Wes Clark is not a senator...... that's why we need him.

[DanCa]

After watching today's hearings and the reaction of people to those hearings. I hope our next nominee is not a senator. Cmon Wes we need you now more than ever. No More Senators in 08.

[sueh]

1. I agree. Wes Clark, we need you!!

[Gloria]

2. I second that.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. I agree. The people in D.C.

are all corrupt. I'll know that is actuall a fact instead of a hunch IF they seat ScAlito.

[capi888]

4. Yep, I totally agree..

We need to clean house! We need a true leader, who is not one of the "good ol' boys", who can make a change for the PEOPLE, and not their self-interest. Good post DanCa

[MasonJar]

5. I refuse to believe that all our reps are crooks or cretins; I am

confident that if the voting becomes valid again the Americans will throw these bums out. I am confident that all of you with dems for reps are inundating them; I am calling my reps, but they are all repugnant repugs. However, I am going to at least be a thorn. As for Wes Clark. I would be honored to have him as our nominee; the Faux cannot cower Wes. He nails them; I love it. Wes appears to prove my above thesis. I sincerely admire him as a man of distinguished and ethical prowess, a true leader with a brilliant and yet moderate agenda.

[DanCa]

6. Well i dont believe all senators are corrupt.

But their voting record will be the death us and divide and seperate us as a party.

[Nutmegger]

7. Wes Clark

is our only option if we want to restore what was in place before Bush Inc invaded.

[Dinger]

17. Well Said

A Clark administration (Doesn't that sound good?) could lay the groundwork for impeachment of many bu$h appointees, amd other such vermin.

[Glimmer of Hope]

8. He is scary smart and a true leader.

I think he is the only potential candidate that gives me hope.

[DanCa]

9. Welcome aboard GlimerofHope

I'd follow Clark into hell and back.

[xkenx]

11. NOT SINCE BOBBY KENNEDY

has a public figure inspired me as has Wes Clark.

[blm]

10. Media makes ANY Dem look bad - a Democratic general will be no exception.

If we don't work to expose the GOP control of the broadcast media and the voting machines, say hello to ads from 200 Generals and Commanders for Truth. Wes's defense will get taken care of by the ever-busy editting rooms at all the news networks.

To turn this into a dump against Senators is media -driven bullshit that some people eat up with a spoon around here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. You know, your post is one reason why I support Clark

Doesn't matter what is stacked against us, or what the odds are. If the result of the 2008 Election truly matters to our nation, and it does, Clark will either win or go down fighting HARD, but one thing he will not do. He will not shrink from combat with Rove's minions. Clark was a leader in a real war and on the field level, the buck stopped with him. Maybe the Right will be able to throw enough crap at him to bring Clark down, but Clark will be prepared for them and he will have a strategy to deal with them, and Clark will give it all he has.

I agree with you though that is is unfair to elected Democrats to paint them all as damaged goods, including Senators. Feingold is probably my second choice, though I think he would have more hurdles to get past than Clark by far. Still though, there are real reasons why Senators have a hard time getting elected, it isn't JUST a coincidence that JFK was the last one from either Party.

And it isn't enough to just look at the Presidential Elections. Senators have a hard time emerging from their own Party Primaries. Before Kerry the last Democratic Senator to get the nomination was McGovern in 1972. Since then three Governors: Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton, and two former Vice Presidents; Mondale and Gore, have run. Even the Republicans rarely end up with a Senator emerging from the Primaries, let alone win a General Election. Ford ran as an incumbent, Nixon was a former VP, Reagan was an ex-Governor, Bush was a VP, Dole was a Senator who lost in the General Election, and Bush Jr. was a Governor. Yet there were serious, popular, and high profile Senators seeking the nomination of both Parties in virtually every Presidential election cycle. They get shot down in the Primaries before they get a chance to get shot down in the General Election.

