Is there any Democratic UNITER on the bench for 08?

[Armstead]

When I say uniter, I mean a candidate who could actually hold positions that Democrats of all stripes could enthusiastically support on a positive basis, rather than another "hold your nose at least they're not Republican" type.

Someone who is able to walk the line of being clearly and proudly liberal and progressive while also being mainstream and "electable" in a conventional sense.

On Chris Matthews today, they were talking about Hillary as being the assumed candidate for 2008. Unfortunately (from my perspective) they may be right. 2008 is still a long way off, but time flies, and there doesn't seem to be any strong challengers who would be a positive uniters.

By "better" I mean a candidate who offers a clear alternative without being another waffler that doesn't really stand for anything except kinder and gentler status quo corporate conservatism. Most of the others who have a clear interest and establishment "buzz" like Biden, Warner, Bayh are the same mold as Hillary.

There are others out there, like Clark, Edwards and Feingold, who could be a departure from that and offer a positive alternative. But Clark has not really defined himself in terms of economic and power issues, and Edwards could also go either way. In terms of positions, Feingold is closest to a real progressive, but he has so far been charismatically challenged.

Also, before anyone starts the flames about my comments regarding Hillary, I am not saying she could not be a uniter. She could be what the democratic Doctor orders. But IMO if she really wants to fill that role of a positive Uniter, she has to embrace, rather than reject, her more liberal/progressive side.

So, my question is, who do you see as potential candidates who could actually position themself as a serious candidate over the next several years who could generate positive enthusiasm from center to left?

[CarbonDate]

1. It doesn't appear so.

I would think that the DLCers would be thrilled with someone with strong national security creds like Wesley Clark, but it appears that the fact that he's a genuine progressive turns them off too much.

[CarbonDate]

3. As an additional point:

I genuinely believe that the DLCers would rather see a Republican win than see a progressive Democrat get elected, since the Republicans are closer to their own world view than progressive Democrats are.

[Armstead]

9. You may be right in a subconscious way

I will give the DLCers credit to say they don't believe they look at it that way.

But at this point, corporate conbservatism is so entrenched that even if "centrist" Democrats think they areopposed to Republicans they feel threatened by a real surge of liberalism.

[kevsand]

12. That may be true.

If so, it's ironic, because one of the big knocks against Clark among progressives was that he was allegedly a pawn of the Clintons. Anyone who's spent even five minutes studying him realizes that he could never be anyone's pawn, but when a significant chunk of DU buys into a MSM meme, it gets tough to shake.

Clark will be working to support local candidates all over the country in 2006, and hopefully along the way getting the word out on his domestic (economic and social) priorities which, as you point out, are quite progressive.

My only real concern for him is that, as is often the case, someone who inspires such fierce loyalty among supporters also seems to bring out intense vitriol from a small group of extremists. They can make a lot of noise, and the MSM will no doubt pass it on as supposedly legitimate weaknesses of Clark's.

[Armstead]

29. Fierce loyalty

>>>>My only real concern for him is that, as is often the case, someone who inspires such fierce loyalty among supporters also seems to bring out intense vitriol from a small group of extremists.<<<

What we need, IMO, is someone who can inspire fierce loyalty on a broad enough basis that they can overcome that.

That's partly what I'm wondering about with my question. Some disagreements are inevitable in politics -- especially when candidates are running against each otehr in primaries. But a good unifying candidate should be able to transcend that, and actually generate positive support from most quarters.

[jmatthan]

2. Bush?

eom

[Armstead]

4. He can't run in 08

And I'm trying to look beyond the "hold your nose" factor.

[jmatthan]

123. Jeb?

eom

[speedoo]

5. Sadly, none of the presumed "leaders" meet your criteria.

I hope there is someone that is currently below the radar, but I can't honestly think of anyone.

Hillary is frankly not electable. The rethugs will eviscerate her, simply because there are so many voters including democrats and women who simply will not accept her. She is well regarded in NY but nationally she has no shot. Progressives don't accept her IWR support and if she backs off on that the rethugs will attack her as a flip-flopper, so she can't win on that issue.

Clark, Feingold, Edwards and Dean all have a better shot than Hillary et al.

[cosmik debris]

6. Clark is flawed, but still the best bet

Hillary is dead in the water. Her pro-war position means that she cannot criticize the thugs for their war (because it is her war too) That makes her impotent on the strongest issue that we have. The next candidate that we nominate MUST BE ANTI-WAR. If the DLC doesn't like it they can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

[Kahuna]

10. I love Clark. Surely his message would be the most receptive to

the rank and file Dem voters. However, the "leaders" will continue to treat him as an outsider the same way they did in 2004. Their egos are more important than us winning.

[cosmik debris]

22. You have to have followers to be a leader.

Clark is getting grass roots support all over this country. He may not be a current leader, but he will be the next leader.(IMO)

[Kahuna]

27. I hope you are right. Clark is the president we need right

now. If Clark was the president right now, the bush gang would be cooling their heels at Gitmo.

[Totally Committed]

30. I couldn't agree more. CLARK.

he truly is the President we need now.

TC

[Kahuna]

31. The bush gang feared Clark more than any of the rest. Because they

knew that Wes KNEW what they were doing. And they knew that Wes was planning to hold them accountable. Too bad, our own "leaders" let their egos and sense of entitlement helped the GOP to bring him down.

[sandnsea]

14. No it does not

That is just the stupidest thing. It's like saying you can't criticize a bad doctor because you're pro-medicine. I wish to hell the left would stop saying this stupid shit. It's already cost us one Presidential candidate. Besides, Clark isn't for pulling out of Iraq either. He's more pro-Iraq war now than most of the Democrats out there.

[cosmik debris]

26. you can't criticize a bad doctor if you agree with his diagnosis

Hillary voted to get us into this war and she supports Bush's "stay the course" policy even though it is apparent that the course is leading us off the cliff.

