So if the convention was held today, who would we select!

But I'd want Al Gore

Obviously that's a fantasy -- just like it's a fantasy to think that we the people will be allowed to "elect" ANYBODY who's not already tethered to the same ruling corporatoracy that actually runs this country.

The voting will be rigged, just as it has been in 2002 and 2004. The Ruling class puts on a Kubuki show every 4 years to maintain the illusion of "democracy", but the players behind the curtain remain the same no matter who gets "elected".

I'll continue to vote for local contests, on the off chance that not every precinct involved is rigged (yet), but as far as I'm concerned, unless there's a massive anti-corporate revolution in this country, any future presidential election will be nothing more than a massive con job on the American public.

sw

Wait! Where the hell is AL Gore?

Why is he not on the list, although I voted for Clark, who I also love, Gore is my first choice.

if for no other reason than all the great re-elect jokes we could all make.

but for some reason i love the guy. he really appeals to me.

he is really funny and smart. his image is a function of the media war against gore. some of big dog's stories about him are heeee-larious.

a military man at the helm.

do you like bush better

Real people suffer and die.

Clark's not my first (or second choice) but not a bad one.

Ducks don't wear signs labeling them ducks. If it has a ducksbill, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then you know it's a duck.

Wes Clark is one of the Democratic Party's foremost progressives by virtue of his actions over the years, not by any labels that people want to throw at him simply because he had a career in the military.
It is time to appreciate just how lucky we are to have this national treasure. Just a few items:

--Clark was always butting heads with the stereotypical "macho" military Neanderthals because he saw the horrors of war firsthand in Vietnam and always espoused "diplomacy first."
--Clark was one of the leaders of the all-volunteer Army created after the Vietnam debacle. To keep personnel in you had to do a good job of providing for their family needs, health, education, equal opportunity.
--Clark actually won environmental awards at bases under his command.
--When Clark was working at the Pentagon in the mid-90s, he was virtually the only voice crying out to intervene in Rwanda.
--It was Clark's voice, along with Madeline Albright, who persuaded the Clinton Admin., over the objections of the Pentagon, to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Tell the Kosovar Albanians that Wes Clark isn't a liberal, progressive, humanitarian.
--It was Wes Clark's voice prior to the Iraq invasion who urged that we exhaust all possible diplomatic means before any military action, including in testimony to Congress.
--It was Wes Clark who filed an Amicus Curiae brief in the University
of Michigan affirmative action case.

Since when is it some kind of a black mark for someone to give to his country by serving in the military if he does so in a principled manner? Wes Clark felt that he could make the most impact by providing a progressive voice to that institution.

As for voting for Nixon and Reagan, he did so 20-30 years ago, simply because he felt they were strong on national security. Clark discovered that the modern Republican Party is so different they wouldn't have Nixon, and maybe not even Reagan. Clark evolved to where he started voting for Democrats, and then officially registering as a Democrat after registering as Independent for many years. Reagan WAS a democrat prior to running for Gov. of California. Are any Democrats wanting to say that Reagan, in his later years was a Democrat, simply because he started out that way?

So I'd have to say Wes Clark is my Democrat, liberal, progressive "DUCK" because he has proved it.

a proven intellect (Rhodes Scholar), integrity, and guts.

Wes Clark is the only guy who fits the bill as far as I'm concerned.

But isn't it a little early for the candidate wars?

Honore did us a good turn.

No matter what it is Clark lays out a detailed plan on how to act. Even with Iraq he had a long plan on what needed to be done to win the peace but no one listened to him. He would be the most organized president we have ever had! He works his ass off and you would NEVER see him playing golf not even with no Hurricanes in the Gulf. The man cares deeply about his country and wants to make a difference! An intellectual General who understands diplomacy! It doesn't get any better than Clark!

unless this is the DLC convention...

I'd vote for her. I think naked ambition is unattractive on anyone, and Bill hides it much better.

'Course, if she won, then you'd get Bill too, which is one heckuva twofer.

In terms of who could govern best, especially now? Gore, no question. However, lots of people hate his guts -- he appears genuinely anticharismatic.

Who's most likely to win against the crowd of lightweights and wackos the pubbies will have to choose from? Clinton.

