Hackett showing in OH bodes well for Clark in 2008

[HootieMcBoob]

In one of the reddest districts in the country Paul Hackett nearly pulled it off. He and Clark are different candidates in many ways but the things that they share are worth remarking upon. Both are straight talkers with a military background who aren't afraid to take on Republicans and Bush in particular and who appeal to a broad swath of the electorate. Both easily fit into both the strict father and the nurturing parent frames. This reinforces my feeling that if Clark is our candidate in 2008 he will win in a landslide and we will take back both the house and the senate.

Anybody agree with me?

[Catch22Dem]

1. I agree with you, but...

You better have your flame suit ready, man!

[still_one]

2. really?

they trashed another vet, obviously, the people in this country, do NOT care for the vets. It is a JOKE!

They deserve the CHICKEN HAWKS!!!

[HootieMcBoob]

9. no dem has even come close to winning this district in decades

Hackett nearly pulled it off...

Because he fought back.

Kerry didn't fight back...i'm sorry but he didn't.

Hackett called bush an sob and a chickenhawk and basically told the gop to shove it when they started to swiftboat him and he almost did it in one of the country's most republican districts!

Don't you see the significance of this?

[still_one]

17. you are right, but why was the voting turnout low?

at least that's what CNN reported?

by 2006 the neocons will have consolidated their power in all three branches of government

there hasn't been enough pain yet. putting a sticker on your SUV which says you support the troops is NOT sacrifice. Getting a tax break while the soldiers are deprived of equipment is NOT sacrifice

I do NOT have as much confidence as you that the democrats will speak truth to power

[HootieMcBoob]

19. I heard turnout was way up

much higher than was expected for a special election.

[jurassicpork]

159. Why was voter turnout so low?

Perhaps liberal and conservative groups telling people not to come out and vote had something to do with it. But it was the conservatives telling their own not to go out and vote for Schmidt. Even they had had enough of her.

I'm just sickened by this whole thing and you just know, given Ohio's dismal recent track record with elections, that a lot of dirt is going to get pulled out from under the GOP's carpet.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[FreedomAngel82]

48. Well actually if you look at it

they don't like vets who speak the truth such as Kerry, Clark and Hackett. They even did the same to McCain in 2000. So if Hackett was a republican it would be soo different of course.

[KittyWampus]

132. No They Didn't Do The Same To McCain. He Won The First Round.

and had no effective strategy for the following rounds when the smears started.

[BamaLefty]

3. I Agree With You 100%

No more of this "I actually did vote for the..." bullshit (even though we know Kerry's position-- America refused to).

CLARK '08! :patriot:

[FreedomAngel82]

4. How do you know they will go for Clark?

He's his own person and Hackett is his own person. Have you tested this out?

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. True enough.

-------------------------------------------------------
Fight for Andy! Fight for election reform!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[HootieMcBoob]

13. there's only one real test

and that's an election.

today's election was the closest thing we'll see to a real "test".

[FreedomAngel82]

49. Not really

Again Hackett is his own person and Clark is different. Clark isn't so quite outspoken like Hackett. I couldn't imagine Clark going on a radio program and calling Bush an SOB (and actual words too).

[Texas_Kat]

15. Hackett obviously thought Clark would do well

for him in the OH-2 District. So did the DCCC. General Clark recorded a robocall for Hackett and the DCCC paid to have it disseminated.

Does that answer your question?

[FreedomAngel82]

50. No it doesn't

Clark was campaigning for Hackett himself. It wasn't Clark running. Now I personally do like Clark but I want someone who has more experience in something other than foreign policey for president. Hackett wasn't running for president but a local congressional race.

[still_one]

18. oh they are ready to jump on Clark as "unstable"

and push the urban legend that he almost caused WWIII in Serbia

I hear the repukes spinning their wheels already

[FrenchieCat]

23. It's ok....we're ready for that shit.....

I'm ready to rumble.....

[still_one]

34. Clark has to have his act more together than in 2004

Kerry sure didn't

[Texas_Kat]

29. "he almost caused WWIII in Serbia"....

"Standing up to the Russians...."

Oh yeah, that's gonna really hurt with the repubs. Regardless of whether it's true -- it's not -- but it can be framed that way.

I can hear the pins dropping after the first neo-con says that.

[GOPNotForMe]

5. I totally do.

My boss, who is a Republican (with a soul), said that the Dem he truly feared in 2004 was Wes Clark. AND he also said he might have voted for him, too.

[aquart]

7. You can't imagine how this agenda-pushing pisses me off.

[HootieMcBoob]

11. my agenda is taking back our country

i thought that was what this was all about?

[LandOLincoln]

And you can't imagine

how little anyone cares.

You don't like a thread, you don't read it. Simple as that.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Of course, I agree....

which is why most Clark supporters continue to support Wes Clark with the kind of vitality that is really quite amazing.

We know a winner and we've got one!

[FreedomAngel82]

51. The same way with supporters

of Kerry, Dean, Kucinich. :eyes: Duh.

[Sparkly]

10. I'm with ya, Hootie.

:hi:

[Nashyra]

12. I'm with you too

Clark inspires, he is honest, a straight shooter, articulate and much more. Most of all desires the best for the people of this country, the country he put his life on the line for and the service men and women who he continues to advocate. He can't be bought, sounds like he and Hackett have some things in common.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. The same can be said

with Dean, Kuicinch, Kerry. And Kerry put his life for the country as well and he even protested the government and has actual experience in something other then foreign policey.

[Raiden]

14. Clark For Prez, Feingold For VP, Hatchett For Senate

:patriot:

[faithnotgreed]

139. its "hackett for senate"

hatchett doesnt sound quite so good
besides not being his name

thanks raiden
just want to make sure you know

[Raiden]

149. Damn! I can't believe I misspelled his name!!

I must have been in a big hurry last night :+

[faithnotgreed]

155. fair enough

just wanted to point it out

thanks for hearing that as i meant it (friendly and supportive)

[Clark2008]

16. I've been thinking the same thing all night.

And smiling to myself.

I love being correct!

:7

[Donna Zen]

20. A little story...

So two weeks ago, we're flying back from Memphis and a guy sitting next to us starts up a conversation. Yadi, yadi...where have you been? We've been to Little Rock to see General Clark. Oh, Clark the man says. Don't say anything bad about him, my Korean vet father will kill you. Oh?? says I. We voted for bush, says he, but don't say anything bad about a man that put his life on the line, says he. Anyway, says he, Hannity likes Clark.

OMG.