[sandnsea]

49. If the doctor LIED???

:crazy: Nuttiest thing I ever heard. A doctor lies to you, so you agree to a treatment, let's say an amputation. Once you've got the amputation, you kind of have to keep going forward with treatment or you'll only make your situation worse. But you are still stuck with the underlying problems that caused you to seek out a doctor in the first place, and whatever other circumstances involved. So the questions become why'd the doctor lie and is there another doctor who can offer a better treatment or not. Screaming at the nurse is the least productive solution, yet that's exactly what the left is doing with the Democratic Party.

[cosmik debris]

68. I missed the warning sign

That said all criticism of Saint Hillary would result in Flames and ad hominem attacks. I am soooooo sorry. All praise to Saint Hillary.

I missed the press release where she said that she was sorry for falling for the lies. I missed the press release that said she thought we should change course in Iraq. My pathetic ignorance is so unworthy to be in your esteemed presence. I will now withdraw in Shame.

[sandnsea]

84. Good

Especially considering my post had nothing to do with Hillary.

[cosmik debris]

90. I criticized Hillary

you responded with "stupid", "Crazy", "idiotic" etc. You couldn't just say "I believe you are wrong", you had to go straight to the insults. Every thread criticizing Hillary ends the same way. Thanks, we need more insults in this group. They promote unity and brotherhood (SARCASM!!!)

[sandnsea]

97. "flying fuck at a rolling donut"

Mr. Peace and Harmony there, you betcha.

I don't like Hillary. I also don't like the idiotic "anti-war can't criticize the war" bullshit. It is stupid on its own and has been for the two years the anti-war left has been saying it. Has nothing to do with Hillary.

[cosmik debris]

100. So I will revise my statement

If the DLC AND SANDNSEA don't like it they can . . .

[sandnsea]

111. I don't have the equipment

sorry. :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

113. That creates an interesting philosophical paradox

How can you be one and not have one?

[LandOLincoln]

87. Sandnsea is a Kerry supporter. n/t

[sandnsea]

89. Sandnsea is a truth supporter

And there is far too little of it in the blogosphere.

[LandOLincoln]

94. Define "truth." n/t

[sandnsea]

98. Truth is based on fact

Not innuendo, suspicion, clairvoyance, emotion, gut instinct, etc. Clark supports winning/succeeding in Iraq. Fact. Therefore truth. Damned simple.

[LandOLincoln]

104. Define "winning/succeeding."

And no, I'm not being a wiseass. I'm trying to make a point--as well as pushing a thread I started here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2041910

It's time we all stopped bashing each other over perceived differences that may not, in fact, exist.

It's time we stopped letting Rovian framing divide us.

It's time WE took control of the message. The MSM will pick it up if we make it catchy and memorable enough.

Surely there are at least a few other current or former ad copywriters out there?

[sandnsea]

108. Security, Reconstruction, Elections

It's been defined, numerous times. What hasn't been defined is the difference between corporate neocon unilateralist strategies and public Democratic international strategies. Because every time someone promotes winning ideas, they get labeled Bush loving stay the course warmongers. By both the left and the media. Not to mention the DLC who can't seem to differentiate between change course and withdraw now either.

I'm on your side. But the people who respond to you aren't going to be the ones who help Rove divide us.

[Texas_Kat]

70. Who (other than Biden) has claimed

that they voted for the war because Bush lied?

[sandnsea]

85. What difference does it make?

Has nothing to do with whether you can criticize what is happening with this war. Just like criticizing a doctor's treatment has nothing to do with whether he lied or didn't lie when he prescribed the treatment. If it turns out to be bad, for whatever reason, you criticize it. Regardless of what you thought when the treatment began. This can't criticize the war because you "voted for war" is STUPID.

[Texas_Kat]

99. I didn't ask you that....

YOU said that people who voted for the war, voted that way because "the doctor lied".

So who is claiming to have voted for the war because they were lied to?

I haven't criticized anyone for anything.... If your premise is that certain people voted the way they did because they were lied to, I'd like to know if it's what THEY said themselves or if it's just you making stuff up.

So, it makes a difference.

[sandnsea]

110. No I didn't

First and foremost, because the vote and the war are not interchangeable. I said a person can criticize the war without being or having been anti-war. Just like a person doesn't have to be anti-medicine in order to criticize a doctor, particularly if a doctor lied. This whole "voted for the war" line is absolutely useless. It serves NO purpose and does not help draw attention to the failings in Iraq. People are dying while the left plays word games.

[Texas_Kat]

112. Thanks for clarifying your thought.

The failings in Iraq are so obvious that even the 3 Bush-supporting Generals on MTP today (Meigs, Downing and McCaffrey) could point them out.

I do have problems with those who voted FOR the war (but probably not for the reasons you think) but we'll leave that for a different discussion.

The question becomes "What's next?"

The right says "stay the course" the left says "get out now"

Neither is an answer that makes sense. Clark is saying "Change the course before it's too late (and it almost is)".

I don't see that as "pro-war" and don't like the false dichotomy that's being presented.

[sandnsea]

118. It is for everybody else

If succeeding or winning in Iraq is "pro-war" for Biden, Clinton, Kerry, or whoever; then it's "pro-war" for Clark too.

I disagree with the characterization myself. But when "change course before it's too late" was presented last year and the year before, those suggesting the change were labeled pro-war stay the course warmongers. And they were labeled that by some of the exact same people who are gushing all over Clark now.

Sooner or later, some people are going to have to figure out that we're stronger when we're all on the same team than when we create a heroic persona out of one person and expect him/her to slay all the evil in the world.

[FrenchieCat]

35. You must have missed MTP today....

For you to say that Clark is more pro-Iraq War than most of the Democrats out there. That is a piece of propaganda that you are not backing up. It is a flawed statement that is incorrect. But if it helps your case, so be it! :shrug:

[sandnsea]

47. Read his damned op-ed

I really don't give a shit what any of these people say on the sunday circuit and I never have. I read what they say when it counts, in congressional testimony, legislation, resolutions and written strategies. Clark insists we have to win in Iraq, that's what he just wrote a couple of days ago. If he said something different today, then he's just playing politics like the rest of the so-called "anti-war" left. The only case it helps is yours, if pretending Clark is anti-war is still your game.

