Why oh why didn't Kerry pick Wesley Clark as his VP nom?

Let's face it - Clark would've wiped the floor with Cheney in the VP debate. Plus he would've verbally "beat the sh*t" out of the SwiftBoaties, as he's both patriotic about the military but also about dissent and freedom of speech (i.e. pro-military but anti-war, except as a last resort). Clark would've been a great attack dog and allowed Kerry to stay above the fray and look presidential.

Bush and Cheney were known quantities and both Kerry's and Clark's military service and intellectual abilities would've been an unbeatable package against the two chickenhawks. Now everything's up in the air, nobody knows who/what they're gonna be up against in '08.

PS: John Edwards is great, but I don't think it's his time yet.

it was stolen, there is to much evidence to prove otherwise.

quickly. I keep hoping that when the whistleblower sees it's safe enough (enough anger at the Republicans and Bush and the polls are crappy too) that they'll come out.

But my guess is that whoever arranged this probably is living in another country by now, safely away from the thugs who would kill him/her if they thought it would be revealed.

I know it's conjecture, but maybe that person is already dead.

Anyways, Clark is good, but I think Clark would be an even better Secretary of Defense.

I think Kerry would of made him Secretary of Defense. Had it not been stolen Kerry would of surrounded himself with the most qualified people.
I am still sick over the whole thing.

He's not out of the military long enough. I would have hoped that a President Kerry would have found some position for him that would have put to good use all of his strengths and experience. I never liked the position of VP for Clark. I thought it would have been too much of a waste of valuable experience at a time when we could not afford to waste it. Whether he would have helped the ticket more or not, there's no way to really know.

And, sasha, I'm still sick over the whole thing too, especially when I see the damage that Bush continues to do to this country and the world. Ugh! What a mess!

Clark can not serve as Sec. of Defense...not until the year 2010. Anyway, Newsweek, in agreement with the buzz I've heard, has pegged John McCain as Kerry's likely choice for SoD with retaining Colin Powell at State.

Clark as vp? Correct, that is not a position that makes good use of his skills. Nevertheless, before the selection of Edwards, which I fully understand, I advocated that Kerry would have problems with his prior protesting of Vietnam. Not by people like me, hell, I graduated from Kent State in 1973, but because not everyone could understand or agree with his position. General Clark represented the flip side of the coin: someone who stayed within the military and worked for change from the inside. The ticket could have been presented as "America getting together to put that devisive past behind it" just as the ticket did. It would have been a much harder time for the Swiftboaters with a 4 star on the ticket walking point. Especially since Wes Clark is our most decorated General since Eisenhower, although Ike only graduated 3rd not 1st in his class at the Point.

Wes Clark went all out for the ticket and did everything that Kerry asked. (I am always dismayed when Kerry supporters feel the need to dump on Wes...it makes no sense.) I wrote during the campaign and will repeat it now, I doubt that Wes Clark would have been asked to participate in a Kerry administration, that is not why Clark did what he did. As Gert Clark reminded us this summer: it is not about the "who" but the "what," and "do you love your country?" Both of them "do" and will go the extra mile to save it, even putting their lives on hold (Clark doesn't receive any congressional salary when stumping) to stop this one-party state.

I think there's a good chance you may be right that a President Kerry would not have offered Gen Clark any position in his Administration.

The McCain as SoD-Powell as SoS scenario is one I'd heard before also....Dismaying, really, to think that even the leaders of our party think they need to put Republicans in national security/foreign policy positions. If we can't even convince the leaders of our party that we can be strong in these areas, how are we going to convince the American people?

And, yes, the selfless love of country that both of the Clarks show is something very special and, apparently, quite incomprehensible to some.

cabinet level job because Clark wasn't out of the military long enough. (At least at the beginning of his term.) That is the rules. I remember people talking about it on the blog last year.

But Clark would certainly be more than capable of doing Rummy's job.

he couldn't have given Clark Secretary of Defense but there are other positions he would be eligible for. Still, as I said above, I would have been disappointed but not totally surprised had a President Kerry turned to Republicans to fill those spots. :(

I just think that Clark had the grit to fight more battles both politically and behind the scenes. I think he would've been a better counterweight to Cheney than Edwards was.

But, on a level playing field and according to traditional reckoning, yes Kerry & Edwards did win.

we all were warned in 2000 about the problems, and the Kerry camp indicated they had everything under control. Well they didn't, and essentially nothing has been done to improve the voting reliability.

At this momement in time there is only one person who I will definitely support in 2008 and that is Russ Feingold

The effort to secure the voting system would have had to start way before that - it clearly wasn't the nominee's responsibility. The problem is that running fair elections is a government reponsibility - not a party one, so there was no one whose responsibility it is. Even there one would think it was the DNC, not the nominee - but representing the party, raising funds, and finding candidates (in some cases) seem to be the extent of that job.

Even now, who is doing the job for 2006 or 2008? Elections are run at the state level and the Senate and House are controlled by the Republicans. Is the DNC working on the issue? Is any one on earth to blame except Kerry? Kerry had lawyers, who could have dealt with Florida like problems, but that's not what was used.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Wes in the primary. But I think Edwards was a nice balance to the ticket.

they were a dream ticket (and they won).

But in the Rovian era that's not good enough.

That morning when Edwards was announced, and those 2 families were on the lawn meeting the public for the first time - I had not had so much hope for America in such a long time.

Edwards was great - and will serve this country in the future. Clark will also contribute to rebuilding this country, I hope.

Let's move forward. And get control of the voting machines.

Kerry/Edwards WON.

and seeing Clark knock down RW talking points with ease on F*x News.

But thinking back, I was convinced Kerry/Edwards would win at the time. All the signs pointed towards it, but then the Rovettes did their little switcheroo at the last minute...

And, you seem to forget Clark has gotten MUCH better than he was during the campaign.

What makes you think the magical presence on Clark on the ticket would have kept Rove from manipulating the voting machines????

This is maddeningly frustrating and a waste of time. Please let's stop fantasizing and move forward.

I was just indulging in a bit of wishful thinking.

Maybe it's better this way - there's still time for the neocons to collapse under the weight of all their scandals finally coming out in the open.

I was proud to give them my first ever vote. Edwards could've done a bit better with the debate with Cheney, heck anyone could've, but he did fine though all in all.

it immediately reminded me of the RICH and more fortunate dominating politics. They got my vote but I agree that Clark would have made a much better VP candidate.

The DLC likes Lieberman because he is arguably the most right wing Democrat available.

how can a democrat vote fer a bush yall ask? well, it's a 'bird'! it's a plane! NO it's Loserman! :hide:

Lieberman votes with republicans too many times, on that I'll agree. But he has an EXCELLENT record in some areas, particularly the environment.

And let's not forget the most important vote of all - Senate Majority Leader.

Would I be glad to see Lieberman replaced with an across-the-board liberal? Of course. Not that it's likely.

But it's just wrong to make categorical broad brush untrue statements about anyone. Especially a Democrat.

joe always grabbing the brass, thinking it's pure gold, then forging it into chains and dragging it around like an elephant that got away, with the idea that the mule cart he dragging behind him has lotsa goodies the folks can use if and when he gets HERE, which joe aint gonna, cuz he AINT coming here, he's going over there where the pigs get slopped; yes he's a champion of the weather, but 'the rain falls on the unjust as well as the just' and .....btw does anyone remember 'Sore Loserman'? That was 5 long years ago, and 'loserman' is still basically a republican bastion, barring the way if it's left of centre (ok, the weather he lets go, but shee, even rush limbah-humbug is a weather loving man, even rush!)

I just looked at the DLC website and couldn't find a membership list. Under the Leadership page I found no mention of either Kerry or Lieberman.

I keep hearing "so and so is DLC" but usually the poster provides no evidence. I do believe that Kerry was once listed as a member of DLC, but he is really much more liberal in most of his positions and votes (look it up at Project Vote Smart or On The Issues).

I'm also not convinced that the DLC is wholly bad either...neither am I convinced they are good...I just think they're another alliance of politicians working for common goals, some of which I share, many of which I don't. I do happen to agree with a "third way" approach in general. But regardless, tarring Kerry and Lieberman with "all things evil of the DLC" seems quite a bit of a stretch to me. Especially Kerry.

http://www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

NDOL.org seems to redirect to DLC.org now, however, and it looks like they don't post the actual link on their page anymore.