Lessons learned: in the South I met many people while I was covered in Clark buttons. It is different than Maine in the South. The attitude about Southern Generals is very different among republicans in the South.

We can take it to them.

All we need is a little cyber-root mojo. Really.

[HootieMcBoob]

21. yup n/t

[Clark2008]

22. My little Southern mouth has been screaming this for two years!

Of course, my Donna, I knew you knew that. :hi:

But, isn't it great when you see what I had been talking about for so long! :D

Enjoyed meeting you in Little Rock!

[Donna Zen]

27. I loved meeting you too!

And yet, it was as if I knew everyone before I got there. I know! Let's do it again next year.

[sandnsea]

26. Really?

But Kerry put his life on the line and they didn't have a problem bashing him. People also forget, nobody was going to trash Kerry's service at the beginning of 2004 either. The Fox coop liked Kerry too.

The right will trash ANYBODY.

[FrenchieCat]

30. You're talking 40 years ago...

We talking about the General who led the last noble war...and won it.
Sure, they'll try and trash him....but no one will have to go back 40 years to try to figure out what really happenend.

Clark tenure is documented.....and there are the newspaper headlines..."The General was right, so he must go"....and on and on.


Apples and oranges.

[sandnsea]

37. Headlines?

Clark tried to start WWIII? Lots of headlines and not 40 year old ones either. They will trash ANYBODY.

[FreedomAngel82]

57. No it's not

Kerry is a hero and look what they did to him. You think Clark is above the law because moderates like him? HA! You're going to be in for a surprise hon. They already tried trashing him last year like they did McCain and Kerry. What they do is take their strengths and make them their weakness. You don't know these people if you think Clark won't be smeared. :eyes: How can he do in debates? If Clark was so great why didn't he win the primaries? John Kerry did. He won more votes then anybody ever did and we all know he is the true CIC of this country. Has anybody else done that? No!

[Donna Zen]

33. I agree that fox will screw over any Dem.

But I'm telling ya the truth. The Southern male especially does not like to see a Southern vet trashed. Kerry, who voted for, worked for and gave money to, is from Massachusetts.

Alabama has a road named after Clark.

Another little story: We're sitting in the bar and up comes some partially drunk young bush lover. He plunks himself in our midst, and wants to talk politics. I looked around...seven Clarkies. I just about cracked up and fell out of my chair. (I thought you might appreciate that.) Poor guy.

By 2:00 am, he was sitting beside me and listening to the "Tales of PNAC" and begging for more.

The state puts out a glossy handout with a guided tour of "Clark's Little Rock."

[sandnsea]

36. I'll tell ya some more truth

Clark won't win the south either and if a southern male doesn't give a shit about trashing vets from the REST of the country, then frankly, fuck the southern male.

[FrenchieCat]

42. You know that there is a difference between Clark and Kerry

right? I mean, you realize that they are not the same person, have the same persona, background, on and on.

Kerry had positive attributes, which is why he was the nominee in 2004.

But know that Clark has some excellent attributes (different of course), which is why, if we learned anything, he'll be the nominee in 2008.

NEWS FLASH! World War III has already started...and Bush is the one that got it going.

Clark's is the one that reported the Jackson said "you want me to start WWIII" in his first book. There were no newspaper stories about it prior to that. Check the dates on the hack sites where you got the story from. You will not find a story dated anytime during Kosovo that actually has that incident in it.

Actually Jackson disobeying Clark's order ended up giving Putin an open, which is why he shortly after became bold and invaded Chechnia.

Do some research....or ask me, and I'll provide this information to you. And quit being so damn scared of what the Republicans will say! It's not becoming. :hi:

[sandnsea]

46. That makes no sense at all

The story is out there and it doesn't matter how it got out there. It's also not the only story about Clark's temperament that is out there. There's much less out there about McCain, and look what they did to him. That isn't fear, that's fact. The post I responded to said southerners won't attack southern generals. That person must be afraid of what Republicans say. I said what you said, they'll attack anybody so there's no case to be made on that account for any of the candidates. You either decide you're going to support your candidate through the attacks, or not. Last year, most Democrats chose not. If Clark were the candidate and 10 different people took 10 different positions on everything the man said, it would be the same result. A party in chaos that won't get any votes. You might want to think about that as you're playing scorched earth with the entire Democratic Party. You're burning up your potential supporters.

[FreedomAngel82]

62. OH yeah and I forgot

you think they won't smash southern vets? LOOK AT MAX CLELAND!!! DUH!

[Adelante]

173. What does this mean, sandnsea?

"You might want to think about that as you're playing scorched earth with the entire Democratic Party."

What on earth are you talking about?

[FreedomAngel82]

61. Then why did JOHN KERRY win the primaries huh??

Why wasn't Clark the nominee? Huh? If people want him to be president. He's no President Eisenhower.

[davidinalameda]

68. Clark wasn't the establishment candidate

Kerry was

Clark ran a poor campaign--he didn't get his message out there well enough

Kerry had the backers, the funds, and was the anti-Dean candidate

and from our experiences in 2000 and 2004, we all know the best candidate doesn't always win

[sandnsea]

72. The Clintons backed Clark

Give me a freakin' break. He had everything going for him, he blew it.

[davidinalameda]

73. show me where Bill or Hill ever publically endorsed him

there were rumors that they were working behind the scenes to help his campaign but if they truly backed him, then he would have won the nomination

why do you think that Hill is mentioned as the leader for 2008?

it sure ain't for her cookie recipies

[sandnsea]

76. Voters still vote

Clark bombed, plain and simple. He just didn't have the depth on enough issues. But he did have the backing of the Clintons, you know it even if you won't admit it. Lieberman was the leader for a long time too, like Hillary is now, he didn't win either. And I don't think Hillary will win in 2008 for the same reason Lieberman didn't. Democrats don't want a true centrist, they want somebody who is a liberal at heart who can appeal to centrists. I only see two people who can do that, Feingold & Kerry. Maybe Edwards, but he needs to manage some very bold initiative between now and then to give him credibility. Clark made a mistake going back to tv, especially Fox. He should have headed up some UN rebuilding program to fill in his domestic gap. Still and all, Kerry was no more the establishment candidate than the man in the moon. He had to claw his way up and earn every vote, anybody who really paid attention and was honest with themselves would know it and admit it.

[Clark2008]

122. Coming in first, second or third in every primary is bombing

Especially after only campaigning for four months?

Oh brother, I'd had to think what you say about real losers.

