Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Alec Baldwin: There is a Candidate Who is the Answer

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 02:47 PM
Original message
Alec Baldwin: There is a Candidate Who is the Answer
Hmmmm…I wonder who Mr. Baldwin's speaking of?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/there-is-a-candidate-who-_b_43319.html

You still have people in the political "leadership class" in this country (that is anyone who is wealthy and/or well connected enough to be able to buy good seats to the latest Hillary-Obama-Romney-McCain rock concert-barbecue-Chardonnay sampling event) who do not want to talk about climate change during the campaign in any meaningful way so as not to "bring everyone's head down." The war, and all of the other unconscionable, lying, thieving and whoring done by Bush, Cheney and, now, Gonzales, is more than we all can bear. The low point in US politics (and it is the lowest point because of how close we all are to the lessons we should have learned from Vietnam, the first Iraq war, Watergate, etc.) has rendered us incapable of any real effort in the service real change. Americans, if not disgraced by their government, are enervated by it. And they hate it. I have never heard Americans speak so poorly of the institutions of our government as they are now.

Is a one-term Senator from Illinois the answer? Is a woman who is bright and strong-willed, yet in it just as much to rewrite her own epitaph as anything? Is she the answer? Could you ever vote Republican again? You'd have to pry all of their lips off of Bush's ass before they could answer a debate question or kiss your baby. (Think about where all those Republicans lips have been before you even contemplate handing them that baby.)

There is a candidate out there who IS the answer. The only answer. And, in what I believe is the true American spirit, I would rather die under a government headed by such a man than live under one like we have now. Just think, the pompous, self-important, intellectually vain attorney general taking orders from the White House to politicize the firings of REPUBLICAN -APPOINTED attorneys on his own staff.

Add Gonzales' name to those of Colin Powell and Rice and all the other bright, dedicated public servants who squandered their reputations and trashed their places in history trying to do the bidding of the worst President in US history and his crypto-fascist, hate-filled Vice-President. Cheney....the most un-Amercan man to ever serve in high office in this country's history. Only Oliver North, had he beat Chuck Robb, would have brought us any lower.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. Is Alec referring to Da Kooch?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, read the article and make another guess. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Just had a strange notion. Alex Baldwin could probably play Al Gore in
a film about a Democratic presidential candidate who won the presidency but had it stolen from him by a vaucous ninny from Texas.

Not that that would ever happen, of course.

honestly: he does bear a resemblence to the man he wants in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Alec does resemble Al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. Brilliant! Alec Baldwin
has done a lot of good work lately. Some excellent roles..he plays such a good bad guy it would be terrific to see him play someone as good as Gore. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Hi, zidzi. Good point. He's talented enough to handle any major role,
seems like.

He's a good writer, too. He posts sometimes on Huffingtonpost.com, and really comes out swinging at the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Hi Crusoe, Yes, it turns out
Alec Baldwin is a good writer, too, who is able to convey what his country means to him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. You know, zidzi, our side is going to prevail in this whole mess Bush has
made.

Alex Baldwin is helping, Cindy Sheeha n is helping, Keith Olberman is helping, and so on down the list.

As bad as Bush is, he's history in a matter of months. The first vote will be cast for our next president in Iowa in January coming up.

Wow is that day ever going to feel great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Yeah, thanks for
that! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #27
72. And just remember, the vigor of Campaign '08 that we see THIS
early in the game is proof positive, all by itself, of the YEARNING that's pounding in the hearts of MOST of America - to get OUT of this regime one way or another, to be absolutely frickin' DONE with it. They want it OVER. NOW. Even that Newsweek poll, I believe, proved it. I don't remember seeing a next presidential campaign up and running this far or this fast, this formal, OR this early, before. And I'll be 54 soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
67. Martin Sheen used to play a lot of villains, too ...
And he was a hit, as good-guy President Bartlet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
55. I've thought the same thing and there's another actor, who plays smart roles
in movies such as Jurassic Park and Independence Day, the name eludes me, who I believe could play Al Gore in a movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
66. and Will Ferrell already has portrayed the vacuous ninny ...
Edited on Wed Mar-14-07 06:19 PM by Lisa
Wow, filling those roles doesn't take too long!

Agree with you about Baldwin ... now that he's getting older, he does look a lot like Gore.

p.s. Uncle Joe -- are you thinking of Jeff Goldblum? People on DU have mentioned that the pic Tipper took of her husband, decades ago, did resemble him a lot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. YES!


I love this line...

And, in what I believe is the true American spirit, I would rather die under a government headed by such a man than live under one like we have now.

Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. It is a good line, yes. And whoever took that photograph of Gore should
get a raise.

Excellent picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. It gave me shivers and chills!
THank you, Alec Baldwin..I feel the same! Bless your patriotic :patriot: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. 5th K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boo Boo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. "The only answer."
In a nation of of 350 million? The only answer?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. Why Doesn't Alec Baldwin Run? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. He just may do that — seems he wants to be Governor of NY:
When asked in an interview with the New York Times what his ideal office would be to run for Baldwin replied:

"If I ever ran for anything, the thing I would like to be is governor of New York... That's what I hate about Arnold Schwarzenegger. His only credentials are that he ran a fitness program under some bygone president...I'm Tocqueville compared to Schwarzenegger. When asked why not be governor of California, Baldwin replied: "Then I would have to live in California. And who wants to live in California?"<7><8>

Baldwin serves on the board of People for the American Way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
43. No wonder he's sucking up.
Someone else who thinks his name makes his opinions anymore important than the rest of us, who won't call the people to take this government back or impeach those he names just for effect. Just more stage acting. BTW, what he is doing about the climate crisis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. He's been politically active for years, is on the board of PFAW, and you say
he's "sucking up". Bitter much?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin#Politics

Baldwin, a liberal Democrat, has always had an active interest in politics and is frequently rumored to be a candidate for public office. He recently revealed in a British magazine interview that he plans to leave acting in a few years to pursue a career in politics. He has recently called Vice President Dick Cheney a terrorist, and claimed that "he terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately.".<5> He later recanted this statement, saying that Cheney was not a terrorist but rather "a lying, thieving oil whore and a murderer of the U.S. Constitution".<6> Baldwin has continued to level strong criticisms at the Bush Administration on his blog labeling Bush a "trust fund puppet" and Cheney a "constitution hating sociopath" and a "hate-filled maniac".<7> Baldwin talked about the harm he believes Bush did to democracy by comparing the presidential election of 2000 to the September 11, 2001 attacks: "I know that's a harsh thing to say, perhaps, but I believe that what happened in 2000 did as much damage to the pillars of democracy as terrorists did to the pillars of commerce in New York City." <6> Baldwin and commentator Bill O'Reilly have been in a number of conflicts. Despite their political differences, however, Baldwin stated on his blog after an interview with O'Reilly, that he "was aggressive, but was a gentleman throughout", and also called O'Reilly a "talented broadcaster."<8> Baldwin, however, also referred to O'Reilly's employer, Fox News Channel, in the same blog post as "Roger Ailes' Luftwaffe/Looney Bin news operation."

