Who is DU's favorite Democrat?

[Lefty48197]

I know everybody has their favorite politicians. Some of us may like a certain politician, while others like to trash that same person.
A year ago, I would have predicted that Howard Dean was the choice of the plurality of DUers. Today, I'm not so sure. Dean's support is as strong as ever, and he's even won some converts, including myself.
One person who may have leap-frogged into the lead as DU's favorite Democrat, is Detroit's own John Conyers. After, he held his hearings on the Downing Street Memo, it seems like a whole bunch of DU'ers now display his avatar.
I had the pleasure of meeting Congressman Conyers during the 2000 Presidential campaign. He was a hero of mine then, and he's even more of a hero to me today.
Is Conyers your favorite Democrat? Dean? Kucinich? Who?

[Garfield Goose]

1. Wesley Clark! eom.

[glarius]

9. I second it for Clark....he is not only knowledgeable about worldly

affairs.....HE WAS AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR....I think he would have been elected if he was the Dem. candidate....He didn't have the baggage of Kerry who had voted to give Bush the power to go to war, etc....As a foreigner I'm only offering my opinion....:)

[genius]

33. Dennis is the only candidate I'm voting for in 2008 Pres race.

[LittleClarkie]

54. What if he doesn't run?

Then what?

[Adelante]

107. He'll still be our favorite Democrat

He doesn't have to run in 2008 at all. He'll still be out there doing the good work he is doing for the party and the country and the world.

That's what makes him a leader, LC, and not a politician. He doesn't have to be elected to anything. We're still his grassroots supporters on WesPac and various other Clark supporter sites and groups in the real world. We believe in his vision and support his issues, because they match our own above all other Democrats.

If he runs in '08, we're behind him. If he doesn't run in '08, we're still behind him.

But I know you get that ;)

[Adelante]

109. Gee, sorry

I got your response to a Kucinich post confused.

Still, true though, what I said about Clark's support :)

We will support the nominee, as will Clark, because we're good Democrats.

Edit: Ooops, I'm rushing like crazy.

[madeline_con]

79. Clark!

:kick:

[bribri16]

95. Ramsey Clark!! n/t

[GeorgeBushytail]

101. Clark - not afraid to call himself a liberal

[cyn2]

205. Me too eom

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Dean and Conyers

are at the top of my list.

[DIKB]

Tack on Kucinich to that list

I gladly support all 3 of these men.

[ihelpu2see]

19. Dean and Conyers Diddo nt

[Hatalles]

213. Yes. These two plus Boxer and Kucinich.

[FogerRox]

3. Howard Dean and Anne Wolfe-- whos running in NJs 5th CD

[mconvente]

8. Hey - I live in NJ's 5th!

From Midland Park. I voted for Wolfe and will vote for her again in 2006. I've met her and she's great!

[FogerRox]

31. Anne got us into meet with GOv Codeys cheif of staff

to talk about election reform

ANNE ROX !!

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. Kerry

(And five, four, three, two....)

[globalvillage]

6. Kerry

Without a doubt.

[MH1]

17. John Kerry

Absolutely.

[whometense]

53. Kerry.

No question. He's our duly elected president.

[DemInDistress]

77. So was Al Gore..

[Uncle Joe]

114. First choice is Al second is Gore third is Junior!!

As I see it Al Gore Jr. has done more for our democracy and the planet than anyone. The mere fact that we are debating this on the technology that he championed and was subsequently trashed for by the media speaks volumes and I am just scratching the surface here.

P.S. He also was one of the first to oppose the war in Iraq, and continues to fight to save the planet from global warming.

[lynch03]

83. deleted - nm

deleted

[txindy]

185. John Kerry

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:patriot:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. A foreigner's opinion: Barbara Boxer. (nt)

[Der Blaue Engel]

14. Oh, yes! Barbara too! :) n/t

[tinfoilinfor2005]

52. Third for Boxer! n/t

[Norwood]

7. Dean, Conyers, and Boxer

Can't chose one out of the three. Each of them has done so much for the party by not backing down to the repuke machine.

[calimary]

72. Hmmm... that'd work for me. Plus Henry Waxman if I were to add a fourth.

Good choices.

[Beaverhausen]

133. Yes, can't leave him out

he is out there on the front lines all the time!

[Clark2008]

10. Wesley Clark

Wins every poll.

[ginnyinWI]

11. John Kerry, duly elected President.

(three, two, one....)

[whometense]

56. Hahaha.

I used the exact same words, before I saw your post. Hi, sister!

[ginnyinWI]

78. It's happened before,

and will happen again, I expect! Heehee. :pals:

[Tigress DEM]

225. I was just thinking what a different world it would be today if...

Ken Blackwell hadn't soiled himself all over Ohio and frauded us out of 20 electoral votes and an actual tally of the vote in Ohio.

It struck me that when I look at Kerry I see a kindness and a resolve that meant to me he would have really been a great President FOR the People and with an actual military background he probably would have been asking serious questions and getting real solid answers about how to successfully deal with 9/11 issues.

[MadisonProgressive]

12. OK, this is my idea

President: Al Gore
Vice pres: John Conyers
Sec State: Howard Dean
Sec Defen: John Kerry

BWAHAHAHAHHA!!!!

[Lecky]

21. Sounds like a republican nightmare

I love it!

[Tigress DEM]

226. How bout a realistic 2008?

President: Hillary Clinton
Vice pres: John Conyers
Sec State: Barbara Boxer
Sec Defen: John Kerry
EPA Chief: Dennis Kunnich
FDA Chief: Howard Dean
UN Ambassador: Jimmy Carter
Attorney General: General Wesley Clark




oops almost forgot clark

[welshTerrier2]

13. sorry but this is a waste of time ...

there are lots of good Democrats ...

frankly, i think our time would be better spent talking about what issues are important to us ... if we want to extend the discussion to which Democrats have fought most effectively for those issues, that's a different story ...

the base question makes it sound like a popularity contest ...

just my two cents ...

[FreedomAngel82]

39. Uh you do know

that you can ignore post's right? I don't go to everyone. This one is just fun. :eyes:

[enough already]

15. Conyers

Everyone else is a distant second.

[jillan]

16. this is hard - Kerry #1 but I also love Boxer, Dean, Schumer, Reid,

Conyers!!!!!, Durbin-even tho I wish he didn't apologize, Clark! Leahy, and Biden.

But one thing is for sure,

I STILL believe in Kerry

[Island Blue]

18. John Kerry without a doubt! (nt)

[Lecky]

20. Clark, Conyers, Dean

I have too many honorable mentions to mention.

[pinkflower21]

22. John Kerry

Shadow president!

[Dr Fate]

23. Conyers, Boxer, Kerry, Clark, Skinner (AKA The Old Bossman)

n/t

[whodiedandmadeUSgod]

24. Edwards!

n/t

[laureloak]

34. Edwards has my vote.

[ChiciB1]

43. Edwards! Edwards! Edwards!!!

Conyers is doing some "hard" work for us, a wonderful dedicated patriotic person. Someone who has gone the extra mile for sure. But if we're thinking '08... no doubt EDWARDS!!!