[Donna Zen]

127. A liberal at heart but can appeal to centrists

Okay, I'll give you Feingold and Kerry because I agree. Nevertheless, I was told by someone, a campaign operative, who watches the internals, that Clark had the greatest "cross-over" appeal. Personal experience confirms that.

That fox gig dismayed me, but there are two things that need to be considered: 1) Clark isn't on fox because of his own political future. He has told us many times that we must leave the choir loft, we must take the truth to them with calls, at least once a week, to rightwing talk shows. He decided to do just that, and quite frankly, it must be a knife's edge to walk that walk several times a week. And yet, in every airport, including NH and Ohio, in every hotel lobby I entered, fox is on the screen. 2) The people I spoke with in the South etc. all watch fox, and they now consider Clark a reasonable Dem., they are hearing the truth. I'm not making this up.

Clark is heading up a UN reorganization program. He is also on an international panel in Sept. (15-16) in NYC, where he will be talking about the environment and the positive economic impact that can be made with alternative technologies.

As far as being the Clinton's stalking horse, that is pure bs. The only president who called Clark and asked him to run was Jimmy Carter. In fact, Clinton during the primaries was asked about Clark, and commented that generals don't like to be talked back to; iow, he dissed him. And when Clinton visited Kosova that summer, he ran around saying "I never fired Wes Clark!" but never a peep came out of Clinton to defend the man who won a war for him. I'm not saying that Clinton doesn't like Clark, I'm saying that this stupid unsupported meme, is ridiculous.

[davidinalameda]

135. we're all lying to ourselves about how Kerry had to fight tooth and nail

to get the nomination in 2004--guess having the support of NH Gov. Jeanne Shaheen certainly wasn't a plus for him; having the early support of people like Dianne Feinstein certainly put him at a disadvantage as well

this isn't about 2004

:boring:

[Clark2008]

115. Lack of media attention.

Look - when Kerry won our state in the primaries, Freedom, what did the papers say?

They said, paraphrased, "Why? He would have absolutely no chance of winning in the general election. It should have been Clark or Edwards."

At least, that's what my paper was saying and it was valid.

[Clark2008]

114. He'll still flip at least two red states

Some combination of red states - mid-West and possibly South. I can see him taking Arizona, New Mexico and possibly Arkansas and Virginia.

And, you do realize all Southern males aren't stupid, don't you?

Frankly, your stereotyping concerns me more than your inane and unproven arguments about the red states.

[Skwmom]

53. The Republicans have to worry about voter backlash if they

attack a man like Clark. Attacking a politician doesn't carry that type of risk. You think one of the "brilliant" Democratic strategists could figure that out.

[sandnsea]

63. They attacked a triple amputee

They attacked a Vietnam POW. They just attacked an Iraq War Vet in Ohio. Pull your heads out, they will attack ANYBODY.

[Skwmom]

131. Of course they will attack but it's not so easy to attack someone like

Clark. In regards to Cleland, the Georgia results were highly suspect so I don't believe the outcome of that election can be used to argue that the effectiveness of such attacks were the reason Cleland lost.

The country is pretty much split down the middle. Therefore, I think viciously attacking someone like Clark on a national basis carries with it a HUGE risk (compared to little risk in viciously attacking someone like Kerry - a person that many view as just another phony politician).

[roguevalley]

150. True. Some of the comments from people about the attacks on

Hackett were interesting. People didn't like it. Its a new world now. And that little dick won't be the other candidate. Rove in jail, the party falling apart under the weight of their crimes, new world. Clark would kick their ass.

[FreedomAngel82]

59. Ha!

Southern vet? Look at John McCain and what they say about him! And he's a southern republican from Arizona! Give me a break. Wow Alabama has a road named after Clark. Whoopie. John Kerry actually has done actual things for people such as his small business bill. Have you ever watched "Going UpRiver" and "Unfinished Symphony"? Anybody who hasn't seen these films must.

[roguevalley]

151. They can slam the southern generals but the people won't like it.

They didn't like it in Ohio with Hacket and they won't like it in 2007-08.

[Clark2008]

121. That road is in Huntsville, AL - near the military base

Been there many times growing up. My Dad lived in Huntsville (now in Grant, a bedroom community of Huntsville). :)

[FreedomAngel82]

56. Exactly!

Kerry is a real hero! He had the right to go up against the government in 1971. You should watch "Unfinished Symphony" on the Sundance Channel. The next showing is August 24th or 26th. Check the sundance site. Give me a freakin break!

[FreedomAngel82]

55. WTF?

Don't talk bad about a man who put their life on the line? What the shit do you call what John Kerry did?! HUH? He put his life on the line by going up against the government in 1971! They tried so hard to find something on Kerry to get him but didn't. Give me a break! You think Clark is above smearing? Please! :eyes:

[Texas_Kat]

74. No, but the difference is in the reaction to smears

When Kerry and Clark were campaigning together in Seattle, Clark came out and blistered the Swifties.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/29/clark_defends_kerry146s_record_slams_bush/

Wesley K. Clark yesterday hammered President Bush as ''incompetent" and ''indecisive," as he kicked off a raucous outdoor rally for John F. Kerry before the Democratic presidential nominee ceded the political spotlight for the Republican National Convention this week.

Offering a preemptive strike against expected GOP criticism of Kerry, his military record, and his decisiveness, Clark used his stature as a retired Army general and former allied supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe to vouch not only for Kerry during the Vietnam War, but also to argue that he is the most competent leader on domestic and foreign policies.

''Where was George Bush when young men from Arkansas and Texas and Massachusetts were called to serve their country and went to Vietnam?" Clark shouted as Kerry stood next to him before thousands gathered in a parking lot outside the Tacoma Dome. ''Where was George Bush? He wasn't there. I think it's outrageous that the president of the United States can question the medals and the service and the valor of American veterans who have served."

Clark added: ''We say to George Bush, enough is enough. You want to match early records of service? Throw it open to the public. Let's read about your efficiency reports. Let's read about that honorable discharge. Let's show it out there. Let something out. But if you want to talk about what the American people want to talk about, then let's talk about policies."

The response from the Kerry camp:

"Afterward, Kerry spokesman David Wade said of Clark: ''Obviously, he's very angry about these attacks. He does not speak for us, though."

Yep, I could tell right off they were 2 very different people.....

[sandnsea]

78. Thats how politics works

Do you think people say anything during a Presidential campaign that isn't approved? That's what surrogates are supposed to do, attack. And the campaign is supposed to stay above the fray. Geesh.

