General Clark in 08 - who would you pair with him.

[DanCa]

I suck at dream tickets so I was wondering who would you pair with the general?

[Idioteque]

1. Russ Feingold n/t

[Nite Owl]

2. Barbara Boxer n/t

[halobeam]

3. Conyers? I just love him

[KingFlorez]

4. Hillary Clinton n/t

[AverageJoe]

5. Either John Conyers or Barbara Boxer

Either of these would add even more gravitas and excitement to Clark's considerable stature. I'd be on cloud nine with any combination of the above, and in any order.

[randr]

6. Gore/Clark

[xultar]

23. What is it with Gore. His time has passed. I had to hold my nose

to vote for him in 2000 cuz what he did to Clinton was CRAPPY.

I refuse to have Gore on the ticket again.

[countingbluecars]

42. I agree, Gore/Clark

sounds like a winning ticket to me.

[ultraist]

44. Gore has said he is not running n/t

[rpannier]

7. John Edwards or Brian Schweitzer

[madrchsod]

8. edwards

[BOSSHOG]

9. General Shinseki

Would that not drive the conservatives insane? Two Army four star generals; both Democrats with diamond cutter hardons for republicans. One from Arkansas, one from Hawaii, neither beholding to a political machine. Conservatives would hurt themselves attacking these two. Imagine conservatives questioning the patriotism of EIGHT STARS.

[DanCa]

13. BossHog I like that idea. your the man.

[PatGund]

85. Dang.......

I so like that idea.

Wouldn't stop the repukes from questioning them anyway. They only want the military as a backdrop.

Friend of mine, at the age of 39, joined the Army Reserve, and went though basic a couple weeks after her 40th birthday. She's a major flaming liberal, and a Ph.D. in theology. She said she was taking great pleasure in handing enlistment forms to NeoCon jackasses and saying "I joined, why can't you?"

[Clark2008]

10. It doesn't matter, as long as he heads the ticket.

He could turn Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona and New Mexico, for sure, and possibly Tennessee, West Virginia and Ohio. That's enough to beat the shit outta Diebold.

:bounce:

[FogerRox]

11. Comyers- Boxer

[TroubleMan]

12. Clark/Kucinich

You get the moderates for Clark, and the left (like me) for Kucinich.

[Hatalles]

14. This is a great ticket.

I really like Kucinich but don't think he could win the nomination... as a possible VP candidate, I think his chances are great.

I agree that he balances the ticket as well... Clark will attract moderates, Kucinich will attract the rest of us on the left without riling up the right.

[Clark2008]

19. Just so you know...

Clark is nearly as liberal as Kucinich.

In some ways, more.

However, because Clark is career military, he'll always be VIEWED and PERCEIVED as a moderate, which helps with the "mushy middle."

It's one of the many, many, many reasons I support him for president.

[TroubleMan]

21. I hope he is, but honestly it's hard to tell without a voting record.

Hell, bush talked like he was the most moderate guy in the universe, when he went against Gore in 2000. Then he turned out to be one of the most right-wing presidents in history.

I hope that Clark's actions will follow his words, and I tend to think that they would.

The lack of a voting record actually works for him, though. Kerry was in the Senate too long. If you're in Congress long enough you'll eventually vote for everything and against everything, because of all the little riders in bills. They used that to falsely portray him as a flip-flopper. With a guy like Clark, that's not an issue.

[Clark2008]

29. True.

I understand the argument that he has no voting record, but I try always to point out that he was THE GUY who told the House Armed Service Committee that it was lunacy to go to war in Iraq and that he filed a Friend of the Court brief on behalf of affirmative action in the U of Michigan case AND that he helped save a nearly-extinct turtle in New Mexico.

I think his history of doing the right thing before he ever entertained running for office substitutes nicely for a voting record.

[skipos]

40. True. It is easy to make senators look bad to the general public.

And that is a disadvantage to having a senator as our nominee.

