Please, for the love of God, can we find a candidate who hasn't lost a race yet!?! Nixon, McCaskill, Gaw, all have lost statewide already. Let's find a new fresh face, someone to excite the people of the state and who has not alredy been rejected by the voters.

The one guy who didn't win in an otherwise statewide Democratic slate sweep? Brilliant.

Steve Gaw may have lost his bid for secretary of state, but he has a brilliant mind, is ethical, liberal, and willing to work hard--traits that may mean he is not electable (not ruthless enough?), but should be. A really great guy not well enough known on this side of the state.

Money. Who has -- or can raise -- $5 million?

I'll say this about my friend Steve Gaw:

He's one of the best men that I know, and definately wone of the smartest and hardest working. I'd be a lot more upset about his SoS loss if it had come against anyone other than Blunt. Steve's got a great legislative track record, is an upstanding individual, and would be a VERY interesting candidate provided that the Cashola is there-- something that was sort of missing last time.

McCaskill would be crazy not to run.

'06 is going to be a good year to be running as a Democrat.

Steve Gaw was a good state rep-is from the country and is a very good speaker-He'd be a great candidate-but obvioulsy someone with the exisitng exposure that Ms. M. has would be better

I humbly submit that because we are not going to have the money to aggressively define the race, we do not want a candidate with an extensive legislative record. (McCaskill running obviously means we have money to play with.) But if we don't have a legislative record, it becomes harder for Talent to define the race i.e. no abortion votes, no gun votes, no tax votes. It allows the race to be about Social Security, stem cell, Matt Blunt, etc. That is why Chuck Graham would have been not the best because he would have been defined as a porn and pot supporter early on.

Yeah, so what if we don't have a candidate that's batting a thousand? There's not a viable name in the Missouri Democratic Party that doesn't have a loss. Nixon may have lost his Senate run, but he was elected FOUR TIMES as Attorney General.
I think Claire is the best choice to run against Talent in '06. I think she can win if she puts her mind to it and wants it bad enough. The problem is Claire DOESN'T want to go to DC.
Her ambition is the Governor's mansion. Damn shame too, because she's be a great Senator.

If Steve Gaw is the answer, then let's go!! The worst thing we can do is sit around and wait. Let's get it on and beat this Loser!