On March 26, 2006, Baldwin guest-hosted Brian Whitman's talk show on WABC radio in New York. During the show, conservative talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin called the show and were heard on air. Both Hannity and Levin confronted Baldwin about his previous comments about Vice-President Cheney and Rep. Hyde. During the conversation, Hannity accused Baldwin of not appearing on his show as agreed, and Baldwin replied that he would never do Hannity's show. After Hannity accused him of attacking the president in a time of war, Baldwin attempted to move on to the next caller. Hannity interrupted, saying "you don't tell the truth." Baldwin responded by calling Hannity "a no-talent whore." The conversation turned into a series of verbal taunts among Hannity, Levin and Baldwin. According to the actor, Whitman made no attempt to assist Baldwin or curtail the call, so Baldwin walked out of the studio. On March 28, according to Baldwin, WABC President and General Manager Tim McCarthy telephoned him to "apologize for Sean's attacks."<9> <10>

Baldwin serves on the board of People for the American Way.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. It's not bitterness, it's an observation
Or is that against your rules here too? Good that he does those things, but again, he isn't the only one and this article he wrote did seem like he was sucking up. But since Al Gore is now considered "cool" it seems many are doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #49
87. If Gore is considered "cool" now, it's because many of us have been
paying attention to the words of this wise man since 2003.

He condemned the war before anyone else and has spoken out forcefully against the usurping of the Constitution. He won my heart when he was the ONLY leader calling the neocon schemes to curtail liberties a Constitutional crisis.

For you to label his supporters as some sort of vacuous groupies only shows your own ignorance. Anyone who has actually read his words and listened to his passion would realize the Al Gore movement is about substance, not fluff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. I wonder if he's talking about the only Presidential candidate
...to ever win an Oscar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
9. Think about it. One man. Smart. Experienced. Brave. Doing it for the RIGHT REASONS!
"You want his phone number?"

Run, Al Run!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. Run, Al, run!
Gore 2008!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. "Think about where all those Republicans lips have been before you even contemplate..."
"...handing them that baby."

:rofl:

I think I'm a little bit in love with Alec Baldwin right now. :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
68. Alec's completely put me off any thoughts of food ...
Edited on Wed Mar-14-07 06:24 PM by Lisa
Even if he showed up at my door with a catered gourmet meal, I feel so ill just thinking about "those Republican lips" that I wouldn't be able to eat anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
13. Strongly agree!
Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com

Help Al Gore lobby Congress: www.algore.com/cards.html

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. Run, President Gore! And run, Mr. Baldwin!
Albert Gore, Jr. is just the kind of man who, when the chips are down, WILL put the best interests of his COUNTRY ahead of a cushy life. He was RAISED to run for president ... and HE WON IN 2000. If it were any other potential candidate out there, I'd agree that it "doesn't make sense" for him to run again ... but this is the guy who BELONGS IN THE WHITE HOUSE and he knows it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
17. Fabulous.
Oh please, oh please, oh please!! Run President Gore! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kimmerspixelated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Oh the shining hope!
Oh the excitement that spills over from one post to another! WE LOVE YOU ALBERT!!!!!! PLEASE SAVE US ALL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
18. He's definitely talking about Al!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
20. Very eloquent!
We all know who he's talking about. And he IS. THE. ANSWER.

Run, Al, RUN!

Bake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. Bob Newhart?
He'd be good.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. I had the strangest dream....
He would be funny, I'm not too sure about presidential. The SOTU would be must see TV.

-Hoot

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Casablanca Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
64. "The SOTU would be must see TV."
The return of quality programming for sure. "You know, I wonder what it would sound like if Gingrich phoned me up to chat about balancing the federal budget. I think it would sound something like this ..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. And if he gave Larry, Darryl and his other brother Darryl cabinet positions,
it'd be just like the Bush Administration!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
22. It's Gore.
Mr Alive Earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
28. If Al Gore is running for president, he's running the most unusual campaign in our history.
And it may well turn out to be brilliant, in the end.

People are so sick of politics as usual, and of the hyped up, stupid TV ad, obscenely expensive "primary season." By the time Diebold/ES&S and the multi-billionaires choose somebody for us to "vote" for, we won't be able to stand them.

The primary system was originally designed to involve the people in the candidate-choosing process--or so they said. But it's become merely a way to shove billions of dollars into the pockets of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. The last time it meant anything was when Eugene McCarthy lost the New Hampshire primary, in a campaign against the Vietnam War, but did so well, nevertheless, that LBJ pulled out of the race. Now that was a primary! And maybe California '68, the launch of another antiwar candidate for the White House. (Bang, bang, shoot, shoot!). Since then it's become all money and corporate media manipulation. And, now, of course, we aren't even allowed to see how they "count" the votes. (Boy, are they afraid of the American people! I mean, really afraid. If you ever doubted the great majority of people in this country are peace-minded and progressive, ask yourself why they went to all the trouble--and billions of dollars of expense--to pull vote counting behind the veil of corporate secrecy.) A true representative of the people hasn't got a chance in the primary system. It's too expensive and too rigged. We have to outvote a 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists (my guestimate). It could happen, but the odds are not at all good. It would be something of a miracle.

Which brings me to Gore and how he could get nominated. No, not an Act of God (--although I'm beginning to pray for one). A brokered convention--like the old-fashioned party conventions, where ANYTHING could happen. If there is no clear winner by the end of the primaries, then the delegates battle it out at the convention. Most delegates are committed to the candidate who won the primary in their state only on the first round of voting. And if Hillary has a lead, but not enough for a win, and Obama and/or Edwards won't buy into a Hillary candidacy--a conceivable situation--then it's wide open. Anything can happen on the second round of voting. Enter Gore, to heal this divide. Is that what he senses developing?

He's in a dicey position--with his history with the Clintons. He may not want to challenge them head-on. But coming in as the healer in a divided party? That might appeal to him. Gore has said that he is not a candidate, but he has not said that he will not serve, if drafted.

And there is no one more qualified and better on the issues than Gore--as a combination. Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Clark--they all have their strengths, but none have this combination. 8 years in the Executive branch. A similar tenure in the Senate. Good to excellent on most major issues. Plus name recognition. Plus being steady on his feet. Plus having turned into a powerful and passionate speech-giver. Plus being someone whom most Americans believe WAS elected president. Plus his Oscar! On the most important public issue of the century.

What drew me to Gore were his speeches about Constitutional and ethical government, at several junctures in the Bush Junta. He has thought it through, and has passionate beliefs about it. His speeches are very impressive. If you want to have a good cry about our broken country, get hold of his speech on torture. I have not heard anything like it from any of the candidates, or anyone in Washington DC. They just don't seem to understand how important this is--what torturing prisoners has done to us as a nation.

Anyway, CAN Gore get the nomination? Or is the primary system too rigged? One thing he hasn't said anything about (besides NAFTA) is the "trade secret" vote counting. If the Corporate Rulers want Hillary, they have the capability to give her the nomination--without anyone knowing. The system is wide open to rigging--especially insider rigging (by Diebold/ES&S techs)--leaving no trace. Congress may give us a 2% audit. On a scale of 1 to 100, as to transparency, that is just what it looks like, a 2. Almost no transparency. And if it's Hillary they want, they will crown her before we can ever catch up with the rigged machines, and chances are we never will. (By the way, another Corporate candidate to look out for is Christopher Dodd, who helped Tom Delay and Bob Ney create this riggable electronic voting system. Prepare for a surprise showing in a Diebold state, and Dodd putting himself forward as the compromise candidate. I have a feeling--a weird prickling at the back of my neck--that the Bilderberg Group has it all mapped out.)

