We need Clark as our candidate in 08 to win.

[sidwill]

Biden....ehhhh he simply projects the image of the typical deeply entrenched career politician, plus he is too Kerrylike in his stances seeking to placate a part of the electorate who would never vote for him anyway.

Kerry, sorry. He was given the softball of the election "Knowing what you know now would you still have given the president the authority to invade Iraq?" evrybody knows how he answered this question, the biggest problem I have with his answer (as technically correct as it was) is that I don't believe that it reflected what he truly felt. The outspoken opponent of the Vietnam debacle has slowly morphed over time to a politician willing to give up his core beliefs to win an election. If he is our guy in 08 expect a similar result.

Hillary. I would love to have her as president, she would be great, but. She remains a divisive figure even if she won it would be too easy for the Repukes to not play ball while pandering to their core constituency. Our country needs to find some common ground instead of more division. Again i love her, she would awesome---but not just yet.

Clark. Clark is special, on the issues he is a progressive's wet dream while simultaneously possesing a wide range of appeal to include independents and moderate Republicans. His candidacy would act as a human wedge splitting Republican voters away from the neofundynutsos who have taken over their party and pulling in a majority of independents 9whose ranks are swelling as moderates in both camps desert parties beholden to moneyed interests). Clark would furthermore appeal to military voters providing those voters with a candidate that is "unswiftboatable" if you know what I mean.

IMO it's Clark, Hillary for VP would be a great touch.

Slam away or join in agreement.

[Burma Jones]

1. Clark/Warner

or vice versa

[phylla]

28. I agree BIG TIME with that statement

But Clark should go in at the top for 8 years, then usher in President Mark Warner.

:-)

[FourStarDemocrat]

92. Sounds like a plan to me...

:thumbsup:

[ksclematis]

81. Clark - Yeesssssss!.....;

Warner - NEVER! His only qualification is $$$$ and one-term Gov. Wes needs somebody to compliment him and be qualified to step in only, only, only if really, really, really necessary.

[Brian Hopkins]

86. I agree

I agree totally that this would be a perfect ticket for '08!!!!

[kwolf68]

2. Howz about

We get to 2008 first...with the Shrub running things that isn't a foregone conclusion.

[FrenchieCat]

24. You mean 2006? Non?

[kwolf68]

42. Doh!

Brain isn't as sharp as it used to be I guess...

[radwriter0555]

3. ROFLMAO! WIN???? you think we can WIN against DIEBOLD??? my goodness

haven't you been following along? Haven't you had the reality check? Didn't you think this through?

Seriously, how do you beat CHEATERS and LIARS?

Honestly, I need to hear how we can beat the CHEATERS who own DIEBOLD...

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. One of Two ways, both damn difficult

One is to beat DIEBOLD, take away their control of elections etc. etc. That is very unlikely to happen on the complete national level. A Republican Congress won't cooperate unless there is a huge upswell of public outrage, and it ain't happening on that level yet. At the State and Local level, piecemeal, DIEBOLD etc. can be defeated, County by County, Sate by State. We'll win some and lose some on those levels.

Number two is to defeat the Republicans beyond the margin of fraud, and no matter what else you might think, there is a margin of Fraud. Some would peg it at 2%, some 3%, others 5% or 8%, but there is a margin beyond which they can not steal an election.

For example, the Republicans could not have convinced the nation that Goldwater beat LBJ in 1964, no matter how they were able to cheat. Likewise, even if Democrats counted all the votes, we could not have convinced the public that McGovern beat Nixon in 1972.

[ksclematis]

82. There must be some rich

Democrats to help the cause and have an "either, or" chat with Diebold.....Are ALL of the rich people Repubs???

[Hippo_Tron]

87. I agree with the margin of fraud theory

Let's face it, Ohio exit polls were still within the margin of error. Anything within the margin of error is CERTAINLY still within the margin of fraud.

That being said, the Barnes vs Perdue race concerns me. From what I've read, the poll taken a few days before the election was Barnes 51%, Perdue 40%. Now, that's certainly a good sized lead for Barnes, but also a huge margin of undecideds. Let's assume that we go to the most extreme of the margin of error and do 4 points in the other direction, give Perdue 44% and Barnes 47%. Assuming those are the numbers, the undecideds would've had to break a little over 2 to 1 for Perdue. Now all of this happening is certainly not impossible, especially considering that polls are very much an imperfect science. Is it impractical, VERY. So then the question beocmes how much tinkering did Diebold actually do.

