The 2008 Presidential election will be Mark Warner (D) v George Allen (R)

[...of J.Temperance]

It won't be Senator Hillary Clinton v Senator John McCain and it won't be Senator Hillary Clinton v Governor Jeb Bush.

My party will choose Governor Mark Warner of Virginia. Warner needs some foreign policy credentials, so he'll choose a Veep that has expertise in that particular area....possibly I hope General Wesley Clark of Arkansas or General Hugh Shelton of South Carolina.

So my party's 2008 Presidential ticket I think will be:

Mark Warner/Wesley Clark

Mark Warner/Hugh Shelton

Mark Warner I hope would choose John Edwards to be his Attorney-General.


The Republican's will choose Senator George Allen of Virginia. Allen will choose as his Veep either Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Governor Bill Owens of Colorado OR Condi Rice.

So the Republican's 2008 Presidential ticket I think will be:

George Allen/Mark Sanford

George Allen/Bill Owens

George Allen/Condi Rice


This is just my opinion, I happen to think I'm correct obviously :)

[msongs]

1. ugh nt

Msongs
www.msongs.com/democratsmugs.htm

[...of J.Temperance]

3. Hey can we keep this positive huh? At least I'm thinking outside of the

Box. Also my choices seem more rational than all of this Hillary 2008, McCain 2008 and Jeb 2008, think about it.

[1932]

2. Has anyone read Cornell West's Democracy Matters?

There's a part where he talks about how Democrats in 2004 offered little more than the idea that the economy could be run more efficiently.

To me, Warner sells himself as a better CEO-in-chief. I find that very uninspiring.

[...of J.Temperance]

5. Warner won in a largely Red state, and he won in HEAVILY Red areas

Of that State, that tells me that Warner has mainstream appeal, that he's able to get the votes of not just Democrats, but also Rockefeller Republicans and swing voters. If he could do this in Virginia, he could do this in other Red leaning states.

You can't win by preaching to the choir, the way to win is by going outside of the box.

[1932]

20. Lots of people have won red states but aren't inspiring enough to win the

big one.

It's not enough to have won Virginia.

Just the other day here someone posted Mark Warner's "why am I a democrat" speech. A lot of stuff at the end was pretty good stuff, but it was the kind of stuff you'd expect from 95% of the people who call themselves democrats. The most telling thing in his speech was the first five or sixe one or two sentence paragraphs which were, basically, Democrats manage the economy better. That's exactly what you'd expect from a guy who was a CEO. But it's not the kind of stuff that is very insipring. A better CEO is not going to work in 2008.

Think about how FDR would have answere the question, why are you a democrat. Thing of how Abe Lincoln would have answered a question about his political convictions. That is going to win in 2008.

Two things are definitely NOT going to work in 2008: "I offer you a better form of corporatism" and "I offer you a new, softer version of American Empire."

Read Cornell West. He's right about this.

[IronLionZion]

99. Neither FDR nor Lincoln could win today

That's a difficult truth but it's true. America is simply not made of the same stuff anymore. I like convictions too, but Americans like telegenic media personalities and witty sound bites.

[1932]

105. Couldn't disagree more.

FDR won four times in a row. Obviously he could win today. He was witty and hansome, on top of being smart and having incredible progressive convictions.

Lincoln was a great orator and great debater. Ine the two years before '60 election he was on the lecture circuit arguing against slavery. He had great conviction PLUS and ability to convey his convictions to broad audiences who were swayed by his arguments.

[IronLionZion]

106. McGovern and Mondale had strong convictions

Clinton didn't believe in shit, but he was telegenic and witty and knew how to work crowds.

FDR: sure, he was very witty and handsome and intelligent and a socialist...but he was in a wheelchair. He won mostly because there was a great depression and he was not Hoover. And he stayed in power mostly because of the war but also his widespread coast to coast appeal amongst many demographics. Unfortunately, we don't have the "solid South" anymore and our working class has gotten much smaller.

Lincoln: sure, he was a great orator and debator and strong convictions, but he wasn't anti-slavery until England threatened to aid the Confederate states. He certainly did NOT run for president on an abolition platform, but on a moderate-centrist platform. National appeal? Hell NO! Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the South. He won only because of the North, and he got less than 40% of the vote in the 3-way election.

Thankfully, we didn't have television then.

Those who don't understand history......:scared:

[Conker]

40. That's a key part about Warner.

Most of America is leaning to the right.That's why we need southern candidates, and strong moderates if we are going to win.Also I have heard that compared to many places in Europe our left-wing is their right-wing, and our Republicans are their far-right, which does not surprise me.We don't even have a socialist party in the U.S. unlike several other parts of the world.