I would love to see someone take the reins in the White House who would bring out the best in this country, and make us proud again--instead of cringing at every word and every action of these Bush Junta monsters. I would love to see the smartest people in our country attracted back into government service. I would like to see our country heal, and be well again, and get back on the great progressive path that started with the Enlightenment, the path of the American revolution and of government of, by and for the people. I think Gore could do that. But I'm not counting on it, and I don't put my hopes for restoring democracy in this country on any leader. I put them on the American people, where they belong. I think it's going to be a long road back to democracy, and will consist of many small victories along the way--in communities and cities around the country, where transparent vote counting is restored, by popular demand, and where true representation of the interests of the people starts to re-emerge. The Corporate Cabal and its horrid war-making machine is just too powerful and too entrenched to be taken down all at once. And whoever sits in the White House--and, indeed, almost anyone who makes it to the Senate and the House-- is or becomes beholden to THEM, and not to us.

Democracy is not who the President is. Democracy is who WE are. We, the sovereign people of the United States. And it is our difficult task to win the American Revolution all over again--this time not against the British Empire, but against the Corporate Empire that has used and abused us, and has launched itself upon the world from our shores with the ill intentions of enslaving and exploiting the world, and now with slaughtering anyone who gets in their way, using our military. This revolution--American Revolution II--is up to us. No leader can or will do it for us.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Unusual but not many candidates have had the Presidency stolen from them
knowing how much corruption has been going on in the Bush administration and that Supreme court decision in 2000 to pick 'their guy' Bush I think Al is on a winner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #28
38. I wish I could nominate replies!
Excellent post, well said. :toast:

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
30. I'd love to see him run. I think a Gore/Edwards ticket would be unbeatable (as would Gore/Obama,
Gore/Clark, Gore/Webb).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
33. Could he be talking about General Wes Clark?
Maybe/possibly? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. No, next guess. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. He's not, but he could be
If only Baldwin knew more about Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
34. Agreed. John Kerry n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Yep.
Never say never...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #39
85. JK... riiiiiiiiggggghhhhht.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
37. There is a steady and growing drumbeat for Al Gore to run.
I thought it would pass. It has not. I don't think he will run, but the growing call for Gore to run, the growing hope among a lot of Democrats that Gore will run can not be ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #37
42. Gore's poll numbers are rising, his favorables are rising, his negatives are dropping...
I agree with the other posters...



RUN AL, RUN!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. That's because he is no longer in that toxic system you support n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Toxic means it needs cleaning up
Calling RestoreGore (maybe you should be honest with us and change it to RetireGore) :)

Your hero, Thomas Jefferson, also thought the system was toxic after he failed to win the Presidency in 1796.

But he did not run away and hide in a hole like a hermit for the rest of his life.

He stood as a candidate for President again in 1800, and served two full 4-year terms as President.

He understood that the Presidency provides unparalleled possibilities to bring about positive change.

Furthermore - if we don't elect the best person for the job, we might end up with the worst (like we have now).

So that's my answer to your constant bleating of the old "Don't You Know That It's Toxic" Britney Spears song ....

I hope you will forgive me for providing a fact-based rebuttal of your disgust-based arguments.


Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com

Help Al Gore lobby Congress: www.algore.com/cards.html

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Then you better get started instead of just cheerleading n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
40. My, oh my, oh my .... I am deeply in love
I don't know to whom he's referring, but I'm feeling a warm glow all over.....

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
41. Thank you, Alec!
Run, Al run!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnyieldingHierophant Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
48. “I wanted to be president...
... of the United States. I really did. The older I get, the less preposterous the idea seems.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #48
86. correction... He was, and still is, the future president of the United States.
More than 500,000 confirmed popular votes overturned by less than 500 uncomfirmed votes in Florida. That was preposterous.
so you can take your bullshit and shove it right back where it belongs, Heiro. :hurts:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
50. Whether he was or not, he could have been speaking about Wes Clark
HERE'S WHY

I was a Kerry supporter prior to Clark's entry into the race, for all the usual reasons--Vietnam vet, good Progressive, lots of exprerience, etc. I felt he was doing well in early debates, but my wife said "Not so fast; Kerry sounds like he's lecturing, talking over people's heads, just not connecting with people." Once we started to notice Wes Clark, it turned to "OH MY GOD! THIS MAN HAS IT" (the indefinable "IT" that you know when you see it). The absolute clincher was Clark's first town hall meeting in Heniker, NH right after the first debate that he was in. That meeting was shown only on CSPAN, and it is since gone from the archives. The man was amazing, a political neophyte handling and connecting with the crowd like Bill Clinton. Answering any and all questions with sincerity, knowledge, compassion. I'll never forget a very hostile question from a woman, now retired from the military, who said that she was a victim of abuse in the military and nothing ever happened to the perpetrator, and what would he, General Clark, do about that? The woman was so upset and hostile, she was shaking. Instead of being defensive or blowing her off, he looked her in the eye and apologized for the military for what happened to her. He asked her if she used the chain of command for redress. She said "yes, but," and Clark said "Didn't work, did it?" "No." Clark went on to explain how they worked very hard in his commands for equality of opportunity, equal treatment, no abuse, etc., but understood that there were still problems, and that, as president, he would work hard with the military to correct the deficiencies. He also volunteered to speak privately with the woman after the meeting to learn more about her situation so that he could help. The woman melted before our eyes! I found out afterwards that Clark met privately with her for 20 min. after the town hall and that her complaint was serious--she had been raped. Instances such as this have convinced me that Wes Clark only needs sufficient exposure to have the following to be elected President. Once people get to know this man's intelligence, character, compassion, integrity, and depth of real world experience, they become dedicated Clarkies.



And these endorsements from some very prominent progressives.
GEORGE McGOVERN
Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

A man whose progressive policies on education, taxation, health care are in the finest tradition of the Democratic Party.

A man whose ideals, decency, and compassion are in the great tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

A man whose life's work and devotion to America will serve as a beacon to our young and give pride to us all.

That man is Wes Clark - and he will lead our party to victory in November.

Like Wes Clark, I'm a veteran. I was an airman in World War II. And I believe there is nothing more patriotic than serving your country.

I also believe there is nothing more patriotic than speaking out - and standing up for what you believe in. That was one of the reasons I ran for president in 1972 - because I believed that Vietnam was a not a war America should be fighting. Back then, Wes Clark was an officer in the United States Army. And in the election of '72, he voted for the other candidate. Let's call it youthful indiscretion. The good news is that this time we both agree.

Today, we are fighting the wrong war in Iraq. And that's one of the reasons I'm standing here today. Because there is only one man in this race with four stars on his shoulders and thirty-four years of military experience. There is only one man in this race who stopped genocide and saved 1.5 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. There is only one man in this race who has a success strategy to get us out of the war in Iraq - and get our servicemen and women home safely. And that man is Wes Clark.

