Warner '08 stomping for himself in NH - Prefers not to discuss Iraq!

[FrenchieCat]

Should'nt Mark Warner be out stomping for 2006 candidates in red states instead?

I realize that 2008 is very important and that there is still time to start promoting congressional candidates for 2006, but would'nt it have been nice if Warner could have signaled his priority to voters by making his first appearance since leaving office a battle cry for the importance of 2006?

"My name is Mark Warner. And I'm unemployed," he quipped this afternoon
at Stonyfield Farm, his first stop during a daylong visit to NH that will also
include private meetings with Gov. John Lynch (D) George Bruno, the state's
'92 Clinton/Gore co-chair; and ex-Rep. Dick Swett (D).

To no one's surprise, Warner seemed least comfortable talking about Iraq.
"OK, let's go back to talking about that Stonyfield stuff," he joked in response to a question about how he would lead the war effort. He then elaborated generally about the need to (a) force more countries to contribute (b) focus on the end game and (c) help Iraqis build a workable govt. Warner: "What we need to hear from the president is what his measure of success is going to be in Iraq. And he has not provided it."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/02/warner_in_nh_da.html#more

Yeah.....Hardy Har-Har and :boring:

:eyes:

(edited to add link)

[patdem]

1. He will ONLY get my vote if nominated ..I will not nominate him

He is a Democrat and the lesser of two evils, but until then I will vote against him.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Hopefully, he's only running for VP.....

Which may be why he ain't "into" discussing Iraq.

[Armstead]

2. No Mark, what we need to hear from YOU is your measure of success

Sorry guy, but your centrist Democratic pals helped make it a necessity to deal with an Iraq War as an issue.

Don't want to hear platitudes about how you would "manage" this disaster better.

[peacebird]

3. Warner is a weenie. He is no more what the Dems need to run for Pres than

Hillary is.

To run Hillary (yes she is a smart lady and a good politician but the Clinton name is the plague and on that alone she loses.)

We need someone with fresh ideas and charm. Obama stands out. John Edwards as well. There are many good choices - just NOT Warner or Hillary.

[Renew Deal]

7. The Clinton name

has actually won a presidential election.

[FrenchieCat]

9. and so? Tell us more.....

[Renew Deal]

12. That is all.

Thanks though. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

4. Maybe I'm nitpicking.....but

I just don't see why anyone serious about our state of affairs would want to have a "humorous" comeback when asked about the Iraq War.

Far as I am concerned this is serious fucking business!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

8. So why don't you defend Warner on "reflex" then? Is that too much to ask?

And here I thought a Clark supporter had a "right" to discuss the stance of other politicians as well as various issues. Silly Me!

Thanks for letting me know that to you this is bashing.....
Although I find it to be a critique worthy of discussion!

See ya.....judge of who should say what and why :hi:

on edit -- Attack me personally and Clark supporters by extension, why don't you Mr. DU PC police?

[Renew Deal]

11. My comment has nothing to do with Warner.

You kicked your own thread by saying: "Maybe I'm nitpicking.....but
I just don't see why anyone serious about our state of affairs would want to have a "humorous" comeback when asked about the Iraq War."

All I'm saying is that you're not nitpicking Warner. You're doing what you do naturally.

[FrenchieCat]

13. OK.....Thanks you for your input,

Thanks Bleachers7 for the kindly reminder that I am only a Bot sent out on a mission to destroy all competition...

However, I will say that you won't find me in a Fiengold or Gore thread saying anything negative. Now why would that be? Could it be, like some other normal folks, there are some politicians, apart from Clark, that I favor?

and I see that as a Clark supporter, my only "right" on Du, according to the Bleachers7 rule of "what shall and will be", is to support Wes Clark, but I shall not speak ill of others, even if some of what they say makes me ill.

What else am I allowed as a Clarks Supporter?....Since it appears that I cannot have independent thoughts, nor can I post a thread about what I think provides some insight about another politician.

