Candidate Round-Up 2008 -- Why I pick Gore/Feingold or Gore/Landrieu

First of all, before the next Presidential election kicks off, I encourage everyone to read Senator Wellstone's book, Conscious of a Liberal. At the end of the book he discusses his last election, where he won with a 9 pt spread and gives a breakdown of exit polling q's where a clear majority thought he was too liberal but voted for him anyway.

For our next Presidential candidate, it's not about being a moderate, it's about being strong and standing up for what you believe, whatever that may be.

All of this nuanced moderation crap is just that, it has little to nothing to do with the voters, they aren't making up their minds about your policies, they're making up their minds about your character and how you make them "feel."

I knew Kerry was a bad candidate because his personality was bad, not his politics. Let's get over the BS about Clinton winning because he was a moderate.

First, he won because there was a strong 3rd candidate in the race.

Second, quick test, who do you "like" better? Clinton, Dukakis, or Mondale?

Clinton won on personality not on Universal Healthcare.

Hillary Clinton is not a bad Senator. Her comments about the war are dumb to us, but she wants to work with Republicans (they are in charge) and do good. Really, she's more moderate but I would say the same about Edward Kennedy, who's willing to cross the aisle in order to do something of value.

Unfortunately, it's not very exciting and Hill ain't no Bill.

Wes Clark has strength which is good, but personally I think his charisma is lacking. (He is also a bit too moderate for me)

Montana's Gov -- Like the way he talks. He's strong and might get my redneck uncle's vote. (In Nevada)

Warner -- don't know enough about him except that he won. Don't know his personality well.

Barbara Boxer -- Could never win. She's too "strident" for the boys. Would love to see her throw her hat into the fray though. We could use her on the campaign trail.

Russ Feingold is pretty darn interesting -- I like him a lot, he's very principled which is great and I think the libertarians would take a long, hard look at him. BUT, his 3 divorces and current single state make it difficult for him to be at the top of the ticket, but pretty good for the VP. I think we might be ready for a single VP.

Mary Landreux -- Possible for VP. Thought so last time, but let's keep Louisiana in the news. With her families political history though, she could use some vetting. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of dirty political tricks in her background that might prevent her from being on the ticket.

Al Gore -- I would not have supported him in 2004. But that was a life time ago. The country loves a comeback kid. He exited gracefully from the stage. Now imagine this ad:

In 2000 we were dealing with record surpluses

NOW -- Record debt

In 2000 we were loved throughout the world

Now -- Not so much

In 2000 we had Al Gore

Let's bring him back

But he has to stay true to himself. Strong and tough with dirty hands and sweat. Like that I think he's unstopable.

A lot can happen between now and 2008. Talking about 2008 only plays right into the hands of the GOP operated media. They know that as long as we talk about 2008, it will keep dems divided and take the focus off the REAL issues, * and the GOP Congress troubles.


Sorry, but I would rather focus on getting back control of congress in 2006, then deal with 2008.

I'm very focused on 2006, (My job is political campaigning) but the Presidential Candidates are already starting to put out the feelers and put together committees, if under the radar.

Frankly, I think one of two things will happen.

Dems will get their act together and win in 06. (Unlikely)

Dems will be too controlled by the DC politicos and fall apart in the targeted races, but the races that are under the radar and being run and coordinated on a grassroots approach will be surprisingly successful and lead to some upsets. (But not enough to take back the house)

Which will lead to full scale revolt by the CANDIDATES in 2008, who will look to Consultants who might actually get them elected rather than selling them a product that is outdated and hasn't worked in 20 years.

My firm has a 90% win record. (And higher in certain areas) That's what we sell to our clients and what they buy.

Dems

I adore her but she's pro-oil and I think there is going to be backlash for any politician in Louisiana associated with the Katrina mess even if she was out there giving it her all.

But more importantly, until Mary cuts the umbilical cord from the Oil Industry then I don't want her on the big ticket (oddly enough she supports drilling in ANWR, Joe Lieberman doesn't). But then again I can appreciate why she supports it - the Oil Industry is Louisiana just like like the Credit Card industry is Delaware (and why Biden & Carper support them). These business mean jobs and no one wants to mess with that.

We need a governor for VP

After all the Republicans have put her and her state through, she STILL tries her hardest to kiss their butts, seeming to really believe that they will reward her for her loyalty.

Too bad she's not as loyal to the African Americans in her state who put her in office, only to see her vote over and over to confirm anti-civil rights judges to the federal courts. And as if that wasn't enough, she then signed on to the nuclear option deal that ensured even more hateful, civil rights opponent judges would get lifetime tenure.

You can have Landrieu if you want. But I want no parts of her.

