Besides Gore, the potential '08 field is inadequate

[Ignacio Upton]

(Note: I've changed the title after a few complaints. While I'm not enthusiastic about the current potential field, I'm going to tone down what I'm saying specifically about them.)

I pretty disappointed that Warner has chosen not to run. I'm quite surprised, frankly. He impressed me the most out of all the potential candidates. I know that some here will flame me for that, and tell me that he's a DLCer and a corporatists (I've heard bullshit about him an the Bilderbergers before...puhleeze!) Had he chosen to run he would have almost certainly gotten my vote in the primary. However, there is another candidate that I feel has a good chance of winning, and can excite the base while benefiting from 2008's political landscape, and that is Al Gore. Why? Well, let's look at the other potential '08 candidates and see how they stack up:

Bayh, Biden, Dodd, and Daschle will be about as popular with primary voters as Lieberman was in 2004. Out of these four, I could see Biden getting a possible VP nod or nomination as Secretary of Defense, but his plagarism scandal from 1988 will sink his chances at becoming President, in addition to his coddling of MBNA and lack of a spine in standing up to Bush. Dodd is another Bob Dole, and so is Dsachle, in addition to the fact that he failed to keep our caucus together and L0ST his Senate seat after 18 years in the Senate! Bayh lacks charisma and is too close to the DLC, and unlike Warner he doesn't excit at least a segment of the base (Warner, for example, polls pretty well on straw polls at Daily Kos, while Bayh gets shit.)

Hillary is Hillary. She gives off the image of a panderer and she's too polarizing. I plan on voting for her in November for re-election, but I'll be damned if anyone tries to tell me to vote for her in the primaries. She's at the bottom of my personal pick of candidates.

Kerry only became the nominee in 2004 because of the "Anybody but Bush" movement, and the frontloaded primary system propelled him to victory after Iowa in the wake of Dean's collapse. In order words, he was an accidental nominee a la Dukakis and McGovern. He also failed miserably in stopping the Swift Boat Vets and was too timid on Iraq. Even if he's not pandering to people now my moving to the left on the issue of the war, he has the stench of failure about him from 2004. He'll end up like William Jennings Brian, Thomas Dewey, and Adlai Stevenson, in that he will REPEAT his loss just as they did in their multiple failed Presidential bids. Also, Kerry is up for re-election for his Senate seat. If he is going to run for President, he should announce in advance whether or not he wants to run for re-election. MA has a decent bench for Senate candidates to replace him (maybe Barney Frank or Ed Markey?) so if he announces not to run, keeping his seat shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Edwards was only Senator for one term and spent almost half of that term outside of D.C. campaigning for President. He'll be painted as a still-green slick opportunist and lightweight. He's more electable out of the current crop of potential candidates, but if he runs against a strong GOP nominee like McCain (who, in all honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the nomination if the GOP gets crushed this year, as they might swallow their pride and abandom Bushism in order to preserve the broader conservative movement) then he gets crushed. He'll be protraryed as a Dan Quayle-like figure.

Obama: Same reason as Edwards, but in the fact that the charges against him would actually have some MERIT. He will have only been Senator for a little over two years if he announces his intention to run. Maybe he would be a good VP pick, but if he wants to run for President, he's better off running in 2012 or 2016.

Feingold is palatable to us ideologically, but a twice-divorced secular liberal Jew (think Barbara Streisand or Diane Feinstein in the yes of "middle America.") has no chance in hell of getting elected. He would do about as well as Dukakis if he gets nominated, especially if he goes against a strong GOP candidate.

Clark is my favorite candidate out of the remaining bunch, but after seeing Kerry swiftboated in 2004, I'm pessimistic as to whether Clark will be able to overcome the inevitable attacks of "he almost started WWIII!" or "he's stupidly bombed the Chinese embassy during the bombing of Yugoslavia" or "he was involved in Waco" or "he was a failed general who was fired by Clinton." And you know there will be people who served under him who will be more than willing to start in ads attacking him. I remember reading an old Freeper thread where one of the posters claimed that he served under Clark and went through all sorts of crap about why he shouldn't run. Now, I know that any nominee will be swiftboated, but I fear that the RW will make Clark out to be like a liberal verion of Curtis LeMay or Admiral Stockdale instead of Eisenhower.

...Through this process of elimination, I feel that there is only one candidate who can both get the nomination, excite the base, and make an effective case to the public for a return to stability a la Nixon in 1968, and that is Gore. Unlike Kerry, Gore WON the popular vote and we have clear proof that he WON in Florida (while it's possible that Kerry could have won Ohio in 2004, the evidence is harder to prove than in Florida, especially because Bush's "official" margain of victory was by more than 100,000 while he only "won" Florida by 537 votes.) Unlike Kerry, he's also had enough time to be outside of D.C. to take an outsiderish role, and the new Al Gore is someone who won't use Donna Brazille or Bob Shrum to help him campaign. If he campaigns with the persona that he's had for the past few years, then he won't have the wooden image. Ad on to the fact that he was opposed to the war from the beginning, and you have a compelling candidate. Imagine an election where it is Gore versus someone like Frist or Sam Brownback. He would beat them!

[bbernardini]

1. Olbermann/Biafra '08! nt

[Ignacio Upton]

5. Pol POT, Pol POT!

n/t.

[cool user name]

35. It's a holiday in Cambodia ...

:evilgrin:

[SteppingRazor]

12. Ha! Nice! How 'bout Stewart/Colbert?

:rofl:

[greeneyedboy]

2. Gore/Dean would be my dream ticket. but for now, let's focus on 11/7/06

[Ignacio Upton]

4. I'm still focused

But the news of a major potential candidate not running (Warner) deserves to give enough attention to re-evaluating the potential field.

[featherman]

3. Clark

[democrank]

7. Clark

[sweetheart]

26. ck/lark/erry

aaaahh

[mcscajun]

45. Clark and...

any good Democratic candidate for the VP slot.

If Gore runs, and that's a big if, I might reconsider.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

82. Anyone who runs will be mercilessly smeared by lies and distortions

Therefore, I would go with the best person for the job. That person in my opinion is Clark.

[pwb]

6. Hillary can beat anybody

unless you let republicans define what a democrat is to you.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

16. I disagree

Way too much baggage, and way too polarizing. ALL Repubs hate her, and many Dems do too. How do you win with that formula?

[ThomWV]

41. Or: Anybody Can Beat Hillary+

Which I think is more like the truth. There is pure and simple hatred out here in the vast world away from cities. She simply can not overcome it.

[guinivere]

73. Sorry, but the only person she could beat is me.

Way, way too much baggage.