[FrenchieCat]

50. You may have read the op-ed....

But obviously you missed the implications and meaning of it....

In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right.....

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.


The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Dicussion on Clark's op-Ed piece for those who couldn't figure it out, or didn't want to...although it is clear to many....

Digby at Hullabaloo August 26, 2005
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_08_21_digbysblog_archive.html

Mark A.R. Kleiman 8/26/05
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2005/08/clark_on_iraq_win_or_get_out.php

Mazer Rackam on Dilatory Action 8/26/05
http://dilatoryaction.blogspot.com/2005/08/workable-plan-for-iraq.html

Scott Shields on MyDD 8/26/05
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/26/143249/029#readmore

Armando on Daily Kos 8/26/05
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/26/53325/3578

DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x150454
WaPo: Before It's Too Late in Iraq-Wes Clark

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2036988
Wes Clark "Before It's Too Late in Iraq"

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[FrenchieCat]

60. Clark sucking idiots ?

What are you? A Kerry sucking idiot?

I mean really....is there a debate to be had, or calling Clark supporters idiots your final answer?

[cosmik debris]

75. You missed the sign too

see post 68, withdraw in shame.

[FrenchieCat]

81. I'm confused temporarily.....

Are you talking to me?

What did I miss?

I ready post 68, and I think it was a fine post.

[cosmik debris]

92. Sorry I was trying to make a joke. I failed, I apologize.

[sandnsea]

91. Clark supports winning in Iraq

There is really no debate about it. He wrote the words. I don't know of another word for somebody who ignores Clark's own words and paints him as "anti-war", when they turn around and paint others who say THE EXACT SAME THING as "pro-war". YES it's idiotic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. Clark is a consistent spokesperson

for not predominantly viewing the world through military colored glasses. That comes through very clearly in his Washington Post Op-Ed piece. Clark believes that more problems are created than solved when we lead with our military. I think that is at the root of why so many are confused by Clark and end up coming up with strained labels for him like "Anti-War General". When Clark says that War should only be used as a last resort, he damn well means it, and that is not true of Bush and many other civilians who favor a "robust foreign policy". That includes some Democrats. So no, I do not include Clark among those who one might call war mongering. Yes, Clark does think the world would be better served if a success strategy was put in place for Iraq now rather than simply an immediate unilateral U.S. military withdrawal, though he foresees that time is running out for one, after which withdrawal would be preferable to a continuing failed mission.

[sandnsea]

88. I agree with you

I have very few problems with Clark or anything he has to say. I have a HUGE problem with his supporters who focus on the wrong words which ends up meaning his important words never get repeated. The important words being the right strategy for Iraq, which people like Clark & Kerry have been pushing for three years now.

[LandOLincoln]

74. I'm sorry you're so bitter, but I'm also damned sick

of people slinging around words and phrases like "win in Iraq" and "anti-war" without defining what they mean by those terms.

I'm pretty certain that Wes Clark's definition of a "win" in Iraq is not the same as yours. I wonder, however, how much it differs from, say, John Kerry's?

Finally, I just started a thread on this forum, calling for a time out from all the infighting while we define our terms and come up with some catchphrases of our own to replace Karl's.

Please, everybody, mosey on over there and pitch in. It's the thread that starts with "Hey, DU..."

[sandnsea]

96. I'm tired of it too

We've wasted 3 years with this bullshit. Withdraw NOW means withdraw NOW. Anybody who doesn't really support that should stop saying they do. That includes Kucinich and Woolsey and Hackett, etc. If they change their position, they should clearly say so and NEVER go back to "timeframes" and "benchmarks". NOW means NOW. If you don't mean it, don't say it. Same goes for anti-Iraq war. If Biden and Clark support the same policy, you can't call one a warmonger and the other anti-war.

And John Kerry's view on Iraq has been identical to Clark's from day one. If you read ALL Clark's testimony to Congress and ALL of what he has said since then.

[Clark2008]

121. Clark was not and is not pro-Iraqi war?

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

I mean, you must be to think that.

[Kahuna]

7. Hillary is probably the closest. Our party suffers from ego and

one upmanship. Take the likes of Lieberman, Biden and former Senator, Torricelli. The reason that the Sunday TV pundits have them on is because they KNOW they will undercut any kind of cohesive message from our side. They are our worst enemies. I suspect that they dare NOT, openly undercut Hillary.

While I don't like or trust Biden, I do understand why he was p'oed by Gary Hart's accusation. Hart was undercutting our so called leaders with his broad brush. If Hart has some criticism, it would be better to tell his fellow dems face to face, or pick up the telephone, rather than writing an op-ed.

[sandnsea]

11. Hart is campaigning for Feingold

That's all. I just wish he'd save the bashing for the primaries.

[Kahuna]

15. Ahhh. Very interesting.

Thanks for the clarification.

[OzarkDem]

25. I wish he'd run himself

He's not bashing, he's showing leadership.

[LandOLincoln]

106. I wish he save the bashing, period.

And I wonder if he's campaigning for Feingold, or himself.

In any case, I find his grandstanding appalling. Once again:

"The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats!"

[Kahuna]

117. Amen!!!

"The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats!"

[Armstead]

34. I think Hart was absolutely right to go public

The question of support for Iraq is not some behind-the-doors political question. Hart was not criticizing the Dems for campaign strategy like putting too much money into State A vs. State B.

This is a matter of major public policy.

[welshTerrier2]

45. i strongly agree

to say Hart shouldn't speak out publically is absurd ...

how much longer does the Party think it can keep the majority of us silent? the storm is coming and the "we can't leave until" Dems better get the hell out of the way ...

verbal criticism from those in their own party will be the least of their problems if they continue to support more occupation in Iraq ...

