 |
 |
   Henry Waxmans climate change bill wont make it into law this year. Thats why hes the right guy for the job.
 Conspiracy theories are all fun and games until you become the subject of one.
|
   |
|
|
November 28, 2006
By: GENERAL INTEREST... The main argument for Wesley Clark's '04 presidential bid was his credibility on national security, the dominant campaign issue that year. There's no reason to think national security won't still be the big issue two years from now, as it was this fall. And so it's good news indeed that the general is sending pretty strong signals that he's running. —Paul Glastris 11:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (137)Comments
Well, it's better than Hillary. How about Clark as VP. He'd make nice window dressing for the Feingold presidency. Posted by: alex on November 28, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINKFeingold already dropped out, said he's going to enjoy being in the maority. Road kill would be better than Hillary. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINKEdwards-Clark -- the outside the Beltway ticket Posted by: Outsider on November 28, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINKgreat! i still have my clark for prez bumper sticker from 04.he'd get my vote. Posted by: mudwall jackson on November 28, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINKIf Wes Clark is going to run, he needs to find better advisors than those he had for his last-minute '04 attempt. What they lacked in political acumen they made up for in ego. And Wes needs to speak clearly this time -- what he actually believes, not what he thinks people want to hear. Edwards/Clark would be a strong ticket, but Wes would have to have the humility to run as VP. Posted by: ex-staffer on November 28, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINKtomeck: Feingold already dropped out 1. He's got time to drop back in. 2. Hey, we're talking wish list here. Road kill would be better than Hillary. Lacking further specificity on your part, that's an exaggeration. Skunk road kill is really nasty. If you're talking about other types of road kill though, then you have a point. Posted by: alex on November 28, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINKLacking further specificity on your part, that's an exaggeration. Skunk road kill is really nasty. If you're talking about other types of road kill though, then you have a point. Boy you got that right. My dog got skunked last summer. I spent $28 on tomato juice. I like John Edwards and I like Wesley Clark. I will take either one or any combination thereof. I have been hoping at least one of them would run. Vilsack is a great guy and he did a good job running Iowa, but lets face it - the last thing the Dems need is a guy with "sack" in his name. C'mon. He'll make a fabulous Secretary of Agriculture in an Edwards or Clark administration. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINKClark is the only one I've seen so far that I'd vote for enthusiastically. There's are a few scenarios in which I'd hold my nose and vote for Hillary or Kerry, all of them involving the Republicans managing to run someone who seems less competent than Bush. Posted by: bobb on November 28, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINKWhile national security will be the number one issue, I still think Wesley Clark needs to become more comfortable talking about domestic issues. But unlike the current occupant of the White House, I think that Clark will actually spend time practicing in private, so that he doesn't stumble in public. More than just ignorance, Shrub is incredibly lazy (10pm bedtimes and lunch time NordicTracking not withstanding). For him, preparation is a dirty word, so when he gets in front of camera, he's screwed. But he has Chris Matthews spinning his performances as "regular guy" charm. That's a pass that Clark won't be given, even if he merely leaves out a single word in a joke. Posted by: Clap Louder on November 28, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINKIn addition to my vote, Clark could very well swing and carry the Fox News Vote. I think his strategy of appearing on Fox as an analyst and speaking truth to their bullshit has been just brilliant in terms of getting his name known amongst Fox viewers and earning a reputation of no-nonsense, straight talk, and strong on security. Gore/Clark, Clark/Edwards, Gore/Clark/Edwards/Feingold. All would be good. Posted by: jerry on November 28, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINKAlex I accept your amendment. No skunk. Posted by: tomeck on November 28, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINKClark would be hard to beat, if he managed to get out of the Democratic primary. Clark/Obama anyone? Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 28, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINKObama ain't won my heart yet. Don't know quite what it is, but he's like that guy that never quite asked you out, but everyone thought was your boyfriend for a while? That guy who just kinda insinuated himself into your life? Obama makes those bells go off with me. Anyone else? Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINKOne word on Clark: Pristina. As in "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm Posted by: Reality Man on November 29, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINKI totally do not get why people think John Edwards would make a viable candidate now. And I was predicting he'd run for president about 10 minutes after he hit the Senate, honest! I could see it then, I could see it in 2004, but I don't get why people are still backing him. Posted by: shortstop on November 29, 2006 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINKObama makes those bells go off with me. Anyone else? I like Obama as VP because he would be a great spokesman for the President's policy and the party in general. He's charasmatic, but he doesn't seem like he needs to be the most important guy in the room, like Edwards. Plus, he's young enough that no one will mistake him for the real President, something that has undermined Bush since day one. Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 29, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINKHey Shortstop - if you like Tom Waits you will Love Tom Russell. I was hoping I would see you again so I could tell you about him. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINKDo you know of Dave Alvin? He and Tom Russell are runnin' buddies. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 29, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINKGore/Obama all balls out -- just don't let Obama get all meta on partisan dems. and cut off at the knees the first idiot in the primary that goes negative on the front runner. Posted by: B on November 29, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINKI admit, Clinton will still be a little young in 2020. Posted by: jerry on November 29, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINKYeah, Clark is eye candy for Republican's, since indeed Clark WAS a Republican. I don't think Hillary will ever make it, Obama is too green around the gills, good, smooth talker, but so is Clark. He better brush up on his people skills and not let reporters back him into a corner in the same way reporters did in the last election. But in the last election, I think Clark got in because Clinton ask him too, mostly as a Howard Dean stopper. He someone Republicans will vote for instead of their own. They're in cleaning a house mood. yeah, Clark might make it. Don't have too much against Clark. I think he might look like a lightweight on the same stage as McCain. Besides, playing defense on national security doesn't sound like a great campaign strategy for the democrats. We need some offense. Gore (and to a lesser extent Obama) are big voices that can stand up and call for a greater sense of american community. Clark for Sec Def. Posted by: B on November 29, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINKClark for Sec Def. How about Zinni for Secretary of Defence? That is one way to go on offense with national security. 2008 will be a rebuilding year for the army, and it should be part of the dems strategy to take the WH. Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 29, 2006 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINKActually neither Clark or Zinni are eligible till 2010. Posted by: B on November 29, 2006 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINKI'd love any ticket with Clark on top or as veep.I think he's a fantasic canidate. Posted by: R.L. on November 29, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINKWell, it's better than Hillary. If his 2008 run is anything like his 2004 run - I doubt it. I may not love Hillary, but I'd trust her with the 2008 nomination before I'd trust Clark. Posted by: Drew on November 29, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINKEdwards/Clark would be a strong ticket, but Wes would have to have the humility to run as VP. Posted by: ex-staffer on November 28, 2006 at 11:27 PM I think that would be a dynamite ticket, as their strengths complement each other, but I wonder if there's enough buzz for Edwards in some quarters. On "Countdown," Keith Olbermann regularly brings up the names of Hillary and Obama, but Edwards is scarcely mentioned. What gives, Keith? Posted by: Vincent on November 29, 2006 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINKLoved Clark in '04 but he's simply not a good campaigner. He'd have trouble raising money and though he's generally correct on a lot of issues he's not quite eloquent enough to pull people into his fold in a large manner. Edwards and Obama are good examples of people who can do that. Unfortunately I don't really see Clark playing a VP role either. I could see him as Sec. of State but not VP. Don't get me wrong, I think he'd be a great president, I just don't think he could sway people in a way a Presidential candidate needs to (like it or not Bush is very good at that). Posted by: Fred F. on November 29, 2006 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 29, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINKWow, love seeing all this Clark adoration. He was my pick last time around. Smart as a razor, liberal as hell and can pull it off due to his military chops, also making him hard to attack in the traditional Republican way; handsome as all heck to boot. Love Obama, too. And Gore. Edwards ain't bad either. Too bad they don't make a pre-arranged team and run as a whole administration. Clark as Defense Secretary is also a great idea. Posted by: Fel on November 29, 2006 at 3:28 AM | PERMALINKIf I recall correctly, Fel, Clark was Kevin Drum's pick last time around too. And I hear Obama is going to that