President '08

Vilsack's the head of the DLC, for what that's worth. His popularity's slid a little back home, and he isn't exactly a spellbinder. (But Bayh makes him look like Dr. King in that regard.) His big issue is bio-food, which cuts both ways.
A solid second-choice, if you're looking.

 

You'd have a better chance of seeing a Raiders-Packers Super Bowl...

 

What you want is almost impossible.

For a person in his early 40s to run for president, he has to have (relatively speaking) a very limited background of substance.

Which may not be a bad thing.

Nominate some political lifer (Kerry), and there are bound to be inconsistencies (or votes that can be spun into inconsistencies) in his voting record that the other side can tear to shreds. I think the two times we elected young guys (Theodore Roosevelt and JFK) proved to be fine choices.

I personally believe Obama is an extremely intelligent man who has a handle on what's important and can relate to people at home and abroad.

If, on the other hand, he's deficient in any way as a presidential candidate, it will likely be apparent after a long campaign.

 

I like Bayh, too. But for the reasons you stated, he might never get that chance.

And BTE hit it right in the head, regarding candidates from Congress. It's much easier to trot out a governor for the White House (Clinton, Bush) because they don't have voting records (Kerry). You can't go back and go, well, he supported this and voted against that and this however many times. With governors you don't have that. You can slowly see candidates evolve their policy on this or that.

Obama having little experience in Congress, that's a positive. Of course, what works even better for him is his knack to negotiate bipartisan deals, his charisma, his speeches, and the fact that people are desperately looking for someone to sweep them off their feet. And Obama gives them (and me) hope.

 

The thread is who do we want, not who we think will win.

I don't think the changes are that bad, but I will agree that Kerrey is an extreme longshot, not only to win, but to even get into the race in the first place.
But I think Edwards has a decent chance, he ran strong in the primaries and I think at the top of the ticket, he could fare even better.

 

Clinton was in his early 40s too, no?

And on the issue of inconsistencies in voting records, I'm tired of people using ``flip-flopping'' as this horrible negative on a campaign. People change, issues change, attitudes change. People can change their minds or do research and realize they were wrong. Hell, give me a guy who can admit he made a mistake and work to correct it over the tunnel-vision ``stay the course'' crap we have now. If it ain't workin', change it!

 

Well, I could say that Clinton split the country in 1992, with help from Perot ... but if you want to believe your own BS, go right ahead.

 

Uh, not so much really. Perot split the Republican vote. That was the only split.

The country is divided right now more than ever. And the current administration has done nothing but ensure that remains the case.

With that in mind, I'll take a split ticket -- two moderates from both sides. I don't care who they are. I'm just tired of the shit. This country works best when the two parties are forced to get along to get shit done.

 

OK, that was something I did not know. If it holds true to form, the likes of Clinton and McCain are S-O-L. Hello Rudy Giuliani or some funky governor.

 

Shockingly, I've fairly far to the left and I happen to really like Evan Bayh. He did a really good job as governor in Indiana. The biggest problem with Bayh is the same one Kerry had -- his voting record as a Senator. I'm sure he's got some votes that can be called out and made issues of.

I think that if the Democrats really want to take back the presidency, they'll need to run a governor, who doesn't have a Senate voting record to be used against him/her.

Just my two cents, and another reason why I like Schweitzer, although I don't think he's got any desire to run.

 

Think about it... after JFK our presidents have been:
- LBJ, Kennedy's VP
- Nixon, came out of the private sector after a brief absence from politics to run for president
- Ford, Nixon's VP
- Carter, Gov. of Georgia
- Reagan, Gov. of Calif.
- Bush, Reagan's VP
- Clinton, Gov. of Ark.
- Bush, Gov. of Texas

So the question becomes, does the next president break that pattern and emerge from the Senate (or the House) or does the pattern continue?

Before Kennedy, I'm not sure who the last sitting Senator elected was.

 

Warren G. Harding.