So....its Hillary v.s. Edwards

[Superman Returns]

With Warner dropping out, Edwards is the new anti-Hillary. Edwards would have been competing with Warner for the southern and rural Democrats in S.C. and now Nevada, along with being the Clinton alternative. Now he is freed up. However, unlike Warner, he is going at Hillary from the left-populist side. Should be interesting. Clark is an interesting candidate, but sadly I don't think a skilled General means success in politics. He has tendency to say weird things. I once remember him talking of time travel. Richardson and Vilsack are as inspiring as a sack of potatoes. Bayh's conservatism and DLC credentials will be undermined by Hillary. Feingold by default of his twice divorced- single life style, Jewish heritage, and liberal voting record won't make it. Sorry. Yeah Reagan was divorced but not twice and he was married when he ran. And, I'm Jewish, so no comments. ON that that note. Its Clinton v.s. Edwards. Prove me wrong.

[SharonRB]

1. I still think Gore might run.

And Kerry will definitely be running. As will Biden.

[Superman Returns]

9. true

Forgot those. Gore is an unknown factor. He would literally turn things upside down. Edwards would be severly undermined by a Gore entry, and I'm sure he has nightmares about that. He would have the southern credentials, experience credentials, and the most importantly, the foreign policy knowledge that Edwards doesn't have. Kerry? I think he is a decent man. But- I don't think he should run. Beyond the "loser" syndrome, he simply doesn't inspire. He is a symbol of the old northeastern liberal candidate that has lost time and time again. And Biden...Nuff said.

[karynnj]

65. Kerry inspires far more than Edwards

Kerry was a war hero, was the strongest anti-war protest voice, was an excellent trial lawyer, stood up to the President and the entire Senate to continue his investigation that produced information instrumental in closing Bin Laden's bank. If this were a movie plot, it would be criticized for making the man a hero in too many very different situations.

The media didn't show much of Kerry's campaign in 2004, other than the covention and the debates that they were obligated to cover. So unless you were there or saw the rallies on CSPAN, you didn't see him. Why do you think the media showed Bush unliltered, then showed a talking head saying what Kerry did with maybe 30 seconds or so of Kerry attacking Bush.

Go to johnkerry.com and look at any of his Faneuil Hall speeches this year. This IS the Kerry of 1971 who stunned the country with his eloquence and ability to speak truth to power. Kerry has improved over 2004, when he blew everyone out in the primaries, and he also should benefit from all the "Kerry was right" moments, where on nearly every contested issue - he has been shown to be right.

You admit that Edwards doesn't have foreign poicy credentials - at a time when the world is a mess. I think Edwards is a very smooth talker, very charismatic, but I see nothing that inspires me.
John Edwards was a multi-millionaire trial lawyer. He helped people, but was extremely well rewarded by it. He was a one term Senator, who spent the last 2 years mostly running for President. He did have a fantastic stump speech, but was easily out classed in the primary debates.

[blm]

81. Well, Hillary, Edwards will either RISE during the course of the debates,

or not rise above the other talent. We will see - and that is when MOST Demorats will decide.

Of course, if more people learn about election fraud, then Kerry and Edwards didn't lose in 2004, did they?

[musiclawyer]

89. Correct. Gore blows everything up if he changes his mind

Edwards would be done, unless he agrees to be vp. Clark would offer professional courtesy.
Everyone else is minor leagues except....
Hillary who either stands down or makes it a fight to the death. Really the mother of all battles for the soul of the party.
I frankly don't think she'd run, if Gore makes a premptive announcement. Many of us here are hoping for that I would venture.

[fuzzyball]

114. Gore, Kerry are both NOT new & improved......slim chance of nomination

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. Al Gore. n/t

MKJ

[babylonsister]

3. Baloney. Lots of water to wade through before we go there. nt

[blm]

74. Democrats decide during the DEBATES - whoever performs most strongly

through the early series of debates will be the contenders by January.

[Mass]

4. Do not dismiss anybody at this point - Who knows who will come ahead.

This is silly. At this point, all have a possibility to make their case and the primaries will decide.

[YDogg]

5. Kinda looks like it ...

I don't think Biden or Dodd are serious contenders. Not even sure whether they are both interested in running, still.

[Superman Returns]

10. Dodd?

I simply do not see what he is bringing to the table. A Senator from Connecticut? NOt only is he establisment but he is not charasmatic and is from a safe state. What the hell is the point of that?

[Tellurian]

6. Testing the water...

water sounding..is all. Who is the strongest candidate?

Edwards for VP material, yes.. and that may be the end all scenario..

A Hillary/Edwards ticket!

[Bucky]

7. I dislike premature narrowing of options. It's silly & counterproductive

If you like Clinton or Edwards, say why. That would be interesting to read. This OP of yours is not.

[Superman Returns]

19. well...

I prefer Edwards to Hillary. IN fact, I always like Edwards. But really, those are the two big ones counting out Al Gore who is giving mixed signals. I really don't see Gore running. Of course there is Kerry, Clark, Feingold, Biden, Dodd and a host of others. However, Hillary is the establishment candidate and DLC, party elites, and media are drooling for her run. She is definitely a contender. Edwards has always done well in polling in Iowa and other Dem straw polls. Hell, I even read his Daily Kos chat. Also, he represents the liberal/populist wing. Its really the DLC/moderate v.s liberal/populist forces that duke it out and from each side there is a leading candidate. Hillary easily trumps Bayh, Biden, Vilsack and Edwards has done consistently better than Kerry and Feingold. So there you have it.

[Divine Discontent]

54. but still

your op implies that it's a done deal and it's down to hillary & edwards, two of the more liberally viewed candidates (wrongly or rightly based on their views), and I like their views but clark, gore, bayh, feingold, and others are out there. I don't see much of a current interest in anyone in the mainstream beyond Hillary and then Gore if he would say he's running, Clark, who did well in midwestern states, could find traction with the war talk.

[karynnj]

68. Edwards does not consistently beat Kerry

In most polls, they are within the same confidence interval, with Kerry ahead as often as Edwards. This is in spite of mostly negative coverage of Kerry and friendly coverage of John and Elizabeth Edwards. (Edwards did do very well in an Iowa poll - but he was in Iowa for at least 12 - 15 days (per a Edwards supporter here.) Kerry had at that point been there 2 or 3 times.

It is too early to tell. There will also be debates before the primary. Debates have helped Kerry in every single contest he has ever been in. Edwards was NOT a liberal when he was in the Senate. In the first four years (before both he and Kerry missed voted because they were running), Edwards was pretty solidly in the center of the party.

[benny05]

96. I agree with you in one instance

That's not totally consistent.

But the problem is the following;

1) NH poll yesterday said that Kerry was behind Edwards

From the Union-Leader today http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton%2c+McCain+top+NH+%2708+poll&articleId=7b63b9fd-2034-4b26-90d6-3246d1f679fa:

"Among Democrats, Clinton was the favorite, with 30 percent choosing her. John Edwards is next with 16 percent, and Al Gore is at 10 percent. Sen. John Kerry is the choice of 9 percent of Democrats."

2) Iowa polls place Kerry behind Edwards: http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060924/NEWS09/609240335/1001. Granted, two of the Republicans could beat Edwards, but he led the pack in general against two of them, and the margins were close on the other two of beating Edwards

3) NH poll says HRC least likable followed by Kerry--again from the Union-Leader:

"Those polled also were asked which candidates they liked the least. Among potential Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton was the least liked by 35 percent of all of the likely voters in both parties, followed by Kerry, Gore, Clark and Edwards (3%)."

