I think Clark might be the Democratic nominee in '08

[Cascadian]

This is just a hunch, but I honestly do not think Hillary Clinton is not going to get the nomination for president. I believe the Democratic Party powers that be may be engineering Wesley Clark to run in 2008. The reason? Does America need anymore dynasties? Plus not being a Senator or Congressman, he would have an advantage. Not only that, I honestly think the Democratic Party are still going to have a centrist as the nominee. With that being said, I am certain that Clark will choose a liberal VP running mate like Boxer or Feingold. Clark or any Democratic nominee is going to have to reach out to the liberals and lefties in the party or those disillusioned progressives. Not only that, he will have to listen as well.

I am not endorsing Clark or anything, but I really think he could be the one. I guess I am also hoping on hope that Hillary will not get the nomination. She has been sounding like she's leaning too much to the right as of late. Preferably, I would rather see a hard nosed liberal as a nominee but I guess we may all have to settle for a hard-nosed centrist, a former Army man, this time around.

2008 is just around the corner and it could be anybody's race. Like I said, just a hunch!


John

[still_one]

1. i could go for clark or any candidate who did NOT

give bush the authority to go into Iraq

In fact, how can any of us support a candidate who voted to give bush the authority to go into Iraq. The first debate they would throw it right in the candidates face, by saying, you voted for it...

[Cascadian]

4. That's a good point.

Clark was never a lawmaker therefore never gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq. This makes him more of the desirable candidate. The rest of the pack can be considered "damaged goods" in supporting Bush's invasion.


John

[still_one]

8. more than that, when they were debating it

Clark said it would be a mistake to go into Iraq

[Skwmom]

34. Clark would never have given Bush a blank check to go to war. n/m

[hippywife]

50. He didn't give Bush the authority but

he sure did cheerlead the effort:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

<snip>
As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

[dogman]

52. How is this cheerleading?

snip>"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered."<snip

[hippywife]

62. The first part of that paragraph

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe.


The first paragraph of the article:

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

More...

As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn’t pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War. Relationships, institutions and issues have virtually all been mortgaged to success in changing the regime in Baghdad. And in the Islamic world the war has been seen in a far different light than in the US and Britain. Much of the world saw this as a war of aggression. They were stunned by the implacable determination to use force, as well as by the sudden and lopsided outcome.

<snip>

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.



This whole piece is nothing but a cheerleading exercise. Disgusting.

[FrenchieCat]

63. I'm sorry, but I don't read it that way...at all

Clark wrote this at a time when when Iraq had just fallen, and the Neocons and the press were gleeful. Clark wrote this article to bring the unseemingly ever incoherent cheering that the mission been accomplished back to reality.

In other words, Clark was pulling on coattails publicily. In the same article in where you chose to highlight only the front end of his backhanded compliments, he does clearly lists what would still go wrong, and points out that there was still a long way to go (which was the whole point of his article to begin with).

The last sentence of his first paragraph and the entire second paragraph and third paragraph details the problems that layed ahead and why....

Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

In the first place, the final military success needs to be assured. Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime. It may take some armed persuasion for them to lay down their arms. And finally, the Baath party and other security services remain to be identified and disarmed.

Then there’s the matter of returning order and security. The looting has to be stopped. The institutions of order have been shattered. And there are scant few American and British forces to maintain order, resolve disputes and prevent the kind of revenge killings that always mark the fall of autocratic regimes. The interim US commander must quickly deliver humanitarian relief and re-establish government for a country of 24 million people the size of California. Already, the acrimony has begun between the Iraqi exile groups, the US and Britain, and local people.

He does then go on to praise the MILITARY in what they were able to accomplish in the initial stage of the war which fell Bagdad.....but in the end, he asks the readers to understand that a MILITARY victory does not mean winning the peace. In addition, Clark reminds readers that the reasons that we went to war still had not been justified.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.

[hippywife]

67. LOL!

Nice attempt but still an apparent spin. He isn't calling it the farse that it is. He's cheering the "victory" and laying out his own battle plans. Old soldiers never die, may this one fade away and soon.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Sorry to burst your bubble....but he refuses to fade away....

as you may have noticed...although it appears that you are not thrilled about this fact.

but I have to say that your intellectually dishonest technique of utilitizing parts of an article to claim that Clark cheerleaded the war is not enough to make a winning case against the General.