Why don't you think about it and come back with your precious righteous pronouncement so that I can be set straight!

[Renew Deal]

14. I thought about it.

Yup, still see it the same way. :think:

[FrenchieCat]

16. Ok, mighty one

You caught me! I beg your forgiveness and I will disappear into the Internet cosmos and only re-appear to read what others have to say about various politicians (because I guess they can as long as they are not Clark supporters), but I will stifle any opinions that I have as it is not my right according to the o'mighty maker of the rules for me and Clark supporters in general.

Gee, I don't know what I'd do without your guidance. :sarcasm:

[karynnj]

15. I've seen her say good things about candidates other than Clark

when she thought it was warranted. A recent example was at least one complimentary post for Kerry when he was leading at the Alito issue. (Thanks, Frenchie Cat), Her comments were NOT mindless bashing but addressing the fact that it is sad that a candidate hyped by the media would not have a real, solid position on Iraq. It is a major issue.

If you want to see what the media is doing with - tommow's NYT magazine section (delivered to homes today) has an article on Chuck Hagel. Speaking about Iraq positions, it first dissmisses ass policies to the left of Bush by saying that (other than Feingold and Murtha who have "flirted" with deadline to withdraw, EVERYONE is for essentially the same thing. Then in a sentence to keep them out of trouble - they specify that everybody = Hillary, Bush and Hagel.

I'm sure John Kerry, Joe Biden, Wes Clark, John Edwards and McCain appreciate not being part of everyone! Also, Feingold didn't Feingold submit legislation on his idea of a flexible target date in November 2006 about the time Kerry submitted legislation on his plan. (At that time, these 2 were pretty much in sync as Feingold said that he, Kerry, Kennedy, Levin and I think Byrd were leading on getting the US out.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Thanks Karynnj, and in reference to that real issue of Iraq....

You are absolutely right that it bothers me that Mark Warner feels that he can stump in New Hampshire for 2008 yet he doesn't seem to understand that his position on Iraq is an important part of what today's politics are all about, as are the 2006 elections.

It troubles me that a man who's being promoted by the media as the most possible anti-Hillary jokes about something like his personal position on this horrible War.....considering he has had little to say about the issue to date.

I'm starting to get a feeling that this man feels somewhat entitled to be a major entity in the 2008 presidential elections just because he's a former one term governor from a red state and has been annointed by the press and Bildenberg and is raising money hand over fist. And so it follows that if he is to be so entitled, then we should be entitled to some serious discussion and answers on what he thinks about much more than who he is and what he has done in Virginia.

That's my beef with Warner....this air of cavalier entitlement. I'm here to inform him that him speaking on the current pressing issues will tell us much more about him, than him speaking about himself.

[NCarolinawoman]

19. I know what you're saying. Warner was in NC last week.

He was, indeed, treated like royalty. I think the "Raleigh News and Observer" put it like that. (I will try to come back later with the exact quote.)

He spoke at the Emerging Issues Forum which is held every year in Raleigh. He was a special guest of former Governor Jim Hunt, who is still very popular here in NC. Then he went over to Chapelhill to speak and attend a big fundraiser attended by corporate bigwhigs to raise money for his PAC. Then he was taken to the Duke/Carolina game as a special gueat of Erskin Bowles, who is the new President of the University systems.

I don't know what Warner said in his speech, but Governor Bill Richardson was also a speaker and he agreed with Steve Forbs, that super-rich Republican, that we need to LOWER taxes, particularly on corporations. (UGH).

[Senator Obama]

20. Am I hearing you right...?

Leading Dems speaking in front of a corporate audience and all they talk about is tax cuts! Whatever happenned to corporate responsibiity to retain and create domestic jobs. Ford lays off 25K workers and is rewarded with a job creation tax cut? What is wrong with this picture. It sickens me to the core!