[Texas_Kat]

84. Oh yes, I know how it works....

I also know that WKC speaks his mind. He really had a lot of hope for John Kerry and he really was angry about what was going on with the tidy bowl vets.

Like I said before, Kerry's campaign was ineffectual in combating the smear tactics of the right.

They chose the "let's not make anybody mad at us" road and reaped the consequences.

[sandnsea]

86. Well you must not

Or you'd know that sending surrogates out is what campaigns always do. Or maybe the problem is they sent the wrong surrogate, Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

89. Oh that's right!

Kerry lost because Wes Clark crisscrossed the country tireless campaigning for him.

I thought I recognized that tactic! Its' the famous "Blame somebody else' defense.

He wasn't "sent out", WKC was standing next to Kerry as he defended him.

(More effectively than you're defending your point of view here, I might add)

[sandnsea]

92. Then what is your point

If he was standing right next to him, do you think he was saying stuff Kerry didn't approve of? The statement from David was above the fray cover, geesh. You're the one that's talking about how great Clark was standing next to Kerry, attacking the Swifties. Logical conclusion, if he lost because of the Swifties, Clark mustn't have done his surrogate job very well, crosscrossing the country and attacking the Swifties. This is your story, not mine. You're the one that needs to defend it.

I still say inch deep support is why we lost, every Clark, Kucinich and Dean thread I see is more evidence of it.

[Texas_Kat]

99. So, how much work did you actually do in real life for John Kerry?

How many conference calls with his staff? How many doors did you knock? How many LTTE's did you write. How much fundraising did you do? Just how many hours did your work for your preferred candidate?

I spent many hours working with the Kerry people and frankly, I only did it because Clark asked us to.

Inch deep support... be glad Kerry got that much ....

Frankly, the hours would have been better spent on local races.

[sandnsea]

100. You prove my point

Thanks.

I gave up my entire life for the last two years, online and offline. More hours and letters and phone calls and doors than I can count. And I would have done the same for Clark, not because Kerry asked me to, but because he is a good man too. As is Edwards, Gephardt, Dean, and even Lieberman in his own way. I'm a Democrat.

[Texas_Kat]

103. Well, maybe Kerry losing was YOUR fault.

The other 2 Democratic candidates I did work for in Texas won, so it couldn't have been me.

[sandnsea]

105. Local candidates

Who ran away from the national campaign. Right?

[Texas_Kat]

108. Of course,

Kerry was the kiss of death in Texas except in some very specific dark blue areas.

[sandnsea]

110. Happens every time

Southern Democrats win by trashing the national party, then wonder why the national party doesn't want anything to do with them and why their states never get any more progressive. It's your own damned fault, I don't feel sorry for you and I don't want you or your candidates running the country. I'm with Bill Maher, no more Texans. I'll go one further, if Texas supports it, I'm against it.

[roguevalley]

154. And we aren't? Clark supporters aren't dems? Sort of heard this type

of argument before. So, you gave your heart and soul to a candidate that was committee'd to death. I don't care what his strategy was. If failed. It couldn't overcome the crap. You have to do that now. You have to overcome the crap and get the upper hand or you lose. He couldn't even show how his record in Viet Nam trumped Bush's. He didn't have it. Too bad. Doesn't make him a bad man. He is a good man. He's a rotten candidate.

[roguevalley]

152. perhaps that's how 'politics' works but it didn't work this time did it.

Hacket showed how its done just like Clark. Kerry was trying to be all things to all people and become no one to anyone. Too bad. He lost and not learning the lessons of his loss beyond blaming the other guys will
lose us the next one.

[Texas_Kat]

168. It is different than Maine in the South

Truer words were never spoken.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Yes, yes; once again, ANYTHING that happens is a harbinger for Clark

All roads lead to Clark. ClarkClarkClarkClarkClark.

The sun comes up again. Clark. All nature chirps and sings in harmony. Clark. Even the chickens seem to "clark" away happily.

Yes, he's an iron-fisted patriarch and a cuddly daddybear. He's hot ice and wondrous strange snow. Laws of physics and humanity whither in his presence. How can anyone not swoon at his mention, and how can anyone not steer every conversation into another joyfest? How can they not SEE?

Geez. Talk about raining on somebody's parade; or more apropos: toasting someone else at a person's funeral. A guy got either whupped or robbed today, and people might want to think about other things right now. Give it a rest for a second. It sounds like a cult.

Lest we forget, too, Clark's ringing endorsement didn't sway it, now did it?

Come on, let people talk about something else for once, okay? There are interesting angles to the dynamics of today's election, and discussion of them is a damn sight more constructive than divining tea leaves and throwing the I-Ching just to come up with the same conclusion you'd come up with regardless what the outcome was.

He has a big following here. Great. We get that.

There are a lot of people like me who have their admiration for the guy (qualified or not) dimmed by the endless din.

[Texas_Kat]

25. What you don't seem to get

is that WKC has a committed and energized group of supporters everywhere, not just DU.

We were very proud to support Paul Hackett. We'll be helping support many more Democratic candidates in 06.

So what's your beef? Do you think Clark didn't help Paul Hackett, or are you upset that he did......?

Where were all the other Dems (except for Max Cleland) who should have helped him too. Oh, that's right...uh.... they were busy... uh... they didn't have any extra cash lying around... uh... sorry, they're too busy campaigning for 2008. Yeah, that seems about right.

Go rain on somebody else's parade.

[sandnsea]

28. In Ohio

When was Carville there fundraising? Who did Cleland campaign for in 2003? I personally know Kerry people who were in Ohio and I know I gave money as well. Same thing happened in the last primary, some folks bragged, others worked. The workers won.

[Texas_Kat]

31. Oh, yeah... I forgot Carville was with Cleland in Ohio

recently at the same rally.

Where was Kerry?

LOUDER!!!! I can't hear you down here in Texas. (Lost by 3.5 million votes --- kind of a record isn't it?)

[sandnsea]

35. You really want to go there?

Who couldn't get out of New Hampshire?

Yeah, the Kerry vote was a record, closest vote running against a sitting President in nearly 100 years.

[Texas_Kat]

38. Different record in the red states altogether...

Despite all the money that those of us who supported other candidates in the Presidential primaries poured into his campaign.

Despite all the organizational help we gave his campaign when our candidate dropped out.

If you don't know the details firsthand.... don't go there..... You'd only be disappointed.

[sandnsea]

39. Yeah

Because your candidates couldn't even win over the Democrats, let alone the rest of the country. YOURS couldn't even win the Democrats and Independents in New Hampshire, which is the exact kind of state you're saying he could win in the GE in 2008. Makes no sense at all.