Saddleback megachurch this week. Does any know what that's about? IMO Gore, Kerry, or Edwards (and Hillary) are DOA. Posted by: B on November 29, 2006 at 6:05 AM | PERMALINKClark has several things going for him: he is coherent, he is intelligent and he is attractive. What a change that would make from our present leadership. This Oxford-educated Rhodes scholar has the same educational credits Clinton had. He also has experience dealing with the military-industrial complex, the largest beneficiary of our tax system. Clark is a fantastic candidate. He has the inteligence the international perspective and clout as a man who gets the job done. Clark / Obama 08, or Wes Clark campaigned across the country for Senate and House candidates this fall. He was in Conn. with Ned Lamont and cut a great ad for him. The desertion of the Lamont campaign by most national Dems was appalling. Wes Clark is my number one choice for 2008, followed by Al Gore. Hillary Clinton would be a mega-disaster. Posted by: beth on November 29, 2006 at 6:47 AM | PERMALINKActually, CandideinNC, Medicare and other health spending currently is the single largest government expenditure, 23% of total federal outlays, FY2006. Social Security and national defense are tied for second place at 20% each: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=80&Itemid=107 Perhaps you were thinking of defense as just discretionary spending? I agree with every other word you wrote. Perhap Clark could pick a renown physician as VP? Posted by: B on November 29, 2006 at 6:53 AM | PERMALINKRobert and beth: Let's not make the same mistake twice and include Kerry or Gore anywhere close to the 2008 ticket. Posted by: B on November 29, 2006 at 6:55 AM | PERMALINKCandideinNC: There are lots of simple but informative charts on that website. Although we don't have FY2007 passed yet, Bush's budget proposal actually includes a LARGER percentage for Medicare and other health spending (24%), as well as Social Security (21%), while national defense will drop to third place (19%): http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=107 Posted by: B on November 29, 2006 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINKI think Clark/Obama would be a very enticing ticket, plus it sets Obama up nicely for a presidential run in 2016, after President Clark serves two terms. Obama is young, which gives him plenty of time to mature and develop a public persona. Who do the Repukes have that is young? Catchers Mitt Romney??? Puh-leeze. His personality is repulsive. The rest of the GOP field are geriatric has-beens. Dems need to be nurturing young talent. The Republican Party has no young talent coming up that isn't brain-dead or morally compromised. They are a political party in decline... Well, rdw is not morally compromised as far as I know. But, at least Newt is not trying to use any scare tactics for his run. Giving up freedom of speech, so a major US city won't be lost, is merely conjecture, is it not? Good ole Newt in New Hampshire, no fear mongering there. Was in the Clark camp in 04, but was sorely disappointed in his lack of punch for domestic issues - Also, I saw him on Paula Zahn when she threw him a beach ball to explain the Kerry votes and instead of hitting one out of the park, he popped up. Really started to question his team of advisors. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINKWell, I slapped on my "Clark in '08" bumper sticker on the car the day after this past election. Didn't want to confuse people. He was my man in '04 and will continue to be so. I would have liked Feingold to run and, as many Virginians are, I'm disappointed about Warner. As for the other wannabes, I still think it is imperative that we have a candidate who is on record for not supporting the war and who did NOT vote for the War resolution. Posted by: LAS on November 29, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINKI was and continue to be an enthusiastic supporter of Clark. I think he would make a fantastic president! Intelligent, honest, inspiring - all those things we've come to miss. Posted by: chuck on November 29, 2006 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINKGore/Obama all balls out Gore, Kerry, or Edwards (and Hillary) are DOA. Make up your mind B. Posted by: toast on November 29, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINKClark/Edwards would be a dream ticket especially if they don't listen to the old dem consultants. Clark is so far ahead of the pack on international affairs and Edwards' understanding and consideration of domestic problems, especially education, blows away the rest. They also seem to be the only straight shooters besides Gore. Obama? Please. Conventional, corporate to the max, preachy and vain. Posted by: Chrissy on November 29, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINKWes Clark was also making a lot of sense regarding fiscal policy - and a host of other things. Now if we can inject some charisma into the General! Posted by: pgl on November 29, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINKenticing, eye candy, dreamy, enthusiastic, fantastic I'm sold. When does the novel come out and did they score Fabio for the cover? Posted by: toast on November 29, 2006 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINKI hope that this time around, some news organization goes and talks to people who served with and under Clark when he ran European Command (EUCOM). People, say, who sat around during one of his long rants while he stared at them and just did not blink. I served Anyone who thinks Clark isn't a DC insider is wrong. You don't get to the rank he got to without being a back-stabbing careerist. If Clark hadn't had gone into a few frenzies during Kosovo, he'd have been chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As it was, after he engaged in some very public insubordination, irritated allies (most notably the Brits) and did a very good General Jack D. Ripper impression, he was sent packing early-by a Democratic President. That he is still held up as a viable Presidential candidate after all of this happened says a lot about our political process. Posted by: Nemo Ignotus on November 29, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINKNemo Ignotus must have been in a stupor during the '04 primaries. The msm already did a major hit on Gen Clark in '04. Did you not see the interview where CNN dragged out old Bob Dole to bitch and smear? Or the Wapos piece of crap on an A1 page on a Sunday entitled "Heel or Hero"? Repeating the same tepid crappy smears probably won't work this time around. BTW, anyone falling for the msm hosannas about Obama should read Harpers November issue "Barack Obama, Inc." Posted by: Chrissy on November 29, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINKThe fact that the guy has active youtube and myspace accounts as well as guest blogging at Kos and TPM on occasion shows he understands the power of netroots. The question seems to be whether he'll be able to get any of the big donor money. If he can (or if Clinton announces she is NOT running) I think he's got a better than 50% shot at getting the nom. Posted by: not so angry guy on November 29, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINKClark/anyone ;) National Security is still going to be #1 in 2008. Clark is da man Posted by: mad4clark on November 29, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINKClap, you haven't been paying attention: Clark IS comfortable talking domestic issues. He can also frame "librul" issues like the environment in a national security context; this guy is clearly the one to watch. Posted by: JP on November 29, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINKYou people are so predictable. What's with you Obama circle jerkers? What do you even know about this guy and his 3 years in the Senate, and why do you think he's ready to be president? I'm no Clark mark, but I think he's got a much better chance of siphoning Republican votes, hence a better chance of being elected President. Stop with this Obama talk already. Let the guy at least cut his teeth. Idiots. Posted by: RobG on November 29, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINKFred, I suggest you reread the General's writings. "He's not quite eloquent enough" makes me think you're discussing a different candidate. Posted by: JP on November 29, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINKWesClark. The MSM doesn't want to talk about him. The democrats would be wise to ignore the MSM push for Hillary and pick the stellar General instead. If he's the nominee, he'll win easily. No other potential candidate even approaches his wisdom and proven leadership. With the mess we have in the middle east, Clark is our only hope. Posted by: OperaDiva on November 29, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINKI supported Clark in 04 with cash money. This time I won't. I thought he was the right man in 04 when it was still possible to do the right thing in Iraq and security was, head-and-shoulders, foremost on the electorate's mind (thanks to Rove overpoliticizing it). Things are different now. Iraq is unwinnable, and unsalvageable. Too many people (US and Iraqi) are dead. I want a democratic candidate who will get us out of Iraq ASAP. I want a democratic candidate who will apologize to the world about how we acted during the Bush administration. I want a democratic candidate who will say, we will act more responsibly and be a better world citizen while I'm in office. Clark may do the latter two things, but he's indicated that he's against pulling out ASAP. So I'm looking to better deal this time. Posted by: Big House on November 29, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKAfter 20 years of trying to destroy this country with his blind and ignorant support of wingnuts like addled ronnie raygun, daddy bush and in 2000 trhe present idiot this oppurtunist all of a sudden finds the truth and wants to become the leader of the people who were fighting the bigots and reactionaries he was promoting for 20 years. Give me a break. If he has any mortal standards or ethical honesty he should run as in the wingnut primaries that he helped create and try to salvage a party that, though disagreeable, used to have some relevence to the real world. This is nothing but ethical cowardice for him to become a political Quisling and try to ruin another party after he contributed so much to the disaster that this, and previous rethuglican, administrations have visited upon the country. He will betray the progressives who drink of his Kool aid in the name of personal ambition and with intellectual dishonesty. Let him finally become a good soldier and fade away he has done enough damage with his support of w in 2000 luke warm support of kerry with snide, and false