Democratic Presidential candidate 2008....who would you like?

[...of J.Temperance]

Poll question: Democratic Presidential candidate 2008....who would you like?

Who would you like to be our Presidential candidate in 2008?

I think that Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton would each be a complete disaster for our party....I want Senator Clinton re-elected to the Senate, she's been a great Senator for New York and she's a great asset for us in the Senate, I want her to remain in the Senate, on a national level, Hillary is far too polarizing a figure and as such would be a gift to the Right-Wing.

John Kerry, he's had his chance, and with all that's gone wrong since 2001, Kerry still couldn't beat Junior.

Al Gore, like Hillary, Gore is far too polarizing a figure.

We need some fresh faces, we need some new blood, we need some new ideas.

I have four top candidates:

Former Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, former General Wesley Clark of Arkansas and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

My top ticket would be Mark Warner and Evan Bayh or Evan Bayh and Mark Warner. Both have been Governors of Red states and Bayh also
has Senatorial experience as well as Gubernatorial experience. Both are moderate Democrats, they would appeal to people that we need to get the votes of, Independents and other moderates.

Warner/Bayh or Bayh/Warner would only need to keep the majority of states that Kerry/Edwards won, and then get a handful of swing states, such as Missouri, Nevada, Montana, Colorado, Kentucky....with favorite son taken into effect they could also take Virginia and Indiana.

Anyhow, that's the ticket I'd like in 2008. Who would everyone else like?

[Chipper Chat]

1. Other: Russ Feingold.

.

[...of J.Temperance]

2. I like Russ Feingold

He would be good Veep material....I'm not sure how he'd be at the top of the ticket, just my own opinion of course.

[philgobluemi]

135. Why not put Russ on the poll list?

I'm an Edwards backer too, but we should have all the leaders in this poll. Probably should ad Bayh too, he's legit.

[Ken Burch]

5. Me too.

Why wasn't Feingold listed as a choice?

[d_b]

6. me 3

[bobthedrummer]

63. Yep.

[MrCoffee]

75. Russ for President

sigh...if wishing made it so.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

141. Ditto

[Krakowiak]

181. I'm in Feingold's camp as well

No one else comes close, IMHO.

[KingFlorez]

3. Can't choose between Hillary and Gore

[ginnyinWI]

4. The exit polls say that Kerry did beat *.

They say he beat the other guy by at least 3%. I believed in him whole-heartedly then, and I still think he's the smartest, most competent and well-suited Dem we have to be our next president. And he tells the truth--wouldn't that be refreshing.

I guess next time he needs to beat him by a bigger margin to take into account all of the fraud that will take place--because the elections are still unfair and undemocratic.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. Not to mention that DU isn't the whole country

He wasn't an unpopular president in 2004 by the rest of the nation's standards. Only the left-wing's. People here need to learn to see the world without the DU prism...

[...of J.Temperance]

16. I agree completely

People do have to both think outside the box and also look outside of that prism.

[WildEyedLiberal]

100. Glad you agree

I'm glad you agree that your assertation that 2004 was a cakewalk is completely without merit. Because most of the country doesn't think about GWB the way DU does.

[...of J.Temperance]

119. Huh?

"I'm glad you agree that your assertation that 2004 was a cakewalk is completely without merit."

Where exactly did I make such an assertation? I made no such assertation at all....re-read my OP and you'll see....perhaps you're confusing me with another poster.

[Dr.Phool]

8. OK, thats four Feingold votes so far. And only three "others" in the poll!

Who's running this election?

Katherine Harris or Kenneth Blackwell?

[Webster Green]

9. Al Gore!

The real president.

[Cobalt-60]

10. Clark's my man

The next president is going to inherit a world on fire.
Chimpy and company have stirred every hornet's nest on the planet. We may need his military savvy to survive.
Another consideration is that for years the enemy has been aligning itself against Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. It would tickle my root to see all that ammunition wasted.
I don't think he's as cool as the big dog (Bill Clinton) but this razorback is just what we need right now.

[Texas_Kat]

11. Agreed, Clark's the one

[pkspiegel]

59. Me too! It's Clark

Who else has the kind of experience that could get us out of these messes???

[ksclematis]

165. Me, 3, for General Clark

He's a strategist and has the experience over all the other wanna-bes to get the US out of some of these messes - without going to more war - besides having the education, intelligence and diplomatic ability to talk/negotiate with the heads of state. He's very popular in most parts of the globe. He knows at least 4 languages, and has the know-how to talk with the leaders, military or civilian.

The General has been in combat, has seen soldiers die, explained to the families how and where their loved one met his maker. He's been combat wounded, yet commanded his soldiers to complete their mission. How many of the other "wanna-bes" have been in uniform and experienced what General Clark has, and yet after retirement continue to work very hard to help his country....that's a Patriot!

He's had the experience as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe for NATO for the complete care of thousands of soldiers and their familie....just like being a mayor, governor, or someone who's been elected to political office.

He'd really be a breath of fresh air for the USA!

www.securingamerica.com

[Wesin04]

47. 'World on Fire' is right

Cobalt-60 hit the nail on the head with his World on Fire statement. This world is swirling and raging out of control. Not only does Wes Clark have military experience but more importantly, he has knowledge of foreign policy, familiarity with world leaders as well as the underlings of these leaders who do the policy making. He's more well respected around the world than many, having been granted more international medals and awards than any one leader currently roaming the earth. Way back in his Army days, when going through the leadership training, he scored higher than anyone--that's anyone--for his ability to formulate and articulate a vision for this country. All of this expertise deals with the global side of things. He can come right back to the domestic side and demonstrate knowledge, experience and expertise in the issues we struggle with on that side, too. He's the one I'll not only vote for, but work for. :kick:

[Norwood]

180. Clark's the best man for the job

There are a lot of great candidates on that list that I would be proud to have has our nominee. Al Gore, Russ Feingold John Kerry,and John Edwards being at the top of my list.

However, my choice would be General Wes Clark. In my opinion there is no one else who would be as capable as Clark to put together the shattered remains of our foreign policy and to mop up the all the shit brought upon us by this administration.

It would be incredibly tough for the Repukes to find someone capable of beating Clark (McCain being their only real shot), even with the possibility of fraud.

[saltpoint]

12. I disagree with some of the points in your summary up there.

So I'm going to cast my vote for Robert Redford.

He's tough, smart, well-known, wealthy, liberal as hell, and could carry almost every state.

[...of J.Temperance]

14. Robert Redford....I could go for George Clooney

I wish Clooney would have challenged Arnold Schwartzenegger in California.

[saltpoint]

60. Clooney's a good man. I'm no Arnold fan so I hear ya on that

suggestion.

[...of J.Temperance]

120. I hope that

Phil Angelides beats Arnie, in any normal society Arnie never would have become Governor, he's an embarrassment.

[farmboxer]

13. President Gore

should be reelected.

[DemGa]

15. Al Gore n/t

[autorank]

17. Al Gore n/t

[FrenchieCat]

18. WANTED for the position of President/Commander in Chief--

Needed:

Prior Executive experience required.

Prior experience in negotiating peace treaties and planning and winning wars with fewest casualties possible.

Strategic thinker and innovator. Advanced Economics Degree with professor credentials and teaching experience a plus!

Expertise in Emergency preparedness, along with solid track record as a public servant, preferably not all "done" in Washington D.C. a bonus.

Natural Built-in instinct to know a war is a mistake prior to 3 years into it; required.

full understanding of Global Warming, its effects and possible solutions, with a general understanding in the sciences.

Ability to speak fully formed sentences. Media commentating experience and ability to speak more than one language helpful. More than two languages; a bonus.

Added pluses- First in one's class; Scholar of note; decorated Veteran; Southern upbringing; general attractive appearance; good health and stamina; above average IQ; concise and informative articulation; self made; stable and long term established personal relationship.

Prior Elected position not required if prior experience in White House affairs is present.

Big Balls; commanding presence; and a quick wit, all stressed.

Senate voting record NOT required.

[FrenchieCat]

69. and ADDITIONAL skills needed;

Unassailable Expertise and solid Gravitas in the area of National Security.

Ability to utilize quickly and efficiently Can of Whoop Ass Spray on GOP and their media, aka the Corporate media--

[philgobluemi]

137. you forgot prior experience at getting elected to something

anything.

[FrenchieCat]

144. No I didn't.......

Read it again.

It's helpful but not mandatory (see history-and see Bush elected as Gov of Tx and the good that did us)...since most who are elected other than Governors end up with legislative but no executive experience...which is what a President does; an executive position.

