Russ or Wes?

Personally, I would like to see them both on our 08 ticket but if some one was holding a gun to your head...

I give up on the human race (and I'm a humanist) when I keep reading the rabid Wes posts here.
It is shocking. But don't anyone bother, I'm not getting into a debate about him right now and this OP is even a little suspicious.

Of the "usual suspects" listed, there is much to like about all of them. My take is we really cannot make an informed decision until we see them all head-to-head. I may work for a candidate in the run-up to the primaries, but I want to hear each and every one of them state their case. They'll do that in the run-up to their announcements, in their announcements, and at the debates.

This insistence on why one candidate is better than another, or why so-and-so should not run, to me, anyway, is a bit like debating which ice cream flavor, that you haven't sampled for years, is better. It may make you feel righteous to state the case for your favorite frozen treat, but until we grab the scoops and start sampling, we won't really know if our memories match our taste buds.

It's context that is important, and we'll see their mettle when the runners take to the dais and stand and deliver...

But that's just my opinion.

But Russ is still the best.

Do you think we can get the ice cream dispensers repaired?
We keep pressing the button for ice cream and it keeps spitting out putrid Republican gruel.

on the other thread. But now you have untied that knot.

I didn't just wake up this morning. I've been around awhile. I have seen them on the dias. I've searched and researched and come to my own conclusions. So have some others. The ones who believe that Hillary/Wes or some such mixture, is the winning team have made up their minds too. I don't happen to think so. It is not because they have not presented themselves to the public yet. Yes, they sure have.

So, while you're waiting for the starting events, I already know some things. I don't care about the "show". I care about the results.

Wanna debate that? :eyes:

I like Wes as a pundit, and a future cabinet member.

but I sure hope that we can put off the really nasty primary rancour for as long as possible.

I love Russ too, and would be proud to support him if he got the nomination.

would have a chance to be President. I admire Russ a great deal. I met and talked with him a minute when he and McCain were traviling the country for campaign finance reform.

campaigns, making it tough to frame the candidate when the opposition changes the meaning of every vote. But I like Russ. I could get behind him also.

Democrats don't like Clark. There is a reason that he had such an abysmal performance in the primaries. He's not believable.

past. He voted for Nixon and Reagan, and that puts some people off, understandably! And his contradictory statements about the choice issue are a cause for concern as well.

Clark joined the Democratic Party after announcing his bid for the presidency. He has said he voted for Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush but also Democrats Bill Clinton and Al Gore. In defending himself as a Democrat, he cited his pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-environment and pro-labor positions. ...

On Thursday, Clark said he supported a woman's right to have an abortion "as modified by" a 1992 court case that allows states to impose limited restrictions. Clark's comments, at a news conference, marked a far less sweeping position than one he staked out in an interview earlier this month, when he told a New Hampshire newspaper he opposed any legal restriction on abortion at any point during pregnancy. ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/23/politics1458EST0651.DTL&type=printable

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

did NOT perform abysmally in the primaries; he'd never run for any political position before, he started late, won Oklahoma, and came in second to several. He appeals to Democrats AND EVERYONE ELSE. He's a REAL winner and that's what we wamt. isn't it?

As to believable, of course in order to be believed a candidate has to be heard, and this was indeed a problem for 2004; he was/is Roves's greatest nightmare. I sincerely recommend that you and all others take some time to listen to (and read) him.

I'm attaching General Clark's Real State of the Union 2006; everyone can read, watch and listen.


http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/5

Thanks.

:hi:

until the 2k6 elections are over.

The correct answer to this poll should be undecided.

Even Iran


Congressional Record Statement of Senator Russ Feingold
On Iran’s Efforts to Obtain Nuclear Weapons and the Need for Concerted International Action

January 31, 2006

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. President, as a known sponsor of international terrorism, and in light of the president of Iran’s recent apocalyptic statements calling for the destruction of Israel, Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The international community must respond quickly and decisively to Iran’s gross disregard of international treaties and obligations and to its concerted and malicious efforts to develop the capability to create nuclear weapons.

