Poll: Clinton leads '08 Democratic pack, Kerry slips (CNN)

[oberliner]

1. Clinton 33%
2. Obama 15%
3. Edwards 14%
4. Gore 14%
5. Kerry 7%
6. Clark 4%
7. Biden 3%
8. Richardson 3%
9. Bayh 2%
10. Vilsack 1%


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/2008.poll/index.html?section=cnn_latest

(CNN) -- Recently re-elected Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is twice as popular as her nearest Democratic rivals in the 2008 presidential race, according to a new CNN poll.

Clinton was favored by 33 percent of people asked who they were "most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008."

The poll, conducted by telephone Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corp., interviewed 530 registered voters who described themselves as Democrats or independents who lean to the Democratic Party. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

Clinton was ranked first among 10 potential Democratic candidates

[William769]

1. This poll will change, as much as I change my underwear

between now & the 2008 Primaries. Also people will be added & dropped.

[Clarkie1]

15. How often do you change....oh, never mind. nt

[Ninja Jordan]

32. So it won't change then? (nm)

[wisteria]

2. Thanks for the information, but right now, polls reflect nothing but

media hype and positive press. These number will change.

[Lena inRI]

13. "So the last will be first, and the first will be last" . . .

yeah. . .I want to hear all these people

debate the issues to expose the POSEURS puffed up by exorbitant advertising fanaticism. . .

the imagmakers are having an early feeding frenzy off these foolish polls. . .like sharks circling a prey.



:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Dancing_Dave]

3. She'll still never get elected.

This is all name recognition, and to some extent nostalgia for her husbands presidency. That's not enough to get elected in the end.

Barbra Boxer is one woman who might actually have a chance.

[jgraz]

83. Too bad Boxer can't run

Ahhhnuld would appoint a Rethug in her place

[usregimechange]

4. That is who the media has picked at this point.

[msongs]

5. is this a poll of republicans? nt

[wisteria]

7. Supossedly some democrats and Independants that "lean" democrat.

It doesn't give a percentage breakdown. My gut tells me this poll reflects more Independants and those independants don't really lean to Democratic.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

6. Except Gore, they all supported the war

and are only now doing an about-face

I give Clark credit, for figuring out much sooner

But still, anyone who supported the abomination of operation enduring occupation should not be considered as a dem nominee for even a second
Who the hell are these 'Hillary for president' people?

[politicasista]

9. That comment only let's Bush off the hook n/t

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

11. how-so?

i think it makes them bush enablers
they're bad-he's worse

i've never bought the 'we didnt know he was really going to invade' cop-out of kerry.

when he voted for the war, he knew damn-well what it was. to belive it is to become a party-line apologist.

i remember the night of that vote, byrd's eloquent speech-the frustration we felt at being ignored by the party.

i spent a day in dc protesting with 500,000 just a week before

we all knew war was coming. if we could figure it out, the dems knew, too. but they were more interested in covering their political asses-except for the real leaders like wellstone, byrd and feingold who voted to do the right thing

[politicasista]

12. By saying that they supported the war

It's not 2002. It's 2006. Iraq is a civil war. Troops continuing to die for a lie were started by ONE man, not Democrats. Continuing to blame democrats for the war and blame them for the IWR only let's Bush off the hook, when he would have invaded Iraq without a vote.

You can continue to lash out at dems all you want. It won't bring the troops home any faster if we continue to play the blame game.

I prefer to hold Bush accountable instead of letting him get away with his lies. I prefer to support candidates that have called for withdrawal and are containing to speak out while favorite candidates remain silent. I prefer to support people/candidates that are trying to get us out of this fucking quagmire.

Has your candidate called for withdrawal? Has your candidate signed on to the Downing Street Memo?


This is Bush's illegal and immoral war period.

[Clarkie1]

16. Clark never supported the war either before the invasion or after. nt

[BluegrassDem]

33. Clark said he would've voted for the war

Then he flip-flopped and tried to explain his way out of that statement. Obama, on the other hand, has never wavered and is the only candidate that was never wishy-washy and confused about his position. He was against the war from the get-go...as Gore was as well.

Gore and Obama are the only ones that have clear positions on the war.

[Jai4WKC08]

48. Not that same old bullshit again

Clark testified unequivocably against the war before both the House and Senate Armed Services committees. He wrote volumes against the war before that. Then, in one single interview, almost a year later, a right-wing hack reporter from the NYT quotes him saying he would "probably have voted for it." The IT was the proposal where the President would have to come back to Congress, but that doesn't make it into the article. Clark goes on to say that the IWR was a blank check that should never have been passed, but of course that's not news and doesn't make it into the headlines either.

And then so-called liberals (like Lieberman, fwiw) repeat over and over again what they know to be untrue, to justify some other point or objective they're trying to make.

[jonnyblitz]

79. here is an old washington post article that says he would

have voted for it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32450-2003Sep18?language=printer

[Jai4WKC08]

84. That's the WaPo version of the same interview

Note that it also quotes Clark as saying, "...I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited." Now, why do you think the original reporter asked nothing to resolve such an obvious contradiction? I suspect because there never really was one.

The fact is, back in Sept/Oct 2002, there was NO question within the foreign policy community as to where Clark stood on invading Iraq. He was criticized widely for it by the neo-cons, and several of the senators who voted against the IWR have credited Clark as the reason they did. One mis-spoken or mis-quoted sentence a year later doesn't change anything.

[ultraist]

146. Right, Clark said he would have voted for the war

And...he praised Bush about the war, right after it began.

[Tom Rinaldo]

151. For an extensive discussion of Clark's Iraq position

I urge people to check out this kos Diary, which provides a full overview and links to a dozen or more transcripts.

Wes Clark and Iraq:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Obama was against the war from the start as well - nt

[AtomicKitten]

30. *

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_iraq_debate/index.html

[Tellurian]

82. Lota BS passing for gospel..

This adenoid character is a new operative. Similar to the Mark Twain character that showed up smearing Murtha for Pelosi's appointment. How they've gotten to 1000 posts remains a mystery. I'm putting them on ignore because we've got bigger fish to fry than small time instigators (turkeys)..

You know what we do with turkeys don't you?

We roast em, then eat them!

Happy day to you!

[Clark2008]

117. Clark was never "for" the war - he testified against going in

in September 2003.

[politicasista]

8. I will wait until the primary debates, then decide

CNN has nothing else to talk about on November 20, 2006, so it's meaningless.

[LittleClarkie]

10. I wish these would wait until folks actually announce they're running

Ya know?

[Clarkie1]

14. Glad to see they included the #6 dark horse. nt

[FrenchieCat]

17. Yeah....the one that doesn't appear each and every sunday

everywhere and still manages to poll relatively decently considering the lack of endless free publicity and/or book tours and hour long programs devoted to him and how great he would be. You mean that Dark horse? :)

[FrenchieCat]

18. Also means that 67% don't want Hillary!

That's a majority, looks like!

[mtnsnake]

26. and 93% don't want Kerry

I guess it's not too hard to figure why, either, considering his pathetic showing as a campaigner in 2004.

[wisteria]

72. Ah, I wouldn't read to much into this. it is based on 580 respondents.

Not exactly a large cross section of America and frankly, with all the negative press Kerry has gotten and all the fluff pieces done on Hillary and Obama, it is no wonder the poll comes out as it does.
I see an awful lot of Kerry stickers new and old on cars in my area to believe these negatives.

[wanpete]

19. These polls are silly. And for what it's worth, I do not support Clinton as the

dem nominee for prez in '08. Why is it that the corporate media seems to salivate over having Hillary be the nominee?

[Cascadian]

21. Hillary will not get the nomination.

At least I hope not. This would be political suicide if she did get this. She is too pro-war as far as I am concerned. I am very sure Hillary would support an Iran invasion or attack.


John

[Hieronymus]

22. I just hope Kerry doesn't get involved ..

he's cost us too much already.:eyes:

[blm]

24. Untrue. The DNC run by Clinton's people cost us in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Kerry has done MORE positive for this country and its historic record than any lawmaker of the last 35 years.

Clinton cost the Democratic party PLENTY - He closed the books on Bush1 and covered up his crimes of office - and Bush2 needs Hillary in office to do the same for him.

[mtnsnake]

27. Only Limbaugh could give you competition in the blame Clintons for everything

under the sun. Geeesh.

[wyldwolf]

39. Ludicrous, unproven "progressive" bullshit

[blm]

40. Clinton admits it in his book - read it. And when did Robert Parry become ludicrous?

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[wyldwolf]

41. Clinton DID NOT admit "his people" cost us in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

And to say he admitted as such in his book is beyond dishonest.

I've read the book. I had sneak peaks of the chapters as it was written. I've listened to the audio. Such a claim is not there.

[blm]

43. The targetted state strategy was from Clinton's people and DID cause the collapse

of party infrastructures in too many states. That's why the STATE and county chairs in red and swing states are pleased with the new DNC leadership's strategy.

Why on earth would that not be evident to everyone by now?

[AtomicKitten]

44. *

Why on earth would that not be evident to everyone by now?

Because they are not blinded by blaming everyone except Kerry?

[blm]

45. So, go BACK to targetted state strategy and dump 50 state strategy because

McAuliffe's DNC and its collapsed infrastructure in so many states was NEVER a significant factor to 2000, 2002, and 2004 - in fact, it was only Kerry who lost everything for the Democrats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[AtomicKitten]

47. *

I do believe that kind of absolutism and linear thinking actually dents one's medulla oblongata.

[blm]

50. According to you DNC did great, only Kerry failed in 2004. The left media really

matched the RW media, too. Too bad Kerry failed all his matchups with the brilliant Bush who ran the greatest campaign. Bush ran the DNC and all the RW media, too.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

54. Sen. Kerry, Ma'am, Failed In 2004

That you may find this an uncomfortable statement does not change the matter. That Sen. Kerry failed in 2004 is a statement of fact. He was not brought down by "other Democrats": he proved to be a vey poor campaigner, with no sense of timing. That disappointed a great many people, myself included. He is not going to be even a serious contender for the nomination in 2008, let alone the nominee of the Party.

[ProSense]

55. "he proved to be a vey poor campaigner, with no sense of timing."

I would say that's not a fact:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2784794&mesg_id=2784794

[The Magistrate]

56. He Did Not Hit When He Should Have, Ma'am

Or hit hard enough or often enough when he did hit. It is unfortunate, because he would certainly have made an excellent President. But he clearly lacks the skills required to reach the office in the present state of political life.

[ProSense]

57. And who do you believe has the skills? n/t

[The Magistrate]

60. Hard To Say, Ma'am

A Presidential campaign is different from just about any other campaign, and it is not easy to predict how people will perform at something they have not done before.

[wisteria]

75. Well, he has learned much from that campaign. n/t

[blm]

108. Baloney - the research forum shows he DID hit - Maybe Gov. McGreavy's problem

was getting a little too much airtime during the exact same time period that Kerry needed a media that REFUSED to pay attention.

Of course, no one would never expect that the media had any bias against Kerry, whatsoever, since no other Democrat but Kerry has that problem, eh?

Or is it that no other Democrat but Kerry wanted the FCC ruling overturned in June 2003?

And do you think the GOP would have IMPEACHED the great political fighter, Clinton, if the media hadn't pushed for it? The post 96 media is not the same animal as the 1992 media - the 1992 media was the last one to give any Democratic leader an even break.

I also don't expect any GOP corrupted media to give a real anti-corruption, open government Democrat a fair shake - however, I do see that the coverup Democrats will be given greater leeway for the next 16 months.

