Best Presidential Candidate?

[Stop_the_War]

VOTE FOR BARBARA BOXER! :P

[Walt Starr]

1. Barbara Boxer is the only one in the group worth a damn

Obama has severely disappointed me.

[Totally Committed]

14. I disagree.

Wes Clark is the only real chance for the Democratic Party to win against the Wingnuts next time out.

Just my opinion.

But, oh, I do love Barbara Boxer! I live in Mass. and still contributed to her campaign! She is great!

TC

[Rush1184]

99. Atleast she will fight!!!

We need a canadate with balls to push the issues. Dean would be good too!

[LostInAnomie]

2. Best or Electable?

Best in my opinion is Howard Dean.

Most electable would probably be Evan Bayh.

[mermaid]

3. Big-Time Edwards Supporter Here

This was an easy choice.

[Rooktoven]

11. Ditto.

Easy for me too.

Check this link ( http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200506#1487 ) and the link inside to the sppech ( http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_flickering_light_of_america.php )

[CalebHayes]

76. Yeah.

[DaCheat]

91. Easy Pick

Edwards is great.

[SmokingJacket]

4. Ask me in two years.

I wanna see who can fight the best fight.

[mike_c]

5. please add Dennis Kucinich....

eom

[Stop_the_War]

7. okay

[mermaid]

17. He Doesn't Stand A Chance, You Know....

sorry, but he doesn't.

He will never get anyone already on the right to come back over. Dennis is WAY too left for that.

So he can't win.

[mike_c]

20. yeah, but he's the only dem on that list other than Dean and...

...Boxer that I would ever vote for, and he's much closer to my ideal candidate than either of them (although Boxer is a close second, IMO). Some of us are indeed unabashed liberals! Unfortunately, I'd already voted for Dean in this poll....

on edit-- wup, Russ Feingold has been added-- I'd vote for Feingold too. Still prefer DK, however.

[mermaid]

29. I Agree With You re: Kucinich - closer to my ideal candidate, BUT

you must admit he cannot win.

I wish we lived in a world where he could, but we don't.

[Don1]

96. Kucinich

We do live in a country where Kucinich can win.

Here are the facts from last election:
30% voted Kerry
30% voted Bush
40% voted no one.

The 40% won against either Kerry or Bush. The 40% are made up of different kinds of people, but a significant number are disgruntled, apathetic, and/or waiting for someone better to vote for. Anyone who can mobilize them can win.

Both traditional Dems and traditional Repubs cannot mobilize them. We have seen this in the past elections. Selecting a Dem candidate who is more conservative is a losing strategy, because it is not compatible with the disgruntled bloc within the 40%.

People who claim that we live in a "world" where we cannot choose a progressive candidate, have fallen prey to conservative hype in the mainstream media. Repeating this hype is ultimately both a self-fulfilling prophecy and self-defeating.

[LWolf]

98. This old primary attack just doesn't fly any more.

It was the mantra used to scare dems into a supposedly more "mainstream" choice in '04. It was deafening here at DU, and repeated often enough outside of DU to make sure that the world "knew" he was "unelectable."

So where did that get us? Since we went with the "electable" guy, we won, right? Our guy is in the WH today?

?

Dennis can win anytime enough people want him to. When you say that Dennis "can't win," I guess that means that none of the issues that are on the forefront for me can "win," either, because the rest of those candidates sure as hell don't make them a priority. So why bother at all? If Dennis can't win, neither can I. A vote for someone who doesn't support the things I support, just so I can say I "won," is not a win in my book.

I donated to Kerry after the convention, and voted for him. But if Democrats have predetermined that I won't win before I ever vote, they sure as hell won't be getting much more in the way of votes or support from me.

Thankfully, "Doesn't stand a chance," and "Can't win" are opinions, not fact. More than that, they are rhetoric used to discourage support of a great Democrat. "WAY too left" is subjective; it depends on where the individual is. I, for one, will not stand for any more calling the right "center."

I'll stand with Dennis should he choose to run again.

[eridani]

102. Hear, hear!!

Why do we keep letting the other side define "too far left?"

