I'm cool with Edwards, Clark, Dean and Gore

if any of these men ran in 2008 or sooner, I would be happy to work hard for them.

I really doesn't matter, throw them together how ever you want and every match up would still be a ticket I be proud to vote for.

So, I'd just like to thank all of the above, for kicking ass and speaking truth to power.

Maybe more Dems will grow "some" too !

I'm a little disappointed in Dean's response to Wolf yesterday about the school busses under water that could have been used to evacuate people in the poor areas. D'oh, Dean changed the subject from this viewers opinion.

I'm not sure about that area, but our area, school bus drivers are in low-middle income areas, and are without a political agenda. So, I understand if their priority was to save their families first?

too many redneck, jackoff freepers will vote against her simply because she's a woman and nothing more (hillary clinton too). Same with Barak Obama (because he's black).

Personally, I'll take a Mickey Mouse/Daffy Duck ticket over anything those Rethuglicans put up.

had been in cars but were turned back. Cars are not the place to be during a hurricane. On that first night, being inside a superstructure was more important.

they aren't going to get any information or anything done, but just being in the room and getting out alive is an accomplishment.

Hillary is a disappointment.

down and part of me doesn't think it's in her.

Republican party.

But to be honest most repubs I know like Dean.

They think that he's tough and consistant.

This is NOT a slap at Dean, cause I adore the guy. But it does strike me funny that these are the same characteristics that they say they admire in *. I've come to the conclusion that all Rs are looking for daddies, that they want a spanking--someone to chastise them because they can't figure out how to behave on their own.

I just got the image of Dean spanking someone going "Who's Your Daddy!"

Thank you for making my day ever more weird. hahahahahaha

I would be happy to work hard for him again if he became the nominee.

24 hours.

i worked too hard last year just to have him just throw in the towel.

Kerry has to earn my love back.

But, what about Edwards? He could have spoken out after Nov. 2.

said. Edwards wanted to fight back Kerry did not- published reports at the time indicate that. It would not look good if the Veep was not on the same page as the Presidental candidate. No Kerry for me sorry.

I applaud what he's doing now but will not work for him if he runs again. In fact, if he were our nominee, I'd consider resigning my position in the party.

Julie

I agree.

Hell, at this point, though, I'd support a Chippendale table if it could dethrone His Evilness Incarnate.

As I said I honestly feel that all four are worthy of running this nation. They all have so much to offer, we deserve public servants like these.

however part of me knows that the orginal post was some kind of weird freudian slip.

I'll admit it, John Edwards is a good looking man.

O8)

over a Rethug.

P.S. My daughter's name is Melody

Praise be :boring:

Al Gore was elected President once, he will be again. I will do all in my power to help it be so. The rest of them, with the exception of General Wesley Clark, are not in the same leage if you ask me. They have talents and they are fine men, but they are somehow lacking.

As for notions of Dean or Clinton, either one would be suicide for the Democratic Party.

Dean, I don't think he'd be accepted as a serious nominee. And the same goes for Kucinich, although he's got some great ideas. Hmmmm, Feingold? I'd truly like to see that, but again, don't think it'll happen. Guess the jury is still out for me.

What..Even Democrats effected by MSNBC's video hatchet job on Dean..
Kucinich..Again Democrats, manipulated by Chris Matthew's telling us who to vote for..
Independent thinkers are the only ones who will save America after the corporate hijacking of America that Bush/Clinton has inflicted upon this country. The rest do not have enough of a backbone to save this country from it's pending doom.

there are many Democrats that pay attention to faux news. I agree with you cyclezeaot that Dean and Kucinich are independent thinkers. Mr. Kucinich visited our area during the campaign and I had to enlighten people as to who he even was. The stupid way our system works is that the best media blitz succeeds. Yes, it's a sad state of affairs for us.

A video hatchet job on Dean..Those the media wants to destroy will always be my first choice..I will stick with them to the end..The media is not the media..Its ownership is a special interest like any other special interest..
Any compromise with those first choices will only cause us to feel betrayed by our compromises with what is good for us.

