How about this: Paul Hackett - US Senator

[LynneSin]

With the numbers he pulled in an extremely repuke district of Ohio, I think the guy could win the state if he ran against DeWine for US Senate.

Whatcha think?

[NewJeffCT]

1. sounds good to me

and Jerry Springer for governor?

maybe somebody from Ohio could weigh in on this topic?

[caitlyn]

63. I live in the 2nd CD (Cincinnati) and...

...I have to admit Paul Hackett ran a great campaign in a district where Rob Portman always got 70%+. I am uncomfortable with some of his stands on issues: pro Iraq war, pro NRA, against gun control. He's also really inexperienced.

I have to admit, though, he'd be electable and would give DeWine a run for his money. I'm afraid we'd be electing a DINO, though.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. Hackett isn't pro Iraq War...

He never supported the invasion in the first place and has been a HUGE critic of shrub's policies.

[caitlyn]

137. I heard Mr. Hackett's reply to Ms. Schmidt in the debate...

...where he said he was for it. She tried to claim he was anti-war and he denied it.

[Texas_Kat]

138. You've gotten your talking points from the wrong source

Don't depend on the wicked witch of Ohio, and (so it seems) don't listen to the DCCC either:

David Sirota on Paul Hackett's candidacy:

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=87810569-E9B0-2C7B-04A934ABE72AE1D2

The D.C. Democratic Establishment's disconnect on Iraq
On the issue of the Iraq War, the disconnect between the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party establishment and political reality in America is growing by the day. Case in point is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's attitude towards the tremendous special election run by Paul Hackett in the staunchly Republican Cincinnati suburbs.

Hackett, an Iraq War veteran, made headlines in the campaign for taking a strong position against the original decision to go to war in Iraq, even calling the President of the United States an SOB.

And while it's true, Hackett didn't support full withdrawal from Iraq, few would deny that his position opposing the war was a key part of his campaign.

[Jai4WKC08]

139. Is it possible you misunderstood?

She tried to claim he was anti-war and he denied it.

If Hackett denied he was anti-war, that would make sense. He's a Marine for gosh sakes. He wouldn't likely be anti-war. Or more precisely, he wouldn't anti-war in the sense of being a pacifist. Most military are against war except when they're absolutely necessary.

But that completely different from being pro-Iraq war. The Iraq War was not necessary.

[femrap]

162. not pro-war?

He willingly fought in the war....

[femrap]

161. EEK!

I was thinking of Strickland for Governor and Springer for Senator.

I live in District 1 of Ohio...and it is a horrid place to live. Hackett is a Reagan Dem....so I am not too thrilled w/ him....but since he fought in a war (that everyone is against), he is all of a sudden 'voting material.'

He could be another Salazar....voting with the pugs....I would want him to know that if he votes pug lite, his 'poodle do hair cut' is snipped!

[WCGreen]

165. I had the opprotunity to meet JS a while back

I use to be involved with the local party and I was invited to a meeting out of deference to my previous servie...

He told those gathered that he is about 75% sure that he is going to run...

Contractual obligations are holding him from announcing...

The problem he is facing is support from the local political powers that be....

They all have their favorites by now and are lining up to get at the booty.....

Springer doesn't need the party apparatus and is frightening some of the party regulars away because of it.....

His contractual obligations are up January 1st...

He has already been all through the state...

But, if he thinks someone else can win, he may decide not to run....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I was hoping OH had senate race this year

and that the incumbant was a repuke. But can Hackett be persuaded to do it, and can he? Or will he be back in Iraq?

[Ian David]

3. Wesley Clark / Paul Hacket 2012!

Chelsea Clinton / Alecia Keyes 2020!

[mountaindem]

57. great!!!

Clark/Hackett, the fastest way to another loss in '08. lol.

[Ian David]

68. No, Sharpton / Kucinich is our fastest way to a loss. n/t

[JNelson6563]

4. Sounds good

Is he up for it?

[mountaindem]

5. No thanks

I'm glad I'm not from Ohio, because I wouldn't vote for Hackett.
I come from middle class America, the middle class America that is sick of military types, sick of the pick-up truck or SUV driving people who act like their tough and better than someone and like it or not that's how these military types act.
Same goes for Wes Clark another "tough guy" military man.
That's why Bush won because these types are taking over instead of people with college education, etc.
We need someone who is willing to build a society based on work ethic, intelligence and those things, not people who want to keep building an ownership society.

I come from the America where I attend church every Sunday, go to work Monday through Friday and bust my ass just to get by and these military and tough guy types want to act like they're better than people? They can kiss my backside.
I didn't go to college for 10 years and be over $70,000 in debt for someone to just bruise their way ahead of me.
Let Hackett get in line and work his way up the ladder, same with Wes Clark. Until they've proven they understand the working man, and aren't just military men, they will never get my vote.
I come from middle America, I don't give a damn about Iraq, I do care about health care, jobs, education, etc.
I don't like what I see in public schools, where teachers just pass students to the next level so they don't have to deal with them anymore. Where our children aren't learning math, science, history, english, but instead are learning that material things mean more than education. Where athletics mean more than education, etc.
Those of us in middle America are getting the shaft thanks to these "tough guys" like Bush and Clark.
Go tote your guns somewhere else, they don't mean anything to me.

[Adelante]

7. Welcome to DU, mountaindem!!

:hi:

:freak:

[JNelson6563]

8. Nice rendition

of RW talking points. Well done!

Frankly I see nothing wrong with Hackett running. He started out running for a House seat and mobilized Dems in a big way.

Perhaps you prefer the representation you've got already?

Julie

[Hippo_Tron]

13. But Hackett and Clark care about all of those issues

Read their positions... they want to improve healthcare, public education, and jobs.

The "tough guy" military personality is an act that they need to win over people who generally vote for guns, god, and gays.

And the fact that you don't care about Iraq is disturbing. Almost 2000 of our soldiers have died there so far and 100,000 Iraqi civillians have died.

[mountaindem]

22. for a lie

they died there for a lie.
But, what upsets me is how people here can dismiss democrats who voted in favor of this war in Iraq, because they voted for this war.
They voted based on the information and intelligence that was given to them and those lies pointed towards Iraq being a threat.
They made a mistake, one they can't go back and fix.

It's easy for folks like Wes Clark who never had to vote to sit on the sideline and just look the way the political wind blows and then pick the side that gets the most votes or popularity.
It takes guts to vote one way and then have to stand by your vote.

[FrenchieCat]

42. You make absolutely no sense.....

Wes Clark never looked the other way. You must not have read his testimonies to both houses of congress in 2002...prior to the start of the war and to the vote.

Those who voted for the war are not saying they made a mistake....so why are you?

[mountaindem]

46. because folks on DU

want to cry and piss and moan about how they could never support candidates who voted for this war.
Step into those who had to votes shoes, look at the information they were given and lets see how you would have voted.
My guess would be that unless you would never vote to go to war no matter what the situation, you would have voted in favor of the war.

If folks here could never support Kerry again because he voted for the war? Boo hoo.
I can't vote for John Edwards, there's blood on his hands because he voted to go to war.
Hillary Clinton, how could she send other women to the slaughter?
lol.

Step into their shoes and the info and intelligence they had at the time and see how you would have voted. They were lied to, deceived, tricked and yet, they can't change their votes.
But, that great patriot Wes Clark, he sat on the sidelines and like all of us can just go the way the political wind blows.

[RandomUser]

155. balderdash

"sit on the sidelines"? Please reread Frenchie's post. Clark did not "sit on the sidelines" and move whichever way the "political wind blows."