[Kahuna]

119. Surely Hart knows that the repukes will denounce the Dems from

the rooftops citing Hart's own words. Hart's words will be used against us in 2006. I don't approve of that.

[sandnsea]

8. Charismatically challenged?

Feingold? Where do people GET THIS CRAP. :eyes: Bush is the most annoying male I've ever seen in politics, and yet we let the media run with the likeable guy bullshit. Will we ever ever ever learn to do the same goddamned thing. Argh!

Hillary will lose. Dems need women and too many women know she chose politics over her own self-respect when she stayed married to Bill. The message she sent to young women, and even young men, is just reprehensible. It won't be an out loud kind of thing, but she's got huge hurdles to overcome in order to win the presidency. She'd only have a chance if the right puts up somebody like Frist, Jeb or Allen. I'd be back to campaigning for the Supreme Court, if there's even a Supreme Court to save by then.

[Armstead]

16. Feingold is great but...

he doen't projuect the qualities that a presidential candidate needs into today's media world.

It's not just true in a negative sense. Feingold seems close to what Wellstone was, in terms of positions. But Wellstone was able to convey a passion about his positions that Feingold has so far not been able to.

That's not to say he can't grow into it. Part of my question was based on realizing that there is time for candidates to grow into Presidential Timber.

[Kahuna]

19. Feingold will be labeled, "Anti-War." The Dems have foolishly

allowed the repukes to continue to label us as "anti-war," when they should be correcting them every time and saying, we're "anti-Iraq invasion."

[Armstead]

23. But he's being smart about it

His proposal for a set of goals and timetable could be the right position at the right time, in a political sense. It's a chance to deal with the realty without getting stuck in a quagmire.

[Kahuna]

28. Nope. The reality is the bush gang doesn't want to leave. The reality is

the bush gang has yet to level with us about the goals of the occupation. Setting a timeline is useless until we deal with the real reasons we are there in the first place. Until Feingold, Biden, Hillary or whomever has the stones to tell it like it is, talk of withdrawal is useless. Until the people realize that the administration is dragging their feet because they don't really want to leave we are stuck there until the bush gang is out of office.

[Armstead]

38. Fieingold has started that

The reality is that we're in a mess that there will be no good way out of. But we do have to find the least bad way to do it, without further undermining the position of the US.

Feingold has put that on the mainstream table by forcing Bush's hand. Forcing the political establishment to actually start to deal with the questions of why we arethere, and what conditions we have to mee to get out without doing worse damage to the US in the process.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Feingold's proposal is a mirage.....with no plan attached to it....

My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain. And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders. And, of course, any timeframe has to be flexible -- there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it's hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn't linked to some timeframes. That is what the Administration needs to share.
snip
Mr. President, it is also clear that we must not accept a false choice between supporting the status quo in Iraq and "cutting and running." The status quo -- staying a rudderless course without a clear destination -- would be a mistake. The course we are on is not leading to strength. In fact, Mr. President, I am concerned that it is making America weaker and our enemies stronger. --Russ Feingold
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/07/Iraqstatement.htm

"Intense American diplomatic and political engagement in and support for Iraq will likely last long after the troops' mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that we will continue some important degree of military and security cooperation with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world to combat terrorist networks, whether they are operating in Iraq or Afghanistan or England," said Feingold.

"But it's almost as if talking about completing the mission in Iraq has become 'taboo,'" said Feingold. "It's time for senators and Members of Congress, especially those from my own party, to be less timid whilethis Administration neglects urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq.http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/08/iraqwithdraw.html

"We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we're not afraid to disagree," Feingold said.

He said he believes that an immediate withdrawal does not make military sense but that the public needs reassurance that the Iraq operation is moving purposefully toward completion. "We need to talk in Congress about this more openly and freely," Feingold said. "There's a rudderless quality that is making people nervous."
(Emphasis added)
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5579747.html

Helen Thomas....."Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis. is proposing a total pullout of American troops by Dec. 31, 2006. Why wait a year?"
source: http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

Actually that's a year and a half, but who's counting?

So Fiengold's plan is no plan at all, but rather a demand for the administration to come up with a plan. His pull out date demand is not to be defined as an "immediate pull out"....as we must imagine how many deaths can occur in Iraq in the next 16-18 months...considering what has happened in the last 2.5 years.

Please know that I like what Fiengold did in holding Bush accountable for providing congress with a plan, and letting him know that if Bush continues with his failed "non-Plan", then a pull out is in order (which is the same thing that Clark did in his OP-ed in the WAPO on Friday). I just don't want Feingold's actions to be characterized as something other than what they were.

[Armstead]

39. I think I agree with you

He is trying to jump start a real discussion that goes beyond eitehr of the simplistic polarities of "Get out today" and "stay the course (forever)".

As I said above, we're in a bad situation and have to figure out the least-damaging way to extricate ourselves. Feingold is trying to push that necessary debate forward in more concrete terms.

[Kahuna]

62. But you can't be coy like that in today's enviornment it doesn't work.

The media always sides with the repubs. You have to call a spade a spade and stop pussy-footing around. We have to start to really demand to know what the goal in Iraq is and what it will take to obtain that goal. The administration has said that "freedom" is the goal. The dems have to call them out on that. As it is apparently NOT the real goal.

[sandnsea]

51. The left wants to be anti-war

Don't kid yourself. There are plenty on the left who opposed Afghanistan too.

[Kahuna]

61. I know that very well. It's up to our "leaders" to make the distinction..

I've heard them say over and over that Dems supported Afghanistan. True for the most part. But Americans seem to be mostly very simple minded. Inthat unless you say specifically, No, we are not "anti-war," we are "anti-Iraq war," when the repukes continue to define us as "anti any and all wars, (read: anti national security) it will stick.

How much more do the repukes have to do before the dems catch on to their tactics? The repukes have been very successful as defining us as anti national security because save for General Clark and Howard Dean, the others just don't get it.