I was in MA this week, and sadly, those I talked to at the airport, in shuttles, and hotels (and my second trip to the Bay State, but this was on business) and some were college grads, older voters from Iowa and MA, said that Kerry had his turn, but they appreciated his great work as a senator, and wished he would run for re-election as senator in 2008. Believe me, I hardly mentioned Edwards because I had thought the MA residents were big supporters of Kerry; I talked to them starting with Romney and his plans, then it migrated to Warner, Kerry, etc.

But it's early, and I don't rule anyone out, including Senator Kerry, who is at the JJ Dinner in NH tonight, and I bet he will have some love goin' his way. Nice pics of him serving a lunch in the Boston Globe today. He's a great person. I'd like to see some more about THK and her work of late.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Al Gore.

[SharonRB]

13. He's #1 on my list!

[blue cat]

11. The only way that I see Hillary

winning if Clark wins and asks her to be VP. IMHO, this would be my advise to her. I know that they are buddies. The media is very out of touch to think that she will win the primary. The grass roots talk more about Edwards, Kerry, Gore, Feingold, and Clark more than we do Hillary. More voices in the primary is a good thing, and I voting for the person who has the D behind their name, so whatever.

[bigdarryl]

14. I agree i am sick of this Hillary BULLSHIT

She's been a senator four five and a half years and all of a sudden shes qualified to run for president

[MannyGoldstein]

27. And Nobody Can Name Anything Really Great That She's Done

Anytime I ask folks what's she's done that's so great, they draw a blank. HillaryCare might qualify as having good intentions, but it was a bloat-o-rama intended to pander to everyone. Other than that we have her tenure on the Wal-Mart board of directors, "free trade" agreements that crush the Middle Class, trying to pass a law to make flag-burning a crime, she's still for the The Smirk's excellent Iraq adventure, she voted for the "Patriot" Act, the shameful Travelgate, ... etc... etc...

[Totally Committed]

60. And, she refuses to call for an end to Bush's war...

She's a Corporatist Hawk. No way she gets my vote!

TC

[hijinx87]

101. her ADA rating for 2005 is a perfect 100

and she would get easily re-elected. name another senator that ran
for president during his first term that couldn't get re-elected.

but of course, he always gets a pass for some reason.

[juajen]

121. Why does everyone negate her experience as a lawyer and

former First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of USA. Perhaps you ascribe to the little lady syndrome. Hillary broke that idiocy wide open. The only First Lady that comes close is Eleanor Roosevelt. She also has been a very good Senator as is evidenced by her popularity in NY.

You don't have to jump on her bandwagon, but you could at least be fair to a very popular American here and abroad.

[Totally Committed]

59. "She's been a senator four five and a half years and...

all of a sudden shes qualified to run for president

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's been a trend in the last coupe of elections. If I remember correctly, John Edwards was only a Senator for about 18 months before he started running for President. He made all the way to VP-nom. Now, he's being touted as the new "Anti-Hillary".

Just saying.

TC

[gully]

12. Has Hillary or Edwards announced they are running?

?

[Mass]

16. Of course not. Edwards supporters are rushing to claim that Warner

pulling out will help him. May be true, may be false. Impossible to know at this point.

[karynnj]

69. I would guess it may help Bayh more

like Warner, Bayh was a governor. Indiana is a Southern state that is mysteriously more North than its culture would indicate. (I grew up in Indiana. Only the Chicago suburbs are like the North.)

Even then, Warner gave the possibility of turning VA. I don't think Bayh could carry Indiana as a Presidential candidate - though current Hoosiers will know much more than I do on this.

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. You are SO right about Indiana

It's like Alabama mysteriously got dropped into the middle of the Midwest. No offense to the (few) liberals from Indiana, but I live about an hour from the Indiana border - but culturally, I feel like I've traveled 600 miles south.

[karynnj]

76. Although I was born there, I never saw that until I went to college

I lived in the Chicago suburbs in NW Indiana with Chicago TV, radio and newspapers. IU was very liberal in the late 60s, but hearing from fellow students about their hometowns was interesting. (There was even some areas students were warned about. )

[hijinx87]

119. gratuitous slamming of the south.

nice.

got any more stereotypes to roll out?

[Totally Committed]

61. Anyone who thinks Edwards isn't running, isn't paying attention....

He's got his PAC, and all those trips to Iowa and NH, and ELizabeth has her book tour. He's running.

Hillary's running, too. You don't hire Terry McAuliffe to do your fundraising AFTER you have your Senate seat sewn up if there's no campaign coming.

Nope, they're both running. I question whether a couple of others are really running, but not these two.

TC

[gully]

67. I'll await the official announcement from both.

I'm not much for speculation just yet.

[Catchawave]

111. Probably why the Warner announcement was

such a shock, especially for Virginia Dems. Mark had it ALL in place too, including not challenging George Allen for the Senate! He would have been a sure thing! Marks been too all those primary places too.

So you see, DUers, prepare yourself for more after-midterms-shocks. Official Announcements/DeNouncements :shrug:

I'm also pissed at the timing of his announcement, he could have waited until after mids too :cry:

[hijinx87]

120. I also think they are both running

and I think it will be great to see a clinton on the
campaign trail again. they know how to do it right.

and as far as edwards goes, well, the media gets their
darling in the race.

[juajen]

122. Ah, come on. He is darling and beautiful and wise

and so many other things. I love Elizabeth, too. We are very lucky in our candidates. They're great!

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Worry about November FIRST - then speculate on '08

Cart before the horse, Supe?

[gully]

17. Absolutely.

nt

[Superman Returns]

23. Yes, I know

but this comes on the heels of Warner's announcement. Secondly, a few 08 threads can't hurt. After all, it can't be 06 all the time.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Nonsense about Clark

Clark is a man who stands toe to toe with FOX "news hosts" every week and ends up wrapping them in knots with his carefully chosen words, on live TV. Time and time again. If you don't believe it, just go to his web site: www.securingamerica.com and watch any of the dozens of videos that are archived there of his appearances. No one has to speculate now about how Clark handles hostile media, you can watch for yourself. Further, during John Kerry's 2004 campaign Clark was such an effective surrogate spokesperson for Kerry/Edwards that they ended up renting him his own charter plane so that he could fit in as many appearances for our ticket as possible.

The right wing attempted to create a negative straw man image of Clark early in the 2004 primary season, right after he declared. Classic tactic, define your enemy before they define themselves. By now we all know how they operate, they rip comments out of context and try to make them SEEM loony (when they don't actually make it up completely). "I actually voted for the resolution before I voted against it". What type of loon would ever say something like that, right? Well we all know damn well what Kerry meant when he said that, about the different versions of that resolution, with and with out amendments, but there is that Republican noise machine which I know you have heard of. It seems you were an early victim of it regarding Clark.

[twiterpatted]

82. kaaablaammm!!!, spot on friend!!,,

[otherlander]

115. And it doesn't bother you at all that he defended SOA? nt

[Clark2008]

131. No.

Since he's answered that question a brazillion times.

[Tom Rinaldo]

136. 1st, He did clean up & never voted to fund it like others have

including Jack Murtha who voted for the current version this year. Gore visited the school while he was VP, and a protester actually spoke to him, and the Clinton/Gore Administration still continued to back it. Look, I don't like the school either, mostly because of a history of abuses there under Republican Presidents. But I absolutely HATE the United States Department of Justice under Gonzales, he uses it to draft torture justifications and does end runs around the Constitution. The Justice Department under Janet Reno however advanced civil rights, and was usually more of a force for good. When Republicans can't subvert an institution they set up their own in house one instead, like Nixon's Plumbers, or Rollies raiders during Iran/Contra under Reagan. If Republicans want to fund death squads, they will fund death squads, no matter what Congress does to the current version of the SOA. So take it up with Congress if you want, go drag Murtha over the coals, but what we really need to do is kick the thugs out of the White House.