[Uncle Joe]

39. The only way that we can bring Diebold to reason is to

have a nationwide boycott of all of their machines until we have uniform standardized national voting procedures, backed with a paper trail to verify their accuracy. The only thing that means anything to Diebold is money. All the conjecture about candidates for 2006 or 2008 is pointless until this has been resolved.

[driver8]

75. We could put Jesus Christ up against the rethugs and still get

our asses kicked!! Until Diebold is out of the picture, we do not have a chance in hell of winning.

[LSparkle]

4. I agree with you on Clark

Don't know about Hillary. I'm still hoping there's a place for John Edwards, either as VP or in some other capacity. He reminds me increasingly of RFK in his focus on poverty/income disparity and he's a great campaigner. (Kerry woefully under-used him last year.)

[Darkamber]

17. I'm hoping for Edwards as well...

He's continuing his focus on Domestic issues and most specifically on the fight against Poverty. I would not count him out in 08.

And while I'm really uncomfortable with the thought of a General in the top spot, I would accept Clark over Hillary.

We should learn out lessons on NE Senators and write Biden and Hillary off the list.

Look to people like Edwards, Clark, Richardson, Warner...govenors and southerners.

[truebrit71]

33. Clark/Edwards 08 could work...

Definitely...

[ksclematis]

84. I'd REALLY worry

about Edwards and Warner....no foreign policy, security, just looks and $$$$. Gravitas won't cut it for POTUS in my opinion!

Wes has been around the world being POOR, from when he was a little kid. He's helped his troops and their families with housing, schools, health insurance, and LIFE & DEATH! He's doesn't have all that D.C./political baggage.

[kypper]

102. Hillary...

is too right wing. She would be a part of the Conservative Party here in Canada.

She would just encourage the movement of Democrats farther to the right.

Edit: She might win the election, but all Democrats would lose their foundation.

[napi21]

5. I desagree with you on Clark. I think he's a good guy, but not

dynamic enough. He's got the same problem that Kerry had. Just too damn nice!

You have to fight fire with fire, and none of the Dems in the last elections have done that! The high ground just ain't doin it!

[Kahuna]

35. Clark was only too nice to the Dem opponents. Some of the others..

should have followed his lead, instead of giving the repukes talking points to use against Kerry. Clark was relentless when it came to denouncing the bushistas. Go Clark! :yourock:

[Totally Committed]

53. Not dynamic enough?

Wes? You just don't know him all that well, yet. He's plenty dynamic, and enthusiastic. And, he's genuinely damn nice.

This country would be lucky beyond it's wildest dreams to have this man sit in the Oval Office.

TC

[driver8]

76. I agree -- Clark is dynamic and very smart!

I would have loved to have seen a debate between Clark and shrub...shrub would have been calling for his mama (I mean, Karl).

[GR]

71. You Are So Right...

These people just laugh if you try to reason with them...

[FrenchieCat]

78. Nicely dynamic, I would say....

and I have excellent taste (if I have to say so myself!)

What you are talking about is subjective.....but I would think that you are in the minority.

Also, he's nice...cause he's a General. He can "afford" to be nice and still comes off as a Alpha Male type and not a wimp. If you're talking about him during the primaries....he went after Bush very seriously and did damage...which is why New Hampshire probably turned Blue (clark was there bashing Bush for quite sometime)...while Iowa turned Red (Clark didn't contest Iowa).

Anyhow, I don't see what you see.

[blm]

6. You think they didn't have Generals and Commanders Against Clark waiting

in the wings? Truth doesn't matter when you own most of the media and can edit your opponent's campaign.

Face it...the only way any Democrat can win is by Dems exposing the extraordinary control the GOP has on media and the voting machines.

If Clark's votes are registering for Jeb Bush, then how does Clark win?

[kevsand]

18. I'm sure they would have any number of liars and frauds

lined up. We've already seen some of them, and they are every bit as unbelievable as the Swifties. The big differences are that:

1) Clark won't hesitate to strike back hard and decisively, instead of waiting for others to do it for him;

2) The public has seen this before, and will begin to recognize the pattern;

3) There is no obvious ambiguity about Clark's record during and after the war;

4) The public will have seen him a fair amount on Fox by then, and will probably be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt; and

5) Even some of his "colleagues" on Fox might be willing to defend him by then.

(Okay, so that last one is really stretching it a bit...)

[blm]

23. Depends on the editing room floor, though, doesn't it? My point is that

the only way any Democrat can win is by the all of us joining together to expose the two most important obstacles we face - a GOP controlled media and the GOP control over most of the voting machines.

If either one of those were honest and secure, does anyone doubt what the outcome would have been in 2000 or 2004?

