Bill Clinton was a good President in many respects. Unfortunately, what is perceived as Democrats as good policy is considered an absolute evil by Republicans. Anything associated with Bill Clinton will be viewed by anybody not a Democrat as "the same old stuff, just in a different package". We need fresh leadership...new blood. This means no Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, or God forbid John Kerry. Mark Warner or Wes Clark are my top picks as of right now. We can split the Republicans with either of those two candidates at the top of the ticket.

for over a year now.  Two southerners, including a 4-star general from Arkansas and successful governor of Virginia?  Sounds like a plan to me!

And I honestly don't think Gore will run again.  Being a politician, he enjoys the limelight--and is deservedly getting good press for his anti-global-warming advocacy.  And he seems to be weighing in at long last for "06 candidates.  Even if he were to run, would he cut a very wide swath in the notorious "I's"?  I don't think so.  Whereas Clark or Warner could draw a lot of independents in, as well as, possibly, some moderate Republicans.  Maybe, if Gore wants to run, he should try for Senate again?  Or be appointed to a post in the (hopefully) new Democratic cabinet.  But I don't think he will run for anything.

I like how that sounds...

Gore has found his footing in the last couple of years and has a lot to contribute, but I don't think its at the top of the ticket.  With our world and national concerns, just as Jim Webb is the best and only choice for Virginia and the country, Wes Clark is the answer to lead our country, get us back on track and away from the brink of some huge messes.  With Warner at his side, the two could be dynamite for the country.

Al Gore is a far worse candidate than in 2000.

In 2000, he was still viewed as a middle of the road Clintonite.

Now he's viewed as a far left wacko.

I'd take Clinton over him any day.

Repeating how Gore "is viewed" without challenging it just contributes to the misinformation.

Both have mojo in the base, both have rural appeal. People will cry Communist when they see Feingold on the ticket and then he'll be the sensible, trustworthy, well-spoken guy that's gotten elected three times in rural Wisconsin. All the  moderates with their ears open will wonder what's so wrong with him and why the right has been making so much noise. Plus he's balanced out by the rural appeal of Warner. There's no one I'd rather have running the executive branch than Mark Warner and there's no one I'd rather have breaking ties in the Senate than Russ Feingold.

I know it seems strange that two people with such strong netroots support wouldn't be a too-good-to-be-true package, but I can't imagine why not.

It's about leadership.  It's about experience.

Wes Clark should be at the top of the ticket in 2008.  There is so much damage to be repaired internationally that only one of his stature can restore the country to the model it used to be.

Hillary is poison, even among many Democrats.  Frankly, I can't find anybody here who wants her to run.  It would be the ugliest campaign in our lifetimes.  If you liked the Swift Boart Veterans for Truth, you'll just love the Whitewater Veterans for Truth, the Rose Law Firm Veterans for Truth, and all the rest.  She's a terrific Senator.  She should stay in the Senate and continue to build her power base there, but even if she could get elected, she would fight the slurs every day, reducing her effectiveness.

Only a Wes Clark can reach across the aisle to reunite the country.

Al Gore?  Head of the EPA.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

So what do you think Clark's chances are of winning the nomination?

Hi, Lowell.  Good to "see" you.

Gen. Clark talked about the obstacles when he was in San Francisco at the beginning of February.  It was just after he had delivered "The REAL State of the Union Address," and he said that he'd like to give the real real one someday.  But then he went on to say that since he doesn't hold an office, he has a very small staff and organization.  And, money is always a problem.

I've always wondered if he would be willing to take on Hillary.  The same may be true of Al Gore. 

But if Hillary does the noble thing and doesn't run, and if Gore keeps to his word that he's not interested, then it's an open field and Clark could have as good a chance as anybody.

He's certainly laying the foundation, speaking to and helping Democrats all over the country.  He'll have a fair number of chips in his pocket he can cash in should he decide to go for it.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

how do you think Clark would fare against Mark Warner?  :)

Clark should make mincemeat out of Warner if the media don't anoint Warner or Hillary before Clark has a chance.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

why you believe Clark will "make mincemeat out of Warner?"  Thanks!

P.S.  For those of you who don't know, Stan is a legend in the Clark movement, and also a good friend of mine.  We've been through a lot together, including plenty of disagreements! :)  But Stan's a great guy, no question about it, and I respect his opinion greatly.

Well, Lowell, thanks for the comments.  You weren't so shabby yourself in the Draft Clark days.

Gen. Clark is a highly polished debater, and I think his diplomatic and international affairs experience compared to Gov. Warner's will be a stark difference easily seen by voters.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

to the 2008 election?

I think this will be a dominant issue in 2008.  Rolled into the National Security ball of wax is diplomatic ties with the rest of the world, fixing the military/war situation, in addition to advancing domestic security and upgrading our emergency preparation and response. 

Well, Lowell, let's just say that no one without excellent National Security cred will win.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

But I still think Mark Warner is a very appealing candidate.

Al Gore is my number one choice
Mark Warner is number two,

Gore/Warner would be a great ticket in my opinion, it would combine two sensible intelligent people who are good problem-solvers to come fix this troubled nation of ours.