Clark is on record of CHEERING THE TROOPS but not supporting the policies of this administration on Iraq for a long time now....starting before the war ever began. He is a General after all, and so he understand who starts the wars....and it isn't the soldiers. It is the elected Civilian leadership of this nation that does the warmongering.

You highlighting Clark's troop support and some backhanded compliments to Bush and Blair right after the fall of Bagdad as evidence of Clark's position is disingeneous, since you fail to highlight his warning messages to the administration found in the same place. Giving 1/2 of a story as an approach to prove a point, does not spell intellectual honesty in many books.

You see, those of us smart enough to look at the big picture as opposed to taking small segments apart and out of context to make a point....understand and have always understood Clark stance against the Iraq war.

attempting to find a way to manipulate the overall facts to suit your purpose may be an avenue, but that doesn't mean that we are here to buy what you are offering.

To illustrate my point, please see the bigger picture....and then, maybe even you will understand it.

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Or perhaps you are unfamiliar with Clark's September 26, 2002, testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail...

...in the near term, time is on our side , and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force.This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action.
(See chapter that quotes Clark titled: The Post War Planning Failure) at the link here:
http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

[Texas_Kat]

74. Your cut and paste job reminds me of the hatchet job

Kenny-boy Mehlmann of the RNC did on Clark's testimony from the (September 2002) House Armed Service Committee Hearings when he tried to warn the House away from supporting the war.

Honest discourse demands quoting in context.

Otherwise it's just an argument.

(BTW, Clark isn't going anywhere)

[dogman]

64. No that is what is called the set up.

A statement of fact and the CW of the right thrown out front. He then follows with the reality. If you read what you posted after "More...", you will see we are now isolated in the world and the likelihood that Bushco would try to follow up with more of the same. Hardly cheer leading. Disgusting yes because it was the truth about what the cost and potential future damage to this country and its place in the world. Maybe you can reread it slowly and think about what is being portrayed. It does not paint a pretty picture because ti tells what the RW sees and how they might continue down this path. This was written in a British paper, maybe they have better reading comprehension.

[hippywife]

68. Whatever helps you support him and

still sleep at night. I wasn't the only one who read this for what it is, either.

[FrenchieCat]

71. No, you are right...

You are not and have not been the only one on the left desperately looking for something...anything to knock the General with....and we have grown accustomed to that.

Being Intellectually dishonest is not a corner market only owned and held by the right. Based on your example, many more will see it, and understand that clearly.

In essence, your remarks only have helped the General...in this here thread anyways...

Maybe this was printed in the London Times for a reason. Maybe people in England have a greater understanding of the bigger picture.

See Ya! :hi:

[dogman]

72. Supporting him helps me sleep at night.

It gives me the hope that sanity and common sense might prevail. It is comforting to know that their is the possibility that we have leaders that understand what the Bush regime is doing to our country and are willing to stand up for what is right about liberal ideas. The fact that there is a lot of ignorance in this country is no surprise, that ignorance is evidenced by the fact Bushco has taken over our country. Quite possibly Paul Hackett is correct in his assessment that it is not really ignorance. Ignorance indicates a lack of education. Many of those who fail to see the truth are educated, so it is really a case of stupidity.

[FreedomAngel82]

2. Why do you think that?

Anything could happen from now until 2008. So why do you think Clark could get it? He didn't make it past the 2004 primaries. He's no Eisenhower.

[Cascadian]

6. Once again....speculation.

You have to admit that anybody who gave Bush the authorization to invade is guilty by association. Clark is no politican and therefore he could have an advantage if he decides to run. Once again, this is only my hunch. Anything can happen between now and 08.


John

[Clark2008]

10. Do you want our state to turn blue again, Freedom?

I suggest you back someone like Clark who could have a chance to turn it.

Look into his record.

Kerry could not, would not and never will turn any red state - and he was my second choice. The only reason he won this state in the primaries was media attention - and then he never came back - ever (well, he did speak to that veteran's group in Nashville, but it wasn't an open rally - he never campaigned here, honey. Why are you so behind him? Personally, he pissed me off about that.)

Clark can be an Eisenhower, if the media weren't so full of Republican shit.

BTW, do you know why Eisenhower ran? TO FUCKING SAVE NATO.

I guess that answers that.

[JDPriestly]

17. Virtually no American combat casualties in Kosovo

Likeable person

Trustworthy

Humble

Genuine

Midwest/Southern ties

A leader

Used to making decisions

[Adelante]

22. "He's no Eisenhower."

