Democratic Presidental Candidate in 08

[erpowers]

If you were given a choice who would you want to run on a Democratic ticket.

Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Russ Fiengold
Al Gore
Barak Obama
Other

[tavalon]

1. It depends

If we fix the black box voting issues, then I would say Howard Dean. We made a mistake in letting him be eaten - we moved to the middle when we should have stayed solidly with our values. I love Barack Obama but he is new to Washington so I'd certainly be behind him as VP with a move up after 8 years.

If we don't get the BBV thing straightened out, then really, it's a wasted exercise. I'll probably not bother voting for the first time in my adult life. I'm willing to be a true voter, I'm not willing to be a prop in the voting pageantry ever again.

[BOSSHOG]

2. CLARK-OBAMA

(at least) 16 years of democrats in the white house.

[trillian]

3. Clark! No question

He is the only Dem who appeals to moderate Repubs and Indys. During the primaries there were a lot of those who were on the Clark bandwagon. When he dropped out, they couldn't bring themselves to back Kerry. We lost a lot of votes with the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Clark is someone who can talk naturally and without pretension about faith and family values. He would get the votes of the "Security Moms" and if the Dems get to know him like we did, they would realize he is a true Liberal and proud of it.

He is a complete package who also has the charisma needed to win.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Welcome Trillian

I had no problem being a Clark supporter and getting behind Kerry. And in 2008 I will support whomever the democratic nominee is because of the alternative. The bottom line is winning. I think Clark-Obama would be a powerful ticket. Black/White; North/South; Young/Old; Military Experience/Non military and the best thing - two decent fine American Citizens. That's something the gop can never come up with.

[trillian]

10. Thanks BOSSHOG

I too backed Kerry when Clark dropped out. But then again I'm a Dem. I would have supported Micky Mouse over Bush.

The people I am talked about who backed Clark but couldn't back Kerry were the moderate Repubs and Indy's. Believe me there were lots of them out there. We Clarkies worked our butts off trying to persuade them but K/E did not appeal to them the way Clark did. He appeared very middle of the road but if you read his policy papers he was in fact more liberal than many of the other Dem candidates.

I think the fact that he was a General was the deciding factor with these people. Terra was their main worry.

[cali]

8. I actually find Clark utterly without charisma

He's a good guy, he just doesn't appeal to me. And if you have any actual proof that he's the "only dem who appeals to moderate repubs and indys", haul it on out. I'm tired of these assertions whether they come from the Clark folk, the Dean folk, or any others. Oh yeah, I have listened to Clark pretty extensively on C-Span, and once in person in N.H., so it's not a matter of not knowing his positions. In addition, I'm reluctant to vote for someone for prez who's never held elective office before.

[trillian]

11. Being Prez is not about elective office

Being Prez is all about executive administration. That's why Governors do so well. Senators talk and debate. Governors and people like Clark who ran and managed the military arm of NATO which is larger than some States, have the experience to run a country.

As for proof that we lost a lot of votes when Clark dropped out, I don't have any other than what I and other Clarkies observed.

[cali]

41. Well, let's see.

'Being Prez is all about executive administration. That's why Governors do so well. Senators talk and debate. Governors and people like Clark who ran and managed the military arm of NATO which is larger than some States, have the experience to run a country.'

By your standard, the CEO of a large corporation or non-profit is superbly qualified. And Governors do well in presidential elections because, in large part, they're not burdened by a complex voting record that can be twisted all too easily. They also, quite often, do more than debate, they craft law, and know a heck of a lot about the important legislative/exective synergy. Not to mention that a Senator has been elected more recently than a General.


'As for proof that we lost a lot of votes when Clark dropped out, I don't have any other than what I and other Clarkies observed.'

As you acknowledge, observation on the part of Clarkies, is hardly unbiased proof.

[Ice4Clark]

32. My husbands family, lifetime repubs, christian right, voted for

Wes in the WI primaries. They had seen him, through us and my hundreds of videos. They loved him. Felt he was honest, sincere, very likeable and would keep us safe. When Wes dropped and did not end up on the ticket, they voted W in the general election.

My neighbor, who has been deployed twice (Gulf 1 and 2) liked Wes. He brought Wes up. When Wes dropped and Kerry became the nominee with E as VP, he voted W in the general election.

I know more than 50 folks that were in the dems hands had Wes been even on the ticket. So, he did and does appeal to a vast amount of diehard repubs, independents, etc......

[cali]

40. Sorry, this isn't proof

and I've heard the Dean contingent tell the same type of stories.

[AP]

64. Fact (not opinion): Edwards did better among moderates and Republicans

Among independents in the exit-polled states, Kerry has beaten Edwards in six contests; Edwards has beaten Kerry in four. This month, the candidates are tied with four wins apiece. Since Feb. 10, Edwards has won two primaries to Kerry's one.

The pattern among crossover Republicans is more lopsided. Kerry has won one contest; Edwards has won six. This month, Edwards has beaten Kerry among Republicans in all six states in which Republican votes were measured.

Remember, Democrats are as likely to vote for Edwards against President Bush as they are to vote for Kerry against Bush. It's far more likely that independents and crossover Republicans will determine the outcome. In states where the choices of these groups have been measured, Edwards is matching Kerry among independents and beating him among crossover Republicans.

------

"How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards."

------

"Edwards defeated Kerry {in WI} by more than 2 to 1 {44%:18%, leaving only 38% for the other candidates to fight over} among Republicans and had a double-digit lead among independents, reflecting results in earlier contests where Edwards ran strongest among more conservative voters."

The links for these quotes are in my three consecutive posts at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1402521&mesg_id=1403859&page=

[bush_is_wacko]

52. I second that!

I do think he is a great guy. Maybe he needs a coach? Bush has one, why not Clark?

[Lizzie Borden]

56. I'll get flamed for this but,

I do too.

[Razorback_Democrat]

173. John Breaux/Evan Bayh

It would win as a ticket

it would also not necessarily be the liberal's choice

but it would take moderate repubs (especially if the pugs run a fundie, indies, and conservative dems)

at least it would be a dem in the white house

[FrenchieCat]

179. We are finding more and more senators...great! NOT! n/t

[newyawker99]

17. Hi trillian!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[trillian]

22. Thanks!!!

:D

[ClarkStalker]

28. Clark/Obama

Exactly, this is the complete package and a guarantee of 16 years in the white house for democrats!

Read up on Clark, the more you know him the more you'll love him.
He's brilliant, perfect resume, plain spoken, handsome and tough.
No wonder the repukes were so scared of him.

If democrats want a winner, they'll go with Wes Clark.

[Catchawave]

79. Clark is not well liked by veteran groups....

I doubt the Dems will run another vet again. Otherwise, I do like him, but this is politics afterall.

[KSAtheist]

75. A decent idea, but...

Obama is a nice guy, but he's barely been in the senate for a month. Let's wait to see if he's actually effectual; give it a couple of terms. Then we'll talk.

[bunny planet]

86. Sorry to be superficial but Clark is too short. You can't have the Prez

candidate shorter than the VP candidate. Short candidates in general have problems on the national stage. I hate McCain (spineless) but he would not win on the Republican ticket either for the same reason, too damn short. He might run against Clark because they are both short though. Sorry, just having a little fun here. I recommend Gore/Obama downthread. If Kerry fights for us this time out, but does not get the election overturned, maybe Kerry/Obama in 08. Obama may not have the experience yet, but in four years he will have more than enough. Bush had six years of being a figurehead in Texas as his experience, puhleese.

Obama is a star, there is no question about it. He will enhance any ticket he is on. It will take an African American on the ticket to get minority voters to trust in the system again if we don't prove fraud this time around too. I'd like to see the Rethugs try and prove that black people did not come out in large numbers to vote for the first Presidential ticket with an African American on it, or attempt to disenfranchise them in that election. They could not get away with it. Why shouldn't we put forward a candidate like that, a good man who is a force to be reckoned with. The Bushies have no trouble playing the race card and putting forward any number of minority candidates who are their cynical shills and lackeys in their administration.

Why can't we put forward a fine candidate (Barack Obama) who will bring out the minority vote (and every other progressive thinking person's vote) for our side. The Republicans shameful smearing of our candidates will backfire on them big time if they go after Obama. I don't doubt they'll try, they are after all the no-morals party.

Gore is a great candidate for President. He has really come into his own since he came back from self-imposed exile. I still am inspired by the speech he gave at NYU last year. He was on fire. Nobody has more experience in the Executive branch. I sincerely hope he gets back in the game. Gore/Dean would be a good ticket too. But Gore/Obama has the magic for me.

[FrenchieCat]

119. What is the height cut off point?

and how tall were Truman, Nixon, Jimmie Carter and Bush Sr? FDR was in a Wheelchair...so how would you measure him...would you have stood him up or just measured him sitting?

Clark is 5'10....Maybe he was also too short to be a General? They all look so tall (and ugly). Somebody better inform him of this so that he can return his stars.

It's a good thing that Clark is probably the only candidate who is macho enough to select a female VP and still have enough gravitas to win an election. Maybe he can choose a woman that's about 5'8 with heels, and that will alleviate the photo-op "stage" problem you refer to.

But speaking of running a woman, is there a height requirement there? How tall would she have to be? Can she be 5'6 or would 5'7 be a better cut off. How tall is Hillary anyway? I know Madeleine Albright was only about 5'....but I guess it's ok for a Secretary of state...right?

Can the VP be short like Cheney, or should he step down to make way for a taller fellow? Or was he the exception?

Can the wife of a President or a Vice President be a bit overweight...or is that out too? What about lip wrinkles. I notice that Laura has quite a few of those. Is that acceptable for a first lady? Cause it also means that she smokes. Can Presidents smoke?

So in actuality, how tall do Presidents have to be? Can they wear lifts....or is that cheating? With lifts, I think we can get Clark to about 6'. Maybe he blow dries his hair into a pompadour a la Edwards or Kerry....that should give him another 1 to 1.5 inches.

Is there a limit on how tall they can be?
Was John Kerry just too damn tall?

Guess it means that Dean, McCain, Hagel and Guiliani can't run in 2008.

What about facelifts? Can they have had those...cause I hear that Arnold just needs an amendment to run. But maybe the facelift knocks him out regardless of the amendment or do the sagging muscles make up for the tight face?

And what about Hair? Bet Kerry had too much of that too. Edwards appeared to have the "just" right hair, if I recall.

I understand that they cannot be bald...but can they be balding a la Al Gore?

What about a black president? does hair quality count for them too? Should the curl be tight or loose. Would'nt a gentle wave be better? or the skin color? Is Obama the right "shade" is what I want to know? He might be to light for some, and too dark for others.

Anyway, thanks for the insight. I don't know how I would have managed to pick my presidential candidate otherwise.

Oh, one last question? Does standing down a murderous dictator with your finger in his face count at all? Couldn't we give Wes Clark a couple of inches for that?

[bunny planet]

122. You're so silly Frenchiecat. I was just kidding. I like Clark, and he's

not too short. I actually liked him well before he even announced his candidacy. I just think he waited too long to join in this time. Next time out he'll have instant recognition if he runs. I'm still hoping (sigh) that Kerry will be inaugurated in January instead of His Fraudulency II.:)

[FrenchieCat]

127. I was trying to be funny.....

and sarcastic too.