[The Magistrate]

112. Phantom Blows, Ma'am

This kind of re-write gains no ground whatever. Sen. Kerry did not do enough: had he done enough, he would have succeeded in shaping the debate to his favor. He needed to make himself and his counter-attack the news, and failed to do so.

The Republicans resolved on impeachment of President Clinton as a goal within weeks of the election of their Congress, and would have pressed on to it regardless of media coverage. That the media does love a good scrap, and adores a sexual scandal, certainly worked to their favor. But the episode actually points to the limits of manipulative ability enjoyed by the other side. For all the coverage, all the blovinating and cheerleading, the people remained solidly opposed to impeachemnet of President Clinton, and never wavered in their opposition to this, and in their attachment to him as President, throughout that period. Indeed, the Republicans lost seats in the Congress in the '98 election, something practically unheard of in the lore of late mid-term elections for the party that does not hold the White House.

[blm]

113. Not the point - Clinton WAS impeached - he shouldn't have been but could not

stop the GOP or the media that was pushing for it.

Just like he was completely helpless when he was accused of trashing the White House which drove his personal numbers down along with the pardons story which he was also having trouble controlling.

Phantom blows - a one hour speech to the Firefighters Convention would have been covered completely by any network as a matter of course - the fact that NONE even reported from the speech let alone aired it as it happened on Aug 19, 2004, shows a definite collusion to make sure Kerry's remarks attacking the swifts and Bush went uncovered.

You want to blame Kerry for decisions made in newsroom production offices - I suppose if Kerry had done something MORE than attack swifts and Bush pointblank over the lies, only then it would have earned reporting in your eyes?

Guess we don't need MediaMatters or an investigation into the corporate involvement of the newsmedia since it's just Kerry's poor performance that keeps newsmedia from doing its job.

[The Magistrate]

116. Certainly It Is The Point, Ma'am

The Republicans were resolved to impeach, and had the votes to secure the Articles, though not a conviction. They calculated that doing so would work to their immediate political advantage, and in fact it did not. Media coverage of the matter had nothing to do with the course they took, or the result of their actions.

The phrase "a one hour speech to the Firefighters Convention" is a pretty good illustration of the problem here: that is hardly a punchy headline, after all. Sen. Kerry needed to make his counter-attacks news: he failed to do so. The things he said were not sufficiently striking to command wide attention. It was necessary to convey hot-blooded outrage, real personal "I'll tear his fucking arm off and beat him to death with it!" anger, and this was not done.

[blm]

120. And the media would've reported that action, HOW?

Oh - the same way they reported on Clinton's few counterattacks as intemperate and self-centered? Kerry would have been labeled worse than a nutcase if he had done what YOU now claim to be the most effective counter.

BTW - I never recall Clinton making THAT extreme of a remark in his own defense - if you can remind me, and then maybe I can better compare the toughness of Clinton's counterattacks with those made by Kerry.

And - did you ever even READ that speech from then? It WAS very tough without going to your preferred extreme. The media SHOULD have covered it - I believe they were TOLD not to - so even if Kerry burned Bush in effigy I doubt the speech would have been aired.

[The Magistrate]

122. If He Had Burned An Effigy, Ma'am, It Certainly Would Have Been Covered

And the image would have conveyed much more to the audience for the coverage than any words of the commentators on it.

The point remains that Sen. Kerry did not counter-attack at a level of ferocity that would make his actions news. He and his handlers mis-judged what response was necessary, and he, and the country, paid a bad price for that.

[blm]

125. And please name all the fierce counterattacks Clinton did in his defense, that way

maybe I can see exactly how fierce you deem necessary.

Evidently, attacking the swifts in front a Firefighters Convention would only be news if it were any other Dem nominee, eh? Especially POST 9-11, it should have BEEN news that Firefighters endorsed Kerry and gave gim the PLATFORM for that speech, and then when you add Kerry's attack on both the swifts and BushInc for the lies about him and his service, well - according to you - the only reason it wasn't covered was because Kerry didn't make any news and only he is to blame, as usual.

Except here's a portion of that speech from the research forum - and I have never heard anything tougher from other Dem pols in defense of themselves over lies against them.

>>>>
On Aug. 19, 2004 Kerry himself responded directly in a speech to the International Association of Firefighters' Convention in Boston. (from prepared remarks)
...And more than thirty years ago, I learned an important lesson—when you're under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attacker. That's what I intend to do today.

Over the last week or so, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been attacking me. Of course, this group isn’t interested in the truth – and they're not telling the truth. They didn't even exist until I won the nomination for president.

But here's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they’re up to tells you everything you need to know—he wants them to do his dirty work.

Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a wound in Vietnam.

As firefighters you risk your lives everyday. You know what it’s like to see the truth in the moment. You're proud of what you’ve done—and so am I.

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

[The Magistrate]

126. President Clinton Won His Fight, Ma'am

He retained office, and the affection of the people: clearly he handled himself correctly in the affair.

Sen. Kerry lost his fight, and therefore to claim he handled himself correctly during it is nonesense.

[blm]

128. Clinton had a Dem party structure fighting for him - Kerry had a Clinton supporting Bush

publically for four years on every crucial policy decision, and also was saddled with a weakass DNC that refused to secure the election priocess and counter the RNCs attacks on Democratic voters for four years.

And STILL Kerry got 60-65 million votes. The DNC lost Kerry's fight. The DNC and Dem party PROTECTED Clinton at every turn necessary.

[The Magistrate]

130. So What We Come Down To, Ma'am

Is that you are claiming President Clinton is an ally of Bush and actively worked for the defeat of Sen. Kerry?

"The mind wobbles...."

[blm]

132. Fact - Clinton publically supported Bush's policy decisions throughout his 1st term

No one could possibly believe that to have been helpful for the Dem nominee, no matter who it was.

And the neglect of the party infrastructure that you claim to be innocent, is to many a matter of suspicion in the sense that the DNC expected to lose after 9-11, and so did not pay attention to the infrastructure problems or bother to secure the election process.

Clinton was a lucky guy in 1992 to have a Dem congress and Senate that pummelled Bush1 throughout his 4yr term, especially with the investigations doggedly pursued by John Kerry. Kerry was unlucky to have a congress that never held any investigations of Bush2 throughout his term, and also unlucky to have the last Democratic president publically SUPPORTIVE of Bush2 throughout that term.

Intentional or otherwise - how did it all turnout? That none of this raises an eyebrow for you, well, that's YOUR loyalty to a politician - my loyalty s with the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[The Magistrate]

133. You Are Going To Have To Go Into More Detail, Ma'am

In the wake of the September attacks, the political class showed something of a united front, which is only to be expected. Former Presidents traditionally do not make much disparragement of their successors in public.

It is true enough people who expect to lose often do, being sapped by their expectation, but again, this is a matter of poor judgement. The question which interests me is why you are so insistent on viewing it as a matter of malice....

[blm]

134. Because after reading Clinton's book I have many questions regarding his loyalty

to the Democratic party and to the constitution.

Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!
By Robert Parry
(First Posted May 11, 2006)

Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.

Instead, in another accommodating gesture, Clinton gave the CIA director’s job to right-wing Democrat, James Woolsey, who had close ties to the Reagan-Bush administration and especially to its neoconservatives.

One senior Democrat told me Clinton picked Woolsey as a reward to the neocon-leaning editors of the New Republic for backing Clinton in Election 1992.

“I told that the New Republic hadn’t brought them enough votes to win a single precinct,” the senior Democrat said. “But they kept saying that they owed this to the editors of the New Republic.”

During his tenure at the CIA, Woolsey did next to nothing to address the CIA’s “politicization” issue, intelligence analysts said. Woolsey also never gained Clinton’s confidence and – after several CIA scandals – was out of the job by January 1995.

At the time of that White House chat with Stuart Sender, Clinton thought that his see-no-evil approach toward the Reagan-Bush era would give him an edge in fulfilling his campaign promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the economy.

He was taking on other major domestic challenges, too, like cutting the federal deficit and pushing a national health insurance plan developed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

So for Clinton, learning the truth about controversial deals between the Reagan-Bush crowd and the autocratic governments of Iraq and Iran just wasn’t on the White House radar screen. Clinton also wanted to grant President George H.W. Bush a gracious exit.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided,” Clinton explained in his 2004 memoir, My Life. “President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the (Iran-Contra) matter between him and his conscience.”

Unexpected Results

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.

Yet, Clinton – and now some pro-Iraq War Democrats – view truth as an expendable trade-off when measured against political tactics or government policies. In reality, accurate information about important events is the lifeblood of democracy.

Though sometimes the truth can hurt, Clinton and the Democrats should understand that covering up the truth can hurt even more. As Clinton’s folly with the Reagan-Bush scandals should have taught, the Democrats may hurt themselves worst of all when helping the Republicans cover up the truth.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

[The Magistrate]

137. This Again, Ma'am?

How many times have you put this wheeze up in the last week or two? It proves nothing, and simply states that the course adopted was not the one the author would have preferred. Unfortunate for the pride of the author, perhaps, but of no signifigance otherwise.

Nor is this, it must be pointed out, an excerpt from any book by President Clinton. You have stated on the basis of reading that that you "have many questions regarding his loyalty to the Democratic party and to the constitution." You are going to have to be a great deal more specific, Ma'am, and on your own account, too, if you wish anyone to take that with a straight face. There do not seem to me any grounds on which to question the loyalty of President Clinton either to the Democratic Party or to the Constitution of the United States.

[blm]

138. I trust Parry's account. Of course I'd LOVE to hear how you or Clinton explain why

the outstanding matters left to pursue in IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate were downplayed, and why the CIA drugrunning that was revealed in 1995 was also downplayed.

Downplayed? Heck, Magistrate, Bill didn't even put one MENTION of BCCI in his book - some policy wonk, eh? And let's not pretend it didn't matter - in late 1992 the outstanding questions on BCCI were part of the report, and Kerry stated they were serious and needed further investigation. Clinton's administration would have had to handle it, as Poppy would not even be expected to cooperate at the end of his term.

I am surprised that you believe Parry is not truthful - I would expect that line of diversion from the establishment wing of the party. I am saddened, actually.

>>>>>>>>

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:

1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.

2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.

3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.

4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al- Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.

5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.

6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.

7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British
investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.

8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including
the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.

9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich
remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.

10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political
figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.

11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.

12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.

13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.

14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.

15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.

16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.

17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.

18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.

19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.

20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.

[The Magistrate]

140. Mr. Parry's Trustworthyness Is Not At Issue, Ma'am

He has in this intance reported things that people told him, most of them un-named. Probably he reports what he heard accurately, though he has certainly left himself some room for ornamentation. There is no easy way to assess whether what people told him is true, or even whether they were in a position actually to know the things they claimed to. None of this affects the basic point, which is simply that someone's choosing a course of action different than that Mr. Parry, or you, would have preferred is hardly sufficient grounds to denonce someone as a traitor to the Party and the Constitution.

Why you attach great signifigance to President Clinton making no mention of the Bank of Commerce and Credit International in his memoir escapes me. It was hardly his investigation, after all, and he was not writing a history of the U.S. or the world in the last quarter of the twentieth century.

The questions posed by the sub-committee are interesting, and were interesting at the time. Their answers are in many cases open secrets. The bank was a criminal organization, led by promotors skilled at purchasing cover and influential front men. They made themselves useful to a great many people, and in addition to their own criminality, facilitated law-breaking by numerous other people. Intelligence services find the bent and crooked of great use, particularly. For better or worse, this is how the world works.