Why? Each case is it's own story, but a pattern is still a pattern, and the explanation for the pattern is that almost any Senator has several thousand votes on various issues of National concern that can be twisted out of context against them, by opponents in their own party even before they make it to a General Election. It's the way politics has evolved over the last 40 years. Governors are better able to fly below the radar and invent themselves for the public the way they think it will benefit them. General Clark shares that tactical advantage with Governors, and, for that matter, he is in a better position in that regard than Governors even are.

[blm]

14. I'm working to expose the media so if Clark runs he won't be defending

himself valiantly and have the bulk of his defense end up on the editting room floors at every news outlet.

It's not WHAT is said or WHAT is done by the Democrat. It's how the media decides what gets seen and heard and how much of it gets seen and heard. Unless Wes controls some newsrooms we don't know about, he has no choice what gets in or taken out. The candidate can't effect what they choose to do. Even if the course he takes is right on the money.

Need an example?

The ever popular Swiftliars.

First, an article is written by a Tribune editor who was THERE on Kerry's boat during the incident Swifties are lying about. He backs up Kerry's version 100%, he's a Republican at the Tribune, and his story completely destroys the Swifties. The broadcast media does not pick up his article as a point of discussion or book him on the news shows. No Larry King. Nothing.

Then Kerry speaks at a FIREFIGHTER CONVENTION a short time later and attacks the Swifties right between the eyes, challenging them, and no broadcast media carries his speech, except Cspan. No networks discuss Kerry's defense or challenge. You would think in the post9-11 America, the firefighters convention and their endorsement would get a bit of attention, eh?


It has nothing to do with someone's record, senator or governor - Bush had a crappy record as Governor. So media made the whole storyline of the 2000 election about integrity - and only questioned Gore's integrity while Bush lied his ass off for the entire campaign with the press corps giving him a pass on every lie.


I'm someone who puts Clark right up there with my favorites, but, if he were the nominee, I would want him to have a real playing field that no Dem has had since the mid90s. Not since the GOP gained near total control of the broadcast media.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I agree with you completely about the media

And I agree with you completely about the effect it has on elections, though not just on elections. I wish you more than well in any efforts you undertake to expose and counter them, and if you hit on anything particularly effective I hope you bring it back to us here.

In a sense I didn't quite catch where you were coming from the first time. One thing I have little patience for are the people who say "It's hopeless" for whatever reason they have for saying it. Usually it is the media and/or voting fraud. I simply take the position that when many lives are at stake we can't ever afford saying "it's hopeless", we still have to give it our best shot whatever that may be. Having said that I am deeply concerned about both corporate and right wing control of the media and about stolen elections. Clark is fighting a brave rear guard action for us in my opinion, more than holding his own appearing as a FOX commentator in the Lion's Den so to speak, God bless him for that, but the problem is systematic and larger than any one individuals ability to counter. Actually Clark was a leader in putting one chink in the media wall with his successful effort to get Democrats broadcast over Armed Forces Radio, but again that is only a small piece of the puzzle.

It's a huge problem.

[blm]

16. I am in the camp that believes Clark is doing reconaissance at FOX

because he KNOWS the media is a big part of the problem and he's figuring out ways to neutralize it for future efforts.

Those who see him in bed with the enemy probably never trusted him in the first place.

[DanCa]

18. Dude brilliant

I must confess i was a little concerned about wes appearance but now your post give my chills. Can clark also be getting goods on orielly hannity and the rest to use to advantage? Or better yet could he be building up a secret network of allies to stop possible swiftie attacks. Scary wierd post man and clarks just smart enough to do it . Leave it to the general to mount a liberal coup at fox.

[blm]

19. Don't think it will go that far. But, recognizing the problem and looking

for ways to expose it would be a great start.

GOP set out to coopt the media many years ago. It's going to take a tough team united to expose just HOW much control they have to the American people.

And FOX is actually the least of the problem since they operate openly FOR BushInc - it's CNN and the NBCs who decide what the storyline will be for any issue and too many people are still under the impression that they're unbiased.

[MrSlayer]

13. Among other things.

Clark brings so much to the table it's ludicrous that he doesn't have a place of high leadership in this country. He can fill any number of important roles.