[LWolf]

105. Good question.

Why have we let the other side decide what is left, right, or center, and why have we let them frame every debate with their spin and their rhetoric? Why have we let them get away with Orwellian double-speak at every turn?

Why don't we just stand up right where we are, without worring about how "left" it is, and be just as vigorous in bringing the debate, in the form of all those facts they conveniently "leave behind," to them?

[Southsideirish]

6. President Al Gore.

[Stop_the_War]

8. okay

[Crunchy Frog]

9. As alway,

Wes Clark is my choice.

[pstans]

10. Where's russ

Russ Feingold should be on there.

[Stop_the_War]

13. okay, How do you pronounce "feingold" by the way?

Is it fine-gold or fayn-gold or feen-gold?

[pstans]

78. It is pronounced fine-gold

[latteromden]

12. Best CANDIDATE, Edwards. Best PRESIDENT, on the other hand...

Kerry, Feingold, Boxer (I'm SO PREDICTABLE! :P).

[thecorster]

92. Post more links about Feingold

I've read the sugarcoated bio on draftruss.com, but I'd like to know more. He seems like a pretty incredible guy.

[toymachines]

15. Bill Richardson?

i like him. he seems like a good candidate, any input?

[jen4clark]

16. Clark of course

Okay, I know this isn't related to this thread, but I thought you'd all like it:

MEDIA MONSTER KILLER
Corporate Media, Coming of the Rapture, and the Culture of Fear: Coffee Talk with Bill Moyers
by Nick Welsh

http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover953.htm

Spend five minutes on the phone with Bill Moyers, dubbed by some “the conscience” of American journalism, and it’s abundantly obvious that the man is troubled, and profoundly pissed off; though it’s doubtful someone so imbued with good Southern manners would use such talk. Now 70, Moyers has spent most of the past 55 years hunting the truth behind his craft, a working journalist tracing the twisted paths of power for both newspapers and television. Embodying that rare combination of graciousness, dignity, and passion, Moyers has been audacious enough to tell “the truth behind the news,” rather than to report the “he-said-she-said” ping-pong that often passes for news. And the truth about the news business — and democracy — as Moyers sees, could not be more grim... (cont.)

[mermaid]

18. I Just Don't TRUST Clark

and nothing could ever make me trust him. He was a life-long Republican, and, in my eyes, a leopard just does not change his spots.

[mike_c]

25. I would actively work against a Clark candidacy....

Well, I'm green anyway, so that's not too surprising, but I am VERY STRONGLY opposed to militarists in civilian government. I'll make no bones about it-- I would probably vote for a moderate republican before I'd vote for Clark. Of course, I'd more likely vote for a liberal green than either, but hell will freeze over before I'll support a general in the White House. I despise militarism almost as much as neoconservativism.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. There's a big difference

Between a militarist and someone from the military. In fact, most militarists have never served at all.

Sheesh.

[mike_c]

40. ummm, are you suggesting that someone who has spent their...

...entire career in the military, and risen to the rank of general, is not a militarist? Sorry, I don't buy that. Clark was once the top dog in the Southern Command-- the guy ultimately responsible for the SOA/WISC, for christ's sake. It doesn't get much worse than that, IMO. Well, Pol Pot, maybe.... He's not someone who was just "from the military." My uncle Jack was "from the military" in the sense that he did a stint. Clark was in a whole lot deeper than that.

[Jai4WKC08]

63. Not suggesting

That's what I'm telling you.

OED defines "militarism" as, "the belief that a country should maintain and readily use strong armed forces." (emphasis mine)

Most military people, especially the ones who have actually fought in a war or two are the LAST people who want to use armed force.

Clark's own position is that force should only be used as a last resort, and even then, never without the diplomatic and political support necessary to achieve a clearly defined end-state. He is anything but a militarist.

Now, the chickenhawks in the current administration, mostly guys who never served or, if they did, never saw combat... THOSE are militarists.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. Yes, some of the people on here who

decry "militarism" so much must really love the current administration. After all, there is probably less history military service in this entire administration than any previous one in American history.