I do not think it Dennis' fault..You have a point..It is media control and our shame we call elections. Demand newtworks to give free tv time like most civilized countries do and our elections would take a significant change..
If one does not cow tow to corporate money you have no chance. And so the American people constantly find themselves betrayed by all the sell outs we elect.
As Studds Terkel said of Dennis Kucinich..If Dennis Kucinich can't be elected ( with his vast knowledge and in depth reading) then it is not Kucinick's problem , that he can't be elected, but America's..
That is why deep down we have sort of given up on the US and are about to move overseas..
We will be Democrats Abroad and we will live under a Bill of Rights, somewhere else..
ps-- I know if Marin COunty, CA were not so dependent upon media money, Dennis Kucinich would have swamped Marin COunty the way he did Maui County, HI where money is less important and there exists a party structure that is involved.

I don't mean to start a flamewar, but usually DLC types are anathema around here...

from what I've seen, they sure don't act like DLC'ers!

I saw a recent article that quoted ADA (I think it's Americans for Democratic Action, but I'm not sure) and it had indicated that Hillary Clinton voted with the "liberal" or Democratic side 95% of the time, while John Edwards only voted with the liberal/Democratic side 60% of the time.

I'm not a Hillary supporter or Edwards basher... and, if pressed right now, I would probably prefer Al Gore be the candidate in 2008 over anybody else out there... but, Edwards seems to be much better liked on DU than Clinton even though both voted for Bush's Iraq war resolution.

They pick 20 issues, but in reality, they pick votes on tiny little amendments and whatnot. Very little is rated on actualy voting for or against the bills in question.

According to th ADA, Diane Feinstein is more liberal than Barbara Boxer. Wrap you head around that for a bit.

seem to recall they (DLC) abandoned him during the Bush v. Gore hearings.

against three of five major trade bills (on the grounds that they didn't protect labor and environment in the other country and therefor forced America to lower the bar too far in order to compete).

Gore, on the other hand, was often the farthest person to the right in Clinton's WH. He sided with Summers and Lindsey on just about every issue. He was a great friend of Wall St. He was the person responsible for managing the draft of the Telecom Bill which gave Lindsey and Summers (and therefore, Wall St) the farm.

training program, doesn't he?

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

all you can do Robbed

good luck getting thru to cult - worshippers-precious-ancient-altars -
"sacrifical-burnings-our-speciality"

"progressive thinkers"???...whatever

sion was justified because legitimate US interests were involved.

That legitimate interest was control of the Panama Canal.

In Graham Greene's book about Omar Torrijos Greene writes about the political situation in Panama. Basically, Panama was impoverished because the US gave Panama something like pennies for the tolls each ship paid to go through the zone. After years of negotiating, Carter signed a treaty that would give Panama full control over the canal in 2000 and in the interim would turn over 100s of thousands of acres to Panama and would increase Panama's share of the tolls. Torrijo died in a plane crash. Noriega ended up becoming president and he pursued similar policies as Torrijo. The US resisted Panama's control of the canal, so the Panamanians invited the Japanese to build a second canal.

So the US invaded.

In Greene's book, he writes about how Torrijo wanted the School of Americas out of Panama. Even Noriega wanted it out of Panama. One or the other (I can't remember which -- John Perkins writes about this in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) said he didn't want to a training facility for fascists in Panama.

It's good that Clark says that he supports human rights on his website. However, the School of Americas has an overwhelming history of traingin people to undermine progressive governments that jeopardize US "interests" such as greed and impoverishing the poor furhter so that a few can get very wealthy and it's not something that can be dismissed with a quote about human rights.

In fact,it was Clark at the helm that changed the direction of the school and with a goal of transparency, revealed much school's history for the world to see by publishing exhaustive government reports on SOA's past actions. That provided the information that you (and many others) are now able to critique about how the school operated for decades.

sans the full frontal assault

early 80s. It didn't rely on anything coming out of the US, much less anything Clark has done.

Countries like Venezuela are still criticizing the SOA today, notwithstanding any changes in their policies.

And they SOA has yet to work with a military which serves the interests of the citizens of its country, as far as I can tell.

