Democrats in 2008

[Democratic Hawk]

Evan Bayh (Pres.) and Mark Warner (V.P.)

Bayh is a moderate who has strong bi-partisan appeal (potentially) / support (well in Indiana anyway) and a proven executive record.

If the Democrats lurch left, then they are on a one-way ticket to self-destruction. Only a centrist Democrat stands any chance of winning in 2008.

On a less serious note, Bayh and Warner could well be the best ever looking ticket.

The Democratic Party needs to broaden its appeal and its the centrists, who are best positioned to do that. They need to stand-up and be counted. They must be heard - loud and clear!

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Zel Miller

When Zell Miller was on Hannity and Colmes last week. He named several Democrats who he considered to be good candidates and great presidents:

Evan Bayh topped his list. He named Mark Warner of Virginia, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

It's funny to see Zell and I agree on something. I'll never forgive him for endorsing Bush though. If you don't like the direction your party's moving in, you fight the good fight from within like us moderates in the British Labour Party had to.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

IMHO these guys are the best Democrats can hope for...

1. Evan Bayh
Has cross-over appeal and would appeal to Republicans and Democrats alike. Might even, shock horror, carry his state of Indiana for the Democrats (of course depending on who he's up against).

2. Mark Warner
Has leadership experience as Govenor, charismatic, would also appeal to both sides of the political divide. Like Bayh a unifying, not a polarising, figure.

3. John Edwards
Only drawback would be his lack of political experience, but still possesses the charisma as well as ability to attract vast funding to pull off a Presidential bid. An Edwards/Bayh or an Edwards/Ford ticket could do very well in my view.

No, no, no:

Hillary R. Clinton
I like Hillary. I do. But she wouldn't be the right choice. 2004 has shown that North East liberals have a very hard time winning the votes of Middle America, besides she's a very polarising figure which is the last thing America needs after eight years of possibly the most polarising Presidency in modern times.

Howard Dean
I like Howard. I do. But he'd be another McGovern no matter who he faces, and in a day and age where television watches a Presidential candidate's every move he slips up too many times. I can envisage him losing his cool during a debate (...even though that didn't stop GWB from winning this year.....).

John Kerry
I like Kerry. I do. Unfortunately the track record of most Democratic losers, from HHH to Gore, doesn't bode well. But then I suppose only time will tell whether Kerry can come back from the political dead, so watch this space. Well, not this space. It's just a saying, 's all.

Barack Obama
I like Obama. I do. But he's too inexperienced. Maybe in 2012 (or in 2020, after eight years of Ahnuld).

Well said. I'm effectively committed to Bayh (should he run) and have a highly favourable opinion of Warner.

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Of the choices given (and, let's face it, everyone hates the "other" vote) I chose Edwards because he's a southern Democrat and he is quite likable.  And Bayh just sucks.

Bayh would be a centrists dream given the opportunity to run. I can't see him having a high negativity rating among the electorate as a whole. He's moderate enough (pretty close to the ideological centre) and would be a far from polarising candidate

Bayh's base in 2004 (according to exit polls in Indiana) was as follows:

Democratic 29.44 + Independent 16.06 + Republican 16.1 = 61.6%

Liberal 12.18 + Moderate 33.11 + Conservative 15.91 = 61.2%

Dave