Clark/Hackett 2008?

[MoonRiver]

Poll question: Clark/Hackett 2008?

Sounds like an awesome combo to me!

[w13rd0]

1. No reason to believe that going...

...heavy on military service will somehow innoculate anyone from scurilous and deceptive attacks. I'm more concerned with the 2006 at this point.

[Caleb]

2. Hackett should for Senate in 2006

But Clark in 2008 sounds good!

[HootieMcBoob]

4. Hackett for statewide office in Ohio first

Senator Hackett sounds good to me

[OhioBlue]

13. I agree

I think Hackett would be GREAT to run against DeWine. DeWine may have a tough primary ahead. Not sure - but the uber-conservatives aren't happy with him either. Look at how Schmidt attacked him for his "compromise" on judges and the nuclear option. I'm 100% for Hackett running for Senator in '06!!!!

[tk2kewl]

21. Yep

If Hackett runs for Senate he will beat DeWine in a walk and he will drive the debate for every national candidate's debate: "Do you agree with Paul Hackett that the Predident is a chickenhawk?"

I can't see Hackett as veep. We need to see how he'll do in Congress first.

[davidinalameda]

3. Clark and anyone is my choice

:bounce:

[MoonRiver]

5. Me too, but the idea of sending an army so to speak to fight the election

sounds good.

[davidinalameda]

7. that would be a great campaign theme

Clark's Army

retaking America

[MoonRiver]

9. I like it!

[WI_DEM]

6. No

I like Clark, but Hackett needs to get some more experience before he goes national. I like the idea of his either running again for congress or seeking a statewide office in Ohio.

[mattclearing]

8. He can win next year...just keep the pressure on Schmidt.

Every time she sides with President Bush, he can issue press releases. He might as well continue campaigning.

[Raiden]

10. Why not?!

Although Hackett should run for senate

[MoonRiver]

11. When is the next Senate race in Ohio?

Unless its soon we need to think about winning big in 2008.

[OhioBlue]

14. 2006 against DeWine

who is polling terribly.

[MoonRiver]

15. Does it seem likely he'll run?

It would be great if he does. We need him in the Senate as much as on the '08 ticket.

[OhioBlue]

17. From what I've seen in other posts and blogs

He is debating right now and talking with his wife to decide his future. He has said that he wants to see where he thinks he will do the most for his Country - meaning either returning to Iraq or running for office again. I don't think it is impossible for him to run, but have not seen anything that says he has indicated that he is thinking about running for Senate.

[PassingFair]

12. Can we just play with our army guys

and get it out of our systems instead?
Jeez!

[jonnyblitz]

18. i was thinking similar thoughts. nt

[OhioBlue]

16. I'll go for Clark in '08

but... As much as I love Clark, he needs to sharpen his debate skills. (I know it didn't matter for the shrub...) But, I think a seasoned pol might do better to balance Clark out.

[Donna Zen]

19. The Debates need to be more than "dog and pony" shows:

That would better inform the people, and grant more dignity to the candidates.

What we currently call debates are nothing more than an exercise in soundbites. Clark, btw, was on both West Point's and Oxford's winning debate teams. He also coached debate when he was a West Point professor.

[OhioBlue]

25. wow - didn't know that about Clark

Don't get me wrong - I love Clark, but saw him get tripped up a couple of times when he was talking on behalf of the Kerry campaing on CNN

[Jai4WKC08]

26. Huh? When?!

I'm sure I saw every single one of Clark's CNN appearances as a Kerry surrogate and I NEVER saw him as anything but in complete control of the conversation.

Specifics would be appreciated.

Edit to add: I'm not trying to jump on you about this, OB. I'm sincerely curious as to when the heck you're talking about.

[OhioBlue]

30. I'm trying to remember what the specific issue was

I have one particular interview in my mind. it was Wolf Blitzer and I don't know who was talking the RNC talking points. I remember the gist of it and wish I could give you a link or a specific. I just remember Clark saying.. Kerry never or would never... something and Wolf came back with well what about Kerry's statement here... and he got tripped up. It was over talking points and debunked crap. All the stuff that was going on during the '04 cycle. I just remember thinking that I could have answered and Clark looked a little bit at a loss for words.

Let me also say - that defending another persons beliefs and stands on an issue cannot be easy especially when that person has so many years in public service to pick apart and draw from. I'm sure he would be much better at articulating his own beliefs and stands on issues.

Anyway - I like Clark, and I would support Clark. It was just my impression that to go against the noise machine and the corporate media, one would have to be a little better seasoned. I'm not bashing Clark by any means. I just felt like he wasn't prepared to go against the right-wing scream fest.

Bottom line - I'm not trying to debate, it was just my impression of Clark - that he needed a little more experience in the political scene to be able to form things in a way that would win the point and win the "audience"

[Clark2008]

31. Well, after three years on Faux, I think he'll be more "seasoned"

regarding dealing with the Reich-wing media.

:)

[EST]

39. I have never, ever seen Clark flub the dud!

I was so sure he was going to, a few times, that I was starting to cringe in sympathy. Ha! He just knocked 'em down and put 'em away with such grace and aplomb that I was stunned. So cool...

[Raiden]

24. I think you may be right

He's not bad, but he could do better in debating. Although seeing him on O'Reilly just about two-weeks before the London bombing he was extremely prescient. Saying that Iraq is breeding terrorism that is being exported into Europe. I do think he has gotten better. But there's always room for improvement.

[MrSlayer]

20. Clark Yes! Hackett No!

I admire Hackett and all but when Wes is the top of the ticket we need someone with a strong political backround to be the VP.

[fujiyama]

22. Hackett seems like a good guy

and he performed well in one district...but ultimately he still lost.

Is this really enough to have him be vp?

Let him run for statewide office - senate or governor. Then maybe he can think about national politics.

[haypops]

27. Blackwell has got to go

Ohio needs a new secretary of State, one not in the pocket of diebold.

[AntiCoup2K4]

34. Best way to do that is make SOS an elected office, not an appointed one.

It varies from state to state. Cruella Harris was a Jeb appointee. Uncle Tom Blackwell was appointed by their Puke governor (Taft?)

Contrast that with Sam Reed's role in the recent Dino Rossi fiasco here in Washington State. Here, the SOS is an elected office, and Reed's accountable to the voters of this state for saving his own job, not to a Puke governor. And the fact that he's not friends with the far right extemists in the GOP didn't hurt. End result a Republican SOS who managed to act fairly and legally in a contested election.

States with appointed Secretaries of State really need to look at that and get it changed, if they can. Not sure if that could be done through the initiative process, or if Constitutional construction would be needed.

[Adelante]

23. Hackett for Senate

Clark for prez. A Congress member for VP. I like Jon Corzine for VP presently.

[leyton]

28. With a combined record of zero electoral victories...

I'm going to say no. Clark's a great guy, and he might make a good Veep candidate in 2008. As for Hackett - he had a good showing, but I wonder whether it can be replicated or if it was a one-time, special election occurrence.

[Clark2008]

29. I, for one, don't WANT a politician

So those zero votes is a plus in my book.

I want a leader!

[FrenchieCat]

32. Elected experience does NOT guarantee a win....

especially in a National Election.

Think now....who has won the presidency running in the general election against someone who hadn't ever won one in our Presidential history?


I'll be waiting......


BONUS QUESTION: who won the presidency without having ever won an election and beat someone who had?.....

[leyton]

35. Clark is no Eisenhower.

Forgive me, but Eisenhower was well-known among the American populace for his work during WW2 and in the aftermath; in short, he was a giant. Clark simply is not. I'm not denying that he may be qualified in some areas, you're fooling yourself if you think Wesley Clark is the next Eisenhower.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Well folks say that a lot....especially the GOP

They love the fact that Democrats enjoy selling each other short, including any great person that might come across and be in their party.

Clark doesn't have to be Eisenhower.....and I think he himself said that he wasn't him.

But there are similarities, whether you want to accept them or not. They bother were SUACER in Europe during a War. Wes Clark is currently the most decorated Officer SINCE Eisenhower. Both were courted by both party to join their ranks.

Clark is actually better educated than Eisenhower; better spoken, better read, and more telegenic and much more progressive.

Yes, Kosovo does count....except for Democrats who seem to like to discount recent wars won by Democrats (Clinton).

Sure, "I like Ike"....but "Wes is More".

What we conceive, we can achieve.

My initial response was based on your original point....and to that, I answered.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Damn, that was a tough one.

Had to vote no, reluctantly, but don't get me wrong, I love both these guys. They just don't have any political experience between the two of them. Hackett has to work his way up, and I hope he runs for higher office in Ohio. Clark on the other hand starts at the top as Supreme Allied Commander/Master of Time and Space. He may just ascend the throne directly.

Got my eye on Barack Obama too.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Neither has experience in elective office

and with the exception of George Washington, generals don't make good presidents.

The next President should know how to put a budget together, because the Bush's deficits will have to be dealt with.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Indiana Green.....

I have to say that it's OK to look at history for a some guidance, but I think that you are taking things a bit far. History ain't no crystal ball to the extent that you are making it out to be.

Plus I don't consider Wes Clark to be an ordinary General.

Clark worked as a WH fellow in the Budget office of management.

Clark has a Master in Economics from Oxford that he earned as a Rhodes Scholar there.

Clark has been an investment banker since his retirement in the year 2000.

So history is good to check out....and we shouldn't forget or repeat...but the future is not the past in that the gauge is broke.

Maybe Clark can take a chunk out of that pentagon budget to balance the budget. I consider that a real way of solving that problem....and Clark has stated that he would certainly go over that "Make-want" budget with a fine tooth comb. Reprioritizing that 400 billion per year might help us find something that others won't even look at.