[spooky3]

93. Edwards, followed by Dean, Boxer, Conyers, Reid, Obama, Spitzer,

Schumer, Kennedy, Jim Moran, Bill Clinton (not in any particular order)

[scarlett1]

190. I supported Edwards in '04

and I still support him.

[newsguyatl]

25. Dean,

Dean, and Dean

[graywarrior]

26. Great question! Kerry, for what he is doing now.

Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
Barbara Boxer
John Conyers
Dennis Kucinich

[Cha]

27. Dean is my favorite after

all these years. But, I love all of them who are out there working hard for us.

The only ones I can't stand are the pandering dinos and they know who they are.

[Lefty48197]

35. You must mean the Marshmallow-crats

.

[MrSlayer]

28. General Wesley Clark.

He's quite popular around here.

[rman]

87. Is he still General?

-

[Totally Committed]

88. Yes... still "General" Clark...

He is retired at that rank, so his title remains "General".

Thanks for asking.

TC

[scarlett1]

189. Even Presidents are still called General

I just got back from Tennesse and I even went to The Hermitage and it was never President Andrew Jackson it was always General Andrew Jackson

[liberalfriend]

29. I like Dean

Yet I wish there were more people like Wesley Clark out there. This guy has the credentials that Dean could only wish for. Frankly I think a Clark/Dean (in that order) team up would probably have a very impressive show. Clark has the presidential look that unfortunately don't think Dean could ever possess. However I will say that I have never seen Dean speak in person so I don't really know how well he handles a crowd. I just feel that Clark has the "image" that can convey our message to the public in the most productive way.

[frictionlessO]

30. Conyers, Boxer, Slaughter though the order changes those have been mine

for a while.

[Eloriel]

32. Dean, Dean, Dean, Conyers, Waters, McKinney

Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean. :evilgrin:

And oh yeah, Dean.

[Lefty48197]

36. I'm going to add Pelosi to the list. She likes to kick butt.

I like that in a Democrat.

[Cha]

37. That's an Awesome Quality in

a Democrat!

[FreedomAngel82]

38. Without a doubt...

John Kerry! Although I like a lot of others too like Dean, Conyers, Clinton (Hillary and Bill), Gore, Edwards, Boxer, McKinney. Can't forget Pelosi and Reid. Oh and Russ Feingold (the only one to vote against the Patriot Act!).

[Totally Committed]

40. Wesley Clark...

followed by:

Mario Cuomo
Barbara Boxer
John Conyers
Howard Dean
Dennis Kusinich
Ted Kennedy
Robert Kennedy, Jr.

and any other Democrat who breaks the current mold by showing any guts at all.

TC

[Sparkly]

71. I'm with you, TC

I'd only add Maxine Waters, Max Cleland, and Charlie Rangel.

[Totally Committed]

89. Three that were definitely omissions on my list!

I love all three and would proudly add them to mine!

(Charlie Rangel is like a twinkly teddy bear! I love that guy!)

I'm sorry I forgot them... and I know there are a lot more I forgot, too. Thanks for the reminder!

TC

On edit: Barney Frank and Russ Feingold!

[Cats Against Frist]

Mario Cuomo -- No. 1

He's straight brilliant, articulate and pervasive. He's definitely my favorite (after Thomas Jefferson, of course).

[paineinthearse]

41. Call me old-fashioned: Franklin Roosevelt & John Kennedy

One set the social agenda and brought us through WW2. The other had vision for a new generation.

[Hippo_Tron]

143. Those two are on my top 5

Kennedy or Roosevelt would kick any modern day Republican's ass in a national election.

[ksclematis]

160. It's a new generation

Wesley Clark will get us thru the Iraq war and he will bring us into a new generation of patriots and truthtalkers.

He's my first and only first choice, but if he decides not to run, I'll still support him in his efforts and the Demo choice if it's not Edwards.

Clark has it all!!!

[PassingFair]

42. Total Deaniac here... n/t

[chieftain]

44. I love Charley Rangel. No one gets the better of him in

a debate. He reminds me of old fashioned Democratic congressmen.

[Literate Tar Heel]

45. no mention of Barack Obama?

I'm still tingling from his DNC speech

[sleipnir]

60. But that's about all he's given us.

I've been quite disappointed with Mr. Obama, but I guess he's just a freshman, so we'll have to wait a couple years.

I, too, have a tingle run down my spine each time I think of that night and that power in his voice.

Hopefully, we'll get more of it soon, but I'm worried he may not turn out to be the savior everyone is looking for.

[ScamUSA.Com]

136. hes going to be a force!

[Nimble_Idea]

46. John Kerry

He's da man.

[Mass]

47. First my two senators: Kerry and Kennedy

but also Conyers, Clark, and Boxer, and Dorgan.

[KeepItReal]

48. Dean, Conyers, Boxer, Waters, Jackson-Lee, Gore, Clinton (the President)

:-)

[dajoki]

49. i still like dean

:woohoo:

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

50. Wes Clark first, among others

I like so many. Harry Reid, John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, Clintons, Boxer...

so many good ones it is hard to pick and/or name them all.

:toast:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

51. Paul Wellstone..........BARBARA BOXER & CONYERS & KUCINICH

[Hippo_Tron]

61. I concur with your vote for Wellstone

[LittleClarkie]

55. Kerry

Gee, what a surprise. :)

[pstans]

57. Dean got me into politics

So he'd get my vote.

Russ Feingold-always stands on principle
Barak Obama-best speech I have ever heard
Al Gore-keeps on fighting for the environment

[elshiva]

58. Dean/Kucinich/Kerry/Boxer

BARBARA JORDAN

[Fabio]

59. Kerry

[Hippo_Tron]

62. Russ Feingold

[Telly Savalas]

63. I'm a big fan of our 44th president also.

[Chicago Democrat]

217. I'm a Russ Fan and joined his PAC

Love my senator to the liberal north!



HEY WISCONSIN! Love you so so much!

[Zen Democrat]

64. Conyers -- by a mile.

[PurityOfEssence]

65. Edwards, Stark, Schakowsky, Frank, Durbin, Kucinich, Feingold, Boxer,

Kennedy, Kerry, Dorgan, Reid, Lee, and oh so many more.

[zinndependence]

66. Russ Feingold

[lojasmo]

67. Our party chair: Gov. Howard Dean!

[Elwood P Dowd]

68. Byron Dorgan and Marcy Kaptur

Since all the big names have been mentioned numerous times, what about a couple of ole' Dems who have been fighting outsourcing, corporate trade scams, and working to keep American jobs? While I live in the South far away from South Dakota or Ohio, I've always been impressed with these two with their honesty and consistent support for working people. They are TRUE Democrats in my opinion.

