Best candidate for 2008?

"Best" meaning most qualified, best ideas, and likelihood of being elected

balanced however you see fit

onedit: adding Clark -- apologies

(I can't deal with being called a so-and-so) :cry:

blue ranks who would all be wildly and comprehensively qualified for the top job, while the red team is still thrashing around in the locker room trying to figure out how to put on their jock straps.

Go, Democrats.

When will people wake up? Great candidates on your list, but for so many reasons. Wes is the man.:patriot:

Everyone is sick of the DC types.

and OPEN government will win.

People are sick of beingmanipulated by personality-driven governments. They want honesty and competence

. They don't want to be treated like a controlled public, they want to be RESPECTED as CITIZENS - INFORMED citizens.

They should start acting like it. Most people have been acting like brainless morons, happy to accept whatever lying bullshit the right wing propoganda machine feeds them.

We are not finished with this election yet.

n/t

Where's Wesley Clark on your list?!

probably 4 "other" and one or two "Gore" belong in Wes's column

is what this country needs far beyond any other one thing - this country and world have been dysfunctional BECAUSE of the decades of lying to the citizens.

Who will RESPECT the citizens of this nation enough to tell them the truth?

although a very, very important part

the coverups of the last 3 decades.

Not ALL Dems are open government Democrats. In fact, few are.

I voted "other" for Clark. Personally I find him to be the best qualified academically, intellectually and also his multilateral political/military/organisational experience is second-to-none.

The only unknown quantity is the MSM - if the media PTB (Murdoch? Rev Moon?) decide that they don't like him, then all the qualifications in the world won't do him any good.

However, they're all good and should have Cabinet-level positions.

I met Clark working on a primary campaign for a candidate here in CA, and have met Dean as well.

When you meet these people face to face, you are immediately struck by the disparity of intelligence between them and the current admin.

So much for "conventional wisdom"

or those more willing to tell the citizens the TRUTH.

Most CITIZENS are past the personality cults and are BEEGGING for competence and OPEN and HONEST government.

THAT limits the choices right there.

Do people want Bush2 crimes covered up the same way Bush1 was covered for? I think not.

As I have often wondered what you looked like, and based on many of your post, this is exactly how I imagined you! You're not a bad looking fellow at all (from what I can tell), although you dress much more conservatively than I would have imagined! :)

I've never agreed with anyone on everything. I guess it's Kismet with you and Clark.

and as you might or might not know, having blinders on doesn't mean that one is in agreement with anyone on everything....rather it means that once you've adopted a particular view, not even facts can change it, aka, a closed mind not capable of entertaining new thoughts and ideas if they differ from a preconceived perception not always based on facts.

The poster said he/she "had never wavered in my support of Wesley Clark." You contrast that with, "I've never agreed with anyone on everything."

I doubt any of us die-hard Clarkies agree with Clark on every issue. But that doesn't mean we don't support him 100%. He's more than good enough on the issues, and there are no others, and not likely to be any others, who match him on character, ability, or values. I'm sure you find that cult-like, but I just find it sad that folks like you can't recognize that, every now and then, people do turn up who are deserving of our trust and loyalty.

wouldn't you say, considering that 18 votes had been registered by the time he was added?

That's what I'm guessin'? :shrug:

He's a true populist with a track record of fighting for the little guy, he's diplomatic, well-spoken, doesn't make huge gaffes--and he's the ONLY one of the serious '04 Dems who didn't--doesn't lie about his opponents for personal gain, and is someone who southern reactionaries can be seen dealing with without jeopardizing their careers.

Why was he left off the list? Polling shows he's EXTREMELY popular.

The man has a true heart and is extremely intelligent without being tarred as an intellectual. The only "negative" people (other than the partisans of a certain candidate) can dredge up about him is that he's a lawyer, yet his legal work has been in service of the downtrodden; the others have pretty extreme "negatives". Lest we forget, too: lawyers aren't that universally hated.

If one was to post a job listing for president, some of the qualifications that would need to be listed are "diplomatic", "measured" and "charismatic".

not realizing till three years later that he was wrong bely your statement here, "is extremely intelligent without being tarred as an intellectual. The only "negative" people (other than the partisans of a certain candidate) can dredge up about him is that he's a lawyer..."

can one really be that intelligent if he couldn't figure out till three years later that he was mistaken in reference to a life and death decision that others seem to figure out much faster than he. How does that make him an intellectual? Shouldn't that be an additional negative that you haven't mentioned? :shrug:

Yes, yes, the old enmity surfaces.