However, feel free to compile your own "wanted list".......I certainly don't have a problem with that! :hi:

[philgobluemi]

149. See History

Well, there was a history before Bush and I can't think of any 20th century president that wasn't elected to something other than Eisenhower. And well, his war was of historic importance.

[FrenchieCat]

154. So I guess that prior to Eisenhower, there was Washington....

but even if there were none, doesn't mean because there is no precedent it can't ever happen? :eyes:

There hasn't ever been a woman or an African American elected....but that doesn't mean it can't ever happen. But based on your logic I guess there never will be another first!

You see.... for you to conveniently determine that it can only happen AGAIN but it can't happen a first time is ridiculous....and to determine that if it might happen again, that the exact criteria must be present is also not sound. :crazy:

But I will admit that your statement serves your purpose, I guess!

Out of curiousity, how many one term senators who served no other office became President? I really don't know!

[ksclematis]

176. Bush was elected to office once....

and look what we got!!!!

[Broken_Hero]

19. Al Gore for me

even though I still dislike Tipper, but its the Man, not his wife...:) A Gore/Clark ticket, in my mind would be unbeatable...

[jannyk]

20. Gore/Edwards ticket = Orgasmic (nt)

[deacon]

21. Feingold/Clark

[yellowdawgdem]

22. Wesley Clark

would be the best out of that bunch, and my second choice would be John Edwards. New faces would be great too, if we had any. I was somewhat disappointed with Kerry's campaign, and thought he relied too much on his military service in Nam. Gore is wonderful, but I don't think he will risk another run, he seems to like what he is doing now. I like Hillary Clinton, but she is coming off too pro-war, and is too accomodating of the right wingers. Russ Feingold would also be a great candidate if he decided to run.

[CrushTheDLC]

23. Gore/Edwards

Both Gore and Edwards are giving better speeches now then they did in their respective campaigns, and both seem to have distanced themselves from the DLC idiocy. Why not a combination of the REAL winners of 2000 and 2004. (and NO, a Kerry/Lieberman ticket would not be a viable alternative!)

I also like Feingold as he has been consistently against both the useless war and the equally useless Patriot Act. But the mediawhores will crucify him for being twice divorced, even though they hypocritically have no such problems with Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Even their false Messiah, Ronald Reagan, left his first wife for a younger woman.

As for Clark, I don't see a guy with no political experience winning the top job after 8 solid years of fear and manipulation on a level that Stalin would be proud of. I see Clark has lots of fans here, but that's just reality. He's not a big name war hero like Ike Eisenhower. If he were the VP for Gore or Feingold and could then gain from the political experience, then he would be inline for the next election and likely win.

[cyclezealot]

24. Other ; Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold

The likes of Mark Warner. I'd Have to set two alarm clocks on election day. Bush's disaster in the Middle East, I will be watching Evan Bayh, because previous voters require it.

[cyclezealot]

25. Other ; Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold

The likes of Mark Warner. I'd Have to set two alarm clocks on election day. Bush's disaster in the Middle East, I will be watching Evan Bayh, because previous voters require it.

[rep the dems]

64. Huh?

[cyclezealot]

71. Sorry, I need clarify.

Just mean't to say. I find Warner such a sleeper, I'd be so bored with the campaign, I might need two alarm clocks to quarantee I wake up and vote.

[rep the dems]

80. Haha ok, I got it.

[Zorra]

208. Dennis and Russ are my top choices also.

Followed by Al Gore and John Edwards.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

26. FYI: Warner is anti-choice n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

30. Wrong n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

32. Mark Warner is pro-Choice

Mark Warner is pro-Choice, I could never support a candidate for President that was pro-Life.

I'm supporting Bob Casey Jr. for Senator, he's pro-Life, but he's going to beat Rick Santorum, and so Bob Casey Jr. deserves our support, he's moderately liberal on most other social issues, he's also an economic conservative....as I'm an economic conservative and a social liberal, I'm content with Bob Casey Jr....that Chuck whatshisname hasn't got a snowballs chance of beating Rick Santorum, he's too Left-Wing for one thing.

So what I'm meaning is, I'll never support a pro-Life candidate for President, but under exceptional conditions, I'll support a pro-Life candidate for the Senate.

[cyclezealot]

34. With the neocons pushing war everywhere.

I wonder how Warner differs from a neocon agenda. Much too silent about foreign policy for my likes. Besides his style is boring. Puts me to sleep.

[...of J.Temperance]

36. Warner will need to boost his foreign policy credentials

He can do that between now and the 2008 Democratic Primaries, Warner has plenty of time.

Remember Bill Clinton in 1991 and 1992, hardly anyone outside of Arkansas had heard of Clinton, and then all of a sudden, after the death of Senator Paul Tsongas, Clinton gradually emerged as the frontrunner.

So, it's entirely feasible that Mark Warner or Evan Bayh could become our next Bill Clinton, and like Clinton, both have youthfulness and a fresh face on their side.

[Wesin04]

48. Mark Warner...no thanks

He might have time to do a lot of book larnin' before the election, but why take second (or third, or forth) best? Why not take the man who has real life experience with foreign policy? Let Warner learn somewhere on the job. He can run for John Warner's Senate seat in 2 years and probably win this time! That way, we'd have TWO Democratic Virginia Senators! I want a leader ready to hit the ground on Day 1. Wes Clark.

[cyclezealot]

70. My fear he will be a Democratic John McCain.

Sounded pretty unilateralist from what little I have heard him spout , so far.

[Auntie Bush]

83. He won't, so don't fear.

Everyone should read Wes Clark's platform and study up on him as much as you can. You will be pleasantly surprised. He's VERY progressive and will be just what we need for our domestic agenda. The media keep asking him military questions so people don't get to hear his domestic platform, so you have to read it for yourself. You'll love it!

Also...He's not boring and gives fabulous speeches.
He has no voting record to defend for Rethugs to criticize.
He's not an insider and not beholding to anyone.
He has more executive experience than anyone except Gore.
Executive experience doesn't have to be in politics.
Politics isn't the only way to obtain executive experience.

[cyclezealot]

84. Not endorsing him yet. But, Clark is incresingly interesting

I expect him to talk at length about Iraq and the Neocons. Same for Warner. Warner, I am far more suspicious of. But, I am all ears. His speeches so far have been far from exciting. Has not Warner been supportive of the war in Iraq so far?

[FrenchieCat]

91. Clark has been talking about the Neocons publicly before many

knew of the group PNAC and what a NeoCon was...and was called a "Crack Pot" for it! That didn't shut him up though......

General Wesley Clark, the late entry into the race for the Democratic nomination for president, is making what critics called a “bizarre,” “crackpot” attack on a small Washington policy organization and on a citizens group that helped America win the Cold War.

In a Tuesday interview with Joshua Micah Marshall posted yesterday on the Web site talkingpointsmemo.com, General Clark gave his evaluation of the Clinton presidency. He said that the Clinton administration,“in an odd replay of the Carter administration, found itself chained to the Iraqi policy — promoted by the Project for a New American Century— much the same way that in the Carter administration some of the same people formed the Committee on the Present Danger which cut out from the Carter administration the ability to move forward on SALT II.”
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/10/02&ID=Ar00100

Wesley Clark's Conspiracy Theory
The general tells Wolf Blitzer about the neoconservative master plan.
by Matthew Continetti
12/01/2003 2:00:00 PM

Yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition," for example, Clark said--not for the first time--that the Bush administration's war plans extend far beyond Iraq.

"I do know this," Clark told Wolf Blitzer. "In the gossip circles in Washington, among the neoconservative press, and in some of the statements that Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz have made, there is an inclination to extend this into Syria and maybe Lebanon." What's more, Clark added, "the administration's never disavowed this intent."

Clark has made his charge a central plank of his presidential campaign. Clark writes in his book, "Winning Modern Wars," that in November 2001, during a visit to the Pentagon, he spoke with "a man with three stars who used to work for me," who told him a "five-year plan" existed for military action against not only Afghanistan and Iraq, but also "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark has embellished this story on the campaign trail, going so far as to say, "There's a list of countries."

Clark's proof? None. He never saw the list. But, the general recently told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "You only have to listen to the gossip around Washington and to hear what the neoconservatives are saying, and you will get the flavor of this."

