Clark fundraiser tomorrow cancelled

A Clark fundraiser in Houston tomorrow has been cancelled. Looks like he'll be exiting the race soon.

•  Clark

  thats too bad as Clark was my second choice. Reportedly he wanted to get out on Feb 4th but his wife convinced him to stay in through today. He will probably exit tommorrow

  by OldDemocrat on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:35:28 PM PDT

  •  Damn

    After Dean's campaign fell apart, I was planning to vote for Clark on March 2, since he seemed like the only one I liked with a chance to beat Kerry.

    At this rate, with Clark about to leave and Dean barely staying in, I might be stuck doing a Kucinich protest vote.  Yeesh.  How did the 2 candidates I liked squander their momentum so fast?

    by balta1701 on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:42:04 PM PDT

    •  Ummm...

      Because people like you aren't voting for Dean, who IS still in the race... and finished 2nd in three weekend contests...

      by RosieNac on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:45:42 PM PDT

    •  Why vote

      for Kucinich over Dean?  Vote for Dean if you want to.  I'm in NJ, last primary in the land, and I'm voting for Dean whether he's in or out.

      You're not really basing your decision on who has the momentum, are you?

      by Madden 11 on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:51:26 PM PDT

      •  Maybe ...

        He just feels free to vote the guy who most embodies his principles, now that the nomination race is effectively over.

        I've made my share of fun of Kucinich, but I won't be sorry to see him pick up some delegates along the road to Boston.

        -- Rick Robinson

        by al Fubar on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:04:25 PM PDT

        •  i just joined this party

          This isn't aimed directly at you, al fubar, but on Sunday I finally, formally joined the Democratic party and I have to say this.  I had an inkling of this notion in the past couple weeks, but now I'm more certain that Democrats can be a bunch of sad sacks to think the race is over before they themselves have voted.

          Let's co-opt some of that GOP self-importance, eh?

          by mr northstar on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:14:44 PM PDT

        •  I read it

          that he wanted to vote for Dean, but feels he can't because Dean has kinda sorta dropped out (but not really).  I have nothing but admiration for Kucinich supporters, in all seriousness.  But if Dennis is your third choice, why vote for him when your first choice is still available?  The primaries are supposed to be where we vote our hearts, not our heads...all evidence to the contrary.

          by Madden 11 on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:19:52 PM PDT

    •  Huh?

      Ever think that Dean's campaign (and perhaps now Clark's) "fell apart" in large measure because too many unthinking voters are falling in behind Kerry on simply account of his status as the front runner?

      by GOTV on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:08:27 PM PDT

      •  Sheeple voting for Kerry

        Yes, but what can we do about it?
        Or what could we have done about it post-Iowa?

        I suppose we could have gone negative on Kerry.  I cannot figure out why they never even went comparative on him.  Criticism of someone's POLICY positions these days gets called "negative attacks".  I hope this new whimpishness in the Democratic primaries doesn't come back and bite us.

        by Steve G on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:17:06 PM PDT

    •  What's important to you?

      You seem to be saying you like Dean and his platform best, but can't vote for him (nor Clark) now that it "fell apart."

      Why base your decision on perceived momentum?  That makes no sense at all in a primary.  If Dean is The Man, he is still The Man.  Vote for whom you respect and agree with, nothing else.

      by ubikkibu on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:20:54 PM PDT

    •  Protest vote

      If you liked Clark and Dean, and Clark is dropping out and Dean is staying in, why on earth would you not vote for Dean?

      by NYCO on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:53:45 PM PDT

  •  Maybe it's me...

    My first second choice was Carol, because she was a class act.

    She's gone.

    My second second choice was Gep, because he was solid on labor.  He would have been my first second choice but he was such a jagoff to Dean.

    Doesn't matter.  He's gone.

    Clark was my third second choice...

    I think I'm going strategic...

    Dean First
    KERRY SECOND.  DID YOU HEAR ME GOD?  KERRY. K-E-R-R-Y.  Tall guy.  Boring as sin.  Homophobe.  Inherited well.  Married well.  Veteran.  HE'S MY SECOND CHOICE.

    by ultrageek on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:01:48 PM PDT

    •  sigh

      
      My sentiments exactly.

      Isn't this frustrating?

      by mr northstar on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:04:35 PM PDT

      •  I believe in evolution

        I think that natural progression or regression takes place in all things... So heres the problem

        We are in a country that 200 years ago produced Jefferson and Washington and Franklin. Amazing

        50 years later we had Lincoln
        Stupendous, but only one of him, not a horde

        75 years after him we had the two Roosevelts, both were great about 75% of the time, but only 1 family of them, and throw in a Truman to shore things up

        Then 25 years after that we get Kennedy, Womanizer who looked pretty and didnt acomplish much, but got us going on civil rights and the moon race.

        15 years later, Carter... too nice to be president, a blip on the radar.

        Then we get Clinton, Womanizer who looked pretty and didnt acomplish much, but got us... well, not fucked.

        Then We got Gore and Bush, Gore = Meh, blah, yeach. Bush = WTF?!

        now we have Gore lite against Crazy uberBush

        Following this pattern, in 2020, we will be nominating a houseplant to run against the republicans howlermonkey.

        by Matt in Wisconi on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:04:15 PM PDT

    •  On the Bright Side

      We can't get any worse than Kerry this year.

      by easong on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:08:28 PM PDT

    •  Homophobe???

      Get a grip man! You're starting to sound like Mickey Kaus!

      by Anton Sirius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:08:34 PM PDT

      •  When the Democratic establishment of your state...

        is getting on board with extending full maritial equalities to gays and the same day you're discussing the relative merits of the various constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marriage, you're a homophobe.

        Sorry if you don't see it that way.

        by ultrageek on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:31:14 PM PDT

        •  It's just that...

          Using that word against Kerry in this instance cheapens the word.
          Do I disagree with Kerry?  Yes.
          Think it's a political calculation?  Probably.
          Know what he really believes?  No.

          But save the epithet for those who truly deserve it.  There are plenty.
          

          by shot and a pickle on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:44:22 PM PDT

        •  ugeek

          I could have given you a 0, but I know yr not a troll, so I gave you a one so the average would be marginal (2). Chill, dude, you're just overwrought. It's that SIFTB thang.  Whyn't you just enjoy the full rights and bennies and who cares what they call it?  All Marriages are Civil, at their root; preacher can say all he want, but without the paper from the civil authorities, it didn't happen, capisce?