And I have yet to see Clark criticize the American "values" the US has spread throughout the world, including Panama (where he said that we were protecting vital American interests with our invasion).

Do you have links for the argument that Clark was an SOA reformer?

I do not personally have links to articles regarding Clark's reforming of the SOA, but it was during and after this period that Clark was in charge of the school,in 1996 and 1997 (which was a responsibility of his Southern Command/Panama post)that reports detailing the training of S.A.dictators during the previous decades throgh the Reagan administration years were compiled and released in public government reports. It was Clark that directed the release of the documents with the aim of transparancy and change of the school's methods.


I've saved the following transcript of questions and responses on SOA is from a town meeting he gave during his primary campaign in New Hampshire in Dec of '03. It was published on SOA Watch. I think Wes Clark speaks very well for himself here. Clark is a person of the highest integrity who would have resigned his command if he had been forced to allow abuses to continue under his watch. Hopefully his statements will remove suspicions that during his term Clark had something to do with creating a curriculum that taught or encouraged atrocities OR advocated such a curriculum and supported military crimes. I've cut and pasted it below:


Manchester, NH (Dec. 19, 2003)


Question #1: A recent newspaper story says that you are a big booster of the controversial School of the Americas, the school that trained and graduated brutal dictators like Manuel Noriega and dictators from Haiti, Argentina and Chile.

This is also the school that trained Salvadoran soldiers that executed six Jesuit priests, their cook and her daughter. Is it true that you delivered a commencement speech there a few years ago. And you said in testimony to Congress, There is nothing going on in these institutions that you in the United States Congress wouldn't be extraordinarily proud of?

General Clark: That's exactly right. That's exactly what I said. And I'll tell you why. Because, from the time the School of the Americas got started, it's been changed. A lot. We screen every student who goes there. And they are taught human rights instruction in every class. And it's not a school that's teaching any of the things that those people do. People that do things that are wrong, they are graduates of the School of the Americas, should be prosecuted. And many of them were. And Manuel Noriega is in jail thanks to the USA. But, that's not the majority. That's a tiny minority of the people who've been at the School of the Americas. What the School of the Americas does is teach human rights. And it's the only school we have that really does it. It's responsible for promoting human rights across Central America and South America. And rather than try to banish it, we should be rewarding it and encouraging people to come and supporting the minimal appropriations it takes to bring those foreign students here. Because, they truly are the people who have the opportunity to learn our values and they are our best hope for preventing human rights abuses in Central and South America.

So, I absolutely did testify in front of Congress and I will today. And I would invite you or anybody who has any concerns to go down to Fort Benning, GA and visit the School of the Americas and sit in the classroom, talk to the students. And you will find what they are learning about is human rights and how to protect them.

Question #2: Sir, I'm still reeling from your answer to the young lady here about the School of the Americas. But, its somewhat mitigated by your answer about respect to our neighbors that you gave on this side. The third recipient of foreign aid from the United States is Columbia. And part of that has to do with the drug trafficking, the drug problem we have here. Can you please tell me your position on the Black Columbia, which is most of the foreign aid, military aid, to Columbia.

Answer #2: I will do that. But before I do that, since you are still reeling, there may be some other people out there. Can I see your hands if you are reeling on the School of the Americas issue? I just want to see how many people are concerned about, how much time. OK. Here's what you have to think about.

First of all, ask yourself this. Have you been there? Have any of you been to the School of the Americas and seen it in the classroom? Have you seen the curriculum? Have you talked to the people who've been there? OK, but I have. I was in charge of it. And, I'm not going to have been in charge of a school that I can't be proud of and can't support. In countries in South America, there have been a lot of problems over time. And when we started the School of the Americas, we didn't have the same integrity and feeling for human rights that we do today. It was started as a cold war artifact. It was designed to promote anti-Communism. And a lot of its graduates went on to take over their countries.

And you mentioned some of them in your question. But those were people who went to the School of the Americas back in the '60s and '70s. We thought maybe we should change the name of it. But, if you change the name, that's sort of like sleight of hand. It's still the same principle. The real question is whether its in the US interest to try to bring people in those militaries or police forces like the Colombian National Police, up to the US, expose them to American democracy.