It does not strike me as anything of great importance that President Clinton did not place a high priority on pressing a partisan investigation of the administration preceeding his. One of the unspoken rules of our political system has always been that loss of an election does not entail time in jail: it is a convention that lubricates the orderly transfer of power from the regime of one party to another, and without it, matters would speedily a good deal messier, and sooner or later end in blood and defiance of the polls. It is, indeed, unfortunate that matters have been pressed by the present regime to such a point that it may well be necessary to break that convention in this particular instance. It would be best if the charges are garden variety items of money corruption, preferably related to campaign funding, and did not touch on the political elements that do constitute the heart of the criminal enterprise that has seized power here. In matters like this, it is best to preserve the gossamer of the decencies, rather than rip it down to reveal too clear a view of th mechanisms behind the curtain.

"Most problems start out as solutions."

[wisteria]

74. Excuse me, by what authority do you come off predicting what will

happen? Senator kerry may have lost, but he was by no means a poor campaigner IMO. The notion of poor timing is a new catch phrase I just have started to hear. I never seen to notice that in 04. You speak about a man who has been in politics for over twenty years and has won many campaigns during that time.
I have never in my fifty years seen another politician maintain such support after an election. Maybe it is his honesty and lack of slickness that appeals to many people.
As for other Democrats, I think it is obvious that he received very little encouragement or help in 04. They needed someone to run against Bush and they figured no one would win against a war time president with a major media machine behind him. Kerry came close and no matter how you try to discredit him, you can not take that away from him.
Now, as far as qualifications, no one comes close to matching Senator Kerry's qualifications. Qualifications and experience should matter in elections -not just political slickness.
Perhaps, he will surprise you or perhaps he will decide to run as an independent candidate. Based on the crop being trounced around for 08 by the media now, I think Kerry has a hell of a chance of winning.

[The Magistrate]

87. Perhaps, Ma'am, You Watched A Different Election In '04 Than Me

Sen. Kerry was widely expected to win that election, and the party, rank and file and leadership alike, was pretty well unified behind him, and the prospect of his victory. That he just came close to winning, rather than succeeding at it, seems to me attributable in large part to the poor campaign he ran. While there certainly were other factors contributing to the outcome, from the point of view of selecting a Democratic nominee for President in 2008, it seems best to focus on the gentleman's own short-comings.

These boil down to an excess of gentility and deliberateness. The man did not act quickly and decisively. He did not make himself news. He seemed to feel his superiority was self-evident, and that nothing sharp and vivid needed to be done to convince the people at large of it. That last in particular was, and remains, a very bad reading of what is necessary to win a Presidential election.

Presidential elections have much more in common with a couple of silver-back gorillas beating chests at one another than people like to admit, and persons of thoughtful nature, more common on the left than the right, are particularly loathe to accept this. More than anything else, a Presidential election is a mass assessment of the combative qualities of two people, with the person viewed as most combative by the greatest number emerging as the winner.

[ProSense]

88. Everyone was predicting Kerry would win! In fact, they were sure of it!

There was talk of a landslide. Zogby predicted Kerry would achieve more than 310 electoral votes. The outcry after the exit polls proved wrong threw cold water on those predictions. Everyone was outraged when the bin Laden tape surfaced because of the perception factor. Everyone was expecting a win, so it is disingenous now to say that the campaign was terrible, especially because that claim flies in the face of the facts.

[The Magistrate]

89. He Campaigned Poorly, Sir

That was my view at the time, and remains my view today.

[ProSense]

90. Actually, it's Ma'am! That's fair, but

I don't think it was the general consensus. There were ups and downs, but that's campaigning!

[The Magistrate]

92. As You Point Out, Ma'am, Nuts And Bolts Were Good Enough

But the response to smear was very poor. The calculation made by the campaign seems to have been that persons other than the candidate, journalists and supporters, should take the lead in refuting the "swift boat" attacks. There are classical arguments that could be, and were, made in favor of that course, but it is clear that this was not the best course, because it did not work. Dramatic outrage from the candidate himself was required, and not just expressed once or twice, but repeatedly, incessantly, every day and every hour. This was the only thing that could have altered the news coverage centering on the matter. Sen. Kerry has a tendency, even a predisposition, to hold himself above the fray, relying on his undoubted gravity and seriousness to carry the day on the long run, but in this sort of brawl that attitude is fatal and self-destructive.

What makes it a shame is that in the pre-convention stages of the campaign, there were flashes showing though that seemed to indicate the performance would be better. The "open mike" incident in which he called the administration liars and bad men is one of these. Had that line been pursued directly and explicitly, it would have made a great difference.

[ProSense]

93. Didn't say that. In fact,

the response was mostly direct with not enough support from the Democratic party machine and pundits to try to (don't know how much would have been enough) to effectively counter a deliberate media barrage:

May 4, 2004. The Kerry campaign held a press conference directly after the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" event. (Above are, r-l, Wade Sanders, Del Sandusky and Drew Whitlow). Senior Advisor Michael Meehan said, "The Nixon White House attempted to do this to Kerry, and the Bush folks are following the same plan." "We're not going to let them make false claims about Kerry and go unanswered," Meehan said. He said his first instinct was to hold a press conference with an empty room where veterans could testify to their time spent in the military with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The campaign provided an information package which raised significant questions about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Spaeth Communications, which hosted the event, "is a Republican headed firm from Texas which has contributed to Bush's campaign and has very close ties to the Bush Administration." Lead organizer John O'Neill, a Republican from Texas, "was a pawn of the Nixon White House in 1971." Further some of the people now speaking against Kerry had praised him in their evaluation reports in Vietnam.

John Dibble, who served on a swift boat in 1970, after Kerry had left, was one of the veterans at the Kerry event. He said of Kerry's anti-war activities that at the time, "I didn't like what he was doing." In retrospect, however, Dibble said, "I probably should have been doing the same thing...probably more of us should have been doing that." He said that might have meant fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial and that Kerry's anti-war activities were "a very gutsy thing to do."

May 4, 2004 - Aug. 5, 2004 - No public activity by Swift Liars (?) Wikipedia entry (7) notes "When the press conference garnered little attention, the organization decided to produce television advertisements." (Ed. note - were there any public info or announcements, other than talk on blogs? Was there anything going on publicly? Did the campaign have reason to foresee what was coming - note that they must have, see the reactions to each ad).

Kerry Campaign responses: August 5-August 19

Aug. 19: John Kerry responds directly to attacks on his Vietnam military service Thursday, accusing President Bush of relying on front groups to challenge his war record.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=40a0d9b1-0386-41ef-bc0e-904bcc95946c&.

Text:

Of course, the President keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: "Bring it on."

I'm not going to let anyone question my commitment to defending America—then, now, or ever. And I'm not going to let anyone attack the sacrifice and courage of the men who saw battle with me.

And let me make this commitment today: their lies about my record will not stop me from fighting for jobs, health care, and our security – the issues that really matter to the American people...

Kerry Campaign responses: August 20-August 26

Bush's lawyer forced to resign:

Smeared by Ginsberg

August 27, 2004

BENJAMIN L. Ginsberg is the smoking gun. As national counsel to Bush-Cheney for five years, he has operated continuously at the center of President Bush's political organization. He was James Baker's right-hand man during the 2000 Florida recount challenge.

Snip...

Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.

No memo trail needs to be found linking Bush personally to Ginsberg and the veterans' group; the connection is apparent.

For far too long this attack has worked to Bush's advantage. Even when Kerry and other veterans were defending his war service effectively…

Ginsberg resigned his Bush campaign position with unintended comedy, saying he was saddened that his role had "become a distraction from the critical issues at hand in this election." Was he suggesting this bogus smear is a critical issue?

...The members of the Federal Election Commission, appointed by Bush and Bill Clinton, have betrayed their office by not reining in groups that are too closely aligned with both campaigns.

But that is not the issue with the anti-Kerry veterans. The issue is Bush -- his refusal to condemn a patently false attack, his willingness to try to reap some political reward on the cheap, his utter lack of leadership in brushing off the role played by his close political aides.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2004/08/27/smeared_by_ginsberg

More in Research Forum

[The Magistrate]

94. This, Ma'am, More Makes My Point Than Yours

From the very start, the response should have been handled by the candidate himself, rather than by staffers, and should have been expressed in tones of outrage sufficient to convey an impression of threatened violence. That is the response people expect of a man who has been assaulted in what is evidently a central core of his pride. Sen. Kerry openly made his combat experience in Viet Nam the popular centerpiece of his campaign. He should have expected it to be directly engaged, and been ready for the engagement. He was not.

[ProSense]

95. It was handled by the campaign, and note

the first Swift Liars ad was in May and the response effectively subdued them until after the convention when Kerry gained in the polls! The subsequent responses were from Kerry, his lawyers and campaign staff. The resignation of Bush's campaign lawyer was a result of that. Still, the media assault, 300 stories in a month, could have been countered more effectively by Democratic pundits.

These pundits are willing to talk up the recent incident more than they were willing to denounce the Swift Liars in 2004.

[blm]

109. Because DNC's Clinton-era targetted state strategy was a winner in 2000, 2002 and 2004?

Yeah - that was a GREAT idea to collapse the party infrastructure in every red and swing state - what a waste of time to strengthen the infrastructure charged with securing the election process and counting the votes at the county and state levels like that new DNC has been doing the last two years.

And I suppose that Kerry ran poorly up against the silver-rtongued Bush and crafted worse policies and ads.

The DNC did its job and countered the RNC strobgly for 4 years.

And the left media machine overwhelmed the RW message machine.

Yeah - everyone performed strongly except that weak Kerry for his 6 months of duty.

Too bad Kerry couldn't find a last Dem president to support him on his crucial policy issues like Tora Bora and Rumsfeld's firing, the way Bush found a last Dem president to publically support him on important policy decisions throughout his 4 year term.

[The Magistrate]

110. Endless Repetition, Ma'am, Is Insufficient To Carry The Day On Things Like This

What you refer to darkly as "Clinton's targetted state strategy" is nothing more or less than the conventional wisdom of political strategists for the last few decades. Identifying the minimum you need to win, and concentrating effort of securing this, is a pretty basic approach to strategy that can be seen employed in a variety of fields. It is an adaptation of the military principle of concentration of force, which is widely acknowledged to be the key to success at conventional war. Where problems arise is when the concept is viewed too simplisticly, and sight is lost of the need to force some degree of dispersal on your foe in order to secure the best benefit from your own concentration, but it seems the fate of strategic maxims to be viewed in too simplistic a manner. This is due almost always, though, to want of imagination rather than malice. Gov. Dean's "fifty state strategy" shows a much more sophisticate and apt understanding of this principle, and, so long as sufficient resources are available to carry it out, is the superior course in my view. The idea that Party organizations were deliberately collapsed in states by the DNC in the previous decade is simply nonesense. The fact is, local organizations in many states were routed in the period commencing with the 1994 election, and resources were scarce enough that attempts to rebuild them struck the leading strategists as futile. Again, while this may have been a poor judgement, it is not an act of malice, as you seek to present it.

Though you will find the statement uncomfortable, the fact is that Bush does have, and certainly did have, a good knack for connecting to audiences, and fostering the "he's just like me!" feeling that is the surest path to success in mass political action in a democratic polity. It is a knack Sen. Kerry manifestly lacks, to both his misfortune, and the misfortune of the country itself.

[blm]

111. And that is why Bush had to have controlled audiences, because he connected so well with most people

I'd say there are photos on the internets that show Kerry connecting with many thousands of people completely without control on who was in those crowds that easily DOUBLED and TRIPLED Bush's crowds after the debates.