Reading back my post...it was quite funny...you have to admit!:evilgrin: O8)

[bunny planet]

140. yes it was!!!!

[XemaSab]

161. you're forgetting

about the Botox.

Great post, you asked some challenging questions.

Maybe we could hand the next round of presidential debates over to you?

[FrenchieCat]

184. It's not that I forgot the Botox....

But if I mentioned it...I would also have to discuss self tanners...and I'm just not going there!;)

[XemaSab]

188. Why not?

It's a bipartisan issue that we might be able to reach some agreement on as a nation.

We have our politician representing botox and self-tanners, they have their politician representing face-lifts and self-tanners. There are also politicians on both sides representing bad toupees, hair plugs, and dye jobs.

Seems like there's a consensus here that spending money on cosmetic improvements is much more cost effective at gaining votes than actually campaigning.

[FrenchieCat]

192. Yes...but like everything else...

Seems like Repugs can even shave their armpits and call Democrats "Girlie-Man"!

It's just not a level playing field, I tell you.

[robbedvoter]

4. Clark, obviously. (if we have actual elections)

[welshTerrier2]

5. none of these will challenge the incumbent President ...

Kerry will run for a second term ...

[trillian]

7. Oh Great!

Another 4 years of the Swift Boat liars.

Sorry, Kerry has shown he has too much baggage! It will not magically go away. K/E couldn't beat the worst President in living history!

When will the Dems realize that Senators do not win Presidential elections? Sheesh!

[welshTerrier2]

9. you completely misunderstood my post ...

go read this article: http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/index

click on "did bush get lucky" ...

this election is NOT OVER YET ... i've been very skeptical the Ohio recount could turn things around ... i'm much less so now ...

btw, welcome to DU, trillian ...

[trillian]

12. There's no doubt this election was stolen.

I also don't have faith that proving it will make a difference in the outcome. I wish I did and I hope I'm proved wrong.

We knew from the start that RoveCo would do everything he could to diddle the figures. BUT, running against the biggest screw up in living history, K/E should have won by a landslide so that whatever Rove did, wouldn't have mattered. For whatever reason, they couldn't sell their message to the people we needed to cross over.

BTW, thanks for the welcome.

[ArkySue]

13. CLARK!!!

I cannot say enough good things about General Clark. He has it all, in spades.

[AuntiBush]

14. John Edwards

He's southern, and beat the begebies out of Cheney in that
debated. If we had had Edwards facing Bushie, I believe
strongly we would have gotten the southern votes... Last night
on CNN they aired a piece on Edwards finishing his tour of
North (or South) Carolina and he's hinting at running. My 1
problem is: Where is he when we need him? But, maybe he's
lying low and letting the neocons hang themselves, and
everyone's afraid of looking like a whining loser. 

2nd choice - Wesley Clark or Howard Dean

[trillian]

19. Sorry, Edwards added nothing to the ticket

He won no southern states for Kerry, not even his own state or even his on county.

In post 9/11, Terra is what it's all about. Although "values" got the press, when the breakdown was done, the difference was actually National Security.

[Radical Activist]

36. The Kerry campaign made no effort in the south

Resources of time and money were not spent in the South. You can't blame Edwards for that. We have to win more states in the South and Midwest. Edwards at the top of the ticket and a sincere effort could do that.

[Yupster]

68. Agree trillion

I just don't see what Edwards added to the ticket.

[Kilkenny5]

163. What would Clark add to the ticket?

And please don't say Arkansas. I met a woman from Arkansas who didn't know Clark from Arkansas.

[FrenchieCat]

186. See post #181 & 182 for Clark advantages

Also know that the Presstitutes got a memo requesting that Wes Clark not be discussed during the primaries...something like the messed up elections of 2004. So there were many who didn't know who he was. More know of him now....and I believe that he will be keeping an active profile up. I know that he just sent a letter asking that we support the LA Democratic Candidate for this Saturday's election. That would be tomorrow!

These "News" organization will swear up and down they never get memos....to that, I say....sho'...

[machiado]

189. She must be oblivious, then, to be able to say

"I met a woman from Arkansas who didn't know Clark from Arkansas."

I'm from Arkansas and to NOT know that Clark was running for president had to mean she was not paying attention.

[scarlett1]

20. John Edwards without a doubt

He was mine choice for '04 but I realized he needed more experience, so I was happy with Kerry and really pleased Kerry picked him as the Veep candidate.

I realize he has baggage, since the GOP HATES trial lawyers. But he will make a great President.
JRE all the way.

[trillian]

25. Think "WIN"

All of the Dems would make good Presidents. That isn't the issue.

We have to WIN!!!!!!

Can't do that with candidates who carry a lot of baggage.

[Oeditpus Rex]

62. "Can't do that with candidates who carry a lot of baggage."

Which is precisely why Hillary shouldn't run.

Well, one of the reasons, anyway.

[AuntiBush]

15. Any good web sites on Clark?

I'd like to research Clark. Any good sites out here on him?
Thanks all!

[trillian]

21. You can start at his own site

http://www.forclark.com/

All of his policy papers are there plus some of his speeches.

[ken-in-seattle]

23. 2 new ones and an old.

http://www.wesleyclarksociety.org/index.php

http://www.america-patriots.com/

http://clark04.com/issues/

[RandomUser]

46. I highly recommend "American Son"

http://clark04.com/americanson/

You'll fall in love :)

[w4rma]

16. 1) Gore, 2+3) Edwards, Clark 4) Fiengold (nt)

[hopein08]

43. How about Edwards and Feingold run together?

Granted I don't know much about Feingold but, except for voting to confirm Ashcroft, I like what I see. And I'm an Edwards supporter through and through. I think they'd compliment each other. But, as I said, I may be wrong about Feingold.

[lojasmo]

18. let's rule out all those who....

voted for IWR, NCLB, and the patriot act.

That leaves

Clark
Dean
Feingold-voted against NCLB, for the patriot act, against IWR
Gore
Obama

I'm okay with any but Obama, he's too fresh in the senate.

[trillian]

24. Amen!!!

[erpowers]

58. He Voted Against It

Feingold actually voted against the Patriot Act.

[Lefta Dissenter]

90. hold it!

I'm not through reading the thread yet, but Russ Feingold was the only US Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

(back to reading the thread...)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

99. Feingold voted NO on the Patriot Act.

[Gyre]

26. Waste of energy even thinking about it.

Why bother if you believe the election was stolen?

Gyre

[PsN2Wind]

27. Anyone that

is not afraid to call a lier, a lier, or a thief, a thief. But it will be damn hard for me to support another candidate that runs a campaign that seems to be afraid of hurting their opponent's feelings
or that listen to political advisers that cost us the last two elections. I will vote for almost anyone the Democratic Party puts forward but I have no intention of making an emotional investment in "the compromise candidate". Gore should have never have let up on Bush in the debates but didn't want to be seen as "a bully". Kerry sat on his hands while the Swifties, with the aid of the media, tore him up. If Bush couldn't be defeated by too large a margin for the election to be stolen, either the candidate or his advisers were inept.

[capi888]

29. There is No doubt.....Wes Clark

Here is why, he has experience to lead the Country, plus experiece as NATO Commander plus THE FACT HE HAD 80 countries with U.S Military to oversee during his command. That means, budget, housing, schools, Commiceries,(food,household needs etc),roads, and all the needs we have in the U.S. Plus, his connections with the Powers that be in Europe is irriplaceable by any of the others...We NEED foriegn experience to build out respect back, after this disaster BusCo. When the Gen. goes to EU he is recieved with flowers and love, uh our pResident doesn't!!!
Now, if Kerry does take over the Presidency..(I hope, I hope) I am sure Gen. Clark will be very active to help solve the war in Iraq and bring our kids home.plus bring our Allies to the table..He has worked very hard for Kerry, and believe he still is...
I vote for Clark...

[Richardson08]

30. Bill Richardson

[IndianaGreen]

31. Someone that will fight for my issues, like Dennis Kucinich did

rather than another party hack compromiser. I also don't want a candidate that will concede the election before all the ballots are properly counted and all issues involving voting access are resolved.

I will not support a prowar candidate under any circumstances!

[Bush was AWOL]

33. Other

I think we should stay away from Senators. Their records are far too easy to distort. I'm thinking Warner, Easley or Richardson. Richardson/Clark would be a great ticket, and I doubt the Republicans would be able to come up with two guys who'd look stronger on National Security issues.

[Arkana]

34. Wes Clark--I think it's his turn

He almost had it in 2004, but I don't think he was well-known enough. Now that he is, he's primed for 2008.

[XemaSab]

162. part of the problem

is the idea that it's anyone's "turn."

that's how we got Kerry.

[Lena inRI]

35. Clark / his choice 2008. . .

. . .don't TRUST anybody else except Wesley K. Clark.

Pleeeeeeeeease! Never again phony, shallow Edwards. He's the LEAST trustworthy with his Bilderberg connections.

[Zynx]

37. Mark Warner and Mike Easley should be on that list.

Only two or three on that list have any chance of winning next time. We need fresh faces.

[Dinger]

38. Clark & Russ

What a dream team!

[renate]

39. Clark

and if less than one term in the senate was good enough for John Edwards to be picked as the VP candidate, I'd say my dream ticket was Clark/Obama. But since less than one term isn't good enough (although Obama is pretty darned amazing), my dream ticket is Clark/Feingold.

[quaker bill]

42. Dean.

It will be obvious by then.

[Nashyra]

44. Clark/Fiengold

[Done]

45. Bill Maher / Jon Stewart

Hell the machines are rigged anyway. We might as well get a laugh out of the campaign.

[julialnyc]

47. Clark.......no question about it!!

[leyton]

48. Gore, but if he doesn't run, Mark Warner.

Clark is also attractive, but I'd need a closer look (which DU will no doubt provide!).

[Pithy Cherub]

49. Clark!

Clark has all of the attributes for a world class President.

[Spirochete]

50. What about 2012?

or 2016? We might as well schedule them in too , as long as we're at it...

[mattclearing]

51. Feingold.

The only senator to vote against the Patriot Act, with a pro-farmer record could glean a lot of Republican turncoat votes. And I caught one of his debates on C-Span last month. He does not back down.

He did vote to confirm Ashcroft, though.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. He voted to confirm Asscroft out of principal

On the basis that senatorial courtesy for cabinet secretaries MEANS senatorial courtesy for cabinet secretaries even if one of them is REALLY bad. I'm not sure I agree with his position, but it's not like he did so because he was up for re-election and wanted to get in good with the Repuke voters. Feingold is in favor of a few things that I disagree with but his positives are much better than his negatives, especially his strongest positives, his INTEGRITY. He voted against the Patriot Act and certainly had political reasons not to do so. His senate race was very close the last time he had run for re-election and it could've been very close this time, but I think one of the reasons that it wasn't is that Wisconsin voters saw Russ's integrity and even if they disagreed with him on some issues, voted for him anyway. I even saw some freep discussion on him and some of the freepers said they would vote for him if there wasn't a decent Republican running (of course, most of them were saying "he's a fascist free-speech hating bastard with his campaign finance reform"). I like Clark but I don't know all that much about him. Russ has proven what kind of a politician he is, one of the very few decent ones. Clark would be a good VP though.

