Daily Kos

Here's why I think Clark is the only Democrat who can beat a Republicans:

by bluecayuga

Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:24:36 AM PDT

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/...

Here's a clip of Wesley Clark (on FOX no less), stating the facts and he does not back down, not even a little bit.  I would like to know anyone who has heard any candidate speak this honestly about this war, democrat or republican.  This is amazing and more people should be checking it out.  (much more below...)

Clark is now my first choice and here's why, I  think the republican strategy is as predictable as a trolley car.  The Republicans are brilliant when it comes to the Democratic primary.  They know exactly who their greatest threat is... and it's usually the Democratic front runner, so that's who they focus on.  They let the democrats find  the candidates greatest weakness, even if false (and they all have weaknesses) and together the Democrats AND Republicans chant this garbage like a mantra.  They flood the news cycles, they hire more Democrats to find more and better dirt and lies.... so for 9 months, the strongest Democrat, the one that has the base up and running, the front runner, will be taken apart, limb from limb, 24/7, until the candidate doesn't know if they're coming or going.  It is brilliant and this is how they eliminate our best candidates (like they did Dean).  They will then go into their convention looking weak and clobber us over the head with 9/11 and every ugly video they can find to scare the living crap out of the American Public.  The Republicans have proven they can take even a man who was a hero in Vietnam and make him look like a sissy.  Hell, they even convinced the public that triple amputee Max Cleland was not patriotic enough.  So, they are again going to beat the public to death with the same old yet effective tool, Democrats are weak on Defense.  

Please watch this video.  It shows why the republicans would be ineffective against Clark.  Listen to him ON FOX NEWS NO LESS, he does not back down!  When the reporter uses what we've become so accustomed to we don't even notice.. the skip right over THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR and HOW WRONG and straight into "Bringing democracy to the middle east is really our goal... and boy was it ever worth the cost, gee we're happy"?  Clark (unapologetically) says "NO, that's not why we went in".  The interviewer continues try to get Clark off his point by bringing up the glory of Democracy... and Clark continues to stands his ground.  It was amazing to watch... someone who knows what he's talking about, someone who's not triangulating or taking polls, someone who really knows what the troops are going through...and what this war is costing them.  

Name me one other Democrat who can stand up to the republicans like that!  Name one other democrat that's not going to follow the MSM interviewer right over the false assertions that got us into this war and into the glory of  spreading Democracy?  Clark even takes his answer one step further and says "Unfortunately we may have allowed Iran to pull of putting a Theocratic government they control under the guise of Democracy."  I'm sorry, this man rocks!!  

Hillary will never get past the republican machine that they effectively beat our candidates with.  See the four stars on Clarks shoulder, they can't get past that?  Those 4 stars are the only power the Democrats have to show the public that we are not only tough on defense, but we're smart on defense  He can show the public why we can not only work for peace but we can work for peace and support the troops.... hell, Clark IS THE TROOPS.  We already know what their tactic is, we've watched them successfully use it, let's get smart this time and beat them at their own game.  And Hillary, Americans will say to your face, "yes, I'll vote for a woman", but unfortunately, put them in a booth with no one watching and there is no way this American public will elect a woman.  Especially one as polarizing as Hillary, besides the base hates her..... she is going for the center when this party desperately needs a leader.  It ain't gonna happen.

Let's get Clark on the head of the ticket matched with somebody who will be a great vice president and future presidential candidate.

(My veep pick would be Obama.... but that's another Diary)..

Tags: Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Democratic National Convention (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 48 comments

  •  I prefer (none / 0)

    an Edwards/Clark pairing, in that order.

    You've got your economics and morality, and you've got your national security.  Plus, they are each far better looking than anyone the Cons could put up.

    That ticket will destroy the GOP.  I'd bet my life on it.