Bush, and tried to redraw map lines in the Gulf of Mexico, to make our Florida shores, her own to drill for oil. She thought if LA could expand the region, they would get more of the profits for their state. The profits are for refurbishing the shores, and dealing with the impacts of drilling. She should get this money, it should come of the top first in the profits, as "the cost of doing business". But noooooo, she had this lousy plan to redraw the map in the gulf to make Florida shores....her own to foul!! :puke:

A Floridian

I wouldn't go that far, she's a good democrat in many ways but the Oil Industry is Louisiana and she has to support the economic backbone of her state (still crappy what they tried to do). I get the same shit about my senators because of their association with the Credit Card industry and yet why would Biden & Carper go against the biggest employer of Delawareans in our state?

she was just doing her job as an elected representative of her people...

She is pro choice... An articulate speaker... Attractive... From the South... Showed that she could stand the pressure by performing exceptionally while chaos was swirling around her...

Mary L. is no Dick or GW... She didn't work for the oil companies... She is not a part of their business culture... I am sure her relationship with Big Oil would be diluted by all the other interests that converge on the White House...

Return to this thread, and give a FULL-ON defense of Senator Landrieu.

I've done many a full-on defense of my Senator on DU before now.

threads back a while...

My dream ticket would be Clark and Mary....

Arkansas/Louisiana or Virginia/Louisiana.

Senator Landrieu is very talented and skilled and intelligent.

I know that to many, her voting record is slightly conservative, but she does have to represent Louisiana afterall. I know that she's more liberal than she's allowed to be...and free from the confines of having to keep the Right-Wing sections of Louisiana happy...my goodness I think she'd be great.

Landrieu, being a Mainstream Moderate Democrat would have wide appeal, she'd be appealing to the swing voters in swing states that we need, Independents and Rockefeller Republicans would like her and do like her. Landrieu would be good in the Mid-West states and the Rocky Mountain states, she'd appeal to urban, suburban and rural voters.

She's pro-Choice and pro-Gay Rights, but she's also pro-Second Amendment and pro-Defense.

Clark/Landrieu or Warner/Landrieu with John Edwards as Attorney-General :)

I like my Senator, I like her as a person too and her brother is our Lieutenant-Governor, we'd definately have Louisiana in our column in 2008 if Clark or Warner were top of the ticket.

You know in 1992 and in 1996, Louisiana was President Clinton's best state outside of Arkansas...so yes, a Mainstream Moderate Democrat can and has won Louisiana's electoral votes.

Friends of mine, they loved John Edwards, but because John Kerry was the top of the ticket, they wouldn't vote for them and they told me that had John Edwards have been top of the ticket they'd have voted for him in a heartbeat.

Like support oil or the specific interests of Louisiana. LBJ was a segregationist conservative as senator, and the strongest white civil rights champion this nation's ever seen as president. Landrieu's proven her intentions are in the right place, so once free of having to be a Louisiana politician, she'd be fine.

Though your point might mean she would anger Florida as a choice.

You've been reading too much corporate media, my friend.

I'm a moderate and Clark is well more liberal than me. In fact, Clark's positions are more liberal than Dean's and nearly as liberal as Kucinich. He's just PERCEIVED as a moderate, which, in a general election is a good - no - FANTASTIC - thing, particularly if you want to flip some red states.

And, you need to go see him speak in person. His charisma takes down the house. That he lacks "charisma" is a media meme. Ask anyone who's gone to see him speak in person. Seriously.

But, in answer to your OP: Gore isn't running. Feingold's my second choice, but I worry about his ability (because he's twice-divorced and is Jewish) to flip any purple states from red to blue. Landrieu - eh - I like her, but, as with Hillary, I worry that swing voters won't vote for a female during a time of war, even if she's only the vice of the presidential ticket.

A friend ran the California operation for Clark and I helped out a time or two even though he wasn't my candidate. My gut has never trusted him as a Democrat. He voted for Reagan He's too moderate for me and I know my mother, a good judge of character, really hated him. Plus, my friend's husband, a total Fiscal Republican, loved him.

Not my guy, but a lot of it is not about the nuanced positions of the candidates, but the artificial perceptions because that's how one wins or loses.

Dems

and there's a reason why so many people who have so much else in common, like your garden basket assortment of DUers, can splinter so wildly over who among the potential Democratic Candidates they respond to and why. For every good judge of character "your mother", there's a good judge of character "some one else's mother", and they too disagree. I could give you lots of anecdotal testimony of people who are usually dead on about people who pick Clark out of the crowd as the one to trust, but what's the point?

And as to your last point; "but a lot of it is not about the nuanced positions of the candidates, but the artificial perceptions because that's how one wins or loses." Sure, mostly anyway to the extent that a candidate is not skilled at breaking through directly to potential voters. But being Liberal and being perceived as Moderate is a whole other kettle of fish from being moderate and being perceived as "Liberal". Wes Clark is example A, Hillary Clinton is example B. Being perceived as Liberal generally helps Democrats in the Primaries. Being perceived as Moderate generally helps Democrats in the General Election.

However, that's neither here nor there. Many people change - in fact, Clark's lack of staticity is one of the reasons I think he'd make a good leader.