A couple of people I know voted rep last time. The say they will vote Dem this time, but not if Hillary runs. If I know 2 people that say this, I would bet that there are a hell of a lot more out there.

[Beelzebud]

112. I'm tired of America being run by 2 families.

I won't vote for ANYONE with the last name "Bush", or "Clinton" for the rest of my life.

[stray cat]

8. I'm in favor of a rationale populist!

[BlueStater]

9. Interesting post

I don't necessarily agree with it but interesting post nonetheless.

[politicasista]

10. Disagree. Anyone is qualified

If Gore isn't the nominiee (and he has a right to run if he wants) what will you do then? Will you stay at home or will you work hard for the nominee? I would rather work hard for the nominee regardless who it is.

[Ignacio Upton]

11. I'll still support the nominee

But some candidates have BETTER chances than others. Nobody will be able to convince me that Hillary or Biden have a chance because it's simply not true.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

13. Wow, great analysis, thanks

I know a lot of people will disagree, but debate is what this discussion board is for.

I found myself agreeing with just about everything you wrote. I like Gore, too, as the best shot, I have so much respect for him, but I have a lingering fear that he will also be painted as a loser. The good news is that he apparently learned a lot last time, as you said.

I don't know, I'm torn and right after we take back Congress in a couple of weeks I want to put a 2008 bumper sticker on my car.

My sig line says Steve Earle for President but that pesky marriage record (7 wives, not all at once of course) and that little prison stint might rule him out.. :)

It will be very interesting to see how the Repubs go on this one: McCain seems likely, but I wouldn't put it past them to run Jeb Bush. That would be hilarious.

[Change has come]

14. Clark

[eagler]

86. It will be Clark when the smoke clears

I hope

[bpeale]

15. Richardson of NM

I would support Bill Richardson if he chose to run.

[Ignacio Upton]

18. He would make a good VP choice

But I have two words for you that will sink him if he's the nominee: Los Alamos.

[bpeale]

21. and i have 2 words for you...

government installation. he is not responsible for what goes on in there.

you would be hard pressed to find anyone else with a 69% approval rating who will run.

Bill Richardson 2008

[Ignacio Upton]

25. Can you give me a link?

Richardson is a good candidate on paper, but I'm afraid that Los Alamos could sink him in the general election. Also, I'm wondering how being Hispanic will work for him in the election. You're going to see/hear all sorts of racist shit against him for being Mexican-American, especially with illegal immigration becoming more of an issue. However, out of those two things, Los Alamos has more potential to hurt him, while the fact that he's hispanic might not make too much of a difference.

[bpeale]

36. i figured if the govt awards contracts for mgt of los alamos...

then they are a government installation. The following article appears at the link: http://www.governmententerprise.com/news/175400277. I also figured that if security clearances are required (and they are) then it is a government installation. I think only the govt is authorized to issue security clearances. I could be wrong though, but I don't think so since it is the FBI who does the investigations for security clearances. At least they did mine when I was in the service.

December 23, 2005
Los Alamos Employees Critical Of Lab Decision

By K.C. Jones Courtesy of TechWeb News

Two days after <b>the federal government awarded the University of California and others a contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory</b>, employees are griping over the decision.

Doug Roberts, a retired lab staff member, has received mostly complaints from people submitting comments to his blog about the new management contract awarded to the university and its partners. The decision was announced Wednesday by the Department of Energy.

Observers are wondering whether long time lab employees will leave and whether the problems over the past few years – including fraud, mismanagement, accounting problems and security breaches – have any chance of improving. The University of California has run the lab since it opened in 1943 with the mission of creating an atomic bomb.

This year marks the first time the government has requested proposals for managing the lab. Los Alamos National Security LLC, a partnership uniting the university and Bechtel Corp., beat out Lockheed Martin for the contract.

The corporation will earn up to $80 million to run the lab for the next seven years, with the possibility of renewing the contract for another 13 years. Lockheed Martin can protest the decision but has not done so yet.

The lab is charged with protecting the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and is also an incubator for scientific and technological achievements.

[bpeale]

37. Hispanics

since Hispanics are the largest growing population in the U.S., i think Richardson would do very well. people like him and respect him.

[Poiuyt]

49. Richardson had that rather embarrassing episode where he claimed he had

been drafted into major league baseball when in fact he hadn't. Nothing that would affect how good a president he would be, but something that would be used against him.

I will support any Democrat in 08

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. Oh, Good Lord.

I love when people who don't want to vote for Kerry pretend they can read the minds of everyone who voted for him in the primary. "He was only elected because of ABB!" That is such a pantsload, and you know you can't substantiate it. Of course, acknowledging that Kerry has popular support - which he clearly does, if you follow his fundraising, barnstorming appearances, and grassroots support - pokes a hole in your theory, so you will conveniently ignore it.

The "DC insider" argument is bollocks, too - Kerry is hardly a favorite among the Beltway consultant/punditocracy crowd - as should be obvious - and it's also obvious that he is not favored by the Reid/Clinton/Pelosi Democratic leadership (as evidence by Reid's attempts to stifle Kerry's filibuster and his Iraq withdrawal resolution). Not to mention that a true DC insider would never have uncovered the rife corruption and scandal - on both sides of the aisle - that Kerry did when he investigated BCCI and Iran/Contra. THAT'S the reason the power structure doesn't and has never liked Kerry.

If you want to support Gore, fine, whatever, but surely, if Gore is so strong, it is possible to do so without spreading false and inaccurate crap about other fine Democrats. For the record, I give Gore a 5% chance of running in 2008 - nothing he has said has indicated that he will run again - so I guess you'll be forced to choose one of the "poo" candidates. Frankly, demonizing the entire slate of Democrats only helps the Republicans - while my choice is Kerry, we have many fine honorable potential candidates and I'm not going to run around tearing them all down in order to support my guy. The left did this in 2004 and did Karl Rove's homework for him - let's not do it in 2008, please.

[nickinSTL]

30. I absolutely agree on Kerry

I voted for Kerry in the primaries because I thought he was a strong candidate, and the best of the bunch...NOT due to ABB!

[Mass]

46. I definitively agree

[politicasista]

52. I agree three n/t

[beachmom]

55. Kerry doesn't just have strong support

He has really deep support, who have been with him through thick and thin. A lot of the other candidates seem to be the flavor of the month -- candidate x gave a great smackdown on a Sunday program -- CANDIDATE X for president!!!

Meanwhile, Kerry's deep support remains and is forever steady.

Stay tuned, everyone. Take a listen to Kerry, and see if you like what you're hearing.