[Telly Savalas]

54. And this destructive trend will continue so long as the Democratic Party

keeps pandering and doesn't challenge the right-wing assumptions that underly our political climate.

[radio4progressives]

57. ...

:puffpiece: :boring:

[1932]

64. You should read George Lakoff

Democrats aren't losing because "most of America leans right."

I have no problem with the Democratic NOT running a north eastern, protestant preppy for president. I do have a problem with running candidates who don't have progressive convictions that are plain as day. I think the problem with north eastern protestant preppies isn't that "most of {conservative} America" doesn't like them. I thinnk the problem with them is that they don't project the progressive convictions of being for the working person, of believing that democracy requires a broad base of power devolved to the people, and they don't tell people that we're all better off when we're all better off. And if a southern white candidate doesn't project those qualities, we might as well just run another north eastern preppy (or even immigrant) nihilist, because we'll lose either way.

[...of J.Temperance]

70. I think most of America is actually in the Center

The mainstream don't want politicians who are Left or Right, they want politicians who are in the Center, they want Moderates and Mark Warner is just that, so is Wesley Clark and so is John Edwards.

America does have a Socialist Party, it ran a candidate in 2004 Walt Brown. Of course Socialism as a political philosophy isn't feasible, and the Socialists are hopelessly misguided and America has always rejected Socialism.

Fascists, Communists and Socialists also have more in common than they think, they're all for a Totalitarian state. Of course the Far Left refuse to see how much in common they have with the Far Right, but people who are outside of the bubble can see the similarities.

My party, the Democratic Party in Europe would be something of a mix of the Social Democratic Party and Liberal Tory.

The Far Right of Republican Party would be more aligned with the National Front Party, xenophobic, militaristic and anti-immigration.

[1932]

92. ...and they can be convinced to vote either way based on the convictions

they percieve in the candidates. If a candidate displays genuine convinction about important principles, and moderate voters believe that those are the most important issues and principles confronting Americans, you can get their votes.

Democrats don't win the votes of moderates by saying the Republicans world view is correct, whether it's a view of empire or marketplaces. Democrats win the votes of moderates by doing what FDR did: by convincing them that progressive values -- ensuring a straong working class, investment in infrastructure, devolving political power broadly to the public, and believing that were all strong only if each individual is strong -- work best for America.

Convincing Americans that a better CEO can make executive decisions which confer benefits on all teh middle managers and blue collar workers -- that doesn't get me excited.

[radio4progressives]

56. I have a signed copy...

:hi: he was out here on the Left Coast a year or so ago... it's was nice to see him again after too many years (for me)..

[FrenchieCat]

104. Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Barbara Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee

will be at my church next week, here in East Bay!

I'll be there!
If anyone might be interested in coming who is in the Bay Area, give me a PM....and I'll give you more info on that!

:hi:

[Olney Blue]

4. I was a little disappointed by Warner on MTP, but I will keep an open mind

[...of J.Temperance]

7. He's not charismatic like President Clinton or John Edwards

I know that myself, but thanks for keeping Warner in mind :)

[Olney Blue]

13. I live in Maryland, and I respect what he did in Virginia.

[...of J.Temperance]

17. Fab :) And I'm sorry you're stuck with Bob Erhlich :(

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend would have been so much nicer, I hope she runs against Erhlich.

[Olney Blue]

24. We need to get Ehrlich out ASAP.

However, I doubt Kathleen will run again. It's between O'Malley and Duncan at this point as
his Dem challengers.

[...of J.Temperance]

72. I forgot about Martin O'Malley

What I've read about O'Malley I like, heck he'd be a fine Governor. Bob Erhlich sucks ass, I hope O'Malley gets to kick that ass.

[leveymg]

18. But, he is really capable and nobody's tool, and projects that.

I think he's the real thing, and I think he'd make a great President. He can get elected, and can be trusted.

I've lived in VA for almost 20 years, and wouldn't say that about many.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Please elaborate on your opinion. Why do you believe the

Dems will nominate Mark Warner?

[...of J.Temperance]

11. Because we know that Mark Warner can WIN, it's as simple as that

And as Democrats, as a side point, we ignore George Allen at our peril. I'd like us to remove him from his Senate seat, but I don't think that's going to happen.

George Allen looks like a fat Howdy Doody, he's another fake Cowboy, he's from California....the Fundies like him and the media will package him just like they did with Junior. We mustn't ignore Allen, we must have a strategy for squashing him.

Politics is dirty, you can't play nice, your candidate can play nice, but the people on the ground MUST play dirty, that's politics. Allen is the GOP nominee, we squash him....Warner can win I know.

[Zensea]

14. Ah, Electability

Where have I heard that before?