          As an earlier commenter pointed out, over in the Diaries, if you read what JFK  said in it's entirety, he would support an amendment that gave equal rights to civil unions, which would, suddenly, make those full rights transferrable nationwide, whatever they were called. That was his condition for giving the Fundies the man/woman/marriage thing they so desparate for. You'd wind up with a Constitutional Right to form a family, live with and share all the bennies of a state of "marriage" called civil union anywhere in the country.  Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

          by claude on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:59:28 PM PDT

          •  Well thanks for rating me a 1 then.

            Why not.  I'm gay.  Yehaa!  I don't get to marry the person I want to.  I get kicked out of the hospital when my partner is sick instead of being allowed to stay.  I don't get to share social security, IRS regs, 5th Amendment rights, or any of over 1200 federal privileges or 700 state privileges.

            Fine.  Rate me a troll.

            But that post didn't deserve it.  You want a post that merits a troll rating?

            Here it is, you fucking pig.

            I'm beginning to hate heterosexuals and all their frigging special privileges.  If I dare to ask for equality, I get a "why are you making such a big deal about this?" or a "no special rights for gays" or a "you're ruining the Democratic party".

            Well fuck you.  You want overwrought?  Fuck you. Fuck you.  Fuck you.

            May you lose your rights and privileges.  May you come back next life as someone who's on the outside looking in.  May you know poverty and malady and injury and humiliation and pain.

            Now, NOW, troll rate me.

            And I'm out of here.

            Y'all have been troll rating me for logical and well intentioned posts for the past week.  I don't need you.

            Take your fucking candidate and go to hell.  May you all get the government you so richly deserve.

            I hope you all lose your "special rights".  

            See you in the death camps, when Bush is reelected or when Kerry shows his true colors.  See you in the death camps, pig.

            by ultrageek on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 05:12:16 AM PDT

    •  Homophobe?

      Please... spare us.

      by Preston on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:22:46 PM PDT

    •  Tone it down...

      Homophobe crack is totally unmerited. If Kerry is a homophobe, then what of the 84 Senators who voted for DOMA?

      The Bush Budget: Borrowing a Million Dollars a Minute off your future...

      by Maxwell on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:26:24 PM PDT

    •  Kerry the frontrunner

      I am still voting for Dean on March 2 because I like his ideas and candidacy.  I was just reconciling myself to Kerry as nominee, and trying to reconcile friends to him, when he came out with that stupid statement on NPR about a marriage amendment.  He is the f'ing frontruner now, for gods' sake.  Why would he do that?  First, it is constitutionally wrong, because the amendment process is for things that need to be corrected and can't be politically. This can be done state by state by the vote.  Second, it stigmatizes a definable group, making them (us) second class citizens, and no Democratic politician in my view should EVER do that, even to southerners.  Third, we use the amendment process to expand, not restrict rights.  Fourth, this unsettles the balance between the states and federal gov't, intruding into what should be a state matter.  Fifth, it is stupid politics, because the polls in the places where Kerry is competitive, including the Midwest, show such an amendment to be unpopular.  Most people, even those who don't personally like gay marriage as such, can see that this is done to divide and stigmatize.  Kerry should be smart enought to see this too.  Sixth, it makes him seem like a feather in the wind, not a strong leader who has prionciples he is willing to stand up for.  Particularly in the Presidential race that kind of image is more important than a candidate's actual stands.  Finally, it will lose him more than it will gain, because the bigots won't vote for him anyway.  So why throw away his integrity on this?   Why not just say this is a misuse of the amendment process and makes something a federal matter that should be left to the states.  Leave it at that and change the subject if he has to, but NEVER endorse a constitutional amendment for this purpose.

      by Mimikatz on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:56:26 PM PDT

    •  What's the deal? I don't get it.

      I am relatively new to the Kos world and am very much enjoying the discussion.  I am also a Bostonian and a Kerry supporter.  

      I have never really understood fully what the Deaniacs vehemence against Sen Kerry is.  He has been one of the most liberal voices in U.S. politics for 30 years, ever since his anti-Vietnam War demonstration days.  

      Can someone who has such a visceral reaction to Kerry please outline what specific issues Kerry supports or stances he has taken or anything he has done to elicit such a profoundly negative reaction?  Or does it all boil down to one vote on the most recent war?  Is that, in fact, soley the rub?  Or does it run deeper?

      I'm not being defensive.  I just literally do not know what gives.

      So, someone please tell me:  what gives?

      by Reno on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:56:38 PM PDT

      •  To sum up

        He voted for the war, appeared to constantly waffle on it, voted for NCLB, voted for the patriot act, and appears to be a very political animal, with no real fire.

        Thats basically the sum of the answers.

        More fuel was thrown on the fire with his words in regards to an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage.

        by Marius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:03:56 PM PDT

      •  welllll

        3 years of failing to stand up to Bush and now he acts like he's mad as hell.  He's a phoney.

        by Joseppi on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:04:11 PM PDT

      •  From Boston, not for Dean

        but I do have a visceral anti-Kerry reaction. Why? I think he's an opportunist with very little record of substantive achievement, and vulnerable to Bush to boot; and I find the idea that my party has settled on him of all people in this of all years incredibly depressing. That said, if he's nominated I will not only vote for him but work for him, and every time I get that anti-Kerry feeling I will say to myself "think of the Supreme Court" -- or the bill of rights, or the Middle East, or my country's fiscal situation, or the economy, or the importance of being able to have some minimal level of trust in my political leaders, or any of the other million and one reasons why even a bad Democrat would be much, much better than Bush.

        by hilzoy on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:30:49 PM PDT

      •  Why Kerry doesn't deserve support

        He voted for the war with Iraq - and is now trying to sound like he was against it.

        He voted for the Patriot Act - and is now trying to sound like he was against it.

        He voted for NCLB - and is now trying to sound like he was against it.

        He has taken more cash from special interests than any other Senator - and now tries to sound like he is against them.