You probably get the flavor of what Wesley Clark is saying, too. It tastes, as THE SCRAPBOOK pointed out three weeks ago, like baloney. And sometimes, as in the case of yesterday's interview with Blitzer, it tastes like three-week-old baloney.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/445cqeal.asp

Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to implement Iraq invasion plan
Clark told me how he learned of a secret war scheme within the Bush Administration, of which Iraq was just one piece. Shortly after 9/11, Clark visited the Pentagon, where a 3-star general confided that Rumsfeld's team planned to use the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for going to war against Iraq. Clark said, "Rather than searching for a solution to a problem, they had the solution, and their difficulty was to make it appear as though it were in response to the problem." Clark was told that the Bush team, unable or unwilling to fight the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11, had devised a 5-year plan to topple the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Sudan.

Clark's central contention-that Bush used 9/11 as a pretext to attack Saddam-has been part of the public debate since well before the Iraq war. It is rooted in the advocacy of the Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank that had been openly arguing for regime change in Iraq since 1998.
Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003

Gen. Wes Clark layed out the PNAC mentality in a long article.

Here's some excerpts from Clark's article, "Broken Engagement"

During 2002 and early 2003, Bush administration officials put forth a shifting series of arguments for why we needed to invade Iraq. Nearly every one of these has been belied by subsequent events.
snip
Advocates of the invasion are now down to their last argument: that transforming Iraq from brutal tyranny to stable democracy will spark a wave of democratic reform throughout the Middle East, thereby alleviating the conditions that give rise to terrorism. This argument is still standing because not enough time has elapsed to test it definitively--though events in the year since Baghdad's fall do not inspire confidence.
snip
Just as they counseled President Bush to take on the tyrannies of the Middle East, so the neoconservatives in the 1980s and early 1990s advised Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to confront the Soviet Union and more aggressively deploy America's military might to challenge the enemy.....
snip
As has been well documented, even before September 11, going after Saddam had become a central issue for them. Their "Project for a New American Century" seemed intent on doing to President Clinton what the Committee on the Present Danger had done to President Carter: push the president to take a more aggressive stand against an enemy, while at the same time painting him as weak.
snip
September 11 gave the neoconservatives the opportunity to mobilize against Iraq, and to wrap the mobilization up in the same moral imperatives which they believed had achieved success against the Soviet Union. Many of them made the comparison direct, in speeches and essays explicitly and approvingly compared the Bush administration's stance towards terrorists and rogue regimes to the Reagan administration's posture towards the Soviet Union.

And the neoconservative goal was more ambitious than merely toppling dictators: By creating a democracy in Iraq, our success would, in the president's words, "send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran--that freedom can be the future of every nation," and Iraq's democracy would serve as a beacon that would ignite liberation movements and a "forward strategy of freedom" around the Middle East.

This rhetoric is undeniably inspiring. We should have pride in our history, confidence in our principles, and take security in the knowledge that we are at the epicenter of a 228-year revolution in the transformation of political systems. But recognizing the power of our values also means understanding their meaning. Freedom and dignity spring from within the human heart. They are not imposed. And inside the human heart is where the impetus for political change must be generated.

The neoconservative rhetoric glosses over this truth and much else. Even aside from the administration's obvious preference for confronting terrorism's alleged host states rather than the terrorists themselves, it was a huge leap to believe that establishing democracies by force of Western arms in old Soviet surrogate states like Syria and Iraq would really affect a terrorist movement drawing support from anti-Western sentiment in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html

Apparently for the neoconservative civilians who are running the Iraq campaign, 9-11 was that catalyzing event—for they are now operating at full speed toward multiple, simultaneous wars. The PNAC documents can be found online at newamericancentury.org.

his new book, Winning Modern Wars, retired general Wesley Clarkcandidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, offered a window into the Bush serial-war planning. He writes that serious planning for the Iraq war had already begun only two months after the 9-11 attack, and adds:

I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. . . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

A five-year military campaign. Seven countries. How far has the White House taken this plan? And how long can the president keep the nation in the dark, emerging from his White House cocoon only to speak to us in slogans and the sterile language of pep rallies?
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0342,schanberg,47830,1.html

Was David Brooks “careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic?” David Brooks was careful, all right. You can see how “careful” he was in the passage which slimed Wesley Clark:

BROOKS: The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy. To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles.
We’d sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010904.shtml

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize the foreign and defense policies of the Bush administration, but Winning Modern Wars would have us believe that the president dangerously derailed the nation’s security policy and diverted resources from the war on terrorism to the dead-end enterprise in Iraq. He blames Bush for everything he believes has gone wrong, and gives him no credit for anything that has gone right, including major steps toward transforming the US military from a Cold War force to one more suited to the current and likely future security environment.

In Clark’s world, vulnerability to terrorism is all George Bush’s fault. Of course, Bush had only been in office for eight months when Al Qaida struck on 9/11. The threat had been incubating during the Clinton years, but that administration had done little or nothing to address it. The most Clark can say about the Clinton administration’s inattention to the emerging terrorist threat is that "in retrospect, it clear that he could have done more."

Clark is a member in good standing of the "Bush lied" school - an outlook based on the claim that the president and his advisers had intended to invade Iraq from the very beginning, and knowingly deceived Congress and the American people in order to drag them into this unnecessary war. As evidence for this, he cites a 1998 letter from an organization called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) calling on president Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Those who signed the letter included Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/04/clark.html

EXCERPTS FROM HARDBALL INTERVIEW 12/17/04

CLARK: ...I think, you know, a guy like Bill Kristol, what he sees is that Secretary Rumsfeld‘s plan is not unfolding the way that the neocons thought it should unfold in the Middle East. This was supposed to be like a scaffold. You know, you just go in there and carve out Saddam Hussein, boom, the people are liberated. And they‘re all democratic. And then the Syrians jump on board and say, hey, by golly, come and save us too. And then the Iranians and the Lebanese.

It hasn‘t worked that way, because what the neocons didn‘t understand is, that you don‘t get the kind of Democratic reform you want in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun. And they‘re holding Rumsfeld responsible for that. But really, it‘s a flawed conception.

MATTHEWS: That‘s interesting. You‘re the first person I‘ve heard say that, general. Because a lot of people look at it much more narrowly and they say the reason we‘re getting criticism of the general is there aren‘t enough troops there. He said he had enough troops, when really in reality, it was the conception that justified the low troop level. Is that your point? That you did not need a lot of troops, because you weren‘t going to face much of an insurgency.

CLARK: .....One is the point of the neocons, which is not military at all. It is the point of the operation and the fact that you could sort of go in there and lance the boil of Saddam Hussein, get him out of there and everything would turn out OK. And it hasn‘t.
http://securingamerica.com/node/60

More Wesley Clark speaking up about the PNAC plan being reported here...
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1160usplans.html

Wes Clark really is the man for the job to clean up the shitstorm we are now facing. He knows where all of the bodies are buried. Only Nixon could go to China....and so, it goes!

[cyclezealot]

117. If Michael Moore endorsed him.

Why was I skeptical?

[xkenx]

142. Endorsements of Clark by prominent progressives

TO KNOW WES CLARK IS TO BECOME A COMMITTED CLARKIE!

GEORGE McGOVERN
Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November.

Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From a poster on Democratic Underground

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CUOMO
Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOORE
I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush ? by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been ?positioning himself slightly to Dean?s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) ? and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state?s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore

[FrenchieCat]

94. In reference to Mark Warner......

He's keeping his thoughts "underwraps" and his "powder as dry as possible" in hopes of not taking a position that might end up cost him what he clearly covets; the Presidency.

He was OK with Iraq when that was the more popular centrist view.....till Iraq turned obviously sour, and when it became acceptable and no longer "radical" to disapprove of Iraq, then Warner started to kind of disapprove.

So, I'm in your camp in reference to Warner......He has given me no reason to trust him, cause I don't really know what I'm supposed to trust.

Give me someone who has the reactive reflexes that we'd want in our President....
Rather than someone who has the defensive reflexes to seek the Presidency.

[cyclezealot]

118. Someone making the wrong call the first time around

Speaks to their true self. Warner fails on this account.

[sandyd921]

168. Great, just what we need...

a gutless, no real convictions, take the temperature of the electorate politician. :sarcasm: Sure sounds like another spineless Democrat to me. My fear is that the gutless corporate-sponsored sector of the party will try to pass this sort of candidate off on us and will succeed. A Russ Feingold or even an Al Gore sans his former controllers and in his current role of truthteller won't have a prayer unless there are big changes between now and 2008.

[Sparkly]

197. I also don't like the "sensible center" rhetoric.

I don't mind centrists -- I'm for building a big, diverse tent! But talking about the "sensible center" (as if there's something "unsensible" elsewhere) is exclusionary.

