Here's one for us: Hillary/Edwards for '08! Could you go with this one?

[KoKo]

What does this bring to the table? What would this mean as a "Stealth" Candidacy?

There are some plusses and minuses there. But with Hillary you get Bill and with Edwards you get Elizabeth.

It's kind of interesting to me...What do you Guys/Gals all think?

:shrug:

[bertha katzenengel]

1. No.

I won't vote for Sen. Clinton in the primary.

[Catchawave]

64. Got any favorites yet ?

Hi bertha, nice seeing you over here :toast:

[bertha katzenengel]

76. hey, Catchawave

thanks :hi:

I like John Edwards. Al Gore, too, but I don't know if he can pull off another run. One can hope.

[Little Star]

2. I'll take JRE.

Hillary----not so much.

[LSparkle]

3. Me, too ... I'd be more likely to vote for Edwards/Hillary than

the reverse.

[hopein08]

40. Second that! n/t

[jaysunb]

4. no !

n/t

[SoyCat]

5. Ha! Never.

[bowens43]

6. No. Two sure losers. It's time for new blood.

[KoKo]

7. Hillary and Bill bring Money...and Charisma and "old debts to be settled"

and Edwards brings his Magnificent Wife Elizabeth...but with old debts to be settled."

It's QUIRKY...but could it fly? (Caveat: I want Gore to Run...but if he doesn't ...I might go with this one..even though Hillary isn't my choice ...Edwards (HIS WIFE) might DRAG her and Bill to the Left? :shrug:

I know this is sort of "off the board thinking" but if we can't get Gore to run...what would be the better choice.

BTW...I like Wes Clark very much...but I see him in a KEY CABINET BLOCKBUSTER POSITION! He could make such a big difference in a HIGH LEVEL CABINET POSITION! I can't support him for Pres...but love him for a BIG VOICE in the new Dem Administration. He has great talents but he could end up trashed along the way because he has no "elected office experience." Yet he's a VOICE we DEMS NEED TO HAVE in the Next Dem Administration.

Another :shrug: What do you think? What are the "pro's and con's" of this scenario?

[KoKo]

8. Just so you know...I like Wes Clark very much and he would be a BIG

VOICE for HONESTY AND CHANGE in any DEM ADMINISTRATION! I see him in a HUGE ROLE as a spokesperson for Honesty, Integrity. BUT...without his holding any "elected office" he's a hard vote..... and, probably wouldn't make it past the "attack machine."

[FrenchieCat]

32. You talk as though those with experience in elected politics

somehow found a way to get past the "attack machine"?

If anything, elected official stand no better chance....but at least, Wes Clark, as soldier, is willing to put up a fight!

They may been trashing Hillary for sometime now, but they haven't even started on John Edwards, cause they haven't needed to do that yet to get where they wanted to go....but don't think somehow he's exempt, cause he ain't.

[laugle]

38. I don't think you are "off the board" at all.

I think the running mate of a candidate, especially Hillary will be an important component!

I like your suggestion and had already thought of one too...Hillary and West Clark mainly because of the military experience, which unfortunately, will probably be necessary, thanks to G.W. Idiot's mess!!

[blm]

86. Then you would be rewarding the group who sabotaged 2004 - McAuliffe

and Brazille didn't secure the election process as they promised they would in 2001 and they allowed 2002 and 2004 to be stolen without lifting a finger to counter the RNC's four years of voote suppression, purged voter rolls, and rigging of machines to steal votes from Democrats.

And Carville acted the role of Benedict Arnold and fed privileged info to his wife at BushInc.

[MrSlayer]

9. No Hillary under any circumstances.

We want to win the goddamn White House back.

[citizen snips]

10. switch that ticket around

and they will have my support.

[MGD]

11. If that's whose running, I'll vote for them. I'd prefer Gore/Edwards tho

I have no problem with Hillary. She's way more qualified than GW was when he was first appointed. I like Edwards because he is young which means he will have plenty of time to run for President himself and plenty of time to be an ex-President which is a significant thing IMO.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Yep...sounds about right! They both voted for the IWR......

that Lierberman wrote, and Edwards Co-Sponsored.
The media is pushing them both....so yeah...since we don't have a choice anyways, might as well! :shrug:

Just don't look for any MIC spending curb or getting out of Iraq, or peace with Iran....that's all! They'll have to prove just how tough they are!