[Ignacio Upton]

65. The truth is, Kerry WAS an "accidental nominee"

The convetional wisdom going into Iowa was that Dean would win there and in NH. Wes Clark was eating away from his support in NH polls, and it was thought that the matchup would become Dean vs. Clark. However, because Kerry made a tactically brilliant move to divert resources to Iowa, he benefitted from Dean's loss. As a result, and combined with the frontloaded primary system, Kerry got a bounce that was the equivalent of launching a rocket. Many Clark zupporters in NH went back to Kerry based on the fact that he won in Iowa. However, Edwards almost beat him in primaries in WI and OH. Had the primaries not been so clumped together, I think that Edwards would have won the nomination based on enthusiasm. With Kerry, he won because people were jumping on the band wagon. He also made a series of tactically-stupid decisions during the campaign (ie. like his statement at the Grand Canyon where he said that he still would have voted for the IWR knowing in August of '04 what he knew in October of '02. His poor response to SBVT, coupled with the lack of an aggressive campaign against Bush on the War on Terror also hurt him.)

[Mass]

93. Your opinion is not fact.

A few things you are missing, voluntarily or not.

1/ No accident that Kerry won in IA. Actually, the main reason he won was that he had his team around him, a team who knew him and was selling him for who he was, contrarely to the DC strategists who were populating his GE campaign. If Kerry made an error, it was to accept that DC strategists led his campaign and try another 92 campaign (actually it is to Kerry's credit to have gotten a lot more votes than Clinton, given this context).

2/ In NH, many Clark's supporters were originally Kerry's supporters that liked Kerry, but had gone to Clark because they thought Kerry had lost and Clark was the closest from Kerry when it came to FP policy. As Kerry showed he was a viable candidate, they came naturally back to him.

3/ Edwards came close in WI thanks to Drudge (and even there Kerry won by +6 %), and the fact he lost in OH (where his populist views should have prevailed) tells us more about Edwards's weaknesses than about Kerry (I cannot remember what the results were, but Kerry beat Edwards soundly in OH by 18 points (nearly beat him is a little bit revisionnist)).

4/ There are certainly things that were poorly done in his campaign, but not less than in any recent campaign. His campaign on the WOT was well done and resonnated well. Unfortunately not enough to counter the October surprise.

I am not sure why it is so hard for you to sell Gore positively,

[WildEyedLiberal]

95. And other candidates made tactically stupid decisions during the primaries

Which is why they lost.

It is revisionism pure and simple to suggest that Dean, Clark, Edwards etc would have run an error-free and tactically perfect general election campaign. That is not only unknowable - as they were not the candidate - but unbelievable, as there has never been a "perfect" campaign in the history of politics.

Even if Edwards had won, I don't really understand how his candidacy would have been less "accidental" than Kerry's. Unlike Kerry, who was never FOR the war, Edwards co-sponsored the IWR and likely would have had a harder time differentiating himself from Bush on the issue.

I think the whole phrase "accidental nominee" is rather insulting - it implies that there was one pre-ordained candidate (apparently Dean, in your analysis) who was "supposed" to win, and the fact that he didn't means that the nominee won by "accident." It is a fallacious statement on its face. Yes, Dean carried the momentum into Iowa, and it was his to lose - but because Kerry won does not make him the "accidental" nominee who somehow usurped the "true" nominee. That also goes to show how disastrously wrong conventional wisdom and media analysis can be - they hyped Dean endlessly and ignored Kerry's ground campaign, which allowed everyone to feign surprise at Kerry's victory.

[karynnj]

108. Kerry was not the accidental winner

You forget that after Iowa and Iowa, there was a multistate day with OK, SC, MO, DE, NM, AZ, and ND. This is a daunting set of states for a New Englander. If Edwards was going to win, these were his type of states. It would have been like 1992 where a Southern candidate won a different set of Southern states to become the front runner.

Thing of who pushed the ABB myth - Begala and especially Carville in the mainstream and dissapointed Dean supporters in the blogosphere. The fact is Kerry very convinciningly won the primaries. With Woodward's relevations, I wonder if the difference in performance between the primaries and the general election might partially have been the Clinton people the campaign took on who were not enthusiastic about the candidate.

[seabeyond]

111. abb the tired repug line that media continued and certain dems

reinforced, so full of bullshit and obvious at any gathering or rally of kerry's. the abb came in 2002 before we had any candidates. as people got to know kerry they strongly supported and learned to respect who kerry was. i know a lot in this area that didnt like kerry, but after listening to the man, they changed their mind. it was the defining of the repug party that created the dislike. it was kerry himself that shifted that. and these are texan republicans

bullshit then, bigger bullshit now

and i see only advantage in having kerry run again
i see kerry has earned it after last two years

[democrank]

19. Take a look at this, Ignacio....

Potential `08 field is poo? Think again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2878336

[Ignacio Upton]

22. I like Clark

And I stated that out of the current crop of candidates (minus Gore) Clark would stack up the best. However, I don't underestimate the right-wing noise machine. If you have a Republican-leaning friend of your's who says that he or she would vote for Clark, just wait until Seann Hannity & co. get done with brainwashing your friend. Afterward you will be hearing about how Clark is the second coming of Curtis LeMay.

[bullwinkle428]

34. Good overall analysis. But Clark DOES make appearances on RW shows

(Hannity & Colmes specifically) and has laid down some serious smack on whiny little Seany-boy. This, in my mind, totally neutralizes the crap that they try to throw at him, and I would love to see O'Reilly try his "hard-hitting, no-spin journalist" garbage against Clark...O'Reilly would be sobbing on the floor, crying for his precious loofah. This is the kind of the thing that most real Americans would appreciate and admire in a potential President..

[BootinUp]

20. I like Gore

I voted for Gore 3 times

But Gore couldn't beat a very mediocre candidate in George Bush. And before you say he didn't lose it was stolen! Believe me I agree, but if your within a couple thousand votes in a state the size of Florida then you did not beat your opponent, you effectively tied him and were subject to the powers that be.

Anyways, as you probably have guessed, I think Clark would be stronger in a GE than Gore, several percentage points stronger. The attacks that were used in the primaries aganst Clark were not even that effective. The man did very well considering what he was up against starting so late. He has terrific support in terms of money as well.

[Ignacio Upton]

23. Like I said, I like Wes

But I think that there is stuff that could construed against him that would dwarf Kerry's problems from 2004. However, Clark is more electable than Kerry because he still has time to pre-emptively blunt the spin, whereas Kerry is more defined.