He's positioned himself as "anti-elitist" and focused on regular folks in the red states. Fine to bring in folks in the red states, but his appeal includes a rejection of New England Liberal intellectual supposedly-"elitist" types, which I resent greatly.

Further, he's distanced himself from other Democrats, as if to rise above them. In saying we don't need to refight how we got into Iraq, while Democrats in Congress were calling for investigations into misuse of intel (and lying to Congress, Downing St. minutes, etc.), he enjoyed the anti-Bush benefits of their fight while keeping his hands clean, separating himself with disdain for their efforts.

He's a pure politician in the worst senses of that word.

[Mass]

81. Tsongas died in 1997. He ran in 1992.

[cyclezealot]

85. Tsongas I once thought wise.

But, In 92 his talk about entitlements and taxes turned out a surprise. I quickly turned against Tsongas. RIP Paul.

[flaminbats]

113. I loved Tsongas..

I believe his politics and interest in deficit reduction lived on in the policy of Bill Clinton.

As one person posted here, it will be nice to have some fresh faces on the primary ballot in 2008. I think they include Jack Carter, and other underdogs, who are running against Republican incumbents this year. If Bush and Cheney get impeached, I believe this would provide voters with such a choice. But Democrats need to hold this administration accountable, especially if they win Congress back this year. Otherwise voters will continue to see Democrats as nothing more than one of two evils they must vote for.

IMO Kerry and Gore don't have the same political problems as Hillary does. Kerry did far better than I expected running against a wartime incumbent, and we must never forget that Gore won the popular vote by over half a million votes in 2000. Although neither of these would be my first choice in the Democratic primaries, I think it is far too early to assume they are no longer viable candidates who would only lose in 2008!

[Sparkly]

196. I did too!!!

(People still laugh at me for that, but I really did. I liked Dukakis, too, for the record. I think they were just too good for politics, in a way.)

[...of J.Temperance]

121. Sorry

That's correct Paul Tsongas died in 1997, thanks for correcting my error.

Paul Tsongas was considered the Democratic frontrunner in 1992, then he withdrew from the race and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, Bill Clinton became the frontrunner.

[Zynx]

53. Why would you say something that is blatantly false?

[stuartrida]

55. WRONG.

[Greyhound]

27. I think that Clark has to be the top of the ticket because foreign policy

is/will be his strength, and that is the purview of the POTUS. I'd really like to see Edwards, or even better, Kucinich in charge of domestic and in a true partnership this could be done by the VPOTUS. Of course, this is just a fantasy, I don't believe that the real powers of this country will allow anything like the sweeping changes that will have to be made to clean this mess up.

So come November 7th I'll cast my ballot for the Democratic candidate in the hopes that he/she will delay the inevitable long enough for me to get out or die.

[Raksha]

28. DEFINITELY Al Gore!

I disagree that he's "too polarizing."

[...of J.Temperance]

35. Al Gore is too polarizing

The entire 2000 Election thing will be brought up again. I know that Gore received more votes than Junior, of course it was Ralph Nader's fault that Junior got into the WH, had Nader of stayed the heck out of the 2000 Election, then Al Gore would have been sitting in the WH instead of Junior.

We don't need the 2008 Election being partially dominated by what occured during the 2000 Election....we need to focus on other issues, especially National Security, Healthcare, Social Security and the Economy.

[Poiuyt]

96. We could put up Jesus and the republicans would polarize him by Nov 08

It doesn't matter who we put up. The repubs dirty tactics will demonize anyone. We might as well put up the one person who is best for the country.

[...of J.Temperance]

123. They can only do that if we allow them too

If we begin hitting them back in kind, they might drop the demonization stuff.

I'm all for fighting fire with fire, I'm a fan of scorched earth campaigns....we need another James Carville for the 2008 Presidential election, someone with a fire in their guts and passion in their heart.

[Jamastiene]

147. That's true.

It's gonna be a fight no matter who we decide to put up against the republicans. Might as well go with a dem we know will FIGHT FOR US.

[cleveramerican]

29. Joe Biden

good speaker, tough campaigner, Smart as hell.

[Awsi Dooger]

31. Warner, if we want to win

He'll carry Virginia which alters the entire dynamic toward 270 electoral votes.

Edwards is my second choice, assuming Gore is out, but I doubt he'll accept or be offered VP again. Right now I'd favor Richardson for VP, strength in New Mexico and with Hispanics.

Holding the Kerry states plus annexing Virginia and New Mexico would equal the magical 270 electoral votes. We wouldn't need Florida or Ohio or Nevada or Colorado or Iowa. That's how vital Virginia is. But few DUers seem to get that, based on these polls.

You can forget about Indiana and Kentucky. We're not carrying those states regardless of candidate or national margin.

[ksclematis]

175. Neither Warner nor Edwards....

has the foreign policy experience, war strategy experience, for POTUS, not even VPOOTUS - just a heartbeat away from the hot button! One elected term to anything a POTUS doesn't make.

Neither has been in any military uniform; they don't know what war is all about....oh, maybe they've been to Iraq, but they haven't been in the trenches all sweaty, carrying and wearing heavy gear, in line for an IED, and with no shower and hair spray to look forward to. Then, get on their air-conditioned airplane, fly to their air-conditioned home, have a nice dinner with their family instead of opening a package of pre-packaged cold rations.
Neither has seen their fellow soldier die before them....nor knock on that soldier's family door with the news of his death. How would they handle that?...just like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush: sit in their air conditioned offices and put a rubber stamp signature on a late letter to the family???

How many foreign leaders have either of them negotiated with.....that's stuff learned by doing, not by reading. Diplomacy is what it's going to take to even start winning any of the current global conflicts and military affairs. Yes, Edwards is/was an attorney and learned how to argue before a jury....that's not exactly the same as dealing and negotiating with the war mongers in the world today.

So, what does being elected to a political office really prepare one for an executive position, the CEO of a corporation??? That is the experience learned through YEAARS of working up to such positions.

General Wesley K. Clark has the above experiences and the ability to "right this ship". See more at:
www.securingamerica.com

[JNelson6563]

33. Gore is not polarizing

and to lump him in with Hillary is a clumsy attempt at slight of hand IMO.

[...of J.Temperance]

37. We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Al Gore then n/t

[JNelson6563]

77. Considering your stated choices

yes, I suspect we won't agree. But hey, you had to come up with something to count Al out and make room for the DLC team. It's all good, it is politics after all.

Julie

[...of J.Temperance]

124. People on DU have long known that I'm pro-DLC

So yes, it shouldn't be too surprising that my top choices are Mark Warner and Evan Bayh.

However, I can respect that we all are going to have our own choices, and that's whats fun about politics :)

[William769]

38. The reasons you chose for not wanting Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Gore

Are the exact reasons I would want one of those two.

[...of J.Temperance]

40. Why would you want a polarizing figure to be our 2008 candidate?

If we choose Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, then in my humble opinion, we're going to lose the election.

2008 is going to be an incredibly important election and I want us to win.

[William769]

41. I would disagree.

I Want to shove every thing down their throats we can.

[...of J.Temperance]

43. Could you elaborate on how Gore or Hillary are going to do that?

The entire media pretty much will be against them and that's for starters.

[Clark2008]

39. Al Gore is no longer of Tennessee.

He lives in California now.

[NYCGirl]

151. Al and Tipper Gore also have a home in Nashville. NT

[Clark2008]

42. The Bilderburg ticket? No thanks. eom

[...of J.Temperance]

44. Bill Clinton and John Edwards had attended Bilderburg conferences

And so had John Kerry....so what's wrong with the Bilderburger's exactly?

Keep in mind that I don't believe in all of this conspiracy theory stuff.

[Clark2008]

86. Not a fan of John Edwards, so that was the WRONG

person to add as a defense.

I don't like the Bilderbergers because I want a president who represents the people - not the elites. I'm tired of the elites choosing the ticket.

[...of J.Temperance]

122. I adore John Edwards

I think Edwards is a genuinely good and compassionate person.

Every President in general represents the elites once they get into office, they might talk about "representing the people" on the campaign trail, but in general once they've got the peoples' votes and get into office, it's the elites who they then tend to represent.

[karynnj]

45. Kerry has beaten Bush in many 2005 and 2006 polls

In the latest, he did almost exactly the same as Gore. Both were 46% (I think) and Bush was 40% with Kerry and 38% with Gore. Third party was around 7 for both - in both cases a clear win for the Dem.

