If election was tomorrow between Gore-Kerry-Clarke or Hillary?

[Imagevision]

who would you vote for, all answers are greatly appreciated...

[Dr.Phool]

1. I'd write in Feingold!

[Wickerman]

2. Clark or Clarke?

Makes a difference.

[Cha]

75. Yeah, it's good to spell

the name right. Just because.

Unless you mean Richard Clarke?

[Renew Deal]

135. I'd vote for Richard Clarke

:dunce:

[SharonRB]

3. Gore without question

Kerry would be my second choice.

[Schema Thing]

4. Clark w/ no e

[Imagevision]

5. Personally I hope Feingold is the man...

[William769]

6. Which ever one was on the ticket for the Democrats.

How's that for an answer?

[MH1]

7. John Kerry

I was a huge Gore fan until I learned more about Kerry...I'd probably have Gore as my second choice, but I don't think he'll run.

[notadmblnd]

8. Clark

On edit: I'd really like to see Clark/Edwards run together

[Bobbieo]

22. So would I!!!

[notadmblnd]

47. yup, Clark for his strength and to clean up the military mess....

and Edwards for his compassion and empathy.

[snowbear]

9. Out of the list you gave us... definitely General Clark..

I was happy to hear MSNBC say yesterday that Hillary's "closest friends" say she there's no way in hell she wants to run.

Kerry would have been an excellent president had Ohio not stolen it, but I don't think he'll be our nominee a second time.

I believe Al Gore and his family when they insist he has zero desire to run. :shrug:

General Clark hasn't said whether he'll run one way or another.. but I have a feeling he wants to make up for dissing Iowa and for starting so late last time. I think we'll see him jump into the race EARLY this time.

[dmosh42]

43. Clark

With many military and security decisions to be made in the future, I would lean to this man who had so much experience in that field of planning and logistics. He could do much for our security also.

[cyn2]

136. Wes Clark gets my vote

He's the only reason I'm still registered as a Dem.
I'm usually reg. as an indie.

:kick:

[indygrl]

10. Clark/Richardson,nt

[lwcon]

11. Gore, with Feingold for VP n/t

[yourout]

103. ditto.

[elocs]

120. also ditto n/m

[Kerry fan]

12. Kerry

[billbuckhead]

13. I'm fans of all them and would happily vote for any of them

Even Clarke.

[snowbear]

17. Yeah... Clark/Clarke

That wouldn't be so bad !! :)

[Sam Odom]

14. Gore but would love

Gore/Clark ticket

[windbreeze]

15. Clark...period...n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

#1: Gore. #2: Clark. #3: Kerry. #4: This Space Intentionally Left Blank.

I'd like to see Russ in there, too.

[blue cat]

16. Gore or Kerry

Clark, Edwards or Feingold would all make me a very happy dem.

[Jacobin]

18. Clarke

[FrenchieCat]

19. Wes Clark

All the way....and that's cause I'm ready to Rumble.......and really kicks some big time GOP-Ass!

Whoop, there it is! :headbang:

[Sam Odom]

20. IMHO - Hil or Kerry will lose

Unless someone other than Gore or Clark emerges we will have to nom. Gore or Clark

[IndianaGreen]

30. Kerry won Ohio in 2004, as Gore won Florida in 2000

The only debacle in the making would be a Hillary nomination.

Wes Clark can win too!

[Sam Odom]

32. Kerry was chicken shit or sold-out in Ohio after the election

Dont want to deal with him again. IMHO of course.

[blm]

56. No - he just didn't have the LEGAL EVIDENCE needed to continue in court.

But that doesn't sound as cool as you do calling him chicken shit or a sellout . You must be one helluva heroic figure to dump on Kerry with his actual record of service.

Please share your story.

[Greyhound]

86. There are issues at stake that supersede the law. Slavery was the law,

segregation was the law, forbidding women to own property or voting was the law, fealty to our sovereign was the law, history is just full to the brim with outrageous laws that strong people stood up to oppose, often at great personal risk, yet they still stood up. Take a look down south and see what the people of Mexico think about Obrador's lack of respect for the "law".

Bottom line; for whatever reason, he rolled over and we pay the price.

[_dynamicdems]

132. That's uncalled for, IMHO. n/t

[laugle]

40. Why do you think

Hillary will lose?? Just curious.....Kerry.....I agree with you!

[Sam Odom]

42. The acid test

Her negatives are high and all polysci people will tell you that is bad.

But the acid test, IMHO. Which 'red' state will she take away from the GOP? I say none.

[Hippo_Tron]

100. IMO, I think that the acid test is a bad one

If we are focusing on taking one red state then we are playing with a defensive mentality. We really need to open up the electoral map a lot more.

[Sam Odom]

102. Would be nice but

if we dont win a single red state & hold on to the blue ones we lose again in '08

[Hippo_Tron]

106. I'm saying that we need to win multiple red states

Or at least attempt to or we will not win anything. Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, Montana, and Ohio are all trending blue. Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, and Florida remain competative as well as Arkansas if we have the right nominee. We should be putting the GOP on defense in every single one of these states, not just one or two of them.

[Sam Odom]

109. Brings us full circle

:)

Which nominee is most likely to take away red states from GOP?

Again, IMHO, Hil is the least likely.

