I'm excited about the rookies on our team who are getting lots of exposure now at the national level. In some of the presidential poll threads, and in other places, I see all kinds of excitement for some of our promising rookies, but Spitzer and Schweitzer are way not ready for prime time. Both of them need at least one full term in the governors mansion before they are ready for a national job. I agree they are exciting FUTURE presidential candidates. But expecting one of those two to win (and have the coattails to retake the house and senate) is like expecting your first round draft pick to turn a cellar dweller into a super bowl team.
Now at the presidential level the dems are hardly a cellar dweller. We need our veteran candidates and should not cast aside those with talent and experience simply because they couldn't quite seal the deal. Imagine for a minute your team came within a blown call or a field goal of winning the superbowl -- would you say screw em they're losers and cast aside the veterans? No way.
Take a look at Shrubya's poll numbers and imagine how many people must have voted for him who are now registering disapproval. Its not a stretch to assume that many of them wish they'd voted for Kerry.
I do love what Spitzer and Schweitzer are doing but we need for them to become a nucleus aroudn which other like-minded candidates in their regions can gravitate. Let's not forget that lots of New York is a red state and winning those seats is a necessary part of winning back congress. Similarly, Schweitzer needs to focus on being a voice for the Dems. in the intermountain west. Winning at least a few senate seats out here is vital to regaining control of the Senate.
Once we have a very deep bench in all of our country we will be able to take it to 'em. Sorry for the long post, I just don't want to see us cast aside leaders with vision, national experience and name recognition.
For example, Nixon got smoked in 1960 (and there are even some tinfoil hat republicans who claim Daley delivered that election to JFK) and came back to win in 1968 and 1972. What an awesome reversal of fortune it would be for us if Gore were to win in 2008 and 2012 -- especially since Nixon now looks like Dubya lite.
Kerry and Gore both have come within a hair of winning the big dance and given the travails of our national republicans, would easily trounce Dubya if a national election were held tomorrow. (This assumes they ditch the consultants, speak their minds and let Howard Dean "handle" their campaigns).
I've said in other threads that we need to focus on local elections to win it all. Coalescing behind Kerry or Gore would allow us to keep our strong regional candidates (and their senate seats -- I'm still mad at Edwards for losing his -- and Feingold and Hillary's seats could be in jeopardy if they run) and let those regional big dogs help others in their regions.
Frankly my personal preferences for president matter not. I just hope that we all take a strategic view of things and recognize that our recent candidates came very close to winning. Coalescing behind someone with a track record of success (who most independents probably wish they had voted for) can only help us locally and is likely to give us a big head start nationally.