comments, as to Kerry's courage in standing up to fight agaionst the Viet nam war. Posted by: Ken on November 29, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINKWhen I read comments like these, I realize again just how politically inane and naive you people are. I don't think any of you understand how the actual machinery of political campaigning works. Hillary Clinton, and the political money and operatives she has gathered, will make mincemeat of people like Clark--unless, of course, she fancies him as a potential VP. And Edwards? Only John Kerry rivals him as an empty suit. When it is all said and done, H. Clinton will be the nominee, and I suspect all of you will dutifully pull the lever for her. The problem is, she will be running against Rudy Giuliani, and he is going to hand her, and all of you, your asses. Just for fun, imagine a debate between Giuliani and any of the potential Democratic candidates. Edwards? Obama? Clark, with his beady-eyed, got my face caught in a vise, look? Only Gore or Clinton could stand on the same stage with Giuliani and not look immediately and obviously out of their league. Posted by: Billy Bob Shranzburg on November 29, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINKlet's start fighting the real enemies all those democratic presidential candidates who attacked our favorite guy in 2004 and might attack our favorite presidential candidate this time around too it's the only way to win the whitehouse in 2008 Posted by: toast on November 29, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINKGiuliani? I'm not worried about that prick. He'll probably be on to his fourth wife by then. Judith is getting kind of old. Posted by: rewolfrats on November 29, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINKSomething else about Clark that shouldn't matter but may -- his height. He's maybe 5'8" on a good day -- Posted by: ex-staffer on November 29, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINKClark would be the most difficult for republicans to beat. Not only because of his record on national defense (including running and winning a war without US casualties), but also because he appeals both to progressives (he's been #1 in dailykos presidential polls in three of the last four months) and to moderates/independents. Plus, he won't shy from a political fight. His time with Fox news has shown him to be a vigorous and effective debater with conservatives. I like Edwards and Obama. But they are so focused on getting along, that I don't think they are really fighters. I certainly don't think Edwards fought hard enough in '04. He seemed kind of wimpy in the vice presidential debate. I like him, but I want a fighter this time. Posted by: JS on November 29, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINKClark would be the most difficult for republicans to beat. Not only because of his record on national defense (including running and winning a war without US casualties), but also because he appeals both to progressives (he's been #1 in dailykos presidential polls in three of the last four months) and to moderates/independents. Plus, he won't shy from a political fight. His time with Fox news has shown him to be a vigorous and effective debater with conservatives. I like Edwards and Obama. But they are so focused on getting along, that I don't think they are really fighters. I certainly don't think Edwards fought hard enough in '04. He seemed kind of wimpy in the vice presidential debate. I like him, but I want a fighter this time. Posted by: JS on November 29, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKClark would be the most difficult for republicans to beat. Not only because of his record on national defense (including running and winning a war without US casualties), but also because he appeals both to progressives (he's been #1 in dailykos presidential polls in three of the last four months) and to moderates/independents. Plus, he won't shy from a political fight. His time with Fox news has shown him to be a vigorous and effective debater with conservatives. I like Edwards and Obama. But they are so focused on getting along, that I don't think they are really fighters. I certainly don't think Edwards fought hard enough in '04. He seemed kind of wimpy in the vice presidential debate. I like him, but I want a fighter this time. Posted by: JS on November 29, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINKReally think people should get over that Pristina meme. The British general serving under Clark whines about everything. You should read his quotes about Americans during his time in Iraq. People who lived under the soviets fully understand what was happening at that airport. The Russians were out of line. Clark wasn't going to start WWIII. Bush started WWIII. Believe ex-staffer is a Leroy Brown supporter. Leroy stand about six feet four and he's bad - meaner than a junk yard dog. As long as the Pubs don't run Slim. Posted by: stupid git on November 29, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINKI see Ken is making the rounds on the blogs trying to trash Clark. Fine. Though he seems to be cutting and pasting the same post again and again. Posted by: gq on November 29, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINKI fear we're drinking our own koolaid here. I'm not saying he isn't smart, articulate, etc...but in his first week of campaigning in 2004 he told a reporter that he was pro-life and would have gone into Iraq? No candidate is a panacea. I've just never understood our belief that this man who has never won an election has what it takes to undergo the whithering process of the presidency. Being good at war and good at politics are almost mutually exclusive. Posted by: kchiker on November 29, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINKThe cauldron that is the middle east will continue boiling over in 2008. We need a candidate that is both respected and trusted by world leaders especially those of the middle east. If he is elected, Clark's role in stopping the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo will go a long way toward restoring the credibility of the U.S. on the world stage. Posted by: s.garcia on November 29, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINKit's good news indeed that the general is sending pretty strong signals that he's running. It would be better news if we were hanging all of the generals. That is the best way to prevent future wars. Billy Bob, how do you figure Giuliani, a New Yorker with a lisp, who lived with gay companions, installed his mistress in the mayor's mansion, and is pro-choice is going anywhere in the republican party? Good luck with that. As for Hillary, she's perceived as an uppity woman who never has backed away from the neocon bull and their bullshit war. Posted by: Chrissy on November 29, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINKThe DLC poo-poohed Clark in 04, and installed their schmuck Kerry. The results of the 06 election may have wounded the DLC. But I don't count their nefarious influence out just yet. I doubt that a non-insider like Clark has a chance in hell with that crowd. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 29, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINKWe're saying our best hope for the presidency is someone who has never been elected to anything? Former General George Washington had never been elected to anything. He did pretty well. Hell, there's a strong argument to be made that George W Bush STILL has never been elected to anything after 1.5 governor terms and 1.5 presidential terms. (by the way - what exactly was George W Bush's foreign policy experience in 2000? - nobody seemed worried about that back then - even when he demonstrated during the debate that he had no fucking clue what the capital of Pakistan was.) Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 29, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKIke was never elected to any other office either. But, please re-read the comments above about Clark's INSIDER experience, as a REPUBLICAN! That stench. I've smelled it before. . . Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 29, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINKLou Dobbs for president. http://www.loudobbs4president.com/ Posted by: callahan on November 29, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINKYuck, yuck, fucking yuck. There is a lot to respect bout Wes, but two years ago I remember wondering where his personality went. As I recall, he seemed to have anti-charisma. Was I wrong? Posted by: Keith G on November 29, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKGenerals should be maligned, not respected. People like Clark just because he was a military man and think that will cause the knee jerk authoritarian Americans to vote for him instead of his Republican twin. They may be correct, but it does not solve any of the problems facing the nation, except the problem of Democrats being out of the petro-defense-banking industry payroll. Posted by: Hostile on November 29, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINKLet me see - Reagan spent years as a Democrat - Bad Ronny - His second wife and Dick Powell convinced him to swith to the Pubs - Good Ronny. And was not Shrub elected President of his fraternity at Yale? Or was he simply in charge of beer busts? Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINKCharlie's latest irrelevant plagiarized text is brought to you by the good people at Wikipedia, covering for his inability to think on his own since 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_between_the_wars And was not Shrub elected President of his fraternity at Yale? Well, Kerry actually won the most votes, but Shrub's buddies were doing the counting. After a good solid three hours of hazing, including ladies underwear on the head, and a paddling, Kerry conceded, and Shrub got to drink the blood out of Geronimo's skull. In the name of Jesus Christ. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 29, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKI was not the one who brought up George Washington in the first place. Poor Chuckles. Still not dead yet. Can't you move things along and gargle with some Drano or something? Goddamn it, there's a war on and people have shit to do. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINKClark is very good. Nobody wants to say this -- even in the safe anonymity of this here forum -- so I will. I am not a racist or a sexist. My wife, who is African-american, agrees with me on this. Either Hillary or Obama would both be 597% better than the current cretin (I have reservations about Hillary, but not because she's a "dangerous feminazi") but would lose a substantial number of votes based on what they are, not who they are.