    A Vote For John Edwards Is A Vote For Yourself. Iowa Underground

    by ThunderHawk13 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:25:45 AM PDT

    •  Wrong Order...or Maybe Just Wrong (none / 0)

      Edwards didn't have any defense/security/foreign policy credibility the first time around, and will have less the next time.  To the extent that those issues will still be paramount in 2008, Edwards should be far, far away from anybody's ticket.

      Clark is the man.  He won't settle for second-fiddle.  "I'm not going to be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney," he said.  The same will apply to Edwards.

      I thoroughly agree with bluecayuga's comments.

      Stan Davis
      Lakewood, CO

      If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
      BE THE CHANGE you want to see in the world. [Gandhi}

      by Stan81747 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:33:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hear, hear! (none / 0)

        Thirty four years of military and international leadership (read Clark's biography by Felix for a real eye opener if you don't know too much about Clark's achievements) v. a rich trial attorney and one-term senator makes an Edwards/Clark ticket totally backwards--but there are others I would much rather see as VP besides Edwards: Richardson (I wish he could remember if he was drafted by a major league baseball team--I think I would have remembered, LOL, so that will haunt him), Warner (seems like a good guy), Feingold I like but he has some baggage with those who don't like twice-divorced bachelors and would not draw much from moderates.  OK, don't screm, but I like Clark/Bayh the best.  

        by pkspiegel on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:31:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  o bluecayuga (none / 0)

    wherefore art thou?

    Steven Kyle

    by sck5 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:28:58 AM PDT

  •  I have said it before; (4.00 / 2)

    I will say it again: Wesley Clark is a great idea for a candidate.  He is not a great candidate.

    I am glad he is now articulate and consistent on the war.  He wasn't in 2003-04, and went into his political campaign without the resources and intelligence he needed to win the fight properly.  Oddly enough.

    Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.

    by Adam B on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:31:13 AM PDT

  •  Clark (none / 0)

    I'll take Clark over the mealy-mouthed equivicators like Hillary any day.

    by Aeolus on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:33:01 AM PDT

    •  Except (none / 0)

      Clark is not the anti-Hillary. He is a Clintonite who was tossed into the race through Bill's unsubtle name-dropping as a way to head off Dean. There's a lot to like about Wes Clark, but the idea that he exists in opposition to Hillary is not one of them.

      by MrExcitement on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:41:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's caca (none / 0)

        While the Clinton's may have encouraged Clark to run, he's his own man and makes his own decisions, thank you very much.

        Clark is refreshingly unique and nobody's puppet.

        Stan Davis
        Lakewood, CO

        If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
        BE THE CHANGE you want to see in the world. [Gandhi}

        by Stan81747 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:36:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not Ready for Prime Time (4.00 / 3)

    With all due respect to his impressive background, Wes Clark is not ready for prime time.  His 2004 campaign - if you can call it that - was a disaster, notwithstanding loads of help from various Clinton alumni.

    Also, Clark is not a good speaker, and has little charisma.  In particular, in discussing domestic issues, he borders on being incomprehensible.  Additionally, the fact that he only recently became a Democrat, and didn't even bother to vote for a number of years, raises questions about his credibility.

    Only a very small number of individuals have made their first run for public office a successful run for the Presidency.  The only one that comes to mind is Ike.  And as impressive as Clark is, he's no Ike, who was universally known and loved.  Even among the military, Clark's reputation is mixed at best.  He was known as a political general rather than a great commander like Ike, Marshall, etc.

    We do need a candidate with a strong reputation on defense.  But if that's all you have, that's not enough.

    by raphaelcung on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:33:11 AM PDT

    •  Hmmmm (none / 0)

      I spoke with Gen. Clark and Gert on several occassions, I found his charisma to be amazing, more importantly his presense FILLED a room with an amazing energy.

      He speaks like pretty much what I would say as a 'normal' person, he does not sound canned or like a politician, he deeply thinks about what he is saying and how he is saying it and not in a scripted way.

      His wife Gert is a huge asset, she is a lovely woman who is brilliant and totally committed to the General.

      I liked them in '04 and I am certain I will like him and campaign for him in '08.

