March/April dKos Straw Poll

This is the second dKos 2008 straw poll of the year.

Vote for your preferred potential presidential candidate. I'm only including candidates who have expressed interest in running, have a campaign apparatus working on their behalf, or a leadership PAC like everyone else on the list). New to this poll is Tom Daschle, who has started to talk about a 2008 bid.  

Bayh
Biden
Clark
H. Clinton
Daschle
Edwards
Feingold
Kerry
Richardson
Vilsack
Warner
Other
No Frickin' Clue

As to the inevitable "where's Gore" crowd, you know the deal -- when Gore announces he's interested in 2008, I'll race MyDD to be the first to do a new straw poll with his name on the list. Until then, he's a fantasy candidate and I'm not including fantasy candidates on this list.

Previous results.

Update: Hot off the presses, TAP has a cover story on Gore. Haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.

•  Feingold....

  .... all the way!

  by crazymoloch on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:27:33 PM PDT

  •  dated Clark, married Feingold

    I love Wes, and would love him as President.  But, yeah, I have to agree with you.  Right now, I have to go with Russ.

    The man is, unlike so many people, leading.

    by danielua on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:33:32 PM PDT

    •  Hey... there's always the chance for a Clark VP

      Not a bad idea, that, actually. Feingold at the top from the North/Midwest with westerner Clark at the bottom...

      It departs from the "you MUST pick a southerner to win" meme, sure, but these days southerners we pick can't win their own states anyway. So, what good is that?

      I say we try to isolate the South (and I say that as a southerner) by picking a northerner and a westerner. ie, attempt to redraw the 1964 presidential map in which only very conservative states went against Johnson in favor of Goldwater. That's what we need to get back to.  

      by My Philosophy on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:37:26 PM PDT

      •  true

        I very much like the ring of a Clark/Feingold or Feingold/Clark ticket.

        by danielua on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:39:25 PM PDT

        •  For me the whole equation

          changes once Gore announces. And I have no doubt that he will announce.

          So what should it be?

          Gore/Feingold?
          Feingold/Gore?

          Gore/CLark?
          Clark/Gore?

          Clark/ Feingold?
          Feingold/Clark?

          by free speech zone on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:46:31 PM PDT

          •  I can't imagine...

            ... that Al Gore would even consider another Veep job, although a Feingold/Gore ticket would be hot hot hot.

            As far as the other way around, I can't help but think that Feingold would be wasted as Vice Prez.  If Al did make a run, and did get the nomination, then I think I'd want Russ as Senate Majority Leader.

            by Mehitabel9 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:50:15 PM PDT

            •  Curious then...

              Let's just say Gore got the nomination. Whos the best Vp we can put on his side?

              I would go with Clark.

              by free speech zone on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:51:45 PM PDT

              •  Or Edwards, I guess.

                by Mehitabel9 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:01:40 PM PDT

                •  Barbara Lee speaks for me

                  our goal needs to be a mass resignation of republicans followed by a vote for speaker of the house who will become the next president.

                  Barbara Lee is the only one i trust to do the right thing. only she voted against the terror war.

                  war is not the answer. war is the problem.

                  the usa commits the most terror.

                  by Peter Pan on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:08:19 PM PDT

                  •  By terror war do you mean...

                    the 'use of force' in Iraq?  If so 126 other Dems 6 republicans and 1 independent also voted no in the house.  In the Senate 22 Democrats and 1 independent voted no.

                    I do like Barbara Lee though.  

                    by strengthof10kmen on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:42:19 PM PDT

                •  Best VP for Gore

                  I would say Bill Richardson.  Knows him from the Clinton administration, former congressman, former UN ambassador, and former energy sec.  Hugely popular governor of western state.  Plus the kicker.....he's hispanic, which would help bring the newest swing vote in the country into the base of our party.

                  by DemBrock on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:38:13 PM PDT

                  •  I am for Richardson

                    at the top or bottom of the ticket.

                    As a aformer secretary of energy, he will be qualified to deal with a MAJOR problem facing us after eight years of disgusting policies.

                    Viva Richardson!

                    by nicejoest on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:29:29 PM PDT

              •  I would trust Gore

                to decide who the best VP would be.  I know, I know leiberman>  but contrary to popular thought I think Joe was a good choice in 2000. Who knew what would happen later.

                by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:40:54 PM PDT

              •  Gore/Clark

                would be a great ticket.

                by chancy gardner on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:25:19 PM PDT

                •  Leslie Gore / Petula Clark

                  Sounds swingin, baby.

                  by HillaryIsMyHomegirl on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:53:46 AM PDT

            •  Gore

              I saw him on TV speaking at some fundraiser (yeah, I watch C-Span) and he didn't look so hot. He's put on a lot of weight! Not sure what all he is up to these days but if he does announce I am sure he will be mocked for it - it is very noticeable.