[Imagevision]

152. Wes Clarke

[AlGore-08.com]

21. Gore

Obviously... :)

[raging moderate]

25. Albert Gore

He is the most qualified by any objective measure, and his wife, TJipper Gore, is also a fine person who would be a wonderful First Lady. I will never forget the painful contrast between the Bushes and the Gores during the New Orleans flood. Now, it is true that John Kerry sent a nice planeful of supplies to help. And many other people did great things. Albert Gore's response was truly astounding. He did more with a small amount of money than Bush did with the Bush Family Vast Dynasty Old Money Fortune and the entire United States government at his disposal. Gore raised lots of money fast, added some of his own modest fortune, rented two transport planes, gathered a crew of people to help, filled them with supplies, and arranged to pick up those stranded hospital patients we all read about. Then he and his crew had to wait (I'm not sure, maybe 2 - 3 days?) while the Bushies twiddled their thumbs, procrastinating to issue permission to fly in (Remember how those doctors were complaining about rescue planes being late? They weren't hallucinating). The Al Gore Support Center website has some magnificent photos of Gore, working away with everyone else to unload supplies. Then there's one of him addressing the small bunch of people present, looking exhausted and disheveled but deeply magnificent, in the way that only a true hero ever achieves. You have to be able to really forget ALL about your own needs and self-importance in order to achieve that look. That's what Bush and Cheney and Rove will never, never be able to understand.

[RestoreGore]

68. Of course

2000 changed nothing.

[politicasista]

23. Write in Kanye West's name

:sarcasm:

[Dinger]

24. Wesley Clark

The repugs worst nightmare.

[Wesin04]

26. It's Clark. Wes Clark

He's the one to take it to the Repugs. Won't know for awhile who I'd prefer as the bottom half of the ticket.
Clark's at the top.

[_dynamicdems]

133. Why is that? n/t

[wisteria]

27. Senator Kerry n/t

[filer]

28. Nobody for Hillary?

Me either. Clark

[snowbear]

33. Lemme count....

Nope..



.
.
.

Actually.. we do have a Hillary in '08 supporter on here.. so she'll get a vote when they drop in.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Gore, Kerry, and Clark in that order

Hillary who?

[xkenx]

31. Wes Clark, the one Democratic candidate who

THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WHO CAN TAKE IT TO THE RETHUGS ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WHO CANNOT BE SWIFT-BOATED.

THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WHO CAN FLIP RED STATES WITH HIS AMERICAN HERO/AMERICAN DREAM STORY.

THE ONE DEMOCRATIC 2008 CANDIDATE WITH A PROGRESSIVE AGENDA
UNDERNEATH THE MILITARY GENERAL'S UNIFORM.

[cyn2]

137. I'm also for Wes Clark

But, if you'll notice the methods used in swift-boating, anyone, make that ANYONE, can be swiftboated...the difference is that Clark would fight back.

[Cameron27]

34. Wes Clark ...

Absolutely, Wes Clark

[Auntie Bush]

35. Wes Clark is my one and only.

[Blue_In_AK]

36. Kerry, Gore, Clark, Hillary

[CarlVK]

37. Can we pick new people?

I think these folks had their day and they aren't helping much anymore (outside of Gore, I like his work on global warming).

Let's have a turnover.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. These threads are mostly pass times. Pick who you want...

but I disagree that Clark has had his day. Very few Americans, Democrats included, were paying much attention to the 2004 Presidential race prior to the Iowa caucus, and after that the media made sure that they only got to pay attention to Kerry and Edwards, with an effort made to skew Dean through "the scream" as the media's twisted idea of comic relief. Most Americans never heard Clark speak at all let alone say anything longer than 30 seconds. Clark may or may not have what it takes to take off and be a finalist for the nomination in 2008, but for non political junkies like most of us here, he still is pretty fresh goods.

[CarlVK]

65. I think Clark was specifically introduced to help take Dean out

and I find that sort of interparty "circular firing squad" behavior absolutely reprehensible. I do not want it repeated and I think one way to see that it doesn't, is not to employ the same suspects who were at play when the whole dark comedy went down in the first place.

For what it's worth, I still like Gore. But I think he is most effective outside the realm of politics now, as an advocate who can speak frely and forcefully.

[FrenchieCat]

76. I hate to see you blaming one good Democrat for the demise of another....

especially when one actually looks at the facts as they happened.

Please know that Wes Clark was introduced by those Democrats who felt that what was needed to beat George Bush was someone very strong in National Security.....to run AND win against the "wartime" prezdnt! Many of us didn't necessarily support Howard Dean because of his lack of Foreign policy/national Defense experience.

There were 70,000 of us who pledged 1.7 Million dollars prior to Clark ever entering a race; that's how badly we wanted to get rid of George Bush. It is "us" who "introduced" Clark into the race, and it had nothing to do with Howard Dean......as he only was polling with 25% of the Democratic vote at the time that Clark entered the race; that's 1/4 of Democrats, which isn't a majority. Further, Wes Clark was not even in Iowa....which is where Howard Dean's campaign stalled and he came in a poor 3rd.

Primaries are part of the Democratic system....and you can call them a "circular firing squad" if you want to, but I see it otherwise.

[CarlVK]

87. Sorry, it's just the way I saw it.

And the outcome has been interesting. Turns out Howard Dean saw all this clearly back when the primary ringleaders were telling him he was being too harsh etc. He was right about the war, he was right about the neocons. While Wes Clark couldnt make up his mind over whether he supported or opposed this stupid war, Dean was unequivocal. And he was right, as circumstances have shown.

I am very happy to see Dean working on sweeping out the dregs of the "old party".

