Jay Gold,
Don't forget Gravel.

It seems to me that only Edwards and Vilsack are not "money party" politicians. The fact that no candidate since JFK in 1960 who was not from, or at least living in a sunbelt location at the time of announcing his or her candidacy for the presidency, only Edwards, of the so far announced candidates, is from the sunbelt, and would be most likely to offer an agenda that would include turning back the 30 year trend of increasingly uneven wealth distribution as measured by the Gini coefficient.

Mr, Hundt,

I share your opinion about the quality of the candidates. That's why I think the overriding consideration in selecting the person to represent the party in 2008 should be electability.

We cannot risk turning over the awesome power of the executive branch to another Republican, especially after the damage Bush has done to the country's fiscal health, civil liberties, the balance of power between the various branches of government, the standing of the U.S. in the world, tax fairness, racial equality, and on and on.

I am curious about something. Why is "electable" considered distinct, and perhaps even in opposition to "will do the best job?"

In 2004, the term "electable" meant, in effect, acceptable to the War Party. Why that was ever the measure I do not know.

In 2008, "electable" must mean "the person who will do the best to clean up the horrible mess that has been left to us by George W. Bush."

We have had this discussion before. I think the argument that any of the front running Democratic candidates is a less than authentic member of the party is patently specious and quite frankly, a diversion.

As to Mr.Powell's point about who would do the best job, if you can't win, the job one would do is relegated to a hypothetical exercise.

Bismarck said that politics is about the "art of the possible." The theoretical realm is ripe for debate in forums like this one. In practical terms, it's a waste of time, and potentially extremely costly.

DINO Bill Clinton brought us the REPUBLICAN welfare reform bill, NAFTA, continued shrinkage of commitment to higher education (back in the 1960s and 1970s poor students could actually go to good colleges without a fear of lifelong debt), and so much more REPUBLICAN agenda. 

We need a Democratic Democrat this time around. 

When consideirng the electability, the potential Republican candidate also needs to be considered. This is difficult for obvious reasons (being unable to see the future). If you think Guillani has a serious chance of winning the nomination, then that complicates your decision. So, who is the most likely to get the Republican nomination, and who else has a legitimate shot?

Of course, I think all of these candidates (except Kucinich -- I love the guy, but the good people of the great city of Cleveland deserve a Congressman, not a Quixiotic presidential candidate) are electable in 2008. I don't think Guilliani, the only candidate who could compete against any of them, will get the Republican nomination. I think if McCain were to get the nomination, Americans would be turned off by his overly muscular foreign policy. And based on name recognition at this point, could Brownback, Hagel, or Romney really compete with Clinton, Edwards, or Obama?

So, if you ask me, the question of electability is irrelevant. The Democrats should nominate the person who would make the best commander-in-chief. This requires a lot of thinking and soul-searching, which is why I haven't even come close to making a decision (although I'm quite fond of this Senator from Illinois who might have heard of).

The decline in crime rates in NYC were at least partially the result of the policies that William Bratton implemented. Guiliani appointed him, so he deserves some of the credit for what transpired. That's the way it works in governance. The person in charge gets credit and/or blame for what takes place on their watch.

Even granting your point arguendo about PAYGO, that only means that new expenditures had to be revenue neutral. To dissipate the debt run up under Reagan/Bush, Clinton had to make tough spending cuts and increase taxes on the highest income earners.

Who cares about interest rates being cut? The thousands of people from middle class families who have to pay down their student loans.

Since you haven't rebutted the remainder of Clinton's abundant accomplishments that I listed, I will have to assume that you acknowledge them.

You can repeat it as often as you like. It doesn't make it true.

I view the primary process as a competition in the market place of political ideas. I will support whomever wins the Democratic primary, no matter who that is (my personal preference is Edwards). I hope you and other Democrats will do the same because no matter what letters you choose to put before their name, they are better than the alternative from the other party. Not by a little, by a lot.

I din't bother to address every single item in your list because (1) I thought covering over half would be enough, (2) I never asserted he never did anything, and (3) some of those items were perfectly pleasing to Republicans.

No one can attribute the decline in crime rate to Bratton or Giuliani, no comprehensive study was ever completed and the wider social forces (the aging of the violent Boomer generation as well as the changes in the crack culture) are clearly in play.  Clinton can equally not take any credit.  The continued FEDERAL prohibition on drugs is likely the number one reason for violent crime in America, number two being the reluctance to face down the gun lobby with their patently specious Second Amendment arguments.   What did Clinton or any DINO ever do about these?

I am sure the middle class kids appreciate the low interest rates (mine do) BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW they don't have GRANTS.  If they realized the option not on the table, I think they would be pissed.