Obama

[NCarolinawoman]

26. I find it very disturbing.

There is a lot of lowering of corporate taxes going on here in the South. It's a way of attracting businesses to come here. It works quite well, and these same businesses usually come from the states where there is a lot of unionization. (unions hardly exist at all down here). This is one reason why there is such a growth spurt going on in the South.

Personally, I wish there wasn't this "big business boom" in my area. We are losing too much green open space, and the "little guy" continues to be left out. The "little guy" can't even afford a home around here, and apartment rents are way too high. The air pollution in the "booming" area of central North Carolina has become one of the worst in the nation. It used to be that when you got off at the airport in Raleigh/Durham, all you could smell were fresh pine trees---not anymore.

[karynnj]

24. Richardson wants lower taxes?

That's beyond belief - Does he want a bigger deficit or to cut programs?

[NCarolinawoman]

27. Yes, that is what Richardson said. Krugman was also there and

disagreed with him. I am still curious to see what Warner actually said, but the peaper did not quote him. Perhaps he gave the same speech that he gave on Road to the Whitehouse. The topic at the forum, from what I gather, was soley on economics

[karynnj]

35. It's too bad they didn't quote Krugman

I would rather him speak on economic issues more than anyone - he is great. What was Krugman's reaction to Warner?

[Gloria]

38. It's not beyond belief--Richardson gave nice tax cuts to the

upper brackets here, the little guy got peanuts.

Richardson is repug-lite as far as I can tell. He didn't get behind the recount, either.

He is not to be trusted. I can't stand him.

[karynnj]

39. Sorry - I wasn't questioning where he stood - just the stupidity of a

Democrat taking that stand. THe NM results for some of the Indians did look weird - wonder if that's a Richardson or Abramoff problem.

[BigYawn]

45. Do you know of a single corporation which does not pass on it's taxes

onto the consumer or customer?

Please list them and I will go out and buy their shares.

[FrenchieCat]

47. and....the point being?

[BigYawn]

55. What? You can't see the obvious? Well then let me explain again in

as plain English as possible. When a corporation is
charged a tax, they do not pay it from their own pocket.
In order to stay in business, every single stinking
corporation must make enough profit to satisfy the real
owners, which are the stockholders. So, if the corporate
tax is increased, the first thing they do is increase
prices of their products so that the profit level stays
high enough to satisfy the stockholders.

So, to a person not very well versed in economics it may
look like the corporations are paying higher taxes. In
reality the consumers and customers end up paying all or
even more of it.

If your intent is to tax the high income people, a better
way is to increase taxes on PERSONAL INCOMES in high
tax brackets. That is a lot less regressive! The CEO types
and upper management end up paying more taxes, and so
do those holding huge quantities of shares, but the small
fry owning a few shares in their 401-k's do not get spanked.

Another very negative effect of higher corporate taxes
is that it ONLY APPLIES TO US corporations. And that
makes harder for US products to be sold in foreign
markets. Result? Fewer jobs here! And more imports!!

[loyalsister]

56. Your argument only goes so far

U.S. corporations have all kinds of unnecessary breaks that drain the treasury in my state.
There are some that do not pay corporate income taxes at all.
Under your argument, everything should be practically free at those stores and yet, it's competetively priced.

[BigYawn]

57. The ONLY reason certain corporations do not pay taxes is------>

They have no profits!!!!!!! Or have loss carryovers
from previous years. Don't worry too much about them
though, if they keep losing money, they will soon go
bankrupt.

You bring up corporate welfare, and I am vehemently
against any corporate subsidies. There is no need at
all to help any corporation at taxpayer expense. If a
corporation is run inefficiently, it deserves to go
broke.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Did you ever take an accounting course?

There are ways for a corporation to have PAPER losses, not real losses. PAPER losses.

[BigYawn]

66. Paper losses are perfectly legal....I have paper losses all the time in

the stock market, and I can deduct those from my income,
which ends up reducing my income taxes.

Yes, I have taken courses in Economis, and developed software
for all accounting needs of the company I worked for including
payroll, ledger, accounts receivable & payable, billing tied in
with labor reporting, income tax data for IRS etc.

