GARY HART ENDORSES OBAMA!! Warns against nominating another Mondale.

[Hart2008]

I have personal experience of the Democratic party at a generational crossroads. In the mid-1980s the Democratic party could play it safe and stay with a candidate they knew and with whom they were comfortable and familiar. Or they could take a chance with a new generation of leadership with a new understanding of a new age and new policies and ideas. They chose the former and they lost.

Democrats and Americans are faced with a big decision. Will we play it safe? Or will we embrace the future? This is not a time to put gender or race above what is best for the country or to make superficial choices. We have huge debts and deficits. The climate is rapidly approaching a tipping point. We are stuck in the Middle East. Most of the people in the world do not like us or trust us. Our education system is declining. And the list goes on.

Only a new generation of leaders can solve these new challenges, because only a new generation of leaders is unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships. This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power. We will either move forward or we will go back.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-democatic-crossroads_b_80723.html
(Edit to fix link!)

Hart, having predicted the 9-11 terrorist attacks, is the foremost expert in the party on defending the homeland against terrorism. Hart is also an authority on foreign policy who argued against the folly of invading Iraq.

Would Obama name Hart his V.P.???

[no name no slogan]

1. Where's the beef?

:hide:

[sniffa]

10. i just had this convo w/ Bi-Baby about 20 minutes ago.

that Hillary was the new Mondale, and would hit the "where's the beef?" theme.

[no name no slogan]

14. Damn... I've been thinking that same thing for the past couple weeks

This campaign (so far) has been a lot of style over substance. And I'm sad to say it almost makes me long for the '84 campaign.

[Nedsdag]

30. Oh, no doubt.

I've been saying this all along.

Hillary may win the battle but she may lose the war.

[RummyTheDummy]

74. There's no "may" about it

She has zero chance of winning the GE. Zero.

[skipos]

2. Mondale didn't have Nader and Bloomberg AND a Republican running against him

Hillary probably will. Oh boy.

[Hart2008]

58. So with a third party candidate, Mondale could have lost 50 states?

Some will even say that the only reason Carter picked Mondale to be his V.P. was that he was afraid that Eugene McCarthy, who was running in '76 as an independent, might have caused him to lose Minnesota.

[skipos]

65. Mondale came within 3000 votes or so of losing MN.

Pretty unbelievable. I think the Dem party is looking to one up that by nominating Clinton. Maybe we could even lose D.C.! What fun!

[1corona4u]

3. Gary Hart...Gary Hart...where have I heard that name before....

OH yeah, Donna Rice affair, LOL...good endorsment, LOL.

[DS1]

6. It doesn't make him wrong

"LOL"

:eyes:

[no name no slogan]

15. No, just extremely foolish

"Hey press, I dare ya to follow me around and prove I'm not having an affair!"



Donna Rice gives me a Hart on

[still_one]

17. and having a BJ in the oval office, with an INTERN is good? /nt

[no name no slogan]

18. Depends. If you're the president == yeah, the intern == maybe not so much

Oh-- and all bets are off if you get caught.

[still_one]

28. Obviously, you are a programmer, because you didn't use an assignment statement /nt

[Hart2008]

75. Your boy Nixon didn't think so, and Hart never said that!

"Dear Gary,I thought you handled a difficult situation quite well... They demand to ruthlessly question the ethics of anyone else. But when anyone dares to question theirs, they hide behind the shield of freedom of speech."

Hart replied thanking Nixon, "Dear Mr. President:
My family and I want you to know how deeply we appreciate your thoughtful letter. It was considerate of you to write and to offer words of support and encouragement."

You just made a quote up. Hart never said that!

Very unprofessional, but why let the facts get in the way of good story, right?
The Miami Herald and the National Enquirer didn't, so why should you?
Hart was the only Democrat who could have won the presidency in the 80's, so everyone had to pile on him.

You are also in violation of Donna Rice Hughes's copyright on that picture, which was stolen from her. Do you claim that she gave you permission to publish that here, or should I check with her lawyer?

But why talk about Hart, without mentioning Poppy Bushes mistress, which all of D.C. knew about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald

Why not write about Dick Cheney and the D.C. Madam?

Why not admit that there were special rules for Gary Hart?

[no name no slogan]

76. You dare the press to catch you doing something bad, and you get caught

and you pay the price. Unfortunately for him, it was his candidacy.

It was STUPID. And he got caught. His move lacked judgment-- a VERY important trait in a president.


What was even MORE stupid was dropping out of the race, and then JUMPING BACK IN, like he did in 1988. He pretty much blew all his credibility with that move.

And you're right, he probably could have won in 1988, but he fucked it up-- big time.

And he has nobody to blame but himself.

[Hart2008]

85. BS. What price does Cheney pay for repeatedly calling the D. C. Madam? He got caught!

Joe Sixpack gets caught soliciting prostitutes, he gets locked up. The Vice President of the United States does it, and the MSM all clam up about it.

Where the hell is the justice here?