Oh - and my mother is a good judge of character and she loved him.

This whole "my mother said" thing is kind of, well, silly.

Gore was a strong DLC member once, and that was a lot more recently than the mid 1980's. It was Al Gore who debated the free trade pro NAFTA position against Ross Perot, who was saying America would lose good paying jobs though Free Trade ("giant sucking sound"). Edwards supported the invasion of Iraq. Kucinich used to be anti Abortion etc etc etc.

and frankly if it had been a fight, they would have called it in the first round. Perot was never the same political force after the debate. Also we were losing good paying jobs long before NAFTA, I do believe however that NAFTA could be improved on.

Honestly, maybe it's silly, but if you don't talk to the "regular" folks, (meaning ones who don't follow politics and my mother happens to fall into that camp which is why I used her as an example) then it's just all of us politicos who are totally absorbed in the nuances of the campaign to the extent that we don't pull our heads out of our collective rears to understand how the candidate is being perceived by lay people.

It's why we're all flabbergasted that Bush does well with certain folks who find him trustworthy.

In California, the people I knew supporting the General were the Orange and San Diego County types. The upwardly mobile white folks who trended more conservative on fiscal issues. That was the demographic I knew he could reach, and where he could have been really successful.

I did think it was possible he could also do well with the older white male vote (which is always helpful to Dems), but for a General he didn't look like he got dirty very much.

And I knew the heroic story of him scaling a cliff to rescue people, so it was more about perception and less reality.

I also knew he'd be completed Swift Boated and likely accused of War Crimes by the corrupt regime and wasn't sure he could withstand the down and dirty politics of personal destruction as an unseasoned campaigner.


Dems

I'm on the East Coast now, used to live in California for 25 years. By the way I am never flabbergasted when Bush "does well" with the public, I come from a working class background and my father flirted with being a Wallace Democrat (though years later he came around nicely). I never am surprised about the Reagan/Limbaugh/Bush appeal, but that is hard to explain to many liberals who revert to talking about sheepies and knuckle draggers etc.

I am pretty left of center myself and never expected to warm up to Clark but I couldn't have been more wrong. Anyway Clark of course was an unseasoned campaigner, but he rallied nicely after getting hit hard right out of the blocks before he was fully oriented to the political scene. By about 10 days before the Iowa caucus he had pulled far ahead of Kerry in NH and was closing very fast on Dean. Media attention to Iowa where Clark was not competing changed all of the dynamics in the race. I found in NH people of all sorts responded warmly to Clark during retail campaigning. And I tell you, I think Clark learned to really enjoy the campaign trail. I think it's a liberation for him to be able to freely speak his mind outside of uniform and it brings out an enthusiasm in him now that is obvious if you see him in person.

I'm confident Clark has a read on the tactics his political enemies use now and he is ready for them. That is all it was with him, a learning curve. He always said (and he meant it) "I faced real bullets, I'm not afraid of anything anyone will try to throw at me." It was a crowded field last time (and will be next time also, I know). Clark split the veteran vote with Kerry who campaigned hard for it, but Clark did well there also. I mean the foot soldiers here, not just the officers, and they aren't just "upwardly mobile white folks". Clark also got some strong African American support and was far and away the clear choice of Native Americans across the country, not exactly the Orange County types. Clark would hold onto Democratic votes in a General Election and peel off some of the people the Republicans have been able to take for granted in the past.

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. It's your thread and mostly it should stay focused on your expanding on your thoughts from the OP. Personally I would love a Clark/Feingold ticket.

I well remember that Clark got completely burned by not campaigning in Iowa. Your thoughts are interesting, and while I'll never be a Clark fan, I really don't trust him, that's more of a personal gut reaction than anything substantial.

I'm willing to be talked out of Landrieu as VP, but after posting her name, I then thought about Conyers. Might be an interesting choice. I do love Feingold but don't know if he's ready for the top of the ticket, and I'd love to see us get someone other than a white man for the job.

I would love to win in 06, but I do not believe our party leadership has the ability to come together. I think, for Democrats to return to power, eventually the base is going to have to rise up and begin challenging all of these safe seat Dems who refuse to see the elephant in the room.

It's not that I'm against moderation. It's necessary. But, I feel very strongly that the republicans are subverting the government and the foundation of our country not by being conservative or trying to give to their base, but for brazenly ignoring the rule of law.

It's the little things that stun me the most. Offering up criminals for confirmation. Ignoring blatant conflicts of interest and bad behavior. Not policing themselves in any way, shape or form.

But, we also need people who understand what poverty truly means, what being middle class truly means as our elected representatives. Not these rich folks interacting with even richer folks who then start lusting after what they don't have.

It's a tough thing, but unless we do internal house cleaning, I think the external is going to be next to impossible.

This election is going to be the bell weather. I think we're all going to play nice and try to make it work.

But, if it doesn't work, and I'm not overly hopeful, then we need to hold our leaders accountable.