Clark's clueless and despicable lying about Kerry's and Edwards' votes on the Bush tax cuts when he was desperate to win in Tennessee is beneath contempt. Actions like that show character flaws that simply can't be tolerated in a major leader. When confronted gently, not only did he not admit his nastiness, he fired back with distortions about Edwards' voting record.

Clark spoke publicly praising the genius of he Bush Administration a few months into the fiasco, even though Junior's ugliness was already in full view.

At least Edwards admits his mistakes. He also confronts complex issues and doesn't shrink from confrontation. He was the most vigorous opponent to Ashcroft's nomination. Although he voted for the Patriot Act, he didn't wait for complaints, he brought this up in speeches, saying that certain provisions (specifically tapping of individuals rather than phone numbers) were necessary due to the advances of technology. He has also been VERY vocal about how Ashcroft and others have used the Patriot Act in ways that are untoward.

To even intimate that Clark is more moral or allied with the left than Edwards is a partisan fantasy that flies in the face of endless facts. Clark claims to have always been against school vouchers, yet he supported them early on. He claims to have always been against the Iraq war, when he counseled others early on to vote for it and has admitted in public that he probably would have voted for it too. Worse, he's refuted this.

Still, Clark has a lot going for him since he's just getting his footing in the civilian world. His more vituperative and blinkered supporters are the real problem.

The extreme partisans use scorched earth conservative tactics, refuse to accept contrary facts and continually use long-since refuted "evidence" against Edwards. It's a grudge. To the true believers, Edwards was supposed to bow out with his tail between his legs when the great white conquering hero deigned to jump into the race at the last minute. It enrages the extreme Clark acolytes that Johnny didn't kiss the signet ring and clean the general's spurs.

The beat goes on.

(What's really silly about Clark's calculated lying is that Dean had trumpeted the same line months before and had been caught doing it. Being as undeniably smart as he is, Clark has no excuse for this. What's worse is that this was clumsy full-frontal lying; one wants more from a politician.)

Aw, come on: bring out the Hugh Shelton lie; facts are just playthings anyway.

:boring:

Yes, I bore you. I'm inferior. Regardless of pesky facts, I simply shouldn't be.

Somehow these facts aren't refuted.

Bummer.

2004 campaign trail shit.

I'm talking lives lost, and you're talking out-of-context bullshit that's already been debunked.

John Edwards led from the rear when he could have been a real leader.....and that will continue to be a problem for him....no matter that you think he has no flaws other than being a lawyer. It ain't what he said....it's what he did that's the proof......and the fact that he's a good looking man ain't gonna make me ignore his actions at a dire time in our history. Period.

He didn't have to stand up for a vote. His advice to others was to vote for the IWR. He even admitted that he probably would have done so too. After the fact, he tried and tries to paint himself as a staunch opponent to the whole thing. That's disgusting.

A critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse.

This man has played both sides of the street and has conveniently never really been called to account. Those who don't see this are more than just biased.

Edwards has at least gone very public (the New York Times, no less) and apologized for his mistake on this point. Clark has sidestepped all of his statements.

Edwards was one of the principal forces limiting Bush's original request for a blank check to use military action against anyone he pleased; language was inserted into the war resolution so that it could ONLY be used against Iraq. Not only was he not a follower, he was a leader. Lest we forget, too, the whole thing was constructed as a last resort act after all diplomatic and inspection regimens had been exhausted.

Bush lied to Congress, and the most telling lie was the one about imminent nuclear capability. Certain legislators committed the crime of believing the rest of the government.

Ted Kennedy and others would disagree strongly with you on this one...But, heck, they're just a bunch of untrustworthy liars, right? :eyes:

And he was the only major figure in the Democratic Party for years who had the courage to publicly expose, spell out, and condemn the entire neocon agenda to attack a string of nations in the Middle East, including Iran. Clark has explicitly been warning Americans about the Bush Administration plans to attack Iran for several years. Compare his record on that with any other potential candidate while you are at it if you dare, or would you rather wait and later claim that Clark cynically facilitated a war with Iran also?

Clark supported the Levin IWR resolution at the time by the way, not the one that passed that Edwards sponsored. The media blurred the distinctions in their reporting. I know, shocking, they usually are suck sticklers for accuracy. But of course you read it so now you believe it.

And why on Earth, two weeks before the mid term elections, are you in full attack mode against a Democrat who has already traveled to two dozen States in three weeks campaigning for Democratic candidates to Congress?

The sanctimonious hypocrisy of certain Clark partisans is breathtaking.