[kevsand]

27. If we break the GOP stranglehold on the media,

then it would no longer be possible to hide any voting fraud. On the other hand, if the margins of fraud are big enough, the public will sense the fraud, and the Repubs will get Ukrained, and the media will be irrelevant.

I am one of those that is less inclined to see a solid conspiracy behind every problem, but there is no question that these guys are doing everything they think they can get away with to keep the public misinformed and disenfranchised.

Given the current makeup of Congress and the current ownership of media outlets, I think the only way to break through either barrier is with a candidate who tells the simple truth over and over and over in terms that are instantly understandable and believable...

[blm]

29. That would entail the media be honest about the polls BEFORE the election.

They were never honest in 2004. They skewed the polls to include 10% more Republicans than Dems all last year.

That is how they were better able to snow the public into thinking it would be close when they went to work on the machines.

You don't need to believe every theory to know that these two problems are VERY REAL....demonstrably real.

[kevsand]

34. But it really is a chicken or egg scenario.

You can't fix it until you have control. If you maintain that we can't get control until it is fixed, then we are screwed in perpetuity. We have to punch through somewhere, and I can guarantee you that it will not be in the current Congress or executive branch.

So far, most election laws and regs are still state by state. In the states where the process is in the hands of the enemy, you will never get the enemy to willingly change it.

There are only two possibilities: prove the fraud in court, and/or win bigger than they can steal. Neither is easy, but they are at least possible, unlike any prospects of reform from hostile legislatures.

[blm]

36. That's why we have to keep up constant attack on media without let up. The

next Dem nominee must not HAVE to face the same playing field that Gore and Kerry faced.

[kevsand]

37. No argument there...

:toast: The more we hold the MSM's feet to the fire, the better for everyone. Wouldn't hurt to keep exploring and developing alternative media, too...

[phylla]

30. You are right about that

One thing that I can say about Wes, who is my candidate now and forever, is that many military officers here in Virginia do not like him. Some really can't stand him.

When questioned about their attitudes toward Clark. it is "not respected, sharp elbows, hogged the spotlight" etc.

However, when asked if they personally knew him, in most (but not all) cases, they did not.

The armed forces stick together-- and the brass does not want Wes to be Prez.

Shucks, even a graduating '05 Midshipman said that he didn't like him... Now that is pretty far down the chain of command...

This Middy admitted that he did not doubt Wes's ability to be President, or his brilliance as an officer, or his intelligence just that there was much negative gossip about him in the service. ergo- he didn't like him either.

[blm]

46. And THAT is how it starts. The right targets those who they fear and plant

seeds of gossip, innuendo and lies about them and keep them watered for years.

Then, boom....the minute they become a real threat to them they clobber them with the massive liestick they created out of the little lie seeds they planted.

[harlinchi]

8. I'm with you (and the General).

I was a Clark supporter at the outset of the last election. I still think he would have done better than Kerry although I did support Kerry ultimately -- ABB!

[Greyhound]

9. Election issue aside, I would certainly support Clark.

Still think Hillary is a poison pill though.
BTW radwriter0555, if Gore/Lieberman had carried TN. in 2000, or Kerry/Edwards got NC & any close state, they (Diebold et. al.) wouldn't be an issue.

[sidwill]

12. Clark/Hillary

Would be an imposing ticket yes Hillary would attract some venom from the right (did I say some?) but it seems to backfire when you get too nasty with a VP candidate.

Clark would be the most unassailable Dem candidate available from his good looks to his nice guy image the pukes would have a difficult time smearing him and when it comes down to it that is their only gameplan: Smear and smear again, only this time they would be smearing a true boyscout/warhero/honest to goodness General.

It would backfire. Think of a Clark cnadidacy as a Judo move, using the Repukes own tendencys toward garbagetalk against them.

[Totally Committed]

14. I guess you don't remember Geraldine Ferraro's VP candidacy...

You said: "Clark/Hillary... Would be an imposing ticket yes Hillary would attract some venom from the right (did I say some?) but it seems to backfire when you get too nasty with a VP candidate."

They absolutely destroyed Ferraro, just for being Italian, and Italian, it was said again and again, meant "mob". When they couldn't find anything in her background, they went after her husband.

These people are craven a-holes. When they finish with Hillary, they'll start in on Bill. Do we really want an entire campaign season of "The Clintons did this" and "Bill did that" and "Hillary did this"? Get real, fercripessake. She's electoral poison for any ticket, if a real discussion of the issues will benefit the Candidate at the top of that ticket. And it'll only be worse if she's the top of the ticket.