[Qanisqineq]

163. Dorgan is North Dakota

not South Dakota
:hi:

Edit: and he's a favorite of mine, too. But I might be biased since I'm originally from N. Dakota :P

[Raiden]

69. Dean, Clark, Conyers, Boxer, Tubbs Jones, Feingold

Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Loretta Sanchez, Ann Richards, Ted Kennedy, Jan Schakowsky, Mark Warner, John Edwards, Neil Abercrombie and Robert Byrd

[WhiteTara]

70. Dean Conyers and Waxman

Barbara Boxer is coming along, she has been pulling back from the right

[kerrygoddess]

73. Kerry! Kerry! Kerry!

enough said

[ohtransplant]

74. Has to be Kerry

I like all the names mentioned here too but the more I learn about Kerry, the better I admire, like and respect the guy. The more I watch him, the more I'd be honored to have him as President. I won't go on so as not to start the 2008 primaries right here.

Just my two cents...

Peace.

[AnnitaR]

75. Conyers & Boxer!

They give me hope.

[kansasblue]

76. Kennedy is cool as the years go by

And Boxer! Conyers! Dean speaks for me!

[IndianaGreen]

80. Dennis Kucinich

Hands down, he is still the best!

[darkism]

81. CLARK, Conyers, Boxer

[ticapnews]

82. Wes Clark.

I can't wait for New Hampshire, 2007... :)

[lynch03]

84. LIEBERMAN HANDS DOWN

Im just joking, I like DEAN, as do I like Kerry, but Kerry sucks as a politician - see election 2004-

[Skidmore]

85. Dean, Conyers, Boxer, & Byrd

[baron j]

86. Conyers and Boxer: Heart, Mind, and Spine--something attractive in those

qualities!

[TayTay]

90. Well, Kerry, Boxer, Kennedy, Conyers, Durbin

Obama, Sarbanes, Barney Frank, Marty Meehan, Ed Markey, and anyone who beats that POS Mitt Romney.

I like them all. And many others who I haven't named yet because it's early in the monring and my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

[Don1]

91. Progressives

I like the people who are both socially and economically progressive. Examples are Kucinich, Conyers, and Boxer. Actually, anyone in the Congressional Progressive Caucus is awesome. I also like those outside the Democratic party espousing the same values. Examples are Nader, Cobb, and Sanders.

Overall, my favorites may be Conyers and Nader right now, because of their willingness to stick it to the Man and their way of refusing to water down the message to the point of centrism.

[fujiyama]

92. There are certain things I like about many Dems

For example, I like the fact that Kucinich voted against a cost of living "adgusement" (basically an increase in pay for congresspeople). That shows a rarity among those in politics - actually voting against something in their own personal interests.

In that same way I appreciate how Kerry and Edwards voted against the tax cuts (though it would have benefited them personally).

I like Feingold's principle. He sticks by them, even in cases where it's frustrating (like when he voted for some of Bush's cabinet members like Rice).

I like Dean's outspokeness and his complete disregard for what the pukes think. It's a relief from the usual careful, cautious style of many others. I like Conyers and Boxer in a similar way - willing to touch topics most won't.

And last, but not least, I must give an honrable mention to my own senator - Carl Levin. There are times when he pisses me off but most of the time he gets it right.

[JaneQPublic]

94. Dean, but also like Boxer, Conyers, and Feingold (nt)

[MN ChimpH8R]

96. several

Conyers - for his unflinching courage
Boxer - for consistently standing up for principle
Dean - for his combativeness, willingness to call a skunk a skunk when he sees one and dedication to party-building
Clark - for the extraordinary breadth of his knowledge and experience
Kucinich - see Boxer and Conyers
Ted Kennedy - just for being Ted Kennedy all these years

[1932]

97. Anyone who is or is perceived to be anti-war. DU'ers don't care so much

about Democrats who are perceived to be pro-middle class and pro-working class.

War is the litmus test.

[LandOLincoln]

100. Speak for yourself. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know.

Also, please define "anti-war."

[1932]

103. Conyers, Dean, Boxer are all listed above.

Why? Because people are big fans of Conyers's anual request for funding for a reparations study?

Nope. Way more DU'ers are against reparations, and nobody liked him BEFORE he made comments about Iraq.

Clark has a lot of praise for the military and military solutions where they're appropriate, but in order to conform to the mood at DU, that part of Clark's persona is actively and studiously downplayed. He is characterized as being anti-war. I suspect that the people who participate in that are either consciously or unconsciously adapting themselves to what they see as the predominant direction the wind blows here.

[FrenchieCat]

115. I think you are underestimating DU members, and overestimating yourself...

methinks.

you said I suspect that the people who participate in that are either consciously or unconsciously adapting themselves to what they see as the predominant direction the wind blows here.....like who are you to make such judgment on others?

you said Clark has a lot of praise for the military and military solutions where they're appropriate ....doh, yeah, and? (hint, operative word is appropriate). :eyes:

you continue on this nonsensical analysis....but in order to conform to the mood at DU, that part of Clark's persona is actively and studiously downplayed :wtf: Clark's persona as that of an intellectual diplomatic General who loves his country and wants it to be the best that it can be and sees war as being what one decides when it's the last, last resort and believes in dissent is not underplayed. Where have you been?

nobody liked him BEFORE he made comments about Iraq.
Like you know anything. Plu-eaze....do we have to be subjected to this shit?

[1932]

134. I read your and TC's posts...

...and I read Waging Modern War and I think your two posts prove the point I'm trying to make.

The entire thesis of Waging Modern War is that there's a way to wage modern war. The last page (which I quoted in another thread) says that there will be moments when we send our men and women into dangerous situations overseas to protect American values, and that's OK.

Clark is critical of the post-military stage of what America is doing in Iraq, yes. But Wesley Clark is definitely not anti-war. If he were, then he would have written a book that's very different from Waging Modern War, and he definitely would have given it a different title.

Incidentally, the operative word is "appropriate." Clark has written two books explaining when he thinks war is appropriate and an honest deabate about Clark would be about whether people agree with where Clark draws that line.

[Totally Committed]

138. Where have I "studiously downplayed" anything

about Clark's "persona"? You make these statements -- lob them out there like little grenades -- and when you are called on them... nada. Silence. The goalpost is moved again.

I am someone who supports Wes Clark to the hilt. I post answers to posts, and that means that sometimes, they are about one thing, and then, another time, about another thing. To "studiously" do anything about Wes would be impossible for me. Why? Because my support for him is not just ideological, it is emotional, as well. I don't just feel he should be POTUS because of one thing or another, I feel it deeply. I would have to be far more dispassionate about him to post anything "studiously" about him. And, about Wes, I am too proud to "downplay" anything about him, as well. He's a good and decent person who believes many, many, many of the same things I do.

I think it's sweet you've read his books. You are trying desperately to get any of us to discuss them with you. But, if we did, and a thread ended up being totally about Wes's books, we would then be accused of taking the place over. I feel that those who would like to read Wes's books, should. They are extraordinary oppotunities to get to know him, his intellect, his character... but remember, they about one subject -- the one he was hired by the publisher to write about. When he wrote these books, he was the newly-retired four-star General, who had been SACEUR of NATO. He had not yet run for POTUS. They wanted books about war, foreign policy, and things military. I daresay, today, they would want a different book, and they would certainly get one!