[sandnsea]

86. Clark & Dean support winning in Iraq

You cannot promote "anti Iraq war" with people who turn around and say we need to win or succeed in Iraq. It makes no sense. It serves no purpose. We need to be against the Bush Doctrine, we need to show that the Iraq War proves the failure of ideas such as the Bush Doctrine, we need to push an Iraq Sovreignty strategy, and we need to refocus on smart foreign policy and defense. Continuing to argue about for or against the Iraq War just obscures the important issues and lets Bush and the Republicans off the hook, again and again and again.

[LandOLincoln]

93. Look, we need to define our terms and come up

with catchphrases of our own to replace "anti-war," "pro-war," "stay the course," "cut and run," etc. etc.

Otherwise we're going to keep beating each other up over differences that may not, in fact, exist between us.

Come on over and play in the wordpile:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2041910&mesg_id=2041910

[safi0]

41. What are you

Talking about? Feingold conveys a lot of passion about his positions. Us Wisconsinites know that your criticisms of Russ like charismatically challenged don't hold any water.

[Armstead]

53. Presidential charisma

Don't get upset. Personally, I hope Feingold runs.

I am simply saying that on the national stage he has not yet demonstrated the larger-than-life charisma necessary for a winning presidential candidate.

Maybe he has it and simply needs to show it more. Or maybe he can develop it through the stature of being a serious presidential candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I think that Feingold has "fine" charisma.....and that this will

be the least of his problems.

The fact that he is a twice divorced single Jewish Senator who never found a defense bill that he liked or voted for will be his bigger problem on the national stage in a General election. He even voted with the Republicans against the actions in Kosovo, the last "Just War" fought according to the Late Pope John Paul.

Barbara Boxer understood Kosovo and why intervention was needed. Feingold didn't...although at the time of the vote on Kosovo, 200,000 had already perished in Bosnia and 10,000 had been murdered in Kosovo and rising. In the end, the approx 500 Civilian casualties that resulted from our involvement pales compared to the thousands more that were saved.

"My last point has to do with Milosevic. You said you can't compare the two dictators. You know, you're right; no two tyrants are alike. But the fact is Milosevic started wars that killed 200,000 in Bosnia, 10,000 in Kosovo and thousands in Croatia, and he was nabbed and he's out without an American dying for it. That's the facts. Now I suppose we could have gone in there and people could have killed to get him. The fact is not one person wants either of those two to see the light of day, again. And in one case we did it without Americans dying. In the other case, we did it with Americans dying. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say, "No, he's the bottom of the barrel." And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it. So if we do get a little testy on the point, and I admit to be so, it's because it continues day in and day out, and 25 percent of the dead are from California.
We cannot forget. We cannot forget that. Thank you. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rtex.h ...

So Feingold's distastes for military defense bills and actions will be used against him non-stop. He will be portrayed as weak on defense, and it will be a label that will not be dispelled so easily.

He may have the charisma to wage an effective primary battle in the land of Democrats.....but the General Election is the one that we must win. I have my doubts that Feingold can do this.

[ruggerson]

13. Brian Schweitzer is a possibility

See here and help us start a group to track him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2039686

[Armstead]

54. Thanks

That's partially what I was looking for. Are there dark horses out there beyond the realm of usual suspects?

Don't know enough about him to venture an opoinion at this point. But I'll keep an eye out on him.

[ruggerson]

56. Check this out:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2240

[stray cat]

17. Feingold is a progressive who appeals to independents

[Kahuna]

20. He does? How do you know he appeals to independents..

Any polls to back this up?

[safi0]

46. Working for his 04 Campaign

He definetely has a lot of appeal to Independents and some Republicans. I can't count how many people I would ask who they were voting for Kerry or Bush, would say Bush and go into this tirade about how bad Kerry was, and would then proceed to tell us they were voting for Feingold. Feingold got 56% in a state Kerry carried by a few thousand.

[sandnsea]

52. That's typical local politics

I got that with DeFazio too, who is more liberal than Feingold. I think he won with over 60% here in an Oregon district that's about 50% red. Local candidates can create any picture of the Democratic Party they want, and run away from the national party. I'm not saying Russ did that, I really don't know. But I know alot of local candidates did, particularly in the midwest and south. That's how they win. As long as we don't connect the dots between people like DeFazio, Schweitzer and Feingold, we'll never win nationally.

[safi0]

95. Feingold didn't run

Away from the national party. He ran on his record. He ran on his lone vote against the Patriot Act, he ran on his vote against the IWR, he ran on his vote against NCLB, he ran on McCain-Feingold.

[sandnsea]

122. Let's look at his campaign

1. Supports guaranteed health coverage. Kerry didn't even go that far and was beat up with "government health care". Guaranteed health coverage is not the national party platform for that reason.

2. Canadian drugs and negotiating drug prices. Same as Kerry.

3. Against all trade agreements, not the party platform.

4. Didn't criticize the Iraq war or need to go to war, rather called it a "costly distraction". That was hardly anybody's platform, maybe Bob Graham's.

5. Patriot Act needs to be fixed, same position as Kerry. Not exactly being against the Patriot Act and a fine walk with some Dems in the midwest and south who had to support it to win.

6. Against unfunded mandates and removal of local control on NCLB. Again, not exactly the national platform. Created his own. (And created the right one, I might add)

7. Campaign finance. Kerry's bill with Wellstone went further, but McCain-Feingold was a good start. He should have ran on it, good for him.