[juajen]

126. Yeah, you're right.

Another beautiful democrat who would make a wonderful President. I am so looking forward to this primary.

[Mass]

20. All decent polls show Clinton ahead and ....

Edwards, Gore, and Kerry in a statistical tie for second. It is impossible to know what will happen later in the race and even who will run.

Dismissing Kerry and Gore because you like Edwards is silly. Dismissing the other ones before people have even started to pay attention to the race is even more silly.

[Superman Returns]

24. I am not.

Until Gore makes signs he is running, I won't figure him in. Edwards is actively showing signs. A couple of hundred trips to Iowa and Nevada says so, not to mention increased online activity via is Uganda trip and is Daily Kos threads. And Kerry? Maybe I'm unfair to him. I apologize. He would make a great President but sadly, I just don't see it this time happening for him. Between letting the swiftboaters going unanswered for weeks, and already losing, to just being uncharasimcatic, I don't think he is a good candiate. I voted for him because I wanted Bush out. And everyone I talked to did the same. No New England liberals please.

[Mass]

26. So may be you need to increase your circle, I do not know, but

many people I know disagree with your assessment both of Kerry and Edwards (some agree though).

As for the rest, I think that what Gore will do will determine what will happen. If he runs, he will be the anti-Hillary.

If he does not, all will depend where his supporters will go and it is too early to tell.

[juajen]

127. I thought he was very charismatic and

would have loved it if he had been elected. I also was crazy about Teresa

[1932]

21. Bayh is going to run and he's going to have a lot of money.

[Superman Returns]

31. ok

but whats is position? can't be to Hillary's left, and can't get too far right in order to win. Unless Hillary doesn't run (which would make him rise to the top), I just don't see him picking up steam.

[1932]

70. I don't think Hillary is going to run. I think Bayh will get the support

that would have gone to Clinton and Warner. I also think he's going to suck the air out of Clark's campaign, since it's that support that Clark needs. I don't think Gore will run, and if he does, I don't think he'll make it very far. Same with Kerry.

Feingold will fight for the kind of outsider/liberal support that went to Kucinich and Dean, which I don't think will be enough to get him to finishing line. That will leave Edwards playing the middle, trying to get the anti-poverty/pro-union left support that he wants, and not worrying if people who don't have problems with the DLC crowd don't realize that the DLC doesn't support him and vote for him rather than Bayh.

So, I bet the primaries revolve on an axis, from left to right, of Feingold-Edwards-Bayh, with the winner being either Edwards or Bayh.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. John Edwards? PRESIDENT???

This is a joke, right? A nice enough fellow with great hair, but the man could not defend himself in a pillow fight. He allowed Cheney to dismantle him in the Vice Presidential debates.

At least Kerry made an effort to grow some vertebrae...

[Superman Returns]

25. ummm

while he didn't deliver a knockout punch to Cheney, lets keep in mind how ridicilous those debates are. They get two minutes or less to answer big policy questions? Honestly, if it was the good ol' Lincoln/Douglass days, Cheney would have been buried.

[justinrr1]

35. agree

couldnt agree more, he really could have stuck to Cheney on a few of his lies but he failed to do so plus he wont have much to talk about what he has done for the past few years. Amazingly people dont give a crap if you work to help out the poor.

[MethuenProgressive]

57. Edwards = Mike Dukakis in short pants

He's over his head in shallow water.

[VOX]

94. "He allowed Cheney to dismantle him in the Vice Presidential debates"...

Where do people come up with this erronious impression? Who (or what) is pushing this fiction? I'm not saying that Edwards mopped the floor with Cheney, but he certainly held his own at the very least on that particular occasion. Both candidates were cautious not to draw too much "blood," for fear of appearing overly aggressive, etc. Googling around, the only sites I found that declared Cheney the hands-down winner were the right-wing blogs. :shrug:

http://www.slate.com/id/2107808/
Runners Advance
Edwards keeps the Democrats' rally going.
By William Saletan
Updated Wednesday, Oct. 6, 2004

Now are you sorry you didn't nominate this guy for president?
That's what I wanted to ask Democrats as I watched John Edwards knock Dick Cheney around the ring tonight. If the Iowa caucuses had been held two days later, Edwards might have beaten John Kerry there and won the nomination.
<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/index.html

Polls declare different victors in VP debate
Wednesday, October 6, 2004
CLEVELAND, Ohio (CNN) -- Early polls indicated differing reactions to Tuesday night's debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. John Edwards.

An ABC News snap poll showed Cheney the winner, aided by a more-Republican audience, while a CBS News poll among undecided voters showed the opposite.
<snip>
According to an ABC poll, 43 percent of registered voters said Cheney won, 35 percent gave the win to Edwards, and 19 percent called it a tie. Thirty-eight percent of the viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents. The phone survey was conducted among a random sample of 509 registered voters who watched the debate.

CBS News' poll specifically focused on uncommitted voters and found 41 percent deemed Edwards the winner, 28 percent chose Cheney, and 31 percent said it was a tie. CBS based its poll on a "nationally representative sample of 178 debate watchers ... who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds."
<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13680.exclude.html

CNN QuickVote

Who do you think won the vice presidential debate?
Dick Cheney 19% 8634 votes
John Edwards 74% 34366 votes
Evenly matched 7% 3367 votes
Total: 46367 votes

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-23.htm

Published on Wednesday, October 6, 2004 by The Nation
Veep Debate: A No-Impact Collision
by David Corn

Vice presidential picks haven't mattered in the past. And vice presidential debates haven't mattered. Neither will this one. Dick Cheney and John Edwards each argued the case well for their man, probably better than George W. Bush and John Kerry did for themselves five nights earlier. They scored points and blocked attacks, reinforcing each campaign's major talking points of the moment.
<snip>
Edwards did a fine job--and perhaps was more effective than Kerry--in explaining Kerry's position on Iraq. He remarked, "Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be done the right way. And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden."
<snip>
Both Cheney and Edwards were effective spear-carriers. Both echoed the messages of their respective campaigns. But there will be little talk of this debate following the morning after. By then the political chat will have shifted to expectations regarding Friday night's Bush-Kerry rematch.

And did I mention that this debate won't matter?

[benny05]

98. Typical Republican Response

Can't you type a reasonable response with some backbone issue you disagree with John Edwards instead of taking a "you-know-what-blog" response to his appearance?

[Rowdyboy]

28. I agree with you on the main issue-but for different reasons.....

Edwards is strategically situated to emerge as the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) candidate this year. His residual strength in Iowa, his labor connections in Nevada, and his base in South Carolina make him the obvious anti-Hillary candidate. IMHO, Feingold and Kerry will fade and Edwards will beat Clinton.

Just my opinion.

Your slap at Wes Clark was, in my opinion, a cheap shot. I've seen the "time travel" quote and its really not that weird. He merely expresses an academic interest in a fascinating subject. Only the narrow-minded would fault him for considering unorthodox alternatives. He's worked his ass off this year, campaigning coast to coast for our guys and (considering how he was shit on in the 2004 race) I believe he deserves at least a measure of respect for his work.