The ugly truth is that we have different rules for different people. Bush Sr. and Jr, and Dick Cheney can have all the sexcapades they want, and the MSM won't report about it, but when a Dem challenges them, its all the MSM will talk about. Prior to 1988, a politician's personal life was largely off-limits. 1988 was when it changed, but only for Democrats. For Bush to win, the rules had to be changed for the Dems.

Do you really think that Dukakis was the best we had in '88?

Why didn't Mario Cuomo and Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers run in '88?

The way I heard it, they all got phone calls telling them if they ran, the MSM would report about their marital infidelities. So, the both sat out. So did Bill Clinton.

At the same time, all of D.C. knew about Bush Sr. and Jennifer Fizgerald:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald
The MSM never even asked Bush about her. Junior was the guy who denied the rumors to the media, not the old man.

On the other hand, Hart was getting peppered with questions. Hart and his wife had split up twice, and during those times he had been apparently dating. (From what I understand, their disagreements were the of a clash of wills between two strong willed people, not because Gary Hart was a womanizer.) It was the only really bad thing the oppo research people could find on him.

What exactly did Dionne ask Hart to elicit that response?

Twenty years later, we still don't know what E.J. Dionne asked Hart that provoked the response which you grossly misquoted and mischaracterized. The quote remains out of context. The quotation appeared in what was otherwise a very favorable article about the Hart’s in which Lee Hart took responsibility for their marital problems. I believe that Dionne had asked Hart if he, like Cheney and Clinton, had frequented prostitutes. When Hart was asked about his relationship with women he might have dated when separated from his wife, he always declined to answer. In fact at the time Dionne interviewed him, Hart had yet to speak to Donna Rice. (She was then dating the Eagles Don Henley at the time. He later wrote the song “Dirty Laundry” about the media coverage of Hart and Rice.)

The fact remains that the reporters of the Miami Herald were ignorant of Hart’s alleged “challenge” until after the Herald had already spent considerable expense to send a team of reporters from Miami to D.C. and were watching Hart’s rented D.C. townhouse, (Where Lee Hart never lived,) and weeks into their investigation.
The fact also remains that the Miami Herald never followed Gary Hart around anywhere. They were stalking Donna Rice and lost her at the D.C. airport, if you want to believe them. They never saw how Rice entered the premises of Hart’s townhouse, nor how she left. (Unlike in suburbia, the normal method of entering and leaving a D.C. townhouse, unless you are delivering a pizza, is through the garage in the back.) What they saw was Donna Rice walk OUT the front door, look at the street, and then walk back into to the house. After Rice had left, Hart confronted them, and they then demanded to know if he had just had sex with her. Despite neither seeing Rice come or go, the Herald then published that Rice had spent the night at Hart’s townhouse. 64% of the American public found the Herald’s reporting "unfair" according to Gallup.

The fact also remains that Rice was not the reason Hart suspended his campaign. (He didn’t really quit the race.) Hart suspended the campaign when the Washington Post threatened to report on his activities while separated from his wife, which included “outing” a woman who denied she had had an affair with Hart. (The reporter who did this later resigned in disgust.) Again, the same Washington Post refused to even ask Bush Sr. about the well known reports of Bush’s adultery with Jennifer Fitzgerald.

But to return to the issue of Hart’s judgment, I think accurately predicting that terrorism was a major threat to the nation prior to 9-11 tells you all you need to know about Hart’s judgment. The refusal of the MSM to cover Hart’s warnings speaks volumes about the lack of journalistic standards in this country. The Hart-Rudman Commission was the largest review of American security policy since the end of World War II, and it was completely ignored in the U.S. MSM. Fighting terrorism just wasn’t sexy enough for them,

Hart was the best President we never had.

When you wonder why we didn’t have another FDR, JFK, RFK or LBJ, consider what happened to Hart.

Oh, and JFK’s secret first marriage was never annulled or divorced. JFK was a bigamist. The entire time he was in the White House he was committing adultery, since he and Jackie weren’t legally married. Imagine if the press had published that?

LBJ was quite a sinner...

And FDR died with his mistress...

And RFK had quite a thing going with MM.

[no name no slogan]

89. Hey, I don't MAKE the rules-- but I know what happens when you don't follow them

Despite your multi-paragraph diatribe, you still didn't address my main point one whit:

GARY HART FUCKED UP. He DARED the yellow media to catch him fooling around, AND HE GOT CAUGHT. END OF STORY.

I never said Dukakis was the best candidate in '88. Had Gary Hart not been so foolish as to dare the press to catch him, he very well may have been the nominee. Maybe he should have tried to be a little more discreet, knowing damn well what the consequences would be if he got caught.

That shows an amazing lack of judgment on his part.

[Hart2008]

92. What happens to Cheney for calling the D.C. Madam? Why the different rules for GOP VP's?

Your entire argument is premised on a "dare" which you neither quote, nor know the context in which it was made.

YOU assume you know.

What question did E.J. Dionne make that made Hart give that answer?