[Bluebear]

24. Calling the field "poo": juvenile, self-defeating.

I am surprised that you would title your otherwise erudite essay with such a silly word. I almost didn't open the thread.

In any case, if Gore decides not to run, what does calling the rest of our field "poo" accomplish?

[Bluebear]

28. :thank you: :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. Agreed, and thx to Ignacio for changing it

Also I LOVE your sig line... :cry: Ann Richards.

[politicasista]

51. Exactly n/t

[AngryAmish]

27. Governors make better candidates than Senators.

[WI_DEM]

29. the field is no more depressing than the GOP line up

but unfortunately McCain is a God to the media who will do everything in their power to elect him. I'm leaning right now to either Edwards or Clark. I think Warner would have been a competitive candidate had he run.

[greeneyedboy]

64. "no more depressing": now that's an understatement! n/t

[MGKrebs]

31. Good analysis! Coupla' things:

- "Polarizing" works both ways. A lot of the negatives against HRC from the right are manufactured rumors and innuendos. She may have the resources and skill to effectively overcome them. Besides, she's been living with it for years- she knows better than any other potential candidate what is coming and how to handle it.

Sometimes, a moment exists in which a certain type -or even a very particular candidate- is in the right place at the right time. I think there may be two possibilities this time:
- Clinton because of her history with universal healthcare. Support for this is growing fast, with the business community in particular getting on board.

- Gore- global warming. There are only about 12 people left who don't recognize that we are in a crisis. The time for dramatic leadership is here.

I've come to believe that the seperation between what makes a good candidate and what makes a good executive has grown ever larger. It is now almost impossible to find all necessary qualities in one person. We are forced to choose either a good candidate and hope we can surround them with excellent staff, or find a good executive and run a perfect campaign for them.

[Ignacio Upton]

33. Sorry, but if Hillary is the nominee

She will not only excite the right-wing base, but she will depress the left-wing base. I don't want any of this "White House in the family" bullshit either. "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" is something we should avoid. Also, and I hate to say this, but there is already a large chunk of the public that won't vote for a woman President.

[MGKrebs]

42. I want to avoid sounding like a Hillary cheerleader, but

I also want to counter some of this stuff that I think is inaccurate.

Clinton seems to have no trouble attracting money and she leads every poll of potential Dem candidates, so I'm not so sure about this "depressing the base" stuff... and she wins elections.

About 80% say they are ready to vote for a woman president (yet only 62% feel "the nation is ready", meaning a lot people people feel that somebody else isn't really ready).
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspres0221,0,6955160.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

Wouldn't, or couldn't, the "base" be excited by electing the first woman president? Not only that, despite the misgivings about her many of us have, isn't the best chance ever of getting universal health care worth it? Not only that, aren't the bulk of the issues that us on the left have with her because she is too centrist? Isn't "centrist" supposed to = electability?

[greccogirl]

77. Listen, everyone and I mean ALL of my dem female friends

will NOT vote for Hillary. Running her would be a disaster.

[MGKrebs]

107. But WHY will they not vote for her?

Many of us here disagree with her position on the war, but we were in the minority at the time Clinton cast her vote on the matter. What other issues are so abhorrent about her?

I am concerned that a lot of the negativity is spillover from the relentless conservative attacks from the past several years.

[Bake]

32. Run, Al, run!

I have to agree with almost everything you said in the OP. Most of the field are lightweights or have too much baggage. We need a charismatic Dem who is can command the national stage, and as far as I can see, there's only ONE of those: Al Gore. Honestly, I can't get very excited about any of the others. Hillary would be the odds-on favorite to get the nomination but I can't get excited about her. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Dem. She is very polarizing. I'd vote for her before sitting home or (shudder) voting R (that's NEVER going to happen), but work for her? No thanks. I personally like Clark a LOT, but I don't think he has a great chance of winning. And right now, winning is EVERYTHING.

There IS one Dem I can get excited about. C'mon Al, RUN DAMMIT!!

I should add that Kerry broke my heart last time, and I won't make that mistake again. Al is the rightful Prez NOW. And I think he's found his voice AND his backbone.

Bake

[FSogol]

38. Nice analysis and very close to my thoughts due to Warner's announcement.

Warner was my first pick, so I guess Gore becomes my 2nd followed by Clark.

Edwards would be my vp choice, but it could easily be Mark Warner.

I think having an electable candidate is important and for that reason I feel Governors (especially ones from the South) can win easier than Congressmen. Having a candidate who was always against the war is also a big plus.

[Radical Activist]

39. I think we have a much better potential field than '04.

First, the public doesn't care as much about experience as you and many other DUers do. Americans have consistently picked the less experienced candidate for President in many recent elections including Bush over Gore, Clinton over Bush, Reagan over Carter, Carter over Ford, and Kennedy over Nixon. Your problems with Edwards and Obama are moot because it doesn't matter to the majority of voters. I think they both make great candidates.

The most important factor is a candidate who can handle the national spotlight and offer a compelling message with conviction that the average voter can connect with. Clinton was excellent at doing that, even if he didn't always follow through after the campaign. In that respect, Edwards, Gore, Feingold and Obama are all great candidates.

[CrispyQ]

40. Schweitzer. --nt

[Mass]

43. Nice divisive thread - Thank you for your assessment.

Too bad that you cannot support your candidate without insulting others and their supporters in the meantime.

[Bake]

53. Sorry we don't think in lockstep. We're DEMOCRATS.

It's not divisive to offer a rational analysis of the potential field. I don't know about you, but I'm damn tired of losing (or having it stolen). I fervently hope we nominate a candidate who can WIN and WIN BIG.

Frankly, after eight years of BushCo running the whole show, if we can't elect a Dem in '08 we ought to f*cking give up.

Bake

[Mass]

54. So, may be you can give some POSITIVE reasons to support

Gore rather than trashing others with less than convincing arguments (not for me, he is one of my favorites), but for others.

People do not seem to understand that, when they trash other potential nominees, they may appeal to the choir, but they are simply making their favorite unlikable to those who are not yet sold. It is just a sign of weakness that you cannot support somebody by positive means.

[Bake]

58. Positives about Al are easy

One, he's brilliant with policy (that used to be a negative, people called him a wonk, etc.) -- and after eight years of BushCo, people may actually WANT somebody who knows the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.

Two, he can communicate effectively. He proved that with Inconvenient Truth.

Three, he's already proven he can get a majority of the popular vote.

Four, he has extremely high name recognition (Mark WHO?)

Five, when his handlers stopped keeping Gore from being Gore, we saw a charismatic, passionate leader.

Six, he has proven experience from his years as VP.

That positive enough for ya?

