I Like Chris Dodd, but....

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/23/2006 6:29:02 AM

According to the Hotline blog, "Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is on the verge of announcing publicly that he's actively considering a 2008 presidential bid."

You know, I love Chris Dodd.  My family lives in Connecticut and they love Chris Dodd.  In fact, most people in Connecticut seem to love Chris Dodd.  But, the question is, will the country love Chris Dodd?  The other question is this:  should Democrats be running a northeasterner, a liberal, and a Senator (the terrible trifecta?) for President?  My answer is an unequivocal "no."

A few quick questions/answers.  First, who was the last sitting Senator to win the White House?  John F. Kennedy in 1960. Before that?  Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote.  Some Senators who lost in recent years?  John Kerry and Bob Dole.  Case closed.

Second, who was the last non-Southerner to win the White House running as a Democrat?  That's right, it's John F. Kennedy again, back in 1960.  And remember, JFK barely won that race, and only with Lyndon Johnson of Texas on the ticket.  Since then, three Democrats have been elected President, and all of them have been from the South - LBJ (Texas), Jimmy Carter (Georgia) and Bill Clinton (Arkansas).  Case closed again.

Finally, who was the last "liberal" to win the White House?  Bill Clinton ran as a moderate Democrat.  Jimmy Carter ran as a moderate/conservative Democrat.  OK, one could make the argument that LBJ was a liberal on domestic issues, so maybe 1964 is the correct answer to this question.  Since then, however, it's been all centrist Democrats, all the time.  I'm not saying this is a GOOD thing, I'm just citing facts here.

So, would the Democrats be better in 2008 to nominate a northeastern liberal Senator (Kerry, Dodd, Hillary Clinton?), a southern Senator (Edwards), a southern Governor (Mark Warner), a southern General (Wesley Clark), or a southern ex-President-elect (Al Gore)?  Perssonally, I'll go with one or more of the southerners, thank you.  In fact, as I've been saying for over a year now, Warner/Clark sounds pretty damn good to me.  Anyone got a better idea?

Comments



Warner/Clark? (Steven J. Berke - 5/23/2006 8:05:24 AM)
Personally, I like it better the other way around--Clark/Warner.  Need I add that any white male who gets the 2008 nomination will face HUGE pressure to put Barack Obama on the ticket?


Unfortunately... (Tom Joad (Kevin) - 5/23/2006 10:37:33 AM)
the VP slot doesn't do much for any ticket. It doesn't balance the ticket. It doesn't play to certain voting blocs. Hell, sometimes you don't win the VP's home state. You could put Bozo the Clown in that slot and still get the same result. Obama wouldn't do anything to accentuate or hurt the ticket.

Ask yourself this question. If Clark picks another person besides Warner, would you still vote for him. If the answer is yes, then the VP slot doesn't mean a thing.



I think it can balance... (Lowell - 5/23/2006 11:09:56 AM)
but not in a geographical sense.  However, if a candidate is a bit weak in a certain area, let's just say "national security" to throw one out there randomly, then having a 4-star general on the ticket might be a very helpful thing to do.  For instance, George W. Bush in 2000 compensated for his lack of experience on foreign policy/national security in large part by strongly hinting that Colin Powell would be his Secretary of State.  And Dick Cheney was seen by many as a steady, old hand at the wheel.  In that sense, it can make a difference.  IMHO.


What ticket (Teddy - 5/23/2006 9:34:47 AM)
The neocons (in Hugh Hewitt's book Painting the Map Red) have already made it clear they fully expect the frightened Democrats to nominate Hillary, whom they regard as unbeatable for the nomination due to her mammoth war chest; they also believe it's a given that the frightened Democrats will nominate Oback Barama for V-P. This ticket is regarded as the ideal  Democrat(ic) ticket and it's also regarded as the ticket most easily beaten by a resurgent Republican party fighting to preseve its power. Hewitt's analysis, while self-serving and full of the usual nutty wingnut world view, does have some compelling political rationale.

I've been out of the loop on a business trip for a week, and my e-mail is on the blink so if anyone has sent me an e-mail and not received a reply, don't be insulted. I'm working on it.



Another good/unrealistic option (ibvirginian - 5/23/2006 11:53:00 AM)
Warner/Clinton anyone? I don't see Clinton having the humility to go VP, but it would make use of the war chest and play off her equally mammoth support from women. I'm all for a woman president, but I'm more for a Dem president. Sure she could win the nomination, but there's no way she could win the keys to the White House.

Warner has the reputation that could take him through. Being known as a "unifier" and an effective Southern governor, he has more qualifications than the current POTUS. Clark would be a good choice for VP. He still doesn't have the experience in politics to lead the ballot from where I sit.



I think Clark would be great in the #1 slot. (summercat - 5/23/2006 3:26:19 PM)
He has done work with NATO and the military that compares favorably with any political work.  He has great foreign policy cred.  Warner, who is a whiz at domestic policy, could be a good balance on the ticket.