Will Hillary-Prez nominee be VP-John Edwards' attack dog? Just Asking, cause I don't see it the other way round.

[KoKo]

13. John Edwards has alot of support here on DU and he's working very hard

to get across a Populist Message and he's been on the road since '04.

I think he's a very serious candidate. I'd like to see him run with Gore for '08...but there are many DU'ers who see him standing alone...and many other DU'ers who see Hillary as the candidate.

I see it as a "FUSION." :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

19. Anyone who took three years to regret their vote.....

doesn't get mine! Leading from the rear doesn't quite get it in my book on leadership!

Gore is fine. Edwards, not so much; too "p-re-packaged" for me.

Plus, whomever the Corporate media is pushing this far out, I am suspicious of. Period.

[Catchawave]

61. Including Soros ?

:shrug:

[citizen snips]

18. actually they disagree

Because Edwards has called for the redeployment of troops.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Well whatever is popular.......could work,

I guess. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

23. Well, I'll be glad when Edwards call for an overall of Pentagon

spending, cause that's what causing this government not to be able to help the "poor". Lemme know when this happens!

[MGD]

52. Hillary knows that anything she votes for can and will be used against her

by the Republican spin machine. Her voting record reflects that fact IMO. I suspect her politics will change if she no longer has to consider things like that.

[TygrBright]

14. I'll go with whomever ends up with the "D" next to their name...

...but that would probably not be my first preference. I'm still shopping, and there's still a year or so before the freshness dates pass, so I'm not in a hurry. A lot will depend on how some potential candidates use any opportunities that result from this fall's election.

judiciously,
Bright

[David Zephyr]

15. I like Edwards, but he couldn't even deliver his own state in 2004.

Americans will want a fresh start. I think Edwards would be an awesome AG.

[KoKo]

30. I protested him as a fundraiser I was invited to...where he NEVER

even came out and spoke to his DONOR PROTESTORS...BUT...I can put that aside...thinking of what might come out a "coalition" of the "Dem/DLC'er Appeaser vs. the person presenting himself as the "Populist." (BTW...as much as I dislike John Edwards for his "EGO" and IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION VOTE...and other issues) I do like HIS WIFE! And, I think she has an influence on him...and I've been trashed by so many DU'ers who love Edwards...I've gotta believe he has some support amongst many here who have trashed my posts about how disappointed this NC'linian Transplant is with his "behavior" as a Senator who "cut and ran" when we elected him to represent us against an AGRIBUSINESS PIG KILLER FACTORY FARMER! We thought Edwards would represent us FOREVER AGAINST THEM.

But...it is what it is....and Edwards must be counted in as a NEW VOICE who has "fire in belly" to be President..

[David Zephyr]

43. Wes Clark will carry his own state and Missouri and Louisiana, too.

He also won the Oklahoma primary against Kerry, Dean and Edwards.

[KoKo]

45. I just don't trust "Military" without governing experience to be President

It's just those "warnings" by Eisenhower that "echo through the Pages of my Mind." :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

51. Wes created "peace" in the Balkans.

The best "war" since WWII.

[KoKo]

55. I dunno....I've seen some stuff

where Clinton replaced him...that RW could "Swift Boat" him on this issue. :shrug:

I just can't trust someone with out some governing experience who hasn't been accountable to VOTERS. Military is only accountable to the heirarchy of Top Brass down. I think Clark is a good, capable and honest person. He could veru well serve us Admirably and with Distinction in a Cabinet Position in a new Dem Administration.

He just doesn't have the "connections politically" that would allow him to survive in the DC Beltway...and neither did Carter or Clinton and that's why they were "taken down." I don't want another person who is trashed from the time they are inaugurated...and that's why I'm a Gore person...because he "does" know where bodies are buried and no one can go at him this time...because his "fake scandals" are "old news."

But...whatever...

[FrenchieCat]

57. So you don't trust anyone but Gore or a governor....right?

Cause senators don't govern either.

[KoKo]

60. Here's a "Village Voice" article with some questions:

(but, I worry about his work for CNN and his lack of "eclected" experience This article is only mildly critical but it does raise some points for us "Lefties" who are horrified at what the MSM has been doing in screwing up our elections and news we need to know. I do respect General Clark...just that military thing.)