[angrydemocrat]

53. Kerry/Clark

Kerry will run in 2008. Kerry got the more votes than any other canidate in history other than Chimp and we all know why his total is as high as it was and it sure as hell isn't because he got them honestly. Kerry was the true winner in this election. Will it be proven in time to change anything or can it be proven I don't know. all I can say is I hope the hell it is. I truly believe there was fraud as much as alot of others around here but again can we prove it I don't know I can only hope. What I mean by prove it is to have proof that will hold up in court and there will be people prosecuted and behind bars. We all know this process is broken but to be honest I don't think any of us can say we knew this crap was going to happen or even thought we had a process so screwed up and corrupted. I know I was like others I never trusted Bush and his croanies and figured they would try any means of cheating like intimadation, trying to keep people's vote from counting over dumba$$ reasons, ect. But I don't think many if any thought about the machine's being rigged until Nov. 2 when everyone started discovering it. And regardless of which canidate was running this would have happen to them to. Yes, Kerry conceded before everything was done. But if people remember correctly the media and the Chimp's were already spinning the crap because he hadn't. And people also know that he can unconcede at anytime. Kerry knew he could continue to have the votes counted and try to find out what happen without the media and all the repukes having a field day spewing all their bullshit to the American people about how democrats are proving once again they are a bunch of sore losers,they know they lost and yet being the sore losers they are they would pull all this when our country is at war, they don't care about what happens to this country and our troops all they care about is trying to disgrace this country and the president when we need to be moving on and be worried about the troops and the security of this country, ect. So yes he chose to take a different approach and has been slammed for it every since. Because he didn't do what Al Gore did he's be called every name in the book. But people seem to forget yes Gore was cheated also and yes he didn't concede but we were not in the middle of a war at that time. Even though Kerry has conceded has the vote counting stopped? NO. Has the investigations stopped? NO. There have been accusations left and right saying Kerry isn't involved, he has ran and hid under a rock, all he cares about is himself. First off there has been no proof that Kerry hasn't been doing anything actually there is a hell of alot more proof he is than not. The 17,000 lawyers for starter the man wouldn't be paying a slew of lawyers for nothing, then then we have the video telling you that all the votes will be counted and that it is a disgrace that in this country we still don't have a election process that Americans can trust and that he will fight to fix this and he is committed to getting it done , well that wasn't enough to prove to all the naysayers he hasn't quit so guess what now it is out in the open for all you naysayers, media, and repukes he is definitly involved he has let be known to all he has joined the recount in Ohio. The last thing I have to say regardless of what happens with everything that is going on now people need to remember Kerry barely lost to a incumbent president in war time. Which is almost unheard of because in past elections when the country was at war the incumbent usually wins over whelminly, usually by double digits and that was by far the case here. I really believe Kerry won this election. But people need to face reality here about something all of those who keep saying he couldn't beat the worst president in history and he should have won by a landslide the fact is we all knew this was going to be a close election from the start nobody was expected to win by a landslide. And yes I agree this is the worst president in history but you still have at 49.5% of this country that disagree's with us. I don't understand their thinking and never will but the fact is they support Chimp as much as we do our canidates. So to say Kerry should had won in a landslide is ridiculous. I hope we can prove Kerry won this but we have to wait and see. But how about giving credit where credit is due here.

[zippy890]

76. Right on- I agree

I am believing at this point we will never be able to prove the election was stolen-- but I know that it was.

Good thoughts!

suggestion - break up your text with line spaces, its easier to read.

kick for Kerry

:kick:

[bunny planet]

101. I agree Kerry/ Clark is a good choice, although I like Gore/Obama too.

But I couldn't read your post, needs more paragraphs, at least indentation. I'm sure it was great though.

[Sparkly]

54. Clark, of course n/t

[Bleacher Creature]

55. Let's forget about Obama for a little while

He's got PLENTY of time to run and should not put his career in jeopardy by running too early. John Edwards barely served a full term in the Senate when he was nominated for VP -- and he took tons of heat for his perceived inexperience. Four years is even worse.

And contrary to what John Kerry thinks, the days of Adlai Stevenson and Richard Nixon are over. You only get one shot at the Presidency nowadays.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Al Gore could've run again had 9/11 not happened...

Well, okay, that's not entirely true. If Al Gore had been the underdog in 2000 and ran a superstar campaign to get as far as he did, he could've run again. After a failed chimp presidency Gore would've seemed like a lock considering he had already won the popular vote. Of course the fact is that Gore wasn't the underdog, chimp was, and he ran a shitty campaign and should've beaten chimpy in an electoral landslide with Ohio, Florida, Tennesee, Arkansas, Missouri, and possibly Louisiana all going into his column.

[bunny planet]

124. If Al Gore had been President in the first place, 9/11 would probably not

have happened.

[IStriker]

57. Dean

He was the only candidate who appealed to me. He was the one Democrat who was willing to say what he thought, not what he thought you wanted to hear. I'm still torqued off at what our party and the press did to him. I voted for Kerry but reluctantly and am not surprised he got beat.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Look at Russ Feingold

That's truly a guy who is willing to say what he feels and I would venture to say that he's to the left of Dean on a lot of issues. Dean also unfortunately comes with the negative media attention that followed him around last time. Don't get me wrong, I really liked and still do like Howard Dean. I think that he did a great job getting new people involved in politics and getting progressives back into the democratic party. His grassroots supporters became an invaluable asset to Kerry in the general election and are largely the reason that he got so much of the popular vote. Had there been close senate races in New York and California and no Diebold fudging with the numbers, I bet that Kerry could've beaten #'s popular vote numbers, largely thanks to that grassroots support. And even though the DLC treated him like a mortal enemy (on the flip side he treated him the same way), the party wound up adopting several of his ideas in the end because they knew that they were winning ideas.

[IStriker]

87. Did not know Feingold was considering a run.

Unfortunately, you may be correct that the press has ruined Dean for any future run but I believe it was at the direction of Soros and our party. They wanted Kerry and they weren't afraid to destroy anybody they had to who got in their way. I will take a serious look at Feingold. I did not know he was a possibility. Don't know much of him, but what I do know, I like.

[Clarkie1]

59. Clark/Obama! - Please read for my explanation of this choice

A retired four-star general with unparalled experience on foreign affairs who understands that words like "the enlightenment" and "liberalism" define the principles on which this country was founded.

An expert in constitutional law from the land of Abraham Lincoln who also understands the deepest meaning of our most cherished values as a free, diverse, and progressive people.

How can you top that?

[mprest]

60. Count the votes this year first, and then...

Re-elect John Kerry in '08

[lilfroggy]

61. Edwards of course

Edwards 2008!

[AP]

63. Edwards. I won't foreclose the possibility of a better candidate...

...but a better candidate is not on that list.

[FrenchieCat]

70. For Goodness sakes....That is such an insult!

So I'll return the favor...and say that the better candidate on that list is Wes Clark.

Look Edwards is southern, Charming, educated, and a populist.

Clark is also southern, Macho Charming, Rhode Scholar, a populist General, war hero, diplomat, non-pol (yea!), and don't take no shit and can pull in the Reagan Democrats (Lord knows he was called a repub often enough), Nascar Dads, Security Moms and exurbaners! Plus the bonus, he is a General.....not a trial attorney or a senator.

Edwards had his chance to show leadership when the Iraq War vote came up. Being a leader means doing things that are not always popular but are right.

With what W will do to this country and world in the next four years...we will need a leader who is a statesman and a diplomat and will stand down the GOP yet can work with them as well. Pink tutus need not apply.

When I contrast and compare.....There are great candidates on the list....but I don't think that Edwards is the better one.

[AP]

81. It's an opinon. And Everyone who has picked only one candidate

implicitly holds the same exact sentiment.

(I can't believe I have to defend my opinion from comments like this. This is one strange board these days.)

[FrenchieCat]

94. The Question is, which ONE candidate....not is there only

one good candidate ...on the list provided by the author of the thread.

I will maintain that your last response was an insult to all of the candidates listed except for John Edwards. I believe that you qualifying your comment by stating that all who picked only one candidate hold the same sentiment as you do to be incorrect and disingenious.

Since you hold yourself up as someone who is reasoned and fair....and just happens to prefer Edwards....I do believe that your post that there is only one good candidate on the list was not meant as a compliment...and your justification for the insult without merit.

[AP]

100. I can't believe I have to defend this/explain this to you:

What I'm saying is that I think there isn't a better candidate than Edwards on that list.

How is that different from anyone else in this thread who is picking one of those candidates?

Why are you only picking on me? Why don't you respond to everyone who didn't pick Clark and tell them all they're insulting Clark?

Seriously. Why are you only harassing me?

[FrenchieCat]

102. Harassment? I think that if I read just about any Clark thread....

the tally is usually AP/#1 Edwards supporter = 100 Clark supporters. I even read you talking to yourself over at the Edwards Forum.

I just thought I'd give you a dose of your own medicine....so that you can see what it feels like when anytime one has something positive to say about who one supports....to have someone else come and piss on their parade.

I realize that you are not the only one that does this. We do also have Chestwick2.0/Dean Supporter = 150 Clark Supporters.

[AP]

103. Why does it bother you that there are people who don't agree with you?

Look at your criticism of my post. There is no logic to it. Why did you feel the need to respond to my post?

What does ratio of supporters of candidates have to do with making good arguments?

If I want to archive a series of good argument somewhere where they won't roll of the first page too quickly, why does that bother you?

You know what the difference between my "medicine" and yours? Mine is an argument about the politician. Yours is an argument about me.

If you want to argue merits of candidates, I'm here. Engage my arguments. If you want to talk about me instead of the issues, keep on keeping on. I don't really care. But I'll point it out when you're doing it.

And by the way, don't you see the irony in stating your ratios and then complaining when I post to a thread about Clark.? In the primaries, everyone wanted to talk only about Dean at DU. You'd start a thread about an issue and it would disappear. The only way to talk about the issues was to talk about them in the context of Dean. Well, it's happening again. Your hundreds of Clark fans are making sure that one of the few ways to look at 2008 or even at 2004 is to look at them through the lens of clark. You can't both have 100s of Clark supporters and then complain when people actually respond to the issues (and counterargue) in the same thread. And just because they do doesn't give you the right to "piss" on them, Cat, wherever they post at DU (and I'm using your analogy, not mine -- I called it harassment).

You should have learned from the primaries. You can't use overwhelming numbers to bully away every opinion that is different from your own. Ultimately, it's a losing strategy, which is probably the best reason for not employing it. But it's also extremely unpleasant on a personal level.

[FrenchieCat]

104. If there is no logic to my criticism of your post....

Why do you keep responding to my posts? Do you really have to have the last word or what? Why don't you give someone else that honor...for a change.