Dems

That is part of why I support both Dean and Clark strongly. Sure, in a crunch money has to go to putting us over the top in a close important race, but we have to begin routinely building our base all across the country, giving support to local party organizations in "red" states as well as "blue". Dean and Clark are both on the same page with you here. Dean is strongly committed to a 50 State strategy, and he is doing the walk, not just the talk, about it. More power to him, and through him, to the grass roots of the Party.

Clark has intervened the strongest in races that are problematic for Democrats to win, both with his own energy and by urging his supporters to do the same. Clark supporters, with his urging, traveled to Ohio to help Hackett in the Congressional special election there. We did the same for Kaine in Virginia for Governor. In upstate New York Clark supporters are strongly behind the campaign of Eric Massa who is running hard in a very red district for Congress. We are pulling hard in Texas for Bob Gammage to become Governor, which would throw the national media on it's head to see the Democrats retake the top job in Texas while Bush is President. Clark travels extensively through the South in particular doing fund raisers for Democrats. He campaigned hard for Salazar in Colorado in 04, and was one of the only National Democrats asked to go to Alaska to help try to win a Senate seat there also (most National Democrats aren't popular in Alaska). Clark knows that the National Democratic Party is the only vehicle available to derail the agenda of the radical right, and he is putting his body where his money and his mouth is.

For the last ten or so years there has been a primary model held out for Democrats running in "red" districts; "Republican Light" a la mainstream DLC thinking. I know that "Republican Light" is fighting words, and I do NOT assume that all Democrats who belong to the DLC are 100% on board with that model by the way, but I do see that model get pushed. And in some cases I even understand it, if a Democrat is running against widely held and deeply ingrained prejudices against the generic Democratic Party label. But even if that is true that has to be changed. I think both Dean and Clark, in their different ways, present an alternative to the classic DLC position for Democrats who want to run where Republicans traditionally have held the advantage. Some would throw John Edwards in as another variation.

Landrieu is an interesting person to point to. The few times I have heard her talk I have been impressed with her poise and a sense of brightness about her. I have not been that pleased with her record in the Senate, but I do understand that she is managing to get herself elected in Louisiana and if you can't clear that hurdle than it only means another seat for the Republican majority. Landrieu has broken with the bluest dogs on a couple of key votes, so I sense that she rations out carefully when and where she throws in her lot with the Liberals, to not overexpose herself to backlash from her base, while still sometimes coming through in a pinch for Harry Reid. I would have to study her votes a little more carefully before I could back her on a National ticket, plus I would want to see her engaged a bit more in international issues also.

It seems that the Governors who have become President recently have started out a bit unsure of themselves in the International arena, and I think the need for that learning curve has been problematic for the United States the way things developed. We haven't had a President pass directly from the Senate into the Presidency since JFK of course, but I fear that a U.S. Senator with little prior focus on foreign affairs and National Security would have a similar problem upon becoming President. I know that you are proposing Landrieu for VP, but I personally take that post seriously. Three years into a term as VP would give her the seasoning she needs, but if anything happened to the President before then, I would be concerned.

Clark/Feingold ticket.

Feingold could kicks ass as President of the Senate, and Clark could clean up the shit left around the world by Bush.

Feingold being single as VP, twice divorced and Jewish would be an OK thing for the VP....and the fact that Feingold has voted down just about every defense bill there ever was most likely wouldn't matter with Clark at top of the ticket.

Two strong common sense good looking (and they compliment each other, with Clark being just a bit taller than Feingold) smart Rhode Scholars from Red States!

Strong on defense; strong on common sense!

That would be the motto!

sooooo sweet!

PS- I would "trust" Wes Clark with my Soldier son's life more than with any politician, anytime, anyday. And that's the kind of trust which is most important, IMO!

and my 4 and 5 year old niece and nephew, whose judgment of character I have absolute faith in, just adore General Clark after meeting him. I think it was in a book about Bobby Kennedy that someone said...you can't fool the kids. It's a statement I've often thought of...and I agree. :)

I don't trust him at all. He speaks both sides of an issue too often. He was all over the map over the Iraq invasion at first, saying he had doubts about it, praising Bush for his leadership, etc.

I don't trust him. He's a good guy, but I don't think he's solidly ideological in any direction. He thinks leadership is about getting things done, and I don't trust that he wouldn't compromise on my ideals because he suddenly decides it's best for some other reason. I always feel that he's telling his audiences what they want to hear, not really worrying whether it's really what he believes. When he spoke to veterans or Bush groups, before being a candidate, he praised Bush too often. Maybe he'd compromise on abortion because it would help him get a spending package. The Repubs would immediately recognize and exploit such a weakness.

I want an ideologue--someone who believes what I do and for the same reasons, and who has held those beliefs strongly for a long time. I also want an ideologue who knows how to bend to get something accomplished, but knows where not to break. I can handle some differences, but not on certain core issues. I don't see Clark as that person. His complete, total support for a flag-burning amendment just strengthens that opinion of him. If he doesn't understand why we have freedom of expression, then what else will he have problems with?

I know others trust the guy. I don't.

Of course, I'd vote for him if he were the nominee, but I wouldn't feel excited to do so.

The alleged "praise" was in an article that, if read in its entirety, was a backhanded slap at BushCo. for even attempting this war.

But - you only seem to be reading part of the story, as well.

I hope someday you'll follow some of the links provided in Clark threads (and not to hijack this one) and read them thoroughly. About the only problem I have with Clark is that he's TOO thorough - and the American sheeple like teeny weeney sound bites.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

---------

That is in essence the same thing Hillary, Kerry and Edwards said when voting for the IWR, and it is clear that Clark is encouraging everyone to vote for the IWR (or a bill like it). Yet Hillary voted for the war and Clark is against it? Doesn't work that way in my book. Hillary's statements were a lot more about avoiding the war than Clark's.

I've read the whole story. I see a man who has changed parties (he was still a registered Republican when he registered as a Democratic candidate), voted for the most extremist conservative president we've ever had (I'll concede Reagan was second, just to avoid the argument, if you prefer), wants an amendment to restrict freedom of speech, and has praised Bush on more occasions than I'm comfortable with. If you trust him, then trust him. But don't tell me I'm the one looking at only part of the picture. You may even be right, he may be a liberal who cleverly hid his true identity for many years by openly supporting and voting for the right wing of the Republican Party, but his record doesn't prove to me I can trust him. It looks, to me, like the record of a man who wants to be president more than he believes in any ideology. I see him as a good person who is using the Democrats to gain power because he's upset with the Republicans. I don't see him as representing my views. There are enough other candidates who didn't support Reagan for me, and hopefully the nation, to have to take a chance on Clark.

If he's the nominee, I'll campaign hard for him. But I'll campaign really, really hard to prevent him from becoming the nominee. Not all Democrats voted for Reagan. I see the Dems who voted for Reagan as either conservatives, or people who went with the flow. Clark could be either. Neither makes me want him as president.

And I'm sure the links provided by Clark supporters will be flattering to him, as the ones provided by Bush supporters are to him, and by Clinton supporters are to her, and by LaRouche supporters are to his mighty highness.

For example number one: "I see a man who has changed parties (he was still a registered Republican when he registered as a Democratic candidate)." I challenge you to back up that assertion, because it is patently FALSE. There is no gray area here, your assertion is completely false and shows that your position is colored by by a presumptive mind set that assumes the worst about Clark. Clark was never registered as a Republican. Never. This is all public record. This has been gone over exhaustively, believe me. Clark was registered as an Independent prior to becoming a Democrat. He also voted in the Arkansas Democratic Primary in 2002. This is all documented in Pulaski County records.

"Clark voted in a Democratic primary when he registered to vote in Pulaski County in 2002, but like more than 95 percent of Arkansas voters, he didn’t declare a political affiliation. The state doesn’t require such a declaration, and even for those who state their allegiance, party primaries are always open to all voters."
http://www.couriernews.com/archivedstory.asp?ID=3461

There is NO excuse for you to still be repeating this lie about Clark. Personal confusion sure, though this has been covered about upteen million times on DU, but you should know your facts if you are going to make an attack, especially if you are making claims like "I've read the whole story. I see a man who has changed parties (he was still a registered Republican when...". It does little for your credibility you know.

I'll post this and then come back to some of your other points.

And I've calmed down a little after dealing with the Clark was a registered Republican falsehood (and that's all it is, I know you weren't trying to spread a lie, it just isn't true).
Plus I won't link to anything that you have not already linked to.

I think the full text of Clark's testimony that you pull from is enlightening, and I urge all to follow the link you left to it. But you committed a serious error in compiling excerpts from it. You linked two paragraphs together without indicating either through the use of three dos (as in...) or by typing SNIP that you left out text between them. And I think it is useful to include the paragraph you skipped over between the first two that you cited without noting a skip. Here it is:

"But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq."

Sounds like a pretty sage warning to me, and one that needs to kept in context before drawing conclusions from the second paragraph that you copied without this one preceding it. And I think it is important to read at least this statement also:

"Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

Regarding the IWR that was later passed by Congress, this sentence stands out from what you have cited above:

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

That was key to Clark's position, and it is consistent with the thrust of his whole package of recommendations. Clark thought that Iraq could pose a future threat to the United States, absolutely. Having said that the best time to deal with a potential threat is always before it reaches the crisis stage, and Clark thought that leveraging international institutions was the best way to deal with the potential of an Iraq threat. Hence the wisdom of further re-engaging the U.N., which had standing resolutions already enacted that dealt with Iraq. However Clark did NOT think Iraq posed an imminent threat. His testimony that you cite above did NOT recommend an IWR that actually authorized the use of force. It was a wake up call to the U.N. that Clark advised, a statement from Congress that the United States took Iraq seriously and if the United Nations didn't than Congress was willing to consider actually authorizing force.

Look, to be honest, I really am not one to drag someone like Kerry over the coals regarding his IWR vote. I think the final wording of the IWR that emerged was a mistake. Democrats like Lieberman and Edwards favored that wording. Other Democrats like Carl Levin and Tom Daschle favored more restrictive language. However I don't think it is fair to Kerry to lump his position in with Edwards. Edwards actually coauthored the final IWR, he supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq, he said Bush was right to go ahead and invade without most of America's traditional allies on board, and he said as late as October of 2003 that he still thought it was right to invade Iraq knowing that no WMD's had been found in Iraq. That was not KErry's position. Clinton of course didn't vote on the IWR.

Clark was speaking out AGAINST American plans to invade Mid East nations during the Summer of 2002. He is on record in Congressional testimony saying that even if it were 100% certain that WMD existed inside Iraq that in itself did not justify an invasion of Iraq.

You know one of Ronald Reagan's biggest political heroes for much of his adult life was FDR, who many say was the most Liberal American President of all time. Ronald Reagan was also once the President of a Union. So now you call him the first or second most conservative President in American history. From the conservatives perspective, they sure were enlightened to see past Reagan's previous Liberal inclinations, or the Reagan revolution never would have happened. Clark was always socially Liberal. His support for some previous Republican Presidents reflected a wide spread belief at the time that Republican's were more skilled at protecting America from threats, and during the Cold War there were real security threats, I don't think you will deny that. With the collapse of the Cold War, Clark's focus regarding what threats the United States faced in the world shifted profoundly, and that is reflected in his support of Clinton and Gore for President.

January 18, 2004

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

The full statement:

"Thirty-two years ago, thanks to the support of Democratic and Independent Voters right here in New Hampshire, I proudly stood as the presidential candidate of our party -- the Democratic Party.

Today, I am proud to stand here this morning and announce my support for a true progressive, a true Democrat, and the next president of the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you."
http://clark04.com/press/release/193/

Clark/Edwards as our ticket they'd have beaten Junior/Cheney hands down. Clark/Edwards should have been the ticket and not Kerry/Edwards.

The Repukes were terrified of both Clark and Edwards and that's why the mediawhores pretty much ignored Clark and Edwards during the Primaries.

The mediawhores knew that Clark and Edwards were the biggest threats to Junior and Cheney. Clark and Edwards were the biggest threats due to their broad-based appeal across political party lines and also their charisma.

unforunately, it won't happen (for the reasons you describe).

although i don't see where the chimp has any charisma unless it's for the primates with double digit IQs.

"Mary Landreux -- Possible for VP. Thought so last time, but let's keep Louisiana in the news. With her families political history though, she could use some vetting. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of dirty political tricks in her background that might prevent her from being on the ticket."

Take it from me, there are a lot of little goodies in Mary Landrieu's family closet.

I like some of your other ideas.

If you can't then I suggest you refrain from rumor.

Be still my heart ...

How about Edwards/Feingold? Edwards got just enough Senate experience to be a legit contender -- he's not bogged down in oratory the way Kerry was. He also speaks from the heart, sticks to his principles and is a very likable candidate.

I think we're DEFINITELY ready for a single VP ... but I doubt he'll stay that way. (Look at Dennis Kucinich!)

Once we could have dealt with but he has 2 divorces and the republicans are the dirtiest fighters out there. This could hurt the party

and how many members of Congress have had multiple marriages? Even Joe-mentum is on marriage number 2 (at least -- maybe more?).

This divorce he's going through is #2

Newt's offloaded 2 wives now, as has their golden boy, Rudy Giuliani.

And hell, Rush is on divorce #3.

trust me, they can be the worst offenders and still play dirty enough to trounce our guy.

I'm tired of losing and maybe I'm still a bit anti-feingold because he sold us out on Ashcroft and Roberts votes (judiciary votes are extremely important to me). But I think there are plenty of other candidates out there that have the same zest that Feingold has but none of the dirty laundry

But I think Feingold being a bachelor is more of a problem than the divorces. When was the last bachelor President? People like having First Ladies, and First Families. Laura Bush gets much more positive press than George. People will have a problem thinking of the White House as a bachelor pad. They won't be at ease with the thought of Feingold "dating" and they won't be at ease with the idea of him being single. Feingold is probably my second choice now, by the way, so I'm not at all saying I wouldn't support him or that he couldn't get elected. Just saying the problem of divorces is slightly over rated (as long as he doesn't have a bitter ex) and the problem of him being single is too neglected.

I do agree that it's a tough sell in a Presidential Candidate, but not so much for VP. It might even be a good hook. I mean, no one really expects the VP to do that much, or a VP spouse. He's kind of cute, so his dating life could get him in US Weekly and the under 40 female vote...

Remember AMerican President anyone? Great fantasy.

Dems

I don't think they would matter much with the VP pick and actually I think it would be a positive way to help the country "get over it". But I don't dismiss Feingold for President, I just am trying to weigh the situation honestly. I favor Clark, and I can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of him also.