[Fovea]

18. I would also vote for this ticket

I think we need the left to be on the ticket, ideally, but not necessarily on the top.

[Dude_CalmDown]

49. I agree completely.

Kucinich is one of the few remaining Democrats who make me proud I'm a Democrat.

[Ksec]

15. As long as theyre ethical and smart with good ideas

AND one of my beloved Democratic brothers/sisters, they'll get my vote.


I have favorites and Clark is definitely one of them.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Wes Clark and Bill Richardson.....if I had to pick...

What can I say? I have a thing about Hispanic men!



They'd look good together

[Auntie Bush]

26. I think that is a good ticket too! Yes, he's Hispanic and he's also a

good negotiator. But, I heard somewhere that he had some sort of
problem/scandle that would turn off some voters. Could anyone refresh my memory as to what it was? Was it true or more
BS from the Rethugs and their party of personal distruction?

[skipos]

43. Yes, what is the stink about Richardson? Links? Articles? nt

[RandomUser]

54. The Wen Ho Lee espionage/racial profiling thing hurts Richardson

He basically screwed up with both the right and the left. The Right will scream at him for being weak on national security by allowing the espionage fiasco (the indictment happened during Richardson's watch). The Left will scream at him for racism, infringing on civil rights, and racial profiling against Asians in the aftermath of the fiasco (especially since Wen Ho Lee was later found innocent of all espionage charges, pleading guilty only to "improper handling of restricted data").

The Asian vote isn't as unified or solidly partisan the way most other minorities are. You've got Gary Locke, the first Asian American governor of Washington, and a Democrat. And you've got that idiot Michelle Malkin spewing on rightwing media. It would be a mistake to give the Republicans a chance to appeal to the Asian American segment(and fundraising base) and establish a hold on it. The last thing we want is for the Asian American vote and fundraising base to be unified under Republicans, instead of split amongst both parties as it currently is. (I would suggest solidifying the Asian American base in the Dem column by choosing Locke or someone similiar for VP, but I don't think the xenophobes whose votes we need to turn from R to D would go for it. And I think the ethnic diversity within the Asian American population keeps it from being easily massaged towards one party or the other by tokenism.).

I like the fact that Richardson would help shore up support amongst Hispanics, fastest growing minority and a group that Republicans have targetted and tried to peel away. But I think Richardson's baggage outweighs the gain. And having Richardson on the ticket is not the only way to shore up Hispanic support (Clark speaks fluent Spanish, has a Hispanic daughter-in-law, wrote an amicus brief on behalf of affirmative action, and had the support and endorsement of many Hispanic vets who served under him).

I know I wouldn't be able to support Richardson easily. He may be a nice guy, but I still remember getting emails from Asian American organizations calling for a boycott, telling Asian scientists and engineers not to apply for jobs at Los Alamos, in repudiation of racial profiling.

(Disclaimer: asian american)

[skipos]

67. I appreciate the info and

I appreciate the fact that you think strategically about it. I hope more Democrats can weigh the pros and cons of our candidates, and consider how they may help us or hinder us from winning in the general election.

[Rowdyboy]

66. Some controversy when he was secreaty of entergy...Not a disqualifier

He deserves a shot in national politics

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

17. How about Stephanie Jones?

Stephanie Jones is an African American woman and Congresswoman from the 11th district in Ohio. She's a former prosecutor and received her Juris Doctorate from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in 1974. She's a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. She's intelligent, articulate, mature, and is someone who could help carry Ohio. I'm just throwing this out as perhaps someone who would be new and fresh on the political scene.

[wakeme2008]

20. I would be a Gore/Clark fan

but I saw a couple other pairing I like too. :)

[NewHampshireDem]

22. Sam Nunn ... remember him?

Strong national security expertise ... the general and the brain?

How about Biden, who also has strong foreign relations cred? Or how about Gephardt, who can carry labor?