The problem I have with the DLC is that they are undermining Dr./Gov./Chairman Dean's leadership of the DNC by constantly advocating against the heart of the Democratic Party's best interests - Will Marshall (one of the founders of the DNC), for example, has even expressed support for the Project for a New American Century.

Wikipedia has it, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat#Members_of_the_Senate_New_Democrat_Coalition

Members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York
Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

However, they list only politicians currently in office.

Kerry did not attend the 2005 DLC convention and wasn't listed when From said DLC people who might run in 2008 include Hillary, Bayh, Warner and Vilsack. Kerry has made no secret that he might run and is at least as likely as one or more of those listed to win. Kerry never had a DLC leadership role and was by far the most liberal person aligned ever. The list also drops people as they leave office - so Edwards and Howard Dean - who were both more active - are no longer listed.

Memeber at one time. It's called selective memory.

I don't think so, to call him right wing? I suggest you do some research and check his voting record.

these RW talking points have been circulating around these parts forever. The ignorant, ill-informed and prejudiced, not to mention the trolls, won't accept reality. Save your energy for people capable of listening to and understanding coherent communication.

:hi:

:-)

I said Kerry was with the DLC, which is a fact that is supported by documentation that others have provided in this string. On account of this association, however, it is reasonable to suppose that Kerry could lean more to the right than does the average Democrat. Please consider this statement by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is the DLC's think tank:



This exemplifies their most basic philosophy, that the Democratic party should move from the left to the center, or more plainly put, to the right.

I did say that Joe Lieberman, who was once a DLC chairman, was perhaps the most right-wing Democrat available. When thinking of an example to support this assessment, his support of Bush's Iraq war comes quickly to mind.

Personally, I'm skeptical of the DLC for two reasons: First, because they seem to be trying to highjack our agenda from the DNC. And second, because I believe in traditional Democratic values. Above all, however, I think the worst Democrat is far better than the best repuke, any day.

You have suggested that I do some research and check out Kerry's voting record. Before you try to give me this homework assignment, I wish you and BlueIris would stop congratulating yourselves about how unreasonable I am, long enough to actually read the message I posted.

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

For contrast: Robert Byrd, 61; Jay Rockefeller 83; Al Gore, 65; John Edwards, 88, Joe Biden 72...
(http://www.adaction.org/sen.htm)

I hardly think Kerry leans "more to the right than does the average Democrat."

You really should look up Kerry's voting record and Interest Group Ratings at Project Vote Smart. You might be surprised how liberal he is. Also, if you compare Kerry to, for example, Howard Dean on the VoteMatch graphic at On The Issues, they are nearly in the same place. IIRC, the difference is that Kerry actually leans libertarian on his social views, while Dean is more populist (i.e. favors more government control). And Clark is in a similar spot, though I don't remember exactly. The point is that all three fall pretty close together on the spectrum.

I think this is a fair homework assignment. (and where did I say anything about you being unreasonable? although it is a little unreasonable of you to speculate about Kerry's relative position on the political spectrum without first refering to reliable sources.)

MH1,

My response was to message 9 in this thread, and also a reaction to replies message 20, 23, and 26, which did nothing to promote meaningful discourse or fair debate.

I did not reapply to the reasonable request in your message 8, since I believed other contributors in this thread had supplied the information you sought.

Still, I'm glad to get this message from you, which is in sharp contrast to the ones about which I confess some annoyance. I don't think you have made up your mind about the DLC. Neither have I.

You're right about one thing, I need to spend some time at Project Vote Smart, and I appreciate the information you have supplied. There is a lot I need to learn.

In a different DLC-related message string here at DU, I supposed that Dean must me left-leaning because of his assessment of the DLC as, "...the Republican wing of the Democratic party." Someone confronted me with the facts of Dean's own right-leaning past, however, and convinced me I was wrong about him in this respect. I appreciated that. Being wrong is not so bad, but staying wrong is.

You make me wonder: With Kerry's left-leaning record, what is he doing with the DLC, who certainly want to move the Democratic party to the right (they have said so)? What are they (the DLC) really up to? Specifically, how is their "third way" different from traditional Democratic values? For example, do they condone weakening of New Deal social programs such as Social Security?

In my defense, I didn't expect so much of a reaction to my one-line message number 4, in which I sought to explain to CJCRANE why Kerry chose Lieberman for his running mate. I therefore did not put any effort into collection of supporting documentation. I will stand by what I actually said in that message, however: Both Kerry and Lieberman are members of the DLC; the DLC likes Lieberman; and Lieberman is arguably the most right wing Democrat available. All these were factors in Kerry's decision.

Anyway, thanks for sharing these thoughts. I guess I just made a New Year's resolution to book up at Project Vote Smart.

Happy New Year

Lasher

but you must keep in mind, members of the organization don't vote lock in step.

Regarding most economic and domestic issues, Kerry votes to the left of most Dems (both DLC and otherwise) and on international issues he's left of center (with the exception of his vote on the war resplution). Many may argue, but he does have a liberal voting record...and he's probably to the LEFT of most Dems (both registered and elected) on most issues.

Dems join the DLC for various reasons. In Kerry's case, I think it was because he agrees with them regarding the basic philosophy of a balanced budget, but I don't see much similarities after that. I also think he felt a need to compensate for the positions he has taken on many issues. This was a problem I sensed with Kerry actually - the inability to actually stand up for what is an admirable voting record.

Especially since after the election, Kerry has voted against almost the entire Bush agenda. This is very different from Lieberman, who has cheered on the worst of it.

This may or may not justify a second Kerry nomination (I am personally against the idea), but I think it's important to look at the truth. Labels about who is and isn't a DLCer is meaningless. Ultimately the voting record tells the story. This is also why I don't buy the myth of the moderate republican because when it comes time to make a vote, so called northeast moderates like Snowe, Collins, and Spector, usually side with the administration and the rest of the thugs.

However, DLC is just a thinktank - I like politicians who are capable of listening to opinions and then deciding what to do with them. People associated with the DLC are a diverse bunch and not easily pigeonholed for people who like labels more than serious consideration.

Kerry is a powerful figure and the DLC needs him much more than he needs the DLC.

Bayh, in that order--From's DLC Presidential "candidates."

John Kerry only joined the DLC in 2000, a decision I would hope that he regrets.



From left to right: U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is chair of the DLC; (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president.)

They were hoping for his demise in the primaries to Lieberman just about as much as they were rooting against Dean. He never truly embraced the DLC types (especially when he rebuffed Bill Clinton's calls for him to come out against Gay Marriage) and they never truly wanted him.

Rp

Kerry was DLC.

Vilsack, Warner and Bayh--in that order, are "our candidates." according to the DLC's Al From.

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2241957&mesg_id=2242443

Al From: Warner is one of "our candidates": Clinton, Vilsack, Warner & Bayh

And From listed them in that order.

Hear it yourself. It is about 34:15 into the tape.

Al From, Founder & CEO, Democratic Leadership Council

Al From, Founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council, discusses the future of the Democratic party.
10/25/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 45 min.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&Re...
(Evidently C-Span does not make available archives from Washington Journal for more than two weeks.)

for the Presidency.....

Geeze louise.....

Clinton, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh. None are announced presidential candidates at this point, but Al From notably left Kerry off his list of "our candidates."

From's picking those guys as the 2008 Presidential nominees that the DLC will support. Note that Kerry has already said he's running again and *news flash*, From's not naming him in the list.

You'd think since Kerry is so buddy-buddy with the DLC that he'd be right up there with a bunch of unannounced candidates at the very least but let's see... he's NOT.

Because the guy is NOT A DLC CANDIDATE!

Rp

PS... Thanks flpoljunkie :)

Faras anybody knows, Kerry isn't even considering another run....

That was why he ran in 2000. I think that is a pretty good indication that he is damn well interested in running in 2008. And Kerry is head and shoulders, literally and figuratively, above Al From's DLC approved candidates--Clinton, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh. Perhaps not literally, Vilsack is right tall, and I do admire his allowing felons who have completed their sentences to vote in Iowa.

