Steve

You must mean he's in the best position to actually be president, not run for president, right? That's cool. I still disagree though. We need someone with some balls and some vision. The first few years of the next presidency, we're going to have to put an entire federal government back together, so it's got to be someone who can move an organization, get it off the ground, and keep it in the air, repairing it all the way.

I don't know him all that well -- does Bayh have any balls?

You want a Red State Democrat who did better than Bush in 2004, a year where Democrats got slammed everywhere but Colorado?  Vision is great, but without the experience, how will you implement that vision?  It's okay for me to have Webb as a Senator with little Government experience, as he's 1 of 100.  It's different with the Presidency.  Edwards only got five years experience (he spent his last year in the Senate campaigning).  Obama will have two. Clark will have never held elected office. 

You admit yourself that we're going to have to put the whole executive branch and it's corresponding systems back together again.  Do you really want to elect a guy without executive experience to do that?

The way I see it, Bayh, who has been on Intelligence and Armed Services, has got it all.  He was Governor of Indiana for Eight years, meaning he's got executive experience.  He's been a Senator very active in Foreign Policy.  Put Obama on the bottom half of the Bayh Ticket.  Get him some executive experience before we give him the Big Seat.  Clark is SecState or SecDef.

I'm not denying that he has invaluable FP skills.  Sure, Clark is second to none when it comes to military tactics and foreign policy.  Everything Tom Harkin described above would make him an ideal SecState or SecDef.  But you're missing so many aspects of the Executive Branch. 

As for executive orders, what kind of orders to you think he issued as NATOSACEUR fercripessake?

In addition to being tops in his class at West PointClark was a Rhodes Scholar as well as a White House Fellow, (worked right in the place writing policy as well as budget.)

The one thing Clark *isn't* is a slick politician, preferring to be called "Governor" rather than "Senator" (because as we all well know, a senator hasn't been successfuly elected to the White House in nearly half a century.) 

As for Clark not being a "slick politician," he's sure spent a lot of time on Fox News warming up to Republicans recently.  Sounds like the move of a slick politician to me.

Can't really say I blame you much.

And thanks for the vote for our next President, General Weley Clark.

As you can see, he's still in the lead.

"Lookin' for a leader..."

Found him - WKC!

Thanks!

Steve

We have to show how it applies to all. "If pregnant women get the right to self-determination, bodily integrity, and medical privacy, then EVERYONE will want some."

And for the commenter above: I'm all for abortion rights, but NARAL sucks ass. They backed Lincoln Chafee, who voted for Roberts and Alito. Is there any other senate vote that matters to abortion more than the caucus vote and the votes on judicial nominees?

How much success has NARAL had recently? How about Sierra Club? You wanna tell me that $120M per year wouldn't be better spent in state legislatures and under-funded congressional campaigns?

Edwards couldn't make a dent in NC while being Senator.  He'll make even less of one as ex-Senator.

Clark has no governing experience.  None.  Zippo.  Again, I like what he brings to the table FP-wise.  Either VP or SecState, maybe SecDef.  But not President.

People seem to think that a 4 star general moves tanks around.  That's not what they do.  He's worked at the highest levels.

And, of course, none of that counts the time he spent in the White House throughout his career.  He even wrote the budget one year. 

I have never heard the Wes Clark "single-handedly" wrote the budget.  That's because NOBODY single-handedly writes the budget.  Come on, who are you kidding?  He may have contributed to the military aspects of it, but what President in his right mind trust a life-time soldier with an entire budget?  No, Clark probably worked on the budget to help contribute to what should be spent in FP.

I know Dem Bloggers have a woodie for Fighting Democrats, but not EVERYTHING revolves around the war. 

I beg that you people start thinking about ELECTABILITY.  McCain appears to be promising at least 4 more years of Bush.  So does everybody else save Giuliani, and I doubt he gets through a GOP Primary once his blue-side is revealed.  Do you really think Clark can win after the GOP spinners get through making the same points I have, only a million time more effectively?

Wes Clark has a masters degree in politics and economics from Oxford.  That has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR.  And Wes was at the White House as a Fellow.  It's not a military thing:  http://www.whitehous...