I'm with the others here ... Clark and anyone is fine with me. Wes is definately my man in '08, though I'll probably kick some cash to Russ and Dennis as well. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Last I heard Clark supports the occupation. But, Kucinich/Clark

would be get my vote.

[Clark2008]

45. No he doesn't.

And he never did.

He just wants us to get out with the best save-face as possible, for both our military and to prevent future terrorism events.

I know it's common protocol here to blame Bush for every little thing, but, quite honestly, he isn't responsible for terrorism (just responsible for making it worse). Terrorism is caused when there are lack of economic advantages, a totalitarian form of government and thumbscrewed regimes. Clark doesn't want us to leave Iraq that way. Makes sense to me.

[ultraist]

46. Clark said he doesn't know how he'd have voted on Iraq

He made a comment praising the Bush admin for how they are handling the war, before he made comments condemning how they were handling it. But as far as how he would have voted, he has said, he doesn't know.

I read a quote somewhere where he said he's not sure how he would have voted.



Apparently Clark did say he would not have voted for the war after he said this:

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

Liberation is at hand. Liberation -the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air."

. . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."

[rpannier]

51. Let's be fair

Clark is a former military man, as am I. I was quite proud of how well the handled the soldiers handled the War. I was pleased that we lost so few men -- many people I served with were in those units that went to Iraq. Just like many people he served with went there. We're glad so few of them died and that they handled it so efficiently.

[ultraist]

52. Fine for him to praise the soldiers, but praise BUSH?

Although, glorifying war does not sit well with me.

[Quixote1818]

65. Here, read this

"So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPrepared ...
Paul Wellstone too

But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
Paul Wellstone- antiwar speech in senate 2002
www.wellstoneaction.org

[CarolNYC]

79. Clark and Iraq War - July 2002

Then there's this from Gene Lyons talking about a conversation with Clark in July of 2002:

"I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too."

Here's the link to the whole Lyons interview...
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[ultraist]

81. Why not look at Clark's statements rather than someone elses?

http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

September 19, Clark Starts Campaign:

Clark told several reporters he “probably” would have voted for the resolution.

From: The New York Times, September 19, 2003 :

At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question.

A moment later, the Times quoted him adding:

I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position -- on balance, I probably would have voted for it.

From: The Washington Post, September 19, 2003:

Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war . . .

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (C onn. and John F. Kerry (Mass. ), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation.

[Quixote1818]

82. Yeah, so what? I would have probably voted for it as well at the time.

Voting for the Resolution to put pressure on Saddam is one thing as it caused Saddam to let the inspectors back in. It's clear that Clark and most of the Dem's were not for actually going to war with Iraq and certainly not unilaterally. They wanted to continue to use the weapons inspectors.

Clark was clearly trying to sway the Armed Services Committee away from war and that speaks VOLUMES to me. He stood up for Michael Moore when no one else would during the Academy Awards. That took guts!

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. So much misinformation in one post. That takes effort.

But it gets routine around here to have to respond to these accusations so it is easy to recycle posts while doing so. I see Carrol already posted the Gene Lyon interview, she beat me to that. OK, let's look at those quotes of Clark's. You see, I already have. You managed to avoid most of Clark's full comments, and what you used was taken completely out of context of his full text, not to mention avoiding the when, where or why he wrote it. Let's correct those omissions for all of our interested readers, shall we?

Here, let's start over from the beginning, OK? First, Clark published his piece in the London Times, which explains the inclusion of Tony Blair. Second he published this on April 10, 2003. In case you forget, those were the heady "Mission Accomplished Days" when everyone was bending over backward saying what a geniuses Bush and Rumsfeld were, and almost no one (outside of the far left and Peace movements - hardly a majority of public opinion, was willing to spare three brain cells to question the wisdom or outcome of what had transpired. OK then, from the top:


"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people."


