Clark 08

[Mobius]

that is all :)

[tblue]

1. Hell yeah!

[BluegrassDem]

2. He best hurry up

Hillary and Barack are sucking up all the oxygen. Clark can't afford to be waiting around like he did last time. He better make some moves really quick or he will be forgotten really fast.

[Mobius]

3. yeah he better

you really think so? I have not heard this before...:sarcasm:

[democrank]

4. Wise choice.

That is all.

[andykef]

5. Why?

Clark is not going to be the nominee. What does he bring to the party?
He has never been elected to office and his campaign in '04 was lackluster, to say the least. Good VP though. GORE/CLARK

[xkenx]

6. And Gore's and Kerry's campaign were lustrous?

Clark did pretty well for a neophyte who received NO media attention. Now that he has been appearing regularly in the lion's den (Faux News), campaigning for Dems., he's developed a public presence to be a good campaigner. As early as his '04 convention speech reclaiming the flag for Dems. You should watch it.

[Clark2008]

9. Ah... another person who believes the evening (corporate) news.

Actually, Clark did very well, but his campaign was under-reported.

He came in first, second or third in every state he ran in except South Carolina (he did not compete in Iowa). He out raised Howard Dean during the first quarter of 2004 to be the top fundraiser, he beat John Edwards in five of the nine races in which they both competed. He was the only candidate outside of John Kerry to win a state not his own. And, he did all this after only having been in the race five months total.

Lackluster? Only to the media who were scared to death of a populist and refused to report his win in Oklahoma to any discernible degree, instead opting to report on the speeding ticket his driver received.

[tblue]

19. Yes, clearly someone who knows the General — NOT

Anyone who really knows Clark's credentials, doesn't talk like that about him. He is awesome, and the more you know, the more you love the guy! If you want details, just ask. I know him. I mean, I KNOW him.

[jen4clark]

21. If you have to ask

"What does he bring to the party?" you haven't been paying attention at all. I don't mean to be mean, but it's true. If you are depending on Corpress to give you your information, that explains it though.

[nickshepDEM]

7. Tier 2...

Sort of like Thanksgiving dinner when all of the adults sit at one table and the kiddies at the other.

Grown Folks Table - Hillary, Obama, Gore.

somewhere in between - Edwards (his placement depends largely on what Obama does).

Little Tikes Table - Vilsack, Clark, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Sharpton, Gravel.

[Clark2008]

10. And a child shall lead them. eom

[nickshepDEM]

13. Eh, you're probably right. I was going to place Edwards somewhere in between.

Lets refer to that table as the 'Adolescence Table'.

But at least he has some support and an infrastructure in place in Iowa and Nevada. Edwards has managed to remain popular with the Labor Unions despite being out of office for, what, 2 years now.

You're right, though, my tables are pretty much spot on besides that minor point.

Thanks!

[Clark2008]

14. Not any labor unions in the South, though.

They're all more interested in Clark, Biden and Vilsack right now - someone their rank and file in the red states could possibly see winning a national election. While Biden's not from the Heartland like Clark and Vilsack, he is seen as strong on foreign policy and that sells in the red states. Clark is strong on both points and Vilsack is strong in the area of "he knows us."

Edwards may be from the South, but his persona isn't what Southern and mid-Western white men of the left-leaning persuasion go for.

P.S. Whenever I go into the Kroger's, which has one of the few unions in the South, there is a handful of the guys there that always ask, "Is Clark gonna run?" Same happens when I see the guys at the union hall (it's next to a book store I go to). Most of them, btw, hate Hillary - at least I think calling someone a "man-hating bitch" is a hateful comment. :)

[Texas_Kat]

46. And who did you say was the front runner that uh, dropped out?

Oh yeah.... I remember....

Still picking horses?

[chimpymustgo]

11. LOL!!! nt

nt

[tblue]

20. Them's fightin' words. You obviously don't know General Clark at all.

While we're at it, let me just ask you:

When did Hillary, Gore, or Obama (tho I like them) broker an international peace accord? I'd really like to know. Must've missed that bit of news.

When did they conduct a war and stop a genocide without losing one NATO soldier? Huh?

When did they have streets named after them in TWO foreign nations? And just what nations are they?

Are they all fluent in 5 languages, including Russian? No? NO?

What Army did they help rebuild after Vietnam? Yeah, I'd really like to know.

Where are their Purple Hearts and Silver Stars? Ya know?

Which soldier did they risk death to climb down a cliff to save?

.....I'm waiting.....