Let them see American life and try to give them some insight into American values. And preach at them for six weeks or six months, depending on how long the course is. If you think that it's not worth it, then you just tell them go back and do it your own way and go murder, maim, and do whatever you want down there. I don't believe in that. I think those people can do a lot of good.

Most of the people in the military in those countries are people who are just like us. They are just ordinary people. Lot of them are, what's called in Mexico and parts of Latin America, Mestisos. They're not wealthy landowners. These are not people who trace their ancestors back to the king of Spain. These are poor people trying to make a living who went into the armed forces to do it. And they don't know anything but what they see and what they've been taught. And when they are brought to America, they are taught something and exposed to things that they've never seen before.

Right here is Ambassador George Bruno. And George was ambassador to Belize. And he knows about the School of the Americas. He can tell you in great detail about the curriculum and the quality of the people that are training them and about the beneficial effects of it. So, I would just ask you to do this. I would ask you to suspend your faith in Father Berrigan. I know he's down there. I know he's made a big issue of it. I've tried for years to communicate with him. I can talk to Gabriel Garcia Marquez. But, I can't get to Father Berrigan. And no matter what I've tried to do to get him to take an honest and objective look at the School of the Americas, he doesn't seem to want to do it.

So, I think it's real important that we keep that school. And that's why I'm defending it to you. And, I'll stake my credibility on it. And, if you want to go down there, I can't pay your way with campaign funds, but I will call and get you an invitation to go in there and visit the curriculum. George Bruno is on, you are on the board still aren't you George. He will take a guided tour for New Hampshireites down there. And we will show you all about the school. I think we should be proud of it. Its one of the great things our country is doing to try to help Latin America."

1) Clark was never at the helm of the School of Americas, and

2) Bruno wasn't on the board of directors.

Are there any other errors in your (and Clark's) argument?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

As for the timeline, criticism of the school intensified after the pentagon declassified a report on it in 1996 (which said that manuals the school used in the 80s encouraged the use of torture and assassination). Clark defended the school in 1997 saying that it did bad things during the Cold War but it was good. Congress closed it down anyway in 2000 (lead by Moakes and J.P. Kennedy). It reopened under a new name with a board of directors overseeing it.

Some aren't impressed with the name change and the oversight board.

US Representative James P. McGovern, a Democrat of Worcester, introduced a bill last March to shut down the school, cosponsored by 102 representatives, including Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- both candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination this year. Senator John F. Kerry, another candidate, signed on to a Senate bill to shut down the school, introduced in 1998, according to McGovern's staff.

The school has "become a symbol that represents all of the things we don't want people to think of us in Latin America," said McGovern, who has endorsed Kerry in the presidential race. "It's a stain on our human rights record, and it seems to me that at a time when we're trying to lift up our credibility around the world, especially in the area of human rights, it would be a very powerful statement" to close it.

As for this quote from Clark:

"We are teaching police and military people from Latin America human rights," he said last week in Concord. "And if we didn't bring them in and teach them human rights, they wouldn't be able to learn human rights anywhere."

Do you really think this is true?

Was under Clark's command when he was the General appointed head up the Southern Command (Southcom). It wan't my intent to imply that he was directly in charge of the school.

"As for this quote from Clark:

"We are teaching police and military people from Latin America human rights," he said last week in Concord. "And if we didn't bring them in and teach them human rights, they wouldn't be able to learn human rights anywhere."

Do you really think this is true?"

Yes, it is Clark's opinion, but I believe under the Clinton administration years that there was an overhaul and it is indeed true. The SOA developed an extensive human rights training program under the Clinton years. During the Clinton years the school partnered with several South American countries to create and carry out a large number of civilian-military projects to establish medical care, disaster relief programs, educational programs. The world is not black and white. Yes, the SOA had a decades-long history of being involved in south american training of dictators and other abuses. And Wesley Clark acknowledges that history, and believes that the school has since been reformed and continues in its new incarnation to be a force for good.

What did he change?