The Secrets Clark Kept
What the General Never Told Us About the Bush Plan for Serial War
by Sydney H. Schanberg
September 29th, 2003 7:30 PM

-SNIP-
On the next page of the book, 131, Clark writes: "And what about the real sources of terrorists—U.S. allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t it the repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? And what of the radical ideology and direct funding spewing from Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t that what was holding the radical Islamic movement together? . . . It seemed that we were being taken into a strategy more likely to make us the enemy—encouraging what could look like a ‘clash of civilizations’—not a good strategy for Winning the war on terror."

These are very potent observations, coming from a military man with more than three decades of experience who is known for his intellectual candlepower. He was a leading commentator on television, chosen for his expertise in military strategy and geopolitics. Why didn’t he share these opinions with us then, when an informed public might have raised its voice and demanded more answers from the White House?

Was Clark being censored? Or was it self-censorship? In the introduction to Winning Modern Wars, he writes that while he is "protecting" his military sources by leaving them unidentified, "the public interest demands that some of this information be shared." He adds, "Nothing in this book is derived from classified material nor have I written anything that could compromise national security." Then why wait until now to serve "the public interest"? Was the general worried that if he had spoken earlier, in a jingoistic atmosphere, he would have been labeled unpatriotic? It’s an understandable concern.

Whatever his reasons, General Clark surely has some explaining to do now.

Maybe he has some valid explanations, such as that these views are conclusions that evolved over a period of time. But that’s not the way he writes it in the book.

Inconsistencies between old and new remarks are common topics in presidential elections—if that’s what these are. Inconsistencies aren’t mortal sins, just mortal imperfections. Reporters commit them. Anyone who publishes stuff commits them. Sometimes they happen because of changes in circumstances. Sometimes it’s plain old sloppy thinking. But the best way for the perpetrator to deal with them is to point them out as quickly as possible and explain them.

For a presidential candidate, the urgency is more intense, because if you let such problems hang around unattended to, the press will eventually discover them and, like rabid geese, nibble you to death.

Also, in this campaign especially, truth telling (or the lack of it) has become a big issue. The president and several lieges at his roundtable uttered so many distortions and exaggerations and untrue "facts" about why we had to go to war with Iraq that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney eventually had to come forward and admit they had "misspoken"—in particular about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. They still haven’t acknowledged a lot of other misspeaks. Those running against this president would be well-advised not to fall into his errant ways.

Getting back to the Winning Modern Wars book, it is Clark's second and a sequel of sorts to the first one, which had a similar title, Waging Modern War, and came out two years ago. Both are published by PublicAffairs. Waging was mostly about the successful 78-day air war in Kosovo in 1999, which Clark directed as NATO military chief (officially the supreme allied commander, Europe). Winning is a much slimmer book that reads like a campaign document. Clark knows people will perceive it that way and he denies any political motivation, saying in the introduction that he wrote it as a public duty, especially for the nation’s military men and women. "Offering this analysis," he says, "is the least I can do to help them and to help my country."

One must note, however, that by his own word in the book, he wrote it with considerable speed over the summer and was updating it as late as the first week in September. It started arriving in bookstores only a few days ago, one week after he announced his candidacy.

Also in the introduction, the general writes another commentary that he never gave on CNN:

"After 9/11, during the first months of the war on terror, a critical opportunity to nail Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was missed. Additionally, our allies were neglected and a counter-terrorist strategy was adopted that, despite all the rhetoric, focused the nation on a conventional attack on Iraq rather than a shadowy war against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks: Al Qaeda. I argue that not only did the Bush administration misunderstand the lessons of modern war, it made a policy blunder of significant proportions. . . . vidence and rhetoric were used selectively to justify the decision to attack Iraq. . . . e had re-energized Al Qaeda by attacking an Islamic state and presenting terrorists with ready access to vulnerable U.S. forces. It was the inevitable result of a flawed strategy."

And on page 135, still another previously unspoken analysis: "And so, barely six months into the war on terror, the direction seemed set. The United States would strike, using its military superiority; it would enlarge the problem, using the strikes on 9/11 to address the larger Middle East concerns. . . and it would dissipate the huge outpouring of goodwill and sympathy it had received in September 2001 by going it largely alone, without the support of a formal alliance or full support from the United Nations. And just as the Bush administration suggested, could last for years."