Clark testified in congress against Perle during the run up to the Iraq war. On the very eve of the vote, he published an op-ed piece advising against the rush to war.

Defending Michael Moore after the Oscars when the "political wind" was blowing against Moore? Testifying against Perle when everyone from Congress on the HASC favored Perle and the neocons -- if anything, that's moving AGAINST the political wind.

Clark has proven his integrity time and again -- often against his own personal interests. Painting him as a "finger in the wind" career politician with no principles simply will not wash.

[CarolNYC]

157. Yeah, pretty ridiculous, isn't it?

I mean this is the guy who basically lost his job, a job he loved, because he refused to just go along when he knew it was wrong.

I think most people here are smart enough to see through the poster though...

[CAcyclist]

141. Cutting Off Your Nose

To spite your face.

So Hackett isn't a perfect progressive. So what? This is Ohio, not California. Ohio has Republicans in office.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

70. This was your original reason for NOT wanting to vote for Wesley Clark...

I read your posts after this one, and each time you were proven wrong you changed your reasons for not wanting to vote for Wes Clark. You sound like Bush changing justifications for the Iraq war. Clark is nothing like Bush. Those who served in combat are the least likely to WANT to go into combat since they KNOW what it's like. Bush is a fake tough guy-real chicken hawk. And Clark is educated and SMART, too. He dealt with all the things you're talking about that you want in a candidate while he was in the military. You clearly don't know much about him.

[mountaindem]

72. so did others

and others didn't try smear campaigns like Clark.
When did he become a dem or is he a republican or a DINO?

[jenmito]

78. What are you talking about "so did others"?

Clark, like most military men, was independent, but his positions were clearly Dem. Why don't you read his bio?

[Texas_Kat]

103. I believe downthread you admitted WKC's been a dem as long as you

since 1992.

[IA_Seth]

133. I honestly can say that you are clueless....

When it comes to Clark's ideas, life, or values.

Read up before you put up.

[Laurab]

163. That's why Bush won?

You mean aside from Diebold? Shrub is about the farthest thing from a "military man" that you could find. He's what they call a chickenhawk - he likes to send OTHER people to war. I don't think he won because "these guys are taking over", I personally think he won because Diebold is taking over, but PLEASE don't ever put him in the same category as a decent Dem, whether they are former military men or not. He is a CHICKENhawk. No tough guy, either - I believe he's presently hiding from a woman who lost her son from his little war in Iraq - he's a COWARD, too. There is no comparison between him and ANY decent Democrat.

[femrap]

164. honesty sounds good from my neighbor in

West Virginia....Welcome!

[Donna Zen]

6. News today

....that's what I'm hearing. That there may be news today. I hope it's good.

ps There is a post on this thread that I'm tempted to respond to, except that it makes no freakin sense at all.

[Adelante]

9. I think he could win

And I think he will run.

[mountaindem]

10. I'm not a right wing hack, I'm a democrat...

I'm just sick of people in America with this "tough guy" kick ass image, I'd prefer a return of Joel Hyatt over Hackett, at least I know he has more brains than braun.

No more tough guys, what we need is honest, smart leaders, that come from everyday America and have risen over obstacles to get where they are today.
No more candidates who act tough and in the end can't get to first base, a la Wes Clark.
I agree with Chuck Schumer, we need to be smarter picking our candidates, the accountant down the street that can form good financial policies is better than loud mouths who act like they're tough.

[Adelante]

11. Yeah, you're a Democrat

"That's why Bush won because these types are taking over instead of people with college education, etc."

Paul Hackett managed to graduate law school and Wes Clark managed to be a Rhodes Scholar.

You don't know your ass from your elbow, pal :shrug:


By the way, there's a fundraiser going on up above. Click and give some money to DU, you're such a good Democrat.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Whatcha you talkin' bout, pountaindem?

If college educated morons, like a Bush who graduated from Yale, are the type who end up in control of the government as it presently is, I say, let those who have, at least experienced a more socialistic world (that's right, the military is more representative of a socialistic model than any other in the United States)take over.

But since both Hackett and Clark attended college and attained graduate degrees, you show your ignorance with the (non)substancial post that you have made.

Both Hackett and Clark have stories, in where they rose over their circumstances. Wes Clark, child of a widow who became a bank teller to raise her child, examplifies the rags to the American Dream story. For you not to know that....again, only highlights your ignorance.

Keep in mind that it is the elected CIVILIAN politicians that have taken us to war.....not the military.

You offering an either/or proposition in toughness vs. honest smart leadership is a ridiculous false choice....which only further demonstrates to those reading your post, your utter lack of knowledge more than anything else.

IF you are a Democrat, you are certainly the type that has cost us lost elections time and time again.

The fact that you don't give a fuck about IRAQ, alignes you with the likes of George Bush......who apparently doesn't give a fuck about Iraq either.

Your stereotypical bigoted views makes you a Democrat in name only, as it is clear that you don't practice the meaning of what a Liberal ideology is truly about.

In the final analysis, your comments make little sense, beyond attempting to denigrade great Americans utilizing NO evidence except for the evidence clearly showing that you lack any political astuteness...which is something else you and George Bush and his ilk share.

[mountaindem]

16. don't label me a bigot

I'm not a bigot, I'm a catholic, Italian American who has seen bigotry towards religion and ethnicity first hand here in West Virginia. I've seen qualified croatians, italians and african americans passed over for the stepford protestant, anglo american candidates.
So, don't say I'm a bigot, because you know nothing about me.

And as far as donating, I have donated in the past, not to DU and I won't donate to DU, because I'd rather give to an individual candidate, which I have done in the past.

If the democrat party's tent isn't big enough for a pro-life catholic, a pro-family catholic who is sick of criminals getting away with crime, who is sick of our young being influenced by corporations and taught that education is not what is important and material things are.
I guess this party isn't big enough for someone who believes in hard work over handouts?
Who believes that a woman's right to choose should have limits when they are choosing it as birth control when there are better birth control methods out there and readily available.
I believe that girls under age 18 should need parental consent for an abortion.

I believe that we should be teaching people the value of hard work and getting an education whether it be college or a techinical or trade school and not the value of owning material things.

I don't care about the war in Iraq, because it isn't defending my freedom here in West Virginia, terrorists aren't lurking around every corner ready to attack me.
In fact, I would rather see my tax dollars go towards providing all children with health care, or upgrading the quality of our educational systems.

I'm a democrat because I care about people, and believe everyone should be given a fair chance.
I'm not a democrat who wants to see the party support candidates who have an image of kicking ass and taking names later. When we put candidates like that forward, we might as well nominate George Bush.

One last thing, I'm a democrat who doesn't believe in special interests and lobbying. If it were up to me, the only people candidates and politicians would be beholden to is the people. It's time to get the corporations out of government, it's time to get special interests like insurance companies and drug companies out of politics.
Where does Wes Clark stand on that? Where does Hackett stand on that? Who were their donors?

[FrenchieCat]

17. As an African-American DUer....I can smell bigotry from miles away....

and that's what I smelled in your post.

When you say that you " believe everyone should be given a fair chance", that is not what you have done with your words in your first two posts. You are ruling out strong Dems who have served in our military...by attempting to say that they are not educated....

All falsehoods manufactured to make your point...which is what bigots do; distort facts to make generalities that are inaccurate but support their stereotypical views.

What you stand for again....is denigrating and stereotyping good strong Democrats, only because in YOUR mind, strength cannot be coupled with any other political virtues. That's what makes no sense at all and isn't backed up by anything that you have offered thus far.