[FrenchieCat]

71. Stock losses are not "paper loses".....

You can only claim a loss if you purchased a stock for a certain amount and you sell it for less. That's a real loss in my book. Further, you can only deduct $3,000 of that type a loss per year, and must carry the rest forward meaning, stock loses are real loses; kicker being that you can't even take all in the same year it occurred....and have to stretch it out.

Business are able to Depreciate and Amortize capital assets and intangible expenditures, meaning they can purchase an asset, and write it all off (depending on how much it is) or most of it...although they have added asset value to their companies. They are also have credits galore to further reduce their taxable incomes....and let's not even get into offshore incorporating as an easy way for Corps to not have to pay any taxes at all!

You really should take an accounting class, or two, or three, prior to making a judgement as to who pays their/it's fair share.

next, you will be telling us that it's a good thing that Corporations are seen as "people" with the same rights as citizens to constitutional protection!

[BigYawn]

72. To summarize, I am AGAINST all corporate subsidies, and

the less efficient corporations should be allowed to wither
on the vine.

Ofcourse you have to actually execute buy and
sell stocks to declare a capital gain or loss. Personally for
me it is strictly a paper gain or loss because nothing tangible
changes hands. I buy paper stock certificates and I sell paper
stock certificates. I think that is what was implied by a previous
poster who replied to my post saying corporate losses are paper
losses.

I do not see corporations as enemies of ordinary people. Most people
are employed by some type of corporation or partnership. I include
non-profit organizations in that category because even they can only
survive by not losing money continuously.

The rest are employed by some form of government whose sole income is
taxation of one form or another.

The "enemy" in my book are the INDIVIDUALS who are at the top rung
in corporations who sometimes steal from the treasury of the corporations.
Even at ENRON, 99% of Enron employees were honest, and productive
employees. It was the top 1% that was involved in shenanigans.

Taxing corporations at high rates punishes all stockholders. Majority
of stock holders in most companies hold small amounts of shares. Also
we can only tax US corporations, which makes them less competative in
the world markets. Ultimately every dollar paid by every corporation
comes from the consumers down the food chain. When corporations go
bankrupt, employees lose, stockholders lose and US treasury loses.
In other words corporate tax is very regressive.

On the other hand, taxing high incomes at higher rates will snare ALL
the top executives complete with their obscene bonuses, and all those
who hold huge amounts of shares and therefore collect huge amounts
of dividends and/or capital gains. Taxing high income people is the
LEAST REGRESSIVE method of obtaining revenue.

OTOH corporations should be allowed to write off capital expenditures
because that usually results in higher productivity. Every dollar the
treasury will lose by not taxing the corporation ends up as income on
some ones tax return and the rest ends up as capital/research investment.
So it is all good. If the executives get paid more or the stockholders
get higher dividends, it all ends as taxable income for individuals.

[loyalsister]

67. Think again

Home Depot, Toys Are Us, etc send royalty payments to the holding companies in Delaware. Delaware does not tax the money at all.
Many states do not require that the money be taxed before it is sent. The states lose a ton of money.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2004-06-24-geoffrey-tax-loophole_x.htm

[BigYawn]

73. Every corporation is owned at the end by INDIVIDUALS....I want those

individuals taxed based on level of their income. I see nothing
wrong in increasing individual tax rates for very high incomes.
Taxing corporations hurts the small fry including low and middle
level employees and small stock holders.

It does not matter how many channels the corporate profits pass through,
in the very end they ALWAYS END UP IN SOME INDIVIDUAL's pocket. That
should be the target of high taxation, not the corporations who provide
majority of jobs for a lot of small fry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Uh, do you actually know how corporations are taxed?

They taxed not on gross receipts but on their income AFTER all legitimate business expenses have been met, INCLUDING the salaries of the CEOs and other executives.

The only ones who benefit from lower corporate taxes are the shareholders.