[AP]

107. I guess I want the last word to be the thing that...

is closest to the truth.

The last word is an honor you earn by being an honest, thoughtful poster. I'm definitely not going to let the last word be something I percieve as personal attack or an illogical exaggeration.

And, by the way, it's amusing that at the end of this little exchange here, you're left arguing that this is all about who gets the last word -- like the only reason you accused me of insulting Clark was because it's about time that you're entitled to get the last word in an exachange with me. Right. Ignore everything I've said and beg me just to let you have the last word. That seems like just about the most arbitrary way to resolve the issues that have been raised in this sub thread.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Excuse me while I...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:boring:

[AP]

109. ...now you want to do that? Probably a better choice than posting #70.

And probably a good idea for dealing with my posts in the future.

Yes. If you don't like me, put me on ignore. Please don't waste your time and my time pretending that I, and nobody else, am insulting Clark by saying that I think that Edwards is the best candidate on a list that includes Clark.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. I love Feingold, but does he have TOO MUCH integrity?

Like I said in my above post about the Ashcroft confirmation, I more or less disagree with confirming Ashcroft because I think that it is a serious problem having somebody like that running the justice department. Feingold, however, voted to confirm him on the basis that senatorial courtesy MEANS senatorial courtesy. Did he vote with the Republicans? Yes he did. But he didn't vote with them because he wanted to get more votes come re-election time, he voted with them because that's what he genuinely believed that it was right, and I gotta admit, I REALLY respect that. The thing is, that I'm not the only one who REALLY respects that, people of both parties in Wisconsin do as well. Russ did much better than Kerry in a VERY close state presidentially, meaning that many Bush voters voted for Feingold despite the fact that he is more liberal than Kerry and in particular voted against the IWR and the USA Patriot Act. The only problem that I might have with him is that he may have too much integrity to run for President. I question whether he will be willing to run the dirty ads and participate in the politics of slander that are a sad reality of today's political world. Wisconsinites (or whatever they call you guys) what were Russ's senate campaigns like? Did he run dirty ads or did he not? Or did he not have to because he could win on a clean platform?

Also Wes Clark would be a good for the VP slot. He has integrity as well (as he has never been in politics), he would compliment Feingold very well and help with the south (err, what's left of it)

[krag]

69. Obama/Kucinich

America will be ready for peace and hope after four more years
of horror and devastation.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Or maybe so desensitized.....

to where they won't remember what peace and hope is. Americans may be so jaded until with the help of the media, the GOP iron fist, and the Black Box voting machines.....Peace and hope will only be a distant memory.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Get DK into the US Senate

I'm convinced that one of the reasons that DK isn't taken more seriously is that he has the title Congressman instead of Senator. If Kucinich challenges DeWine and beats him, I guarantee you that people will start listening to him.

[Lenape85]

171. Do you think he can even make Senator

I mean, he could have a shot in places like Mass or RI, but Ohio?????????

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

74. Frick and Frack.

[KSAtheist]

77. Depends...

If we want consensus, we'll pick Dean. He's popular on here, but good luck getting to the white house.

If we want victory, we'll pick Hillary. She offers the greatest chance to chip away at the soccer-mom vote. She's right enough to avoid the liberal label which ultimately killed Kerry, yet left enough to pull in Kerry voters.

As for the rest--well, the party deep-sixed Clark big time this campaign, and I've seen few overtures towards reconciliation. Edwards couldn't carry his own state--never a good sign. And, as I said, let's wait until we see if Obama is actually competent in his senatorial position before declaring him the future.

[XemaSab]

165. Liberals

Calling someone a "liberal" is mostly meaningless. It's like calling someone a communist 50 years ago. It's a name they use to tar people with, and it's not based on anything rational, so it doesn't matter how far to the right Hillary is, they'll call her a liberal.

Heck, if Lieberman had won the nomination they would have called him a liberal by virtue of his association with Al Gore.... the Most LIBERAL Candidate EVER to Run For Elected Office!

It's a very big brush they're not afraid to use.

[eauclaireliberal]

78. RE: "Democratic Presidental Candidate in 08"

What makes you think there will still be a Democratic party in '08?

[Catchawave]

80. John Edwards

He was totally mishandled during the campaign and no media coverage hurt the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Had he been at the top of the ticket, I'm certain that there would have been a different outcome and Bush would be packin' for Crawford 'bout now.

[LakeCohoon]

82. A Conservative Democrat

If we don’t want to lose it must be a moderate/conservative democrat—and not a Senator.

Here are a few governors that come to mind: (Notice that they have figured out how to win in red states)

Mark Warner
Mike Easley
Bill Richardson

[Crunchy Frog]

117. No, let's have a liberal

who people assume is a moderate/conservative, and whom more conservative types will vote for, but won't alienate progressive voters. Someone who has the same type of executive experience that a governer has, but with Commander in Chief level experience as well.

The complete package in '08, Wes Clark!!!!

[LakeCohoon]

142. You May Have A Point

However, there is something about Clark that I just can’t quite figure out. Perhaps it’s the fact that he is not a professional politician. And that leads me to believe that he doesn’t possess the political savvy to compete in the arena of presidential politics.

If you recall, after his initial bounce upon entering the ’04 race, he dropped like a rock as people got to know him. So, IMHO, he would be a poor choice.

[Crunchy Frog]

148. Actually, he had an initial bounce

on the media hype of his entering the race, he stumbled somewhat out of the gate and made some neophyte mistakes. The media also put him on ignore after the first couple of weeks, while continuing it's non-stop coverage of Dean.

Clark began gradually rising in the polls again, despite the media blackout. By early January, he was polling nearly even with Dean, while all the other candidates were barely registering in the polls.

Everything changed with the results of the Iowa caucus. John Kerry had huge momentum coming out of Iowa, while Edwards suddenly became the new media darling. The media continued to ignore Clark, except when it had it's lynching over his defending the free speech rights of Michael Moore.

Even with all that, he still came in third in NH, won a primary in OK; the only candidate besides Kerry to win a primary outside of his home or birth state, and he came in 2nd in 3 other states on mini-Tuesday.

While he was very green when he first started out, he was an exceptionally fast learner, and was a very effective campaigner by the end. It just wasn't enough to overcome the media bias and Kerry's momentum. He continued to sharpen up his campaign trail skills all the way through to the election by tirelessly campaigning for Kerry and for Congressional candidates. He has also become one of the most skilled at handling the media whores.

Your recollections of what happened this campaign season have probably been shaped by what you've been told by the corporate media, rather than by what actually happened. He did very well this time, all things considered, and with the experience he got this time under his belt, I think he would have an excellent chance in '08.

[FrenchieCat]

149. Yes...

Based on the fact that he ran for a total of 5 months....4.5 of which he was ignored by the media...when they were not smearing him....I think he did hell of well.

What he had was serious grassroots support. That's how he won Oklahoma. If left up to the media, their main man at the time, Edwards was supposed to pick up that state. Hell...even while voting was going on, they kept on and on about how fantastic Edwards was.

Their collective mouths fell open...when they realized that despite the media blackout....Clark still ended up winning it. He challenged their power.....and although they eventually won, he sure put a damn good fight.

Give Wes Clark the same advantage as the other fellows who had started campaigning a year or so before him....and I think he could kick some serious ass.

If we go with someone that the media says it likes, we will end up being manipulated again.

At this point it's really people power vs. the media. If the media wins the next election.....then we are truly F*cked!

LET AMERICANS DECIDE OUR ELECTION, NOT THE AMERICAN PRESS

[GOPBasher]

83. Richardson/Clark would be great, I think.

Obama should get a shot, too, later on.

[Mike L]

84. Other-- Mark Warner, Governor of Virginia

2nd choice-- Mike Easley, Governor of NC.

[bunny planet]

85. Gore/Obama

[FrenchieCat]

120. But Gore is balding...

If Wes ain't tall enough at 5'10 (as you suggested in a previous post)...

Than Gore doesn't have enough hair. I've seen the back of his head ...and there ain't much hair there...in 4 years a combover might be impossible!

[bunny planet]

123. wow you really took my 'short' post waaay too seriously.

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

126. Actually,

I was cracking up as I was responding to you.

I am sarcastic....just like you....is all.:headbang:

[bunny planet]

139. kind of suspected that

:) :) :) :) :)

[freelight]

88. Joe Lieberman!

But seriously. I'd go for Howard Dean. A Dean/Clark ticket would look great. Or maybe Dean/Clinton. If anybody deserves a spot in the White House, it's Hillary.
I like Dean, because nobody could ever accuse him of flip-flopping. He tells you exactly where he stands, and isn't at all ashamed about it. This is an all-too-common problem with moderate liberals: being compromising and apologetic only makes us look weak and pathetic to the opposition.

[Leilani]

190. Why does Hillary "Deserve" a spot in the White House?

Because her name is Clinton?

Because she was married to a President?

[JVS]

89. I guess we might as well nominate Clark and have him lose so his fans will

finally shut up.

[FrenchieCat]

95. We are supporters...not fans.

But are we bothering you or something by answering a question posted in a thread about who we would like to see nominated? Jeeze! Guess Clark Supporters needed not respond, heh?

[robbedvoter]

105. OK with me. (although, if we have elections, he wins)

[Crunchy Frog]

118. Or have him win so his detractors will

finally shut up.:D

[JVS]

129. Don't count on it. Even a winner faces complaints over policy

:-)

[Crunchy Frog]

153. OK, let's win with Clark

then you can bitch and complain all you want.:)

[Lefta Dissenter]

91. Clark, of course

but with everyone's talk of Feingold as a running mate... I STILL don't want to give him up as my Senator! How selfish is that???

Can we come up with a running mate who is not a Senator, so we don't lose yet another Dem Senator?

By the way, I can see Clark and Feingold getting along really well. Both incredibly brilliant, they have moral courage, they are fiscal conservatives, they're both incredibly committed and serious about what they do, and they have their priorities in the right place.

but that's exactly why I want to keep Russ here!!!

[From the south]

92. Forget Senators or Congressmen

When was the last time one was elected... Nixon I think.

We should take a look at the Democrats who are Governors

[Forever Free]

93. KERRY '08

The Senator's the most experienced and qualified candidate out there.

[From the south]

96. Harold E. Ford, Jr for VP

He is great.... anyone else a fan?

[Forever Free]

97. Harold Ford is a good man

He has a quiet determination and strength that i find admirable.

[fujiyama]

116. He's runnin for Senate in '06

Let's hope he wins. It'll be a tough race.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

98. Wesley Clark for President / Mark Warner or Harold Ford jr. for V.P!!!

[Larry in KC]

106. CLARK 08!

Clark/Obama or Clark/Ford or Clark/Feingold or...

With Clark on the top, there are many intriguing, winning tickets.

Just personally... I was... o.k. ... with Kerry as our candidate. I voted for him, I sent him a little money, I worked in his campaign office a little.

For Wes Clark, I would be a bloody berserker! I would max out my donations, I would work long hours, I would work with pride to win over the many moderate Republicans and Independents that I implicitly knew we couldn't win over for Kerry.

And the reason, of course, is that he is eminently qualified to be an outstanding president.