You are living in a world of absolutes, which is not a liberal ideology. You have already made up your mind, not based on facts, but based on your personal "feelings" without research. that's not the liberal way.

If you cared about people, as you say, then you would care about what is happening in Iraq; like Kucinich has said many times....Foreign policies are Domestic policies....as one affects the other greatly.

Maybe you need some education.....because it appears that you are missing all of the points, and poorly making up your own.

[mountaindem]

19. I'm sorry...

I'm not a bigot, believe me I know what it's like for a person to get passed over for a job based on race, ethnicity or religion.
It happened to my father over a coaching position here in WV because he's a catholic and italian.

What I am a bigot against is the people who elected Bush, those who voted for him based upon qualities of him kicking ass and taking names later, and I think a lot of working class americans did just that, they showed their bigotry against gays, blacks, muslims and that's why Bush won.

As for the reason I can't support candidates like Wes Clark, it's because of the campaign donations from PACS and Special Interests.
I like candidates who are beholden to the people not to special insterests.
I like candidates who won't take money from these interests that want to influence the way the vote. I want candidates who are voting based on what is best for the people, not candidates who will vote based on who gave them the most money.

[FrenchieCat]

28. You are not providing any proof to your assertion that

Clark received any more campaign donations from PACS and Special interests.

You have moved the goalposts from your critique as to why NO to Clark and Hackett....from being about "military vs. the college educated" to "strength vs. smarts" to "Foreign policy vs. Domestic policy" to "special interest candidates to non special interest candidates" .....how many more times will you move the goalpost to support your original assinine point?

My young teen daughter who is starting Harvard College in the fall, just read your post and laughted out loud, and than shook her head. She knows ignorance when she reads it....just like her momma.

If you look at all politicians who have ran for office, you will find donations from all sorts of "special interests groups"...some of them better than others.

Wes Clark had the most donations under $200.00 after Howard Dean in the Primaries. So pointing a finger at Wes Clark is ridiculous on it's face, and as a whole, because you are just talking out of your ass.

[mountaindem]

30. It doesn't have to be that way

as a candidate you don't have to accept money from these groups.

From 2003 through 2004, Wes Clark had $45,950 from PACS and Special Interests according to one website that I was looking at.
In his top ten contributors were:
Plastech products
Lehman Brothers
Viacom
Time Warner and
Citigroup.

Compare that to other candidates and you won't find those huge corporations.

[safi0]

32. How many

Candidates didn't accept PAC money

[mountaindem]

33. Kucinich

for one. At least his donations for 2003-2004 were only $16,000
Edwards was only $2,000.
But of course he had a lot of donations from law firms and we all know how Bush has brainwashed republicans and most dems into believing that all lawyers are evil.

[safi0]

35. I'm not saying

None do. My 2 senators for instance don't. But, if your putting PAC money as such a high litmus test, you will be left with very few candidates

[mountaindem]

39. yet,

I'll know they represent me and not these interest groups.

[safi0]

45. If we have 100 Reps

and 30 Senators they won't be representing anything

[mountaindem]

48. no

they'll represent the people.
They'll work on getting health care for all americans, instead of working to stop it to benefit drug companies and big HMO's.
Or, trying to tweak things so that drug companies and HMO's can screw the people even more than they do now.

[safi0]

54. Do you understand

How the House and Senate work? If we have 100 Reps they can't do anything because there are only 100 of them and Republicans will ramrod any legislation they want through. Same thing applies with 30 Senators

[mountaindem]

55. so we should be just like them?

is that what you want?
Lets take campaign money from corporations and business and be beholden to them, because the people will vote agaisnt their interests every time anyway.

Who needs cheaper health care anyway, we'll just pay out the wazoo to the big HMO's, they'll provide better health care anyway.

We need people who will fight for democratic values, not people who dress up like republicans to get elected.

[safi0]

64. And if everyone

Had the litmus you do we'd have 100 Reps., 30 Senators and a RW that would overturn Roe V. Wade, make health care even more unaffordable, suppress the rights of minorities and make prayer in public school the law

[Adelante]

49. You are new to DU

We use links here to back up our points:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2004

I did your work for you, but your point wasn't here.

JOHN EDWARDS (D)
Top Contributors

Cycle: 2004

Goldman Sachs $100,500

Baron & Budd $86,650

Beasley, Allen et al $71,600

Girardi & Keese $65,875

Weitz & Luxenberg $54,250

Simmons Cooper LLC $52,500

Robinson & Cole $50,700

Wilkes & McHugh $40,000

Kline & Specter $39,000

Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson $38,250

Ness, Motley et al $36,850

Fieger, Fieger et al $36,500

Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder $35,500

Cotchett, Pitre et al $35,500

Milberg, Weiss et al $35,200

Corboy & Demetrio $34,325

Morris, Haynes & Hornsby $34,000

Lieff, Cabraser et al $33,650

Morgan Stanley $33,050

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer $32,500

This chart lists the top donors to this candidate during the 2004 election cycle.The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

[mountaindem]

51. law firms

I forgot, you all are on Bush's side when it comes to lawyers.

[Adelante]

56. Look closer

You are some sloppy researcher.

[mountaindem]

58. I see law firms

what do you see, viacom, time warner?
I don't.

You don't like lawyers, but if the next Ford Pinto comes along, and blows up a relative or friend, you'll love lawyers.

Hypocrites, just like your buddy Rick Santorum whose wife won a medical malpractice award in a lawsuit, but now wants limits on them.
Does Wes or Hackett side with Santorum?
If so, they're not for me.

[FrenchieCat]

67. I don't.....

Top donor.....
Goldman Sachs $100,500

[mountaindem]

71. so what?

I already told you I'm against special insterests no matter who they donated to.
Goldman Sachs gave your savior money as well.

Breaking News!!!
Wes Clark the next coming of Christ. Wes Jesus Clark to singlehandedly stop Roberts nomination.

[Adelante]

76. And yet...

Here I am defending a Democratic lawyer and you came into this thread bashing a Democratic lawyer. How does that work? A lawyer who is a veteran doesn't count in your book as a lawyer? Or is it a veteran who is a lawyer doesn't count? Well, since you now claim to love lawyers, it must be veterans who are lawyers you don't like. Or maybe it's just veterans you don't like. I think you're just having your rocks off here, actually, little sockie.

[CAcyclist]

142. Hackett IS a Lawyer

Stop telling us what we think. Stop hi-jacking this thread.

*********************************

Hackett for Senate! I'll be the first to donate - what a show it would be if he won - imagine watching him on C-SPAN - it'd be like firecrackers going off and the Senate Republicans ' heads exploding every day.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Why don't you provide us with the comparison

so that you can at least make A point?

Why don't you show what others accepted...or would that deflate your whole new focus?

Wes Clark accepting less than $50,000 from PACs is a good thing. Doh! :eyes:

(PS-- I can't respond to this poster anymore...as I am demeaning myself everytime in the process. The intellectual dishonests are not folks I normally discuss things for any meaningful period of time--that time is now up).

[mountaindem]

41. Kucinich

only took $16,000, John Edwards $2,000.
That's still too much.
It's time to rope in these 527's as well.

[Texas_Kat]

110. If you knew how to read those reports, you might

not shoot yourself in the foot.

Those are actually individual contibuters' employer's names.

Not money from the companies, sheesh....

We need a more educated class of Democrat,

[Texas_Kat]

47. Sorry to burst your bubble

From http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp

PACs can contribute only $5000 to an individual candidate, so their overall impact on campaign finance has lessened considerably in recent years. Recruiting 'individual' contributors from 'special interest groups' (as in Bush's "Rangers') has grown as a tactic. To evaluate the impact of this sort of recruiting it is interesting to view how many 'individual' contributors gave more than $2000.00 to a candidate, both as raw numbers and as a percentage of overall receipts.