[Savannah Progressive]

59. The Electable myth, I think agree.

I believe I am speaking for many in the Democratic Party, the Electable myth cost us the 2004 election. Diebold aside, we frankly had a great candidate in the form of Governor Howard Dean, and we tossed him aside for the "Electable" Senator Kerry. I may have some reservations about Kerry, but frankly, he didn't inspire like Dean did.

Dean had a growing following, one so strong that after the election we made him the party leader, because he spoke what we thought.

I can see we are going to do it again, we are going to toss out the candidates we truly believe in, honestly feel represent our ideals, our passions, and our beliefs in favor of an electability myth.

The MSM, or more accurately the Right Wing Media, has no intention of giving us a fair shake, or a fair representation. Our only hope is to go for broke, instead of a strong second place. It's honestly time to win or die. I will be damned if I wake up the next day, and hear how we only lost by 120 votes, or some such fucking thing again. I will not stand idle while we throw away another four years to Repugniks because we let the Right Wingers pick our candidate. That is frankly fucking stupid.

They pick the most fascist they can and we get our second, or third choice, who is approved and declared "electable" by the NY Times, or Washington Post. To Hell with who they like, they ignored the Port story for over a week while we had Cheney's shooting from every asinine angle there was. Bush Co Was probably laughing his ass off while the news was focused on a minor shooting accident. While the MSM spent the week telling us that was the only news going on, the Port deal was going right on by until a lawsuit was filed. It took a lawsuit to get the MSM to notice the story at all. Then they were shocked, shocked I say, to find that another news story had slipped right by them. I wonder what is going on that they haven't noticed yet.

Electable, I would rather have us choose based upon who best represents our IDEALS and BELIEFS, not who some nameless editor says is Electable.

[enough already]

67. Yep, electability

The same electability that gave us Kerry instead of Howard Dean. Let's go down THAT road again as it has served us so well.

[...of J.Temperance]

71. The 2004 Presidential ticket should have been Clark/Edwards

Clark/Edwards would have won. General Clark didn't have a huge Senate voting record that could be twisted and him accused of flip-flopping like Senator Kerry had and was.

General Clark wouldn't have had to endure the Swift Boat Campaign. All they had on General Clark was Kosovo, and he could have got through that, not one American soldier died in Kosovo and the Kosovo campaign was the correct thing to do....Ethnic cleansing cannot be allowed.

General Clark, a 4-star General and a former Supreme Commander of NATO....at a time when National Security was the main issue....it would have been President Clark now with Vice-President Edwards.

[ContraBass Black]

101. Our dear, old friend!

Mr. Electability has always served us well.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Living in the West, I have almost no knowledge about Warner.

The same argument of electability has been made about Montana's Demcratic Gov., who enjoys a 75% approval rating in what is a purple state that went heavily for bush.


Why would Democratic primary voters want to elect Warner, other than he has been strong in Virginia?

[napi21]

8. Boy, talk about tearing Va. to shreads!

I like Warner, but he needs to do a lot more speeches to get his comfort level. Alan already has his!

[...of J.Temperance]

19. Mark Warner will be doing that between now and 2008

George Allen's comfort level, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, his comfort level is similar to Junior's.

[SaveElmer]

108. Allen is dumb as rocks however...

He makes Shrub look like a Rhodes Scholar at times. He can be unbelievebly ill-informed.

[leveymg]

9. That sort of narrows the choices, don't you think?

"Carry me back to Ol' Virgini'" And, I live in Alexandria, and feel a bit alienated by this.

Actually, Mark was a great Governor, and George is a fine son of a football team owner. By the way, has Sen. Allen actually done anything to prosecute the Vice President, as he said should happen? If not, he's no gentleman, by local standards.

[...of J.Temperance]

22. I think it's rather more interesting though than

Hillary 2008 or Gore 2008. As I said, I'm thinking outside of the box. Allen backtracked probably after someone slapped him upside the head.

[leveymg]

29. When it smacked , George's head probably rang like a hollow bell.

He's almost as dumb as Dubya. Well, maybe not that dumb.

[MadisonProgressive]

10. No fn way!

I hope not. I'm not at all sold on Warner. Right now I'm leaning towards these choics:

Gore
Dean
Clark
Feingold

[...of J.Temperance]

15. Out of those four....Clark and Feingold yes....Gore and Dean no

I like Senator Feingold a great deal, I think he's fab and he's very talented. Obviously I like General Clark.

In my opinion Vice-President Gore, no. Howard Dean will never live down his meltdown after losing the Iowa Primary, he came across as angry and irrational, with the international situation as it is, I think a lot of people in the mainstream wouldn't feel happy with Howard Dean being in charge during some kind of huge international incident, or God forbid, if there was another terrorist attack on American soil.

