Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Liberal "Club" to Meet With Two More '08 Dems

Early in January, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and retired Gen. Wesley Clark are scheduled to sit down with a small group of liberal activists who see themselves as early vetters of potential Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination.

Edwards is set to dine with the group of 8 to 10 people on Jan. 4.  The group includes former AFL-CIO political director Steve Rosenthal and America Votes President Cecile Richards. Clark has a date with the group on Jan. 10.

Rosenthal told The Fix in late October that "the dinners provide an opportunity for progressive leaders and potential candidates to let their hair down and get to know each other a little better."

So far the group has met with Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Its members hope to meet with each of the Democrats considering the 2008 presidential race over the coming months.

The Fix first reported about the existence of the Supper Club in late October.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 19, 2005; 11:15 AM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Friday Line: Romney News Shakes Up Governors Rankings
Next: Democrats Ding Potential GOP Presidential Candidates

Comments

Oh come on you pseudo naderite, michael moore, foreign cardriving feinstienites...(the guy who wont go a mile to vote because theres no difference makes me wanna puke!) please dont put the world thru more years of heck and horror just so you can congratulate yourself on your purity...Hillary in 08...not just because shes pretty darn good but also because victory is all that matters in presidential politics and they (bill and hill) are the only ones who can press thru and win.

Posted by: No Ls | December 22, 2005 12:08 AM | Report abuse

In 1991, Bill Clinton had virtually no name recognition. Now I think it's 100%.

Evan Bayh on the left??? Where on earth do you get that idea? I challenge you to produce a single shred of evidence for that characterization.

I'm hungry, will any of you buy me a pizza? :P

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | December 21, 2005 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Mark Warner could become our next Democratic President more than any other in the field of hopefuls. Evan Bayh, Russell Feingold and Hillary Clinton are all potential fundraisers from the left, only the latter has real name recognition. Unfortunately, with an eye toward 2008, Hillary's record suggests a more moderate trend while her gnashing-at-the-teeth Republican anti-Hillary fundraisers will paint her as a liberal. Senators rarely become Presidents these decades so don't consider John Kerry, Wes Clark and Barack Obama in the running though Obama will boost any Presidential ticket to victory in 2008 or 2012. While Howard Dean was the voice of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" John Kerry will largely be to blame for the Democratic defeat in 2004 while John Edwards could boost a fresher Presidential ticket with his ability to create a Camelot press buzz out of the shadows of John Kerry. Bill Clinton may not be the Kingmaker we hoped but the images of Al Gore, Bill and Hillary and even Ted Kennedy and John Kerry will lend weight to a party with many rising stars and some who's time is more easily measured in the past. While Governors and Ex-Mayors will vy for the Republican Presidential ticket, Bill Frist will emerge with the most blood on his scalpel with Giuliani, Jeb Bush and VA Sen. George Allen all bloodied by their own with a possible new Vice President (The Frist Ascension) as a means to a Presidency (check Cheney's schedule after the 2006 "mid-terms") It's either President Warner or President Frist. All others are off the radar map, or in the cross-hairs of early primary defeat. Personally, I would like to see a Hillary/Barack 08 ticket but I want to win for the next 16 years to undo the 8 years of damage of the worst President Ever; George W Bush!

Posted by: Democrat YO Ass | December 20, 2005 6:42 PM | Report abuse

What about Bill Richardson? I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again-- a Richardson/Warner ticket (or, as a second choice, a Warner/Richardson ticket) has all the right components-- expertise in foreign policy/national security AND such domestic concerns as technology, education, and the economy. Plus, it would be geographically logical-- southwest and south, EXACTLY where the Democratic party needs to make inroads. And they're both governors, not senators with "flip-flopping" records. A winning ticket.

Posted by: The Caped Composer | December 20, 2005 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Amen to the last two (though Mr. Politico has a point, Populist; I'd also ask whether you realize that your two faves are about as far from what populist vestiges remain in the Democratic Party as could be? That's a good thing in my book, but had to ask...)