              by Jett on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:08:07 PM PDT

              •  maybe gore should ride a bike

                instead of flying and driving everywhere.

                i saw him at berkeley and he mentioned he drove there.

                it is easy to take mass transit to uc berkeley, but al didnt do it b4 a GREAT talk on global warming.

                cant wait to see the movie.

                wealthy humans are so lazy.

                by Peter Pan on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:12:15 PM PDT

                •  mass transit from Nashville to UC berkeley

                  really?  Well I suppose if he had twenty days to spare sitting his butt on a train.....

                  by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:25:53 PM PDT

                  •  amtrak is great fun

                    it is and you can work on the train

                    it should also be free

                    as should subways and bus lines

                    people need to give up cars and planes now

                    by Peter Pan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 03:11:22 AM PDT

              •  By 'didnt look so hot'

                You surely are speaking appearance. (Cheney cough cough)

                Because his speaches... the content, is VERY HOT. The man is on fire at the podium these days.

                If we based our votes on looks I can think of very few presidents that would have ever been elected.

                by free speech zone on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:12:44 PM PDT

              •  Fat People

                Does that mean that fat people shouldn't hold elective office?  Barbara Jordan?  Teddy Kennedy?  

                by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:30:19 PM PDT

                •  no

                  it means he has put on a lot of weight and if he announces then I'm sure it will be one of the first attacks against him. that is all I said.

                  by Jett on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 05:34:07 PM PDT

              •  I agree...

                compare him today to when he was VP in early 90s.  He used to be thin, with a politically sensible part on one side of his head.  Now he's gained about 50lbs and slicks his hair back.  

                by DemBrock on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:40:27 PM PDT

              •  He's a weight lifter

                most of that is not fat, skippy.  
                thanks for the obligatory stupid comment about weight though.  Most of the country is overweight and I don't think mocking someone for their weight would be very smart politically.

                by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:23:56 PM PDT

                •  stupid comment?

                  what about my comment was stupid? that I pointed out that he has gained weight? that I suggested that the right would use it to mock him?

                  as you say, it may not all be fat as you say, but regardless he does appear heavier - his entire face looks significantly different.

                  by Jett on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 05:35:59 PM PDT

          •  Once Gore announces?

            From your keyboard to God's ears....

            by suzq on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

          •  Gore is great!!

            I'd like to see Gore run again I think he learned what he did wrong the 1st time around and would be great as Pres. now. The 8 yrs of mis-rule by Bu$h would make Al look like a hero. He's fare well against the likes of a McCain as well.

            by Blutodog on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:07:26 PM PDT

            •  Yes - Gore - 08

              I agree that Gore appears to have figured out what not to do (e.g. listen to consultants who tell you not to speak your mind).

              He is great these days.  I also think he has the best chance of winning.  Swing voters will look back to 2000 and think, "gee, I should have voted for him back then."  Meanwhile, the base, which is who Al's been talking to for the past four years, knows the leaner, meaner Gore ("leaner" figuratively).  

              If he does plan to drop in on the 08 run - which I believe he will (because I think he feels he owes it to America after letting Bush steal '00) - he will drop the pounds as well.  He's got 10 months.

              by hootch on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:00:06 PM PDT

              •  I hope so

                Nobody else on the Demo side has his gravitas. With all we now know about what in fact did happen in fall 2000 it would give him a big edge. The man was elected and the country was essentially stuck with the loser by the losers cronies and political partisans on the SCOTUS.

                by Blutodog on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:04:16 PM PDT

              •  read this

                But not impossible. Long-standing associates of Gore’s say his appetite for a second campaign seems to depend, at least partially, on whether he judges it an issue-based endeavor that allows him to continue speaking out on matters of substance or just another round of dodging media-narratives and churlish characterizations. If Gore’s experiments in disintermediation pan out, the 2008 campaign may prove a very different undertaking from 2000’s.

                The fund raising will be easier. So will the communication. Rather than speaking through the press, Gore would be able to blast out speeches on e-mail, post videos on the Internet, release statements on a blog, use online organizing tools to empower the grassroots. The question is whether those distribution channels will have matured to the point that they could serve as primary communication methods for a successful presidential campaign. Because, as Reed Hundt warns, “if you’re using the new medium to get across a new message, but you believe that really the new medium is just a way to get back into the old medium, you’re doomed.”

                http://www.prospect.org/...

                by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:21:03 PM PDT

          •  I don't believe that Gore will announce

            He had Jimmy Carter beg and plead with him to run in 2004, and he refused.

            by slouise217 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:07:26 PM PDT

            •  that is not what happened

              Gore was told by the DLC that they would not support him and that he should not run.  He was told by multiple members in office that they were supporting someone else and that any race that he made would be a replay of 2000 in the media.  

              by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:34:14 PM PDT

          •  gore / feingold

            by timeflier on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:09:01 PM PDT