[Texas_Kat]

41. My candidate had 4 months to learn how to become a politician

Yours had 20+ years.

Mine's learned a lot since then about politics, hasn't he? Your's learned ___________ (Fill in the blanks)

New Hampshire isn't a red state. If you think it is, it says a lot about why Northeastern Democrats have such trouble outside their own region.

[sandnsea]

43. Or maybe

It's why the south will never vote for a Dem. Unless southern Dems, like Landrieu, Pryor and Lincoln, start bringing the south into the 21st century. Until then, the south is going to go Republican, no matter who the candidate is. All I've seen your candidate learn is how to go back on corporate boards and cozy up to the fauxnuts.

[Texas_Kat]

82. Let's hope he converts the 22% of Fox watchers who are independents

to Democratic voters.

BTW, in case you didn't know, 21 percent of Fox watchers are Democrats -- according to the latest Pew figures.

The,, perhaps your tactic of shouting at people will win more over to our side.

Hmmm, maybe we should think about that a little bit.....

Shouting as a persuasion tactic.... uh.... maybe not such a good idea.

[sandnsea]

85. Fox viewers & southerners

That's your strategy? Okeedoke.

Louder doesn't mean shouting. It means more voices repeating the same message, important messages that are right in front of us today. Not pitting Democrats against each other over an election 3 years down the road when your candidate could be dead by then.

[Texas_Kat]

91. No, it means shouting. (especially in all caps)

As evidenced by your comments in this thread.

and in the South, it doesn't go over very well.

No Democratic candidate has won the presidency in the last 20 years without picking up some Southern states. Dean has the right idea, a 50 state strategy or we'll continue to lose.

Hackett helped prove that with the right candidate we can turn red districts blue. Had 'em running scared. He's not a southerner but could have even won a seat in Texas.

I'm convinced of it.

[sandnsea]

93. Don't tell me what I mean

Hackett did so well because of unity. There was no time for the left to realize he supports the occupation and start tearing him down for that, or his hunting, or whatever other stuff they would have come up with. They also attacked the right's attacks; they didn't say "where there's smoke, there's fire", he needs to explain his record, bla bla, the way they did with Kerry. One message, unified voice, LOUDER. That's why Hackett did so well.

[Texas_Kat]

96. It's not what you say, it's what others hear.

Now you're blaming the left for attacking Kerry?

So you think there Democrats hiding in OH-2 that didn't vote for Kerry because the left persuaded them not to?

"There was no time for the left to realize he supports the occupation and start tearing him down for that, or his hunting, or whatever other stuff they would have come up with."

Excuse me? this makes absolutely no sense at all.

Did you actually follow the Hackett campaign? Did you hear the right make an attempt to 'swiftboat" him by saying he wasn't a 'combat commander' and his service didn't amount to much?

I guess I'm not understanding how the 'left' may have made Kerry lose the election...

[sandnsea]

98. I think you understand

I got into it with Minameyer himself, I know full well what went on in the Hackett campaign. I also know that the left did exactly what they should have done for Kerry, just flat shut it down. Nobody said "there must be some truth to it or he wouldn't say it", "Hackett has to explain what he did in Iraq". No, they called it what it was, right wing smear tactics, and ended it. We begged people to do that, and only that, last year.

Supporting the occupation and hunting probably doesn't make sense to you because you probably don't know that Hackett "supports the occupation" and hunts, just like Kerry. It's okay with the left this year, horror of horrors last year; leading people to "hold their nose" which was trumpeted by the media endlessly.

Unity. One Message. Raising voices LOUDER. That's how Hackett nearly won. That's how Kerry could have won. And yes, I blame the left as much as I blame the out of touch DLC.

[Texas_Kat]

101. Of course I know what Hackett's stand on the issues is.

You have a very broad brush to paint others with. Maybe you should try checking your assumptions at the door.

The MSM didn't persuade me of ANYTHING about Kerry. I knew as much as I needed to know about him by January 2003.

[sandnsea]

102. Post #99 says it all

No assumptions, no broad brush.

[Texas_Kat]

104. I'll take you at your word then.

No more assumptions about Clark folks. No broad brush generalizing about who and what we are. No more denigrating comments from you about WKC.

That's what you meant about being a Democrat, right?

I'll keep that in mind.

[sandnsea]

106. You admitted it all

So no, I don't have to assume anymore. You've told me the truth, you never supported Kerry.

[Texas_Kat]

107. Yes, but it's much more noble to dislike someone and work for them anyway.

Did you hear about ABB?

Well, that explains it pretty much. Sometimes you have to settle for what you can get.

Did I ever give you the impression that I was enthusiastic about John Kerry AT ANY TIME? (that's shouting btw).

If I gave you that impression, I apologize.

[sandnsea]

109. No, it's useless

Next time, if you don't like the candidate, stay home. It hurts, it doesn't help.

And did YOU hear about ABB? It backfired. Turns out people want to vote FOR a candidate, like they wanted to vote FOR Paul Hackett because everybody campaigning for him wanted him to win.

And I am done with this conversation. I will keep it in mind when considering candidates in 2008.

[roguevalley]

161. People want to vote for a candidate but it was ABB. That was Kerry's

fault. he should have made it For Kerry. But he didn't. You denigrate a multitude of people when you make generalizations. Also, people will often work for crap candidates because they love their country more than that candidate, as was reflected by millions of people in 2004.

I didn't give up two years to work for Kerry. I'm sorry that it appears to have been a bitter experience for you, his lose. But don't blame us. We gave money, we knocked on doors and we voted. he lost. Its incumbant upon us to know why and not repeat the experience. Ignoring Kerry's failure, blaming others, its a sure fire way to repeat the experience.

[Mass]

125. You sure did not - should we care?

The point is that Hackett's results is a victory for all Dems.

If the OP wants to appropriate it to Clark, he can expect being contradicted.

If you cant stand it, too bad for you.

[roguevalley]

160. Think about it. Kerry is a veteren politician and he was the man in the

driver's seat. Why the hell didn't he do better? Why didn't he grab the reins and think for himself? Don't you want a President that doesn't need a committee to tell him when to smile? You are casting all around every corner except focusing on the man who ran the show and took a few million with him when it was over. He was the man who should have run the show and if he didn't, then why not? What kind of candidate is he?

[Clark2008]

123. The South is in the 21st Century.

Your Southern bashing is ridiculous - and, well, shows your ignorance about the region.