Whoops, why is it that your quotes, for some reason, pointedly stop just short of Clark's comment: "Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph." Why is that? You see, that was the lead in to Clark's real opinion piece. Why cut it off there? This happens time and time again from people who are either trying to smear Clark, or who have been taken in by people who are trying to smear Clark. Those same few lines repeated, always out of context. Clark goes on to say in that same piece:


"The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort. This could emerge as a lasting humiliation of Iraq or a bridge of understanding between Islam and the West."


Looks to me like "the humiliation of Iraq" horse is winning the race after Clark's concerns in the above paragraphs I cited were ignored.

Clark reeled his readers in with his opener. He got their attention by acknowledging what they were experiencing, and then he made them think. That is something precious few leaders want to do, make the people think. Clark does. We can insult our opposition, or we can reason with some of them and open their eyes to the truth. In an era when politics is played as a scorched earth exercise, when the aim is to fire up your side enough by attacking their side hard enough so that more of your base votes than theirs, Clark knows how to talk with independents and moderates on the other side.

Clark was out in front opposing the war in Iraq, which the Lyons interview illustrates, and Clark was also out in front making the point that the Mission wasn't accomplished, which his Op Ed piece illustrates. He called it right both times.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Clark/Mladic

Cruel and perhaps unfair, but the problem that Clark is going to have is that his record will come into question and that includes the infamous picture of Clark posing next to fugitive Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic, and the controversial Clinton war in Yugoslavia.

One question I do have for Clark, and one that should be asked of any Presidential candidate, is the question that Jeremy Scahill of Democracy Now asked the general about the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions:

Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill.

TRANSCRIPT:

JEREMY SCAHILL: In Yugoslavia, you used cluster bombs and depleted uranium, I want to know if you are president, will you vow not to use them.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I will use whatever it takes that's legal to protect the men and women against force.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Even against civilians in the Nis marketplace? Why bomb Radio Television Serbia? Why did you bomb Radio Television Serbia? You killed 16 media workers, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were-(inaudible - Interview interrupted by another questioner.)

That was Clark making an exit off the stage. We followed him as he left the theater and walked down the streets of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, shaking hands, signing autographs, talking to potential voters. As he was entering a business establishment, Jeremy Scahill again approached the General.


Gen. Wesley Clark, being questioned by Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill.

TRANSCRIPT:

JEREMY SCAHILL: General Clark, on that issue of the bombing of Radio Television Serbia, Amnesty International called it a war crime.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Excuse me -- I'm not --

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty called it a war crime and it's condemned by all journalist organizations in the world. It killed makeup artists.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew. He had the warning because after he got the warning, he actually ordered the western journalists to report there as a way of showing us his power, and we had done it deliberately to sort of get him accustomed to the fact that he better start evacuating it. There were actually six people who were killed, as I recall.

JEREMY SCAHILL: There were 16.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-05.htm

As to 2008, if the choice were between Clark and Hillary... It won't be Hillary who I vote for!

[Clark2008]

56. Well, we can defend against that.

But, I absolutely, living in a red state, don't want Hillary as our nominee.

I'd feel defeated from the get-go.

[jayfish]

27. Bob Kerrey.

A very potent duo.

Jay

[flyarm]

28. never bob kerry!!!!!!!!!!!..n/t

[SharonRB]

71. I totally agree

After reading "The Franklin Cover-up" and learning some pretty unsavory things about him, I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

[flyarm]

72. as a flight crew of one of the airlines involved in 9/11

i did public speaking for the john kerry campaign..and i was asked to be at a round table discussion and question and answer with bob kerry before election last year...only 15 were asked to participate..my hubby and i were 2 of the 15..i was less than a foot from bob kerry, the participants were in the center of the round table at a major US UNIVERSITY...i went prepared.. as i grew up in the nj town that lost the most victims..in 9/11..i was flight attend of the year with my airline ny base in 2001..i asked very valid questions and insider questions of significance to the commission and their serious ommissions...i had 3 questions prepared ..i was very serious and i prepared my husband to ask 2 very important questions..that crew would know and be able to ask professionally...