If military service = militarism, we must have the most peace loving administration ever. :eyes:

[mike_c]

48. oh yeah, I love the current admin....

Right.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. Well, you have to admit that they have very little

in the way of military service in their records. I'm just preceding from the logic of your previous statements linking military service with militarism. It should follow from that that little to no military service would be a marker for lack of militarism, right?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[cosmokramer]

64. I have met the General...

...and had 45 minutes alone with him en route to an event. We had a long conversation that was in depth and enlightening. Wish you were there. His brain operates at about Mach 40, and his heart is solid gold.

McGovern was a militarist, you know. The most humanitarian people in my life, and in democratic government, are old soldiers. They understand the horrors and havoc of war and are far, far less inclined than a civilian to start a war.

Perhaps you should take a little time to get to know someone before you prejudge them. To blatantly say 'hell will freeze over' before you support a General is like saying hell would freeze over before you tried something new, engaged in a conversation with someone of another race, etc.

Enlightenment is the key to happiness and a wealth of knowledge, so you shouldn't pigeon hole people based on your preconceived ideas.

[ICantBelieve]

83. So then...

You wouldn't have fought in WWII?

[Totally Committed]

87. Re: "I would actively work against a Clark candidacy...."

And, people try and tell me I'm wrong when I say that this Party has a collective death-wish! This post is a microcosm one of the facets that prove my point exactly.

Do you think every Republican supports the Bush agenda? Do you think -- even for one moment -- that every Republican thinks George Bush is an even satisfactory President? I would be willing to bet with you that about 98% of these very Republicans STILL voted for him. So did Red State Democrats who couldnot vote anywhere NEAR "Green"... let alone Liberal Democrat. THAT, my friends, is why WE LOST. You can all talk up the "Voter Fraud" (yes, I believe there was voter fraud) all you want, but the other side did NOT have to steal those votes. They already had an army of voters ready, willing, and able to vote for their candidate. And The Democratic Party allowed that to happen by running the candidate they did. Sorry... but that's the way I see it.

Just as Red State Democratic and Republican poor voted against their own best interests to install Bush for a second term, only to have him then turn around and screw them and us into the ground (all over an IDEOLOGY... a PRINCIPLE), you and all your ilk -- those so lost in their "Green" principle of no military in the government are going to vote against this Party's (and the rest of America's) interest if Clark is nominated or even has the audacity to run -- hell, you say you'll even work against his candidacy, and if it is successful, you'll vote against it. WTF????????? Read his Issue statements. Read his speeches. Read his books, articles, Op-Eds. This man's social policies are as Liberal as any other candidates, and moreso than almost all! And, because he was in the military amd saw the hell of war, he is bound and determined NEVER to go to war with anyone unless it's at a last resort!

Do you think I wanted to vote for John Kerry last election? NO, I did not. I have my own personal reasons for not supporting his candidacy, even though he is one of my Senators. I was vocal about them during the primaries. In my heart and soul I KNEW he was the wrong candidate, and I resented to the nth degree being disenfranchised by the DNC's front-loaded primary season, which left me feeling like he had been forced down my throat despite the fact I knew he was all wrong as a candidate. I had no choice. But, on election day I went to the polls and I voted for Kerry. (I felt like I needed a shower after I cast that vote, too!) But, WHY??????? Why would a vote for a man who makes me sick? Because I was voting against a candidate I knew was out to ruin this country. He was out to re-write the Constitution, delete the middle class, screw the poor into the ground, and spend this country into bankruptcy. Kerry voted for the IWR, so there was no difference between him and Bush there. He voted for the Patriot Act, so there was no difference between them ther either. But, I knew that for the progressive agenda to have any chance at all to be enacted, we needed to win back The White House. I cast my vote for a man I swore I would never vote for again, against my own feelings, for the better good of the rest of America.

