Saw Al Gore on Charlie Rose last night.  Mighty impressive.  Tremendous command of the facts, not just on the environment, and insight I have not seen from anyone on the current stage.  He also gave the most cogent analysis of how we got into Iraq I have ever heard.  If Al is too damaged to win, then the party should look to him as their touchstone for coming together around a group of core issues we can win with.  The current disorganization in DC is opening holes that Rove will dirve a Mac Truck through.

don't know why so many American say they won't vote for him.  Do we truly get the leaders we deserve?

comeon Lowell, you know your history

as presidents we got among others Grant, Harding, Hoover and Nixon - - gee, all Republicans -- let me balance that with Buchanan [probably our only gay president] who failed to take the steps that could have prevented the Civil War.

Or perhaps we can look at some who have been governors -- Jesse Ventura, Ahnold, Lester Mattox, George Wallace, Ross Barnett, John Rowland.  You want Senators --  just from California we had George Murphy, S. I ("The Panama Canal is ours.  We stole it fair and square') Hayakawa, William Knowland.  We could add such wonderful examples of  civic leadership as Theodore Bilbo, John East (who made Jesse Helms the more liberal senator from NC), ..  oh, I think I've give you plenty of examples.

And I haven't even gotten to Virginia yet.  I'll skip the state legislature.  How about Gov. Gilmore?  Or two-time Gov. Mills Godwin, who shut down school systems that wanted to abide by the law and court orders and integrate?  Or Senator Paul Tribble?  Or Senator William Scott, who made some rocks look brilliant?

Yes, we have also gotten terrific leaders -- Truman, FDR, Lincoln in the presidency, Phil Hart, Gaylord Nelson, Lowell Weicker in the Senate.  There have been some truly great governors --  Reuben Askew and Terry Sanford immediately come to mind.

But I would argue that when it comes to the House of Representatives a random selection from the jury pool might yield just as high a quality as we see in the current membership, on both sides of the aisle, even as I acknowledge some truly great men like Barney Frank.

The problem is that far too often we elected the better campaigner (or the more effective campaign) not necessarily the better (wo)man for the job.

Nobody in their right mind will start out running for VP, but I too like a Warner/Clark or Clark/Warner ticket.\

out there and always a class of pundits ready to write off whomever they don't like. Polls like this, especially this early on mean nothing. Nixon lost to Kennedy, won in 1968, Reagan lost a draft Reagan campaign in 1968 at the Repulican National Convention, failed to gain the nomination again in 1976 against Ford, and dusted off the mothballs for a third attempt in 1980 to become our 40th President.

The obituaries of many talented and world-changing politicians (Winston Churchill) have been written many times before they begin their 3rd act. Personally, I just saw an Inconvenient Truth this weekend and thought that it would be great to have someone as intelligent, thoughtful and proven in the White House again as Al Gore.

Of course there's a talented crop of newcomers on their way up, but those who have earned it still deserve to have their hat in the ring.

I think we will see a clash of cultures at the Democratic convention. By now Hillary knows the grassroots don't like her stand on the war, but I think she will still try to run roughshod over them anyway. That won' go over well. Also, I firmly believe a lot of people who voted Republican last time will switch this time. I don't think they will be voting for a McCain clone like Hillary.

I see the imperialists in the Democratic Party trying to get out in front so they will appear like they are in the lead if there is a Democratic victory. That won't work for them.

The real confrontation will come at election time when all those secret voter roles will be used to challege voters and then to discard their provisional ballots. Now that Karl is on the loose again you can depend on more foul play at the next election. The only problem for Karl is that this may not be a close one. That makes it harder to steal.

While Warner/Clark or Clark/Warner sounds to me like the best possibilities, viewed as of mid June 06, there is one individual I would go for instantly: Al Gore. See, for example, his hour long sit down with Larry King live. But he isn't going to run. Isn't going to lift a finger.

Charlie

But as you say, he isn't going to run. 

Yes!
They both share the same kinda of domestic policy agenda and both compliment each other very well. Also, two Southern Dems ran in '92 and they turned out pretty well  ;)

Although I admit to a huge bias as a Virginian who's seen him in action.  But there is one thing I can say with a fair amount of certainty: if the Democrats want to win, they'll stay far, far away from Hillary.  She's just too polarizing.

I'd have to say that the field will likely include Feingold, Warner, Richardson, Vilsack, Clark, and Bayh.  Hell, I'd vote for any of them (though I think Warner, Vilsack, and Clark are the most electable of the bunch).  If Hillary values her party, she'll stay in NY, where she's been doing fairly well.

Wes Clark would be an excellent complimentary ticket to follow the Webb victory we'll have this year!

I like Mark Warner, but I like Bill Richardson better, though I think he is not as well funded.

I am less enthusiastic about a Warner/Clark or Richardson/Clark ticket, mostly because right now we need a commander in chief with serious military credentials.  Clark has them, and neither Warner nor Richardson does.

Clinton is the one nominee who would force me to vote 3rd party in 2008.  She is so unbelievably polarizing that we'd be back to what we have now, a bunch of silly congressmen calling each other names and getting nothing useful done.  Please don't let her get nominated.  She's doing a fine job as a senator, and needs to continue doing exactly that.

I'd love to see Obama run someday, but 2008 is not the time.  First of all, he owes Illinois a full term.  He's also very young; and while I find that very encouraging; I'd rather save his youth and have him develope skills for a 2016 run to replace whomever wins in 2008 and gets re-elected in 2012.

I really like Feingold as well, but we are back to the same Commander in cheif issue we have with Warner and Richardson.  Besides, Feingold is absolutely crucial and key right where he is - please let him continue to do awesome work in that capacity a little longer.

I actually think now a Clark/Warner Ticket sounds better. Plus it would help right now with our global situation to have a Commander in Chief who has international experience, and I think that Mark Warner is one of the most charming thought provoking individuals do you think he is ready or has the experience to step in the day after GW and make war decisions.

I think the Clark/Warner team is unbeatable. If Warner can carry Virginia (which I think with him on the ticket they can) and Clark can carry Arkansas(which is very very possible), if WE win the exact number of states plus those to mentioned above.. correct me if I am wrong?

But don't we WIN?

Right now, even thought I would like a Clark/Warner ticket. Through the primary my support is 50/50 for both.

I for one can tell you that there's no way Hillary can win the presidency. Even if she did as well as Kerry, what red state in the south or whereever is going to vote for her this time around? Bill Clinton did a great job as president, but his personal life has been the gift that keeps on giving for the GOP--which I am really pissed off at him for. It's like the Democrats sold their soul to the devil to get two terms with Bill this being the case I think Hillary should stay as a Senator from New York and forget all this hoop la about running for president. It's time for everyone to put the Clinton's behind us and move on. Mark Warner a self made business man is the GOP's worst nightmare.

Mark my words, Governor Mitt Romney of the state of Massachusetts will get the Republican nod in 2008; and in turn win the General Election.  When he finishes his 2nd term in office we'll be able to look back with pride for what he did for this great country of ours.

Ann Marie Curling