8. Completely avoided guns, which most local candidates do including my very very liberal DeFazio. Kerry, otoh, has seen the suffering from inner city gun violence. Can't blame him for his position on guns either.

http://www.russfeingold.org/Feingold_vs_Michels.php

I'm not saying there was anything wrong with Feingold's campaign. I like Feingold, ALOT. I'm just saying alot of these liberal local candidates win because they don't get hammered with issues the way national candidates do. They don't have to take a stand on absolutely everything, the way a national candidate does. They don't have to worry about liberals in Berkeley and moderates in St. Louis. Feingold would have had just as hard a time in the south as anybody else because the prejudice against "liberals" is engrained. He might be able to do better in places like Iowa and Montana though. I'd be excited to campaign for Feingold. I'm just saying we can't take local numbers and extrapolate them, Kerry had good local numbers in his last senate race too.

[Kahuna]

120. Local does not translate into national.

nt

[Emendator]

18. Go with a governor. Go with Rendell.

The PA legislative pay raise anger will have died down by then. He's a popular guy with a good personality. He comes across well and has had pretty good crossover appeal. And he still does Eagles Post Game. :)

[ruggerson]

21. Here's a recent piece on Schweitzer

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2240


<snip>

He drove across the state, meeting people in rural areas and asking what they needed from government. Those discussions resulted in an agenda that included healthcare reform, economic development and a new approach to higher education with an increased emphasis on community colleges and technical schools. Schweitzer then took his new issue agenda and crossed the state again, giving speeches that never fell into wonk speak. Instead, Schweitzer ran on values, delivering a talk about his family homesteading in Montana, building a church and a community with their friends and neighbors. He talked about being a Bobcat (a graduate of Montana State). He talked about talking to people.

He continued fundraising at a fast clip, raising more than any other candidate for governor in Montana’s history, despite refusing PAC money—another decision he credited to talking to people. He toured the state to find a lieutenant governor. In the process, he talked to dozens of Montanans, people who rarely get one-on-one time with a major candidate for governor. Most of them, he says, told him that they did not want to be lieutenant governor, they simply wanted to talk to someone who could change things.

Ultimately, Schweitzer’s real choice for lieutenant governor made waves. When he tapped State Senator John Bohlinger, a Republican, the state GOP lashed out while Democrats around the state scratched their heads. Bohlinger is a progressively-minded Republican, a rare breed in national politics. In his hometown of Billings, Bohlinger was well known for his truly compassionate conservatism—delivering passionate speeches against the death penalty, hate crimes and sex trafficking. And while the decision raised hackles among some party stalwarts, the bipartisan ticket told many Montanans that this was a campaign uninterested in partisanship.

The Montana Kaimin, a daily college paper, editorialized that Schweitzer’s decision “shook up Montana’s all too partisan political infrastructure” and Chuck Johnson, the dean of Montana political journalism, referred to a TV ad emphasizing the bipartisan ticket as the most effective of the campaign year.

<snip>

[OzarkDem]

24. Don't care about 2008, only 2005

The Dem who wins in 2008 will be the one who shows true leadership today. No talk, just action.

I guess by those standards it would have to be Conyers & Boxer.

[Armstead]

32. Don't care about 2008 yet, but we have to or we'll get stuck again

I agree with you that what is most important is what people are doing now.

But time flies, and if we're not careful 2008 will be another Hobson's Choice for Democrats

[OzarkDem]

57. If things don't improve in the problems facing the US today

you can forget 2008.

Focusing on 2008 now only fosters the bad idea of trying to "position oneself on the issues at hand" instead of trying to solve them.

I'd say anyone who is focusing on running 2008 should roll up their sleeves and get to work - together - with other Dems - as a team - and solve problems facing us today.

Any real action that a potential Dem takes today to get something done will probably be the deciding factor in who wins in 2008. Standards for judging candidates will change and problem solving experience will count more than ephemeral positions on issues.

IMHO, in 2008 when deciding who to support, voters will be looking at the record of accomplishments and leadership shown today. If things haven't improved by 2008, Dems will be looking for new leaders to represent them in the WH, not those who sat and did nothing.

There's tremendous risk for any candidate who does nothing but reiterate his campaign platform while voters in his/her party lose their loved ones in war,lose their jobs, lose their schools, lose their health care coverage, go bankrupt, watch inflation and high energy costs eat up their paychecks.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I'm sorry Armstead.....

but this comment in your OP--"But Clark has not really defined himself in terms of economic and power issues"...where do you get that from, really? :shrug:

Did you follow the '04 primaries, and what Clark was proposing then?

To say that Clark did not "define" himself, although he proposed much is somewhat telling of how much you have researched into the General. Maybe the media didn't much cover his positions, but his positions were defined, nevertheless.

Wesley Clark dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination this week, and before he fades from our view it would be useful to take a good look at just what he brought to the race.

There were those who, concerned more with party credentials than the public interest, challenged Clark's right to run as a Democrat. At candidate debates he was asked to justify his recent decision to be a party member. But what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that. Where other candidates tinkered with tax "reform" (every screwing of the public in the last 40 years has been done in the name of tax reform) he proposed a bold stroke to "restore progressivity to the tax system." A family of four with an income of up to $50,000 a year would have been exempted from the income tax altogether. A single parent with one child making up to $28,000 a year would also have been exempted (with a sliding scale to cover other circumstances).

The revenue lost would have been recovered by reversing the trend of cutting taxes paid by the rich. Clark would have increased taxes on the one percent of taxpayers at the top.

This was, indeed, a restoration.
Snip
The tax code is shot through with these kinds of loopholes, thanks to the Democratic Party, which in the war on the poor has gone over to the other side, rejecting the view that money made by money should be taxed at the same rate as money made by workers.

Remember that this fall when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents.
(Myers is a veteran capital reporter. His column, "Against the Grain," appears here on Wednesdays.)
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html

The 4 star general with an Oxford Masters in Economics defined himself by proposing the following:

Some of his economic plans.....
http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/
http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/
http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicvision/
http://www.clark04.com/issues/jobcreation/
http://www.clark04.com/issues/americanjobs/
http://www.clark04.com/issues/manufacturing/
http://www.clark04.com/issues/cities/
http://www.clark04.com/issues/poverty/

Some of his enviromental plans....
can be found at http://www.clark04.com/issues/

He was endorsed by the founder of Earth Day who recently passed away....and after retirement founded a company that refined and marketed electric engines for bicycles, etc....
http://greenspeed.us/wesley_clark.htm

Clark has also said that he would trim the pork off of the Pentagon budget...where is all of our money goes (400,000 Billion per year) and those funds could be used to support a lot of programs that we, Democrats, will need to institute to reverse the Bush legacy. Where are other Democrats gonna get the money to fund their promises? Can you say, raise taxes? This government is broke...so the money ain't there to just "fund" those great programs that Democrats will be promising.