Clark and Feingold YES.

[MadisonProgressive]

21. You may be right about Dean (bless his heart)

but Gore should have been president since 2000, and I guarantee we wouldn't be facing the end times if the SCOTUS wouldn't have trashed the constitution by halting the vote counting. In his last couple of speeches he was very impressive.

[RazzleDazzle]

93. Are you comfortable spouting rightwing talking points, or

do you just not know any better?

Howard Dean will never live down his meltdown after losing the Iowa Primary,

It was anything but a meltdown. It was a pep rally. Anyone who calls himself a Democrat or posts here really ought to make it there business to know the truth on this.

he came across as angry and irrational,

Only to those who benefit by calling him that. People who viewed the tape rationally, objectively, and for what it was would know better. Again, anyone who posts here really ought to know better.

with the international situation as it is, I think a lot of people in the mainstream wouldn't feel happy with Howard Dean being in charge during some kind of huge international incident, or God forbid, if there was another terrorist attack on American soil.


Your conclusion is based on false premises, and is therefore illogical and just plain wrong. And it's damaging to the whole party to promote rightwing lies about Democrats, especially the leader of our party and a one-time perfectly fine Presidential candidate. We get enough baseless smears from the right, no need to add to them and give them weight and validity by posting them here AS IF there's a grain of truth to them.

I don't care of you don't LIKE Dean for your own reasons, I care very much -- and everyone here should care very much -- when shit gets posted that is simply objectively false and defamatory and unfair and damaging to the whole party.

[dmr]

107. Thank you n/t

[aquart]

12. Well, this just pisses me off.

[BigYawn]

16. Mark Warner won't be the nominee, I am willing to bet money on it...

These are MY reasons:

He is too wonkish.
He bends too much with polls.
He is boring.
His smile is very low quality.
His acne poke marked face is not photogenic.
His teeth need a serious makeover, camera
zooms are not flattering.

Other than that, I think he is very intelligent,
a good politician, and a good democrat. But that
is not enough to become a president.

My bet is on Hillary or Clark or Edwards.

[...of J.Temperance]

25. Take Hillary out of that, and keep Clark and Edwards n/t

[leveymg]

26. He's not boring, and we're not looking for Dan Quayle

He's electable and a good Democrat, that IS what we're looking for/

[BigYawn]

58. There is a difference betw what you and I want and what the voters want

My observations over many decades of following politics
is that state level elections turn on local issues, but
to get elected president, one must possess some intangibles
such as charisma, good looks, appeal, connecting with
nationwide voters, trustworthiness, and a WONDERFUL
SMILE.

Eisenhower had it, and so did Kennedy, Reagan & Clinton.
All of them had WONDERFUL SMILES. None of them were the
brightest and smartest in the country, but could connect
with the people.

Sorry to disagree with you, but Mark Warner does not have it.

[...of J.Temperance]

73. Okay, so I'll take Mark Warner to a cosmetic dentist before 2008

And I'll get him that WONDERFUL SMILE and WONDERFUL TEETH!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

81. Why do it? Why go to all of that trouble to get a Democratic

Corporatist CEO into office :shrug: ,

when you don't have to pay one thin dime or one red Cent to a dentist, and still end up with the smile, the brains, the brauns, the one the GOP doesn't expect, the one killing himself to help Democrats in 2006, the guy with the solutions to get us back on track....and the one that even an Osama Bin laden Tape won't detract?



Warner could make a fine running mate though.


Clark's got it all except for the money (which, IMO, is really all that Warner has). Maybe we can help Wes with that!

[...of J.Temperance]

84. I would be happy with a Clark/Warner ticket

People know I think Clark is FAB!!!! As I commented already in this thread, the 2004 ticket should have been Clark/Edwards and they'd have won.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Since there's no groundswlell anyway, plese ommit Shelton, OK?

Let's just say that he would divide us if he ended up on any Dem ticket. There obviously are other choices.

[...of J.Temperance]

86. I

Chose Hugh Shelton, for the same reasons I chose Wesley Clark, National Security expertise.

Warner/Clark, Clark/Warner, Warner/Edwards, Edwards/Warner, I'd be happy with any of those tickets.

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. I know.

