or Mittens. McCain will be the one to beat and in that case I'd say that we have to narrow down who stands the best shot against him.

[lutefisk]

32. It matters. They're evil, often incompetent, but not stupid.

It absolutely matters who the GOP nominates for 2008. It's difficult not to, at least subconsciously, measure any Democratic candidate as if he or she were running against the hated Chimperor. Unfortunately, the candidate will have a more capable opponent than Junior in 2008.

I know this sounds highly unlikely, but I still believe that McCain is deep down mentally unstable and not that great a candidate, and he is just being used (even though he doesn't know it yet) by his Republican masters. I think their best candidate, the one they've been building up lately, is... Dr. Condoleeza Rice. The scenario is: Cheney "goes" and Rice replaces him, setting her up perfectly for 2008. What are Republicans going to do- vote for Clinton or Obama over Rice? Hardly. And the corporate media has enough to work with in Condoleeza's background to promote her endlessly while working their soft little fingers to the bone ripping apart Clinton or Obama.

Gore is the only potential and viable candidate who will be able to take what the machine is going to throw at the Democratic candidate in 2008. That man is on a mission and hasn't wavered since he won in 2000.

[cadmium]

47. I really think it we shouldn't underestimate Romney--like Bush

They can create an image of him that will sell to the general public. Like Bush he can lie without blinking.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. 43% of the country won't vote for a mormon

And I have a feeling that a large percentage of those people aren't Democrats.

[cadmium]

50. I hope you are right. I am not optimistic about what people can be

herded into believing when the preacher tells them. Preachers could get the talking points to tell people Romney is OK

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Romney is trying to be the candidate of the religious right

And that's something he will fail at miserably because a large chunk of them won't vote for him due to his religion. Secondly by choosing to be the candidate of the religious right he will have zero appeal nationwide.

Just because he's Governor of Massachusetts doesn't mean he's going to put blue states into play. His state probably would've thrown his ass out had he decided to run for Governor.

[Odin2005]

30. Replace Obama with Kerry.

Sorry, but Kerry has a pathetic lack of charisma.

[bullwinkle428]

34. Kerry can win but Obama can't? Sorry, I can't see any possible

scenario where things would work out in such a manner...

[demdiva]

35. I agree with Kerry but disagree with Obama

I think Kerry is not over, as some would like to see happen, but only if democratic consultants and the media stop their sore loser 2004 bs ... they will if they see some push from Kerry, esp the media who still love a good comeback story.

I do however this Obama can take the nod. My ideal ticket for 2008, however is still Kerry/Obama (although I'm now starting to consider Obama/Kerry too). In the end, I think that Barack means TURNOUT for the democratic base like you've never seen before. I really believe that.

[dysfunctional press]

36. john kerry is on the wrong list

Al Gore is the MAN in '08. his time has come...AGAIN.

[RiverStone]

39. Can! Obama - - Can't! Kerry

Otherwise, we agree.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. i hate to admit you are right...but i do think so

i dont think anyone will vote for a woman/black man among swing voters

[wisteria]

46. Kerry can win. They can' t touch Senator kerry with anything any longer. They

have run out of their bag of tricks. Kerry will not have to be wasting his time defending his ideas and his reputation, he has already been their and done that. He can be the candidate that can run on and get the attention based on the issues. Our party would be crazy to not allow him another chance to run.

[WI_DEM]

48. I don't know about this, they just got him again over his botched joke

just before the '06 election. He even had to call off his campaigning and then make an "apology".

[andykef]

52. GORE 2008

I agree that these people cannot win but I would add Clark and Edwards to the list and I am afraid Kerry is going nowhere after "that" joke.
I think the Democrats need to get serious about 2008. It is important to win Bush has caused so much damage we cannot afford another 4-8 years of GOP.
Rodham-Clinton - cannot win - causes too much division
Obama - cannot win - not got enough experience
Clark - cannot win - poor campaigner and no electoral experience
Edwards - cannot win - not credible in the security climate not in office.

GORE - Gore is the only candidate at present that I can think of where a strong case can be made in terms of Presidential politics. I also like Bayh but he is a Senator and he is challenged in terms of charisma.

[LWolf]

54. No flames; just a different perspective on "winning."

I don't think anyone "wins" anything by campaigning, and possibly electing, less than the best. If people nominate the best, and then run a great campaign, I think the best can win.

If I don't think the best can win, I have no real reason to participate one way or the other. :shrug:

I like Gore. I voted for him in 2000. I would probably vote for him again in '08. I won't vote for him, or anyone, in a primary based on whether or not I think they can "win," though. I'll base my vote on their platform and their record. That's the only way I "win;" if someone who has strong positions and records on the issues I want action on "wins."

I think the obsessive focus on predicting who can "win," rather than focusing on working to make sure the best DOES win, is self-defeating.