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

The DLC agreed with him on most of positions. Just because he tried to be more centrist in the national campaign does not make him DLC. Don't be ridiculous.

Rp

and if they wanted a Democrat to win at all, he was their only option. Just because they caved and decided to back him doesn't mean he ever was seeking their endorsement or that he shared their beliefs.

Kerry was NOT DLC.

Rp

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

I'm sure every candidate addressed them along with other staples of their base (i.e. unions, etc.) But so what if he addressed them? Republicans address the NAACP from time to time, does that mean they support what the NAACP does or stands for? No. That means they were trying to woo possible voters from that group. I don't think a single Republican politician wants an NAACP endorsement and I don't think Kerry cared about the DLC's.

The DLCers never really embraced Kerry. It was clear that Lieberman was more their guy and going into the primaries they really banked on him being their shot.

Kerry was not DLC.

Rp

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

if I worked for the guy's campaign for almost two years and talked with him personally and heard his beliefs enough to know where he stood. Sorry if you just don't like Kerry, and that is the issue here, but the guy is not DLC and he is way further left than any DLC official candidate dare go.

Being Centrist in a national presidential election does not automatically make you DLC. Nor does addressing them when you need to woo centrists in the party to vote for you as much as you need the far left to do so.

Rp

Kerry IS a DLC member. You trying to deny reality only makes YOU look silly.

record of all the DLC members in the senate.

and he's not that much furhter left than Hillary Clinton.

.

Sort of like how Zell Miller is a Democrat if you look at the list, but not a Democrat in how he acts.

Kinda know what I mean?

He's a different kind of DINO -- DLC in name only

He's the red-headed stepchild of the DLC, and Daddy Al From pays more attention to those who's ideologies match up better with the DLC mission. I think Kerry used their organization for the campaign, and I think that he is somewhat hawkish. That's probably the most DLC thing about him, but a true DLCer wouldn't be caught dead with any kind of withdrawl plan.

If you put Biden, Clinton, Bayh, Warner, Lieberman and Kerry in a room, I think you could easily play a game of "One of these things is not like the other... one of these things just doesn't belong."

no choice but to get the DLC behind Kerry.

From was notorious for loathing Kerry. Kerry voted too much with the left for his taste, and had helped to craft the Kyoto Treaty which made many a corporatist uncomfortable.

but it will be fun to see you try to back THAT up....

on CNN who he sees as a strong candidate - He pointed to Lieberman. When he was asked about Kerry he looked a bit uncomfortable acknowledging he was in the race. And everyone knows Bruce Reed was always behind Edwards.

I will try and locate the article where From came out of a DLC meeting with Clinton and managed to speak positively about Kerry. I remember it happening very well.

and you have nothing to back it up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9666-2004Jul23.html

squarely behind Edwards.

Just because the DLC got behind Kerry when they thought at some point in 2003 that he was the only one who could compete with Dean in the long run doesn't mean that From LIKED IT.

Doesn't matter WHAT From said after the primaries and especially during the Dem convention, it's what From said BEFORE that shows which DLC member he was supporting.

And I resent you saying my own personal observation of From was crap. I trust my observations and my comprehension skills.

Here's what I personally think happened and this is mostly from my own intuition not based on any inside information that I have...

I would imagine that From wanted Lieberman but after his Joementum wore out (sorry I had to), it was pretty obvious he wasn't going to get him. Edwards was probably a second choice on the assumption that he might be easier to control than Kerry because he has far less experience in politics. Kerry was probably not From's favorite. It is absolutely true that John Kerry's voting record does not look like Joe Lieberman's voting record. Kerry is more liberal than Lieberman, but he is still a member of the DLC.

So why did From ultimately back Kerry? For the same reason that everyone else backed Kerry after Iowa. Everyone wants to back the winning horse and Kerry was the winning horse. Besides, things could have been much worse for From. Howard Dean could have been the nominee. And it's not like From and Dean are as ideologically far apart as they are made out to be. They just plain don't like each other.

when he's talking about Presidential hopefuls at the DLC. Can you be on the DLC list and not quite be DLC? It appears so.

Kerry has a certain level of hawkishness in his makeup, about as much as Clark, it seems to me, but apparently not enough for From. I think that Kerry used the DLC as mostly an organizing tool. Though I wonder sometimes if they sabotaged him. I do with he'd ask for them to take his name off the lis.

As for putting Kerry next to Liebermann and/or Clinton, it's like a game of "one of these things are not like the others." Picture Kerry playing kissy-kissy with Bush. Picture Liebermann or Clinton having any kind of pullout plan whatsoever, and articulating it.

I put Kerry much more with people like Clark, or Feingold or even Boxer, depending on the issue being covered.

As we saw in the 2004 primaries, Democrats don't like him. He would have ensured a Bush win even with out the Republican vote fraud in Ohio and Florida.Edwards did just fine against Chaney. Besides, the debates were irrelevant.

By your standard the Dems were all losers except Kerry. Clark did well in the Primaries, all things considered. He had enough sense and class to withdraw and back Kerry when it became obvious Kerry was going to win. Your statement that he would have ensured a Bush win is baseless and ridiculous. Having said that I don't believe Clark as VP would have changed things. He defended Kerry often and was a more visible spokesperson on National security matters than Edwards. The problem was Kerry needed to defend Kerry. IMO Edwards neither helped or hurt Kerry in the long run.

Kerry killed Bush in the debates - the VP debate was likely less important. Edwards was certainly not a Dan Quayle - that debate was pretty much a draw. I actually think that debating Cheney is harder than it seems on the surface. Cheney is unlikeable, but that's already factored in.

I liked Edwards during the debate. I thought he performed well...

Cheney is not likable, but he came off competant and intelligent during the debates, certainly something Bush was never capable of. I don't think Edwards really hurt Kerry in any way during the debates (and overall I don't he helped in any great way either), but the VP debate may have reassured some leaning toward Bush.

And that crazy right wing guy Michael Moore, he likes endless wars so that's why he endorsed Clark.

By the way, Edwards sucked against Cheney. Cheney just made random crap up that pretty much raped Edwards the entire time, even though it was all bullshit.

Run clark , Run clark Run

about him? Check out his site and read some of his articles in the newspaper. Hell...check him out on Faux News if you don't believe us on DU. IF he were to win the primaries...I would hope you'd stop posting your nonsense. You sure are a frustrating hard nut to crack!

to hear about from those who believe this: "Kerry's and Clark's military service and intellectual abilities would've been an unbeatable package against the two chickenhawks."

Why do people think General Clark's record would have been anymore respected than Kerry's? No, seriously, explain this to me. Not ripping Clark, but since we're rehashing the discussion of how successful the campaign was, can we revisit this issue? I've never understood the logic here. What makes you think that people who believed lies about Kerry's military service wouldn't have believed lies about Clark's service? Why do you think the G.O.P. would have refrained from spreading similar lies about Clark?

and they had plenty of lies ready about Clark -- I have seen the disgusting sites.

About his military record specifically or was it just messed up personal attacks? You can PM me if you don't feel like sharing.

I don't believe the arguments that Clark would translate to "strong on security" to swing voters or conservatives simply because of his military service. I also don't believe that Clark--either as the nominee or as the V.P. candidate--would have been able to communicate the "security" message when Kerry couldn't, especially with G.O.P. media lies in play, and especially considering that so many voters, before Kerry or the Swift Boat Liars or any serious Democratic alternative, irrationally believed that two non-leaders and an administration full of cowards who never served a day in uniform were the epitome of "strong on security." Please, Clark supporters, this is not a bash--why do you believe Clark's military service would have been anymore of an advantage for him than it was for John Kerry?

Just wanted to say that. I worked hard for Kerry/Edwards and I still think they won. Every one of the three men; Kerry, Edwards and Clark had different things going for and against them.

I can discuss differences in the records and experiences of Kerry and Clark, and those things can be relevant, but there are also less tangible differences between the men, how they communicate etc. and like I said above, each brings different things to the table. Clark would not have reacted exactly the same as Kerry did to Republican attacks, that is an indisputable fact simply because they are different human beings. Personally I like Clark's style when he is put under attack. For example when he rolled out a new progressive tax plan that increased taxes on the wealthiest he said this at the time:

""If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it."