      His campaign was a disaster because of the idiots who wanted their 15 minutes of fame and were lousy advisers for the most part.

      The grassroots folks who 'drafted' him and kept the hope alive were and are for the most part some of the most amazing people I've worked with, known and continue to stay in contact with.

      So there is my Clark rant!

      Peace in 2006!

      by Barbara on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:12:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You've met my general? I want your autograph! (none / 0)

        Besides that, thanks for the info, especially about his wife. While he mentions her in his first book, I don't remember that description.

        I think he's the only one who can give us such a lead that the fascists can't possibly steal the election again.

        My teeth aren't white enough for DailyKos, so adios.

        by DrReason on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:27:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  On Clark's Campaign (none / 0)

      Most people don't realize that in the first eight outings in which Clark seriously campaigned (New Hampshire plus the "Super Seven" on February 3), Clark finished ahead of Edwards five times...five out of eight (NH -- 3rd to Edwards's 4th, OK -- 1st, NM/AZ/ND -- 2nd behind Kerry).

      On Februrary 3, Kerry won 5 states, Clark and Edwards each won one, and Clark took three seconds to Edwards's two.

      So who did better?

      The media ingored these simple facts and made Edwards the darling to oppose Kerry.  

      So I submit that Clark's campaign was something much better than a "disaster.'

      Stan Davis
      Lakewood, CO

      If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
      BE THE CHANGE you want to see in the world. [Gandhi}

      by Stan81747 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:41:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no charisma?? (none / 0)

      Not ready for prime time??..etc., etc., I am pinching myself to see if I am really reading this. I have met Clark, and I have been in several rooms, while he spoke to standing room only crowds, from NH...to Washington State..and I have a sense that the people who were present when he spoke would disagree with you.

      I haven't seen one candidate who did any better than Clark..and I mean, none of them. There is NO 100% perfect candidate, no matter how hard the MSM tries to convince you there is, and no matter how hard they try to tell us who to pick.  Think for  yourself, and don't believe everything you read or hear from them.  How about we let 2003/2004 stay in the past where it belongs, and look forward to the future...

      Anyone who thinks war/foreign policy isn't going to be a big part of the next campaign season, is very mistaken..I don't see * backing down from any of his plans, just because we think he should, and it's going to take a special individual to sort the mess out, once he's gone..

      As for economics....doesn't Clark have a Masters in Economics along with a Masters in Political Science...??? Didn't he do a stint teaching Economics at West Point??? I know someone will correct me, if I'm wrong..

      Clark is my candidate..end of story..has been since 2003, and will remain there, until the Dems show me someone better...which, in my opinion, they have NOT done yet...
      windbreeze

      by windbreeze on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:49:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  These two in either order! (none / 0)

    Obama/Clark in '08! -7.88,-5.85

    by LoneStarLefty on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

  •  Name another Democrat who (4.00 / 3)

    can stand up to the GOP like that?? Two words. Russ. Feingold.  Although I do like Clark too.

    by jj32 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:35:22 AM PDT

  •  and who do you think is going to convince the (none / 0)

    republican they're strong on defense and keep the base happy by telling the truth about the war.... Biden??? Hillary???? oh please!

    I never said Clark is a good candidate... he sucked, that doesn't change the fact that he's our best bet in 2008...

    Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

    by bluecayuga on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:38:14 AM PDT

  •  Clark and Edwards (none / 0)

    There's one thing that I think is very very important, and that is the Southern parts. I mean how many times hasnt the south been written off.

    Clark/Edwards in that order wont write off the South.

    There will be NO winning without the Southern parts standing by your side.

    by New Sweden on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:51:40 AM PDT

  •  I liked Clark the last time (none / 0)

    and felt like a voice in the wilderness.  We would have won had he been chosen and agreed to run as VP.  He still lacks the money this time around.  As to his not being a great speaker, well G.W. Bush comes to mind.  All things considered he might be best at the 2 spot this time around also.  Unfortunately the best person rarely makes the best candidate and the best candidate rarely wins.