BAke

[Mass]

60. Yes, and a lot more effective than the OP.

[Bake]

63. You make an excellent point

Even in a hard-fought primary, we'd be better off if we stuck to positives, because the negatives will come back to bite us in the ass in the GE.

I have positives for Wes Clark too. I think he's brilliant, an effective communicator, strong on foreign affairs. And what I really like, he takes sh*t from NO ONE. He dares to go on Faux News and tell THE TRUTH. He's getting more name recognition as a result of his TV appearances.

And while I hope Al will run, because I think he's the strongest potential candidate we have, I won't be surprised if he doesn't. Just disappointed.

Bake

[arewenotdemo]

44. A Gore/Clark ticket would make me happy

[AtomicKitten]

47. I think a Gore/Obama ticket would kick some serious ass.

But that's me.

[VOX]

69. I absolutely agree. It'd be a force of nature. n/t

[lse7581011]

79. They'd Have My Vote

For sure!

[The_Casual_Observer]

48. Elliot Spitzer.

[WI_DEM]

56. Just elected Gov. of NY

after being only AG, give him a few years, I'm sure he will run.

[Ignacio Upton]

62. Spitzer would make a good President

But yeah, I agree that he will have only been Governor for two years. Sadly, I think our potential 2012 field is better than our potential 2008 field. In 2012, we'll have Schweitzer (who's up for re-election in 2008, but is term-limited into not running in 2012) Martin O'Malley if he wins the governor's race in Maryland, Obama after more experience, and possibly Spitzer, and possibly Warner.

[oldboy101]

57. Hillary is perhaps the most electable of this bunch IMO.

I will certainly support whoever our Democratic nominee is in 2008. As for Gore and Kerry, they both had their chance and came close, but I feel they blew it and now carry the baggage of having been defeated.

My problem with the other potential candidates mentioned is that some lack political experience or are perhaps too liberal to be elected by the country as a whole. Sure we here at DU may love them but we have to face the fact that most folks in America are much more conservative and are not likely to vote for our guys.

Hillary was first lady of the country for 8 years and is about to be re-elected to the Senate for a second term. I would remind you that she was also first lady of Arkansas when Bill was governor there, and she still has many friends there in "red" America.

Recently I learned that she has established a working relationship with not only her fellow Democrats in the Senate, but also with 49 of the 55 current Republican senators, having won the respect even of them! If she can accomplish that, think how well she could bind up the wounds of our divided country that have developed over the last 6 painful years.

Are there some who are Hillary haters? Sure. Are there some who will not vote for a woman? Sure. But I believe that those people would never vote for any Democrat anyway, so why worry about them? Her husband Bill has so much charisma and he will do much to help her. I do believe that Hillary can appeal to so many people with her more centrist views. Isn't that what we all want, to actually WIN the next presidential election?

Okay now that I have had my say, let us all get back to the business at hand, namely winning back the Congress, both House and Senate!

[Ignacio Upton]

66. Common sense dictates she's unelectable

I would rather not have her buy the nomination and just stay in the Senate and promise to finish out her second term. If she runs for President and loses, and assuming I'm still living in New York in 2012, I won't vote for her re-election to the Senate, period.

[oldboy101]

103. In 2012 Hillary will be running for re-election as our president.

Therefore you need not concern yourself about her running for the Senate. You say that "common sense" shows she is not electable as president, but you did not really address the reasons that I gave to the contrary.

Look, you like Gore and I like Hillary. I expect that I will support either of them who wins the nomination of our party in 2008 and I hope you will do the same. Let us save our ammunition for the Republicans and not use it to shoot at fellow Democrats, okay? :)

[MGKrebs]

109. Common sense dictates the exact opposite.

She is the best fundraiser the party has.
She leads every poll regarding potential candidtaes.
She wins elections.
Her husband is an ex-two-term president.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. "remind us that Hillary was first lady of Arkansas has many friends there"

OK. :eyes:

[warrens]

59. Obama has been a state senator for 8 years prior to this

What did Bush ever do?

[Ignacio Upton]

67. State Legislative experience isn't enough

Also, if Obama wins, then his replacement will be an appointee by Governor Rod Blagojevich, someone who's pretty corrupt. We'll end up having to defend a Senate seat in 2010 for someone that could have ties to the Chicago machine, for all we know. And don't get me start on what will happen if Judy Baar Topinka ends up winning, because then we'll get another Republican in the Senate.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Your analysis....in reference to, well you know who.....

---Gen. Wes Clark, is something that I disagree with, Natch! :)

It ain't about what they will throw at one that counts, it's how one chooses to handle it.

Here's some "information" on SWIFTBOATING; and besides, every single "example" of what they would throw at Clark....has been DEBUNKED!

Hope you read what I post, but even if you don't....please know that not only would the attacks be bullshit, but Wes Clark ain't about to let any shrimpboaters be the boss of him! No Siree!

Wes, Wes Clark Jr. and the rest of us ain't ever gonna let that happen.

Me, I'm ready for that ruuuumble!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2850487&mesg_id=2850598

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2850487

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1505641

http://aggressive-voice.com/zz585.html


In reference to WWIII, there is no way that this incident would make an Iota of a difference, considering all that has transpired to date:

SAMPLE OF DEBUNK ON THIS WWIII STUFF!

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion."

article here
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

And here's another take on it:
Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

...back in 1999 Russian military officials admitted they were ill-equipped to fight even a limited engagement anywhere in the world. One general wrote in a contemporary Russian military journal that they would have been hard-pressed to field an army of 10,000 troops at the time. Almost assuredly they would have backed off if NATO had called their bluff. Did Clark understand this weakness better than anyone else, and did NATO miss a genuine opportunity to assert its dominance over the Russians? Isn't that the raison d'etre for NATO?

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.
http://www.epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxvill..._editorials.cfm

Clark's problem was that he was a great general but not always a perfect soldier--at least when it came to saluting and saying, "Yes, sir." In fact, when he got orders he didn't like, he said so and pushed to change them.
>snip
More presciently, Clark was right about the Russians.

Clark asked NATO helicopters and ground troops to seize the airport before the Russians could arrive. But a British general, absurdly saying he feared World War III (in truth the Russians had no cards to play), appealed to London and Washington to delay the order.

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm
---------
World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm
German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.

The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.
a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/8/10/164054/698/208#208

[politicasista]

68. The primary voters will decide. Back to 06 n/t

[Ignacio Upton]

70. Primary voters also gave us McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis

...And probably would have given us a crappy candidate in 1992 if Clinton were not in the race.