And electability?  Vs. McCain?  Wes Clark IS who people THINK McCain is.  Put those two up on the stage together and people will realize that.  People want a trustworthy moderate.  They think that's what McCain is.  But it really IS what Wes Clark is.  Once people get to see Wes Clark up close, they will love him.  And there's no doubt that he has plenty of relevent experience.

Again, you are living under the impression that a 4-star general does nothing but move tanks around.  You are wrong.  Learn the facts.

I'm two years away from a degree in political science.  Does that make it okay for me to hold political office as soon as I have a degree?  Experience beats degree.  Bayh has experience constructing and managing budgets.  Clark may have experience contributing, but that's it.

Clark didn't single-handedly write anything.  You don't leave an entire budget to a guy who's expertise is War.  I'll repeat, Clark may have aided in constructing a budget, but he didn't write it all.  THAT is an exagerration.  Learn the facts.

Please, if you'd be so kind, tell me what Red states Wes Clark pulls the Kerry couldn't.  And does he keep all of the blue ones, like Wisconsin and NH (barely went Kerry)?  How does Clark win against McCain?  McCain has more war-hero cred than Clark.  Deny it all you will, but it's true.  Wait for the John McCain ad with him shaking the President's hand, on crutches, after getting out of a prisoner of war camp.  You think the stars will beat that imagery?

See, this is why Democrats always lose.  We play the game based on what WE perceive to be the reality.  In truth, the reason the GOP has been so successful is because they play what the VOTERS perceive to be reality.  They play imagery, and they play emotion. In the end, a four star NATO Supreme Allied Commander may have better military credibility than a POW, but the POW makes a much better commercial about hope and refusal to give up. 

Stop thinking like activists, and start thinking like strategists.

Stop thinking like activists, and start thinking like strategists.

When did we become strategists or pundits?

We are activists, we have the power. That's what democracy is all about. And, by the way people are tired of the political bullshit that most politicians and pundits spew.

Not to offend you DanG but, I am no strategist.

And neither are many of us here on the blogosphere.

What's with all the swearing, though?  I've been trying to stop doing that, and everybody else should to.  If we ban certain people and say it was because they were swearing, then we have to ban everybody for it.  So, can't we just do that little * thing over a letter or two?  Thanks.

As far as red states go, I think Wes would carry ARKANSAS!!  Cripes.  And he'd probably carry Colorado.  And Oklahoma.  And Ohio.  And Tennessee and Virginia.

Do I think the stars will beat McCain's imagery?  Yes, I do.  Wes Clark was shot 4 times (at once) and almost died in VN.  And he stayed on the line fighting till his men were safe.  He received the silver star.  It took a year for him to teach himself to walk again.  There are pictures of people throwing flowers at him in Kosovo--you know, the thing that all the Republicans SAID would happen in Iraq and now we're in a quagmire.  Wes Clark DID what the Republicans said they would do and they failed miserably.  That's some pretty impressive imagery.  McCain supported and still supports this total disaster.  He has no military credentials compared to Wes Clark.

Why don't you go do some research and stop mouthing off about that which you have no idea?  And stop your threats.  I really couldn't care less if I get banned from here.  OMG.  I said the "s" word!!!

As for calling red states, have you ever visited a State Board of elections site in your life?  Shortie, have you ever even looked at an exit poll?  Just because Clark won the Oklahoma primary doesn't mean he'll win a state Bush won by more than 60%.  In Colorado, Bush beat Kerry by 100,000 votes.  How does Clark make those up against somebody like McCain?  Tennessee and Virginia have a history of electing Dems to the state government, but have pretty sorry records (especially recently) with electing Dems to federal postions, and especially in voting for Dem presidents.  That what makes Webb's win so amazing.  For a a Presidential candidate to win in VA, he'd either have to be Mark Warner, or spend half of his entire campaign in VA.  Not happening. Hell, even Bayh won't win VA.

Ohio is a maybe, but you forget that this is McCain, not Bush.  John McCain won't have the negatives that made Ohio go so blue in 2006. 

Wes could probably win Arkansas, but that's only 6 electoral votes.  Plus the Kerry states, he falls short by about 12.