I think reasonable people would agree that GeneraI Clark has a campaign problem—namely, the differences between what he has said in the past about the war and the president, and what he’s saying now. Now he’s saying that George Bush took the country "recklessly" into war. He never used language like that as a commentator. In fact, in an April 10 column for the Times of London, just after the fall of Baghdad, he wrote, "President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Clark should probably talk to the public about these discrepancies as soon as he can. The issues for him are credibility and trust. Americans have grown cynical. They’ve listened to hurricanes of hot air over the years. Who knows? If a candidate were to start telling the unvarnished truth, they might freeze in their tracks and listen.

more....
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:RwpxrzgCxoAJ:www.villagevoice.com/news/0340,schanberg,47436,1.html+Wes+Clark+has+problems&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

[FrenchieCat]

68. Well, I've seen this piece from the Village Voice,

and it seemed like a "squash" job to me.

Thanks for bringing up again!

Read this and consider it my response to you on this .....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1720570&mesg_id=1721551

[KoKo]

70. You had good rebuttals there...thanks for the link...but

why the heck was that post and thread locked? I didn't see anything there that was flame bait. :shrug:

Anyway, I have questions about Clark, but you did post some interesting snips there.

Thanks. I still think he'd be great as Secretary of Defense though...and we need his skills there desperately.

[FrenchieCat]

73. The thread wasn't locked....it's archived, meaning folks can no longer

kicked up cause the time as expired.

:hi:

[David Zephyr]

58. He can not be "swift boated".

Wes Clark was carried out of Vietnam on a stretcher.

I don't want to tell you what I think our ticket will be in 2008, but I think it's a done deal unless Gore runs.

[KoKo]

59. You think Wes is a "done deal" unless Gore runs?

I'm not sure.......Why do you think that? :shrug;

[David Zephyr]

62. No, I think that Hillary is the done deal.

She will have the teachers unions behind her (Bill had it in 1992 and it carried him against Tsongas, Brown and the rest) and a ton of money and organization behind her. Remember, in Iowa and NH, just getting over 35% pretty much puts you on the top if the field is crowded.

Hillary will be on the ticket no matter how much many of us hate dealing with it.

So, the only thing is: will she be the top of the ticket or the VP slot.

If she's VP, we can still win in 2008. If she's the top of the ticket, we will go down in flames.

The Clintons are not going to go away, as much as I wish they would.

[KoKo]

65. I still have hope from an article Eric Alterman wrote saying that Hillary

would take all the "oxygen" out of the early candidates (Warner just dropped out after Eric's article was written) and that with Hillary as the frontrunner against a McCain or Giuliani that the last person who could come in would be Gore who could have a chance to steal some of Hillary's "oxygen."

I think I've fixated on Alterman's article..because I think what Hillary is doing is good. Without her we'd be left with "scrabbling candidates" like Warner, Biden and other's the Sunday Pundits choose for us as the BUZZ.

I think that Bill coming out for Hillary and supporting fundraisers for Dem Candidates...plus his interview on ABC where he sort of helped turn tide for Dems by FINALLY SPEAKING OUT/CALLING OUT REPUG TACTICS...was a very good boost for us Dems. I'd gotten tired of waiting for Reid reading his "note cards" and Nancy Pelosi doing press conferences from her "makeshift feminine press room" to EVER speak to the anger out here with us Progressives.

Bill and Hillary are doing a "Good Cop/Bad Cop" routine...which seems clever (the way I see it, anyway). BUT...sucking up all that oxygen means a powerhouse like Gore can wait in the wings if Hillary implodes. :shrug: At least that's Alterman's scenario...and I really felt heartened by what he said...it made sense to me when I read it. And...I've said...I'm partial to Gore...biased. But, I know he will NOT do the Campaign Thingy...he will have to have the "Grassroots" go for him overwhelmingly before he would commit.

[FrenchieCat]

56. Ironic that you would distrust those similar as those who warned you....

The "military" are not the ones starting wars.

You seem to have respect for what Eisenhower had to say...But were you really listening to his words? Name a "military" that started a war and got rich off of it!