    "People seem to enjoy things more when they know a lot of other people have been left out of the pleasure." - Russell Baker

    by melvonator on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:56:31 AM PDT

  •  Liked him then, like him now. (none / 0)

    Wesley Clark received my first campaign contribution in 2004. He was the first contender on the D side to appeal to my spouse, a diehard independent who despises Bush but has no great love for most Democrats. We were both disappointed that the nominee was decided long before we ever got to vote in NC. Screwed up primary system!

    As for Edwards, I was proud to have him as my Senator. I think choosing to abandon his seat and run for president was a bad decision for both him and the people of NC, who are now stuck with that gun-loving idiot Burr.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

    by merrinc on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:00:38 AM PDT

  •  I liked clark after Iowa (none / 1)

    I knew if Dean couldn't win Iowa, it was over.  Again, a great example of how Dems & Republicans can work together to ruin someone.  I guess I hope Clark stays in the background until late in the race... it's going to be brutal at the top.

    Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

    by bluecayuga on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:01:06 AM PDT

  •  I'm begging here. (4.00 / 3)

    Please concentrate on the midterms and wait until the day after to start thinking about who should run. If we don't have a good to great showing in them it will matter a lot less who runs because the shit that will be pushed through in those two years will take decades to fix.

    There are 3 years before the next pres election. Less than a year for the mid terms. Keep your eye on the ball.

    by Mike S on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:18:26 AM PDT

    •  And it's too early to wage war in our own house (none / 1)

      Too early to sow conflict among hard-working Democratic activist factions by slagging each other's favorite. (This means you, Adam B.)

      Too early to reprise the same tired lies and irrelevant objections.

      Too early to pick must-win and write-off states. (Electoral College Math Is For Losers.)

      Too early topick fantasy tickets.

      And too early for anybody here to swear "the only one I'll support" is X, Y or Z.

      The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

      by RonK Seattle on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:59:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  pres/VP (none / 1)

    If Wes Clark agrees to be anyone's Dick Cheney, I'll eat my underwear, and I'll have to figure something else out if he should agree to be Edwards' running mate; that's assuming Edwards could get the nomination after losing in 2004 and not holding any national office in the years preceding the 2008 election.  Edwards is more of an also-ran at this point than Clark.  Best thing General Clark could've done for his political career was not be Kerry's running mate.

    Now don't get me wrong.  John Edwards' time may yet come, as he's so young.  I'm just saying his time isn't 2008.

    If Clark runs again in '08, and I believe he will, we'll see a very, very different Clark campaign than we did in '04.  Wes had to rely too much on people who were most interested in advancing their own careers.  He's a quick study, and I expect after four years to watch and learn, he'll definitely be doing a lot of things differently.

    by kscatlvr2001 on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:21:48 AM PDT

  •  I agree with the idea (none / 0)

    that Edwards would have made a better choice by staying in the Senate.  We would not have lost a seat and we might have gotten a candidate that could have possibly delivered his state.  John was not needed to guarantee contributions as everyone was going to give whatever they could to defeat W.

    "People seem to enjoy things more when they know a lot of other people have been left out of the pleasure." - Russell Baker

    by melvonator on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:26:30 AM PDT

  •  I would only campaign for Clark (none / 0)

    Only Wesley Clark can give us such a wide lead that the fascists can't possibly win the election. You want to save this republic? Forget EVERYBODY else.

    Here's why: he satisfies our intellects and their guts.

    It's very sad but elections are not rational matter. I don't believe Bush won legitimately either time, but enough people voted for him. If you read the transcript of his Ipod interview, it makes you ashamed for this country. A complete fool.

    Wesley Clark is winning over the swayables by going behind enemy lines. Many of us know him, but more and more of them know him. Security? Check. Tough guy, will go to war if need be, won't let anybody step on him or us like McCain did and would? Check.

    I like many of his policies, and you cannot argue about his intellect and rationality. Even if he's equivocated about Iraq, it wasn't his damn fault and you can be sure he would have done a much better job. He has serious, serious credibility abroad and would instantly repair ties with our allies, because they respect him and because he wouldn't take them for granted.

    For them:

    • NATO Supreme Allied Commander (nobody else has that kind of cachet)

    • first in his class at Westpoint (that's millions of votes right there)

    • went to combat, unlike somebody else

    • family guy with an impeccable morality

    Wes Jr. has posted about their campaign the last time, and I have no doubt that he has learned his lesson. I'd campaign for him and only him. I'd even trek up to New Hampshire. He'll get my first contribution next year.

    My teeth aren't white enough for DailyKos, so adios.

    by DrReason on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:36:34 AM PDT

    •  Just look at the resume (none / 0)

      so we really deserve a candidate with all of those virtues?

      "People seem to enjoy things more when they know a lot of other people have been left out of the pleasure." - Russell Baker

      by melvonator on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:44:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We don't deserve him... (none / 0)

        We need him, desperately!

        "People seem to enjoy things more when they know a lot of other people have been left out of the pleasure." - Russell Baker

        Hm, we should make them think Clark is theirs...

        My teeth aren't white enough for DailyKos, so adios.

        by DrReason on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:26:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, I agree, I agree.. and I think we should (none / 1)

      start working for him TODAY.  I swore I would never work for anyone again (worked my ass off for Dean, after Iowa worked my ass off for Clark, after primary (held my nose) and worked my ass off for Kerry.  

      This is so obvious people.  We do not have anyone even close to what he would give the ticket.. it's bullet proof.  

      Hillary will be the one to dig deep and pull some thing out of his past, or something out of her ass to ruin his chances... we should start getting ready for that right now.

      The republicans are going to nominate McCain... most moderates still think he's the "straight talk express"... it would be better named this year as "the How Many Times Can I kiss The Ass of George W. Bush Express".  He's sold his soul for the power he knows he has a possibility of winning.

      I want to laugh when I hear him saying what a great job Bush has won... anyone with a brain in their head knows he's lying!!

      Clark could mop the floor with any of the Republican front runners... and twice with the Dems.

      Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

      by bluecayuga on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:35:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm there (none / 0)

        "Bullet proof", that is catchy, but watch some wingnut try it out.

        I agree. I'm tied up through March with my thesis, but after that, that's my goal. I don't think I could dabble, because this would take up all my time outside of work. Is there an underground Clark network? In Boston, preferably? :O)

        My teeth aren't white enough for DailyKos, so adios.

        by DrReason on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:06:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clark's the only thing that keeps me from changing (none / 0)

      my registration from Democrat to Independent at this point.  They have muddled up things so much, have so many voices, it's pathetic.

      Clark is the one who is honing his skills at FAUX...he's really figured out how to deal with them and sometimes you can see him holding back laughter, as he did with Asman on 12/28.

      No charisma?  He seemed to bring down the house at the Dem Convention, if I recall. He's fantastic in town hall settings, and I've also seen him at indoor and outdoor rallies here in NM.  He did fine  then and will do even better now.

      Clark is being ignored by pundits and most of the party because they don't want to hear what he has to say--it's right on the money and if the general public got wind of it, it would make Bush and Dem lackeys look like the fools they are.  The insider Democrats certainly don't want him to mess up their little game.  They are so full of ego and bull that they look ridiculous.  Clark is crisp and has learned to cut to the meat of his message...he is awesome.

      He's the only one I will work for.  I worked for him in 2004, then tried to help with Kerry. But I've learned a lot since then about the party in general...frankly, if they are so stupid to pick a candidate without national security experience, I will have to write them all off. He has been one step ahead of all of them on Iraq.  Clark is working for Dems in 2006 and I'm sure he'll have to see what happens after that and how the party evolves. I wouldn't blame him if he chose NOT to run if they keep screwing around in DC.

      by GloriaNews on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 03:48:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Name me one other Democrat who can stand up.... (none / 0)

    Russ Feingold.

    Yeah, that's it.  Clark/Feingold is my dream ticket now (though I wouldn't complain about Feingold/Clark).

    Hillary is a decent Senator from New York (better than D'Amato, anyway!), but would be a very poor Presidential candidate.  Edwards is "damaged goods", though he's a great speaker in person.

    -5.63, -8.10 | Impeach, Convict, Remove & Bar from Office, Arrest, Indict, Convict, Imprison!

    by neroden on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:46:18 AM PDT

    •  I agree completely. (none / 0)

      What is of utmost importance is that a Democrat win in 2008.  Period.

      Clark has the ability to sway the "Democrats-are-soft-on-security" Republicans and get them to vote for a Democrat.

      Looking at it in a 12 year cycle, if we get a Clark/Feingold administration for 2 terms, then in 2016 we can have a Feingold/Edwards ticket to carry on with the serious work of repairing the damage that the Republican congress did starting in 1994 and the Bush Administration began in 2000.  Seriously, its going to take decades to make things right again in this country, and all the while dismantling the machinery in this country that allowed a one-party rule to EVER exist.

      I think Hillary, needs to focus on being a Senator and continue doing good things for New York for a long time.  One term as a Senator is not enough.  And as much as I like John Edwards, same goes for him.  He hasnt earned the privilege of the Democratic nomination.  He needs to buckle down and focus on repairing our image in the South.  Last time I looked both Carolinas were red states.  So while an excellent Senator, and human being, he needs to put in the time.

      So:
      2008  Clark/Feingold
      2012  Clark/Feingold
      2016  Feingold/Edwards
      2020  Feingold/Edwards

      We are fortunate that both Feingold and Edwards are so young and committed to this country, which is why its so important to WIN in 2008.  I respect Wesley Clark immensely, and we need him to ensure our return to power.  Once that is achieved the real work can begin.

      "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello (-7.88,-5.79)

      by Calisher on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:21:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates (none / 0)

    The 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates will be
    1)Hillary Clinton(NY)
    2)John Kerry(MA)
    3)John Edwards(NC)
    4)Joe Biden (DE)
    5)Wesley Clark(AR)
    6)Bill Richardson(NM)
    7)Evan Bayh(IN)
    8)Mark Warner(VA)
    9)Russell Fiengold(WI)

    Out those 9 likely Democratic Candidates for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Bill Richardson will be the 2008 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee- A Hispanic Male from New Mexico, a Battleground State in the SouthWestern Region. Current Governor of New Mexico and Former Member of the US Congress. Served as UN Ambassador and US Energy Secretary under former President Bill Clinton.

    Out of the 8 remaining candidates
    1)Hillary Clinton(NY)
    2)John Kerry(MA)
    3)John Edwards(NC)
    4)Joe Biden(DE)
    5)Wesley Clark(AR)
    6)Evan Bayh(IN)
    7)Mark Warner(VA)
    8)Russell Feingold(WI)

    John Kerry(MA)and John Edwards(NC)are both weak November General Election candidates. They lost in November 2004 when they were on the 2004 Democratic presidential Ticket.

    That leaves us 6 Candidates for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination
    1)Hillary Clinton(NY)
    2)Joe Biden(DE)
    3)Wesley Clark(AR)
    4)Evan Bayh(IN)
    5)Mark Warner(VA)
    6)Russell Fiengold(WI)

    Out of the 6 Remaining Candidates for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination,- Wesley Clark is the weakest link.
    1)Hillary Clinton(NY)is the front runner- is the candidate that has close ties to Bill Clinton and popular with liberal interest groups.
    2)Joe Biden(DE)is the foreign policy/national security credentials candidate.
    3)Mark Warner(VA)is the southern candidate
    4)Russell Fiengold (WI)will be the progressive favorite Candidate.
    5)Wild Card- Evan Bayh(IN)-a centrist moderate Former Two Term Governor and Current Two Term US Senator of a solid Republican State in the MidWest Region.

    The 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination Race will be between Hillary and the Anti Hillary.
    1)Russell Fiengold(WI)will be the progressive-liberal Anti-Hillary Candidate.
    2)Joe Biden(DE),Mark Warner(VA),and Evan Bayh(IN)will be the centrist-moderate Anti-Hillary Candidates.
     Evan Bayh(IN)will be favored as the centrist moderate-Anti Hillary Candidate. Bayh as Gubenatorial Experience. and has foriegn policy and national security experience. Warner has gubenatorial experience but lacks foriegn policy and national security experience.

    The 3 remaining candidates for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination will be
    1)Hillary Clinton(NY)
    2)Evan Bayh(IN)
    3)Russell Fiengold(WI)

    Hillary Clinton(NY)and Russell Fiengold(WI)will split progessive liberal vote while most of the centrist moderate vote will go to Evan Bayh(IN).

    Evan Bayh(IN)will be the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee

    A former two term Governor and current two term US Senator of Indiana- solid Republican State in the Midwest Region. Member of the Senate Armed Services,Foriegn Relations,and Intelligence Commitee. A Progressive Liberal on Social Issues- Pro Choice on Abortion Rights, Pro Gun Control, Support Strong Environmental Laws.- voted againsts ANWR drilling and voted against the Roberts nomination will definetly vote against Alito. A Centrist Moderate on Economic and Foriegn Policy issues.

    by quasimoto on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:09:28 AM PDT

    •  Oh god, save us from the mediocrity... this will (none / 0)

      never happen.

      and we've got to work on Hillary NOW.  The base hates her, and the rest of the party is still dealing with the fantfantasy that some how continuing to support this sink hole in Iraq is going to make them "strong on defense" any moron knows this war was an enormous mistake and to say, knowing what you know now you would still say yes, is beyond stupid.  Hillary is at the top of the list because of name recognition and that's all.  She won the senate seat because of democrats like me who gave house parties, volunteered hours upon hours of time getting out the vote & canvassing... and she's completely lost my support.  I have never been more disappointed in any elected official as I have been by Hillary.

      If the elected Democrats don't realize just how profoundly unpopular this war is, then we don't have a prayer.  We need a candidate as honest as  Howard Dean but with a strong record on defense.

      No one has the history of being the STRONGEST on defense (count them, 4 stars) and WAS AGAINST THE WAR.  It's a no brainer!!!!!

      Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

      by bluecayuga on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:48:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Give me a leader -- Give me Wes Clark (none / 0)

    For those who think just being elected to office qualifies someone to govern, I'll hold up the example of the current dufus in the WH.

    Didn't have a clue about foreign policy or international diplomacy when he was elected (and didn't expect to ever have to know anything about it). Assumed he could crib his foreign policy from his VP. BUT, he got elected twice in Texas as governor and carried the right-wing's message eloquently.

    Now that this guy's been in office for 6 years, he's managed to mangle foreign policy, get us involved in an 'unwinnable' war, revoke or threaten many of our civil liberties, dumb-down the leadership of many vital governmental agencies, sold out the environment, education and healthcare to the highest bidder... and on and on.

    I'm more interested in finding a leader with principles than looking for another marketed-to-death candidate for President.

    Give me the smartest, most qualified guy in the room. Don't give me another candidate that barely makes the grade.

    In 08, that guy is Wes Clark.

    by kathygo on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:19:01 AM PDT

  •  Wes a Quick learner? (none / 0)

    One of Wes' qualities that was thrown around was that, aside from being wildly intelligent, he was a quick learner. If that's true, given his mediocre performance as a candidate in 04, he may be able to come out as a much stronger candidate next go-round. Let's hope so, God knows we need him.

    StopIranWar.com

    by souldrift on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

Permalink | 48 comments