Investing in new facilities or improving employee wages and benefits actually LOWERS a corporation's taxes.

[BigYawn]

68. I better know how corporations are taxed, I run a business myself,

and have never been audited by IRS, so I am assuming
I know how to figure taxes.

[karynnj]

21. Did you see the "Road to the White House" with Warner?

The problem is not just Iraq, in answer to a broad evrironmental question, he in effect said that he didn't have a position yet and said nothing. My first thought was that he has 2 years to grow - but since then he also said that we shouldn't fight Bush on National Security.

I am so sick of hearing this "Southern Governors" mantra. Precisely 2 Democratic Southern Governors have been elected since 1960, both in times of relative international tranquility. Now, is not such a time. (The argument makes less sense because with a fairer media, you would have the same amount of back up to say we need MA Senators with the initials, JFK. That is ridiculous, of course, but has as much backup.)

[NCarolinawoman]

23. I saw a little bit of it.

I did not catch the environmental guestion.

I have several times asked Warner supporters what are his stances on the environment; I am usually sent to the same site and can find nothing.

I really love Gore, Kerry, and Clark's postions on environmental issues. Perhaps I would like Feingold, as well, but I know little about him. I assume they are good

[BigYawn]

44. Warner wants to win republican crossover votes, and he can't win those

by bad mouthing Iraq situation. He is playing well...politics!!!

He knows, if nominated, dems will vote him regardless of his stance
on Iraq. But republicans will also vote for him if he has not called
for immediate withdrawal/quick withdrawal of troops.

[blm]

25. Feingold did say we should have a target date of Dec 06, but the only

Dem to submit a plan at the time was Kerry who went to Iraq to research with commanders on the ground there and Iraqi parliament members who wanted a withdrawal plan.

Feingold did speak positively of Kerry's plan which set a timetable that could be achieved in Feingold's preferred timeframe.

Murtha then came out with a plan that he felt COULD be achieved within 6 months, but the RW media machine defined as cut and run.

[Adelante]

50. True, but

Feingold also stipulated, wisely, that his was a flexible end date, since any withdrawal would have to be events-driven and not time-driven.

[catmother]

10. it's still early. i'd like to hear more from him. n/t

[blm]

18. Shows what a hypocrite Dem pundit Flavia Colgan is - she states that Iraq

HAS to be the biggest issue for Dem candidates and that it must be taken on straight and then she says that Warner looks best to her.

I do not like the way she plays that "I'm a Dem who agrees Dems are weak" game with Tucker. She doesn't even KNOW even half the stuff for ahich she rips on Dems. But PRETENDS as if she does.

[FrenchieCat]

33. One of those Bait and Switch Democratic Pundits......

They are as sickeningly confused as the GOP ones....even more so, cause they are supposed to be on our side!

[blm]

34. That's how she made me feel - I really don't trust her, even though I

started out really wanting to like her. She's certainly articluate and initially comes off as sincere, but after seeing her a few times, she really plays up to the corporate mediawhores too much - practically SCREAMING how she disagrees with any Dem that sticks his/her neck out. Except Murtha. But then she used Murtha to attack any Dem who didn't follow him completely - except Warner, of course - proving she's inconsistent.

[Totally Committed]

22. The DLC and their Candidates can just

go to hell. When will this Party learn? When will WE learn?

Resist the DLC, their issues, and their candidates. We cannot afford to have another Republican in the White House (and, by that, I mean a Republican from either Party...)

TC

[Awsi Dooger]

28. Clark supporters are predictably petrified of Mark Warner

Already. And they will assail him at every opportunity, along with inventing opportunities when they're not even there, such as this thread. Not every Clark supporter, obviously, but the same ones who attacked Edwards in 2004. Shifting focus but the same tired meaningless flimsy attacks. Warner is big league and Clark is a pretender. That is real world if not DU polls.