And it seems some only repond to repetition when it suits their needs - like the repetition from GOP controlled media.

Whether malicious or not, the collapsed party infrastructures were the problem in 2000, 2002 and 2004. According to exit polls, Kerry won by almost 5% - had those party infrastructures been strengthened properly after their weaknesses were pinpointed in 2000, Kerry's performance would be deemed the WINNING one.

[The Magistrate]

114. Do You Imagine, Ma'am, The People In Front Of the Podium Are All the Audience?

Regardless of controls, the audiences for political speeches are made up of the politician's supporters, and will already share feelings of identification with him or her. The real audience is the mass television audience, that will see only selected snippets, and react to things like the set of the body and expressions of the face even more than the words.

That you have backed off from the claim of malice regarding Party structures is worth something, at least. But the fact remains that the Party lacked resources to do a proper job of rebuilding them in the period between the two Presidential elections, even had its leaders had a better strategic vision and seen through the limits of conventional understandings current in such matters.

[blm]

115. I did not back off that - Since the party infrastructure went DOWNHILL after 2000

instead of being strengthened and the election process secured AS PROMISED, Terry McAuliffe should definitely be held SUSPECT for his lack of attention in those crucial states for both the 2002 and 2004 election cycles.

[The Magistrate]

118. That Is A Shame, Ma'am: It Had Seemed Some Progress Was Being Made

Mr. McAuliff should be held "suspect" of what, exactly?

[blm]

121. I am not a coincidence theorist, Magistrate. McAuliffe made a CHOICE to ignore

his own promises to secure the election process so purged voter rolls and rampant vote suppression would never happen again after 2000.

YOU accept that he neglected the infrastructure and the security of the election process as if it couldn;'t be helped. I believe he had no great concern for securing the party's infrastructure for either 2002 or 2004 races, so he concentrated his attention and DNCs money in a very DC-centric fashion.

[The Magistrate]

123. Mr. McAullif, Ma'am, Made A Decision Different Than You Think The Right One

Are you of the view that disagreement with you is the operative definition of malice and evil?

[blm]

124. He did it CONTRARY to what he promised after the hearings on 2000 vote suppression

tactics from the RNC.

YOU believe it is INNOCENT and McAuliffe couldn't HELP but be neglectful ats that is how the system was set up = but that is NOT what was promised after the hearings into 2000's election fraud.

If Kerry had promised in 2001 to work for 4 years as the head of the DNC to secure the election process and counter the RW tactics as exposed at those hearings., then I would guess that the Clinton team would have no problem in attaching blame to him for 2002 and 2004.

[The Magistrate]

127. People Say Lots Of Things, Ma'am, Particularly In Politics

You have yet to clarify what you feel Mr. McAullif must be held "suspect" of.

Continued evasion of specifics in that must sooner or later require me to propose a straw-man or two: fog is not a thing susceptible to proper engagement....

[blm]

129. Terry didn't do HIS JOB - that he didn't do it in both 2002 AND 2004 election cycles,

is suspect because it was the job he was CHARGED to do. It wasn't just a matter of letting some assignment slip through the cracks - it was a MAJOR issue and a problem that WORSENED during those cycles.

Your certainty that his was just an innocent neglect would have been plausible in 2002, but by 2004 for still NOTHING to have been strengthened - TOO much to accept as innocence.

[The Magistrate]

131. Innocent Of What, Ma'am?

You really are going to have to be more specific: so far all you have is that he did things differently than you would have preffered to see them done....

[blm]

135. he said he would make countering the RNC vote suppression tactics a priority and

then did nothing while the problem WORSENED.

You call his neglect innocent because he just made other decisions on what to do with the DNC's time and money. He kNEW darn well that there were SERIOUS problems and CHOSE to ignore them.

If he was a corporation who was selling a product that he KNEW allowed the harming of others, he would be hauled to court. He allowed the voting rights of many to be harmed even AFTER he was told how it was being done in hearings conducted AFTER the election fraud of 2000.

Ignore what you want - color it as rosie as you want - That's YOUR choice Magistrate and you are welcome to it. I say his neglect endangered the voting rights of too many Democrats and harmed the party infrastructure. You don't - that's YOUR deal.

[The Magistrate]

136. Not A Good Comparison, Ma'am

There is no question of product liability here. If the manager of an organization allocates resources in a way that proves less than the best, it loses money and he or she is given a severance package. That seems to be what happened here.

You have taken upon yourself the burden of demonstrating, as a question of fact, that Mr. McAuliff allocated resources in the way he did with the intention of securing the defeat of Sen. Kerry in 2004, and perhaps more broadly, of throwing control of the national government to the Republican Party in that year, and further, that he did these things at the behest of President and Senator Clinton, in order to prevent any discommodation of the Bush family. You have yet to present a shred of real evidence for any of this.

[wisteria]

145. Nope, I never felt it was going to be easy. My experience told me

it wasn't over till it was over. I never believed for a moment it was going to be a piece of cake to unseat Bush. It was going to be a struggle. The polls too close, the country too divided and a country at war. Very tough hurdles to overcome. I have lived with and been surrounded by politics since I was small, from Republican to Democrat and I always had a knot in my stomach during that election period. I even felt the party used Senator Kerry as a Patsy, knowing it was going to be tough going and not wanting to run- say Senator Clinton or Senator Bayh.

[wisteria]

147. Well, I do not agree. Perhaps, your view is one of recent elections.

Surely you can not include the Clinton/Bush, Clinton/Dole elections in your scenario, or the Nixon /McGovern,Carter/Ford, or even races as far back as the Lincoln/Douglas/Breckenridge one. Nope, Kerry's race was not easy. It was Lincoln who coined the phrase, "Don't Change Horses in Mid-Stream" during his second run for President in 1864 against the Democrat McClellan, and the Democrats figured they were going to win that one because the Civil War was going badly, yet Lincoln won by 10% points.

[Mass]

98. Your opinion or a fact? We'll see, that is the best thing to do.

Whoever trusts these early polls is a fool.

I do not know if Kerry will be a factor or not in this election.

[AtomicKitten]

65. *

I said no such thing. It appears you don't require an oppositional argument; you just assign one and go.

[wyldwolf]

81. two things: You just admitted your claim of it being in the book was bullshit

..and that WAS NOT the reason for the losses, there is no evidence of that.

[blm]

139. I said in his own book he says he wanted Bush to have a peaceful retirement.

And BECAUSE he would not pursue outstanding matters we have been subjected to a Bush2 administration. All part of the OVERALL reasons. Why you feel triumphant over nitpicking one phrase when it was just PART of an overview is a mystery.

[wyldwolf]

142. blm - the posts are here for everyone to see. HERE is what you said:

post #24 - BLM said: The DNC run by Clinton's people cost us in 2000, 2002, and 2004.


post #40 - BLM said: Clinton admits it in his book - read it..

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Yup, the Clenis is responsible for everything

[AtomicKitten]

66. *

Damn the Clenis!

[wisteria]

73. Excuse me. He hasn't cost us anything.

He is a major reason we won this election. He forced the senate to take on Iraq. He has been saying the election will all be about Iraq for over a year now and he has been right.
The last I looked we won the election- how has he cost us this win?
He raised and donated over 14 million dollars to candidates this year. Not to mention the time he put in campaigning for many candidates.
He has been the only politician who has been out in force covering our needs and speaking up for us. He has taken a lot of flack for this too.
So, what exactly has John Kerry cost us?:eyes:

Oh, I hope he does get in it.And if he does I will fight like hell for him. He is the only politician that will bring real change to Washington. All the others will play lip service to it while they help all their friends line their pockets and get laws passed.

[Kahuna]

23. Last term, Schmoe Lieberbush was leading the pack.

Just goes to show you how useful these polls are at this point.

[BlueIris]

25. Kiss my ass, CNN.

No believes you dumb whores anymore.

[mtnsnake]

28. I'm surprised that Kerry is at 7%. I never thought he'd do that well

I can't imagine why anyone would want to see a repeat of 2004

[AtomicKitten]

29. *

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/11/kerry-says-botched-war-joke-wont-hurt.html

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Kerry says botched war joke won't hurt his presidential chances
by John in DC - 11/19/2006 09:00:00 PM

It's hard to hurt a zero chance. The man needs to go away. He lost. He lost to an idiot. And now he wants another chance to show the country that this time he'll fight back. Just like he fought back one week before the election and almost destroyed our chances at taking back the Congress because, like an idiot, he decided that NOW was the time he was finally going to fight back. But any idiot who actually understands politics will tell you that you don't always fight back. Sometimes you do, other times you ignore the attacks, and even other times you say I'm sorry, and shut up for a while (kind of like relationships). It depends. Only an idiot thinks that you always fight every time the other guy attacks. It depends. Kerry never understood how and when to fight back, and he still doesn't. He's not going to be president. He had his chance and blew it. He needs to go away.

[karynnj]

37. What a surprise -

These numbers are taken after weeks of both Republicans and some Democrats who have nowhere near Kerry's integrity, honor and character - and likely consider that a blessing. But, to quote the sage Bob Dylan,

"Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'."


People who actually see and hear Kerry, have a very different reaction to Kerry, than the beltway people. They thought him dead in November 2004 and before the joke - so the fact that they NOW say this means he has no chance - is not particularly noteworthy. That the media and the party do not want Kerry is no surprise. He is a genuine reformer and is willing to be an ousider because of it. Consider that no one in the party wanted him to pursue BCCI - it was right and he did it - but he still became the 2004 nominee.

That is why 3 weeks later, we're still seeing this nonsense - if they were sure he was really politically dead, there would be silence.

Here's the real world - Kerry rallies Democrats in VA.
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/articles/newsarticle.html?id=82

[AtomicKitten]

49. *

What is not a surprise is your inability to grasp the concept that people have perfectly legitimate POVs you neither acknowledge nor respect that don't coincide with yours.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

52. Nothing new, he's been saying the same nonsense for over a year:

Friday, June 03, 2005

Message to John Kerry: Go away

by John in DC - 6/03/2005 11:25:00 PM

What he said.

Not to mention, spare us the opposition to the Iraq war crap. When it counted you couldn't find a coherent position on the damn war when your political life depended on it. Now you're our hero?

And, oh yeah. Once you get over your gratuitous anti-gay crap, then we'll talk.

[AtomicKitten]

58. *

That is his POV which he is entitled to have and express and is only nonsense to people that can't muster the grace to be respectful of anything other than their own POV.

[ProSense]

59. I respect his right to express his opinion!

It's my opinion that it's nonsense. Respect that!

[AtomicKitten]

62. *

It's unfortunate that many of you Kerry supporters at DU are incapable of displaying the same class as the candidate you emulate. The delicious irony for many of us is that your caustic demeanor is having precisely the opposite effect one would think you'd be after here.

[ProSense]

63. You are one of the most classy people on DU! n/t

[fuzzyball]

153. Yes, AK is the most articulate, logical & classy poster on DU..

I would give anything to be that good :silly:

[savemefromdumbya]

31. so it IS Clinton/Obama 08?

I thought Gore would have got more than 50%

[robcon]

34. Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

She's a great campaigner, has lots of money and can beat any Repuglican.

[karynnj]

38. Lots of money - but how far will it go with the way she spends it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/politics/21donate.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1164171600&en=1cf680b27f8bb06f&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

[fuzzyball]

154. Hillary has $$$, poise, intellect, Billy2terms, Ivy school lawyer,

but most of all SHE IS THE MEDIA DARLING!!!
They will portray her as the Snow White Vs. the 7 or 9 dwarfs.