So, go on, knock yourself out baiting us, and then moving the goalpost when you get an answer. We'll never be able to satisfy you.

I support Wes Clark. Every aspect of his personality and character are exemplary. I don't have to pick and choose what to say about him anywhere.... never have, and never will. I am proud to support him.

TC

[1932]

141. When have I avoided an issue I raised?

I beleive F. posted something like "chirp" or "crickets" under a post that had been deleted before I read it.

I can't imagine that you object to my lack of the magical power to respond to posts I never read.

And when have I moved the goalpost? Even you admit that nobody is willing to respond to my posts about what's in those books. How can I move goal posts when nobody is replying (for fear of taking over the place?!?).

It's not that I want to get into long discussions about Clark's books so much as I think it's interesting that much of what is posted in support of Clark seems at odds with the way Clark defines himself in his books.I think it'd be interesting to see people build arguments around what's written in those books rather than bristle at thought that Clark might actually prefer military solutions where many Democrats might not.

Incidentally, that's an interesting spin you have on the content of the books: they don't reflect what Clark really thinks because he was just a hired gun or pen.

Even in the unlikely event that that were true about the first book, it's definitely not the case with the second book, and the two books are very consistent in their arguments.

[FrenchieCat]

147. You're just talking....again!

My deleted post was referring you back to another thread where you never answered my question....in where I gave you pages numbers and quotes refuting your "unquoted" assessment of "what Wes Clark thinks"...like you know. :eyes:

You are now playing with words and context....which is OK, but it's very apparent. Clark wrote a couple of books about military matters....AND IT IS YOU...who wants to conclude that is the total sum of his parts. That makes you ill informed...and really only says that Wes Clark is someone who knows about the military, and the best method in which it should be utilized when, and if at all.

Plus, I am not yet convinced that you have actually read his books...based on what you write. Possibly, you've skimmed them at the bookstore to come up with your pre-conceved notion of "What Wes Clark thinks"....but I don't believe that you actually "get" it.

You seem to want to insinuate that Wes Clark thinks "Differently" when it comes to military matters...than other Democrats. Please provide additional information on this thin thesis.

I will agree that Wes Clark is different from other Democrat and Republican "elected officials". He's a man who has seen, planned and led others into combat. He has seen combat up close, and has been hit with those bullets that others only see in the movies. He has seen what war does to those who are affected by it. He understands the total devastation of war and the rewards of the intelligent use of force when it is required. He advocated for something to be done in Rhwanda and Kosovo.....when many others did'nt give a fuck. There are not many, if any men left in our congress that have had the experiences that Wes Clark has had. So yes, he is, in many ways different from others...Democrats and Republicans alike. He is no chickenhawk...that's true. That's one of the reasons that I support him....cause he knows what in the F*ck he's talking about.

Next.....

[1932]

162. Why do you think I only skimmed them at the bookstore?

You don't pick up the details I've mentioned from skimming in the bookstore -- like, the worst criticism of Rumsfield comes in a passage where he doesn't mention him by name and doesn't capitalize Secretary of Defense (which he does other places); that he said that bombing the hell out of N.Vietnam brought them to the table in earnest, that he argued that multinational diplomacy in all but two of the rogue states could push the terrorists into those two states where a military solution would work; that he really doesn't like Iran very much at all, etc...

After you said what I related wasn't true, I wondered if you had read the book.

My plan was to get my copy of the book out and provide you with an annotated response, but it fell to the bottom of my to do list. I'm trying to rip through about 5 other books right now, but I promise you, I'll do it. Just give me some time. I'm pretty sure I'm remembering what Clark writes correctly so I don't feel compelled to go back and get the page numbers for you. But I will when I get a chance.

{On Edit: Oh, yeah, and one more reason I laid off briefly was because of something I suspect you know about, but which ultimately didn't have the intended consequence.}

I agree that Clark has a fantastic character, but many people who have fantastic characters have political views with which I disagree. Clark reveals a lot of his very commendable character in his books, but he also reveals politics which I think are to the right of the average democrat.

For example I think many democrats think bombing North Vietnam to the negotiating table was another regretful moment in a war that was never going to end up well.

Clark often says in his books that politics interfere with achieving the military goals. I think that's certainly a legitimate perspective and I'm not surprised that it is one that someone within the military (and without political experience or even, say, the sort of experience Sen. Fiengold brought with him to public office) would believe.

I think another view that needs to be considered is that perhaps the political part is sufficiently important that it should get in the way of the military goals. For example, if the American people believed that the Vietnam war (or the Iraq War for that matter) is an unwinnable imperial war that is very far out of the American character, perhaps the other institutions of government, including the military and the presidency and congress should take note.

[FrenchieCat]

165. First off, I will continue to say that "you must not have read the book"

In your long but full of holes speech you just gave, please know that you ain't gettin' nothin' over on me.

You said..... You don't pick up the details I've mentioned from skimming in the bookstore -- like, the worst criticism of Rumsfield comes in a passage where he doesn't mention him by name and doesn't capitalize Secretary of Defense (which he does other places);

cause, on page 157, paperback edition of Winning Modern Wars, General Clark writes this about Rumsfeld (and clearly calls him by name) in reference to the "only almost success" Rumsfeld could ever really claim; the War Afganistan. You see, this is a devastating critique of Rumsfeld...cause he didn't even do that one right....

In the provinces the warlords remained in charge. The first effort to kill the poppy crop largely failed, and civil works and assistance foundered due to chronic lack of security. Paving the road from Kabul to Kandahar, the centerpiece of the reconstruction program, was delayed repeatedly, and overall internal assistance levels were pitifully low; for efforts comparable to those in Bosnia and Kosovo, fifteen to twenty times more aid would be required. Visiting Kabul in May 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld declared that the major combat activity had ended and that the campaign would enter a new phase (of "stability and stabilization"), but the facts on the ground seemed to belie his optimism.

Shit, looks like General Clark is calling Rumsfeld a liar to me...
and saying that even Afghanistan was F*cked up, and not at all handled correctly.

So you see my friend......just the first paragraph of your explaination of yourself is nothing but a mirage in your head. Should I go on? I mean, Jeeze, your first sentence! :eyes:

That's kind of pitiful....as the General would say, doncha think? :shrug:

[1932]

173. It's not a crime for Rumsfeld to be an optimist.

Clark never calls Rumsfeld a liar in the book. "Belie his optimism" doesn't mean he was lying about the reasons we should invade Iraq. It means his optimism that the invasion worked wasn't justified.

If I had to guess, I'd say Rumsfeld is mentioned about 6 or 7 times in the book. In some of those references Clark explains why it wasn't fair to criticicize Rumsfeld. Clark never criticizes Rumsfeld for a strategic choice he made before or during the invasion, so I don't think Clark is implying that not being able to predict the future when you've done everything right up to the present is a crime.

And even if you think the passage above is a brutal indictment of Rumsfled, don't you think it's a FAR CRY from Jim Wallis's book which says that Rumsfeld MUST be fired? Don't you think it's a far cry from the position of many Democratic politicians who say that Rumsfeld has to go?