Bayh gets Indiana, an easy 11.  He also probably wins neighboring Ohio.  31 in total.  He could even lose a Kerry state or two and win. 

There's no question among national analysts the Bayh is one of the more electable guys out there.  But will the activists bite?  I guessing no. But I'm sticking with him.

YOU said Wes never wrote a budget.  And I pointed out that he'd had experience and you NITPICKED my words to try to distract from the fact that you're wrong.  That is a bullying technique.

Then, you accuse me of never having looked at an exit poll.  Go ahead, attack me rather than working off the facts. More bullying.

Then, you told me to "watch my language."  If this site actually has banned people for saying "shit" then it's really not worth being a part of.  I sincerely doubt that's true.  More bullying.

Now, back to he FACTS.  Wes, in addition to what he did in the OMB, also ran military bases.  I'd guess there were some pretty significant budgets involved in that.  Of course a governor probably has more experience with that than Wes does.  But Wes has infinitely more foreign policy experience than a governor. 

As far as states are concerned, Colorado has been making some progress.  Of course Wes can do more better there than Kerry.  Ohio has a large religious base.  Religion flows off of Wes's tongue natuarally.  Those people will love him.  Oklahoma is pretty southern and Wes has charm.  Same with Tennessee.  And I didn't say he'd take all those states, I just said they were in play.  And of course he'll take his home state. 

With Wes we get a liberal AND we get to win.  We don't have to give up our ideals to win.  That's a mistake.  We just need someone who doesn't offend the middle.  We don't need someone who actually isn't liberal.  Wes is the best of both worlds.  He seems moderate but he's really liberal.  Just ask the people who watch Fox.

First off, I agree with you that Clark is a liberal.  I'm not.  My blog is named "Donkey with a Trunk."  As you can guess, I'm a Centrist Democrat.  Some would consider me a Blue Dog.  There it is; I prefer centrists to liberals.  Go ahead and tell me I'm killing your party, when in fact us Centrists have provided you your only shining star (Clinton).

As to the banning, somebody was recently banned on this site for calling somebody else a "dumbass", among other things.  So please, just watch your mouth.  I don't want anybody else getting banned.

Don't say people will automatically take thier homestate, especially when you haven't been elected there before.  Gore didn't take Tennessee, and he had been a Senator there before he was VP.  And I find it very hard to believe that Clark is competetive in Oklahoma, a state where NOT ONE precinct went for Kerry.  Colorado has been making changes, but I think that it's not a blue state yet, and it will be a while before a liberal can win there.  Like a decade.  Only a true moderate could win it.  Just like people call Virginia purple: I say that the proper term should be light red.  Moderates, like Webb, Kaine, and Warner, can win here.  But Clark, who is socially quite liberal?  I don't think so. Clinton, a moderate, got within 2%.  Kerry, a liberal, lost by 9%.  I think the numbers are on my side of that argument.

I admit running military bases is admirable.  But running an organization of about 100,000 people tops is different than running 300,000,000 people.  Bayh is at least closer with Indiana.  And I never said Wes was devoid of FP.  That's why I keep saying SecDef or SecState, which pretty much consists totally of Foreign Policy.

Now, grow up, and admit we're going to have different feelings on this.  I prefer people with executive experience in office.  That means I like elected governors.  I will CONTINUE to think Clark doesn't have enough government experience to be President, regardless of what you say.  I'll vote for Clark if he wins the primary, but I doubt he will.  I doubt anybody beats Hillary. 

An interesting side note on that Oklahoma win:  Jessica Vanden Burg was his Oklahoma campaign manager.

You call Clark "socially quite liberal" and make the claim he wouldn't do well in Virginia this time due to this.  Tell me what the differences are in the social positions of Jim Webb and Wes Clark.  I'm curious.

During the last two years, Clark traveled the country working to build Democratic party organizations (look at Alabama, for one example) and to raise funds for both local/state party groups as well as endorsed candidates.  The operative word here is traveled.  He didn't sit in an office and have his staff fire off an email to the internet to raise funds.  He traveled, spoke, visited, appeared in person.  This will be well remembered by those candidates, those party organizations and the people he met with. 