Twenty years later, Dionne still won't say.

Dionne had in fact been following Hart around. He followed him around New Hampshire.

You also assume that somehow, the Miami Herald decided to take Hart up on his alleged "challenge" despite the fact that they had already begun stalking Rice and spying on Hart's rented D.C. townhouse before being aware of this quote. You also fail to address that fact the Miami Herald never did follow Hart anywhere.

Even Presidential candidates are entitled to some privacy...
unless they are Democrats, right?

[no name no slogan]

93. Whatever. You're not even listening to what I'm saying

It's not about privacy or who's boinking who. It's about foolish behavior, and how that reflects on one's judgement. If I were a candidate for ANY public office, I would sure as hell not be purposefully doing something that could be used against me (like having an affair, for example).

But you are obviously Gary's #1 fanboi, so I really don't see the point in trying to talk logically about a severe lapse in personal judgment on behalf of Mr. Hart.

You may now post another 20 paragraphs about how it's not fair he got busted and everybody else does it life's not fair etc.

:eyes:

[Hart2008]

96. Why the double standard with Cheney and the D. C. Madam.

In addition to having your facts wrong, there was and is a double standard regarding publication of allegations of marital infidelities for Dem's vs. the Bushes and Cheney.

The extreme example, is that Cheney, who is and was a public figure, gets a free pass from the MSM for repeated calls to a prostitution service.

Soliciting prostitution is not merely foolish.

It is ILLEGAL!

But the MSM won't publish that story because Cheney is a Repuke.

Won't you don't get, is that prior to '88, the media didn't pry into Presidential candidates personal lives. (In 1980, no one demanded to know why Reagan got divorced, and he was the first divorced man elected President.)

You blame Hart for not knowing that the "rules" about privacy had changed in '88, even though there is no reason he should have known this, while excusing the MSM for failing to ask the incumbent V.P. the same questions, or hold him to same standards. The double standard is a huge issue, both then and now.

Prior to '88, the media DID report about politicians getting caught with prostitutes, and now it doesn't...

only if the story is about a Republican.

[Hart2008]

103. So the rules are only Dems get busted for marital problems, but Repukes using hookers OK with MSM

So it's not about privacy.

And it's not about foolish behavior.

It is only about party affiliation.

A Dem who is a serious threat to GOP dominance gets slimed by the corporate media.

Repukes having affairs and using prostitutes get blind silence from the MSM.

[redqueen]

81. Some people just can't resist drudging up titillating scandals.

Childish if you ask me... but you know how it goes...

[Hart2008]

86. The Iran-Contra affair was a scandal. Hart's personal life was only cheap sensationalism.

The two were not in any way equivalent.

There will always be cheap shot artists.

The sad part is how easily the MSM can manipulate Dem's.

[redqueen]

87. VERY well put.

And it is very sad, yes.

[still_one]

8. Almost as good as a BJ in the oval office /nt

[jenmito]

12. Does the name Monica Lewinsky mean anything to you?

I bet you don't hold that against Bill Clinton who's campaigning for his wife, do you?

[1corona4u]

43. Not a damn thing....

1. I'm not a Hillary supporter, just a defender here.
2. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton either.

See, the problem is, Obama's a family man. Hart, is an adulterer. How can that ever be reconciled?

[Hart2008]

55. WTF! Carter is a family man. FDR, JFK, and LBJ were all adulterers.

Did Carter make a better President than FDR, JFK or LBJ?

What does a candidate's personal life prove about how effective he/she executes the office?

The funny thing about your post is that in '88 the MSM said that Lee Hart just wanted to be First Lady, and therefore didn't care about anything else. The implication that somehow Gary Hart was a serial adulterer like, well Bill Clinton. Now that wasn't true. Twenty years later there still isn't a single woman who has come forward by name to claim she had an affair with Gary Hart. (Donna Rice always denied the relationship was sexual, and never made a dime from it.) Now compare that to Bill Clinton...well I don't have all night here.

Lee and Gary Hart have now been married for 50 years now, and Lee Hart never had any ambitions to run for political office herself.

Maybe that is the difference between them?

[redqueen]

82. Logic isn't as popular as one might hope.

Sadly.

[sniffa]

42. Whooptefuckingdo.

[1corona4u]

44. How original.

[sniffa]

51. Whooptefuckingdo.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Sexcapades aside he could've beaten Bush in '88

And possibly Raygun in '84 as well.

[Hart2008]

73. Like Cheney now, all of D.C. knew about Bush's sexcapades in '88.

The MSM only publishes this kind of gossip about Dem's, but never about the Bushes, at least before an election:

Jennifer Fitzgerald (born Jennifer Ann Isobel Patteson-Knight in 1932) is a British-born retired U.S. diplomat who allegedly had a long-term affair with President George H.W. Bush from the time he was United States ambassador to China which continued while he was Vice President and then President. She served under Bush "in a variety of positions" (as the Washington Post later put it<1>) for much of this time, and her influence on Bush has in turn reportedly led to friction between her and others working for him.<2> She has never spoken about this allegation. Bush has denied it.