[Demeter]

46. Feingold and Dean--toss coin for the slots

Two truth tellers, and organized to boot.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

49. Kucinich

he's seen and understood what's really going on.

[primative1]

50. I like John Edwards ...

It took me a while to get through my current aversion to southern accents, but when I saw him speak in person I was left with the impression that he actualy got the message; that his "two Americas" theme was more than a catchy phrase, it was something he knew was very real. Most of the rest of these guys live in a bubble.

[philgobluemi]

132. John Edwards 2008

Agreed, he seems to have had a life similar enough to mine to get understand me.
I've got to run, so shorthand: vision, Southern, charismatic, great issues -- poverty, middle-class, Iraq withdrawal, education, fair trade, etc, already been in a national campaign, great wife and family, not career politician, wins over independents and swing voters, smart as hell campaigner.

[philgobluemi]

136. with VP as Clark, Zinni, or Nunn n/t

[WesClarkJr]

156. You can scratch

Clark off that VP list.

[Dinger]

166. That's For Damn Sure!!!

Any leads or teasers Wes? You know what I mean. Good to see you here! My brother saw him in Colorado recently. The pic is in the Clark forum. Damn, it's GREAT to see you here!

:patriot:

[FrenchieCat]

159. Since it is Wes Clark's son responding to you.......guess

you might want to "unlist" Wes Clark, 4 star General, most decorated officer since Eisenhower, Former NATO Allied Supreme Commander of NATO, Rhodes Scholar, winner of our last war who had the right instincts to not want to go into Iraq in the first place, as a VP option for John Edwards, one term senator and Trial Attorney.

[ksclematis]

177. Yup, WC,JR

I'm with you on that one....good to see you here.

WCAT

[Sparkly]

198. "I'm not going to be (anyone's) Dick Cheney."

Why, why, why do so many see General Clark as VP material, to make up for what their presidential favorites lack?!?

Why have a foreign policy expert heading the Senate, and a foreign policy neophyte acting as Commander in Chief?

:shrug:

[mbair]

140. I agree

The message is authentic and timely. I follow him closely now since the spring and the current message is so much more. My goodness. The Two Americas thing was the arm-up act, he was merely clearing his throat.

I've been doing a lot of vlogging for Edwards this summer. You can check out some of the tape from my kos diaries if you're so inclined. I'm a real newbie here and don't have posting privileges yet.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/11/233654/713">Guerrilla Campaign, Iowa w/YouTube video
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/10/75458/3988">Guerrilla Vlogging: WakeUp Wal-Mart assignment
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/15/75139/6368">Guerrilla Vlogging: Patriotism for something more than War

[Catchawave]

161. Thanks for posting it on DU too !

Great stuff :D

[Dawgs]

51. Gore and Feingold (I wish they could both be President)

Clark as Secretary of Defense; or some other cabinet position.
Edwards as Labor Secretary.
Hillary and Kerry stay in the Senate.

[ksclematis]

178. Clark not out of military.....

10 years for SOD.....

Anyway, why would he want to take steps backwards????

[Dawgs]

52. Fiengold, and here's why.

After he tried censuring the President (wiretapping), the media essentually laid off of him, and let him make his case. He was barely attacked by the right (compare him to Murtha, Kerry, Clinton, and Dean). I think he speaks intelligently, but plainly. The American people would be drawn to him. And, he's an essentially an unknown.

Faults: Unmarried/Divorced and Jewish(not that it should matter)

[guidod]

73. I agree with you...

...Feingold doesn't hide what his feelings and thoughts are even if they differ from the rest of his party. He's got guts and I think being Jewish would help him. :toast:

[cascadiance]

179. I'm also in the Feingold camp...

He more than any other Senator has shown real leadership on important and touchy issues, is principled, and walks the walk when it comes to campaign financing, which will be critical if we want to take America back for the people away from special interests.

I'd accept him also as a "strong" VP on an Al Gore ticket, since I think Al Gore also has some important agenda too that would complement Feingold's well too, and Gore might be more "electable" at this point by the masses. That could change though with Feingold getting more exposure as we get closer to 2008. Not many people knew who Jimmy Carter in what was arguably a similar election to what 2008 might be (if we have a president resign, etc.). I think that, even though I liked Carter for certain reasons, Feingold would be a far better president than Carter though.

[zulchzulu]

54. Either John Kerry or Russ Feingold...

I'm leaning toward John though. Your misinterpretation of Kerry is amusingly pedestrian...

[stuartrida]

56. Warner would win VA, but I don't know about Bayh in IN

NC is too red for Edwards to win, and I think the same goes for IN.

[LWolf]

57. Others:

Kucinich
Possibly Feingold

Of the choices you included, Gore.

[joanski0]

58. Wes Clark is my very favorite.

John Edwards, Russ Feingold, and Dennis Kucinich are favorites too.

[LeFleur1]

61. Could They Win

Wes Clark, John Edwards, Russ Feingold.

Smart, Honest, Fairly New. All of them have more experience and sense than Bush, so the statements that they don't have enough experience to run will not work. They seem to want to do what is right for the country rather than what is expedient for their careers. They speak the language well and are able to communicate their ideas without causing other countries to hate our guts.

I like Gore but I don't think he can win again.
I have heard Warner speak a few times and DO NOT want him as our candidate. The rest would be better off right where they are, working hard for our country. Keep the Repubs busy making up new lies about our candidates instead of the same old lies.

By the way, the false letter about Ollie North, Osama bin Laden and Al Gore is making the email rounds once more. Some neocons must think Al Gore is running again.

[Tesha]

62. Of the people on the list, Gore is the only one I'd vote for.

My choices for 2008, at this point in time, are simple:

o Gore if he's willing to run.
o Feingold if Gore isn't running.

I would probaably withhold my vote from everyone else on the list.

Tesha

[UDenver20]

65. Russ works for us, but GORE/CLARK wins it.... n/t

[MrSlayer]

Wes Clark is the man for the job.

A fantastic President he would make.

[rep the dems]

66. Right now, I'd like Al Gore to get the nomination, but I think

your proposed ticket would stand a pretty good chance. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them on the ticket.

[LittleClarkie]

67. Kerry

He's my guy

[blm]

68. Could you please tell us who WOULD HAVE BEAT Bush in 2004 given the

exact same circumstances of a media willing to suppress antiBush stories while promoting known lies against the Democrat, and the exact same poor Democratic party spokespeople, and the same weak left media, and the same GOP controlled voting machines?

Because your attack on Kerry only works if YOU explain how anyone else would have done better with the EXACT SAME Dem party team.

[MH1]

87. Some imaginary fantasy candidate.

Certainly none of those who couldn't even beat Kerry in the primary.

[CrushTheDLC]

89. The flaw in your argument is that you assume the same "Democratic" team

I doubt that Dean, Clark, or Kucinich (for example) would have used the usual tired "consultants" and DLC hacks.

[...of J.Temperance]

127. We DLCer's are a part of the Democratic Party as well

The DLC aren't hacks....and the left of the Democratic Party and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party need us DLCer's, and hopefully some day soon you might realize that.

[blm]

130. YOU'RE WRONG - It's the DNC Dem team that stays the same and left media

wasn't going to suddenly change with the nominee, either.

The Dem LEGAL TEAM would not have been different.

Kerry won - It was the Dem infrastructure who couldn't carry off making sure Democratic votes were counted for him. Just like Florida's Dem infrastructure was too weak to assure all votes were counted for Gore.

[CrushTheDLC]

186. The Bush Crime Family OWNS Florida. Everybody knew that going in.

That doesn't excuse the weak pathetic campaign courtesy of Shrum, Brazille, etc. who allowed the "boring and stiff" image of Gore to stand.

And the level of corruption in the Ohio Republican party is well known now, but probably wasn't a secret to party insiders in 2004. Kerry's election should have NEVER come down to that state, but the DLC hacks insisted that he run on the "Bush is doing everything right, but we can do it better" ticket instead of being himself. Or at least the self that his supporters on this board always claim he is.

It was the DLC who crippled the last two campaigns. They must not be allowed anywhere near 2008. Not the primaries. Not the campaign. Not the platform.


As for the DNC, it's no secret who Terry McUseless worked for, and it's probably no surprise to anyone here that he wanted Kerry to lose from day one. But that fucking weasel is long gone, and a far better man is in his place. And for that we can all be thankful.

[...of J.Temperance]

125. A Wesley Clark/John Edwards ticket could have beaten Bush in 2004

Wesley Clark and John Edwards were my top ticket, and in my humble opinion, they would have beaten Bush/Cheney in 2004.