I merely posted on this thread that the "other" for whom I voted was John Edwards and that I was very enthusiastic. Yes, I referred to other candidates lying, but this could equally be said about Dean and some of the others. I specifically didn't mention the great godking Clark by name because it wasn't my intent to even refer to him. My intent was to praise Edwards.

Once attacked, I responded. Surely the privilege of having found the one true god doesn't deny the rest of us heathens the right to defend ourselves, does it?

As for playing the victim card about this being a time when solidarity is necessary as we approach an important election, it might be a better expression of Democratic ideals to hold oneself to the same standard one holds others. If extreme partisans deign that they have the right to bare their claws and slash as they please, then they have no moral right to expect others to simply back down.

I did not start this. I was attacked, and now the attackers cry foul that I had the gall to respond. That reeks of privilege, and that's one of the hallmarks of conservatism.

For shame.

All this endless sarcastic attacks against one group of Democratic activists. I dare you to show me ONE post attacking any other group of supporters of a candidate other than Clark, anywhere on DU, all forums included, for every FIVE that YOU personally write about activists here who like Wes Clark. When a Clark supporter who doesn't support Edwards for President says something about that, you go bonkers against almost all of DU's Clark supporters. It may not be your ideology, but you routinely use Republican attack tactics against Clark supporters here. Just substitute the word "Liberal" for "Clarkie" and the comparison comes into focus. Liberals coddle terrorists, Clarkies worship a godking. It is nonsense POE, it is insulting, and it should be below you to continue this type of smear.

I have NEVER attacked Edwards supporters as a group here, have you noticed? And in fact I dare you to find me more than one post in two years where a Clark supporter insulted Edwards supporters as a group. I don't even know of one, but it is a big board after all.

I can write a primer for an honest debate of Clark's vs Edward's strong and weak points without demeaning either of them or whole groups of people because of who they support, it's easy if that type of respectful discussion is important.

"Edwards sponsored the IWR, bad bad". Reply is 1) Edwards admitted it was a mistake and learned from that mistake. 2) At the time most Democrats voted with him, and didn't think Bush would rush us to war. The next election won't be about the past etc. etc. etc. It is fair to point out to a Clark supporter that voting for the IWR was not the same as wanting to go to war with Iraq without further conditions being met. One can also fairly say that Clark wasn't a Senator so he wasn't on the floor of the Senate when the votes were taken, Clark may say he wouldn't have cast a vote that way, but he never was actually put in that position. It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback etc. etc. etc.

Now I could come back against Edwards again if I was so motivated but I'm not right now. Meanwhile:

"Clark never was elected to be dogcatcher, how can he run for President first? bad bad." Reply is 1) Clark already held a world class top Executive position as NATO Supreme Commander 2) Clark has the experience needed, worked with Congress, has now participated in politics for three years etc. etc. It is fair to point out to an Edwards supporter that Edwards had no prior experience in politics, was only elected once himself and never ran for reelection etc. etc.

Now you could come back against my line of argument in defense of Clark's qualifications also, if you were so motivated, but I hope you aren't just now, when no one is actually running for President and a mid term election is two weeks away.

Why do only the Clark supporters draw fire? They don't. Other factions get thumped on too, but maybe the blinkered adulation of the extremists supporting Clark simply can't grasp the concept of empathy. (It's a liberal affliction, after all...)

Extremist Clark supporters get more guff because they give more; they're the most vocal and intolerant. I'm not the only one, I'm just one of the most unflinching and public. If you read the recent threads, you'll see MANY people who simply don't "get" the extreme love of Clark from his partisans. It's been a recurring mantra of late, especially from the newcomers.

Kerry supporters get slagged on a regular basis. Hillary supporters get this thrown in their faces too.

Are you really serious that no other candidates get slagged like Clark does? This is ridiculous.

Back before Clark entered the race, the Dean supporters drew the same fire. It's because they were the most vituperative and cocksure. Kucinich supporters were withered by invective, and they were a rather gentle lot all in all. There have never been many Edwards supporters on this board.

Don't put other people's words in quotations when attacking me, it makes it seem as if I said those things. This is reckless and anti-social. Those "quotes" have nothing to do with things I've posted in the past. This is innuendo and smearing of the worst sort.

The fact that you haven't attacked Edwards supporters as a group is the ultimate spurious argument. There have never been very many of us, and we don't travel in a pack. Clark supporters, on the other hand have been shown to organize elsewhere to specifically attempt to skew threads on this board. Great. Congratulations.

Bellyaching about mucking up party unity so close to an important election is sickening when the partisans in the driver's seat are yours.

Clark supporters attacked me without provocation and you still can't address that. Worse, you tried to suck pity for having been abused. Just stop.