Per usual, excellent handicapping by Warner. Why provide potential ammunition for the GOP in the future when you have absolutely nothing to gain right now? Go ahead and tell me how Warner benefits in February 2006 by making specific pronouncements about Iraq. You can't because he doesn't. Finally we have a candidate who actually understands basics like that, instead of paranoid reactionaries who try to win every day and every issue, instead of properly evaluating the big picture.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Number one...I am one Clark supporter, and I started this thread.

But I am also Black, a woman, a mother, and an accountant...so does that mean that all Black people are :scared: of Mark Warner? Or does it mean that woman are petrified of him? etc., etc., etc...

How can you sit there and attempt to blanket all Clark supporters based on my fucking Thread. How pitiful of you.

Either you should respond to what the thread is about, or you can STFU.

Who in the fuck are you, anyways....May I ask?

[Telly Savalas]

37. Warner benefits from making a pronouncement on Iraq now

because it would at least vaguely make him look like a leader. The fact that he'd prefer to hide from one of the nation's most pressing issues dispalys a serious lack of character. This evasiveness provides the GOP with a lot more ammunition than actually taking a position would.

[sampsonblk]

43. Petrified?? Of...WARNER???

Here we go again...

I have an idea, let's re-use this same 2004 "strategy," and expect a different result! Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Adelante]

58. Good joke

Quaking.

[0007]

60. I agree......

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. The only reason I'm scared of Warner is

that I'm afraid he's the fall guy for another Democratic loss.

I'm not a Clark supporter, by the way. I'm uncommitted for 2008 until I get a clear idea who's actually running.

If any of the empty suits are on the ticket, though, I'm limiting my campaign efforts and contributions to local and state candidates who actually stand for something besides, "Look how bland and non-threatening I am!"

[Hell Hath No Fury]

69. I'm not a Clark supporter...

and I think that Warner can kiss my :dem:

I'm not "petrified" of him, I just think he is a weak-ass Dem who doesn't need to be running the US.

[saltpoint]

29. I can understand why Richard Perle or Bill Kristol might not want to

discuss Iraq.

But a would-be nominee for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination might want to bone up on a few facts and develop a perspective.

Come on, Governor. We need to hear your voice.

[nickshepDEM]

30. Great post, Frenchie. Kick & Recommeneded.

[radio4progressives]

31. pathetic n/t

:banghead:

[Gloria]

36. Oh, Christ! here's another one who knows zip about

national security and Iraq.

There is not ONE "leading" Democratic hopeful that I would work for at this point.

Wes Clark is my first choice...Feingold, at least, is consistent and shows some courage.

The others= rinse water.

[TankLV]

40. Not warner. Never. He's as bad as Bidden.

We need democrats from the "democratic wing" of the party, not repuke lite.

[Roland99]

41. Mr. Bilderberg Warner will turn into a DLC-dandy

Don't marry yourselves to this charlatan.

[Sparkly]

42. I'm completely underwhelmed

and yet somehow, not in the least surprised...

[Totally Committed]

54. Me, too, Sparkly!

Underwhelmed, indeed. As I have said before, Warner is Michael Dukakis without the charisma.

Add to that that he is a DLC posterboy, and no way I back him.

We need to win next time out, ot there will be no more Democratic Party, and America will be unrecognizable. I can't trust a DLC-beige boy to pull our fat ot of the fire in 2008.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

46. More on Warner '08 in New Hampshire....Stomping....

Some confessed to mild disappointment. “He was okay,” said one, who did not wish to be named. Another, Stuart West, said Warner was too right-wing. “He avoided gay marriage and women’s rights. And did he condemn the war? No.”

Warner hopes to become America’s Tony Blair, running to the right of the Democrat party to win the support of disaffected Republicans and independents.

“The sensible centre is wide open in this country,” he said. “There’s a lot the Democrats can learn from Tony Blair. He is an extraordinary world leader and a man of great conviction.”