But if that's important than you already have Clark on your list. I see no point in slamming Shelton here now. He obviously knows a thing or two about National Security and all and I'm sure there were things Edwards was able to learn from him. I am trying to avoid some nonconstructive for the moment and obvious land mines with this post. My point still stands. There is no big upside with Shelton that Clark doesn't already have. Virtually no one is longing for Shelton to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and there are a lot of Democrats who are really pissed at Shelton for what they think are very good reasons.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Shelton and Clark are not equals......for one Clark has been on the

right side of the Iraq debacle since before it begun...for another, one man is a Democrat with Democratic ideal, the other a Republican...and the 3rd; I didn't see Hugh Shelton helping to defeat the GOP in 2004 or right now, in 2006....(and I hope that Warner will get started on doing something to help out those who need it for 2006 with his already sizeable war chest ASAP!)

Why you would even mention or promote the idea of a Hugh Shelton, a Republican retired General who maligned Wes Clark by calling in question Clark's Integrity and character is a mystery to me. :shrug:

[Donna Zen]

94. Hugh Shelton

Hugh Shelton is a liar, a warmonger, and a republican. Why is his name even mentioned on this board other than with scorn? Who would ever suggest putting such a neocon on the Democratic ticket? Shelton, as a Redcap lobbyist has made millions off the War in Iraq. Maybe that's why he supported the war...following the money.

[snowbear]

23. We'll I'll say this about that....

The dude is sure raising some big bucks $$$$!

"Leader of the Pac" --> http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/02/06/leader_of_the_pacs.html

[leveymg]

27. And ,Mark can raise money! Well that settles it. He's our boy!

[...of J.Temperance]

74. That's because the big money men know he can win n/t

[FrenchieCat]

90. I think it's because the Big Money Men, i.e., corporate America

Knows he'll be there for them.....

[snowbear]

28. Here's what DU will look like for the next two years...

..while we sort out who our nominee will be:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (( ))

[leveymg]

31. So, what else would you expect?

That's healthy.

Notice that nobody's really said anything solidly bad about Warner? I find that that enormously encouraging.

[snowbear]

32. I agree Mark ~

This place is a blast while we're all deciding on nominees and watching debates. :hug:

[leveymg]

33. We're least disagreeable when we agree least.

Or, something like that.:toast: :kick:

[...of J.Temperance]

75. I've noticed that nobody has said anything really bad about Warner

And I find that enormously encouraging as well :)

[sandnsea]

46. Funny thing is

The candidate that DU wants isn't going to be the candidate anyway. Unless there's a meteoric shift in American politics in the next 2 years.

[...of J.Temperance]

76. I agree, the candidate that most of DU will want will be

Someone like Al Gore or Dennis Kucinich.

[sandnsea]

97. No it won't

It wasn't Kucinich in 2003, it was Dean. So far this time around, it's been Clark. Brown is more liberal than Hackett. DU supports whatever candidate who rants loudest against Bush, and that's about it.

[Ignacio Upton]

47. It will be like that in only ONE year

Since candidates need to declare in early 2007 to really get organized.

[politicasista]

34. At the rate the country is going, let's worry about 2006 first...

and how we are going to make it through the next two years of Blinky. These 2008 threads only take the focus off the criminal administration's failures and other serious issues facing this country.

2006, 2006, 2006!

[Meldread]

35. I disliked him, and I am a Virginian.

Warner is better than Virginian Republicans, that is for certain, but he certainly isn't progressive, charismatic, inspiring, or... well... anything. He's very bland. I supported him, but I never really liked him. He is Bill Clinton, though slightly more to the right, and minus the Charisma. He'd make a great VP, but not a guy to place at the head of the ticket.

I mean, hell, you can go further North (like New York) and find REPUBLICANS who are more to the left than he is, and that's scary.

No, if we are going to elect someone it has to be someone who is *AT LEAST* a strong left leaning moderate, if not someone who is solidly on the left. Most importantly, this person needs to be strong willed and have a forceful personality. They need to not only BE a leader, but feel like a leader as well.

[leveymg]

65. Except for Dean, you're describing someone who doesn't exist

We'd have to stitch someone together, Frankenstein style.

[...of J.Temperance]

77. Yeah they can stitch that candidate together and that candidate will lose

Do people actually think that the majority of Americans are going to vote for someone who's solidly on the left?

They didn't vote for George McGovern and they didn't vote for Walter Mondale, so they're certainly not going to vote for a candidate such as that nowadays.

They'll vote for a moderate Democrat, who's Liberal on most social issues and conservative on many economic issues. This is just my opinion of course.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. Walter Mondale is NOT a "forceful personality"

and, as I've explained more times than I care to, the vote against McGovern had everything to do with Middle America rejecting "hippies." I doubt that most voters could have even told you what McGovern stood for except that he had "all those hippies" voting for him.

[AtomicKitten]

36. MY party is going to choose AL GORE!!!!!

[leftstreet]

37. If he runs, it'll be as an Independent n/t

[AtomicKitten]

38. maybe, maybe not

And, if so, so be it. He's the only Dem I'd follow off the reservation.