[FrenchieCat]

88. Clark didn't support the war......anymore than Howard Dean.....

It is imperative that if you are going to "bother" having something to say...that you get your facts straight.....as you are talking about Democrats...and there is no need for us to tell "lies" on our own.

Both of the men that you refer to supported "a" resolution to some degree......but neither supported the Blank Check one introduced by Lieberman.

Clark supported the Levin amendment, while Dean supported the Biden-Lugar Amendment.

Here's what was said about the choices a few days prior to it being voted on....
IMO, the Levin amendment was the better choice.

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102
10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.
Don’t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority

Here's Dean's position....who I agree didn't "support" the war.......but did support "a" resolution....same as Clark, who never said he supported the war, but said he "probably" would have voted for "a" resolution.

The Des Moines Register reported on October 6, 2002, that "Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. 'It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option,' Dean told reporters before the dinner." Back in mid-October a Burlington newspaper quoted Dean as saying, "I would have supported the Biden-Lugar resolution."
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=dispatch&s=lizza112503

[CarlVK]

91. I think you're a bit confused.

Dean was quite clear on his stance regarding the War, and long ago knew it was a load of shit (he's been proven right). General Clark doesn't seem to know quite where he stood on it. Read on....

"In the October 9 debate on CNN, General Wesley Clark claimed his “position on Iraq has been very, very clear from the outset,” adding, “I fully supported taking the problem to the United Nations and dealing with it through the United Nations. I would never have voted for war."

But that doesn't square very well with what he said on earlier occasions. He said he supported a resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq when Congress was about to vote on it, and he wrote that “President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud” as Saddam Hussein's statue was being toppled by American soldiers in Baghdad."


http://www.factcheck.org/article107.html

[FrenchieCat]

92. You are the one confused...and again too bad you can't get over it!

The 2004 primaries are long gone....and it is really sad that you aren't able to understand that once those primaries ended....so did all of the bullshit "gotchas".

You can believe what you want....however, what you believe doesn't become a fact cause you say so.

And further, I don't really care what FactCheck.Org has "gathered"....cause they ain't exactly the bastion of F-A-C-T-S far as I'm concerned, because the same factcheck.org also claims here that Wes Clark did not support the war as of late September 2002 : http://www.factcheck.org/article130.html --

So which Factcheck.org article is correct? :shrug:

Here are some more Factcheck.org "findings", but this time in reference to Howard Dean:
Here they are stating that Dean would indeed INCREASE TAXES with his Primary tax plan- http://www.factcheck.org/article113.html
and that he was wrong in his statement on Bush's tax cuts: http://www.factcheck.org/article106.html, and here that he did a flip/flop on whether he would vote on the 87 Billion if he was in congress: http://www.factcheck.org/article93.html

Please note that I never said that Dean wasn't quite clear regarding his stance on the war....now did I?
What I did say was that he supported a resolution, which was the Binden-Lugar Resolution....which he did; that is just a fact, whether you understand it or not. If you need more links on Dean's support for that particular resolution, let me know; I've got them.....even if they are not from Factcheck.org.

In reference to you doing a GOP "Gotcha" with two sentences out of context from an article written by the General after the fall of Bagdad, you are being intellectually dishonest and are following the busy trail of many in the corporate media that wanted to discredit Wes Clark, and did so with that article....so you're in "company in kind".

IF you had read the article, instead of regurgitating "talking points", you would realize....that this article was NOT supportive of the war but rather questioning the fact that many were, at that time, saying "Mission Accomplished".

Most journalists and columnists, at the point that Clark wrote the article in April of 2003, very shortly after the fall of Bagdad, were bragging up and down the media that Mission had been accomplished; that Bush was brave and bold to have persevered under so much pressure, etc., etc...
{read such articles... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-25191517.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030407-usia07.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-whitehouse-2.htm, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia13.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030410-usia09.htm ,

Clark's article was clearly stating ..... Sure, it may appear that we are victorious in Bagdad, but hold on for just a minute now! Maybe it will be said that said that Bush and Blair stuck to their guns in the face of much opposition, and maybe Baghdad has fallen, but winning this war would take a much more than this.
(Clark's article was reminiscent of this one.... http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman04102003.html dated the same day)

Clark warned about the looting, the mayhem and stated what needed to be done from a strategic point in order to keep Chaos from breaking out. He points out that the Weapons of Mass destructions had not been found, and any goals set by Bush and Blair, i.e., Democracy in Iraq; and stability of the ME hadn't yet happen...and basically stating that we were NOT to yet REJOICE, cause the shit wasn't over......

Most folks , at the point that Clark wrote the article in April of 2003, very shortly after the fall of Bagdad were bragging up and down the media that Mission had been accomplished. This article clearly was stating that .....just a minute now!

"there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

and here....same article (of which you quoted two sentences), he gives full credit to the military for the fall of bagdad....

It’s to the men and women who fought it out on the arid highways, teeming city streets and crowded skies that we owe the greatest gratitude. All volunteers, they risked their lives as free men and women, because they believed in their countries and answered their calls. They left families and friends behind for a mission uncertain. They didn’t do it for the glory or the pittance of combat pay. Sadly, some won’t return — and they, most of all, need to be honored and remembered.

In the following paragraph, he is providing possibilities as to what will occur.....(one happened; the strive by Al-Qaeda to mobilize their recruiting efforts, as well as the lasting humilitation of Iraq....the other options did not).....but does NOT give credit for the policy that got us into Iraq, nor does he paint the future as very rosy....