But as to substance. Start with the most basic. The Republican attempted to weave several sub texts into their swift boat attacks on Kerry. One was to resurrect the Viet Nam War as a wedge issue. Kerry and other Democrats at the July convention proudly pointed to his service in Viet Nam rather prominently, but that is not the aspect of Viet Nam that Kerry is associated with. Kerry is widely associated with Viet Vets Against the War. By bringing up his own service in Viet Nam Kerry put the "Jane Fonda/ Hanoi Jane" related card in play for the Republicans. I have NO problem with Kerry's anti war days, but there are people who do have trouble with that. Some Vets do because Republican operatives have exploited that so called divide among Vets for a Generation. Lots of Vets love Kerry, don't get me wrong, but that divide was hanging out there to be used.

I think Kerry was right to point to his service in Viet Nam, but he should have then also quickly defined himself his role in the anti war movement and framed it boldly as patriotism rather than let a Republican whisper campaign define his protests as anti-American instead. By talking about his participation in the war but not much about his stance on the war after returning, Kerry left open a back door for Republicans to use against him. They injected negatives into Kerry's Viet Nam narrative that "rang" potentially true to many listeners who were angry that Kerry once testified before Congress that Vets committed atrocities in Viet Nam etc. Kerry was right to give that testimony of course. He should have defended it in 2004 rather than let Republicans be the only ones framing his actions then, which is exactly what Republicans (Never Bush personally) did.

Clark would not have entered the campaign with one of the most prominent aspects of his personal history open to attack by Republican agents for being "anti-military". You and I may think that type of attack against Kerry is ridiculous, but we also think the Swift Boat attack was ridiculous. It still worked. Clark stayed in the military for 30 years after serving in Viet Nam. He wasn't open to that type of attack. Plus here's another thing. Most Americans know lots of people who served four years in the military, it really doesn't stand out as a reason to think they should be considered experts on National Security. Especially if that service was over 30 years ago. It should help establish personal courage perhaps, but not expertise on security matters. Putting in time on a swift boat doesn't give someone expertise in Foreign Relations. People know that. Very few people have a nephew however who served as Supreme Allied Commander of N.A.T.O. People understand that that is not merely "being a veteran", it is a complex set of relevant experiences that jumps right out at you. I understand that Kerry has expertise in national security and foreign relations, don't get me wrong here either. But it doesn't come from his term of service in Viet Nam. It comes from his personal interest in that and from his work in the United States Senate. Clark however doesn't need to trot out a dozen pieces of legislation he wrote or committees he sat on. Everyone knows immediately that he dedicated his life to protecting the national security of America. It is more than being a veteran.

And as to physical courage. You and I both know that Kerry showed lots of it in Viet Nam. But the fact that he was not seriously wounded gave the Republicans the wiggle room they needed to spin their lies. Clark took four bullets and came home from Nam on a stretcher after first directing his troops in the field while lying wounded. No room for ambiguity there.

That's a starting point for an answer to you anyway. Got to run take care of something...

...of the whole package. Clark has studied and understands the history of the entire region, and knows many heads of state (current and former). Heck, Rhodes Scholar and all that.

One of the reasons Clark was drafted is because he dared call 'em on it.
See And just what did you do in the class war, Senator?



Reference Clark Tax Plan


And the Corporatists simply could not have this.

Oh, and didn't the MSM crown Howard Dean THE Dem Candidate vs. gwb in late 2003 while Clark was up against gwb head-to-head?
Newcomer Clark tied with President Bush in national poll - SFGate

:patriot:

I think this is the kind of progressive message we can wrap our minds around - and make it a PLANK of the 2008 party platform, regardless of the nominee.

Oh, btw, Clark likes Open & Honest government (ha!, you scoff!)
WES CLARK'S PLEDGE TO OPEN GOVERNMENT

As for the SBVFT smear, I don't think General Clark would have let it fester for weeks. Clark would have countered quickly and decisively imho.
:patriot:

imbillorightsmanandiapprovethismessage

...who remembers the furor over his 1971 testimony about Viet Nam...the ONLY reason I thought Clark might have had an easier time is that some people of that generation (like my dad) could NEVER get past that testimony. They see it as a betrayal of our country, not speaking 'truth to power.' Wesley Clark could carry the military leadership mantle WITHOUT that distraction. I was one of those who wanted Kerry to choose Clark as VP for that reason...NOT because I devalue Kerry. I LOVE JOHN KERRY! I still think he would be the BEST PRESIDENT this country has ever had. And if he decides to run in 2008, he will have my UNWAVERING support.:patriot:

suburban women, ages 25-45.

I think your father's generation voted for Kerry at the same rates as that generation voted for any other Democrat in the last couple elections.

It was white women who abandoned the democratic party for Bush, and it was because Bush convinced them that the world was a frightening place and that a president who shoots first and asks questions later would protect them.

If you were looking for a candidate to address a shaky demographic, I think that's the demographic with which you have to concern yourself. Why were Clinton and Gore able to hang onto that demographic and why wasn't Kerry able to? Terrorism turned soccer moms into insecurity moms, so what could have kept them thinking like soccer moms? Possibly, an explanation that their children's futures were at a greater risk if the Republicans' anti-Keynesian, infrastructure destroying under-investments in education and in the middle and working class persisted...

usually have long term economic policies and their implications at the top of her list. The other thing to remeember is that the entire Repuke party, as personified by aw shucks *, lied about everything while Cheney and his conspirators ground their axes.


IMPEACH

better instincts appealed to by sense.

No time in American history had the potential to be more terrifying than WW2.

On December 7, 1941 FDR honestly believed that the Japanese were going to invade the west coat and reach the Mississippi before the US could mount an effective defense. Hitler was a terrifying presense. He raged in a language most Americans didn't understand.

If right wingers had been in office and FDR hadn't been in office, the government could have frightened Americans into handing economic and political power over to the corporatocracy. Instead, FDR kept people calm and made sure that working America understood that fascism -- a concentration of power in the hands of the powerful -- was wrong and that protecting the working class was the way America would win the war. The rules that applied during the depression -- protect the working class -- were the same rules that applied during the war, and they would have been the same rules that applied after the war had FDR lived.

up and lie into a camera about Clark. The media would have ignored his proof as much as they did Kerry's.

It's the MEDIA we must battle and clean up before the next election. ALL our Dems are treated like SHIT.

Clark would have attacked them right back. Clark became a 4 star General and led NATO. His military backround was so much more impressive than Kerry's that there really isn't any comparison. Clark stayed in the military and gave up personal wealth. Kerry threw his medals on the lawn of the WH and protested the war, which lost him a great deal of support from the Vietnam Vets.

I respect both, but Clark sitting across from 4-5 deferrment Cheney would have been the best show on earth.

Kerry's military service was brief and then totally undermined by Kerry when he stood against the war in which he just fought. The whole military service thing with Kerry was too complicated for simple soundbites and the simple minded American public. His service of country was at odds with itself.

I respect Kerry and his service to his country as well as him coming home and so bravely and correctly speaking up against the war in Vietnam. Face it though, most people have difficulty holding two opposing views in thier minds at the same time. Clarks authority and service record is much easier to grasp and sell to the public.

Why oh why was Kerry so afraid of the Bush machine? Why did he even get into the race if he truly didn't want to win? (Lets not waste time debating minutia here either. He is NOT the president, why?)

Why would he place proven losers and wimps in charge of his campaign, like Bob Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill, and that Trojan horse Donna Brazile, who have buried us the last few elections? THIS is a very, very important question that needs to be addressed, NOW!

I've come to believe that these people are somehow so beholden to, or afraid of the Bush-Rove machine, that they intentionally take a fall for them, lest they be exposed for whatever it is the Republican party has on them.

How else do you explain the Lieberman type behavior of Democratic leaders the last few years. We NEED to discuss & explore this destructive behavior NOW before we go any further with elections, otherwise we're simply rooting for "our team" like silly sports fans. Lets not waste time bashing each other

Shrum? Cahill?

And I don't think the problem was that these people were afraid of Bush.

The problem is that I think these people don't have true progressive cores and progressive convictions.