Also, I never attacked John Kerry, me saying that with all of the mess that's going on and him still not being able to beat Junior, this isn't an attack....it's the truth and that's the way it was and is.

[blm]

131. How? They had control of media and the voting machines? A different DNC?

How?

Kerry DID beat Bush. He had a Dem party infrastructure that was so weak that it couldn't make certain the machines were secured and tghe votes counted.

[karynnj]

138. It's impossible to tell what would have happened

I would say that a Kerry/Clark ticket might have done better. The only time the Democrats had unfiltered media after the convention was the debates. I do not think Clark could have improved on Kerry's foreign policy debate. That was Clark's strongest suit - and I think he would have done less well on the other issues. He stumbeled in the primaries on some of the non- military issues.

The SBVT would have been called something else - but they would have attacked something in Clark's past. (I'm not implying there were scandals there - there weren't in Kerry's case either. In fact the real truth in Kerry's case is that he was an extremely clean politician.) The media would likely have played along just as much.

I do think that Clark may have made a stronger showing against Cheney than Edwards. This is pure conjecture and I have no reasons to back it up - I assume only reviewing the primary debates would do so.

[blm]

146. That's bottom line reality - their campaigns weren't viewed thru gauntlet

tactics from 100 Commanders and Generals Against Clark, or A Thousand Honest Lawyers AGAINST Edwards.

People think the media would have given them passes they weren't giving Kerry? Get real - any Democrat would have been tortured with lies while the media kept the volume down on all counterattacks and truth.

[wiley]

155. I agree. Should have been Clark/Edwards

Interesting how neither of these two solid Democrats chose not to go all Lieberman on the country.

[politicasista]

170. I like them both, but hindsight is 20-20 n/t

[underpants]

148. John Kerry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-lampley/the-biggest-story-of-our-_b_576.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-lampley/revisiting-the-biggest-st_b_1619.html

[guidod]

72. I like Feingold/Warner...

[lojasmo]

74. Gore/Feingold....Feingold/Gore EOM

[Sparkly]

76. If Kerry's experience wasn't enough to beat Junior, given the memes

that the GOP is so much "stronger on national security," I don't see how Bayh and Warner would fare any better, particularly against a GOP candidate with half an ounce of sense (assuming they can't possibly find anyone as devoid of sense as Chimpy).

I think it's a mistake to assume that they'd win all the states Kerry/Edwards won, and then a few more.

[El Fuego]

78. Gore is NOT a polarizing figure. HE WON IN 2000.

What planet are you from????

[...of J.Temperance]

126. The Al Gore of 2000 isn't the same Al Gore of 2006

I'm fully aware that Al Gore got the most votes in 2000, and without that idiot Ralph Nader being in the race, Al Gore would have been sitting in the WH.

Al Gore circa 2006 isn't the same Al Gore as the one in 2000, unfortunately Gore has ventured off the beam. People want to hear about healthcare, national security, social security, jobs, the economy et al....the environment is well down the list of the majority of the mainstream publics concerns....Al Gore isn't in tune with mainstream public opinion anymore....he's a good person, but he shouldn't run in 2008.

[karynnj]

134. If Gore chose to be a candidate, he would have to

articulate positions on healthcare, national security, social security, jobs, the economy, and what we should do in foreign policy on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the Middle East etc. He is fully capable of doing this - he HAD a full range of positions in 2000. (The gap of 7 or so years would even let him take fresh positions on somethings - even if it means hitting the flip flop issue inthe head as the truly stupid theme it is.)

On the environment, he would need to take the enormous amount of work he has on global warming and condense what he would do into concise points for the people unwilling to listen more than a minute or two. (The wealth of material is not a negative and Gore was a politician for decades, so I doubt this would be difficult.)

Gore may actually be in a very rare position. There are people lobbying for him to run for a job he clearly wanted for decades and had given up on. To do so would put him into an intense political battle (2008 looks like a Democratic year, so there will be an intense battle in the primaries) and there is no reason to think the Republicans would behave better than they did in 2000 and 2004. His other alternative is to continue working on communicating the truth on global warming and other issues important to him.

This has to be a tough choice:
- He could do far more as President and on a personal level attaining the Presidency would be a great source of accomplishment. But, getting the nomination and then winning the general election are not 100% given. The question is whether he could run again and have the option to go back to what he is now.

- He could continue being a wise man and as he said in a Rolling Stone article, he could popularize the concept of the global environmental so someone else could successfully run on that as one of their issues. (Imagine a time warp where Gore's film, book and appearances happened in late 2003 and early 2004 - Kerry's environmental platform (which was very good) would have had Gore's work that would have made this a voting issue.) Most Democrats have decent environmental records - even when mixed they are far better than most Republicans. (ie Clinton had a mediocre record in Arkansas, but but in many good rulings at the end of his Presidency - a stark contrast to Bush who has destroyed everything done for decades.) One interesting thought is that Gore could be a king maker.

[politicasista]

79. Kanye West

He is enagaged so he'll have a first lady candidate too.






BTW: Nice divisive rehash of the 04 election. That will help us this fall for real. :sarcasm:

[CrushTheDLC]

90. Is Kanye West even 35 yet? I would guess he's too young.

Also, he had a great sound bite to run against the Chimp, but the Chimp isn't running in 2008.

[politicasista]

107. He's only 28

but he could reword his soundbite and include it in his campaign platform.

[Mass]

82. Kerry or Gore. By now, they are known by everybody, have led a national

campaign, and we know where they stand, and at least, they have some ideas of what are the real challenges of the next century (including energy and environment).

Clark and Feingold would be admissible alternatives, though I am not sure why we need to reinvent the wheel every 4 years.

[MH1]

88. Kerry.

Your top four aren't nearly liberal enough for me.

[Pithy Cherub]

92. Clark has the goods in these desperate times.

The avid DLC'ers are still trying to figure out what to do about the Iraq debacle and Warner is still in NCLB national security pre-school. Besides, President Gore is the only one with the proven ability to fundraise on a mammoth scale that would dwarf Hillary should he choose to run and he has name recognition at triple digits.

[karynnj]

97. Kerry has raised more money for others in 2006 than anyone else

He raised more money than Gore as well. This is not a good criterion for President but your facts are wrong.

[Pithy Cherub]

99. Read more carefully in the future.

My exact quote is SHOULD Gore choose to run. Kerry has raised money - good for him and the candidates but Gore's not even trying - yet. Get your facts straight next time.

[karynnj]

128. Whether Gore choose to run or not, your comment was wrong

and mine correct. You said:

"Besides, President Gore is the only one with the proven ability to fundraise on a mammoth scale that would dwarf Hillary should he choose to run and he has name recognition at triple digits"

Kerry raised far more money than Gore - both were the party's nominees. That is ALL I said. Where did I say Gore is running? - he has consistently said that he is not currently planning to - leaving only the most convoluted parsing to think that he is. You had a fact wrong - I doubt you can point to anything I said as an incorrect fact.

I only said 2 things: Kerry has been the best fundraiser of money for other candidates in 2006 AND Kerry (in 2004) raised more money than Gore (in 2000). I included the 2006 information because a fair counter would be that Kerry raised the money as the Democratic nominee - but the same is true for Gore. Which of these is wrong.

By the way, you are wrong on something else - Gore does not have "triple digit" name recognition - NO ONE does. That would mean that absolutely everyone in the universe you are refering to recognizes his name. Even if name recognition APPROACHED 100%, it almost certainly is not 100%.

[Pithy Cherub]

145. That was way back then this is right now.

Can Kerry compete with Gore today in fundraising - SHOULD Gore choose to go ahead. Kerry can't even compete with Clinton right now. You want to live in Kerry's past go right ahead. Gore is a viable political name that has name recognition in America -amongst qualified voters. Kerry, yep we will all remember his words and deeds in 2004 as well. Next time, choose to defend Kerry when he's not using money from his last failed presidential run.

Oh yeah, Gore is also in the news because of a excellent film and you may have heard of and a best selling book, An Inconvenient Truth. He's considered an expert on global warming. Kerry issues press releases and has had some excellent words lately. But if it came down to it who who could fill a stadium faster with supporters. Looking above at the DU poll says something about Kerry's support as well.

[karynnj]

158. DU is not a random sample of Democrats

Your comment that Gore can raise more money is not fact, IT IS OPINION! Clinton is in the middle of a very intense fund raising effort for her "Senate" race - where she really has no viable opponent. Kerry is NOT doing fundraising for any race of his own - Kerry's fund raising is for 2006 candidates - and he has raised at least twice the money that any other politician has raised for others.