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.~Dwight D. Eisenhower

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.~Dwight D. Eisenhower

I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.~Dwight D. Eisenhower

here are some other quotes......
It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.~General William Tecumseh Sherman

The military doesn't start wars. The politicians start wars.~General William Westmoreland


Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.~General Douglas MacArthur


Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency.~General Douglas MacArthur

[KoKo]

67. Eisenhower was elected with overwhelming applause because we were

coming out of WWII where he was a HERO! Wes Clark isn't a conquering hero of the Nazi's who has won a World War. Unless he finds Osama and brings him home to DC. :shrug:

That's the difference with me. It's what Eisenhower warned us of:
The Military-Industrial Complex and not his Presidency..that I was talking about. His words left us a gift to use...we just didn't get what he meant until we got Bush II who is an idiot put in place by the very "Military-Industrial Complex" that Eisenhower warned us against. For reference: Kevin Philips book: "American Dynasty" about the Bush generational involvement with arms manufacturing and trade and their crony buddies from Skull & Bones and their Prep Schools.

Eisenhower must have seen the Bushies coming...and after all there
was Prescott Bush and the Nazi's that he must have known about.

That's what I was trying to say....:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

72. Eisenhower was elected because America wanted out of Korea....

But let me see if I understand you correctly: You are saying that Eisenhower, a GENERAL who became PRESIDENT because he was a HERO and had NO GOVERNORING EXPERIENCE at a time when we were in the middle of a WAR, and won election the last time that there were NO INCUMBENTS RUNNING (just like it will be in 2008) warned you about the MIC.....

So are you saying because Eisenhower warned you about the MIC, you don't trust those that are most like him? Eisenhower is the exception to your rule, I must reckon (great to see folks making up rules as they go, but alright....)that he is somehow not military like Wes Clark?

You don't think that Wes has said anything about the MIC as well?

Wes Clark may not be Eisenhower....but actually, he comes as close as you're ever gonna get. Wes Clark the most decorated officer SINCE Eisenhower, who served in the SAME CAPACITY AS as Eisenhower, as NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and did win a war, the last war fought in Europe in where NATO was involved.

So Eisenhower was the one that warned you of the MIC...but somehow, those who are most like him, you don't trust. Is that what you are saying?

Plus, FYI....one person's "I don't trust that military" is another person's hero.

Three of the half dozen drivers that we’ve encountered so far in Kosovo have expressed their admiration for the United States. I’d pass this off as an attempt to get a bigger tip, except in one case the driver – a kid barely 21 – took his remarks a couple of steps further.

“I love America,” he said. “I love Bill Clinton. And Wesley Clark, you know Wesley Clark?”

I said that I did, but even though the name sounded familiar, I really didn’t. Checking later, I discovered that Clark was the U.S. Army general who, during the 78-day bombing of Serbia, served as the military head of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), carried the title of Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

“I like this man,” the cabbie said. “I have poster this big” – at this, he made a large square shape with his hands – “of him.”

And our current president? The young guy sounded like Kanye West.

“I don’t like Bush,” he said. “He is bad man.”
http://www.spokane7.com/blogs/moviesandmore/archive.asp?postID=4136

[Clark2008]

82. And Tennessee and Arizona (minus McCain being on the R ticket)

and New Mexico and Virgina.

[bigdarryl]

16. FUCK !!!! Hillary shes already causing problems for...

the party with this person calling McCain looking the same way he did in the picture when he was a prisoner of war GEZZZ!!!

[Mass]

17. No Edwards on the ticket - I dont particularly want Hillary, but he is a

definite NO.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Hillary is reported to support torture, while Edwards opposes torture

Any ticket with Hillary at the top is doomed to lose.

[indygrl]

29. I would have to hear

Hilary herself, make the statement about torture before I would believe it. She's smarter than that.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Here is the LBN link for Hillary's support of torture

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2564799&mesg_id=2564799

[Digit]

21. JE would need to be first

I really could do w/o Hillary, moreso because I don't think she can win.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Edwards looks good but...

any ticket led by Hillary will have serious problems.

[KoKo]

53. She's cleverly repostitioning herself all the time...and there's the

"Bill" factor. He's still a great "silver-tongued Devil" who can turn out a crowd and make Democrats sound like the best thing going...

We are so down and out as Dems..looking for a leader...we are painted by the Repugs in every dark light they want to paint us.