We've all seen, I presume, DA Pennebakers documentary of the Clinton campaign. Carville had true progressive convictions. He almost cries in that movie when he talks to volunteers about why it's important for Democrats to win.

There are stories about Carville getting in fights in WH meetings with Rubin and Summers over progressive issues (see the bottom paragraph: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0374281688/ref=sib_vae_pg_632/103-0913486-6351016?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=carville&p=S0IY&twc=4&checkSum=CrWbeRzDc8MsHRNXzbFLHiphJVlXpA%2FX4uELzSjA7XE%3D#reader-page). The guy cared about working people and believed that the government could help them.

I don't believe that Shrum and Cahill and Brazile have these same convictions, or, if they do, they sure have a hard time conveying those convictions.

I'm not sure he would've made a decisive difference

but you're right, he probably wasn't up to speed at the time.

The thing is, he's one of the few that speaks truth to power (and knows what he's talking about).

He already spoke 5 languages fluently but "sound bite" was not yet one of them. It is a specific political verbal technique that is best learned with practice. But actually Clark had already gotten a pretty good handle on it by late December 2003, and he kept getting better after that. He does just fine with "sound bite" now. Having to talk right through FOX jock diversionary lies to make his own points has been excellent practice and he does better at that now than anyone else.

were the big issues of the election. That would have been the strategically best thing to do for democrats, and ultimately the best thing for this country. Sometimes it seems like democrats don't like to get as strategic as republicans.

Why oh why is so much energy wasted on hypothetical fantasizing???? Please folks, it's almost 2006.

looking at strategy, figuring out "what went right and what went wrong".

Politics is like 4-dimensional chess and just as all grandmasters do, it helps to go over previous games, so maybe next time you can try a new gambit.

on edit: changed "just" to "like"

assertions.

There's nothing to "learn" about fantzasing something we'll never know - and based on a highly questionable premise that somehow (magically?!) Clark would have brought some unforeseen powers to the ticket that would have overcome the voting machines - and Clark's very own KNOWN weakness as a campaigner at the time.

This is sheer fantasy.

I am cool with your argument about the limits of imagining various "do over" scenarios based on focusing on a different candidates qualities. But then you injected the past directly yourself with an assertion that is open to debate, however certain you are of the validity of your own opinion. I think by early January 2004 Clark was not a weak campaigner at all, and can present many arguments in support of that position. However you are the one who is saying you don't think those types of discussions have value here and now. If that is what you believe then don't go there yourself and invite exactly what you are arguing against to begin with.

sports fans and commentators do the same thing, this is just the political version.

As long as everyone learns something new then I think it's ok.

Maybe some Clark fans will see your point and realize he's not the magic bullet, others might take another look at Clark and push his ideas more into the mainstream.

remaining? Why oh why didn't Coach A start running back B (running back B would SURELY have broken down the defense and WON THE GAME)? Why oh why didn't running back C cut INSIDE on 4th and 4 (instant replay showed if he'd one that, he MIGHT have gotten a block from the tight end, and might have had clear sailing into the endzone, 'specially cuz defensive back M PROBABY would have run out of gas by the 10 yard line)?

Okay, I'm done. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson here by considering these (pointless) questions. I'll start preparing for the next game.

Those who don't learn from history....

The republicans had Cheney slugging everyone over the head with fear, war, terra.

But Clark's been there, done that, got the T-shirt. He could've stood up to Cheney and calmy defused the fearmongering.

Clark have the chance to pick someone.

What else would Clark have done?

We'll NEVER know. He didn't win the damn nomination. Kerry didn't pick him to be VP. His supporters can fantasize the rest of their lives, but Clark didn't cut the mustard in 2004. Period.

Now maybe he can do something for this county in the future, but to carry on this carping, crying, crapping...is CRAZY.

If you're going to react like that every time you can't get everyone to act just the way you want them to, you're going to have a tough go of it.

You can always ignore a thread like this if it upsets you so, you know. Make it easier on yourself.

by the Boston contingent and the media. I wonder who was calling the shots at that point? It might have been a better strategy for the Dems just to run Edwards. At least he was a blank slate that no one took seriously, except those who got in the way of his ruthless ambitions. It should have been a Clark/Dean ticket.


IMPEACH

Who are the Boston Contingent - Kerry and Kennedy?
Edwards, had a blank slate and was ruthless? Can anyone at age 50 have a blank slate? Was Edwards more ruthless than anyone else? Why after all this, do you recommend Clark/Dean?

Had the Boston legbreakers not been sent out into the fields. I know you'll ask me to document the "legbreaking" part, but those in the field knew all too well the style of politics they were playing. Some people got hurt, physically.

I have documented just a small part of Edwards' ruthlessness many times. I'm not doing it again.

Edwards had a blank slate. He adopted in full the campaign platform and strategy of a failed NYC mayoral candidate. Even hired the same advisor, Axelrod. Two Americas. yeah, we heard that for years. Funny thing, he never did anything about it while in the Senate.

You don't have to waste your time defending Edwards with me. Isn't the Repuke warmongering neo-con Hugh Shelton still doing that for him?

:eyes:

Dean was taken out in Iowa by the Clintons in order to make way for Clark in New Hampshire. Clark just didn't have the stuff to convince New Hampshire, end of story. He lost. He'll lose again. He's as flaky as Joe Biden, and Howard Dean. That's the truth of it, like it or not.

I see the value in having picked Edwards, but I think Clark would have really been a slam dunk.

His speech about the two Americas really resonated out there. If he had been against the war, he would have counter-balanced Kerry's convoluted message on Iraq.

Clark's major weakness is that he has never held elective office before. Many DUers are fond of saying that US Senators are largely unsuccessful in getting themselves elected President. One can say that it is worse for members of the House, I believe John Quincy Adams was the last House member to be elected President (Gerald Ford was elected by Congress to replace Vice-President Agnew).

Eisenhower was the last President without any prior elected office, but he was the supreme commander of allied forces in Europe during the last just war this country was ever involved in, World War II. There was never any mass opposition to that war and, America and Americans were a different country and people back then.

In fact Edwards is a far better candidate than anyone running last year in terms of charisma and speaking skills including Kerry, Clark, Bush, Cheney, or Dean.

I backed Kerry early because I liked him and thought he would make the best President but I also like Edwards a lot and think he's probably our best shot for 2008 (Edwards-Obama??), although I will back Kerry if he announces because I think he would make the best President.

Edwards is a superb debater and he kicked Dick Cheney's butt every bit as much as Kerry did to Bush.

Clarke is ok but he has that typical all business, buttoned up too tight, senior military officer personality - which is exactly what you want from a general - but doesn't work too well in a President or a Presidential candidate. Clarke seemed to lack the ability to crack a joke or laugh and that scares people, even if he is a good guy. (It's also one of Dick Cheney's worst problems..)

On the other hand, Edwards is probably the most able to take a joke and make a joke of all the candidates last year. He has a very Bill Clinton like charisma that makes him very approachable and very popular as a candidate. I don't know if it is natural, or is the product of years of trial lawyering, but he really can sell sand in the desert.

The biggest problem with 2004 was that Kerry hired Mary Beth Cahill instead of James Carville. She created this very "safe" middle of the road TV campaign that really did nothing to take it to George Bush and did nothing to fight back against the "swifties" and the Rove dirty tricks. It was all name recognition type stuff which really blended into the background noise.. "I'm John Kerry and I'm running for President" kind of stuff. That's ok in the beginning but it really wasn't enough to win.

Kerry's debate performance was magnificent and I thought in the first debate that George was either going to start crying or come across the stage and try to hit John. If we could have only had a few more debates it would have made a big difference. If the debates were real debates where the candidates could ask each other questions free style rather than these very managed, rule oriented, joint press conference style events, it would have made a much bigger difference as well.


Doug D.
Former Volunteer Kerry Staffer
Mills Ave Office,
Orlando, FL

why Wes Clark should have been Kerry's V.P. pick are the reasons why Wes Clark shold be at the top of the ticket in 2008; HE was the stronger candidate. National security will still be the issue in '08--you can be sure the Rethugs will make it so. Who better to beat down the Swifties while prompting Progressive values? Do we remember Clark's speech at the Dem. Convention wrapping himself in the flag for the Democratic Party? Or when, at a campaign rally caught by CSPAN answering a question about responding to RW smears, "I'll beat the shit out of them." Then, when a horrified press asked him if he meant to say the "S" word, he replied, as his campaign contributions skyrocked, "No I didn't mean to say that; I meant to say "I'll beat the living shit out of them." Wes Clark is the ONLY Dem. who attracts significant numbers of Republicans who would never otherwise vote for a Dem.

you outflank your opponent by matching or bettering their perceived strength.