The problem with people attending the school isn't that they didn't understand human rights before they attended and then they suddenly understood after they left. The problem is that the US uses the school to cultivate relationships with people who will protect US interests from the liberalizing influence of social democratic parties.

Say that it were even true that all the attendees left with a new respect for the imporance of not using torture and assassination. It would still be wrong for the US to be providing finishing schools for people who will go back to their countries using their new relationships with the US to help sabotage any effort to nationalize vital industries or use their governments to reduce poverty.

These people could learn human rights somewhere else. They could learn it at home if the US didn't flip out every time a country elected a government which represented the interests of their people rather than the vital interests of the corporatocracy.

There isn't a lot written about Clark's oversight of the institution, but there are reports of how it functioned in the late 1990's by an independent (but congressionally mandated)group of visitors/observers.

What's more, there's no basis either for suggestions that Clark had anything to do with, encouraged or allowed abuse or the teaching of abuse by the institution's students- before, during or after their education at the school. He supports the institution in its reformed incarnation. I don't fault Clark in valuing the present program of the school for its positive accomplishments during the 1990's.

Beyond that, I'm also dismayed by the US's past history of self-serving interventions in South American countries. I'm not a defender of the school's existence, but of Clark's association with it during the Clinton years in its reformed status.

I support the establishment of socio/economic and socialist-anti corporate reforms as well in S.A. I'd also say that it has been ludicrious for this country in the past five years to purport to teach such things our our international army school as human rights and democracy, when once again "we are leading the world" by example of the Bush administration.

It is also true that several socialist, antigovernment movements in S.A. have had histories of human rights abuses. It could very well be that human rights abuses have been a widespread problem in the region.

I don't have a stake in this school. If it closed tomorrow it would not make a difference to me. I think however that the school justifies it's existance if it meets a need to play a benevolent role in developing partnerships with various Latin American countries to promote civic projects, joint military alliances for protection and peace that benefit the country's populations. In disagreement with Clark, I'd suspect that human rights training by the America's School is not as primary of a means for establishing the abidement of human rights in Latin America as he stated. It's my view though that since the school is still operating it's important that they have strong human rights program, and that those attending are impacted positively by it.

edit:spelling

So even if we conceded for the sake of argument that he did promote changes before his 1997 testimony (which I think isn't supported by evidence, but is supported by wishful thinking; when he was mistakenly telling people Bruno was on the board, why wasn't he telling people he personally promoted changes at the school?) the changes apparently weren't enough to convince a majority of congressmembers that the SOA was worth keeping open.

Congress closed the school AFTER Clark said it shouldn't be closed. They closed the school in it's alleged 'Clark-reformed" mode. Clark was to the right of more than half of Congress (and presumably, most Democrats) on this issue.

Re your 2nd paragraph: nobody is criticizing Clark for teaching at the SOA. They're criticizing him for thinking the SOA is good way to spread American "values" and promote American interests.

Incidentally, J.K. Galbraith is a very moderrate, pro-capitalism, middle of the road guy who supported Adlai Stevenson and thought Henry Wallace was "wooly headed." He said that the consequence of the US undermining democratic socialist and other left parties is more instability. He said that giving these groups a seat at the political table allows a peaceful conduit for political discourse. Shutting them down with subterfuge ensures that they're going to find non-political ways to get their ideas out. Galbraith also noted that the most productive economies in Europe were countries were social democrats had decent representaition in their legislatures.

Things like the SOA are self-fullfilling-prophecy. You train military people to subvert democratic socialist political movements (in order to protect the easy profits of the corporatocracy) and that ensures that democratic socialits will resort to non-political methods and you make the military and police and even more powerful political force.

If you posted info without the emotion based personal attack you would be more effective.

I love them both.

However, Edwards would have to SINCERELY apologize for his vote for the Iraq war before he would get my sincere support again.

His goal of securing badly needed Southern Electoral votes was a failure. The strategy had merit ala Kennedy/Johnson 1960 but after holding no political office for four years why on earth should we insist on him?