        And then people claim Dean isn't 'electable' because he gets a bit carried away talking to a hall of supporters.

        Give me a break.

        Neil for Dean because the primaries are for the best option not the least worst option

        by neil for dean on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:37:23 PM PDT

      •  More than war vote

        I don't have any problem with Kerry . . . in the Senate.

        But I do have a problem with him running for president.

        I do oppose his war vote. I oppose his series of Bush votes: PATRIOT, NCLB, and the war.

        I oppose his no-votes more. Medicare is one. More onerous, to me is the one where he didn't vote for the Energy bill, even though his staff said he was in DC. I mean, this guy DOES have real environmental credentials. He's wandering the country saying he's going to make us energy independent. But he can't get himself into teh Senate Chamber to vote against one of the most sweeping bills to affect these areas in history?

        I oppose the fact that the Senate D's agreed to hold a voice vote on the Iraq appropriation so as not to discomfort all three senators running for President. This was a rare vote where R's were going to be forced to do somethign their constituents hated all in order to fellate the president, it would have really helped us in the Senatorial election. But no, we pissed that away so Mssrs. Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards didn't have to be uncomfortable.

        All of this says to me that Kerry is unwilling--in the years when we most need it, to actively oppose the President. THat's really a cavalier way to treat our country. Either he is not sufficiently worried about the state of this country (in which case I don't want him to be President) or he is not able to stand behind decisions that might not be popular (in which case I don't want him to be President). And it certainly doesn't bode well for the General Election--if he's unwilling to come out against the President with the company of 20 other senators, how will he do it for 9 months straight when he doesn't have any company?

        by emptywheel on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:42:52 PM PDT

      •  Where to begin...

        John Kerry has never, ever done anything in his entire career without considering his career first.  He has never been a leader.  He is a follower of conventional wisdom.  Every word, every action is calculated for it's political impact (including his Vietnam diaries -- yeeesh, he was feathering his political nest while under fire).  There is NOTHING believable about this guy if you dig slightly below the epidermis.  NOTHING.  He knew damn well that WMD's and Bush's claims were a bunch or horse manure.  He was heavily lobbied by experts who told him exactly how far fetched the "evidence" was.  He CHOSE to be politically correct and FAILED to represent his constituents who had serious concerns because he didn't want to risk his future politcal chances, knowing full well that Iraq was another Vietnam.  AND THEN he has the fucking cajones to say he was "misled".  See http://traprockpeace.org/hewasmisled.html for details.  

        If you want to vote for a guy who's never really done anything (except throw someone's else's medals away), go for Kerry.  He's your man.  He will never stand up for anything that might be politically unpleasant for him.  Go check his voting record and tell me he's going has the guts to veto Republican legislation.  What legislation has he written, sponsored or ghost written that has impacted Dems for the positive?  He's going to roll over and play politically correct the minute he's threatened.  He HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING ELSE!!  PATRIOT ACT, EVERY CHILD LEFT BEHIND, GAY RIGHTS, WAR.  

        We're screwed if he is elected and we're screwed if he's not.  

        by lolorb on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:13:03 PM PDT

    •  From what I understand ...

      Kerry didn't inherit well. That's probably the reason he accepted all those speaking fees after his first marriage fell apart.  He certainly is tall though.

      I'll let others deal with the "homophobe" charge.

      by Inky on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:37:27 PM PDT

    •  Boring as sin?

      What kind of sins are the ones YOU indulge in?

      Oh, got it. "UltraGEEK".  Probably the sin of, what, hacking? Playing Diablo II?

      (Oh, BTW, I really don't care for Lurch, but homophobe? C'mon, drop that.)

      by aleand on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:13:10 PM PDT

•  Farewell for now...

  Wes is an asset to our side.

  He'll always be a hero to me because of Kosovo.

  by Petey on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:35:32 PM PDT

  •  hear, hear

    I hope he stays engaged in politics.  He's a good man.

    by Marek on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:41:36 PM PDT

    •  he is

      Go here to watch or listen to an interview he gave to a super liberal radio reporter about Kosovo.  The guy has a lot of humility and class.

      Fucking Kerry sucks.

      http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/1632224

      by Joseppi on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:06:38 PM PDT

  •  I agree wholeheartedly

    Chris Lehane, however...

    by DrFrankLives on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:50:35 PM PDT

    •  Can we agree this seals it?

      Can we all agree that he is not a successful hatchetman now?

      by emptywheel on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:53:38 PM PDT

      •  That depends on what we find out he's done

        Although the Dean campaign inflicted some damage on itself, somebody did some fairly nasty oppo stuff and dirty tricks, too. I have no proof, but they smell like Lehane to me.

        Negatives work against the frontrunner. Dean got taken down. It was very successful.

        by Bill Rehm on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:56:47 PM PDT

        •  Huh?

          Bill Rehm writes:

          Dean got taken down. It was very successful.

          The idea is to replace the frontrunner with your candidate, not with someone else.

          Let's review:

          Lehane joins Kerry campaign.

          Kerry drops from presumptive frontrunner to damaged goods.

          Lehane dumped from Kerry campaign.

          Lehane joins Davis campaign.

          Davis loses to Gropenfuhrer.

          Lehane leaves Davis campaign.

          Lehane joins Clark campaign.

          Clark drops out of Iowa.

          Clark ties for 3rd in NH.

          Clark ties for 1st in OK.

          Clark drops out of race.

          Conclusion: Lehane is bad news for any campaign he joins.

          My greatest fear is that Kerry will win the nomination, then tell Lehane "all is forgiven" and hire him back.

          by Thomas Kalinowski on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:21:08 PM PDT

          •  Lehane and Kerry

            Can we get Lehane to go back to working for Kerry?

            by aldon on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:35:21 PM PDT

            •  Back?

              It seems to me that Lahane never quit working for Kerry.

              by Sovok on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:45:45 PM PDT

              •  I wouldn't say..

                kept working for him..

                but if bringing Dean down was "still working" for Kerry, then yes... you are correct.

                He's the one that's responsible for the Canada tapes, and probably some other dirty tricks.

                I despise him, but he might be someone we need against the GOP in the general election

                by Mexicana on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:09:23 PM PDT

        •  Ah but who has he gotten into office

          Gore? Well, perhaps elected, but not into office

          Grey Davis? Um, no.