The rumored affair, and Fitzgerald's full name, were often well-known to members of the media who had covered Bush and his career but never discussed in public. Veteran New York Times reporter R.W. Apple said her name was "known everywhere, and it is not used".<1> The affair was first publicly reported by LA Weekly in 1988. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Donna Brazile, a campaign aid to Bush's opponent Michael Dukakis, was asked to resign after she told reporters that George H.W. Bush needed to "'fess up" about unsubstantiated rumors of an extra-marital affair. Said Brazile, "The American people have every right to know if Barbara Bush will share that bed with him in the White House."<3>
...
According to Kelley, Nancy Reagan, who disliked the Bushes, liked to tell the story of a March 18, 1981 incident involving the then-Vice President and Fitzgerald. That night, security men suddenly went up to Alexander Haig and William French Smith, then Attorney General, while they were having dinner at the Lion d'Or restaurant in Washington with friends and family. The pair departed hastily, then returned after 45 minutes laughing and shaking their heads. Asked what had happened, they explained that Bush had gotten into a car accident while out with Fitzgerald and needed their help keeping the incident off the record.<1> Kelley's publisher's fact checkers went to the extent of contacting someone else who attended that dinner, and confirmed the account.<1> The incident later gave rise to a rumor that Bush had been shot on her doorstep, which the Post ran a lengthy article four days later debunking but without mentioning the allegations that she was his mistress.<4>

Other Washington gossip circulated during the 1980s about Bush and Fitzgerald (briefly married to an older man during this period<1>), who served as "executive assistant" to the Vice President. In one widely-told story, Bush had been visiting Fitzgerald one night at her home near the Chinese embassy, when the building she lived in caught fire. The Secret Service refused to even let city firefighters in the building until Bush's departure via a secluded rear exit could be assured.<2>

In 1984, Bush went to Geneva for disarmament talks. Fitzgerald was one of the accompanying staff. A lawyer from the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency went to her room with some papers for her signature and Bush answered the door.<2>After the talks, it was later claimed that the two shared a cottage on Lake Geneva for several days.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald

Cheney lies to start a war, exposes a CIA agent to retaliate against her husband, and the MSM refuses to report that he made frequent calls to a prostitution service. Hart was squeaky clean, and his personal life was all the MSM ever wanted to talk about before 9-11.

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, yes... Mike Dukakis, the Massachusetts Moron, fired Donna Brazile for demanding Bush answer the same kinds of questions that the media had harassed Hart to answer.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. He also fired Sasso for exposing Joe Biden's plagarism

Dukakis might've made an okay President but he wasn't ready to play in the big leagues.

[Hart2008]

91. Dukakis later rehired Sasso, and yes Dukakis wasn't ready for prime time.

Many people in the party knew that Dukakis was a poor choice, but preferred to chance losing the election rather than embrace real change.

[eileen_d]

4. Your link is borken

I mean broken

[jenmito]

5. GREAT news! Thanks! I hadn't heard this yet anywhere. n/t

[rodeodance]

7. hey--cut cutting mondal mr. Hart!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Huh? I have no idea what that means.

[still_one]

11. He is right /nt

[Didereaux]

13. Wow! Gary Hart endorsement...did Donna Rice also endorse?

edit to get the bimbo's name right

[Muttocracy]

21. Gennifer Flowers endorsed Clinton, right?

[Hieronymus]

29. Donna Rice has found Jesus and is a big Republican spokesperson now.

[Hart2008]

64. Donna Rice Hughes is dedicated to protecting children from Internet pornography.

She is hardly a bimbo, and anyone who has ever met her will tell you that she is real sweetheart. Like Hart Donna Rice Hughes has a commitment to public service:

Donna Rice Hughes, President of Enough Is Enough

Donna Rice Hughes, President of Enough Is Enough (EIE), is an internationally known Internet safety expert and advocate. As a respected leader of national efforts to protect children from sexual predators and Internet pornography, Donna has championed EIE’s mission to make the Internet safer for children and families since the group’s formation in 1994.

http://www.protectkids.com/donnaricehughes/bio.htm

She never made a dime from the notoriety, and was always a class act. (Compare her with the Clinton bimbos? Can you name them all?)

Contrary to the media myth, she was not the reason Gary Hart temporarily withdrew from the race in May of '87...

[redqueen]

83. Bimbo?

:puke:

[goldcanyonaz]

16. I can sleep better tonight knowing this.

[AlCzervik]

19. Hart is a very smart man who made a big mistake a long time ago, he's still done a lot

of good work.

[gateley]

26. I just read a Wiki bio on him, and it was suggested that if a Dem takes office,

he might be considered for Sec of Def or Dir of Homeland Security. He certainly HAS accomplished a lot and shouldn't be discredited because of the Donna Rice thing.

[saltpoint]

31. He'd be excellent at either. Accomplishment counts. We could use

people with more of it as opposed to people in the Bush crew with less of it.