Wes Clark is also a champion of America's working families, because he knows that you can't be strong abroad unless you're strong at home. Wes Clark understands the problems facing ordinary Americans, especially the three million Americans who've lost their job since George W. Bush arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And the 44 million Americans don't have health care, and the thousands who can't afford the sky-rocketing costs of education.

Wes Clark is the only man who can get our country back on track. He's got a jobs program to get our economy going ... a real tax reform to help our working and hard-pressed families ... and a health care plan to make health care affordable for all Americans and universal for all our children. He wants to fight for all Americans, from all walks of life. These are not just Democratic values. These are American values.

Running for president is no easy task. And I have the battle scars to show it. I, too, was the subject of a few dirty tricks during my day. But I'll tell you, there is no better man to withstand the Republican attacks then Wes Clark. And the Republicans know that - they're running scared. The last thing they want is a four star general on their hands. So to my Republican friends out there: get ready, here we come.

Finally, let me say this: There are a lot of good Democrats in this race. But Wes Clark is the best Democrat. He is a true progressive. He's the Democrat's Democrat. I've been around the political block - and I can tell you, I know a true progressive when I see one. And that's why he has my vote.

Wes Clark will bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington. He'll fight for America's interests, not the special interests. He'll bring honesty, openness, and accountability to the White House. He is a born leader.

That is why I am standing here today: because there's one man in this race with a success strategy in Iraq... there's one man who can really stand up for working American families ... there's one man who can beat George W. Bush - and take back the White House in 2004.

And that man is my friend, our leader, a true progressive, and the next Democratic president of the United States, Wes Clark.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From a poster on Democratic Underground

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CUOMO
Mario Cuomo said, "Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MOORE
I?ll Be Voting For Wesley Clark / Good-Bye Mr. Bush ? by Michael Moore

Many of you have written to me in the past months asking, "Who are you going to vote for this year?"

I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!

I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.

And he will cream George W. Bush.

I have met Clark and spoken to him on a number of occasions, feeling him out on the issues but, more importantly, getting a sense of him as a human being. And I have to tell you I have found him to be the real deal, someone whom I'm convinced all of you would like, both as a person and as the individual leading this country. He is an honest, decent, honorable man who would be a breath of fresh air in the White House. He is clearly not a professional politician. He is clearly not from Park Avenue. And he is clearly the absolute best hope we have of defeating George W. Bush.

This is not to say the other candidates won't be able to beat Bush, and I will work enthusiastically for any of the non-Lieberman 8 who might get the nomination. But I must tell you, after completing my recent 43-city tour of this country, I came to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. He is going to inspire the independents and the undecided to come our way. The hard core (like us) already have their minds made up. It's the fence sitters who will decide this election.

The decision in November is going to come down to 15 states and just a few percentage points. So, I had to ask myself -- and I want you to honestly ask yourselves -- who has the BEST chance of winning Florida, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Ohio? Because THAT is the only thing that is going to matter in the end. You know the answer -- and it ain't you or me or our good internet doctor.

This is not about voting for who is more anti-war or who was anti-war first or who the media has already anointed. It is about backing a candidate that shares our values AND can communicate them to Middle America. I am convinced that the surest slam dunk to remove Bush is with a four-star-general-top-of-his-class- at-West-Point-Rhodes-Scholar-Medal-of-Freedom-winning-gun-owner-from-the-South -- who also, by chance, happens to be pro-choice, pro environment, and anti-war. You don't get handed a gift like this very often. I hope the liberal/left is wise enough to accept it. It's hard, when you're so used to losing, to think that this time you can actually win. It is Clark who stands the best chance -- maybe the only chance -- to win those Southern and Midwestern states that we MUST win in order to accomplish Bush Removal. And if what I have just said is true, then we have no choice but to get behind the one who can make this happen.

There are times to vote to make a statement, there are times to vote for the underdog and there are times to vote to save the country from catastrophe. This time we can and must do all three. I still believe that each one of us must vote his or her heart and conscience. If we fail to do that, we will continue to be stuck with spineless politicians who stand for nothing and no one (except those who write them the biggest checks).

My vote for Clark is one of conscience. I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to devote the next few weeks of my life to do everything I can to help Wesley Clark win. I would love it if you would join me on this mission.

Here are just a few of the reasons why I feel this way about Wes Clark:

1. Clark has committed to ensuring that every family of four who makes under $50,000 a year pays NO federal income tax. None. Zip. This is the most incredible helping hand offered by a major party presidential candidate to the working class and the working poor in my lifetime. He will make up the difference by socking it to the rich with a 5% tax increase on anything they make over a million bucks. He will make sure corporations pay ALL of the taxes they should be paying. Clark has fired a broadside at greed. When the New York Times last week wrote that Wes Clark has been ?positioning himself slightly to Dean?s left," this is what they meant, and it sure sounded good to me.

2. He is 100% opposed to the draft. If you are 18-25 years old and reading this right now, I have news for you -- if Bush wins, he's going to bring back the draft. He will be forced to. Because, thanks to his crazy war, recruitment is going to be at an all-time low. And many of the troops stuck over there are NOT going to re-enlist. The only way Bush is going to be able to staff the military is to draft you and your friends. Parents, make no mistake about it -- Bush's second term will see your sons taken from you and sent to fight wars for the oily rich. Only an ex-general who knows first-hand that a draft is a sure-fire way to wreck an army will be able to avert the inevitable.

3. He is anti-war. Have you heard his latest attacks on Bush over the Iraq War? They are stunning and brilliant. I want to see him on that stage in a debate with Bush -- the General vs. the Deserter! General Clark told me that it's people like him who are truly anti-war because it's people like him who have to die if there is a war. "War must be the absolute last resort," he told me. "Once you've seen young people die, you never want to see that again, and you want to avoid it whenever and wherever possible." I believe him. And my ex-Army relatives believe him, too. It's their votes we need.

4. He walks the walk. On issues like racism, he just doesn't mouth liberal platitudes -- he does something about it. On his own volition, he joined in and filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's case in favor of affirmative action. He spoke about his own insistence on affirmative action in the Army and how giving a hand to those who have traditionally been shut out has made our society a better place. He didn't have to get involved in that struggle. He's a middle-aged white guy -- affirmative action personally does him no good. But that is not the way he thinks. He grew up in Little Rock, one of the birthplaces of the civil rights movement, and he knows that African Americans still occupy the lowest rungs of the ladder in a country where everyone is supposed to have "a chance." That is why he has been endorsed by one of the founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Charlie Rangel, and former Atlanta Mayor and aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., Andrew Young.

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

6. He will gut and overhaul the Patriot Act and restore our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech. He will demand stronger environmental laws. He will insist that trade agreements do not cost Americans their jobs and do not exploit the workers or environment of third world countries. He will expand the Family Leave Act. He will guarantee universal pre-school throughout America. He opposes all discrimination against gays and lesbians (and he opposes the constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage). All of this is why Time magazine this week referred to Clark as "Dean 2.0" -- an improvement over the original (1.0, Dean himself), a better version of a good thing: stronger, faster, and easier for the mainstream to understand and use.