mr kerry did not answer one..not one.. of my questions..nor did he answer the questions my husband asked...so out of 5 questions..now.. i am serious..these were very valid questions from airline crew..i had asked other crew members what they would want answered most and i took a consensus of what questions they would want me to ask...

and that bum did not even attempt to answer < one > of my questions...he just fluffed them off...

i was livid..he is a fraud..and that whole commission was a fraud...not just on we who have spent a lifetime in the industry, but on all americans.,..the room was filled with media and college professors..and phd's..

i was worst than disgusted..i was furious!

i will never forgive that man for being a fraud!

he was panicked when i asked the questions i did..you could see it in his face...and he knew he couldn't bullshit me!..so he just never answered one question!

you can say all you want about him..you can love him or leave him...but no one will ever convince me he is anything but a fraud!

fly

[IndianaGreen]

30. Kerrey is really tainted with war crimes in Vietnam

and he lied about them.

A Clark/Kerrey ticket would be a disaster of distractions about their military records, particularly Kerrey's.

[sandnsea]

34. He could probably run now

How could they say Kerry lied about the war crimes and then attack Kerrey as having commited war crimes? :shrug:

I know, they would, but still...

[IndianaGreen]

37. Let's not confuse John Kerry with Bob Kerrey, there is no comparison!

Published on Thursday, May 3, 2001

Kerrey Should Return to Thanh Phong: Make Amends in Word and Deed

by Michael Ratner

Most of the commentary and coverage of the killings of at least 13 Vietnamese women and children by Bob Kerrey and his raiders focuses on whether or not he rounded them up and murdered them or whether they were killed in a battle in which Kerrey and his men were returning fire from enemy soldiers. Most of the pundits jumped to Kerrey's defense and gave him the benefit of the doubt putting forth excuses such as the fog of war, unreliability of and conflicts between witnesses, passage of time, and the trickiness of memory. The focus of commentators was: did he or didn't he: did he commit a cold blooded war crime or were the killings excused by the laws of war? I don't want to say this question is irrelevant, because it is not. But whether Kerrey killed these peasants and their children by one method or another is not the only question that his belated "confession" raises.

Kerrey acknowledges that he and his men killed 13 mothers and children. He states that the memories of it are "killing" him, that it was a "tragedy," that he could not "justify it militarily or morally" and that "he was so ashamed he wanted to die." Many of the news reports sympathize with his anguish and torment and the difficulty he is has had in coping with these killings over the years. However, neither Kerrey nor these journalists address the pain and loss suffered by the families of those he killed--children raised without mothers, mothers who buried their children, fathers without wives and children and families torn asunder. No one including Kerrey addresses the anguish and pain of those families–its all about how Kerrey is suffering. If Kerrey is really remorseful regarding the killings–no matter which story is believed-- then he ought to do something about it, not just give press interviews. He should find a way to both make amends to the surviving relatives both in word and deed. This would be the appropriate human, moral and ethical response. It is also what the Vietnamese have suggested: "We think the best way for Mr. Kerrey as well as other Americans who used to fight in Vietnam to find peace of mind is to have concrete and realistic actions to contribute to healing the wounds left by the war."

Kerrey can start small. He should go back to the village of Thanh Phong, see for himself the damage he caused, go to the cemetery where those killed are buried , meet with their families if they are willing–and, as a first step– apologize. Real regret and real sorrow is expressed face to face not at press conferences. He should not return empty handed to the village, but should be prepared to assist those families and that village materially. Expressions of real sorrow should be backed up with specific and material actions. Kerrey is a millionaire many times over and while reparations will not bring back the dead or end grieving, they will demonstrate both his sincerity and willingness to help those he hurt.

