Ted is a good politician, not great. I think that Democratic Party needs to find a great candidate to have a rock-solid chance in 2008.

For anyone in Oregon politics, current or near past; to run for POTUS, I would prefer: former Governor John Kitzhaber and Congressman Peter DeFazio. The former is enjoying "political retirement" and the later has not had any inkling of moving up the political ladder for a while now.

I think he needs to shore up support among his own party, in his own state first. Most school advocates, and there are a lot, are calling his K to 12 spending "woefully inadequate," not exactly the kind of talk you'd like to hear about a supposedly progressive governor.

He should be thinking about reelection, not the presidency.

I still give TK the benefit of the doubt and hope he can rise to the occassion.

Perhaps if he actually did something to help the most dire needs of this state while Governor, he might be more palatable for other positions. Instead, he stands by the "the people don't want to pay more so I guess we'll just let the schools sink further into the toilet" -- issuing a statement that public education is in trouble, and espousing no plan on how to fix it. Is this the extent of courage from our elected leaders? At this point, he wouldn't get my vote for the Democratic candidate for governor (I'd vote for Ron Saxton over him).

Ted Kulongoski for President? No way!

I plan to vote for Peter Sorenson in the Democratic primary for governor. We need a Democratic governor who will take action to fund schools and colleges, provide health care to all workers and children, and fund human services. Our governor needs to frame the important issues facing Oregon, instead of just saying "no new taxes" and thinking about the next election.

Yes. By all means.

The best way for Oregon to get rid of him is a presidential run. Maybe he can help us out with some appointments:

Kate Brown for Attorney General Ginny Burdick for Nat'l Security Advisor Ben Westlund can chair Nat'l Endowment of the Arts Randall Edwards can chair the Fed Bill Bradbury for Secretary of Defense Mick Gillette for Chief Justice Peter Courtney for Sec'y of Labor Lane Shetterly for Sec'y of Interior Len Hannon to direct the Social Sec. Admin. and the brilliant Susan Castillo for Sec'y of State

Ted has one qualification for president: experience dealing with a near impossible fiscal situation.

Kulongoski for President?

Honestly, that is laugh out loud funny.

If it is true that his name is actually being bandied about, it just shows how leaderless the Democrats are right now.

Which brings up a good question, one I heard Chris Mattews ask in an interview a while back: Who speaks for the Democrats right now? Who is the D's leader? As far as I can tell, there is none.

Anybody?

I don't see it.

Any evidence that he wants it?

I mean we all want to be President maybe, but does he want it in that supranormal crazy networking day and night obsession way that would make it happen?

Consider what "Governor of Oregon" means as a sales feature on a national level.... it's pretty close to "Governor of Vermont" as an image for most of the country.... a strange place to be from, regardless of what we know to be the reality of his policies and proclivities or Oregon's deeply conservative politics.

Never say never, but can we say "does this picture add up?" ?

Could it be his strong resemblance in appearance to Donald Rumsfeld?

I agree with Aaron--Kitzhaber or DeFazio would be better national candidates. They have spoken on more national issues.

4 words that make a good rightie like me a little nervous: Mark Warner of Virginia.

I think we need to convey to Congressman DeFazio to challange Senator Smith in 2008. The question is then who would we get to keep that Congressional seat D? Sen. Morrisette or Walker Rep. Barnhart, Ackerman, Holvey, Wirth(dont know if she is in the district) Or one of the Democrat County Commissoners in the District?

Plus with Rep Buckley and Sen Bates we have an increasing chance of a serious challange to Congressman Walden in 2008--we need to get someone from Dechutes county in office.

I'd have to go with the Kitzhaber pitch over the Kulongoski one.

And as far as current Western state guvs are concerned, it's Richardson.

Warner is a good man--I think that him, Gover. Richardson and Sen. Finegold are the 3 frontrunners. With the rest in the distance, but I did like John Edwards speech on poverty and the party.

As I recall from previous experience, the best ways to get DeFazio to run for Senate would be: a) That the DSCC is willing to support him (lack of that is apparently why he opted out of running for Senate previously) b)figure out how to keep that seat D.

Look at Peter's support and stands on issues and match those with sitting legislators. Offhand without knowing them well, my guess is that Morrisette might be the best fit--would he want to run for Congress?

It would probably take someone who is big on veterans issues (as Hooley is).

Let's forget about Kulongoski running for prez. I don't think he should be putting his resources into that. The question is, who's going to beat Smith in '08, especially if his campaign motto in '08 in Multnomah county is going to be about how he fought the administration on the Bonneville power plan.

a joke, isn't it?

Apart from other things the guy has limited redneck appeal and you cannot elect anybody for president unless he has some redneck appeal. That's why I'm hoping they will go with Giuliani in 2008. Let's pray.

"Gamed" Thinly disguised opportunity for Ted bashing?!

No..just reality of Oregon not truly having a Democrat that could step up for the 2008 race for President.