Which lightweight/wacko will the pubbies put up? If I had to put money on it, I'd say Giuliani. All the rest of 'em are going to be tainted, too crazy for moderates/swing voters, or rejected by the fundies.

!

I'd have a hard time choosing between the two.

Your selection sucks.

or Gore/Kerry
or Kerry/Kerrey
or Kerry/Boxer
or Kerry/Clark

Hell, it's too soon, but obviously, Kerry is at the top of my list.

Clark/Boxer
Feingold/Boxer


MY favorite
Boxer/DK!!!!!!!

but not quite what I was going for.
Same rhythm, different lyrics.

Gore would be a close second or replacement even if he chose to run again.

You're kidding right? :crazy:

Yes, I still haven't let that one go... even if it had been a pointless waste of a vote to vote against, I think there was plenty of evidence in Thomas' answers that he WAS a liar on many issues including his history of abuse of Anita Hill.

Haven't trusted him since.

Clark/Feingold

n/t

I'd chose Dean as long as he stays in Iraq for a while.

own messes.

Of course he would also get better people in charge and the UN in.

Dean/Clark

I would pick Al Gore... put him in his rightful place.

I think Kerry was a good candidate, and I could easily support him again. He came pretty close last time!

I think Edwards would be a great choice. He has the message (the Two Americas) that can re-connect the Democrats with "average folks," he is incredibly articulate, and he has the looks too! (Sorry people, for President, looks count.)

I still think Hillary would be a good option too.

Dean may be a bit to "hot" for a Presidential nominee, but his sincerity, seriousness and passion are unmatched.

But look, I was not on DU in the Spring of 2004 during the Primary Wars I've heard about, but I was following the campaign. Clark struck me as a man who was making it up as he went along. He was NOT a smooth or clear speaker - which is quite understandable, as verbal dexterity is hardly important or much practiced in the military. He's no dummy, no Bush-like talker, but he struck me in his performances as about as unskilled as awkward as most of us average people would be in front of the cameras - a lot of ums and ers, a lot of uncompleted sentences that didn't go anywhere.

Plus, there are his looks. He is not an ugly man by any means, but his facial structure is too sharp and too fine for today's ultra-macho tastes. He looks like a film star - of the 1920s. Trust me people, that look is out of favor. (I have a bit of a touch of it myself - dateless wonder here for the past three years already, but I digress.)

So Clark gave us some anti-war red-meat(white tofu?) speechifying that gratified many of us during the campaign. That's not enough to make a President. Plus, the Iraq War will be much less important to BOTH sides of the political spectrum in 2008.

what do you think......history is a good school of thought

In my view, Clark was coaxed into the campaign by Democratic bigwigs in order to siphon off votes from Howard Dean, because, as we know, he was rising and rising and rising during the spring and summer of 2003. He was the darling of the media and of the liberal blogosphere.

Dean was a threat, not because he really had a chance of getting elected president but because he had no chance, and his bombastic manner likely would have hurt Democrats downticket. The bigwigs, realizing the "power" of sites like this one, the "draft Clark" movement, and bloggers like Kos, and knowing both Dean and Clark had similar followings, decided to get Clark into the running to split the vote and pave the way for somebody more palatable.

Of course, the candidate who in my view who was a true threat to the Republicans and corporate America, John Edwards, was buried through all the Clark hype and later Kerry hype and never did recover.

Clark, for all his military knowledge, simply didn't know squat about domestic issues. Many of his proposals he freely stole from Edwards and others. Not only that, but he was a terrible campaigner to boot, a true neophyte.

I felt his the cultlike following was mistaken because they felt "national security" and defense issues were more important than domestic issues, and they unwittingly played right into the Rove playbook.

Of course, this was before November 2004, when the fascists decided to rig the elections--again.

I don't believe Clark will run in 2008. Having seen him in person when he campaigned for Kerry in Reno, Nevada, last October, he seemed quite content spending more time with his family and mostly out of the limelight.

know the man. Your opinion of him sounds like it was formed and solidified in September 2003 when he entered the race. There were some issues at the beginning of his campaign, I'm not going to deny that, but it's two years later now and he has become very media savvy.

