Any thoughts on Clark? I think he may have a chance but everything is gonna have to go absolutely perfect for him.

At this point Clark, Dean, and Sharpton are the only guys i'd like to see in office. Kerry: probably not a bad guy but ain't gonna inspire anyone. Edwards: too much fundraising controversy. Gephardt: A great congressman who would be more useful there. Lieberman: Too conservative. Christ, this guy's almost a republican. Graham: Not enough national stature. Kucinic: He's my kinda liberal, but no way he'll get nominated. I heard there's talk of him taking over the Green party ticket or something. There was brief talk last week of Al Gore jumping back in. I still think if he would have run again, and taken Tom Daschle as a running mate, they would have won.

I'm holding out hope that Clark and Howard Dean will team up. They will be UNBEATABLE!!! FUCKIN A!!!!!!!!!SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!!!!!!!!!

Sharpton? Sharpton?!?! God help us if that asinine character gets into office, which will never ever ever happen. Not to be too much of a jerk, mind you.

Bill and Ted, nice!

(Edited by richarddawson at 9:42 pm on Sep. 17, 2003)

Clark is my choice of the bunch, I think. Of them all, I think he probably has the best chance of winning.... but is he officially in the race? Last time I heard he hadn't announced for sure if he was going to run or not..

Even if he doesn't win... Nothing excites me more than the thought of Bush and Clark in a heated debate. From what I've seen of Clark, he's very witty in his comebacks, is a skillful speaker, and will make Bush look like the blubbering idiot he is.

I can't wait.

by if he doesn't win.. I mean the Democratic nomination

and by nothing excites me more.. I didn't really mean NOTHING, just to clarify... let's go with FEW things excite me more

I agree. It should be a lot of fun to watch. I kind of like Clark from the little bit that I've seen of him.

I don't know about Clark. He doesn't have any political experience whatsoever. I'm still leaning towards Dean. I'd like to see Kucinich in office, but he's just unelectable.

I like Dean's politics, but unfortunately I think he's to far left for the mainstream.

Here's my guess... Gore and Hillary are on the sidelines looking to see what Clark does in the early polls. If he polls high, Gore will slip away into the night, if he polls low, Gore jumps in at the deadline.

Gore's already in a dead heat with Bush in a Zogby poll. If Dean polls better than Clark in New Hampshire and Iowa, Hillary sits out and lets Dean get beat by Bush (which I think he will) so she can run at it in '08 (can you believe that's not that far away... Christ it seems like the whole Gore-Bush thing was last week) If Clark beats Dean in NH and IA Hillary jumps into the fray, because she doesn't want to wait eight years to run again (she wouldn't run against an incumbant Dem Prez.

Just my two cents. It'll be an interesting few weeks. Right now though, I think Kerry is my guy because he has the best chance to beat Bush.

Plus, I saw him rocking out on CSPAN.

I doubt it... a presidential race for either of them would be suicide right now.

I do agree with you that we might still see Gore enter this race at the last second. And I think that he stands a better chance than any of these other jokers at beating Bush (not necissarily a good thing).

I don't think you'll see Hillary Clinton run in 2004. Whenever she does choose to run for president (and believe me, she will), though, she will be wasting her time. This country may or may not elect a female president during our lifetime, but America will never elect Hillary Clinton.

They already did, twice!

You know what I mean.

There's a big difference between Senator and President. Hell, they let Sonny Bono be a Senator. I just don't think middle America could ever stand for Hillary.

I think he was joking about how Hillary wore the pants when Slick Willie was in office. I thought it was kinda funny.

I found it horribly unoriginal. Although I am proud to see a post where Dick didn't mention his prowess with the fairer sex.

Based on what? Polls taken with them vs W has Hill and Gore both garnering more votes than any other Dem. Of course, one could argue its all name recognition, but there is something in that.

My guesses are a bit out on the limb, but I just read on Drudge, that the Hill rumors won't die down.

And Gore wants to be President like nobody's business.

One of them will enter the race. Mark my words. (Don't strike me down Daigle...)

Peace Frog,

I've been reading the same articles on Drudge. I swear to christ, if Hillary gets in this thing it is all out the fucking window. It would be a goddamn disaster. Talk about opening a can of worms. I don't care what the polls say, the GOP machine would come after her with all the same old Clinton scandal stuff. Are we/she forgetting one of the biggest reasons Gore lost (the electoral vote) is because of the Clinton ties? Unfortunately the news isn't good on this, there's a story on Drudge about Slick Willie dropping hints about her running or something.