Question for the group: Is it too soon for Warner? 1 term ain't much to swing from. Love to hear your thoughts.

Posted by: Kennan | December 20, 2005 9:59 AM | Report abuse

PopulistD, While I agree that Warner, with more national exposure, could win for the Democrats, Clark would be a loser on his ticket. He got his tail kicked all over the map in '04, and has tons of sound bites out there.

http://crazypolitics.blogspot.com

Posted by: Crazy Politico | December 20, 2005 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Mark Warner is the man that will lead the Democrats to a victory in 2008. Pair Warner with Clark and you have an unstoppable team. Boy am I ready to kick some Republican ass in 2008.

Warner/Clark 08

Posted by: PopulistDemocrat | December 19, 2005 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Man, I am so sick of people who allow the word "liberal" to take on negative connotations, like the first poster.

For the record, looking out for the poor and disenfranchised, and making a strong stand on behalf of civil liberties is part of what makes our nation so great.

Now, a question for Mr. Cizzilla....how often do you define interest groups on the right as "conservative activists?"

Interestingly, a simple Google web search of the terms found 159,000 mentions for "Liberal Activist" vs. 142,000 for "Conservative Activist." Since 'activist,' is also used as a keyword for 'extremist,' this is a likely result of the right's campaign to demonize all things that identify as liberal.

Yet, just searching Google News found the opposite...203 Conservative Activist mentions vs 128 for the Liberal counterparts.

Not sure what this means, as Google News will also incorporate certain blogsites as well as regular media outlets.

However, maybe it is progress, in that things are finally beginning to balance out a bit.

Posted by: scootmandubious | December 19, 2005 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I certainly don't see any progressives among this group. None of them will shake up the apple cart too much and all are traditional corporatists.

There's not a sufficiently meaningful and significant difference between this bunch and the Republicans for me to waste the time and gas to get up off of the couch and drive a mile and a half to the firehouse to vote: Pass.

Posted by: Seldom Seen Smith | December 19, 2005 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Wingnut is just another word for Republican radicals. There are no wingnuts in the Democratic party, and liberals are the essence of what the Democratic party is, while progressives are pragmatists who are both to the left and right of liberals.

I think Don't Drink the Koolaid has already drained the pitcher.

Posted by: Norwegianity | December 19, 2005 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The Republican cabal reaches into the press and media too.

Just ask Bob Woodward.

Posted by: joe joe joe | December 19, 2005 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm really glad to read this.

Rosenthal and Richards represent very important constituencies -- the grassroots -- who have been left out of the election process. I'm especially happy that labor, election reform, media reform and peace and justice groups are coming together! I'm actually feeling all tingly over it.

I'd love to know who the other members of the supper club are so I'll have to keep checking in. I hope PDA is there, along with True Majority and DFA. And I hope Feingold is next on the list to be vetted by this group.

A question was raised in a related article whether the Republican Party is doing something similar. Of course not! Their candidates are selected by the ruling cabal in Washington DC, and lately that cabal has been reaching deep into state campaigns, right down to city mayors' offices.

Posted by: Kat | December 19, 2005 1:59 PM | Report abuse

"Liberal" is in the eye of the beholder and though this writer calls the group 'liberal", it's not a zany lefty group. The Democratic Party is a big tent, it's important to keep it that way.

That being said. leading the Democratic Party is often like herding cats. It will take a real leader (not just one who plays a leader on TV) if we intend to have a celebration in 06 and a democratic inaugual in the WH in 08.

Glad to see Wes Clark meeting with this group. I'm just about convinced he's the one for 08.

Posted by: Red State Dem | December 19, 2005 12:39 PM | Report abuse

If we go "liberal" or "progressive" in 08' we will have eight more years of republican corruption and hubris.

Candidates need to "Just say no" to wingnuts on both ends of the spectrum

Posted by: Don't Drink The Koolaid | December 19, 2005 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company