Pluralism is built on tolerance and a desire for coexistence, not a need to dominate. It's a fun concept; tell your friends.

We can all dig up lots of bitterness if we go mining for it there. You ask:

"Are you really serious that no other candidates get slagged like Clark does? This is ridiculous."

But I never said that, my comments weren't about which candidates get slagged, granted most of them do, but I never said otherwise. And with this phrase "blinkered adulation of the extremists" I'm starting to think your writing style fits Spiro T Agnew better than Dick Cheney. OK, so that's your opinion of Clark supporters on Democratic Underground. It's still a partially free country; you can state it and I react to it, but it doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere useful.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding the "Quotes" stuff, as per your comment:

"Those "quotes" have nothing to do with things I've posted in the past. This is innuendo and smearing of the worst sort."

Um, sure whatever. I didn't think I implied I was quoting you on anything you said here in the past. I did comment about how negative labels get attached to a cross section of people as an attack strategy, like the use of "Liberals" as derogatory essentially by definition. Obviously (at least I thought so) I didn't mean I thought you said or would say Liberals coddle terrorists. I am a Liberal and I am a Clarkie,and in my personal experience it feels pretty similar to get slurred simply for being either. That was my point and if you think I meant something else or gave a different impression than I intended, I'm sorry. However you have said that Clarkies act like Clark is God (that isn't a direct quote but the ones you made in your posts on this thread will suffice for back up reference purposes).

The only other use of quotes in my above post was in my hypothetical debate about Clark and Edwards, I wasn't trying to quote any of your comments past or present. No innuendo was intended, but if you think others might think otherwise, I'll just apologize for not being clear enough there too, OK?

I suggest we drop this, it doesn't seem like we're accomplishing anything by continuing.

Why don't you just call me Earl Butz and be done with it?

Stop anytime.

Are you entitled to the last word? If so, by what aristocratic claim?

Please pay attention: "Clarkies" are not derided, the "extremists among the Clark supporters" are. If you don't like being lectured like this, don't do it yourself. I've had many off-board conversations with Clark supporters who aren't strident scorched earth types and we seem to generally reach an accord. Some are also irritated by the extremists.

Sanctimoniousness is sickening.

Hypocrisy really grates.

Clark (who was credited by both Paul Wellstone and Levin and Ted Kennedy and other for their anti-IWR votes) --- not so much to apologize for.

So which excuse is it today for Edwards' vote

I'm guessing it was the "I was lied to -- the 'who knew?' defense.

"Language was inserted into the war resolution so that it could ONLY be used against Iraq"

That's really a telling comment. He supported the war..... until his oh-so-famous mea culpa (and the polls turned against him).

I'd rather vote for someone who had it right from the first -- Clark

And no, I am NOT a conservative. Just smarter than your average former-Senator-turned-2004-presidential candidate.

is blinding you to his obvious intelligence.

Seriously, you don't like the guy. Fine. But you jump on any mention of him, like clockwork. Sure he should have said he was wrong before three years had passed. He also should not have voted for IWR. That is a fact. Criticize him for that. Fair enough.

But what you are questioning is his intelligence, and you are just flat out, plain, dead wrong. You are not going to find many people, even amongst the crowd that doesn't like him, to agree that he is not very, very smart.

Basically, it seems like your response to Edwards, no matter what the subject, or what points you make, or how you make them, can be summed up as:
FrenchieCat doesn't like John Edwards. We get it.

And I'm sorry if I don't support someone who co-sponsored the blank check that resulted in this war, and that you have a problem with that.

Why is it that when I say anything about John Edwards, I get dogged? Does he need that kind of protection from me and what I am sayin?.....do you just like attacking someone who's speaking the truth or someone who has an opinion that differs from yours? And if I'm not speaking the truth, why don't you tell me how not so?

In fact, instead of attempting to insult me because I dare criticize a politician (cause I guess I'm not allowed without somekind of backlash) Why don't you tell me how he was intelligent on the War instead of telling me who I like and dislike? Why don't you do that....cause I'd like to know.

I just think that John Edwards did the wrong thing on Iraq, and waking up three years later to say he was sorry doesn't win my support. So it ain't that I don't like Edwards just cause......I don't like something he did that was very serious, IMO. Why should I want to reward him with the presidency for it.....for his leading from the rear? And why should I bite my tongue...considering the guy gets more than enough positive press, so my little bit ain't really hurting him none.