[Mass]

71. Clinton did as poorly as the three other ones.

The only difference was Perot.

So, I am with politicasista. Let's the primaries decide. Too bad they have been frontloaded.

[Ignacio Upton]

72. He would have won even without Perot

Perot also took a larger number of voters away from Clinton. There was also a study done showing Clinton winning without Perot, but by a narrower margain.
I'm sorry, but people like Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongis (SP?) would probably have lost against Bush Sr., even DURING a recession.

[Mass]

75. Wishful thinking. If this makes you happy.

So, what do you propose? You choose the nominee? A straw poll on DU? If you do not like primaries, what do you propose?

[FrenchieCat]

74. AND.....in reference to

WACO! Last I heard, that was a joke the Extreme RW pulled!

InstaPundit 12/1/03

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012794.php
For the past couple of months, I have followed several internet discussions about Wesley Clark's "involvement" in the Branch Davidian Standoff at Waco, but I have not seen it mentioned so prominently in a mainstream website until it appeared today in InstaPundit. I have not responded to the various conspiracy theories about General Clark's role because most seem to be generated by people with little or no contact with reality. Indeed, your assessment about General Clark's participation in the Standoff and its aftermath is absolutely correct: he played a peripheral role, at most.

I was General Clark's staff judge advocate at the 1st Cavalry Division. As such, I was his legal advisor and provided advice about military support for the FBI at Waco. In addition, I briefed the 1st Cav's tank crews before they departed Fort Hood.

The 1st Cavalry Division received orders from its higher headquarters - III Armored Corps and Fort Hood - to provide certain equipment to the FBI for its use at Waco. I learned the FBI had made a request for equipment to the Department of Defense, which ultimately sent it through Army channels to Fort Hood - the Army installation closest to Waco. The request was consistent with statute (10 U.S.C. § 372), Department of Defense directive, and Army regulation, and I advised General Clark (or, more particularly, his Chief of Staff) of that fact.

At the direction of the division's Chief of Staff, I later briefed the division's tank crews before they departed for Waco. My guidance to the crews was they could provide the FBI equipment (10 U.S.C. § 372), they could train the FBI on its use (10 U.S.C. § 373), and they could maintain the equipment (10 U.S.C. § 374). I told the crews, however, that under no circumstances could they operate the equipment in support of the FBI's Waco operation (10 U.S.C. § 375).

Incidentally, my office's written legal opinion and the slides used to brief the tank crews were turned over to Congress during its Waco investigations, to the Danforth Commission, and to the United States District Court that heard the Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuits arising out of Waco.

I would be happy to provide additional information, but I believe too much ink has already been spilled over what is truly a "non-issue." Of course, the normal disclaimer applies: nothing in this e-mail should be construed as an endorsement on behalf of or against General Clark.

Richard D. Rosen
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
Associate Dean for Administration & External Affairs
Texas Tech University School of Law

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/004501.html
Wesley Clark and Waco Rumors are re-surfacing that Ret. General Wesley Clark played a direct or indirect role in the Waco disaster because his army division supplied some military equipment to the siege effort and his deputy attended a high-level meeting five days prior to the fiery end. Response has been swift that the allegations of his playing a role are not true: bq. Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege. Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's,"
>snip
Many are calling on Clark now to make a formal statement about the extent of his knowledge of the Government's plan and any authorization he made for equipment being sent from the First Cavalry. We have no problem with that--we'd like to know too. But we're predicting the answers will be a let-down for the far right

Friday, November 28, 2003
Federal law restricts the role of the military in civilian law enforcement operations and "we weren't involved in the planning or execution of the Waco operation in any way, shape, form or fashion," says retired Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor, who ran the Fort Hood (search) military base 60 miles from the site of the Waco siege.

Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."

Regarding Taylor's comments, Clark campaign spokeswoman Mary Jacoby said "this is exactly what we've said all along; Gen. Clark had no involvement."
snip
Taylor said the FBI sent requests for assistance to the Department of Defense, which forwarded them to the Department of the Army and "ultimately some of these requests came down to me," said Taylor.

Much of the military equipment for Waco came from the Texas National Guard, including 10 Bradley fighting vehicles (search). It is unclear from the public record precisely what military gear Clark's 1st Cavalry Division (search) supplied to civilian law enforcement agents at Waco. One government list of "reimbursable costs" for the 1st Cavalry Division specifies sand bags, fuel for generators and two M1A1 Abrams tanks.

However, the list specifies that the tanks were "not used" and stipulates that no reimbursement for them was to be sought from the FBI. The list also specifies reimbursable costs of nearly $3,500 for 250 rounds of high explosive grenade launcher ammunition. However, the list doesn't specify whether Clark's division or some other Army unit supplied the ammo.

Regardless of who supplied the military items, Danforth's investigation concluded that no one from the government fired a gunshot - despite being fired upon - at the Branch Davidian complex on the final day of the siege.

Clark's assistant division commander at the time, Peter J. Schoomaker, met with Attorney General Janet Reno and other officials from the Justice Department and FBI five days before the siege ended with the fatal fire.

Taylor says that "anything Schoomaker did, he wasn't doing for Clark." Internal Army documents support Taylor's position.

---------------
Village Voice 9/24-30/05
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0339,mondo1,47252,6.html
General Alarm
Conspiracy Theorists See Clark as Another Piece of the Waco Puzzle

by James Ridgeway
September 24 - 30, 2003

Mondo Washington this week:

General Alarm Conspiracy Theorists See Clark as Another Piece of the Waco Puzzle — In the latest Mondo Washington, James Ridgeway unearths conspiracy theorists who view Dem candidate Wesley Clark as a piece of the Waco puzzle.

In the dumps since Bill Clinton pretty much dropped out of sight, conspiracy buffs awoke with a start last week to learn that Wesley Clark had jumped into the presidential race. Not only do right-wing conspiracists hate the Rhodes Scholar and goody-goody Clark for being what they see as yet another Clinton puppet, but they remember him as a possible collaborator in the Waco attack in 1993. At the time of the government's storming of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Clark was commanding officer of the First Cavalry Division of the Army's Third Corps, based at Fort Hood, Texas. Equipment and personnel under his command had some involvement in the Waco fiasco. There is nothing to suggest that he took part, although it's hard to imagine that the top military commander in the area didn't know what was going on.

There is some evidence to suggest orders came directly from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who were led at the time by Colin Powell.