[Superman Returns]

30. I like Clark

I would have definitely preferred him to Hillary. Just doesn't seem politically savy.. Sometimes the best men aren't the best for true politics. Thats not a slap at Clark, thats a compliment.

[Rowdyboy]

37. Honestly, after having seen him speak in person, I can guarantee....

Wes Clark is the best thing the Democratic party has going for it. He's almost as compelling as Bill Clinton, which says all that needs to be said. Unfortunately, if Hillary Clinton runs, I doubt Clark will because of his strong connection to the Clintons. It will be America's loss.

I've watched politics since 1968 and Wes Clark is one of the top 5 "class acts" the country has had since then. The others were Bobby Kennedy, Mo Udall, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton.

Each generation has really quality candidates available. Usually, they're discarded like Kennedy, Udall, and Hart. Sometimes, like Clinton, they win. I have great hopes for Clark in 2008, but I doubt he'll run.

Regardless, I'll vote Democratic in 2008.

[silko]

49. Why? Bill Clinton is compelling?

[Rowdyboy]

53. "Why? Bill Clinton is compelling?" .....Yes, to most Democrats, Bill is

VERY compelling. He's funny and smart, intelligent, witty and saucy. He's also wise, and often incisive, In other words, Bill Clinton is a class act.

But thats just my opinion. Do you disagree?

[Ferret Annica]

141. Bill Clinton is untrustworthy

I don't like him, didn't like his record, and he hangs around with evil people. Screw Bill, and I want nothing to do with Hil either. I never voted for any Clinton, I voted third party instead. He's way too conservative and NeoCon-ish.

[David Zephyr]

90. The ticket will be Clark/Clinton or Clinton/Clark. That's the question.

And there is only one exception and that is if Gore runs.

[NativeTexan]

29. About Clark.....hell, you can't GET any more inexperienced than....

.....GWB! Clark would be a GIANT after this schmuck!

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. The only significant inexperience Clark had was in running for office

He already held Head of State status in Europe and led an Alliance to win one War, plus he helped negotiate the end of another. Clark already spoke four languages, he just had to learn "sound Bite" on very short notice. Well now he is fluent in that too, and he essentially has been campaigning for either himself or other Democrats (mostly the latter) nonstop since late 2003. Clark has it down now.

I know you were being supportive of Wes but I just wanted to make these points. Thanks for letting me use your comment to do so, lol.

[Tellurian]

40. Yep, I like Wes Clark too!

He is a very talented and intelligent man.
It seems a shame to waste all that talent on a VP spot.

[Catchawave]

123. MOST DUers are more qualified than....

President Chucklenutz :D

[hijinx87]

32. it is true that with SC starting the primary process

that edwards could get the coveted media coverage that goes
with "front runner" status in the likely event that he can
win the SC primary.

winning the first primary is often the first domino that
leads inevitably to the nomination.

[Mass]

34. NH is the first primary

It is IA, NV, NH, SC.

[hijinx87]

36. right you are. (of course)

they moved SC up, but not that far up.

[stevedeshazer]

38. Focus on 11/7/2006

2008 is coming soon enough, but it won't matter if we don't win in 26 days.

:spank:

[politicasista]

41. Exactly n/t

[sandnsea]

39. And Kerry still comes out ahead

The only one with a lifelong liberal record that is ready to be President. Since I don't think Clark is going to run; everything points to Kerry as the only one the entire party can agree on.

[AtomicKitten]

42. actually it's Al Gore

HRC does well "out there" and Wesley Clark here at DU, but it's Al Gore that claims a consensus of support across the board in polling at DU and in the real world, consistently running in first and second place.

most recent data:
out there: http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm
here at DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2875393&mesg_id=2875393

[sandnsea]

43. Of people who've indicated they're likely to run

and Al Gore hasn't done that. But I agree, he'd be the better candidate over Hillary and Clark too.

Hillary polls well like Joe Lieberman polled well in 2003. She's all name recognition at this point. I don't think people are going to like her or her politics at the retail level. They'll reject her just like they rejected Gephardt and Lieberman. Democrats who vote in primaries want the most liberal candidate who still has a chance of getting elected.

[politicasista]

44. It's too early

I like Gore and I would never insult him to promote other Democrats. Anything can happen in 08, but without a Democratic majority in 06, 08 will be a struggle for whoever the nominee is.

I think we should let the primaries and primary voters decide.

[AtomicKitten]

45. no doubt we are chomping at the bit after these six long years

A Democratic Congress is definitely the first step, particularly to securing the vote. If we don't do that, 2008 is a crap-shoot.

And, of course, as always, the primary voters will decide.

[silko]

50. Liberals cannot be president in the US. How

many times does a liberal have to lose for you to understand that?

[Patchuli]

46. I won't vote for pro-war Hillary

nor will a lot of other progressives. Hill is a sure loser and also the dream of repubs for dems to run in '08. I think Hill better be content as a senator.

[wisteria]

47. Whatever, I will wait and see. Polls are meaningless now.

I have no problems with Kerry. I am sticking with him. I would trust him more with the safety and nmanagement of this country that the two mentioned.

[Texas_Kat]

48. 2008 will be a national security election

Both of your 'selects' voted for (Edwards co-sponsored) the IWR.

I don't care how sorry he is about it either. It was bad judgment or a 'political' vote.... neither one makes him presidential material.

Hillary? I haven't met a single Democrat -- male or female-- who would vote for her in a primary.

[Bucky]

56. I've met quite a few people who like Clinton. They're good Democrats

My general impression is that they're simply tired of losing when all logic and sense suggest that we should win. They think Clinton's elections in 92 & 96 were a result of catching lightning in a bottle and they think Mrs Clinton can do the same lightning catch trick. They're solid Democrats, but they're hungry for a leader. They've heard her name (a LOT from the media), like her approach overall, cut her some slack when she panders, and think the country is ready for a woman president.

They also tend to be smart people and admire her smarts. But they're also smart people who don't focus their attention on national electoral politics too much. They don't see how going to the same two nuclear families for all our nominees is corrosive of the republican principles our country was founded on. They don't know the names of politicians as well as we who are are obsessed with the political game do. Senator Clinton's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. She appeals to professionals and fifty somethings. And sixty somethings. But it all feels a little hollow to me.

I think she has a lot of class, but she's got no mojo. She's got a lot of money because she's run a very smart money raising operation. But in the end I suspect she's a giant with a glass jaw. She'll look tough to beat and she'll do worse than expected in Iowa and better than expected in South Carolina--but when she goes toe to toe with the last one or two opponents, she won't have the "it" it takes to deliver the knock out punch.

My larger concern is that whoever gives her her kayo may do so in a way that alienates her supporters. I fear they may be a thin skinned lot.

[Eurobabe]

51. 2006 flamebait

eom

[Clarkie1]

52. In your imagination, yes. nt

[FrenchieCat]

55. Boy.....you are talking RW talking points on Clark! Why?

You must have not followed Wes clark at all during the 2004 Primaries....which would explain you ignorantly buying into some extreme RW maneuver early on Wes Clark, claiming that he was crazy.

It's so easy to fool some folks all of the time, I guess! You must be easily manipulated...which is maybe why you prefer John "voted-and-co-sponsored-the-IWR-but-now-I'm-so-sorry-three-whole-years-later-after-the-polls-changed "leading from the rear" Edwards, hey?

That's OK. But if you're gonna put out a nonchalant smear, at least have it based on facts instead of science fiction that never happened. K? :eyes:

Time Travel Clarification
What Wesley Clark Really Said About Time Travel

by Brian McWilliams
October 14, 2003

http://www.pc-radio.com/clark-timetravel.html
On September 30, I published an article at Wired News entitled Clark Campaigns at Light Speed.