You know, we have water (cheaper than yours, I might add), shoes, dentists and we don't marry our cousins - royalty does that.

What we differ in is our culture - and our culture is no more backwards or forwards than anyone elses. Stop looking down your nose at us - it will never win the Dem Party any votes!

[PurityOfEssence]

47. Republicans won New Hampshire 11 out of the last 15 presidential elections

Dems won in '04, '96, '92 and '64.

Republicans won in '00, '88, '84, '80, '76, '72, '68, '60, '56, '52 and '48.

What the hell are you talking about? It's been a standard bone of contention within the party to have this be the lead-off primary due to its atypical nature.

[Texas_Kat]

94. Okay, let me make it simple for you.

Democrats carried NH in 3 out of the last 4 presidential elections,

No Democratic presidential candidate has seriously contested Texas since 1976 (Jimmy Carter).

Texas (in most areas) is red, New Hampshire is not.

If you think NH is an example of a truly red state, you seriously underestimate the challenge of running candidates where its always an uphill climb.

[FreedomAngel82]

65. Then why was John Kerry the victor in the primaries huh?

The voters voted HIM. NOT anybody else.

[roguevalley]

158. and he still lost. learn from the losses or keep them coming.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. a few minutes ago, yet again, the top three threads here were about Clark

Enough already. Fine, draw your conclusions, but the GD Politics board is CONSTANTLY choked with pro-Clark threads. It's like inviting a newly born-again Christian into your house.

Jumping into seemingly every current event to hijack it as proof that only the one true winner must be the one we throw our lots with is tiresome. I'll bet it alienates more than it drags onto the bandwagon.

It just doesn't let up for a second. There's gonna be a damned earthquake some day that is touted as undeniable proof of Clark being the one true choice.

By the way, John Edwards helped organize a get-out-the-vote effort through his One America Committee, you can look it up. Hackett certainly could have used more help, but Clark wasn't the only one who tried.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Purity.....

this almost sound like jealousy.

That's not a good thing.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. "There are only two kinds of people...

...those who are in my frat, and those who want to be."

The tenor of so many posts from Clarksville just smack of conservatism; it's the same scorched-earth ridicule over and over. Why don't you just pull out all the stops, crank up that mighty Wurlitzer and say I'm whining?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[FreedomAngel82]

67. You think this is about jealousy?!

Get off your high horse! Read what people are saying! This is NOTHING about jealousy! Please! :eyes: Give me a break! This is about nothing but Clark threads in GD Politics everyday! IT'S ANNOYING!

[FrenchieCat]

111. You are starting to make me think so.....

Truthfully, you are acting really upset!

Is it this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1975105

I think it's a bit much....and seems a bit pathetic. :shrug:

I don't have a problem with Kerry....I just like Wes Clark better. You have the opposite opinion. Difference is that I don't pitch a fit when Kerry has threads running about him.

Chill....tomorrow's another day!

[CarolNYC]

137. Where is this GD politics board you guys are seeing???

I look at the first two pages of this forum and, just from thread titles, there are one thread each about Diane Fienstein, Kerry, Biden, McCain and Boxer, two threads about Clinton (Bill), three threads about Dean, 13 threads about Paul Hackett (plus various others about yesterday's election) and a whopping 2 that mention Clark.

Have all of these Clark threads that have you guys in such a fit of fury been deleted??? Why?

[PurityOfEssence]

140. This is crap; look at the time of the post

This was late last night, Pacific time.

At the point when I wrote this, partisan Clark threads were 1-2-3.

Maybe you should look at the thread from Bucky, entitled "A sober note to my fellow Clarkies". This is a thread imploring other Clark supporters to try and see it from the other side.

You've disputed this contention before. Do I need to call up the other threads?

How on earth do you make a pronouncement more than 14 hours later that disputes board placement? The very point of the post was what was happening RIGHT THEN.

It's not just me, there are others who are extremely turned-off by the near-religious fervor, and at least one of your own camp found it appropriate to address others.

The guy's got his points, but scorching the earth and flooding the bandwidth with adulation is annoying. It also DOESN'T WORK.

You can skew a small place like this, but that doesn't mean anything. All you've done by doing so is take away the homey refuge of a place like this.

[CarolNYC]

141. OK, so there were three threads...

and now there are two. That one more thread is what made all the difference to you?? Interesting....

Besides, I was responding to this comment:
"This is about nothing but Clark threads in GD Politics everyday! IT'S ANNOYING!" ...So you're telling me that 3 threads last night or whenever you saw them translates into "nothing but Clark threads in GD Politics everyday!" Sorry but I don't see it that way....You seem to be hyperbolizing to the extreme. It weakens your argument quite a bit, if you don't mind my saying.

[CarolNYC]

142. "Do I need to call up the other threads?"

Please do and thanks for offering.

[PurityOfEssence]

144. One is this one, one is YOURS, and the other is a Clark/Hackett ticket

Wes Clark's robocall for Hackett

CLARK/HACKETT '08

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1975840&mesg_id=1975840

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1980233&mesg_id=1980233

[CarolNYC]

146. Thanks....

So these three threads translate into "all Clark all the time" for you guys...as I said, interesting....I've always seen lots of other stuff in with the Clark threads...but maybe you have all of those other threads hidden or something.

Again, thanks for the links...but you should unhide all of those other threads. There's some interesitng stuff being discussed. :hi:

[PurityOfEssence]

148. Don't snivel about being characterized if you habitually do so to others

There are many tiresome human characteristics, but hypocrisy is one of the greatest. It comes from an egocentric mindset and is spawned from the same impulse as conservatism: others don't deserve the same rights I grant myself.

NO CANDIDATE gets as many threads started for his/her cause as does Wesley Clark on this board. Except for Hillary and John Kerry, threads started in a candidate's behalf are generally respected and left alone.

Clark support here is nowhere near what it was, is, or probably will be in the general population, yet we're treated to continual lauding.

If you care about your candidate, learn--and teach your cohorts--to back the fuck off and not cram the messiah down our throats. Maybe, with time, others will see the virtues, but using ESSENTIALLY CONSERVATIVE TACTICS of ridiculing others and continually demanding the floor won't win over most people on the left. Conservatives like to be led and bow down in front of their godking leader; leftists only come to the party when they feel included.

If you have a scrap of decency, you'll apologize for intimating that I wasn't telling the truth about last night's new edition of fervor.

I'm waiting.

It's okay; those who aren't conservatives can admit mistakes. People like Junior can't, and most tough-guy blustering assholes can't either. The tenor of hammering from many Clark supporters rings of the need for conservative control. Just where DO you stand?