[leesa]

35. CNN reminding us who they have chosen for us.

[Dinger]

36. Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself (nt)

[demdiva]

42. I think this means almost nothing right now ... remember Dean?

The next nominee will have to get through the primaries first. And anything can happen in NH and Iowa. And please lets not forget that the media was soooo sure that Dean would be the nominee. He made a good showing but nobody actually voted for him!

[Jack Rabbit]

61. Yeah, I remeber Dean. Do you remember President Muskie?

And before there was Howard Dean in 2004, the puditacracy was anointing President Lieberman. They forgot to ask rank-and-file Democrats about that.

[zulchzulu]

86. Just noticed your post....

That was the same reaction I had...also, no matter how much the MSM is trying to stuff Hillary down our throats, we'll just pass the plate...(to use a T-Day anology)

[Generator]

46. If they watch TV, then this list is perfect sense

Senior Clinton was just on The ELLEN show yesterday and talking about Hillary. Hilary has been on the show before. ALL they talk about on TV day after tireless day on cable is whether Hillary will run.

Obama just had a book tour on all the shows, was on Oprah and as a big special on his life on CNN. Gore has gotten publicity due to his movie.

The only publicity Kerry ever gets is negative. The only one that is probably true to popularity that isn't just name recognition is Edwards. That's because he hasn't been out there at all-and still he beats Kerry and ties Gore. It may not be Kerry's fault, but damn the media hates him. Anybody that watched any news, even had the TV on for a second heard about the Kerry bad joke. They love to smear him. He needs to co-host Live or the View. HA. I know he's actually busy working.

And the rest nobody even knows. Clark a no show. What has he been doing since the Oklahama primary anyway besides yacking on FOX news? (he might poll better with Republicans) Vilsack- are you mad? Sure they call themselves Dems, but that doesn't make those they polled like us- obsessive politicos.

It's all about the media, stupid.

[Sensitivity]

67. Hillary has played to Global Buss and Corp Media. Done a good job controling

her image and removing fears that she be too out of line.

[Clark2008]

155. Actually, Clark's done A LOT - but the media ignores him

http://www.awesclarkdemocrat.com/2006/09/who_can_keep_up_with_wes_clark.htm

September 4th: ClarkCast: Labor Day Message

September 5th: ABC News Politics Live with Sam Donaldson

September 5th: Joint Congressional National Security Press Conference on Bush record of failure to secure America, release of report "The Neo Con," Washington DC

September 8th: Clark Community Network $50,000 online fundraiser, "Take the Hill Fund"

September 8th: Kevin Wall Radio Show, WLAC "Tennessee Today" on behalf of Harold Ford Jr.

September 8th: Ed Schultz radio show

September 11th: ClarkCast "Thoughts on 9/11"

September 11th: Al Franken Show, Air America Radio

September 11th: Bethany College, Remembrance speech and reception, Bethany WV

September 13th: Joint Congressional Press Conference on National Security, with Madeline Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski

September 14th: Email to supporters re VoteVets ad against George Allen of Virginia

September 15th: 2nd Annual Conference on International Governance Innovation, Keynote Speaker, Ontario, Canada

September 19th: "Take the Hill" ClarkCast with Claire McCaskill

September 19th: Veterans Rally with Claire McCaskill, candidate for US Senate, American Legion Post 103, St. Louis MO

September 21st: "Take the Hill" fundraising email for Joe Sestak (PA-07), Bruce Braley (IA-01), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), and Eric Massa (NY-29)

September 24th: Kentucky Democrats Family Day event, Frankfort KY

September 24th: Northern Kentucky Democratic Rally for state candidates, Wilder Civic Center, Wilder KY

September 25th: Taylor County Democratic Rally, National Guard Armory, Campbellsville KY

September 25th: Christian County Democratic Rally, VFW Post 1913, Hopkinsville KY

September 25th: McCracken County Democratic Rally, Noble Park Amphitheater, Paducha KY

September 25th: Daviess County Democratic Rally, Democratic HQ, Owensboro KY

September 25th: Meade County Democratic Rally with Col. Mike Weaver, Courthouse, Brandenburg KY

September 25th: Louisville Democratic Rally, Louisville KY

September 26th: Fundraiser for Will Pryor TX-32, Dallas TX

September 27th: Fundraiser for Harry Mitchell AZ-05, Phoenix Country Club, Phoenix AZ

September 27th: Fundraiser for Jim Pederson, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, Phoenix AZ

September 27th: Town Hall Meeting on Iraq War, UFCW Hall, Phoenix AZ

September 27th: Fundraiser for Jim Pederson, Paradise Valley AZ

September 28th: Public Rally with Jon Tester, candidate for US Senate, Lions Park, Great Falls MT

September 28th: Fundraiser for Jon Tester, candidate for US Senate, Helena MT

September 30th: Veterans for Murtha Rally with Max Cleland, Central Park, Johnstown PA

September 30th: Warren County Democrats Fall Dinner, Special Guest, Indianola, IA


The full 2006 event list, so far:

January 3rd: Email fundraiser for Jim Pederson, running for the US Senate in Arizona

January 5th: Fundraiser for Eric Massa, candidate for US Congress NY-29, Honorary Chair, Barroom NYC, New York

January 10th: DNC Statement on Bush failure to provide body armor for troops

January 10th: Liberal Supper Club, Washington DC

January 11th: Letter-writing campaign to demand body armor for troops

January 17th: 7:30PM, Sears Lecture Series, "Do We Really Care about Human Rights?" - Purdue University, Loeb Playhouse, West Lafayette, Indiana - "The Balkans: A Strategic Vision"

January 19th: Securing America: "Where is the leadership and the rule of law?"

January 24th: Press conference with Senator Schumer introducing "Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006"

January 25th: Release of "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report

January 26th: Paul Begala's Radio Show, WOR-AM NY

January 26th: 1PM, Fundraising Reception for Bob Gammage for Governor, Hotel Derek, Houston TX

January 26th: Rally with Representative Hubert Vo in TX House District 149, Houston TX

January 26th: 6PM, Kickoff of Juan Garcia's race for Texas House District 32, Selena Auditorium, Corpus Christi TX

January 27th: "Take Back Your Privacy" E-Mail Campaign in support of S. 2178, "The Consumer Telephone Records Act of 2006"

January 27th: Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus Third Annual Conference, Little Rock AR

January 30th: "Real State of the Union" speech before New America Foundation, Washington DC


February 1st: WesPac Reception and Fundraiser, Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables FL

February 2nd: WesPac Reception and Fundraiser, "Evening in San Francisco with General Wesley K. Clark" at Hotel Monaco, San Francisco CA

February 4th: Bloggers' Roundtable, Los Angeles CA

February 4th: "Take Back the House with General Wesley Clark" in support of Democrat Francine Busby for CA-50, Hollywood CA

February 4th: WesPac fundraiser sponsored by 4-Star Democratic Club, Los Angeles CA

February 6th: ABC World News Tonight

February 7th: Email fundraiser for Tammy Duckworth, Democratic candidate in IL-06

February 8th: Veterans for a Secure America fundraiser, Washington DC

February 9th: Stephanie Miller radio show on AAR

February 10th: "Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark," Council on Foreign Relations, Washington DC

February 11th & 12th: Hosting C-Span Book-TV program "After Words"; Guest David Rieff, author of "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention"

February 11th: Speech at National Student Leadership Conference, Washington DC

February 23rd: Book signing with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography" at Barnes and Noble, Broadway and 82nd Street, New York NY


March 5th: "This Week" interview by George Stephanopoulos

March 10th: Ed Schultz Radio Show

March 10th: WesPac fundraising luncheon, Cambridge MA

March 11th: Congressman Marty Meehan's St. Patrick's Day Breakfast, Dracut, MA

March 11th: Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA

March 12th: Washington Post Book Review, "The Commando Option"; To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, from Achilles to Al Qaeda By Derek Leebaert

March 13th: Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Slobodan Milosevic "A Petty Hitler"

March 13th: PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, discussing the life of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic

March 14th: Diane Rehm Show, WAMU

March 14th: Fundraiser for Eric Massa NY-29, Washington DC

March 15th: Chicago Public Radio

March 16th: IAVA PAC Founding Members Reception, Washington DC

March 18th-20th: New Hampshire House Democratic Caucus

March 18th: Town Hall Meeting, New England College, Henniker NH

March 18th: New Hampshire Veterans Home visit, Tilton NH

March 18th: Salem/Windham Democrats host General Clark, Windham NH

March 19th: Upper Valley Democrats and Young Democrats of Dartmouth College host General Clark, Hanover, NH

March 21st: Ed Schultz Show, AAR

March 21st: Project H.E.R.O. pilot, home of disabled veteran Shelby Bowling, Hamilton OH

March 21st: Meeting with Democratic activists, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH

March 21st: Fundraiser for John Cranley, Democratic candidate for OH-01, Hyde Park OH

March 21st: Ohio Democratic Party fundraiser, Hotel Westin, Cincinnati OH

March 23rd: "Evening with General Wesley Clark" Reception and Dinner, The Houstonian, Houston TX

March 25th: C-Span "Booknotes" with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography"

March 26th: ClarkCast: Conversation with Nick Lampson, candidate for the House of Representatives from the 22nd Congressional District of Texas

March 29th: Press Conference, House and Senate Democrats "Real Security Plan," Washington DC

March 29th: Congressional Radio-Television Gallery Dinner, Washington DC

March 29th: Endorsement event, James Webb running for Senator of Virginia, Arlington VA


April 1st: North Dakota Democratic-NPL Convention, Fargo Civic Center, Keynote Speaker, Fargo ND

April 1st: Democratic Radio Address on Democratic national security plan

April 2nd: C-Span "Road to the White House" General Clark's recent visit to New Hampshire

April 4th: Campaigning for Mike Weaver, Democratic candidate for KY-02, Elizabethtown and Owensboro KY

April 5th: Press Conference Call with Chairman Dean for DNC announcement of new "Fighting Democrats" website and formation of Democratic National Veterans and Military Families Council

April 9th: ClarkCast: "Leadership and Global Warming"

April 10th: Boston Globe Op-Ed, "A US Plan for Darfur"

April 10th: Emory University Presidential Distinguished Lecture Series, "Strategic Leadership in the 21st Century" Atlanta GA

April 13th: Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade, Panelist: “The Age of Great Immigrations” Doha, Qatar

April 15th: Email fundraiser for Andrew Horne running in KY-03

April 16th: ClarkCast: "Common Voices, Global Warming"

April 20th: News & Notes with Ed Gordon, "Why the U.S. Should Care About Darfur" NPR

April 22nd: Address to Arkansas Young Democrats State Convention; tribute at Arkansas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with former Senator Max Cleland, Little Rock AR

April 22nd: Arkansas Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Master of Ceremonies, Little Rock AR

April 23rd: ClarkCast: Conversation With Senator Barbara Boxer

April 24th: 8AM, breakfast fundraiser for Steve Filson, Candidate for California's 11th Congressional District, Zazoo's, Oakland CA

April 24th: 10:30AM, Veterans forum: “Defending America, Defending Veterans”; Karl Ross Post No. 16, Stockton CA

April 24th-26th: Milken Institute Global Conference; Panelist: "Global Risk: What Should Be Keeping You Up at Night" Los Angeles CA

April 25th: 9AM, fundraising breakfast for Russ Warner, Democrat running for Congress in CA-26, private residence, Pasadena CA

April 25th: 6PM reception and 8PM dinner; fundraiser for Mike Beebe, Democratic candidate for Governor of Arkansas, at the home of Ron Burkle, Beverly Hills CA

April 26th: Albuquerque veterans meeting, Bataan Memorial Park, with Democratic candidate Patricia Madrid, Albuquerque NM

April 26th: Fundraiser for Democratic candidate for NM-01, Attorney General Patricia Madrid, at the home of Mikey Weinstein, Albuquerque NM

April 26th: 7PM, "Take a Meeting With the World" Public Lecture Series, Interview by George Stephanopoulos, University of Judaism Gibson Amphitheatre, Bel-Air CA

April 27th: 6:30PM, WesPac fundraiser at the home of George Soros in New York City; 8:30PM dinner at the Hotel Carlyle

April 28th: Clark Community Network Series Blog: Real Science

April 29th-30th: Senate Democrats Weekend Policy Retreat, Philadelphia PA

April 30th: ClarkCast: "Final Thoughts on Global Warming"


May 1st: Al Franken Show, Air America Radio

May 3rd: Arab American Institute Foundation Kahlil Gibran ‘Spirit of Humanity’ Awards Gala, General Clark will present to former President of Poland Lech Walesa

May 5th: Boys and Girls Club of America Centennial Celebration, Guest Speaker, Boston MA

May 5th: Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO

May 7th: ClarkCast: "The State of the Middle East"

May 10th: Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire 9th Biennial Convention, Nashua NH

May 11th: Project H.E.R.O. launch, Washington Court Hotel, Washington D.C.