The article reported on remarks made by Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark during a campaign event Sept. 27 in New Castle, New Hampshire. At the event, Clark stated his belief that humans will someday be able to travel faster than the speed of light.

Due to a faulty understanding of physics on my part, I originally reported that Clark had professed a belief in the possibility of time travel. While some experts have previously said that travelling faster than light implies time travel, Clark in fact did not specifically profess an interest in time travel.

After several readers e-mailed me about this aspect of my article, later on Sept. 30 I revised the online version of the story to avoid suggesting Clark had advocated research into time travel. (The quotes attributed to him, of course, remained unchanged.)

Unfortunately, my reporting error is travelling at light speed and has been duplicated in media outlets around the world. Newspapers including the Washington Post and New York Times as well as late-night TV show hosts Jay Leno and Dave Letterman have borrowed the time travel idea from my story.

Given the current impossibility of rewinding time, my efforts now to undo this mistake may be futile. But I hope to prevent this mis-reporting of Clark's remarks from spreading further. To that end, I have made an audio recording of the relevant section of Clark's Sept. 27 campaign speech available here: http://www.pc-radio.com/clark-nasa.mp3

The audio is about 3 min. 45 sec. and the file is about 668 KB. Clark's comments about faster-than-light travel are at about 3:05. Feel free to publicize this link, and/or to download the file and distribute it freely. I can also provide on request a high fidelity version of the audio for broadcast.

Sincerely,

Brian S. McWilliams
PC-radio.com
http://www.presidentialufo.com/time_travel.htm

Guess you're in "good Company"?

Andrew Sullivan--HOW LOOPY IS CLARK? The answer, I fear, is that he's Ross Perot without the emotional stability.

The backdrop to the Clark-bashing from the White House and its helpers. This from Charlie Cook's weekly newsletter "Off To The Races" ...
For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible. President Bush now has a 40 percent disapproval rating on "handling foreign policy and terrorism." That is without a Democrat with any credibility in national security having thrown a punch. A credible Clark could inflict some very serious damage on this president, particularly after Bush's admission last week that there was no direct connection between the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Saddam Hussein. That was news to 69 percent of Americans, who told Washington Post pollsters in August they thought a connection was likely. The Bush campaign cannot afford to have a credible Clark throwing fastballs at them for the next 15 months,whether he is the nominee, running mate or sitting on the sidelines.
This isn't rocket science, people. This is how they operate. Don't think it's random. If you go over to the Fox News website, you can see their featured video clip (page down on the left) with Brit Hume repeating the ridiculous Standard-peddled phone log canard : "White House phone logs suggest Wesley Clark is telling tales once again." You've seen this before. As I say, it's how they operate. The only question is whether the legit press gets dragged into it, as they have in the past. It's a test for them.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_21.php#002019

October 21, 2003
The one they're afraid of
Posted by Mark Kleiman
Nick Confessore at Tapped reports that the Republican strategists he talks to think that Wesley Clark would be the toughest candidate for Bush to handle. That helps explain the rough ride he's been getting in the media lately
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/10/the_one_theyre_afraid_of.php

September 27, 2003
Spinsanity Takes on the Spin Machine
Posted by Mark Kleiman

There's nothing more boring than the game of pin-the-lie-on-the-liar, but Spinsanity does a good job on a couple of stray slanders against Wesley Clark. Don't understimate the importance of this stuff: if the public can be convinced that Clark is somehow untrustworthy, that will put a big hole in his ability to make the "character" issue against Bush.

Remember the punchline of Lyndon Johnson's story: you don't have to prove your opponent has sex with pigs, you just have to make him deny it. It worked against Al Gore.

So far, it doesn't seem to be working against Clark, at least among Democrats; Clark's favorable/unfavorable among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters stands at 49/11 in the latest Newsweek poll. <*> But the Bush forces and their media allies are clearly more scared of Clark than of any other candidate, so expect the slanders to keep coming.
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/wesley_clark_/2003/09/spinsanity_takes_on_the_spin_machine.php

Gene Lyons, Political Columnist and Co-Author of "Hunting of the President," Chats with BuzzFlash About General Wesley Clark
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[Sparkly]

58. "White House Hopefuls"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_el_ge/presidential_politics;

Notice who's on the list and who isn't: Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, even Vilsack... Here we go again!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Yup. Of course that's partially because...

Clark hasn't camped out in NH and Iowa the way some other potential candidates have, and no "field offices" opened there either. And that's because Clark placed a higher priority on going to where Democrats need him to campaign if we want to have any chance of retaking Congress tis year. Sure Clark has been to both Iowa and NH, we have Dems running there also of course, but his travels take him to many places that inside the beltway pundits probably consider pretty "back water", which is easy for anyone to verify by going to www.securingamerica.com and clicking on the interactive "On the Road with Wes Clark" map there in the right hand column.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. A huge problem about Warner withdrawing right now...

...is that it has given the media, and all of us too, red meat to chew on about 2008 right when keeping the political focus on what's happening now, and the fast approaching 2006 elections, was increasing our chances to retake Congress. I will admit that it's distracted me. FOCUS people! Just 4 more weeks and we can talk about 2008 as much as we want!

P.S. And I'm a vegetarian. Yuk!

[sampsonblk]

64. 100% for Wes Clark

He has earned our consideration with his tireless work, and he is the ONLY one who stands up to them (right in their lair) with facts they cannot dispute. That is what we need, and if he were the nominee, it would provide strong cover for all the other anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War Dems nationwide.

[Ladydawnelle]

93. Yes Indeed!

^5 that's a roger

[hijinx87]

102. would clark run against hillary?

he is very tight with the clintons. or so the story ran
in 2004.

[FrenchieCat]

104. Not that "Tight"......although I am certain they are all friends to some

extent.

You've got to remember that Clinton didn't have Clark's back when the GOP Pentagon Knives went after Clark for his insistence that ground troops and low flying apaches be used in Kosovo. They were afraid of American Casualties there, although Clark's plan would have saved more civilian lives. Ironically, it was Clark's threat to Melosovic that he would use ground troops and the Apaches that led to Milosovic's capulation. I don't think that Clark has any ill feelings about the fact that he was retired early in a backstabbing way...but I do think that he came away understanding that he had no "back-up" in Washington. That and all that has occurred since leads me to believe that Clark is an independent agent.....but Hillary's fundraising prowess may be the roadblock for Clark and a few others.....not "friendship".

So I don't think that Clark would put his friendship with the Clintons above the needs for this country if it came down to that choice. If he felt he was the best hope and qualified above the others running to lead this country back to peace, I believe that he would choose to run.

[hijinx87]

106. I remember all that

but I also remember how stoutly the clintons backed him in the
2004 primaries. he probably wouldn't have even gotten into the
race without them.

and so, my question remains. would he run against hillary?

[FrenchieCat]

107. I didn't see the "stoutly backed" Wes Clark campaign that you saw....

I saw Hillary totally mum and not supporting anyone. I saw Bill Clinton allow his likeness used in one ad that depicted Wes Clark receiving the Medal of Freedom....and guess if Bill wouldn't have agreed to his likeness being used, Clark couldn't have shown footage of receiving the Medal he certainly did earn. Beyond that, Bill called him a "star" in the Democratic party prior to Wes throwing his hat in the ring, and was "rumored" by GOP's Novak of having made some call helping Clark raise money in confidentiality (so I don't know how much help it was?).....But neither one of those two endorsed Wes Clark.

