Here is an IRV poll which is similar to Chris' poll, but with one of the most popular potential candidates in the blogosphere (guess who) included. Vote in the:

MyDD Plus Straw poll!

I will post a poll with a larger slate if sufficient interest is shown below. Please post the name of the candidate of your choice (that is currently not in my poll) as a reply to this comment.

ps: Chris, Democracy and polls are about people, candidates, and people's choices. Not some arbitrary set of rules set by one or two individuals (strictly speaking, people should be allowed to set those rules. Why don't you try posting properly cast polls on the rules themselves and see what I am talking about). Frankly, the stubbornness is unreasonable on a blog that otherwise champions progressive ethos.

I have to disagree. Richardson is a possible (not necessarily probable) VP choice. He has scandal experience from his time at the DoE.

Warner is not telegenic. He was a very effective governor for VA, but he is not media savvy, charismatic, or inspirational. He is a Kerryesque, good on paper candidate without the foreign policy credentials.

Clark didnt win the first time and won't win this time. He is from the South but has never held office in the South. He does not have a strong campaign structure for any one state and I would be very surprised if he actually won a southern state in a hypothetical general election where he was the nominee.  

Not one word about how good a president these people would be.  Not one word about how they could communicate ideas in a campaign.  Not one word about the content of the campagains.  And it seems about a third of the online community approaches presidential candidates this way.  I don't want another Carter or Clinton.  I want another FDR, Truman or Kennedy.  And that comes from looking at the candidate first AND second, and their demographic background third.

I struggle to comprehend this Clark/Warner/Edwards scenario. HRC has cash + organisation + name recognition and yet she isn't even in the final two?

Indeed as far as I understand the current position General Clark has neither serious organisational strength/support nor the sort of funds/backers that are needed for such a contest.

Regardless of his many qualities he isn't going to be a serious contender unless he can build a huge war chest in the next 24 months. Primaries cost money, lots of it. Can Clark raise that type of money?

One of Clark/Edwards/Warner might well make it into the top 2 but only one if HRC is in the contest.

Feingold has a huge advantage in Iowa, being from neighboring Wisconsin, and is probably likely to get Tom Harkin's endorsement being a fellow progressive. Feingold also has strong agricultural roots from Wisconsin, and is probably the most pro-labor democrat of the field, meaning he will probably generate considerable union support (I'm guessing the AFL CIO will support someone else while the SEUI will endorse Feingold).

Feingold should have considerable support from New Hampshire, leaving Feingold very well positioned for the primaries.

I think you fail to recognize the fierce support that Wes Clark has among a wide demographic--i.e. not just a bunch of college kids, but veterans, disenchanted Republicans, etc.  Wes is going to be the McCain of the 2008 primary season.

He was already well liked in New Hampshire in 2004, and his stumping has improved remarkably since then.  His style will appeal as well in Iowa, regardless of Vilsack's participation.  (Vilsack is a boring joke.)  I say Clark challenges or beats Hillary in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and then BEATS Hillary (if he hasn't already) in South Carolina.  

I think Warner's appeal will be limited because of his weakness on security issues (listen to his current "opinions" on Iraq)--especially since by that time Iran, North Korea, or some other foreign crisis will supplant Iraq as a primary concern.  

Feingold will have a solid base of support, but it will be less than Dean's was after the Iowa scream.  

Clark's embrace of single payer, gay rights, and recently acquired credibility on global warming, combined with his impeccable security credentials, will make him an attractive consensus candidate for progressives and moderates alike.  Prospective polling against likely Repug nominees will confirm his crossover appeal, and Hillary's relatively weak performance in polling will scare Dems away from her.  

Clark will emerge as the Dem's nominee, and if he is as smart as I think he is, will choose Warner as his veep, since it will add domestic administrative experience and deliver Virginia, as well as strengthening his southern and western appeal.  Together they will call to task the GOP nominee, even McCain, for their support of the failed policies of George Bush, win in a landslide with Fightin' Dem coattails, and we will emerge from this nightmare completely in charge of the political apparatus--except of course for the Supreme Court.  John Edwards will be named Attorney General, Al Gore will be given major props by Wes and named Secretary of Interior or any other job Al wants.  

I feel reasonably confident in all the above, (excepting my fantasy cabinet appointments) UNLESS Dean or Gore enters the election--in which case THEY will compete for the "ABH" role.    

in corrected poll (with Gore&Dean) results are much more realistic (2/4/06 8am)

Al Gore         53.3%    
Howard Dean     26.7%    
Russ Feingold      13.3%     
Wesley Clark      6.7%

So suggestion is simple:
Gore is for Prez, Dean for VP, Clark for Def.Secy
Feingold for some important role in GORE'S Cabinet

Hands down. What's more it gears Mark Warner for 2016. But by that time Wes Clark will have handled all the world's problems. ;)
Its way early of course, and it seems that General Clark is the only one working for 2006 and not for himself (typical of that guy btw).
In my mind, the other candidates are pretty weak or would be extremely divisive for the country.

I know it's not much, but Clark DID win the Oklahoma primary in 2004.