But Kerrey's apology and return to the village should only be a beginning of our country's acknowledgment for what we did in Vietnam. Kerrey unit's killings took place in February 1969. The village of Thanh Phong is in Kien Hoa Province in the Mekong Delta, the a focus of a U.S. "pacification" campaign during the first six months of 1969–Kerrey's operation was part of this campaign. In those six months, in that one area, a U.S. official acknowledged that at least 5,000 noncombatant civilians were killed and this is only a small number of the hundreds of thousands of noncombatant civilians killed by the U.S. and its allies in the war. Hopefully, if Kerrey takes the suggested return trip to Thanh Phong he will set an example for other Americans and our government. It may herald the beginning of a larger process of genuine acknowledgment, apology and recompense for wrongs committed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0503-04.htm

Published in the May 9-15, 2001 issue of the Village Voice

The New School’s Kerrey Crisis

An Antiwar Institution Agonizes Over a President Who Killed Unarmed Vietnamese Civilians

by Michael Kamber

Last week, in front of the New School auditorium, they gathered a thousand strong, a serpentine parade of the angry, the skeptical, the supportive, the curious. They came to hear from a man who had recently admitted to killing Vietnamese women and children 32 years earlier, a man who was now their leader. The school's trustees had issued a statement of support for New School president and Congressional Medal of Honor winner Bob Kerrey, yet this meeting was crucial: Kerrey had to win over the school's students and faculty if he was to head off a small but potentially threatening movement to remove him.

There were many viewpoints in the crowd: Sven Travis, the school's digital design chairperson, came "because it's important that I show my sympathy for Bob Kerrey. He has dynamic ideas about what the university should be doing. He is very much the kind of individual the New School needs."

Not 50 feet away, Bridget Francis, an education major, disagreed. "He should be tried for what he did," she said. "It's disgusting that our government gave him an award for massacring large amounts of people. He shouldn't remain as president."

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0510-04.htm

[sandnsea]

53. Maybe reread my post

And note the difference in spelling between the two.

I said maybe Kerrey could run now because they've already said Kerry (without an e) lied about there being war criminals in Vietnam, so they couldn't hardly turn around and say Kerrey (with an e) was a war criminal.

Of course I knew the left would be there to trash a Dem, any chance they get. No, I don't believe Kerrey participated in war crimes. Any more than I believed it when Common Dreams put out the stories on Kerry (without an e) shooting a Vietnamese child in the back.

[TomClash]

33. Never

A 9/11 Commission stooge

[IndianaGreen]

38. Thanks for the reminder, TomClash

Stooge indeed!

[flyarm]

73. i agree!! please see my post #72!! ..n/t

[bowens43]

31. Howdy Doody n/t

[mzmolly]

32. Gore or a former Governor.

We can't afford to run a senator again IMHO.

[WA98296]

35. Hmmm...How about Joe Wilson?

[guajira]

36. Hillary -- n/t

[IndianaGreen]

39. Barf Alert!

:puke:

[skipos]

41. The most progressive person who can help us win the states we need to win.

I am not sure who that person is. VP candidates don't have the homestate pull of Pres candidates, as we know that Edwards wasn't able to make much of a dent in North Carolina. However, if a VP candidate was from state that wasn't deep red, maybe he could swing it.

Warner from Va, Vilsack from Iowa, Richardson from New Mexico come to mind.

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. I thought you said "progressive"?

Why say that, and then name 3 DLC corporatists?

[skipos]

64. Nope I said "most progressive person WHO CAN HELP US WIN

THE STATES WE NEED TO WIN." If I wanted to vote for the most progressive person, I would have voted for Nader in 00 and 04, or maybe even wrote in myself. But actually being able to win the GE makes a difference.

I don't know much about the candidates I mentioned, I just said I was looking into them at the moment. Feel free to share your thoughts.

And again, I am not interested in supporting the most progressive candidate, I am interested in supporting the most progressive and electable candidate.