As you can see from the numbers below, Wes Clark received 35% (2,971) of his campaign contributions from donors giving over $2000 and 32% (13,161) of his contributions from donors giving less than $200.00 Of the major candidates in the Democratic primary in 2004, only Howard Dean received 'more grassroots' money. (If you count an overall contribution of less than $200 as 'grassroots' fundraising).

Of all of the Democratic candidates in 2004 (including the 4 major ones), their percentage of big contributors was much higher. (You can examine the specific FEC reports here: http://www.fec.gov) Edwards (56%), Graham (53%), Gephardt (53%), Leiberman (50%), Sharpton (45%). Of those other than Clark, Dean and Kerry (you can't compare Kerry's fundraising 'cos it includes money raised even after the primaries were over), only Moseley Braun (28%) and Kucinich (8%) had 'more' grassroots money than Clark.

You can pontificate all you'd like, but numbers don't lie. Check the facts before you criticize and you'll have a more effective argument.

Candidate: Kerry, John
Contributors No. of $200+ = 171,154
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 35,891
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 36%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 31%

Candidate: Bush, George W
Contributors No. of $200+ = 160,952
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 61,714
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 49%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 32%

Candidate: Dean, Howard
Contributors No. of $200+ = 30,796
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 2,850
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 11%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 61%

Candidate: Edwards, John
Contributors No. of $200+ = 16,941
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 6,002
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 56%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 13%

Candidate: Clark, Wesley
Contributors No. of $200+ = 13,161
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 2,971
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 35%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 32%

Candidate: Lieberman, Joe
Contributors No. of $200+ = 13,063
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 3,457
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 50%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 10%

Candidate: Gephardt, Dick
Contributors No. of $200+ = 11,459
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 3,751
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 53%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 14%

Candidate: Kucinich, Dennis
Contributors No. of $200+ = 4,214
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 293
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 8%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 71%

Candidate: Graham, Bob
Contributors No. of $200+ = 4,027
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 1,188
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 53%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 11%

Candidate: Moseley Braun, Carol
Contributors No. of $200+ = 543
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 74
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 28%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 28%

Candidate: Sharpton, Al
Contributors No. of $200+ = 525
Contributors No. of $2,000+ = 109
% from Donors of $2,000+ = 45%
% from Donors of $200 or less = 24%

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are calculated from contributions of more than $200 from individuals, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. PAC dollars are not included.

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2004 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, May 16, 2005.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

[mountaindem]

50. I looked

at opensecrets as well. That wasn't the site I looked at.

Wes Clark was at $45, 950 for 2003 through 2004 on the site I looked at.

I forgot only your personal choices for candidates walk on water, all others are no good because they didn't serve in the military or they didn't do this or that.

Go Wes Go!!!
You were such a great candidate you couldn't even get to first base in your campaign.

Look at the numbers Wes, you got creamed.

[Texas_Kat]

60. Actually those numbers are on opensecrets.com too

If you think $45,000 is significant in a multimillion dollar campaign ($17,362,255), you have a lot to learn.

Opensecret's is the most credible (and complete) source other than FEC reports themselves

Here's actual numbers Clark raised from "PAC's:

Business = $17,500 (34% of $45,950)

Labor = $7,250 (14% of $45,950)

Ideological/Single Issue* = $26,200 (51% of $45,950)

(Could be a Teacher's PAC, Greenpeace or donations from a Leadership PAC (like Jimmy Carter's) for all anyone knows without the FEC report at hand)

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2004 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Thursday, July 21, 2005.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

Here's opensecrets note about PAC's:
BUSINESS / LABOR / IDEOLOGICAL SPLIT

Most members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike — get the vast majority of their PAC contributions from business interests. Democrats usually get a substantial sum from labor unions; something Republicans rarely get. Newcomers to Congress - particularly in open seat races - may draw significant funds from ideological groups.

In almost all cases, the complexion of candidates' financial backers changes once they win public office. The proportion of business dollars tends to rise, even for Democrats, as members get their committee assignments and begin tapping the industries they oversee for campaign contributions. Among incumbents, only the most liberal Democrats tend to get more money from labor unions than from business groups. Democratic newcomers, on the other hand, typically get strong labor support if they're considered to have a good chance of winning election in the fall.

[mountaindem]

65. actually

me and a colleague were laughing at Wes Clark's contributions on opensecrets. We couldn't believe that's all he got in contributions.
Well, it's not wonder he got creamed.

[Texas_Kat]

73. Since he raised $17+ million in 4 months, he didn't do badly

How long was your candidate running?

Oh wait, I remember, he started raising money in January 2003.

WKC went from $0 to $3.5 million in 2 weeks when he announced. Did pretty well, I'd say.

[mountaindem]

80. I never said

who my candidate was and I won't.
You'll all just smear another dem like you do every day on here.

[Texas_Kat]

83. Ooh, but it's obvious

and here you thought you were being so clever......

:spray:

[mountaindem]

85. based on what?

a signature line?
lol.
I just like the quote. Although, if he were the nominee I'd vote for him over a GOP candidate.

[Texas_Kat]

92. NO, I actually hadn't read you signature line

It's not really an identifiable quote because every generic Democrat has used it since the Party was established.

[safi0]

88. Your hypocrisy is

Incredible. I'm in agreement with you, I don't like the fact that here on DU so many people spend so much of there time bashing other Democrats. But unlike you, I don't criticize Democrats like Clark and Hackett as I'm saying don't smear Dems.

[mountaindem]

95. but, they were perfect to use

because right now, everyone loves them on here, so let them be the object of smears for now.

I'm a democrat and I'll always vote for democrats until they start advocating for criminals to be set free even when convicted by a jury or start advocating for the end of the civil justice system where everyone is put on equal footing.

I'm just from a different spectrum of the party, one that believes in helping those who need help first, then worrying about corporations who have already made their millions.
One that believes that our political leaders should represent the people, not special interests, and frankly when people like Kerry say things like this, it makes me laugh knowing they don't really believe this, but hey, I still voted for the guy.
I'm pro-life with exceptions...health of the mother, some instances of incest and rape. I'm not for 14 year olds having sex and then crying for abortions, because it shouldn't be used for everyday birth control. If you're old enough to take the risk of being pregnant, then you have to face the consequences.
Same goes for underage drinking, etc.
I don't think our party does enough to promote real family values, including the value of an education, but also the value of not becoming pregnant at 15 and dropping out of school.

[Crunchy Frog]

132. Yeah! More 14 year olds having babies.

That's what I want for this country too. I think it should be added to the Democratic party platform myself.:eyes:

[jenmito]

87. He didn't get creamed.

He was doing better than Edwards when he dropped out. He got in the race too late. If he would've competed in Iowa he probably would be president today.

[mountaindem]

89. what?

better than Edwards, he won Oklahoma and did ok in New Hampshire, after that he sank.
I will admit if Wes could have gotten Kerry into a one on one race, he may have won, same with Edwards.

[jenmito]

94. Yes.

He did better than Edwards. Why no comment on his being independent and why won't you read his stance on the issues and what he's already accomplished?

[mountaindem]

97. because...

I'm not for anyone that is for civil justice reform and caps on jury awards.
I'm for the people and when the people are injured by big corporations and by others, they deserve every dime they can get.
If Wes shows me he isn't anti-lawyer, then if he gets the nomination in '08, I'll vote for him, otherwise, I'm writing in Bill Maher.