I Like Hillary and Bill a lot. I worked hard for both of their campaigns for President. They are now a polarizing force this Party cannot afford on any Presidential ticket. I'm sorry, but that's what I feel.

TC

[Sasha Undercover]

50. I'm with you on that

I think Hillary will sour any national election that she is too close too. She isn't the hands-on charismatic that Bill is. And she's just an easy target.

[Patiod]

10. I love Clark, and he can handle the media

I think the stint on Faux is helping to make him even better against our conservative MSM.

Was for him last time, and would work for him again. He's really the only one I could get behind 100% right now - have my reservations about other nominees, including Biden, Sen. Clinton, and even my boy Dr. Dean.

Although The New Yorker (of all places) did try to pull a "swiftboat" on him, publishing a misleading hate-filled piece on him by the same idiot who brought the world the horrifying details of Whitewater. Quoted mostly his political enemies at the Pentagon, who seemed a little jealous, frankly, of his ties to Albright, Holbrook and Pres. Clinton.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Yes...I remember that New Yorker "hit" piece.

I think that there were several published answers from credible sources that deconstructed the content and the author of that particular piece. Methinks that another Democrat had something to do with that specific article.....although I have no proof.

Here's are the published rebuts....
Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/#ContinueArticle

Boyer's plate
Who is New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer -- and why is he after Wesley Clark?
http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=13...

[brentspeak]

15. The second link isn't working n/t

[FrenchieCat]

21. Here ya go!

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=1383

[Patiod]

31. But here's the problem

Is Slate's readership as wide as that of The New Yorker?

The New Yorker has 4 million readers. Slate claims 5 million readers per month, but online readership is tough to measure. American Prospect has 55,000

I felt sick when I read Boyer's hack piece, which would target Clark among just those people who would be most likely to support him. I'm not a conspiracy person, but I do wonder whose idea it was, and who chose Boyer, who has a history of hacking up Democrats.

[ksclematis]

88. You're right, FrenchieCat..

You know - there isn't anyone, absolutely anyone, who has no negatives that wouldn't be maximized by an opposition. That's part of the political games that are played.

[bettyellen]

11. true, especially if we are an occupying force in '08. and we will be from

the looks of things. people would have confidence that he would be able deal with the fighting in the middle east.
no other Dem candidate has the backround to inspire confidence during a military conflict.
they got into this conflict in order to win votes, the "security mom and dad" votes that only clark can get back for us.

[brentspeak]

16. Ignore the "We can't win b/c of Diebold" posts

I'm not sure who these people are, but their goal is to make DUers simply throw up their hands and stay out of the political process.

[LittleClarkie]

94. We're DOOOOOOMED!

Rove and Diebold are just too clever for us. We might as well give up now. :nopity:

Riiiiiight. Indeed, not productive, are they.

[SteppingRazor]

19. Not a single governor? Or even a single new idea?

I mean, Clark, Hillary, and Kerry are all 2004, Part II. And you don't have a single candidate from the South with political experience.

I like Warner. Governor, so there's executive experience. From a southern state, so he can at least pick up Virginia, maybe a few others. Great education initiatives under him in VA. He's not as progressive in many other areas as I would like, but perhaps more importantly, he can win.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Warner i s certainly one of the media choice......

and I hope that he is doing well after falling off of his bike.

Glad Wes swims!

Clark also has "executive" experience.

Clark can also go and cut the Pentagon budget...cause he won't have to prove what Warner will....that he's a tough guy when it comes to National Security. That's why we did poorly in the last election....and I don't think that the GOP is about to give up on playing up their National Security advantage.

As long as Iraq goes on.....domestic policies will not be a priority...cause there ain't no money.

Can Warner win? sure.....Maybe.

[Darkamber]

25. Governers are an option we must look at as well as the South...

I know I'll be looking at Warner as well...though I'll admit that Edwards is my first choice.

[Totally Committed]

40. Both DLC...

no thanks.

TC

[ksclematis]

89. DITO......n/t

[FrenchieCat]

20. The thing about Wes Clark

is that while other candidates will be proposing wonderful sounding social and domestic programs that will be just "hooting tooting" great.....Clark will be the only one who can offer what it takes to actually fund Democratic domestic programs. Of course, I am talking about Clark having the fortitude, the "out of the box" mentality, the don't owe shit to nobody, and most importantly, the gravitas, the expertise, and the cojones to get OUR money from the Pentagon by cutting Pentagon Pork. Please understand that the media ignores his butt for a reason.