It's a classic Clinton tactic, in fact Hillary's hawkish noises, anti-flag-burning etc are examples of this. The beauty of Clark is that he doesn't need to be a "hawk", 34 years in the military shows that he knows what he's talking about.

Whether Clark could've survived Rove's tactics of attacking an opponent's strength remains to be seen but like you said he would've definitely taken the fight to them.

Rove came mighty close with smearing GIs when he attacked Kerry's service. As I pointed out above, if he attacked a ticket with both sides of the Vietnam divide represented on one ticket, the smear would have backfired. Clark had been campaigning for Kerry before the Swiftboaters, but it was after that he began walking point. Those appearance would have been much more effective if Clark had been on the ticket.

Again, I understand why Edwards was picked although I did think at the time that the choice didn't cover Kerry's weakness which was always his activities as part of the Vietnam protest.

Currently the national polls show that the public still gives the republicans a 10% advantage over Dems in the "keeping us safe" catagories. Now look at the candidates promoted here (especially that Clinton woman) and tell me how we are planning to overcome that image? I will tell you one thing that I know is true, the Democrats will be waiting until hell freezes over before they get another 4 star to come to their side. As bowen never fails to tell us: Democrats don't like Clark. Fancy that. Wes Clark is one of the most liberal members of the party, but gawd forbid someone has risen to the top of the military charts.

I also disagree that Clark made early mistakes. Compared to whom? Everyone made mistakes and Clark is better on the stump than 90% of the so-called professional politicians. Oh that's right! Adam Nagourni, Paul Begala and James Carville dissed Clark at every opportunity. Color me "shocked"...shocked I tell you. :puke: Dissed by the DLC Hillarybots. Ain't that just a trip?

who was on the ticket don't you?

I don't know how to stress enough that everyone should read the transcript to Mark Crispin Miller's talk in Portland, OR last month. He starts out talking about the '04 election, but keep reading - he gives a most chilling description of exactly what we're up against with the regime in power.

Please read it and pass it on to everyone you can.

Thanks!

Mark Crispin Miller
On The Reality of Election Fraud,
How to Confront It and Save American Democracy
Speech at the First Unitarian Church on Nov. 13, 2005 in Portland, Oregon

http://www.oregonvrc.org/SpeakerSeries1

Mark Crispin Miller: Well, thank you very much and thanks to both groups for doing all this great work and for making enough to bring me here for a book tour.

I want to start out by telling you a story, which some of you may have heard. And in fact much of what I have to say will probably not come as news to many of you, because I know you all are very well informed about these issues. Two years ago I got myself invited to a fund raiser for John Kerry, when he was just one of many aspirants to the Democratic party nomination for president. I got myself invited by the New York treasurer of his campaign, who shared my concern about the integrity of the electoral system, precisely, or I should say primarily, because of the use of electronic touch screen machines. This had been a profound concern of mine and of certain other people, since the passage of the HAVA Act. And this limited network of people were trying to do everything they could to get this on the national agenda, so I got a little face time with the senator.

- snip -

His political action committee was meeting in New York. They were going to have a dinner, and I was allowed to come in before the dinner. And in he came, tall as ever, and I had a very different perception of him this time. (audience chuckle.) Ok, I had the book held up, you know, for all to see, and he looked very interested. And I said, “You were robbed, senator!” And he said “I know” (and held his hands up to his head like he had a headache, as Kerry would do) just like that. “I know! (Miller makes the same hand gesture.) And he started to say, "I can’t find the evidence." I can’t persuade my colleagues to take this seriously. I certainly knew what he was talking about. But I had to say, it was more than refreshing to hear him say this. I was delighted. He said he just had a big argument the week before with Christopher Dodd from Connecticut trying to tell Dodd that these voting machines are really not reliable. And Dodd just got mad. He didn’t want to hear about it. Dodd said: “We looked into this. There’s no story there!” He (Kerry) said, “Well is there evidence in your book?” I said, “Well, yeah, you know, there is really quite a lot of evidence.” I told him what the Government Accountability Office Report said, the GAO Report. People in here have heard of it. Most people in this country have not, because this ground breaking report on the flaws and dangers of touch screen voting, by a very, very establishment government body, has gone almost completely unreported in this country. In fact, Kerry had not heard about it. : “Oh really, the GAO report?”


- snip -

...This refusal to confront the implications of what is going down has to do with deeply rooted ideological assumptions that we all have. Like "it can’t happen here." That’s the very important one. Like this is "The city on the hill." This nation was claimed by God. And what has happened to other countries can’t happen here, can’t happen here. So however copious and solid the evidence you have that it has happened here, you can’t get anywhere. It’s fascinating. You’ve got a moment in which pretty much everyone now finally agrees that the Bush regime lied, or deluded itself and the rest of us, to get us into a major war that we are losing. That’s really not a good thing. And people will face that. And the press will say yes that seems to be true. You’ve got a moment at which the people will say: yes, they did deliberately conspire to out a CIA agent who was responsible for keeping us safe from weapons of mass destruction, and they did it for petty political reasons. The people struggling to deny this are having an ever harder time. We accept this. We accept that they had to know that the attack was coming on 9/11 and they, at best, did nothing about it...


- snip -

And I will add, that I would like to have as an ally in this fight any authentic conservative who believes in The Bill of Rights, way before I’ll accept the half hearted support of an Al Franken or somebody like that, or Mother Jones. The people, now this is us, not the Democratic Party, not the media, the people have got to fight back. We are at that point. And in order to do that we’ve got to make common cause with a lot of people we don’t ordinarily talk to. The Bush administration and the movement it represents is only one part of the Republican party. The Republican party is divided now. A lot of Republicans voted against Bush or just stayed home. In "Fooled Again" I gave a lot of examples. The very prominent Republicans of all kinds came out publically against Bush before the election and the press would never report on this trend, which was remarkable. But you had Bob Barr of Georgia, you can’t get much more right wing than that. You had John Eisenhower. You had General Tony McPeak of the Air Force, who was a pro-Bush military guy in 2000, now coming out for Kerry! You had Tom Clancy! You had Lee Ioacoca. You had an open letter signed by 169 tenured emeritus business professors deploring Bush’s economic policies. And the letter started at the Harvard Business School. You remember who went there? Bipartisan groups of diplomats, military men, moderate Republicans. A guy who ran a chapter of Republicans Abroad said he could not in good conscience support Bush. This guy did not really win the election, because very few people really voted for him!...

The thing is that it can happen here, and they knew it. And if we don’t reacquaint ourselves with their concerns, it will happen here, and have happened here for good. Because this is what we’re up against, ok? We are not up against conservatism. Bush is not a conservative president. Cheney is not a conservative vice president. The movement that we’re fighting is not a conservative movement. That is why it didn’t get all those Republican votes. I am not a conservative, but I respect conservatism. I see it as a coherent philosophy. I see it essentially as a philosophy that’s based on the improvement or at least the maintenance of THIS world. See. They believe in limited government, fiscal prudence, no foreign wars, all that kind of stuff. I can live with all of that. What does that have in common with this regime and its agenda? This is a guy who with all his tax cuts has spent more money than all of our other presidents combined. Did you know this? He has vastly expanded the police powers of this government, vastly expanded them. He has repealed Habeas Corpus. I mean, if on his say so, you’re a terrorist, they can come and drag you off to prison, and they don’t have to tell anybody that they did it. This is called disappearing people. This is unprecedented in our history. We don’t have freedom of assembly. We have First Amendment Zones. (Audience groan.) Freedom of Speech has been radically abridged. I mean, you know all that I am saying. Right? This is not conservatism. It is extremely radical. It’s much closer to Fascism. It has a great deal to do with the power of corporations. You can hiss all you want, and I am with you, but they are not going to listen. The fact that End Corporate Personhood is involved with this is really something that makes me very happy, because in a sense the idea that corporations should have the rights of persons, the status of persons, can be regarded, in a sense, as the worm in the apple here. I mean, things really started to go wrong in this country when corporations took on such power. Indeed as we have seen from the dangerous sway of the corporate manufacture of touch screen voting machines, corporations are reeking havoc on American Democracy, because corporations are driven by concern for only one thing, and that is their own profits. That’s money over the franchise, money over votes. This is something I think we can all agree on. We have to take a step further because there is something else at work here. It’s not just corporations. It’s not just the drive for profits. It’s not just corporate capitalism. As a matter of fact, certain large sectors of the corporate system are extremely unhappy with this president, like the insurance industry has done a big about face on global warming. Well for rational reasons. (Audience laughter.) Because they don’t want to go bankrupt!...