More than any event up to that time in recent American history, Waco rekindled latent hatred of the federal government in the hinterlands and helped jump-start the militia movement. It confirmed in one crystal clear moment what the far-right nativists had always feared: Behind the hand of the local police lay the Justice Department and behind the Justice Department was the U.S. military and behind the Pentagon was the United Nations. (During the 1980s, they believed that the Soviet Union was behind the UN and that behind the Soviet leaders were the ghostly figures of the Illuminati, the secret cabal that runs the world. When the Soviet Union went down, some nativists began to discern that the Antichrist was behind the UN.)

All during the 1980s the suspicions had festered in the heartland: The road barriers erected on interstate highways, so you heard, were to ease the path for the 101st Airborne, which was a front for Soviet army. There were artillery pieces being hauled by giant horses across the Siberian wastes and over the ice into Alaska. There were illegal Latino aliens carrying backpacks loaded with mini-nuclear bombs trudging north along the Mississippi River—all these suspicions and fears gained sudden credence at Waco. Tim McVeigh, fresh out of the army and just back from the Persian Gulf, was so moved at what he saw on TV that he drove to Waco to watch. He blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City on the anniversary of Waco in 1995.

In the spring of '93, Attorney General Janet Reno and Texas governor Ann Richards had met with U.S. military officers, and conspiracy theorists speculated that the meetings were to lay plans for an army assault on the Branch Davidians, rather than set up defensive maneuvers to protect the women and children in the compound. In a startling documentary, filmmaker Mike McNulty showed footage of helicopter machine guns spitting bullets into the compound and a tank attack with figures deploying out of the tank. There are muzzle flashes suggesting that these people are shooting into the compound, and there are sniper pits with shell casings scattered below gun ports—all of which undercut the government's claim that it was engaged only in defensive fire.

It was McNulty who first brought to light the presence of the Delta Force unit at the Waco compound. The film argues that military operators were in the attacking tanks. If the military actually ran ground operations at Waco, they did so on command of the Joint Chiefs, who, in turn, were working on orders from—or at least in concert with—the White House. The government has admitted to sending active-duty soldiers, tanks, and other materiel, and McNulty claimed to have found evidence in government files that all sorts of military officers and intelligence operatives (from Germany, Israel, and Great Britain) had come to Waco as if to observe a training maneuver and that the CIA tried to help out with super-duper audio equipment to sort out the different bugs, taps, and other transmissions.

(The filmmakers tried to trace the decisions involving Waco back to Vince Foster, who supposedly felt so bad about killing the Davidian kids that he turned the gun on himself, and to Hillary, who may have hidden key papers and perhaps was the person to issue the orders. This is all a bit thin, to put it in polite terms.)

How much of this might actually have happened isn't really known. Did, for example, the military violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which mandates a separation of military activity from most domestic law-enforcement situations? A congressional investigation chaired by the very conservative Dan Burton concluded with this careful statement: "The committee uncovered no evidence that any member of the armed services present at Waco, including the National Guard, violated the Posse Comitatus Act. Representatives from the U.S. Special Operations Command were present, but the available evidence indicates that they acted only as observers and technicians."

However, the Burton report said that although military officers practiced "diligence" in trying to stay out of an active role at Waco, there was "disregard of the Posse Comitatus Act on the part of the civilians"—meaning high government officials.

The report pointed out that "two senior Army officers were asked to evaluate the FBI's proposed operations plan for April 19, and consistently refused to do so, as such support would have made them direct participants in planning the arrest of the Branch Davidians, and would have therefore violated the Posse Comitatus Act." The two officers also attended a briefing with Reno on April 14 in D.C., and here the Burton report takes the Clinton administration to task: "While Attorney General Reno has stated that these officers told her the FBI's plan was 'excellent' in one case, and 'sound' in another, both officers have clearly stated they were careful not to evaluate the plan during the meeting. President Clinton and Attorney General Reno have deceived the American people for over seven years by misrepresenting that the military endorsed, sanctioned or otherwise approvingly evaluated the plan."

Wesley Clark's name does not surface in any of this, but one of the two officers who met with Reno was Clark's second in command, General Peter J. Schoomaker. However, it appears that Schoomaker might have been summoned to D.C. because of his past experience with "hostage rescue" situations, not because he was the second in command of the First Cavalry.

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. All that ink you just spilled tying Clark to Waco

A "non-issue" I didn't even know about. Now all I can glean is he was involved in some minor way. Not the greatest campaign strategy. But thanks for the research.

[FrenchieCat]

91. Yeah, he was serving in the army.......that was his connection

And in reference to a non-issue, it was a Whisper campaign back during primaries 2004 that made its way to the Corporate media, that somehow Wes Clark was "involved" in Waco. So, although it was a non issue, the RW wackos tried to make it an issue, but failed.

The information that I provided only shows the truth...that Wes Clark was not involved in Waco without watering down the fact that Fort Hood was under his command at the time, but the tanks provided by that military base were not even used nor was he the one to dispatch them.

I don't really have a campaign strategy, however...since Wes Clark ain't running for anything right now, I don't need one. But IF he ever does run, providing this information to the media will surely allow them to see that there's "no there, there"....and that was only my point!

[StellaBlue]

76. You echo my own sentiments

Gore is my man. I've been saying since about May that he is going to run, and going to win. I should've bet on it. Maybe I should bet on it now.

[SmokingJacket]

78. Bill Clinton came kind of late to the party, and took over.

It could happen again... I wonder who it would be?

[bbernardini]

81. One thing worries me about Gore...Tipper.

I can never forgive her for the PMRC. EVER. And I'm afraid she would use him to promote such an agenda again.

[divineorder]

88. bbernardini

PMRC is irrelevant. After all that Shrub and Company has tried to do with Habeas Corpus and reproductive choice, a few warning stickers on the remaining CD's being sold is meaningless. Her cause is homelessness and mental health, not record stickers or music censorship.

[Rex]

84. You forgot DK.

Everybody does. He is the only one that can save our country. Clark should run as his VP.

[WI_DEM]

85. In an ideal world he would be a wonderful president but he can't win

in all likelihood same as poor Feingold.

[Rex]

90. He is the only one who can break the cycle of violence.

Yeah I know he has no chance in Hell. That is why the world is soo fucked up IMO.

The man who puts peace before war gets diminished as a non-entity. What a world we live in.

[mvd]

97. My favorite is also DK

If he runs, I'll vote for him in the primaries again. But unfortunately, he doesn't have a chance. Too many Democrats will be scared off by thinking he couldn't beat the Repuke, or would buy into him being "extreme." Now I think if chosen, he would make sense to a lot of people IMO. I hope we can get the country to a point where DK is the frontrunner. But right now, he won't make it out of the primaries. We have to start somewhere, with a Democratic victory.