While I have no problem with you promoting your choice as the nominee, I'd ask that you please do your research before you make these pronouncements that Clark isn't such and such.  He's got a lot more substance than you have any idea about--if its his personality that you find fault with, then say so.  But, its very hard to argue with his accomplishments and abilities.  What I will strongly disagree with is your comment that national analysts have dubbed Bayh one of the more electable guys out there.  I have read that nowhere.  Please send some links.  I read lots and lots of things, but have never heard or read this from anywhere.  I'm open to your arguments if you can back them up.

As for Wes Clark versus John McCain, sure McCain is more well known.  Everyone feels bad that he spent those years in a Vietnam prison camp.  He was a Navy pilot who got shot down.  I don't know that we can call that heroic, but if there are those who choose to do so, fine.  He survived a terrible number of years, but he didn't lead men in combat and stay with them after he was almost mortally wounded, like Clark (and Jim Webb) did.  Clark spent a lot of time recovering, determined to overcome his serious injuries (couldn't walk without a limp or shake hands-both of which he worked to overcome).  He stayed in the service to repair the horrible decimation of the military after Vietnam and through his leadership was instrumental, along with others, in building a volunteer Army that was the best fighting force in the world.  Let's put Wes Clark on stage beside John McCain with each of them wearing their awards and achievements on their vest...no contest.  Check out http://securingameri... for the military awards and http://securingameri... for the international awards.

I'm not dissing other candidates without really knowing them, but I am promoting the man I know well.  I just ask that you do the same.

Personally, I find comments like "You are wrong. Learn the facts" much ickier.

Wes Clark is presidential material.

Hillary has huge electability issues - as the nominee, the election would be a re-run of Whitewater, Rose Law Firm billing records, Monica - and of course, her marriage.  And she has one HUGE question that needs to be answered - what do you do with BIll not only during the election, but during her tenure in the White House should she win?  It's a troubling question for Dems with no real answer that could satisfy the electorate.  And - could she carry Arkansas?  I just don't see how she gets to 270 electoral votes.  She's all about the past and you can't win presidential elections talking about the past. 

John Edwards was an an under achiever on the campaign trail in 2004.  His credibility on foregin policy and national security issues is a huge liability for him.  And he would lose his home state if he were the nominee.  Stacked up against Bayh, both on policy issues as well as electabilty issues, he's a light weight.

I LOVE Obama - but he is clearly lacking in experience and I think the electorate in a general election would come to that conclusion as well.  Obama has a promising future - but he needs some seasoning.  And to be honest, he is serving the party well, speaking out on issues of faith, etc., that most Dems are are terrified or unable to talk about. 

Kerry is DEAD ON ARRIVAL.  The flap that ensued following his comments about kids that don't get an edcaution will end up in Iraq, was a fatal blow.  And his unwillingness to apologize immediately for the remark inflicted more damage.  Regardless if it was a bothced joke, he's damaged goods, and he neeeds to recognize that and sit the race out.  His wife is a whack job, although I do admire the work she does with her chartibale trust; she's a liabity on the campaign trail.  And the Newsweek article about her in their post-election coverage was very unflattering.  Kerry has no ability to communicate with voters; he comes across as the quintessential limousine liberal - as I said he's dead on arrival. 

As far as Wesley Clark is concerned, I don't think he excites the base and in some ways, he's just too conservative to run as our presidential nominee, especially on social issues.  Clark has impeccable foreign policy credentials, a big plus, but I just don't see how he could win the nomination.  Clark certainly has an enthusiastci group of supporters around the country, especially in Virginia, but does he have appeal to win the nomination?  Clark could be a powerful running mate for Evan Bayh; he could put Arkanas in play for the Dems as well. 

Vilsack could be a dark horse here.  Of course, no one knows who he is outside of the state of Iowa - but there is always a caddiate that no one really knows who stages a surpise - and it could be him.  If he could actually win the Iowa caucus, and that will be a tall order for him even though he was the governor there, it would instantly give him major national media exposure for the weeks leading up to the New Hapshire and Nevada primaries (Is Nevada a primary or caucus state?) Vilsack could be someone to watch.

Those are my thoughts - any commentary?