[dogman]

153. Teach us more oh pure one.

Talk about self-importance and hypocrisy.

[roguevalley]

165. Since each thread isn't REQUIRED reading, I don't know how

anyone is cramming anything down anyone's throat. Since you feel its abusive to read Clark threads, I would say you are self-abusing since you are entering them. If you want to be pure and extra liberal and all the rest, do yourself a favor. Don't open the threads. No one is making you. There is no test later. That's where I stand.

RV, radical lefty and liberal for 52 years.

[CarolNYC]

171. Call me stupid,

but I don't really know what you're talking about here....

Let me take a stab anyway...You seem to be contending that 3 Clark threads at the top of the GD Politics board translates into "nothing but Clark threads in GD Politics everyday!" I disagree. I disagree when I wrote that and I disagree now because the notion is so absurd. There may be too many Clark threads for your liking but to suggest that 3 threads one night constitutes the whole board everyday just makes no sense. For finding this notion absurd and nonsensical, you want me to apologize? You want me to admit I'm wrong about there being threads other than those about Clark in this forum??? I never suggested that there weren't three threads about Clark on the forum at the same time. I just think that there are more than 3 threads in this forum at all times, no???? I'm confused as hell...Maybe I drank too much at Charlie's 75th birthday party.

If there's something else that actually makes sense that you feel I need to apologize for, than I will. I certainly don't come here to fight with other Democrats and I can't beleive that I've been sucked into wasting so much time in such a ridiculous discussion. I've got a plethora of better things to be doing and I suspect you do also...We've got Democrats to elect in 2006...let's get cracking!

Oh, and watch out, your head might explode...there's more new Clark threads on the board! Yikes! :)

Be well, really....

[roguevalley]

164. So? Who cares? I was under the impression that this was GD

Politics.

[roguevalley]

163. This is an open board. People post what interests them. Don't

read them if they bother you. Do you advocate censureship? What are you saying then? Don't read the threads. Homey refuge for who? I come here to read news, discuss the latest whatever and read politics. Some of them are Clark threads. I don't read others because I don't care for the candidates mentioned. I don't advocate censureship. I just don't read them.

"The guy's got his points, but scorching the earth and flooding the bandwidth with adulation is annoying. It also DOESN'T WORK."

Work for what? I wasn't aware discussing Clark had a purpose beyond conversation and information. We get it. You don't care for Clark.

[roguevalley]

162. so there are a lot of threads about Clark and its ANNOYING?

So what? Don't read them. Start your own on your own man or woman. For goodness sake. Do we have to censure our discussions now so that they don't offend anyone? Clark forever.

[CarolNYC]

138. It sure does, Frenchie n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

66. Exactly

This is one reason why I hardly ever come to GD Politics anymore. It's all about Clark, Clark, Clark. I like the guy but please! There's always talk about 2008 and Clark being the nomination. It gets really old and tiring so I mostly stick to the Kerry group and GD threads and various other places. It gets really tiring. Even when someone mentioned Bredesen/Edwards in that thread it quickly turned to Clark.

[PurityOfEssence]

81. It's nuts, isn't it? The guy's got his points, but ahhhhhh!

There are finer points of manners that just can't be taught, and one of them is knowing when to stop. The tactics smack of conservative crushing of opposition and obsessive evangelizing.

[roguevalley]

166. YIKES! SOMEONE MENTIONED KERRY! HOW DARE THEY!

Stop cramming Kerry down my throat.

[FreedomAngel82]

64. The problem is

nobody here can talk about someone else without someone else mentioning Clark, Clark, Clark. There are always a dozen threads on Clark here in GD politics. This is why I hardly come here. It's a Clark groupie board. I like Clark but I get sick of it too. Would you like it if this was just nothing but John Kerry?

[FrenchieCat]

32. Why don't you go start a thread about a 2006 candidate you support....

or something? I mean, I donated to the Hackett campaign.....and I wrote letters.

What did you do?

PS. There ain't no fucking funeral going on....or haven't you read the multiple threads that illustrate the fact that Hackett did WAY much better than expected.

Get a gripe.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. People have started other threads!

But this place is mostly Clark, Clark, Clark! This isn't a Clark groupie board! This is GD Politics! Not long ago (last month or two) someone made a Bredesen/Edwards thread (or vice versea) and it quickly turned about Clark, Clark, Clark!

[Skwmom]

58. Maybe if we say his name often enough a

lightbulb will go on and the Democrats will realize that they can win with Clark (of course the American people will also win by having a man in the Whitehouse who actually gives a *amn about them and this country).

The Republicans didn't say thanks but no thanks to Reagan. Of course, unlike the Democrats they know how to win.

[d_b]

129. ..

lol

[HootieMcBoob]

130. toasting at someone else's funeral?

Hackett's showing last night can hardly be compared to a funeral. I'd go so far as to call it a birth. He showed the Democratic party how to run a campaign in a red state! This is a victory!

And this is hardly divining tea leaves. It should be as apparent as the nose on our faces.

We can make the smart choice and the winning choice or we can make the politically safe choice that the DC consultants would like to make.

[roguevalley]

156. And so why does that bother you? I suppose it might make some

happier if we didn't talk about Clark. I didn't mind hearing the support for Kerry, Dean and Kucinich and the others. Why do you care if there are people who support clark, want to talk about him and strategize? I am tired of sarcasm about anyone's support of their candidate. I am tired of sarcasm about Clark too.

[paulk]

45. not really

and I think this constant jockeying for position by proponents for candidates in a race that's three years away is a waste of time. And very divisive.

Clark was my second choice for Pres. in 2004 and my first for VP - but the constant din of Clark! Clark! Clark! on DU is really starting to get on my nerves.

Advocating for a candidate three years out strikes me as just plain ridiculous.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[FreedomAngel82]

70. And again

this is NOT a Clark groupie board. This is GD Politics. EVERYTHING here turns into Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

80. Since this thread is clearly labeled

"Hackett showing in OH bodes well for Clark in 2008"

you might want to read the title before you begin posting in a thread that obviously upsets you.

Threads about Clark get started because he's very active in working for Democrats.

I guess it would be more to your likeing if he didn't make news?

Would that make it all better?
:sarcasm:

[1932]

83. The OP asks "does anybody agree with me?" BTW

[Texas_Kat]

87. And until the meltdowns

everybody did

[1932]

88. Interesting logic. Until people disagreed, everyone agreed.

What's that called? A truism? A tautology?