May 12th: Press Conference with Rep. Leonard Boswell, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) services for troops, Capitol Rotunda, DesMoines IA

May 13th: Hawkeye Labor Council fundraiser for Workers for a Better Iowa, Cedar Rapids IA

May 14th: Meeting with Polk County Democrats, Iowa

May 14th: Meeting with Draft Clark 2004 supporters, Cedar Rapids IA

May 14th: ClarkCast: "Common Voices From Iowa"

May 19th: Wagner College Commencement Address, Staten Island NY

May20th: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Commencement Speech and Honorary Degree, Troy NY

May 23rd: Op-Ed, The Hill, "Warming to the India nuclear deal"

May 24th-26th: Visit to Kosovo as guest of government; talks with President Fatmir Sejdiu; address to Kosovo Parliament; meeting with Status Negotiation Group

May 25th: Visit with President Vaira Vike-Freiberga in Latvia; awarded Order of Vesthardus Rex, Grand Commander

May 26th: ClarkCast, "NSA wiretapping and Hayden"

May 27th: Email fundraiser for Mike Beebe, running for Governor of Arkansas

May 28th: ClarkCast: "Middle East Summary"

May 31st: Clark Community Network Series Blog: Economy CSI


June 8th: Politics TV interview, "Politics and the Internet," Las Vegas NV

June 8th: Reception for YearlyKos Bloggers, Las Vegas NV

June 9th: YearlyKos Convention, Panelist: "Championing Science," Las Vegas NV

June 9th: Young Turks interview on Iraq and Iran, Las Vegas NV

June 9th: Texas Democratic State Convention, Opening Speaker, Ft. Worth TX

June 18th: ClarkCast: Texas Democrats

June 11th: ClarkCast: "Reflections on Kosovo"

June 11th: ClarkCast: "The Crisis In Darfur"

June 12th: Time, "Rules of Engagement" - interview re Haditha

June 12th: Blogging on DailyKos from Little Rock

June 15th: Association of Alternative Newsweeklies Convention, Little Rock AR, Opening Remarks; An Evening at the Clinton Presidential Library, Little Rock AR

June 17th: Red Jacket Ball, City Year honoring Gert Clark, Keynote by President Bill Clinton

June 19th: Rodman & Renshaw 3rd Annual Security, Biodefense & Connectivity Conference, Featured Speaker, New York City

June 19th: Fundraiser for Eric Massa, Democratic candidate in NY-29, New York City

June 19th: Fundraiser for Mike Weaver, Democratic candidate in KY-02, Abigael's Restaurant, New York City

July 3rd: ClarkCast: Independence Day

July 10th: ClarkCast: The Importance of 2006

July 14th: Clark Community Network live blogging; Taking Back Congress for the Democrats in 2006

July 17th: ClarkCast: Common Voices, Elections 2006

July 19th: Boulder County Democrats and the Democratic Women of Boulder County Breakfast w/ Gen. Clark & Jay Fawcett, candidate for CO-05, Boulder CO

July 19th: Fundraiser/luncheon for Jay Fawcett, Guest of Honor, Colorado Springs CO

July 19th: Retired Enlisted Association (TREA), public event in support of Jay Fawcett, Colorado Springs CO

July 21st: Fundraising luncheon for Claire McCaskill, running for US Senate from Missouri

July 21st: College Democrats National Convention, Guest Speaker, St. Louis MO

July 23rd: Florida Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson breakfast, Featured Speaker, Ft. Lauderdale FL

July 24th: ClarkCast: Interview With Mike Beebe, Arkansas candidate for Governor

July 25th: NBC Today Show w/ Matt Lauer, potential peacekeeping force for Lebanon

July 31st: ClarkCast: 2006 Election Summary


August 1st: National Security and Veterans' Issues Rally with Paul Aronsohn (NJ-05), American Legion, Rochelle Park NJ

August 1st: Fundraising reception with General Wesley Clark for Paul Aronsohn (NJ-5), Villa Roberto, Rochelle Park NJ

August 2nd: Monroe County Democratic Committee press conference, Veterans Center, Rochester NY

August 2nd: Fundraiser for Eric Massa NY-29, Mario's Via Abruzzi restaurant, Rochester NY

August 8th: ClarkCast: Election Integrity

August 9th: Air America Radio, conversation with Sam Seder, Lamont/Lieberman, how he would handle security issues, and veterans

August 9th: Rep. Charlie Rangel's Birthday Gala Celebration, benefit for Democratic candidates, Tavern on the Green, NYC

August 11th: Op-Ed Wall Street Journal, "A Judgment on Iraq"

August 13th: WesPac fundraiser introducing six vets running for Congress; American Legion, Amaganssett, Long Island NY

August 15th: ClarkCast: The Security Of Our Elections

August 15th: Fundraising reception for Jill Derby, NV-02, Reno Hilton, Reno NV

August 16th: Speech at Jack Carter campaign headquarters, Las Vegas NV

August 20th: ClarkCast: The Security Of Our Elections, Part II

August 28th: ClarkCast: Election Integrity Summary

August 30th: Fundraising breakfast for Mike Beebe, running for governor of Arkansas, Fayetteville AR


September 4th: ClarkCast: Labor Day Message

September 5th: ABC News Politics Live with Sam Donaldson

September 5th: Joint Congressional National Security Press Conference on Bush record of failure to secure America, release of report "The Neo Con," Washington DC

September 8th: Clark Community Network $50,000 online fundraiser, "Take the Hill Fund"

September 8th: Kevin Wall Radio Show, WLAC "Tennessee Today" on behalf of Harold Ford Jr.

September 8th: Ed Schultz radio show

September 11th: ClarkCast "Thoughts on 9/11"

September 11th: Al Franken Show, Air America Radio

September 11th: Bethany College, Remembrance speech and reception, Bethany WV

September 13th: Joint Congressional Press Conference on National Security, with Madeline Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski

September 14th: Email to supporters re VoteVets ad against George Allen of Virginia

September 15th: 2nd Annual Conference on International Governance Innovation, Keynote Speaker, Ontario, Canada

September 19th: "Take the Hill" ClarkCast with Claire McCaskill

September 19th: Veterans Rally with Claire McCaskill, candidate for US Senate, American Legion Post 103, St. Louis MO

September 21st: "Take the Hill" fundraising email for Joe Sestak (PA-07), Bruce Braley (IA-01), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), and Eric Massa (NY-29)

September 24th: Family Day event, Frankfort KY

September 24th: Northern Kentucky Democratic Rally for state candidates, Wilder Civic Center, Wilder KY

September 25th: Taylor County Democratic Rally, National Guard Armory, Campbellsville KY

September 25th: Christian County Democratic Rally, VFW Post 1913, Hopkinsville KY

September 25th: McCracken County Democratic Rally, Noble Park Amphitheater, Paducha KY

September 25th: Daviess County Democratic Rally, Democratic HQ, Owensboro KY

September 25th: Meade County Democratic Rally with Col. Mike Weaver, Courthouse, Brandenburg KY

September 25th: Louisville Democratic Rally, Louisville KY

September 26th: Fundraiser for Will Pryor TX-32, Dallas TX

September 27th: Fundraiser for Harry Mitchell AZ-05, Phoenix Country Club, Phoenix AZ

September 27th: Fundraiser for Jim Pederson, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, Phoenix AZ

September 27th: Town Hall Meeting on Iraq War, UFCW Hall, Phoenix AZ

September 27th: Fundraiser for Jim Pederson, Paradise Valley AZ

September 28th: Public Rally with Jon Tester, candidate for US Senate, Lions Park, Great Falls MT

September 28th: Fundraiser for Jon Tester, candidate for US Senate, Helena MT

September 30th: Veterans for Murtha Rally with Max Cleland, Central Park, Johnstown PA

September 30th: Warren County Democrats Fall Dinner, Special Guest, Indianola, IA


October 2nd: Newsweek, "What We Must Do Now" re Afghanistan

October 13th: University of Alabama Blackburn Institute, Frank A. Nix Lecture series, Tuscaloosa AL

October 27th: Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Keynote Speaker, Santa Barbara CA


==========

Endorsements in 2006:

For Congress:

AR-03, Woodrow Anderson
AZ Sen., Jim Pederson
CA-03, Bill Durston
CA-04, Charlie Brown
CA-11, Steve Filson (Primary)
CA-11, Jerry McNerney
CA-26, Russ Warner
CA-50, Francine Busby
CO-05, Jay Fawcett
CO-06, Bill Winter
FL-16, Tim Mahoney
IA-01, Bruce Braley
IA-03, Leonard Boswell
IL-06, Tammy Duckworth
IL-08, Melissa Bean
IN-02, Joe Donnelly
KY-02, Mike Weaver
MO Sen., Claire McCaskill
MN-01, Tim Walz
MN-06, Patty Wetterling
NH-01, Carol Shea-Porter
NJ-05, Paul Aronsohn
NM-01, Patricia Madrid
NV Sen., Jack Carter
NV-02, Jill Derby
MT Sen., Jon Tester
NY-29, Eric Massa
PA-07, Joe Sestak
PA-10, Chris Carney
TX-03, Dan Dodd
TX-32, Will Pryor
VA Sen., Jim Webb
VA-02, Phil Kellam
WI-03, Ron Kind

For Governor:

Arkansas, Mike Beebe
California, (Lt Gov) Jackie Speier
Iowa, Chet Culver
Texas, Bob Gammage

For State House:

TX-32, Juan Garcia
TX-42, Richard Raymond
TX-149, Hubert Vo


Democratic events in 2006:

