Who do you honestly believe the 2008 Democrat Presidential Nominee will be

[sandrakae]

I would like to know everyones opinion,not who we want it to be, but who we really thing it will be and why.

I think it is going to be John Kerry. I honestly do not think Hilary will run and I cannot think of anyone else in the party that can step up to the plate.

[sandnsea]

1. Too soon to say

I think it's dependent on whether the country wakes up from this rightward slide or not. If it doesn't, it could go two ways. The base could unite and choose Feingold, or the centrists could unite and choose Warner or Clark. Yes, Clark is a centrist. If the country as a whole wakes up and rejects right wing politics, Democrats could come together and choose Kerry as a good compromise candidate who can unite the country around a more liberally pragmatic government. I don't see Hillary at all, nobody wants her. Liberals sure don't and centrists see her as political poison. The only way she could win is to somehow steamroll everybody else, she has alot of Clinton power and I don't understimate that. But to me, there is just too much in the air to say anything about 2008 for sure.

[beachmom]

2. John Kerry or Mark Warner

I will give Warner the edge because he is more centrist, and may snag more Independent and red state votes (which primary Dem voters may factor in when casting their choice). The big if for him is if he can hold his own debating John Kerry on national security issues.

Hillary Clinton is just a giant sideshow. Anyone see her on Q&A on C-SPAN this week? She just looks severe, never smiles, and has no charisma. I'm not saying Mark Warner is Mr. Charisma, but he is at least folksy and self deprecating. John Kerry has the most charisma except maybe for John Edwards, but if he wants to win, he's got to put his heart on his sleeve every day. And there is also a media problem very much in evidence with the way he was pummelled last weekend. To be blunt, the entire MSM is against JK. How to overcome this I don't know. The MSM are facinated with Hillary, but also may push Warner, too. Kerry may be able to take the progressive vote with Hillary and Warner splitting the more centrist voters. But if Feingold runs, then that may also split the progressive vote. The person who wins probably won't by an overwhelming margin.

As far as the others go, no way. Only exception: Evan Bayh, because I've never seen him speak. But he's another centrist Dem, too, right?

I'm not going to lie to you guys. JK is a big time underdog for '08. I can't quite fathom how he could pull it off, but I'm willing to go along for the ride to see what he is made of. Well, I know he's capable of a lot, but he's MUCH more of an underdog this time than the last time. But I think he should run, because he will add so much to the primary campaign. If someone else beats him, they will have been made that much better competing against him.

[wisteria]

7. I don't think being a centrist is going to be our winning ticket in 08.

I think the country is going to be ready for a big change. I agree that Kerry is the underdog here and it is a difficult struggle to stay ahead of the game, but he is out there pushing and getting a message out.He has steel determination and if anyone can pull this off it is Kerry.

I definitely do not share your opinion on Warner. He is too green for my liking and if experience and enthusiasm means anything- Kerry will out shine him big time. I suppose he is more appealing to the Red States,but how will he actually fair in the North and Mid-west. Everybody seems to be forgetting that there are more than red states in this country. Any way, this is my opinion and I don't mean to get you upset over Warner.

[beachmom]

9. Doesn't upset me at all, Wisteria! I just know Warner better than

the others (except JK), so maybe that makes me biased.

Let's face it -- this is a tough call, like picking stocks. Who knows WHAT'S going to happen.

But I definitely want JK as prez. No doubt about that.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. I think that's what is so hard about 2008

So many great democrats will be running. Warner isn't my absolute perfect canidate but he does have a lot of positive qualities.

[karynnj]

22. I may be very wrong, but I think the "governor" theory makes no sense

Both Carter and Clinton (the only 2 Democratic Southern Governors) were elected in periods of relative international tranquility. Governor Warner has very little experience - and no foreign poicy or national policy experience. If you remember in 2004, Edwards - charming, Southern and intelligent looked like a novice when it came to foreign policy compared to Kerry. Edwards has more experience here than Warner.

My counter to the Southern Governor theory is that if Kerry would have had better party support, better media support, and better voting machines - you could as easily say that the best way to win the Presidency is with a MA Senator. (2 MA Senators, 2 Southern governors). The numbers are too few and the variables too many to go from this.

I agree that the MSM is very unfriendly to Kerry - although there is a at times a glimpse of respect. (Think of Blitzer whan Kerry was in Iraq and Israel or Matthews when Kerry had him to his Senate office.) Even at the McClellan press conference, one of the reporters said saomthing like you knoe he wasn't there to ski. This would not have happened earlier. Also, I don't think the press went after Kerry's slip on the education number. Drudge and likely hate radio did - but it wasn't treated the way some feared.