Clark would be the most difficult for republicans to beat. Clark has no prayer. He has no record on national defense. Kosovo was a video game air war he did not manage and he was fires after the fact anyway. He brings nothing to the table and has less charisma than Lurch. There is no race in the Democratic party except for VP. And Hillary will pick whoever she thinks can give her a southern state or Ohio. That's not Clark and it's not Edwards. Posted by: rdw on November 29, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK"Bram" is the handle Chuckles is using today, I guess. How the hell are you, Chuckles? Praying feverishly for an abortion thread to open up? Yo, WM staff--open up a thread about abortion so Chuckles can play with himself today. Thanks. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINKI'd vote for Clark/Obama in a heartbeat. Clark wories me a bit because he's somewhat lacking in political acumen, and his inevitable misstatements (See his last run) will be held against him. But he's strong nonetheless. As far as Obama goes - I saw the movie "Bobbie" the other day, and have to say that Obama reminds me of him - although somewhat slicker. I'm a BIG fan. Posted by: kreb on November 29, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINKIsn't there a dark horse somewhere - a governor or something- who could create some actual excitement? Otherwise its yawn, bring on the tried-and-faileds, the corporate-beholden, pandering to the America-is-mighty myth while the country further stumbles. Posted by: skip intro on November 29, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINKGo away, rdw. It's much more fun to read without an infusion of sober reflection, or any recognition of actual political realities thrown into the mix. Posted by: Billy Bob Shranzburg on November 29, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKBBS, Face Facts. The 2004 democratic field was stunningly weak and Clark was still far behind. There is nothing appealing about the man. The only possible accomplishment is Kosovo and that's a joke. It wasn't a war it was a video fame played by the Air Force and he wasn't an Air Force General. He was a bureaucrat and he still managed to get himself fired. His only supporters were the Clintons and they're not helping him now. Any talk of competition for Hillary is a joke. She has more money than the rest of the field combined. Not that it matters. Kerry, Biden, Clark, Obama are pathetic. Posted by: rdw on November 29, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINKThere's no reason to think national security won't still be the big issue two years from now, as it was this fall. Isn't it a chicken-and-egg phenomena, where our media, including guys like like Mr. Drum, or Mr. Glastris, keep repeating this shit, and it somewhat makes it true? But just go right on ahead, never question the framing of this ridiculous "Terrorism Crisis", thereby legitimizing it. Are you still honestly terrorized by 19 guys with boxcutters? Or can you see right through the bullshit, but agree with the aims (kicking Muslims' asses, consolidating power here, trying to control politics in the ME) and so parrot the lines, in a Straussian fashion? Passing on the conventional wisdom is merely repeating what all the other schmucks are saying - there's no culpability or responsibility there, is there? Posted by: luci on November 29, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINKJP, I don't know if you're still around, but you wrote above: Clap, you haven't been paying attention: Clark IS comfortable talking domestic issues. I'm not referring to prepared speeches and policy statements, but rather interviews and press conferences in front of the typical MSM (think Elizabeth Bumiller or Tim Russert). Similar to what he does on Fox, but not on national security issues. If anyone considers Clark's performance at his January '04 sitdown with the editor of the Manchester Union Leader to be both "comfortable" and "eloquent", do the General and me a favor and stay away from his campaign in '08. The Union Leader makes the National Review look like the Huffington Post. They probably think Faux News is a DNC mouthpeice. Any Democrat who decides to speak to them on the eve of the New Hampshire primary needs to be on top of their game and be prepared to deal with the UL's bullshit, particularly on issues like abortion. Clark wasn't. Posted by: Clap Louder on November 29, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINKMr. Roth is actually an editor at The Washington Monthly, although he has written (liberal) pieces for The New Republic, he has written for Salon an Slate as well. Did you even see his "UPDATE" there, after checking the actual transcript of what Bush said? Bram is actually "Chuckles/Charlie/Jeffery/Cheney/Thomas1/Janet/Jacques" and he is a serial liar and a fraud. Still slumming in that shade of bitch you like to wear, Chuckles? Posted by: Pale Rider on November 29, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINKHey, rdw--I think you misunderstand. I agree with everything you said. It's completely delusional to think Edwards, Clark, Kerry, Feingold(I know he pulled out), Obama, et.al. have any chance of winning the nomination. I just enjoy reading these fruitcakes senselessly babble on and on and on. Your realistic input harshes my mellow. Posted by: Billy Bob Shranzburg on November 29, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKOh, I forgot Biden and Dodd. HAHAHAHA. Posted by: Billy Bob Shranzburg on November 29, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKThe stock of Senator-elect Jim Webb moved up quite a few notches today. So, Bram, did you ever apologize to Global Citizen for your vile comments when you posed as Jeffery? And now back to more insight from the team who suffered soooooo many losses on past election night. They have such insight - "Oh, hi, I'm Loserman from Chester County, PA and this is my pal Bullshit Bob, another Loser." Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKWes Clark is a real progressive, a true genius, and an authentic hero. He is also an experienced diplomat, a four star leader, and a brilliant public citizen. We should have elected him President in 2004. If we are smart, we can learn from our mistakes, and finally put Wes and Gert Clark in the Whitehouse in 2008. Posted by: Nick Kelly on November 29, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINKNick kelly, How do you expect Wes to beat Hillary? She'll raise 25x's as much cash and get 50x's a much press attention. Bill Clinton will get more press attention than the other candidates. Posted by: rdw on November 29, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINKA bigot is a bigot is a bigot. A Chuckles is a Jeffery is a Bram. Wonder what Governor-elect Swann and Senator Re-elected Sanctimonious are doing right now? Probably donating some time to Habitat for Three Car Garages along with Weldon. Ohhhh my, the State House reverted to the Dems as well? Whole lot of help for that Charity. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINKLoved Clark in '04 but he's simply not a good campaigner. No one is a good campaigner their first time out. Both Clinton and Bush lost the first elections they ever got into, if you recall. Nothing about being Supreme Allied Commader of NATO forces gives you "spin" skills, but does give credibility. Now that he has worked for FoxNews (king of the spin) he could be a great candidate this time around. If we do get a Dem President that is not Clark, he better appoint either Clark or Cohen as SecDef. Posted by: Joe on November 29, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK"It's much more fun to read without an infusion of sober reflection, or any recognition of actual political realities thrown into the mix." Sober reflection??? Actual political realities??? From rdw??? Omigod... ROFLMAO... You do understand that dear little rdw has been divorced from reality for years now, don't you? That this is a man who was sure that the Republicans were going to maintain control of both houses of Congress this year? And who bet in early 2004 that Bush's ratings would hit 60% before they would hit 50% and who swore that Bush had nowhere to go but up? Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINKSome choice gems from the sober reflection of rdw: The attacks on Condi [Rice] and Alberto [Gonzalez at the Senate confirmation hearings] were just stupid. Karl Rove will make you pay for you stuidity. [sic] But there's enough bile from [Ted Kennedy] that Karl Rove will be able to easily create a campaign whereby minority communites get to see Teddy at his best. Karl can put 25 different sound bites out there without repeating. It may be Teddy hasn't spent each day bashing minorities. But it will see [sic] like he did. The polls will bounce manly because Bush is the opposite of Clinton. Bush is bold. I think he's making a mistake on SS but he does big things. He also keeps the presure on and he is an outstandng legislater. [sic] GWB might not pass SS reform in 2005. But if he doesn't he will have set the table for passage down the road. The dicussion of investment accounts will certainly advance and the Republican majorites will grow. That said [Bush] can't lose politically [with his Social Security proposals]. A majority under 40 are positively disposed on investment accounts. Many will take another look at the GOP as a result. The fact of the matter is this series of exchanges [in the Senate confirmation hearings], with Teddy Kennedy on the one side, and either Condi Rice and/or Alberto Gonzales on the other, will be replayed extensively during the 2006 campaign season. George is doing just fine sitting at 57% approval. Nice economy, peace in the Middle East coming, Constitution writing in Iraq happening now with ratification later this year, booming economy and stable democracy in Afghanistan, Europe moving to get back on the right side of history, etc. The dope has his ducks lined up. GWB is a very skilled politician in all respects. ... The party has done extremely well under his leadership so far and is set up for even bigger gains. [Bush is] at 57% [approval rating]. Bet you a dollar he hits 62% before he hits 52%. [Note: the very next poll, taken just two days later, showed Busy at 50%.] Um... what was that you were saying about "actual political realities?" Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINKAnd still another: GWB was in PA a few weeks back for a $1.6M fundraiser that went entirely to Santorum. Rick now has near $7M while Casey has to reach $2M. GWB has Arlen lined up to aggressivley support Santorum and he will be using PA as a parking lot for Air Force One in 2006. Laura will visit every other library in the state unless Lynn Cheney gets there 1st and Dick Cheney will visit with Santorum often in person and do joint talk radio calls. Yeah, we saw just how much all of that helped Santorum, didn't we? Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINKOh, and who can forget these particular bits of sober reflection and political reality? Lynn Swann is running ahead of rendell in the polls for gov of PA. Lt-Gov Steele is running ahead of the opposition in MD (with an ugly democratic primary). Lt-Gov Blackwell is well ahead of the opposition in OHio for gov. How did those predictions work out for you, rdw? Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINKAnd one last one that I'll be laughing at in years to come: If you nominate Hillary the GOP will nominate McCain. He's not their 1st choice but they know he crushes Hillary. Gee, so now the Republicans are simply going to wait for the Democrats to nominate their candidate before they hold any of their primaries? That should be interesting. And, of course, there's the little matter that the recent polls aren't exactly showing McCain "crushing" Clinton. She's even beating him on some of the recent polls. But then, what do I know? I obviously haven't spent enough time in sober reflection of the political realities. In 2010 we have another census and the blue states lose 7 to 10 electoral votes. In 2012 liberals are screwed. The electoral college math will preclude all liberal candidates. They simply won't be able to win. No comment necessary. Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINKAs for Clark, I have no objections to his running. If he has learned some political skill over the past few years, more power to him. I'm not going to speculate on how well or how poorly he is going to do, though, given that such speculation is premature by at least a year. Posted by: PaulB on November 29, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINKKudos to PaulB for his usual excellent work. May I add Senator-elect Kean of New Jersey to the list? Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 29, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINKSorry, rdw...we're not falling for your "Hillary is inevitable" crap. We want to win this time. Posted by: Vincent on November 29, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINKI sure wish someone other than a one-term senator would make these A-lists: Clinton, Obama, Edwards. As for the topic at hand, I actually "chose" Gen. Clark in a policy blind poll. The only good thing that would have come from Carville having his way is it would have freed up Howard Dean from the DNC. Executive experience. This is something the general does have. My reservations against Clark date to his muted non-objections on CNN back in the run-up to the war. He may have hemmed and hawed here and there, but he did not stand up against the invasion, at least not while I was watching or reading. Posted by: Cassandro on November 29, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINKHey, could Dean run for VP? Clark/Dean would be sweeeeet! Posted by: jen on November 30, 2006 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINKAs for some real "sober reflection," anyone who thinks that money is all that matters has not been paying attention to the last two elections. In particular, if money and press attention were all that mattered, Dean would have been the 2004 Democratic Party nominee. Hillary definitely has a good shot at the Democratic Party nomination; nobody is denying that. Nonetheless, Hillary is just not all that popular among the Democratic Party base, those who turn out in greater numbers for primaries and caucuses. And there is a fairly substantial "anyone but Hillary" group that are simply waiting for another candidate, any other candidate, to break out of the pack so that they can coalesce around that candidate and put up road blocks against Hillary. Having said all that, I doubt it would be a disaster if Hillary were to win the nomination. In all recent polls, she does quite well against people like Giuliani and McCain. Her defeat in the general election is far from certain, particularly if the Republican Party continues to be badly damaged by Iraq. Nobody knows just what issues are going to dominate the 2008 election. If we have a recession in the coming year, for example, economic issues may well come to the forefront again. Security issues will almost certainly still play a role, although it's not even remotely clear at this time which party that favors. And, of course, Iraq is still going to play a role. Somehow, I doubt that gay marriage is going to do it this time; they have already milked that one for all they can get. Absent a major economic or security event, though, I cannot help but think that both party's nominees and the eventual election will be decided by whichever candidate has the best story on Iraq. What I'm waiting for, personally, are the candidates whom we have not yet heard from -- candidates who are obscure now but who don't have the negatives that many of the current crop have. There is a long way to go and anyone making predictions now is being fairly foolish. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINKOddly enough, I'm not yet as interested in the Democratic Party primary as I am in the Republican Party primary. The two front-runners there, McCain and Giuliani, have some pretty significant factors against them, particularly when it comes to the Republican Party base. The press appear to have already anointed the "Straight Talk Express" as the frontrunner, but I have a feeling that there are going to be some surprises ahead and that McCain's victory is far from assured. Outside of those two, I'm not really up on the other candidates. I assume that Allen is out, thanks to his pitiful performance in the recent Senate election. Who's left? Romney and Gingrich, almost certainly. Anyone else? Any of the other names I've heard tossed out there seem pretty obscure, aside from Rice, and I really doubt she's going to run. Still, I have a sneaking suspicion that, just as is true of Hillary, there is a fairly substantial group of Republican primary voters that simply don't trust Giuliani and McCain and are waiting to see if there is someone else to back that can take away the nomination from those two. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINKjen, Dean could certainly run for anything he wants but I really doubt he's interested and I really doubt any current presidential candidate would be interested in asking him. His time is past and I'm pretty sure that that is the way he wants it, based on just about every article and interview I've seen. As for Clark, it's just too soon to say. If he's figured out a way to connect with the voters, if he's figured out how to schmooze the Democratic Party bigwigs and money men, if he's figured out how to build a strong campaign organization (both a central organization and individual state organizations), if he's figured out how to handle the press, if he's got a good story on Iraq, then of course he's got a shot at it. Those are all pretty steep hills to climb, though, and he could not do those things in 2004. Whether he can do them in 2008 remains to be seen. As for the other candidates, Kerry's candidacy is dead, I think, and would have been dead even if he hadn't committed that recent gaffe. Obama might be able to pull it off, but I think that most people are assuming that he's really aiming for the VP slot. I just don't see Biden pulling it off, particularly with the progressive wing of the party so dead set against him. Gore is a really interesting possibility, but he's still saying he's not going to run (albeit with hints that he could be persuaded to change his mind). Given that the press still just don't like him, though, and given the negatives that he'd have to overcome and the lies about him that still haven't been put to rest, I just don't see that he can do it. A more dynamic candidate, with more charisma, could pull it off. But I just don't think that Gore can, particularly if he's as ambivalent about running as all signs seem to indicate. Anyway, I still say that all of this speculation is one year too early. A lot can happen between now and then and we are likely to see a few of these fall by the wayside and a few more rise to take their place. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINKChrissy- I was around for the 2004 primaries, and I was astonished Clark got anywhere. Is it a "smear" when it's the truth? If people want a responsible military leader and former EUCOM chief to run for office, General James L. Jones will soon be available. The campaign Jones is running (Afghanistan) hasn't been going well, but that is, in my opinion, in large part due to intereference from DC. Jones has clashed with Rumsfeld, and he withdrew his name for consideration for the top job at Central Command (CENTCOM), allegedly because he wanted guarentees that Rumsfeld would not micromanage him the way Rumsfeld micromanaged every other CENTCOM commander who had the misfortune to serve under Rumsfeld. If people want someone worse than Clark, General Jospeh Ralston has political ambitions, but he is, I believe, currently a Republican. Of course, Clark was, too, until political ambition made him decide that he should become a Democrat. Ralston was hauled out of well-deserved retirement recently to be an envoy of sorts to the Turks, a difficult job which he will probbaly screw up. But, as we can see from the post-retirement career of Wesley Clark, screwing up big-time is no bar to being a popular and viable candidate. Posted by: Nemo Ignotus on November 30, 2006 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINKPaulB, Hillary is unbeatable. There simply isn't another credible candidate. The Clintons are Gods and money does matter when the edge is this huge. It's a huge risk for the big money people who want access to piss off the Clintons by backing someone else. Gore, Biden, Kerry, Richardson, Edwards have asolutely no shot. On the GOP side the fact the MSM likes McCain is a disadvantage. It would be the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh backing Hillary. Her supporters would start having 2nd thoughts as soon as they heard the news. Plus the MSM doesn't like him as much as they did in 2000, they didn't help him then anyway, and they have much less influence among republicans most of whom don't read big city newspapers or the network news anymore. I am not a McCain fan but the fact remains this is the stongest and deepest GOP field in my lifetime with at least 3 authentic candidates. By that I mean with serious support and a real shot at winning. They are McCain, Guiliani and Romney. John is socially conservative but conservatives don't like him and don't trust him. He does not have executive expereince. Rudy is socially liberal but dead on on Judges and Law and Order issues and has a great record as Mayor of NYC, even aside from the hero of 9/11 thing. Mitt is an authentic tax cutting social conservative more clearly the heir to Reagan. He lacks name recognition and must run a flawless campaign over the next year to challenge Rudy. It helps him that McCain and Gulaini appeal to the same general group. They could split that vote while he takes the conservative base. Mitt's Morman problem is an issue but greatly overstated. Rudy's social liberalism is a bigger problem and both he and McCain have had a very messy personal life. Each of these candidates has a serious shot and can win the nomination and beat Hillary if they run smart campaigns. Rice is not and will not be a candidate. Newt will make the same decision Frist did when he realizes he has no shot. Brownback has some potential and there may be another dark horse but it's getting very late to the game. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINKSorry, rdw...we're not falling for your "Hillary is inevitable" crap Read a poll. She dominates getting 2x's as much as Al Gore who can't possibly win. John Edwards is next. He dropped out of his Senate race because he was going to lose and he could not carry his home state for Kerry. There's simply no other serious candidate in the race. Biden is a buffoon. Clark, Dean, Kerry can't possibly win and while Bill Richardson is a respectable candidate he's got even less charisma than Clark. Obama has done absolutely nothing except be black. VP maybe but not the top job. It isn't just her money but also the huge celebrity factor. She owns Hollywood and the huge groupie vote. The press will devote most of their assets to her and the next largest group to her husband. The 4 biggest 'stars' are Bill, Hillary, John and Rudy. How many people can the networks cover while still covering GWB, Iraq, Iran etc.? Hillary has zero competition. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINKGee, so now the Republicans are simply going to wait for the Democrats to nominate their candidate before they hold any of their primaries They don't need to see a Democratic primary to know Hillary will be the candidate. We already know. More interesting is Rudy has done exceptionally well on the campaign trail in front of conservative audiences and is solidly ahead of McCain. And Rudy has a much better shot in NY, NJ, PA and OH. Both he and McCain beat Hillary. The 2012 realignment is already baked in the cards and it'll be at least 7 electoral vote losses for the blue states. Michigan and the Union North has been decimated by job losses with all of the slowest growing states in economic and population terms being blue. The 10 fastest growing states are red. In fact it's unlikely the Michigan economy will recover anytime soon and we are looking at a long term trend. Hillary is your last hope. Schumer was smart in finding conservative candidates and running on conservative issues. How ironic for anti-military libs to know we added more veterans to Congress this election than any other in our entire history. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINKrdw, still as clueless as ever, writes: "Hillary is unbeatable." No, dear, she's not. Nor have you provided any credible evidence that she is. I've already discussed the reasons why her victory is not assured. "There simply isn't another credible candidate." LOL.... Dear heart, I don't think you understand the meaning of that word. There are easily half a dozen "credible" candidates. "On the GOP side the fact the MSM likes McCain is a disadvantage." ROFL.... Yup, more "sober reflection" of "political realities." I do so love reading this kind of "analysis." It's so refreshingly free of influence from reality. "Plus the MSM doesn't like him as much as they did in 2000, they didn't help him then anyway," Q.E.D. "I am not a McCain fan but the fact remains this is the stongest and deepest GOP field in my lifetime with at least 3 authentic candidates." ROFLMAO.... I do so love this guy. Three "authentic" candidates is the "strongest and deepest GOP field" in his lifetime??? The mind boggles at the sheer cluelessness of such a statement. "Read a poll." Dear heart, the formal campaigning hasn't even begun yet and the current polls are entirely meaningless. If the early polls mattered, Joe Lieberman would have easily won the 2004 Democratic Party nomination. He was as far ahead at this time in 2002 as Hillary is today. The rest of your "analysis" was equally clueless and equally hilarious. I do so love reading your posts, particularly when you show absolutely no shame in (or even clue about) being wrong, time and time again, as my selection of quotes from your previous "analyses" shows. And that was just a brief selection. I could easily find literally dozens more posts where your predictions were laughably and idiotically false. You are funny, though, so if nothing else you're highly entertaining. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINKAnd speaking of clueless, I missed this one in the initial reading: "Schumer was smart in finding conservative candidates and running on conservative issues." Q.E.D. "How ironic for anti-military libs to know we added more veterans to Congress this election than any other in our entire history." LOL.... How ironic that many of these were liberal and progressive candidates specifically pushed by the liberal blogosphere. Alas, your lovely little strawman "anti-military lib" exists solely in your own little fantasy world. Out here in the real world, liberals aren't even remotely "anti-military." Poor rdw ... just as clueless as ever. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINKHow ironic that many of these were liberal and progressive candidates specifically pushed by the liberal blogosphere