But, you have just proved my point that The Democrats (and the Progressives who lean left) are too wrapped up in their own lofty principles to do whatever it takes to win back any branch of this government. I used to be one of you! But, guess what? I grew up! I now see that each Party has it's own set of problems. Wes CLark gets up around the biggest one the Democratic Party has -- he is NOT a politician who owes his career to Special Interest groups -- AND -- he appeals to those Red Stater Democrats who felt they had to vote against Kerry/for Bush, given those were their only choices. The Democrats, at this point, will never win another election. I'm convinced of it. I can't believe I spent my entire lifetime to support, build, and work for this Party only to realize too late what a bunch of losers we had all become. And I mean LOSER in EVERY sense of the word!

I give up! Wes Clark is the perfect candudate for this moment in time. He has chosen to be a Democrat. He is a GIFT to this Party. A real, honest-to-God gift! And, you and those like you would work against him. And, you would vote Republican if he was the choice. You are so selfish that you would rather doom the rest of us to more time under the RW thumb than vote for this good, decent man of integrity? -- This man who would (even now when he's asked) rather use all the diplomacy in the world than ever see another minute of war on this planet?

I'm sorry, It's insane. And I resent it with every fiber of my being.

TC

[jen4clark]

28. Sorry to hear that

It's not my way to try to change someone's mind who has set in stone opinions, but I am always so surprised when people are so against General Clark.

I wasn't politically involved at all most of my life because I believed it was a pointless game that wasn't affected in a meaningful way by anything "we the people" did. When the election was stolen in 2000, I realized things had gone beyond the point of voting for "the lesser of two evils" and it was time to get involved.

I admit it was Michael Moore talking about General Clark when I saw him in fall of '03 that got me interested enough to look into Clark. I joined the Santa Cruz Meetups for Clark and for the first time in my life I found myself actually excited about supporting someone. I was registered Green, but changed to Dem to vote for clark in the primaries. The more I learned and the more I heard from him directly, the more enthusiastic a supporter I became. His stand on the issues, his way of interacting with people, his goodness as a human being - those are the things that attracted me to him.

I base my judgement on people by their actions, words and it may sound corny, but their vibe. I can't explain that one in logic - it's just a feeling and the more Clarkies I meet the more it makes sense. There's a common bond there - the feeling that we already know each other or something. Many of us are political novices who've never felt the trust and goodness we feel in General Clark. And that feeling is there between us and General Clark as well. The best I can explain it is a loving, trusting attitude.

Thanks for listening. :-)

Peace.

[CarolNYC]

41. Nice post, jen.

I was originally a Dennis supporter but, although I do still love Dennis, I have come to truly admire and support General Clark. It was hard for me to get past the General thing, I'll admit, and sometimes it still amazes me that I so strongly support a career miltary man, but I chose to learn about the man behind the labels before I made a judgement. Apparently, others don't. Too bad. :(

[Crunchy Frog]

71. I was a Clark supporter from the time he entered

the race, but he was long gone by the time the Colorado caucuses came along, so I ended up voting for Dennis and being a delegate for him all the way up to the state convention. Most of the people that I recognized from the Clark Meetups and house parties, at various convention levels, were supporting Dennis as delegates. Kind of interesting in light of the frequent accusations that we are somehow more conservative than other people here on DU.

I really enjoyed getting acquainted with the Kucinich people. Most of them were very friendly and accepting of my being a Clarkie. Far more openminded and accepting than what I frequently encounter here. Of course, there wasn't absolute purity there either. The guy who ran our Meetups confessed to having voted for Reagan in 1980. I guess that would make him a Republican too, at least according to the DU Purity Patrol.

[CarolNYC]

86. As I've said here before...

....I knew a number of Kucinich supporters who ended up working in the Clark campaign. If one actually pays attention to what the General believes and what his ideas are for the future of this country and the world, I think they would find that Clark was the most logical of all of the other candidates for Kucinich supporters to turn to if they were to turn to anyone.

Of course, I also think that there is a group of people that is afraid to read anything about the General or to get to know him in any way, for fear they'll find something to like about him. Luckily for us all, not everyone is that fearful of having their prejudices challenged.

