Lots of talk of a southerner on the ticket for 2008, but...

[WI_DEM]

just because Bill Clinton won a few southern states doesn't guarantee that any southerner will do if he doesn't have Clintonesque charisma and the ability to move people. I've seen posts for John Breaux and Sam Nunn--and I seriously doubt these gentlemen would do what Bill Clinton did in the south or elsewhere. Clinton electrified the base even though he moved the party to the right. Breaux and Nunn would turnoff the base. I don't know enough about Mark Warner? does he have the Clinton touch?

Also, in 1992 and 1996 Clinton had Ross Perot running which helped him in the south. It can be argued that Perot's presence on the ballot was what gave Clinton Florida in 1996 and made it possible for him to win a few southern states during those years.

A southern candidate is no guarantee of electoral victory. Look at Al Gore of Tennessee. He didn't carry a single southern state, well yes, he did win Florida, but we know what happened there. Still it was with Gore that we began to lose our hold on West Virginia.

I'm not discounting a southerner on the Democratic ticket or leading it in 2008, but it is no gurantee of victory and not every southern candidate can do what a master politician like Bill Clinton was able to do.

[mtnsnake]

1. Good point about Perot. I've often wondered what might have happened

had he not been running that year.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Clinton was a once in a lifetime politician.

It was not Clinton's issues or background that got him elected. It was Bill's charisma and superior political ability that got him elected.

This is what the DLC does not understand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Does That Mean We Are Doomed?

Cuz I already know who the Pug nominee is and where he will be from...