(Flipper, while balancing a beach ball on the tip of his nose, signs off, waving his right fin, wishing everyoe a happy holiday season!  Donatios of herring, my favorite, gladly excepted!)  :)

Your comments on Hillary and Kerry -- check.

I totally agree about Obama, except it curtail the "he's serving well" a bit. He is doing a pretty good job at talking about faith and such, but there's a reason a lot of others say he's the only Democrat who knows how to talk about it -- it's because he prefaces every speech about faith with "Democrats need to talk about faith if they want to get Christian voters." He's effectively telling the world "Yes, the Republicans are right, Democrats don't like baby Jesus. Except me, I'm the only one, but I'm only pretending because I want Christian voters."

I'm still not taking Vilsack seriously, but I'll start paying attention if he ever gets me to feel like it.

Clark would be a good VP for... well, just about anyone who needs foreign policy cred.

I still like Edwards. I think he's shown a lot of vision with his two Americas schtick. The class divide the he and Jim Webb have been talking about is, IMHO, the biggest issue facing America today, in terms of injustices, potential improvements, and progressive values.

Whoever gets the nod, I want Howard Dean to be the VP. He deserves it, and he's got a soul.

THINK ABOUT WINNING, PEOPLE.  That's the key.  We can't spare another 4-8 years of wreckless Republican rule in the WH.  We need efficient, bipartisan leadership in Washington.  Evan Bayh is just the man to do that.

We didn't see his effective or his face around here because he didn't bother with DC and MD because the DNC decided we were sure-wins, and he wasn't scheduled in VA because the DNC decided it was a loss.  Dumb-asses.  This was before the 50-state strategy.  Edards was all over Ohio and other swing states, though.

Let the disaffected repubs and "pay no attention" Indy's think that since it helps crossover in the GE, but do a little reading.

If Clark was a social conservative I am pretty sure Michael Moore would not have supported him.

Clark supports unions and busting monopolies, no income tax on the first 50k earned by a family of 4, Universal health care and promised immediate health care coverage for every child.

Clark would also be in a unique position (knowing where the skeletons are buried) to bust up the military procurement racket and stop the militarization of space and the republicans geometrically increasing spending on weapons for the last war (missiles and nukes) while screwing the troops and veterans out of their benefits.

Clark is as progressive a Democrat as we have and the hard to shake idea that a General cannot be a liberal would actually help in the General Election.

However, I accept that as a party, we Dems are more likely to put up the worst possible candidate via the primary (free fire zone) process and the more likely it seems that the Dems can win, the more likely a likable self serving career politician is to win the nomination.

President - Evan Bayh
Vice President - Barack Obama
SecState or SecDef - Wes Clark
Attorney General - John Edwards

It would be a classy touch for the original poster to correct the spelling in the main post.  Obama does nothing for me, but it would be respectful to spell his name right.

I also really agree with his positions, read more about him the more you read the more you may like him.

As someone who's been following Wes for several years now, I can definitely tell you that "the more you read the more you like him" is the truth.  He just keeps getting better.

His public speaking skills actually are tremendous.  I don't know what the deal was in 2004 during the primaries.  If you watch the Real State of the Union or his speech from the 2004 convention, you can see that he can really hold a crowd's interest.

He also kind of inspires confidence that he's on your side.  I think that will help a lot with that "middle" group of voters.  He makes us liberals feel the same way too.  I think it's just his style.  He's not heavy handed in anything he says, so you just are left with this feeling that even if you're not 100% in agreement with him, that he won't screw you.

And then there's that whole "general" thing.  He's a terrific leader.  He totally believes in getting people to want to do what you want them to do rather than bullying them.  We could use that these days!