- snip -

...Understand that this is a theocratic movement. It is not just a bunch of corporations, that know better, slyly manipulating the pieties of the masses. That is a leftist fallacy. Because we are talking about the energetic, political participation of a number of extremely right wing billionaires with enormous clout, people like Richard Mellon Scaif, and Howard Ahmanson. These are people who are extraordinarily active and productive on the political front and they make Soros look like a piper. They spent far more money that he does. They spend it on propaganda; they spend it on political issues. Howard Ahmanson is the motive force behind the schism in the Episcopalian Church. He supports the Discovery Institute which is behind the spread of Intelligent Design. So to say there is religion over here and there are corporations over here is a mistake. It’s not that simple because there are points of convergence.

What we have here is a movement intent on turning the United States into a Christian republic...

Please read entire transcript. I'm sorry this post is so long but there is much more at the link. I just am trying to let people see how important this is.

http://www.oregonvrc.org/SpeakerSeries1

As soon as the neocons can ditch democracy they're home free. "Freedom" becomes "freedom to worship" and "spreading freedom" becomes "spreading the Word". Things like laws, the Constitution etc just get in the way of doing the Lord's work (which of course is whatever God's appointed Bush on Earth says it is).

Ya know I think if everyone was aware of this the only ones left supporting this regime would be the radical right fundamentalists. True Christians would be (and should be) up in arms over what is happening. There is a huge "silent" majority in this country and if they don't start speaking up we're in for even more horror than we've seen yet...

The talk ends with this:

...When de Tocqueville came here in the 1830’s, he remarked on the fact that this country was the most religious country on the earth and he understood that the reason is because they separated church and state. The reason is because there is no coersion here. So religion thrives. Why can’t Democrats just say that? What’s wrong with that? Is there any problem? Now the fact that they don’t seem to have any faith in our revolutionary division, they don’t seem to have any understanding of what the framers wrote, they don’t really believe in American democracy, leaves us just extremely vulnerable to a highly organized, extremist movement that is intent on undoing all that. We don’t hear about it. Right? Like this business about the Supreme Court, we hear about Alito’s style, you know his style, what kind of person he is, we parse his record. We talk about what kind of demeanor he has and what kind of suit he wears, his life experiences, and so on. Maybe if we get really bold and specific, we’ll say, "They are going to repeal Roe vs. Wade." What they don’t understand is that Roe vs. Wade is only "Step One" for these people, right? Step one!



Do you know what the Constitution Restoration Act is? A few of you do. Go home and do a little google search on it. The Constitution Restoration Act would declare that God is the sovereign basis of American Law. Do you know what that means? That means that a judge could make decisions on the basis of the Old Testament and it couldn’t be reversed. So if you want to see a vision of the possible future as these people imagine it, go home and read the book of Leviticus, and see how many things you can be executed for doing. Heresy, for example, Astrology, Pre-marital sex ... well, only the woman gets killed for pre-marital sex. This is directly and ferociously opposed to the whole American tradition. So when I said this is not a partisan issue, I really meant it. The American people don’t go for this, I promise you. A lot of Americans may have been hood-winked by Bush and so on, but understand that his strong support is now at 22% with a margin of error of 4 points. So it could be 18%. I estimate that at least Kerry won by 51 to 48%. Kerry won! And probably by more or would have, because between the votes that were thrown away, and the votes that were pre-empted, and the votes abroad, it’s a significant number.

The American, you know, people for all their, or all our shortcomings, for all the decadence that has been sponded by a consumer culture, which has had a seriously destructive effect on our ability to function in a democracy, for all that, the American people are not extremists. The American people are not theocrats. The Wall Street Journal just a few days ago ran an piece about the new phenomena of the Evangelical Churches trying to do something about global warming through their churches. So it’s time for us all to join hands with each other, all rational Americans who love our traditions got to join hands and insist on electoral reform which both parties seem not to want. Right? It’s not up to the Democrats. It is certainly not up to the media. It’s up to us. Now this is the kind of thinking we’ve become estranged from, as I say, because we’re mostly parked in front of the set, you know, with a big gulp and a bag of Doritos. And we’re thinking, "Oh gee, am I getting fat," or "Don’t I look great?" "Oh let’s watch reality TV" ...getting into so and so’s life for a minute, unreality TV, you know.

But we have to get back to that. Do you know why? Because we don’t have any choice. There’s no choice. If we don’t get electoral reform in place, if we don’t reclaim the system from the Right, this experiment is over. If this experiment is over, the world could well be over. I think we should return to the best that our framers had to offer. And consider ourselves as noble and dedicated representatives of that tradition. We have nothing to apologize for, and everything to gain. Thank you.

What he and de Tocqueville said is so true--the reason America is so religious is that there is (well, was) no coercion. Thank you for that wonderful excerpt (you always find the best stuff)!
If you haven't started a thread on it, you should!

lost the race. That just isn't the case - Edwards did a fine job. Sadly, MSM "disappeared" him early on and he was rarely covered. That wouldn't have been any different if the VP candidate had been Clark. The race was Kerry's to win or lose and once the Swifties got traction it was all down hill. Personally, I think Kerry/Edwards won anyway. King George shouldn't have been installed either time.

general". Kerry had no use for Clark after that comment made
the news.

because most Veterans were not officers and by playing it up Kerry got an advantage to use in competing with Clark for veteran voters. But Kerry always knew better than to take that seriously even if he did use it for his campaign. I saw that little video snippet live at the time when Clark and Bob Dole were both on Larry King. It was spontaneous light sparring, I forgot the lead in to the trap Dole sprung which was in essence a belittling comment comparing Clark to Kerry referencing the military. Clark started his reply with that short comment, and he was smiling when he said it. It was an off the cuff joking reply that got seized on by our "friends" the media, as if there weren't real issues for them to cover instead. Kerry of course had plenty of use for Clark after Clark dropped out of the race. Clark campaigned for Kerry extensively in the primaries and in the General Election. I doubt that comment factored into Kerry's VP choice.

IMO Kerry would have done better with Clark than Edwards.
Clark has a solid background as a military leader, while
Edwards has to live down his background as a trial lawyer
specializing in injury cases, also known as ambulance chasing.

Did you sleep through the campaign when Clark endorsed Kerry in Wisconsin? Kerry would never have been that petty or pathetic. Dole jumped on that because he knew Clark would have carried more weight with the military vote and Clark was still in the campaign.

Kerry did not make a career in the Navy - he chose not to. Kerry was running as a respected 4 term Senator. Kerry also seems far less thin skinned than that. (As he said referring to other things, he's been through worse things than that.) There are millions of stories - and Kerry has kept very quiet and said absolutely nothing about the VP selection (other than obviously about Edwards), that disappline is admirable, but leads to every one making up stories. One was that both Clinton and Kennedy told him to pick Edwards.

his most trusted spokesperson during the campaign and was with Kerry during his debates.

It's good to keep these matters straight.

Edwards oozes charming and folksy. In the spring of 2004 most people feared that Kerry was too stiff, so the answer was to pick someone young and dashing-- aka Edwards.

Ohio played a part in Edwards being on the ticket too. He was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Ohio State Dem. Dinner and blew the roof off the place. We were the swing state, and we were sold. I'm comfortable admitting that as a Kerry delegate, I was polled several time regarding who I thought should be the VP, and I said Edwards.

Clark would have been burden with the same crazy debate rules against Cheney. Personally, I think Edwards is the superior debater.