          Clark? Unfortunately, no.

          Plus it doesn't look too good. He gets off the Kerry sinking ship, using his, "he's dead man walking, he just doesn't know it yet" line (or whatever it was), and then has to watch Kerry take the race (most likely).

          by emptywheel on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:21:21 PM PDT

          •  You guys miss the point

            The question wasn't "Is Lehane an effective campaign manager?" It was "Is Lehane an effective hatchet man?"

            by Bill Rehm on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:36:47 PM PDT

            •  Missing the point

              Bill Rehm writes:

              The question wasn't "Is Lehane an effective campaign manager?" It was "Is Lehane an effective hatchet man?"

              And my answer was, no.  Even if we assume it was Lehane who did in Dean, the idea is to replace the frontrunner with your candidate, not someone else.

              Anyway, I don't think Lehane did for Dean.  I think Gephardt's negative campaigning succeeded to the extent that it knocked Dean down from 1st place to 3rd (and failed to the extent that it knocked Gep himself down from 2nd place to out on his ass).

              by Thomas Kalinowski on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:22:24 PM PDT

•  Thanks for Participating

  I have consistently thought Wes Clark was too classy and decent to be competitive in this league.

  His withdrawal will be a shot to Edwards, and put the breaks on Kerry's coronation.

  Somebody has to drop out today, for the good of the party.

  by easong on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:35:56 PM PDT

  •  Unlikely

    I believe most Clark supporters will go to Kerry...

    by anonymousL on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:38:26 PM PDT

    •  Still might benefit Edwards

      Now Edwards has the distinction of being the sole "viable" candidate aside from Kerry. It will crystallize the multi-candidate field into a two-man race.

      It's a long shot, but if Edwards can now set himself up as better than Kerry, the two will have a chance to duke it out on Super Tuesday. It's a fight I expect Kerry to win, but at least Edwards will have his shot.

      by Rockwell on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:53:30 PM PDT

      •  As A Deanie

        I would be happy to see Edwards forestall the inevitable until March 2, when I get to vote (for Dean).

        As soon as Kerry is crowned the Dukakification will begin in ernest. Let's keep hope alive as long as we can before we embrace the guy.

        by easong on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:57:50 PM PDT

        •  Absolutely

          I don't care who is running interference, but this primary needs to go on as long as it can. Certainly my preference would be for Kerry and Edwards to duke it out all the way up to the convention, at which point Edwards somehow becomes the nominee in a brokered convention (don't ask -- I haven't figured that part out yet.)

          The only reason I think Edwards can go on is because this was still a multi-viable candidate field. If he can survive until Super Tuesday, he'll have a chance to present himself as the clear alternative to Kerry. If Dean really is going to stay in the race after Wisconsin, he'll have an opportunity to keep the press' attention diverted from Kerry.

          by Rockwell on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:03:16 PM PDT

        •  Dukakification!

          Love it.  Sounds like something that would require Charmin for clean-ip though.  Ew.

          by Rob Humenik on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:03:22 PM PDT

      •  Viable?

        I'm having trouble figuring out why Edwards is the sole viable alternative to Kerry...after all, he isn't even second in delegate count, and word is that he has serious money problems. Dean was and still is the sole alternative to Kerry, based on passion, integrity, accomplishments, and positions on the issues. If Wes Clark drops out, I hope that his supporters will feel welcome with the Dean campaign.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:43:55 PM PDT

        •  Well, Dean just isn't winning

          Despite a money advantage and legions of enthusiastic volunteers, Dean wasn't able to win even a fifth of the vote in Iowa. NH didn't go much better for him. His round of second-place finishes are in states that I do not believe are bellwethers. And after his bizarre flip-flop on Wisconsin, I can't imagine he'll do all that well there either.

          Edwards gets instant cred simply because he's actually won something, and I believe is still in second in terms of aggregate vote. He has demonstrated appeal to a wide variety of demographics. Dean has just not been able to parlay his incredible organization and financial support into any real support at the polls. Maybe that will change. I personally doubt it.

          I think your assertion that Kerry and Edwards is equivalent in terms of passion and integrity is laughable, but I won't try to argue such a subjective judgment. Of course Kerry is clearly a more experienced legislator and Edwards has nothing with which to counter his war record. I don't see those as negatives, although apparently a lot of primary voters do.

          I agree that Johnny Sunshine is probably having money trouble though.

          by Rockwell on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:13:48 PM PDT

    •  Not sure I agree...

      From my experience, Clark supporters are from all walks; some will go to Edwards because he is from the south, some will go to Dean because he was anti-war and some will go to Kerry because they want a veteran.

      I don't want the general out, I hope it isn't so.

      by Demise on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:10:00 PM PDT

    •  Reality bites

      Not enough Clark supporters in the Super Tuesday states to make any difference at all. Probably not enough hard Clark support in WI to make a difference either. Its now the preordained, stodgy, frontrunner against the fresh faced Southern progressive. Kerry has massive advantages, but Edwards has earned this one-on-one shot at it.

      by MichaelR on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:28:15 PM PDT

    •  Maybe half will, but...

      This Clark supporter will be supporting Edwards if Clark steps aside today. It won't be passionate support, but I'll vote for him when he gets to California.

      Meanwhile, you won't find me saying bad things about Kerry, and I'll be defending him where possible, because he'll likely be our nominee.

      Just speculating based on my own experience of Clark supporters, I don't think many of us will be supporting Dean from here on out. Many of us were attracted to Clark because of his foreign policy experience and his tax program. Kerry offers the former asset, and Edwards the latter. So I imagine most of Clark's support will split between the two insider candidates.

      The Bush Budget: Borrowing a Million Dollars a Minute off your future...

      by Maxwell on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:36:44 PM PDT

      •  Clark/Edwards

        I agree with you.  The primary difference between Clark and Edwards from my point of view is the military experience.  Clark really shines when he spoke of military matters.  Edwards really shines when he speaks of ecomonic matters and the hopeful tone of his speeches.

        However, I find it hard to see Edwards as a political insider.  You don't see the Democratic insiders lining up in the Edwards camp.  They have lined up one after another in the Kerry camp.