Hillary will be so busy defending herself (and so will we) until I don't think any of the programs she proposes will see the light of day in print or otherwise. Her running would make the 2008 campaign about Hillary, and not much else.

So while the others candidates are busy "proving" how strong they are on National Defense, so they "can't touch this" (pentagon budget), Clark will be able to follow in the Eisenhower warning mode of denouncing the "Military Industrial Complex" and halting the Corporate "free for all" raiding of our treasury.

Our f*cking money is over there....and Wes is the only man that can get it out! Nixon was the only one that could go to China.....Wes is the only man that can go and cut the sh*t out of the pentagon and leave Americans confident that what will be left is what will be required to keep us secure.

Clark's tough but reasonable man image could also more easily afford a woman on the ticket without making the ticket "wimpy". Put someone like a Loretta Sanchez as the VP on the ticket (a tough charismatic cookie who beat an established ass "R" white man incumbent in Orange county (GOP Bastion)in California.....and who is tough on national defense and is Hispanic WITHOUT baggage)....and we win '08 by a large margin (maybe big enough to overcome the cheatin').

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Republicans never thought someone like Clark could come along.

I posted this on another thread a couple of weeks back. I plan to expand on it and make a blog entry around the larger theme, but it fits here for discussion purposes:

Start with a metaphor. After World War One and before World War II, the French correctly identified Germany as a security threat to their nation. They decided to spare no expense in developing unassailable positions and an unbeatable defense. They were well acquainted with war, Europe and France had seen more than it's share over the prior centuries. They knew where they were vulnerable, and they knew from where the Germans would inevitably attack. Knowing all that, the French built their Maginot line. And the Germans came at them from a different direction and occupied France.

Wesley Clark comes at the Republicans from a different direction, and they are ill prepared for him. The Republicans have spent decades reinforcing their preferred image of Democrats being out of touch with the mainstream; buyers of foreign cars who wince at the sight of the American flag. They go on endlessly about how Democrats are always weak on defense while Reagan won the Cold War. They portray us as embarrassed by Religion and angry at the military. They say we're stuck in Viet Nam, that we've never gotten over being protesters who associate America with everything evil while constantly being smitten with any two bit tyrant who mouthes anti American slogans. They say we are hopelessly over our heads when it comes to foreign affairs, and that America can't afford to trust our future to a Party that is more concerned with bilingual education than it is in protecting our citizens from attack, and so on and so on. They are wrong but they don't care. It works for them.

The Republicans never in their wildest nightmares expected the Democrats to ever come up with a candidate like Wesley Clark. He demolishes the Republican myths about Democrats, and makes Republicans look mean and petty in the process. Clark trumps the pro military card those chicken hawks so love to play. He takes the Viet Nam divisions off the table, with his distinguished military service both in and after Viet Nam, and with George McGovern backing him. Clark can match the most righteous right wing Christian proverb for proverb, but he beats them with Christ's own message. Clark isn't who the Republicans have trained to fight against. He takes many of their best weapons right out of their hands and turns them back against them.

[sidwill]

41. Great post

You hit the nail on the head Clark gives us the meat and potatoes that we need from an idealogical standpoint while projecting an image that the Rethugs will have a hard time sullying.

At this point he is the perfect candidate, but will Democrats be smart enough to embrace him?

I hope the answer is yes.

[Nay]

57. Totally agree. That's why Clark was my first pick, also.

I hope he has learned that hardball is the only game to play during 2008. If he can shove back harder than he is shoved, he will get a lot of respect from everybody.

[Totally Committed]

58. O U T S T A N D I N G ! ! !

Tom, you rock!

:yourock:

TC

[ksclematis]

90. Right on, Tom.....

Thanks for a great post.....

[1932]

103. But what have Democrats spent decades trying to say about themselves?

I'm not so worried about not being what a Republicans says as I am being what I say I am.

[truebrit71]

32. Absolutely agree.

Plus, he can appeal to the swing voters and the dis-enfranchised moderate rethuglicans (yes, some do actually still exist) because he is NOT a part of the Democratic "machine"....

I supported him the last time, and I will again this time.

If Kerry/Biden/Clinton get the nod, the republicans will win it in a walk...

[lojasmo]

38. We need to take congress in 2006

Or it won't matter who we run in 2008.

[Auntie Bush]

43. You won't get an argument from me! I agree with you 100% plus the

fact that he would also get a lot of the Southern votes as he is very moral and religious. (For those that don't know...He was raised as a Southern Baptist, converted to Catholicism and then back to some Protestant religion...possibly Methodist. As an adult he found out his Grandfather was Jewish. (Maybe someone has more accurate information.) Anyway a lot of religious folk can identify with him.
I KNOW HE'S A WINNER! WE DEMS JUST HAVE TO GIVE HIM THE CHANCE!