7. He will cut the Pentagon budget, use the money thus saved for education and health care, and he will STILL make us safer than we are now. Only the former commander of NATO could get away with such a statement. Dean says he will not cut a dime out of the Pentagon. Clark knows where the waste and the boondoggles are and he knows that nutty ideas like Star Wars must be put to pasture. His health plan will cover at least 30 million people who now have no coverage at all, including 13 million children. He's a general who will tell those swing voters, "We can take this Pentagon waste and put it to good use to fix that school in your neighborhood." My friends, those words, coming from the mouth of General Clark, are going to turn this country around.

Now, before those of you who are Dean or Kucinich supporters start cloggin' my box with emails tearing Clark down with some of the stuff I've seen floating around the web ("Mike! He voted for Reagan! He bombed Kosovo!"), let me respond by pointing out that Dennis Kucinich refused to vote against the war resolution in Congress on March 21 (two days after the war started) which stated "unequivocal support" for Bush and the war (only 11 Democrats voted against this--Dennis abstained). Or, need I quote Dr. Dean who, the month after Bush "won" the election, said he wasn't too worried about Bush because Bush "in his soul, is a moderate"? What's the point of this ridiculous tit-for-tat sniping? I applaud Dennis for all his other stands against the war, and I am certain Howard no longer believes we have nothing to fear about Bush. They are good people.

Why expend energy on the past when we have such grave danger facing us in the present and in the near future? I don't feel bad nor do I care that Clark -- or anyone -- voted for Reagan over 20 years ago. Let's face it, the vast majority of Americans voted for Reagan -- and I want every single one of them to be WELCOMED into our tent this year. The message to these voters -- and many of them are from the working class -- should not be, "You voted for Reagan? Well, to hell with you!" Every time you attack Clark for that, that is the message you are sending to all the people who at one time liked Reagan. If they have now changed their minds (just as Kucinich has done by going from anti-choice to pro-choice, and Dean has done by wanting to cut Medicare to now not wanting to cut it) ? and if Clark has become a liberal Democrat, is that not something to cheer?

In fact, having made that political journey and metamorphosis, is he not the best candidate to bring millions of other former Reagan supporters to our side -- blue collar people who have now learned the hard way just how bad Reagan and the Republicans were (and are) for them?

We need to take that big DO NOT ENTER sign off our tent and reach out to the vast majority who have been snookered by these right-wingers. And we have a better chance of winning in November with one of their own leading them to the promised land.

There is much more to discuss and, in the days and weeks ahead, I will continue to send you my thoughts. In the coming months, I will also be initiating a number of efforts on my website to make sure we get out the vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

In addition to voting for Wesley Clark, I will also be spending part of my Bush tax cut to help him out. You can join me, if you like, by going to his website to learn more about him, to volunteer, or to donate. To find out about when your state?s presidential primaries are, visit Vote Smart.

I strongly urge you to vote for Wes Clark. Let's join together to ensure that we are putting forth our BEST chance to defeat Bush on the November ballot. It is, at this point, for the sake of the world, a moral imperative.

Yours,

Michael Moore


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Considering the opening paragraphs, I doubt whether it is General Clark
Mr. Baldwin is talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Sure he could have been takling about Clark. In '04 Clark's positions
Edited on Wed Mar-14-07 12:34 PM by xkenx
on the environment were well-known. I'm sure Baldwin was referring to already-announced candidates, but it applies to Clark, who won environmental awards back when he had military commands, and when environonmental consciousness wasn't prominemt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. As well known as...oh....Earth in the Balance? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. No, but so what? Clark is multi-faceted.
Edited on Wed Mar-14-07 12:51 PM by xkenx
What has Wes Clark been doing since 2004? How about supporting a wide range of progressive issues? How about working tirelessly throughout the 2006 campaign to help elect Dems. to Congress and Governorships all over the country, in some cases where he was the only national Dem. invited to Red states to campaign. Like for John Tester, Ned Lamont, Jim Webb. How about being a rare American with international creds to participate in Mideast security and economic conferences. How about tirelessly working for an Iraq solution and to prevent a war with Iran ((www.stopiranwar.com)? How about Wes Clark addressing the entire spectrum of issues which a president must? Our future is threatened by not only neglect of the environment, but by a host of other problems which will take a Renaissance man/woman to start solving. As fine a person as Al Gore is, I just feel that Wes Clark comes with less baggage and has the best chance to flip red states, which is what 2008 is all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. And so is Al Gore, who actually won the 2000 election by 500,000 votes.
Wes Clark is a wonderful Democrat who's done a great deal, but he's not the person Alec Baldwin is referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #50
70. "Assault weapons"...
Edited on Thu Mar-15-07 11:03 AM by benEzra
5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper could have been identified within the first days of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

This is an "assault weapon":


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, caliber .223 Remington, capacity 5 rounds

The U.S. military doesn't use "assault weapons" in any infantry role I am aware of. It uses actual NFA Title 2/Class III automatic weapons, which are illegal to possess outside of government/military or law enforcement without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4).

If Gen. Clark wants to be a viable candidate in 2008, he needs to catch up on the last 70 years of Federal firearms law, and the last 40 years of gun-owner demographics. Hunting is pretty much irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #70
73. I don't know the technicalities, but there is NO MISTAKING Wes Clark's message.
Wes Clark is a gun owner/hunter who believes that firearms for target practice, certain hunting, and certain self-defense are appropriate, but only well-regulated, controlled, policed. And he says, to paraphrase him, if you want to have/shoot weapons whose purpose and use is anything else, like rapidly blowing away numbers of people (or slaughtering of animals), then join the army and put yourself on the battlefield. benEzra, if you have some particular reason for not supporting Wes Clark, say so. Among all the candidates, Clark may be uniquely qualified to discuss weapons. And he is a gun control proponent who will be able to flip red states, because he doesn't threaten (except NRA crazies) legitimate gun owners. Any other Dems. you can think of to stake out that claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Bill Richardson, for one...but other Dems can also, IF they take the time
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 03:30 PM by benEzra
Wes Clark is a gun owner/hunter who believes that firearms for target practice, certain hunting, and certain self-defense are appropriate, but only well-regulated, controlled, policed. And he says, to paraphrase him, if you want to have/shoot weapons whose purpose and use is anything else, like rapidly blowing away numbers of people (or slaughtering of animals), then join the army and put yourself on the battlefield. benEzra, if you have some particular reason for not supporting Wes Clark, say so. Among all the candidates, Clark may be uniquely qualified to discuss weapons. And he is a gun control proponent who will be able to flip red states, because he doesn't threaten (except NRA crazies) legitimate gun owners. Any other Dems. you can think of to stake out that claim?

Bill Richardson, in spades. Jim Webb, if he were running for President (which I think he will, someday). But other Dems could, IF they would take the time to grasp the issue, beyond the Brady talking points.

On the other side of the coin, any candidate who unwittingly endorses outlawing the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States, e.g. the AR-15 platform, mini-14's, M1 carbines, Garands, SKS's, 10/22's, etc., is going to alienate the gun vote, regardless of their hunting or military background. Depending on how broadly you define it, there are twice as many "assault weapon" owners in the United States as there are active hunters. (You realize that 80% of gun owners are nonhunters, yes?) How well do you think an outright ban on sport hunting would fly? Multiply that times two, and think about that hard before throwing away ANOTHER presidency over more gun bans.