Gore is my favored choice after Kucinich and Feingold. Maybe Warner would agree to run as Gore's VP. Gore has the advantage of predicting the mess that has happened since Bush stole office from him.

Edwards might do something, but he didn't boost Kerry in the South. Hillary is ok, but she worries me. I think Kerry had his chance. And Biden and Bayh just don't excite me. Clark, to me, is still an unknown quantity. We'll see what happens with him.

[Vulture]

99. Unfortunately, positive feedback is only half of the equation

And most things that fall under the label of "peace" are positive feedback mechanisms.

An unfortunate reality (fundamental mathematics actually) is that you cannot create a stable system that does not employ negative feedback. You can steer outcomes with positive feedback, but such systems are inherently unstable and loss of control is inevitable with very negative consequences. Negative feedback prevents the most catastrophic failures, but if you apply too much it keeps anything from being achieved. Most humans have a sense of this even if they do not have the theoretical background to know about it, but some politicians foolishly take it to either extreme all the while oblivious to the necessary consequences. Geopolitics requires a pretty solid dose of negative feedback in order to be stabilized in a reasonably good place.

This has nothing to do with politics per se except that militaries are inherently negative feedback mechanisms, and pretty concentrated and effective ones at that (you have to be careful using them). Stabilizing the peace, ironically, usually requires a fair amount of negative feedback regulating the system. I would add that DK seems to have a poor sense of how one creates a positive stable system, but then neither do a lot of politicians which is why so many things in government are badly broken.

[Rex]

100. That is what I'm saying. DK would restore an equilibrium

Or attempt to restore some kind of balance. We've been on the negative side of everything for two terms now, time to reverse course and get at least back to the middle.

We are very off course and far away from the middle of the spectrum IMO.

[Vulture]

105. Yeah, I can see that

I would agree that things are "off". No argument there. :)

While I am sure many will disagree, while I find the Middle East to be a mess, I actually think the US role in the Korean peninsula has been appropriate. The US geopolitical role in that region has been to prevent an arms race between China and Japan. The rest of the local issues (e.g. with North Korea) can only be solved and dealt with by the countries in that region. That we have not inserted ourselves in that process excessively has been wise IMO. We have done a very good job of mitigating the arms race, but at the end of the day we are mostly observers in Asian affairs.

The neocons object to this, of course. They want a rapidly militarized and nuclear Japan, which is stupid and short-sighted. It makes me wonder if the current administration got this right by accident or whether someone had a brilliant moment and put their foot down.

[LWolf]

102. I don't believe in "can't."

I do believe that the only reason he didn't win, and wouldn't win were he to run again, is that his own party gives him lip service rather than solid support. If every person who says "He'd be great BUT HE CAN'T..." worked and voted for him, if everyday people got to hear him without that constant mantra, he would be just as viable as anyone else.

We don't have to worry about any kind of negative campaign an opponent would run; his own party does it for them.

[Rosco T.]

87. First Choice, Gore/Edwards, Second, Gore/Clark, third Gore/Schweitzer

Gore... all the way, Gore...


Edwards.. charasmatic, articulate and intelligent. And gives the winning two southerner ticket

Clark .. brilliant, out-spoken and has the military background, ditto on the two 'southerner' ticket (and hey... Tennessee and Arkansas worked before)

Schweitzer... new blood, environmental savvy and a real-person.

[lildreamer316]

89. Been on the Gore bandwagon since last year.

He is the best choice,and pretty much the only choice to win without question. I'm not saying that others wouldn't be good, or maybe even couldn't win, but it would be a harder fought battle with the possibilities of the same problems as the last election, minus the vote stealing of course.
In the perception category, he is TEFLON.

..In other words, great assesment, and thanks for writing truth to power (as far as I can see anyway). I like Clark and Edwards too, but they both need more time in the public's eye in federal positions before they are ready. I would like to see Edwards as VP candidate and Clarke as Sec. of Defense or State (I believe someone told me he can't be Sec of Def for some reason or the other) and use that as a jumping off point for a presidential run later. Obama needs some honing in Congress before he's ready...I agree; he will make a great candidate in a few years' time.

Keep it up....

[EFerrari]

92. I would work for Feingold, Gore or Edwards. I can't think of

anyone else that I could work for. If you nominate someone else, instead I'll just keep working for clean elections.

[frustrated_lefty]

94. Gore has entered the realm of "statesmanship."

No comment on the other potential candidates. The 50 state strategy Dean is pushing, I think, will put whomever the nominee is in a good position to compete and get a message out.

Since the '04 election, Gore has focused on issues which transcend party politics. I think he's in a strong position to argue the time is past for party allegiance. It's time to address issues which affect us all as human beings. He's lost his stiff-ness, and seems to have hit his stride.

[HardRocker05]

96. Gore's the best; the media will screw him again in '08, even if they know

he's the better candidate; they wouldn't give him a fair shake, cuz if they did it would be like admitting they were biased against him in 2000.

[NJ Democrats]

98. Russ!!!

Go Russ!
But Gore/Feingold would be great

[RestoreGore]

101. NEW Al Gore?

Another political sound bite. He is the same man he has always been, only not being involved in the toxic, corrupt, BS political system in this country has finally allowed him to be and speak as he always was, and frankly, I HOPE HE STAYS THAT WAY. Besides, he was left to twist in the wind by the Democratic Party in 2000, and in 2004 people really weren't all that gung ho about him as they are now that he has a popular book and movie they can use for their own purposes instead of really working to tackle this crisis. That speaks volumes to me about what people really think of the man. I say, Mr. Gore, just keep doing what you are doing. What you are doing will be greater than ANY PRESIDENT coronated by the elitists in this government could ever hope to achieve regarding our continued sustainability as a species.

[mnhtnbb]

104. 1st choice: Gore. I predict Edwards--and he'll win.

Why?

The country is losing its middle class. Edwards is already talking about poverty. He speaks southern--which Kerry did not. Gore was raised privileged--which Edwards was not. He's already admitted Iraq was a mistake.

He's not afraid of a fight. Remember, he was the one who wasn't ready to roll over in 2004. Kerry gave it up without a fight.

I didn't like Edwards in 04--I was for Dean--but unless Gore gets in it, I think Edwards has the best chance of winning.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

106. Gore has my vote for anything...

from President to the guy-who-makes-the-next-beer-run.

I :loveya: Gore!

[seabeyond]

110. we have so MANY really GOOD candidates. your title is absurd n/t

[Sensitivity]

113. I assume the is Gore's prospective campaign manager posting, right?

I like Al. Would be great President. But post is ridiculous given the sterling
qualifications of many Democratic candidates.