Kerry's name recognition is equal to Gore's - per nation wide polls. Gore is doing excellent work on global warming - but the environment has never been the driving issue. If Gore wants to run - he will have many many positions on many things. He might BE the anti- Hillary or he might opt not to run. A year ago and a half ago this poll would have shown Clark ahead. last year, I think Feingold would be ahead. (Remember in 2004 - in a poll on DU in late 2003 - Kerry was behind Dean, Clark, Kuchinich and Edwards )

Kerry is considered a foreign policy and international crime and terrorism expert. He incidently is an expert on many environmental issues - going back to work on acid rain as a Lt Governor - though global warming is and has been Gore's issue since the 90s. (Teresa has some impressive environmental accomplishments too.)

[Pithy Cherub]

162. You should do satirical comedy.

:rofl:
Gore trumps Kerry and Teresa (whom I love) in the environmental credibility sweepstakes.

Gore versus Kerry is no contest - Gore would win and Kerry knows it. Why is everbody so afraid of Gore getting in - because of the fact that Gore would suck the oxygen in the race away from all the other candidates except Clinton. That is a fact. But hey, what ever floats your Kerry 2004 money tugboat. :rofl:

[politicasista]

167. No one is afraid of Gore

I like Gore too, but there are some that are going around lying and distorting Dem records/votes just to promote him, which plays right into the hands of Rove of course.

[Pithy Cherub]

173. I am a Clark fan,

but have no illusions about where the money is going or coming from. There are about 4 concentrated big money contributing states. California, New York, Texas, & Florida. The Jr. senator from New York has one and it makes it hard to get money to other candidates once she locks up donors who need new York attention. California is in love with Movie Stars - Gore is now one, and he has made people sit up and notice out here. He also taught at UCLA. Florida, well we'll see, Kerry didn't win it. Texas usually to people who are very very red, but signs of Blue life in Houston and other places. Money and the ability to attract it will be huge and Kerry is lucky he has a war chest from 2004 to use.

[karynnj]

183. You said I shoud do satirical comedy???

This is the strangest analysis I ever saw. (By the way I re-read my earlier post and there really are no outrageous comments.)

First, Hillary may be a NY Senator, but she doesn't have all the NY contributors money. What does "need NY attention" mean? Not all of California is into movie stars - and though Gore has a movie - it is demeaning to call him a "movie star".

It seems to me that NJ and CT - which switch off having the highest per capita income have donors. Massachusetts has donors. Illinois has donors.

In every state mentioned I assume there are Clark donors, Edwards donors, Kerry donors etc in addition to Gore and Clinton. The point I made is that Kerry has been very successful fund raising for others - this does have some significance. At minimum it means people are reading Kerry's emails.

[Pithy Cherub]

202. Money is but one of the primaries.

There are states that give more than other states. Every state has donors for a variety of causes and politicians. There are three states that usually rank 1, 2, 3, because of their gifts or ability to raise it in bundled fashion consistently from a variety of institutions, not in any particular order, California, Texas, New York. Anybody with strong ties to those states gets first dibs on the donor money but by no means exclusive treatment. Tieing up that money so no one else can use the same donor base is part of politics. That's why Dean finding a new source of funding was so out of the ordinary in 2004.

It continues now because the PAC's in the past out stripped small donors. 2008 will see who is funded by the netroots consistently because it can come from all over with a click of the mouse. The netroots consistently talks about Gore (he's a fantasy candidate because he doesn't have a PAC), Clark, Feingold, and Warner 4th. Sometime in September check out Kos's poll (in which over 10,000 thousand participate) it will give you an idea of where the heart and minds of the netroots is leaning at that time.

[karynnj]

182. I have no problem with Gore coming in

he is, at this point my second favorite. Gore is incredible on global warming - but other parts of his environmental record are not as good. Kerry had the highest (or near the highest) score by various environmental groups. Kerry has an outstanding record on the environment stretching back to activism in 1970 - 12 years before being in any office. Clinton's book - which is sparing in credit to anyone other than himself and Hillary - states he wanted Kerry to win in 1996 because he was a leading expert on the environment and technology. Kerry did a lot of work on things from acid rain, clean air, the Everglades, coastal ecosystems. Teresa has, though her foundation, been one of the people most responsible for making Pittsburg a much cleaner city. They also have one of the first green convention centers.

Gore with his 2 books and movie have made an enormous impact on people willingness to accept global warming. Kerry had a very forward looking plan in 2004 linking alternative fuels/good jobs/environment - that was more pominent in his campaign than anything like it in Gore's. The environment is not the biggest voting issue - and it would seem that both of these men easily exceed any threshold that environmentalists might have in terms of giving support.

By the way, in REAL statisticly valid polls, Kerry and Gore usually are at levels where the difference is not statisticly different. Gore in the most recent one I saw was ahead of Kerry. This is after at least 6 months of very good press for Gore and many pundits talking him up. Kerry has been negatively treated by the press since 2004 - and he is not tremendously behind.

[Texas_Kat]

103. He apparently still has some of mine.

What irritates me is that he's going to use it to run again against a better candidate.

[politicasista]

106. You're lucky

I wasn't able to donate during the 04 election. If I did, I would have been happy to give or volunteer for the Democratic nominee.

What are you going to say if other candidates or the next dem nominee doesn't do what you want them to with your money?


I am glad Kerry and General Clark are helping candi ates for the 06 elections and you should be too.

[nickshepDEM]

93. Warner, Dorgan, Conrad, Bayh...

In that order.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

95. I voted other...

Because I still want Dennis Kucinich. Hes the only candidate in 2004 who talked about the America my children will live in.

[EndElectoral]

98. Steve Colbert or Bill Moyers

[Ninja Jordan]

101. John Edwards as president; Richard Holbrooke as Vice Pres.

Edwards-Holbrooke 2008.

[citizen snips]

102. welcome to DU

but who is Holbrooke?

[CrushTheDLC]

104. Holbrooke is absolutely NOT acceptable!!

And this is why. Same with Joe Biden.

If your name appears in ANY document from PNAC, don't expect me to vote for your traitorous ass! :grr:

[citizen snips]

105. hey

I was just asking who the man was.

[CrushTheDLC]

115. Sorry if you misunderstood

My indication of anger ( :grr: ) was not at you, but at the traitorous PNAC'ers who have betrayed this country. And we absolutely cannot allow them to control the next administration or any other administration in the future.

[Ninja Jordan]

109. Holbrooke is the best man to rectify Iraq

I don't know about his involvment in PNAC, but he seems pretty moderate to me. He gives Edwards a foreign policy punch.

[Totally Committed]

139. A M E N ! ! !

No DLC, no PNAC.... never. He's also a multiple-time guest of the Bilderberg Conference. Three strikes and Holbrooke is OUT for me.

TC

[boolean]

108. Dennis Kucinich!!!!!

The only real liberal.

[ce qui la baise1]

110. Kerry, I believe he would be a great president.

[MH1]

133. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

If you are a Kerry supporter, be sure to check out the John Kerry Group. (Under DU Groups > Democrats)

And of course I agree 100% with your post.

[elliswyatt]

111. move on

I don't understand why so many people have their heads in the past. These people were failures. Move on. Please let's stick a fork in Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, and Gore. There are better people out there. People like Mayor Nagin. haha

Warner/Clark. I'd give Clark a chance because nobody could hate that man, and he's smart.

[politicasista]

112. delete n/t

[Rowdyboy]

114. I'm a Clark fan but voted for Edwards....Either would be exceptional....

Basically, I wanted to throw a little love Edward's way since my man Wes doesn't need it on this poll.

[demdiva]

116. It's still Kerry for me

First of all, if you count out John Kerry because he lost to Bush, then you have to count out Al Gore for the same reason. In fact, Al Gore lost (yes I know ...most of us think he won Florida) as a sitting VP to an inarticulate frat boy with no foreign affairs knowledge or ability. John Kerry, however, lost to a sitting war-time president with some pretty good speech writers and pretty good approval ratings(although, he of course he still had his share of inarticulate moments)

But honestly, I don't think this should be a factor for either of them. Over the course of history there are many second lives in politics. Neither Kerry nor Gore as president is really as outlandish a thought as the media would like you to believe. Both of them came close enough to the presidency that you can't say they were "horrible" candidates. They were both good candidates -- certainly better candidates then George Bush. The Democratic Party just wasn't as strong as the Republican Party.

