Which two democrats have the best shot at winning the presidency?

I think its Kerry for pres Edwards for VP. Wesly Clark could also be a intriguing VP choice. He would give the dems legitimacy on the current diplomatic problems, afterall he was supreme commander of NATO one of these "old europe" alliances. What do you all think???????

Oprah and the guy from Joe Millionaire. I like Kerry and Edwards too. Maybe the Reublicans will pull a Celland and say Kerry and Clark are unpatriotic and love Saddam. How many limbs do you need to lose before you love your country? The answer 4 limbs and your heart so you can become a republican.

I'm hoping for Kerry, Lieberman just seem s like a Bush impersonator. I'm just hoping someone can beat Dubya.

I think Kerry has the best shot. For the first time in years the dems will be fired up enough to feel that being a Massachusetts liberal is actually a good thing.

Hey feller, think maybe you should have made the issue of who is going to be democratic prez for year 2008! 2004 is already been won. Dems dont have a chance to beat dubya in 2004.

Fisherman51, this is a place for Democratic Party people to post. You are welcome to read, but if you feel moved to respond, you may start a thread in the appropriate place. Thanks.

I believe John Edwards has the best chance to beat Bush. If John Kerry gets the nomination I would vote for him, but John Edwards with either Graham or Kerry as the VP is the best chance the Dems have to win the Presidency. Call it a Grace and Experience platform.

I dont think Edwards can win, hes tool liberal, possibly too young, without enough experience, voting record and truthfully, I dont think he inspires trust, which will be a big issue in this election. Possibly as VP, after all Dan Quayle got in with Bush Sr. Can you spell potato? Then again Bush got in, blubbity blubbity. Sheesh.

I think Americans will be looking for strong leadership, without the corporate lies and private agendas (which we have seen so strongly with this Admin), They will stay away from candidates they feel are giving them the same old spin of ridiculous Democrat agenda. (Sorry, I am about to give up on them for Libertarians, but I still fight the good fight)

The Democratic Party really needs a facelift and a new image ( somebody tell them this puleese!), not the old , working man for the working people routine. Americans no longer see themselves that way. They all look to succeed and have the things and image the Republicans have, even if they are blue collar, they want more, not humility and appeasement of their status, those days are over.
We are more service and technology oriented, industry has moved. Democrats have to stop looking like defenders of the underdog, but winners who will bring people up, above all in economics.
I saw some of the debate and hated the way Gephard and Edwards kept talking about their humble beginnings, this will not win an election. How many can relate to mill workers and secretaries. Its old fashioned, even if you are, your agenda is MORE.

I thought that Kerry has the best chance, he is bold and in your face, Graham as VP?, but he was terribly weak and ineloquent in Debate.
I also was considering Howard Dean, because he presented himself as strong and in need of change, but possibly too radical and had little control of his posture, clothing, looking disheveled. These things are important as much as platform. Kerry stands tall and strong, good control of his face, speech, forward looking, leaning, these are all positives. A big problem with Gore was that he looked soft. A few pounds off would have helped him alot.

What do you know or think of Dean? I cant remember W. Clark, that tells me something.

Truthfully , Im at a loss with this election, again. Id like to see a stronger line up but would vote for anyone they put up to get these current bastards out of office, of course if that meant Sharpton, I think Ill just move to Mexico on a beach and give up!

Please allow me to post here and help you guys out. I'm not a registered Democrat but I'm not affiliated with any other party, either. I'm liberal and definately on the side of the working person.

Anyway, here's a link to John Edwards' presidential run site:

John Edwards Presidential Run Link

Here's Kerry's site:

John Kerry Presidential Run Link

Howard Dean:

Howard Dean Presidential Run Link

Joe Lieberman:

Joe Lieberman Presidential Run Link

The smugness of Republicans and a bad economy defeated GHWB. I think the Demos have a good chance this time around, plus some highly experienced campaign advisors available. Anyway, that's my independent liberal contribution to this discussion. Carry on!

Now i know i'm not fully labeled as a Dem, but i wanna put in my opinion on who i think, if Bush doesn't go for 2, would be a good DEMOCRAT president

Liberman & Gephart

Liberman: He has a good idea for a healthcare plan & he doesn't plan on cutting the military budget like past democrat presidents have

Gephart: His Universial HealthCare Plan looks promising. Making sure EVERYONE gets healthcare is a good idea, no matter what income class you are. Also, like Liberman, he doesn't plan on cutting the military budget to bad

Liberman isn't presidential material(kind of like Dubya). Liberman and Gephardt aren't running together anyway, Liberman said Gephart's health care plan was a terrible idea. None of the candidates are really great. Kerry for president and Liberman for vice president would be okay.