I realize predictions are epidemic here at DU, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

[Catchawave]

39. Nice thinking J........

Hopefully we'll bloody up Allen a bit with James Webb challenging him this year, maybe even beat him :patriot:http://www.webbforsenate.com/ :patriot:

Warner's a good moderate choice, and very electible. Is Murtha too old to run as VP? Now that would be a nice balance on the ticket.

[...of J.Temperance]

78. Thanks....a point about John Murtha though I'd like to comment

I admire John Murtha's comments about Iraq, but he's shockingly Right-Wing for a so-called Democrat. He's anti-abortion, he supports Fundie causes, he co-sponsored a Flag Burning Amendment well before DU beat up on Senator Clinton for doing so.

Murtha is 73 years-old thank goodness, I wouldn't want him as Veep.

I hope James Webb can rough up George Allen, heck I would like Webb to beat Allen, I'm just not sure that he can unfortunately. :patriot:

[terrya]

41. If Jeb Bush announces that he's running, then it will be Jeb Bush

If Jeb announces he's running, then he wins the nomination. Period. The Bush money, with their corporate/religious right connections, trumps everything.

[wisteria]

42. Warner doesn't impress me! He offers very little as far as I can see.

Being a good one term governor of VA, doesn't qualify him for President. In other words, no thank you and I hope not.

[JI7]

43. Hugh Shelton is a fucking right winger

[Ignacio Upton]

44. Who is Hugh Shelton?

That name sounds familiar. Is he a General?

[FrenchieCat]

60. Gen. Hugh Shelton is the one that switfboated Wes Clark

and stabbed him in the back during the '04 primaries with a slur uttered once, and never repeated or elaborated on......(The media made a big deal out of it, tried to get others to inpugne Clark....but couldn't find anyother Swiftboaters of the General Rank.....and yes, Shelton is a Republican, but he did work for John Edwards during the Primaries)
-----------
Retired Gen. Hugh Shelton was asked if he would support retired Gen. Wesley Clark for president, Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quickly took a drink of water. "That question makes me wish it were vodka," Shelton said. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

During the General's testimony in The Hague, Milosevic used Shelton's quote smearing Clark's character and integrity to impugn the General's testimony. The prosecutor Carla de la Ponte called Shelton to confirm and to evaluate whether he should come to testify on Milosevic's behalf. Shelton backpedaled, saying it was 'just politics.'
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/presidence4.htm#LA%20Meetup%20with%20Wes%20II
-----------

Hugh Shelton is an huge asshole, and I hope and pray that he will never be elected to anything ever!

[...of J.Temperance]

79. Shelton was also CoTJCoS under President Clinton

I know that there's bad blood with Shelton and Clark. However Shelton likes Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Hugh Shelton is a Republican who was promoted by Clinton's

Republican Secretary of Defense, Sec. Bill Cohen!

Clinton had to try to look "tough" on defense during his terms to deflect from the "Draft Dodger" label pinned on him by the GOP.... and so it goes that he gave the Republicans free reins at the pentagon, perpectuating the still resounding misapplied theory that Republicans were and are better at national defense than are Democrats. It cost us the 2002 and 2004 elections...this theory!

Those Republicans (Cohen and Shelton) were the ones responsible for the Somalia Debacle, not allowing military intervention in Rwanda, and allowing the killing of 250,000 Bosnians before intervening in Kosovo (intervention done at the insistence of Wes Clark who was not in the mood to idly stand by and watch another genocide)....because they didn't want to take any "chances" that any U.S. casualties would occur. They also were the ones who promoted the slow bombing of Kosovo from high altitutes, as opposed to much more strategically targeted rapid bombing at lower altitutes and putting ground troops on the ground (btw, it was the threat of Ground troops put out by Clark to Milosovic that halted Milosovic....not the slow bombing at high altitutes) that Clark favored.

Georgie Anne Geyer
July 30, 1999
GEN. WESLEY CLARK WAS RIGHT -- AND SO HE MUST GO

The Pentagon and the White House insist, vociferously but lamely, that Clark, the supreme commander of NATO, is being let go three months early, next April, because of scheduling problems. Sort of like, "We're not going to be home on Tuesday when the plumber comes, so make it Monday!"

The problem with Gen. Clark was simple: It was that he was right.

The simple truth right now is that nobody says that Clark was wrong. In fact, the respected German Gen. Klaus Naumann, just-retired head of the NATO military committee, told a group of us here recently, in his review of the still-unresolved conflict, that "the reluctance to use overwhelming force allowed Slobodan Milosevic to calculate his risks. ... I would press harder for visible preparations and visible planning."

