I'd better celebrate now . . .

WOOOOHOOOOO!!!

Steve

And yes, I was kidding about Disney.  They need a Six Flags ;-)

Now *that's* a comprehensive poll!

Red State Democrats.  It worked for Bill Clinton, and would've worked for Mark Warner.  Our two serious Red State Democrats are Edwards and Bayh.

I see Clark being offering a cabinet position in exchange for a pledge of support from one of the front runners.

Bayh has the executive experience (two-term governor), plus the national security experience (two areas where Edwards is weak).  I see him being a very strong candidate--especially if he can persuade Mark Warner to jump on board as a VP candidate. 

Granted, Clark is a general, like these others.  But within the military and the U.S. population at large, I don't see him approaching the same stature as these other examples. 

The conditions for a deviation also aren't like 1952. 

Financially, Clark is going to face some huge challenges.  Major fundraisers like to hedge their bets with elected officials (e.g. if a Hilary Clinton loses, you haven't entirely wasted your money because she still is an influential Senator).

And electorally, where is Clark's base? 

Geography plays into this.  If Mark Warner runs as a VP, there's going to be a touch of regional pride in supporting the Democratic ticket as a Virginia.  Same is true I suspect for Hoosiers with Bayh.  Will Arkansas break as hard for its native son?

Could it happen?  Anything can happen.  But I think there needs to be a major change in the political climate between now and the first batch of primaries.  Clark's base of support is real enough, but his chances depend heavily a large number of events outside of his control breaking his way.

Plus he was commander of very large bases....which gives him governing experience. He was responsible for everything from the school kids funding and curriculum to the pot holes in the street.

We don't see any other candidates listed who have negotiated with foreign leaders, worked on successful peace treaties, and has held a "head of state" position when he was Supreme Allied Commander.

But of course, if that is not enough, because the question is does military executive experience equal executive experience, one could look to what he has done since he took off the uniform. Wes Clark has been the CEO of a company developing hydrogen engines. He now heads the board of a private investment bank that specializes in emerging medical and energy technologies.

Wes Clark does many other things too: serves on the GAO, The International Crisis Group, and the list goes on and on.

Now, I fully realize that he has spent limited time on the rubber chicken circuit, but then, I consider that a plus. I prefer a life of experiences, proven leadership, and yes, someone who has opposed this war. 

i am meeting warner on saturday, i really hope that he will say whether or not he's interested in the VP spot.

yep, i'll be schmoozing with the governor!!

Franken promises to resign and elevate the "Big Dog" to the top spot.

:~)

WOOOHOOOOO!!!

Steve

In the meantime, I'm really just looking forward to seeing Kerry chair the Small Business Committee and chair the subcommittee that will handle Net Neutrality -- regardless of who you like for '08, all bloggers should be heartened that we will find ourselves with such a great ally on this issue.

Electability is certainly a factor in a long list of issues one needs to evaluate in choosing a candidate.  But Kerry is a person of integrity, and I have to believe that the people, after putting up with a corrupt, inept, and dishonest government for so long will find that refreshing this time around.

In addition to all of his many obvious and well-publicized accomplishments and credentials, Clark's demeanor and personality are very similar to that of Jim Webb - quite intelligent, often humble and unassuming, frequently introspective, able to be tough but usually quiet and almost introverted. 

Maybe it's the whole military thing, but Clark has that same sort of understated charisma along with a self-assured (yet self-deprecating) sense of direction and purpose.  I don't think he can be bought, nor can he be sold a bill of goods.  Like Webb, he's a true intellectual who also possesses much common sense and is able to relate to all people.

In New Hampshire in '04, when the program moderator said something negative about Kerry during one of Clark's campaign stops there, Clark stopped the moderator and explained that Clark and Kerry were friends and Clark would not criticize Kerry.

That's the kind of person Clark is, and that's the kind of person who can be a great President.

Also, as of this writing, Clark is still in the lead so I must conclude my remarks with a . . .

WOOOHOOOOOO!!!

Steve

I agree with other posters, Kerry and Hillary can't win, even if they move to the middle.

Please don't call people names just because you disagree. I am no Republican and neither is Beachmom. First I've been a Democrat all my life and I'll tell you one thing Kerry has been the best we have had since Bobby Kennedy, and he is a true blue DEMOCRAT.

Sorry, but I'm getting sick of people like you speaking for everyone, you don't, remember that.

You're telling me that any of these other candidates will do that?  If we DON'T do that then the same corrupt people there now will get off scott free and continue to rip off the people and sabotage our national security.

Robert Parry has given permission to have this article posted in full anywhere, so pass it on:

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.'

And, he's got ideas -- on the Iraq War, on the GWOT, on healthcare, on the environment, on fiscal sanity.  They are visionary ideas that will help people and this country for a long time.  You already are familar with his boy scout stance against government corruption.

Look, I love him in the Senate, too, but if he goes for it, then I will be there to support him, because I believe he is the best person to be president.

If it's McCain - I would want Wesley Clarke.  I think McCain would eat John Edwards alive.  (Kinda like Cheney did.)

But if it's Guiliani - I would want John Edwards.  He's the real deal that Guiliani pretends to be. 

-A

Oh, and...GO JIM WEBB!!!