We might need to deal with an "interim caretaker" before we angry progressives storm DC Beltway to take back our government.

We haven't been so successful against the Bush Crime Family...they don't even cover Mass Protests BEFORE Iraq Invasion and After.

We might need some good "caretaker" Dems in before we can move the country in the direction we want? :shrug: Just thinking about some strategy we might use?

[peacebird]

24. No. Absolutely no ticket with Hillary on it.

She is poison to most repugs and to a lot of liberal progressives as well.

[KoKo]

25. Could you Go with this Ticket....to give us "Caretaker" time..to forge a

"NEW Coalition?" It will take more time for "Progressives to Build" ...and we need an "interim Government."

I want Gore...but even so...I'm trying to be a "Realist/Pragmatic" saying we need to go with the "knowns" who have already walked the "Guantlet of Fire" and that they could be the "Interim?"

I don't think most of you understand what I'm saying........COMPROMISE so that we have time to BUILD? (We Progressives who WANT CORRUPTION OUT!!!! OUT!!!!) :shrug:

[Superman Returns]

26. question

has a failed vice-presidential candidate ever been nominated again again for the VP the next consecutive election? i don't think edwards would want the second spot again.

[Totally Committed]

27. No.

But, thanks, anyway.

TC

[paulk]

31. It's hard for me to see Edwards as a serious candidate

either for Vice President or President. He bought nothing to the ticket in 2004 - he couldn't even bring in his home state, which has always been the main criteria for a VP. He didn't help in the south, either in the Senate races there or the Presidential race, so as a regional candidate he was also a failure.

He's a single term Senator who probably wouldn't have been able to win his own state as an incumbent if he'd chosen to run. He'll have been out of office for four years. He still doesn't have any foreign policy credentials. What does he bring to the table?

[karynnj]

33. self delete

[KoKo]

50. He has that "fire in the belly" that makes him continue on....maybe it's

superficial "ego" or he has a gut feeling about his perserverance that we can't fathom at this point?

[Leilani]

35. No & No

Hillary? No Comment

Edwards?

The biggest mistake of the Kerry Campaign was to choose Edwards for Veep. Kerry knew it would be a dirty, tough campaign, & he needed an attack dog to protect him. Edwards did not fulfill that requirement. IMO he wanted to keep his "charming" image intact for 2008. So many charges went unanswered, & when Kerry needed defending, who did he call on? Not Edwards.

I think he is an opportunist of the 1st rank, & he would never get my vote. He didn't help in the South, he ran behind Clark in the SouthWest primaries, & if it wasn't for the glowing media treatment, he would have been back in North Carolina a lot sooner.

I remember reading at the time that Edwards was Bob Shrum's first choice. Nuff said.

[davidwparker]

36. I'm not interesting in seeing Hillary as president for DLC reasons and

I don't want that NAFTA-signing Big Dawg back in the WH.

How about Gore/Clark, Gore/Edwards, Edwards/Clark, Clark/Edwards.

[saltpoint]

37. I'm supporting our ticket, period. To your specific candidates,

I wonder if Edwards is interested in the number two job. Possibly he would take it if he did not get the nomination, but strategically, I think he's better positioned than HClinton for the 08 standard-bearer, given just those two choices in the early caucus/primary matchups.

Neither has officially announced but both are prominently mentioned.

The upcoming midterms will have something to say about states' party organizations, on-hand cash per state party, and allegiances and alignments for 08.

I'm still a little surprised that Mark Warner dropped out last week. That took me unawares.

[Norwood]

39. Edwards would be great, wouldnt be too thrilled with Hillary though.

[NCarolinawoman]

41. They both suffer from "Barney Fife" syndrome.

ie, both of them have this need to look tough, so they over compensate. I guess Hillary does this cause she's a woman, and Edwards because he just has to prove something. I think little has changed since his IWR vote; he went to to Israel in June and insisted that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons and he wouldn't rule out force to prevent such a thing.

My feeling is that people who have not been tested in matters of war and peace will be "tested" by rogue countries and terrorists more than others, and then there will be the danger of them overreacting. Some say this is what happened to the Prime Minister of Israel who took Sharon's place. He over-reacted because he felt he had something to
prove.


With Hillary and Edwards on the same ticket, you would have a double dose of this.... a double dose of the Barney Fife syndrome.