-Arkansas Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Master of Ceremonies, Little Rock AR
-Arkansas Young Democrats State Convention, Arkansas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with former Senator Max Cleland, Little Rock AR
-Boulder County Democrats and the Democratic Women of Boulder County Breakfast w/ Gen. Clark & Jay Fawcett, candidate for CO-05, Boulder CO
-Christian County Democratic Rally, VFW Post 1913, Hopkinsville KY
-ClarkCast: Conversation With Senator Barbara Boxer
-ClarkCast: Conversation with Nick Lampson, candidate for TX-22
-Clark Community Network $50,000 online fundraiser, "Take the Hill Fund"
-C-Span "Road to the White House" - General Clark's visit to New Hampshire in March
-DNC Statement on Bush failure to provide body armor for troops
-Daviess County Democratic Rally, Democratic HQ, Owensboro KY
-Democratic Radio Address on Democratic national security plan
-Email fundraiser for Jim Pederson, running for the US Senate in Arizona
-Email fundraiser for Mike Beebe, running for Governor of Arkansas
-Email fundraiser for California Lt. Governor candidate Jackie Speier
-Email fundraiser for Tammy Duckworth running in IL-06
-Email fundraiser for Andrew Horne running in KY-03
-Email to supporters re VoteVets ad against George Allen of Virginia
-Florida Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson breakfast, Featured Speaker, Ft. Lauderdale FL
-Fundraiser for Harry Mitchell AZ-05, Phoenix Country Club, Phoenix AZ
-Fundraiser for Jim Pederson, Paradise Valley AZ
-Fundraiser for Jim Pederson, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, Phoenix AZ
-Fundraiser for Mike Beebe, Democratic candidate for Governor of Arkansas, Beverly Hills CA
-Fundraiser for Steve Filson, candidate in CA-11, Oakland CA
-Fundraiser for Russ Warner running in CA-26, Pasadena CA
-Fundraiser/rally for Francine Busby running in CA-50
-Fundraiser/luncheon for Jay Fawcett, Guest of Honor, Colorado Springs CO
-Fundraiser for Mike Weaver running in KY-02, Elizabethtown KY
-Fundraiser for Mike Weaver running in KY-02, Owensboro KY
-Fundraiser for Mike Weaver, Democratic candidate in KY-02, Abigael's Restaurant, New York City
-Fundraiser for Jon Tester, candidate for US Senate, Helena MT
-Fundraiser for Patricia Madrid running in NM-01, Albuquerque NM
-Fundraiser for Eric Massa running in NY-29, New York NY
-Fundraiser for Eric Massa NY-29, Mario's Via Abruzzi restaurant, Rochester NY
-Fundraiser for John Cranley, Democratic candidate for OH-01, Hyde Park OH
-Fundraiser for Will Pryor TX-32, Dallas TX
-Fundraiser for James Webb running for Senator of Virginia, Arlington VA
-Fundraising luncheon for Claire McCaskill, running for US Senate from Missouri
-Fundraising reception for Jill Derby, NV-02, Reno Hilton, Reno NV
-Fundraising reception with General Wesley Clark for Paul Aronsohn (NJ-5), Villa Roberto, Rochelle Park NJ
-Fundraising Reception for Bob Gammage for Governor, Houston TX
-Honorary Chair, Fundraiser for Eric Massa, candidate for US Congress NY-29, Washington DC
-IAVA PAC, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC to support veterans for Congress
-Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Keynote Speaker, Santa Barbara CA
-Kentucky Democrats Family Day, Frankfort KY
-Kevin Wall Radio Show, WLAC "Tennessee Today" on behalf of Harold Ford Jr.
-Kickoff of Juan Garcia's race for Texas House District 32, Corpus Christi TX
-Letter-writing campaign to demand body armor for troops
-Liberal Supper Club, Washington DC
-Louisville Democratic Rally, Louisville KY
-McCracken County Democratic Rally, Noble Park Amphitheater, Paducha KY
-Meade County Democratic Rally with Col. Mike Weaver, Courthouse, Brandenburg KY
-Meeting with Democratic activists, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH
-Meeting with Polk County Democrats, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
-Monroe County Democratic Committee press conference, Veterans Center, Rochester NY
-National Security and Veterans' Issues Rally with Paul Aronsohn (NJ-05), American Legion, Rochelle Park NJ
-North Dakota Democratic-NPL Convention, Fargo Civic Center, Keynote Speaker, Fargo ND
-Northern Kentucky Democratic Rally for state candidates, Wilder Civic Center, Wilder KY
-Ohio Democratic Party fundraiser, Hotel Westin, Cincinnati OH
-Press Conference Call with Chairman Dean for DNC announcement of new "Fighting Democrats" website and formation of Democratic National Veterans and Military Families Council
-Public Rally with Jon Tester, candidate for US Senate, Lions Park, Great Falls MT
-Rally with Representative Hubert Vo in TX House District 149, Houston TX
-Rep. Charlie Rangel's Birthday Gala Celebration, benefit for Democratic candidates, Tavern on the Green, NYC
-Retired Enlisted Association (TREA), public event in support of Jay Fawcett, Colorado Springs CO
-Salem/Windham Democrats, Windham NH
-Speech at Jack Carter campaign headquarters, Las Vegas NV
-"Take Back the House with General Wesley Clark" in support of Democrat Francine Busby for CA-50
-"Take the Hill" ClarkCast with Claire McCaskill
-"Take the Hill" fundraising email for Joe Sestak (PA-07), Bruce Braley (IA-01), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), and Eric Massa (NY-29)
-Taylor County Democratic Rally, National Guard Armory, Campbellsville KY
-Texas Democratic State Convention, Opening Speaker, Ft. Worth TX
-Town Hall Meeting, New England College, Henniker NH
-Upper Valley Democrats and Young Democrats of Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
-Veterans for Murtha Rally with Max Cleland, Central Park, Johnstown PA
-Veterans for a Secure America fundraiser, Washington DC
-Veterans Rally with Claire McCaskill, candidate for US Senate, American Legion Post 103, St. Louis MO
-Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA
-Warren County Democrats Fall Dinner, Special Guest, Indianola, IA
-WesPac fundraiser introducing six vets running for Congress; American Legion, Amaganssett, Long Island NY

Congressional Events in 2006:

-Congressional Radio-Television Gallery Dinner, Washington DC
-Joint Congressional National Security Press Conference on Bush record of failure to secure America, release of report "The Neo Con," Washington DC
-Joint Congressional Press Conference on National Security, with Madeline Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski
-Press Conference, House and Senate Democrats "Real Security" plan, Washington DC
-Press conference with Senator Schumer introducing "Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006"
-Senate Democrats Weekend Policy Retreat, Philadelphia PA
-"Take Back Your Privacy" E-Mail Campaign in support of S. 2178, "The Consumer Telephone Records Act of 2006"
-"The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report


Civil Liberties events in 2006:

-ClarkCast, "NSA wiretapping and Hayden"
-Press conference with Senator Schumer introducing "Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006"
-"Take Back Your Privacy" E-Mail Campaign in support of S. 2178, "The Consumer Telephone Records Act of 2006"
-Securing America: "Where is the leadership and the rule of law?"


Economy events in 2006:

-Clark Community Network Series Blog: Economy CSI


Educational events in 2006:

-Bethany College, 9/11 Remembrance speech and reception, Bethany WV
-Emory University Presidential Distinguished Lecture Series, "Strategic Leadership in the 21st Century" Atlanta GA
-National Student Leadership Conference, Washington DC
-Purdue University Sears Lecture Series, West Lafayette, Indiana
-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Commencement Speech and Honorary Degree, Troy NY
-Senior Fellow, Burkle Center for International Relations, UCLA International Institute
-"Take a Meeting With the World" Public Lecture Series, Interview by George Stephanopoulos, Bel-Air CA
-University of Alabama Blackburn Institute, Frank A. Nix Lecture series, Tuscaloosa AL
-Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA
-Wagner College Commencement Address, Staten Island NY


Election integrity events in 2006:

-ClarkCast: Election Integrity
-ClarkCast: The Security Of Our Elections
-ClarkCast: The Security Of Our Elections, Part II
-ClarkCast: Election Integrity Summary


Environmental events in 2006:

-ClarkCast: "Final Thoughts on Global Warming"
-ClarkCast: "Common Voices, Global Warming"
-ClarkCast: Leadership and Global Warming
-Clark Community Network: "Real Science Blog"
-YearlyKos Convention, Panelist: "Championing Science," Las Vegas NV


Foreign Affairs events in 2006:

-2nd Annual Conference on International Governance Innovation, Keynote Speaker, Ontario, Canada
-ClarkCast: "Middle East Summary"
-ClarkCast: "Reflections on Kosovo"
-ClarkCast: "The State of the Middle East"
-Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade, Panelist: “The Age of Great Immigrations” Doha, Qatar
-"Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark," Council on Foreign Relations, Washington DC
-Newsweek article, "What We Must Do Now" re Afghanistan
-Op-Ed, The Hill, "Warming to the India nuclear deal"
-Visit to Kosovo as guest of government; talks with President Fatmir Sejdiu; address to Kosovo Parliament; meeting with Status Negotiation Group


Grassroots events in 2006:

-Bloggers' Roundtable, Los Angeles CA
-Blogging on DailyKos from Little Rock
-ClarkCast: "Common Voices From Iowa"
-Meeting with Draft Clark 2004 supporters, Cedar Rapids IA
-Meeting with Democratic activists, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH
-Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus Third Annual Conference, Little Rock AR
-Reception for YearlyKos Bloggers, Las Vegas NV
-YearlyKos Convention, Las Vegas NV


Human Rights events in 2006:

-Arab American Institute Foundation Kahlil Gibran ‘Spirit of Humanity’ Awards Gala; Clark presented to former President of Poland Lech Walesa
-Boston Globe Op-Ed, "A US Plan for Darfur"
-ClarkCast: "The Crisis In Darfur"
-C-Span Book-TV program "After Words"; Guest David Rieff, author of "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention"
-News & Notes with Ed Gordon, "Why the U.S. Should Care About Darfur" NPR
-PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, discussing the life of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic
-Sears Lecture Series, "Do We Really Care about Human Rights?" Purdue University, Indiana
-Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Slobodan Milosevic "A Petty Hitler"


Labor events in 2006:

-Hawkeye Labor Council fundraiser for Workers for a Better Iowa, Cedar Rapids IA
-Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire 9th Biennial Convention, Nashua NH


Publishing/Media events in 2006:

-Association of Alternative Newsweeklies Convention, Little Rock AR, Opening Remarks; An Evening at the Clinton Presidential Library, Little Rock AR
-Book signing with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography" at Barnes and Noble, Broadway and 82nd Street, New York NY
-Congressional Radio-Television Gallery Dinner, Washington DC
-C-Span "Booknotes" with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography"
-C-Span Book-TV hosted "After Words"; Guest David Rieff, author of "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention"
-Editor, "Great Generals" biography series, Palgrave Macmillan
-Newsweek, "What We Must Do Now" re Afghanistan
-Op-Ed, The Hill, "Warming to the India nuclear deal"
-Politics TV interview, "Politics and the Internet," Las Vegas NV
-Time, "Rules of Engagement" - interview re Haditha
-Washington Post Book Review, "The Commando Option"; To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, from Achilles to Al Qaeda By Derek Leebaert
-Young Turks interview on Iraq and Iran, Las Vegas NV


Science/Technology events in 2006:

-Clark Community Network Series Blog: Real Science
-Digital Universe web browser
-Politics TV interview, "Politics and the Internet," Las Vegas NV
-Rodman & Renshaw 3rd Annual Security, Biodefense & Connectivity Conference, New York City
-YearlyKos Convention, Science Panel, Las Vegas NV


Security events in 2006:

-Bethany College, 9/11 Remembrance speech and reception, Bethany WV
-ClarkCast "Thoughts on 9/11"
-Democratic Radio Address on Democratic national security plan
-Joint Congressional Press Conference on National Security, with Madeline Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski
-Press Conference, House and Senate Democrats "Real Security" plan, Washington DC
-Milken Institute Global Conference; Panelist: "Global Risk: What Should Be Keeping You Up at Night" Los Angeles CA
-"Real State of the Union" speech before New America Foundation, Washington DC
-Rodman & Renshaw 3rd Annual Security, Biodefense & Connectivity Conference, New York City
-Town Hall Meeting on Iraq War, UFCW Hall, Phoenix AZ
-"The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report