The real questions revolve around two issues: the War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli dispute. And these questions are still quite open. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and others will strive to mobilize their recruiting to offset the Arab defeat in Baghdad. Whether they will succeed depends partly on whether what seems to be an intense surge of joy travels uncontaminated elsewhere in the Arab world. And it also depends on the dexterity of the occupation effort.

The following passage found at the end of same article summarizes the main point that Clark was articulating in this article written at a time when many thought that Iraq was a "mission accomplished"....

"But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."--Wes Clark

In context of the times (bahgdad had just fallen), and what was being said and written in the media, and if one were to read the whole article instead of going on a fishing espedition for sentences.......one gets a different picture of what Wes Clark's article truly meant....although it might take a certain degree of "sophistication" to actually understand what Clark was writing...which may be why he published in a foreign press who's readers are just that.

Guess that those who pull Clark's quotes out of context to this day count on readers of their crap to be of the Bumper sticker type mentality who are used to one sentence soundbytes......so quoting two sentences out of a 14 paragraphs might just seem par for the course!

[CarlVK]

98. What we need to get over is the Kerry-Clark-Clinton worship

as the bringers of the salvation of this party. Their time is done. I thank them for their work. But I am at greater and greater loggerheads with them over several issues, one which is of paramount importance is the war. They need to step aside and let a "new wave" of Democratic vision and leadership try for a change.

I want a redux of '04 about like I want a hole in the head.

[FrenchieCat]

116. I disagree with you as to "their time is done"......

You are the one stuck in '04...which is why your first comment dealt exactly with that time period, e.g., Howard Dean vs. Wes Clark.

Now you want to move on to "new folks" as though that equals a magic bullet. :eyes:

Maybe your magic bullet = a hole in your head > redux and resentment circa 2004.....which in the end does not make your case whatsoever!

[CarlVK]

123. You're free to pursue a replay of '04. I, however, think its a dumb idea.

So, go crazy.

[FrenchieCat]

126. This is what I heard on your first post in this thread.....

Wes Clark was brought in to bring down Howard Dean in the 2004 Primaries!

I'm just simply saying, that's just a bunch of whining shit....and further, the 2004 primaries are long over. Got it?

[CarlVK]

146. Interesting choice of graphics.....

You posted this as some sort of intelligent, adult response ->



Which is eerily close to the graphic of a baby crying, surrounded by an anti-Democratic Party epithet (this graphic is currently banned from being shown on DU)

....which was, as i assume you know, used incessantly against Democrats in the elections of 2000 and 2004.


Have you been moonlighting?

[blm]

96. Please explain to us what support for Biden-Lugar entailed and how you

have concluded that Biden-Lugar was a clear anti-war stance.

[CarlVK]

156. Let's hear from the Good Doctor about the Iraq War in his own words...

"As Commander in Chief of the United States Military, I will never send our sons and daughters and our brothers and sisters to die in a foreign land without telling the truth about why they're going there."

"Every day it becomes clearer that this was the wrong war at the wrong time."

"Someone earlier made a remark about losing 500 soldiers and 2,200 wounded in Iraq. Those soldiers were sent there by the vote of Sen. Lieberman, Sen. Edwards and Sen. Kerry. I think that is a serious matter."

"The fact is that we wouldn't be in Iraq if it weren't for Democrats like Senator Kerry."

"I believe that Saddam Hussein's removal from power is good. But I also believe that the way to have done it was to do it through the UN, which is why I opposed the president's war in Iraq from the beginning."

"The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America, and sets a dangerous precedent. So many who supported the war now say that they are opposed to the doctrine of preemption. Then why did they vote for this preemptive war? I opposed the President's war on Iraq, I continue to stand against his policy of preemption, and on my first day in office I will tear up the Bush doctrine and rebuild a foreign policy consistent with American values."

"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong....(President Bush's war stance is a) permanent commitment to a failed strategy..... We need to be out of there and take the targets off our troops' back."


"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone, and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone, but a lot of them gave their lives, and their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

* * * *


I hear Howard Dean, loud and clear. I'm sure you can scour the scads of Howard Dean smear sites (and I have no doubt you will) to hunt for contradictions, but I think my point has been made.

[laugle]

39. That's a tough one between Gore and Hillary!!

Whichever one I thought could win!! However, more for Hillary because I want "dirty whittle Billy" back!

[saltpoint]

41. John Kerry. Then Gore, then Sen. Clinton, then ...

Richard Clarke.

Or General Clark.

Hell, I'd vote for PETULA Clark is she's on the Democratic ticket.

Kerry and Gore receive special consideration because they were both rightly elected to the office already, IMO.

[YvonneCa]

54. I'm with you on this one...

...and agree about PETULA Clark. :) Thanks for the Saturday smile ! Between that and John Kerry's speech today...what a great Saturday.:patriot:

[saltpoint]

55. Hi, YvonneCa. Nice to met you. Yep -- as long as it's a Democrat

it's got my vote.

General Clark is a hell of a smart man.

Richard Clarke is a hell of an honest public servant and visionary.

And Petula Clark, god love her, can sing the HELL out of "Don't Sleep in the Subway."

I'll take 'em all!

A happy Saturday to you, too.