People... I don't care how many times.

At least half the population has been through more than one marriage AND are Divorced.

And it isn't anywhere near as much now as it used to be. Like I said, we are more acclimated to divorced politicians than we are to single Presidents. I think a gay or lesbian should be able to be President if they are the best man or woman for the job. And many more people agree with me now than ten years ago. Of course there is far far less bias against divorced and single men running for President now than there would be against a gay or lesbian, but that is not the same as no bias. We are talking on the margins here, matters that might swing 2% to 5% of the vote one way or another.

But we're stupid to not discuss that it actually is.

I mean Kerry was a war hero and Bush went AWOL and yet somehow the managed to warp that issue into Bush's favor. So maybe only 2-3% of the population might actually give a shit about how many times the man has been married/divorce but that could also be the margin of victory between 4 more years of republican regime or a democratic presidency

and it has nothing to do with him being one of the most progressive dems in the senate (even though I still think he's an asshole for supporting Ashcrap and Roberts).

Feingold is working on what I believe is divorce number #2? Now I realize that Republicans & Family values are about as similiar as oil and water. But Feingold being a multi-divorcee is not going to play well in conservative regions of the state including many swing states that Clinton won but were lost by Kerry & Gore. If he was divorced only once I wouldn't think it would matter; everyone makes a mistake once. But with the second one under his belt it will be used against him.

Remember this is the party that skipped out on the Vietnam war and still managed to get the upperhand over John Kerry's decorated war service in Vietnam.

I think it would depend on who the Republicans select. It could always be Newt. And if it's mentioned, you have the handy dandy list of divorced republicans, and promise to bring it up in their home states...heck, I'd consider "outing" some of the gay ones or videotaping one of the DC orgies. (I frankly don't know or want to know much about them except for the fact that they exist.)

Control the debate -- Be pro-active so they can't hurt you with it. If he didn't cheat, it will be pretty easy to get through.

Dems

something like, "I tried marriage -- twice -- and it didn't work out. I may stay single for a while and who knows if I'll ever get married again." As a never-married person, I think it might be inspirational to have a VP who ISN'T married (and who doesn't feel like he has to be in order to serve).

This played well in the days of Nelson Rockefeller, but not now.

Many people are divorced. It's a non-issue.

Besides, you know damn well that the repukes would get to at least one of Feingold's ex-wives and unload the dirt on him during any campaign.

I believe the second divorce is already perfected. It he is working on anything in this regard, it would be marriage number three.

Both of them found Kerry by far more engaging and much better at connecting. That said they were at fund raisers because they supported each of them and voted for them.

Even since the elcetion, there have been a series of little articles of people who met Kerry, even on jury duty, all of them coming to the same conclusion - he's a nice guy, warm, friendly and charming. The fact is he has friends from every stage of his life who have stayed close to him over the years. (How bad a personality can he have if his ex-wife's 2 brothers both helped his campaign and the RI campaign was run by the husband of a woman he dated for several years when he was single between his marriages?)

When Kerry came to my NJ county to support Corzine, a woman from my town fainted and was taken to an ambulance - Kerry went over and spent about 5 minutes or so talking to her. From her comments, he was easy to tlak with and very nice - going to the ambulance could be a photo op (though he wasn't running for anything), but staying, hidden from view, was just being a nice guty.

The media worked over time repaating RW comments about him that simply don't seem to hold water. In his case, this is his 4th decade seriously fighting the RW.

I know tons of people who worked for him and he's great in that sense. I think I'd like Kerry personally, although I've never met him, just seen him speak.

But, it's more about the 30 second spot you get on the nightly news and I thought he came across too silver spoonish.

We all know that Bush is the ultimate silver spooner, but he comes across as a good ol boy. That worked for a lot of folks.

The reason that Gore works better now is because now he has a story. While some folks think Kerry was robbed, it's not the same as the 2000 election, where Gore undeniably had the popular vote by a decent margin.

THIS, and the juxtaposition between the Clinton/Gore years and the Bush/Cheney years are particularly stark.

Gore's easier to frame. The average voter thinks Kerry lost, not that the election was stolen from him.

Dems

I never wanted to vote for a candidate more in my life - and I first voted for McGovern. The rallies at the end were awesome -

I think what happened on TV is editting - Kerry would have a great rally (which I would have seen on TV) and then the news would show 30 seconds or less - taking what they wanted. Often, they showed the Kerry rally in the background while having their brilliant talking head say "Kerry was in ---- and he said ---- about Bush. Some one dug up a summary from 2000 talking about possible VP candidates, Kerry was described as a serious wonk like Gore - but very charismatic, in fact "possibly too charismatic".

Seriously if Kerry were Rove's candidate, Rove would have been in heaven - he played 4 sports in college, was a brilliant speaker, funny, could ride horses (unlike Bush), was a genuine war hero, actually had a successful career in law and then politics.

I don't know if another candidate would have done better - the point is just that the temptation to say Kerry was exciting enough is an easy out - and the danger is by not identifying that the press may not help us the same thing could happen again. (In hindsight even a soft ad on John and Teresa having met while both were working on environmental issues could have countered so many later RW lies - Teresa was serious enough Bush I selected her as one of 10 non -governmental US representatives, they got to know each other better after they both chose to go to the Catholic Church on Sunday. Teresa is absolutely incredible and if that were seen it would have meant something that she married him.)

Heck,

My opinion about Kerry was from 03, not 04. I read up on him, worked a quick Theresa event since I was in the area and my friend was his jack of all trades in California, but he was always too cold for me. (Loved Theresa, not that I thought the country would)

For me, I saw him getting Gored. I said it at the time. I ended up voting for Edwards when the time came because Edwards was the only person who had a chance of beating him. (And Edwards was my number 2 choice) I just didn't think he stood a chance, even with the war record and everything.

Now, it's difficult to say how much of a fighter he really was because I was working a local California race at the time and didn't get to see much of him. I lived with a friend who said he was going to lose after the Swift Boat lack of rapid response, but I still held out hope.

It's tough being from a non battle ground state to see what he did in the battlegrounds, but I just didn't feel like HE personally inspired a lot of people. The base was inspired to beat Bush and was willing to ride a 3 headed camel to the finish line if we thought that camel could do it for us, but I wish we hadn't jumped on the first camel out of the primary.

Dems

Not all, of course.

I'd vote for Gore, no problem. He's my top pick. I just don't think he'll run.

Kerry was not a bad candidate. He fought Bush, the media, and a major smear attack, and still almost won. No one else campaigning that year could have done better. He'd do better if he ran again, because he'd be more relaxed, and because he'd have more of an idea of how they will attack him.

Clinton didn't win because of Perot--that's how the Repubs spun it, but exit polls showed Perot pulled equally from Clinton and Bush, and polls before the election that didn't include Perot showed Clinton winning anyway. Perot jumped back in the race at the end, so most of the time Clinton was beating up on Bush, Perot was not around.

Boxer and Hillary would get a ton of media buzz from being serious female candidates. I don't think Boxer has the fame to win the nomination, though I'd love to see it. Hillary can win the nomination and the general. She's my second choice. As for her willingness to work with Repubs, that's her job. As a minority senator, her only chance to get anything done is to work with the majority. She was once considered the liberal in her marriage, and I don't think that's changed, though she's had to work with Repubs to get anything done. There are different types of charisma, and she's got a ton of the type she has.

I agree with the rest of what you say. And I even can see your points where I disagree, though i disagree anyway. Weird habit of mine.

The other impact of Perot was that you had Clinton and Perot both attacking Clinton. (In fact, Perot was the more negative - letting Clinton appear even more "sunny" than he could have without Perot hitting Bush. Clinton did manage to have the press eating out of his hand. (If they would have shown the Kerry rallies as they did the Clinton ones, Kerry would have easily won.)

I saw Clinton blasted by the press every time he spoke. I saw him asked about Jennifer Flowers, the Rose law firm, his womanizing, pot smoking, draft dodging, and a dozen other scandals EVERY time Clinton stepped up to a podium. I saw Time Magazine run a reverse negative photo of Clinton with the headline "Why doesn't America trust this man?" I saw Clinton so berated by the media that he began to refuse televised interviews or press conferences, and for a few weeks faded into third place as Perot took pundits speculated that the Democratic Party had faded like the Whigs. I saw Clinton go on Arsenio Hall and Donahue and MTV to take his message straight to the people, and I saw the MSM mock him openly for it.

When Perot fell in the polls and dropped out, then dropped back in after Clinton had taken a strong lead in the polls, Perot attacked Clinton every bit as much as he attacked Bush. Bush's numbers were falling before Perot entered the race. People wanted a change. The media convinced everyone that Clinton was some evil, womanizing, lying spector, so as Bush's numbers fell, there was a huge undecided figure in the polls. When Perot jumped in the race, people went for him because of the media's bashing of Clinton. But Bush was already falling, and Clinton had a lot to do with that. As proof, go back and listen to Bush's last SOTU speech. He promised a whole series of reforms to stimulate the economy. Every one of them was stolen straight from Clinton's stump speeches. A few months later, when Bush was asked why he hadn't tried to execute any of his promises, he said he never planned to, he just said all those things to make people more confident in the government, so they'd start spending more and the recession would end. In short, HW admitted he lied during the SOTU speech. THe reason he lied, and the reason he tried to steal Clinton's issues, was because Clinton, not Perot, was tearing him up.

There's a lot of revision about Clinton, led by the Mary Matalin types who want to find some way to argue that Clinton didn't really win. But Clinton did win. Perot was just a sideshow.

Anything with Landrieu on it - not a chance. She is one of the worst of the DLC sellouts.