The international community must take concerted and decisive action to prevent Iran from furthering its nuclear research and technology development. In its forthcoming meeting on February 2, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors should heed the calls by Russia, China, the European Union, and the United States to reaffirm its findings that Iran has blatantly violated its international obligations, recognize the grave nature of Iran’s recent actions, and refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council should then speak with one voice to condemn Iran’s actions and send a clear signal that continued defiance of the international community will not be tolerated.

It is essential that the Security Council approve specific actions to prevent the furthering of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The Security Council specifically, and the international community generally, must recognize the potentially devastating link between the violent and defiant rhetoric of Iran’s president and his regime’s determined effort to undermine approved and transparent methods of developing civilian nuclear technology for energy use.

Congress can also take steps to help stop or slow Iran’s acquisition of nuclear and other WMD-related technology, including adding teeth to export control legislation such as the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act. The Iran Nonproliferation Enhancement Act (S.1976) that Senator Kyl and I introduced late last year would do just that. It would toughen the ISNA by requiring rather than merely authorizing sanctions on proliferators, extending sanctions to the parent companies, and increasing the types of sanctions that apply to proliferators. By adopting this legislation, we would be sending a crystal clear message to would-be proliferators: if you choose to assist Iran in developing nuclear or other WMD-related capabilities, you are also choosing to forgo doing business with the United States.

History teaches us that we cannot ignore the stated intent of those who seek to destroy nations. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to the region, to Israel, and to the entire international community. A concerted international effort is needed to prevent Iran from procuring the technology and materiel needed to develop a nuclear weapon. This effort must begin now, and it must be comprehensive.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/01/2006131CR.html

I like the sound of that.

Have the diplomat and foreign policy expert as the prez and the former senator as the prez of the Senate.

:hi:

substance.

While, I want Russ to be President I wouldn't mind a Clark/Fiengold ticket.

I am from Wisconsin too. I like Russ a whole lot. I love Wes!

It is liberating to have at least two potential candidates that are thoughtful, powerful and inspirational.

We need a man for all seasons - and Wes is The Man.

But no one can fault Feingold.

Noel

A Clark/Feingold ticket would be unbeatable

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Clark is indeed a man for times of trouble and for times of inspiration.
:hi:

:hi:

Great to see you on DU!

I like both of them personally

Clark + SOA = no fucking way.

no question no hesitation no doubt

Clark as CIC, engaged in foreign relations, reaching out to the world instead of threatening it, etc...

Feingold as VP, heading the Senate, pushing new domestic initiatives...

THAT sounds like a dream ticket to me!

but Wes has my vote in the primary should they go head to head.

You have to admire Fiengold's votes on the Patriot Act and the IWR. He's nobody's fool.

Clark is the same way and he he also has executive leadership experience and would be very attractive to moderate Americans imho.

as a "moderate American" anymore? I think not.

Clark appealed to my RW-ish friends last time. What does that tell you?

Can we just be liberals? Do we need white toast?

I think the appeal to "RW-ish" people (yes, moderates) is that his biography completely DEFIES the negative stereotypes of "liberals" the GOP has spent 30 years setting up.

Imagine -- "RW-ish" people embracing a LIBERAL!!! I think that's ideal!!

to you, white toast? Maybe I am taking it the wrong way.

Yeah there is still moderate Americans. There is a whole butload of them in the Purple and Red States that our success depends on. The ignorance out here in the blogoshpere is truly amazing.

"Clark appealed to my RW-ish friends last time. What does that tell you? "

Uh, that Clark can win?

I like both Clark and Feingold.

Clark is not as progressive as I wish he could be. However Clark has the potential and the tools to INSPIRE mainstream America, and electrify the 2008 elections. I hope Russ Feingold will be able to INSPIRE mainstream America too. I'm sure this sounds superficial but the Dems need a Reagan-type message of 'Morning in America" that makes people feel hopeful. Right now there is a toxic level of bitterness and fear being pushed by the Bush agenda, and everyone I know is sick of it. A Democratic candidate who inspires people can win big in 2008, IMO.

privatizing everything and making people pay out the ass for it, and stealing their natural resources.

This has unfortunately been a bipartisan foreign policy, including what Clinton did in Haiti.

I'd like to know if either of these guys will change that, or keep up "war on terrro" type bullshit for smaller conflicts too.

clearly to your question/concern, yurbud, and any others. Try him.

I'm glad that jen has provided info about General Clark's positions. In addition, he blogs with folks at securingamerica and at tpm from time to time, and he's very responsive. AND if you have a chance to see him 'live' at any event, you can try to get a question in and/or catch him on the way out, when he usually has a gaggle around himself and he's answering questions.

Most of the stuff at this site is from 2003. Pretty general. -(no pun intended)

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Free_Trade.htm


http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Corporations.htm

Though Russ would make a fine VP

I love both these guys. Either would do me proud! But I think this time around Wes has the better chance to take back the Whitehouse and reform this countries bias against Dems being weak on National Security and unfavorable to Veterans and military matters. Then I think the climate will be ripe for eight years of Russ after the eight Wes serves and I will die a very happy woman!!!

While everyone else sits on their hands Feingold is up on his feet pointing out what needs to be done and calling the GOP on their bullshit. We need a decisive candidate for a change.

I really like Russ, but he can't take anough from the middle.

only cuz I know nothing about Russ.

Wes for his impeccable National Security Credentials. I want him to look John McCain in the eye and say, "Don't you know we go to war as a LAST LAST LAST resort? Shame on you, you should have known better!"

ticket right now

It's only a few who claim to support Feingold rehashing old smears.

With all Clark is doing to take back the Congress in 2006, I gotta wonder if they're really Democrats at all.

I'm glad to hear people's concerns, as we're gonna have A LOT OF this as time goes on.

You're new here. Trust me. We've already had A LOT of this. Since the fall of 2003. It gets real old after a while.

But I'd have no problem with Russ.

American people without speaking out of both sides of his mouth. (I don't mean this as a comparison to Feingold, who I think is a very honorable man)

Clark all the way!

I think Clark is great in so many ways and love him as a pundit. He is clear on the issues and speaks out well. For some reason though I just never truly saw him as a President. I could see him in the administration, absolutely. I just don't know what it is, I just can't see him as the actual President.

I would have to go with Russ on this one. In all honesty though, I still think it's far too early to be worried about this stuff.

:toast:

I consider myself a "Clarkie," but to have either one of them would be a dream. After we gain control of the congress this November.

:thumbsup: That would been an unstoppable ticket!:woohoo:

I am generally not much for propaganda and advertising but that one is just about on cue as far as I can tell.

Turned on the boob tube today just for kicks. I needed to check the pictures of rare snow we had here in So. Cal. Any way to be short they had a story of some train track workers finding a dead newborn baby with the umbilical cord still attached. Somebody threw it off the side of the road and it rolled down the embankment to the tracks x(

:) It's powerful. When I get the time, I'm going to print it on a decal for my car window. People need to see where we're headed...again.:(

That's a heartbreaking story about the newborn baby.:cry: We'll have more and more of that when all these backward states pass their horrid abortion bans.

He stands up, and doesn't change for anyone.

Clark's my guy, but I'd be happy with Feingold.

I'm with you--either one would be absolutely wonderful and a dream come true.

To me they have a huge characteristic in common--they do what's right because it's right, not because it's popular. Both men's names are synonymous with "integrity" to me. Oh, and also with "patriotic" and "honorable." And "brave." And "honest." And ....

I've just seen more of Clarke. But, I think Clarke/Feingold.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

But seriously, that's a tough call. Gore is my first choice, Russ is probably #2.. but Wes Clark is a good man as well. He's not far down the list, either.

...maybe in 6 mo it will be someone else. Such is the fickleness of politics...

Remember, this time last round, Lieberman was the front runner.

Let's concentrate on the 2006 elections, let's see if we can take back the Senate so there will be no more Thomases, Scalias, and Alitos.

A person that is shining now can lose all his luster in two years.

I never supported the bombing of downtown Belgrade Yugoslavia. I think there is another side to that whole story. I never felt Wesley Clark was forthcoming and I remember some very cocky press conferences. And if I remember correctly, wasn't he relieved of duty early due to some outlandish orders or something? Many innocents died all over Serbia and (then) Yugoslavia. I don't support wholesale dropping of bombs on ANY country. Period. Clark wanted bombing ESCALATION - I DO remember that.

Russ is my man for 2008! He has the guts and the ability to communicate his progressive vision. And vision is seriously lacking among most of the candidates.

-------------------------------
FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT

Waiting for the General
By Elizabeth Drew
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
Clark displeased the defense secretary, Bill Cohen, and General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by arguing strenuously that—contrary to Clinton's decision— the option of using ground troops in Kosovo should remain open. But the problem seems to have gone further back. Some top military leaders objected to the idea of the US military fighting a war for humanitarian reasons.


Clark had also favored military action against the genocide in Rwanda.

Clark's view on Kosovo, shared by Tony Blair and other European leaders, was that Clinton, by stating that ground troops would not be used there —a position Clinton took for domestic political reasons—gave the Serbs a military advantage. Similarly, Clark wasn't allowed to use helicopter gunships for fear that they might be shot down, despite the fact that the helicopters didn't need to fly over Kosovo itself and the helicopters' missiles could have been more precise in hitting targets than bombers flying at 15,000 feet.

One of the Pentagon's chief complaints at the time was that Clark was on television too often during the Kosovo war. Shelton told Clark, "Get your f——g face off the TV. No more briefings, period." So, most unusually, for six weeks the commander of a war wasn't allowed to brief the press in public. His Pentagon bosses also wouldn't allow Clark to brief the President directly (as Generals Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks had briefed the presidents they were serving). Shelton tried to keep Clark from attending the NATO summit while Clark was conducting a NATO war. Pentagon officials also spread the word that Clark went around them to lobby Clinton for support for his positions, but there is no evidence that he did so.

Several people who are well informed about military politics or who worked with Clark during the Kosovo war believe that his enemies were largely motivated by professional jealousy of a US general who rose so quickly and also got international attention for a war unpopular with many of his colleagues. Some also say that Clark was too cerebral, too much of an intellectual for some of his fellow military officers. Besides, there is an inherent tension in wartime between the commanders on the ground and their superiors in Washington. In 1943 during the fighting in North Africa, Dwight Eisenhower thought he'd be fired. Colin Powell and Schwarzkopf yelled at each other during the Gulf War; and there have been serious strains between Donald Rumsfeld and the field officers in Iraq. Technically, Shelton wasn't directly superior to Clark in the chain of command, but Cohen used him as a go-between, having Clark report to Shelton, and so most of Cohen's information about Clark came from Shelton. Politics at the top of the military can be vicious; there are numerous stories of three-star officers not receiving a fourth star or of high-ranking officers taking early retirement because of personal feuds.

Clark's conduct of the Kosovo war, and his earlier participation as the US military negotiator in the meetings in Dayton following the war in Bosnia, earned him the admiration of several of the civilians he had worked with. Strobe Talbott, then the deputy secretary of state, reminded me recently that Clark is, after all, the only Supreme Allied Commander of NATO who actually had to fight a war, "and it ended in victory." Talbott told me that he found Clark to be "extraordinarily determined and able, and open to working with diplomats and civilians, US and foreign." Talbott pointed out that Clark, in commanding the Kosovo war, had had to deal daily with nineteen nations.

Berger, who has not endorsed any of the presidential candidates, also speaks highly of Clark. Richard Holbrooke, under whom Clark served at the Dayton negotiations, is a friend of Clark's and supports his candidacy. Michael Gordon, the Times's able military reporter, who covered the Kosovo war, wrote of Clark in early October that "while NATO's military campaign was not perfect by any means...the general's judgment of... critical issues seems pretty solid when viewed in perspective; a humanitarian wrong was righted and NATO won its first and only war." Gordon also defended Clark's desire to try to prevent the Russians, who rushed a small troop unit to the Pristina airport after hostilities had supposedly ended, from establishing their own sector in Kosovo, completely independent of NATO. (In the end, the Russians backed down and accepted an arrangement that put them indirectly under NATO command.)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

discussion currently going on in DUpolitics...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2510540

And they aren't the only ones I'll be rooting for in '08.

Edited for typo

Clark has what it takes to win!

just asking.

new faces. :hi: Although I would work my butt off for Russ... I would work for Clark too, but I hope he doesn't run.