It has been confirmed that Jimmy Carter was one of the ones that encouraged Clark's run, and McGovern endorsed Wes Clark.......but Bill and Hillary; no.

[hijinx87]

118. we have very different recollections of 2004

clark entered the race at the personal urging of bill clinton, probably
to derail howard dean, who then appeared to be rolling to the nomination,
which scared the hell out of the DLC and the party establishment.

there was even talk at the time that one of the clintons would chair
his campaign.

in fact, the rumor at the time was that dean offered to make clark
his running mate in order to keep him out of the race, but clark turned
him down.

clinton and clark have known each other for 40 years and have very similar
backgrounds -- arkansas, oxford, rhodes scholars, & etc.

personally, I would welcome a clark candidacy, but I don't think he
would run against hillary.

[sampsonblk]

109. I sure hope so!

Even if its only to secure a spot on the ticket

[Tom Rinaldo]

110. Personally I have no doubt that he would

If Clark thinks he can do a better job of leading America in these dangerous times, and I think Clark does think that for damn good reasons, the only question I think he will ask himself is whether he has any chance of winning, not who he will have to defeat in order to win.

Don't look for Clark to do any slashing attacks against Hillary if he opposes her. That is NOT Clark's style. Sure in a heated campaign any candidate needs to point out flaws in their opponent, but Clark would be generally respectful of Clinton, but NEVER deferential to her. For Clark it will come down to whether he thinks he can run a campaign that can give him a real shot, he doesn't have to be a favorite, but he won't run if he thinks victory is impossible.

That is exactly the reason why Clark withdrew early from the race in 2004. He concluded that a Kerry victory had become inevitable so there was no reason for him to beat up on Kerry and/or distract him from focusing on the General Election any longer. Soon as that was apparent to Clark he threw his weight behind Kerry, but NOT before, even though the two men were reported to be friendly.

[beaconess]

66. No more than it was Clinton v. Warner this time yesterday

A month is an eternity in politics. What will happen in six months to a year is impossible to predict. It's fun to speculate, but no one can predict what will really happen when the time comes.

[hijinx87]

72. why the hell is john edwards such a DU darling?

his ADA record, just using 2003 as an example, was a dismal 65%.

http://www.adaction.org/2003senatevr.htm

there were rethugs with ADA ratings that high.

why do some people crap on other potential candidates for not being
progressive enough, but give this guy a pass?

edwards may be right (finally) on the war, but he is wrong on a great
many VERY IMPORTANT issues. I think we need to keep the big picture
in view.

[Clark2008]

75. Because some people think he's cute, I'd rather suspect.

I think he's an empty suit with purdy hair.

His wife is more qualified than he is (way more qualified).

[indigo32]

78. Elizabeth is awesome

She blew me away watching her on some town hall forums on C-Span.

[hijinx87]

79. oh, c'mon now.

I like elizabeth more than her husband, but there is no way she
is more qualified. and it's not like a one-term senator is all
that qualified to begin with.

[benny05]

132. jeepers, sure you don't blog at FP.com? n/t

[PeaceProgProsp]

84. In '99 he was 90% and in '00 85%

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesennorthcarolina.html

[hijinx87]

85. ok, so then the question becomes . . . .

what the hell happened to him? and which john edwards would
we get if he was elected president?

and in 2002 it was only a few points higher than 2003, but still
dismal.

seeing that his ADA rating was so high early, and so low later,
raises more questions than it answers.

[PeaceProgProsp]

91. Might have to do with the bills the rankings are based on

because in '04 the National Journal, a non-ideological magazine, said Kerry and Edwards were the most liberal senators based on six or seven bills they picked out as indicative of a politician's position in the spectrum, and they said that Edwards became more liberal over his tenure, theorizing that, once he decided he wasn't going to run for Senate he was freed up to become the liberal he wanted to be if not for having to win reelection in a moderate to conservative state.

Regardless, he was clearly a vast improvement over Faircloth and Helms, who were 3 and 8, or whatever, in the rankings you cited.

I bet you can't find another state where a Democrat was so different from any Republican who served within ten years -- and that's a pretty good thing if you ask me.

If he's so willing to go so far left within a state that is more conservative than the average American state, perhaps he's willing to lead the nation as a whole to the left of where it is now, sort of the way a trial lawyer would lead a jury to make the right choice, if you know what I mean...

[hijinx87]

97. I totally disagree

edwards was a disaster. as a running mate, kerry should
have gone with Gerhardt. maybe he could have flipped missouri.

[GreenArrow]

129. he should have gone with Clark

who would have made an impression in the Southwest, particulary in states like New Mexico and Nevada. Edwards brought n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

[hijinx87]

134. clark and kerry didn't seem to get along very well

but he would have made an excellent running mate.

[FrenchieCat]

140. They got along fine, from what I saw. Clark did as much as he could

to elect the Kerry-Edwards ticket. But he was just one man, afterall.

Any rumor that you may have heard, was just that; a rumor.

If my memory serves, Clark got along with Kerry as well as Edwards did, if not better.

[NCarolinawoman]

153. Clark made it clear to his supporters that he really liked Kerry.

Many of his supporters were really deflated when Clark decided to drop out and fly to Wisconsin to endorse Kerry on the stage. Clark kept telling us that he really really liked the guy and believed in him.
He said he was "a good man".

After the 2004 election Chris Heinz hosted a small get together at his NY apartment and Wes was his special guest. They talked to a bunch of grassroots Democrats, many who had been Clark supporters.

Also, I remember Theresa was on C-Span making an off-the cuff remark, saying that she was sorry she missed Wes Clark's speech at the convention because she had heard it had been one of the best.

I think the two families really enjoyed each other.

[GreenArrow]

142. I hadn't heard that

but getting along isn't a requirement. Apparently, the Reagans loathed the Bushs' and JFK and LBJ weren't exactly love-birds. The rumor I heard during 2004 was that Kerry and Edwards didn't get along, supposedly because of Edwards ego/ambition, and Kerry's jealousy of Edwards' youthful "good looks". It's all moot anyway; Kerry could have chosen Clark and didn't, and it was a bad decision which presaged failure for the campaign.

[hijinx87]

144. it's mostly anecdotal

I seem to recall that when drudge made up that story about kerry and
an affair, clark confirmed it, or perhaps was too open with some of
the rumors he had heard.

the kerry camp, of course, wasn't amused.

[FrenchieCat]

149. I remember that rumor ......and the fact that it was debunked

and confirmed that Wes had never said anything about an intern.

It was what one would call a "whisper" campaign designed to make Kerry look like a "Womanizer" and to also make sure that Kerry didn't pick Clark as VP. The rumor kind of killed two birds with one stone, literally!

Here's some info on it....

A GUTTER RUNS THROUGH IT (PART 3)!
Did Drudge’s fake tale affect Wisconsin? Big pundits don’t seem to care:
New Republic Ryan Lizza says Drudge was just wrong about what Wesley Clark said. Did Clark really say that Kerry’s campaign would “implode over an intern issue?”

Lizza was there. He says no:

LIZZA: Just in case anybody was still wondering whether anything in the original Drudge item about John Kerry was accurate, I can confirm that Wesley Clark did not say what Drudge says he said at that off-the-record conversation with reporters in Nashville one week ago.
I was there when Clark spoke, and just to make sure I didn’t miss anything, I’ve also checked with other reporters who were there. Since it was off the record (sort of), I can’t get into what Clark actually said, but I can report that the quote Drudge attributes to him—“Kerry will implode over an intern issue”—is not accurate. He never said that.