And, again as I've noted elsewhere, those in the Clark campaign that I knew that went to functions where they interacted with supporters of other candidates found the Dennis supporters most welcoming by far of any of the other supporters. They are not all as some of the posters on here would represent them.

Dennis rules, BTW! I just don't think he could get elected President in the messed up world in which we now live. :(

[wyldwolf]

53. proof he was a life-long republican?

I'll wait.

[cosmokramer]

62. WRONG! Clark was NEVER a republican...

...never, ever, was he registered as a republican and he NEVER gave a GOP candidate ANY money whatsoever. Get the facts.

My hippie parents voted for Reagan--and they are liberals and registered democrats. Those here who insist on bashing General Clark for voting for Reagan need to get real. Reagan was no where near a neo-con like today's republican party. I didn't vote for Reagan, but I am not going to kick out of the democratic party our last best chance to finally win a friggin' damn election because the man voted for Reagan! Forcripessake, he has voted for Democrats SOLID and contributed money to democrats since 1992.

Do a little research before you start slingin' around the 'R' word.

[cosmokramer]

65. You should listen to this...

It talks about 'high horse liberals' who require Democrat from Birth bloodtesting for candidates. It is Michael Moore and what he thinks about those who will condemn based on purity. Very enlightening.


http://www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[New Earth]

19. where the fuck is Kerry?

wtf? believe it or not, yes there are people who still like him and would like him to run. sorry if that is blasphemy around here.

[Stop_the_War]

21. Sorry, but I honestly have run out of room...

I guess I can only put 10 options in the poll. And I already used up them all. And I still need that "other" option. I would put him there if there was room for more options.

[napi21]

24. Not blasphemy, but he had his chance.

I've said it before, and I continue to believe it. Most Americans don't pay a lot of attention to issues, statements, and even most of the ads. They choose a candidate because they like him.

I'm saying nobody liked Kerry, but not enough did. He's way too somber, serious, and serious.

We need a candidate who can relax in front of a mike, take off the cuff questions without getting flustered, and people can feel a closeness to. That's just not ever going to be John Kerry.

[mermaid]

31. Kerry Had His Chance - He Blew It - And We're Stucky With Chimpy

because of it.

[bearfan454]

22. Clark voted for Nixon and Reagan

You can't get any more repuke than that.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. And was endorsed by George McGovern.

I guess that must make him a Repuke too.

Well, I'm not surprised to see this automatically turning into a Clark bashing thread. That almost seems like the only point to these polls anymore.

It's very sad to see supposed liberals who are so blinded by their hatred, or so unable to see past a military uniform, that their minds just snap shut and they dismiss someone out of hand.

Oh, and by the way, Reagan was a card carrying Roosevelt Democrat. The Repukes are pretty lucky that they don't give into knee jerk characterizations the way so many Democrats seem to.

[Stop_the_War]

30. uhh, last time I checked, Reagan was listed as a Repuke....

just lettin' ya know.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. Uhh, at one time, he was a card carrying FDR

Democrat. That is a historical fact, not open to dispute. He was far more of a Democrat than Clark was ever a Republican. He didn't just vote Democratic, but was registered as one, and politically active as one.

The only point I'm trying to make, is that people can change. If the Republicans had rejected Reagan for the way he had voted in the past, they would have missed out on having him for president and everything that he did to advance the RW Republican agenda.

I think it's very sad when the Repukes are able to advance their agenda because they are displaying more tolerance and openmindedness, at least in some respects, than the Democrats seem able to do.

[CarolNYC]

37. Some Democrats..

...obviously can be every bit as intolerant and closeminded as some of the most right wing Republicans. :(

[jen4clark]

44. I love you guys

Clarkies are the best!

:hug:

[Stop_the_War]

38. Repukes are not displaying any tolerance or openmindedness..

what planet are you living on?!?!?!?

[Crunchy Frog]

42. They were when they voted for Reagan,

a former card carrying, New Deal, FDR Democrat. They were willing to overlook his political past and voted for him anyway, therefore, in some respects, displaying more tolerance and openmindedness than many Democrats do.