Do you get tired of saying that again and again? You'll be happy to know he says he's no Eisenhower, too. :hi:

[dogman]

53. I hope he's no Eisenhower.

I hope he stands for the liberality that has made this country great. He has a domestic agenda that sure looks good to me.

[Cha]

3. One thing jumps out right away..

Since when does "what America needs"..ever come into play?

"Does America need anymore dynasties?"

[election_2004]

5. It would be great if all this Hillary talk is an intentional distraction

But as I've said before, I'm not holding my breath.... :(

[madaboutharry]

7. I 'm not sure Clark is that much of

a centrist. To me, he sounds like he leans left. But, he has baggage from Kosovo. Whether that is fair or not, the far left has an axe to grind with him. When he was running for president, Democracy Now and The Nation really went after him.


I do think he would make a good president.

[Adelante]

20. Yes, the far left and the far right

In between, he is generally liked or well-liked. He is no centrist, you're right, but somehow he appeals to centrists as well as liberals and leftists. But, you know, the far left is never going to let up on any candidate the party might possibly nominate, not just Clark. Their axe to grind is with the Democratic Party. Witness what happened when Dean became DNC chair.

[Texas_Kat]

30. You know, that's what was so remarkable

Greens, liberals, moderates, independents and even disgruntled Republicans were all volunteers in the 04 campaign. In fact, the same coalition of the politically disgruntled were involved in drafting him to run in the first place.

I think that his appeal is his ability to explain to anyone who wants to ask a question. It's been noted by many that when he's talking to you, he's really focused on your conversation, not looking past you to the next hand to shake. I thought that might have been just my experience, but I've heard it too often not to think that's the real Clark.

Some Democracy Now guy stopped him in the middle of the street in NH to berate him about Kosovo. (I'm sure the audio is still around somewhere).

He patiently stood in the street making an effort to have a real conversation with this guy, while this guy kept pushing to make his point, . It was one of the most amazing things I'd ever seen.

[high density]

47. They didn't like him because he's a General

Democracy Now ambushed him during the primary season, and Clark spent a few minutes answering their rather hostile questions. I thought that was pretty damn awesome of Clark to stand there and do that. Then when Michael Moore endorsed him and Clark didn't run away from it, he got slimed in the media and debates with lame questions about Moore.

I'd probably have a subscription to "The Nation" by now if they hadn't been so idiotic about bashing Clark last year. Yeah, he was obviously very new to the process but I happened to greatly like the idea of somebody other than a career politician running for president (not to mention one that openly embraces liberal views.)

[dogman]

54. That's why I won't even take their free subscription.

They have their own agenda.

[PassingFair]

9. I've been told that

Edwards will be running in 08. He already has staff working towards that goal.

[Clark2008]

11. Whoopeee...

:sarcasm:

We don't need fluff.

Look at how much Paul Hackett accomplished.

I love being correct (I'm never "right," anymore. ;) )

[Adelante]

26. Yes, it looks that way

He's already running from what I read in the papers.

[Booster]

12. I would certainly vote for Clark, but then I'd vote for a ground

squirrel if it was a Dem. But, seriously, I do like and admire Wes Clark and think he would make a damn good president.

[AJH032]

13. Has Clark confirmed (or hinted at) his candidacy for '08?

or is that also just speculation at the moment?

[David Gill 2006]

15. He seems to be all over TV

and keeping himself highly visible. I would be very surprised if he stayed out of the 08 race. I would also be surprised if he didn't end up being either the nominee or the VP candidate this time around.

[election_2004]

19. Hopefully the presidency rather than V.P.

Because as much as I like Clark as a politician by himself, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a Clinton/Clark ticket.

[LandOLincoln]

16. At the moment he's concentrating on 2006, and his standard

answer to The Question is, virtually without fail, "Rule nothin' out."

[Adelante]

25. He's all about 2006

That's all he talks about. After that, he may announce, but until then, he's got only one political focus. Me, I hope he decides to run, but I guess a decision like that depends on whether he senses he has the support.

[Comicstripper]

43. He did "confirm" it...

In some speech recently, he said and I'm paraphrasing here: "Many people are wondering if I'm running in 2008. Well, I am." It was all over DU for awhile. Not an official announcement, but certainly a good sign for Clark supporters...

[David Gill 2006]

14. If the DU or DKos had their say

Clark would be a shoe in for the democratic nomination in 2008.

[nickshepDEM]

18. He doesnt have the fundraising capabilities to compete in 2008.

Too many powerhouses are running.