For his part, Warner has learnt not to question the decision to invade Iraq. As a former governor, rather than a senator like Clinton, he does not have to explain away any embarrassing votes for or against military intervention.

At a time of war, one of Warner’s greatest areas of vulnerability is his lack of foreign policy and national security expertise. He is being coached by several former Clinton White House officials, including Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism adviser, and Ivo Daalder, an expert on Europe at the Washington-based Brookings Institution."'
http://tinyurl.com/9oro3

Ooooh, Warner's being coached on Foreign policy and National Security.
McCain better watch out then.... :scared:

[mdmc]

48. I checked him out on cspan

While I'm a green leftie, I have pretty much given up on having a progressive Dem party. If this guy, or Bayh, or Hillary win the nomination, I will support them! I WILL SUPPORT JOE LEIBERMAN, for the love of God.

At least I am represented locally by Mo Hinchey. Thank God! Peace and low stress!

[NCarolinawoman]

51. Take heart. Wes Clark is a stealth progressive.

Recently I talked to a moderate Republican in Ohio and a conservative Dem in North Carolina.
They both had very good things to say about Wes after, uh, seeing him on Faux News. Neither are wonks and neither had ever heard of him before. Clark doesn't hold back in his criticism of the Republicans when he is on Fox. When he is on, he always talks about how we are less safe now and what a huge blunder the Iraq war has been. But he says it in a pleasant, matter of fact way. (unless he is on with Hannity, which is not very often). Anyway, these are the same people who might vote for Warner or McCain.

This Republican actually described the General as "distinguished and intelligent" and was wondering if he was going to run in "08. (Of course, I was wondering why someone who watches Fox news was interested in a candidate being intelligent.) LOL

[mdmc]

59. A stealth progressive means shit. I like Wes on many levels

Perhaps he would gain my full support if he dropped the "stealth". I supported Dean based on his opposition to the war. I voted for Kerry.

I think that the Dems need to do something in the south in 2008. It will be an uphill battle (the GOP has stacked the deck, the Dems "blame Nader") and I will support anyone that can get past the GOP fraud. Clark, Warner, Leiberman... whatever...

[CarolNYC]

61. the stealth thing

Hey, Wes is not "stealth" by choice(but it certainly can be used to our advantage)...He's out there proudly claiming the label "liberal" when everyone else except, I imagine, Dennis, was running away from it, espousing his progressive ideas, plans and values....It's just that so many refuse to believe a career military man, 4 Star General can be progressive....

[mdmc]

62. peace, Carol

I am both a liberal (big governement) and a progressive (leftie).

Peace and low stress!

[xkenx]

49. Wes Clark could coach Warner's Coaches

Just what we need, Mark Warner, the mealymouthed, "don't say anything to offend anyone ever" candidate. Mark Warner, too chicken**** to even discuss some of the most pressing issues of our time. Just what Americans want--a candidate with no convictions, a candidate with mush for a spine! What a profile in courage! Wow! Can you spell L-O-S-E-R? Can you spell D-I-N-O?

[NCarolinawoman]

52. I just watched Warner's speech on C-SPAN. I't is obvious to me

that his strategy is to whoo the Republican leaning Independents of NH, who I understand, are the majority or voters there. It is probably a very smart strategy. He is not being a phoney in anyway because he feels very comfortable in this sphere.

What bothers me is that NH has such a strong say in who our candidate will be. I know the Dems have played around with changing the primaries, but it only strikes me as tweaking what already exists.

[FrenchieCat]

53. So Independents leaning Republicans don't

care about National Security? Is that a new occurence? :shrug:

[JNelson6563]

70. I agree

First, I'd rather see him helping out with '06 right now. Second, he sounds far from confident on a seriously key issue, the war.

Not ready for prime time? I guess we'll see.

Julie

[ruggerson]

74. Ok, you've convinced me

he's a very bad man, he would make a terrible President, and if you post another eighteen threads about how much you don't like him, I may write his wife and daughters and tell them how terrible they are too.


ruggs