[mandyky]

110. Howard Dean

[rniel]

111. I would like to see a nobody

Get a fresh start. Someone who when they say something they mean it. There's not too many people like that anymore.

[dogman]

112. Wesley Clark

Hard to believe, huh?

[TheWraith]

113. My analysis, in no particular order.

Obama is going to still be too green to be considered a real heavyweight candidate in 08. He needs more time to develop a record and recognition. Before this election, I was already designing in my head the Edwards/Obama 2012 posters--now, I think that he should still be saved for either a VP spot or for a later election. It's not quite his time yet, but if you ran him as VP to a southern candidate like Clark or Edwards, you'd clean up in the south between the local and the black man. However, if you wanted to run Obama in 08, here's your response to the experience issue: remind people that prior to being elected president, Abraham Lincoln's only experience in government was a single term as a Congressman from Illinois. It links Obama to Lincoln, further energizes the black vote, reminds people that they're both from IL, and the Repubs can't counterattack without hitting Lincoln.

Finegold is too regional. He wouldn't have draw in the southwest and down the east coast, and I don't think most people would see him as presidential enough. Nor do I think he'd make a good VP--still to regional, and he'd come off as a 'thud' of a pick.

Gore is torpedoed by 2000. I doubt he could make it back into the arena, with the albatross of the 2000 campaign and the Florida debacle hanging over his head. He'd be turned into a walking chad joke by the late-night comedians and others.

Dean also has baggage, both the scream and the resounding collapse in the primaries. I don't think he can really come back from that, and even if he could he's got to temper his habit of saying strange things, then refusing to unsay them for several days. It's one of the things that killed him in the primary--it made one-day stories like the Confederate flag comment into three or four day stories.

Clinton is yet another D with political baggage. She's got the whole Monica thing dogging her, and it needs to allowed to fade into the realm of history before it becomes irrelevant. That may happen, but even if it does she's still got the problem of being seen as agressive and ambitious, which is hard to shake if you're trying to become the most powerful human being on Earth.

Edwards is a great candidate and campaigner whose main weakness is a lack of experience. I wish he'd stayed in the Senate, but failing that, I think he'd still be a good candidate.

Clark, like Edwards is strong in character and quality but weak on political experience. He'd be good, but I'm not sure he'll run again.

A few who weren't mentioned:

Kerry. Nothing really stopping him from coming back, and I'd like to see him do it. We can hope.

Mark Warner, D-Gov of Virginia. As the governor of a nominally red, now teetering purple state, and from what I've heard a fairly effective campaigner, he might give it a go.

For a new guy, I say either Edwards or Clark, probably Edwards. If Obama becomes a household icon over the next four years, he could do it too, but I think he needs more time. Kerry is a maybe--we might even see Kerry/Edwards again. I'll be sure to keep my button, and some of my unused bumper stickers.

[Crunchy Frog]

114. Wes Clark,

the greatest guy to run for President since I became politically aware. Quite possibly the only one listed who could win, and probably the only one with the skills and knowledge to clean up the gigantic mess that this country, and the inernational situation will by four years from now.

[kodi]

115. gore/clark

.

[d_b]

121. Kerry/whoever.

The "I told you so" campaign.

[LimpingLib]

125. What are their issue positions? We in 2004 know what they will be in 08?

Think people..THINK!!!!

issues issues issues

Based on issues , Feingold (despite being fairly moderate in his own right)is the only proven progressive SO FAR.

[FrenchieCat]

128. We'll have to wait for the

media to give us instructions on that. They are the ones that will decide....and right now, they seem buddy-buddy with the RW...so I will venture to guess that the issues will be whatever is good for the Republicans who will be running.

[LimpingLib]

130. Let me put it this way.

You are right our candidates typically have issues that follow the media driven "issues of the day" (which labor issues arent ever one)which generally are what you say (Republican friendly issues , with the exception of social issues).

Example. Wages are way down compared to what they were in the 60s. The worker productivity gains combined with inflation should have the minnunum wage at $14 per hour today.

We have a consumer driven economy (meaning wages are down , industrial jobs have left , but consumer spending-through record consumer debt-is at record levels and service industry jobs have popped up to the point that they are THE JOBS for workers today). The minninum wage and wages in general are so low that the only thing saving eventual consumer default on their debts will be MUCH HIGHER than $5.15-$6.65 per hour wages.

Id say somewhere between the minninum wage high of $8 (inflation adjusted)per hour and the indexed to productivity $14 per hour high is needed to gurantee enonomic growth that leaves few behind plus pays people for their work. A minninum wage of $10-$12 or higher per hour is needed to get real economic growth (and without inflation) since all workers are in debt and have many spending needs or desires that they cannot meet. All (as in every last penny) increases in wages will go right into the economy and infact grow it, no employer will loose money or need to raise prices as they will get the money right back. The only inflation will be caused by all the newer jobs that need to be created to carry the load of increased economic demand which will drive wages up (most manafacturing jobs are gone but service jobs will increase dramatically in our nation , other nations with the manafacturing jobs will benefit as well).

As other natins grow in wealth (due to the increasing economic activity in our consumer rich gold mine) ,their workers will be richer which will then enable them to buy our products we produce here.Jobs will grow rapdly. Infact we wil need to increase immigration to keep up the labor force with all the economic activity.

NOW BACK TO 2004-2008:The problem is that workers and consumers are victim of an economic situation that requires wages to be lowered to stay competitive. The pressure in times past from unions are vanished. Almost all industrial jobs are gone and now only trucking jobs remain unionized as they cant be sent overseas , they must remain. The fast growing consumer industry is almost union proof thanks to weak unions and lousey out of touch Democratic leaders in our country.If our country had pro Labor leadership (the party of the left has abandoned Labor and workers)then we would have EITHER the minninum wage floor set at appropriate levels ($10-$13 per hour)or strong union growth with consumer industrys.

The fact that we have unemployed workers all over the world with 35,000 people starving per day shows that big business is working. In a REAL market economy then every last bit of potential work would be employed as work and manpower creats jobs and wealth as a TRADE. The problem is that big business wants wages driven down o massive human suffering is required.

The fake "pro worker" voices in the media like Lou Dobbs and Bill O Reilly (Dobbs is more focoused,O Reilly just gave soundbites about jobs from time to time)tell us the solution is to cut back immigration (BIG MISTAKE in a world economy)and oppose trade (usually only opposing African and South American trade. They at times have the right problems and ALL the wrong solutions.

In a world economy , where workers are being exploited , we must bring workers here A to get jobs and B to get paid at least $6 per hour as opposed to 36 cents an hour. It grows the economy and helps create jobs. Plus many of the jobs they get wouldnt be avaliable if the costs were higher , people would cut their own hedges. It spreads wealth. Free trade (we dont have it , many nations are sanctioned or arent included in trade goodys nations like China get)is very important to grow the worlds wealth , but it needs wage standards and labor right conditions to be most effective for economic growth that truely benefits workers anytime soon.

ANYWAY , the Democratic leadership (especially the foreign policy elite like Clark) has failed workers here and the world over. No real Pro Labor legislation will be proposed or passed. The sad truth is that by the time the baby boomers retire , workers will get a break in that 10 years from now there will be a job shortage of 10 million which will drive wages up.

Workers will get a break , but it will be the market conditions due to age catching up with our workforce. Wages will be driven up. NO THANKS to the great Democratic party. Im not sure how long it will last and what the true extent of the benefit will be. The elite will fuck workers and the nation somehow. And our party will be right there waiting , so it can join the GOP and elite in fucking us every step of the way ostensibly opposed.

[FrenchieCat]

131. Gee...

Took all of that to say that somehow, Wes Clark, a retired General who advocated higher wages and better benefits for his troops, was almost endorsed by the unions (They backed down when he decided not to contest Iowa), and really just became a civilian in 2000 was a foreign policy elite who let world labor down? Frankly, I missed the facts that back up that point that kinda jumps at you at the very end.

I Don't know how you got from A to ZZ, but you did. It felt like an ambush....I damn near felt violated....but you left something important out of your essay...how you arrived at placing most of the responsibility on Wes Clark, a civilian for the last 4 years and a career military public servant prior to that. There is a list of 6 or 7 potential candidates on the list.....all politicians except for Clark, and he gets hit with the burden of being the responsible one? Gee, OK....I'm scared of you.

[LimpingLib]

133. Remember when Bush was removing some troops from Germany?

It wasnt a huge number.And he was simply moving them to some other uneeded location.

We could have simply suggested that the $100 bilion in overseas bases are bullshit. European bases are the biggest cost as well as the most pointless. The only nation that is threatening in military spending growth and size is China. It is however totally isolated. Huge India to its South , Russia to its North , the Pacific ocean to its East.A whole host of Muslim nations to its West (which if China were into invading , would kill any hegemony since the worlds 1 billion plus Muslims would be outraged).

Instead we have fuckers like Holbroke saying calmly (whenever he was asked,which was rare)how horrible it is to dilute our "forward projection" and others said we need to stop trying to get "revenge on Germany" for opposing the war. Gee like we should just have a foreign policy elite that support all the war infrastructure and only disagree on the details of out groundwork laying (which btw is all the disagreement was over Iraq , simply our approah to bomb a nation into economic oblivion , not the act itself).

Frankly unless we move all bases to somewhere they are needed like Africa , to keep peace there , then the whole overseas operation needs to be ended and brought home.

And nothing ruins economys or causes economic ruin worse than sanctions and WARS. The fact that our foreign policy elite was happy about Clarks candidacy tells me that he would carry the banner that the elite in both partys promote.Otherwise he would have been villified. I dont like Buchanan but the truth is that it was his opposition to our foreign policy elites overseas bases and such that earned him his critics and caused him to be a joke of a candidate. Combined with his strong social issue views of coarse.

[FrenchieCat]

135. So because

You have your own views as to how the military personnel should be shuffled around the world...and in this case YOU HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH GEORGE BUSH and RUMSFELD on this....Holbrooke is now a fucker? Jeeze!

I didn't realize you knew more than the Deputy Secretary of State under Clinton/Gore...but, OK...whatever.

So let me see if I truly understand this....

Kerry and Edwards were on the Democratic ticket.

Holbrook was often rumored that he would be chosen as Kerry's SOS (in fact Holbrook was the one that took Edwards to the Bildenberg meeting in Europe in May where Edwards was crowned as chosen VP)

All of the rest of the proposed candidates were in congress(except for Obama and Clark and Dean)

But you have generously decided to hand us Wes Clark's head via your 650 word essay about the compromised future of workers wages worldwide?

This because "you feel" that Clark's association to Holbrook may be as that of a friend or acquaintance....(although Holbrook didn't endorse Clark during the primaries...he endorsed Kerry). And since you didn't like Holbrook's response to the proposed Troup reshuffle commandeered by Rumsfeld? Wes Clark is to blame?

:tinfoilhat:Wow...that's almost as good as the one I keep hearing about how Saddam was involved with 9/11.