I'm living on Earth, where people often grow and change their perspectives over the course of their lifetimes. Why, what planet are you living on?

[cosmokramer]

66. Listen to this.

http://www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

[mermaid]

32. Not Clark Bashing

I just simply do NOT trust a man who spent his entire life supporting Repukes to suddenly be the guy who will stand up for ME and MY PEOPLE.

It is not hatred of Clark. I don't know him. what I DO know is he voted in the people who carried the oppressors in with them...and for that, I can never trust or forgive Clark.

It has NOTHING to do with his military uniform, and EVERYTHING to do with his past voting record.

[Stop_the_War]

34. exactly

[CarolNYC]

36. I suggest...

...you get to know him.

[Crunchy Frog]

39. I only wish that your way of thinking

was more common in the other party. If that were the case, Reagan would never have been elected because he would have failed the purity test.

Maybe you should get to know more about him. Also, why do you suppose that George McGovern endorsed the man who voted against him in 1972? Is he just going senile, or is he naive and got duped, or was he just carried away by all the shiny stars? Or maybe George McGovern is really a closet Repuke himself. It might be worth your while to explore that question.

[dogman]

46. He did not spend his entire life supporting repukes.

That is just a stupid uninformed statement. How do you know he ever voted repuke? Because he told us. He also voted Dem, he was non-aligned Or Independent. There is something to be said for honesty. He also had a lot of strong environmental activist support, like Gaylord Nelson, one of the founders of Earth Day. He received an Audubon Award for protecting a bird species from a construction project on an Army base. The most important thing about him is that he would stand up for YOU and YOUR PEOPLE.

[mermaid]

50. How Do YOU Know He Would Stand Up For ME And MY PEOPLE

when, first, I haven't even defined them, and secondly, when he voted for the very people who gave the career start to many of the modern-day oppressors of me and my people.

I am transgendered. Many of those that were brought up by people Clark once supported are now in the current Bush Administration. Perhaps if Clark hadn't supported them BACK THEN...we wouldn't be DEALING with them NOW!!

Sorry, Clark fails my purity test. I don't trust him.

He gave my oppressors their political careers. He made the monsters. Now I gotta deal with them. So a big NO on Wes Clark.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. How do you know that ANYONE would stand up

for you or your people? And are you suggesting that his one single vote (per election) was responsible for bringing the Republicans to power? He didn't support them any further than giving them his vote. He couldn't since military personell are not allowed to engage in partisan political activity.

Oh, by the way, the guy who led our local Kucinich meetups voted for Reagan in 1980. I guess you should be scapegoating him for your problems as well.

[dogman]

58. He supported them for what they offered at the time.

I did not support them but the majority did, not just Clark. He did not make them, he doesn't have that power. He is a social liberal, he supports people. That is why I don't need to know you or your people to know that he would stand up for you, unless you are an enemy of the US. You are entitled to say no, this is still a democracy. My fear is that it won't be for long and that is why I support Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

90. President Carter got over it.... so should you.

In a recent radio interview, Clark revealed that in addition to other lifelong Dems, President Carter also asked him to run in 2004.

[wyldwolf]

56. he didn't spend his entire life supporting repukes. Why do you say that?

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Not his "entire life" -- not even close

Good lord, Clark hasn't voted for a Repub in almost 20 years. That's longer than the period during which he did vote for Repubs.

Have you considered for a minute that you cannot know for a fact how any of the other potential candidates voted either? Clark may well be the only one of them who's honest about it. I know he's the only one who tells the truth about a lot of other things.

But hey, if that's your benchmark, it's your right. No law against stupid prejudices.

[eridani]

103. Formerly voting for Republicans I don't mind

I do mind that he is staunchly in favor of enforcing the corporate economic agenda militarily, as in bombing all the state or worker-owned factories in Yugoslavia while miraculously sparing those that were owned by foreigners.

That said, I don't know that we could ever elect someone who straightforwardly is willing to give up economic and military imperialism both. Clark at least has the advantage of knowing which military expeditures are wasteful bullshit, and he could come up with a very credible plan for an effective military.