Clark doesn't feel that way, I suspect, because he thinks the invasion was conducted very competently, and he's not going to hold Rumsfled responsible for the post-invasion stage merely because the political leaders are insisting that the army does the nation building.

[FrenchieCat]

179. Here you go again.....

Clark's assessement of Rumsfeld's failure is on a discussion of Afghanistan, not Iraq....in the passage that I quoted. So you are wrong again.

It is hard to carry on a conversation and hold a debate with one who is mis-handling the facts, and jumping to illogical conclusions, based on contents not present.

Clark has called for the firing of Rumsfeld....but like so many other things, you probably missed it.

[1932]

183. Clark did not call for Rumsfeld's firing in Winning Modern War.

If he has since then, I'm curious to hear what swayed his opinion.

As far as Afghanistan vs Iraq: woops. Sorry. But the point still remains. That wasn't a criticism and in that book Clark goes pretty soft on Rumsfeld regarding the War on Terror, which includes both Iraq and Afghanistan.

[FrenchieCat]

166. In reference to some of the other things you point out....

let me say this....

In reference to the B-52 bombings over Hanoi, it did break the NV's air defense, and did bring the Vietnamese leaders to the negotiating table. This is an historical fact which Wes Clark brings up to discuss why this administration chose the "Shock and Awe" strategy that they did on March 21st....at the beginning of the Iraqi Invasion. He didn't say "way to go...that was great!".

Hence is your problem....you read things that aren't there, and then make judgments based on those things as you have chosen to interpret them.

On Iran, Clark speaks as an historian as he explains the relatively recent history of Iran and how it co-meshes with the current happenings in Iraq.

If he didn't bother to provide the background facts, how can he educate his readers? Winning Modern War is not a rant.....it's a book that deals with the military strategy of our current conflict, and how it was derived.....and what is wrong with this strategy.

[1932]

174. Clark wrote a masters thesis arguing that early, heavy force is the best

strategy.

So, in a sense, he is saying, "hey, those heavy B-52 bombings were the way to go."

My point is that you can't detach good military strategy from political reality.

No matter how hard you bomb an enemy like Vietnam or Iraq, an imperialist war is never going to be successful.

On Iran, Clark is heavily implying that, because of Iran's recent history, it might be next on a list of places where a military solution might be inevitable.

Hey, Frenchie, is there anywhere on the internet where I could go and discuss this stuff with people who are reading Clark's books the same way I am -- I don't mean where they're coming to the same conclusions; I means, where they're defending what Clark is actually saying rather than denying he said it.

I have said that I'm very suspicious of neoliberalism, but I'm also willing to accept that Clark has something to contribute to this debate, and I'd love to discuss this stuff with people who are working from the texts rather than denying the texts.

[FrenchieCat]

178. 1932, I have read some of your postings on other matters....

and for the most part, you have a good sense of things. However, whether it's because of your visceral dislike for "militaristic" discussions, I find you "off base" in reference to your judgement of Wes Clark's political position.

Your context in what you are reading into Clark's writing of his book is closed minded and pre-conceived.

And Clark is not a neoliberal, which is something that you keep sliding into the conversation without any justification, just willy-nilly.

Based on my extensive 2 years worth of research on Clark and my own understanding (like, I'm no dummy), I don't really need to debate this with you.

You should just keeping being misinformed, because it is now apparent that you are not into this debate to become informed, but rather to make pronouncements. It's actually too bad that a liberal such as yourself would feel that you've had a devine inspiration in your assessement. You are so misdirected, until it's not even funny.

Who is your idea of an individual, currently on the scene, that has all of YOUR right answers? Please do share!

[Totally Committed]

180. Frenchie Cat...

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:yourock:

TC

[1932]

186. Those are some pretty harsh things you're saying about me...

...with the exception of that first sentence, which I suspect is a way of saying, "so you're not trying to freep this place, but you're an ass because of what you say about Clark."

You use all that to tell me why you won't discuss things with me.

Then you ask me to discuss with you the person I think has all the answers?

That sounds like a one way street!

But I will tell you this, even though I'm not sure that you deserve a response to that post:

Show me the book-length argument of the person you want me to consider, and if or when I've read it, I'll tell you what I think of that person.

My purpose here is to read and discuss the FULL ARGUMENTS of the people and issues because, as I've said before, I think that's a big element of DU that is missing. You probably saw my exchange about Jim Wallis's book (in the Dean thread). I think that's a great example of the problem I'm trying to address.

I'm not going to talk about an issue unless I feel that I'm informed.

So, I couldn't tell you what I feel about Warner, Richardson, Bayh, Vilsak, or anyone else until I have enough information to make the judgment.

If you want to suggest a book, perhaps I'll read it and tell you what I think.

[FrenchieCat]

193. I think that you've got what I was trying to say, more or less.....

and that's a good sign.

The problem that I have with your response, however, is two folds.

One, you seem not have an "opinion" on any other Democrat to speak of, but yet you seem to have "your mind made up" in reference to Clark. It's hard to carrying on a conversation with one that would be so informed, on the one hand...yet have no clue and would reserve judgement on all other Democrats. The inconsistency of your status, as you describe it, is somewhat troubling. To be informed about only one individual to the extent that you would reach "undebatable" conclusions about him, and spam many threads with your opinion statements.....which you do with no other....well this speaks for itself.

You have gone to great length to make various pronouncements about Clark, including that he is a Neoliberal, and I gather, a militarist.....yet, when it comes to others, your response is "no comments at the moment"....which based on my experience with human nature, indicates an agenda at work, IMO.

Whether I deserve a response, because I dare carry on a debate with you and reach a negative conclusion about your take, based on all that you have written and how you have reached those conclusions, is your call.

Clark's book is not the sum of the man, although you want to interpret it that way, as it may serve your public purpose, which doesn't seem to include your continuing to have an open mind; a position that you seem more than willing to do for others.

As an example of your prejudicial leanings, please note....you said that Rumsfeld was not criticized in Clark's book as you saw it fit....yet when I write up an excerpt of Clark's book, in which, he does, in fact, very succinctly and effectively criticizes Rumsfeld, on a subject that very few have (Afghanistan was pronounced as a relative success by many) and provide a page number for reference....your response is to poo-poo that away, and to move the goal post. I find that disingenious and properly lacking to continuing a respectfull debate.

It is you who have actually are left me no option but to find that walking a two way street is not part of your agenda.

The other fold is this; you want to be considered so well versed on the "thinking" of Wes Clark....and yet, I really do believe that you have no clue. This is examplified in reference to what Clark as ever said about the subject of Rumsfeld....beyond what you have culled and surmised from one book written shortly after the initial invasion of Iraq.

Since you don't know....Clark's tact, in dealing with whether Rumsfeld should resign is a classic. You see, Wes understood that it wasn't so much about getting rid of Rumsfeld, as much as it was getting rid of the entire administration, and in particular, having the buck stop at Bush's desk.....Rumsfeld being just another of Bush's arms....and not the true source of the entire problem.
So while other politicians were demanding Rumsfeld's head on a skewer(which they didn't get), Clark was staying focused on the bigger source of our problem, in particular, dur. Rumsfeld resigning would have only replaced him with another Bush choice, and then what?