[KoKo]

47. Good Points...and I felt about Kerry that he cared more about competing

with Bush or really "outdoing him" with his "military record, windsurfing and hunting gear" than about what the CORE ISSUES we out here in the "Wilderness" were focusing on AT THAT TIME...:-(

Good Points.....what you say...something to think about with this "combo."

[karynnj]

95. Absolutely not true

Kerry spoke about the real issues every day. He didn't speak of Vietnam. Odd, that people want it both ways:

- Yo say that Kerry competed on Vietnam - which was a RW theme, when in fact VN was mentioned in only a few sentences in his acceptance speech - in the context of a broadbrush biograpy. He mentioned fighting the war and opposing the war. The rest of the very well regarded speech (at the time) was on vision and some description of where we were.

- Then you say he should have spent more time and money countering the SBVT - which would involve speaking about Vietnam.

So, which was it too much VN or too little.

The windsurfing comment is beyond stupid - he windsurfed only twice in all of 2004. Once during the Republican convention, while he spent most of the day preparing for the debates.

In fact, in a non-jaundiced media - this was a good picture - blue sky, beautiful sea, white sail - smiles all around. Remember they had no problem with incessant brush clearing and falling off mountain bikes.

[election_2004]

42. No, I will not vote for any prez ticket featuring Hillary

When are people going to get it through their heads that, even with all the money and fundraising and bells n' whistles and positive corporate media spin in her favor, Senator Clinton would still cause downticket problems for Democratic House/Senate candidates in Red-and-Purple Americ?!?!?!

[KoKo]

48. Bill and Hillary have the BIG MO....and we listen to them when they SPEAK

OUT! Can't say that about Biden, Kerry, Richardson or the others can we?

But...I still hope for Gore to be redeemed...so I have a bias..

[election_2004]

93. See above

And as an Independent voter, I just want to plug my ears every time the MSM gives them free face time...the Clintons are a distraction from the real issues.

[imlost]

44. No thank you to both! n/t

[Catchawave]

46. Can we reverse the ticky :)

:hi:

[KoKo]

49. lol's.....many would wish that..and one doesn't want to take away hope...

just some of us who've been around too long...sort of have that "rearview mirror" thing with so many failed Dem Elections that our radar goes up about certain folks and combinations....

[bobbolink]

54. NO!

Enough of Hillary, already.

There are plenty of highly qualified people.

We don't need to "settle"!

BASTA!

[sueh]

63. No. Gore/Clark instead.

[KoKo]

66. Might work, also. But Edwards has a really good "populist message"

that might resonate with all of us after two more years of Bush trashing the lifestyle of the Middle Class and Poor. We will be in this together with only the very Wealthy...ruling it all.

But...who knows... Wes would be so valuable as Secretary of Defense ...hate to lose him as a VP. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

75. Edwards is banking on that "Message"...which is exactly that,

a message. Edwards didn't do anything in the senate that made him a populist. He never even took pro-bono cases.

John Edwards retooled his campaign in late 2003 and his 2 America speech became popular...which is what made him realize that a populist message worked for him.

John Edwards is also a War Hawk or was until his October 2005 apology although he still sounds like a hawk on Iran. Bout that? Think that's a message that we want to sell, hey? Me, I'm much rather have a General who wants peace, than a politician too eager to show that he'd be willing to go to war. But maybe that's just me. :shrug:

[snowbear]

69. KoKo... you feeling okay buddy?

This thread doesn't sound like you..

You under the weather?

[KoKo]

71. lol's....Great Graphic....and I'm "tucking in" for the night...but

I thought the Hillary/Edwards ticket was interesting enough that I wanted to hear what others thought about it. We are all just speculating these days and I did say I'm a Gore supporter.

But...we don't know if he's going to run and I will gag myself with Biden or Richardson or Obama...so...the speculation was worth it to hear what others think.

See my Eric Alterman post up above for how he thinks the ticket could pan out.