[jenmito]

106. Bill Maher

Was for Wesley Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

116. So was Bill Maher's (83-year old/)mother

eom

[FrenchieCat]

99. Kerry and Edwards WERE in a one on one race.....

and if I remember correctly, Kerry won.

Remember, they both contested in the same places.

http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/000099.asp
Or worse, Clark is "all but dead," according to a headline in today's New York Post.

There's one problem with all this. It doesn't quite correspond to the facts.

Let's review last night's scores. First place clearly goes to Kerry, who won five of the seven states in contention and ended the night with a total of 244 delegates. But second place is not so clear.

Clark and Edwards each won one state, but neither win was particularly convincing. Clark's win in Oklahoma was a slim one, and Edwards's win came in the state in which he was born and reared (in a little pink house).

Clark added to his win with a second place in three other states (Arizona, North Dakota and New Mexico), while Edwards scored second in Oklahoma and Missouri.

And while Howard Dean did not win any states last night and picked up only seven delegates, he's still in second place in delegates won to date with 121.

No matter. The press's silver crown has alighted for the moment on the brow of the candidate from North Carolina.

Poor guy. Hope he doesn't take a shine to it.



Media to Voters: We're trying to eliminate General Clark tomorrow, OK? Please cooperate this time. .... 10:50 P.M.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238 /
Friday, February 6 2004

THE STORY COUNT: If the amount of media devoted to candidates is any indication, then the Dem nomination is already a two man race between Edwards and Kerry.

Take a look at our Election 2004 page this morning. I couldn't find a single story about Wes Clark in any of the major papers except for one-

[mountaindem]

102. I meant

if Clark was one on one against Kerry
or Edwards was one on one.
Not when half the votes were already cast or half the field did not quit officially.

[jenmito]

109. Yup...there was a Clark black-out.

The media REFUSED to cover Clark. They wanted an Edwards/Kerry race and they got it. I couldn't believe the lack of coverage of Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Can you...doh....give us your source?

and now you've moved the goalpost again.....now, Wes Clark didn't get to first base and got creamed.

Mmmmmm, you remind me of someone else I know.

I think that facts are not in your best interest as they would destroy your multiple non-sensical arguments.

Your arguments are starting to give me the creeps. :scared:

It's like can you get any ?

I'm sure that you will!

[Texas_Kat]

75. Well, uh.... yeah

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3761157/

[Adelante]

24. Who were Joel Hyatt's donors?

Since you would rather see him run? You talk out of two sides of your mouth.

[mountaindem]

26. I don't know

who his donors were.
I don't care, I was just giving Hyatt as an example.
I'd rather see a 5th grade teacher from Cambridge run for Senate and be beholden to the people of Ohio over a businessman who gets thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from corporations, insurance companies and other PACS and interest groups a la Wes Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

40. But, but, but, ....

shouldn't you know, as this is a litmus test of yours?

[mountaindem]

43. Joel Hyatt

I only threw his name out there because he was Dewine's first opponent for senate.
If Metzenbaum would have ran again, Dewine probably would have never won.

[CAcyclist]

143. Don't Have Strong Convictions, Do You?

You are just trying to set one faction of us against others; sorry, won't work.

[Donna Zen]

27. June '05/New Hampshire

...You see part of this strategy of American leadership really is work here at home because if you think of the challenges of the competitions abroad, the friendly competition, the rivalry with China, the choices faced by businessmen in America, we know we've got a lot of what the weight lifters would call heavy lifting to do in America. And it starts with education in America. We've got to have the finest educational systems in the world, bar none, and we've got to help every boy and girl in America live up to their full potential from preschool on through adulthood.


We've got to fix our healthcare systems in America. We've got the finest medical technology in the world but what good does that do when you've got 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance and you have our businesses who are fleeing our own country because of the rising cost of healthcare. We can fix this system. All we need is some leadership to do it. And its high time we had an energy policy that served the interests, the true interests, of the American people. We've got the technology. We need to move toward energy independence in this country.


And we've got to work the business environment in this country. This should be the country that is the most creative, innovative country in the world. We want every great young person around the world who has an idea, who has a passion for business, who wants to create a new organization, we want them here. We want to welcome them to this country. We want to make them American citizens and we want to keep them here. And we want every American young person to have a chance to participate in that business environment. We have to take the lead to set it. We want a business environment that has the spark of creativity like no other environment in the world but also the spark of caring because, as we knew in United States army, the army really is only about people and business really only is about people. And if we don't take care of our people in America, we'll have neither jobs, nor a great business environment. So, we need the leadership to do it right in this country.


And finally, we've got to protect the very basics of American life. We've got to protect our freedom and our liberty. I can't tell you how important it is that as Americans we all have the courage to speak out. I'm proud of Howard Dean. I'm proud of our Democratic Party. I'm proud of the fact that we are a party representing Americans, speaking out across this country and we're going to stand together as a party.


There will always be differences in people across America. We're a nation of diversity and diverse ideas, but one thing that Americans should be sure of is that Democrats do know who they are, what they stand for. We stand for taking care of each other. We stand for diversity, respect and dignity. We stand for equal opportunity. We stand for a strong America with the use of force as a last resort. We stand for a strong business environment that takes care of people and helps every man and women in America live up to their full potential. That's really it. And we have these values and we value each other in America very strongly and we'll fight for what we believe. That's what we are as Democrats. It causes me a great deal of pain when I look at the terrible politicization that's going on in American life today. I think we've got to rise above that. I think we've got to pull together as a nation to face the challenges ahead. I think it's time, and I think the American people know it's time, for the name calling, the demonization, the ugly naked partisan side of politics to stop. We're all in this country together. We all support that flag. We believe in each other. We want our success abroad. We want our success at home...

~Wes Clark

http://securingamerica.com/speeches/2004-06-12

[mountaindem]

29. ok

so where do I find the specifics?
I'm interested in where he stands on special interest groups?
Where does he stand on Civil Justice?
What are his specific health care plans?

Or, should we as democrats be like the GOP and only run on sound bites?

[FrenchieCat]

37. If you are as educated as you claim....

I suggest that you start showing it by doing your own damn homework, prior to advocating the denigration of good American patriots. That would be a nice start.

Your posts are nothing BUT soundbtytes with no backup information. Doh! :eyes:

If you don't know anything about those that you would attempt to denigrate, a more interesting question would be....why are you so bothering?

[mountaindem]

44. lol.

good american patriots. Who Wes Clark?
Just because you were in the military doesn't make you a patriot.
I have several relatives who fought in WW2 and Korea, I'd hardly call them patriots. George Washington or Abe Lincoln, those are patriots.
Tom Brady is more of a patriot than my relatives.

[Texas_Kat]

52. Go read what his specific proposals were in the 04 primaries

http://www.clark04.com/issues

Use some of that 'education' you're touting as important and actually do a bit of research.

[mountaindem]

53. face it

he got creamed in the primaries.
He was nothing more than a mediocre general and a less than mediocre presidential candidate.

Wasn't it just 3 or 4 years ago when he became a dem?

[Texas_Kat]

79. Sounds like he's be a democrat longer than you

since he's been a Democat since 1992

When did you sign up for DU?

(uh, to an earlier note you posted, contributing to DU is not the same as donating to the Democratic party)

[mountaindem]

82. I've been a dem

since I turned 18 back in 1992, so me and Wes were the same, but I've been one for life, Wes on the other hand well, he loves some republicans as well.
Me, I've never voted for one in my life.

[FrenchieCat]

115. Since it appears that you must have a dog in a race that hasn't

even started....how do you square the following facts into your rant?