[ksclematis]

91. Not Methodist....

He says he now attends the Second Presbyterian Church in L.R. He could go toe to toe with any of the religous right....verse by verse...

[OneBlueSky]

44. not necessarily true, but we DO need someone who . . .

is NOT a senator or a member of Congress . . . the last sitting senator to win the presidency was JFK, and before him you'd have to go back decades . . . voters' opinion of Congress is even lower than their opinion of Bush . . . and that's saying something . . .

[SteppingRazor]

45. Also, we are close to a Dem majority in the Senate...

which means incumbent Democratic senators should stay right where they are. That leaves Clark or one of the governors, Richardson or Warner.
I'd like Warner/Clark or Clark/Richardson or even Warner/Richardson, for that matter.

[OneBlueSky]

68. or maybe Paul Newman? . . .

(sigh) . . . just an ongoing fantasy of mine . . .

[laugle]

47. Great statment, get ready for the

HEAT!!!!! recommended!

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Clark has a huge problem to overcome

The political far left. Quiite possibly much harder thing for him to overcome than the electorate at large.

[Totally Committed]

52. I agree hubby...

The far Left is going to be far more problematic than the far Right for General Clark.

TC

[Adelante]

62. That's a Democratic Party problem

The far left, the extreme far left, (as does the extreme far right), has its agenda first and last. They came along for 2004, but I don't see it happening again, no matter who the Dem nominee is. You are right that this segment of the voting public will never go for Clark and that was always true. I don't think they're going for the Dems anymore, at all. Clark's natural constituency is the liberal and progressive left, that which is not extremely anti-military, combined with the Democratic center, and then expanded by moderate Republicans, Reagan Democrats and Independents. He will be fortunate if new or reclaimed Dem voters push him into the nomination. If he reaches the GE, I think he's got it. But the far left? Forget it.

[chaska]

65. I disagree. We are the far left, as far as numbers are concerned.

Anyone to the left of DU is inconsequential. Most of the far left loves Clark.

I assume we're talking DK supporters. I saw many of them here supporting Clark second only to DK.

[Stinky The Clown]

69. Chaska, I honestly wasn't talking about any

particular candidate's supporters.

And I like your definition of the far left! That's a real interesting perspective. And now that I think about it (I had *never* thought about it this way before) it makes perfect sense ........ DU *is* the far left and anyone left of DU is in outer space. :)

On DK, specifically, I can't speak for anyone but me. I always admired him and find him to be an honorable man who has some great ideas. Interestingly, I seem to recall he and Clark had some fairly similar postures on several issues. The big difference was on an Iraq exit strategy. Again, speaking only for me .... I kinda between the two of them.

I also think Clark could appeal to many DK supporters ... not all, to be sure ... but some.

[CarolNYC]

74. Hey chaska

Glad to hear it. I'm a Clark supporter who really likes Dennis too. I got his video postcard emails all through the campaign. He's a good guy. :)

[liberaliraqvet26]

97. screw the far left...

clark is our best, most winnable and most credible canidate

[Az_lefty]

49. Forget Hillary, too many skeletons in her closet...

Clark / Boxer is the ticket!
:cheers:

[Sasha Undercover]

51. Ok, I'm the dopey newbie

who's gonna disagree with everybody. Personally I don't favor Clark. Too many years in the military and folks end up being unable to see the forest. And Clark is too close to a DLC guy to me.

That said, I'll support anybody I think can whip the Bad Guys, and I don't think that Clark fills that bill. Most importantly, he just isn't charismatic. And folks want to love the Prez, trust him so they really don't have to think about much. Clark is much more of an intellectual's candidate.

Edwards for Veep? He's too constrained, to pat. Cheney was a great mad dog candidate. In truth if I didn't want Dean right where he is, he'd make a kick-ass Veep candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. You are being upfront, Cool.

I had to warm up to Clark initially also since I have been an anti war protester all my life dating back to the surround the Pentagon march on Washington in 1967. One thing I will day without hesitation, Clark is NOT a "don't see the forest" kind of guy. He is all about seeing the big picture. Clark has Masters in Economics, Political Studies, and Philosophy from Oxford, having gone there as a Rhodes Scholar. Please do some reading on him when you get a chance. I understand that possible Presidential candidates for 2008 isn't a high priority on everybody's list.

[Sasha Undercover]

55. Thanks.

Oh, I'd support Clark enthusiastically if he got the nomination. I've read. I've met him. And I think he's sorta cool. I'm not as negative about him as I think I sounded. But he still doesn't have the charisma.