Now with that said, I'm actually kinda hoping Gore gets back in. And you hit the nail on the head, frog, Gore wants to be president more than anyone in the country. Man it would be awesome because for some reason, i don't know, i can just picture Al going out there and kicking ass. He would totally show this country how much of an idiot Bush is. And if he took Dean as running mate, which would be a stretch because I don't think they know each other at all, they'd be even more powerful. Or Clark. Either would work. One thing is for sure: Fuck Lieberman.

You know what else pisses me off, the heads of the Democratic National Party are too chickenshit to kick out some of the losers in this race. Damnit, this Evil Bush the Younger were talking about. We gotta get this fucker out of there. We're wasting all this money and energy bickering when we could have it down to two or three candidates, leaving more concentration on Bush. I don't know. I guess diversity is a good thing, and to an extent the primaries have always been like this but damnit, i'm ready for one guy to step forward. And if the wrong person wins out, I'm going Green again, even though i'm paying dearly for the Nader vote in 2000. I will not vote for Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, or Hillary. I will vote for Gore this time because I know he can beat Bush. I'd vote for Dean, and Wes Clark is the wild card, who will probably wind up as the running mate for whoever.

All this made me think of an idea some of us came up with a while back. We want to make bumper stickers that say "I never thought I'd say it, but God do I miss Clinton!"

Its becoming more true everyday. I could make a mint selling those things. Although someone said they've seen already seen something like that.

Ah yes, you hate mine as much as I hate how all of your posts used to make you look like such an asshole. Oh wait...you still...do that. Fair enough.

(Edited by richarddawson at 8:12 pm on Sep. 18, 2003)

The question is, am I as big an asshole as you are a ladie's man?

And the answer is, of course, no. Though, it is close. You are quite the asshole.

Word to my Homie Roadie...

I wasn't saying that Hillary would be a good thing... just making some predictions. I'd love to see Gore get back in. He needed to and should dump Lieberman. Lieberman a) excites me about as much a good ol' square dance (what is with that Kermit the Frog on valium voice?) and B ) the jewish thing makes people to uneasy (almost like Kennedy in '60, Reps saying that the Vatican would run the US) Misconceived perceptions or not, Lieberman would hinder any sort of mideast peace process. Every last Muslim would assume that we are in Israel's back pocket.

(Edited by Peace Frog at 11:29 pm on Sep. 18, 2003)

I think he sounds more like the dad on ALF. let's leave Kermit's drug problem out of this.

Ha! Willy! Ya kill me!!!

As opposed to the truth which is...oh, wait...

I would vote for a Dean/ Clark ticket, and I think Clark is the only way Dean would have a realistic chance at winning over middle America. I L-O-V-E Kucinich- he's a goddamn vegan!- but I agree that he's totally unelectable (something I never thought I would care about until I saw the horror that is Bush et al). I don't think Hillary matters at all- she'll never get elected & she does not have the experience that some other candidates have. I think the broad spectrum of candidates is fine & helps people think about the range of alternatives to the current regime that they could consider. But, really, why are we discussing this when we could just consult the Oracle of Daigle? He already predicted the whole Clark thing.

I'm telling you, this is our guy. Check this out.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/22/...lark/index.html

According to a new CNN poll, the General is now ahead of all Democrats -- with support from a stunning 22% of those polled (no one else is above 13%).

And, most exciting of all -- he is even ahead of President Bush himself, by 49% to 46%.



For more info go to www.clark04.com

Interesting insight from Michael Moore on Wesley Clark can be found here.

Excellent interview with Rolling Stone here. Very intelligent man. I think he would have a very good chance at defeating Bush.

(Edited by SeannWilliamScott at 12:17 am on Sep. 26, 2003)

Plus, he has a very noble, presidential sounding name.

I'm very tired of the name "Bush."

I keep thinking of Wesley Crusher when I hear Wesley Clark. And then, my thoughts turn toward "Stand By Me." And then, I vote for Wesley Clark by association.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 12:32 pm on Sep. 27, 2003)

I think Wesley Clark is very un-Presidential. So is George Bush.

In recent times, the more Presidential sounding names are--
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Johnson
John F. Kennedy

Nicknames like Bill and Jimmy don't make for good Presidential names.