[wyldwolf]

55. ...and Clinton X2, Gore, and Kerry

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

67. Ignorance,... not be a Democratic value

Your post feeds the prejudism that divides this nation, ...I sees it more revolting and blinding than neocons who profess seeing the Light, ....even wit'out me good eye.

En'that so you know,..me first vote for POTUS went to Reagan in '84,... me'second to Big Dawg in '92,

...so I's learned what ignorance can do.

[latteromden]

70. And Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA, but he was NOT

a Republican, a gay-hater, or anything like that. My own father voted for Bush (and Nixon, too!), and he is now a hard-core liberal Democrat, who also votes for the Green Party. I can even see REASONS to vote for Nixon or Reagan (I wouldn't, but I CAN see reasons, and not entirely illogical ones, at that), but just because Clark voted for either of them does NOT make him a Republican.

(I can't believe I'm defending Clark. I can't believe I'm defending Clark. I can't believe I'm defending Clark. Shit, I think they've won me over, shit, man.)

[Crunchy Frog]

73. Hey, don't sweat it, it's greatly appreciated.

I will happily defend Russ Feingold too. I think he's great, and he's my second choice after Clark, first if Clark ends up not running.:pals:

[Extend a Hand]

23. Another vote for Dean.

It was kind of a hard choice for me.
I think Dean is a great motivator and would be the best candidate but
I like Barbara Boxer too. She might make the better president.

It sure will be nice when we have a "real" president again

[Auntie Bush]

27. What a silly question

Clark of course! :bounce:

[VOX]

47. Man, the "Wes Wing" is out in force tonight!

I'm an Edwards booster, but don't get me wrong.

I think Wes Clark is terrific, and I would support him as a candidate in a heartbeat. :thumbsup:

[Stop_the_War]

49. Talk about it!

Wes Clark has some kind of hypnosis over DU.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. Then why put him in your poll?

Did you start this poll just so you could attack the people who voted for Clark, and start a flamewar?

I really hate these polls because every single one of them seems to end up as a Clark-bashing thread with a major flamewar. I really wonder what the purpose is for it.

[Stop_the_War]

69. Because I believe in an honest poll.

I would not exclude Clark from the poll because that would be a dishonest way of polling.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. It would be kind of polite if,

when you run one of these poll, you would refrain from participating in pile ons directed at one of the choices, or at the people voting for one of the choices.

Most of those people listed have something in their background that some will get bent out of shape over. I think when you run a poll like this, it's just common courtesy to behave respectfully towards all the people who post in it, and try to be a little impartial.

It is not nice, feeling that I'm being singled out, just because I support Clark. No other group of candidate supporters gets singled out that way, even if the candidate they support voted for Chimpy's war and have been outspoken in support of it, as several of your choices have been.

[robbedvoter]

88. But it would be nice if some respondents would be "underrepresented"?

You need to learn how to "honest poll" from Gallup if the results make you so unhappy.
Your attitude reminds me of a lesson I hope everyone takes out of this:
NO ONE STARTS A POLL JUST FOR FINDING OUT STUFF
Not even on DU.

[ruggerson]

51. Why didn't you have Mark Warner in there?

[ignatius 2]

59. I really like Wes Clark..a Rhodes scholar, an economics professor,

#1 in his class, a 4 star general and he has a teriffic smile.

He could bring in the senior vote IMHO, because he would make them feel safe. After the social security debacle, I suspect many are already wishin' they had not pulled the lever with Chimp's name beside it.

[wyldwolf]

61. Michael Moore makes fun of the high horse liberals who are anti-clark

http://www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

[OneBlueSky]

68. Robert Redford . . .

with William Cohen as his running mate . . . I'm serious . . . we need to go outside the box, and we need to get away from senators and congresscritters . . . someone well know, well respected, intelligent, informed, and compassionate who's not part of the political establishment would be my preference . . . and Redford fits the bill perfectly . . . besides, we'd nail the women's vote . . . :)

[Pilgrim4Progress]

77. OK, I "get" Redford

but William Cohen?????