Clark had this to say about Rumsfeld on MTP, on May 9, 2004...in the heat of an election year....during the most important election in our lifetime:

GEN. CLARK:
I think it would be very patriotic if Secretary Rumsfeld resigned. But I do think that the issue goes beyond the secretary of defense. I don't think we should indict the men and women in the armed forces. I think 99.9 percent of them are doing a great job over there and I hope the American people will support them. I certainly do. But I do think that when something like this happens that the prima facia notion of this is this goes right to the top. What did the president know? What was the atmosphere that the president created? How hard was he pushing?

Beyond this point, that I have now made, I consider this discussion fruitless, and therefore has become a waste of my time.

I'm sure that I will see you again, in other threads....as you continue to push for your specialized version of what Wes Clark is all about. I will give you some important advise, which I am sure that you will ignore; reading a book is only the 1/2 of it. Grasping the meaning and the intent of those written words is the 1/2 that has wizzed right by you.

I would entertain another discussion on this matter with you....if, at that time, "you can come correct" (a black ideom....look it up)

[1932]

196. My mind isn't made up about anyone beyond that I'm reasonably...

...confident that, when I read what someone's arguing in a book they wrote, I understand what they're saying.

If you're upset that I'm not pronouncing judgment on politicians whose books I haven't read, and do comment on books I have read, then I really don't know what to say.

I'm trying to relate what I've read, not my uninformed emotions.

I still don't think "belie his optimism" is harsh, and if you care to quote all the half-dozen passages on Rumsfeld I think you'll see my point. I also don't think it's being very critical to call a guy patriotic if he choses to resign (when others would say he should resign out of shame for how wrong he has been).

[FrenchieCat]

201. AFAIC, you lost the debate and won the spam. Congrat!

:boring:

[1932]

208. You and I were on the same side of that issue, so "we lost the debate"

you should say.

But do you really believe that?

There were other posters agreeing with me in that thread, like tishaLA, IIRC.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

223. You should apply your superior reading skills to the Wallis-Dean thread

which is the one to which I was referring.

[1932]

197. And another thing:

I never said my opinions are undebatable. I've said the oppositie.

And I think I have "spammed" another thread -- the one about Dean and Wallis. Why? BECAUSE I READ THE DAMN BOOK THAT MAKES THE ARGUMENT DISCUSSED IN THE THREAD!

See the pattern?

If I've read the book-length argument about what is being discussed, I feel sufficiently informed to state what the person and the book actually says.

By the way, I think I might read Dean's books next.

Also, by the way, I read Clark's books because he's discussed so often here.

See how that works?

[FrenchieCat]

202. LOL!

1932, you said.....See the pattern?

My answer--yes I do....and so do others. :thumbsdown:

[1932]

209. Thumbs down to informed opinion and citing original sources?

Really?

[FrenchieCat]

215. You didn't cite a damn thing.....

you interpreted....that ain't the same.

You can try to "clean it up" now...but I think that we've gotten a good view of what informed means to you.

[Totally Committed]

127. I disagree...

".... but in order to conform to the mood at DU, that part of Clark's persona is actively and studiously downplayed. He is characterized as being anti-war."

Not only is Wes unabashedly anti-war, he is -- differently than most people already elected -- anti-this-war.

And, I disagree that any of his supporters here have studiously downplayed any part of his "persona". I often say, and will repeat here, that he is the most highly decorated General since Dwight Eisenhower. And, I am proud to say that, because, as Wes once said... there is no one ever so anti-war as one who has been there. War is to be fought "only, only, only as a last resort."

TC

[1932]

135. see above.

[FrenchieCat]

148. Sorry....

But don't see nothin'. :eyes:

[Adelante]

102. War is not the litmus test

Almost all Duers are anti-Iraq War. Most DUers know that there will be times when war is unavoidable, defensive war, which was not the case with this war. Most DUers want diplomatic efforts taken to the farthest extent before going to war, and war only when absolutely necessary; and many DUers see humanitarian intervention in cases of genocide as a fitting use of our armed forces.

This is only my reading over two years on DU. There is too broad a range of opinion on DU to pin a litmus test to DUers.

[1932]

106. Being anti-war is right. But defining all politics in terms of being anti-

war is shortsighted.

Even being anti-war isn't framed within bigger and better democratic principles.

Personally, I wish being anti-neoliberal were the guiding principle, because that would incorporate the screwing of labor domestically.

But DU'ers will even praise neoliberal dems so long as they're perceived as being even narrowly critical of invading Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

149. So are you a neoliberal?

[1932]

164. I reread my post and I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion.

But, in case it isn't clear, after reading Globalization and its Discontents and Fences and Windows, I'd have to say that I am definitely not a fan of the idea that unfair foreign trade is the route to nirvana.

[CJCRANE]

204. I don't think Clark is pro- or anti- war

He just has specific opinions about when its appropriate from a political/military/diplomatic point of view.

But he also knows that it's the military's job to carry out the civilian command's wishes, so if they've been committed to a course of action he wants to see them do the best job they can (also still taking into account political and diplomatic factors).

That's my take on him, anyway.

[Tigress DEM]

227. Ever heard of Liberal Hawks?

Look, what sucks about this war and what the DSM and Valerie Plame being outed point to is an administration that LIES to our faces.

War really isn't a good answer in most cases. That's why 200 years plus of detante were built up between nations. That's why the Geneva Convention was such a humanitarian achievement.

Yet, if someone is attacking US or one of our allies and there is no kind of negotiating or sanctions etc... that will resolve the issue without bloodshed then war is the last resort.

But just cause people are DEMS doesn't make them cowards. I hope that isn't what you're implying.

[catabryna]

98. That is such a tough question

because we are only supposed to pick one...

So, I'm skating by the rules and choosing two... John Conyers and Barbara Boxer.

[LandOLincoln]

99. Wes Clark, Louise Slaughter, Charlie Rangel, Barbara Boxer,

Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, Barack Obama, Bill, Teddy, Henry Waxman, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, John Conyers.

[rniel]

104. a three way tie

Conyers, Boxer and Howard "the scream" Dean

[OzarkDem]

105. Conyers - next POTUS

He's shown excellent leadership during the darkest hours of our country. Seriously, I hope he runs.

My other favorite is Howard Dean.

[Adelante]

108. Conyers avatar

I wear it in support of his efforts on DSM.

My favorite Democrat is Wes Clark.

[ArkDem]

110. Blanche Lincoln.

[election_2004]

111. I'm hoping she runs for president....

I think Blanche would be the strongest General Election candidate...

http://www.lincoln2008.com

but in terms of guts and boldness, my heart will always be with Barbara Boxer. I wish Middle America wouldn't have such a predisposition against "California liberals."

[ArkySue]

126. You have got to be kidding!

She is barely better than Pryor. She supported the Bankruptcy Bill, voted to confirm Rice, is for eliminating the Estate Tax (so-called "death tax), is strongly pro death penalty, strongly opposes the reduction of use of coal, oil, & nuclear energy, has a poor envoirnmental record...i could go on and on. Bleh! And she has no foreign policy/national security experience. Definately no progressive.