I do think Hillary will run. Like you, I don't think her numbers are based either on her legislative record or her accomplishments. It is Bill Clinton picking the candidate. It really looks as though she will win and if so she will be hard to stop. Clark, Warner, Bayh, Biden and Vilsack have a problem - they are in almost the same position.

If Feingold opts out because he can't raise enough money or he realizes he can't win, Kerry may be in a good position. The one person I haven't mentioned is Edwards. He might actually be one of the bigger threats to Kerry. He is really far more conservative - but I get the feeling that he will put himself where he needs to be to win. He will likely try to be the populist candidate fighting for the littel guy. He has no more experience now than he did when he had too little experience to win in 2004 and I think he was unimpressive in his debate - but I wouldn't rule him out because the media loved him and he is very slick.

If a "southern" governor is wanted, Bayh (who was Governor of Indiana, which (except for the Chicago area) is culturally a southern state) and will have been Senator for 10 years in 2008. He is suppose to have a very nice family and, other than being Bland, he's a nice guy. He could easily out do Warner. He might not be able to carry Indiana - but he would likely cover neighboring Ohio.

[Mass]

23. The theory of the Southern Governor is built on a non-truth

that Clinton won the WH because he was a Southern Governor. The people who push this theory do not remember that he only got 43 % of the vote.

I agree with you that Bayh should not be disregarded. I see him as a serious possibility for the nomination (both governor and Senator, has been senator long enough, moderate, but not that moderate that he is going to frighten more progressive Democrats).

I dont think that Feingold will get it for the same reason than Warner will get it (which was the reason Dean could not get it). They will get about 20% of the votes if all is fine, but they will have difficulties having more than that for them.

I will let Edwards out of my discussion because I would not be objective about him.

[karynnj]

27. They forget a lot about the Clinton win

1) They forget that by summer 1992, Bush was below 40 % in the polls (almost 10 points lower than his son in 2004). The war was over, the press really was down on him - remember that they actually showed video of him covering the unfortunate dinner with the Japanese PM.
2) Clinton for a period in time was number 3 against Bush and Perot.
3) Perot fired all his ammunition at Bush. When Perot self destructed by saying Bush was trying to ruin his daughter's wedding (and I think was spying on him or something) and left the race, Clinton inherited the bulk of those people. When he re-entered, he never got the same numbers.
4) The media was in love with Clinton and down played all the revelvations (consider what Kerry's numbers would have been if there were a Jennifer Flowers, where he denied everything and a tape existed of phone conversations or something comparable to the extremely snarky letter send to the ROTC person who kept him out of the draft - when his help was no longer needed. (the tone of the letter, not avoiding the military is the problem)).

I agree with your analysis on Feingold and Warner. Feingold's Patriot act vote could even hurt him in the primaries - imagine Kerry (or someone else) in a debate listing all the needed provisions. Feingold is well positioned to ask the questions on spying, but he really was pretty lack luster on Alito - and this was not the same as a President getting his cabinet.

I was trying to be fair to Edwards, but it is only Elizabeth that let me trust him at all. His cavilier "I was wrong" that led Stephanopolis to suggest he could be the anti-war candidate just seemed too lacking in any obvious angst. (Kerry, who was never for war, sounded far more sincere when he said he accepted his part of responsibility.) I was very disturbed by the stories of the manipulative techniques he used in his court cases. It was also interesting reading those while at the same time reading how Kerry rejected the wealth he could have had from a similar career to be an elected official instead. (I knew this was a little unfair - Kerry started with connections and had access to those things wealth provides, but it does show a difference.)

[FreedomAngel82]

29. I remember sometime last year

in the early/mid part of the year and Stephanie Miller read a poll that told how Kerry had a 80% of an approval raiting with democrats and that was the highest approval raiting a former presidential nominee had with his/her own party. I think Kerry has been doing all the right moves lately whether he's meaning to or not.

[wisteria]

3. More often then not, I think it is looking better and better for Kerry.

I don't think that he is what some of the party want though. Speaking of Hillary, seems more and more the Repubs are distancing themselve from her and don't appear as enthusisatic, although this may be a ploy also. Have you seen some of Melman's comments about her being to angry and this is not the behaviour that gets people elected President?

http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/02/05/319584.html&cvqh=itn&ts=2006.02.05_14.00

[FreedomAngel82]

31. I think if it had to come down

to Hillary and Kerry than Kerry would get the nomination.