PAYGO balanced the federal budget by requiring CONGRESSIONAL discipline.  The "peace dividend" helped out, Clinton wasn't interested in cranking up the military machine.  But MAKING HARD CHOICES really adds up to giving in to tax cuts for the well to do while cutting social programs.  We are a WEALTHY country.  Why is it that the poor and middle class always have to give up resources for the benefit of the whole?  Why is THAT a DEMOCRATIC policy?  Democrats who make that policy are DINOs. 

Keep in mind that Obama has more elected experience than Edwards. In fact, Obama probably (co-)sponsored more legislation in a year than Edwards did in his entire term. I'm most unimpressed with Edwards of all the candidates.

I downplayed Vilsack early, but he could definitely emerge. Of course it's looking more and more likely that Wes Clark is going to run so he will emerge as the Clinton/Obama alternative. But Richardson is also a force, probably more so than Vilsack.

Let's keep in mind that Clinton had frothing-at-the-mouth, rightwing conservatives controlling Congress at the time. He was limited in how progressive he could be. It's all well and good to call him a DINO, but really, how far left do you think he could have gone? He proposed providing interest free student loans handled by the government, so that banks wouldn't be saddled with defaults. No go on that. He proposed a bill that would have allowed parents to borrow sufficient funds to go to school (almost impossible for single parents who don't live at home now) and be paid back over a lifetime with a 1% deductionn from their paycheck. Considering how difficult many single mothers find their financial life, that seems like a good deal. No go.

And for all it's problems, welfare reform opened up a lot of options for women on welfare that Reagan, ever the incompetent, had removed. I'm not defending it exactly, but I do think it made life ultimately better for an awful lot of recipients. And i say that as someone who volunteered helping women get off welfare in the eighties.

I respectfully suggest that we not try to select the "John Kerry of 2008". If anyone has forgotten, John Kerry didn't win, even though the pundits all assured us that he was the "electable" candidate in 2004. Our job should be to select the candidate we think will be the best president for our country, using our own standards for that judgement. Then, which ever candidate gets the nomination, our job becomes making sure he/she is elected. Electability means getting elected. We, the voters determine electability when we vote. There is no other way to determine it.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Or Al Gore.

I think Democrats should go to the polls and vote for the person that they believe will make the best president - and that should be the only criteria. Why vote for someone because you think other people might like him or her? This isn't a blackjack game. You can't outsmart the other party. You can only outsmart yourself.

Take a look at the candidates and see who represents the policies you hold dear and who you believe can do the best job of getting them enacted into law. Even if you think Pubs are gonna beat the tar out of 'em, vote for 'em anyway. There isn't any candidate on the face of the earth that Pubs can't make fun of - it's what they do best. We could nominate a guy who looked like Harrison Ford, was the top rated governor in the nation for two terms, who served with distinction in the military, went on to a substantial career in the State Department and volunteered his time with Habitat For Humanity and the Pubs will turn him into a joke. You're not gonna stop that. Give up on it.

lorelynn

I would agree that the right thing to do would be to simply go to the polls and vote for whomever you feel would be best suited for the White House.

Unfortuntely, not since George Washington, and perhaps FDR, has the process worked out that way.

In an age of primaries and caucuses, honest debate often gets overshadowed by popularity contests and mud-slinging grudge matches.

It will be interesting to watch the process as both parties attempt to settle on one candidate. This time around it seems to have an added flair...

I couldn't disagree more. Oh, maybe I would agree with you if we turned back the clock 40 years, but that's not realistic.

You left out the part about Clinton moderating those policies so that when they were enacted they were a lot more palatable. It's called getting out in front of an issue. If Clinton hadn't been so skilled at it, there would have probably been a second term of Bush I, and/or a first term of Bob Dole.

Nixon proposed a negative income tax. Ted Kennedy opposed it because he believed it was insufficient. Obviously, that opposition seems foolish in retrospect, but the Zeitgeist has changed.

The Republicans have successfully "starved the beast." David Stockman, who headed Reagan's OMB, even admitted it 25 years ago. Bush and the Republican Congress starved it beyond recognition. That constrains the Democrats' (and the few remaining moderate Republicans') options.

Why have the Republicans been able to starve the beast? Because the Democrats overreached when they were in power (Kennedy's rejection of Nixon's negative income tax is but one small example), and alienated too many swing voters.

Being right is insufficient. You have to be able to convince a majority of the voters that you're right. Democrats have done an extremely poor job of that. Clinton was an exception. There is a reason that a Democrat has held the White House for only 12 years since 1968, and it's not because their nominees who lost (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) were DINOs.

If Gore would have won in 2000 (or more accurately, not had the election stolen), he would have been in a position to take the kind of bold policy initiatives that progressives support. Why? Because the ground had been prepared, and at that point, a further move to the left would have been incremental. The problem was that too many Democrats failed to vote for Gore because they thought he wasn't progressive enough even though he ran a fairly populist campaign. The result was George W. Bush. 'Nuff said.