[Texas_Kat]

97. NO, but complaining about threads discussing Clark

because they are about Clark is .... pretty passive/aggressive, don'cha think?

I don't care if you (or anyone) agrees or disagrees with the OP. But complaining as though someone is forced to post in a Clark thread (especially with the 'your guy sucks' attitude) just means that somebody wants a fight.

But doesn't have the ... whatever.... to engage in some sort of adult discussion.

[LandOLincoln]

90. "Everything in here" most certainly does not

"turn to Clark," and if you don't like Clark threads damn well DON'T READ THEM.

[paulk]

134. "don't read them"

this is the general discussion/politics forum, so I don't understand your point. People are going to read and comment on what gets posted here. It's the purpose of this board.

If you want to post Clark threads that benefit from an echo chamber, post them in the Clark forum. That's what IT is for.

[LandOLincoln]

95. That's simply a lie. There's no other word for it.

And calling us "groupies" is one hell of a way to show your gratitude to supporters of the man YOUR guy chose as his star surrogate.

[paulk]

133. I'm not "bitching". The point I made is that this is divisive.

And I want you to understand that your attitude reflects DIRECTLY on the candidate you are advocating for.

Do you understand?

[LandOLincoln]

136. I understand that it would be divisive for me to make

negative posts in a Kerry thread, or a Dean thread, or an Edwards thread etc., therefore I don't post in those threads unless I have something positive to say, therefore I'm never forced to make petulant, childish excuses for petulant, childish behavior.

I also understand it would be divisive of me to whine that "_____ groupies" are "taking over DU" every time there are two or three threads going about any given candidate/former candidate/possible future candidate; therefore once again I'm spared the necessity of trying to excuse my own petulant, childish behavior by means of more petulant, childish behavior.

Finally, I understand that if I were to dismiss any candidate/former candidate/possible future candidate simply because a few of his or her supporters have posted in ways I find objectionable, I would quickly find no one at all that I could support.

Do you understand? :hi:

[roguevalley]

167. Devisive to whom? The few that always post and complain? I don't

see dozens of posters, even new ones. Its the same ones. Devisive to whom indeed.

[paulk]

170. it's divisive to be fighting the primaries 3 years before they even happen

and that applies to everyone, not just Clark. It applies to all the stupid 2008 poll threads, too. The primaries blew DU up - it would be nice if people would get back to fighting Bush instead of each other on this board.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[1932]

71. Hacket has more in common with Kerry, especially now.

Both are lawyers who served in wars and lost their first race for congress.

Hacket is on track for becoming Lt Gov of Ohio, then Senator, and then running a close-but-no-cigar race for President.

[FreedomAngel82]

75. Don't forget speaking out against the government

[1932]

77. Yes--Kerry crticized a war he fought. Hacket is very similar to Kerry.

[FrenchieCat]

112. Yes, it is true....there are similarities

The John Kerry from the 1972 era and Hackett of today do have a similar history.

The difference is that Kerry wanted to end the Vietnam War (so did I)....although he had no real issue with the start of that war....

while Hackett said he wouldn't have voted for IRAQ...but yet doesn't want us picking up and leaving until it's made somewhat right again....

Anyways...they are both good guys.

[bowens43]

113. Disagree. Clark is a loser.

Democrats don't like him. You do remember the primaries don't you? You're willing to give up the votes of the vast majority of Democrats to get a few Republicans?

No thanks.

[Dinger]

116. Democrats Like Him Just Fine Thank You

[dogman]

118. Go back and study the record.

He consistently did well. I would be willing to give up the votes of a few radical Democrats to get a majority of the American people.

[CarolNYC]

124. Hey, bowens, again I'll ask...

And I've asked you this before...a couple of times....but you ignored or didn't see it, so I'll post again:

From your posts, you seem woefully uninformed about Gen Clark.

Can I ask you to check out some of the resources in this thread before you pass judgment?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=235x6296

Or are you one of those who wishes to know as little as possible so you don't run into anything that conflicts with the opinion you've formed?? I hope not but it's sure starting to look like you are....

At least you dropped the line about all of the people who can't stand Clark...oh, and yeah, they never even heard of him, either! :P

Let me know when you've checked out the stuff in the link.

Thanks much! :hi:

[LandOLincoln]

126. Funny thing, b43, but I've yet to see you say anything

positive about ANY Democrat or other progressive, let alone indicate active support for a candidate. Why is that?

[mtnester]

117. If Clark would consider taking Hackett with him

a dream candidate...either put him in as VP, or make him the interference guy...Hackett is a valuable guy right now and in the future. Hope he is meeting with Dean before the week is out.

[quinnox]

119. No

This is silly, because Hackett almost won it means Clark will win in a landlside and because of Clark's supreme sun-like engulfing light the Democrats will take over the Congress too!? No, I don't think Clark is some kind of messiah for the Democratic party! This is getting to be like the Deaniacs used to be, except perhaps more disturbing. The man has hardly any national support, except for a few internet political junkies. Well, so did Dean and they were saying the race was over and he was going to trample everyone, look what happened. Don't confuse internet support with real political wide spread support.

[Nashyra]

169. Wrong

General Clark has plenty of support off the internet and in particularly Republican County's who understand his no nonsense message, he has the ability to promote a progressive message in a moderate tone. It is my experience that he is well recieved very well in many venues, and more each day. Clark supporter's are hard workers for the Demcratic cause just as Dean supporter's are, in fact anyone actively working for any of true former candidates organization should be given a pat on the back, those are part of the true grassroot backbone.

[rndmprsn]

120. clark would be a fantastic candidate...

in fact if the ticket in 04 ended up being clark/dean i think our margin of victory would have been impressive.

ppl like straight-talkers and those who stand up for themselves and believe in something, no doubt about it.

[nickshepDEM]

128. I actually thought about this last night...

[Eurobabe]

143. Clark got a great reception

from everyone I knew in OH, Dems and Repubs, too bad they never had a say in the primaries.

Why do you think I sport THIS on my car? A little bit of sanity in an otherwise INSANE county -- WARREN.

[The HL]

145. New Comic at The Hollywood Liberal

Check out the new Comic from The Hollywood Liberal.

Bush Talks To The Astronauts.

as well as a new story.
20 Dead Ohio Marines in 2 Days. Somewhere Paul Hackett is Crying

www.thehollywoodliberal.com

If you like the comic there are lots more www.thehollywoodliberal.com/comic_feature_links.htm

Thank You

[jurassicpork]

157. Nope.

My latest blog entry should explain why.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com