Bayh: In just a few short months his PAC has raised close to 2 million dollars. Not to mention he's the former chairman of the DLC

Warner: Networth of $200 million+. Tons of connections in the hi-tech industry. He's the co-founder of NexTel, afterall. Not to mention his political stock is rising, and "investors" are looking to "invest".

Clinton: Do I really have to explain?

[election_2004]

21. I disagree...

In fact, if the blogosphere and netroots support for Clark is any indication of his potential to raise money, I'd say that the candidates whom you named above better watch out as Clark becomes a powerhouse in his own right.

[nickshepDEM]

24. 2008 will be different than 2004.

No one will have the internet fundraising power that Dean had. Too many candidates have PAC's and know what it takes to raise money online.

[election_2004]

27. I disagree again

If all of the contenders race to make the Internet a major base of their fundraising operations, it will become so competitive that it will come down to who can make the most convincing case for authenticity to voters.

Clark, compared to those others, has authenticity in spades.

[nickshepDEM]

28. I guess it depends who the BIGTIME bloggers throw their weight behind...

Who will Atrios, Swing State Project, KOS, Jerome Armstrong, etc.. back? My gut says it will not be Clark.

Id still give the candidates I mentioned above a huge advantage in the fundraising department.

[election_2004]

31. Who do you think those bloggers will endorse?

I'm not familiar with all of them, but Jerome doesn't seem to have a favorite yet.

[nickshepDEM]

42. They will not be DLC, thats for sure. If I had to guess Id say...

Feingold (if he runs).

And if anyone underestimates their power... Just look what they did for Hackett in OH-2.

[1932]

29. Here's how much they're raising, spending, saving:

For comparison:

Evan Bayh's raised nearly $1.2, spent $467,445, had $1.1 million on hand at the end first half of year.

Barack Obama's raised $851,674, spent $406,564 with $445,110 cash on hand.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's PAC raised $715,851, spent $653,939 and had $145,065 cash on hand. (Separately, the New York senator raised more than $6 million between April and June for her 2006 re-election bid and had $12.6 million cash on hand.)

John Edwards raised $624,813, spent $565,724, has $59,455 cash on hand.

Clark raised $151,517, spent $292,687, and has on hand $97,095.


Republicans
- Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's PAC raised $389,519, spent $273,938 and hand $164,665 cash on hand.

- Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's PAC raised $292,857 and spent $120,428, leaving it with $366,980.

- Virigina Sen. George Allen's PAC raised $197,741 and spent $190,140. It had $218,144 cash on hand.

[kenny blankenship]

23. I dunno, Hackett was practically still dumping Iraqi sand out of his boots

and he still didn't pick up enough crossover Fascist votes to win. Don't think Clark will do better and I don't think we need two parties mixing the uniformed military with politics.
Wake up already: Kerry was a decorated Vietnam vet with Purple Hearts and everything and he still lost.

You CAN'T out-goosestep the original American Fascist Party and I'd prefer we not try it anymore.

[FrenchieCat]

32. First let me say that Clark's appeal is not what he did in Vietnam

40 years ago. Clark was a 4 star General that planned, led and won the last noble War the U.S. fought without a single U.S. Casualty. Whatever you have to say about Clark, he won....and we are talking about 5 years ago....

2nd-Let me say that it is the elected CIVILIAN officials who start the wars....not the military. Check out Eisenhower's tenure and see if he started any wars. I'm not saying he was perfect, but he did END the Korean War, not start it. Kennedy came in after Eisenhower and Vietnam began.

So when you talk about what you say.....you should check what you are saying.

McGovern endorsed Wes Clark.....not someone else during the 2004 primary. Considering his history, maybe he knew something you don't.

[sandnsea]

35. Vietnam was going on in the 50's

Eisenhower funded the French, sent military advisers and said Vietnam was a strategic ally in fighting communism. The Domino Theory.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=517

[FrenchieCat]

36. So Eisenhower started the Vietnam war?

In reading the article, it appears that Eisenhower chose to stay out and send money instead. Remember that we had just gotten out of Korea....so of course we were not totally unengaged in that part of the world.

It appears that he did send some Advisors which is where the matter rested for eight years....but the escalation and our involvement in Vietnam truly started in 1963....a full 3 years after Eisenhower had left office.

From what it says at the link you provided....