Mostly, however, I still want Kerry to be president because he represents both a strong past and a strong future for the party. John Kerry is everything Bush isn't ... a war hero, a fighter for the lower class and middle class, an open-thinker who's willing to look at progressive and innovative solutions to our problems, and both a strong military advocate and a strong diplomat.

I know a lot of people think John Kerry let us down, but really it's the opposite. A lot of us let him down. But he's still out there ... raising a lot of money for the party, speaking out when it's most important, sponsoring bills that no one else will, and finally, talking to all of us. He's plain and simple, the best guy for the job.

[marmar]

129. GORE....

followed by Russ Feingold and John Edwards.

[xkenx]

143. 2008 is all about flipping red states, so it's Wes Clark

2008 is all about flipping a few red states into our column. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[Jamastiene]

150. If we don't get Al Gore to run, we will just lose again.

He is our only option if we want someone smart enough to fight them. The rest won't know what hit them. Al Gore has been down in the trenches at least part of the time since 2000 and knows the territory he will have to face if he is going to win.

Don't get me wrong. I love the ones like Kerry and other true lib northern dems, but the south and the "heartland" of America is now deciding election after election. It would be better to have one in there who knows the south and isn't seen by the south as an outsider. I personally voted for Kerry and thought he was ok, but only ok; nothing to write home about. I didn't like the fact that he was involved in Skull & Bones and neither did my aunt. She voted for him and prayed for forgiveness, because she knew both of the final options we had were Skull & Bones followers.

Too bad Robert Kennedy Jr. or couldn't run AND win. I'd like to see him do that, but Al Gore is our best bet IF, and that is a BIG IF we can get him to run. Otherwise, we are screwed for another 6 years, at least.

[mrsadm]

152. How about Bill Richardson?

[hayu_lol]

153. Clark/Feingold...there aren't any other candidaes...

Both these gentlemen have strong skills in many areas of need. Both have the capability to put this badly-splintered and divided nation back together.

The others mentioned here are 'also rans.'

[Dinger]

169. There Ya Go Honey! Atta Boy! Hi!!!

How ya doin? Check out the Clark forum here. I posted a pic of my brother with Wes.
:hi:

P.S. Miss ya!

[CrushTheDLC]

190. Now that Holy Joe has left the Democratic Party....

Bill Richardson is nominating himself for FAUX News' favorite "Democrat". Between that and his total unwillingness to investigate the obvious 2004 voting fraud in New Mexico, there's no way in Hell I would vote for him.

[stackhouse]

157. clark/gore 2008

Clark/Gore the "wes" wing winning ticket for 2008!!!

it worked once i think it will work agian nothing like a southern stratigy with wes's inteligence and gores money to ixnea/counter eather fl or oh pre-screwed voter action clark can get our troops safetly home, with any military action without being b.s'ed by the pentagon to get into more crap and gore to deal with domestic issues

[and-justice-for-all]

160. Gore/Feingold 2008!! I dont know Wes Clark

[RiffRandell]

163. You know what's really funny?

Most of the peeps on this board criticizing the Dem's; yet claim to be dems, didn't post.

Personally, I want Gore as the candidate.

Makes you wonder on the other, though.

[Snivi Yllom]

164. Poor Kerry

you left of Joe Biden. He will do well.

[EMAN51]

171. Kent Conrad Budget Hawk North Dakota

[sandyd921]

172. The dream ticket

GORE-FEINGOLD of course!

:bounce: :loveya: :headbang: :yourock:

[Seabiscuit]

194. Nothing else will do

Anything else would taste like sloppy seconds.

[timontheleft]

174. GORE

I don't see him as polarizing. He won the majority of votes in 2000. Who voted for him then that would not vote for him in 2008? It seems to me he starts there; starting with over 50% of the popular vote is a pretty good spot to jump from.

But, if he doesn't run - it Russ all the way!

:headbang:

[IndianaGreen]

184. Al Gore is head and shoulders above all the candidates listed

Kerry is a very close second.

Actually, other than the omission of Russ Feingold, they are all fine candidates (except for Hillary).

[Hemperor]

185. doesnt anyone ever remember that Clark wanted to invade

Kosovo? When he was the head of the NATO forces. Has he really given up that military hawkishness?

[FrenchieCat]

187. Wes Clark NEVER wanted to INVADE Kosovo.....

He only wanted the genocidal murders to stop in Kosovo.

If you recall, there were 200,000 deaths in Bosnia...and Kosovo was a new front via Milosovic.

Wes Clark also wanted intervention in Rhwanda, not an invasion. 800,000 died because most decided "why bother?"

Word of advice--You should try and inform yourself on the actual facts before posting a question based on an inaccurate premise. Considering you are just getting started here at Du, I would imagine that you'd want folks to think that you know somethin'about that which you speak of! :eyes:

[Hemperor]

192. thanks, however...

calling it "intervention to stop genocide" sounds alot like what Bush called it when we invaded Iraq...

Im not saying that the cases were the same by anymeans, but war is war... look at those places now, if we would have invaded with ground troops we would still be there, ecspecially when the threat poses was by no means sophisticated or overwhelming

and again, thanks for the welcome... I love engaging in intelligent discussion so enlighten me if im ever wrong (which is never)

[FrenchieCat]

195. You ARE wrong this time....If

you want to compare a NATO 79 day Intervention with Bush's unilateral 4 year Invasion.

Certainly War is War in the sense that each war occurs for the same reason; a failure of diplomacy, one way or another....

but to think that they could or should always be avoided no matter what is ridiculous.

Ask the dead folks in Rhwanda and Darfur if they would have preferred a NATO Intervention.....or whether they are just fine and dandy that no one came to save them from brutal genocide.

[Hemperor]

199. theres alot to be said about the difference

between multilateral and unilateral action... multilateral provides clear legitamacy but required the support of all nations involved... the details between Bush's invasion of IRaq and Clark's desire for a larger presence are massively different, and of course bush's much more reprehensible, but as someone opposed to the very idea of spreading freedom or democracy through armed conflict, I can not say I forgive either...

this doesnt mean ive written clark off, I just dont like him as much...

plus coming from the upper military echelons means he has dealt with defense contractors in the past, and those guys are crazy

[FrenchieCat]

201. Wrong again! (for one who is never wrong, you're on a streak!)

When you compare what the Clinton administration did in Kosovo vs. what Bush did in Iraq and attempt to equate the two, and then state that you can't forgive Wes Clark......either......I realize that you most likely don't hold a high regard for any administration......Democratic or Republican.

Maybe you don't like Gore either.

[FrenchieCat]

188. But.....

Welcome, nevertheless! :hi:

[nam78_two]

189. Gore Gore Gore!

Give us Gore :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[illumn8d]

191. Voted Edwards

Pretty much anybody but Kerry or Hillary...

[Seabiscuit]

193. GORE/FEINGOLD or CLARK or EDWARDS

If not Gore as Pres., any of the other 3 will do.

The rest: no thanks.

[LosinIt]

203. How about a Triumvirate? Gore/Clark/Feingold

I like the three of those very, very much. I also like Edwards, but he doesn't make my final cut. I agree with Seabiscuit, the rest leave me flat. While I am quite pleased with Hillary as a Senator, I don't want her as a President, there are these candidates that have more passion and less interest in playing political patty-cake with the Republicans.

[Seabiscuit]

204. Suits me. Those are my top three choices.

Didn't the Soviet Union once call this a "troika"?

[doubleplusgood]

200. Gore/Clark n/t

[lesab]

205. Gore/Clark

I agree with you......I know that many people regret their votes from the Gore/Bush election and they would automatically swing back this time. I also know a bunch of people who were disgusted with the Lieberman pick as VP and that put them on the fence with their vote or pushed them over. I think with Clark as VP, we gain instead of lose and we start from already winning the popular vote. That makes a win! Plus so many people who were turned off by Al's straight "boring" style have since seen him in a more casual light. They have seen the film promotion on Jay Leno and the intelligence and also the fire in his rants and speeches. None of those things were present the first time.

I love Al Gore and I love his intelligence and his no nonsense, tell the truth, style. That characteristic is what most people liked about Bush before they realized he was lying.

[DemExpat]

206. Wes Clark and Al Gore for me.

:kick:

DemEx

[Uncle Joe]

207. For me it's a photo finish between Al Gore,

Albert Gore and Albert Gore Jr. Al Gore sounds more familiar and plays better in Paul Simon's song "You Can Call Me Al", I am a junior so Albert Gore Jr. has special significance, however ultimately I believe Albert Gore sounds the most Presidential.