Feingold 2008

:dem:

I'd have to know more about him in detail - but he sure shows up om my personal radar screen often for saying things right out loud that are de facto banned by the Dem Party in general.:think:

Hillary = 207 likely 269(EC tie and loss in the House vote) possible

Feingold = 255 likely 307 possible


With Gore and Biden doing better than Hillary and worse than Feingold. I have no idea how Edwards or that guy from Virginia would do but it should be clear to anyone that running running Hillary is a sure defeat and would also guarantee many lost congressional seats from the crazies coming out of the woodwork in the more red states to vote against her and the Democrats.

Assuming Blackwell/ Dieboldt are not in control !

have guaranteed Kerry will not be the nominee again.

In fact, I vote we don't let the media choose our next candidate!! Who's with me?

Julie

or don't you get it? Many, many, many people would have voted for Edwards but couldn't stomach Kerry. (Not my opinion at all. I LIKE Kerry.) I believe that if we had a Edwards/??? ticket in '04 we would now have the White House.

Kerry lost the south, not Edwards.

I rather like the idea that he is no longer holding a political office. It makes him more real in my eyes.

No presidential candidate can expect to win if they don't really spend any time or money in a state.

People vote for President, not VP. Kerry was unknown and not well liked in the South.

John Conyers is sometimes all the hope this country has it seems.

From his bio:

As the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor, Reich presided over the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act; led a national fight against sweatshops in the U.S. and illegal child labor around the world; headed the administration’s successful effort to raise the minimum wage; secured worker’s pensions, and launched job-training programs, one-stop career centers, and school-to-work initiatives. Under his leadership, the Department of Labor earned more than 30 awards for innovation and government reinvention. A 1996 poll of cabinet experts conducted by the Hearst newspapers rated him the most effective cabinet secretary during the Clinton administration.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

And if you ever hear him on NPR's Marketplace, you know he can Communicate! I think he could get a clam to understand macro-economics.

...his voting record is near perfect.

Of the four you mentioned I like Dean best but he would have to overcome biases against him created by the corporate media.

Edwards supported "Fast Track" and the "Patriot Act" and he was a member of the DLC.

Clark has no record on domestic issues...that makes me nervous.

Gore has the record of a Conservative corporatist and the rhetoric of a progressive populist...it's hard to reconcile the rhetoric with the record.

:kick:

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/fdrbio.html">What we need for a country ravaged by its own government.

The times, fortunately, make the man or woman. I firmly believe that the four people you have named have it within them to rise to the necessary greatness.

But let's not delude ourselves. It is going to be very difficult, incredibly difficult for us to overcome the destruction wrought by our own government in the last 5 years.

Especially Dean.

If I were Gore I would have just went into myself after being so abused.

He is a finer man than I am.

I'm a little miffed at the Dem leadership enablers of the Bush agenda since 2000. Yes, the Democratic Party has no cajones.

proper to leave out Kerry and Hilary. Kerry especially is too much part of the in crowd out there.

Agreed -- any mix of these fine Democrats is A-OK with me! :thumbsup:

Edwards, Clark, Dean, and Gore would all want us to do the same. eom.

I'm still thinking... :think: Not a DAME thing!

Still talking elections?

When are you folks going to realize you don't remove tyrants from power through elections? What's it going to take, another questionable "loss?" Go ahead, recycle the usual suspects out there ... I'm sure *this* time they'll win the next rigged election.

The GOP (and Diebold) thanks you for continuing to be true believers in the American myth. Knock yourself out, while the GOP continues to play an entirely different game with a new set of rules.


:eyes:

If we can't put any hope in elections, what would you suggest? The only _possible_ ways that occur to me are those we dare not mention. (Short of Divine intervention--I doubt we have many here who're willing to wait for that)

You have other ideas that have any chance of working?
(and I don't mean media turn-arounds or doing away with Diebold voting; we need these too, but it's all part of the same package as elections.)

Seriously. I just want the party back in power.

Unless Zell Miller was on it. I'd have to go third party then. But that isn't likely to happen.

But all of those names are fine with me.

A change in that position at this point, would create insecurity.

Dean also committed to complete that term, so I really doubt he'd break that promise.