Look, I like Clark other than his stance on new gun bans. Unfortunately, he and you both seem to be a bit out of touch on gun-owner demographics, and on what guns are and aren't already banned/restricted by Federal law. Bans on nonhunting-style guns are even less viable today than they were in '94, when the Feinstein ban cost the House AND Senate. And from where I'm standing, I don't see how Gen. Clark's stance on guns is any different from the stance that hurt Kerry/Edwards so badly in '04, or Gore in '00, i.e. talking up traditional looking guns while promising to ban modern-looking ones.

A good read on how the gun issue plays in red states among rural Dems (sad personal anecdote from DU's own virginiamountainman): Alienated Rural Democrat

To borrow a cliche, those who fail to learn from history (as in, 1994-2004!) are doomed to repeat it. Step back from the buzzwords, and look at precisely WHAT is being discussed, rather than merely how.

BTW, you mentioned the following in a post below:

I ask this because red states are, by definition, populated by more Repubs. than Dems. Rethugs win those states because they hold their base and break even (or not even even) among Indies. To win any of those states, we must either make inroads among Rethugs, or dominate among Indies.

I'd add one more. You need to NOT alienate red-state Dems.

The problem with the Feinstein/Gore/Kerry message on guns, which Clark echoed in 2004, is that it (1) alienates many red-state Dems, (2) alienates gun-owning indies, and (3) scares gun-owning repubs to the polls in droves, even if the repubs are running an otherwise dubious candidate. That's a big part of why our pro-gun Dem governor won my state 55/45 in 2004, even as the SAME voters on the SAME day rejected the Kerry/Edwards ticket 45/55, and this is Edwards' own home state.



If you're interested, some more background on the issue http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=97165">here:

From "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=97165">Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?" (2004)

Get educated on gun issues. Democratic politicians should take a closer look at the technical issues involved in gun legislation before jumping on the prohibitionist bandwagon du jour. If an anti-car activist advocated banning Honda Civics with 18" wheels, rear wings, levitation lights, and windshield-washer LED's because they are "race cars" that can "outrun police" and "have no legitimate transportation purpose," do you think the average senator or congressperson would fall for it? No, because they are all familiar enough with cars to know that glow lights and chrome wheels don't make a car go any faster, even if it makes it look faster. But when an anti-gun activist claims that thumbhole target stocks, vertical handgrips, threaded muzzles, or rugged looks make a rifle an "assault weapon" that "out-guns police" and "has no legitimate purpose," many legislators fall for it, because they aren't really all that familiar with guns or gun law. That needs to change.

Whenever a Democrat urges a ban on "weapons of war like AK-47's and Uzi's," he or she looks dishonest to gun enthusiasts familiar with the law, because military AK-47's and Uzi's are already tightly restricted by Federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934--which, after all, has only been on the books for SEVENTY YEARS. But the prohibitionists didn't tell you that the legislation they gave you didn't ban any military weapons, did they? Just civilian nonhunting firearms like my wife's 15-round Glock handgun. It astounds me that more than ten years after the 1994 "assault weapons ban" was passed, many politicians and respected media organizations were still reporting that the ban covered "automatic weapons" or "weapons of war" or "machine guns." When all anyone had to do was go to the BATFE web site and read the Federal Firearms Law FAQ to find that this was 100% wrong.

When leading Democrats seek to ban any ammunition capable of piercing body armor--which practically ANY centerfire rifle caliber will do--why are they surprised when rifle owners feel threatened? (Yes, even grandpa's old .30-30 Winchester deer rifle will drill through level II or IIIA body armor like it's not there.) Oh, the prohibitionists didn't tell you that Kevlar body armor is only designed to stop handgun rounds, did they? But ten minutes' research would have revealed that--if any Democratic strategist had bothered to check.

I could go on. About the myth that a nontraditional-looking 9mm handgun like a civilian Uzi lookalike will “blow a deer to smithereens,” even though it is only one-seventh as powerful as an ordinary .30-06 hunting rifle. Or the canard that rifles with vertical handgrips are “designed to be spray-fired indiscriminately from the hip,” even though a vertical handgrip is more ergonomic than a conventional grip for shooting from the shoulder based on simple human forearm anatomy. Or the claim that the .223 Remington is an ultra-powered super-bullet too powerful for civilians to own, even though it’s the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges. Or that my little SAR-1 is a “weapon of mass destruction” that can “penetrate police body armor from a thousand yards away.” Yeah, right. And my Toyota Camry goes 200 miles per hour and gets 150 mpg. Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

Maybe Democratic politicians should hire a few pro-gun staffers (not just pro-hunting, but pro-gun in the broader sense) to try to expose these embarassing details before introducing wrongheaded legislation or issuing inane press releases. And maybe the party should view prohibitionist talking points about "assault weapons" and "cop-killer bullets" and "sniper rifles" and "pocket rockets" with the same skepticism they currently reserve for NRA pronouncements.

Pro-gun Democrats--and gun-ambivalent Democrats who don't see the point in alienating tens of millions of voters for no good reason--need to take back the party from the prohibitionists. People like Senator Charles Schumer, who thinks the shape of a rifle's stock affects its lethality, or that a puny 9mm Luger is too powerful/lethal for "civilians" to own (but is OK with "civilians" owning .338 Lapua magnums and 12-gauge shotguns), have absolutely no business setting the party's gun policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. You are way too sophisticated for me and most voters. Clark's theme
will play and be non-threatening. I think even red state voters will understand that Clark is OK with legitimate gun owners having their guns, and killer-types can join the Army to get their jollies. IMO it doesn't need to be more sophisticated than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. That approach was tried in 2000 and 2004, and BOMBED...
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 10:04 PM by benEzra
You are way too sophisticated for me and most voters. Clark's theme will play and be non-threatening. I think even red state voters will understand that Clark is OK with legitimate gun owners having their guns, and killer-types can join the Army to get their jollies. IMO it doesn't need to be more sophisticated than that.

That approach was tried in 2000 and 2004, and BOMBED. Gore lost TN (his own home state!) and WV primarily over the gun issue, and it also hurt him badly enough in Florida to make the race close enough to recount. Kerry/Edwards did it again in 2004, with similarly abysmal results, losing Edwards' own home state. No surprise, since it was the same approach that cost the House and Senate in 1994, in case one forgets.

Jim Webb, Tester, Casey, Ted Strickland, etc. showed in 2006 how to win the gun vote. 1994, 2000, and 2004 showed how to lose it. Which would you rather emulate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #76
84. Being a gun expert, you seem to think all campaigns are about guns.
Like the sole reason Gore and Kerry lost was about guns. Tester supported gun rights, but Webb actually had nothing to say about guns on his campaign website. I still claim that Clark, who owns some 20 guns, will play in the red states with his support for responsible gun ownership, which, BTW, was the NRA's position until they got taken over by RWers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. No, Webb said a LOT about guns...and for a few tens of millions of voters, they are a deal-breaker.
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 02:39 PM by benEzra
Like the sole reason Gore and Kerry lost was about guns. Like the sole reason Gore and Kerry lost was about guns.