[YvonneCa]

97. Thank you...

...same to you!:patriot:

[alvarezadams]

44. FDR

Between the four names offered, I think I'd abstain.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[gulliver]

46. Clark

[tammywammy]

48. Clark. n/t

[Liberal Dose]

49. Gore/Feingold - Dream Ticket!

:D

[leesa]

50. Gore

[Mass]

51. Kerry, Gore, and Clark in that order.

[Eurobabe]

52. Clark

[CTyankee]

53. Clark, because he is the only one who can win

and also because he would make a wonderful president.

[loyalsister]

57. Gore

I think he has found his voice as a statesman. He now comes across as wise and knowledgable on a wide array of policy areas.
He also has developed a stronger sense of himself so that he relates to people comfortably as himself. I like the guy without handlers.
I think other people are ready to listen to him, too.
I'd like to see Obama as VP. We need a young VP so that we can count on them to have 16 years ahead of them as a sharp healthy public servant.

[Riddler]

58. The only 2 democrats who can win in 2008 are

Wes Clark or John Edwards. I dare any Repuke to question the integrity, ethics, or moral fortitude of either of them. An Edwards/Clark ticket, or vice/versa, would be great.

[RangerSmith]

60. I agree. /nt

[RangerSmith]

59. Clark ... /nt

[Jax]

61. Gore

the environment needs him NOW.

[nevergiveup]

62. Clark/Obama

Clinton=no-way, Gore or Kerry= good guys but been there done that. They may have both won but in the eyes of the general public they are losers.

[MrSlayer]

63. General Clark.

Hands down, no question.

[Sparkly]

64. General Clark. n/t

[blm]

66. How did their debates go? Did any of them win decisively and show their

chops are ready to face the onslaught?

Democrats usually see how the debates go because they like their nominee to have chops along with their depth on the issues.

[RestoreGore]

67. In what world?

The toxic, corrupted, military/industrial complex DIEBOLD vote counting world we live in, or the one we will never have at the rate we are going?

[Greyhound]

69. Clark is the only one I would actually support.

Gore isn't going to run.

Kerry is not acceptable to too much of the country.

Clinton is just another corporate shill, may as well vote for McCain.

I'd really like to see Feingold or Kucinich on the other half of the ticket, as Clark's relative inexperience in the cesspool of DC and domestic policy are his biggest liabilities, IMO. Feingold/Kucinich would fill that role very well.

[CarolNYC]

85. Hmmm...Clark/Kucinich

Now there's an interesting ticket...I would love if this ticket could win....I love Wes and I love Dennis, two guys not afraid to tell it like it is.

Of course, Clark/Feingold's not bad either but I have a real soft spot in my heart for Dennis.

[NJ Democrats]

70. I'd vote for Gore

And hopefully it would be a Gore/Feingold ticket

[globalvillage]

71. John Kerry.

[proud patriot]

72. GORE

:hi:

[zcflint09]

73. 1. Clark 2. Clark 3. Clark 4.Clark

End of discussion!

[CollegeDUer]

74. Gore (if forced to those choices)

Honestly I believe in democracy and choosing people that represent you, and none of those qualify for me. But Gore is my fave of those.

[AtomicKitten]

77. AL GORE

I think his resurrection from the ashes of the 2000 judicial coup d'etat has been a sight to behold. He has a newfound sense of self. I love his populist bent and think he'd be a brilliant candidate in 2008.

[Skip Intro]

78. Tie: Gore/Kerry. nt

[MasonJar]

79. I'd vote for any of them. I love them all, but Al Gore is my hero so

if he wants to run I am behind him all the way.

[Sugarcoated]

80. I like Clark and Gore

But I'm backing the dark horse - Feingold.

[citizen snips]

81. right now I am for Edwards

but out that list I will choose Gore.

[NCarolinawoman]

82. Clark, because he will go after the Military-Industrial Complex.

It is so long overdue.

Other than taxing the Paris Hiltons/Rush Limbaughs of the world, the only way we can have the social programs that we need, would be to look at the defense department. He would know how to do it and he would have the guts to do it. He has talked about this and he has the desire to do it.

Just today I read that Bush is taking 200 billion dollars out of Medicare in the next two years. :(

[Imagevision]

83. Clark and Feingold look strong...

[mary195149]

84. 1. kerry 2. gore n/t

[Rowdyboy]

89. Wes Clark, Clark, Clark and Clark ........in that order......Edwards next

maybe Warner or Richardson but not Clinton or Kerry. Gore has no intention of running (can't say that I blame him after his screwing in 2000). Feingold would be great, Bayh okay, and thats about as far as I'm willing to go. Don't want Clinton/Kerry/Biden/Dodd/Daschle.

[WA98070]

90. What's this... A Green, an independent, a Democrat and a Republican?

[FrenchieCat]

93. who are you calling a fucking Republican? lemme know.....

[CarlVK]

99. Maybe the one who as for the war before he was against it?

Just a guess.

[Donna Zen]

104. July 4, 2002

The date is July 4, 2002. The writer is Gene Lyons, who writes the truth.

Each of us has the right to support whomever we please. Good for us. But neither a DUer or ABC-Disney should get away with revisionist history. That's the way it works. So, now you may call Gene Lyons a liar, but you will get no support from me. Again...that is 2002.

I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century;

[CarlVK]

107. I wasn't speaking of just the latest Iraq Farce

I meant his praise of this Bush and his dad, going clear back to the Goof War I. Gen. Clark may be a nice guy, but I think we have entirely too many soldiers in positions of high power right now; and if there is one thing we need to remedy, it's our war worshipping culture. From that comes all of the misadventures that kill so many across the globe, and eventually send passenger jets into our tallest buildings.

[Jai4WKC08]

110. "Too many soldiers in positions of high power"???

Hell, we don't even have VETERANS in positions of high power.

It was Repub chickenhawks who took us into this war. Sadly, I can think of more than one chickenhawk Dem who voted for it.

It ain't soldiers who worship war.

[Donna Zen]

113. At one time 75% of congress had served

Today that number is down to 25%. I like to think that there was once a day when congress didn't send people to die for bullshit lies and oil. But that is not today.

In fact, it seems to me we got a bunch of chicken-hawk drunks sending our troops to die for oil.

Yes, he did support Gulf I, which I didn't. Gore did.

So a high school friend asked him to give a speech at a republican event...you know...personal favor. Before Clark launched into a speech detailing a foreign policy that was in direct opposition to bush, he said something nice. Oh..what a surprise. Clark then campaigned for Democrats the rest of the summer. That means nothing in the ABC-Disney world view. Facts mean nada.

Clark hates war. Bush loves it. Cheney loves it. And a huge list of non-serving Democrats think it's cool too.

Clark understands exactly why those jets flew into those buildings.

Some will be tempted to seek our security by raising new walls to take the place of shriveled ocean distance. They will call for restricted travel and trade, for tougher visas, fewer tourists and students, closed courts, diminished rights, and less international traffic and trade. They will want an ocean shield and a missile shield, and a society far less open than it was before.

Others will argue, and in my view correctly, that our security depends more on building windows and bridges to the outside world than in building walls. They will suggest that in the new millennium our best security lies in reinforcing others around the world that share our values, rather than shutting ourselves off from them. They will suggest that national security is far broader than national defense, and they will argue that what is ultimately a conflict of ideas and ideals cannot be won by bombs and bullets alone, but must include commitments to human rights and democratic norms.

Some would characterize the events of 9-11 as a clash of civilizations, and a conflict of religions. And to many it seems a simple and satisfying explanation.

But others would suggest, correctly in my view, that such an interpretation is both wrong-headed and dangerous. They recognize a civil war within Islam itself, as contending factions compete for power. They would argue that we must influence the struggle where we can, by supporting greater attention to the secular structures in the Islamic world, and by encouraging our own American Islamic community to speak out in support of America’s democratic values.

Wes Clark~Seton Hall May 13, 2002

Note: This speech was given in the same time frame as the Arkansas Speech that you have cherry-picked.

Again, I wish you well in supporting your candidate. I'm sure you have your reasons. But when you refer to me as glorifying the MIC because I'm too stupid to research a candidate, that is where we part ways. I know exactly who I support and why.

[FrenchieCat]

117. And that would be?

Considering that you want to twist facts to suit your ending....I'd say, it would have been wiser had you left that question to the one to whom I posed it.

FYI, I've already debunked your tired slams against some good Democrats upthread......even if you didn't notice!

[CarlVK]

157. Which Wes Clark should we ask?

"The general further discussed his anti-Iraq war stance, stating that the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is “largely over.” He added, “Let’s cut our losses in pursuit of that.” Quite a turnaround for someone who, fewer than six months ago, was fully supporting President Bush and “absolutely” sure that WMDs would be found in Iraq. Sadly, the question-and-answer session was shortened before audience members asked Clark about his incredible volte-face regarding the war."

Darmouth Review http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2004/01/05/wesley_clark_the_flipflop_candidate.php


"Wesley Clark needs to stick to a single stance. One day he’s telling a reporter that he would have supported the Congressional resolution authorizing the United States to invade. A mere 24 hours later, and he’s on the other side of the argument: “I would have never voted for war,”. Watching Clinton and Bush work their wand with words in this manner has made me skeptical of any candidate who seeks to do the same."

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000417.html


Now...do something utterly amazing and see if you can respond to this without a flurry of insults.

[Tom Rinaldo]

160. Ask Ted Kennedy or read Paul Wellstone

Paul Wellstone credited Clark's congressional testimony as helping him firm up his personal opposition to Bush's war plans for Iraq. So does Ted Kennedy. Gene Lyon is on record describing Clark warning against PNAC's plans to invade Iraq and other Middle Eastern Nations back in July of 2002.

Instead though you choose to quote an anonymous writer who clearly was stating personal opinions in a rather amateurish piece of political writing. It certainly can't be called objective journalism with a title like "Wesley Clark: The flip flop candidate." What do we know of that writers political affiliation? Anything? The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claimed they were relaying facts when they attacked Kerry also as you know. The nameless writer you chose to quote rattled off a smear comment about Clark without providing a shred of documentation to back up his or her negative opinion. Sounds down right Rovian to me:

"The general further discussed his anti-Iraq war stance, stating that the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is “largely over.” He added, “Let’s cut our losses in pursuit of that.” Quite a turnaround for someone who, fewer than six months ago, was fully supporting President Bush and “absolutely” sure that WMDs would be found in Iraq. Sadly, the question-and-answer session was shortened before audience members asked Clark about his incredible volte-face regarding the war."

So someone you can't name or tell us anything about wrote that and now we all read it and that is supposed to be enough to make it true? Do you accept every lie written about good Democrats on it's face without question? Clark always said that he believed Iraq was likely to have WMD, most likely chemical weapons of the sort they had previously used against Kurds and Iran, and Clark also said that by itself did not justify attacking Iraq, that he saw no immanent threat that wpuld compell the U.S. to act. The U.S. already knew Iraq had WMD back when Bush the Elder was backing Iraq against Iran. Having some poisen gas is not a trip wire to justify an invasion, so though Clark assumed Hussein had that, Clark also saw no persuasive evidence that Iraq was resuming a nuclear weapons program or that it was working with terrorists to attack the U.S. That line about "fully supporting Bush six months earlier" (which would have been in mid 2003 by the way) is just a load of basaeless crap.