These are the persons that ran for President since 1960 from a western state from the 2 major parties: 1) Ronald Reagan-Governor of California R won in 1980 and 1984 2) George McGovern-born in South Dakota and was Congressman from there. D 3) Richard Nixon-California, Congressman and VP under Ike in 1952 and 1956. R lost in 1960 vs JKF and won in 1972 vs. Humbert Humphrey 4) Humbert Humphrey-born in South Dakota-Senator from Minnoseta and VP under LBJ. D lost in 1972 vs. Richard Nixon 5) Barry Goldwater-born in the Arizona Territory and was a five term Senator. R Lost in 1964 vs LBJ. He had a hand in the defeat of fellow Republican Richard Nixon in 1960.

Need I remind you folks that Darlene Hooley represents the 5th District and Peter DeFazio is the 4th District Congressman?

Contenders at this stage: Kerry will run again H. Clinton will run J. Edwards will run

Darker horses: Evan Bayh Wes Clark Joe Biden

Kulongoski? Not even on the radar, and showing no move to get on the radar. Like Carter as Governor in Georgia, if TK was running, we'd already see clear indications.

This is all useless, though fun, speculation now, but to really spice up the mix, consider what would happen if Iraq ends up settling down enough that Bush can claim victory, the Israelis and Palestinians begin to move toward some settlement, and the economy continues to grow. Then any Republican would be in a very strong position, and some strong contenders (Clinton for example) may choose to sit out '08 and wait for a better year.

Is South Dakota really a western state? I figure the definition of western state is west of the rockies, and perhaps including the rockies.

I see anything as mid-western as not being western. After all, mid-west includes Ohio, which is practically the east coast.

Doty,

That's a helluva point. I couldn't agree more.

Don't think law or party rule requires nominee to be primary candidate--just to accumulate the number of delegate votes.

As far as "hasn't happened in our lifetimes" if you want a really entertaining read, try the 1940 election. The late great Steve Neal (McNary HS grad) wrote books on McNary and Willkie--the GOP 1940 ticket. Great story-- I once did a paper on it.

Willkie was kind of a Perot figure-not a career politician. NOT the favorite going into the convention, but won on the 6th ballot. The sort of convention which could probably never happen again given the transforming power of television, blogs, etc. Fascinating story.

<h1></h1>

The post and most of the length of the thread sounds to my ear like a conversation from some by-gone day of politics and political career-track critical-pathing, all jabbering away preserved inside a sort of brittle glass shell so the voices have that -iing kind of ringy ting decay persistence that hangs in the air for a fraction of a second after each sentence ends. Sealed-in-a-chamber voices.

It seems to me the 'Dem' mover & shaker in '08 is as apparent today as Howard Dean in '04 was in Feb. '01. I write 'Dem' figuratively to indicate the person of the left might not even be a Democrat, or that the Party might not even exist, or that a new Party might be created by then, or that the two candidates on the ballot are no choice at all, pretty much interchangeable mannequins; or "Coke or Pepsi" when living things must have water.

Not that people and policies are encased in the past, but that all the futures being talked about and projected and planned are unrealistic, are being taken away, don't exist -- as explained by the anonymous White House source attributed for the "...we create (future) reality ..." quote in Ron Suskind's startling expose article last fall, ("Without a Doubt," NYT Magazine, Oct. 17).

For (hypothetical future) example: I see it that this administration created and conducted nine-eleven, and that it is said "it is going to happen again," and that, unstopped, it is going to happen again, much larger. Suppose eight states are eradicated, whatever that means, or suppose ten million people are eliminated, whatever that means, ( -- then what does the Social Security liability in 2018 look like ?!, which consideration is why it seems wasteful to me to spend this time on it [Social Security, 2018, take your pick] when the present time is all and all too brief the time there is to solve very immediate predicaments), or suppose whatever 'happens again' means to you. Then, in all this 'supposing,' all this 'planning' positions and maneuvers, then: what can be done and what should be done now, first? It seems binary to me. Somebody 'did it' once and might 'do it' again -- either 'they' are in sight in office or 'they' are out of sight underground. If it's the first case 'they' can be stopped by our actions now, basically by focussing attention on them and seeing every move every minute (suspects under surveillance) which needs the mass media to perform in a way that it hasn't been. If it's the second case there is no preventive actions we can take because 'they' are invisible -- effective living is futile so live in fear; the popular default.

The alternative, I suppose, is to not suppose or plan on or plan against anything. Move on, keep it moving folks, show's over, go on about your business, que sera, sera, take it as it comes, future just happens randomly, planning / organizing / acting is inconsequential. Mostly the 'ignore it' alternative is not working for me because I've got that "we (anonymous) create (your) reality" snippet stuck in the way in the middle of my mind. Probably there's a pill for my condition. If I could afford it.

Did anyone notice, (Kulongoski? Sorenson? KerryClintonEdwards?), any significance that the House passed restrictions today which invalidates the Oregon drivers license as identification for federal compliances, such as boarding an airplane?

My foreboding (Too Much Information syndrome: take a pill), is there may not be an '08 election. ('Oh, that could never happen,' some say. I say: Feb.01 is to Nov.04 as Feb.05 is to ??) But if there is an '08 election, I expect the winner is going to be an accomplished leader, not an accomplished politician.

<h1></h1>