Not surprising given the source, an excellent post with clear insight and a bolstered look ahead. any blog is at its best when its top-drawer posters look far and play fair. Thank you.

:toast:

[saltpoint]

33. Yes. His after-hours schedule is none of our business. His day-job

achievements are numerous and impressive.

Thank you for supporting a worthy soul like Senator Hart.

[NoPasaran]

20. Hart has endorsed. Grover Cleveland still playing hard to get.

[MadBadger]

22. Why doesnt he actually say the words that he is endorsing Obama

[Sparkly]

23. What are the "new policies and ideas?"

I still don't see any big differences between Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

[Cameron27]

48. Maybe hope is policy

and change is ideas, or the reverse. Other than that, I haven't found any significant differences in the top 3 either.

[Muttocracy]

24. how did Hart predict 9/11

I heard Biden's National Press Club speech on 9/10 but have never heard a Hart story on it? Thanks.

What is Hart doing these days anyway?

[Bucky]

34. National Commission on Terrorism, 1999 (Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security)

He was lobbying the Bushies to step up their security procedures and take a deeper look at al-Qaeda all thru the spring and summer of 2000.

And from our friends at Truth Out, this: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101203D.shtml

[Muttocracy]

36. Thanks!

[Muttocracy]

38. your sig photo

off topic - who are those women? they look vaguely familiar to me.

[Bucky]

41. Morgan Fairchild and June Lockhart

I thought it represented the perfect fusion of American culture. I had to make it my sig.

[SoxFan]

37. Hart/Rudman Commission

The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, aka the Hart/Rudman Commission, issued a report warning that "States, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nssg/

[Hart2008]

54. Sept. 6, 2001: "Hart Predicts Terrorist Attacks on America." published in Montreal newspapers.

After leaving public life in '88, Hart worked as lawyer, specializing in international law. He presently presently serves as professor of environmental conservation and military reform at Colorado University, Denver.

Hart Co-Chaired the Hart-Rudman Commission that predicted the terrorist attacks would kill thousands of U.S.citizens on U.S. soil. He continued to sound the alarm after the Commission disbanded.

But individually, I went around the country, gave speeches and urged people to pay more attention to this. I also urged reporters and journalists to pay more attention. One of the speeches I gave was in Montreal, ironically, to an International Air Transportation Association meeting. And the next morning, the Montreal papers’ headlines were: "Hart Predicts Terrorist Attacks on America."

BUZZFLASH: And when was that?

HART: That was the day I went down to Washington and met with Dr. Rice, whom I had known before. And I said, "Please get going more urgently on the issue of homeland security." And that was September the 6th, 2001 –- five days before the attack.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/04_hart.html

How bizarre that this warning was published in Canada, but not in the U.S! (Hart was such a threat to the MIC, that the MSM refused to publish his comments for years.)

A large part of the reason that Bush has been able to have his way with things, is that the Dem's haven't put forward anyone with the gravitas to refute him. Hart has the expertise to stand up to anyone on the issue of preventing terrorism and defending the homeland. See how well Hart puts Guiliani in his place here:

An Open Letter to Mayor Giuliani

Dear Mayor Giuliani:

Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City, and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?

The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?

Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.

Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.

You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.

Gary Hart
(co-chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century)

P.S. You might ask these same questions of George W. Bush while you are trying to find a better reason to run for president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/an-open-letter-to-mayor-g_b_47140.html

Now imagine a whole campaign of that against Rudy or Romney!

[Muttocracy]

62. Very interesting stuff

I don't know much about Gary Hart - I was in middle school during that campaign I guess? so only vaguely aware. Biden's first campaign was then too but I didn't really click into who he was until I heard his 9/10/01 speech. Not that I thought he invented that stuff - I just wasn't paying attention to national security issues when I was in college! Or the Canadian press.

I used to live close enough to the border to get CBC radio. Miss it.

Well, bless my Biden for squishing Rudy - again, not that he was the factor, and Rudy is quite capable of wrecking his own campaign - but every bit helps.

[Auntie Bush]

25. Hart warns not to vote for another Gary Hart.

Where did he go wrong in his thinking?

[BeatleBoot]

27. Funniest Post Ever!

Well at least since my George Washington/Barbara Bush painting on the wall post.

[emanymton]

32. Mr Hart Is A Democratic Party Enabler And Sellout

.
His endorsement means little.

I am in no mood to accept anything less than complete return of USA to the rule of law. This inherently includes accountability. Instead of calling an honest reckoning in the people's name the people have twaddle. The blog entry by Gary Hart at Huffington Post is a sellout by a Democratic Party enabler.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-national-interest-and_b_78987.html

Mr. Hart is talking about, "... The national interest cannot be achieved by settling old scores, vengeance for past wrongs, and demonization of those with whom we disagree. ..." With this crowd? You know this idea is totally WRONG!!!

I want my country back and the Constitution restored as the rule of the land! Hold them accountable.
.

[AX10]

46. Hart has good credentials on foreign policy.

But he is naive to think that the GOP is going to give up anything they have now.

[Hart2008]

68. Hart has been extremely critical and angry about the passive Dem's in D. C.

You misquote and misunderstand this:

Oil dependence, climate change, nuclear proliferation, concentrated wealth, fear of terrorism, theocracy, empire, corruption in government, an arrogant and ignorant executive, and violation of civil liberties are not in our national interest.

Equal rights for all, respect for our constitutional guarantees, including most notable habeas corpus, economic opportunity, regulation of market excess, our natural heritage and environment, fairness, justice, and checks and balanced government are all in our national interest.

...

The national interest cannot be achieved by settling old scores, vengeance for past wrongs, and demonization of those with whom we disagree. History operates its own court of justice and vengeance is the enemy of progress.

Together, the two new/old parties must recapture a sense of the national interest, above partisan victory and advantage, willing to achieve consensus for the good of the country as men and women of good will and leadership define it, operating in good faith and mutual respect, and most of all bound by constitutional guarantees and constraints.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-national-interest-and_b_78987.html

Running through this post is a stinging criticism of Bush and the neo-cons, not a call to pardon corruption or crimes.

[jackson_dem]

35. Didn't Hart found the DLC?

[Pastiche423]

40. NO

He did not. It seems you need to learn a little history.

[jackson_dem]

45. I am fairly sure he was involved in its founding

It seems you need to learn some tact.

[karynnj]

50. No he wasn't

In September, 2006, at a Kerry speech (Real Security), Hart introduced Kerry. He spoke of the giants that were once in the Senate - McGovern, Muskie, Church are the ones I remember. They are among the Senators who worked to try to prevent Nixon like abuses in the wake of Watergate in the 70s and 80s. Had Kerry opted in it was pretty clear that Hart was extremely likely to endorse him. He is currently heading a foreign policy organization that John Kerry was behind - they want an alternative to neo-con type foreign policy coming out of many think tanks.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton were among the co-founders of the DLC - I don't think Hart was ever close to Clinton, though he did work with Rudman on a terrorism report commissioned by Clinton.

[Hart2008]

61. Right! Thanks for the assist KarynNJ!

Hart and Kerry are tight, and generally think alike.

Where is Kerry on endorsing anyone?
His relationship with Edwards must complicate things.

The other giant of the Senate that Hart writes and talks about is former Majority Leader, Mike Mansfield:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mansfield

There is no love between Hart and the Clinton's.

In '87, when Hart was riding high in all the polls, Bill Clinton wanted to be his V.P. (Clinton had hired Hart's media advisor, Ray Strothers, to lobby Hart for Clinton. Strothers was Carville's mentor.) Clinton flunked his interview. Hart told Strothers, "Clinton doesn't believe in anything." Word got back to the Clinton's, and they then worked against Hart for the remainder of the campaign.

(Some people close to Hart from the '87-'88 campaign even believe that Hillary was the "anonymous informant" who called the Miami Herald.)

Despite the fact that Hart, as George McGovern's campaign manager, introduced Bill Clinton to national politics by naming him as regional coordinator for the McGovern campaign in Arkansas and Texas, Bill Clinton is loathe to give Hart credit for anything. (The only reference Bill Clinton makes in his book to Hart is about sex scandals.) However, it was Gary Hart, a world traveler, who called Bill Clinton on the phone and told him he needed to send an envoy to Northern Ireland. Shortly thereafter, Clinton sent George Mitchell, who successfully brokered a deal between the sides.

Hillary now wants to take credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

Hart wrote to Clinton proposing he create The U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century, what is more commonly now known as the Hart-Rudman Commission. Clinton created the commission, but declined to name Hart to the commission. Originally, Clinton had named former Oklahoma Senator David Boren as the Democratic Co-Chairman of the commission. Only after Boren left the post, did Hart get named his replacement, and only at the insistence Defense Secretary Cohen.

[Pastiche423]

53. I am fairly sure you are wrong

Specifically, Gary Hart, a future-oriented Democrat who didn’t think labor had all the answers and championed high-tech entrepreneurship and the environment, won 26 states against Mondale in the primaries. The DLC was as much an insider effort to counter Hart, who did not join it, as it was a rebuke to Mondale. Ultimately, Hart’s front-running presidential candidacy for 1988 was brought down by a sex scandal that looks quaint today, and then non-DLCer Michael Dukakis won the nomination.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/monday_morning_quarterback_tri.php

[SoxFan]

47. No, but

his 1984 campaign was part of the impetus for the groups formation. He was part of a group that was sometimes dubbed the "Atari Democrats", which also included Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Bruce Babbitt, and Tim Wirth. These were Democrats who were disenchanted with the party's interest-group fixation, its quasi-isolationist trade stance, and its lack of attention to adapting to a post-industrial economic environment, while maintaining their committment to social justice, racial tolerance, and civil liberites. In the mid to late 1980s, many "Atari Democrats" (notably Babbitt) joined up with more traditonally conservative Southern Democrats like Sam Nunn and Chuck Robb to form the DLC.

[Hart2008]

52. Hell no! Hart founded the New Democrats, not the DLC.

The DLC was in its infancy in '88.

Al Gore was the DLC candidate in '88, not Hart.

Hart was trying to take the party in a new direction without abandoning the party's progressive roots.

In his entire Senate career and two Presidential campaigns, Hart never took a dime from a PAC. Despite the lack of funds, he won more primaries than Mondale in '84 and was even leading Reagan in the polls at times, including a poll published at the convention.

A little known fact is that he finished first runner up to Dukakis at the '88 convention, despite needing a press credential to enter. He is the last Dem to finish first runner up in two consecutive conventions. The results of those two disastrous general elections are history.

[ToeBot]

39. "...and if you don't, I'll endorse my good buddy Micheal Bloomberg!"

Gary Hart weighs in.

[Hart2008]

49. Hart-“I am a Democrat, and I will endorse a Democratic president.”

Gary Hart, a Democrat from Colorado who also served in the Senate, said he intended to endorse one of the Democratic presidential candidates in the next 48 hours, though he declined to identify the candidate.

“I am a Democrat, and I will endorse a Democratic president,” he said. “There are no independent candidates. I won’t endorse a Republican.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08bloomberg.html?ref=nyregion


The forum which Bloomberg attended was organized by former Democratic Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren "to denounce the extreme partisanship of Washington." supra.

Are you stating that Nunn and Boren are backing Bloomberg as well?

Try getting your facts straight.

[Beausoir]

56. Gary Hart isn't fit to tie Walter Mondale's shoelaces. LOL! Gary Hart. Jeesus.

I'm sure this should bring in the Obama voters by the thousands!

[KennedyGuy]

57. well that'll bring that one vote at least

[Hart2008]

101. Many more considering the number of views and recomendations here, and at HuffPo. n/t

[readmoreoften]

59. Gary Hart is that you? Cool.

To be fair, I think you got a rough deal.

[Hart2008]

66. Per Gallup, 64% of the U.S. public agreed with you.

That 64% included former President Richard Nixon. Nixon wrote Hart a letter commending him for "handling a difficult situation uncommonly well." (Hart was McGovern's campaign manager in '72.)

The real scandal in the party was that the DLC preferred to lose another election in '88 than to back Hart. They knew Dukakis would lose.

And no, I am not he.

I do not write as well as the Sage of Troublesome Gulch.

;)

[wisteria]

60. I respect Mr. Hart, but I think he gives too much credit to an unproven

Senator Obama (he does give a damn good speech though) and too little credit to what Senator Clinton could accomplish. She is an individual in her own right- w/o her husband. Who says, her policies and commitments would be the same as former President Clinton.
And, there are other ways to bring this country back together. A major channel of discourse in this county comes from RW talk radio. They drone on and drum into people a couple of themes a week and these themes always trash Liberals, misrepresent us and distort our policy issues. And, it is done over and over again without any challenge. How about fighting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? this would offer a different POV and it would water down their message to their listeners.

I am certainly not ready to choose one candidate over the other right now. But, I will certainly consider what Mr. Hart says, if and when I do decide to choose a candidate.

[sandnsea]

67. There was an opportunity to go after rw radio

But an awful lot of people thought it was a racist attack on Don Imus.

Or an attack by Bush media execs.

Or an attack by feminists for Hillary because he was going after her pretty viciously.

[AtomicKitten]

63. This endorsement speaks volumes about how this race is perceived.

I am very glad it went to Obama.

[CyberPieHole]

69. Who's Gary Hart?

Please advise.

[Hart2008]

71. The only Dem who could have beaten Reagan in '84...The man who predicted 9-11!

In short, Hart won more primaries than Mondale and Jesse Jackson combined in '84, but was denied the nomination at the convention by super delegates. Polls had shown Hart beating Reagan, but Mondale losing, but the super delegates gave the nomination to Mondale, who lost 49 states and by the largest landslide ever in the Electoral College.

With any kind of fair media coverage, he would have won easily in '88. Leading in the polls in '87, he was harassed by media types prying into his marriage and personal life in an unprecedented manner. It was so bad that 64% (Per Gallup) of Americans thought the media treatment of him was unfair. That included former President Richard Nixon. At the same time, the MSM refused to report similar stories about Bush, Sr.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fitzgerald

More recently, he predicted the terrorist attacks of 9-11 as Chairman of the Hart-Rudman Commission.

More here:
http://rungaryhart.com/

[Hippo_Tron]

72. That makes sense, Obama's politics remind me of Hart

Clinton is similar to Mondale in that she is the sum of all of the interest groups that back her. Because I agree with those interest groups on many (but not all) of their positions I will gladly vote for her in a general election because she's far better than a Republican who will be a sum of all of the right wing interest groups.

I like Obama because I believe like Hart that he is more independent of the various interest groups and will make the decisions that he thinks are best, not because he wants to pander to a certain group within the party. IMO this will make him far more electable in November as well.

It's kind of funny that the DLC was founded on the premise that Walter Mondale couldn't tie his shoes without checking with all of the interest groups first. Yet it seems that present day DLC candidates are more than willing to pander to these same groups when it suits their purposes.

[Major Hogwash]

99. Hillary is the DLC choice of candidate today, though.

Bill and a few of other boys in the moderate Dem circle put the DLC, "the 3rd way", otherwise known as the Great Train Wreck coalition, together in 1986 as a result of the 1984 debacle.

Bill didn't win a majority of the votes in 1992, he won a plurality of votes in 1992.
Perot split the vote between him and Bush Senior and Bill was able to squeeze into the White House.

The Great Wreck was caused when Perot challenged Bush Senior and refused to step aside in order for Bush Senior to win the race. As the GOP party crashed into itself, a train wreck, with rubber-neckers looking at the tremendous accident, Bill was able to sneak into the White House.

Perot pulled the same stunt against Dole in 1996.

Lord Byron wrote a poen about how King George III snuck into heaven.
Bill got into the White House much the same way, while the gate keeper wasn't looking.

That is why Gore lost in 2000, even if only narrowly - there was no one to challenge Bush Junior.

There won't be anyone to challenge the Democratic nominee this year, either, so we can't afford to have a repeat of the 1984 debacle and nominate someone who can't even energize the Democratic base.
The only base that Hillary energizes is the Republican base because they hate her husband, Bill.

And in case it hasn't occurred to anyone yet, 2008 is the 10th anniversary of the Lewinsky scandal.
I don't want to relive that shit at all.

[DaLittle Kitty]

77. Problem is Edwards is the guy NOT Obama! Bandwagon effect is Destructive to Democracy!

'tHart is a Klown! Couldn't keep his pants on!

[SaveElmer]

78. Gary Hart isn't fit to shine Walter Mondale's shoes...nt

[Hart2008]

79. Hart spanked Mondale in 26 primaries or caucuses, and consistently outpolled him against Reagan.

Some people in this party like to lose general elections.
:shrug:

[AzDar]

84. I read this piece earlier, and thought he was talking about Edwards.

[David Zephyr]

88. Kerry and Hart endorse Obama. I expect more...including Jimmy Carter.

Take it to the bank.

[AshevilleGuy]

98. He needs Mondale, McGovern, Tom Dewey,

And Alf Landon, to complete his set.

[Hart2008]

102. Too late! McGovern is now in his dodder-age.

George McGovern Backs Clinton

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=240861

This should be a different thread.

[Phred42]

90. Are we SURE Hart is refering to OBama? I'm NOT.

Hart needs to explain himself here. Make it CLEAR Gary!
What the hell are you saying?

He never come out and says he's referring to Obama. The Generational thing isn't clear to me. He is at least referring to political philosophy's like business as usual approaches of Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson. and ALL of the Republicans.

But Edwards and Kucinich would take this country in a very different and Populist direction than these DLC / Blue Dogs Republican-lite conservatives.

Make yourself Clear Gary - What the hell do you mean?

[Hart2008]

100. In Hart's view, this is a two person race, and the torch has been passed to a new generation.

The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is further complicated by unusual factors. Her gender. His race. Many women will vote for her simply because she is a woman. Many minorities will support him simply because he is an unusual black-American. That is human nature and to a great degree understandable. But gender and race cannot and should not obscure the larger realities. America is stuck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-democratic-crossroads_b_80723.html

Maybe you missed his previous statement a few short days earlier:

Already the Obama candidacy has sent a powerful message around a watching world: The torch has been passed to a new generation of American leaders, and we don't care what color it is.

As one who has struggled throughout a lifetime for restoration of idealism to American politics, I can only smile, and perhaps shed a tear of happiness, that our time may have come.

This is a new day in America. Let's call it hope.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/obama-and-the-courage-of-_b_79776.html

[dailykoff]

94. K

too like to R. The good guys support Obama.

[Gloria]

95. Hart was among those listed who was (is?) attending the Unity confab

in OK....so, does he see Obama as meeting the criteria for being one of that crowd?

[Hart2008]

97. Hart has written very highly about Obama on Huffpo.

Senator Obama is a man of principle. He is committed to restoring a sense of national community to America. He believes in restoring our security alliances through active diplomacy and engaging those who disagree with us in constructive dialogue. He restates the requirement that we all give something back to America, to become engaged in the public arena, in the national interest. And, most important, he is the walking embodiment of equality and justice.

Already the Obama candidacy has sent a powerful message around a watching world: The torch has been passed to a new generation of American leaders, and we don't care what color it is.

As one who has struggled throughout a lifetime for restoration of idealism to American politics, I can only smile, and perhaps shed a tear of happiness, that our time may have come.

This is a new day in America. Let's call it hope.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/obama-and-the-courage-of-_b_79776.html

I can't speak for him, but does that answer your question?

:toast: