If You Had To Choose In 2008-Dean Or Clark

:)

Too many people bring up the Dean scream thing, as irrelevant as it was. WC would be better received by the public, he truly is a likeable guy, and most of my fears about him being a secret Repug have been allayed.

In my opinion, they're both extremely intelligent and talented, but General Clark has EVERYTHING Dems/Progressives/Liberals need to prevail over any Republican, next time around. He appeals to EVERYONE, across the spectrum.
I'd like to see Dean doing a real cleanup job at the DNC, and working with General Clark to build a long-term, successful Democratic party.

He appeals to EVERYONE, across the spectrum.

Not to true liberals/progressives. He is just another "I'd do it better" war monger, and in his own words, too:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

If you read your link and its' link you will see it's not just "I'd do it better". I guess that would require passing a reading comprehension test. But if you let others do the analyses for you I guess "dittoheads" aren't the only ones who do that.

written in his own words and see that he is cheering the "victory" and offering advice on subsequent tactics and stategies, then it's not I that need the reading comprehension test. He even congratulates Bush and Blair for standing their wrong-assed ground against world-wide criticism.

Sorry, but no real progressive I've ever known or read has ever supported this invasion in any way shape or form. None of the Dem candidates this election cycle can say they never for one moment bought the lies and endorsed some type of action in Iraq but Kucinich, from the very beginning of the beating of the war drums. Not even Dean. Dennis had this lie called for what it was in February '02 while the rest of them were still sticking their fingers in the air testing which way the wind was blowing.

I read just fine and do my own analyses, thank you. A true progressive speaks truth to power instead of hedging his bets for electability's sake. I would rather lose and stand on principle than to win and be utterly disappointed. The man that stands his ground on the truth always wins no matter the outcome of the race.

He then went on to point out that they had not achieved their stated goals and there was a lot more than winning a decisive battle. Read the statements and absorb their meaning and you might begin to understand his brilliance and what he was saying. He stated that if he were making the decision it would not have come to that stage. If I remember correctly Dennis' finger was in the air on the question of choice. I feel that a person can make progress with time and come to new conclusions. I certainly don't hold it against him. As much as I admire and respect Dennis, I know that his solutions for getting out of Iraq were not practical. They were not different from Clark all that much except Dennis wanted to set time limits on withdrawal that ignored the diplomatic task at hand. Clark spoke out against the War from the beginning also but was not about to deny the troops the respect they deserved for doing there job well but pointing out that the military could not provide the solution required to clean up the mess Bush had gotten us into.

that this was an illegal action from the beginning. Even saying that it was diplomacy that brought us to this action. Bullpucky!

Granted he is praising the troops but most of this article is a warmonger describing his wet dream.

.... I admire Dean and think he has done a lot for the party and could do a lot more.

But I'm doubtful he could ever win a national election. He has the ideas, but he really isn't that effective a communicator IMHO. I'd love to see Dean head up the DNC, he could do us all a lot of good.

In the 3-4 times I saw Clark on tv, in interview/talk formats mostly, I was hugely impressed. He is smart, way smarter than the whores who tried to trip him up. He is able to express Progressive ideas in a very cogent and convincing way. He is soft-spoken, but never comes off the slightest bit weak. He has accomplished a lot in his life already.

I think Clark could win the presidency.

Dean for DNC Chair!!! Wes Clark for president in '08

and am thrilled that you were impressed by General Clark after having seen him only 3-4 times on TV.
I disagree, tho, when you say that Dean isn't that effective a communicator, because the several times I saw him, after he stepped aside and was speaking for the Democrats, he was GREAT! Had all his facts down, and was persuasive and polite. I hope he stays around, and I'd like to see him at DNC.

... saying Dean isn't a good communicator is not really conveying the nuance of what I meant. His ideas are good, his explanations are good, but I find his "stage presence" for lack of a better term, not as good as it could be.

He often seems nervous and fidgety IMHO. Now, let me be clear, anyone who knows me who heard me criticize someone for being nervous and fidgety would certainly have a "pot meet kettle" comment to make and justly so. But I'm not running for president :)

Dean was, and in the many speeches and interviews I saw on TV I jsut don't think he has the polish that one needs.

That said, I'm talking only about a presidential election. I think the Dem party OWES Dean, and he was the first politician I ever contributed a dollar to.

Anyway - that's what I meant. We may still disagree but I wanted to clarify what I meant by that shorthand comment.

I'd be writing a concurring opinion.

Of course, if this were the Supreme Court, none of us here would be on it since BuschCo. is "in charge."

But, for now, chant my handle...

Assuming we have elections.

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!

I'd be very, very happy with that.

I wonder how long before the screams of "sell-out" would start ringing.

Are you interested in succeeding against the Republicans?

My point was that Dean has said on several occasion that the Democratic leadership has not stayed true to Democratic ideals. If/when he becomes DNC Chair, he will be a point man in the Democratic Leadership. Being political though, I'm sure there are things he will do that some will disagree with, and we'll call him a sellout as we call our current crop of leaders when ever they do something we disagree with.

Strap me on, and raise me high
'Cause buddy I'm not afraid to die

most people don't know what it is...but those who do...well, they just know :toast:

Wes Clark proved his ineptitude this year. The endless dithering about whether to run, too controlled by the Clinton faction, lack of political experience. I like the man a lot, but if he's serious about the presidency he needs to get elected to state wide office first.
As far as Dean goes, I'd love to see him build DFA into a truly powerful organization.

Hardly inept either, since he outperformed any of the competition in their first four months of campaigning.

I don't suppose it'll do any good to point out, again, that Clark was never "controlled by Clinton." It's almost funny that there are people who claim to be Democrats and actually seem to think that.

Running for state office is a political dead-end for Clark. Both Arkansas senate seats are held by good Democrat incumbents (both "friends of Wes") and even if the next up of either one declined to run again, it wouldn't be until 2008. So Senate is out.

Governorship might a more plausible option, if only slightly, because it comes open in 2006. IF he wanted it for the good he could do Arkansas, that would would fine with me. But he has said more than once he's not interested.

Doesn't matter anyway. For two reasons.

There's no point to running for governor in '06 "if he's serious about the presidency" as you assert. He can't very well run for governor in '06, take office in '07, and begin a presidential campaign that same year. And I doubt he'd do it if he could. Clark would not take state office and spend the whole time running for something higher... unlike some.

Clark doesn't need it anyway. There's nothing to running a state government that he hasn't done already. The only thing to be gained is proving to the DNC (and people like you) that he knows how to campaign. Well, that'll become clear enough if he chooses to try again in '08, if it isn't already--it is to most of us.

I can't see that winning a state election correlates particularly well to winning a national election anyway. Kerry couldn't make it happen. Bush couldn't either, without the machine he inherited. No evidence Dean could have given the chance--with all his money, he couldn't even win Iowa.

I liked the issues Clark raised and the positions he came to. He seemed personable and bright. I'm glad he came out as a Democrat, and hope he doesn't really retire from politics.

Clark/Dean this year never mind 2008. I'm game either way around. I love Clark and trust him but I also thought Dean was fantastic in getting people excited and fired up.

Best of both worlds. I worked on Clark's campaign-- I thought he was great until he threw his hat into the ring and then he just froze, on camera, but also on message- he had so many people throwing strategies at him, and being such a political novice he stopped listening to his own instincts. Until then he was the go-to guy for opinion and commentary on all kinds on political decisions when CNN wanted credible commentary, and he didn't waffle. But once he was a candidate he seemed to lose his voice.

I knew less about Dean but got the sense that the perception that he was the renegade candidate was maybe a bit overblown, and that he maybe got a little lucky by separating himself from the pack by taking a stand against the war. Now that's no small thing, but then again, at that point he didn't have much to lose. Ultimately I'm open to him, and he's done great stuff getting people elected locally with his organization-- he's really working it at the grass roots level so I think by the time the next election rolls around he'll be ready for prime time.

Hmmm... Together they might be unstoppable. But who gets to be the head of the ticket? I have a feeling it's the guy who can beat McCain.

couldn't agree more. It definitely wins with Clark at the top.

He could be a strong contender to beat the Republican in 2008. Dean would not have much of a shot at all.

by many of the same people who said that we had to nominate Kerry because he was the the most "electable."

I was one of those “other” guys.

Bush.

Your logic is flawed. Dean would have been crushed by the right-wing attack machine. He definitely would have been skewered on the tax issue, and of course 'values' as we just witnessed.

I didn't originally support Kerry either; I had concerns about how he would fare in the general election that were obviously well founded. I believe that my reservations about Dean are also legitimate.

if people are going to suggest (again) that Dean would have been a sure loser without really knowing then I'm going to point out that on this board and in the media everyone was harping about Kerry being so "electable" the most electable candidate. Well, we saw how that turned out. A democrat could have won this election this year. I don't know if it would have been Dean or not--and neither does anybody else. And if you don't like that--tough.

candidate. That is fine with me. He is a good and honorable man. My guy is Dean. I know that during 2003 Dean was the leading candidate on DU most of that time, but as we saw who DU supports is not necessarily who the party will turn to. So I take these polls with a grain of salt.

Or no one's fine preferences will mean anything. At this point it feels that this banter is almost an indulgence. Other than the fact that I feel like I'm being smothered with a pillow as an american citizen and that I trust nothing in the election process, that said: I love Dean's raw honesty~he's sharp and real and would have demanded discipline from the US population~reservation: maybe a little too quick on the trigger when it comes to military involvement. Kerry struck me like a greedy little boy without any manners (voted for him). Clark: gracious, diplomatic, lovely but worried about him getting eaten alive by all those thundering meat-eaters on the hill.
I would have liked to have had the choice to vote for Clark.

Or we can just tell the country that dems suck and let bush run unopposed.

:)

And I didn't even post my opinion...


The only opinion I offered is to a poster who entered Hillary in the Dean v Edwards poll....


I indicated that Hillary was eliminated from the round robbin tournament by virtue of the fact that she was beaten by John Edwards in an earlier poll....

I'm just teasing.

Wes Clark, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich....

to someone! ;)

Leaving aside Dennis K, Wes Clark & Howard Dean have a lot in common.

They both have strong grass roots support, but are outsiders.

Neither one is of Washington, & because of that they connect more strongly with "the people."

I know Dean was born on Park Ave, but he hasn't lived a life of privilege, & neither has Clark. They both reside in Upper Middle Class Environments, unlike some of our politicians, who live way beyond what most Americans could imagine. And although Dean was a Governor, he has trained & worked as a Dr., while Wes Clark devoted his life to the military. Both of those professions require a different type of knowledge outside politics.

And both are very honest & sincere men, who say what they believe. They don't talk in soundbites, & don't read polls before they answer a question.

One more thing I noticed: when they are both interviewed, they are very interesting to listen to; they have both thought about serious issues & have some important things to say. I've seen more depth & intellectual curiosity in these 2 than in most of the other candidates combined.

Just my opinion. I support Clark, but I like & respect Dean. They both inspire people, & that's what it's all about.

Clark is only a "darling" now because (a) the depth of support for him among his followers is enormous even now, and (b)many others have just recently come to realize that he would have been the only one to have beaten Bush. Nevertheless, welcome all! CLARK '08

:bounce:

Electability matters.

Oh yeah, it worked great last time...

RL

A recipe for disaster. We must ignore any candidate that claims the phony mantle of "electability." How about a candidate that walks the walk!

Dean would repeat his primary performance in the general election. Clark would make it a nail biter.

and using some common sense, I choose....

RUN, WES, RUN!

We've got real horsepower with this combination and none of them are in congress. Clark can make a strong case and really kick some ass in the red and blue states. Dean will do great; remember he did DFA after Trippi left. Gore's speech at Georgetown was brilliant and he gets the mantle as our guru. I'm optimistic. We need fighters and these three are fearless.

so I could steal Frenchie's Wes Stars!!!

Of COURSE it's Wes Clark! Duh! :D

And I never thought or said that Kerry was electable. I did think that he would not lose as badly as Dean. I'm not certain anymore that that would have mattered, and I'm sure it would have been a much more interesting race with Dean.

Only weaknesses: too much focus on military and not enough on middle class opportunity and the decline of the middle class (despite his humble roots).

But much better than Dean.

Dean had attitude, but not a single core liberal position. Clark had little attitude, but was liberal on just about everything (but could have been more bluntly an advocate for shifting wealth down and not up).

I'll take substance over attitude every day.

That's nonsense and you know it.

race (which he articulated from the perspective of a white man). I didn't think his education plan was that liberal either. And he even governed VT in a way that was more for Wall St than for a downward and outward flow of economic power.

He was a firebrand, but not on traditional liberal issues.

Even his anti-war chat was very limited to this war.

Even if I'm overstating this, I still honestly don't know what was so liberal about him, from a policy perspective. I know that he was very willing to crticize Republicans for overreaching, but it wasn't like he was saying that he was going to reach towards liberal policies. It was more like he was saying, let's just not overreach.

Tax plan? No more taxes for those families making under $50,000.
What about his education plan? $6,000 for each college student who's parents earned under $100,000 for the first 2 years (total of $12,000) given in GRANTS (not the old tired Tax credits).....
What about him stating he would cut defense where it is bloated to the tune of 20%?

A big problem with the tax code is that it treats wealth from labor so differently from wealth from capital (ie, dividends and cap gains). We tax labor more than twice as much as dividends and cap gains, and much of the regressivity in the tax code comes not from the 100,000,000 wage earner paying 33,000,000 in taxes vs the 1,000,000 earner paying 330,00,000 in taxes.

It comes from the fact that a guy who COULD earn 100,000,000 will figure out a way to get that income as a dividend or cap gain instead (this is what the dot come boom and bust was largely all about) and pay 15,000,000 instead of 33,000,000 in taxes.

Clark's plan not to start earned income tax until 50,000 is a nice idea, but it's a benefit that every income earner gets, regardless of whether you make 25K, 50k, or 50 million.

Clark's plan wouldn't have done much to address the major source of regressivity in the tax code. Edwards, on the other hand, wanted a progressive cap gains tax (a second tier at 300K, IIRC), and Edwards also framed his tax talk around the idea that we needed to shift the burden off people who work for a living and ask people who make great sums of money from capital to pick up some of the slack so they we could take the burden off the people we were expecting to pull us out of the economic funk.

I already said that his education plan was good, but I also liked Edwards's. Yes, we need to give people grants and not loans, and the tax deduction for student loans is little more than the public subsidizing the guaranteed profits of the wall st banks that make their money off bundling student loans.

Edwards's plan was a year free of college for anyone who worked 10 hours a week. That grant is potentially worth more than 12K, depending on the tuition costs at the college you attend, and reduces your debt burden by as much as 25%. Furthermore, the work that the students perform would be a nice kick to the economy that wasn't coming from an employee-employer relationship that was mostly beneficial to the employer (because the student would be getting the tuition grant and society would be getting an educated -- and therefore much more productive -- member of the labor force who would be leaving college with significantly reduced debt).

As for cutting the defense budget, Clark and Edwards and Kerry all had a good liberal chat on that. They all said that we have to take the money that we're spending on useless weapons systems and invest it in the armed forces most important asset: soldiers.

The armed services can be both an incredibly effective (and therefore economically beneficial) wealth redistributive force while also being much much more effective at doing the job of protecting America. Edwards, Clark and Kerry all framed military spending that way. I was proud of all of them.

so he ain't just whistling Dixie!!!!!!!!!

but the media ignored it - they turned him into a one-trick pony.

Clark always had fantastic ideas about putting more money into the hands of the middle class.

If it's part of what you are and you are adamant about making it your identity, you should be able to define yourself no matter what the media tries to do.

People laughed at Edwards's son of a mill worker line. However, that was Edwards defining himself before the media could define him as an ambulance chasing political neophyte.

Edwards made such a huge effort at making sure people knew that because that's what he wanted people to think of when they thought of him.

Although Clark could have made an argument about the disappearance of the middle clas and about opportunity, he didn't make an effort to define himself that way. He made an effort to define himself as being a foreign policy expert with a lot to say about the conduct of the war. That's what he was running on. That's fine. That was his choice. It says something about where his focus would be as president.

Another thing to keep in mind: you can only take so far the argument that the media defined you before it becomes evidence of a weakness rather than evidence that you deserve a second chance. Candidates should be able to defined themselves. The first time I ever heard Dean on NPR he was begging reporters at a press conference to ask him questions about health care. Nobody did. So he didn't say anything about health care. He talked about Iraq the entire press conference up to that point and didn't say anything substantial about health care.

Around the time of the convention I heard Dean say that one of the things he regreted about his campaign was that the media defined him as the anti-war candidate, and he never wanted to be the anti-war candidate. He said he wanted to be the health care candidate. He wanted to talk about health insurance.

Well, Mr. Dean. Who do we blame for that? OK, the media defined him. But he didn't have the skills to define himself first when he should have seen which direction the media were going with him, and he didn't have the skills to hit home what you stand for, despite what the media is saying.

Remember, "it's the economy, stupid"? That was Clinton's mantra when the media was trying to define him as something else. Clinton knew how to define himself when the media wanted to say something else about him. Part of that was repeating that he was the boy from Hope about a million times.

Incidentally, the media was trying to define all the candidates so that they couldn't beat Bush. Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark. All of them suffered that fate.

So, your argument is flawed.

I know so much more about the media than I ever care to discuss.

The point is that Clinton's mantra would never have made it into forebearing given the media we have today. I knew Iraq would be THE issue - because I knew it would heat up. The economy was the issue for me, personally, but I was astute enough to know what the media would do.

My background in Middle Eastern affairs is probably more involved and advanced than most on this board (and I'm not bragging. I just know the Middle East like the back of my hand - it's personal). I have not missed - ONCE.. not ONCE - being correct about any prediction about what would happen in Iraq, including that it was a collasal fuck up. And I wasn't a huge student of foreign policy before 2002. But I know the Middle East. And I know the media. Therefore, I took 1 and 1 and got 2 and knew who would fare better against BushCo.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the flawed GEMS tabulator - but that's another thread.

(And, yes... it's Scoopie. I've never hid that. OKNancy and I have had PMs. I just liked the new name and kept it.)

I'm still not convinced that I'm wrong about the media, and about what Edwards did and what happened to Dean.

And I don't know how having an expertise in ME affairs gives you any special understanding of how people win presidential elections.

Unless you want to post a CV and links to all your articles and we can check to see how prescient you've been about matters that are relevant to the points I was making (ie, about presidential campaigns, and not about the middle east) then you're just another anonymous poster who floats or sinks based on the quality of your argument.

The reason is because running as a military hero is not the way to win as a democrat. Haven't some of you learned anything from what just happened? They can just as easily find something to smear Clark on just as they did Kerry. His military record will hurt us not help us. We have had this proven to us over and over and over.

The fact is that Rove didn't want run against Dean. He said so in private...unlike his public statement that he did want to run against him?

The "scream" was nothing and it won't work against Dean anymore because it was overplayed. Also because more and more people including republicans are realizing that everything Dean said during the campaign is true. The war was wrong. We aren't safer without Saddam and neither are the Iraqi people. We are starving social programs and the economy to fight a losing battle in Iraq and no one is proffiting like the war profiteers (which by the way includes Clark, though he is cashing in on the fear of terrorism at home rather than in Iraq)

Dean would have kicked Bush out of office with the help and cooperation of the party this year. But as usual since the mid 80's they would rather lose than have a reformer in office.....lots of cushy jobs and petty 2nd rate party power at stake don't cha know.

I have no idea of Dean will run in 2008 and I think it's idiotic for people to be planning that far. But I do know I would rather him than someone who has no political identity except what was manufactured to take votes from Dean. Clark can give all the fabulous sounding sound bites he's fed, but without a public office record democrats would be crazy to nominate him.

Clark won't even be a blip on the political radar screen by 2008 if he doesn't run for some other office before then.
The man simply has no political experience and no party loyalty (except his followers) and no political capital without Clinton.

He's a lobbiest and consultant for the war on terror industry. That is very similar to what he was doing before he was a cheerleader for the war on cable. He was lobbying the MIC. This year lots of democrats might have been willing to vote for Clark to get Bush out. But in the future his ties to the war industry are not going to make him popular with the Democratic base.

You all really need to get over the idea that pandering to peoples fears about national security is a good idea for a democratic candidate. It works for Bush now,that doesn't mean it is going to work for democrats in the future.

He was NEVER a cheerleader for the war.

Btw, we NEED a strong military. We SHOULDN'T invade sovereign nations and start wars for strategic (or whatever) reasons. The two are NOT the SAME. We NEED to take care of homeland security issues. If we back down on this issue we will NEVER win (at least not in the next decade or so). This does NOT mean that we should back away form our domestic agenda. It just means that we have to be a full service party.

Your rhetoric is exactly one of the reason many middle-of-the-road moderates don't vote for Democrats. Again, we shouldn't move right. We just have to show that our way is better including national security.

I suppose that's no more goofy than anything else you wrote.

He was running as someone who had the necessary knowledge and experience to deal with a situation of international crisis, a war that he made clear we never should have gotten into, and the terrorism situation.

Unlike Kerry, he was not running on his past glories, but on his current competence to handle the current situation. Acknowledging the reality of the international situation, and selling your ability to handle it is hardly the same as pandering to fear. I did always find that Dean people had a bit of a problem dealing with reality though.

I believe that Dean would have lost badly to Bush. He was a very polarizing figure and even many Democrats didn't like him. He and his supporters had a way of alienating other people and pushing them away. He wouldn't even have given Bush much of a challenge. The Repubs would have just needed to show a little footage of the Elmer Gantry/tent revival type rallies that Clark gave, to scare, or turn off huge numbers of voters.

You can go ahead and believe that Clark's political identity was manufactured to take votes away from Dean. The universe does revolve around Dean after all. However, Clark had his political identity before he ever decided to run for President. You should try watching some of his older speeches, and Congressional testimoney. They're entirely consistent with what he was running as. You are perfectly entitled to maintain your little fantasy however.

Clark doesn't need to hold an office. All he needs to do is keep himself in the public eye by continuing to make television appearances and speeches, write articles, and give interviews. The public is already getting to know him far better than they did when he was actually running. They're starting to realize what they missed. I'm sure that Clark will also be involved with the midterm elections, which will increase his profile in the party. He should be in a good position to run, should he decide to.

I appreciate your concern, but there's nothing to worry about. He's got an excellent chance of becoming our next President.:)

He was talking about issues.

Rove didn't want to run against Clark; he let the media cover Dean continually, and wouldn't let them look at Clark.
And you could use some facts about Clark. I suggest Antonia Felix's Clark biography, for all the facts that you'd need.

I had a real hard time deciding which I wanted to vote for, Clark or Dean. I love both of them. It turned out that Iowa picked Kerry and so went the rest of the country so my California vote didn't have much meaning.

I had hoped that one would win and then choose the other as VP. That would have been my dream ticket.

who invaded this board to pump Clark must still be hanging around. I wonder if their paychecks are still rolling in?

;)

to take the insults you hand around.

Are you sure it would be worth the money?

Yea, so is that what you were too? :shrug:

But I was a double dipper, and also took money from Rove. Rove's checks stopped cashing after Clark dropped out, though, the bastard, but then I made a deal to support Kerry and everything worked out.

Please post more polls - my folks expect New Year presents too! :shrug:

Not in politics (which I already was), but in a specific candidate. Of course, being a resident of Florida, the primary system took no heed of my opinion.

ABBBPC (Anybody but Bush but Please Clark) voter.

There must be a reason why this is called the "Democratic UNDERGROUND". The right-wing (now mainstream) media would comb through everything Dean said and will say to find something that would alienate Dean from any hope of winning the nomination, much less sell him as a candidate for presidency to the un-educated masses. We may have to think practical rather than idealistic (I just hate having to write that). It may just be too early to say.

Dean is closer to the Republicans on taxes,the environment, the economy, health care, the death penalty, and labor issues. I prefer Clark on all these issues. However, a hot-head, which he is, is what we need.

Clark's worst flaw is that he doesn't know that depleted uranium kills, he doesn't understand that targetting civilians is not okay and he spoke at the School of the Americas.

Why don't we just go for the candidate who is best on all these issues and back Dennis.

And this is coming from someone who would love to see him win. Unfortunately, since the invention of television, what a candidate looks like does matter. It shouldn't, but it does. You think people voted for Junior over Kerry because of his brains??

Another reason for thinking the DLC might have thrown this game again.

Cuz it worked so well last time.

And also write Clinton: "Coalition, schnoalition, let's go to war already""

I KNOW what my view on the war is.

was so essential to you?

Since when? I assume you're talking about the V.P.

And, if I did, it was because it was the best character compliment to Kerry for the ticket.

Got me confused, cuz I thought you were anti-war and all that, and this was the guy who would have started a war with Iraq had he been in office instead of W.

Sure you're not talking about Dennis Kucinich?

I did not support Edwards at ALL for Prez.

Kucinich swapped his votes over to Edwards during the Iowa primary.

I think they would have been a great team this year.

Clark. I think this last election should have at least taught us about running liberals from the Northeast.

Wes Clark's stump speech was about turning Democratic values into Family values, the very thing we supposedly lost on.

Howard Clark or Wes Dean

Dean is a good man. But even his most fervent starry eyed followers admit that he was done in by the Iowa scream. That was barely a flick of the wrist by the media. GOPer didnt even have to get thier hands dirty, Dean did it all himelf. Sorry but he would have to show a lot more maturity and steadfastness to win. If they did him in so easily before, it will be a rout if we ever made him our nominee.

He was the best candidate this year and I have no doubt he will be the best for 2008 as well.

I'd prefer Dean as DNC chair.

of character for him in the slightest. I've been looking at some of his speeches trying to understand the appeal, and saw several instances of what we will call "excited behavior," any one of which could have been a "Dean Scream" moment. It revved people up, but it was also the sort of thing that begs mockery and ridicule. And above all, it was unpresidential. Who knows, maybe against someone as singularly unpresidential as Bush no one would notice. But in every Dean speech I've seen now, there has been at least one over the top, laugh out loud funny moment that could have become a soundbite on the evening news. Why it didn't happen before the Iowa caucuses were over is an interesting question.

perhaps by using humor to make fun of his own ebullience.

There's a Yahoo! ad currently on the radio where he does exactly what you suggest. Self-mockery can be very effective.

Clark will have to answer for everything that happened while he was in command of NATO during Clinton's dirty little war in the Balkans, a war in which we almost went to war against Russia (according to British Commander Sir Michael Jackson), and a war in which the CIA relied on Al-Qaeda to arm and train the terrorist group known as the Kosovo Liberation Army.

I would never have thought a Green would advocate the extermination of 1.5 million muslims. BTW Jackson has admitted to a bit of hyperbole.

It's these same ridiculous assertions over and over again ("almost went to war with Russia!!"). It's just like "Al Gore said he invented the internet" and that whole list. The same nonsense about General Clark will be around for as long as people feel like tossing it around, and somebody always will.

It's tiresome to keep refuting it with facts. I'm sick of trying.

From the BBC:

Thursday, 9 March, 2000, 14:14 GMT
Confrontation over Pristina airport


General Jackson: Backed
by UK Government

Details of Russia's surprise occupation of Pristina airport at the end of the Kosovo war are revealed in a new BBC documentary on the conflict.

For the first time, the key players in the tense confrontation between Nato and Russian troops talk about the stand-off which jeopardised the entire peacekeeping mission.

<snip>

General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport.

<snip>

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/671495.stm

"Clark, in an NPR interview, said that the incident was a surprising moment for him. Clark stated that his order to block the runways was refused by an emotional Jackson and that he took the matter up the British chain of command. In his book Waging Modern War, Clark says Jackson protested, "Sir, I'm a three-star general; you can't give me orders like this," and that he responded, "Mike, I'm a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

Clark stated that General Sir Charles Guthrie, British Chief of the Defence Staff, agreed with Jackson. Guthrie, according to Clark, also told him that Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also agreed with him. Clark said he found this very surprising, contending that the original suggestion to block the Russians came from Washington. Clark stated that he called the Pentagon, looking for support, and was told by Shelton: "We don't want a confrontation, but I do support you." Clark said that he told Shelton: "Then you've got a policy problem". Clark maintained in the NPR interview that the matter was a difference in the perception of the policy between the US administration and the British government. Clark said he believed he was carrying out the suggestions of the administration in Washington."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Once again we see good old boy Shelton having it both ways.

http://www.u-wes-a.com/myths.html

This subject has been discussed to DEATH -- and it's got to be clear by now that no, WWIII was NOT about to erupt over this incident. :eyes:

"Mike, I'm a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

Diplomatic and yet firm and no nonsense. It feels good to support a Badass Democrat who won't take no crap from these dickhead GOPers. Polite too.... while he tells it like it is.

I'm sick and tired of those "wimp" Democrats who think that dealing with the GOP is agreeing with them. I want an articulate and witted statesman that can lead this nation again. I am sick of defense and national security being the domain of the Republicans.

Wild hyperbole. End of story.

Go your way and never repeat it again, as IT. IS. STUPID.

I will refutiate this nonsens. Indiana Green....I am a bit disappointed in you.

Here's the skinny on Gen. Sir Mike. To even bring his name up in the same sentence as Clark is like so Right Wing!

His nicknames are "Macho Jacko" or "Prince of Darkness"!

Gen Jackson criticized by Kosovo report
http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19991018nato3.htm

Referring to Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of Kfor, the report says: "ComKfor's intent was not always transmitted with sufficient detail and co-ordinating instructions. Even when detail was requested from Kfor it was not always forthcoming. This led to improvisation at brigade level and a consequently asymmetric effect within Kfor as different brigades made their own interpretations."

Confusions also occurred through unclear divisions of responsibility between each Nato country's own national headquarters and alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The division of responsibilities between national and Nato operational chains of command took some time to become clear," says the report.

"Unfortunately, the delay in resolving Kfor direction within national guidelines meant that soldiers were frequently operating in something of a vacuum." In a "potentially dangerous" example of this, rules of engagement were not produced for days, the report says.
....
The report supports recent testimony to the United States Congress by Gen Wesley Clark, Nato's overall commander during the Kosovo campaign. In July, Gen Clark told congressmen that the Alliance was "hamstrung by competing political and military interests that may have prolonged the conflict".

It adds to already compelling evidence that Nato's air campaign was hampered by similar failings. In July, The Telegraph reported that a confidential RAF inquiry had identified a serious lack of secure communications, accurate weapons and timely intelligence as reasons why so little apparent damage was done to Serb fielded forces in Kosovo.

Even last week, RAF chiefs admitted that they still had no idea exactly how much damage had been done. "We don't know how many tanks were destroyed and we will have no way of knowing," said Air Vice Marshal Jock Stirrup, the assistant chief of the air staff.

World: Europe
German to assume K-For command
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/444350.stm

German General Klaus Reinhardt is to replace Britain's General Sir Mike Jackson as commander of Nato's Kosovo peacekeeping force, K-For.
....
Nato's choice was made following a recommendation from its outgoing Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark.

The appointment comes amid continuing controversy over the outgoing K-For commander's failure to prevent Russian forces from taking Pristina airport before the arrival of Nato troops in June.

Gen Jackson's tour in Kosovo has been highly praised, but it started with a clash between him and Gen Clark after he was accused of disobeying an order to prevent Russian troops from taking the airport.

He refused to block the airport runway, saying he did not want to start World War III, and sought the intervention of Britain's top military commander to help get the order reversed.

Angered by the apparent insubordination, the chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee is now to hold hearings into the incident, believing it calls into question Nato's chain of command.
=
Supported the War in Iraq

The can-do general for war and peace
(Filed: 26/05/2003)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml
....
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.
==
His role in 'Bloody Sunday' controversial

Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183

Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing.

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

From an article by Elizabeth Drew:

"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion.""

Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795


And here's another take on it:

Sending in Russian paratroopers was absolutely unnecessary and extremely provocative. The area was still very volatile and crawling with Serbian paramilitary units. It would have been very easy for the Russians to be mistaken for Serbs by NATO units, especially at night. The airport had no strategic value - Russian officials were making a purely political statement. By the same token, if the airport had no strategic value, why was Clark so concerned? Especially since the Russians were our quasi-allies in this complicated political conflict.

It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and some contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.

http://www.epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxvill..._editorials.cfm

This is a good even handed article about Gen Clark that kind of covers both sides:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/special...ctionsprint-hed

Those were the issues that were brought up during the primaries, and those are the issues that will be brought up by his competitors if he chooses to run again in 2008.

The only issue that is really new is that Wes Clark is working for people involved in the very profitable War on Terror. I am sure that this too shall become an issue in 2008!

Like give a link or something?

Here's what I have...and to me...it looks like Wes Clark will be doing some good work. I understand that some extremists peaceniks are seriously hampered by anything dealing with National Security issues....but, lordie, don't wonder why Democrats are seen as the "weak" Mommy Party. The paranoia eminating from your post is thick and crusty. The Clinton Administration was the last elected Democratic administration....so if those people don't get involved in National security issues....I guess that America will only have experts that are part of the current Republican cabal....meaning...don't look for Democrats to be elected to anything...since they will have so little experience with a condition that will be with us for a long time.

http://www.mysan.de/international/article3122.html
James Lee Witt: hosts Little Rock Reception to Honor addition
of Gen Wesley Clark and Sec Rodney Slater as Vice
Chairmen and Senior Advisers at James Lee Witt Assoc.

The former Clinton Administration officials
Former Clinton Admin Sec of Transportation Rodney Slater
Former NATO Allied Supreme Commander Wesley Clark
Former FEMA Dir James Lee Witt

Capital Hotel
111 W. Markham
Little Rock, AR
Tues, Nov 16, 2004
430-730 pm

In September 2004 Wesley Clark and Rodney Slater joined
James Lee Witt Associates (JLWA) as Vice Chairmen and Senior
Advisors a welcome reception was held in Washington, D.C. last
month. They will serve James Lee Witt Associates in addition to
maintaining their current positions at Wesley K. Clark &
Associates and Patton Boggs, respectively. General Clark will focus
advising JLWA on their domestic and international security practice and Secretary Slater will advise JLWA on issues regarding
transportation and critical infrastructure work.

So according to possible detractors...General Clark shouldn't be involved in National Security in anyway....cause it must be a bad thing...to have a common sense expert dealing with security issues. I guess that the Democrat rank and file only want "Nut Jobs" Neo Cons dealing with threats coming from the likes of Osama Bin Laden. So the War on Terror should be nothing that honorable man should in anyway have a say on how it is handled...cause that's blood money?

Clark should just sit around and knit sweaters and forget that he is an expert in National Security....cause we don't want leaders who have any experience in that area....cause that's reserved for the Republican party or really, really bad people only.

Get a clue...please. This is silly. I would think that we would want someone competent and honorable to understand how to deal with various security facets in dealing with terrorism. Shit, the way you describe it....you'd think the man was selling weapons and such. Hell, if no Democrats are involved with security issues (since there ain't none in the Bush Admin)...how in the world are we ever going to elect Democrats again?

This is what I fear about the extreme left who would not vote for a General if their lives depended on it. You give them a knife, and they cut their own throats....and then ask...why are we bleeding???

and I welcome the debate on the nature of the War on Terror and its ramifications for human rights at home and abroad.

Many progressives are less than enchanted by the likes of Bill Clinton, realizing all the damage that this man has done with his bloody Plan Colombia, his illegal war in the Balkans, his support for the School of Assassins at Fort Benning (Wes Clark was a very enthusiastic supporter of SOA), and his disgusting support for the bigoted DOMA.

The only reason Clinton looks good is because Bush is so bad!

BTW, I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the Indiana primary.

Is nuclear proliferation a "sham?"
Is what's happened in Sudan a "sham?"
Was the ethnic cleansing a "sham?"
Is what happened in NY and DC a "sham?"

Should we just ignore it all?

Only the US and Israel can have nukes, and no one else can because nukes are the only deterrent to US imperialism.

Nukes are the only way to prevent one's country from being turned into another Iraq by American bombs.

The nukes we and Israel have are safe? The loose nukes from the former Soviet Union are safe? And nobody else is gonna have then because we said so?

So General Clark is definitely doing something wrong advising on issues of international security, because there's no problem...?

starting with our own stockpile!

We are the biggest threat to the security of the world!

What could he do about it?

You don't work for demilitarization by working for the military industrial complex.

Nobody should even be advising on issues of national security, because that leads to armies?

How about the police? Maybe if we got rid of them, there'd be no more crime.

It is obvious to everyone that our generosity to the human rights abusers in the Middle East is the primary reason why our national security has been jeopardized by terrorism.

Come on, IG, we're almost there now...

All of the countries in that region have dismal human rights records and they use our money and our weapons to further subjugate their populations, or to oppress people living on land taken by war.

The bells of past disasters can't be unrung. They got our money and our weapons. This is a problem that extends beyond the middle east.

But if you had a way to stop it -- a strategy for establishing peace and security, ending and preventing genocide -- is it something you alone could just make happen with a few phone calls?

We are the reason there hasn't been any incentive for peace in the region. Once we leave, the governments in the region will either change their ways, or be swept away by the hatred they have sown.

Forget the notion of an American Empire and this nonsense about us being the leaders of the Free World. Let's join the family of nations and act responsibly and collectively.

how would a person exert influence?

Nobody (beyond the neo-cons) is saying "War's fun! Let's kill more people and take over the world!" That's not at issue.

Nobody has a perfect strategy for creating peace, including you, I'm sorry to tell you. So that's not at issue here, either.

But if one did have some realistic thoughts, strategy, advice for establishing security and peace, they wouldn't be wrong to work with other people toward that end. And that's what General Clark is doing.

What I'm doing right now is going to bed.

I hope we both survive the Bush regime.

I live in the real world, however. The drug war is a farce. The SOA was no good (Clark reformed it, hence the SOA is no more). DOMA was idiotic. The World Court has ruled the Balkan War was not illegal. Clark is not Clinton. The B$$$ response to the war on terror is ridiculous. That's why I support Clark because he understands what is wrong with the B$$$ plan.

Now I know what the problem is. You live in that idealistic world of peace, prosperity and equal Justice for all. I love that world some call Utopia.

In that world....the War on Terror, or whatever you choose to call it will disappear when the masses are awaken by the sensitive wisdom of Dennis Kucinich. He will expose the neocons via the balanced and informative news shows...and he will lead America into a brand new era full of joy and inner peace. Those 3,000 dead, killed by 9/11, will be honored but not forgotten by Americans as we walk into the bright lights of perfection and endless peace.

The starving will be fed, the homeless sheltered and life will once again be beautiful. With a leader like Dennis elected, our worries and problems will float away while the earth will once again be reborn in unpolluted splendor and extraordinary new life. Osama will, once again, be our friend and we shall forgive him for his wrong headed views. Of course, all prisoners in every jail cell will be forgiven, set free and provided with what is needed to get a good fresh start in life. The voting machine be outlawed and jobs will be plentiful. We will wish all of our neighbors nothing but love and happiness. Life will once again be restored to a new and shiny possibility.

Again, I like that world...and visit it at times when I close my eyes.

Now, in the real world, I am just a Black broad who's been around the block a few times....and understand that reality is what you see...and not what you wish it. I try to keep it real during the day, and keep the dreams for nighttime.

The differences are that I am an idealistic pragmatist...and you are an idealistic dreamer.

I can't support the guy. Would vote third party, and so would quite a few other progressives I know.

Clark is pretty liberal and a general to boot, very unusual.

...during Kosovo. Another war, I did not support. I realize that there were only a handful of us that were actively demonstrating against the war in Kosovo along with ANSWER. Why was that? Oh, right....Clinton was President, and he was after all a democrat.

People make choices and it's clear what yours is. At least you could drop the former.

...so did many of us. Are you looking forward to us going away?

Just as they shit on their base, they are arrogant about themselves and they show nothing but disdain for the millions of voters that went to polls to vote against the hated Bush by casting a vote for the Democratic nominee, a man they neither liked nor trusted.

Too bad enough didn't do it the first time so we wouldn't have had the first four years. Are you looking forward to single party rule?

but in the larger picture, had little effect in 2000 besides sending a strong message to the democrats. At least I hoped it was a strong message. From what I'm seeing at the moment, it looks like they'll move further right, and if you Clarkies are right towards an ex military guy. Neither of which makes me happy.
I think I'm getting the message, and so are many other progressives and Greens...you guys don't want us in the party.

Clark could have been a lot of things but he chose the path of service to his country in answer to the call from JFK. I love this country, so does Clark, and so do mot Clarkies. It's really that simple. If you were to check Clark's stand on the issues you would find he is one of the most liberal and progressive of all the candidates. If his uniform blinds you to the facts it is your loss. Clark would have stood a better chance of convincig boyth sides to work together and actually put the country first IMO. A third party President would be a eunuch. He would have to fight with the congress and not get anything done, again IMO. The message I received from the 2000 election was that we needed to run a strong candidate who was not politics as usual and who would have broad appeal across party lines. That led me to Clark. Nader proved himself an egotist and a liar. Clark is the most honest man I've ever seen in public life.

I think that lesson was learned rather painfully in 2000.

I'll vote for the Democrat no matter who it is.

Formernaderite.

Please don't tell me, let me guess.

Let see....Someone that could not even get close to ever winning maybe? Someone that would lose in all 50 states against a weak Repug like Frist, Hagel, McCain or maybe Jebbie Baby Bush?

Someone who will bring peace to the world by just linking hands with humankind and singing Kumbaya?

Two of my favorite DEMS, so either is fine by me...

waiting to be counted.

...I have eyes & ears too.

Clark would be my second. So I guess the answer to your question is Clark because I would support him over Dean. But as I said I will support Kerry over any of them.

We need a fighter and I don't believe he would let the lies and slurs go unanswered. His military background would be an asset too.

would win Ohio or Florida as a presidential candidate.

or anywhere in the south. He would win NY, Mass, Cali, Wash, Minn, Ill, Hawaii and Vermont for sure. Everything else would be in play. It would be a rout.

I have no real problems with Dean, but I'm somewhat unsure as to how he'd improve upon our current electoral map. I think he'd have a tough time winning the Gore states + OH or FL. For the time being that's our electoral map. I don't see it changing a whole lot anytime soon. Another problem is that he's been defined by the media as some sort of far left candidate. It'd be hard to shake the image. That too, he's from the northeast. I would rather go with someone from some other region next time.

Clark is liberal, but he's seen as a moderate. Plus, we don't know how fucked up the security situation will be after another 4 years of Bush. Clark has experience on these issues and would have more appeal there.

Ah well, since you have forced the issue, vote I must.

Isn't he one of those pink tu-tu Democrats?

I like both Clark and Dean a great deal. Both are stand up guys. I'd be thrilled with either.

Clark's military background is a big plus but as we've seen the Republican smear machine has no probem turning an opponent's wartime heroism into a liability. As a downside, I don't know whether a high ranking Gerneral, who's used to telling people under his command what to do and expecting them to do it is going to be the best guy to work with Congress.

Dean is one of the most original politicians to come along on the Democratic side in a long time. His liabilities are as great as his assets, but as a long serving governor, he has had the experience of working with a legislature and getting his programs through.

As supreme allied commander of NATO, he wasn't simply ordering troops around all day.

I don't think it takes experience working with a legislature to work effectively with a legislature. It takes a certain skillset, character, and leadership ablity. Clark excells in all these areas.

I want to win in '08. That's all that matters.

That is bad to me.

...to all those "Reagan Democrats" we need to win back.

What I can't understand is why it seems so hard for some Dems to grasp how a young and relatively junior military officer, not politically active (since that has traditionally been discouraged within the military, for a very good reason), might actually vote for candidates who claimed to support military issues and people. Especially when the media kept telling all of us the same thing. Is it so hard to see he'd have had to get a little further up the food chain to see the truth behind the Repub propaganda?

If more Dems understood the way the Repubs manipulate that message, maybe we'd do a better job of getting military votes. It's no accident that the most senior and experienced retired generals endorsed Kerry, and many on the Pentagon staff who see what's going on close up supported him, but the professional military with careers primarily in field assignments did not.

I also have to wonder how many Democrats of whom you do approve voted for Nixon and/or Reagan, but aren't honest enough to admit it now. I'd wager quite a few--they got an awful lot of votes from somewhere.

Here's something from one very good Democrat, one of the heroes of our party, and just incidentally, one whom Clark voted against:
"There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat." - Sen. George McGovern
I'd sort of think if McGovern could forgive Clark a "youthful indiscretion," so could the rest of us.

I am married to a staunch Democrat who voted for Nixon and Reagan!! He's not alone in that.

Having said that, there are plenty more people who voted for Nixon and Reagan who are not voting Democratic lately, and we need those crossover votes to win. This would help them to identify with and support a Democratic candidate for a change.

And the General has certainly proven he's a bonafide, committed Democrat.

Married to a very liberal Dem who voted for Nixon (but I don't think he voted for Reagan).

Come on, everybody voted for Nixon (except me but since I was in second grade at the time, my vote didn't then either). We do remember that McGovern got trounced, right? 520 electoral votes to 17 according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1972

You should save that one -- I think you'll be needing it again.

"It's the economy- no scratch that- it's national security, stupid!"

Hmmmm?

How often does a failed bid for a party's nomination turn into a Presidential victory four years later?

I love Dean, but he doesn't stand a chance. Plus, I like him as the sparkplug keeping everyone energized. Maybe DNC leader, but not President.

If Clark is to make another run of it, he needs a better stage. I'd like to see him make a run for a Senate seat or a Governor's mansion in '06. Maybe after a term or so, he can throw his hat in the ring.

Ronald Reagan did it, easily :P

Especially after the diasporas of the last year.

So I guess it's one for the Speedo Boy!!!

He is SO dreamy!!!!!

Id be thrilled with EITHER or BOTH!! I do think Clark is more electable though, so Id prolly choose him if I had to choose.

than it did with kerry. Hey, i like Clark fine; he was my second choice right behind Dean, but *no one is going to be fooled* by phony dem posturing by nominating a military guy. If anything, it is basically an admission that repugs are stronger wrt national security and such, so we need to "make up" for this by nominating a General. Phony macho military posturing did not work with Kerry and it won't work with Clark.

He barely mentioned his 4 bullet wounds from Vietnam or his year long rehabilitation during the primaries....if ever.

The fact that Clark planned, led, and won a war that saved 1.5 million Albanian MUSLIMs without one US Armed Force casualty is very relevant to this day and time. He retired in 2000, not 1968! We are currently fighting two wars.

Phony is as phony does. Wes Clark walked the walk. The only ones fooled were the Dems...that allowed the RNC and their mainstream and RW media operatives to sell us that Clark wasn't ready for Primetime (like running this country is some kind of game show!).

Clark is an "expert" on National Security matters and military defense. That is not "posturing", it's just a fact.

The ones that are posturing are the Right Wing Chickenhawks and the The Dems who ARE deemed weak on the issue of National security....because all they ever want to talk about is the Economy and act like Iraq and the War on Terra will have all disappeared by the next election. Kerry's mistake was that he waited until 3 weeks before the elections before undertanding that he needed to let Americans know why he should be the one to replace an incumbent wartime president.

That's why so many Dems are looking for a moderate centrist governor from a southern or swing state. They all want to act like National Security ain't even part of the equation. That is a problem...cause as long as the Republicans continue to insist that it is their strong suit....the Democratic "mommy" party will continue to look deficient...Instead of becoming a "full-service" party. Clark has many accomplishments and skills beyond the Vietnam war.... The media portrayed him as a "one trick" pony....and the Dems said....urh...Doh...ok.

Kerry's history cannot even be compared to Clark's. In fact, Kerry's military experience vs. Clark's is almost laughable. But the media made sure you never knew enough about Clark to know or understand the difference.

So now that we lost....who got fooled?

and hallejuha that we won't be making the same mistake the next time round.

But we got to get those legislators screaming for election reform....

4 years is a long time to suffer under Bush...but not very long to put in some meaningfull reforms...especially when you are dealing with a majority who don't want any.

Elected Democratic officials need to raise hell in the street and get the people involved...starting back right after the election of 2000...oh, yeah...didn't happen.

Well it better happen now....or else we are in for some deep deep stinky sticky shit!

"Phony macho military posturing?"

I didn't realize Democrats were prohibited from being "military guys" and vice-versa. :eyes:

Clark is a general and foreign policy expert, and Bush would have found it nearly impossible to debate him on Iraq/terrorism just by talking about how resolute (read: stubborn) he is. As for Clark's lack of domestic experience, on the flipside Bush clearly lacked any foreign policy knowledge whatsoever in 2000, and I highly doubt that Bush would have taken away working class domestic issue voters just because Clark was never a Governor/Senator.

I still think that Clark might have been able to win the nomination had he not skipped Iowa. At the time, it seemed that Kerry's success there was largely due to his military history and widely publicized reunion w/ Jim Rassman. Clark's military record is actually much more impressive than Kerry's, and might have nullified Kerry's war hero advantage to some extent. If Clark campaigns in Iowa, I think either he or Edwards (based on his political / campaigning skills) wins.

I like/respect Dean, now even more so than during the primaries. The problem is that the Repubs just have too much ammo to use against him. "The Scream" isn't the only instance of Dean being angry or controversial. The post-election Newsweek article indicated that Rove had several "angry Dean" videos ready to go. Angry impassioned speech works well with college kids, but probably would scare paranoid "security moms." Dean's pro Gay Rights stance probably wouldn't have helped either, given the result of the recent state ban votes.

All in all, I thought Clark was the strongest candidate this year, and would like him to run again. He really needs to keep up his name recognition somehow, and some sort of domestic government experience wouldn't hurt either. I just don't know how he'll do it in 4 years. Maybe he can run for a two year term in the house in 2006 (and hopefully take a Republican seat in AK)

Clark would get killed with Republicans showing him with Michael Moore. Dean would lose because Republicans would say the word liberal 1 Billion times