You are entirely correct, of course, that one can't say that the sole reason Gore and Kerry lost was their ban-more stance on the gun issue. However, for a few tens of millions of voters, gun bans such as S.1431 or H.R.1022 are a deal-breaker, because we own the guns you want to ban. And it is possible to say that based on the data we have that all else being equal, Gore would have won TN and WV, and likely FL by a recount-proof margin, had he not taken such an unpopular gun stance. And winning either TN and WV, OR Florida by enough margin to avoid a recount, would have given Gore the White House.

In 2000, President Clinton said the gun issue was decisive in several states that otherwise would have gone for Gore. He also said in '95 that the 1994 Feinstein ban cost at least 20 House seats in Nov. '94. I think he is right.

In my state of NC, there was a 10-point spread between our Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Easley (who ran from a strong pro-choice position on guns) and the Democratic presidential ticket, which ran on the message you are now advocating for Clark. Easley won 55%/45%; Kerry/Edwards lost 45%/55%, despite the fact that this is Edwards' home state.

Tester supported gun rights, but Webb actually had nothing to say about guns on his campaign website.

You are 100% wrong. Webb posted his NRA survey on his web site at the URL http://www.webbforsenate.com/nrasurvey.pdf (link no longer works, unfortunately). He made it explicitly clear that he opposes the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, supports carry licensure for qualified, law-abiding citizens, supports the right to self-defense rather than just hunting, and believes that the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual, rather than a collective, right.

Webb campaigned heavily at gun shows, and reassured everyone he spoke to that he was NOT a "gun rights for owners of hunting guns only" candidate. When the NRA endorsed Macacawitz instead of Webb, Webb sent the following letter to Virginia gun owners, and it was widely circulated on the web:

October 30, 2006

Dear Virginia Sportsmen and Gun Owners,

As a long-time member of the National Rifle Association, you can imagine my surprise when I received a mailing in the form of an Orange Card saying "VOTE FREEDOM FIRST ON NOVEMBER 7 - VOTE GEORGE ALLEN FOR THE U.S. SENATE!"

I am writing this letter to make certain that no Virginia sportsmen or gun owner has any question concerning my stand on Second Amendment and sportsmen rights.

To be clear, I value and will defend your right of self-defense. As a Marine combat veteran who shot "double expert" and once taught the .45 pistol to Officer Candidates, and as a former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, I know first hand the importance of armed self-defense by law-abiding citizens as a deterrent to criminals, and in the long term, to would-be tyrants.

I have possessed a concealed-carry permit for many years, and shoot regularly. I have made no secret during this campaign of the fact that I carry. I support a national concealed carry permit. I also will sponsor a bill in the United States Senate that repeals the National Park Gun Ban that disarms only law-abiding citizens in Interior Department/National Park Service across Virginia. And I intend to get it to the floor for a vote.

Please compare this background with that of my opponent. Individual Second Amendment Rights are ingrained into my Scots-Irish culture, and I stand where I stand.

On the sporting side, I support opening up more Federal land for sportsmen. Federal land is, after all, the property of all Americans. In addition, I support air and water quality measures that improve wildlife habitat. I will be monitoring the "Farm Bill" and its wildlife habitat programs to make sure that Virginia and our abundance of National Forest lands gets its fair share of funding for our wildlife programs.

You can also imagine my frustration when I received my NRA magazine and saw there was a question mark beside my grade. Only after complaining to the NRA did they finally post my grade on their website. I got an "A" which was purposefully omitted from the NRA orange card that, to my shock, urged a vote for George Allen. The question is, why did they not mention my own lifetime of support on these issues?

In order to fully clear the air, I am making public my 2006 NRA Candidate Survey. You can find that at www.webbforsenate.com/nrasurvey.pdf I challenge George Allen to do the same. We should have no more secret surveys in Virginia when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms.

Please help me clear up this deliberate distortion by an organization that I must regretfully conclude has more on its agenda than protecting the earned Second Amendment rights of our citizens.

Jim Webb

Webb said a lot to gun owners, all of it good.

I am trying to find a copy of Webb's NRA survey to post here since the above link is now dead. I'd be grateful if anyone else could locate one, also.

I still claim that Clark, who owns some 20 guns, will play in the red states with his support for responsible gun ownership, which, BTW, was the NRA's position until they got taken over by RWers.

Unless Clark explicitly rejects the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, like Webb/Tester/Casey/Strickland, his position is no different from that of Kerry/Edwards in 2004 and Gore in 2000. Problem is, promising to ban half the guns in our gun safes is NOT supporting responsible gun ownership. Kerry/Edwards and Gore made it clear that owners of modern-looking rifles and defensive-style pistols were NOT welcome in their tent.

This point cannot be belabored too much: fighting to ban the most popular civilian rifles in America is NOT "supporting responsible gun ownership," particularly since rifles are almost never used in crime (FBI rifle crime stats). On the contrary, it is absolutely, 100% guaranteed to alienate a majority of gun owners in 2008, just like it did in 1994, 2000, and 2004. Your strategy has been tried for more than a decade, and hasn't worked YET.

Kerry and Gore owned guns, too. They shot them on the campaign trail. They hunted with them in front of the cameras. They made it 100% clear that they supported the ownership of guns that look just like theirs. And all that was irrelevant, because they promised to ban the most popular civilian guns in the United States, and in so doing made their support for owning high-end double-barrel skeet guns absolutely irrelevant to the issue.

The gun issue is not, and has never been, about bolt-action deer rifles with straight wooden stocks, or fancy skeet/bird shotguns; those are legal even in D.C., California, Australia, and the UK, and even Sarah Brady herself doesn't advocate banning them. The gun issue is about the responsible ownership of modern-looking rifles, and to a lesser extent handguns, and about self-defense and target shooting.

I'm not saying make the campaign solely about guns. I'm saying, take the gun issue OFF THE TABLE by taking a solid pro-choice position on the issue instead of threatening responsible gun owners with bans and confiscation if their guns don't look just like yours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #88
89. Wes Clark has the "street creds" that Dean, Gore, Kerry lacked.
Clark was the most decorated soldier since Eisenhower; Clark got shot up in Vietnam and got hero medals for his bravery and leadership under fire;
Clark rose to be the highest-ranking officer possible outside of the rare Eisenhower 5-star; Clark led the military effort in the Balkans w/o the loss of an American; Clark is a multiple gun-owner and hunter. When he speaks to red states, he has instant credibility. It was no accident that Clark was the only national Dem. invited to campaign with Tester in MT. Jim Webb brought him in to campaign in "red" areas of VA. It was no accident that Clark was the keynote speaker to rally the troops at the Texas Dem. Convention last summer. When Wes Clark's American Hero/American Dream story gets around in middle America, watch how many red states flip.
I still claim that most voters are simple folks who respond to simple themes. When a warrior like Clark says he's for responsible gun ownership, and if you want to blow people away, join the army, they know exactly what he means. If he uses the words "assault weapons," they know that it is CODE for irresponsible. Any voters who want unfettered access to any kind of weaponry for any purposes whatsoever is not voting Dem. Hell, if the Rethug candidate preached any weapons for anyone, anytime, those people would vote for him even if he were to be shown murdering a baby on national TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. No more "street cred" on the *gun issue* than Gore/Kerry had...
Edited on Mon Mar-19-07 09:54 AM by benEzra
Wes Clark has the "street creds" that Dean, Gore, Kerry lacked.