Veterans/Military Events in 2006:

-Albuquerque veterans meeting, Bataan Memorial Park, with Democratic candidate Patricia Madrid, Albuquerque NM
-ClarkCast, "Integrity and Dissent"
-Clark Community Series Blog: Troops & Vets
-DNC Statement on Bush failure to provide body armor for troops
-Email to supporters re VoteVets ad against George Allen of Virginia
-IAVA PAC, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
-IAVA PAC Founding Members Reception, Washington DC
-Letter-writing campaign to demand body armor for troops
-Letter-writing campaign to "End the Widow's Tax"
-New Hampshire Veterans Home visit, Tilton NH
-Press Conference with Rep. Leonard Boswell, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) services for troops, Capitol Rotunda, DesMoines IA
-Press Conference Call with Chairman Dean for DNC announcement of new "Fighting Democrats" website and formation of Democratic National Veterans and Military Families Council
-Project H.E.R.O. pilot, home of disabled veteran Shelby Bowling, Hamilton OH
-Project H.E.R.O. launch, Washington Court Hotel, Washington D.C.
-"The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report
-Veterans for Murtha Rally with Max Cleland, Central Park, Johnstown PA
-Veterans Forum: “Defending America, Defending Veterans”; Karl Ross Post No. 16, Stockton CA
-Veterans Rally with Claire McCaskill, candidate for US Senate, American Legion Post 103, St. Louis MO
-Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA


Youth Events in 2006:

-Boys and Girls Club of America Centennial Celebration, Guest Speaker, Boston MA
-National Student Leadership Conference, Washington DC


==========

Advisor, US Congress Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Advisor, Global Green USA "Healthy Homes, Smart Neighborhoods" Task Force on sustainable housing in post-Katrina Gulf Coast areas

Advisor, IAVA PAC, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Advisor, ManyOne Network, Digital Universe web browser

Advisor, US Senate Democratic National Security Advisory Group

Advisor, VoteVets

Chairman, City Year Little Rock

Congressional Task Force on United Nations Reform

Editor, "Great Generals" biography series, Palgrave Macmillan

Foreign Affairs commentator, FOX News

National Chairman, International Code Council Foundation Project H.E.R.O

Senior Fellow, Burkle Center for International Relations, UCLA International Institute

Stop Global Warming Virtual March

Vice Chairman, International Crisis Group



Is that enough for you?

[maryallen]

68. PRO-PA-GAN-DA!!!

Here we go, again. The media and the "man behind the curtain" will, by damn, pick our presidential candidates whether we like it or not.

And then deliver the vote ... via Diebold, ESS, Sequoia, etc.

Propaganda! Propaganda!

Got a good beat ...

[IndianaGreen]

69. 33% is Hillary's high water mark!

As the field narrows, Hillary will be hard pressed to go above 33%, while the anti-Hillary candidate (whoever he might turn out to be) will get the majority of all the votes.

[mtnsnake]

91. and how do you know this?

How do you know she won't get 87% of the vote when the field narrows?

[IndianaGreen]

100. 77 % of the people polled do not want Hillary, they want someone else

and odds are that they will go with someone other than Hillary when their preferred candidate drops out.

In other polls, the ones that are based on name recognition, a lot of the people indicating they support Hillary have no clue as to her stand on issues. I can speak with some authority in regards to the LGBT community, many of whom do not know she opposes same sex marriage, and has done nothing even in terms of pushing for civil unions. Many lesbians, for example, support Hillary on the misguided notion that she is a woman, not realizing that there are other Democrats with a better record than Hillary on women's issues.

[MeanBone]

101. I don't think Hillary will win, but you might want to get a new calculator.

:argh:

[mtnsnake]

105. You're wrong to imply Hillary's record on women's issues is not up to par

of other Democrats. Her record on women's issues is just fine, yet you make it sound as though she leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to women's issues, just because she disappoints you in ONE special interests issue, the same sex marriage issue, which is just as much a men's issue as it is a women's issue.

Here's just a quick refresher about Hillary and how she feels about women's rights:

Support For Women: At the United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 she delivered a speech called “Women’s Rights are Human Rights”. As a Senator, Hillary champions equal rights for girls and women by fighting to protect Title IX, which provides equal opportunities for girls and women in sports and supporting legislation that would ensure pay equity for women. She also supports a woman's right to have an abortion while working to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/womeninpolitics/p/Senator_Clinton.htm

[AtomicKitten]

70. Special Comment (with six you get egg roll)

What would have been an exciting poll open for lively discussion has, as usual, degenerated into a yeah Kerry and screw Hillary discussion. B-O-R-I-N-G. And one of ther reasons DU just doesn't do it for my anymore.

Hillary. I saw my fabulous gay, Jewish, NY transplant, doctor here in SF yesterday. He's an ultra-liberal activist and was really taken aback at my hesitation about Hillary, and I realized I have a dingy skid mark on my brain regarding her compliments of the crowd here at DU. Although I can't vote for her in the primary as I have sworn to abstain from supporting ANYONE who voted yes on the IWR (hey, I'm the mother of a 20-year-old son that could have been in Iraq), as I stated when I first stumbled into DU over a year ago, if she's the nominee, I will stand with her.

Obama. His potential takes my breath away. He's not at all what some paint him here as. He's a liberal through and through. The fact that he gives Hillary a run for her money alone is noteworthy. If Gore doesn't run, I'm there.

Gore. My main man. Go Al. He so deserves a do-over. He took it to the Supreme Court and then like the elegant gentleman he is, let it go. We cried as a nation. If he throws his hat in the ring, I'm so there. IMO that would be orgasmic.

Edwards. The populist. A man of the people. IMO would make an excellent VP.

Kerry. Consistently places mid-range, here fifth. A great man, a terrible politician. If any of the contenders is deemed unelectable, it is he.

Clark. Smart, soulful man that has paid his dues to be called a Democrat. I supported him in 2004 when Gore didn't run. IMO excellent VP material.

There you go. A discussion of all the candidates.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

[fuzzyball]

71. Hillary the Snow White Vs the 9 Dwarfs

is how the media will portray the race.

[wisteria]

76. Screw CNN I suppose they must be disapointed Kerry's numbers

aren't lower because they have been running a very nasty anti Kerry campaign for a while now. They couldn't get more negative.

[wisteria]

77. I want to see the other contenders numbers after CNN attacks them as they have attacked Kerry.

Everyone else above Kerry has received nothing but good press.

[zann725]

78. Let's not forget the "manufactured" news CNN admitted using just last year.

Powers-that-Be clearly pushing HARD for ONLY Hilary or Obama (among Dem candidates). All they have to do is convince we-the-people we want one of these two milk-toasts too.

And speaking of Kerry's sliding numbers...while "reviewing" his alleged "botched" joke, in light of sudden possible reinstatement of Draft. An emotional slip-up perhaps, given JK's past Anti-war activist past...but NO botched joke, sorry. And suddenly his numbers (and most of the other candidates) drop?? Please! More a MSM sales-pitch of Obama & Hilary, AND manufactured polls telling us JK (and other candidates)are NOT what we "want." (Not candidates to actually end the War.) Instead, someone like Obama who just this week came out and said "No timetable." Or equally cautious Hilary. Status quo is what these numbers say. 'Vote for a Dem, if you want..just not a TRUE Dem...Repub "lite."

Listen to your hearts, not 'numbers.' Remembering the 'numbers' on Election Day in '00 AND '04 were 'wrong' both times. No more repeating the past. Listen to our hearts, not the 'numbers.' Then make our OWN 'numbers' to pull us out of the mess this country is in. And Hilary OR Obama are NOT the answer...if we TRULY seek Change.

[BikeWriter]

80. Sheeeeeeit, the GOP is voting for Clinton.

[zulchzulu]

85. The numbers look like Thanksgiving 2003 with Dean on top

Funny how polls like this are more like crack than anything else...

[tsuki]

96. Why is corporate America pushing Hillary? eoq

[kayice]

104. I think the Republicans are secretly behind Hillary.

Hillary was hanging with too many Republicans till she realized it raised people's eyebrows. Plus, there are still questions about the Rose Law firm.

This country has enough baggage with the Bushes and Clintons. There are too many rumors about their ties over the years, too many rumors about that Children's Defense Fund aka "No Child Left Behind".

Can one spend millions and years trying to build a case about lies but meanwhile the whole time diverting the attention away from the real truth?

[zann725]

148. Exactly! AND Obama too. One has to ask if Powers-that-Be promote these two,

how could We-the-People, the Democrats and America possibly be on the "same page" with either of these non-candidates?

Neither excite me. Manchurian candidates, almost...too "controlled" in words and action to truly trust.

[Mass]

97. Whoever thinks these numbers mean anything is a fool.

Way too early at this point. In addition, other polls taken the same week show Kerry, Edwards, and Gore tied, and Clinton and Obama much closer than they are in this poll.

Why should I think any of these polls has more value than another one?

It is pure stupidity, but I will be happy to let Hillary's supporters think that the race is already won. This is the best thing that can happen to the competition.

LOL.

[MeanBone]

99. Clinton, Kerry, Gore lose support to Obama. Edwards steady.

Edwards will be very hard for any of them to catch in Iowa.

[kayice]

103. Edwards may team up with Feingold for Veep. Feingold said

he hasn't ruled out a VP role. I think it would be an awesome ticket. Those two seem to care about their country's PEOPLE the most.

[MeanBone]

106. That would be an excellent combination.

Both Feingold and Edwards have so much energy and optimism. People look at both of them and see the FUTURE, as opposed to someone like McCain, who clearly represents the past.

[Clark2008]

157. Feingold also said he hoped the nominee would be someone

who didn't support the war... that would rule out his support of Mr. Edwards.

[wisteria]

143. IMO, Edward's is the Leiberman of 08. n/t

[jpwhite]

102. This is why we should put some of these people in the cabinet...

John Edwards would make a great Attorney General. Wesley Clark would do great as the Secretary of Defense. Bill Richardson could be in charge of dealing with the immigration problem. John Kerry would make a great Secretary of State. With this as a cabinet you could have a Clinton/Obama ticket and it would be awesome. Great leaders surround themselves with great people, and that's what we need to do if we are going to win the White House in 2008.

James
[e-mail]

[lovuian]

107. 33% is such a Freemason number

this is NWO stuff
Poll is full of crap
I would hope the Dems could come up with better candidates

[The Magistrate]

119. Care To Elaborate, Sir?

Your meaning falls short of crystal clear....

[Imagevision]

141. Hillary will only have to sweat Obama...

[wisteria]

144. yawn, I will get worked up about polls like this in 08, now they mean nothing.

They give the political pundits something to talk about and people to promote. But, these numbers are not etched in stone.

[hamletsophelia]

149. why is Kerry even mentioned

[wisteria]

150. This is only Temp. positioning for Kerry, he will be up again in the next poll.

This was taken when he was being smeared and trashed in the media. He has since come back, defended him self and even been interviewed by the Baker Commission on his ideas for Iraq.

[fuzzyball]

152. Hillary is the strongest candidate per money, media & big dog...

No one else has a chance, so might as well get used to it.

[zulchzulu]

156. Welp, since there's only 13 months until the first race...I give up...

Massuh, sho' looks lak iz gwonna be Miss Hill'ry. Okie dokie, den, boss...