        As a first time Senator, he was had only enough time to know how it works without forgetting what it is like in the real world.

        Both Edwards and Clark come from more humble beginnings in the South.  They are both Southern Bapist.  Both worked their ways up in their fields and became brillant in their fields.  Clark...Military...Edwards...Lawyer.

        Edwards lacks the Vietman experience because like almost all of us, he was too young for that war.  Even at 50..he was too young.  I don't know how that card will play in the long run.  I'm already getting tired of hearing about it and it's early yet.  For the record, Elizabeth Edwards, is a military brat and grew up all over as her father went from base to base.

        I will support Kerry...if that is what the head says in the end...but my passion and excitment for the democratic party goes with Edwards.

        I just can't feel any excitment at the prospect of Kerry being the final choice.

        by darkamber on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:25:58 PM PDT

    •  Kerry

      At this point for me switching to another longshot would make no sense. Dean has most of the same positions as Clark but has no chance at this point, Edwards is attractive in many ways but has no chance either. I think most will just switch to Kerry.

      by Rob on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:59:54 PM PDT

•  SoD

  Here's to hoping Clark picks up the VP nom or is at least nominated for Secretary of Defense.

  by the good reverend on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:35:57 PM PDT

  •  SOS

    I hope he becomes Sec. of State and makes Colin Powell look like an amateur and turns the Dems into the party of defense.  However, I'm not getting my hopes up because if there's someone who can botch November, it's Mr. McAuliffe.

    by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:40:57 PM PDT

    •  Umm

      McAuliffe won't run Kerry's campaign. All he'll do is raise money for him.

      by kos on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:45:42 PM PDT

      •  frontloading

        may backfire.

        He should have let the democratic process take its course.

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:48:26 PM PDT

        •  robbed again

          it already has backfired in my opinion.  rather than deciding on the best nominee, it has become a race, literally - a ridiculous amount of pressure to end the process after iowa and new hampshire.  did we not learn anything from 2000?  4 years ago far too many people were denied the right to have their voice heard.  this year's democratic nomination is a repeat of this disenfranchisement.  in the rush to annoint the front-runner, the dnc has crushed much of the optimism and desire to be involved in the process.  for example, all states where dean ran ads and was competitive - there was a large turnout of voters.  this was not the case in OK and MO and now VA and TN.  i am so disheartened that many people are more ABB than pro candidate X.  kerry is a very unpoetic average.

          regardless, come april i will still vote for the best candidate.

          by cracklins on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:26:21 PM PDT

          •  agree wholeheartedly

            good luck hanging onto activists and volunteers Mr. McAuliffe.

            by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:31:55 PM PDT

            •  Before you leave Mr. McAuliffe's tent...

              ...consider very carefully the freak show going on over at Mr. Rove's.

              For an "activist" to do that out of sour grapes shows me that they weren't that commited in the first place.  Presidential elections in this country, like it or not, are about building an impossibly broad consensus that includes many people who are not just like you.  To pretend otherwise is not activism, just wanking.

              The point about the primary schedule is well taken.  Organize.  Advocate.  Don't whine.  It doesn't help.

              by shot and a pickle on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:30:17 PM PDT

          •  And come November...

            ...I will vote for best candidate again.  It might not be the same person I voted for in March (for me), but it will be the best of the two options.

            by cvcobb01 on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:37:53 PM PDT

        •  Front loading a particularly

          bad idea for THIS campaign.  

          Dems always fighting the last war.

          by a gilas girl on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:05:22 PM PDT

  •  Tradition says you don't appoint generals to SoD

    as you should have symbolic civilian control over the military.

    by ohwilleke on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:44:20 PM PDT

    •  Its not tradition

      Its the law. Congressional Act, to be precise.

      by Marius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:45:55 PM PDT

      •  Hence's Powell Appt to Sec of State

        If he's not the VP candidate, I think Max Cleland might make a kick-ass SoD though...

        by Anton Sirius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:51:11 PM PDT

      •  I never knew that. Thanks.

        by ohwilleke on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 12:23:47 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, but...

      He's retired now.  Otherwise he couldn't do this at all.

      by ultrageek on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:04:40 PM PDT

      •  You

        have to be retired for 10 years before you can be SecDef.

        by Marius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:08:47 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for the clarification

          by ultrageek on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:36:29 PM PDT

  •  No D of D for Clark

    You can only become Secretary of Defense after you have been out of the military for 10+ years.  Clark hasn't.

    by Shinpath on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:09:07 PM PDT

•  Ok...

  I think in hindsight my order of choices were Clark/Edwards/Gephardt/Dean/Kerry/Lieberman.

  Sheesh... guess we cant always get what we want.

  by math geek on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:36:55 PM PDT

  •  Tou and Mick Jagger...

    .. but we can try sometimes...

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:43:58 PM PDT

    •  I hope we get what we need

      by pyrrho on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:54:55 PM PDT

  •  So Right

    My choices, based on what I perceive as ability to beat Bush, were:

    1. Dean
    2. Clark
    3. Edwards
    4. Kerry
    5. Gephardt

    I put the Washington outsiders first, starting with the one who had a successful electoral background. Then the southern senator with the fresh face. Then the northern senator who can't stop talking about 'Nam.
    If I get my fourth choice

    by easong on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:53:27 PM PDT

  •  Mine was

    Also based on electability... (I just don't like Lieberman)

    1. Edwards
    2. Clark
    3. Dean
    4. Kerry
    5. Gephardt
    6. Lieberman

    by Superribbie on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:06:25 PM PDT

  •  going with my heart

    mine, based purely on principles, were:

    1. Kucinich
    2. Dean
    3. Sharpton
    4.  CMB
    5. Edwards
    6. Kerry
    7. Gephardt
    8. Clark
    9. Lieberman

    by green in brooklyn on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:25:38 PM PDT

    •  My ranking

      Based on the potential to beat Bush, and be a transforming progressive leader:

      1. Edwards
      2. Dean
      3. Kerry
      4. Clark

      I dislike Gep and Lieberman, who are both far too into the war.

      I like Dennis, but he wasn't really a viable option. Ditto for CMB. Al Sharpton provides good entertainment, but let's face it, anyone whose campaign is run by that GOP dirty-tricks op Roger Stone is not to be trusted.

      by MichaelR on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:34:42 PM PDT

•  Winners

  Looks as if Kerry and Dean will be the big winners today.

  by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:37:01 PM PDT

  •  Huh?

    Please explain to me how you think Dean will be a winner of anything?  His campaign is still in the implosion phase it's been in for the last month.

    by balta1701 on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:43:32 PM PDT

    •  Most likely

      it's down to 3 guys now.  Both Clark and Edwards surviving TN and VA would squeeze Dean out even further.

      by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:50:21 PM PDT

    •  Dean/Clark

      Alot of the supporters in both camps would like to see Dean and Clark get together.  If Clark is dropping out, then it would make sense for him to take the 2nd slot.  Announce it now and titillate the media, since such a thing has never been done.  Maybe get a bounce.  Maybe take out Kerry.

      by RosieNac on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:53:17 PM PDT

      •  From your keyboard

        ....to God's ears!

        by Kimberly Stone on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:02:42 PM PDT

        •  Dean??

          My god, if Dean is politically toxic, why would Clark want to humiliate himself by being one rank below Mr. Toxic? (Dean is a good guy - but for various reasons, both fair and unfair, he's hit the political waste dump for now)

          It's far better if Clark goes back to being the military expert, international diplomat, and foreign policy analyst that made us Clarkies first fall in love with him. With his credentials back in place, the world again becomes his oyster.

          If it becomes known that Clark will be in Kerry's cabinet, I'll happily support Kerry and his campaign. God, he'll need all the help he can get.

          by SeanF on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:42:15 PM PDT

          •  I'll whore my vote too!

            I indicated that I'm leaning Edwards above, but, sure enough, the first candidate (btw Edwards and Kerry) to announce that Clark is the shadow Sec of State in their shadow cabinet gets my vote.

            It's up for trade. One California primary vote over here guys!

            The Bush Budget: Borrowing a Million Dollars a Minute off your future...

            by Maxwell on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:51:34 PM PDT

            •  Edwards,

              ...sorry to say it, ain't goin' nowhere. It's still Dean and Kerry for delegates.

              Dean can and would work with Clark. There's not a problem there that can't be healed. Much good could come from their teaming up.

              by Kimberly Stone on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 10:58:22 PM PDT

          •  Wow.

            Your statement doesn't dignify a response, really?

            "Mr. Toxic"?

            Hey, thanks for that contribution to the level of political debate, guy. We really need that in the US. Those pundits don't have anything on you!

            [reaches for Advil]

            by Kimberly Stone on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 10:55:07 PM PDT

            •  sorry but...

              "Mr. Toxic" was not meant as a slam, but as a political reality. In the media, Dean = loser. Teaming up with Dean means teaming up with loser. And "toxic" usually refers to the scenario where anything someone touches dies. I think that's appropriate for Dean right now. Them's the realities - sorry you don't like it.

              Oh, and in the media, Clark = novice, not ready for primetime.

              So it cuts both ways cuz I love Clark, and yes it sucks for both of us.

              by SeanF on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:20:42 PM PDT

  •  Hmm

    Dean finishes in single digits.  Gets no delegates.  Wisconsin race is narrowed to three candidates.  Likelyhood increases that Dean will finish third there.

    Yep.  Good day for Dean.

    by John R on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:47:48 PM PDT

    •  Better than 4th

      and Clark taking away the "outsider" votes.

      by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:51:26 PM PDT

  •  It's all Kerry

    Let's state the obvious: the big winner today is Kerry.  Clark getting knocked out makes it closer to the 2 man race Dean wants, but it's clear that moral victories are about all that Dean can realistically hope for.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:53:05 PM PDT

    •  Big win for Kerry no doubt.

      But Dean gets his first good news in a while, IF Wes is actually dropping out.

      by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:57:33 PM PDT

      •  And picks up some people too

        I think a lot of the Clark people might also appreciate Dean's outsider status.

        OTOH, they might also appreciate Kerry's "I'm Mr. War Hero" thing, if that's what drew them to Clark.

        I like Clark. No problem with him. I don't have a problem with him being Veep or Sec State.

        by Kimberly Stone on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:05:19 PM PDT

  •  Rivers in Egypt

    Dude, Dean is getting squashed like a bug today.  Every loss makes his future prospects dimmer.

    Ah well.  I'm a Clarkie; made calls to TN last night.  My wife's a Deaniac.  Looks like we'll have our marital harmony back soon enough.

    by Go Vegetarian on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:09:11 PM PDT

•  sad

  I had a lot of problems with him, particularly his campaigning style, but he would have been 20 times better than Kerry or Edwards.

  I had really been starting to pull for him in the last 2 weeks.

  by Burger King on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:37:33 PM PDT

  •  So

    is it common knowledge, or are you McDonald? Or am I just way off base?

    by Marius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:40:25 PM PDT

    •  Wow, I did

      not get that hit off the postings. It may just not have occurred to me.  I'll have to see if I can re read them and get that drift ....

      by Marisacat on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:45:07 PM PDT

      •  Well

        both kerry-haters, both fast food related handles, both make claims to earn a living via comedy.

        by Marius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:47:03 PM PDT

        •  And...

          McDonald is last seen on 1/18, while Burger King is first seen on 1/20...

          Shared proclivity for Hunter S. Thompson...

          And an odd reference to certain realities necesitat[ing] a name change.

          I think you may have your man.

          by Kagro X on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:04:56 PM PDT

          •  Now that I think on it

            I'm pretty sure McDonald was banned. C'est la vie.

            by Marius on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:10:09 PM PDT

            •  Indeed he was.

              On 1/18, in fact.

              by Kagro X on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:19:14 PM PDT

            •  Yup he was in a small purge of

              4 or so...

              by Marisacat on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:11:42 PM PDT

          •  Proclivity

            Should have been demonstrated here.

            by Kagro X on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:14:10 PM PDT

•  No way!

  So, Clark is dropping? Wow.

  Who does he endorse? Dean?

  If this turns out to be true, I would love to see the Clarkies unite with the Deaniacs for the good of the party. I know we've had our battles in the past, but a house divided will fall. A Clark endorsement would be huge for Dean in Wisconsin; the combined supporters of both could win this state.