Here's some recent writing by Wes Clark:

His PAC/blog: http://www.securingamerica.com/

Wes Clark's recent thoughts over at TPMCafe: http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/wclark/diary

But are we seriously going to consider "facial structure" as a necessity for choosing a president now? First off, I don't get what you're complaining about. Secondly, Bush has the facial structure of a drunk stroke victim and he got about 60 million votes last time around.

Nice photo for a wine grower

Acomack?

He isn't is he? Just what we need! (not). You know what they'll say -elite, effete and *gasp* FRENCH!

Not one them advocates immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

again.

but I am looking at 06 first. We will see.

Are you saying I need to?

Peace is the answer.

I hope you know of what

It makes me unable to act responsibly and obsess about the impending doom. It used to be "fun" but it turned on me big time.

That being said- I'll fight to the death for your right to smoke it.

:kick: :headbang:

campaigned for any candidate but they are telling me that IF Al Gore runs again that they WILL campaign for him. He is a very smart man and he has the ability to get the country back on the right track after this SOB has screwed it up so much.

fly with amerikans. He'll be torn to shreds, and we'll get shrub MkII. Thank donna brazile & co. for that. :banghead:

Where he came back to win by a landslide just EIGHT YEARS LATER? in 1968?

That kind of "loser"?

Give it a rest - that false label means NOTHING.

40+ years ago. The sheeple are ignorant, short sighted, and unfailingly swayed by whatever crap they're fed by the "experts". Not that I think it could happen, but if Gore got the nomination he would be crucified by the media, and give the the next fascist a "mandate".
Now maybe if the repugs nominated somebody like gukert(?)(the fake reporter prostitute), but barring that, forget it.

he won. So I say he should run for re-election in 2008! He can put this country back together again.
GORE 2008!!!!!!!!

eliminated. People hate politicians (except their own of course) and Gore/Edwards didn't even carry their own States.

The 2008 election will NOT be held, let along be fair, unless we win back the House and/or the Senate.

FOCUS, PEOPLE!

Senators Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards cant win the GE.

Biden is, well, Biden. No thanks.

Id follow Dr Dean into hell, but he wont win in 2008.

Clark is electable. And a damned fine candidate.

Just kidding. How about if we clean house in 2006.

But when I do, I always come back to the General. He is what America desperately needs, and he will always be first on my list.

Clark for VP maybe!

they are the only ones who have consistently fought for democracy.

With the exception of Kucinich and my congressman Henry Waxman, you can't say that for the rest, including the people provided as choices.

But I doubt racist and bigoted amerikkka will vote for him.

He deserves it, and would be the best person overall, but I don't see it happening.

for a black guy (or woman) ahead of a white person because they will have no expectation of being rewarded by corporate America. Even if they are offered the usual perks and favors, the history of business stomping on blacks would make the leader inclined to be suspicious of business and keep and eye on the needs of those of us with less power.

Much like Hugo Chavez, who knows the economic elite will always see him as "Indio y Negro."

Speaker Pelosi should just hand all the committee chairmanships to the Black Caucus. They were never fooled.

Oh, and I like Clark/Kucinich!

They always get the most votes. Clark gets the most and Gore just behind.

Personally I would like to see a Clark/Richardson ticket. Not because I like Richardson but because we need the Hispanic vote and he could help us take a few Southwest states. If not Richardson then Clark/Gore or Clark/Edwards.

:cry:

Gore had his (although he actually won)
Kerry had his (although he actually won)
Clinton (I like her) but she is too divisive.
Got to have someone who can win the base, the independents, and who has a better than fair chance at some moderate repubs.

Clark is our best hope. He can appeal to the left and the right.
I hope that neither Donna Brazille nor the Kerry manager is anywhere close to his campaign.

Like it will be only also 8 years later then?

All options are on the table right now. We have 2006 to get through, and that is what is most important for the time being.

Assuming it were up to me, which it's not. But he'd present an actual alternative and I think that'd get a lot of people fired up, and Greens would vote for him. His biggest handicap is that he's not photogenic, but after a sucession of blow-dried and botoxed manequins, people may find his realness a bit endearing.

In any case running to the center isn't working.

Idle hands do Roves work.

Why isn't Gore on your list????????

x(

Clark! I just love that guy and think he'd be a fabulous leader. Just what America needs right now.