Today my candidate for 2008 is Bill Richardson, btw. Of course these things change :) If I had to rank them, Clark would be about number three.

And 2008 ought to be a priority. It will creep up real fast.

[knight_of_the_star]

73. He has a different kind of charisma

Not the table-thumping roof-raising quality you get in Dean, more like the respected elder, he just has this sort of quality that you WANT to listen to him and you WANT to believe him, sort of like a small child and their grandparents.

[Totally Committed]

56. Welcome to DU, Sasha...

"Too many years in the military." This has made him more anti-war than many of the other candidates were. He's been there and seen the horrors.

"... too close to a DLC guy to me." This just tells me you haven't read any of his issue stances. He proposed the most progressive and sweeping change to the tax system in 40 years. Universal health care for all kids to the ahe of 21. Universal kindergarten for all children. The continuation of Affirmative Action. --- Doesn't sound very DLC to me.

With all due respect I do believe you are wrong on both counts. But, it's nice to have you aboard, anyway. At least you were right up front about where you stand.

TC

[Sasha Undercover]

59. Thanks for the welcome

Up front is my middle name.

And. I think of Bill Clinton as right wing, so my scale might be a tiny bit skewed :)

[LittleClarkie]

60. For those who might be confused

When the various supporters post Dean, Kerry, Clinton or Clark news, that's just what it is, news reporting. We are not necessarily pushing the dude/dudette for 2008. We're just rather Dean, Kerry, Clinton, or Clark-centric in our attention, is all.

On the other hand, this is what a "pushing your candidate for 2008" thread looks like. I can see where they might get annoying if they're not based on something that is going on with said candidate.

Just thought I'd point out the difference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. Oh , I agree with you. This is someones commentary, not news

Haven't started one of these about a possible candidate personally since the primaries. But mostly because I know they sometimes cause resentment. I don't mind when anyone starts one of these actually, regardless of who it is for. It is silly to pretend that people aren't thinking about this already. The potential candidates certainly are thinking about it. Funders are too, and so are potential staff people for campaigns, the media, and on and on.

I do think news updates are generally more valuable though at this stage. And I will now add the conventional disclaimer: I personally am actively involved in local politics Now, and hope others are too. Just was at a Press Conference today as a matter of fact. Speculation and even some advocacy regarding 2008 is fine with me, but not at the expense of being active now in issues that count now and building the party now.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Indeed, but while these don't have an expiration date

and can be posted anytime, the news is time dated.

So when someone says "Wait until 2007 to post this crap" it's useful to realize that news needs to be reported when it's happening.

Petitions and action alerts for instance. I'm not waiting until 2007 to post about a petition that's happening now. Calling your Senator in two years about something that's happening now doesn't cut it, you know?

I don't particularly like looking at any of the potential candidates through the "he/she's running in 2008" lens. It's distorting, and makes it look like everything they do and say is for that goal. That's not constructive alot of the time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Good and useful comments. No disagreement here n/t

[Cha]

61. So why do you have a

Kerry/Edwards avatar if you don't think much of Kerry?

Just askin'.

I like Clark from what I've seen but I kinda agree with LynneSin..why are we freakin' worryin' about 2008 now when our collective energy could go to the DSM and 2006?

[Guaranteed]

63. It's Gore/Clark or Clark/Gore.

That's the horse. I'm dead sure of it.

[Uncle Joe]

105. I agree, Gore/Clark

Clark has many strong points but in my humble opinion, no one is better qualified to be President than Al Gore. On top of this Al Gore has done more for us than any other single political leader of our current crop.

[GR]

70. Clark Is An Obvious Political Novice And It Shows In His Appearances

He has to get tough with people like O'Reilly and doesn't seem to be able to. He just isn't experienced enough, but I like him and his ideas but the republican noise machine will make mincemeat out of him...

Now he could learn over the next years but right now...no way he could be successful...in my opion...

I agree Biden is a tool...forget him...

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. You can't base that statement on a "non political" consultant role

Clark is on Fox as a "national security " consultant. In other words as an expert, not as a partisan. Of course the two roles mingle, can't help but, but Clark and O'Reilly each aren't able to go for the throat the way they might want to. By O'Reilly standards, he was being restrained with Clark. For example Clark got time to make some points that O'Reilly fully disagreed with, for example regarding the role of the media in forcing government to deal with a problem (O'Reilly was claiming the NY Times was undermining the war effort). In the other direction Clark couldn't simply call O'Reilly out.