  That, and I think if Clark gets behind Dean, a Dean nomination victory seals the Vice Presidency for Clark.

  Either way... Clarkies, you're guy is a good guy. It's indeed a sad day when one of the three electable good guys drops out of the race.

  by ABK2004 on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:37:50 PM PDT

  •  Even if...

    The Deanies and Clarkies united in lockstep Dean would be lucky to break 30 in most states. Face it Kerry is the nominee and Edwards is the only SLIM chance of stopping him

    by OldDemocrat on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:41:26 PM PDT

    •  okay

      
      Guess there's no point in voting in these "primaries" anymore.  I'll be sure to alert the Super Tuesday folks to stay home.

      by mr northstar on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:49:28 PM PDT

    •  It's not a two man race yet

      Dean is still beating Edwards in the delegate count, even after today.  What we're seeing is that Edwards is getting the Southern (and Iowa) ABK vote, and Dean is getting the ABK vote everywhere else.

      I suppose Clark's supporters will break three directions - the antiwar Clarkies will go to Dean, the war-hero Clarkies will go to Kerry, and the southern Clarkies will go to Edwards.

      by Captain Obvious on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:55:40 PM PDT

      •  Correct.

        Clark was in many ways the center-of-gravity of the major candidates.  (Though his Families First tax plan was the best of the lot.)  Clark exiting doesn't really help or hurt anyone as far as I can tell.

        All I can say is that the nominee would be very wise to put Wes is his administration, probably as Sec. of State.

        by Go Vegetarian on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:12:59 PM PDT

    •  To OldDemocrat

      No.

      by Tom Bearse on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:44:13 PM PDT

  •  doubt it

    Dean has spent the last month calling Clark a Republican.  Do you really think there's a chance in hell that Clark will endorse him, or that Clarkies will flood into the Dean camp?  I can't imagine any way that happens.  That's part of the reason Dean shouldn't have gone negative on Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark.  Hard to pick up supporters that way.

    I hope Clark sticks around in the Party, though.  He's a smart, honest person with good instincts.  He can still do the Democratic Party a world of good.

    by few on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:58:02 PM PDT

    •  He said it once

      if I recall, leading up to New Hampshire.   After Kerry said it (through Shaheen).   After Edwards said it.  

      by Greuben on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:03:17 PM PDT

      •  more than once

        January 31:

        Criticizing Kerry, Dean told reporters in Tucson: "It turns out we've got more than one Republican in the Democratic race. I've already said I thought (retired Gen.) Wes Clark was a Republican and now apparently John Kerry has the same financing habits."

        by few on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:12:55 PM PDT

        •  Funny thing is...

          Dean now has a Republican running his Direct Mailing campaign. (It was on inside politics, I'll see if I can find a link)

          I guess republicans are alright with him if they work for him.

          Just like voting for NCLB and the Iraq war is alright, as long as you're a senator from IA that is stumping for him....

          Harkin's Iraq Vote

          Harkin's NCLB (ESEA was retitled) Vote

          by abinns on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:10:13 PM PDT

    •  Dean's calling Clark a Republican...

      It never sounded particularly vicious; I heard it along the lines of "Clark's a good guy, but he's a Republican." Not exactly twisting-the-knife-type stuff. I'm a fairly new Democrat, and because of that, I wouldn't dream of running for my county Dems club in the next year or two, much less for a Democratic nomination to an actual governing body. I would then expect some serious questioning (verging on attacks) about R candidates I'd supported in the few years preceding my change.

      by A Texan in Maryland on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:18:33 PM PDT

  •  Clarkies, Deanies, Edwardians UNITE!

    Keep this thing going into March.
    Kerry has to show he has the stuff.
    So far, he is untested.

    by easong on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:00:42 PM PDT

    •  How...

      ...is he untested? The man has been scrutinized for the past 30 years of his life!

      Editorial boards are not the nicest of things to be in front of. So far 11 have thrown their support in for him. Dean has ... well, 0.

      The Boston Globe, and the Boston Herald are two of the most vicious papers when it comes to politics, especiial local politics. They have ripped Kerry's records to shreads, but haven't much to show for it.

      Senate race against Bill Weld in '96? The repubs would have done anything to unseat him then.

      A presidential race with 5 major opponents raising a combined $99+ Million (not including Kerry's of course). The best they can come up with is that he was the #1 senator in taking "special interest" money.

      BUT, do you consider PAC money special interest? I do, I think most people do since that is practically the definition of special interest money! When you actually look at the numbers for special interest money (individual contributions from "lobbyists" or those "tied to lobbyists" and Political Action Committees, Senator John Kerry ranks 92nd of current Senators!!

      That's quite a stark contrast to what has been portrayed in the media. And some of you think the media has an "All Kerry, All the Time" bias..

      by abinns on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:21:13 PM PDT

      •  Here's the best I can come up with about Kerry.

        He's done little other than stand in Kennedy's shadow for 30 years.

        Also:

        Kerry = Bush on
        Iraq war
        NCLB
        Tax cuts for the wealthy
        the USA PATRIOT act.

        The only difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry's changed his mind on all of the above.

        Karl Rove will take him and put the word 'EGGO' on his side. The public will have no appetite for those particular waffles.

        This is why Dean's positions have always made him the better nominee. Those who have bought into this 'electable' myth have abdicated all right to call themselves thinking Americans.

        by Kimberly Stone on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 11:04:01 PM PDT

  •  From today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel poll:

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/feb04/206353.asp

    "Asked if there was a candidate they would not like to see become the nominee, 34% said Dean, 18% said Clark, 7% said Kerry and 6% said Edwards. Among Dean supporters, only 13% said Kerry was someone they would not like to see be the nominee. Among Clark supporters, the figure was 19%, among Edwards supporters, 16%.

    Hostility toward other candidates was much higher in some cases. Among Clark supporters, 47% said they wouldn't want Dean to be the nominee; among Dean supporters, 38% said they wouldn't want Clark to be the nominee."

    And I guarantee you, it ain't just Wisconsin. So, can we put this baseless fantasy to rest? Even if Clark was gracious enough to forgive Dean for being his primary smearer during the campaign ("Republican") and showed uncharacteristic horrible judgement in endorsing Dean, Clark supporters will say, "Thanks, but no thanks" and probably not so politely.

    by paperbag on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:12:42 PM PDT

    •  Not Me

      Who's going to talk about the Iraq War, if at least for a few more weeks?  That would be Dean.

      by Armando on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:17:56 PM PDT

      •  I don't

        see Dean talking about the war anymore either. If anything, Dean's mistake was that he continued to talk about the war and only the war and didn't diversify.

        by paperbag on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:26:10 PM PDT

        •  Rubbish

          Dean has always had sound issues on every front. The "he's only about the war" thing is some junior level goon at CNN doing your thinking for you. His statements and speeches have always had a lot of domestic agenda, and there's substance to what he says, not just soundbites.

          That's why Clark took Dean's domestic policy positions and xeroxed them for his own. God knows Clark has no experience in them.

          by Kimberly Stone on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 11:06:39 PM PDT

    •  Well, You Started It!

      Even if Clark was gracious enough to forgive Dean for being his primary smearer during the campaign ("Republican")

      I don't know what sense it makes at this point, when both Clark and Dean seem at the point of dropping out, but isn't it time we put the snark away about these candidates? Yeah, Dean called Clark a Republican -- unfairly but anyone can see why. He spoke at Repug functions, praising them, etc.; and had only declared himself a Dem just before he announced his candidacy.

      Clark made his crack about while he was "serving our country in Vietnam" (such an honorable war, THAT was!), Dean was off skiing somewhere. Unfair, but anyone can see why. Dean did show up for his physical and was classified 1D. His back trouble was not such that it prevented skiing, although standing for long periods and running were impaired.

      I'm done with grudges. These things are done and said during campaigns. I wanted Dean and will vote for him in our primary. I could have supported Clark, easily. I don't know a single person -- have not heard of anyone -- who's the least bit interested or impressed with Kerry. I think he's least likely to beat Bush. But the sheeple speak,loud and clear, "I'm voting Kerry because everyone else is. He must be a winner!"

      How disillusioning.

      by EB4Dean on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 08:02:46 PM PDT

      •  I agree.

        With a wholly broken heart, I agree.

        Someone needs to get some sheep and put signs on them that say "primary voters" and dress up the shepherd that says "The Media".

        Think that would make the evening news?

        by Kimberly Stone on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 11:08:46 PM PDT

  •  bogus rater

    don't give me bogus 1 ratings, ABK, just because you disagree with opinion.  I mean, if I wanted to invent my own criteria, I wouldn't rate your assessment of Clark's endorsement very highly.  

    by Crab Nebula on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 10:37:18 PM PDT

•  Say it ain't so, Wes.

  I may have had my differences with Gen. Clark, but his voice was critical in helping to tarnish Bush's dominance on foreign policy.  His vocal, patriotic opposition the war in Iraq helped give cover to everyone else to criticize that misadventure.

  I'll miss his perspective in the debate.

  by PaulDem on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:38:30 PM PDT

•  I'm saddened, but not surprised

  Once again the Dem machine crushes the Dem dream.

  By that I mean the political machine interested in retaining its power inexhorably grinds to a pulp the candidates who try to hold the Party true to its platform ideals.

  Only Kennedy's dream--to be President by proxy via his boy Kerry--gets a chance to be realized.

  Prediction: Bush 57%, Kerry 41%, Others 2%

  I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker

  by xysrl on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:39:30 PM PDT

  •  My Prediction

    Kerry 50%, Bush 50%.  Bush wins.  McAuliffe gets his ass deservedly fired.  Then start the Anti~Hillary movement.

    by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:43:30 PM PDT

    •  I pray not...

      Though I will front and center on the anti-Hillary movement.

      by Bob Johnson on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:46:35 PM PDT

      •  The Anti-Hillary's

        need to mobilize asap. : )

        by ModerateLiberalCA on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:53:17 PM PDT

    •  Count me in..

      For the anti-Hillary movement.

      I got to believe if Bush actually wins (doubtful) that Dean (and the coalition he was building inside the Party) will be able to make a big difference in the Democratic Party over the next 4 years if he remains involved.

      by Demise on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:14:45 PM PDT

      •  Dean will go home to his wife and kids

        ...take off a couple of months, then probably run for Gov again, to make sure Vermont doesn't get trashed by 4 more years of Bush.

        I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker

        by xysrl on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:23:12 PM PDT

    •  I think you're close

      I think Kerry does win a narrow one...as would Edwards.  Dean and Clark too if they could keep personal blunders from getting in the way (a big if).  This election will be about Bush and Bush alone.  I think he has polarized and disappointed enough people to get ousted.  In this kind of race, we want a candidate like Kerry--smooth, cautious, and professional.  He will keep the focus on Bush and not do stupid things to distract the public from Bush and his record.

      by Superribbie on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:22:34 PM PDT

    •  What's wrong with Hilary?

      I've seen a lot of anti-Hillary comments on here, but I can't figure out what Democrats would have against her. In my mind, she is the most on-message Liberal we probably have & although she has baggage that at this time makes her non-viable for National Office, she best embodies the kind of politics & message that can get liberals elected nation-wide.

      Explain to me why you hate her so much?
      

      by Insider on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 07:46:51 PM PDT

      •  Hate is the wrong word...

        But seeing her and those in her camp have their power in the Party diminished is certainly a worthwhile goal for a variety of reasons (outlined in a linked post, below).

        I seriously disagree with your statement that Hillary "best embodies the kind of politics & message that can get liberals elected nation-wide."

        I would argue that Hillary is the embodiment of everything that has gone wrong with the Democratic Party.

        I will simply refer you to this diary I posted on January 12th on the subject of the Clintons.
        

        by Bob Johnson on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 09:09:11 PM PDT

  •  Dem machine?

    Actually, which candidate was endorsed by both Gore and Bradley and continues to have the most Super-Delegates?

    It's not the Dem machine, it's voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses that have turned this race around.

    I know, we're all "sheep."

    by John R on Tue Feb 10, 2004 at 06:51:54 PM PDT

  •  Such Pessimism

    Bush will be lucky to break 40% of the popular vote. And that's with Diebold 'adjustme