Reagan changed the world and we continue to live in his shadow. Clinton merely moved right recognizing he would not get elected otherwise. Chuckie moved the party right recognizing he could never win otherwise. We have a model for where the liberals wish to take us. It's called Western Europe. It's also a disaster Americans will not repeat. Instead we will watch Western Europe collapse into Eurabia and do what Americans always do, grow richer, cleaner, healthier etc. It's rather amazing for all of the angst about exporting jobs overseas we have 4.4% unemployment and know our TV's, PC's, Camera's Ipod's etc.,are going to be 35% cheaper than last year and 35% better. I'll buy better sneaks, shoes and jeans for less money than I paid a decade ago. Everything gets better all the time. We'll increase the minimum wage because it's meaningless but keep those capital gains taxes at 15% because it matters. Reagan lives. Keynes is dead. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKthe formal campaigning hasn't even begun yet and the current polls are entirely meaningless. Formal or not campaigning began long ago and is picking up steam as the top talent and fund raisers are lined up. Hillary's Senate campaign had nothing to do with the Senate. She put our formal notice she'll spend the rest into obvilion. They've all been building organizations and it's moving into a higher gear. In order to get the best talent they have to prove they'll be competitive and the polls are very useful for that. A Richard Holbrook with ambitions of being Secretary of State wouldn't consider joining Clarks campaign as an advisor. All of this positioning has begun and they're all looking at polls. Want to be part of a Clinton administration? Best not wait too long to help out. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINKThe formation of the Republican Party was a combination of abolutionists, former Whigs, and Know Nothings. I see that the Know Nothing wing is still alive and well. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 30, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKAbe did a solid job didn't he? Dance around it all you want but Hillary is your candidate and there's not a thing you can do to change that. There's just not going to be enough camera time for Wesley and we know he'll be a poorboy. Tied with unsure as he is in CNNs recent poll makes him an odd man out. Meanwhile at the GOP This makes it very interesting since Frist has formally pulled out and Newt has effectively done so. McCain is sure to anger people with Senate votes Rudy can easily sidestep. This is what a race looks like. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK"None are liberal." ROFLMAO.... rdw, we already know you're ignorant; you don't need to keep proving it. "Reagan changed the world and we continue to live in his shadow." ROFL.... Yes, dear, whatever you say. St. Reagan singlehandedly saved the world and so on and so forth. "Instead we will watch Western Europe collapse into Eurabia" ROFL.... Yes, dear, we already know you don't like Western Europe. Your prejudices, along with your abysmal ignorance, have been on display for months. "Formal or not campaigning began long ago" No, dear, it didn't, not really. Just the usual formation of exploratory committees, testing the waters, early speeches, focus groups, testing messages, and so on. The building of relationships and the locking down of experts, money men, and bigwigs will all take place next year. "and is picking up steam as the top talent and fund raisers are lined up." Dear heart, few, if any, of the "top talent and fund raisers" are lined up at this time. The rest of your nonsense wasn't even worth the trouble to acknowledge, much less address, particularly since you have entirely failed to deal with the points I've raised. "Dance around it all you want but Hillary is your candidate and there's not a thing you can do to change that." ROFL.... The poor guy just doesn't learn, does he? I wonder if he was saying in 2002, "Dance around it all you want but Lieberman is your candidate and there's not a thing you can do to change that." Or in 2004, "Dance around it all you want but Dean is your candidate and there's not a thing you can do to change that." What can you do about a guy so firmly determined to ignore reality? Gotta love the guy, though, don't you? When it's pointed out to him that the early polls are indicative of precisely nothing, what does he do? He posts an early poll and pretends that it proves something! How can you not love a guy so completely clueless? Oh, and dear heart, not only has Newt not pulled out, he's been quite active of late. It doesn't mean he's going to take the nomination; it just means you're a fool for counting him out so early. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINKSince rdw has a little trouble with facts, let's rub his nose in it a bit, shall we? Here's a poll from January, 2003: Joe Lieberman - 29% Notice how similar the numbers are to today's Democratic candidate polls? By rdw's "logic," Joe Lieberman was our 2004 election candidate and there wasn't a damn thing we could do about it! For the sake of the intellectually challenged (hi, rdw!), I will note that I am not claiming that Hillary will not win the Democratic Party nomination. I am simply pointing out that it is far from a foregone conclusion, particularly in light of serious concerns about her electability, and the simple fact that it's too damned early to make such a prediction. As for the notion that Hillary would inevitably lose, since rdw sets such great store by these unreliable early polls, let's look at a couple of these, shall we? Newsweek: Good chance of voting for: CNN: Time: Time: That settles it: it's inevitable that Hillary will lose! And yes, I know I'm cherry-picking and that some polls show wider gaps. That simply shows, though, that the polls are all over the map and that the conclusion is far from inevitable. What's hilarious about all of this is that so much of this is so bloody obvious. Of course it's too damned early to make predictions. And of course these early polls don't matter one whit. And of course Hillary's march to destiny isn't preordained. Among other things, she has higher negatives than most of the other candidates, even from people who are the Democratic Party's base, and thus far, she hasn't been able to come up with an Iraq message that resonates with the voters. In a year, these things will become a bit more clear. Right now, though, forget it. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINKrdw, Wes Clark has all the finest qualities any thoughtful person could require in a POTUS. This time around, he will be in the race long enough for a substantial majority of the American people to realize that. If HRC runs, the two of them will be amicable opponents, and Wes will defeat her in all of the southern primaries, as well as most of the others. Posted by: Nick Kelly on November 30, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINKWes Clark has all the finest qualities any thoughtful person could require in a POTUS. The man was fired as NATO head. He's another dime a dozen general with no war record. He was a Pentagon bureaucrat. He's not a bad guy but he is boring. He won't finish higher than 4th or 5th in the primaries and he's not an attractive VP candidate. His career is as a TV analyst. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINKBy rdw's "logic," Joe Lieberman was our 2004 election candidate. No comparison between 2004 and 2008. This is the 1st time in 80 years we have a wide open race without a well-funded incumbent Pres or VP in either party. No one on the Democratic side, including Joe, was considered a strong candidate even by Democrats. Lurch was a default because Dean was so bad. Joe was a loser in 2000, had little money, little means to get any and was sitting well to the right of the liberal base especially on Iraq. Bill and Hillary are human ATM machines and well as the objects of envy by the MSM and Hollywood. In 2006 there is no one person who can raise 1/2 of what Bill Clinton can raise by himself. There is no one person who can raise what Hillary can raise by herself. Either decides to hold a press conference the press will be there in force with their A teams. Wesley would need to set his hair on fire to get attention. There is no race. There was never going to be a race. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrart Nominee in 2007. The rest are competing for VP. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINKAs for the notion that Hillary would inevitably lose, I did not say Hillary will lose. Once in the race anything can happen. We've had plenty of examples of candidates self-destructing. No candidate is without flaws. They need to be on the top of their game and as near gaffe free for a long time while under a ton of prying eyes. On top of that the country is still very evenly divided. I don't think the GOP can nominate anyone and win. They need a good candidate and that candidate has to run a smart campaign. I don't care for McCain but I am glad he's in the race. I think a hard fought primary benefits the candidates and the voters by putting them under pressure. I like Mitt but he's not well tested. This will be a good chance for him to shine under pressure and if does really well he'll give Rudy a run for the money. If there's to be a macacca moment let it be now. All things being equal, Hlllary versus Rudy I do think she loses because Rudy is a very good candidate, is very likeable and has an excellent record of executive experience. Posted by: rdw on November 30, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK Formal or not campaigning began long ago" No, dear, it didn't, not really.