[LeftyLizzie]

4. I don't know, BUT

I think people like John Kerry more than they're willing to admit. I was at a party with a bunch of my Democrat friends last week, and after everybody had had a few drinks, we were discussing politics, the nominee, etc (I don't know about other schools, but when you go to college in DC, you DO stand around a keg and debate politics, and as far as I'm concerned, that's fantastic!). I was telling people that I really did like John Kerry, despite what anyone else said, and other people were saying that they liked him, too. I think it's just that people are often a bit shy to admit that they like him, but when they're in a situation where they're a bit more, um, comfortable, they tell you how they really feel. I just wonder if enough people will stand up and support him if/when he decides to run again.

[karynnj]

24. I think it's a case of very few people wanting to be outside the

"conventional wisdom" of their social group. Here, you having the courage and honesty to say you like Kerry gave others permission to agree.

I do think that Kerry did "get to" more people than those willing to admit it - look at the response on Kos. The volume was very high on each of his three blogs - but what was more telling was the level of emotion.
Also, notice that every time they feel something has to be done - there mantra is Kerry should .... or If Kerry doesn't .... I will never support him again. (For example, Feingold is on the judiciary committee, but I heard NO call for him to do anything. In fact, some of his supporters wondered how he would vote. Then he casts a meaningless vote against the extension of the Patriot Act and he is preseving indivdual rights? I suspect that the lack of demands placed on him reflect that people have invested little in him.)

When you look at the list of possible candidates, Kerry really towers above all of them in terms of background, knowledge and gravitas. Only Hillary has the same name recognition.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. I think so too

I think when they know they're not a lone in liking Kerry they'll come out and say so. Of course me being a big Kerrycrat that I am I'm never afraid to show my Kerry love.

[MH1]

5. I believe in John Kerry

There are big strikes against all of the potential nominees. Kerry's already been through it - I don't believe there's much if anything left to throw at him.

When I talk to people in the real world, most who voted for him still think highly of John Kerry. They may be thinking of someone else for 2008 now, but when the primary battles get going, I think JK will stand above the rest and people will realize he's still the best choice.

Assuming of course, that he even runs. ;)

[Kerry fan]

6. I say John Kerry will be our next president.

[beachmom]

8. You guys are AWESOME in your optimism!

I hope you're right, and my tendency toward not getting my hopes too high is dead wrong!

[blm]

10. I don't see anyone who can beat Kerry in the series of debates

and Democrats examine candidates under those conditions where Republicans prefer the guy with the best soundbite to attract dumb people.

[blm]

40. Adding to this - I do think Clark would do well in debates, too.

I just don't think his chops are as honed as Kerry's.

But, I always want to hear Clark do well. I like him.

[BlueIris]

42. Clark is the only other person I'm remotely interested in supporting.

He's also the only other person I'd be remotely okay with voting for.

[Mass]

11. Hard to say - If anything, I wonder what people would have said

in 2002 if they had been asked.

I see three groups of candidates:

- Candidates that are either governors or/and from the South: at this point, only two seem to have some traction, Warner and Edwards. It is however hard to know if the traction comes from the media or if there is a real grassroot support (not netroots) behind them.

- Hillary, Bayh, Biden. I dont see Hillary getting it. She is way to divisive at several levels. I dont see Biden either have it. Can Bayh pull it? I dont know. I think people should not dismiss him. He is playing his centrism a lot more smartly than Hillary is.

Feingold is the 2003 Dean. The netroots love him because of his "principled" positions on issues they care about, but if you look at what he did in 12 years in the Senate, his only real accomplishment seems to be McCain Feingold and McCain is the one who is largely credited for that. In addition, I think that not voting for the Patriot Act is going to be a negative for him for anybody else than the left wing of the party.

I think that a reason why Kerry won in 2004 is that he was both acceptable to the centrists and the progressives in the party. Somebody like that is going to win the primary in 2008. I dont know if it is Kerry or somebody else (I certainly hope he is the one), but I dont think that Warner and Feingold are going to be the ones. Both will alienate a part of the party.

[BlueIris]

43. Excellent points about Feingold and Warner.

It never occurred to me that--in the absence of JK--we might see a McCain-Feingold square-off in 2008. That would be bizarre, and possibly work to the Republicans extreme advantage. Kind of makes me think that if Warner runs, the Party may attempt to back him to avoid the weirdness of a potential McCain vs. Feingold race.

[emulatorloo]

12. John McCain

as to Dems, it is hard to say, but I think Kerry's chances are getting better.

[_dynamicdems]

13. Difficult to say since nobody has actually announced yet, but...

Some people are going to go for Warner: fresh face.

The Democratic Party is firmly behind Clinton.

Feingold has a lot of support, but he'll have two divorces under his belt, and that will hurt in the red areas.