[election_2004]

139. Well....

You could pick apart the records (and flaws) of Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark too. Some of it would be justified, some probably wouldn't.

I don't agree with Blanche's votes on issues such as the Bankruptcy Bill or the IWR, but you are grossly exaggerating her record. You're taking everything that she doesn't have a perfect record on, and trying to shove it all onto the head of a pin.

At the end of the day, you have to balance politicians' imperfect records with their ability to win over the broadest range of voters.

As much as I love my own Senator Feingold, I'm realistic enough to see how his two divorces would hurt his chances in a General Election (not to mention a primary).

[election_2004]

112. Conyers is great, a real fighter - - but....

If I had to narrow it down to exclusively ONE SINGLE PERSON, Barbara Boxer would very narrowly edge out Conyers...mainly because she has been able to use her U.S. Senate seat to speak out on behalf of progressive causes.

[WLKjr]

113. DEAN/ CONYERS/ CLARK/ BOXER/ CLINTON/ KERRY

and thats about it.

[hippiegranny]

116. Barbara Boxer

That chick has some ovaries! She isn't afraid of the power rangers.

[garybeck]

117. Conyers, Conyers, and Conyers.

[rateyes]

118. Isn't it amazing that no one has uttered yet the name..

Clinton. Either Bill or Hillary. I'm not naming them as my favorite either. Just think it's interesting--isn't she supposed to be the front-runner?

I personally like, but in no particular order--Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Boxer, Conyers, Rangel, Clark and all LOUD AND PROUD LIBERALS.

Edit to add: Sorry, reading through a second time, saw that WLKjr did write Clinton--but, which one?

[election_2004]

120. "isn't she supposed to be the front-runner?"

isn't she supposed to be the front-runner?

Ah, or so the MSM would have us believe....

[rateyes]

122. Yeah, that's right!

[Uncle Joe]

194. MSM? Are they the same corporate bastards

that trashed, slandered and libeled Al Gore?

[XemaSab]

119. I'm a proud Deaniac.

Conyers has done a great job, Boxer is a hero of mine, and there are others who have definitely taken a stand, but Dean is #1.

[Auntie Bush]

121. GENERAL WESLEY CLARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I'm shouting!

[rateyes]

123. I still think that the best shot we have for 2008

is this ticket.

Clark/Cleland

[election_2004]

140. Cleland

Max Cleland would make an excellent U.S. Secretary of Defense.

If Clark is the nominee, I say Clark/Stabenow or Clark/Sebelius.

[election_2004]

144. Add to that

Or U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (for Cleland)

[bearfan454]

124. Conyers and Dean n/t

[bunny planet]

125. John Kerry

I like Clark and Dean too.

[Az_lefty]

128. BOXER BOXER BOXER

:toast:

[goodhue]

129. Kucinich

By a mile. And big props to Dennis on his upcoming nuptials . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1621060

[rainy]

131. He is my favorite too. Most progressive and least corporate

money chaser. I loved Paul Wellstone too.

[Nightjock]

130. Kerry-Gore-Conyers Dean

No particular order. They all inspire me.

[Endangered Specie]

132. Howard Dean

[proud patriot]

137. Boxer , Conyers , Kucinich , Barabra Lee, Dean , Clark , Kennedy,

McKinney, G. Miller ,I could go on and on :D

[Cascadian]

142. Right now it's a toss up between Conyers and Boxer.

eom


John

[bigwillq]

145. Dean is my fave

I like Kerry, Boxer, Clark, Edwards (though he's been silent lately), Kennedy, Conyers, Hillary (I like watching her on the Senate floor), I'm getting to like Reid (he's gotten some balls of late)

[Springg]

146. Wes Clark is keeping me in the Democratic Party!

I admire the way Wes Clark never bashes other democrats :) ...I loved it when he said on the Insanity Show that Dick Durbin had nothing to apologize for!I am so tired of whimpy dems who bend over for the radical right!I also admire greatly John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Barbara Boxer and Harold Ford.
I supported Kerry, but he was history the minute he gave up Ohio without a fight. Believe me- there was serious fraud going on that should have been investigated.

[Tom Rinaldo]

168. Self Delete. Posted in wrong place. eom

[musical_soul]

150. I still like Dean.

He says things how they are.

[politicasista]

151. Kerry. I also like Conyers, Boxer, Obama, Kennedy, the CBC & Rev. Al

and Dean, Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

152. I totally appreciate strong Dems like

"I have got to tell you, this shit ain't right...and this is what's gonna happen next" General Wes Clark, as well as "talk to the hand" Barbara Lee.

Looooove the "Kiss my ass, yes, I'm laughing at you" Charlie Rangels,
and who can resist John "I'll just keep keeping on" Conyers?

"Let me look at these Documents closer" Henry Waxman is a superb Democrat, and Barbara "What kind of shit is this?" Boxer is just elegant.

Howard "yeah, I'm talking to you" Dean is explosive and Harry "you want a little bit of me?" Reid is calculating things as well as could be expected under the circumstances. Russ "you ain't gonna change my mind, so don't even go there" Feingold is strong as well.

These are great and strong Democrats at work.

They are each distinct, dedicated to their country, and real!

[Vektor]

153. Kerry's my favorite, but I like a LOT of them.

So many great Dems to choose from, lucky us!

[EndElectoral]

154. Conyers -House; Boxer -Senate

[gulliver]

155. Clark, Levin, Waxman

[wisteria]

156. John Kerry

I find myself more interested in his opinions and views now than I was during the election. Something in his manner continues to draw my attention. I suppose you could say he grew on me. I can think of no one I would rather see as our President.

[Catchawave]

157. As of today, Edwards

I love them all, but he's still my main man :loveya:

Packaged with Elizabeth, it doesn't get much better than that :)

[ultraist]

182. I agree! "Packaged with Elizabeth, it doesn't get much better than that."

Elizabeth Edwards is writing an autobiographical book!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070400739.html




Elizabeth Edwards Penning Book on Her Life

The Associated Press
Monday, July 4, 2005; 5:12 PM

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, in writing a book about her life, including her recent successful treatment for breast cancer.

The announcement comes about a month after it became known her husband, a former senator, is working on a photo essay book focusing on American values and dreams, using pictures of the childhood homes of notable people.

The books will be published at a time when John Edwards is traveling around the country testing the waters for a 2008 presidential bid.

Elizabeth Edwards' book proposal is being circulated to publishers by Robert Barnett, a Washington lawyer who helped her husband land a book deal. Barnett said he is finding "enormous interest."

[OzarkDem]

188. Right you are

Make mine a Conyers-Dean-Edwards, please.

[Catchawave]

195. I'm really looking forward to both their books.....

I hope "they" do run in '08. Obviously Bush proves political experience doesn't matter....LOL.

[Goldeneye]

207. Seriously good thread.

All this Dem loving in one thread. And minimal bashing too ....come to think of it, I haven't see any.