Regarding IWR votes,Clark conceded almost immediately after a flubbed interview on the very first day of his very first political campaign that he initially didn't describe his position clearly enough regarding the multiple Iraq resolutions that were then under consideration by the U.S. Senate. That was unfortunate, because Clark paid a price in the media for it. But to fixate on that while ignoring mountains of evidence and testimony that Clark had very early, very strongly, and continuously thereafter resisted Bush's war plans for Iraq is the equivalent of buying the Rovain spin on John Kerry's "Actually I voted for the resolution before I voted against it" verbal gaff, taken completely out of context and used against Kerry to the exclusion of all other facts and information regarding Kerry's well known and real position.

I see also that you are among those who cherry pick phrases out of context from Clark's 2003 London Sunday Times Op-Ed to place Clark in a negative light. I love that Op-Ed actually, the full Op-Ed that is, the full Op-Ed that warns Bush, Blaire, and the citizens of both the U.K. and the U.S. of the dangers that the invasion of Iraq opened up. Clark was absolutely prophetic, and the style he used to convey his message, in context, was perfect for that time and that place, a skill I wish more leading Democrats could master.

Right now Wes Clark and Howard Dean are working hard together to rebuild the Democratic Party in a 50 State strategy for victory. When inside the beltway Democrats turned harshly on Howard Dean about6 months into his term as DNC Chair, Wes Clark was the one National Democrat who had the clarity and courage to say in public; "I'm proud of the work Howard Dean is doing". I think it is time to put some of that 2004 bitterness behind us." I do not want to return to 2004 Primary intra Democrat bitterness and I hope you don't either. Clark is out there right now trying to help Democrats retake Congress, I would hope you would appreciate that.

[CarlVK]

169. I guess I just trust Dean to stay more resolute, although

I certainly thank the General for any aid he gives to the cause.

This argument is one of flavors, not basics.

[Texas_Kat]

165. That would be John Kerry and John Edwards

Rather than depend on quotes from reporters in the MSM (who were, at the time, trying their best to spin the Iraq war in Bush's favor), I'll take Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy's word that Wes Clark convinced them to vote against the IWR.

Adam Nagourney (from the NY Times) was the original source for the quote you constantly use. Anything coming out of the NY Times during 2003/2004 has to be run throught the bullshit meter first. Or haven't you learned anything about the agenda of the MSM in the last 2 years?

Aspen trees anyone?

[Donna Zen]

166. Adam Nagourney vs the truth

Quoting Adam Nagourney is a response a Democrat uses when there is no response. Although republicans quote Nagourney all the time.

Note: of the reporters on that flight, only Nagourney took the General's comment that way. Go figure.

[WA98070]

134. Hilary---she has her picture taken with repubs more than dems and

wants to chip us like dogs. Anything for corporate America.
Kerry isn't that far from her.
We need a candidate with democratic values and the courage to stand up for them all the time not just when politically expediate.

[grasswire]

94. Clark, and here's why

I refuse to support any candidate who Republicans will turn out to vote AGAINST. Democrats would benefit by not putting forward someone Republicans hate. And they hate Hillary and Kerry and Gore. But they don't really hate Clark. Some of them might even cross over to vote for Clark.

[Donna Zen]

95. Republicans like the stars

Which is just fine with me as long as the vote for a Democrat. I had a conversation with a raving loonie on a flight out of Memphis. He absolutely hated Democrats, but when it came to Wes Clark his attitude changed. He said that in honor of his father, a Korean War vet, he would punch anyone in the nose that said a bad word about the General. Yes, he would vote for Clark. It was a weird conversation on several levels, but it underscores a difference in thinking within the parties about the military.

I'll vote Clark for many reasons, but on a purely political basis, the next election will be about all about Change...change...change. Wes Clark, who is at least as liberal if not more liberal, than the names cited in the OP, will always be perceived as moderate by the gatekeepers at the MSM, and will represent change to the American voter.

[blm]

105. So you don't believe 10million MORE people voted in 2004 for Kerry?

or 15 million more according to RFK.

And what Democrat hasn't been targeted for hate talk since impeachment? Which one is immune to corpmedia manipulation?

[CarlVK]

108. "Some of them (repugs) might cross over and vote for Clark"

AND THAT'S WHAT SCARES ME ABOUT CLARK.

[CarolNYC]

114. Yeah, Lord knows we don't want to win...

Then we'd have to give up our identity as the victimized minority....And that's apparently pretty darn scary to some.

[CarlVK]

124. Winning even if it means becoming the monster we're trying to slay?

No thanks. I believe Nietzsche had a few things to say about that ridiculous tack.

[FrenchieCat]

128. No....again you're wrong......

cause no one said winning means becoming monsters.

You are not even being coherent......and therefore, are not contributing a goddamm thing to this thread...what-SO-ever!