I'm going to bed...maybe I do have fuzzy brain. :D

[snowbear]

74. LOL..

Well, if you wind up dreaming about the PERFECT ticket, make sure you get up and jot it down quick so you can fill us in when you're wide awake!!



~~~~~

[Ferret Annica]

77. Nope, Hillary is not presidential timber

I will not vote for a ticket with a Clinton on it under any circumstances.

[derby378]

78. That ticket doesn't inspire me

We need a ticket that's gonna blow America's socks off.

[HughBeaumont]

79. God, PLEASE no Hillary.

Fuck this triangulating, pro-job-offshoring anchor.

[mnhtnbb]

80. NO Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You could put Jesus for VP and she'd still lose

[Clark2008]

81. No.

In fact, those are the two I most fear will be the nominee - meaning, of course, that I wouldn't vote for the first time in 20 years.

[ChiciB1]

83. NOPE, NOT, NADA, IX-NAY... NEVER!!!

Edwards is who I'm supporting right now, however I would prefer he serve as Vice-President first then run for President. While I really respect Gore, I don't actually think he'll run and if so he has our support here but too many MEDIA TYPES are going to "tar & feather" him again. I like a Gore/Edwards ticket, I would LOVE to see Feingold run but he will be painted in an even more Liberal light that any other candidate. Kerry is coming on strong but even I as a person who waited for years and years for him to take the spotlight I have lost support for him. While I am a Liberal myself I just feel we are going to have to take baby steps to get more of our policies front and center. After these crooks and their ULTRA CONSERVATIVE Neo-Conning ChristianINSANITY take-over of America it's going to be a long haul to try to fix what they have broken! We aren't going to be able to run a Super Liberal candidate and expect to win!

As a white female, Barack Obama seems to be "all the rage" but doesn't he seem a bit young?? I do feel he will season and become one of our GREAT leaders, but for now it's a bit early for me.

Harold Ford is another person I have come to respect a lot too! Edwards/Ford sounds pretty good, Gore/Edwards makes me comfortable, but as time goes by Hillary has become LESS favorable to me rather than MORE favorable. I think she's intelligent, is politically SAVVY, has the cojones to spar with the best, but her views are beginning to "turn me off!" I don't like the way she's "playing" the game because I'm sick of her catering to the Right!

I had hoped she would come "home" again and she may, but for now.... she's strayed from the ranch!!!

[Clark2008]

84. If Ford wins in Tennessee, you're NOT taking away our

first Dem senator since Al Gore. Nope.

Especially not to run with a guy with NO experience.

Nope. Never.

[ChiciB1]

88. Okay, Ford Will Be Good For TN!! But I Do Think He's Very

savvy! Actually he's more moderate than me, I was just thinking he does have some REAL presence!

I'll go with Gore/Edwards! We may find another rising star within 2 years.... just NOT HILLARY!

See, I'm easy.

[bread_and_roses]

85. No. No no no to Hillary (n/t)

[Q]

87. No...it's like putting the DLC in full control of the party...

...Right now we need fighters...to restore America and the Constitution. You'll never get anywhere near this goal with appeasers.

[lojasmo]

89. No...bush enablers, both.

[MiniMe]

90. We need somebody besides a Bush or Clinton for President

This country has had a Bush or Clinton as President since 1988. I want somebody who is neither. This is nothing against Hilary, and I think she would be a fine President. But if I'm honest, I really don't think she could win a general election because she would be polarizing, and its just time for somebody new. I would be fine with her being chosen as a vice president.

[calimary]

91. If it HAD to be that, I'd switch 'em so Edwards' name is first.

I was relatively okay with Hillary and willing to overlook quite a bit, but her statement that selective torture is okay - just sorta blew me away. That was the straw that broke calimary's back, as far as support for her. If she does wind up as our standard-bearer (the prospects of which don't delight me anymore), I would vote for her, as opposed to voting republi-CON. But I'd do it reluctantly. But she's smart and talented and creative - she's capable of so much good, and hopefully she can revise her thinking a little.

If I had to pick a dream ticket, it might be Clark/Feingold. I think Wesley Clark is REALLY underappreciated and under-used. Or Dean/anybody, because my heart still belongs to The GOOD Doctor. But he's just as valuable where he is, as party chair. Also like Obama quite a bit, but I'd like to see him running after a second term in the Senate. I think he's got TONS of potential, though.

[TayTay]

92. No. Not enough substance

or backbone to them.

[leesa]

94. No Hillary. She has lost her moral compass. Who wants someone who

lusts for war and likes a little torture now and then, and thinks flag burning and videos are burning isues? She's one screwed up Republican wanna-be.