The point is that Clark is not a one shot deal dragged in to be a designated spokesperson for Democrats on some matter. He gets to continually appear and build a case while establishing a rapport with FOX viewers. In return for that he can't be as in your face when he is on. O'Reilly is always in your face so of course he was more so than Clark, but I could see O'Reilly having to hold back and let Clark make his points.

[Totally Committed]

98. While I agree with you about Biden....

I disagree with you about Clark. I feel his appearances in the "enemy territory" of FOX News have been really good, considering the "home court advantage" of the disingenuous bloviators he goes up against while he's there. They design the format for their shows, and my guess is those formats are designed to give them the upper-hand at all times. In that context, Wes does an amazing job.

I feel he is doing something extremely courageous with his appearances on FOX. And, one has to marvel, since it is so very rare, when one sees courage of any kind shown in this Party. I appreaciate it whenever and whereever I see it. Makes me feel that no all Democrats are cow-towing to the Special Interests that back them instead of us "little guys".

TC

[prvet]

72. This Veteran

Stands with Clark

[Tinksrival]

77. Same here

This once army wife and her retired Army husband also stand with Wes.

[ClarkUSA]

85. Welcome To DU, prvet and Tinksrival

Nice to see you both here.

:patriot:

[Auntie Bush]

99. Glad to see you here Prvet and Tink...especially since you're Military.

We very much appreciate the opinion of someone in the Military.
Welcome aboard! :hi: You'll have a lot of friends here!
I hope you post often.

[Placebo]

79. Hillary '08

:patriot:

[Hippo_Tron]

83. Russ Feingold '08

But yea, Clark is up there on my list.

[d_b]

93. I was just thinking the same thing earlier.

Clark/Clinton. I think that's a sure winner.

[roguevalley]

95. Clark isn't a suit, like the Governors mentioned. He isn't someone

who stands there giving platitudes. He says what he believes and says it intelligently. He said he's a liberal when everyone else was dodging that bullet. He's smart, not 'too southern but still southern' if you get what I mean and he's got the skills. He's a good man, a man I will support as a delegate and work for. Period. None of the others, not the light weight governors or the old war horses move me to do that. None of them.

[rfkrfk]

96. non-Senator Clark has an important advantage

Let's face reality,
a Presidential candidate, that has
gone thru life as a non-Senator, is seen as a
big plus to a lot of other non-Senators.

[hnsez]

100. I campaigned for Kerry, Never again 4 him or Hillary, Clark, YES!

w00t post 100 in this thread!!!!!

[VOX]

101. If Wes is the '08 candidate, I'll back him 100%. But 2006 is first up...

IMO, energies should be focused on winning back the Senate -- those races are next year, and can shape a lot of what 2008 will look like.

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. Yes. This is from a Clark letter I just received:

"You and I know that the Democratic Party is the right party to address our nation's security challenges and lead America forward. Our job is to make sure that all of the voters know it as well.

That's why I'm excited to announce the re-launch of WesPAC's grassroots outreach program -- the network of supporters like you across the country who drafted me into the race for President, who sustained my campaign in all 50 states, and who are going to be on the frontlines of the effort to elect Democrats to Congress and state houses across America in 2006.

You'll be hearing much more about our grassroots mobilization effort in the coming weeks. Suffice it to say, we're going to be a force to be reckoned with in the 2006 elections. We're going to work hard to support good Democratic candidates in important races across America."

I'm not including the whole letter because part of it is an appeal for donations to support the work, and I didn't want to dilute the news element of what Clark is saying here. He understands the importance of 2006 and will be pushing people who have supported him in the past to be involved in the 2006 Elections.

If anyone DOES want to support WesPAC, or wants info on what it is up to or wold like to be on the mailing list, here's the URL:
http://www.securingamerica.com/

[Totally Committed]

106. I got mine, too...

This Part is really exciting!:

"You and I know that the Democratic Party is the right party to address our nation's security challenges and lead America forward. Our job is to make sure that all of the voters know it as well.

That's why I'm excited to announce the re-launch of WesPAC's grassroots outreach program -- the network of supporters like you across the country who drafted me into the race for President, who sustained my campaign in all 50 states, and who are going to be on the frontlines of the effort to elect Democrats to Congress and state houses across America in 2006.

You'll be hearing much more about our grassroots mobilization effort in the coming weeks. Suffice it to say, we're going to be a force to be reckoned with in the 2006 elections. We're going to work hard to support good Democratic candidates in important races across America."

He can count me in. Leave it to Wes to get on the 2006 elections with a "grassroots outreach program"!

TC