JK is the dark horse/mystery man. It seems like he will run, but you can never be certain just what he is up to.

It will be one of the four. Biden is running for Vice President and he knows it. So are a few others. John Edwards may make an attempt, but he's not going to get far. He wasn't a great vote getter for Kerry and he won't be the fresh face anymore.

As it looks now:

Clinton
Feingold-Warner neck-in-neck

Unfortunately, I think Clinton has a very poor chance of winning in the general election. Because of this she will likely have a lot of Republican support in the primaries. The party likes her because she's a politician's politician. That is not good for us regular folk. I'd be happier with Feingold. He's closer to JK than Warner, IMHO.

The big mystery is JK. What are his plans? He's gathering money and support across the country, but how his he going to use it? He could pull off a great upset. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. I guess what I am saying is: JK can determine the outcome of the race either as a candidate or by supporting a candidate. I think he's going to be more influential than anyone realizes. Just a hunch. I'd also say he has his game plans already in place. He may not have decided yet, but he's planning for both possibilities, that's a given.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. How did Kerry announce last time?

[_dynamicdems]

38. Didn't he give a speech on a big boat? I'm not sure when the

word actually leaked out. I think it was before the big announcement. TayTay will know the answer!

[Island Blue]

14. I think it will depend on what happens during the next year.

How much of the Bush onion will be peeled? If enough is revealed, then I think people will begin to take another honest look at what they could have had in John Kerry - they will see that he was right all along, and that he was (and still is) the best person to lead the nation. That's what I hope anyway. It appears that there will be a lot of high profile folks running in '08 for the Democratic nomination, so Kerry's experience and his proven ability to weather the storm may well pay off if he should decide to run again.

As for the Repukes? I think their candidate will be a relatively unknown southern governor. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.

[globalvillage]

18. I'm with you, IB

And for pretty much the same reason.

[ginnyinWI]

15. Maybe Al Gore

If he decides to run--he'd be a formidable opponent for JK. He's very smart, and Dems, at least, acknowledge that he really won the 2000 election.

He's left of Bill Clinton, but I don't think quite as left as JK is. Regardless of what DU thinks!

[globalvillage]

16. My prediction? Darkest before the dawn.

This is a pretty gloomy scenario, in a way, but every day that goes by with bush* in power is going to reinforce to the Dem party that the only way back is to support the one person who can restore what we've lost. Someone with strong foreign and domestic credentials who has a proven track record. We will need experience. Not a neophyte, not 'new blood'.
And we all know who that person is.
It will be less about who they want and more about who we need. By '08, at the rate we're going, IMO, we will be in critical condition. And Democrats will do what we didn't do last time and back the Senator 100%.
If we're smart.
Hell, when bush* is done, some of the potential nominees may not even want it.
Sad, ain't it?
What makes my prediction palatable, besides the obvious (President Kerry), is that I believe the Senator can lead us to a recovery and undo most, if not all of the damage bush* has done. He can turn this ship around, and that's something he's uniquely qualified to do.

JMHO.

Anyway, eyes on the prize.

[Inuca]

17. Unfortunately...

... I think that the "northeastern liberal senator" label will continue to hurt. Of course it does not only apply to JK. I think it is stupid myself, but I don't think that large enough a number of people agree with me, including whoever the actual string pullers and manipulators are in the party. I think that many as of yet unforeseen circumstances would have to happen for somebody to whom that label applies to be nominated. Otherwise both voters in the primaries and the party higher ups will want to "play it safe" and run away at the very least from north easterners. If I am right (I hope I am not), this would help Gore, Warner, possibly Vilsack, Richardson (the only one I like in this list being Gore). Also, what I am really AFRAID of is for JK to get the nomination and lose the election. Too painful to contemplate, an awful unfairness of history, much worse than the first time around (for him and for those who hold him dear, not necessarily for the country and the world, difficult to envisage somebody worse than what we have now winning the republican nomination, though a few names do come to mind).

[wisteria]

20. I see this liberal label as a glass half-full, It may hurt some with

the far right crowd, but I don't think Kerry comes off as being a "loony Liberal". He didn't campaign down South the last time so they had no opportunity to get to meet him and know him. He is also the only Dem I have heard that has an answer for and an idea for taking this country forward. He cares, and I think people are starting to take notice of this.
I for one, hope we don't play it safe. I don't think this country is so much looking for a moderate from the South as they are a leader. I can think of no one else who fits this bill. Anyway, the others-none of them enthuses me at all. I am not concerned about him getting elected once he as the nomination as I am about him going through the primaries again.
If he doesn't try this time, he should try again in 2012. If the country does elect another Republican this time, they are going to be sick to death with them by 2012.