Whatever you're smoking :smoke:....just give me a third. I'm sure that's all I'll need for the next four years. :crazy:

[LimpingLib]

137. I wish I was in concert with some leader of influence.

Sadly Bush and the rest of the foreign policy elite in BOTH partys agree with each other 99% and agree with me about 0.1%.

I think the overseas bases are completely unnessary since there is no enemy or superpower knocking on anybodys door but you guessed it-OURSELVES. Russia cant invade anybody as its only a worn out shell of what it used to be , and even if it could invade any other nation it would be overwhelmed in seconds as all European nations are clealy of a similar mind(being "dont invade anybody in Europe!"). Russia and China would be at a bitter stalemate if one invaded the other. China has a big population that it doesnt give a damn about , so it could substain an invasion to an extent but China's only enemy is out in the Pacific,all we need to do is draw a line in the sand and tell China if it crosses that it will be rainned down upon with missles at that line (which incidentally is all we needed to stop any invasion by Iraq,simply draw a line in the sand , the Kuwait border was very small and no army could avid us rainning missles to PREVENT an invasion, there was NO NEED to sanction Iraqi's to death by the millions).

I guess what I am saying is that I think the $100 billion budget per year spent in overseas bases is in need of being totally gutted. It is only necessary at prevent invasions and such , certainly in NATOs early days. There is no Muslim threat. There is no Soviet threat. There is no China threat. The elite in both partys think we need every penny and only argue where a few thousand troops should be stationed. Anotherwords they dont disagree at all on the issue , except on the margins.I think the explination for support by both political partys is that they plan on having a war every few years and thus they support $30+ billion intelligence budgets per year, multi dozen bilion spent on weapons research each year , about a couple trillion and growing to date spent on arms , a few million troops every year , etc.

The only question then becomes.....who are we going to unload all those weapons on. Hence the reason why BOTH support all the overseas launching pads of death call U.S. bases in many foreign countrys scattered across the globe.

The only overseas bases I can support are ones that actually are built to house troops to KEEP PEACE and inconcert with the UN I think there is some need for a couple in Africa NOT FOR WAR but for peace.

Pardon me if I dont get all excited and enthusiastic when people expect me to get hard up over YET another stale candidate who offers the same old stuff the rest of the elite do only in a different guise.Frankly Im not only unexcited but Im left hungering for somebody who can offer an alternative to the failed foreign policys of the past decades.

[Crunchy Frog]

146. So which candidate would you favor?

It doesn't sound like any Democrat with a realistic shot would meet your criteria. However, I do notice that you only single out one of them for your particular criticism. I find that kind of interesting.

[FrenchieCat]

147. You sound like some of my least favorite

members of the press. Presstitutes I call them. They also do not see anyone in the Democratic party worth a damn. They like it that way and hope that they never have to declare any Democrat a "star" unless he/she's a "sure loser".

I wouldn't consider anyone of the candidates listed at top of this thread as "stale"....except for maybe one.

In reference to Wes Clark; considering that he had never before been involved in politics, only ran for 5 months, received some press coverage for the first week of his run, didn't contest Iowa, dropped out two weeks after the first primary....I don't consider him as "stale". In fact, I consider him has not been given a chance by those same "Presstitutes".....but within the few opportunities he did have, I found that he absolutely shined...even in those horrible presstitute ran debates.

So you just keep on right on dreaming that there is a "fresh" someone that is going to come out of nowhere and cut the defense budget by 100 million dollars (coz you said it should be done)....and let me know when you land on earth....

[LimpingLib]

158. Your comment about the press and elites applys Feingold NOT CLARK!

Feingold has always been one of my favorites. He said in 1997 that he would try and make sure most cuts in spending comes from national defence simply because not too many others try to cut it. Now the Senate DEmocrats have moved so far right (even while a majority) that it isnt even anything worth trying to cut anymore. Infact since 1997 , defence has INCREASED about $100 billion in per year terms.

Only 1 single Senator sees the danger in the tremendous assault on our civil libertys. He knew he would get it thrown at him by the GOP in 2004 as being the only vote against the Patriot Act , yet this Senator in a state with alot of conservatives and few moderates (albeit a state with one of the largest progressive bases in the nation) stood up for what he believed in. Democratic pollsters would have advised nominating some DLCish mush or elite mush.

Frankly not only does Feingold stand apart as bold but frankly I dont think most Democrats are even on our side in their hearts. So Feingold also stands apart as actually being somebody on our side.

However what you said about the press certainly applys to him. He was a critic of military spending back in 1995 when it was ALOT less than it is today. Back then there were a few dozen progressives that spoke so often about all the (EVEN THEN!) excess military spending that I tought it had a chance of being a party wide position. The general view then was that every aspect of military spnding was way too high.

Applying what you said about the press might have some truth to it when you claim Clark as the victim but no more so than any Democrat faces.Dont worry about Clark. The corperate dollars will roll on in. The foreign policy elite will support him strongly. He will get a voice. Problem is that he might as well just play a tape recording of all failed Democratic candidates from the past 15 years (any Democrat that got under 50% in the post 80s favorable climate to Democratsis a failure IMO ) and save his voice. Weve heard it all before.Been there Liebermann,listened to that Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

159. You sound mighty jaded...

and I find your analysis of what Wes Clark is all about to be based on not really knowing what he is all about...but feeling certain that he is not a consideration for you. Guess that's based on your gut instinct and the fact that you most likely supported someone else last primary...and the ease in which one can develop a visceral dislike for...shall we call it--the competition? The ignorance in not knowing anything about a particular person...but hearing mumblings around you certainly can create an aura of having done research. Some folks are so succeptible to this...that reading one smear article coming from a publication like "counterpunch" could easily do it.

I would advise that instead of tearing down someone that you are only vaguely familiar with based on preconcieved notions of his "foreign affair elitism" (Elite = a catch all adjective currently in vogue utilized by both the Left and the Right to negatively describe any group without really describing them, i.e., Hollywood Elites, Washington Elites, etc...etc... aka as Creme de la Creme in french term)....it might be better to just concentrate on promoting the Senator that you adore, Russ Feingold.

I like Senator Feingold, although he is a Washington Elite (100 senators is definite Creme de la Creme) which means, if I chose to operate the way that you do, I could blame him for knowing some senators that have said and advocated some things that I did not support. I'm sure that I could find a negative article somewhere to reinforce whatever I needed to justify in my gut. I just know better.

Whether I think that a Jewish Senator from a blue state would win ....I don't personally think so. However, my support for Wes Clark does not include throwing dirt on this person just because he is not my pick.

Although some of the things that you said made some sense...the fact that you also went out of your way in an attempt to implicate Wes Clark in some sinister "labor wage plot" makes me want to dismiss you.

At the very least, any critique should make sense and be based on some tangible evidence and not based on guilt by association supported by several of degrees of separation. Let's leave that up to the Presstitutes....shall we?

[LimpingLib]

167. Feingold is right of Liebermann on guns (the half Jewish ticket won in 00

Feingold opposed the Assault Weapons Ban just a few months ago.

He also is one of the leaders on deficit reduction.


Feingold isnt somebody who can be smeared with B.S. (like whether or not he is Jewish or some other b.s. , I dont blame you for applying conventional wisdom btw), this is one tough cookie to try and smear.I dont think you have ever heard him debate. He EASILY brushes off even the most harsh of criticism from some tough as nails opponents. Feingold can justify everything he has voted on. He actualy made it in the John Birtch Society top 10 most conservative ratings of the 100 Senators in 2001 (the Patiot Act and related votes plus oppositions to the Presidents and Democratic Senates massive defence increases helped)

Frankly , we wouldnt have the Enron messes if we had more Democrats like Feingold. Study the only Clinton veto that the Senate overrid , and notice that 1/3rd of Democrats with Liebermann leading the charge that supported such.

On civil libertys,frankly we have to be saddened that Feingolds are so rare that we have to count on right wing house Republicans saving some of whats left of our precious privacy and just plain basic rights.Lucky for us Jim Senesenbrenner of Wisconsin upon quickly scanning the Patriot Act noticed some real freedom burners and crossed out several parts before the QUICK vote that the overwhelming majority of Democrats supported with no qualms whatsoever.Especially in the Senate.

We could have a situation in 2008 where the top 3 Republicans (Rudy , Pervert , or McCain) are either left of Feingold on guns or in McCains case roughly identicle.

[Crunchy Frog]

175. I like Feingold a lot.

He is one of the few being talked about that I could see myself actively supporting, should he get the nomination. I think he has more integrity and more backbone than Kerry has displayed, both recently in the Senate, and in this election. That being said, I'm not sure he would be a very easy sell in the so called "heartland" or the South. I wish it wasn't that way, but I fear that it is.

As far as your lumping Clark in with Lieberman, that's just ridiculous and an indication of an absolute closed mindedness and unwillingness to sully your purity by actually looking at the evidence.

For your information, Clark was the only candidate besides Kucinich who actually talked about cutting the military budget. And he is probably the only Democrat who would have both the knowledge and the clout to actually get away with it.

Don't bother to actually look at the facts though. Just keep spouting right wing/left wing talking points.

[Donna Zen]

168. It all depends what you want?

During the 90s, the US cut European troop strength by about a third. What is left in Europe gives us a forward base that is not under threat and centralized. But far more than that, Germany and other European bases keep, us in close contact with our oldest allies, and provide the never talked about but very important, exchange program. Those bases serve American families...not just troops. As for the cost: because Germany pays part of the cost for those bases, it will be much more expensive if we move to an alternative.

The alternative that the bush-regime has in mind will not be a military of friends or families. The families will be stateside with frequent and long separations being the norm. We will still have to position the large hardware some place, and the empire-builders are looking to reward those who came went along with bush's war. bushes love revenge.

The eventual plan is for more special units strung from Peru, across SA, Africa, and the ME. IOW, an army of empire...

Anyway, in four years, the deed will be done...the deal has been made with that devil of devils: greed. Buchanan has never struck me as a foreign interventionist, and he may be sorry when he gets what he wished for. We all will sorry when this comes to pass.

Foreign policy elite. If you mean by that, people who are considered professionals, have experienced a high degree of success with representing the US, and are respected in the world...well, I'm all for them. There is nothing with which to compare the Dem team in the bush-regime....they don't "do" diplomacy. Both parties do not promote the same foreign policy at all. Not at all.

The last time the world has witnessed the ridicule of diplomats and favored war to solve all problems would be the last time we played the "Great Game." And yes, it brought us war.

[LimpingLib]

172. Well..Germany , Italy , Japan , India, former Soviet Republics are all dem

are all democracys.

This isnt back when Spain , Germany , Russia , India , Japan , etc. were dictatorships.

The enemys of Worl War 1 , especially in the Mid east are democracys such as Turkey , the most powerful nation in the Mid East and a sort of) democracy strongly connected to Europe.

Iran has always been a force for peace in the Mid East , despite our overthrowing its democracy. Pakistan is a democracy , despite the coup we supported, and will continue to be one hopefully. Afghanistan always minded its business and though we overthrew its government illegaly (like the Soviets), it is again a democracy.

India is 1 billion strong with a growing economy...... and YES a democracy.