If you can answer me that....then maybe we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you can keep getting mad at me for the fact that I speak my mind.....and doing so in a very rational manner about issues that aren't just "trivial"....unless you think that the war is trivial......and that intelligence means something other than understanding what world affairs are really all about. 2,700 soldiers dead....but I should just Loooove John Edwards? I' don't think so. Billions gone from our treasury....but I should shut up about John Edwards not having the common sense to understand that this war was not the right thing to have supported....

--till the polls turned...then he figured it out real quick!

I'll be waiting for you response to this....but I'll probably get called some more names for daring to not agree that John Edwards is sooooo intelligent and has only one flaw; being a lawyer. Yeah....Right! :eyes:

to discuss things reasonably with you Frenchie Cat, but I'm just not interested in it, for the very specific reason that no matter how issues-oriented you claim to be, you don't listen, you don't consider, really consider, anything anyone says. You merely harp on one thing: a very serious mistake which he made, and was the first to take responsibility for (I'm referring to the fact that he didn't dance around the issue, he just said "I was wrong".)
You fail to acknowledge that fact, and simply tell us over and over again that it took him so long that it doesn't matter.

He knows it. You know it. We all know it.

Your suggestion that someone who supports Edwards doesn't care about 2700 dead is disgusting. No other word for it.

You won't hear from me again, you'll be pleased to hear. So my last word to you is get off your high horse, and listen up with the open eyes you recommend for others, or you will simply drift into the forgotten pages of history with your already-forgotten General.

But I'm not sure why Edwards supporters want to attempt to shame me into being quiet about why I don't support John Edwards. I don't dislike him as a man, but just won't support him for President and I will say why when it is deemed (by me) required. Kinda of like when Purity had the temerity to state that John Edwards had no flaws except for being a lawyer (fwi, being a lawyer is not a flaw). I couldn't read that nonsense and not respond...and since these boards are here for the sake of discussion, I added my two cents to her post, and I will continue to do this, if I feel that the need.

You see, it's not just that Edwards voted for the Blank check...but that he co-sponsored the Lieberman Bill that congress passed. When I look at the list of those Democrats who co-sponsored that particular bill, they are all very unprogressive Democrats. None of the progressives co-sponsored the bill, and enough of them didn't even vote for it. So why did JOhn Edwards? Was it no clue on foreign policy? How is that a good trait? I don't see it. And I'm glad he said sorry....but that was a great Biggo Mistake, one that I can't just ignore and somehow say....."but except for that, he's great!" 2,700+ U.S. dead soldiers in my book is the result of the decision that Edwards and others made......and saying sorry just doesn't quite get it in my book, cause none of them get to come back cause he regrets his decision....one he stuck with for so long.

SO please know that one is capable of liking John Edwards as a man and an advocate well enough....without feeling that he is presidential material; and that's how I feel...and yes, strongly enough that when I read about his near flawless "qualities".....I feel compelled to speak!

At this point, Barak Obama is way ahead of John Edwards in my book...and it is precisely because he had enough "intelligence" not to be gun-ho for this disaster called the Iraq war...when it counted.....not after the fact. So even without the Foreign policy background I would very much prefer (because what is going on in our world ain't no fucking game) someone with more "sense" to know certain things such as the seriouness of War and Peace and what the results could bring before the fact....that's what any candidate I support is going to have to show me; some prescients; not someone who really just didn't understand the gravity of what was going on till three years and one election later.

Sorry to be a thorn to you and yours on this board, but again, I will not be silenced.

The first sentence of your reply negates your very statement.

I'd say Gore is the most qualified.

Edwards should be on that poll. He's polling number one in Iowa and number two to Hillary in most polls.

to Clark, in the eyes of the legions of Clark supporters here.

It's that simple, IMO>

Are you saying that this poll was put together by the "legions of Clark supporters"? Polls can only be posted by individual members and not by legions. Are you accusing the poster of this poll of being a "legion"? I've never been aware of his being a Clark supporter, in fact, he didn't even include Clark in this poll originally.

I think you're going to need to brush up on your conspiracy theory skills. They're getting a bit rusty.

It's that this place, which could be so excellent, is so predictable.

so, let's say, sure, one person put the list up. Why would that one person leave off the one 'candidate' that is ahead of Hillary in any poll in any state (Edwards in Iowa, first caucus state)?

It would seem that the first two people on the list would be those leading in polls, right? That would be Hillary and Edwards. Throw Kerry in for good measure, and Gore, why not?

Leaving off any of these four is intentional. Which of these four do the many Clark supporters here jump on, constantly. Just putting two and two together. Of course, I could be imagining this, but it's just too convenient an omission for this site.

the poll. Thanks for clearing that up. You do realize that he also forgot to put Clark's name up there, but added it after other posters requested it? That suggests to me that leaving off Edwards' name was an oversight and not a conspiracy. If you feel very strongly that the OP is a Clarkie in a conspiracy against Edwards, you should confront him directly with your suspicions. I can't possibly answer as to what his motives were.

I can't speak for other Clarkies. I'm not part of some sort of Borg Collective. I stay out of Edwards threads. I have noticed an extreme amount of hostility from a small number of Edwards supporters, not just towards Clark, but towards anyone on this site who supports or even likes Clark. This is not simply directed towards individual Clark supporters who post negatively in Edwards threads, but towards all of us, painting us all with the same brush. I don't know, maybe that's some kind of conspiracy as well. :shrug:

you did. The day I think something as benign as this is a conspiracy, please remind me to take a quiet walk and calm down. I'll do the same for you.

I don't want to argue with you, and I'm sure you have no interest in arguing with me. Clark supporters and Edwards supporters go at it a lot on this site, but your view of how it happens is different from mine. It seems to me to be the opposite of what you say...I could be wrong, but it seems like whenever there is a positive statement about Edwards, a number of Clark supporters jump in, pretty savagely sometimes, and the Edwards people jump back.

Of course, it could be happening the opposite way, but that's not what I think I have observed.

In any event, I am a strong Edwards supporter, but I don't have strong feelings either way about Clark. Neither for nor against. Maybe I should do, but I just don't think of him that much. My opinion about the poll being anti-Edwards is simply that it is here, clearly the mother-lode of Clark support.

the fact that Clark was not on the original list pretty clearly indicates I was wrong in thinking it was a set-up. How's that?

I'm fairly indifferent towards Edwards, and stay out of Edwards threads. I don't at all like it when people post negatively in positive threads about Democrats they don't like. If Clark supporters are doing it, I feel very badly about it, firstly because it's rude, and secondly because it reflects badly on General Clark.

I've tried to do my part by simply not engaging in that kind of behavior, but maybe I should be actually going into those threads and posting my opinions of that sort of behavior when it occurs.

I'd like to see everybody on this board treating each other more respectfully, even when we disagree with each other about particular issues or candidates. How's that?

Peace. Here and abroad.

It really is amazing. Nobody knows who Clark is outside of this board. He has a hard time getting on TV. I'm pretty sure hell will freeze over before he has a "chance" in '08.

Clark is polling at like 2% or less in all major presidential polls. I doubt he'll even run. Seriously.

I don't know if I even consider him a viable poltician, let alone a presidential candidate. He is great at what he does: occasional punditry and participating in speaking tours. He'd be high on the list for future Democratic cabinet position certainly, or perhaps a VP slot.

in most places...that's why.

If you dont' know about Rwanda, Kosovo; Clark's history......the things he has said when the most of the rest of them were scared shitless (and were voting for the blank check on Iraq).....then you just don't know Clark....and so, unlike others, don't really have a clue about Clark's appeal.

You may never get it......but don't underestimate those who do.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You should take a look at the Kerry forum sometime. Check out some of the Gore threads that get posted here while you're at it. I know it's fashionable to single out Clark supporters, but I don't think that an objective analysis of the actual contents of this board would bear out your claims.

In my experience in the "real" world, few people know of any potential Democratic candidate other than Hillary.

BEST: Kucinich...

IMHO

He was pretty good but not a super speaker.

He was ok but not super as a debator.

He has NO experience ever holding any public office.

Why do so many people have a hard-on for this guy?

I don't get it.

I wish you would watch this video I took in Iowa a few weekends ago. If this isn't a most fabulous speech I don't know what is.

http://www.ptnine.com/Warren.WMV

For a guy who literally never won a political office.

And he could not beat Mr - I just got co-opted by the DLC - Kerry or Howard - watch me self-destruct as the media rejoices - Dean the last time.

So what makes him different this time?

Iowa voters who never got the chance to get to know him last time are finding out what a missed opportunity that was. Clark knows it was a mistake to skip Iowa. It won't happen again.

I wish we had another Dean a left-leaning Democratic governor to push for.

I mean either I vote for a congressman and they have not won since Kennedy.

Or I vote for Clark who has no political experience.

Ugh. All those choices and so many of them shitty.

I suggest you leave your options open until things heat up. If Clark runs you'll have the opportunity to see what I've seen over the years by watching him closely. Either you'll like what you see or not. If you are open-minded I am betting you'll see why there is a lot of love (not lust) for him.

Nobody is getting my attention right now.