I'm sorry, but I will have to vote Green or Socialist if we base our nominee selection on "electability."  What good is it if we nominate a "moderate" that prolongs the economic darwinism of the past forty years.  Just b/c a person doesn't go to college, doesn't mean that person and his/her family should have to starve and live a life w/o dignity.  MLK, Jr. once said of the moderates that they are just culpable for the injustices of the status quo, and that we desparately need "creative extremists."  Of course, Jesus was such an "extremist" that was all about egalitarianism, and he was crucified.  And others that have been advocates of the working class and social minorites have been treated similarly.  So we can go with the status quo of "moderate" and "electable," or we can work towards real change in American--change whereby American working-class citizens and foreign laborers and the environment aren't exploited by free trade, whereby everyone can live with dignity--man and woman, white and black, college-educated and not college-educated.  Also, look at the Republican field:  McCain, Giuliani, and Romney (maybe Huckabee and Gingrich).  All will fall flat to Edwards in the general election.  We may not win Goldwater country (the Southwest) but we'll win Rust Belt, Peripheral South, Mid-Atlantic, and Great Plains states.  But "new Democrats" seem content becoming the new Barry Goldwaters.  At least Jim Webb and John Edwards and Russ Feingold don't--they're comprehensive liberals whose aims are to ensure a Democratic society and economy.  We could have gone with someone more "moderate" or "electable" than Jim Webb who wouldn't engage in "divisive" "class warfare." We could've fought George Allen's economic darwinism with a mitigated form of economic darwinism.  But we didn't.  We made economic injustice and issue.  We made Iraq an issue (and the privatization and corporate welfare to which it is tied).  We didn't back down.  And now we have what will probably be one of the best Senators in our nation's (and our South's) history.

That's my rant.  I'm just so tired of this one-party state (nominal differences on social issues).  Put every elected Republican in a room and they'll reach a concensus only on such policies that promote economic darwinism and only serve Paris Hilton.  Clark is good in that he supports a very progressive tax system, but unfortunately, he seems to be pro-free trade.  Obama is also pro-free trade.  So is Gore.  There's not much opposition to Smith, Friedman, and Ricardo; but much oppostion is needed.

You've given me a good idea.  I'm going to post on electability later.  I'll link to it then.

Voting socialist over a moderate?  Are you nuts?  Do you really think Bill Clinton was a horrible president?  Yes, there were things I disagreed with him on but he was able to accomplish some great things for working class and middle class working stiffs.  Ever hear of family medical leave - established under a moderate Democratic president.  The bottom line is you aren't going to get anything done if you can't get your candidate elected - hasn't that taught us eanything the last six years.  Do we want to give Republicans the opportunity to name another supreme court justice to replace John Paul Stevens?  If you do, kiss abortion rights, protecting the envirmenment and a ton of other things good by, including your own ass, if Republicans win in 2008.  And the only way to defeat them is to nominate a moderate who can pick up a couple of extra states - that's all we need.  Isn't three quarters of a loaf better than no loaf at all?  Even a socialist would say that's a good deal! 

And as far as Howard Dean is concerned, he will never be on a national ticket and he would be a disaster if he was.  He opens his mouth and you never know what is going to come out.  Just beacuse he "deserves" it and he has "earned" it doesn't make it smart politics.  Keep him where he is at the DNC, let him build the party, as he claims he is doing, and we will all be better off.

Dean's DNC chairmanship is the best possible thing that could have happened to the party; now if we can shake off the iron grip of corporations and the pols like Bayh who shill for them, we may restore some meaning to elections in this country.

People like Dan G and Flipper who decide in advance that certain truths just can't be said, or that anyone to the left of Evan Bayh is socialist, are holding us back.  They remind me of the dead weight that the Terry McAuliffe crowd were around our party's neck for so long.

One of the few C-SPAN programs worth what they're charging for the video.

I do think that Dean's 50 state strategy has been a good idea.  I also think he was a great governor (he was center-left).  But the whole "socialism" thing?  Way too much, and THAT, my friends, is when we lose elections. Playing to the middle, or at least moderating the left, makes us appeal to both Dems and Indies.  Going farther left loses us moderates and indies, and there aren't enough lefties in this country to win that way. 

I have no beef with the 50 state strategy.  I have beef will people like you, Nell, who say centrists like myself aren't welcome in your little club.  THAT is how you lose elections.

"claims he is doing" is not credible or true. Howard Dean has delivered, and there is no arguing that point.

I was responding to the charge that I believe anybody left of Evan Bayh is socialist, which is not true.

John Edwards a socialist?  Get serious.  That cheapens the language, and makes it impossible to have an understandable discussion about economic policy.

There is a huge difference between economic populism -- policies that mitigate the worst of a market-dominated economy -- and socialism (means of production socially not privately owned).

Here are some issues on which you and Evan Bayh and I and John Edwards probably disagree:

The bankrupt bankruptcy bill written by finance corporations, the NAFTA and CAFTA free-trade-for-corporations agreements, the stagnant minimum wage that puts full-time workers below the poverty line, restrictions on union organizing, tax burdens that fall disproportionately on those who work for a living vs. those whose income comes from wealth (owning the work of others),
the relative priority of deficit reduction vs. full employment policies, how to move this country toward universal health care.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the Democratic Party tried to pretend that its base didn't really exist or count for much politically, and only "swing voters" mattered.  That was a period in which serious, hideous tradeoffs were made with the Republican, corporate agenda.

Since then wages have dropped, jobs have streamed out of the country, and the effects have been made ever more severe by six years of Bush: tax-shifting downward, a trillion-dollar commitment in Iraq that's worse than wasted money, and a steady stripping of labor rights and accountability on the part of corporations ("tort reform").

We're here, we're part of the party apparatus, and we're not going to sit quietly by because you confuse our demands with socialism.

If you think being a junior in college is akin to a lifetime of political work, and you can make pronouncements and then try shouting down others, you are sadly mistaken.

I recommend you get hold of yourself and stop trying to be a know it all and a tough guy. It is not becoming.

I say this as someone who was on the receiving end of your response to me (blather) in a diary of mine on DailyKos this summer, about Al Weed's campaign. The subject was that he would live-blog here, and you growled at me that you had talked to Al himself, blah blah blah.

I am twice as old as you, and I have seen plenty of candidates come and go. So no, you don't know it all. And yes, it is tiresome to listen to you talk here.

I stand by everything else I posted.

I really know what Miller people felt like here over the summer.  If you disagree with the majority on RK, apparently, you are labeled a know-it-all and a bully.  I would like to take this opportunity to all Miller supporters I may have offended in the past on this site.  One must remove the log from your own eye to take the speck of wood from another's.  I now know what it feels like to be attacked for disagreeing, and I am sorry to all Miller Dems who I offended this summer.

And if you truly beleive Howqard Dean is doing a great job at long term party building at the grass roots level in all 50 states, wouldn't it be best for him to stay on at the DNC and conitue his efforts, rather tha making him a V.P., candidate in 2008?

I stil stand by my statemtn that you never know what wil come out of Howard Dean's mouth - and that could have disasterous consequences in October, 2008 at the end of the campaign.

And let me follow up on another comment - which stated that he or she was usnure if liberal activists would vote for a moderate in a primary.  Of course they would - how do you think Jim Webb got the nomination in the June primary?  Liberal activists in NOVA gave Webb HUGE margins in Northern Virginia, while African American voters and while liberals downstate supported Harris Miller, who was much more liberal than Webb.  Liberal activists in NOVA thought about strategy and who could WIN, rather than who was more in line with their liberal views and they voted accordingly.  And because of them, we now have a Democratic Senator in the U.S. Senate from Virginia.

(Flipper does a back flip in honor of all liberal activists in NOVA who voted for Webb in the primary!)
XXXOOO

Liberal activists in NOVA gave Webb HUGE margins in Northern Virginia, while African American voters and while (sic) liberals downstate supported Harris Miller, who was much more liberal than Webb.  Liberal activists in NOVA thought about strategy and who could WIN, rather than who was more in line with their liberal views and they voted accordingly.  And because of them, we now have a Democratic Senator in the U.S. Senate from Virginia.

Is Cumberland County 'downstate' enough for you?

If so, I object to being categorized as supporting Harris Miller. I endorsed Jim Webb a week before the primary, in concert with the campaign. In my county, 3 out of 5 prcincts went for Webb, but Miller won the county.

Please stop making the 'NOVA vs ROVA' argument; all it does is divide us. Thanks.

I also offer a caution not to leap for someone just because you think he offers what the electorate is looking for (see Kerry and war hero)--support the best qualified candidate as long as you can.

-Archie

W E S  C L A R K ! ! !

WOOOHOOOO!!

Steve!