I dont think Leiberman can win. The Dems see him as just outside of the Republican line, a big supporter of the war, obviously supportive to Israels interests, making him really almost a Repub in disguise. This could be semi-ok with the entire country, but a candidate that no Republican will vote for over Bush, would make the Democrats sorry to vote for and Libertarians and Independants will just stay home. Dems will not vote for him in the primaries, especially as touchy as the Isreali problem is to us. He might make a good VP.

Im still liking H. Dean in straightforward approach and tough talk. Kerry is looking like a real possible primary winner, but Im still not really convinced.

I do hope everyone who protested the war gets out to vote.

Let me remind everyone, yet again, that this thread is for declared democrats only. Please respect that.

Kerry/Edwards is the winning ticket in 04. Edwards is a good man, but he's young, and he looks younger. I think that will keep him from the top spot. We'll see what happens, though...

Kerry. Reminiscent of Kennedy.

The key to the democrats regaining the presidency is boldness. Loud, pointed, powerful rhetoric ticking off the many points of failure in the Dubya junta, most notably their absolute refusal to respond to the American public. Unfortunately, the democrats are behaving timidly, and nobody seems willing to ROCK here, but rather to meekly suggest 'possible alternatives.' That smacks of weakness and won't sell in the contemporary public opinion marketplace.

People are frightened, disempowered, and feel helpless. Abstract rhetoric bores them and doesn't give them hope.

The fundamental division between liberals and conservatives (psychologically) is that human beings are driven by the tandem forces of fear and hope. The conservatives capitalize on the fear, the liberals capitalize on the hope. For either to be effective, BOLDNESS is the key. And as much as I like Bob Graham (he's temperate, reasoned, wise, and has a darn good grasp on the basis of effective policy), he's not electable, because he BORES people.

Kerry and Edwards are probably the only chance the Dems have. And it's more because of charisma and boldness than because of wisdom, which is a bit of a shame.

Well said.
I myself being a lifelong Dem am TIRED of the Wishy Washiness of the Democrats. They dont seem willing to stand up, take chances, fear of being seen as a-patriotic, fear of critisizing the President, especially when they voted to give him full war powers. Im sure it was a political move meant to skirt blame if it was due, a cowardly move that came around to bite them in the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and has ruined their credibility and status as candidates now. There is little platform on which to run at this point.
What they CAN bet on is economic discontent and could play on that this administration has lied and misled the public into war and has no real concern for the American people with its singular ideas of its own corporate agendas and payoffs, most clear. It wont get a single Rebublican vote, but the distress of the war could bring out more usually non-voting voters.
I worry that no Dem candidate has the moxy to take this on. I fear that the only chance of winning is The People deciding to oust the present Admin, whatever the cost. Not because they feel another can lead but willing to do anything to get this Admin out of office. I am one of those, sad but true.

I came. I saw. I snoozed.

None of these stiffs excite me. Howard Dean is the only viable Democrat that actually says anything, but he seems more like a Cabinet Secretary than the guy for the top job. I say "viable" because Dennis Kucinich is too weird and Al Sharpton is too weird and nobody's gonna throw away their vote on a guy who wears sweatsuits, gold chains and a perm.

What is Carol Mosely-Braun running for? Another ambassador job somewhere?

Liberman should just go ahead and run as Republican. He's the poster boy for the Democratic Leadership Council and his "me-too" Bush Lite policies are nausea-inducing. If he's the Democratic candidate in 2004 I will vote for Ralph Nader.

John Kerry looks the part of a president, but GOD, he's boring. John Edwards stinks of ambition and shallowness. His resume is just waaaay too skimpy to consider him presidential timber. Bob Graham is another competent Senator but when was the last time one of those guys became Chief Executive?

Wesley Clark? I dunno. I watched Patton the other night and don't remember seeing him in it.

If I forgot anyone---who cares?

I'll go with Kerry and some other guy (Graham, Edwards, Clark) as his running mate. Meanwhile, I'm hunkering down for four mo' years of Bush II.

For 2004, one thing is for sure, we need someone to unite the democratic party, who that is? my best guess is John Kerry. I hoping for a democratic win, but with the "occupation" of the Senate and the House by the Republicans it somewhat seems that democrats are an endangered species let alone the fact one that might be able to defeat George W.

John Kerry has my vote too. Though I would love to see Hillary in the mix!

The more I hear from Clark the more I tend to think he has a really good chance. Here is one recent article:
msnbc

There was one quote that caught my eye and makes me very afraid of Rice if she decides to run for CA. Gov. in the future.



