Also, as many other Democrats - Judy Feder, Phil Kellam, Andy Hurst, etc. - as we can on November 7.  Then, we work to take back the Virginia General Assembly and towards figuring out our 2008 Presidential nominee.  For now, I remain, undecided...

But we talk about Jim Webb all the time over here, I thought I could throw some variation into the mix :).

:)

I supported Mark, my next candidate will be the same as in 04, John Edwards. Then I knew he did not have a chance but tried to push him for Vice, which happened. I will support Edwards for the same reasons, even though I expect Hillary to win. Maybe 2 times as Vice is a charm for 2016.

The time is right, the choice is right, it's an easy decision to make:  Wes Clark for President.

Clark's military experience will help him win the election against chicken-hawks and veterans alike.

Clark's simple and direct manner of getting right to the heart of the matter will keep the short-attention-span media focused through the race and his term in office.

His experience with difficult situations and managing through a crisis will help us dis-entangle ourselves from Iraq and prepare for the real threats we fas as a nation because of the Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Perl/Rove/Rumsfeld debacle.

A large percentage of the Pentagon leadership will have no problem supporting Clark as commander in chief; and that is big.  Actively fighting a reluctant military leadership is tiring even with the best administrations, having them cooperate will be hugely helpful to even the worst administration.

All those poor lads (and lasses) sent to Iraq for the wrong reasons need someone they can trust to do the right thing in office.

I really like Edwards, Richardson, and Bayh; but Clark has the experience we need now.  H. Clinton is too far to the right for my tastes, heck, so is Mark Warner - though I respect both of them immensely.  Gore or Kerry running again would surprise me, and frankly I like the jobs they are doing now as non-presidents.  For that matter, both Clintons are doing fine without being POTUS - let them continue in those roles for now.  We need everyone working hard in many, many capacities to reclaim our democracy.

Clark's military background has given him the maturity to hold power in service to the people rather than for power's sake.  That last point is huge with the voters right now.

By the way, for those who claim Democrats don't have a plan for getting out of Iraq, Clark's plan has been published for a long time: http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan.

Without a doubt, Edwards/Obama 2008

While I really like the sound of "President Obama" and I even like the thought of Webb as POTUS; it is too soon.

Time will let them both grow into their statesmen status.

They also have an obligation to their voters to serve out a complete first term in office first.  I feel strongly about that.  One of my big complaints about H. Clinton has been that she started campaigning for POTUS before her first term was up, in that she is much like George Allen.  Yuck!

I'm not gonna count Mark out for the count yet. After we see how the field shapes up we may be back here Drafting him again!

Looks like the nomination is Hillary's if she wants it.  I think we probably underestimate her abilties and political savvy.  We sure can't discount that big pile of money she's sitting on.  And we sure can't ignore how much Bill Clinton could help in any race she decided to run. 

I guess I'm more moderate than many here.  I could be counted as a Reagan Dem, if I'd ever voted for him, but I certainly can identify with the reasons that particular demographic left the party after Vietnam. 

I've always liked Gore.  I met him years ago when he was a young Congressman, and thought at the time he was one of the most impressive young men I'd met in my life.  We never really saw that Gore in the Presidental race, but if he chose to run, I'd be hard pressed to vote for someone else.  He has tons on intellect and experience.

I like a lot of the folks mentioned here and like Lowell, I'll be taking a wait and see approach.  It's early to think about 2008, but it is fun.  We have a good crop of men and women to pick from. 

I also like Obama, but he's awfully new on scene to be thinking about the White House.  He very appealing and a great speaker, but I still don't really know very much about him.  I know everyone likes Obama, but when I start asking questions about his voting record etc, I usually get a blank look followed by the question, "Have you ever heard him speak?"  He definitely needs some seasoning for him to become a serious alternative to some of the fine people mentioned above.  There's not a bad Democrat in the bunch.

It's also early to talk about Jim Webb, but he is only one I would endore for the White House right now.  As he's still trying to get to the senate, it's really early for him, but of all the possible candidates mentioned here, I believe Jim Webb is as well or better qualified than any of them.  To think of his intelligence, combined with his military and governmental experience and imagine all his attibutes harnessed to lead this country is heady stuff indeed.  Like I said, it's very early, but God help the Republicans if Jim ever decided to go for the big one.  That guy's a national treasure and we couldn't do better for the country. 