But I will vote for someone with no political experience before I vote to send another Senator forward to the goddamn slaughter.

I mean how many times do we have to stand around with our dicks in our hands going "Well I know that a Senator hasn't won since Kennedy and he was an exception that tweaked by barely. But this time is different because like every other friggin time we did this and failed in this past. No this time it will be different."

Clark is a marvelous orator. I encourage to hear him in person, he has this aura about him that just hits you head on. Clark can handle O'reilly now, I think he can handle his own when it comes to debates. He was basically the most powerful man in Europe at a time, and had a staff and personal security apparatus that would be on par to that of GWB's right now.


I'll admit, I'm a bit bias towards Clark, but I'm open to anybody. To tell you the truth, I can't seem to find anyone at Clark's level.

Pardon the pun (you know, since you asked for someone to explain why "so many people have a hard-on for this guy"... ;) ok, ok, never mind.... )

Look, you and I probably just disagree with Clark's speaking and debating abilities. I would wonder if you've listened to any of his recent speeches, but it really doesn't matter too much. He obviously inspires me, and from what I've seen, I'm not alone in that feeling. He undeniably rocked the house at the 04 convention, and I've seen him do it many many times since. And I think he did pretty well in most of the debates. In fact, all except the one that Fox ran, when only Lieberman looked good. I sure do remember Clark getting the audience to cheer repeatedly, and I also remember hearing Chris Matthews, Jesee Jackson and various others say he won this one or that.

But I don't think that's what really bothers you about Clark.

Each of your messages comes back to one central idea:
"...NO experience ever holding any public office."
"...a guy who literally never won a political office."
"...no political experience."

Well, you're wrong in two out of three. Clark spent 34 years holding "public office" and there are probably few offices more "political" than his last, at the head of NATO's armed forces.

Isn't it true that what you really mean is Clark has never been elected to anything?

See, some of us don't see that as a major problem. In fact, it seems rather obvious to me that if Clark can win the nomination, that will be evidence enough that he has the capacity to win an election. Or at least as much evidence as anyone else has. See, I do not believe that the ability to win a single state, especially a blue state like VT... or MA... or even NY... maybe especially NY, is rock-solid evidence of any ability to win the whole enchilada.

None of which really explains the hard-on tho, does it? Well, I can't speak for every Clarkie, and we each are struck more by one quality than another. But for me, I really think Clark would make a better president than ANY one I have seen on the public stage in the 50+ years I've been around. Moreover, I believe our country is so messed up that we can't afford to get by with just another average president. We truly need greatness, and I think Clark has it in him more than any other.

He's incredibly intelligent, he works harder and longer than anyone I know, he has real vision for where he thinks this country needs to go over the next 100 years, and he seems to profoundly understand the obstacles before us. He has absolute integrity -- telling us the truth as he sees it even when it may not be what we want to hear. And finally, he has courage: physical, moral and intellectual.

Oh, and it's sort of cool that he's a liberal, and not afraid to say it. He's right on all the issues that matter to me most. You don't find enough of that any more.

Sorry, I'm just not grasping the enormous leaps of logic that I'm seeing here. Do you lust after the man in your avatar?

I would take him as VP on a Gore ticket but I want Clark first and foremost.

Although he'd probably have a lot of trouble carrying the Evangelical vote.

or maybe Gore/Jesus might work.

Although it's arguable that he was born in the United States--since Israel is pretty much part of this country--there might be some trouble there, too.

Nice guy for the most part, though. Wonder what he'd think about what's been done in his name...

I voted for Gore but like lots of folks was disgusted by his puppet-like spewing of factoids with wilted energy. I haven't seen him speak in a long time but I've heard the guy has gotten a little energy and passion in the years since the election was stolen from him.

Surely before the 2008 presidential election it will be obvious to everyone with 1/4 of a brain that the election process is corrupt -- and the idea that the election was stolen from Gore in 2000 won't be a difficult sell job. In the final analysis people tend to be fair if they have the facts. If Gore is painted as a guy who was cheated out of the top job -- a guy who studies the facts like the nerd that he is -- WOW -- what a contrast to Bush! Look at voting pattern history and notice that folks vote the OPPOSITE of the last jerk/disaster in the White House.


:hi:

and although I don't want to think she's a real "strong" judge, she said that Al Gore bored her (well, she is 16!).....and that he was talking real slow, and didn't really stick around....and she said he was ignoring the crowd. (I wasn't there...but that is what she said--which is unfortunate cause I had started a thread at GD...saying I would post her overvall impressions of him...but now, I don't really want to). :(

Maybe your daughter wasn't interested in what Gore had to say?
Is she interested in politics at all, global warming perhaps?