But it was the "go-slow" guys, the "they'll give in with a just little more punishment" chaps (in fact, the very same mentality that gave us Vietnam!), the ones who would rewrite all of the dictums of von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu about the need to strike hard, fast and unrelentingly, who were unquestionably and provably wrong -- and whose political caution cost tens of thousands of lives and came close to losing the war for NATO.

So who goes? Wesley Clark!

In fact, you need only to look at his brilliant testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July l to see how modulated his words always were -- and how he had been able to explain how difficult this new type of "coalition warfare" was -- but also to accept the reality that it is almost surely the warfare of the future. Most analysts I know are filled with unvarnished admiration for his political skills in keeping the l9-member NATO coalition together.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was jealousy of Clark at the Pentagon. He is too smart, too decent, and above all too clear about what is -- and what isn't. He surely will have a brilliant future. I'm far more worried about us.

Everything points to the fact that, far from getting rid of Gen. Clark, what we really need is to get rid of this jealous bureacratic mentality at the top of our military establishment. For if what they are really saying with these acts is that there is no place for a Wesley Clark in the U.S. armed forces, then we're in deep trouble.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm#top

Warrior's Rewards
NATO's military commander won in Kosovo but not in Washington. Now he has paid with his job.
By John Barry and Christopher Dickey,
Aug. 9, 1999

Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme Allied Commander in Europe, waged and won NATO's campaign for Kosovo without losing a single soldier in action. For the U.S. military, the victory was uniquely—historically—bloodless. Last week Clark learned it was also thankless.
In a midnight call from Washington, Clark was told he'd be relieved of his command at NATO next April, a few months earlier than he'd anticipated. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, presented the decision as a simple matter of giving the post to another deserving officer. Clark, who got the call in the middle of a quick trip to the Baltic republics, was caught off balance. He'd seen Shelton in the United States just the week before. Not a word had been breathed of his replacement. According to one source privy to the conversation, Clark told Shelton the move would be read as a vote of no-confidence in his leadership.

Shelton, brisk and businesslike, said there was no way around it. His replacement—Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—would be forced by law to retire if he weren't given a new slot by April. Clark wasn't buying it. In two conversations that night and again the next day, sources say, he argued that his replacement would be a blow to U.S. efforts to reshape NATO. Shelton wasn't moved. Clark, the 54-year-old warrior, was going to have to step aside for Ralston, the 55-year-old Washington insider.

To salt the wound, news that Clark was leaving early was leaked to The Washington Post within an hour of Shelton's first call. The next day, the White House tried to make nice, heaping praise on Clark's record. Defense Secretary William Cohen suggested, vaguely, that there might be an ambassadorship in the offing. But the equivalent of a gold watch and a pat on the back did little to disguise the insult. "A slap in the face," said one senior European official at NATO headquarters in Brussels. Albanians and Kosovars felt they'd lost a national hero. The French daily Le Monde said Clark was treated "like a bum." Yet, for all that, official Washington had few regrets. "It was botched in the handling, but it's the right decision," a senior administration official told NEWSWEEK.

The irony is not only that Clark won the war and lost his job; he won the war without fighting it the way he wanted to. http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm#top

Washington Post 1999-
The Unappreciated General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1

Recent events in Kosovo show that Clark's bosses in the Pentagon and White House still don't get it. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton, rebuked Clark in February for using 350 American soldiers to reinforce French troops who were unable to quell violence between Albanians and Serbs. After the American reinforcements were pelted with rocks and bottles, Shelton and the White House, panicky about potential casualties, told Clark not to volunteer U.S. troops again.

But Clark was right to act. He understood the value of using force quickly and early to show who was in control, and to demonstrate to the European allies that the United States is willing to put lives at risk too.

But then it was Hugh Shelton in 2004 who talked negatively about Clark's Integrity and Character? Figure that one! :eyes:

[NCarolinawoman]

95. The Edwards/Shelton connection is due to the NC good-old-boy network.

Shelton was chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton when Edwards was a Senator. They are both from North Carolina. Shelton teaches at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and Edwards lived in Raleigh, until last summer. They crossed paths a lot, so it was logical that Shelton became Edwards's military advisor back in the '04 primaries.

I have no respect for Shelton since his utterances from '04 and all the crap that he put Wes Clark through. I am glad, however, that he was forced to admit before the world that his attacks sprung from the dirty dungeon of "politics".

[...of J.Temperance]

80. Chairman Mao would be a Right-Winger to many of the people on DU

Can you please post some evidence as to HOW in your opinion Hugh Shelton is a right-winger?

If he's a right-winger, why the heck was he advising Senator Edwards' campaign? It wasn't just because he didn't like General Clark either.