            •  Feingold would preside over the Senate

              Oh, I head wingnut heads popping all over America

              by ogre on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

          •  Gore

            by ljb on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:22:11 PM PDT

          •  I've said this before and I'll say it again

            Feingold would be wasted in the VP job.  He gets the top job or he should stay in the Senate.

            by Geotpf on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:23:28 PM PDT

          •  Why Rehash Gore

            I don't understand why people want Gore to run again.  I respect the man and appreciate his advocacy for the environment but he had his chance, couldn't carry his home state and lost to a bumbling idiot.  The American people do not want to be reminded of the chaos of 2000.  They want to see fresh faces, like Warner, Clark, Vilsak, Richardson, etc.  Please, no rehashes or Senators.  This means no to Kerry, Hillary, Gore and Feingold.  Let's get someone new in there.

            by JTA on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:53 PM PDT

            •  The chaos of 2000 was

              caused by Bush stealing Florida, with help fronm Jeb and Cruella Harris.

              by chancy gardner on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:29:01 PM PDT

              •  I Know That

                but it doesn't make Gore any more electable.  He's old news.  The American people have had enough of him.  The Democrats need to break with the past and nominate a new face, like Warner, Richardson, Clark, etc.

                by JTA on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 09:52:42 PM PDT

                •  You make a good point and

                  it probably holds true. A new face is probaly better as long as the "new Face" is not Hillary Clinton. IMO she is unelectable for president.

                  by chancy gardner on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 01:46:04 PM PDT

                  •  No Hillary

                    I agree that Hillary is unelectable as president.  She certainly is not a new face, unless you consider her recent plastic surgery :)

                    by JTA on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:52:27 PM PDT

            •  It only matters if they let people vote.

              In 2000, voter-suppression tactics in Tennessee hurt Gore a lot.  They held on to motor-voter registrations so that none of those people could vote when they got to the polls.  They also used the same voter-purges they did in Florida - which is particularly interesting since convicted felons are not prohibted from voting in TN.

              God only knows whether they counted the ballots.

              But Bush didn't win his home state, either - Connecticut.

              by Avedon on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:55:03 PM PDT

              •  Enough Complaining

                about voter suppression.  Clinton never had a problem with voter suppression because he kicked the republican nominee's ass.  The Democrats can't keep nominating these weak candidates that “almost win” but can't win in a single state in the south and west.  That's why Gore, Hillary, Kerry and Feingold are dead on arrival.  I like them but none of them can take Missouri, Florida, Nevada, Arkansas, Louisiana or Ohio.  They'll be fighting to hang on to Michigan, Washington and Minnesota.  Aren't you sick of that shit?  If so, you'll start supporting a moderate governor from a moderate state who can run against D.C., like Warner, Richardson or Vilsak.

                by JTA on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:02:24 PM PDT

          •  We just can't fall for thinking Senators again

             Oh God, we have to start looking at the reality.

              The Dubai (UAE) port thing showed us, in spades, that what stirs up the American people, the American voters and causes them (us) to turn out and vote, one way or the other,by voting in an election for a person, or pressing and threatening those already elected and those up for re-election,   is: ta-da: SECURITY.

             That huge contact to Washington leaders was such an unexpected and startling reality that elected officials are scrambling everywhere. It shocked and nearly bowle-over everyone.   Everyone in office,from both parties,those running now,  and the media too.

             We just can't ignore that.
            The American people, the voters, showed us all what's going to be the important thing in the 2008 Presidential Election.

             We got a second clue to that reality this week too:
            President George Bush made a point, an emphasized point, and looked downright gleeful when he said in his speech that the resolution of the Iraq war would be for after 2008. For the person who follows him.

             His glee meant, as I translated it, that he knew that that that would be the issue in the 2008 presidential election and, of course, security and winning wars is, in the American voters minds, something that they think of as Republicans being best at.
            Something that Republicans win out on every time.

              So, it needs to be whoever the majority of the voters will think of as being as good as or better at than Republicans on security and handling war, the military.

             So, for that reason, and many others (e.g. honor, integrity, comes across as a leader, an executive, not as a legislator, is strongly for and experienced in education and healthcare programs, it's General Wes Clark.

             I think it's foolish to pick a VP candidate ahead of the actual selection of the Presidential Candidate, because that never works.

             By the very nature of the office, the VP candidate has to be a person that the Candidate himself, chooses because he or she is the person that has to deeply trust that the VP won't have him or her assassinated.

             That's the bottom line as to why the VP candidate has for so very many years been chosen by the Presidential Candidate.

             Too, it's because the VP candidate has to be someone that the Presidential Candidate can get along with really well, keep secrets with, campaign with, travel with and talk a million hours with, etc.

             The American voters know who the best Vice-President candidate would be though. Who IS a Vice-President in the American mind:
            the best Vice-President ever, Vice-President Al Gore, of course.

             So, for the reasons above, and more --- because these are fine and honorable and smart and dedicated and knowledgeable people.

             I choose General Wes Clark, President

             And his choice of Vice-President.  With my encouragement to him to give a special consideration to Al Gore, Vice-President.

            Nightsky

             
             

             

            by Nightsky on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:46:36 PM PDT

      •  re: clark

        that doesn't make any sense given that clark is from arkansas.

        by darwinsjoke on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:42:32 PM PDT

        •  oh, my bad...

          for some reason I thought he was from Arizona. shrug  

          by My Philosophy on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:44:08 PM PDT

          •  You weren't mixing him up with McCain, were you?

            (eeeeuw!)

            by ogre on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:53:16 PM PDT

      •  Ummm....

        But Clark is from Arkansas.  Maybe in some parts of the South that seems like the West, but I think most people see Arkansas as southern, not western.  

        In any case, I like your suggestion of a Feingold-Clark ticket, or any combination involving those two, Edwards or Warner (or Obama or Gore, who weren't listed).

        by DemInLux on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:42:45 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for observing that.

          I was wondering if I'd just gone mad.

          Arkansas?  West?  Um.   Arkansas is well east of, say, Nebraska, which has never seemed like "the West" to me.  And I've lived in Nebraska, so....

          by ogre on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:52:34 PM PDT

      •  Yeah definitely

        I think Clark would make a better VP than P.  He's a very sharp guy but he doesn't have the polish that Feingold and others have.  Granted, I say that from the perspective of having seen him last election and he may have improved in the meantime.

        I know this is superficial and meaningless, but I still remember when he went on the Daily Show and sat down with his jacket buttoned.  He looked just awful.  Now, in the military, I gather you keep the jacket buttoned, but in a regular suit it looks awful.  It's a minor detail, but in an election, minor details kill you.

        by sterno on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:56:31 PM PDT

        •  I didn't notice the jacket

          but he wasn't very good on the Daily Show. He has definitely improved a lot since then.

          I loved the guy then, I love him now.

          by LAS on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:04:45 PM PDT

        •  Agreed

          Clark is excellent VP or Defense Sect. material. He's a brillant man and a great leader just not a polished experienced pol.

          by Blutodog on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:08:59 PM PDT

        •  I noticed the jacket

          I always notice the jacket thing. But more important is his refusal to talk about withdrawal from Iraq.  He's smart and I like to have him around as Secretary of State, but he doesn't light up a room.

          by MontanaMaven on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:15:04 PM PDT

          •  He can light up a room

            Clark is a much more consistently powerful speaker now than he used to be. In his prior career he was trained not to project strong opinions, it went against the grain of preserving civilian control over the military for a military leader to appeal to public emotions.  Clark had to unlearn that part to a degree.

            Did you see Clark's speech to the Democratic National Convention?  It brought down the house.  Here is a link to Clark's Real State of the Union Adress.  It is a good recent example of his oratory skills on a full range of issues:
            http://securingamerica.com/...

            And of course Clark doesn't refuse to talk about withdrawal from Iraq, he explains why he thinks it would be a mistake to announce a timeline for withdrawals.  I don't mean to split hairs with words, but Clark isn't ducking anything which is what "avoids" sort of implies.  Clark has taken a clear position which he is always willing to explain, even if it is not a popular one.

            by Tom Rinaldo on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:45:32 PM PDT

            •  'This soldier'

              Yes-- Clark's "This soldier..." speech at the convention was a thrilling barnburner.  (Biden actually had a good speech, too.)  It made me so angry that Wolf and Tweety and all the other punditocracy talked over everything at the convention except the last two speeches.  Thank God for C-Span.  The media is our enemy.

              I also remember thinking, after hearing McCain at his convention, that Clark's speech completely blew McCain's away.  He'd come a long way since "Mary, help!"  

              by For Dean in Dixie on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 08:36:05 PM PDT

      •  Westerner?

        by ogre on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:47:49 PM PDT

      •  Westerner?

        I thought Clark was from Arkansas?

        by libertarian soldier on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 08:45:30 PM PDT

    •  Still dating Clark, but flirting with Russ.

      by MariaSquared on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:41:21 PM PDT

      •  I understand re: clark

        He was my top pick for VP in '04. I've always thought that it'd be good to have a general on the ticket since we are currently supposed to be waging a war on terra. Anyway, I thought that he would have been the wiser choice over Edwards for just that reason.  

        Anyway, Clark is my #2 after Feingold.

        Still, I personally prefer that progressives unite and not split their votes this time around. Last time, we split btw Dean, Clark, Kucinich, and maybe even Al Sharpton. I would prefer that this time we find a concensus and unite behind it early. The sooner we do, the sooner we'll get organized and the further any campaign donations (whether time or money) will go. It will take unity and determination if we are going to defeat the "establishment" candidate that the insiders have already picked for us (Hillary at this point, presumably). So, I'm backing Feingold over Clark. I know more about Clark, sure, but Feingold has just been what Darth Vader would call "impressive...most impressive."

        by My Philosophy on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:19:37 PM PDT

        •  You get a recommend

          just for the Darth Vader line.

          by josemonkey on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:41:34 PM PDT

      •  Soft spot for Russ but committed to Wes

        I have nothing but praise for Feingold, and I say the same for Clark.  Each man stands for what they believe in.  Below someone brought up Clark's opposition to flag burning as an issue. I respectfully disagreed with Clark on that.  But Feingold was the only Senate Democrat who sided with the Republicans on one key vote related to the Clinton Impeachment trial, and I respectfully disagreed with him then on that as well:

        "Feingold voted against a motion to dismiss the trial and voted in favor of a motion to allow the deposition of three witnesses.

        The 45-year-old Wisconsin Democrat was the only senator to break party solidarity, putting him in the company of the Senate's 55 Republicans while the other 44 Democrats voted the other way."
        http://edition.cnn.com/...

        The point is each man has courage and conviction and will take the stand they believe in regardless of which way the wind is blowing, and they are each willing to explain their positions without resorting to cover ups and lies.  So why am I sold on Wes Clark?  I think he is the right man to become our next President, and I think he is the Democrat most likely to win election to become our next President.  

        Iraq to me is a good example of a profile in courage.  Both Feingold and Clark opposed that war.  Neither Feingold nor Clark has proposed an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  Neither has signed on to Murtha's plan for example.  But Clark has taken the politically far less popular position. Clark argues against a fixed timeline for U.S. withdrawal, because of his belief that an announced timeline of that nature undermines whatever leverage the U.S. might now have to influence the make up of Iraq's next government, and also reduces Iran's motivation to discuss with the U.S. mutual measures that can be undertaken to stabalize Iraq and the region.  

        Just this week the U.S. and Iran finally agreed to engage together in regional talks about the future stability of Iraq. While Clark has resisted calls for an announced U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, he has led the effort to prevent the drift to war with Iran, repeatedly calling for dialog with that nation's leaders while other Democrats have postured tough.  Clark's foreign policy vision has been 20/20, both in hindsight and foresight, and he never just tells people what they want to hear.

        I think Americans across the political spectrum will trust Wes Clark to lead America come 2008, and that will help ensure a historic shift in National politics from the Republican to Democratic Party, with Democrats winning victories in states that just two years ago few could imagine us ever winning.  

        by Tom Rinaldo on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:14:39 PM PDT

        •  You just saved me twenty minutes of writing...n/t

          by MoronMike on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:39:58 PM PDT

    •  you know...

      back in '03, I think, during the campaign, it came out that Clark supported an anti-flag-burning amendment. That lost me for him, for good. If that ain't speech, I dunno what is...

      by condoleaser on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:56:32 PM PDT

      •  flag burning

        i hang out with a native amercian activist who burns flags alot.

        even the military recruiters in oakland give him a pass.

        the democrats havent had a candadate to vote for who really cared about native issues since mo udall. he was also the last very funny man who ran.

        by Peter Pan on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:15:08 PM PDT

        •  Feingold on the Rez

          He's just now wrapping up a listening session in Menominee County, nearly all reservation land in Northern Wisconsin. Look for news reports in the AM.

          Menominee County 2004 returns...

          Feingold 1332, Michels 298

          by ben masel on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:03:43 PM PDT

          •  The Native American Times backed Clark in 04

            (For the record I would be thrilled if either Clrk or Feingold were our 2008 nominee.)

            "A strong belief in tribes as sovereign governments must be first and foremost in the mind of our country’s top leader  to understand the complex relationship Indian Country has with our federal government.  Treaty obligations with tribes are seldom understood by most political leaders, which can lead to a deterioration of this relationship and dire circumstances for Indian Country.  There is one candidate running for President who not only understands it, he has enforced treaty agreements and sovereign rights of other nations around the world.  As the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) Supreme Commander, Wesley Clark put his own safety at risk while supporting treaty agreements between nations around the world. This is one of many reasons why the Native American Times endorses Wesley Clark for President of the United States."

            http://www.gwu.edu/...

            by Tom Rinaldo on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:43:41 PM PDT

            •  Treaty obligations with tribes are often broken.

              some of the greatest treaty breakers are on our cash.

              some of the most horrific slaughters were celebratd with thangsgiving meals.

              by Peter Pan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:14:43 AM PDT

          •  yes but is he funny?

            i havent heard russ tell a good joke

            unless you count him saying the wall around palestine was for security

            the wall recruits more terrorists around the world than any other tactic in the terror war.

            by Peter Pan on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 12:07:01 AM PDT

    •  Agreed!

      I like the Gen. as well I really do but Russ has shown the way here. It's too bad the rest of DC DINOS don't understand that when dealing with friggin bullies you have to stand in their face like Russ is doing. The strategy the DC DEMOS are following is wrong wrong wrong!

      by Blutodog on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:05:41 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, me too

      I've always loved Clark, but I find I can't support a candidate who says we must stay in Iraq until we "win."  I'm intrigued by Warner, but I don't want any more of "moderates" who "triangulate" (aka, surrender to the right).  Feingold is a true progressive.  He's called for withdrawal from Iraq and censure of Bush.  If we're really serious about reforming the Democratic party, we need a candidate who is not one of the mainstream Democrats, like Clinton.  I'm convinced nothing will change unless we get new leaders in place.

      by Unstable Isotope on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:16:44 PM PDT

      •  he voted NAY when it wasn't cool

        The reason I really like Feingold is that he voted NAY on the Iraq war in the first place, when it wasn't popular and he risked his political career to do the right thing.  This is exactly the way an elected official should operate and we should reward it.

        http://www.senate.gov/...

        by Thea VA on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 08:24:18 PM PDT

    •  My thoughts exactly!

      I have been a strong Clark supporter since the 2004 primaries but after Feingold's demonstration of gutsy leadership, I switched my vote to Russ. Feingold/Clark in 2008!

      by Ian S on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:35:49 PM PDT

    •  I'm Very Surprised

      at the Clark and Warner support here. 27% of who voted support these DLC candidates?

      Remember Clark is a lifelong republican that the DLC Clinton's supported last year. Plus a flip-flop free trader. I don't trust him at this point. Words are one thing, actions past and future are entirely something else.

      Same for Warner. Free trader zillionaire. No thanks.

      It would take a lot of convincing to get my primary support for either of these two.

      I didn't know there were so many DLC'ers among us.

      by talex on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:45:36 PM PDT

      •  Your facts are wrong, that's part of it.

        ianna aAnd I am tired of people throwing out disinformation.  Can't we have honest debates instead?  Clark was never a Republican.  Never.  Not ever a Republican.  How many ways does that have to be said?  

        He was always an Independent until he registered as a Democrat. Clark was always socially Liberal though he voted Republican in Presidential elections decades ago on issues of National Security.  Clark voted in Democratic primaries in Texas in the 90's.  Clark has voted Democratic in the last 4 Presidential Elections, which takes us back at least 16 years, which makes Clark a more tenured Democrat than Arianna Huffington:  

        "She met Michael Huffington at a 1985 party hosted by Ann Getty in San Francisco. She married him in 1986, and they moved to Washington when he was appointed to the Department of Defense. They later established residency in Santa Barbara, California, in order for him to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, which he narrowly won. She divorced him in 1997, three years after he narrowly lost the 1994 race for the U.S. Senate seat from California to Dianne Feinstein."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        Yet I see very few Progressives now calling Arianna a former Republican, even though she actually WAS a Republican, right? So are we not supposed to trust anything that she writes?

        Clark has never been DLC, never.  Not ever.  Clark fought against PNAC and the plans to invade Iraq.

        by Tom Rinaldo on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:01:30 PM PDT

        •  Huffington Is Not Running

          for President so that comparison does not carry much weight.

          Fact is that most military brass do register Independent as they know they will serve both parties during their career. That is camouflage but it doesn't change what most of them including Clark really are does it?

          Clark was supported by the Clinton's in 2004. The Clinton's lead the DLC. So hide from reality if you want but the DLC only supports those who support their views. Enough said.

          by talex on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:12:01 PM PDT

          •  Clark gets absolutely no DLC support for 2008

            All their insider talk is about Clinton and Warner and Bayh and Vilsak.  That is the where the DLC crowd focuses.  

            Clark and Hillary took very different stands on Iraq, and they take very different stands on Iran now.  Clark is not helping Hillary.  He will run against her on the issues.

            by Tom Rinaldo on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:20:19 PM PDT

            •  Tom

              so now that Hillary and other DLC favorites are running in '08 that makes Clark the DLC's down-line choice as opposed to it's first choice as in '04. Nothing hard to understand about that.

              If the others do not fare well in the '08 primaries and Clark does then he will be the DLC's man. Don't run from reality - he is what he is - a republican lite that was a registered Independent because he was in the military. What's so hard to understand about that?

              Clark's appeal in '04 for the most part was because he was military and people thought we needed that against Bush. That will not be the case in '08.

              Look if you are a middle of the road Conservative Democrat then maybe Clark is for you. But if you are a Liberal Progressive or lean that way then there are better choices than Clark. Let go of '04 - '08 is going to be a new ballgame.

              by talex on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:12:38 PM PDT

              •  My politics are left of Liberal

                and Clark is still for me.  We obviously view Clark differently.  You have as much ownership on reality more or less as I do, and I doubt either one of us think that we are running away from it.

                Last time most in the DLC wanted Lieberman, and when that obviously didn't fly they were willing to back a known player like Kerry, even though he didn't always see eye to eye with them.  When Kerry seemed to stumble bad, yeah some of those folk turned to Clark for a short while but they turned away from him again as soon as Kerry regained some footing.  They would have preferred Gephardt to Clark also if given a chance.  Clark is too much an independently minded outsider for the DLC to ever WANT to back him.  

                If you want to predict that the DLC would make Clark their 5th pick in 2008, go ahead and make the case.  Actually I think Clark would be their 7th pick, after Clinton, Warner, Bayh, Vilsak, Biden, and Richardson.  That's pretty down line if you ask me, and the only reason why the DLC is interested in Clark at all is because Democrats in Red States don't feel a need to run away from Clark because his military background plays well there.  That is the only reason why the DLC finds Clark remotely acceptable, because they figure he won't hurt their membership being at the top of a Democratic ticket.

                I'm sorry, two decades of voting Democratic for President while registered as an Independent does not equate with "Republican lite".  Clark is anything but Republican on the issues. A lot of progressive Democrats backed Clark in 2004, he got more support from the left of the Party than he ever got from DLC types.  Here again is Clark's 2004 platform:
                http://www.clark04.com/...

                by Tom Rinaldo on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:42:37 PM PDT

            •  No DLC Support? That's a good thing.

              I'm sick to death of D.C. politics. Bonus to any candidate that rubs the insiders the wrong way. Clark is on the winning ticket.

              by flernk on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 05:19:10 PM PDT

          •  They wanted him to hurt Edwards

            They used him for that.  But he is also more DLC than progressive.  

            by MontanaMaven on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:43:23 PM PDT

            •  We simply disagree. Here's the platform he ran on

              It doesn't remotely look DLC to me, it looks progressive:

              http://www.clark04.com/...

              by Tom Rinaldo on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:49:12 PM PDT

          •  You're wrong if you're saying is...

            ...that the "military brass" are Republicans camouflaged as independents.  That's the bullshit line the GOP wants everyone to believe.  It's part of their "strong on defense" propaganda to make voters think everyone in the military is a Republican.

            Now, I'll grant you the Repub stereotype may be more accurate now than it used to be, because the Rumsfeld DoD has blatantly promoted people who support Bush and the neo-cons.  But it was NEVER true during the 21 years I was in.  The higher up in rank you looked, the more likely the officers were to be quite liberal.

            Look at the generals who endorsed Kerry:  All but a couple were 4-star, high-profile officers who had served at the highest levels of command.  Several had been Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs.  One was the highest ranking female officer (3-star) of all time.

            Compare that to the generals who stood on stage with Bush at the Repub convention.  They didn't even bother to read their names because, aside from Franks, who had heard of any of 'em?  And only a couple were 4-stars; most were dredged up from the lower dime-a-dozen GO ranks.

            Or look at Clark's record in the military.  He protected the environment, even won an award from the Audubon Society back in 1991 (during the Bush41 administration).  He was courted by the LA Board of Education because of his progressive work for on-post schools.  He was a champion of civil rights.  He chose to teach political philosophy at West Point.

            Clark may not be typical in that he was never afraid to stand up for what he believed in, when many officers just try to get along and avoid controversy.  But Clark is not that unusual in reflecting what high-level military officers believe in.

            by hfjai on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 04:20:19 PM PDT

    •  Were you his first or second wife

      Great guy, lots of baggage.

      by daisycolorado on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:00:13 PM PDT

    •  Feingold:

      That dog won't hunt (any more). Russ has become as radioactive as Hillary.

      I'll stay with Wes Clark, the one I brung to the prom in the first place.

      by jayatRI on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 05:21:39 PM PDT

  •  Feingold is a mutation, a Democrat with a spine

    How many days will it take before the rest of the Democrats turn into X men and what sort of powers will they discover they have?

    

    by rktect on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:07:23 PM PDT

    •  LOL!!

      Unfortunately, ur right he is a mutation. We need him to clone himself and replace the spineless creatures called the DC DEMOS.

      by Blutodog on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:10:12 PM PDT

    •  Those are X-men whereas

      the only people in the DLC are Ex-men.

      by hardisun on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:22:35 PM PDT

    •  No more party of Davos Democrats

      At this point I don't know if Feingold is the Howard Dean of 2008 or the paradigm shift Reagan was in 1980. Either way I'm not working for co-opted Democrats.

      Jef Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, is the author of "The Global Class War" where he shows how Democrats and American Businesses have been co-opted by what he calls the "Party of Davos" into selling out their own workers and constituents at a great cost to themselves.

      by Maynard G Krebs on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:22:55 PM PDT

      •  I dig you Maynard, but get a grip on your goatee

        "Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason".

        "Maynard G. Krebs"

        It applies to Bush and it applies to Feingold.

        I really think this can work...

        WORK!?!

        by rktect on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:31:40 PM PDT

    •  HA! Love it. n/t

      by Auntie Mame on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:28:54 PM PDT

    •  didn't feingold

      vote yes for alito and roberts?

      by pacified on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:30:52 PM PDT

      •  If I recall correctly...

        ...he voted yes for Roberts, and no for Alito

        by Spryboy on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:46:58 PM PDT

        •  you are correct

          here is the alito vote roll call

          by pacified on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:58:08 PM PDT

        •  Voting for Roberts...

          was very smart politically.  Because he is obviously a strong liberal/progressive democrat, and voting for Roberts shows that he can cross the aisle and be bipartisan.  Roberts was going to pass anyways.  

          by DemBrock on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:45:20 PM PDT

      •  Half right

        He voted yes on Roberts and no on Alito. He opposed changing the makeup of the Supreme Court. Roberts was replacing a conservative and really didn't have much of a record to oppose on. Alito was another story.

        by cwaltz on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:45:35 PM PDT

    •  I vote for Feingold mutation for President

      and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine for VP. :)

      by strengthof10kmen on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:48:25 PM PDT

  •  Went from 'No frickin' clue' to Feingold-Go Russ!

    by ssundstoel on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:08:06 PM PDT

  •  VOTE in Meteor Blades' Alternate 2008 Poll !

    here. And while there, please recommend the diary to get it on the REC list.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:34:44 PM PDT

  •  Interesting result...

    Apparently ~50% of us support Feingold.  Interestingly enough, that squares with a recent finding in poll of democrats, generally. From Firedoglake:

    "Feingold's popularity among Democrats has soared from 22% before he introduced the resolution to 52% after the resolution. The nerve he tapped is way beyond political squabbling.

    by My Philosophy on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:40:47 PM PDT

  •  Name One Southern or Western

    state that Feingold can carry.  You can't because he can't.  He's a great Senator but is the Mondale of the 21st century.  Democrats need to be more creative than nominating another Washington D.C. insider with a long voting record.  Gore, Hillary, Kerry, Binden and Feingold are dead on arrival.  None of them can carry a single state in the south or west.

    The Democrats need to nominate a moderate governor from a moderate state who will make the GOP have to fight for the south and west, like Warner, Richardson or Clark.  

    by JTA on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:17:19 PM PDT

    •  Maybe the Senator

      from Pleasantville will toss his fedora in the ring.

      by HillaryIsMyHomegirl on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 02:05:13 AM PDT

•  negatives?

  is there any way you can poll us as well on the candidate we LEAST support, so we can see the negatives as well?

  by Mme Lafarge on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:27:35 PM PDT

  •  My negative votes....

    ... go to Vilsack, Biden, Richardson

    by crazymoloch on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:28:56 PM PDT

    •  Hillary is tops on my 'no way' list

      Not that I think she's got much traction here anyway.

      by redlami on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:31:18 PM PDT

      •  fwiw

        i also "choose" her, and this is part of the reason i would like to get a gauge here.

        by Mme Lafarge on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:36:14 PM PDT

        •  oops

          i just saw vilsack on the list.  i apologize to HRC for comingling her with this piece of filth.

          by Mme Lafarge on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:44:36 PM PDT

      •  No way for me, too!

        I'm so disgusted with her lately, I wish there was a primary challenger for her Senate seat.

        by Unstable Isotope on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:19:01 PM PDT

      •  Nooooo....

        ...not Hillary! We need a Democrat on the ticket.

        by Kira April on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 04:40:53 PM PDT

    •  Instant Runoff Voting scenario

      Or like they do for football polls, car races and sports awards - give a set number of points to the person who is in first. Then allow other choices to be ranked, with fewer points.

      by slouise217 on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:35:17 PM PDT

    •  Neg to HRC, Biden, Vilsack, Bayh, Warner n/t

      by rhubarb on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:39:31 PM PDT

    •  Biden, Dashle, Bayh

      by suzq on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:06:11 PM PDT

  •  Negatives

    Hilary. Sorry. I know a lot of you love her. And I love how intelligent she is. But I'm tired of the triangulating she's been doing.

    by oxymoron on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:32:30 PM PDT

    •  I don't LOVE Hil...

      But I would enthusiastically vote for her in the general.

      by brocktunestudios on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:34:34 PM PDT

      •  Not enthusiastic

        but I'd vote for her in the general, with probably just as little excitement as when I voted for Kerry.

        by nilocjin on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:38:29 PM PDT

        •  I'd vote for her after I voted against her.

          by andreuccio on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:57:12 PM PDT

        •  Yellow Dog Democrat.