She is interested though, and will be eligible to vote in 2008.

She does listen to Randi Rhodes and a few others. She's pretty international, that one....and has visited many places on our Globe....and speaks fluent French and some Mandarin and Cantonese.

I think that he didn't grab her attention based on her report......but again, I wasn't there, and am only going by what she said. She was very excited when she heard that he was coming to speak....so her impression prior to hearing speak was a very favorable one. Let's just say that delivery of the speech obviously didn't do much for her! But yes, she is 16 years old, so I do take that into consideration.....that he may not be as "entertaining" as she may have anticipated; and that wouldn't necessarily be something out of the realm of possibility. :shrug:

when I saw him speak recently. I also recall being extremely impressed with him when I inadvertently came upon him giving a presentation about his book in '92. My Friend and I were both heartbroken when we heard him say he was not going to run for President that year.

It's been a very long time since I was sixteen though. :)

to see my Democratic friends at each others throats when neither man has announced a candidacy for 2008. Perhaps we should wait a bit before damning other good Democrats while we still face a Republican president, a Republican senate, a Republican house, 28 Republican governors, and and Republican judiciary in 2006.

Just my opinion.

general where Hillary still leads.

of future events.

Let's win the house and senate.

If only wishes had wings.

I'm with you 1000000% on that one. The very best of men. Sigh.

Interestingly, they left off Obama. I might have voted for him. I voted Gore, he is in my mind the best balance of liberal and electable.

and DUers don't pressure me to support against my better judgement. One that isn't crowned a "front runner" by word or implication before candidates have officially declared.

While I like some in the poll, at this time I'd have to say "none of the above." I'd like some other, less beltway names to be given some enthusiastic time and attention before the same 5 or 6 get put out front yet again.

middle income earners. He's saying the right things and staying off the media's radar. I think he's brilliant.

My ticket? Edwards/Obama!

It can wait for a couple of weeks. First things first.

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

Just MHO, but here's some reasons:

CLINTON: Never, ever underestimate her. She has won over the toughest old-coot Repulsives in the Senate, and she'll make sure they owe her, big-time, by '08. (Back when she did Health Care, she testified on that mind-boggling issue for four hours before a BIPARTISAN committee--no notes, no aides by her side--and at the end, they gave her a standing ovation.) She'll have had Senate experience, she'll have NY behind her, and she'll have the best damn "Oval Office Advisor" of any candidate...and he'll be living with her! Anyone who saw the long-ago Barbara Walters interview with her knows she can be a powerful charmer, too. You ain't seen nothin' yet from Hil! She and Bill may be the only people who could push through the dramatic changes our nation needs.

EDWARDS: He can play Good Ol' Boy better than GW, can charm the birds out of the trees, and there ain't nobody who's gonna get the best of this outstanding trial lawyer in a debate. While he has experience in Washington, he has too short a record for the Repulsives to find good targets (his war vote will be no big deal by '08, and believe me, he'll have a superb defense anyway--I can think of several myself). His noble withdrawal from public view after the election to tend his cancer-stricken wife (whom he obviously loves to pieces) impressed many, many women and puts his wife off-limits for Right Wing smears. I also get the feeling he may be a guy who would want to turn government upside down and inside out--exactly what we need--but if he is, he's too canny a lawyer to talk about it during his campaign. He'd be a good candidate himself, or a terrific VP for Hillary. And he's young enough for a future run at the White House after being 2nd in command.

GORE: As I left "An Inconvenient Truth," I was thinking--like every Dem who saw it--"Where was THIS Al Gore in 2000???" He was cool! But then it hit me--he'd given that very same slide-show nearly 1,000 times before, all over the world. He knew when to tell a joke, when to raise an eyebrow, how to use his body-language, cuz he had rehearsed it for years. Yeah, he's been less of a stick in his public appearances since 2000, but maybe that's because he was free of the heavy burden of national leadership & its responsibilities. Campaigning (A) can't be completely rehearsed, and (B) brings back all those serious responsibilities onto this incredibly conscientious man. My guess, then, is that he'd become a stick again, and we'd be pounding our foreheads against the wall again as he droned on while his opponent (McCain?) raced around him like a torpedo-boat.

Shoot, if you must, this old grey head, but that's my take on these folks. (Wes Clark? It's a long, long way from 2% to the public's radar-screen!)

An Inconvenient Truth is just one of the things that Gore has been doing since 2000. Check out his speeches opposing the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, and Bush's lawbreaking.

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com
www.draftgore2008.org
www.climatecrisis.net