[Inuca]

25. I did not mean...

... that he comes off as a "loony liberal", I do not think that to anybody that LISTENS to him he can come off as loony anything, but how many people actually listen? Also my apprehension was mostly about those who ARE involved in the "game" and their political calculations that may want to try to avoid a label that was painted as a dirty word. I do hope that people will have more brains and sense of perspective, but I am not an optimist by nature, and I was already shocked beyond words at the near-mindedness, myopic attitude, and sheer ineptitude of the millions upon millions that voted for the disgusting disaster that we have now.

[FreedomAngel82]

35. I think when the 2008 elections come up

People won't care about the silly labels. I think in 2008 it will depend on what the issues are to who will win. As Bill Clinton said on the "Daily Show" that "when people think democrats win." So I think 2008 will be a good chance for a democrat whether Kerry (I hope, I hope!) or not because I think in 2008 people will be wanting to talk about health care (hopefully this president will make a national health care program), social security, jobs/economy etc. Other issues will of course pop up too but I just feel it that things will be differnet in 2008 with the issues and this will help the democrats a lot.

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. I really do believe John Kerry will be the President

I think he has a clear advantage over all the other nominees. He has "it" - that intangible quality - call it presidential dignity - that I just cannot for the life of me see in Feingold, Clinton, Warner, or any of our other hopefuls. There are numerous other more tangible reasons, but others have enumerated those, so I'll save the space. :P But I really do feel like he'll be the President elect come the evening of November 4th, 2008.

[wisteria]

21. Hold onto that though. I do to, if there is any justice and fairness

left in this country-he will be President.

[Inuca]

26. As to that...

... I wholeheartedly agree.

[FreedomAngel82]

28. I don't think Hillary is going to run either

Call it a strong "gut" feeling. I just don't think she is and I remember reading an interview with Bill once last year and he said he thought she wasn't running either. I still have this very very very strong pull towards Kerry again. Of course I could be just biased. Even psychic Sylvia Browne has said Kerry will win in 2008. I have seen him win in visions but I didn't get any type of dates. I didn't see Edwards around so I guess that should've clued me in.

[jenndar]

34. Is Sylvia Browne the woman the Medium show is about?

I remember the Medium lady saying that she had a vision of JK as president, but she couldn't tell what year.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. She is a psychic who appears on Montel a lot

I do feel iffy feelings with her on some of her visions and predictions etc. but this one feels so strong. I too had a vision of Kerry winning and being sworn in (I remember what everyone was wearing too and it was like I was there) but couldn't feel what year but it felt very soon. I think that's why I thought he was going to be sworn in this past election.

[jenndar]

37. Right, I don't even completely believe in stuff like that.

But on the other hand, I have such a strong feeling about it myself that stuff like that is always nice to read. There was definitely something in the air in 2004 that went WAY beyond ABB for a lot of people, and I don't think that feeling has gone away.

[globalvillage]

41. Listen to this from Aug '04

Merlin project. There's audio about halfway down the page.

http://www.accessbest.com/merlin/

United States - George W. Bush's Timetrak® tapers off after this year, while both Kerry and Edwards' are on the rise for the next 8 years.

"... It looks like Bush gets a huge (spike) towards the end of 2004 then trickles down to nothing for the next four years, where Kerry gets a lower (spike) in 2004 and then gets huge numbers during the next four years..."

You gotta believe.

[BlueIris]

39. I honestly think it'll be Kerry.

I had a brief flicker of doubt in early '05, but it's been gone since--well, since then, and it was probably silly that I ever had the flicker to begin with. Really silly.

My reasons for knowing that Kerry will be president are simple actually, if a little depressing: he still wants the job, as bad as conditions are around the globe at the moment, and after things like the crushing betrayals that were the doubt of his own supporters and the cowardly, capitulating, whiny, homophobic, misogynist assholes moderates in this Party. Quite frankly, by 2007, when he will need to have made his final choice about whether to go through with the run or not, no one else is going to have the guts or desire to tackle the high holy mess this country will have become at that point. I don't hate the other glad-handing, corrupt alternates the far right and the controlling, immature, superficial, egocentric jerks on the "left" are less threatened by potential candidates, but they are saplings in the shadow of a matured cedar next to JK. I know that handling of the media will still have to be done carefully, as will attempts to prevent more flagrant election fraud, but if you ask me? It's still not even going to be close.

[politicasista]

44. It really depends on the outcome of the 2006 elections

I too think Kerry should get another chance at it (with a new campaign strategy), but if he decides not to run, my second choice is Gore. It's too soon to tell.