Hillary is 100% unelectable.  I can't believe she's got this much support.  But, thus far, it seems like we could be looking at an Edwards-Clark ticket.  I'm drifting more and more towards Bayh, but I doubt his centrist views will play well to the base.

While I truly respect his announcement, could he have waited?  Whether he knows it or not, he prematurely kicked off the 2008 Prez Campaign season, the blogs (here too!) are full of Kerryclarkclintonedwardsgore jockeys now, and it's totally frustrating!

Oh and don't get me started on what I've seen about "the reasons" he didn't wait. Disgusting.

As much as this has disrupted the conjecture on the blogosphere, it has completely and thoroughly disrupted the plans and strategies of Republicans who were jockeying to be John Warner's successor when/if he retires or passes.

This will probably cost Tom Davis half a million in resources just before the election; and Tom's gotta be worried now about what comes after.  It's a wonderful distraction for those in power now (squeeeee!).

In this aspect, we can afford a war of attrition, Davis/Allen/Repugs cannot.  Strange and ironic, n'est pas?

Especially for those who supported Warner.  Unless you were one of the Kerry supporters, don't you recall how you felt when your candidate lost or dropped out in 04?  There needs to be a little time to let the idea sink in and a chance to come to grips with it. 

As for why Warner chose now instead of November 8th, I'd have to ask, why not?  This was his decision to make.  As long as his reasons are as honorable as most believe, it's perhaps the fairer thing to do for his supporters.  This gives them an opportunity to get through the "grieving" process (and it truly is a form of that) and perhaps be ready to move on soon after Nov 8th.  Not only is it fair for his supporters, but his family too. 

I just can't get over the change that I saw from the Central Committee meeting just a few weeks ago, when he essentially gave a rally speech, complete with rally signs!  His verbal clues indicated he was running and he was excited about the crowd.  Hard to imagine how he did such a quick about face.

that a huge reason behind Jim Webb's popularity is his credibility with the moderates, independents, and military out there.  For this reason I think we should be giving Wes Clark's candidacy a close look.  Hillary may be attractive in some ways, but I agree with those who describe her as unelectable.  She is so polarizing that I think a campaign with Hillary would lose to a candidacy which is likely to feature McCain.  The only one who would have the military credibility against McCain, a centrist philosophy attractive to independents, and proven foreign policy expertise, is Clark.  In addition, he is an extremely intelligent and articulate speaker, comfortable at a podium without seeming too wonkish.  The fact that he has never before held public office operates against him; however, he has wide experience in dealing with the second and third tier leadership of our allies, and is well respected for his plain speaking and sheer intellect.  No one starts out knowing how to be president. 

As for Clark's running mate, that's more of a question for me.  I think it would have to be someone who is more of a Washington insider so Clark's inexperience could be offset by someone with practical political savvy.  For this reason Governor Richardson would probably not do, even though he too is an attractive candidate. This boils it down to people like Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, although Edwards and Obama are actually rather lacking in practical experience.  John Edwards served only one term and Obama's in the middle of his first term.  Both are very articulate and can pull in substantial constituencies, some of which overlap.  Hillary is very smart and a Washington insider, but once again you have that polarizing effect.  I don't know.  Still thinking this one over.

Totally agree with you on all the reasons Clark should lead the ticket, and having her as his running mate would be huge for Washington insider and connected to power issues...

Must give this some thought...

Was thinking Clark/Warner or Clark/Edwards before - but Clark/Clinton is worth considering.

I love Obama and think we should be grooming him for future POTUS candidacy; but not for a bit yet.

I like Edwards and Obama, too, but their lack of experience is a handicap, plus Edwards has been out of action for a while.  Neither has a track record of effectiveness in the Senate.  Hillary has totally ruled in her role.  She understands Senate rules and she's wildly popular with her constituents.  She gets the job done.