Mark, you missed the point of my post.  When I said Webb carried NOVA by huge margins and Miller carried downstate, I was pointing out how the results shaked down.  There were areas downstate that Webb carried, but again, my point was that if NOVA liberal activists had voted their heart and voted for Miller, George Allen would be back in the Senate -because Miller would have been slaughtered on election day like a pig at at Smithfield packing plant.  There was no us v. them (NOVA v. Downstate)in my comments, I was simply pointing out facts to buttress my point - NOVA liberals were thinking about winning rather than ideology and voted in mass for Webb. 

And thanks you for all of your hard work on behalf of Jim Webb during the primary.  I see that you said that Webb caried three precincts in your county but Webb lost Cumberland County 75 to 69 - a close vote indeed.

(Flipper lets out a big YAWN and falls asleep) 

From the top 20 in population, Chesterfield, Loudoun, Roanoke and Albemarle were the four that did better than the median.  Loudoun is in NOVA, and the other high performers are obviously spread about the state.

That African Americans chose to stay home in large numbers in so many areas is a cause of deep concern and is a failing on the part of Democrats in my opinion, hardly something to bolster bragging rights.  Instead of debating the real issues, e.g., affordable housing, job opportunities and education, the big domestic issue was ethnicity done stupid. If infantile racial divisiveness and NOVA-ROVA divisiveness as strategy is embraced in the future, we may see huge numbers of fair-minded white people opting to stay home, too.

Sound familiar?  No, it's not Jim Webb; it's Wes Clark.

Please go to this link:

http://securingameri...

...to view Wes Clark's 18 1/2 minute 2004 Presidential campaign video entitled "American Son".

Some of you may have already seen it.  Regardless; see it for the first time or see it again - if it doesn't touch your heart and mind and soul, then you ain't a Democrat.

Forget his lack of political experience, forget an unorthodox campaign style, forget a late start and a few initial campaign mistakes the last time around.

Instead, remember that just like Jim Webb, Wes Clark is the real deal, and it's all about character.

Jim Webb won the U. S. Senate election because his true character was able to shine through all the rhetoric, all the opposition's negative campaigning, all the intentional distortions about him.

On election day, 2006, the voters were still able to see through the opposition's blue smoke and mirrors and view the image of the real Jim Webb, and they voted for him.

Wes Clark has those same leadership qualities and, in the end, the voters will not be able to see them, and they willl vote for him, too.

It's all about leadership.

See this video.

You'll see.

Thanks!

Steve

Too much to do here early in the morning.

Sorry about that.

Thanks!

Steve

Steve

http://blogs.abcnews...

As an earlier poster recommended, watch the video of Clark made in 2003 for the campaign.  It will answer some of your questions and introduce you to an exceptional man.  It's well worth the 18 minutes you'll spend watching and it's even more relevant today than when it was created.  You can find it at http://securingameri... (scroll to bottom of the page).

For 4 decades, Democrats have lacked credibility on national security.  And for 4 decades, Republicans have used it against us brilliantly.  And what is the GOP strategy for 2008?  Simple.  "Democrats Can't Keep You Safe." 

Yet instead of stepping up and addressing a problem that has severely hampered Democrats for 4 decades, we instead talk about choosing nominees because they're "nice guys" or "just feel right".

Wes Clark is a godsend for the Democratic Party.  He isn't just a short term concept.  He isn't just some guy who would win in 2008.  He's a guy who could radically alter the image of the Democratic Party for a generation.  His election would take the single greatest weakness that has plagued Democrats in elections since the 1960's and wipe it away. 

Democrat weakness on national security is a massive massive problem for us.  Yet we do little if anything to address it.  A Clark win wouldn't just be a win in 2008.  It would monumentally fortify the image of the Democratic Party for decades to come- meaning we would then have the ability to push forth on the issues that Progressives hold dear: universal health care, the environment, the minumum wage, reproductive rights, civil rights, civil liberties, etc.

By not nominating Wes Clark, Democrats would be passing on the opportunity to radically alter the American political landscape.  His election would cure the greatest weakness of the American left and rob Republicans of the core of their grand argument against us, leaving them flailing for a new identity.

Wes Clark isn't just a solution for 2008.  He's a solution for a generation to come.  No other 2008 candidate comes even remotely close to offering something THAT monumental.