China is clearly a problem but they simply have nobody to invade(infact Russia is the most likly party they could go to war against IMO). If the try and attack the Republic Of China (the island to its east in the Pacific)they will loose alot of trading partners and their economy will be crushed (yes they are growing but they have a demographic timebomb of elderly coming in 20 years). If China's economy keeps growing then a middle class and the internet will soon make it harder for Chinnese leaders to risk a crisis caused by war where it could bring out the Pro Democratic elements to a suprise overthrow attempt.

Russia has a man from the old system in charge but who the heck can Russia invade? Russia is a shrinking nation with a super poor economy. All they can do is terrorise some Muslim neighbors , but hey we have no problem with that right? (I have a BIG problem with it but it doesnt phaise our foreign policy elite for certain).

We seem to be in love with Turkey and Israel. I dont like many policys of those 2 nations but its clear that if they are such great examples of Democracy then we can assume that their superior militarys and economys can easily crush whatever "problems" the Arab nations "cause" (simply existing is the only sin the Arabs have ever commited to our foreign policy elite IMO).


I must have missed the big threat out there. Frankly aside from us , I see no threat. Thats the big catch. We have these bases so we can search for monsters to destroy.

The sad thing is that the only problems in this world are humanitarian not military. Oil drying up and horrible conditions in Arab nations (Europe is goig to get alot of immigrants from Arab nations once oil runs out, hope they are "moderate" though I fail to see how they can have any positive views on our nation whatsoever in recent decades). The mess in most African nations.

I guess my problem is that I promised everybody on this board that Im not going to settle for the same old crap again in 08 or ever again. The only candidate I can support is one who tells the truth. The truth is that there is no military threat anywhere AND the fact that huge demographic timebombs of elderly in the coming decades in BOTH WEstern and Eastern nations is yet another reason (among endless other reasons)to start investing our precious resources in health care research and far more advanced health care infrastructure.

Thats not only what I *want* but thats also the reality of the situation the world faces.

[Donna Zen]

176. A system

The sad thing is that the only problems in this world are humanitarian not military. Oil drying up and horrible conditions in Arab nations (Europe is goig to get alot of immigrants from Arab nations once oil runs out, hope they are "moderate" though I fail to see how they can have any positive views on our nation whatsoever in recent decades). The mess in most African nations.

Let's start here: The problems are humanitarian in many places, and that is exactly why you need diplomats. The Arab nations may have oil now, but the populous does not benefit from the wealth. Under the regime, that will continue, because those states, including Egypt, Saudi, and Pakistan are being sustained by our horrible policies. Whatever they call themselves, democracy doesn't fit the bill. The Dem. team recognizes this and I noticed that Benjamin Barber is alligned with the Dems.

But your original point was that both parties promote the same foreign policy. I disagree. I also disagree with the premise that all is well in the world. Russia and China have been making all sorts of new agreements that bodes ill for everyone.

Personally, after this second bull-shit media driven non-election, I think whatever enlightened moves the Dems may have been hoping for, it no longer matters.

BTW, last spring Wes Clark worked with a group that presented counter proposals to the G-7 at their meeting in Georgia, that advocated economic policies to benefit the very countries you are talking about. He and others see that by helping those countries to prosper, the conflicts that arise from "failed states" can be avoided. They met for a week in Morocco, and Wes was the keynote speaker at a later 3 day meeting.

[LimpingLib]

177. Glad you mentioned North Africa.

Lybia got rid of its pathetic weapons program and seems interested in nothing but helping Africa achieve a political unity and peace. Guess we cant use that HUGH nation (5 million strong)as some excuse for "preparing for WW3".

As for Russia , that is a nation of mostly elderly (who all die around 55)and what little young people are left they rarely have children. Not so scared of a dying nation where the average income is about $3000 per capita per year.

Pakistan was a democracy before the coup and hopefully will become one again. Afghanistan and Iran arent going to be attacked by Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalism isnt popular in Pakistan. They get like 1.2% of the vote election after election. Plus about half of Pakistani's are nearly as much Christian as Muslim (they believe in many Christian doctrines despite being Muslims). Their economy is rather weak and India makes as much per capita per year as Pakistan does.Pakistan wont be able to sustain a war with India.

I dont entirely agree with Gore Vidal when he says about the Chinnese threat "they make good laundry" but the fact is that China now has a slow growing population and a decent growing economy. About $1000 per capita per annum. Our population and economic growth is making us even stronger in relative ability to finance a military conflict plus we are always near their mainland and can devestate their economy alot worse than they can to ours from long range. They will be sanctioned if they invade Tiawan.

Im not saying the Chinnese leaders wont do something stupid , but it is hardly a threat. Their big army wont help them when its a naval and air war.

China isnt a huge ally of any Muslim nations except Pakistan.Nobody would be on their side.

[Donna Zen]

178. Your point

was that the two parties had identical foreign policies. It would seem that diplomats, who you termed: elite, had no role to play. Have you read Barber? The problems that we will face will not be large country to country wars, but failed states brought on by corrupt governments.

The countries you name all are associated with major human rights abuses that the regime in Washington sanctions.

There is much mending to do in this world that can only be accomplished by good leadership and a change in policy. We will not get there from here, an endless war of aggression.

[LimpingLib]

185. Im saying little soda cans containning posionous gas isnt "WMD"

Remember the the war in Iraq was supported by almost everybody (and war on Afghanistan), thats why all the leading Senators supported it.They dont have an independent bone in their bodys, Senators of both partys.They listened to the elites give them "advice".Some Senators like Biden are part of the elite.

And just because post facto evidence showed that the "WMD" werent posessed (I dont know and dont care btw if at the time leading up to the war if Hussein had his little stink bombs or not)and the Democratic elite pretended like they were opposed , doesnt mean anything to me.

Bush was an idiot true. But his idiocy might just prevent the world community from coming together to sanction Iran. Fear of high oil prices plus a complicated situation combined with the wrolds disgust at Bush just might save Irans fragile economy from being sanctioned.

If Kerry and the cast of foreign policy elites (who supported every war from the last 2 decades 90s and 00s)were in power , Iran would be in much worse shape.Bush or Israel may invade Irans air space and do a sneak attack, an that would be bad as well as unlawful but it wouldnt be dreadul multilateral sanctions at least.

I had high hopes that Kerry would try and conduct a foreign policy that developed economys but it wasnt a debate talking point or anything his loud mouthy youth base was pushing him towards at all. The foreign policy elite in our party werent talking about anything like that. Clinton never did much but bomb nations. With the same people in his admin you call diplomats.


I simply disagree with you contention that we have a bunch of smart peace warriors in our elite camp that promote economy building. If these people had their way , the piles of dead Iraqi children would be piling up even fast due to the sanction policy Albright described as "keeping Saddam in his box". They never did anything that moved toward any direction of helping develope economys. And I dont consider the annual multi billion $$$ in MILITARY aid we send to Israel and Egypt as any evidence to the contrary. All that does is come right back to our nation in the "defence" contractors pockets.

[beevul]

132. Fiengold Dean

Would get my vote. No question.

They could win in the red states easily, IMHO.

[Lexingtonian]

134. Kerry

And anyone moderately principled as VP.

Btw, erpowers, Russ's family name spelled 'Feingold'.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

144. Right there with you

:thumbsup:

[Breeze54]

136. None of the Above.....

I choose....OTHER

That person is out there.....
some where

[BareskinMatt]

138. Other

And he/she has not shown themselves yet.

[Felix Mala]

141. Tom Brokaw is now available

He'd be a nearly perfect candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

143. Yes....

I have heard the Presstitutes make the best candidates.

[Harlan James]

145. Clark/Dean

Let's go with our two most experienced and smartest candidates.

[StevieM]

150. Russ Feingold (eom)

x

[nickshepDEM]

151. This duo can not be BEAT!

President - Wesley Clark: A southern General with great appeal. One of the main platforms the Republicans used against Kerry in the past election was his inability to fight the war on terror. How the hell would they be able to use this against a 4 star general? Thats right, They could'nt!!!

Vice President - Mark Warner: Southern Govenor of Virigina who has a great record of gaining support from the rural voters. Also, he is against gun control and like another poster said "we should be the party of civil libirties". Therefore, the NRA would have a tuff time chosing sides.

I think this would be an awesome ticket and extremley tough to beat.

[Julien Sorel]

156. Neither of them has extensive government experience.

If either of them gets the nod -- and I like them both -- they will pick an established insider as their running mate.

Look at the pattern:

bush -- outsider/cheney consummate insider.


Clinton -- outsider/Gore insider.


Bush I -- insider/ Quayle -- whatever he was.


Reagan -- outsider / Bush I -- consummate insider


Carter -- prototypical outsider / Mondale -- consummate insider.

[jsw_81]

152. I'm sticking with John Kerry

He came very, very close to beating a wartime president and would be an outstanding leader for our country. If he runs in 2008 he has my vote.

[XemaSab]

166. Kerry lost

to the worst president ever in the history of the county.

Kerry wasn't a bad guy, but it shouldn't have even been remotely close.

[gordianot]

154. A Democrat not a DINO. n/t

[ArtVandaley]

155. I think a Clark/Richardson ticket would be very good

Clark ran a bad campaign in 2004, but he was a rookie and could possibly do better next time. It would depend on a lot of things. Right now I'm mostly interested in Clark, Richardson and Feingold.

People I've ruled out:
Hillary: Would be a disaster!
Evan Bayh: Co-sponsered the Iraq resolution. I was able to forgive Kerry for voting for it, but drafting it is a bit too much for me.
Edwards: Pretty boy added nothing to the ticket this year, why reward him?




And please, Obama said he isn't running. He's an honest guy, so I believe him. Why does everyone still mention him?

[nickshepDEM]

157. I heard

Evan Bayh speak on FOX NEWS a couple weeks ago and he grabbed my attention right away. Although, I didnt no he wanted to implement a draft to resolve the problems in IRAQ?

[Kilkenny5]

164. Again

What does Clark add to the ticket?

I wasn't impressed during the primaries. I wasn't impressed with him on an appearance on Bill Maher.

Don't worry about Obama. He's not runnning for anything until 2010 when he's up for re-election.

[FrenchieCat]

181. Well heck...Why didn't you just ask earlier?

Wes Clark brings so many things onto the ticket, it's not even funny. I am sure that I forgot other of his positive qualities....
...
Brings in the vote of Reagan Democrats (heard him called a Republican enough?), Independents (cause that's what he was before becoming a Democrat),Southerners who won't vote for a Democrat if their lives depended on it...but would vote Clark...cause remember, he's a accused ex-Republican, a strong figure and a he's a Southerner too.

Brings Liberal policies dressed to pass the muster of the moderate wing of the party.Had an education plan that would have given each college students coming from households making under $100,000; $6,000 each year for the first two years in the form of a Grant...and not those tax credits that pink tu-tus always resort to.

Had a tax plan that many felt made him the real Democrat running-
see this article that speaks about real Democrats and why Clark represents such: http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
and he taught economics and political philosophy at Wespoint.