I would prefer a VP that is not from Congress unless he voted "no" over giving Bush war powers. And there is just something about Dean that put's me off even though I love the fact that he stands up and speaks for the Dem's better than any of the rest of them that have a chance. Having a VP that has always been against this war in Iraq would ease my mind about having a General as President regardless of how good he sounds. As VP I still think Feingold has potential. I also still like Gary Hart even though he said he isn't running maybe he would be interested in as a VP candidate.

I'd vote for Dean but he seems a bit crazy to me. Dan Rather on CBS Nightly News talked about how his HealthCare plan would cost the federal government too much and would make the budget deficit worse than it already is

I like Clark. I think he'd be my choice

Here's an article about Clark:

Clark: Just what the Dems need

Clark would be good when it comes to the need of deploying military forces and re-strengthening relationships with our allies. He wouldn't be soft on national defense either

I'm supporting Dean, but I don't think that he'll get the party nomination, he's just too radical. If he did, I'd vote for him (although I can't vote ). I'd support Kucinich, but there's just no hope there. With that last name he has no chance (sad, but true). I even like him better that Dean, but at least Dean has a slight chance. But I think Kerry will get the nomination, and that doesn't bother me. He seems like a pretty good candidate (and anyway, better him than Lieberman).

No one will beat GWB in 2004. In fact, I think he is the right man for this time. However, I would like to see Breaux and Clark in 2008, though I know it's wishful thinking. Anyone but Hillary would do for me.

Kevin S. Bailey

Well, who I'd WANT to see on the ticket is Dean. I like everything about him that I've seen, but I just don't him him winning over the less liberal Dems by any stretch. I think right now people are more concerned about someone (anyone) beating Bush and are probably goign to vote based more upon who can beat Bush rather than who they'd like to see in office, KWIM? No one wants to feel s if they're throwing away their vote.

And since my husband is stationed at SHAPE, Belgium which is Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (we got here not too long after General Clark left), I can shed a little light on Clark. The people here LOVED the guy. My husband worked directly for the SACEUR (that's the position Clark held: Supreme Allied Commander, Europe - Eisenhower was the first SACEUR, btw) and almost everyone in his office had worked under Clark. They respected him, he respected them...apparently he was very personable and charismatic - a trait we could definitely use after Bore...errrr...Snore...I mean Gore I think he'd make an excellent running mate (doubt he's popular enough for prez nomination yet) - he's a big military name, something the Dems could certainly use and something that might excite some liberal military folks who are afraid to vote Dem in fear of military funding being cut...decreasing their already low pay).



Kerry, for some reason, gives me the creeps. Can't put my finger on it...but he'd be my second choice (after the exciting Howard Dean). Can't say I like any of the others enough (obviously I'd vote for any of them over Bush, but I want to vote for someone I like, not for a lesser of two evils (like last election )

TNLW, I think you hit the nail on the head with Kucinich and his name. When has this country EVER had a prez with a complicated last name? NEVER. I don't see it happening with name slike Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Graham!

I don't think age will play much of a part, honestly. Clinton was young and I think that's why people liked him so much. I think that Edwards has a real shot, but as somebody said above, the party needs a face lift badly.

Lieberman is a Republican in Democrats clothing. His support of the war makes it impossible for me to ever vote for him.

My fantasy - McCain pulls a party switch and beats the pants off W. I know that McCain is truly a Republican, but his politics actually seem liberal next to the current administration.

I don't think the Republicans have this one sewn up.....the same issues that plagued GHWB (health care and the economy) will haunt GWB in the coming months.

edited double post.

Sorry jaime, I'll fix my profile so it won't be an issue.

Danya - This forum is for declared Democrats ONLY. If you have not declared yourself as such, please do not post here.

Edited - to add - I didn't see your edit and thought you were ignoring my warning. I deleted your second post. Sorry.

I am now a declared Democrat. It took a while, but the Democrats, more than the Republicans, show a concern for the working class, for the disenfranchised, for infrastructure, for the environment, for those needing health care, and for education. That's good enough for me!

Howard Dean impresses me. He has grit. He was not afraid to publicly oppose this sham called the war on Iraq. I like the fact that he is a medical doctor, not a career politician.

As far as a running mate, I don't know. Too bad Senator Biden isn't showing an interest.

And yes, I think it would be great if Senator McCain decided to become a Democrat! I voted for him in the presidential primary with the rest of my state, and we managed to embarrass Governor Engler, who was so darn confident that he was going to deliver this state to Bush!