rdw, still stubbornly avoiding reality, writes: "No comparison between 2004 and 2008." Oh, garbage. The race in 2004 was wide open; the race in 2008 is wide open. "This is the 1st time in 80 years we have a wide open race without a well-funded incumbent Pres or VP in either party." So? Each party has had wide open races frequently over the past 80 years. The final election may be a bit more exciting than usual but this is just par for the course for the primaries. "No one on the Democratic side, including Joe, was considered a strong candidate even by Democrats." And again, complete and total garbage. You're simply trying to rewrite history (and demonstrating your complete ignorance in the process). You're simply making shit up because you know that you cannot defend your idiotic assertions any other way. "Lurch was a default because Dean was so bad." And again, complete and total garbage. You have no knowledge of, and even less understanding about, what actually happened in 2004. "Joe was a loser in 2000, had little money, little means to get any and was sitting well to the right of the liberal base especially on Iraq." And once again, you are simply making shit up. Do try to get in touch with reality, won't you? It would make this debate a lot more fair. As it is, I don't even have to try -- all I have to do is point out that you're making shit up. "Bill and Hillary are human ATM machines and well as the objects of envy by the MSM and Hollywood." ROFLMAO... Oh my... That you can even write such out-and-out tripe like this with a straight face is mindboggling. As I said, the connection between you and reality is virtually non-existent. "There is no race." Yes, dear heart, there is. That's why we have primaries. "There was never going to be a race." Yes, dear heart, there is. That's why we have primaries. "Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrart Nominee in 2007." LOL.... Really? Gee, I wonder who the nominee will be in 2008, when the election will actually be held? Do tell us, won't you? I do so love this guy. When he doesn't have the facts to back up his assertions, he simply makes shit up. Tell us again how the Republicans are going to use Condi Rice's 2004 hearings as a campaign issue in the 2006 elections, won't you? You know what's so hilarious about dear little rdw? It's not that he's wrong in hindsight, which can happen to anyone; it's that he's so often obviously and completely wrong at the time he's writing his totally off-the-wall and around-the-bend assertions. Those little excerpts I posted above, for example, were so glaringly wrong that it is truly amazing that anyone would write them. And even when given a chance, earlier this year, to take back those assertions, dear little rdw stood by every one of them! The mind boggles at the sheer cluelessness and delusion of it all. Dear heart, any time you actually want to tackle the points I raised in my posts on this topic, do let me know, won't you? I'll be right here waiting. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK"Yes, dear, it most certainly did." No, dear, it most certainly did not. Gee, this is fun. I do so love arguing rdw style, since I never actually have to back up anything I write. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK"I did not say Hillary will lose." Gee, that must have been someone else using your handle that wrote: "He's not their 1st choice but they know he crushes Hillary." Now where I come from, this means that "Hillary will lose." Maybe where you come from, it means something else? "Once in the race anything can happen." No shit, Sherlock, which is why predictions about the primary winners two years before the general election, and a full year before the campaigns kick into high gear, are pretty damn stupid. "We've had plenty of examples of candidates self-destructing." Gee, ya think? "No candidate is without flaws." Gee, you mean like Hillary in the Democratic primaries? "They need to be on the top of their game and as near gaffe free for a long time while under a ton of prying eyes." Gee, you mean like Hillary in the Democratic primaries? "I don't think the GOP can nominate anyone and win." So I take it you're acknowledging the stupidity of your earlier remark? Good to hear. I loved the Freudian slip in this comment, by the way. "All things being equal, Hlllary versus Rudy I do think she loses because Rudy is a very good candidate, is very likeable and has an excellent record of executive experience." LOL.... Dear heart, do you know anything about Rudy's experience as mayor of New York City? Here's a free clue for you: there's a lot to attack. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINKDon't you just love it when someone destroys their own argument? I wonder if dear little rdw realizes just how much damage he's done to himself? Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINKYou're wrong, rdw. Wes Clark is one in a million. He graduated first in his class from West Point. "In 1966, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics.
General Clark's awards and honors include the Presidential Medal of Freedom, The State Department Distinguished Service Award; the US Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal;(five awards), The US Army Distinguished Service Medal(two awards), The Silver Star, the Bronze Star (two awards), the Purple Heart, and Honorary Knighthoods from the British and Dutch governments. He is the author of the best selling book Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo and the Future of Combat (Public Affairs, New York, NY 2001) and Winning Modern War: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire (Public Affairs, New York, NY 2003). General Clark graduated from the United States Military Academy (B.S.) in 1966 and completed degrees at Oxford University B.A. and M.A.) as a Rhodes Scholar. He is also a graduate of the Ranger and Airborne schools. General Clark currently serves in leadership roles with a number of non-profit public service organizations, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Distinguished Senior Adviser), the Center for American Progress (Trustee), the International Crisis Group (Board Member), City Year Little Rock (Board Chair), the National Endowment for Democracy (Board Member), the United States Institute of Peace (United Nations Task Force Member), and the General Accountability Office (Advisory Board Member)." http://securingamerica.com/about "You're wrong, rdw." Of course he's wrong. That's because he never bothers to do even a bare minimum of thought or research to support his babbling. He's very much a faith-based guy: he believes it; therefore it must be true, not only for him, but for everyone. See, for example, his idiotic assertions about the Rice hearings. In any case, to be fair to dear little rdw, while Clark has definitely got an impressive rsum, you know that this does not necessarily translate to electoral success. It will be interesting to see how much Clark has learned over the past several years and to see whether he has put together a team and a message that will take him to the next level. Posted by: PaulB on November 30, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINKWes Clark knows that he needs a different campaign in 2008, and he has already gained considerable political speaking experience since 2004. In addition, I think he is gaining valuable experience answering questions on FOX, and acquitting himself very admirably in the process. He recently spoke about some of this during a q & a session at Brown university. Here's an excerpt: "How likely is it that you'll run for president in 2008? If you do run, how will your campaign differ from your 2004 campaign? Why do you think you were unsuccessful in winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004? What political experience have you gained since then? Hi, nice site. I really like it. Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones
attract women pheromones 
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