[NativeTexan]

45. That could be the biggest "who cares" election in years!!

Mark Warner, and his lilly white capped teeth, is boring to me, and I haven't, personally, heard him say anything of any substance. My preference for MY party would be either Clark/Obama or Clinton/Obama....either would be strong and electable, IMHO.

[Ignacio Upton]

49. Hillary is more electable than Warner?

I think that you should check your post. If Hillary is our candidate than we will lose by at least 5 points in the popular vote, unless Condi by some slim chance is their candidate. Clark would be a good nominee, and Obama...I'm conflicted. On one hand, he will only have had three years of Senate experience if he's Veep, but on the other...the "Senate-speak" that makes incumbent Senatorial long-winded and nuanced will creep up on him. Plus, he'll have a voting record that can be easily distorted a la Kerry.

[NativeTexan]

51. What seems like the facts now.....

...will not prove out in the long run. Warner has going for him that he is a governor instead of a Senator. Clark has it all going for him. Hillary, I still believe, has the nomination to lose...and she just might. No one has as much name recognition. Warner has no track record. BUT, if he gets the nomination, obviously he has my vote.

[nickshepDEM]

48. lol. I actually agree. Ive been calling a Warner vs Allen race

for a while now. And boy would it be a hell of a race.

[Ignacio Upton]

50. Watch VA go blue for the first time since 1964!

I'll be drooling watching O'Reilly and Tweety having to call the election for Warner.

[mdmc]

52. God help us!

:kick:

[Nomen Tuum]

53. I still believe the Republicans will nominate Jeb Bush

I don't see Allen getting the GOP nomination.

[radio4progressives]

55. vs about Two or Three Third Parties (Contenders Unknown)

I know he's your guy, but I don't think Warner will be able to hold a candle against a charasmatic Labor Party Leader, or Contender representing the African American Party or Bring Back the Constitution Party or whatever "Reform" (a la Libertarian or other?)..

so it will be interesting to see unfold. kind of surprise to see his name keep floating out here in light of events in the past few days and weeks..

[BlueManDude]

69. There may be a fairly legit 3rd party from the right as well

After 8 years of Bush, feeling pretty secure that the USSC is in good hands and seeing Bush's stance on things like immigration and the ports, a RW populist in the Buchanan mold might be up for some mischief.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. my God that sounds uninspiring

you may be right though. And George Allen would make Mark Warner look like a liberal in comparison.

It convinces me that progressives should put there real concentration on congressional races. At least then I could find something to get excited about.

If the Democrats take the House this November

10 members of the Progressive Caucus would become chairmen of committees

John Conyers becomes Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

[PBass]

62. We need a candidate who inspires people

Remember the "Ask not what your country can do for you" spiel?

We need someone who will inspire people.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. setting aside all issues of personal ideology and preference: Al Gore

I dispassionately believe that Al Gore would be the best and strongest possible candidate...He wasn't terribly inspiring back in 2000...but he seems to have acquired that ability since he left office.

[Shelor]

66. Go Warner!

[BlueManDude]

68. As long as McCain is not the nominee we have a shot n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

82. frankly, the candidates for BOTH parties suck

and until Elliot Spitzer runs for president, I don't have a dog in the race.

[JNelson6563]

83. So far I am unimpressed

Leaning right to win a red state doesn't impress me.

Juile

[RazzleDazzle]

91. Then I'll have to sit this one out

Bah!

I didn't see him this morning, but I saw him within the last 2 weeks or so and he's easily the most boring, plain vanilla pablum candidate I can imagine. I'd take Dan QUAYLE over this guy (personality- and charisma-wise, not politically). He reminds me of someone who is either drugged or a zombie or a robot.

Ewwwwwwwww.

God help us if that's who the Democratic movers and shakers choose for us THIS time around.

[wiley]

96. Hugh Shelton? Are you Insane?

Is Alexander Haig not available? Why not Paul Bremer?

What an evil post!

[ncteechur]

98. If Jeb Bush were to run, he would lose.

Others might could run away from GW but his own brother cannot. People will not want a Bush 3x. Most are now sorry we got him 2x.

[ContraBass Black]

100. God help us.

I'm a Virginian, and I don't want to see that.

[high density]

102. what the post above mine said.

"Iraq? uuh, yeah, I don't really wanna talk about that."

[iconoclastNYC]

109. So says Carnack, the DLC fan boy

[underpants]

110. Barring a miracle it is going to be Allen

I said that a while ago and have seen Mary Matalin, Rush, and at least one poll that back that up.

Here is a thread from last June

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1874101

[Clarkansas]

111. I'd love Warner and Clark on the ticket.