What other Democrat OR Republican has said that they would straighten out the Pentagon budget and make it lean and mean? None.

Look, The other Democrats will have to prove that they are strong on defense....so the Pentagon is "off limits" to them. And I mean the whole lot of them....Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Fiengold, etc, etc, etc....

Wes Clark is really the only Democrat that could do what needs to be done; bring us forward into the 21st century the way that we had originally envisioned it during the millinium.

[Armstead]

36. I followed him in the races.

I'm talking about public perceptions and his own public message.

I'm NOT saying Clark CAN'T be that uniting candidate. He may be exactly what the Democrats need. He has some impressive ideas.

But politically it's not a clearly defined position in the public mind. That's something he has to do if he does run for 08.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Well, I agree that Wes Clark must get into the economic aspects

of what will be the upcoming issues, including immigration.....

and that he must find a platform to do this.

He is an expert in National Security and Foreign Policy, but certainly he knows as much, if not more than some of the Attorneys turned politicians that will be running on economics as well. At least he understands that our Foreign policies have a direct impact on our domestic policies. When 300 billion dollars is missing from the treasury, because it went to fight an elective war that we are currently losing......it's clear why we are "BROKE".

The question should be asked of the Corporate media instead....will they allow Clark to articulate any message that he has on the economy to the general public....now or at anytime?
And in truth, that will be Clark's greatest challenge.

But I do believe that he is working on finding paths other than via the Controlling and manipulating corporate media.

[Armstead]

55. All Democrats should challenge the corporate media

A big part of the problem is the Political Media Complex, in which a small number of elite politicians and "opinion makers" tell everyone what they should think about candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

65. But when they do, they get "shut out".....

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
Democratic Presidential Candidate Also Criticizes Entertainment Industry
January 05, 2004
http://www.newmediamusings.com/blog/2004/01/wesley_clark_sl.html
http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=39479


Couple of examples of the media "doing it's job"....

By the way, this is a wonderful article by David Podvin on Election manipulation by the media.

The presence of General Clark on the Democratic ticket would jeopardize Bush’s political survival. Clark has already proven to be a credible authority on defense matters who is extremely persuasive in placing the blame for the events of September 11, 2001 directly where it belongs – on the commander-in-chief. As Washington political analyst Charlie Cook said just after Clark announced his candidacy, "For the White House, it is particularly important that Clark's credibility be impeached as soon as possible." In order to ensure that Bush maintains the ability to continue to transfer public wealth to the communications industry, America’s corporate media has recently begun the essential task at hand: the destruction of Wesley Clark.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore are men of substance whom the mainstream media could not subdue by reporting facts, so the men were slimed beyond recognition using rumor, innuendo, and outright lies. Clark’s impressive personal and professional background has also left America’s journalists without the necessary ammunition to damage him by telling the truth. That has not proven to be a deterrent. Clark announced his presidential candidacy less than two months ago, but the negative storyline is already forming and will soon dominate the coverage.
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/031112_AComfortingMyth.htm

and here's another....on the deconstruction of Dean....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2040213

[Armstead]

72. Democrats have to stand up to the Media

The Big media owe their existance to regulations that can -- and should -- make them accountable to the public interest.

There aremany ways to break their stranglehold, from FCC regulations to anti-trust to public pressure for responsibility and to promote more diversity of ownership and control.

However, that can only happen if Democrats (and Republicans) and the public at large stop pretending the Big Media hold their power by Divine Right.

Politicians who take the lead on that (outside of the partisan framework) can prove that the Media does not havre to be the sole gatekeepers to democracy.

[FrenchieCat]

76. I agree....

that really leaves us and some strong Democrats, that we back, speaking out about the media.

[Catchawave]

42. Edwards

See my sig line :) Also, http://www.oneamericacommittee.org/

[FrenchieCat]

48. What is Edwards' stance on the War as it stands now....

and what is his plan for ending Iraq, and dealing with the War on Terror?

Can he project the strength that this country will need to see to have the confidence that he can lead us back to where we need to be?

How will he do that?

Will he talk about making the pentagon mean and lean so that he can have money to fund his anti-"poverty" programs, or will he raise taxes to do it?

Please broaden your reasons why Edwards is "the one" in 2008. What does he bring to the table in real terms?

[Catchawave]

63. That's why I provided his link.....

perhaps you can ask him?

I like the fact he's working to get minimum wage initiatives on the state ballots for 2006 right now (info on his link). Sorry, we're too busy to worry about 2008 right now :pals:

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/minimumwage/

[FrenchieCat]

64. I'm sorry, but if Edwards doesn't have a stance that you can

put up right here......which is what 2006 will be all about (cause 2006 ain't gonna be about Poverty), then why did you make a comment in this thread of "Edwards in 2008"?

[Catchawave]

66. 2006/min wage initiatives bring out the voters?

Like Gay Marriage initiatives brought out the voters in 2004 :shrug:

So far, it's the only reason why most of the 79 million apatheic voters might turn out 2006 and vote for Dems that I can think of right now. Obviously the war wasn't that important in 2004?

Domestic issues are important too. By the way, who do you support in 2008?

[FrenchieCat]

71. But, but, but....

"Gay Marriage initiatives brought out the voters in 2004" ....was the all time propaganda line used by the Corporate media in response to why Bush "won" the election. It was proven later that it wasn't.

Democrats lost on National Security and defective voting machines, has as been documented.