National Security EXPERTISE...and I don't mean a 35 years ago war hero stuff...although he did take 4 bullets and spent a year in rehabilitation, and there are no questions about his Purple Hearts and his Silver Medals. But the National Security Expertise of being in charge of security in all of Europe as Nato Commander until 2000 and earlier as head of Southcom and in the joint Chief of staff at the WH as head of Strategist Planning during early years of Clinton Administration--

Excutive and Budget Experience -- Worked as a WH fellows in the 70s in charge of Budgeting. As Southcom and Nato Commander, both executive positions...he coordinated and governed over thousands of military personnels and their families...including children located all over the world.

brings in the Security Moms and some of the Vets (no protests in his record) that are not just crazy Freepers.

Career of Integrity and Public Service (not a politician-is an outsider) but no votes to dig up...but spent 34 years serving our nation. Has a Presidential Medal of Freedom, a Knighhood from England and the Legion of Honor cross from France.

Unassuming Charisma yet a Macho mano mano 4 star General-- Attractive to Nascar Dads...cause Clark really is a man's man. His sports don't require a change of outfit. He swims (stripping down is good), rides horses (that's macho...Bush is afraid of them), and hunts (and doesn't wear cut jacket while doing it) and fishes.

A loving attractive Wife for 35 years...who is spunky, effective and real....but not showy or finicky. She the ultimate Diplomatic Wife.....lived all over the world, and is from the Bronx...but is classy and unasuming.

Came from a humble background. Father died when he was 4 years old. Mother worked as bank teller. She remarried when Wes was 11 years old. Dad was a good man, but never a rich man.

Would turn blue the following....Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Colorado, Tennessee, New Mexico and Nevada and still probably would improve the ratio in the states that we normally win.

A diplomat,and internationalist and honest broker-Dayton Peace Accords and is well known and liked by many world leaders. Hell, he's the highest U.S. rank to have ever testified at the Hague in modern history. Negotiated with 19 countries to keep alliances intact during Kosovo war.

He attracts minorities ....speaks spanish, as well as Russian and German...has a Columbian Daughter-in-law married to his only son and mother to his only grandchild.

He was endorsed by major Native American tribes and the largest Native American Newspaper, the Native American Times.

Muslims and Arabs like him because the Kosovo war saved 1.5 Albanian Muslims

Jews like him cause he is 1/2 Jewish.

Black people (like me)supported him because of his stance on Affirmative action and his work on the U of Michigan Brief won in the Supreme Court. Many Black folks endorsed him: Andrew Young and Civil Rights commissioner Frances Berry, as well as many others.

Many in the Gay community likes him as well for his stance on Don't ask don't tell in the military as well as for the fact that he speaks about the Gay issue in a very matter of fact common sense way.

He can speak on faith and values seriously and sincerely because he lived them. He is 1/2 jewish but has practiced the Southern Baptist Faith while growing up in Arkansas....so he speak their language.

Is damned Intelligent - Rhodes Scholar, first in his class at West Point. Masters degree from Oxford in PPE....Politics/Philosophy/Economics. Additional Degrees for the Army College in later years. Writes well--two books thus far, and a bevy of highly circulated long articles. Communicates well. He wasn't on CNN as a regular commentator for nothing. Don't pay attention to the Media presstitutes' "Conventional Wisdom" about him not being ready for primetime in '04....they didn't want him to be ready which is why they lied about his abilities constantly.

Ain't a scarry cat or a pink tu-tu - He stands for principal...and consistently has told the Republicans to kiss his ass...while smiling. He converses about PNAC and doesn't try to hide its existence. He knows how to call NeoCons...Neocons.

General who got to know his dictator over a long period of time, stuck his finger in his face, and testified against that dictator at the Hague.

Totally familiar with the Pentagon...could get away with real reform there.....knows where the bodies are buried. Knows who's PNAC and who's not. He was the one to urge Dick ClarkE to write his book, Plan of Attack. He also was the one to urge Sy Hersch to come out with those Abu ghrai photos and wanted him to do it long before Hersch actually got the nerves.

Many on the Left and Hollywood likes him a lot - Endorsed by MM, Madonna, Samantha Power (Pulitzer Geonocide Author), George McGovern, the Father of Earth Day, and so many others. George Soros likes him a lot. (the extreme radical Left don't care for him (those infatuated with Ramsey Clark dont....but those who respect and are fans of MM do....guess you can't please everybody).

Many on the moderate/ side like him - Endorsed by Baucus, Breaux, Martin Frost, Enron Whistleblower lady, and a host of others coming from southern states...in particular, Texas.

Many in New Yorkers, Maine, Wisconsin, California congress people endorsed him and liked him --Clinton Foreign cabinet endorsed him too....Emmanuel Rahl(sp), Charlie Rangel.


Plus the man would not be hard to look at for 8 year.

[FrenchieCat]

182. Oh...and I forgot,....

Wes Clark planned, led and won the only NATO war fought in history without any U.S. Soldier killed.

[LimpingLib]

187. Thanks for promoting issue discussions.

Thats what we need to be doing.

I dont however think leading a defensive organization toward an offensive war is anything to be pround of though. Especially imminently avoidable ones.

We need a Dpartment Of Peace.


I also disagree with what you say his political appeal is as well. In Maryland Kathleen Kennedy Townsend thought she was smart to pick a Republican Admiral as her LT running mate. It was an idiotic move that appealed to nobody and she got killed in many conservative towns by about 3-1. And she was the most DLC candidate we ever ran in Maryland.

EDIT: I dont agree with alot of what you said particularly the Muslim and Arab comments. Making voters of a certain ethnicity seem petty in their support.Many Arab newspapers out of the Mid East condemed the war as it dragged on as inhumane bombing of civilians.I could disagree with alot more especially the comment that he is part Jewish and it will attract Jews.Geraldo said in responce to the charges that Hillary Clinton attacked a man for "being Jewish" who was only "fraction/fraction Jewish" (I didnt know that was possible btw , wow us gentiles need to get up to date on our quantum)..."he's Jewish?.. How far back..Adam?". I really disagree with alot btw. But was it a joke or what?

[loyalsister]

160. Tom Vilsak

and Barak Obama as V.P.
Lets not rehash any of this years candidates in 2008. Just start fresh as with a brand new winning formula.
I think we need to run a Governor. Since he's from the midwest, Vilsak can relate to people from the midwest and south easily. We really have to have that in 2008.

[XemaSab]

169. Meh

Clark is a candidate I can't comment on effectively because I don't know too much about him, but that thing with that Serbian dude sketched me out; also he says he's a Dem now, but he has no voting record to look at, so we have to take the guy at his word. Maybe for VP.

Hillary already has a LOT of people who don't like her, and I don't know that she could mobilize the progressive base. That sounds like a losing formula.

Dean's a great guy, but I don't know that he would work well with the senate to actually get legislation passed. It would be like Clinton (Bill) and Newt Gingrich all over again. I think he'd make an AWESOME party chair, and I hope DFA stays strong. He'd also make a decent VP, and he'd get people mobilized on the ticket.

I don't trust Edwards at all. He seems so docile, but he's got a nasty and aggressive side that he doesn't show in public. He also didn't carry his own state, and had very little experience in office.

Feingold.... uh, all I know about him is that the McCain-Feingold bill was named for him. :-)

Gore was a great man, and I would like to see him hold office again, but he didn't run a good campaign the first time around. We didn't know how bad Bush would be, and he's said a lot of things since 2000 that make me wish so much that he had been sitting in the oval office for the last four years.

Kerry didn't run a good campaign at all and he's got too many senatorial votes that are conflicting and too many he didn't stick up for. He ran such an awful campaign that it almost lends credence to the conspiracy theories about him and the republicans colluding.

Obama's too green. He needs time to establish a voting record, and I hate to say it, but I'm not sure the country is ready to elect a Black man at the top of the ticket. He'll be ready for VP in '12 or '16.

Other:

Barbara Boxer's awesome. I heart Boxer. She's got a consistent, progressive voting record.

Bill Richardson has experience governing a western state, and he's Hispanic, but I'm truly skeptical of the "regional politics trading game," where you try to target different demographics not with a message, but with someone you think they'll identify with. The Hispanic vote seems like a big and diverse group, with some very liberal folks and some very religious conservatives and a lot of people who are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Similarly, things that go over well in the southwest might not be the issues to mobilize the base in other parts of the country with. On the plus side, I don't know if a New Mexican would alienate the south like the Yankees seem to. I'd like to see a candidate run a 50-state campaign. That being said, he seems like a good possibility.

Realistically, I can't think of anyone else I got the warm fuzzies from right now.

Since this is akin to fantasy baseball though,

Gore/Boxer
Gore/Dean
Dean/Boxer
Dean/Clark
Clark/Dean

Yeeeeeeargh!

[jmowreader]

170. You should run me

You can call me Mo. President Mo. And I'm going to do Mo for you and Less for moneyed special interests.

My platform:

Mo Money In Your Pocket: I am going to work to reduce the barriers to free trade that exist in most of the countries that make the things we buy every day. Did you know that it's very hard to export something from the United States to China? That's because they have a lot of protective tariffs designed to guard their industries from the threat of foreign competition. By getting these tariffs lifted as a condition of a country's retaining its Most Favored Nation trading status, we'll revitalize manufacturing in this country and put Mo Money In Your Pocket.

Mo Logical Taxation: We're going to do two things to make your life easier--hire good writers to translate the Internal Revenue Code into English because the current code was written by accountants for accountants, and we'll allow you to use Schedules A and B along with the 1040A short form so someone who just wants to write off her mortgage doesn't need to deal with a massive form she's going to leave mostly blank. That's Mo Logical Taxation.

Mo Food Safety: I am going to ban the use of "downer" cows in food for people, food for animals that will be eaten by people, and in any product a person might use. Because food is no good if it kills you, you need Mo Food Safety.

Mo Sensible Gun Laws: I think every law-abiding citizen should have a gun if they want one. I think no criminal should have a gun. I will work tirelessly to ensure that law-abiding citizens, and ONLY law-abiding citizens, can have guns. Those will be Mo Sensible Gun Laws.

Mo National Security: We're going to fight terrorists the right way--track them down like a detective and strike them down like hardened warriors. We're going to stop fighting preemptive wars, and close down the ones we are fighting. We are going to use diplomacy to solve our national problems. We are going to make sure our troops have the very best armor, the best weapons, the best food. We are going to renew our diplomatic ties. We are going to fine-tune our intelligence system to respond to real threats. We need Mo National Security and Mo is going to get it for us.

You deserve Mo. Vote Mo.

[stackhouse]

174. clark08

clark by a mile
i maybe shot for this but, clark/gephart or clark/gore ticket

[Kevin Spidel]

180. Rep Barbera Lee!!!!!!

Lee for President in '08

or just for fun against McCain... Max Cleland

[FrenchieCat]

183. I know Barbara Lee....

and she's not interested.

But I do love her very much! And she is quite effective for us....here in her district.

[Pepperbelly]

191. Dale Bumpers ...

I know ... too old but still, he would have been awesome.

[VTdem]

193. I think Kerry/Clark will be a tough tandem to beat.

[melnjones]

194. Clark/ other person...

although I think Clark/Clinton would be pretty cool...