[Dinger]

47. Clark/Feingold

The repug silver bullet!

[Adelante]

50. Corzine or Feingold nt

[Tommy_J]

55. Clark - Edwards

[Quixote1818]

57. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida! She ROCKS!!!

and she would help us win Florida.

[Gloria]

58. ME!!!!!!!

eom

[Crunchy Frog]

59. My fantasy was always a Clark/Rangel ticket.

I realize it's probably just a fantasy, but it's mine and I'll stick with it for the time being.

Charlie would have been awesome going up against Dick Cheney.

[robbedvoter]

60. Clark/Wilson

[Ilsa]

69. Me too, if you're suggesting Amb Joseph Wilson. eom

[snowbear]

76. Wilson?

Who dat?

[xray s]

61. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT)

now that would be a ticket that would shread Bush's base to bits

[Quixote1818]

63. I have to admit that would be an unstoppable ticket!

We might carry some Rural Red states that have not voted Dem in 150 years. Throw Ed Schultz in their as his media person and even McCain would be obliterated!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[AgadorSparticus]

62. ME!!!! whaaa? It COULD work!

:P ok, ok. I would love to see Max Cleland run with the General. That would be great.

[jmatthan]

68. Joe Liberman?

Sorry, I do not buy Wes Clark as a leader as he still talks of troops in Iraq. He lives in fantasy land.

It is people like him and General Powell that have trained the Generals in command today - who are a bunch of sycophants.

Does not speak well of their leadership. Powell as at least accepted that he is part of the problem. But not so with Clark.

He is still talking about the US Army being professional.

Just listen to Col. Lawrence Wilkerman and one knows that it is a load of bull.

Col. Wilkerson destroys US Army

http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/10/col-wilkerson-destroys-us-army.html

[Quixote1818]

70. You need to read up on Clark's plan.

I get the impression you don't have a clue as to what he is proposing for Iraq. Clark is a realist and he knows if his plan doesn't work then we simply tell everyone to gather up their shit and leave. But it's at least worth a try to wheel and deal with Iran and Syria and the other countries in the area that have tremendous influence on the insurgency. Clark knows we have lost in Iraq but he wants to figure out a way to leave that helps us save face.

[jmatthan]

84. I happen to have ebven got it dropped into my email

I have replied and queried him on it.

Just saying that there has to be discussions with the neighbours etc. does not solve the problem.

The unprofessional US army is the problem, which Gen. Clark refuses to accept.

So long as he sits on that side of the fence he is not an acceptable candidate for peace in the Middle East.

[nvliberal]

74. I thought he was married.

And it's a good thing, for when I saw him in person in October of last year, half of the women there were in love with him.

If he didn't have a wife, he'd never live this long.

[Lilith Velkor]

78. *boom-tiss*

:rofl:

>If he didn't have a wife, he'd never live this long.<

Whuzzat mean? He marry his bodyguard or something?

[ticapnews]

75. I can think of several

Most have been mentioned but I will add Clark/Harkin

For some bold picks:

Clark/Schwartz
Clark/Kaptur
Clark/Kirkpatrick
Clark/McCollum
- All female members of Congress from key swing states (PA, OH, MI, MN)

[snowbear]

77. I'd pair him with Governor Mark Warner because....

Warner has plans of running -- and an incredibly stellar.. STELLAR political record. He also (like General Clark) has the ability to reach across party lines and attact voters of all political persuasions.

In addition.. Warner's state of Virgina (he's an incredibly popular Democrat in a RED state) was recently voted as the "Best Managed State in the Nation"

And last but not least, he and Clark are buddies!!!

So yeah, Clark and Warner would be a ticket that could draw votes from across the isle -- Check it out: http://www.radaronline.com/fresh-intelligence/2005/07/11/index.php

[phylla]

83. I totally agree Clark/Warner is the best all around!

But warner definitely supported Kerry in the 04 election.