I was under the impression that the Democrats' intention to reform the Alternative Minimum Tax (a tax cut) had to meet pay as you go requirements, which could turn out to be an impediment to enacting it.

Who is your preferred candidate for president, and what is their realistic chance of winning?

Which candidate who lacks the ambition to achieve the ultimate prize has a legitimate chance of winning?

Maybe he hasn't met and spoken with Dennis? He did say he had met "most" of the field ... that could have been a list of those whom he had met? So the tacit distinction might be "personal experience" rather than any invidious distinction.

And, of course, if the tacit distinction is invidious, it would be in the spirit of the post to simply refrain from mentioning him, rather than using the opportunity to take a sideswipe.

I support a single payer system. Medicare worked wonderfully for my parents when they were alive (it still hurts to type that), but that's not possible to enact right now.

actually, of all the plans, single payer is the easiest to implement. consider the point that government, collectively, already spends the most on health care so, really, there will come a time when it looks like there is a "single payer..."

To completely clean up the mess left by Bush we would need someone who could restore American prestige and influence abroad, re-institute respect for the American system of government at home, reverse the transfer of most new income to the top 5% of the income ladder, and make up for six years lost in the move to sustainable energy independence.

But the person who can best clean up the mess may merely staunch the wounds to America's prestige and influence abroad, restore some portion of hard won and long cherished rights, increase the minority share of income going to the "bottom" 95%, and start to make some progress on the move to sustainable energy independence.

IOW, that criteria is relative, not absolute. And focusing on the relative is important for keeping spirits up ... while it is hard to believe that the damage Bush did in eight years can be undone in eight years, the Democratic field has several people who seem like they could make a start at mopping up the mess.

Agreed. Which is another excellent reason not to nominate Hillary, who cannot be elected given the defection of millions of progressive voters.

And I suppose when the John Birch Society is "centrist" you will be promoting their positions as "better than nothing."  I am not going there with you.

"Republic administration" - I like it :-)

I assume that's s swipe at the GOP's spiteful use of "Democrat Party."

I rated this a 5 not because I'm a Kucinich supporter, particularly, but because I wanted to second Mr. Myers' regret at the omission of his name.  Inclusion gives a message.  So does exclusion:  If the message of Mr. Reed's piece is

• They are each bright and capable. Person by person, they are committed to bringing out the best in America. In ethnic and gender terms, they represent a marvelous picture of the real America, and not a one of them appeals to hate or divisiveness. 

Then the implied message is that national figures omitted are the opposite, or at least don't live up to the standard by which the rest of the field is measured.  My own sense is that Reed's list was more "off the top of his head" rather than an intentional slur directed against Kucinich...or maybe he thinks only Senators and Governors merit inclusion.  Writing by the stable of authors at the Café is sometimes a little more casual than I'd prefer (recognizing, of course, that all of them have day jobs and may, for all I know, be contributing here out of the goodness off their hearts).

So let me posit that Kucinich, too, adds to the representation of a "marvelous picture of the Real America," and that he, no more than the others, "appeals to hate or divisiveness".

aMike

Electable mean able to get elected. Just because someone is deemed electable, doesn't necessarily mean they will win the election. Kerry got a lot of votes, more than most presidential candidates ever do, winners included. He just ran a weak campaign, particularly failing to learn the lesson of the Dukakis campaign, and letting the Swift Boat mob pummel him uncontested until it was too late.

Richardson? Last I heard, New Mexico is a sunbelt location.

Most of the people posting here know more about this subject than I do, so this comment is really a request for information.

Edwards appeals to me because of his strong position on the war and because he is presumably trying to show black people and blue-collar white people their common economic interest. This strikes me as a progressive antidote to the long-term trend toward inequality in American society. It also promises to put a crack in the Republican Southern Strategy, which I would very much like to see.

However, for personal reasons, my top issue is universal healthcare. How do the candidates rate on that issue?

The only incrementalism Democrats have been engaging in since 1992 is becoming incrementally more conservative.

Clinton just got lazy and chose passionately fooling around in the Oval Office to passionately fighting for social change.

Just because you disagree with me, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm kidding myself. I merely hold a different view.

Name a Democrat who had a legitimate chance to win the nomination in 1992, who wasn't a moderate, that could have beaten Bush.

You addressed my point about Gore, but what about McGovern, or Mondale, or Dukakis? DINOs? Sadly, they were slaughtered at the polls. Was there any benefit to those losses for Democrats? I don't think so.

Yet the environment is worse because Gore lost. Did that really justify voting for Nader?

You are going to have to give them a chance to put together platforms.

I keep saying that Richardson has too many scandals behind him to get the nomination, but here's some further confirmation for you.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001884.php

When was the last time Democrats were serious about poverty? Oh, I know, it doesn't focus group well.

My mistake. I didn't recall that Cong. Kucinich had announced already for another go-around, and yes I've met him and yes I like him.