[KBlagburn]

158. Woodrow Wilson & Jimmy Carter

nuff said

[Saboburns]

159. Howard Dean will Fuck your Shit Up.

Dean.
Simply.
Rocks.

[wiley]

161. Clark, Rangel, Conyers, Obama, Schumer, Corzine, etc.

and, oddly, no one seems to have mentioned Mark Warner.....

Of course Big Dog is supreme! :applause:

[carpetbagger]

167. For now, it's Conyers.

Sure, if you threw out ten names, he'd end up 8th or so in the voting, but he's probably the consensus choice.

Kerry is divisive, not because we didn't all vote for him, but because the post-mortem of the election revealed missed opportunities at several points. That and we're pissed off at getting his endless supply of spam. Clark (my favorite), Edwards, and Dean are seen waringly by people who supported other candidates in 2004, the first two seen as potential 2008 candidates. Kucinich has supporters, but also (like Dean) has detractors who believe that they could never propel the party to victory as spokesmen. Most of us do, however, like the work those two are doing in their respective areas. Gore and Bill Clinton are historical figures at this point, Clinton seeming too enmeshed in supporting his wife's centrist posturing to be of much help to our efforts.

Oddly, the person who a national poll (of dems) identify as their favorite, Hilary Clinton, isn't particularly loved here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

169. Clark and Dean I would say, because they are plotting our victory

I know that we all have our personal preferences. And though we could use more, there are many great Democrats. But in my opinion Clark and Dean are within a smaller group of true fighters who know what they believe in and are not afraid to say it. Plus they are almost always right. But there are others like Clark and Dean in this regard, and most of them have been named already; Boxer, Conyers etc.

I put Clark and Dean on top though, because not only do they have these qualities that I admire, but they are also strategic thinkers and real players in the effort to rebuild the Democratic Party into the majority Party again. It isn't enough to be right, we have to be able to do right also, and that means getting the Republicans out of power. Both of Clark and Dean, each in their own way, are thinking about that constantly, and while their approaches differ in ways, they both understand the goal of helping Democrats regain the trust of average Americans, and they are constantly thinking and acting outside of the old conventional boxes to achieve that, and with it the ability to lead our Government again. I honor all of our powerful voices for truth, but I am counting on Clark and Dean to pull this victory off.

[Totally Committed]

171. Ah yes, Tom...

Wes and Howard! Two tough-talking, truth-telling, vertabrates with brains... they are my kind of Democrats, too!

TC

[phylla]

170. CLARK without hesitation Wesley Clark

Conyers is up there with him

[meppie-meppie not]

172. Conyers first and a close second is Kucinich and then Dean.

[Goldeneye]

175. ...Kerry.

But I like alot of democrats for a lot of different reasons: Boxer, Conyers, Dean, Clark, Stephanie TJ, Sheila JL,Cynthia McKinney, Kucinich, Feingold, Slaughter, Waxman, Kennedy, Dorgan, Durbin, Dodd. I like almost all of them. Even Biden has his moments. I guess I'm just rambling now, and pretty far off topic. Kerry is my favorite democrat.

[ultraist]

176. Edwards, Conyers, Boxer, Kucinich, Watt

[Mary 123]

177. John Edwards

John Edwards has my vote again in 2008. Besides the fact that he's exactly what this country needs in a president especially at this time in history, he is capable of reaching accross party lines and getting those crucial independant and moderate republican votes. I hope we have all learned something from the last democratic disaster when everyone jumped on the Kerry Express. The next democratic nominee is going to have to appeal to moderates and independants too....something John Edwards could have and and can do.

[Goldeneye]

206. Edwards....another good democrat.

But I'm not sure what you mean by everyone jumping on the Kerry express...he did win the primaries...and people usually rally behind the winner. Anyway, welcome to DU.:hi:

[CJCRANE]

181. British DUer for Wesley Clark here! n/t

[peacetalksforall]

184. John Conyers Barbara Boxer most people in the Black Caucus plus

Jim Moran and some of the other Tuesday evening H of Reps speakers, Kucinich, Dean, Ann Richards - everyone who is not afraid to speak and isn't overly and insipidly diplomatic and doesn't side with the Republicans on things important to me.

[DrFunkenstein]

187. Zell Miller

Nah, just kidding. John Kerry still does it for me.

[jillan]

198. you had me worried for a moment there :) n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

191. Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Kerry

all honorable men and patriots.

[jre4me08]

192. My Favorite Democrat

John Edwards. Period.


M in DM

[staticstopper]

199. Feingold

:kick:

[Number9Dream]

200. Dems who've shown real spine...

Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Boxer, Conyers, Dean, T. Kennedy, Slaughter, RFK Jr.

Should we make George Galloway an "Honorary Democrat"?

[FrenchieCat]

203. Yes, I think so!

Galloway should definitely be made an Honorary Democrat! :applause:

[LVdem]

210. Bill Clinton

[Chicago Democrat]

211. Dick Durbin!

then I'd say... Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd I love them both so so much but they're so old. Where are the new idealists and who will fight for the weak?

[Chicago Democrat]

212. Andrew Jackson!

Totally kidding... least favorite ...


No actually All Democrats prior to Wilson!


hehe

[Chicago Democrat]

216. Marc Anthony...

Well not so much a democrat as a LOVER!

[LSK]

218. Im going with Dean, Kerry a close 2nd. n/t

[EMAN51]

219. CSPAN turned me on to Kent Conrad and James Spratt

Thoughtful intelligent guys who really know their stuff on the budget.

[mvd]

220. Hard choice between Kucinich, Conyers, and Boxer

Now that Kucinich voted against against banning flag burning and is more pro-choice, I think he's the closest on the issues to me of the three above. But Conyers and Boxer have done services that have had a big impact. Others are voting for more than 1, so I guess I will. :-)

[Zomby Woof]

221. Kucinich

Con Man Opportunist Dean, least favorite. I consider Lieberman to be a Repuke, so he doesn't count.

[autorank]

222. Conyers-Clark-Boxer-Dean -- like 'em all, a great deal!

[Tigress DEM]

224. Conyers and Boxer

I like both of them because they have been consistently "on task" doing things that needed to be done before we all had the full scoop that they "needed" to be done.

Conyers a bit more because he's everywhere. And he's getting documented with correct proceedure so many places where the administration is bucking Constitutional based rules of practise by their underhanded sthicks.

Louise Slaughter, Harry Reid.... OMG - Ted Kennedy. Some of the speaches he makes are so full of information and heart and common sense that I have cried.

I've caught a lot of our DEMS holding the line, doing the brave things (not every time, but some times it takes a bit to build up courage in this political arena - the term punch drunk comes to mind.)

I think I have more admiration for DEMS in general even if they don't always vote the way I think they should or say the things that need to be said soon enough. I see them as at least being close to the "clue wagon" these days, close enough to jump on and get informed every once in awhile.

I see a great desire in most of DEMS to do what it takes to save this nation from our headlong dash into oblivion.

I see DEMs acknowledging DU at times either specifically as in JC's case or in general as in support of actively involved people on the internet.