[andykef]

23. Get Real

Clark will NOT be the nominee, no chance! At best he is a weak VP pick.
The guy had NEVER held elected office, he is a poor campaigner and he showed a serious lack of judgement in both comments over Iraq and his decision to skip Iowa. GOP will destroy him and people are correct the media will ignore him.
Give it up this is not going anywhere, whether you KNOW him or not.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Get honest

Clark was NOT a poor campaigner in 2004 (though it's true he is a stronger campaigner NOW).

This is taken from the Carpetbagger Report:

"I followed Clark’s campaign pretty closely in 2004 and I remember things slightly differently.

Indeed, looking back, I think the conventional wisdom is that John Edwards excelled as a candidate, while Clark never really caught on with voters. That’s not quite what happened.

After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates — Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards — met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.

In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests.

In fact, in those first eight post-Iowa primaries, if we look only at top-two finishes (candidates who came in either first or second), Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html

If Clark showed poor judgement in 2004, it was to enter a Presidential Race one year later than all of his opponents, and after the Democratic Presidential debates had already begun. That is why he "skipped Iowa" to concentrate on New Hampshire. There wasn't time for him to mount a retail politics campaign in both states. And sure he made some rookie gaffes in literally his first few weeks as a politician. Tell me who wouldn't, but as the carpetbagger blog clearly shows, Clark still did pretty damn good for someone who had never run a campaign before.

That was then, this is now. Here is Clark quoted by the Brown University Newspaper a week or so ago when he spoke there:

"The Herald: How likely is it that you'll run for
president in 2008?

General Clark: I haven't said I won't run.


The Herald: If you do run, how will your campaign
differ from your 2004 campaign?

General Clark: In virtually every respect.


The Herald: Why do you think you were unsuccessful in
winning the Democratic presidential nomination in
2004?

General Clark: Because I got in too late. Because I
had no political experience. Because I had no money
prior to the time I announced, and because I had no
staff. Other than that I was a pretty good candidate.


The Herald: What political experience have you gained
since then?

General Clark: Hundreds and hundreds of visits around
the country with various groups. I campaigned for, I
think, 86 candidates in 26 states in 2006. I was John
Kerry's number one surrogate other than John Edwards
in 2004. I raised more than half a million dollars
directly for John (Kerry) plus represented him,
especially during the final three or four weeks, all
through the West."

[capi888]

27. Listening to "Meet the Press"

Just heard Baker utter the words of General Clark, Tom. We need political solution, meeting with the neighbors, getting our allies back on board. He said, many ALLIES will not join us, because they are against the decisions of the PRESENT administration, going into Iraq.
We must come together as a Country, its not about popularity of a personality, its about WHO has the best experience of getting us out of this mess. NOTHING, economically can be solved WITHOUT, solving the War in Iraq. We are bleeding financially with the cost of 2 Billion a week going to Iraq, and our military bleeding, dying because of Lies, Greed and Selfish reasons.
I will support any candidate, that recieves the nomination for the Democratic Party, however, I know Wes Clark is only one that has the experience, knowledge, and international experience to bring a solution to Iraq.
I hope everyone here knows that Wes Clark is the Democratic Congress surrogate the past 4 years for foreign policy, and Iraq consultations. Sounds like his words were repeated this morning to the ISG.
I believe I have heard his words with most of the other potential candidates. He is A LEADER, HERE AND ABROAD...Just back from Dubi...don't think any of the other possible candidates were invited..wonder why??? BECAUSE HE IS A LEADER!!

[tblue]

31. You know your stuff. Were you in NH in '04, at the Manchester office? Maybe we met.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Two or three times

I regret I didn't come up from New York more. Was there with my partner Janet on the day Wes filed to run in NH, and we were both back helping out on Primary Day. At other times I stayed in touch with David, the volunteer coordinator there, through emails. Next time you can count on us spending a lot more time in New Hampshire!

[tblue]

37. Ahhh, then we could very well have met. I was there for 3 weeks that long, cold January

David Orr is a doll. I haven't heard from him since the election. Have you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. No I haven't heard from him either

David had such good energy for the work he was doing for Clark in New Hampshire. I hope we all get the chance to work together in the future. Next time, you and I can figure out who each other is, lol.

[tblue]

30. Get informed. Okay stay on the Hillary bandwagon. She'll get the nod, and then lose.

[nickshepDEM]

26. Just like Dorothy...

click your heels three times and don't forget to close your eyes. Now say, "Clark is a tier 1 candidate, Clark is a tier 1 candidate, Clark is a tier 1 candidate."

Its Hillary, Obama, and than everyone else. Sorry if you don't see it that way, but dems just the facts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Of course Clark is currently a Tier Two candidate.

But you were pretty snarky in the way you described different tiers, you gotta admit. Every person currently seriously being mentioned as a possible Presidential Candidate has a life time of pretty solid accomplishments already behind them. If anyone is a little kiddie it is folks like us who sit safely at home at our computers dissing people like them (though I don't believe that either - we all have our roll).

Plenty of tier one candidates have gone down in flames in prior presidential election cycles. Lieberman and Gephardt did last time, but there were many others over the years, from Gary Hart to Ed Muskie. And then there are people like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton who were hardly anybody's favorites when they first started their runs.

In recent years our society has shown a trend toward seriously considering and sometimes electing to high office men and women who never had run for any political office before, let alone held one. Quarterbacks, Wrestlers, Actors, you name it. Investment bankers and trial lawyers too. Not for President you say? The last time a previous non politician was elected President was just four years before the last time a sitting United States Senator was elected President, and a hell of a lot more sitting U.S. Senators have tried and failed to become President since then than have non professional politicians. A slew of Senators are trying again right now. It happens every four years.

If Ross Perot had been just a little bit less whacky he might have acutally won the first time he ran, you know. He was right up there in the polls before he temporarily withdrew over some weird flap. Many feel that Colin Powell had a legitimate shot at getting elected President had he either sought the Republican nomination, come out as a Democrat and run as a Democrat, or even run as a third Party candidate.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

29. If Gore doesn't run, Clark is looking better everyday.

[Clark2008]

8. Yes?

Oh... I thought you were calling me.

:7

[IndianaGreen]

12. Any news as to when Clark is going to announce?

What are Clark's immediate travel plans? Iowa or New Hampshire?

[Clark2008]

15. My educated guess?

Sometime after the first of the year - in a lull between others' announcements.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Okay, thanks! n/t

:-)

[Dinger]

16. Yes Indeed Mobius

I don't think we'll have to wait long:)

[Kat45]

18. Absolutely, n/t

[Tinksrival]

22. Absolutely, with out a doubt!

[AtomicKitten]

24. I would love for the General to run.

He has so much to offer. I also have been a staunch advocate of him being SOS or SOD. I think he would be brilliant in any position.

[rocktivity]

33. Works for me.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[JeremyWestenn]

34. Is that actually a shirtless photo of Clark?

Or is that photo shopped?

Hell, I'd hit that!

Or he could hit me...

/blushes

[youthere]

35. I'm with you..Clark is definitely "hittable".

[IA_Seth]

42. dirty perv..

i'm tellin the iowa forum!!

[youthere]

45. wink wink..nudge nudge.

I admire him for his intellect...and the fact he's one hell of a piece of man-candy.

[Renew Deal]

36. Can someone explain to me why this has 2 recommendations?

Is this what it's going to be like in 2007-2008? Lame

[Bucky]

38. Because I didn't read it until now. It'll get that 3rd Recc in just a second.

Yes, us Clarkies get a little loopy sometimes. That doesn't make us not adorable.

[lillilbigone]

44. Because cheerleading, rather than discussion rules the day. nt

[truebrit71]

39. Hell yes!!!!

Clark in '08!!!

[Auntie Bush]

40. I remember that picture! Bought the magizine and still have it around.

Hubba, hubba! :loveya:

[lillilbigone]

43. He isn't in favor of withdrawing from Iraq, so no thanks.

Clark does not believe pulling troops out of Iraq is the right thing to do at this time. That misjudgement alone makes him unqualified to be President, imho:

Clark said Iraq will be a focus of the 2008 campaign. He disagreed with suggestions by some members of Congress that more U.S. troops should be sent to help stabilize Iraq. Neither would he begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within the next six months, as others have suggested.

"It's not a matter of fiddling with troop levels," Clark said. "It's a matter of politics inside Iraq and diplomacy in the region. ... You can lose what's going on militarily inside Iraq, but you can't win it militarily, either by putting more forces in or by pulling them out."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-30-clark-2008_x.htm

More Clark on Iraq: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061121/oplede15.art.htm

[Texas_Kat]

47. A whole lot more on Clark and Iraq

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/18592/1665

[lillilbigone]

49. More obfuscation, yes.

Actually, Clark's pretty clear on the Iraq issue. It's not necessary to wade through mountains of analysis and spin from his faithful followers. Just read his own words to find out his position: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061121/oplede15.art.htm

[lojasmo]

48. Worst. Thread. Ever.

That is all.