So Drudge was wrong about that too, just as Ceci Connolly suggested (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/17/04). For the record, that bogus quote was the way Drudge worked the word “intern” in his latest slimy story.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021904.shtml

Here's more on that.... http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/newsweek_didnt.php
and this as well.....

The Drudge Report: The Gift That Keeps on Giving
Brian Montopoli
Back in February, Matt Drudge wrote an undocumented story claiming that one of John Kerry's interns had fled the country at the candidate's request, just as Kerry was fighting off a "media probe of recent alleged infidelity." In the piece, Drudge claimed that Wesley Clark had told a group of reporters that "Kerry will implode over an intern issue" in an off-the-record conversation.

The Kerry intern story turned out to be bogus, as did the claim that Clark had spread the rumor. As Campaign Desk noted at the time (and has written about subsequently as well), The New Republic's Ryan Lizza and reporters we spoke to on background who were present for the comments all confirm that Clark never said anything about an intern during the conversation in question.
snip
Thankfully, the rumor about Kerry's infidelity seems to have faded into the ether. But, maddeningly, the claim that Clark spread the rumor has endured.
snip
He just didn't say what Drudge, and subsequently Newsweek, the Associated Press, and, now, The Boston Globe, say he did. The rest of Canellos' story is excellent, and far from a hit piece: It concludes with the statement that "Kerry could do far worse" than selecting Clark as his running mate. It's just too bad he didn't bother to check up on the validity of a claim that's been debunked many times -- and that originated with a source who pegs his own accuracy rate (generously) at 80 percent.
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/the_drudge_report_the_gift_tha.php

Maybe Kerry's aides have additional evidence of Clark spreading the rumors about an affair, but as far as I know it's a false accusation. I believe the birth of this story is a bizarre press conference Clark had at a deli in Nashville on the day of the February 10 Tennessee primary. I was there that day, as were at least a dozen other reporters, and the whole thing was captured on video by more than one person. What happened was that reporters were dogging Clark with questions about when he was going to drop out of the race. He didn't quite snap, but Clark got a little frustrated and made some terse comments about why he was staying in. Then he told us that what he had just said was off the record. It's a close call as to whether any of us there have a responsibility to treat his comments as such, but I'm not breaking any rules by reporting that Clark did not spread any rumor about Kerry and a young woman. I've previously checked with other reporters who were there, and they have confirmed this. If I'm wrong, the videotape is out there somewhere.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1655

------------
May. 14, 2004 - 1:18 PM
In the Dark on Wesley Clark
Zachary Roth
In a piece today that looks at several of John Kerry's choices for a running-mate, Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press writes, " Clark's standing also is not helped by Kerry advisers' belief that the former general helped spread rumors that Kerry had had an affair with a young woman."

But as the New Republic's Ryan Lizza -- who was in the room when Clark made the comments in question - pointed out three months ago, there just isn't anything to the Drudge Report-fueled notion that Clark floated the rumor about Kerry having an affair. Inspired by Pickler's piece, Lizza, writing today on his New Republic blog, again affirms Clark's innocence.

Pickler's phrasing may technically be accurate: Some Kerry advisers (those who don't read the New Republic, perhaps) may continue to believe that Clark helped spread the rumor. But given that it appears he didn't, is it too much to ask of the AP to point that out?
http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/in_the_dark_on_wesley_clark.php

[hijinx87]

150. I genuinely appreciate that!

you can't get any more authoritative than the columbia journalism review.

as sometimes happens, I caught the buzz of the rumor, but missed it when
it was shot down. that's easy to do, and in fact is the whole point of
a rumor campaign in the first place; the rumor always causes more commotion
than it's slaying.

thanks much.

[1932]

130. Psst. Gephardt's ADA LQ was 50.

He missed half of the twenty votes the ADA judged, but voted with the "ADA" Democrats on the ones he showed up for.

Edwards made it for 12 of the 20, and voted with the ADA Democrats for all of them.

Kerry only made five of the votes and scored a 25.

By your measure, Kucinich should be your pick because he scored a 90, missing only 2 of the 20 votes (and, like every other Democrat in Congress who ran for president in 2004, voted with the ADA on all the ones he voted on).

But, obviously, if you looked into the facts upon which you base your opinion, you would know that the only thing this ADA score says about the '04 candidates is how they managed to balance running for president with voting (and you can be sure that, if their votes were needed, they would have canceled whatever else they were doing).

[hijinx87]

135. I intentionally avoided looking at 2004 VRs for just that reason.

but I didn't mean to imply that ADA LQs were the only means
to make a choice of running mates. and I'm not sure I see
that much of a difference between not voting and voting "wrong".

clearly, I'm not a huge edwards fan. he brought nothing
to the ticket in 2004. there were a number of much stronger
possibilities. I thought that kerry let the media decide
who his running mate would be.

[1932]

143. They were also campaigning in '03

If you want to make an argument about the ADA score, or about anything, for that matter, cite your facts -- for the ADA, tell us which votes they missed, tell us if their vote would have made the difference, give us supporting facts if you think they missed because they wanted the measure to pass or fail.

[hijinx87]

145. I posted the links. you can't ask for much more than that.

if you want to run the details to ground, I invite you to do so.

personally, I don't see much of a difference between not voting and
voting "wrong".

[1932]

146. Then why'd you say that you thought you were being fair to exclude '04?

You don't think that any Democrat's low score during a year when they were campaigning to be president, even though they voted with the ADA when they did show up to vote, and had high ADA scores in previous years, means they're conservative, do you?

So your argument is that they're bad for not showing up to vote.

But I wouldn't want a guy to be president who didn't have the sense to call the party whip and confirm the yes and no votes and who couldn't make a reasoned decisision about whether it was more important to talk with voters face to face and hear there concerns versus going back to DC to make a meaningless vote for or against a proposition that was going to fail or win regardless.

[hijinx87]

151. fine. have it your way.

I'm not going any further down this rat hole.

all senators that are candidates for the Democratic nomination
for president are hereby excused from any and all votes that they
may deem necessary or prudent. this exemption is granted for any
period of time that the candidate may feel convenient.



the progressive legislative agenda can just wait until they are done,
I suppose.

[1932]

152. If you can tell me how the progressive legislative agenda was hurt by any

of those missed votes, I'll listen (and if they're so set on hurting the progressive legislative agenda, then why, in every case I looked at are Gep, Kuc, Ed and Kerry voting FOR it 100% when they do vote?).

Buf if you can't tell me, then I agree with you. This is a rat hole.

Do you know where else you hear people criticizing Democrats for not voting when they're running for president, even though their votes weren't needed, and instead of being in Washington, they were on the trail, reaching out to voters? You hear that from REPUBLICANS in the media.

Even worse, do you remember the Detroit debate in '03? The Republicans actually scheduled a crucial vote on the day of the debate so that they could create a situation where they could criticize Kerry for not showing up. Are you going to blame Kerry for that?