On the *gun issue*, no more than Gore and Kerry, who also own guns (and made a big deal about it) and shot them on the campaign trail, and who also served in the military. Yes, Clark has a lot more credibility on military matters, but we're not talking about military matters. We're talking about civilian gun ownership, an area in which Clark is currently indistinguishable from Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. If he wants to avoid repeating the Gore/Kerry alienation of gun owners, he'd do well to learn from their mistakes.

This is an issue that national Dem candidates HAVE to get informed on, IMO.

I still claim that most voters are simple folks who respond to simple themes.

And you know what the problem is? Supporting bans like S.1431 or H.R.1022 do give rise to a simple theme, a Rovian one: "The Dems will ban half your guns." You think that's a good thing?

Maybe a large contingent of voters are indeed as simple-minded as you say. Gun owners, by and large, are NOT. Before 1994, you might have been right, but the Feinstein ban blasted gunnies right out of that sort of simple-minded complacency.

Gore and Kerry both tried your approach on guns, and it BOMBED. You can't fool people into thinking you support them, when the legislation you endorse bans half their guns.

When a warrior like Clark says he's for responsible gun ownership, and if you want to blow people away, join the army, they know exactly what he means.

He didn't say "if you want to blow people away, join the army." He said, "if you want to shoot 'assault weapons,' join the army."

This is an "assault weapon"--and yes, that's my carpet behind it :P :


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, caliber .223 Remington

"Assault weapon" is a gun-ban-lobby term that refers to some of the most popular civilian guns in America (Colts, Rugers, antique M1 carbines and Garands, SKS's). By saying what he said, Clark implied that (1) he does not know what an "assault weapon" is, and (2) that he supports banning AR-15s, Ruger mini-14's, M1 carbines, M1 Garands, and civilian shotguns that hold more than 5 shells, on the basis of Bradyite talking points.

You were talking about street cred on the gun issue? Falling for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, while being apparently unaware of existing Federal gun law, is NOT the way to maintain one's credibility on the issue.

If he uses the words "assault weapons," they know that it is CODE for irresponsible.

It's not "code" for anything. The bill itself that Gen. Clark was endorsing (S.1431, 108th Congress) defined the term very specifically. It would have banned all shotguns holding over 5 rounds, all rifles and pistols holding over 10 rounds, all self-loading rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips, plus a bunch of popular civilian guns by name.

S. 1431 (108th): Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003

There are more "assault weapon" owners in the United States, broadly defined, than there are active hunters. How do you think a ban on hunting would fly? Multiply that times two, and think hard before endorsing such a sweeping gun ban or calling us "irresponsible" because our guns don't look like Mausers or Perazzis. And half of us are Dems and indies, for crying out loud; this is NOT a repub issue.

Any voters who want unfettered access to any kind of weaponry for any purposes whatsoever is not voting Dem.

NOBODY is talking about "unfettered access to any kind of weaponry for any purposes whatsoever." Are you even listening to what I'm saying?

We're talking about NON-automatic SMALL-caliber CIVILIAN target rifles, CIVILIAN shotguns, and CIVILIAN pistols, that have been on the civilian market for 40 to 140 years. NOT machineguns. NOT sound-suppressed firearms. NOT high-caliber firearms. NOT modern military weapons. Just popular civilian guns.

Gore and Kerry expressed strong support for ownership of bolt-action deer rifles and skeet shotguns, while supporting the "assault weapon" bait and switch. It cost them the gun vote. If Clark takes the same position, it will do the same for him.

I'm not saying Clark is bad; I like Clark. What I'm saying is that Clark was seriously misinformed on the gun issue in 2004, and if he tries the failed Feinstein/Gore/Kerry strategy that you advocate in 2008, the result will be the same as 1994, 2000, and 2004.

Again, Jim Webb should be the role model on the issue, not the Kerry campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. Clark doesn't use a failed strategy; he is unique.He will play in red America.
Looks like we will just continue to disagree. I'm signing off. I understand that you will need to multi-paragraph another reply. Feel free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-21-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #88
93. Fantastic!
Fantastic post, Ben!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
52. Let me guess.... climate change+AL GORE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
churchofreality Donating Member (545 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
58. I love Gore as much as anyone, but.....
The press will kill him once again. He is still a laughing stock among people who never bothered to learn the truth about the "quotes" from him about the internet and "love story" and "love canal" etc. Plus, now he is fat. They will skewer him and make him look like a loony. Hillary is the only one with enough balls(ironically) and political savvy to win this thing. Gore didn't fight hard enough, neither did Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Thank you for your concern, and it will receive the consideration it deserves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. I love the fresh morning smell of burning concern in the air.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. OK, since 2008 is all about flipping red states, please answer 2 questions.
1. Name two red states Hillary can flip.
2. Why?

I ask this because red states are, by definition, populated by more Repubs. than Dems. Rethugs win those states because they hold their base and break even (or not even even) among Indies. To win any of those states, we must either make inroads among Rethugs, or dominate among Indies. Gore and Kerry, with their wealth of experience and Viet Nam vet backgrounds could not do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
churchofreality Donating Member (545 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. Florida and Ohio
Kerry quit on Ohio at the end. You don't think enough people in those two states won't be pissed off enough after 4 more years? You think Rudy or McCain or Romney (all very flawed) will have a chance against Hillary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. As Bill would say, "Give me a break."
Hillary is a walking $100M of free advertising to rally the Rethug base to get out and vote. Yeah, lots of folks are pissed off, but at Bush. Another Repub. can come along and be the anti-Bush, appealing to Repubs to come back to a "real Repub," not a cold calculating northeastern librul who doesn't know if she is a Goldwater Girl or a feminazi, whether she supported the war (or not), blah, blah (their words, not mine) but words which will resonate in the heartland where there is mistrust of Hillary, if not outright hatred. Chuck Hagel, for instance, is a Repub. who can carry that message. I speak with lots of Dem. WOMEN who won't vote for Hillary; how on earth does she flip a red state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-14-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. I respect Hillary Clinton, but agree that she is a double whammy.
Thanks to her stance on the slaughter in Iraq and her pro-corporate agenda, she is divisive within the Democratic Party, and she absolutely will rally every reich-wing nutbar to action.

Guaranteed republik win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-15-07 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
71. Kick, run AL run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
77. "Think about it. One man. Smart. Experienced. Brave. Doing it for the RIGHT REASONS!"
I would love to attend a huge march or rally on his behalf... Isn't he doing a big concert on Capital Hill this summer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Yes. Seven continents on 7/7/07. Here's the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. I can't wait! You gonna go NYC???
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 10:11 PM by Labors of Hercules
Thanks!! :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. I have no plans yet. They haven't announced where it'll be in the US yet.
The DC concert hasn't been approved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. yeah, I hope the vote passes to stage it on the Capital Grounds,
Any news on when it will go to the floor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. It would be real poetic justice to have the concert on the Capital Grounds.
I have no idea on when it'll get to the floor. The last thing I saw about it was the Washington Post article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. It would send a powerful message that is sorely needed right now...
yes, a POWERFUL message! :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC