I am tired of the "Gore won in 2000" crap.

[Clarkie1]

I agree the election was "stolen."

I know that Gore received more popular votes overall and in fairness in Florida.

But that's not enough! I say this as a Gore supporter from the time he ran in his very first primary: saying that "Gore won in 2000" in order to promote Gore in 2008 is politically pathetic.

He didn't win by enough! I am sick of marginal victories! We need a candidate and a strategy to win in a Democratic landslide!

Gore is too divisive for that.
Hillary is too divisive for that.

We need to start thinking STRATEGICALLY and not SENTIMENTALLY or making decisions based on who our favorite Democrat is. Your favorite Democrat may not be the best choice from a long-term, strategic point of view.

You may not agree with me, but all I'm asking you to do is think strategically, not emotionally.

Now I'll get off my rant until after the 06' elections are over...

[David Dunham]

1. Gore has a better chance than Kerry or Hillary in 2008

Gore has solid national security credentials.

[Clarkie1]

3. You think middle America will believe it? n/t

[drummo]

11. Middle America would not believe any Democrat on national

security unless the Reps screw it up big time.

And guess what?
The Reps screwed up big time with Iraq.

Gore has a very long an impressive resume of getting it right while others got it wrong on national security matters.
But it should not be his job to market his credentials.
It should be done by us and the people who work for him.

The candidate has to stay above it all. Self-praise never works.
Bush's people praised him in 2000 all day and all night long.
Gore didn't have that benefit. Moreover the media by distorting his words created an image which deprived Gore from taking credit for anything he did.
That can be changed in 2008, not the least because by that time the country -- and the press itself -- will be sick and tired of Bush and the Reps.

You don't need Middle America to win. You need the states that Gore won 2000 and you are president. Nothing more is needed. Not Arkansas, not Tennessee not Kentucky. To hell with them.

[Clarkie1]

29. "to hell with them" you say....

I would remind you that this country is not a collection of red and blue states; it is varying shades of purple.

I am not prepared to say "to hell with" dems in Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.

I am also not prepared to say "to hell with" other Americans in those states we may be able to persuade and bring over to our side. We can do that with a strategic choice of candidate. The persona DOES matter...for example some people are simply more likely to listen to what a 4-star general has to say than than they are to listen to a life-long partisan Democrat.

Politics is the art of persuasion, not saying "to hell with" 1/2 of America. That isn't healthy for America, and it sure as hell isn't what is best to build a stronger Democratic Party.

[drummo]

40. I would remind you of the electoral college.

Since we have a winner-take-it-all system purple doesn't matter.
Only red and blue matters.

If a state has a mostly conservative elecorate it will go red and it will give all of its el-votes to the Rep candidate.
Even if there are blue guys over there.

I am not prepared to say "to hell with" dems in Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.

I am. Those voters over there are nuts. They just don't get it.
They are the once who still approve what Bush is doing. 42%. No way that they would vote for a liberal -- baring some very unlikely scenario.

I am also not prepared to say "to hell with" other Americans in those states we may be able to persuade and bring over to our side.

There are not enough of them in those states. You may reduce he margin
but you will not take the states.

The persona DOES matter.

It shouldn't. And if you want to run yet another fucking campaign focusing on persona you've learned nothing over the last 5 years.

You cannot stop Mohammed Atta with persona. You need knowledge for that.

You cannot plan the invasion and occupation of Iraq with persona.
You need knowldge for that.

You cannot save lives in NOLA after Katrina with persona.
You need knowledge for that. (You know which Gore had that's why he could pull out those two missions to NOLA.)

Otherwise persona only matters when there is no bigger issue on the horizon. Like a recession. Or gay marriage. Or terrorism.
Or a war.

Nixon got elected because there was a big problem: Vietnam.
Bush Sr got elected because there was a big threat: an ultraliberal occupying the White House.
Reagan got elected because there were big problems: gas prices, inflation, hostage crisis.

If in 2008 there will be one or more big problems persona will be irrelevant. At least in the states which Gore won.

Politics is the art of persuasion, not saying "to hell with" 1/2 of America.

No. Politics is the art and science of government. That's the first and foremost meaning of the word. Too bad people like you forget about that all too often and turn politics into some sort of silly theater.

From Webster:


1a : the art or science of government
1b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
1c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

That isn't healthy for America, and it sure as hell isn't what is best to build a stronger Democratic Party.

You can't be that naive. Those nuts in the red states don't give s shit about what's good for America and what not.
They only care about themselves, most of all about what's gonna happen to them after they die.
Life is only temporary but death is eternity. They never lose
sight of that. And there is no way to persuade those people with life-centered policies like health care. If you support civil unions that's against God and since it's against God they think they have to oppose it otherwise they will go to hell. That's the way those people think.

[Clarkie1]

93. Your dismissmal of everyone in a "red state" as a nut is nuts.

There are millions of liberals in red states, and millions more who don't know they are a liberal who can be convinced.

Why dismiss them simply because there are some who will never be convinced?

To be frank, we don't share the same values in this arena. I want to bring America together, not exacerbate the "us vs. them" mentality that is destroying this country.

[drummo]

121. Be a realist.

Your dismissmal of everyone in a "red state" as a nut is nuts.

Why didn't you read what I wrote?
I said even though there are blue guys over there.

I dismiss the red guys in red states. And those states are red because the red guys are in the majority. And you are naive if you think you can go and convince them with your liberalism.
They are not persuadable. 42% still support Bush. Doesn't that tell you something? You think you can convince them?

There are millions of liberals in red states, and millions more who don't know they are a liberal who can be convinced.

Of course there are many liberals in red states. Just like there are many rednecks in blue states.
But that doesn't mean that you can win the red states where those liberals are living.
As for persuading rednecks. Try it. Good luck.
They know very well where they stand. And they are stubborn as hell. No abortion, no gay rights, no evolution, no cosmoplitanism, lots of guns lots of Bible blah blah. Period.

Why dismiss them simply because there are some who will never be convinced?

Because that's the way they have been thinking for long long decades. They will never change. At least not in the foreseeable future.
You cannot convince someone who is afraid of hell that he shouldn't be afraid of hell.
Just like you cannot convince Zawahiri that he shouldn't wage Jihad you cannot convince Christian fundamentalists that they should support legal abortion and civil unions.

To be frank, we don't share the same values in this arena. I want to bring America together,

Again, good luck. But don't forget America was never brought together. It was a contrived union from the beginning which was destined to plunge into civil war. The lines along which that war was waged are still there. And will be there no matter what you do.

not exacerbate the "us vs. them" mentality that is destroying this country.

Destroying this country in what way? The last time I checked America was still on the map.

Now, I don't say that Dems could not win red states -- like Missouri, Arkansas or Virginia or West Virginia. But it would take something really spectacular, like an impeachment or a deep recession or another terrorist attack. Or a combination of bad things which would create a general "we are fed up" sentiment.
It's quite possible that by 2008 Bush will screw up so much any Dem would defeat any Rep easily.
But the underlining devide will stay and pop up over and over again in future elections.

[crispini]

147. EH? "purple doesn't matter"?

They're called SWING STATES, of COURSE they matter! They matter TERRIBLY! Good heavens, have you ever worked on a campaign?

[crispini]

146. Eh? "it should not be his job to market his credentials. "

What the heck is that? That's the silliest strategy I've ever heard. If a candidate wants to run, of COURSE it's their job to market their credentials. IN SPADES. Holy hell in a handbasket, how else is the message supposed to get out, by osmosis? Via the Tooth Fairy?

[Lancer]

4. Unfortunately, he's also said he won't run again. Our loss. n/t

[drummo]

15. No he didn't say it. Don't put words to his mouth.

Read this:

But will he run?

Even with a crowd composed largely of scholars and students of the environment, the question of Gore’s presidential ambitions hung over the event. Gore, who lodged an unsuccessful bid for president five years ago, recently said he has no plans to run again in 2008 — but he would not rule out a candidacy. His speech often seemed to reflect this ambiguity.

http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/25/435dc7f41d9b2

Just because he has no plans now doesn't mean anything.
Noone would say now, in 2005, that he/she will run in 2008.
Did you hear Clark say that? Or Hillary?

[bowens43]

39. Sure he does but having a better chance then none at all

isn't saying much. If Hillary , Kerry and Gore are the best we can do, McCain (or someone like him) will be sworn in January of 2009.

[drummo]

42. Actually McCain beats every Democrat in current polls. Which

shows that a former loser can win.

[BigYawn]

56. Yap, McCain is my nightmare, but it won't come true TG

because the repugs are not smart enough to see that and
nominate McCain in 2008.

[Nederland]

152. McCain, unlike Gore

Is untested in a national election. Who knows what will actually happen if he gets the nom, which is not by any means assured.

[rfranklin]

2. Hey, why don't we run Laura Bush...

She isn't very divisive. And we'll have the support of the BFEE!

[Rick Myers]

5. I agree with the comment about Hillary

I 'sort of' agree with the comment on Gore. I really hope Clarke and Dean both pursue the nod, it would be good politics...

[drummo]

17. Because Dean is not divisive right? And Clark is a pretender

he flip-flopped on the IWR and he pretends that he is better than the Dems who voted for it. He is a non-starter.

[FrenchieCat]

81. Clark did not Flip Flop on the War....

and he doesn't pretend shit......

You need to get a new line, cause I've had enough of the Smears from you.

I'm started to understand who thinks they are "better" here....and it ain't Wes Clark. In fact, he's one of the few who will defend other Democrats....not act like he's better. You sayin' "shit" doesn't make it so!

Edited to add....it's not Howard Dean who is decisive around here either.....

Need a mirror?

[drummo]

122. Look, no matter how many times you deny it Clark's words are

on the record. This is a flip-flop:


FLIP
"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position - on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

...

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html?pagewanted=print&position=

FLOP

10/24/2003
"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/10/24/clarks_scrambled_message_on_iraq/

He flip-flopped because he was afraid Dems would not support him if they know he would have voted for the resolution. Simple as that.

You need to get a new line, cause I've had enough of the Smears from you.

If you are so fed up prove that the papers misquoted Clark and you can convince me.
But so far you haven't done that. Clark never denied the accuracy of these quotes.

I'm started to understand who thinks they are "better" here....and it ain't Wes Clark. In fact, he's one of the few who will defend other Democrats

Except if it's about his own political future.

And even he would always defend other Democrats that does not negate what he did with regard to the IWR. He wanted people to believe that unlike Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman he was against the IWR all along. It was not true. So he was a pretender. Still is.

not act like he's better.

Then why did he change his position on the IWR? Why the yes and then the no? He just didn't know what he was talking about, or what?
Why was he so eager to contrast himself with the other pro-IWR Democrats?
He wants everyone to believe that he was right about Bush's IWR from the get-go. He knows it would be a great political capital now that most people think the war was a mistake.
But what he says is simply not true. He has not be consistent let alone very consistent.

You sayin' "shit" doesn't make it so!

I'm not saying "shit" I just quote Clark himself and his words speak for themselves.

Edited to add....it's not Howard Dean who is decisive around here either.....
Need a mirror?

Yes indeed I am very decisive. :rofl:

[Jai4WKC08]

162. No, you don't quote Clark's words

You quote the pieces of Clark's word that support your lie. And you do it again and again, no matter how often or well it's refuted.

Go ahead and reply. I know you always have to have the last word, even if you have to go to PMs to do it.

Sick, man.

[drummo]

6. Re:

He didn't win by enough! I am sick of marginal victories! We need a candidate and a strategy to win in a Democratic landslide!

You can wait for that until the hell freezes over.

This is a divided country. And the heartland hates liberalism.

The only way to win with a landslide is if something really dramatic happens. Such as impeachment on reasonable grounds.

Gore couldn't win with more votes precisely because that was an impeachment for which the grounds were : adultery + lies and lies and lies.

For that reason he was predicted to lose by a landslide. But he won at the end.


Gore is too divisive for that. Hillary is too divisive for that.

Liberalism and conservatism are divisive. Not one or two individuals.

[Clarkie1]

16. No, I don't agree.

It is historically entrenched partisian figures who are divisive.

It the candidate isn't perceived as having a history of highly partisan behavior, they have a better chance of winning, even if their policies are the same as the partisan figures or to the left of them.

Politics is the art of persuasion; you can't persuade someone who is already closed to whatever a particular individual may have to say based on hardened prejudices and stereotypes.

[skipos]

26. "Politics is the art of persuasion"

YESSSS! And southern Dems have been better at persuading voters than northern ones lately.

Hillary isn't going to persuade anyone but those who are already converted.

[drummo]

27. Of course. Peope cannot make up their minds on their own. Sure.

This divide was there in the US long before Gore became a national candidate. It is rooted in the lifestyle and philosophical differences of red and blue America. No single politician has control over that.

In fact evangelical preachers and pop-culture celebritites have a much bigger influence over the masses than politicians.

Just go to a church in Alabama and ask the people whom they listen first: pols or the preacher.

When Reagan got a huge share of the religious nuts votes it was not his own making. He got that vote because the preachers for the first time told millions of evangelicals to vote. Same thing happened in 2004. It was just Bush exploited an already existing phenomenon.

The average American do not even care about politics. For example they do not visit sites like this.

It the candidate isn't perceived as having a history of highly partisan behavior, they have a better chance of winning, even if their policies are the same as the partisan figures or to the left of them.

Not necessarly. Who was more partisan than Nixon?
And he won. Not once but twice.

Johnson was not less partisan than Goldwater. And he won by a landslide just because Goldwater scared the people with his
nuclear rethoric.
Bush in 2004 was not less partisan than Kerry.
And there are plenty of similar elections in US history.

Every election is decided based on many different factors.
But if a candidate is perceive as liberal he has no chance to win by a landslide -- baring some dramatic event.
And since liberalism is mostly associated with cultural liberalism
no way that a pro-choice pro-evolution pro-stem cell research
pro-gay rights candidate could win the heartland -- again unless
something big overshadows everything, such as the recession in 1992.

[Texas_Kat]

24. So which states might Gore win that Kerry didn't win in 2004

I'd be interested in which states you think the 'new, improved' Al Gore could carry that any of the other potential Democratic candidates couldn't.

Which states? Tennessee? Arkansas? South Carolina? Nevada? New Mexico? Colorado?

Which candidates has Big Al been campaigning with for 2006? Other than making issues speeches, what's he doing to promote Democratic candidates on the ground?

I haven't seen him talking to voters much....

[drummo]

45. If Gore won every state he won in 2000 he would be president.

TN, AR are not needed.

Which candidates has Big Al been campaigning with for 2006?

What does that have to do with 2008?

Other than making issues speeches, what's he doing to promote Democratic candidates on the ground?

He is rasing money for them.

But it's not his job to promote candidates. It is the candidate's job to promote themselves.

I haven't seen him talking to voters much....

Because all those who go to see his speeches are not voters, right?

2006 is one year away, anyway. Only the junkies pay attention now?
As Gore said in 2002 there is a season for everything.
2005 is an off-year.

[Texas_Kat]

106. You've forgotten that redistricting changed the political landscape.

Now is not then.... there is no Way Back Machine. The number of electoral votes has changed to increase the number of purplish red states needed by Democrats to win in 08.

Or don't you do math?

Who is he raising money for? Which candidates for office in 06?

Don't think he's going to be converting many red voters to blue by talking to MoveOn, do you?

[drummo]

123. Re:

You've forgotten that redistricting changed the political landscape.

Redistricting doesn't effect presidential elections.
The census does.

Now is not then.... there is no Way Back Machine.

None of the states Gore won has changed significantly since 2000. Florida is still a swingstate.
Buhs-Clinton-Gore-Bush between 1992-2004.
Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin were very close in 2004 -- again.

The number of electoral votes has changed to increase the number of purplish red states needed by Democrats to win in 08.

Not true.

Gore 2000 states -- FL included -- and current el-votes
270 needed

CA 55 WA 11 OR 7 NM 5 IL 21 IA 7 MI 17 MN 10 WI 10 NY 31
PA 21 NJ 15 DE 3 ME 4 VT 3 CT 7 MA 12 RI 4 HI 4 DC 3 FL 27
----
277

Or don't you do math?

I do. And that's why I know that if the Dem candidate wins every Gore 2000 states he will be president.

Who is he raising money for? Which candidates for office in 06?

He spoke at a DNC fundraiser in DC exactly a month ago.
But hey it's 2005! It's not an election year. Why should he support any individual candidate now?

Don't think he's going to be converting many red voters to blue by talking to MoveOn, do you?

He doesn't need rednecks. He needs the Dems and the majority of Indies like in 2000. He needs the states he won in 2000 and that's it.

But don't think Clark's going to be converting many red voters to blue by campaigning with Michael Moore, do you?
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094210/

[Scout1071]

105. Nevada, Missouri, Ohio, Florida......should I go on?

I believe in Gore. And I want him to run.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. I hope the 08 candidate is someone I do NOT know today

Someone unexpected and excellent with a great command of the English language that inspires and transforms.

[drummo]

31. And can that mysterious candidate govern at the federal level?

What does that candidate X know about counter-terrorism?
Or global warming?
Or energy?
Or health care?
Or trade?
Or international law?
Or the Middle East?
Or China?

etc.

No inspiration. Competence is what's needed. And competence is always rooted in knowledge.
Knowledge was a must in the good old days. In the 19th century no ignorant man could become president.
It's time to bring back those days and focus on knowledge again during the campaigns.
Instead of some vague ispiration -- which is nothing more than mass manipulation.

[Texas_Kat]

33. I can think of at least one.

[Clarkie1]

34. I agree. n/t

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

38. And what are the prerequisites to govern at the federal level?

Previous involvement in federal government? That hasn't always worked out so well (Nixon had previous experience)

Maybe we will end up at the same old well, but I'd like to still dream at this point that there is someone fresh who rises to the top.

[drummo]

61. Response

Previous involvement in federal government?

Yes or at least detailed knowledge of the federal burocracy and what that burocracy does, actually.

Bush screwed up before 9/11 because he had not idea what to touch (TIPOFF list, anyone?) whom to ask for info (FBI Counter-terrorism division anyone?) and how to organize the NSC in a way that does not slow down the decision making process. (Ask Dick Clarke about that and read the first presidential directive Bush released)

So far governors always screwed up.
Reagan with Lebabon and the budget.
Clinton with Somalia and health care.
Bush with al Qaeda and the budget.
Carter with -- well virtually everything.

They just don't understand that the federal government is a far cry from their little governorship. They know nothing about the Pentagon, the IntelCom and the State Department. As governors they don't deal with foreign affairs, national security. So when they are thrown into the deep water in Washington they lose their way.

That hasn't always worked out so well (Nixon had previous experience)

Nixon was not incompetent. And I don't know of any burocratic screw up on his watch.
He was dishonest but that had nothing to do with expertise.
As for Vietnam that was lost before Nixon came around.
The Vietnamese resistance was not under the control of anyone in Washington. They defeated everyone in their history they defeated the US as well.

Maybe we will end up at the same old well, but I'd like to still dream at this point that there is someone fresh who rises to the top.

Bush was fresh. Blunder.
Clinton was fresh and he screwed up so much in his first two years he actually had to prove that he was still relevant.
Reagan -- don't get me started.
Carter -- oops!

The best you can have is someone with both executive and legistlative federal experience. Someone who understands the fucking place where the President works. And that's the federal government, like it or not. Not Iowa, not Arkansas not Virginia.

Imagine that Gore gets that Aug 6 memo. Then you may understand the significance of federal experience.

Or read this:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/7/164747/4155

A very good example how much difference you can make if you understand red tape. You have to know whom to call what to ask, who has authority over what during a crisis.

Warner impressed me with his 2003 budget address. He seems to know his government in and out. But Virginia is not Washington. I'd like to know how much he knows about this:
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha

Never forget that list when you support someone for president. That's the stuff he will have to manage if elected.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

65. While you make many good points

I still don't think that federal experience is a prerequisite for bold and competent leadership. LBJ was Mr. Washington and he fell apart as POTUS.

FDR had very limited federal experience (if you even consider an appointment job federal experience) and he was a visionary leader who inspired the country through some of its darkest days. When I say a relative unknown, it is an FDR type that I hope to see in 08. I believe after W&Co are done, we will again need that kind of leadership to recover.

[drummo]

99. RE:

I still don't think that federal experience is a prerequisite for bold and competent leadership. LBJ was Mr. Washington and he fell apart as POTUS.

I didn't say that it's enough. I said it's a must.
Of course if you have nothing else just federal experience that's not enough.
You should have ideas as well. But federal expertise is a prerequisite to govern at the federal level. It's not a coincidence that newbies
make so many mistakes over there in their first years.
90% of governance has nothing to do with bold leadership. It is about managing the federal mess. If you don't know the place where you work you cannot be competent there.

FDR had very limited federal experience (if you even consider an appointment job federal experience)

Limited?

When the U.S. entered World War I in April 1917, Roosevelt became the effective administrative head of the United States Navy, since the Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, had been appointed mainly for political reasons and was widely considered to be not up to the job.

Roosevelt soon developed a life-long affection for the Navy. He also showed great administrative talent, and quickly learned to negotiate with Congress and other government departments to get budgets approved and a rapid expansion of the Navy pushed through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt#Political_career

That's not limited experience. He was in the game for years before he became president. He knew Congress he knew the military he knew the how budgets were created.
Of course someone can learn about the fed even if he is not there but I want to know for sure that a candidate does know about how the fed works.


When I say a relative unknown, it is an FDR type that I hope to see in 08.

FDR became president under very exterme circumstances which will not happen again -- at least not in 2008. Few Dems would have lost to Hoover in 1932.
And FDR was not an unknown. He was running with James M. Cox in a national election. After that he was governor of New York, a big state. The governors of New York and California are never unknowns.

I believe after W&Co are done, we will again need that kind of leadership to recover.

No, there's not gonna be a Great Depression in 2008.
I think that's 100% sure.

[bowens43]

41. Did you know Bill Clinton before the 92 primaries?

It's time for someone new.

[drummo]

47. I heard that after 200 as well. Worked out pretty well.

[drummo]

63. Kerry was new in 2004. And what happened?

New guys usually don't know enough to be president.
Yes, Clinton didn't know enough either. And we payed a huge price for it: Dems lost the Congress which then impeached Clinton which then gave Bush the White House which then...you know what followed.

McCain will be new? Apparently Reps are not eager to nominate someone knew. Why are Dems?

[skipos]

8. Clark, Warner, Vilsack could pick up states we normally don't win

[Inspired]

9. Vilsack?

What state do we not normally win could he pick up? Iowa - normally votes dem - but Kerry blew it last year. I really can't think of a state that Vilsack would help us gain...and I'm an Iowan.

[skipos]

23. Iowa has been trending Repub for the last few elections I believe

You probably know more about Vilsack than I, but at least the guy is from a state we could use help in, as opposed to being from Massachusettes or some other state that even Dukakis won. I really hope we can get a good candidate from a state that isn't deep blue.

[drummo]

66. Did you have the gay marriage amendment on the ballot?

[drummo]

48. How do you know that? They predicted Edwards would win

at least his home state for Kerry. He didn't.

Vilsack and Warner have no national security credentials.
Not that I don't like Warner. But so far he has not demostrated any expertise in critical issues like counter-terrorism or global warming.

Clark is a pretender who flip-flopped on the IWR. He would be destroyed by the RW machine just like Kerry.

[skipos]

53. Link to the Edwards NC win?

That's news to me.

[drummo]

67. Link? You could hear that during the campaign from all kind of

corners. Pundits, bloggers, scribes.

Don't tell me you didn't hear anyone say that Edwards would help Kerry in the South.

[skipos]

100. Yes, link.

"They predicted that Edwards would carry at least his home state for Kerry."

That is different than Edwards "helping Kerry in the south."

If you are sticking to your first statement, I would like some links from all of these people claiming Kerry and Edwards would win NC.

In the last 40 years of elections...

W Bush (twice), Kerry, Clinton (twice), HW Bush (twice), Dole, Dukakis, Reagan (twice), Mondale, Carter(twice), Humphrey, Ford, Johnson and Goldwater all won their homestates.

Gore and McGovern lost their homestates.

Nixon one won and lost one.

19 won, 3 lost total. So in the last 40 years, the Dem and Rep presidential candidates win their homestate 86% of the time (even 3rd party candidate Wallace won his home state). I think that is worth considering when we nominate our candidate. One state can make a big difference.

[drummo]

111. Links

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-06-edwards-nc_x.htm

Democrats, on the other hand, say Edwards could be a deciding factor in the election. Prevailing wisdom is that vice presidential candidates don't have major influence on election outcomes, but in a close race, anything can make a difference, said Gibbs Knotts, political science professor at Western Carolina University.

Edwards' knowledge of North Carolina, its economy, environment and other issues should appeal to voters, said Max Haner, chairman of the Democratic Party in Buncombe County.

"The polls that I've seen with Edwards on the ticket make North Carolina a very winnable state," he said. "I believe the likelihood is very good that North Carolina will be in the Democratic column along with a multitude of other states.

Sarah Olesiuk, an 18-year-old Asheville resident who plans to vote for Kerry in her first presidential election, said she expects state residents to support a fellow North Carolinian.

"I think people do feel some sort of attachment to someone from their state," she said.


Mason-Dixon Poll: Bush Leads Kerry In N.C;
Edwards On Ticket Makes It Even

Republican incumbent George W. Bush leads Democratic challenger John Kerry in North Carolina, but according to a WRAL/Mason-Dixon Poll, if Kerry chooses Sen. John Edwards as his running-mate, the race in the state currently becomes a dead-heat.

http://www.wral.com/news/3319278/detail.html


President Bush won all 11 of the original Confederate states in 2000. Three of those states -- Arkansas, North Carolina and Louisiana -- are now in play. Kerry's chances of winning the most important Southern state, Florida, have also increased with Edwards on his ticket. The Massachusetts senator is also looking stronger in the traditionally Democratic border state of West Virginia.

The Bush-Cheney campaign is already fighting back. On Wednesday, Mr. Bush was speaking to values in Edwards' home state of North Carolina. That same day, the Kerry campaign announced that for the first time it would run advertising in North Carolina, officially adding it to the count of battleground states.

The ad refers to Edwards as the "son of a mill worker" gone advocate "for ordinary people." Utilizing this biography, in addition to his engaging speaking style, Edwards hopes to woo Southern voters. And although Mr. Bush remains the favorite in North Carolina, Edwards did win his senate seat against the odds. He's certain he can do it again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/07/politics/main628015.shtml


There were plenty of similar speculation on TV, radio and blogs.
You really didn't hear anyone say that Edwards would deliver NC to Kerry? I just can't believe that.

[drummo]

112. Of course Gore lost Tennessee. It's your ultimate fundy state

Look at these maps. You can see the clear shift toward the right between 1992-2004. Note that here red is Dem and blue is Rep

1992
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=1992&st=TN&type=map

1996
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=1996&st=TN&type=map

2000
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=2000&st=TN&type=map

2004
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=2004&st=TN&type=map

19 won, 3 lost total. So in the last 40 years, the Dem and Rep presidential candidates win their homestate 86% of the time (even 3rd party candidate Wallace won his home state). I think that is worth considering when we nominate our candidate. One state can make a big difference.

It's only worth considering is you forget to examine the state in question.
None of the candidates you mentioned had a homestate where both the governor and the two senators came from the opposite party.
It's only Gore and Tennessee in 2000. After Monica it went even further to the right. After 9/11 it became even redder.
TN was the ideological opposite of Gore in 2000. Anti-choice, pro-gun,
anti-science, provincial, fundamentalist. No way that any Dem would have won it in 2000.

And a similar shift happened in Arkansas as well. In 2000 Clinton's job approval rating was only 49%. His personal approval rating was just 34% -- according to exit polls.

Arkansas
Clinton as President Approve 49 % Disapprove 47 %
Clinton as a Person Favorable 34 % Unfavorable 63 %


http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

Look at these maps:

1992
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=1992&st=AR&type=map

1996
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=1996&st=AR&type=map

2000
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=2000&st=AR&type=map

2004
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/img.php?year=2004&st=AR&type=map

[skipos]

150. I think you are missing my point

You are so busy railing against everyone, I didn't even realize that you were for Gore. All I am saying is that we need to give extra point to candidates who are from a state that we are close to winning, and subtract a point from candidates who are from a state we win easily. There is no reason not to consider the candidates homestate when the last two elections have come down to one state.

As for Gore losing TN, I don't know if there was anything he could have done about it or not. I do remember most people being very surprised that he lost it. Maybe he didn't campaign there enough, I don't know. Clinton won it by 5% in 1992 and 3% in 1996, so I would have assumed that the "home state advantage" would have give Gore the usual boost in votes. For some reason it didn't happen.

[bobbieinok]

167. after 2000 there were many statements that the same sort of things that

happened in FL to black voters happened to blacks in TN

the following is one observer who posted at salon.com's tabletalk and had her own blog

http://www.alternet.org/story/10589

....

It isn't just the outrageous racial incidents, such as the way that Black Nashville college students weren't permitted to vote even though they were registered, or the way that Tennessee State University, a historically Black college, was the only university in Tennessee that didn't get a satellite voting place, or election office workers harrassing Black citizens who requested voter registration forms, or election commission officers refusing to give registration forms to NAACP representatives and sometimes (as in Chattanooga) actually taking them back. It's the inexplicable things, such as the way that polling places all over West Tennessee opened one to two hours late, or disappeared and reappeared somewhere else without telling anybody -- but, seemingly, only in areas that were Black and/or poor. Or the missing pages from election rosters all over Nashville. Or the county where ballot boxes were opened and ballots handled.

So many vote irregularities were reported that the mind starts to numb after awhile, to get buried under the sheer avalanche and grasp for some sort of meaning and order. So it's instructive to note that there were three areas of evidence that are more disturbing than any other.

The first was what NAACP officers generally refer to as "the Motor Voter disaster." This was the first election year in which Tennessee's Motor Voter bill took effect. Citizens could register to vote at Department of Motor Vehicle offices statewide. The problem is, an unknown number of those applications never went through. There have been nearly 2,000 complaints to date. Allegedly, this occurred because the department failed to deliver completed forms to county election commissions. It's worth noting that there is no standard of delivery, nor supervision of any kind, when the applications are delivered from the Department of Safety to the counties -- and that the DMV blames the voters.

The second was the disenfranchisement of former felons. In the town of Bolivar, former felons illegally lost their voting rights. Clifton Polk, head of the local Black Chamber of Commerce, was so infuriated that he filed an official complaint with the EEOC. Since felons don't automatically lose their voting rights in Tennessee the same way that they do in Florida, this issue remains a murky mess. However, this was the first year it had happened in the state.

The third -- and maybe the strangest -- is the way that certain voting precincts all over the state had a small fraction of the voting machines they should have had, causing mile-long lines in predominantly Black, Hispanic and poor districts. According to election commissions, they simply didn't know there'd be such a large turnout. However, according to Tennessee State Election Commissioner Brook Thompson, each county sends a list of registered voters to the polling places. (The precinct list actually kept by volunteers often didn't match the voting list. Weird, huh?) Also, as state NAACP president Gloria Jean Sweetlove points out, the election commission knew about the NAACP Voter Empowerment Project, whose goal was to register new Black voters. Also, the commission knew that there'd been a record turnout for early voting. So, once again, this remains a mystery.

more....

[Uncle Joe]

161. Everything changes

and I believe if Al Gore runs in 2008, he will likely carry Tennessee.
There are other reasons that Al lost Tennessee, however I believe the two primary underlying causes for the loss of his home state while winning his home nation are.

1. The ongoing 8 year Clinton Witch Hunt which only served to sow the seeds of distrust for all things associated with the Democratic Party particularly anyone closely associated with Clinton him self. The net result, even if much of the witch hunt was unjust; the Lewinsky Scandal and the lie to the nation to cover it up eroded Clinton's credibility with most average Americans.

2. This Clinton witch hunt transformed in to the "War Against Gore" as is well documented at the "Daily Howler's" website. It picked up where the witch hunt left off, it was basically a war against Al's credibility. Had this war been waged only by Bush and the Republicans, Al would have easily prevailed. The problem was, it was being waged by our so called "liberal media" aka "fourth estate watchdogs" aka "American Journalism" aka "corpwhorate owned MSM" aka
"media whores" aka "presstitutes". How many people out there believe Al actually claimed to have invented the internet? CNN held an online poll early this summer and the internet was voted hands down as the single most revolutionary creation of the 20th century! You would think they would give credit to the political leader most responsible for it's current incarnation, however you would then be forgetting the lesson of Prometheus. This "War Against Gore" created a "Matrix" (see movie for details) for the American People to live in. We Tennesseans; generally speaking are a trusting people regarding our "free press" and are not immune to this Matrix.

Things have changed since the 90's and 2000. To begin with the internet is stronger than it was, more people are connected to it and becoming unplugged from the Matrix or false reality created by the corpwhorate owned MSM. Another change, the same winds of war with Iraq and Hurricane Katrina (along with other scandals Gannon/Guckert, Judy Miller, etc.) which blew away the fig leaf covering Bush's lack of credibility and his incompetence, also have blown away the fig leaves covering the lack of credibility and incompetence of our American Presstitutes.

Also as is becoming more apparent every day, the things Al warned us about whether as in his classic bestseller "Earth In The Balance" published in 92 regarding the flooding of New Orleans, the 2000 debates when he warned us to protect social security by putting it in a "lock box", or when he was one of the lonely voices crying in the wilderness about the disastrous consequences of going to war against a nation that had not attacked us and posed no imminent threat,have contributed to expose him as the leader of credibility and ability for our times. I believe the majority of Tennesseans along with several other "red states" have become acutely aware that they have become snookered by our corpwhorate owned MSM.

[marions ghost]

158. North Carolina

was one of the most messed up states in the country in the 2004 elections--corruption and massive e-voting problems all over the place. Kerry/Edwards should have had the edge. It's not possible to use the 2004 election results as an predictor of anything, except NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT in the system.

[Awsi Dooger]

54. No one with a clue predicted Edwards would help carry North Carolina

That state was more than 13 points tilting toward the GOP in the 2000 presidential election than the nation as a whole. I'm a huge Edwards supporter but we had no chance there even if he had topped the ticket. As a VP, Edwards was precisely what he should have been worth in North Carolina, about 3.5 points. The partisan index (state popular vote margin compared to nationally) favored the GOP by slightly less than 10 points in 2004, down from about 13.5 in 2000.

[drummo]

68. Personally I never believed Edwards would win NC for Kerry. But

I heard a lot of people predicting it or at a least saying Edwards could help Kerry in the South.

In fact on this very board a poster blamed Kerry for not visiting NC enough and therefore Edwards couldn't win it for him.

[FrenchieCat]

86. I am really, really tired of your smears.....

it is really making me think that you not for any Democrats.....the least of all, Al Gore.

You said that Al Gore was right on not wanting to intervene in Rwanda, as we allowed 800,000 Black folks to die there, yet Kosovo was Ok cause we had an agreement. And you think that this is quite alright....so why should I listen or value anything you have to say.....?

In fact, I find you conspicuously absent in this thread here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2181896

Now why didn't you not have anything at all to say in that thread?

[drummo]

102. Yes Kosovo was OK because there we had interest, we had allies

the mission was clear, military power indeed could make a positive difference and every other option was exhausted.

And it's totally unfair to claim that "we allowed 800,000 Black folks to die". It is not the job of the US military to intervene everytime some group starts to kill another group somewhere in the world. By the same token you could say that France or the UK or Japan let 800,000 black folks die there.
Why do you blame the US?


You still failed to answer my question about Sudan: should the US military be there too? 2 million people died in that war. Far more than in Rwanda. Still neither you nor Clark has been crying out for sending US military there.
You can't have it both ways.

First you accused Gore of flip-flopping on Rwanda.
When that argument collapsed in the light of the facts you changed your story and now you spread this nonsense that it should have been Gore's responsibility to push for US troops in Rwanda.

And you think that this is quite alright....so why should I listen or value anything you have to say.....?

Apparently you think that it's quite all right that "we allowed 2 million black folks to die in Sudan" so why should I listen or value anything you have to say.....?
Hypocrite.


In fact, I find you conspicuously absent in this thread here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Now why didn't you not have anything at all to say in that thread?

This is the first time I saw that thread that's why.

p.s. What does Gore and Rwanda have to do with Clark's flip-flop and political expediency?

[FrenchieCat]

116. You are wrong and ill informed.....

when you say...You still failed to answer my question about Sudan: should the US military be there too? 2 million people died in that war. Far more than in Rwanda. Still neither you nor Clark has been crying out for sending US military there.

I can tell at this point that you know nothing of Wes Clark at all.

Is Darfur in the Sudan?

Shame that you would show your clear ignorance on Foreign policies and who's who so quickly!

[drummo]

120. Do you know the difference between NATO troops and US troops?

I can tell at this point that you know nothing of Wes Clark at all.

Is Darfur in the Sudan?

Shame that you would show your clear ignorance on Foreign policies and who's who so quickly!

Darfur? When was the last time you looked at the map of Sudan?
The civil war in Sudan has been going on since 1955.
Not just in Darfur. Millions have been killed over the decades.
The war was going on in the 90s, as well. And in 2000. In 2001. In 2002, 2003.
I don't remember Clark saying that the US should send troops to stop the war in, say, in 1998?
Do you?
Did he call for sending US troops to Sudan during the campaign, for example?
And not just some but enough to stop the bloodshed? Did he want US troops to engange in combat in Sudan?

And Clark said NATO peacekeeping troops should be sent to supplement African Union peacekeeping already in the region. NATO troops are not the same as US troops -- even though the US is member of NATO. In Afghanistan, for example, there are US troops and NATO troops.
But Clark never said that the US should sent large number of US troops to Sudan. And you claimed that the US should have done just that in Rwanda.

So again: neither you nor Clark has been crying out for sending the US military there.

It's a true statement.

[LandOLincoln]

129. We bow to your superior knowlege of the

"RW machine."

Insiders always know more than outsiders, do they not?

[drummo]

132. It doesn't require superior knowledge. You just had to pay

attention to what they did to Kerry.

Insiders always know more than outsiders, do they not?

They know more about what?

[LandOLincoln]

135. How quickly y'all forget:

Clark is a pretender who flip-flopped on the IWR. He would be destroyed by the RW machine just like Kerry.

[drummo]

139. I didn't forget that. But you think that the RW doesn't know about

Clark what I know?

Come on. Even if he survived the primaries the Reps would go after him. And this time around they would have facts to back up their claims.

[LandOLincoln]

159. "...the Reps would go after him"

...you mean like you're going after him now? And you wouldn't "go after" any other Democrat?

And exactly what are the "facts" to which you refer? All I've seen are the same old Rovian lies/talking points that have been debunked time and again.

[melody]

10. Gore won. The Supreme Court gave it to Bush.

That's all that matters.

[Clarkie1]

12. The magin of victory also matters. n/t

[melody]

19. If you don't like Gore, that's your right, but the fact remains

In any just society, Gore would have been President.

[Clarkie1]

22. I like Gore a lot.

I voted for him the first time he ran in a primary.

Liking or not liking Gore is not the issue...at least it's not for me.

[melody]

25. It's not the issue for me either, the facts are the issue

I really like Dennis Kucinich, but I don't for a moment think he ever got near the Oval Office. lol

[Clarkie1]

97. O.K., then we just maybe disagree on our interpretation of the facts.

That's cool.

[Zhade]

160. Self-delete

Pointless.

[drummo]

69. No it doesn't. Gore beat Bush by a wider margin than Kennedy beat

Nixon.

Still you cannot hear Dems complaining that Kennedy was a bad candidate or that Kennedy didn't really win because it was so damn close.

Bush 50,460,110 47.87%
Gore. 51,003,926 48.38%


Kennedy 34,220,984 49.72%
Nixon 34,108,157 49.55%


Don't forget if Gore was in the White House you wouldn't say any of these things. And based on the number of votes he got he should be in the White House.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[LandOLincoln]

142. Thank you for laying it out so clearly, nvliberal.

But there are some here who would rather eat their own than do the strategically and tactically smart thing and focus on the real enemy.

[bowens43]

43. What matters is that Gore LOST

what should have been an easy win. Florida should have been irrelevent.

[melody]

49. Gore WON - and Florida was irrelevant

And that said, he got much closer to really and truly winning than any of the other candidates in the field.

Since we've run up against the wall of discussion on this matter, I won't post to the thread again. My responses can be seen in the foregoing.

[drummo]

70. Easy win? How? He started the campaign with 20% behind Bush.

Even Clinton was losing to Bush in the polls in 2000.

How should have been that an easy win?

[mzmolly]

13. Are SOME Clark supporters afraid of a Gore run? Thinking strategically

may mean placing Gore in the race as he was able to win a primary.

I like Clark, but I think it's ill advised to start bashing Gore.

[Clarkie1]

20. I'm not afraid of a Gore run.

I do believe we will lose in 08' if he is nominated. Americans will ask themselves why Democrats can't come up with anyone new besides someone who at best won a stolen election by the slimmest of margins.

I'm not bashing Gore, I'm just asking people to think.

[mzmolly]

35. We'll sort things out in the primaries I presume?

Gore/Clark may be on a ticket together or neither may run, who knows?

[drummo]

71. And Americans will ask why do Reps nominate this old loser

McCain?

Right?

We don't need a new guy in the White House.
We need someone who knows how to govern.
Newbies do not know that.

Newbies rarely get the top job in the private sector.
It should be the standard in the public sector as well.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. I'm not.

The more the merrier, I say. Gore isn't my cup of tea personally, but people here have every right to support him, and he's got every right to run if that's what he decides to do.

I'm not getting into any candidate pissing matches this early in the game.

Please don't assume that any individual Clarkie speaks for all of them. I expect that the OP is speaking for himself. He has a right to his opinions too.

[mzmolly]

36. Sorry to lump "Clarkies" into one basket.

:hi: I edited my post to be more precise.

[Texas_Kat]

37. Thanks for that!

I don't have any problem with Gore running at all. I DO take issue with the tendency of some to want to coronate him.

So far as I'm concerned, nominating someone for no better reason than nostalgia is not serving the country well. It may also be a prescription for disaster, since much of the country doesn't feel the same nostalgia.

If he's going to run (and there's absolutely no indication that he will) he's going to have to campaign for it, fight for it and want it more than it seems he does if he really said (paraphrasing) "it needs to be all set up for him ahead of time".

[drummo]

72. Someone with Gore's record cannot be coronated. He's earned it

already.

And he was elected president.

[Texas_Kat]

104. That was then, this is now.

If he'd wanted to help the Democratic party, he'd have run in 2004.

Apparently he didn't want to do that, what makes you think he's going to run again? Particularly in light of his adament denials?

[drummo]

109. RE:

If he'd wanted to help the Democratic party, he'd have run in 2004.

Huh? The Democratic party didn't want him to run.
How can you help someone who doesn't want your help?

And Gore would have lost in 2004. Every Democrat would have lost in 2004.

But 2008 is different.

Apparently he didn't want to do that

He made it clear in his 60 minutes interview that he personally had the energy and the ambition to
run again but the party was not ready to do it again.

what makes you think he's going to run again

I don't know whether he will or not.
I just know what he said.
And he didn't say he will not run (you know the way Rice said it on MTP)
He left the door open and it's just 2005, anyway.
Noone would say now that I will run. The media would have too much time to destroy them.

Particularly in light of his adament denials?

What adamant denials?
Would you please provide the exact wording of his statement? Not the media spin but what he really said.
It is far from being an adamant denial.

**
But will he run?

Even with a crowd composed largely of scholars and students of the environment, the question of Gore’s presidential ambitions hung over the event. Gore, who lodged an unsuccessful bid for president five years ago, recently said he has no plans to run again in 2008 — but he would not rule out a candidacy. His speech often seemed to reflect this ambiguity.
**
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/25/435dc7f41d9b2

Apparently I am not the only one who understands that ambiguity.

[Texas_Kat]

110. No, I'd expect you would understand ambiguity

He's welcome to run in 08, he can fight it out with the other potential candidates. If he's just playing coy we'll see. I expect if he draws votes away from anyone, it will be Edwards and Warner.

The DLC candidate (Bayh) and the periennial candidate (Biden) won't be affected. He won't have an effect on Clark votes either.

I'm still interested to see which states you think he might pull into the Democratic column that Kerry/Edwards didn't and perhaps which primary states you think he might carry.

[drummo]

113. I certainly understand ambiguity

I expect if he draws votes away from anyone, it will be Edwards and Warner.

Why Edwards and Warner?

The DLC candidate (Bayh) and the periennial candidate (Biden) won't be affected. He won't have an effect on Clark votes either.

Why? Gore would go after Clark's flip-flop on the IWR. Gore had far more credibility on that issue than Clark. For one thing Clark never urged the Congress to reject Bush's resolution. And Gore never said -- unlike Clark -- that he would have voted for that resolution.
And he made that clear in 2003 that only Dean opposed the IWR from the beginning. Of course Clark didn't like that but he couldn't eliminiate his own record on the issue. One reason why he lost big. People just didn't trust him. Especially not after it turned out that he voted for Reagan and praised Bushco after Florida.

Not to mention that Clark is noone compared to Gore on domestic issues and government experience. Furthermore Clark is not a visionary. He is a quite average thinker. Nothing special.

I'm still interested to see which states you think he might pull into the Democratic column that Kerry/Edwards didn't and perhaps which primary states you think he might carry.

I said that he could win the Gore 2000 states again. And if he does he is president.
He doesn't need any more states.

which primary states you think he might carry.

Any primary state. Iowa, NH, New York, Michigan, California you name it.

[FrenchieCat]

126. Right....

The Rhodes Scholar, first in his class at West Point who turned down scholarships at both Harvard and Yale, a 4 star general, the most decorated since Eisenhower is being called an "average Thinker...nothing special" by Drummo....which means it must be! :sarcasm:

Wes Clark, raised by a widowed mother...not a swanky apartment filled with nannies...and really representing someone who did start with nothing....but you can choose to see him as just your average GI Joe on the street, if it makes you feel better. I actually prefer a leader that exudes an "average mentality"...while all the while, he's smart as hell.

But please, let us all listen to Drummo, cause Drummo just plain damn knows!

Clark may be "nothing special", but there are some who would disagree with all of the smears that you have been spouting about Wes Clark.

Sorry as stupid as this may seem, I'll go with these folks' assessements of Wes Clark, as opposed to yours...

Michael Moore on Wes Clark: he never learned to lie.

Mario Cuomo on Wes Clark: he doesn't know how to lie.

Richard Clarke: Wes told me to tell the truth.

Sy Hersh: Wes asked me why I hadn't written the story (about Operation Anaconda). He said I should have...he was right.

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn." -Mario Cuomo

" seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait." Richard Perle, war-monger

"To those who say that Wes Clark has never held political office: anyone who can command NATO, and keep all those forces together, and win that war without losing one American life, knows what it means to hold political office." Tom Harkin

"There are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary and Wes Clark."-Bill Clinton

"Major Clark is one of the most outstanding officers of his grade in the U.S. Army...an officer of impeccable character with a rare blend of personal qualities and professional attributes which uniquely qualify him as a soldier-scholar. While he has the intellectual grasp of world affairs attained only by the top scholars in the field, he projects soldierly qualities of strength, character, leadership, and above all an unyielding sense of personal responsibility. It is this sense of responsibility which clearly sets him apart from his contemporaries. has the intellectual, moral and physical stamina, coupled with an unrelenting quest for excellence, which insures the completion of every task to near perfection. Major Clark's earnestness, sincerity of purpose and absolute dedication convey a moral force in his work which gives him a significant voice in this headquarters..." -General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., July 19, 1978

"There are a lot of good Democrats in this race, but Wes Clark is the best Democrat." - Sen. George McGovern

"I have decided to cast my vote in the primary for Wesley Clark. That's right, a peacenik is voting for a general. What a country!
I believe that Wesley Clark will end this war. He will make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. He will stand up for the rights of women, African Americans, and the working people of this country.
And he will cream George W. Bush.'"Michael Moore

"General Wesley Clark carried out the policy of the NATO Alliance to stop massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo with great skill, integrity, and determination."Bill Clinton


"Wes Clark has been a superb battalion commander and will be a superb brigade commander. He is an officer of the rarest potential and will clearly rise to senior general officer rank. He will be one of the Army's leaders in the 1990's." General Colin Powell, May 21, 1982

"I asked a whole lot of my friends who were generals and colonels and majors, who served over General Clark and under General Clark and every last one of them said to me that this is a good man, and if he were leading our nation they would be proud. son of the South capable of making a dangerous world a safer place for everybody. A man we are going to make the next president of the United States." Andrew Young

"My Enron experience has brought home to me just how important the tone at the top is. integrity, he's not going to mislead the American people and he has a longterm vision. I think Wes Clark is just the person to help rebuild and restore the damage that has been done by the way we bullied our way into the war." Sherron Watkins, Enron whistle-blower

Bill Clinton, "At the apex of a long and distinguished military career that goes back to his outstanding performance as a cadet at West Point over 30 years ago, he was assigned a challenge many experts thought was mission impossible. Instead, thanks to Gen. Clark, we now can declare it mission accomplished."
http://www.medaloffreedom.com/WesleyClark.htm

“But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." Paul Wellstone
http://www.wellstoneaction.org/news/news_detail.aspx?it...
and also got Fiore's PREWAR cartoon where this is mentioned
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html

"For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim's November issue, I'm impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes, says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em." The Late Col. David Hackworth
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738

"Clark offers America proven leadership ability and worldwide stature; and I especially admire his brains, his sincerity and integrity and his moral courage. He has championed women and families throughout his career, and I agree 100% with his proposals on women's issues. Not incidentally, I'm glad he taught Economics and also Philosophy--two crucial subjects for dealing with complex problems facing America today."
Muriel Fox, One of the founding members of the National Organization for Women (NOW), she served in several positions: vice president (1967-1970), chair of the board (1971-1973), and chair of the national advisory committee (1973-1974).

"I support Wes Clark because I know he will be a powerful advocate for all women, both in the United States and abroad, by making sure that we have access to affordable health care and child care. I know that Wes Clark will expand economic opportunities for women and use his expertise in foreign policy to make the world safer for women everywhere. Finally, I know Wes Clark will protect our reproductive rights. As a young woman, there is nothing more important to me, and there is no other candidate as well-suited to do so than Wes Clark."
Aimee Boone
graduate student at American University

"I saw Wes Clark being interviewed a couple of weeks before he announced his candidacy. I was so taken with his clarity, leadership and vision for America that I immediately thought 'this man should be President of the United States". Since that time, I have done extensive research on him, particularly on issues that are important to me and other women.
As I have learned more about Wes Clark and his platform, I am deeply committed to helping him become President. He has re-kindled my patriotism and belief that we can have a President who will treat the office with respect and always put the best interest of America before his own. Thank you Wes!"
Teray Stephens
CEO Invision Group LLC

"Thankfully, there is now a candidate running for President who is committed to ensuring that our country lives up to its promise and its people. He is a decorated soldier and a respected diplomatic leader, who has already given 34 years to his country. He is smart and he is good. He has worked hard to get where he is and he is a national hero." Madonna, entertainer and mother

"Wes Clark inspires women with his confidence and credentials and the strong positions he has taken on issues of concern to women. For women, Wes Clark represents dignity, honesty and a keen understanding of leadership. Wes Clark will make our children and families safer, and our world more secure. That is why I am endorsing him for President."
Tara Sonenshine, Journalist and former White House official

"There are so many reasons to like Wes Clark, but for me it comes down to the fact that he's is a good, decent human being. Someone who says with compassion and resolute conviction, "because when you can do good, you should." He knows that diplomacy is most effective when backed by a credible threat of force, but will exhaust every diplomatic means possible first. He knows first-hand the true consequences of sending men and women in to battle. He's an officer, a gentleman, and a Rhodes scholar who's got the ability and experience to be a great leader of our country.

There's nothing special about me nor the kind of life I want to lead. I want to live in a country of opportunities, where I can pursue my dreams, just as my parents and their parents did before them. I'm a pragmatic idealist who believes our best years are ahead of us and can say with all my heart that, Wes Clark will make an extraordinary President."
Mona S., Los Angeles

"First, as a leader in the military who instituted Head Start for all kids on the military bases, made housing more affordable, and made sure every person had health insurance; second, as Supreme NATO Commander who recognized the outcome of the successful campaign to stop Slobodan Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Kosovo "was not just the weapons of war;" and third, because Clark's experience clearly shows us, that he is a listener who can lessen our conflicts and link us again to what makes America great."
Cindy McDaniel
Women For Clark, Delaware

"I'm enthusiastically supporting Wesley Clark because I am convinced that he will be a strong, visionary, ethical leader who can rebuild our international alliances while addressing our critical domestic challenges in health care, the economy and national security."
Mary Rauh
1998 Democratic Nominee for Congress, NH 2nd District
Former Chair, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, and PPFA Affiliates Presidents' Council

"We do grant, however, that some women are wary of a President who is a military man and we ourselves had to overcome such a feeling of wariness--too macho, too authoritarian....That's the stereotype of the military, even though many of the military are now women. But we had to abandon our stereotype when a general came along who is, astonishingly, gentle and nurturing as well as tough and brave, who is of liberal spirit and who calls for "a new American patriotism," defined as insisting that citizens have a right--indeed, a duty--to express dissent in a democracy. But is there anything here that doesn't benefit men as well as women? We have similar goals. Wes Clark's presidency would help human beings, whoever and wherever they are, and not only Americans."
Dudley Dudley and Jeanette Hopkins


"Wesley Clark approaches problems with honesty, intelligence and integrity. He understands the power and potential of the United States and the opportunity to use that power for good. He has experience, rarely found, in working with allies and opponents to try to find common ground despite significant differences. His commitment to racial and gender equity is consistently demonstrated in his professional and personal behavior. Whether one focuses on reproductive health, civil rights and liberties, privacy, or war as the least desirable and last alternative, Wesley Clark's values reflect the best of what this nation could -and should - be."
Marjorie Smith
Marjorie Smith is a member of the Democratic leadership in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and chairs the New Hampshire Women's Policy Institute.

"By the way, I think people who meet and spend time with Clark do have an unusual reaction to him. He's so unlike most politicians that I've met. He actually is an idealist in the best sense of the word - and it's genuine (remember I'm also a shrink and I am quite good at knowing when someone is being genuine). He reminds me of the Jimmy Stewart movie - Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I think many of us folks who were active politically in the 60's have been so disheartened by politicians since those days and lots of us have stopped being involved very actively in campaigns for exactly those reasons. Then, after being so unbelievably appalled by Bush that we start thinking we have to do something, the question becomes which Democrat do we support.

Do we pick the one who most agrees with us on all we care about? Do we pick the person who makes us feel more powerful because he is so good at expressing the anger we've felt since the last election? Do we do the one thing that the Republicans are really good at and pick a candidate who can actually get elected - someone who we can live with and will appeal to our fellow democrats and independents in the red states and maybe even some disenchanted Republicans? So, many of the Clark supporters got to Clark pragmatically - looking solely at electability with the goal of getting rid of Bush. Then, we go about meeting this guy - his optimism is contagious - he actually has his own vision for the country - is extremely intelligent with Masters degrees in philosophy, economics, government - yet, comes across as a down to earth regular guy - it's pretty unusual.
I'm not sure that I would put my life on the line for my country but I kind of like the idea of having a president who wouldn't ask anyone to do anything that he/she hasn't done themselves. I think this may have a great deal of appeal in the red states and we need some red states to rid the country of Bush."
Janet Lindner Spielberg
Attorney in Los Angeles

"I support Wesley Clark because of the exciting prospect of having someone in the White House who combines a shining intelligence, compassion and a real, as opposed to a false, moral integrity."
Mary Gordon, Author

"I believe that with Wesley Clark, we have a man who can give integrity back to the United States - make us respected, make us respect ourselves... and help us rebuild a world we want our children to grow up in...
I also trust him to see that the next Supreme Court Justices named will not turn back civil liberties 30 to 50 years, and perhaps, for the world as a whole, that's the most important thing..."
Lucy Laederich


In looking at Wesley Clark's resume, many people are impressed with the fact that he was a general. I am too. He is a superb tactician. Even more important than that, he rejects war except as a last resort. But I am equally impressed with the fact that as Clark worked his way through the ranks, he provided for his family on a tight military salary. There is glory in that, too, though it is easily overlooked.

Wesley Clark is often compared to Dwight D. Eisenhower: sure, they were both generals who ran for the presidency, but I think of Clark in the tradition of Harry S. Truman. He doesn't look on Americans from the vantage point of privilege, holding them at arm's length and reading about their problems in some report. He stands eye-to-eye with voters. Whether he is talking about advanced over-the-horizon radar defense systems or the pitfalls of home finance, Clark knows first-hand what he is talking about.
Looking at the future, I believe that Wesley Clark is the one candidate from either major party who can bridge the widening ideological gulf that threatens to tear this country apart. With his appeal to a wide spectrum of Americans, he is the best hope for a return to a united United States.
Julie Fenster
Published Author and Historian


When Wes Clark was my age, he had already earned a Silver Star for his service in Vietnam and was meeting his infant son for the first time. This commitment to serving his country was derived not just from a desire to provide a more secure future for his young family, but to ensure that America was a standard bearer for professionalism on the battlefield, responsible foreign policy, and civic pride. As the youngest female city councilor, and with a child of my own, I have the utmost respect for General Clark's dedication to his community, his country, and its place in the world.
Never have we needed a leader with this national and global vision more than we do now. Our country has suffered from haphazard domestic policies regarding employment, the environment, and national security and our ability to serve as a model for other countries has been seriously undermined by a bullying foreign policy. General Clark's direct, detailed, and reasonable policy proposals represent the hopes and dreams of American families. We want things to be better not just for ourselves, but for our neighbors, not just for our country, but for our world.
General Clark brings a seasoned hand to foreign policy with a respect for international law. He also brings a rational approach to remedying our domestic woes from tax cuts to higher education. Wesley Clark understands that the world will be safer when America's people are stronger, and that strength comes from a sense of personal well-being, from pride in our communities, and from respect for our commander in chief to lead us in the right direction. I am so glad that General Clark has decided to share his strength with us, and to help us find our way to better tomorrows!
Jacqueline Augustine
City Councilor, Geneva, NY

I, as a liberal, support General Clark because I'm confident that his military experience will keep him from going to war on a whim, and putting our young American men and women at risk without due reason. General Clark's experience has shown that he can reach peaceful solutions to threatening international strife. That, in combination with his first hand experience with the horror of war, gives me the confidence in the belief that armed confllict would truly be a last resort in a Clark administration.
Lynda Garner Goldstein, MS. Ed.
Monroe County Legislator, District 14

*Little Rock* - Fifty-five former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats, women and men who have served in some 36 countries during the last four administrations, believe that Wesley K. Clark is the right choice to lead America at this critical time in the world.

"Serving as representatives of the United States has allowed each of us to meet with world leaders and see what terrific leadership looks like," said Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands and co-chair of Ambassadors for Clark. "We know that the world is more interconnected than ever before, and so the impact of good and bad leadership impacts America and the world more than ever before. Wes Clark appreciates that and ambassadors understand the interconnectedness of the world and the critical need for a new leader to repair and strengthen our global ties."

"I am thrilled by the endorsement of those that have the respect of world leaders on every continent," Wesley Clark said. "They understand the importance of rebuilding America's alliances and restoring our country to a position of leadership based on cooperation and respect."

Ambassadors and Diplomats for Clark grew out of the unique phenomena of the Draft Wesley Clark movement. Not only did Wes Clark receive encouragement to run from thousands of individuals from across the U.S., the letters of support came from people, both U.S. citizens and citizens of many other nations, who understand that Wes Clark is the person we need to lead America at this crucial moment in history. The full list of ambassadors and diplomats is below.

1. Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
2. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
3. Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
4. Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
5. Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
6. J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
7. Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
8. Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
9. Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
10. George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
11. Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
12. Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
13. Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
14. Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
15. Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
16. Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
17. Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
18. Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
19. Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
20. Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
21. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
22. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
23. Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
24. John Holum, Under Secretary of State
25. William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
26. Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
27. James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
28. Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
29. John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
30. Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
31. Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
32. Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
33. Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
34. Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
35. Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
36. Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
37. James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
38. Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
39. James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
40. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
41. Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
42. Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
43. David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
44. Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
45. Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
46. Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
47. Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
48. Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
49. Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
50. Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
51. Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
52. William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo Verification Mission
53. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
54. Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
55. Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

So who should I listen to? :shrug:

[drummo]

131. Yes, it is absolutely right. But you are wrong about that apartment.

The Rhodes Scholar, first in his class at West Point who turned down scholarships at both Harvard and Yale, a 4 star general, the most decorated since Eisenhower is being called an "average Thinker...nothing special" by Drummo....which means it must be!

Yes. He is an average thinker. And not only that but Condi Rice is a below average thinker even though at age 19, she earned a B.A. in political science (cum laude) and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver, in 1975, she obtained her Master's Degree from the University of Notre Dame and in 1981, at age 26, she received her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. In addition to English, she speaks Russian, French, and Spanish.

There is no inherent connection between someone's performance in schools and ability to think outside of the box. Vint Cerf, for example, is not a Rhodes Scholar and he was not first in his class at Stanford. But Cerf did something very special which changed the world
because he is an original thinker.

Being a four star general is somehow special? In what way? Explain that to me. What did Clark do as a four start general that really required unique thinking?

Wes Clark, raised by a widowed mother...not a swanky apartment filled with nannies

Trust me: Gore was not raised by a swanky apartment filled with nannies. I mean nobody can be raised by an apartment, right?

He was not even raised by nannies. He was just left alone in that apartment. Or when his father was on the campaign trail he was left at foster parents. Under not exactly swanky circumstances:

JONES: Usually, young Al was left in the care of Alota and William Thompson, the tenant farmers who ran the Gores’ spread outside Carthage...he Thompson home had no indoor plumbing, and was heated by a single coal-burning fireplace. Al shared a bed with the Thompson’s only son, Gordon.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h040699_1.shtml

In fact he was not even living in a swanky apartment. Not only that he didn't even have a separate room. And if you had filled that room with nannies it wouldn't have left much room for Gore himself.


"Did Gore grow up in a "swank hotel?"
When the Gores lived in the building in question, it was actually a residential hotel—the Fairfax Apartment Hotel—known as "Washington’s family hotel." Though it would later be sold to the Ritz Carlton (and renovated), it was neither "fancy" nor "elegant" at this time, according to a string of Gore biographers.
In February 1998, for example, Marjorie Williams did a profile for Vanity Fair in which she examined Gore’s childhood years. "Although the Fairfax Hotel later became the Ritz-Carlton," she wrote, "it was not a posh place at the time Gore was growing up; in any case, the apartment was in their reach only because the hotel was owned by a cousin."
Bill Turque agreed in his later biography. "The Fairfax was a bit more modest in Gore’s day," he wrote. "The bare linoleum floor and thick steel doors suggested transience and utility."
And why did foreign-service families often live at the Fairfax? "The hotel apartments were the only ones with kitchens that were within the State Department’s stingy temporary-housing allowance," Sarah Booth Conroy reported in a 1998 Washington Post retrospective."

More:http://www.dailyhowler.com/h021302_1.shtml

and

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080802.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080902.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h012400_2.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h101999_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h042500_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h101899_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032599_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h070299_1.shtml

I really cannot imagine any more swanky childhood than that.

Did you get this "swanky apartment filled with nannies" nonsense from Jim Nicholson and his RNC memos?

and really representing someone who did start with nothing

He didn't start with nothing. A streetboy in Bangladesh starts with nothing not Clark.
But what does that have to do with vision and original thinking?
The world is full of people who get richer after they grow up. Does that prove that each and every one of them is somehow a unique thinker?

but you can choose to see him as just your average GI Joe on the street

No, I don't think about Clark as a GI Joe. I just think about him as an average thinker. He is smart but he is not a special mind.

I actually prefer a leader that exudes an "average mentality"...while all the while, he's smart as hell.

1.If he was so smart as hell how could he claim that he bobbled the question about the IWR? It was a very simple question. No high IQ was needed to understand. Can it be that he knew very well what he was talking about and that he just flip-flopped for political reasons?

2. Being smart is one thing. Being a unique thinker is another.

Sorry as stupid as this may seem, I'll go with these folks' assessements of Wes Clark, as opposed to yours...

And which of these quotes prove that Clark didn't flip-flop on the IWR? Please, be specific.

This one?

"There are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary and Wes Clark."-Bill Clinton

I guess you want to say this proves that Hillary is not an opportunist.

I could show you quotes from 1000s of people who praise Bush but that would not prove that he didn't lie about WMD, right?

So who should I listen to?

To Clark himself:

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

then

"I would have voted no on that resolution," Clark said during that call.

Wait, I may find a quote where someone said about Clark when he was 6 years old "he is a cute boy". That, too, refutes that he lied about his record on the IWR.

[CarolNYC]

168. Mario Cuomo quote

Frenchie, I love that Mario Cuomo quote:

"Wes Clark is a man of whom you can ask a question, and he will look you directly in the eye, and give you the most truthful and complete answer you can imagine. You will know the absolute truth of the statement as well as the thought process behind the answer. You will have no doubt as to the intellect of the speaker and meaning of the answer to this question....So you can see, as a politician, he has a lot to learn." -Mario Cuomo

Maybe there are some here who think that Mario should be pilloried also but I love Mario and I loved that he had this to say about the Gen Clark. Hey, who you going to believe on this one, Mario Cuomo or a headless chicken?

As for having a lot to learn as a politician, there are some things I hope Gen Clark never learns...Even if it means he will never be elected, I don't want him to learn how to lie.....What was that Mike Moore quote, well after the primaries were over, about Wes not winning because he never learned how to lie or something to that effect? I love that one too...

[Texas_Kat]

153. Just as I thought.... you don't do math

So far as your comment: "Why? Gore would go after Clark's flip-flop on the IWR. Gore had far more credibility on that issue than Clark."

Bill O'Reilly think of himself as a military strategist. That doesn't make him one. Even Gore isn't foolhardy enough to take the tack you've been spouting. If he does, he' be laughed at 'from sea to shining sea'.

"... far more credibility" How so? How many people have called on Gore for his assessment of the situation in Iraq over the last 2 years? The Senate? no... The Out of Iraq Caucus in the House? No. Even the MSM don't ask him. (and they will ask even the unqualified for their opinion) Each of these has Clark advising them on a regular basis.

So, Gore will take Iowa and NH -- think again.... Vilsack and Kerry stand in the way. Think he'll take the Texas primary? No one in Texas would even campaign with him in 2000 except in safely blue areas .... Think he'll take NY if Hillary runs? Not a chance.... Michigan? Not if Feingold runs... South Carolina? John Edwards would disagree.... Virginia? Warner has something to say about that....

Sounds to me like most of your 'plan' is wishful thinking.... The more I hear from you, the more I realize that not only are your posts untrue, vicious and inane, but they also reveal how little you really know about politics.

(Edited to include edwards and warner)

[LandOLincoln]

130. Ummm--that would be "crowned."

Not "coronated."

Thank you for correcting your rather telling error.

[drummo]

134. Texas_Kat used the word coronated. Not me.

Thank you for confusing me with someone else.

[LandOLincoln]

144. And thank YOU

for your rather revealing whine.

"Someone with Gore's record cannot be coronated."

So Texas Kat is now posting under your screenname? It's all her fault? She started it?

Typical, typical, typical...

PS: Morrison said that (typical....) not me--don't blame me, I didn't do it, it's all his fault, he started it, honest!!

[Texas_Kat]

156. Yep Lincoln

It's always someone else's fault.

Consider the consternation if I'd gone with my first choice "annointed".

:dilemma:

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Thank you mzmolly.

I appreciate it.:hi:

[mzmolly]

84. Thanks for pointing out my error.

;)

[bowens43]

44. I don't see Gore or Clark winning in 2008.

Clark couldn't beat Kerry, Kerry couldn't beat Bush.

It's time for new blood.

[Texas_Kat]

46. It's a new ball game, though isn't it. n/t

[mzmolly]

50. It doesn't really work that way.

We need someone views as "strong on foreign policy" blood, and the pickins is slim.

[drummo]

74. Right on foreign policy. Not strong. We had that under Bush.

:nuke:

[mzmolly]

82. Bush is weak and wrong on foreign policy. I don't want a mongering

hawk, but a person who will inspire confidence and trust in the people who will be voting in a few years.

[drummo]

103. I agree but don't use this RW soundbite "strong on foreign policy"

We should emphasize "right on foreign policy"

[mzmolly]

145. We can emphasize both. Clinton was strong on foreign policy

and Clark is supposed to be. Gore certainly would be considered as such as he was in the White House for 8 years.

[BigYawn]

58. Yes, I agree, but Gore would win more states than Clark, by far

[drummo]

75. That's not sure at all. I think both Gore and Clark could win

the Gore 2000 states.

Of course Florida included.

[drummo]

73. But Gore beat Bush. And you had new blood in 2004. Didn't work

[LandOLincoln]

136. It's time for you to say something positive about

a Democrat.

Just one. Shouldn't be so hard, should it?

[FrenchieCat]

87. Actually, if you do a search on Drummo, you will find the "Basher"

of all Bashers...and in particular he likes to call Clark names.

Not even sure if the true "point" is to necessarily promote Gore.

Considering the smears that Drummo has been spouting about the General, thread after thread after thread...., I guess that Clarkie1 has the same right if he feels that way. At least there are no Clarkies calling Al Gore right out names......

[drummo]

108. I called Clark what he is: pretender and dishonest.

He flip-flopped on the RW for political reasons and he pretends that he is better than the other Dems who voted for it.

You know if you steal you are a thief.
If you change your message for political reasons while lying about your record you are dishonest.

Considering the smears that Drummo has been spouting about the General,

Smear is based on falsehoods.
What I said about Clark was based on his own words.
You haven't managed to refute that so now you are whining about "name calling".
Do you think anyone here smears Tom DeLay? No because we know he is a criminal.
Similarly, if you accuse Clark for something he in fact did you don't smear him. You just tell it like it is.

At least there are no Clarkies calling Al Gore right out names......

Probably because he did not flip-flopped on the IWR for political reasons.
And of course do Clark fans call Gore names. Just yesterday on a Kos thread about Gore's Michigan speech a Clark supporter idiot (he was really an idiot who blamed Gore for the Iraq war) called him everything imaginable. And that was not the first and probably not the last time.

[FrenchieCat]

114. So Clark is now a liar, a pretender and a criminal?

OK....Drummo, I am starting to understand your tact!

All I can say is you will lose this....take my word for it!

[drummo]

118. Who said he is a criminal? Don't distort my words. It was a

metaphor to make you understand that if someone indeed did something
bad then calling him on that is not smear.
If you are a thief calling you a thief is not smear.
If DeLay is a criminal calling him a cirminal is not smear.
If Clark is a pretender calling him a pretended is not smear.

Get it?

Yes, Clark is a liar and he is a pretender.
He knew very well what he said earlier about the IWR. He simply changed his message because he realized that he would lose if the Dem voters believe he would have voted for the resolution.

He even said that Dean was not the only one who was anti-war from the beginning. This was his strategy: me too, me too. But he didn't have the record to back that up.

And he still continues to pretend that he is better than the Dems who voted for the IWR.

All I can say is you will lose this....take my word for it!

I will lose what?

Clark lost partly because Dems didn't trust him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

157. He even said that Dean was not the only one who was anti-war from the...

First, I want to apologize to all legitimate Gore supporters here at DU. You have every right to work for and promote the virtues of your guy, and Gore has ample virtues to promote.

Second, I want to apologize to all DU GDP regulars who are being forced to wade through all this crap. I can no longer allow one poster to hijack thread after thread after thread into a soap box used to continually bash Wesley Clark. I and others have attempted to avoid this fight. I welcome any effort made by fair minded supporters of any and/or all Democrats to prevent the focus of our work together from devolving into a series of accusations about 2003 that supposedly are germain to 2008, while we really need to be focused in 2005 working together to regain Congress

OK drummo, your full quote: "He even said that Dean was not the only one who was anti-war from the beginning. This was his strategy: me too, me too. But he didn't have the record to back that up.

And he still continues to pretend that he is better than the Dems who voted for the IWR..."

You are becoming even more slippery and toxic toward an increasingly large swath of Democrats. You are confusing confusion over a possible vote for a specific version of an IWR resolution with favoring the war itself. You just executed a destructive leap of logic. Dean, Gore, Kerry, and others who all actively opposed Bush's actual moves toward invading Iraq all at one time or another supported the possibility of such an act under compelling enough circumstances. They all referenced using the UN to make demands on Hussein to remove any threat of WMD from Iraq. They all agreed that under some circumstances they would support military action against Iraq even without full UN Security Council support.

So are you saying that Clark was Pro Iraq war? I just want to be clear on that because that is the implication I get from your statement. John Edwards was Pro Iraq war, yet even the left wing our our Party campaigned for him to become VP, myself included. I am not going around trying to dig up dirt on John Edwards just because he might run for President in 2008 against another Democrat that I support.

As to the second half of your statement. Prove it. You say "And he still continues to pretend that he is better than the Dems who voted for the IWR." Alright, prove it. Where has Wes Clark said anything remotely like that. You use the term "still continues to" so you can't be referring to statements made by Clark during the 2004 primaries. So what statements are you referring to? Put up or shut up. All I see is you continuing to pretend that Wes Clark is worse than the Democrats who voted for the IWR.

[Lena inRI]

14. My strategically winning 2008 ticket would be. . .

Clark/Boxer

:kick:

[Clarkie1]

18. Sounds great to me! n/t

[susanna]

28. I love Clark.

That said, Boxer? IMHO, that would be a very divisive choice and might cancel out any "above the fray" that Clark might bring to the table.

[Clarkie1]

32. It might not be so divisive at the bottom of the ticket though.

And could energize the base more and bring out women voters more.

[drummo]

77. The base was energized in 2004. Didn't work. The based is just not

big enough.

[Clarkie1]

96. No, the base is not big enough.

Which is an even better argument for nominating the candidate who can be most persuasive to the other side; someone they are most likely to listen to and respect.

In other words, I'd advise against a career politician...

[drummo]

115. Most presidents were career politicians. And in this post 9/11

world newbies are hardly sellable.

We have major domestic problems as well.

By 2008 the economy may very well be down again.
Do you want a newbie to deal with that?

And Gore ran among indies just as well as Bush did.

Gore Bush
Democrat 87% 11%
Republican 8% 90%
Independent 45% 46%

[BigYawn]

60. My personal pref is Gore/Clark in 2008

That would be a formidable ticket. Clark at the top
of ticket would be a disaster. Clark did not come even
close to beating Kerry, Edwards, even Lieberman, in 2004.
His military background would be a huge boost on a Gore/Clark
ticket. The main problem with Clark is he has never held any
elected office and has 1/100th political experience as Gore.

[drummo]

76. Clark would be destroyed for flip-flopping on the IWR, just like Kerry

And Boxer is waaaay too liberal.

[FrenchieCat]

92. Clark would not be and was not "destroyed" by the smears that

drummo repeats adnauseam.

Do you really support Al Gore, Drummo? Because it appears that your scheme is to alienate Clark supporters and those that may want to support AL Gore.

Actually, Boxer is not way too liberal, especially for the VP spot. Boxer and Hillary are about even.....on the status of their voting records.

Boxer has guts. That's not a "Way too liberal" thing to have guts, is it?

Those who support Boxer believe that Al Gore is now just as liberal. Are you saying that he is not? That he really didn't "change" after the election?

[drummo]

124. You sound like a broken record. At least you sould back up

your claims with facts.

And as far as I know Clark lost big. And one of the reasons was that many Dems didn't trust someone who became a Dem all of a sudden in 2003, who voted for Reagan and Nixon, who praised Bushco even after Florida and who flip-flopped on the IWR to present himself better than he actually was.

Do you really support Al Gore, Drummo? Because it appears that your scheme is to alienate Clark supporters and those that may want to support AL Gore

Most Dems were already alienated in 2004 for the same reason why I call him dishonest now.

Actually, Boxer is not way too liberal, especially for the VP spot. Boxer and Hillary are about even.....on the status of their voting records.

She is generally classified as a progressive, and is often in conflict with conservative groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Boxer

I know that the picture is always more complicated than a simple label. But the voters are so damn stupid most cannot comprehend anything more complicated than a label.

Boxer has guts. That's not a "Way too liberal" thing to have guts, is it?

No, and I like Boxer. That's not the issue. But she would not be ready for a national ticket. The mere fact that she is a Dem female Senator from California would have a similar effect as the "Massachusetts liberal" mantra.

Those who support Boxer believe that Al Gore is now just as liberal.

Gore is not Boxer. Let me not get into the long list of differences.
And I don't know whether everyone who supports Boxer also thinks that
Gore is just as liberal. You don't know that, either.

Are you saying that he is not?

I sure say that Gore is not a liberal. He was not in 2000 and he has not changed his position on any single issue since then -- except health care, and even there we cannot know whether his position would be more liberal or less since he did not elaborate about how that privately run single-payer system would work.
Personally I've never heard about any such proposal from anyone else before so it created its own category therefore cannot be called either liberal or conservative.

That he really didn't "change" after the election?

Of course he didn't. Why should he have? He was dead right about everything in 2000. Why would he abandon those positions now?

[flaminbats]

107. one can never have too much liberity..n/t

[drummo]

125. After 2004 I wouldn't misunderestimate the RW machine

[nickshepDEM]

30. OT- Warner/Feingold '08.

'A brighter future, begins today.'

Shameless plug. :)

[drummo]

78. The Warner fans should say something about the guy's national

security credentials.

I have no idea about it.

Anyone?

[nickshepDEM]

154. He's a governor. There really isnt much to say.

He's focused on running his state and finishing out his term. Foreign Policy is irrelevant to his current position. Some people dont have time to run around and play monday morning quarterback.

You'll know more as 2008 approaches and he lays out a platform and plan for Americas future. But as I said before, he's focused on finishing out his term.

[TheDonkey]

51. I am not an 08 Gore supporter but Gore DID win, and it should be said

over and over and over again.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. I agree.

And he would have won Florida by thousands of votes if there hadn't been all that hanky panky with throwing black voters off the rolls and the butterfly ballots and all that shit.

We need to figure out how we can stop elections from being stolen in the future.

[drummo]

79. Absolutely. It amazes me that the people or Ukraine had more

guts than Democrats in the US.

[FrenchieCat]

94. But, But, But....

You keep bashing Democrats.

But yet, you say that Boxer is Way too liberal...yet, she is one of the few who has shown true grit.

[drummo]

127. No I just bash Clark because he is dishonest and not even a real

Democrat. Before he decided to run for president he did shit for the Dems. In fact he praised Bushco not short after they stole the election. No real Democrat would have done that. No matter the context. It showed that for Clark it didn't matter how all those "experienced" Bushmen got the chance to be in Washington in the first place.

But I never bashed Boxer. I just said that I think he is way too liberal to be the veep candidate. At least he is perceived as way too liberal. Come on! She is from California! And she is a woman! And she is a Democrat!

Add all those factors together and it's not hard to see how Boxer would not help to win a national election.

[Tom Rinaldo]

149. No matter the context?

"And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome. Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.
I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.
http://1stholistic.com/Reading/liv_algore-concession-speech.htm


DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Saying the country is more united than ever, former Vice-President Al Gore Saturday pledged his allegiance to the man he conceded victory to last year in one of the closest presidential elections in American history.

"George W. Bush is my commander in chief," Gore said during the keynote speech at the Iowa Democratic Party's 2001 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner.

Gore, sporting the greying beard he grew while vacationing in Europe earlier this year, commended Bush on his leadership in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

"We are united behind our president George W. Bush, behind our country, behind the effort to seek justice not revenge, to make sure this can never, ever happen again, and to make sure that we have the strongest unity in America that we have ever had," Gore said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/ret.gore.speech/

[politicasista]

52. Can we please stop talking about 2008?

And focus on 2006.

[drummo]

80. One doesn't rule out the other.

[FrenchieCat]

95. No, but good Democrats who are working hard to make 2006

a winning election for us Dems keep getting bashed by certain posters right here.

[drummo]

140. But not for what they do for Dems in 2006. Clark is bashed for

something that is only about him and not about the 2006 candidates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

148. Clark is bashed because you want to bash Clark

Gore isn't running for anything right now. Clark isn't running for anything right now. Between the two of them Clark is much more active at the current monent doing direct work on behalf of the Democratic Party and it's candidates for office. The DNC, under Chariman Howard Dean, very recently asked Wesley Clark to deliver the Democratic Party's official national radio reply to Bush.

Here is some of what Clark has been up to this year. Note the frequent fund raisers for the Democratic Party. What has Gore been doing for the Party lately?:

April 5th: "Path of a President" Dinner, Clinton Presidential Library, Little Rock - keynote speaker

April 6th: C-Span "Washington Journal" speaking on US policies on Iraq

April 8th: Association of State Democratic Chairs Quarterly Meeting with Chairman Dean, hosted by General Clark, Little Rock

April 9th: Alabama Democrats/Grassroots dinner at Doe's in Little Rock.

April 11th: Testimony: House Armed Services Committee on leadup to Iraq War

April 11th: Announcement Forum: House Democrats' GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century

April12-15th: US Naval Academy Foreign Affairs Conference - featured speaker

April 16th: SoCal Grassroots/ 4 Star Democratic Club WesPAC fundraiser

April 16th: California Democratic Party Convention

April 18-19th: Global Economics conference, Los Angeles CA; "Global Overview" panel; "Emerging Europe" panel

April 21-23rd: Eurasian Media Forum. Global politics and the role of mass media.

April 23rd: Visit with President Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan. Discusing bilateral relations, economics, democracy.

April 26th: Bill Mayer "Real Time"

April 27th: NDN conversation with General Wesley Clark about America's Role in the World...at the home of Chris Heinz in NYC,

April 30th: White House Correspondants Dinner in DC.


May 4th: Center for American Progress, Washington DC, Homeland Security and Data Revolution - featured speaker

May 5th: Groundbreaking ceremoney, Lea County Democratic Party headquarters, Hobbs NM

May 5th: New Mexico Jefferson Jackson Dinner - keynote speaker

May 6th: The Atlantic Council and the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany --"Germany and NATO: The Next 50 Years" - speaker

May 13th: Arkansas Democrats Khakis & Catfish event

May 14th: Associated Press Editors Luncheon

May 14th: Democratic Party of Arkansas 2005 Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner

May 17th: Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus in Washington D.C.

May 18th: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations-

May 18th: A New Strategy for America-- speaking engagement, Chicago

May 21st: Keynote speaker at ACLU of Georgia Annual Bill of Rights dinner:

May 23rd: Jimmie Lou Fisher Campaign Debt Payoff Fundraiser, Little Rock, AR

May 24th: Interoperable Communications and Emergency Preparedness Conference, Phoenix AZ

May 24th: Arizona Democratic Party Press Conference with Veterans

May 25th: Arizona Democratic Party "Democratic Vision" Speech, Burton Barr Central Library, Phoenix

May 28th: Democratic Party Memorial Day Radio Response

May 30th: Al Franken radio show


June 6th: Ed Schultz radio show

June 12th: Annual Flag Day Dinner-Manchester City Democratic Committee, NH- Keynote speaker

June 14th: Emergency Preparedness Communication Conference, Houston TX

June 19th: C-Span "Road to the White House"

June 22nd: Testifying --UN Task Force Congressional Hearing

June 22nd: Fundraiser for Congressman Lincoln Davis, Washington, DC, special guest

June 23rd: Senators' Democratic Policy Committee lunch, Washington DC, guest speaker

June 23rd: Fundraiser for Congressional Candidate Eric Massa NY-29, Washington DC, special guest; endorsed

June 27th-July 2nd - 78th Annual League of United Latin American Citizens National Convention -guest of honor

June 28th: Response to Presidential Address on Fox Special Report

June 29th: Letter in Wall Street Journal urging diplomatic strategy for Iraq


July 5-10th: Aspen Institute Ideas Seminar

July 11th: USA Today Op-Ed on Iraq and terrorism

July 15th-18th: National Clark Community Meet-Up, Little Rock AR

July 19th: Nextel Communications business forum, Indianapolis IN, spoke on emergency communications and Iraq War

July 20th: Democratic national security advisory group report

July 22nd: Endorsed Democratic candidate for US Congress, Paul Hackett Ohio-02

July 29th: Audio message for Maine Democrats re Muskie Lobster Fest 8/7


August 2nd: GOTV audio message for Paul Hackett OH-02

August 3rd - Congressman Charlie Rangel's 75th Birthday Gala, Tavern on the Green, NYC, Special Guest

August 7th - Maine Democratic Party Ed Muskie Annual Lobster Festival, Brunswick ME, Keynote Speaker

August 8th - Radio Interview, KPCC Radio (NPR Affiliate), 11-12pm PDT, "Air Talk" with Larry Mantle; "The Future of the Democratic Party"

August 10th - NewsRadio 620 KTAR (Phoenix) - "Real Life with David Leibowitz"

August 10th - Arizona Technology Council, keynote speaker

August 11th - WesPac Fundraiser, Washington DC

August 12th - George Soros 75th Birthday Party, Hamptons, New York

August 13th - 2005 Clark County Clinton Day Dinner, Arkadelphia AR, Keynote Speaker

August 14th: 9:25PM - History Channel's VJ Day 60th Anniversary Celebration

August 22nd: NPR "Morning Edition" interview - NATO and Darfur

August 26th: Washington Post Op-Ed "Before It's Too Late in Iraq" - Online Q&A

August 28th: "Meet the Press" - "War Council" with General McCaffrey; General Meigs and General Downing discussing the war on terror/Iraq

August 29th-September 2nd: Blogging at Talking Points Memo Cafe

August 30th: Wisconsin Public Radio - Iraq and the war on terror

August 30th: 11AM - Madison WI, WesPac Fundraiser, American Table Family Restaurant

August 30th: 12PM - Madison, WI, Fundraiser luncheon for the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Inn on the Park; press conference with veterans; will endorse endorse Gov Doyle/Lt Gov Lawton

August 30th: 3 PM - Boys & Girls Club, La Crosse with U.S. Rep Ron Kind

August 30th: 5PM - Private fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Ron Kind

August 30th: 6:00PM - La Crosse, WI, 4th Annual Wisconsin Corn Roast at the La Crosse County Fairground, West Salem

August 31st: Air America's "The Majority Report" - on terrorism, Hurricane Katrina and the National Guard

August 31st: Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Decorah

August 31st: 12PM - Democratic Activists Lunch, Mason City, Iowa

August 31st: 4PM - Democratic Activists Meeting, Emmetsburg, Iowa

August 31st: 6PM - Iowa Democratic Party fundraiser, Okoboji, Iowa


September 1st: Iowa Democratic Party fundraising breakfast, Sioux City

September 1st: Alan Colmes radio show - Global Warming, Bush's poor handling of New Orleans disaster, and against timelines with respect to Iraq

September 2nd-4th: Villa d'Este International Workshop, Ambrosetti Strategic Workshop on Global Economy, Cernobbio, Italy

September 5th: Fox News, "Rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina"

September 6th-7th: Terrorism, Security & America's Purpose Conference, Washington DC, Featured Speaker

September 10th: Clark Policy Brief introduced on CCN

September 11th: Amsterdam, Netherlands review of flood control

September 12th: Constitution Day, Rider University, New Jersey - keynote, "Impact of the Patriot Act on the U.S. Constitution"

September 13th: Fundraiser for Virginia House Democratic Caucus Chairman Brian Moran, Alexandria

September 14th: University of Florida, Gainesville, fourth anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 commemoration

September 15th-17th: Clinton Global Initiative, climate change technology advisory board, New York City

September 20th: 'Out of Iraq' Congressional Caucus, Washington DC

September 23rd: Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference, Washington DC

September 29th: Atlantic Treaty Association 51st General Assembly, Tallinn, Estonia


October 10th: Alabama Democratic Party Rally, WorkPlay, Birmingham

October 10th: Alabama House Democrats, Keynote, Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, Birmingham

October 11th-12th: Campaigning with Tim Kaine, Virginia Governor's race

October 12th: Fredericksburg Forum, Virginia - "The Role of the United States in World Affairs" with Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, University of Mary Washington

October 13th: Payne County Democrats fall celebration, the Brayfest, Stillwater, Oklahoma.

October 13th: Oklahoma Democratic Party reception/fundraiser, Keynote, Payne County Expo Center, Stillwater

October 20th: WesPac fundraiser, Denver CO

October 21st: 3:30PM, Third annual Clash of the Titans, “Is the Bush strategy working in Iraq?” Communication & Performing Arts Center, Regent University, Virginia Beach VA

October 22nd: AFSCME Congressional Candidate Boot Camp, Guest Speaker, Phoenix, AZ,

October 28th: 7PM, 4 Star Democratic Club of Los Angeles, "An Evening With General Wesley K. Clark," Los Angeles CA

October 31st: 7PM, Indiana University Union Board Lecture and Q&A, Bloomington


November 1st: 10AM, Bipartisan Conference on Human Rights: Uncommon Leadership for Common Values, Panelist, "Putting the 'Never' in 'Never Again.' Halting Genocide." Georgetown University, ICC Auditorium, Washington DC

November 1st: 6:30PM, Fundraiser for Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York City, Special Guest

November 11th: Campaigning with Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida; breakfast in Orlando, lunch in Sarasota, and an evening reception in Miami

November 15th: WesPac Annual Meeting, Washington Court Hotel, Washington DC

November 18th: International Policy Forum, Dayton Peace Accord Tenth Anniversary, Dayton Convention Center, Dayton OH

November 18th: 7:30 PM, Dayton Peace Accord Gala Dinner, Featured Speaker, National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, Dayton, Ohio

[Baconfoot]

59. U've got it backwards.Voters seeGore as a symbol for what should have been

I think that's why they also see him as a symbol for what should BE.
To be frank, when I talk with "the man on the street" about Gore they are one hundred times more receptive than fellow volunteers within the Democratic party.

I once had a woman cry with joy at the mere mention of the possibility that Gore might run (this was in '04).

People wish things were different and they realize that different is how things would be if Gore were/would become our President.

A Gore candidacy would electrify the base in a way that no other candidacy could because only Gore just by running evokes all the negative feelings people have about Bush. Anyone else would have to do something in order to capitilize on that. Anytime you have to do something in order to capitlize on a feature of the world which would get people to vote and vote your way, you lose people.

Gore is already the anti-Bush.

I am very disappointed that he is not running and I wish he would reconsider for the good of the country because I'm not liking what I'm hearing regarding who is in the mix for 2008.

Don't get me wrong; I will be working at least twice as hard for '08 than I did in '04 no matter WHO the Dem. candidate is. In fact, I'm considering taking a year off from work to do so. Yes, including if the candidate is Hillary. However, I sure wish I could make calls on behalf of a Gore '08 campaign.

Ah dreams!

[drummo]

85. He didn't say he will not run. He has no plans now but it's just 2005

But will he run?

Even with a crowd composed largely of scholars and students of the environment, the question of Gore’s presidential ambitions hung over the event. Gore, who lodged an unsuccessful bid for president five years ago, recently said he has no plans to run again in 2008 — but he would not rule out a candidacy. His speech often seemed to reflect this ambiguity.

http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/25/435dc7f41d9b2

[Awsi Dooger]

62. Gore was the rightful winner in '00, but probably would have lost in '04

I'm talking about if he had been the incumbent in 2004. That would have marked three straight Democratic terms in office, and Gore would most likely have been ousted. The voting public is incredibly restless for change at that point. Obviously we would not have gone to Iraq and the political dynamics would be dramatically different. But assuming the economy would have declined from the Clinton years, and 9/11 would have occured even if Gore had rightfully taken office, in 2004 Gore would have faced too many built-in obstacles to overcome. He doesn't have enough charisma or personal popularity to win in that situation, unless the opponent had been incompetent. No doubt it would have been GW again, with the GOP claiming he had been robbed in 2000, and no chance 9/11 would have occured if Bush had been president. You know damn well that's what they would have asserted for years, and a huge percentage of the public would have bought it.

Bill Clinton was an exceptionally astute handicapper, and also furtunate. He challenged an incumbent whose party had been in control for three terms. That incumbent plunged in popularity as 1992 headed toward election day. Then in 1996, Clinton benefitted similar to Bush last year, an incumbent whose party had been in power only one term. That is automatic benefit of a doubt, and only Carter in '80 lost in that situation, among 12 examples since 1900.

All this talk of a Democratic landslide in 2008 is nonsense. The GOP will have been in power only two terms, not three or more. We don't have the prospect of an extremely charismatic candidate with an ideal resume. Everything about 2008 screams extremely close. If, heaven forbid, the GOP wins again, the right Democratic nominee could easily win big in 2012, especially if the GOP incumbent is not high in personal popularity.

[drummo]

88. You made some good points. But

and 9/11 would have occured even if Gore had rightfully taken office

It's very unlikely.

But if it had happened it's also very unlikely that voters would have ousted a President during war with al Qaeda.

He doesn't have enough charisma or personal popularity to win in that situation, unless the opponent had been incompetent.

If he wants it he has charisma but I don't think he thinks it's importnant since it has nothing to to with subtance.

And Gore favorable ratings were actually higher than Clinton's during the convention. So it depends on a lot of factors when and if someone is popular.

Anyway, Nixon was hardly a popular guy. He still was re-elected with a landslide because he was a President during a war.

No doubt it would have been GW again, with the GOP claiming he had been robbed in 2000, and no chance 9/11 would have occured if Bush had been president. You know damn well that's what they would have asserted for years, and a huge percentage of the public would have bought it.

Now that tells a lot about the Dem party which kicked Gore to the curb instead of following the strategy you talked about.

But again it's very unlikely that voters would oust an incumbent president during war especially for someone who knows nothing about foreign policy. Bush would have still been perceived as a lightweight.

And remember no butterfly no recount. Gore would have won easily.
In Florida not just K. Harris was the problem.

[bunny planet]

64. You're talking about the old Gore. Have you seen or heard him lately,

he's on fire. If he runs this time, he will win in a landslide, guaranteed. I hope he does.

[drummo]

89. I don't think any Dem or any Rep can win in a lanslide with this

culture war raging on.

But sure a Dem can win. He wins the Gore 2000 states and that's enough.

Or if not Florida then Ohio.

[bunny planet]

151. Last I heard, two thirds of the country is against this war, and it's

growing. If there are indictments, the Republicans will be scrambling around like the rats they really are. Call me an optimist, I've been called worse. Unfortunately, once this winter is over, and people are hurting from the lack of affordable heating oil and gas, Gore's environmental message is really going to start to resonate. As he says, it's not just a political issue, it's a moral one.

I hope Gore runs and either has Clark, Edwards, Kerry, Boxer, Conyers, or even Obama for his running mate. I don't want Hillary anywhere near that nomination. It's way too important to let such a divisive candidate run and I'm going to write her a letter telling her why I think so.

[PhilipShore]

83. Flash-forward 2008: Kennedy beats Bush

In 2008, I think that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should run for the Democratic nomination. Wesley Clark is my second choice. At this point, they are the only two that have a practical chance to beat Jeb Bush.

[drummo]

90. RFK Jr would be perceived as an enviromental extermist without

the necessary national security credentials.

[FrenchieCat]

98. So it would be our job to educate the public about that....

as activists, isn't that part of what we should be doing?

[drummo]

137. Yes and I've been trying to convince as many people as

as possible about environmental issues and I would defend JFK against any RW nuts.

But that still doesn't resolve the national security issue.
What are his credentials on that?

[Zensea]

91. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a waste of time on this day ...

to be worrying about this kind of stuff.
Focus.
High crimes and misdemeanors being challenged right now.
Lies in the White House.
Force feeding of detainees ...


But like I say, maybe it's just me.

[musical_soul]

101. I can't think of any Democrat that can do that.

Win by a landslide. This country is too divided. We're almost 50/50 split on just about everything. Republican vs. Democrat. Allowing gay marriage and/or civil unions vs. no marital rights for gays. About half want abortion to stay legal, while the other half wants it to be outlawed (or left to the states). We're split down the middle. I don't think we'll get the landslide victory any time soon. We unfortunately have to get the marginal one in my opinion.

[drummo]

141. Agree.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[Apollo11]

128. Ain't nothin' crap about the truth ...

Clarkie1: Sorry if you're tired of the truth, buddy.

POINT 1:
Gore would have won the 2000 election if all the votes in Florida had been counted in line with the intentions of the voters.

POINT 2:
Right now I would say that Gore is the best person that Democrats could choose to be their candidate for President in 2008. He has all the qualities needed to make a great President.

Now - you can say that Point 2 does not necessarily follow-on from Point 1, and I would agree with you on that. But it doesn't make either of those points less valid or weaker in any way.


Baconfoot posted:
I am very disappointed that he is not running and I wish he would reconsider for the good of the country because I'm not liking what I'm hearing regarding who is in the mix for 2008.

My answer to that is:
We are still 3 years out from the next Presidential election. It is way too early for potential Presidential candidates to publicly declare their intentions. There are all kinds of tactical and strategic reasons why it makes sense for Gore to wait at least another 12 months until after the 2006 elections, before making a decision on whether to seek the nomination for 2008.

In the meantime, the only smart answer for Gore to give is exactly what he is saying. I have no intention to run, I have no plans to run for President. But intentions can change from one day to the next. They can definitely change over the course of 12 to 18 months.

So don't believe the hype. Gore is keeping his cards close to his chest. If he perceives that people are hungry for him to run, then he will have to seriously consider entering the race for 2008 - when the time is right - but not yet.

In Gore We Trust
http://www.algore-08.com
http://algore2008.net
http://www.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html
:)

[Uncle Joe]

163. Well said Apollo11 and I agree 100% with both points. n/t

[JNelson6563]

133. I've not seen it offered to justify a run

but Ihave seen it posted when someone labels Gore a "loser". Sad to see that some DUers need to be reminded that Gore actually won in 2000.

On the other hand it is interesting to see two threads by Clarkies in GD-Pol. talking about a Gore run, neither are too positive. Can we let primary season wait a bit?

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

138. I ADAMANTLY Don't Agree

We must never forget that Gore won in 2000. It was the death rattle of democracy. It happened to all of us. It is bigger than Gore.

And strategically Gore is an excellent choice. He doesn't have the stink of the vote of the Iraq Resolution on him. That's a bigee and a deal-breaker for some Dems. Also, he had the balls to support Howard Dean enthusiastically publicly early on. Whatever inhibitions held him back in the 2000 campaign are GONE. His subsequent speeches are spot-on and on fire.

And don't sneeze at an emotional leg-up. He deserves to win and that sentiment will resonate. I'm not above counting that vote into the final tally.

He's not the only viable candidate but a damn good one.

[drummo]

143. I thinks what held him back was that there was nothing in 2000

to be angry about.
It was a boring year after a boring decade.

[zann725]

155. I'm NOT tired of the "Gore won" OR "Kerry won"...

Our POWER is in the "now"...as it is for Repugs. To keep pushing our hopes two or four or eight years into the future, proves why Dem's lose and WILL always lose to Repugs as long as we keep stepping aside with excuses like "not large enough margin," or "next year"..."next election."

A win is a "win" is a win. Period.

To turn away from that, is like turing away from a bank robbery ...dismissing it as "not"...simply because the take was less than a Million.

Theft is theft, is theft. We won. Time to claim it, and quit rolling over right NOW.

[AtomicKitten]

165. A win is a "win" is a win. Period.

You've got that right.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

164. Regardless of your views of Election 2000,

the fact that Gore didn't win by a larger margin makes one wonder about his chances in 2008.

[Uncle Joe]

166. The only thing that Florida 2000 makes me wonder about

is whether the Democratic Party has the good sense and fortitude to back a legitimate winner such as Al Gore when they have one.