You might be trying to have the last word on this silly bullshit you started, but if you make no sense, then it does you not a damn bit of good.
:eyes:

[CarlVK]

147. When you become what you fight, you have lost.

Perhaps that's a little bit more understandable for you.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

101. Gore if he were to run, otherwise-- Warner/Clark or Feingold/Boxer

Maybe Bill Richardson too-- would be a great VP pick. I still think Warner or Clark would be tough, especially Warner, but on a gut level have great admiration for Feingold and Boxer, IMHO our two best Senators without doubt. It's just that governors tend to have the best success rate in the Presidential elections, and Warner has liberal cred while winning in a Red State. Similar for Richardson, also Schweitzer in Montana.

[RobbinsdaleDem]

111. Gore.

[DuaneBidoux]

112. Clark

[karynnj]

115. Kerry!!!!!!!

Listen to his 4 Faneuil Hall speeches.

[bamacrat]

119. GORE, hands down.

Hillary would make a good VP, before she tried for the white house.

[politmuse1]

121. GORE

Vision, leadership, experience, courage. And he's our rightfully elected president. Who can come close?

Please sign petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/algore2008/

And here's why:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/al-gore-for-president-th_b_28405.html

[BackBarack]

122. http://www.BackBarack.com

I would vote for a leader who is not afraid to take the country in a progressive direction... the perfect team would be Barack Obama for President with Hillary as Veep

http://www.BackBarack.com

[Auntie Bush]

125. CLARK could turn quite a few red states blue. No on else could

turn as many as he could. The red states like religious, honest, strong, protective military men. Most of them watch FOX and they know Clark and that he would be strong on defense.

[dmosh42]

141. Clark

With a 'New Direction' and a new face who is perfectly suited for these times..

[Texas_Kat]

127. Clark

[GetTheRightVote]

129. Gore or Kerry

:kick:

[lojasmo]

130. Gore, though I'd consider clarke (with an E at the end) EOM

[_dynamicdems]

131. Kerry, of course!

But we have to first worry about 2006. We don't even know if any of the three are actually running.

[cyn2]

138. Suggestion: Clark/Obama! --nt

[question everything]

139. If the elections were held tomorrow I'd vote for Hillary

Like it or not, Kerry and Gore have the "loser" stamped on their forehead.

As much as I would love to spend an evening listening to either, their speeches are over the heads of most voters.

As I was watching Ann Richards on video clips the last two days, I could appreciate, again, how important it is to connect, on a visceral level, with the voters. This is the gift that Clinton has that cannot be emulated: his immediate connection, his feeling good about himself, being cheerful and welcoming. Gore and Kerry, no matter how hard they try, still appear distance.

Yes, I know. It is the content that matter, that should, but it does not. This is why a simpleton like Reagan is still considered, by the majority of Americans, one of the greatest president because he was "a great communicator." But then, don't forget FDR "fireside chats." Even on the battle field, a leader has to connect with his followers on a visceral level.

I think that Hillary does have some of it, plus having excelled in whatever she has been doing. And she is in the limelight, she is there, working on behalf of her constituents. Clarke... where is he now, exactly?

And... this is why talking now about how should be our 2008 candidate is so much premature. Events will change, new people will appear, old people will decline... it is possible that our 2008 candidate, around whom we will all rally barely now registers on Google. And, please, no Obama. Not yet. Besides charisma, what can he offer? How has he affected our country?

[ACK]

140. Clarke

But I would want to write in Warner. I am from VA and I like that guy a lot, good man.

[WA98296]

142. Gore, then Clark, then Kerry. Would never cast a vote for Hillary (R)

[SaveElmer]

143. Hillary!

Easy decision!

[bluewoman]

144. Who would I vote for?

That's easy. Gore, Gore or possibly Gore. :)

[ncrainbowgrrl]

159. Welcome to DU, bluewoman!

:hi:

[Little Star]

145. JRE

Wanted him last time but went Kerry because I thought he had more of a chance. Then I nagged Kerry's campaign to choose Edwards for VP. If I get the chance this time it will be my gut choice and right now that's still John Edwards.

[mithnanthy]

148. Gore!

n/t

[Guaranteed]

149. The answer is: Gore, then Clark, then Kerry, then Clinton.

Next question!

[robcon]

150. Clinton

She is going to be the next president: smart, focused, a great campaigner.

[janx]

151. Gore. n/t

[zulchzulu]

153. Kerry with Richard Clarke as VP

Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Hillary and Dennis would be in the cabinet too.

[gulliver]

154. Wes Clark

[terrya]

155. Out of that group, Gore.

And a Gore/Feingold ticket is electable.

[MasonJar]

158. Whoever the majority select! However, I love Al Gore. He and

Kerry were both cheated.

[wiley]

161. Clark

Really old thread.

[Imagevision]

162. Looks like Clarke's in the lead...

[NiteOwll]

163. Al Gore! n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

164. Clark. I like Gore and Feingold also, but definately Clark.n/t

[lildreamer316]

167. Heh.

Gore.

[newspeak]

168. I want to stick a "Re-elect Gore" bumper sticker on my car

so, I'm going with Gore-Feingold; Gore-Clark, Gore-Boxer--However, I'd vote for Clark, Kucinich, Kerry, Edwards, Feingold and Richardson (even though I have a problem with the voting irregularities in NM) for President.

[lildreamer316]

171. Couldn't agree more.

I really like the Gore-Edwards idea, but Feingold might be better; I dunno. I think Clark would make a great Sec. Of State.

[kimmerspixelated]

170. I love Kerry

But I don't think he could win this time. I think Clarke is a good man, but GORE is the one we desperately need to SAVE OUR PLANET! Green is the future!!