Gore is history. He has emphasized time and again that he has no interest in a rematch against Bush. And he doesnt' need to jump in. With the economy swirling around the toilet, a record deficit, and 3.3 million lost jobs, I think a toadstool could defeat Bush in 2004. Oh, and then there's that little Iraq problem. Send us your kids so we can get them killed, and then spend MORE money investing in another country when we need that money here. How convenient that one company (Haliburton), which Dick Cheney STILL has an investment in, under a no-bid contract, will be receiving a significant chunk of change (read: our tax dollars) for its reconstruction work in Iraq. Wouldn't it be funny if they made a bunch of big, fat donations to the GOP for 2004? Hmmm. Our tax dollars routed to a company and then routed back to the GOP. How clever.

My wager is on either Clark or Edwards. A southerner will have to be in the race in order to win at least some of the South and Midwest. Clark looks good on paper but we will see if he has any substance regarding policy.

J

You only paid for the Nader vote if you were living in Florida at the time of the election. I don't recall that Nader lead to any Dem losses for Gore in any other state (meaning the Nader vote only mattered in Florida due to the slim majority that supposedly went to our illustrious President).

Still, look at the animosity here. Nobody seems to be defending Bush. I think Bush is going to get booted in 2004.

I hope.

Jeremy

My concern with Clark is that he voted for Nixon and Reagan and just a couple of years ago praised the current administration at a Republican fundraiser in Arkansas. Sure people can change their minds, but clearly Clark's change of heart from right to left occurred VERY recently. I think this will be more of an issue as this process goes on, especially when the democratic field starts to narrow down. There are "Reagan Democrats" of course, but I doubt the same dem's were praising this administration at any point, or came anywhere close to voting for Nixon. This will be a problem for hardcore lefts.

Now, if Clark can present a clear and concise domestic platform (which he has yet to do) then I think that combined with his foreign policy experience could truly make him the man.

Brian,

I've been alarmed by these stories coming out about Clark. This is going to be an issue...definitely the thorn in his side until election day. Although, I wonder if he could use it to attract moderate republicans? As in Clark saying to them: "Hey, i'm with ya, I used to be a republican, but Bush is an idiot and he lied to us about the war." Probably won't work but you never know. Yet another way to look at it: If there were Reagan Democrats, could there be Clark Republicans. Clark, more than any other Democratic candidate since Reagan, has the power to pull this off. Maybe. I don't know.

As far as losing face with the liberals, all Clark has to do is roll out Bill and Hillary (their supporting him, although they haven't announced it yet) and they'll tell everyone that he's a good liberal and everything will be ok.

Still, the Bob Novaks of the world won't let it die. Republicans HATE traitors like no other.

I think i'm still going with Dean. The guy is a fighter, and he can inspire. Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards....I don't think they have the balls or the moxie to take on the GOP machine.

somethingman,

You are absolutely correct, the ticket must have a southerner. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. But i'm not sure it has to be the president. Maybe i'm wrong, but if Dean takes Clark or Edwards as VP, he'll just leave campaining in the south to them. And of course, Slick Willie.

Hey, a very wise man once said around this time in 2000 "Ya'll are countin out old Al too quick!". Of course his children and I thought he was having dillusions of grandeur. The wise sage that said this was none other than Dan Tyler, and he made a believer out of me when old Al took it down to the wire. I didn't think he had a chance. So now I will never count out old Al. You never know....

Interestingly though, "Dangerous" Dan Tyler is now one of Dean's chief supporters/organizers in Nashville.

Some of the other stories coming out are over his "removal" from Europe when he was the Supreme Commander of NATO. Basically there's two sides to the story. One is that Clark had character flaws and couldn't follow orders. The other is, well, almost the same, he was opposed to the Clinton administration's war plans. He believed there should have been a ground war in Serbia, not an exclusive air campaign. He felt that the air campaign would lead to more civilian deaths and he was right. So Clark went before the media to annouce his displeasure over all of this and I'm sure those in the Pentagon and in the White House viewed this as "character flaws".

The fact that the Clintons would now support Clark is, I think, a potential issue that will be exploited by the right. Why would the former president who sought to end the career of a 4-star general early now support the man today? The answer is easy I think... united hatred of Dubya and may the best candidate who can beat him get the nomination.