Foreign policy issues affect Domestic issues, if you haven't noticed.

When 300 billion is spent on an elective war, that doesn't leave money for much else.

So yeah.....Domestic issues are important...not just "talking" them either, but also doing something about them.....and having the funds to actually make them happen (that's the most important one IMO).

So what's Edwards Iraq plan again?

[Catchawave]

73. Don't be so negative :sigh:

All I know is what John and Elizabeth are doing today, not in 3 years, with hopes our country is still intact by then :)

[FrenchieCat]

77. Asking a Democrat for a plan on the subject that is ....

the most volatile and the worst strategic blunder ever made which was built on a pack of lies and has drained our treasuy of 300 billion and has killed thousands is "negative" now?

Bush might think that, but Democrats certainly should not.

Iraq will be an issue for 2006.....

So I beg your pardon if you say that Edwards is the one for 2008; that 2006 is more important; and that domestic issues are what's really key.

I just think that you've got the analysis totally wrong.

If that's negative, again...pardon me.

[Catchawave]

78. Apology accepted :) ~n/t

[FrenchieCat]

80. So why your negativity over on this thread.....

about Clark's appearance today?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=2041847&mesg_id=2041951

[Catchawave]

83. Nothing about Clark here, just bumbling "retired" generals

:popcorn:

What worries you so about any of them? That was my opinion, nothing more, nothing less :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

102. So Clark was not included in your remarks of

"bumbling Generals" although he was a general at the table? You mean, when you said "ALL bumbling Generals", you meant all except Clark. If that's what you meant, then your post is not clear at all...considering that Catchawave is not known to have much nice to say about Clark OR his supporters, last I checked...

[sellitman]

43. Conyers & Boxer...or .....Boxer & Conyers.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[JohnnyBoots]

44. Clark/ Fiengold or Hackett in '08

[AntiCoup2K4]

69. Clark/Hackett? Oh yeah, that'll work....

2 guys on the ticket with the combined elected experience of...

Absolute ZERO.

Yeah, that ticket is guaranteed to win :eyes:

Hackett could have a great future in politics, but he's gonna start a little smaller. Meanie Jeanie's gotta run again next year like everyone else. With a full campaign season, he could probably take that seat in 2006.

As far as 2008... I swore I'd stay out of this shit, but some just don't get it.

Senators and congressmen will NOT get elected President. Whether they're as good as Feingold or Boxer or as awful as Biden or Hillary is beside the point. It simply isn't going to happen. Someone might beat those odds one day, but I'm not going through 4 more years of Armegeddon and financial HELL to gamble on that.

Isn't there a governor out there who's not a DLC corporatist hack?

Barring that, I still think Gore/Clark or Gore/Feingold is the way to go.

[Skwmom]

109. Yeah voters love to vote for politicians.

They've done a heck of a job of running this country into the ground.

[BlueStater]

67. My Personal Prediction

Clark/Warner vs. Allen/Frist

Clark's anti-war message should strike a cord with the Democrats and will be especially relevant three years from now. Warner as his running mate is just a guess on my part.

Frist will be seen as having too much baggage so the Pubs will go with the less controversial Allen. However, Dr. Catvorikian would then get the VP nod.

Of course, it's just a prediction and is completely meaningless until the time actually comes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

82. We'd win in that scenario.

But not because of my vote.

[liberalitch]

101. M. Warner & W. Clark ticket

[FrenchieCat]

103. Well at least

if its a Clark/Warner ticket, it may make some sense.

Clark as Commander in Chief (something he has already experienced)...while Warner has no Foreign policy/National Security creds....

And Warner as the president of the Senate....since he has legislative experience.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

105. Killbotfactory?

:shrug:

[salin]

114. *snicker*

all things relative :shrug: ?

[Armstead]

115. huh?

[TheDonkey]

107. No, there will always be people who don't like the candidate.

Biden, Warner, Bayh, Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Fiengold etc are all different and will have different supporters and critics.

[demzilla]

116. Al Gore

Formerly of the DLC, robbed of victory in 2000, effective and impassioned speaker against the war, supporter of Howard Dean, shares the luster of the Clinton years, which are looking better and better all the time. And Gore is the man with an environmental record in an age when global warming and peak oil are becoming real issues. Plus I think he is more of a populist at heart than most of the centrists he used to hang out with. As time has gone on he has leaned ever leftward but still has credibility with the moderates.

[CWebster]

124. Can't really see how Hillary can be any kind of uniter

being as polarizing as she is.

She will NEVER get my vote and at least I could bring myself to vote for Kerry---and Gore before him.


Never.

Why is Feingold "charismatically challenged"? He is hunky-dory---emphasis on the hunky part. ;-)

[Armstead]

125. Maybe Russ is the type who grows on you

He just seems so reasonable and low key as a person -- good qualities in real life, but not what excites the electorate in a presidential contest.

But his approach to issues does seem to indicate an ability to be clearly progressive in a mainstream way.

Being a male, I have no opinion on his hunkiness. :)

[CWebster]

126. He is pretty hunky for a politician

Usually not where the hunky pickings are plentiful. Though, Edwards is kinda cute in prepubescent heart-throb kind of way. Should he hit his stride, he might actually be a serious contender because at least he has a few assets to offset his disadvantages. The guy has some capacity to grow. At least I could bring myself to vote for him - despite his pop starish looks.

[second edition]

127. No one mentioned is a true uniter. I still go with Kerry!

He appeals to more people than just those on this forum.

[CWebster]

128. Not enough, apparently to win

ABB was the uniting force but kerry was a compromised candidate-incapable or unwilling to spearhead the opposition--only to soften the status quo.

Truth be told, Kerry's candidacy was pathetic--he couln't even confront the realities head on. This strong on national defense act is as much bs as the justification for invading Iraq. In the face of a shameful and meaningless disaster of a war--an open wound, more rathcheting up of the war drums makes some politicians appear as out-of-touch idiots.