Dean wasn't electable, in part because he shoots from the hip irresponsibly. Had he been more contemplative and responsible in his honesty he would have gone further.

Governing a small state and fundraising a specific community is very different from leading a diverse country. To do the latter  requires a far more circumspect leader otherwise they’ll inevitably alienate or offend a large constituency.

It's pretty simple really.  Democrats will for the forseeable future have a tough time nominating nerdy, over-educated, urban, rich Easterners like Al Gore and Mike Dukakis and especially John Kerry.  As long as the Democratic party retains the stereotype as the party of the liberal urban elite, they will be well served if they nominate someone who doesn't fit the stereotype.

...add Democratic victories in New York, Ohio, Maryland, Arkansas, Missouri, and protect the Midwesterners who are in some cases reaping the consequences of their predecessors’ economic scams, and you have the recipe for a resurgence of progressive politics not just in the West, but everywhere. - Schmitt

Forget about Schweitzer; forget about Kerry and Clinton.  Think bigger.  Can you remember any other recent, long-term Montana governors?  How about Marc Racicot? 

How low can one Republican go anyway?  Wonder why?  Because the Republicans have shot their wad.  They can't govern on any level (local, state or national) and they know they are on the verge of a 500 year flood that will wipe the political landscape clean and that we may not see the likes of these so-called "conservatives" for 100 years (or more if we are lucky). 

If we are progressive, then what are they but regressive or retrogressive?  The world finally knows them for who they are and what they stand for, not just in the west but everywhere.

Not every governor is destined to run for president, nor should they.  Schweitzer is doing great things in Montana and setting a lot of precedents for progressive solutions.  The country has serious systemic problems that need to be solved by good people all over the country - not just in the White House.  I want to make sure we keep talking about local initiatives and candidates so we don't convince ourselves that a Democratic president is a silver bullet.

I think the moral of the story between a Kerry and a Schweitzer is that one needs to either be genuine, or a damn good actor, but regardless one needs to be in tune with the populace and tell them what they want to hear.

Pretty basic really, but with all the highbrow theories of politics people tend to over complicate how democracy works. 

Whether Schweitzer is more sincere than Kerry, or not, is impossible to know for certain. He is incredibly in-tune with polls though, we do know that. He's not advocating gay marriage or expanding gun control for example. He speaks about issues the vast majority cares about, such as energy independence, and uses his celebrity to shift the direction of issues gradually. For example, he may shift the conversation somewhat from Iraq to energy independence, but seems to have good instincts about what people will or won’t hear.

When Democrats are speaking sincerely (or at least lying more convincingly) and pledging to do the people's will while shaping issues gradually, they'll be more electable. Pandering to fractious coalition elements and unpopular minority views is always recipe for failure in democracy, sincerely or otherwise.

It's a favorite axe of various fringe elements that if politician X tried harder, they could popularize the fringe view Y. Those people are typically angsty and like to blame politicians for ordinary people's failure to popularize certain cultural views.

I think that's missing the point. Of course people in his small circle are going to be for coal and play that up a bit. Other people will do the same for ethanol, renewables or nuclear power.

That's not the point. The point is that a Schweitzer-esq politician on the national scene could speak to the public about energy independence, and talk about a range of issues that have value to constituents, including renewable and cleaner fossil fuels, to please a number of constituent POV.

That is the right idea. Being a passionate realist who moves things in the right direction. And this isn’t just about Schweitzer, who I admit I don’t know too much about. It's about finding sincere and realistic pols who can represent broad coalitions and compromise to make progress.

Not screeches and Nader types who just lose elections and accomplish squat except for helping the greater evil. Not Bush-types who are basically in lobbyist’s pocket and probably never thunk through the issue much, and knows basically squat about the public welfare in the long term.

Not every Democratic Governor has had the courage of his convictions when faced with a poll driven political trap like that.  This is something that matters alot.

 I don't buy into the idea it's about "courage" so much as about brains and merits of the argument in our present political climate. Maybe that’s splitting hairs, but I make that distinction because I’m sick of hearing how politician X lacks courage to take on various impossible tasks, as though you have to be stupid and politically suicidal to be courageous, and stupid and cowardly to be pragmatic. I find that sort of hippy shit incredibly counter productive, and it has been since the 60’s.

Norquist is a demagogue, and anyone smart enough can take him to pieces presuming a somewhat reasonable populace. If more people knew what Norquist was about they’d be against it. He’s pretty “evil” and I mean that in the biologically evolved morality sense, the Christian sense, and the post enlightenment sense, all of which he’s pretty repugnant to. He’s just about one of the meanest, uncharitable, self serving, corrupt and cruel minded people in politics, right up there with DeLay.

This was a good post and raises the larger question of party candidates for the upcoming elections both this year and in 2008.  For their part, the GOP knows this will be a difficult year at the polls.  There will be no electorial cannae in 2006 as there was in 2000, 2002, and 2004.  In fact, the Republicans would be thoroughly delighted if they can merely retain the majority in both houses of congress; which, if you are a betting man, is still fairly likely.

As for 2008, it would certainly appear as if the GOP has a leg-up in terms of candidate pools.  The ubiquitous John McCain is likely the front-runner with Senate majority leader Bill Frist coming in at a distant second.  For third, one would look to either Mitt Romney or even Rudolph Giulliani.  As BradtheDad points out in his reply above, it would appear as if most Americans are tired of "nerdy, over-educated, urban, rich Easterners" as Democratic candidates.  But would this work for Mitt Romney, a Republican?  Odds are the answer is no.  But whether you love Romney or hate him (which, when it comes to Republicans, this polarization seems to be omni-present), he looks presidential.

On the other side of the aisle things are far more interesting.  Other than Hillary Clinton, who may or may not run (I read an interesting article which predicted Hillary would NOT run for president because a)she is unelectable, b)if she does run, her imminent defeat would likely end her elected political career, c)she will better serve the party by arranging a deal in which she will bypass running for president in exchange for a high-level cabinet appointment {Secretary of State perhaps} when the next Democrat wins the White House).  This is certainly an intriguing and logical prediction, but Hillary, it seems, is coming dangerously close to crossing the point of no return with regard to running.  If she ratches up the rhetoric any further it would probably look like a cop-out if she did not run.

Although we keep hearing smatterings of Al Gore or John Kerry running, I would consider both of these to be unlikely.  The Democrats, I would hope, have realized that they must put the Billary era behind them.  Mark is likely correct when stating that the best Demorcatic candidate is likely a governor who is not yet well known nationally.

You can't talk about potential Democratic Presidential candidates from a pool of governors or ex-governors from Red States without talking about Mark Warner of Virginia. He turned the economic situation in the Commonwealth completely around and is probably the biggest reason Tim Kaine won the election despite a pedestrian campaign. I'm surprised Mark Schmitt didn't even mention him. I view Warner as a darkhorse candidate for the nomination, if he chooses to run.