If Clark would have "beat the shit" out of the Swift Boaters, then why didn't he anyway for the good of the Party?

Edwards at least has experience in politics. Clark needs to, oh I don't know, DO SOMETHING in politics. Run for mayor, governor, Senate. Something! He has no paper trail.

Mostly I agree with those who think there is limited value in rehashing the 2004 campaign now. Right after the election was a good time for that and also closer to the 2008 will be again, but we have 2006 first. And I say that as someone who thought at the time that Kerry should have chosen Clark. He didn't and I worked to elect Kerry/Edwards instead. Since this thread isn't about 2008 I won't clutter it by arguing that Clark has nothing he needs to prove to run for President again if he wants to. And I'm not commenting on Edwards or Kerry here now either, unless a full scale debate erupts without me.

Thats one of the reasons that did the ticket in.

And that worked out so great for him!

is political. Clark coordinated country's in Europe and has a chest full of awards from leaders all around the world recognizing his abilities and leadership skills.

Edwards had one term in the Senate and spent a couple of years of that campaigning for the White House. Before that he was a extremely successful Private Practice Attorney.....No Federal Governmental experience, No military experience, we are in the middle of a war.

Edward's personality didn't overcome Kerry's stiffness.

Besides we could have run anybody and it looks like they would have lost, because NOBODY really wanted to win but Bush.

And when I say win, I mean not letting Bushco steal the election and do nothing.

I don't mean just the Kerry and Edwards, but the whole Democratic Party.

and many Democrats, preferred Edwards?

:shrug:

Kerry didn't need any help looking presidential. He looked just fine.

Looking, btw, is not as important as doing, in my book.

How would Clark have verbally beat the shit out of the swift boats when Kerry chose a different way? Wouldn't Clark have followed Kerry's lead?

I observed both Edwards and Clark in several debates in '04. I don't see where Clark outshone Edwards in any significant way. And, while he carries his own "military" presence, I found him quite weak on domestic policy.

I think second-guessing a past we can't undo is moot at this point; I believe Kerry and Edwards were defeated by election fraud, not by Cheney or the Swiftboaters. The outcome would have been the same regardless of who was on the bottom half of the ticket.

Maybe there is no dream ticket or magic bullet.

Maybe it's up to the little people...

(Just like the time when the pre-selected crowd booed Ceaucescu in Romania, the lies lost their power).

Katrina was the first chink in the armor, let's see what 2006 has in store...

Clark rarely was asked questions about Domestic issues during the debates as it turned out, but here is his stance on the issues archived. Seemed pretty strong to me. But bottom line, you are right. It was Kerry's call to make:
http://www.clark04.com/issues/

and that Edwards was the best candidate between the three.

The ticket didn't need another military guy. Kerry's military experience and wartime heroics were quite enough to cover that base.

Edwards answered the other issues like economic justice, concern for the poor and the least among us. In many ways I saw it as a sort of JFK/RFK reincarnation with Kerry channeling JFK, and Edwards channeling RFK with his concern for the poor.

Clark was an excellent general but he was not a very good candidate and it was just a personality thing - it didn't matter to the voters that he was a good guy - he was wound real tight and didn't seem to be able to make a joke or laugh. That's fine for a general but it makes voters nervous. (It's also Dick Cheney's biggest image problem - people who can't take or make a joke or laugh. I wonder if it comes from being a CEO of a big company or a general etc. as opposed to being a politician or a lawyer that results in this personality type.)

Doug De Clue

" he was wound real tight and didn't seem to be able to make a joke or laugh. That's fine for a general but it makes voters nervous. (It's also Dick Cheney's biggest image problem - people who can't take or make a joke or laugh"

He has a wonderful smile and can tell a good joke. I really take offense to have you compare him to Cheney. Now...That's a joke.
Nobody will ever be able to say you can't tell a good joke. You should run for office as according to you joke telling ability is an important skill for a president. Good Luck!

I'm not saying that he has the immoral and illegal behaviors of Dick Cheney, just that he's a little stiff and so is the Veep - much as was once said about Al Gore. You have to admit that between Clark and Edwards, Edwards is the clear personality winner.

I'm personally a Kerry man but I still thought that Edwards had the highest charisma factor even back in the primaries and I started supporting Kerry back in 2003.

Sorry you took it so personally.

Doug D.

that Clark didn't seem to be able to make a joke or laugh suggests you didn't pay very close attention. Gen Clark is more than capable of laughing and joking and he has that killer smile. Gotta love when one of the idiots on Faux makes an outrageous statement and Clark just laughs it off as the ridiculous drivel that it is before he goes on to make his point...He has a wonderful warmth and charm about him that suggests nothing of the "wound real tight" kind and was evident from the first time I saw him, for only a few seconds on a sidewalk in NYC before he was running.

and really not that big a deal. I believe that Kerry would like have made Clark SecState or SecDef had he been sworn in as President. I'm not saying Clark was a robot or anything, just that I thought that Edwards was the better candidate. I think Edwards must have been the better candidate to most Democrats because he finished second in the primaries behind Kerry and all the other candidates were trailing far in the distance.

BTW: Why does Clark dignify FakeNews with his stature by even appearing over there?

Doug D.

When asked about this recently in a meeting with bloggers, Wes Clark leaned back and with a huge smile said: I love going into the Lion's Den. Dignify? That's your assumption.

Being afraid to take them on will not win elections. Expanding the base will win elections.

I would like to see an organized boycott of Democratic and liberal figures until they start acting in a truly "fair and balanced" manner.

It has worked wonders on Bill O'Reilly's ratings and legitimacy. Nobody will go on his show because he is such an *ss.

Doug D.

They don't need Liberal Democrats participating to keep their show on the road. That is my prime difference with you. FOX doesn't tick because of the legitimacy that Democrats give it; never has and never will. All they need to do is cover Democrats on occasion and spin the coverage with just enough of a hint of objectivity and they can keep up their schtick about being "Fair and Balanced" while blasting Democrats 90% of the time. And the Democratic Party is huge. You might be able to get the left of the Party to sign on to boycotting FOX but the center never will because those Democrats count on reaching a certain number of FOX viewers to maintain their own base. And talking heads are a dime a dozen. FOX can always dig up a few who will claim to be Democrats, so they can stage their own debates anytime they want to with or without an ineffective Boycott underway. I think people who are as rabidly over the top as O'Reilly are hanging themself with their own rope. It isn't a Liberal boycott that hurts O'Reilly, it's parodies on him on the Comedy Channel and constant digs by Oberman and HIS OWN STUPIDITY encouraging terrorists to bomb San Francisco and such.

By the way Democrats may avoid appearing on O'Reilly as a guest because there are no ground rules that protect in any way how they are treated by him as guests, O'Reilly can cut them off anytime he wants without allowing them any recourse, and he can insult them to their faces. There are specific agreements worked out in advance that cover paid commentators and how they get treated by FOX people on the air. It is part of an overall deal in return for which FOX gets exclusive use of that commentator on their own shows during the contract. (exclusive use on cable news networks). It has been fun to watch some of the worst FOX jocks have to grit their teeth and extend a measure of professional courtesy to Clark.

Pew Research Center Report:

News Audiences Increasingly Politicized
Online News Audience Larger, More Diverse

Released: June 8, 2004
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215

Compare that to Rush Limbaugh's radio show:
14% of Republicans but only 3% of Democrats and 6% of Independents tune in Rush.

That shows that it is dangerous to equate FOX's audience and Rush's audience. Limbaugh is preaching overwhelmingly to his rabid choir, but the FOX viewership is much more diverse. FOX has been dangerous for Democrats to appear on, yet we ignore it at our own risk because so many swing voters watch it. Clark has been a rare blessing on FOX, a truth to power Democrat who always more than holds his own there, and usually shoves Republican shilling right down their throats. With a smile.

concern for the poor and the least among us. In many ways I saw it as a sort of JFK/RFK reincarnation with Kerry channeling JFK, and Edwards channeling RFK with his concern for the poor."

Mother of mercy... please understand I mean no offense, but that is probably the most delusional post I have ever read on DU. If you are serious and this is not a joke, I am truly speechless.

TC

get on with the business of the future.