Clark/Clinton might be palatable for those who would never vote for Clinton as lead.  Look at Bush/Cheney (no, I don't care if they make you ill, you have to look).  Anyway, Bush as a Washington outsider needed an inside guy and got it in Cheney even though Cheney has to be one of the most hated pols in the history of Washington.  No one disputes Cheney's intelligence or his insider knowledge.  They just wonder if he has a soul. 

Is the one that I'm leaning towards as well. 

Bayh doesn't have Mark Warner's economic credentials, but he's stronger on the national security front.  In a presidential election this is a net gain.  I think he'll make a solid run for the nomination--especially now that he and Warner won't be cannibalizing each other's support base.  I have no doubt that he could flip Indiana and Ohio in 2008 (while maintaining the blue states from '04).

I actually campaigned for Wes up in New Hampshire in '04--an incredible experience.  I'm doubtful though that he can raise the cash for a presidential run.  I suspect he will be making a very strong play though for a cabinet position or as a VP candidate. 

Gore, God help us if he's nominated.  I've heard more than a few horror stories about him as a boss--and would have a hard time voting for him in 2008.

Kerry has had his shot.

Obama needs another term in the Senate.

Edwards still doesn't have the national security credentials (although I would vote for him more enthusiastically than Kerry or Gore).

Hilary is a fundraising juggernaut.  I think she can make a real serious run--although I'm doubtful that she can flip support in many of the battleground states.

Bold prediction: In the event of a Hilary Clinton presidential victory, the first major crisis of her administration will be trying to keep the Southeast and Texas from seceeding from the Union a second time.

Hillary, Feingold and Kerry have no chance. Too liberal, or perceived as such. Edwards' luster is fading, especially since he's been out of office for awhile and his record of achievement -- what there was, he only served one term in the Senate -- is becoming more and more ancient history. Richardson and Biden have foot-in-mouth disease. Daschle? He lost his own Senate seat when he was minority leader! I'm still not satisfied on Bayh. I think he may make good presidential material but will he be Gore-esque being too rigid, too technical, use too much Senate-speak? I originally banked on a Warner/Clark ticket in part because Clark shared Warner's vision for rebuilding America's infrustructure and economic opportunity. If Warner is out of the White House race entirely, I'll consider a Clark/Bayh ticket! Clark is a Southerner with impecable military credentials and is also brilliant (first in his class at West Point and a Rhodes scholar).

The General gets it right.

I just don't know enough about the man.  Can someone lay out his creds, etc., and explain why he seems to be a popular candidate among a lot of the people in this forum?  Very curious.  Compare and contrast with Richardson.  I'm game. 

My biggest worry is that the more ideological are the ones who vote in primaries.  I think we need to move away from ideology and toward a more practical solution.  The Democratic leadership has to understand that they need to move toward the center.

I cannot help but believe that Gov. Warner is goimg to coast to the vp spot on any Democratic ticket...and he will accept it.

Had Wes Clark been our nominee in 2004, we would be in a far different (and better)place today - in economics, international relations, and national spirit.

He is the most logical choice for our 2008 nominee and he wants it for all of the right reasons.

A patriot with nerves of steel, and plenty of "starch" in his character, he will be a magnificient President.

I agree with your reasoning.  Clark may be the way to go but it's like he's not even on the national level's radar.  Can someone who's an ardent Hillary supporter please tell me WHY she's a better candidate than Clark other than she can bring in big bucks and bring out the ideologues? 

At this point the ideologues are going to vote for anyone who isn't the Republican nominee, which just leaves the money question, and I don't think the fact that she's a marquee candidate makes her a winner in the end. She definitely has a role to play in national politics, but there's just no way that the Republican ideologues are going to let her go unchallenged.  She's carrying baggage (hubby, travel office fiasco, FBI files issue, Whitewater, and about a half dozen more things) which will be harped on endlessly by Republican hate ads, which would all be neatly sidestepped with someone like Clark as the candidate instead.  Just once I'd like to see the Democrats show some sense and sandbag their opposition by throwing someone at them who will be difficult to make look bad with the very people we're trying to reach:  the moderates, independents, and pissed off conservatives. 

need I say more?

oh.. lol.. read my sig line. =)