I don't know who you like in '08, but if it's somone who holds an office, I'll be amused if you look the other way when she INEVITABLY misses a vote or some other official duty while she is on the trail trying to share with voters the reasons she'd make a better president than bill fist or john mccain.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Because folks would rather forget John Edwards' co-sponsorship of

the IWR, and his voting for it--guess that apologizing 3 years later after all of the carnage and mayhem makes one presidential material? :shrug:

[GreenArrow]

128. because, in a nutshell, he's "cute"

I might add that his being "right" on the war is less an issue of moral clarity on his part, but rather, a very cynically crafted political ploy. As the war has gone from bad to worse, he's changed his position to go with the prevailing flow. Here's what he had to say, however, back when being right about that vote really meant something:

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
--John Edwards, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 24, 2002

Anyone who could say something like that, in the face of the contrary evidence available at the time (even then, perfectly ample), simply is not to be trusted. If he seriously believed that, then he's a blooming idiot; if he didn't believe it, then he's a liar, and really, something quite worse than a liar. Either way, his judgement is questionable, and that's putting it mildly.

The dude has one term of Senatorial experience, truncated by his attempt to run for higher office, and from which he left little legislation of any value, (though he did manage to vote in favor of IWR and the Patriot Act), has no executive experience, no apparent understanding of foreign policy, is tainted with his losing effort in the 2004 Election, and while he was certainly sucessful in his previous career as a trial lawyer, winning both acclaim and fortune, he somehow never found time to take even a single pro bono case.

So what's left? Basically two things: 1) his boyish looks and facile charisma, and 2) his airy and polyannaesque rhetoric, sort of a Democratic version of Reagan's shining cities on hills, and ponies and manure piles. If one is to judge by the amount of gushing and swooning over Edwards on this board, than maybe those two things make for a winning combination, but niether is particularly inspiring given the number and severity of the problems the country is faced with.

[Clark2008]

73. Then I'm not voting

:puke: on DLC, triangulating, no-FP crap, ballless Dems.

[AZBlue]

77. It's WAY too early to know who will be front runners.

Neither Hillary nor Edwards have announced candidacy or even any exploration of a run. You never know who will drop out or in - let's focus on the November elections first, then we can play "what if" for 2008.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. I think it's good that people keep counting Clark out

The best candidates rise from obscurity. Also, remember that after running for President, Clark has become a major spokesman for the Democratic Party. He basically has 3 years of political experience under his belt which he didn't have last time.

[AtomicKitten]

87. And that is all he was lacking in 2004.

This time he will be a formidable candidate.

[TheDonkey]

83. Doubtful, Biden, Kerry, and others will crowd the field

maybe even some Joementum ;)
Way too soon to annoint a nominee.

[saltpoint]

86. Lotsa time, lotsa variables, too many fundraisers, meetings and deals

yet to be, public response and fluctuations in emphases of issues.

Not much of this is going to be sorted out before the Iowa caucuses. Some, but not enough to say by then who our nominee will be.

Senator Clinton has a pile of cash, name recognition, and will be riding an evidently huge re-election win in a little over 3 weeks. She's going to be tough.

John Edwards was deeply loved in Iowa from the 2004 race and finished a very credible second. This time around he's better organized, better funded, and even sharper on the stump. He's living proof that Senator Clinton is no shoe-in for anything for 2008.

Anyone who counted John Kerry as a serious candidate before the 2004 Iowa caucus was thought daft. Anyone who counts him out this year is stridently insane. He beat the shit out of Bill Weld in a Senate race Weld thought was in the bag. Don't bet against someone as intelligent and tough as John Kerry, especially after he has determined he wants the job.

Gore would be a major factor if he wants the job, and I've posted that I think he wants it, but perhaps not badly enough to go through the machinations to get it. Were there to be a stalled momentum by all candidates after the Michigan primary, say, and/or mixed results with no clear frontrunner, we might see Al Gore jump in as a consensus candidate. He'd whomp any Republican, IMO.

Clark has his supporters and is likely to be muchmore competitive this time around.

Kucinich is a dream of a public servant and deserves fair attention this time -- not only from Democratic primary voters but from the snarky media. That means you, ABC News.

Bayh. Biden. Vilsack. Richardson. Dodd. Etc.

It not only ain't over til it's over, it hasn't even started yet.

[RUNEMASTER]

88. IRAQ FOR SALE. Send this to "EVERYONE"

Send this to "EVERYONE": SPAM IT EVERYWHERE.

http://iraqforsale.org/


Also if you do a google video search for "IRAQ FOR SALE", YOU WILL SEE THE BLACKWATER MERCENARY VIDEO AT THE VERY TOP OF THE LIST. Also down the list youll see the producer of the movie. GO!


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3701899279355987979&q=IRAQ+FOR+SALE&hl=en



Send this to "EVERYONE"


TRY THIS ALSO:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-199151001818437724&q=KELLOGG+BROWN+AND+ROOT&hl=en

[saltpoint]

99. But I don't KNOW everyone. I know some people.

But not everybody.

[Catchawave]

139. Hey you ...

:hi:

[Ladydawnelle]

92. CLARK, CLARK, CLARK, CLARK!

Edwards is nice and all
Hillary is ......... well
but the GENERAL has ALL the ducks in NICE little rows and is proving his worth daily helping other democrats (which is what we do right???) and THAT to me speaks volumes.

I don't see Edwards or Hill going out trying to help these little dem peons in these little races.

I think if you judge a man (or woman) on their deeds, WES Clark's are STELLAR!!

And he's never STOPPED fighting. Not once. He's even gone directly into the BELLY of the BEAST at FAUX news to try to win hearts and minds and perhaps get a little insight into what makes them CROW.

jmo

LOVE the General! He's too smart for words. I just wish someone would give him some MONEY!

[McCamy Taylor]

95. Draft Gore. He will steal the Christian vote from the GOP.

Gore is the one man Edwards would consider a second VP run with, too. Plus, Gore might do a single term then let Edwards take over, since Gore is not that ambitious anymore. If he cut a deal like that. Edwards would definitely go for it.

Gore/Edwards---sure win!

[tinfoilinfor2005]

100. Whoever runs, they will have to run against Clinton.

And I think you know which Clinton I mean. Hillary may be beatable, but I don't think anyone can beat Bill. And trust me, they will run as a team, IMHO.

[NCarolinawoman]

103. Hillary? Edwards? AIPAC will be thrilled.

So will the Military Industrial Complex.

[Renew Deal]

105. That would suck.

A sure loser vs. someone with no governing experience.

[Catchawave]

112. I think you just about covered ALL

the Dem field for now :rofl:

[demwing]

125. But which is which?

Seriously.

[cleveramerican]

113. it will be a westerner

I don't think you'll see a new yorker or a new englander. It will be westerner or a southerner.

That would put Gore or Richardson in the top tier.
what state is Wes Clark from?

[CarolNYC]

117. Arkansas....Little Rock n/t

[OzarkDem]

116. Welcome to DU!

I can tell you're a loyal Democrat by the way you're focusing on the 2006 races. Let's put it this way, I refuse to support any candidate for 2008 who burns up valauable time now instead of helping our candidates win now.

[benny05]

133. None of the potential candidates are burning up time

Nearly all of them are helping others with time, staff, or other resources.

[demwing]

124. Well!. That was quick!

Thank goodness our primary candidates have been preselected. I hate all that campaigning. It's so icky.

[EndElectoral]

137. Prefer Clark or Gore or Kerry...Clinton will not win, nor will Edwards

[Imagevision]

138. Two years is a long time, Obama is impressive...

[Chicago1]

147. AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE AL GORE GO AL!!!

Superman,

YOU FORGOT ABOUT AL GORE!!!! Al is our guy and he's going to win. I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR HILLARY OR JOHN EDWARDS. Hillary has some SCANDALS THAT HAVE NOT EXPLODED ON HER YET.


START THE REVOLUTION
START THE IMPEACHMENT

[rpannier]

148. Edwards was my guy in 04 and he will be in 08