[OneBlueSky]

79. need someone with impeccable credentials in defense . . .

and foreign affairs . . . Cohen is but one example . . . I'm sure there are others, e.g. Wex Clark . . . but Cohen is a Republican who served in a Democratic administration . . . gives him a certain appeal to the center, imo . . .

[Maru Kitteh]

72. ALWAYS Wesley Clark

We really blew it, not having him on the ticket somewhere IMO. I would have preferred the top end.

[CalebHayes]

75. I still like John Edwards.

[ChairOne]

80. I don't have anything against Clark personally....

... But one of the most important things about America to me is the separation *civilian* policy making and *military* policy implementation. Making generals into Presidents blurs that distinction, and therefore I wouldn't support it.

I'm also not 100% convinved that Clark is "really" a Democrat, but that's a somewhat lesser concern for me...

[Rhiannon12866]

81. I'd vote for anybody on this list, if I could be sure that they'd win

:shrug:

[Hugin]

84. So many good people to choose from...

I hardly know where to start!

[NNguyenMD]

89. Gore is a different man from the one he was 4 years ago. I say give him

another chance.

[Jai4WKC08]

93. How do you know he's different?

Sure, his rhetoric has been firey and full of red-meat when he hasn't been running for anything. That's easy. Put him back in a national campaign, especially trying to win over moderate voters against some Repub, and he might fall back into the same cautious, wooden ways of 2000.

Or not. He's got every right to give it another shot. Wouldn't be the first guy to come back from defeat, especially in a close election. Look at Nixon. (And yeah, I know the election was stolen, but it shouldn't have been close enough to steal.) If he can convince primary voters he's learned his lesson(s!), he might win the nomination. But he's got some major disadvantages to overcome.

I always liked Gore, and was voting for him as much as against Bush. But personally, I think there will be better choices in 2008. Or at least I hope so.

[UdoKier]

94. Boxer may well be the best person for the job.

But Clark is probably the best candidate.

[Sapphire Blue]

95. Boxer!

[Don1]

97. Change is Needed, Not More of the Same

Wesley Clark is just as bad as voting Republican, if not worse. I guess bombing civilians is okay with the "underground" of american democracy. You talk about the 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq, but how many were killed in former Yugoslavia? Why were we supporting the Mujahadeen and bin Laden in Yugoslavia? What was Clark's involvement?

Did you think the conservative, corporatized media is something new? No, it existed for a while. That's why most of you don't know what I am talking about. The corporate media is only obvious to you now because Bush is so bad at public relations and that media still supports him. Here is what the conservative media did while Clark was off bombing civilians and while Clinton was President:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

You want to know why most Dems in Congress refused to do anything about the Ohio elections? You want to know why they confirmed Rice? You want to know why they confirmed Gonzalez?

It's because of you. They see how you support moderate candidates, instead of progressive candidates. And when they in turn vote conservatively or moderately, you continue to fund them--blindly fund them.

[Lena inRI]

100. Clark/Boxer 2008. . .

unbeatable pair because they have already stood up for us.

I'd be ecstatically supportive of this ticket because their character and experience would make them a sure bet to win.
:kick:

[byronius]

101. I hadn't thought of that, but you're brilliant!

I was an early Clark supporter -- purely on instinct. He's got a great brain, and I think he's intellectually honest. I also thought he could win. Barbara Boxer -- just to say the name makes my eyes tear up. Never has there been a braver American. I love her.

I find myself angry with 'get over it' lefty crowd -- I think we're in the middle of an undeclared civil war, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a damned Neville. An American who could countenance Election Fraud for the sake of social stability -- what the hell?? I'll go to work for Clark/Boxer or Boxer/Clark, but I think it's too late. Time to fight.

[Bride of Cthulhu]

104. Wes Clark !!

n/t

[Don1]

106. Wesley Clark is not electable

Didn't you people learn anything from the anti-Kerry campaign?

It's very easy to dig up dirt on a guy who was in the service or well, just plain lie about him.

Clark has alleged ties to the Mujahadeen and bin Laden which the US supported in the former Yugoslavia.

He cannot win.