The French, trapped, were reduced to eating rats and pleaded for American air support. But despite support from Vice President Richard M. Nixon and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower was not willing to commit American air support without support from Britain, Congress, and the chiefs of staff. Following the advice of Winston Churchill, Gen. Matthew Ridgway, and Senator Lyndon Johnson, President Eisenhower decided to stay out.

and
it looks like America only financially supported the French...who were fighting there, and considering that France and America were allies, I'm not surprised.

Despite American financial support, which amounted to about three-quarters of France's war costs, 250,000 veteran French troops were unable to crush the Viet Minh. Altogether, France had 100,000 men dead, wounded, or missing trying to reestablish its colonial empire.

In 1963, South Vietnamese generals overthrew the Diem government and murdered President Diem. President Kennedy sanctioned Diem's overthrow, partly out of a fear that Diem might strike a deal to create a neutralist coalition government including Communists, as had occurred in Laos in 1962. Dean Rusk, Kennedy's Secretary of State, remarked "This kind of neutralism...is tantamount to surrender." By the spring of 1964, fewer than 150 American soldiers had died in Vietnam.

[kenny blankenship]

41. 1st of all I didn't say that was his appeal

and Kosovo? WHO CARES! Not Americans they've already forgotten. I'm not sure you can say they noticed WHILE it was going on.

Your second point is shit.

And that about wraps it up for you.

[FrenchieCat]

51. 1.4 million Muslim Albanians cared....

that's who cared.

Americans cared about the blue dress.

And?

Your point was what again? :shrug:

[dogman]

55. Hackett moved a 70-30 split to 52-48.

He migh have persuaded a few. Granted it wasn't a win, but the national split is an alledged 51-49.

[autorank]

33. I know it. Why? Because I have certain inate psychic abilities...

...well I wish I did so I could be assured that this fine individual and partiot would be our standard bearer.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[LosinIt]

37. Yes, but,.....he's way too pretty to be president

That is one gorgeous hunk of man. He puts Kennedy to shame. Vote for him, hell, I'd have his love child.

[Clark2008]

69. LOL... I'm wondering if now is the time I should post the swimsuit photo?

IM me, if you want it, dear.

[MaineDem]

38. Clark will be in Maine this weekend

He's speaking at the Democratic Party's Muskie Lobster Festival.

I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

[JNelson6563]

39. No, 2008 is NOT "just around the corner"

I think you are confusing 2008 with 2006. A lot less glamour in mid-terms but they are very important.

Julie

[Cascadian]

40. both are around the corner.

eom


John

[dogman]

56. We know that.

Go tell the media, Bayh, Edwards, Biden, McCain, Feingold, Warner, Giuliani, Pataki, Kerry, Frist, Gore, and countless others. Don't set your alarm when you go to bed it's not time to rise yet.

[ArkDem]

44. My guess is that Hillary will be able to raise enough money

to be virtually unbeatable.

[Mz Pip]

45. Unbeatable

until the General Election. IMHO she would be a disaster as our candidate.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[MaineDem]

48. As much as I admire her...

I agree with that she would be a terrible candidate.

[dogman]

58. I think she's highly intelligent.

Therefore a good chance she won't run.

[newsguyatl]

46. that's weird, i never

hear or read anything about a clark run except for du :shrug:

[dogman]

57. You should expand your horizons and read.

There's a whole world out there you might not be aware of.

[newsguyatl]

59. but i'm talking about the world of reality

[dogman]

61. When you read about it on DU, you obviously didn't follow any links.

But then you might not have had enough interest. You are in control of your reality. Go ahead keep it simple.

[LittleClarkie]

49. Who DO you like?

Not who you think will get it. In a perfect world, who would you like to see get the nom?

[Cascadian]

73. I know it's not Hillary.

Preferably, I would love to see somebody who did not nor does now support the Iraq war. I was actually would like to see Barbara Boxer as a candidate for President.


John

[chaska]

60. Why does no one, but NO ONE, in the media EVER mention Clark...

as a possible candidate?

[FrenchieCat]

65. Because then they might be helping Democrats have hope

to win with a common sense candidate. That's why.

Corporate media is not our friend. They are not here to help this nation be the best that we can be.

The fourth estate is dead.

Corporate media's job is to assist the GOP's version of "Free markets".....which helps their CEOs of the multinational companies that own them.

[Raiden]

66. Gosh, I hope so

Clark/Warner
Clark/Hackett
Clark/Feingold
Clark/Edwards



I don't care as long as I have Clark on the ticket. He is a winner IMO.