This article is refering to John Edwards......

His parents were lifelong Republicans, in part because of the corporate culture of the company headed by Roger Milliken, a major GOP donor who encouraged his executives and managers to become Republicans.

"John and I used to debate the Nixon-McGovern election," said Garner, his NCSU roommate. "I kind of went in the direction of protesting the war. John was more firmly seated in supporting our government. Part of that was the influence of his father."

Garner remembers that Edwards was undecided about whether to vote in 1972 for President Richard Nixon or whether to vote for the Democratic challenger, Sen. George McGovern.

Edwards says he does not remember how he voted. But he says he might have first registered as an independent. He says he thinks he changed his registration to Democrat by 1976.
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/eyeonedwards/story/1401790p-7371865c.html

[mountaindem]

118. same way

as I said about Wes.

[Jai4WKC08]

134. "Same way..." what?

You mean voting for Nixon? I don't recall you saying anything about Clark voting for Nixon, but it's the only thing I can get out of Frenchie's post for you to reply "same as...."

Big difference, of course. Clark admits he voted for Nixon. Edwards says he can't remember.

Edwards is 52 years old. 1972 would have been his first vote in a presidential election. And he can't remember??? Uh-huh... I'm 51, and I know damn well who I voted for in every presidential election, but especially the first.

That's not a smear, by the way. It's just some skeptical analysis of his own words.

[Texas_Kat]

136. and here I was wondering the same thing

NOT REMEMBER!

That's amazing. Edwards, you and I, JaiWKC08 are all the same age.

We had just gotten the right to vote at the age of 18!

The 1972 election was the first election that lowered the voting age from 21.

We fought for it, and we won. How can anyone not remember something that historic?

Made me laugh when I read that.

[Crunchy Frog]

129. Just so you know,

It's the Democratic party, not the "democrat" party. A certain type of poster here tends to make that mistake.:hi:

[IA_Seth]

135. You're talkin out your ass pal.

I don't think any of us here promote abortion as a form of birth control, I would wager that a majority of us are college educated, and to try to put Clark, Hackett, or any of of the other recent Dems in the "tough guy" group is laughable.


But hey, at least you're Italian!

[Donna Zen]

18. Thanks Frenchie!

Reading that post this morning, I couldn't figure out where to begin.

I mean should one begin with pointing out the obvious, that the creeps that took us to war have never (or barely) served in uniform.

Maybe, just maybe, one should begin with granting those who served in uniform might have the same right to run for elective office as anyone else. Maybe someone who took four bullets understands what people are facing in Iraq.

Whoops! I'm bad...I forgot, the war doesn't even matter. :sarcasm: Just like it doesn't matter that the war <---which doesn't matter...is flushing all of the money that might have been used for domestic programs, down the doesn't-matter toilet of Iraq.

Oh...and all those tough guys, how does one begin to explain law degrees and Rhodes Scholarships signify an ability to do more than march and shine shoes. Maybe, just maybe, we're talking about the best and brightest. Just maybe someone who "gets it" and won't let themselves or us down. Maybe.

So not knowing where to begin, I sluffed off, and I'm so glad that someone like you Frenchie was willing to pick up the slack.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Kucinich said it the best......in what is at odd with the MountainDem's'

erroneous bigoted stance....

"I think that the foreign policy of this country is inexplicably woven into the fabric of domestic policy, because if we're going to war, we can't take care of our people here at home. --Dennis Kucinich
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/kucinich_2-27.html

For Mountaindem not to see a connection between the war and how it directly affects this country domestically disproves his case AND point and renders all of his views suspect, IMO.

[mountaindem]

25. I never said that he was wrong

I believe Kucinich is right, and I know that because of Iraq we can't take care of our own here.
But, we should be instead of being in Iraq.
Kucinich took too much in PAC and special interest contributions as well.

[FrenchieCat]

31. My, my, my.....

You don't like Kucinich either?...because he took too much money from PACs and special interest groups?

It appears that you haven't and won't be supporting anyone...considering your litmus tests.

You are a lost cause.

I will no longer respond to you....as you are not worthy of my time, and your arguments are so flawed that your responses are like a slap in the face of those who have actually learned from their education.

AFAIC.....you are dismissed.

[mountaindem]

38. thanks

don't reply, just because my views are different than yours.
If I were to run for office, I wouldn't take any money from special interests.
No money from law firms, from insurance companies, drug companies, banks, unions, etc.
Doesn't mean that I wouldn't vote in their interest when their interest was in the best interest of the people though. At least I would be representing my consituents and not the interests of a drug company or corporation.

Would I win? Most likely no, but at least my campaign would show that people would vote against their own interests and fall right behind the corporations and special interest, join with them hand in hand.
That's what gets me about people, they want health care, they want jobs, but then they go into the voting booth and vote right with them. It makes me laugh at how hypocritical voters are, they say they want one thing, but then vote another way against their own interests.
Take John Kerry for example, he's supposed to be a a strong supporter of labor that all these labor unions endorsed him during the primaries. Yet, he voted against their interest several times. Must I remind you of his NAFTA vote?
Yet, there were other dems who didn't support NAFTA, and yet one by one unions endorsed Kerry.
I voted for John Kerry, what other choice did I have? He wasn't my first choice because of his record on labor and acceptance of special interest dollars.
So far, I've found no candidate that is a man of the people for 2008. Democrats need to find people who are willing to be above the fray, above the hypocrisy of special interests and do what's best for the people only.
Before you cry protectionism, remember one thing, it was protectionism that built this country, that made our steel mills the best in the world, that sparked our great industrial age.
I don't see what's wrong with going back to taking care of our own and our people before worrying about who is fighting with who in the middle east, asia or other parts of the world.

[FrenchieCat]

69. It's not because your views are different

It because your views don't make any fucking sense! :shrug:

[mountaindem]

77. great!!!

because when you all cut on other dems, you don't either.
My whole point was to show you all that when you cut on other dems, you hurt the party.

I can't vote for Casey, he's pro life
John Edwards voted for the war, let's mess up his hair and then not vote for him.
John Kerry is a snob, he's not invited to me kegger.

You all have your litmus tests and it cuts on dems.
So, you all helped prove my point.
I'm not for special interests, but I'm not dumb enough to vote against democrats based on single issues.

[safi0]

81. Didn't you say

Not to vote for candidates who accept PAC money. As far as I know campaign finance is a single issue

[mountaindem]

84. I was only proving a point

and you all fell hook, line and sinker.

If Wes Clark was the democrat nominee in '08, he'd have my vote.
Right now, he's not my first choice, but I would support him.

The results in '04 make me wonder if dems then did the same.

As for Hackett, I like the fact that he's a lawyer, but serving your country is not a litmus test for being a good candidate, not to me at least.
I want to know what you're going to do for people, those people who are struggling to get by, not those of us who can take care of ourselves.
Because that's why I am a dem, because if I screw up, I want someone to have my back.
With republicans, I know that they'll just leave people behind.

[safi0]

91. What point

Were you trying to prove exactly

[mountaindem]

98. that people here

cut on other dems and smear them all the time.
and we should be on the same side, yet we're not and that's why we lose.

[safi0]

128. I agree

With you. But I don't think the left is the reason we lose elections. In 2004 the left with the exception of a very small minority was behind Kerry. Everyone from ultra-left Noam Chomsky to DLC Chairman Al From were working to get Kerry elected. Yet Kerry didn't win, but it wasn't because of the left

[Texas_Kat]

96. Mountain dem seems to have another litmus test

whoever his candidate(s) is/are can't have been in the military.

[mountaindem]

100. not true

I voted for John Kerry. ;)

I voted for Al Gore, they both were in the military.

[Adelante]

105. Yet you sound like John Kerry was shoved down your throat

I am surprised to hear he was your candidate. Or did you just vote the ticket? ;)

[mountaindem]

114. yeah

I already said that I will vote for the dem candidate even if it isn't my first choice.

[Texas_Kat]

107. Your first post

I come from middle class America, the middle class America that is sick of military types, sick of the pick-up truck or SUV driving people who act like their tough and better than someone and like it or not that's how these military types act.

Of course you also said that Kerry wasn't your 'choice', and since both Gore and Bradley were veterans in 2000, you didn't have much choice there.

So anti-veteran still applies

[mountaindem]

117. no

I'm not anti military, I'm anti tough guy.
I don't like people who act like being tougher than someone makes you better than them.
More educate probably does.
better informed does.
tough doesn't.

[Jai4WKC08]

127. Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong

Politics is tough. Diplomacy is tough. War-fighting is tough. It takes someone who is truly tough be successful in any of those arenas, all of which are critical for a president and commander-in-chief to be sucessful at.

Bill Clinton is tough, or he never could have withstood the assault on his presidency, or made the decisions he needed to in the Balkans. If he'd been tougher, perhaps 80,000 people in Rwanda would still be alive who are not.

Bush is not tough. He's a chickenhawk, who has had daddy's friends around to bail him out of failure all his life. BUT he has a PR machine that manages to convince a large percentage of ignorant people that he's tough. The decision to invade Iraq was largely made to bolster that tough image, since it was pretty obvious he wouldn't be able to take out al Qaeda by defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But truly tough leaders make decisions based on what's right and necessary, not just to prove they're tough.

The American people respect tough leaders, and in times of perceived danger, they crave them. So much so, that they're willing to acceot almost anything just to have a leader they can fool themselves into thinking is tough.

[Texas_Kat]

166. What is your definition of "more educated, and better informed"?

Please elucidate for those of us who have our own standards.

Just what are yours?

After spending 10 years in college and spending $70,000 as you claim in your post above, surely you can explain your metrics?

[FrenchieCat]

90. Whoa.....

:wtf:

Are you talking to moi?

I haven't told you what my litmus test are...so how in the fuck would you know what they are?

[mountaindem]

112. no

no one in particular

[CAcyclist]

144. Hey, FrenchieCat, Thanks For Trying

I do like that last line. ;-)

[CarolNYC]

146. heh, you tried

mountaindem's pretty darn transparent if you ask me...Amazing that he/she doesn't realize it.

[Jai4WKC08]

61. Well, you got me totally confused...

I'm just sick of people in America with this "tough guy" kick ass image...

How do you feel about Howard Dean? Because seems to me Dean's popularity, at least on the left, stems mostly from a tough guy kick ass image (well, I think it's more than an image, but it's that too). Fact is, I think that's the best thing about him. We need more leaders who will stand up to the Repubs, speak truth to power, yada yada. Or do you prefer doormat candidates who lose?

...I'd prefer a return of Joel Hyatt over Hackett, at least I know he has more brains than braun.

So you're assuming that because someone is or was a military officer, they have no brains? That is pretty bigotted, ya know.

No more tough guys, what we need is honest, smart leaders...

Exactly what I respect most in Wes Clark. He's honest, almost to a fault (ever hear what Mario Cuomo said about his integrity? Or Sy Hersch? Or Paul Wellstone?), and very very smart. Even his enemies usually give him the last one.

...that come from everyday America...

Clark grew up middle class in Little Rock, with a bank-teller mom and no dad between the ages of 5-11, while his grandfather worked in a lumber mill. Not much more "everyday America" than that.

...and have risen over obstacles to get where they are today.

You want obstacles?

Clark's dad died in Chicago when Clark was 4. His mom moved him back to Arkansas with a yankee accent and a stutter. She remarried when he was 11, but to a man who soon after lost his job due to alcoholism. Tried a bait shop for a while, but that failed too.

As a senior in high school, Clark was turned down for the required congressional appointment to get into West Point by his Senator because he was too young (16) and too small (135 lb) and mostly because he had no political connections at all. Found a rep who was willing to let the candidates compete by taking the civil service exam, which Clark maxed.

Came in first in his class at West Point and earned a Rhodes Scholarship purely on his acedemic work. Had to finish a three-year masters program at Oxford in two years because he had orders to Vietnam. Took four bullets in 'Nam, one of which took away most of the muscle in his lower leg, and spent a year teaching himself to walk again, while commanding a company of similarly disabled soldiers.

I guess you think it's a cake-walk to make four-stars in the post-Vietnam Army, when one doesn't quite fit in with the "good old boy" clique. Or maybe you think fellow Arkansan Clinton just handed Clark his rank, despite the fact he was already a two-star, and commander of the premier armored division in the Army, before Clinton got in the White House. Or that fighting a war for humanitarian purposes, with a Republican Secretary of Defense and Republican House, while the commander-in-chief who gave you the mission is embroiled with impeachment procedings, doesn't pose its own set of "obstacles."

No more candidates who act tough and in the end can't get to first base, a la Wes Clark.

So you supported Kerry? Because if your standard for what constitutes "first base" excludes Clark, not a one of the other '04 candidates got to it either. Just out of curiosity, if Clark wins Iowa in '08, will you jump on his bandwagon? Since he will be the only one on "first base"?

I agree with Chuck Schumer, we need to be smarter picking our candidates, the accountant down the street that can form good financial policies is better than loud mouths who act like they're tough.

Gee, I would think that a former professor of economics, with his masters degree in economics from Oxford, would form better finanical policies than "the accountant down the street." I say that having worked in an accounting firm for several years. Good people, but no smarter, nor better educated, even in economics, than most people with college degrees. Less educated than most liberal arts majors I've known.

Which sort of reminds me.... the Oxford degree of the former professor I have in mind also covers philosophy and politics. And that same former professor has actually worked in the White House Office of Management and Budget, negotiated treaties with foreign heads of state (always economic implications to any treaty), managed billion dollar governmental budgets, not to mention the health care and education they paid for, and negotiated those budgets with senators, house members and their staffs.

Make no mistake. Wes Clark IS tough. It's no act. But precisely because he's tough, and knows it, he doesn't have to prove how tough he is by only taking positions that make him look that way. How many Democratic senators can you say that of? A few I'm sure, but not a one of those making noises about running in 2008.

Ya know, if you really do care about the things you claim, you would do well to take another look at Clark. A look with your prejudices against the uniform in check.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

[mountaindem]

66. No Wes No

Wes got creamed.
What if Wes doesn't run in '08 or runs and gets creamed again, will you pout and moan or get behind the party?

I had to get behind the party and Kerry, who was not my choice, what will you do?

[Jai4WKC08]

101. LOL "Creamed"?

Odd choice of words, considering.

Clark was no more "creamed" in '04 than anyone not named Kerry.

And what an insulting question. Why on earth would you even imply that I would "pout and moan" and not "get behind the party"? Isn't that what we ALL did in 2004? No one more than Clark and the Clarkies, I can assure you.

So instead of answering a single one of my points, you go on a personal attack. Typical.

[iwantmycountryback]

15. If Sherrod Brown doesn't, Hackett should

I really hope that Brown does though. He would have a great chance of winning and has much more experience than Hackett.

[Adelante]

20. I like him, too

Either one would be a good candidate.

[The Blue Knight]

21. I'd love to see Paul Hackett run against DeWine.

Would be a HELLUVA choice for the Ohio Dems, IMO.

[Hippo_Tron]

111. Okay if Sherrod Brown is interested, shouldn't he be announcing?

Most analysts have kept Ohio off of the potential dem pickup list, despite DeWine's low approval ratings, because they feel that there's no credible challengers since Ted Strickland decided to run for Governor.

If Sherrod Brown is going to run, he needs to announce and start raising money. He needs to get his name out. If not, he needs to step aside and let somebody like Hackett get in there.

[safi0]

131. The thing about Brown

Is that while we may not know too much about him, he's very well known in Democratic circles and in Ohio politics and would not have a difficult time raising money. Hackett has energized so many people so fast that I don't think he'd have a problem raising money either. Brown is supposed to make a decision before Labor day

[KingFlorez]

36. I think he should run for the House again

We need all the seats we can get over there. I'm sure there's another Dem that could win the Ohio senate seat.

[converted_democrat]

59. I completely agree for so many different reasons.

I know Ohio, I grew up there and my entire family still lives there. I assure you if he would run he would win. (excluding Diebold) There is enough progressives to carry him in the metro areas, not to mention ALL the people in Ohio pissed at Republicans right now over all of the numerous scandals. He would win, and I would bet every penny I have on it.

[OhioBlue]

152. I agree with you

I think Hackett would be a GREAT candidate and I really hope he runs for the Senate seat. I too know Ohio and the red-neck wanna-be-s and I'm confident that if they are motivated to vote, they would/could be voting for Hackett. DeWine is nothing but a politician puke to them. They would see Hackett as one of them that they want to vote for, and might make the effort to go to the polls for him. Before anyone attacks the redneck wanna bes in Ohio, please realize that it is just a reality. right or wrong. The rural Ohio where I am has big trucks, NASCAR stickers, listens to Country music, says "Get 'Er Done" and that is just the way it is. They are not bad people. And, IMHO - this is part of the demographic that we as Dems need to reach. They are part of middle class, working America, some are religious, some are not, but have respect for those that are. Most probably don't know who DeWine even is, but wouldn't fall into any "DeWine is my man" kind of mentality like some of they might have for the Shrub. I don't know why some did, but they did. Probably 911 and propaganda. But, I can't see them really falling in line for DeWine at all.

[spuddonna]

74. Where can I send money to his war chest? :)

I hope he runs, he would be an amazing Senator...

[mountaindem]

86. while you have your pocketbook out...

how 'bout doing what I did and will do again and give to my Senator, Senator Byrd, someone out to protect the Constitution for future generations?

Or, does law mean nothing anymore?
Our country was framed on laws, not corporate greed.

[Adelante]

93. I gave money to Senator Byrd

Because of the Repuke ads running against him. What you did, little sockie, is what we do here day in and day out. Defend good Democrats.

[mountaindem]

119. oh, really?

so Bob Casey is not a good democrat because he's pro-life?

I've seen him smeared on here before.

How about Harold Ford, same thing.

John Edwards, yep same smearing.

[Adelante]

124. What gives you the idea..

I'm not supporting Casey and Ford? You're making all this up as you go along. Really.

[spuddonna]

104. I did already! :)

Byrd is one of my favorite Senators, and he's always got my support. He stood up against the war in Iraq from the very beginning...

[Hippo_Tron]

108. Bob Byrd is a West Virginia institution, he doesn't need money

I guarantee you he will have spare cash in his warchest and is probably fundraising so that he can give it to other Dems.

[paulk]

120. I'd rather he ran for the House again

I don't think a complete political novice should be Senator.

[Hippo_Tron]

121. Paul Wellstone was a political novice

[mountaindem]

122. Wellstone

there's a guy I could have supported.

[Texas_Kat]

123. Apparently, Wellstone liked Clark too.... a lot

From a blogger on myDD:

I supported Clark in 04 for two reasons -- I was a very long time friend of Paul Wellstone's -- and as early as 1993 he told me Clark was the first person he thought might actually want to stop the war in Bosnia instead of just having meetings. He came to admire him as much as anyone in or around DC. He suggested I read Clark's book when it came out in 2001 (Winning Modern Wars) and possibly review it. He considered Clark the closest thing we had today to someone like George Marshall -- that rare combination of Military competence mixed with a deep humanistic philosophy and political sensibility as well as diplomatic skill.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2005/4/4/161610/3227/24#24

[CarolNYC]

145. Awww, very nice to hear Wellstone's thoughts about Wes....

I admire Wellstone so much. It's nice to see he greatly admired Wes as do I.

Thanks for that post!

[Donna Zen]

148. A brilliant woman is the person who turned me onto WKC

She was there, at the campfire, the night the group decided that Wellstone should run for the senate. This woman, a PHD who has lived all over the world, was in DC the first day that Paul Wellstone met Wes Clark. She ran into Paul outside of the building where he had been introduced to Clark. He told her, "I've found my General."

Later Wellstone threw a party for Clark up in the Iron Range where many Croats live. I've often thought how ironic it was that people sporting Wellstone avatars would be viciously attack "his General."

Since one of her PHDs is in history, she was waiting for Wellstone's paper to be opened, since she suspected that they contained quite about General Clark.

Thank you for posting this message from mydd. I checked and that is a post by Sara, who is an amazing person herself.

ps This is the strangest thread I've ever read at DU.

[Texas_Kat]

149. It made me smile when I found it.

Great people like Paul Wellstone recognize the value of intelligence and committment in others. Obviously he liked what he saw in Wes Clark.

It says a lot about the company you keep as well.

"My general" indeed!

[CarolNYC]

156. Aw, this is a great story too...thanks for posting n/t

[FrenchieCat]

125. Well Paul Wellstone quoted Clark when he gave his Iraq vote dissent

on the floor of the senate...

As Paul Wellstone had a lot of respect and admiration for General Clark.....

"But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." --Paul Wellstone
http://www.wellstone.org/print_article.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

[paulk]

126. he was also a political science professor

for over 20 years. One could argue that he had a solid background in at least theory...

[FrenchieCat]

130. I think there are too many politicians that act like they don't know

their ass from their mouths.....to insinuate that it takes sooooo much experience to become a politician...at any rank, really.

Like when some Senators voted for the IRW, they were operating on a theory...and not much more.

[paulk]

154. I'm not insinuating anything

Politics is like anything else - job experience helps. The higher the office, the more it helps. That's just my opinion.

[Independent_Liberal]

140. He should run for Senate.

I think he would win.

[0007]

147. I think Paul could pull it off!

[mopinko]

150. CHRIST PEOPLE! NO DEM CAN WIN. BBV

all this chit chat, like they actually have elections in ohio. wake the fuck up.

[Texas_Kat]

151. If Dems can win in Texas

(and some do) they can win anywhere.

The Republicans have practiced voter suppression in Texas for years. It's nothing new. Dems need to get better at fighting back.

So have you ever been a poll-watcher? Have you ever attended a ballot board meeting?

Dems can overcome these obstacles with a little starch, more practice in countering these techniques and more attention to the voting process when it counts (before election day).

[mopinko]

153. WAKE UP!!

you can't win a rigged game. no poll watcher can see inside a computer chip. hackett was robbed. until we get rid of those machines, we will not win.

[usregimechange]

158. Draft him! pm me with the details.

[Tigress DEM]

159. Good idea

He speaks his mind. Laid his life on the line and has some common sense.

[Imagevision]

160. We need Hackett, would trade liberman for him in a heartbeat!!

[AlienGirl]

167. Locking

Locking, pending mod review and action regarding flamewar downthread.