Clark,.... plus 21 more months of Bush

[Parisle]

--- This is why the persistent and premature back-and-forth over a 2008 presidential ticket leaves me cold. There are more important things to be thinking about. I am sometimes personally moved to wonder if the media are not deliberately launching the (democratic) nominating process a year prematurely, in order to distract from the shit Bush is going to be doing.

--- Hillary and Obama. Jesus, how I hate hearing those two names all the time,... and, even worse, I hate the likely event that it's sinking in. Call it a variation on that old saw about telling a lie enough times that it starts to be believed. Well, the same perceptual phenomenon applies to Hillary and Obama. Talk exclusively about them as candidates in 2008, and goddamned if that narrowing of perspective won't take root in the national mindset. (Ask a guy named McLuhan.)

--- But according to a concensus of posts I see on the DU about salient topics OTHER than the 2008 ticket,.. I seem to have noticed that a few folks are a little nervous,.. maybe even fatalistic.. about what the embattled and delusional Bush Jr is liable to do in his remaining time in office. I am, too. Escalation in Iraq. Permanent war. Nuking Iran. Martial law. Allowing the actual terrorist situation to re-emerge in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Wider war in the Mideast. Etc, etc. Anything to keep the neocon agenda chained around our necks. Does that at least hit the high spots?

--- Well,.. do any of the self-appointed nominating/cheerleading squads ever entertain any thoughts about how the situation could therefore be significantly altered by 2008 election time? Altered for the worse? According to the truly frightening potentials being credited to the bunker-ized Bush administration, it just may turn out that a guy like Wesley Clark would be a little more in demand under those circumstances, given his special credentials and experience. Gee, what a shame if Hillary already has the nomination locked up with Big Money, name and lockstep party organization (a combination also utilized by Bush, himself, eh?)

---There is a fundamental contradiction in pitching this or that potential candidate, without some honest and credible acknowledgement of all the ways that we (justifiably) worry about how and how far the situation may have deteriorated by election time. If our worst fears come anywhere close to being confirmed by the summer of 2008, then it is going to put a Clark candidacy in an entirely different light. And Clark would be the guy I would want holding the reins.

[Texas_Kat]

1. Thanks for this!

On Friday at Kos, James Webb said:

Presidential candidate endorsements (146+ / 0-)

I have a great regard for Tim Kaine, and I also have a great regard for Barack Obama. At the same time, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to be endorsing any candidate for quite a while. The Democratic Party has a very strong field this year, and it's a long way to 08.

by Jim Webb on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:47:00 PM PST
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/2/15/164028/169/197#c197

[Eurobabe]

4. As I said before Jim Webb is smart.

Caldwell's endorsement of Edwards is premature at best.

[Texas_Kat]

5. Caldwell was always going to endorse Edwards

He's been in JE's pocket since 04. Seems a little desparate for JE to pull it out and play it so early, doesn't it.

[Inspired]

12. Caldwell must be a smart man. n/t

[Donna Zen]

2. Yes, me too

When I listen to all yammering about this consultant and that fundraiser, I'm left in disbelief. Doesn't anyone care about the country? I want someone of vast knowledge, sound judgment, and common sense holding those damn reins. These next few years are going to be a very bumpy ride.

[snot]

3. I do worry that the sooner a frontrunner emerges,

the more time remains for that person to be torn down by the R-owned media.

[Parisle]

6. They would have a tough time with Clark

--- He seems to handle himself a good deal better than the others when being assailed by headhunting RW media. Advantage to greater intellect.

[snot]

7. I like Clark but

actually, to me, he's seemed a little slow on the uptake, and always to be speaking from the sidelines.

Sincere, and good on the issues. But to me, e.g., even Dean, no less an "outsider", seems savvier.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I Don't see it that way......

Clark is good at putting people in their place, without them realizing it...which is why they, the Right Wing don't deride Clark like they did Howard Dean. Dean might be savvier to you, but to a larger spectrum of people, it is Clark who is savvier, and has more gravitas. Maybe that's a reward for serving this country for 34 years in uniform. Maybe it's from having been shot an almost dying.

I know one thing...when Howard Dean needed someone to stand up for him, Wes Clark was there....savvy as ever:

Clark also voiced strong support for Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean, who has been criticized for comments attacking Republicans.

"We've got to protect our freedom and our liberty," Clark said. "I'm proud of Howard Dean. I'm proud of the Democratic party. And we're going to stand together as a party."
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050613/NEWS0201/106130013/-1/CITIZEN

What did other say at that time when Dean was under fire......?
Did they stand by Howard Dean?

Democrats alike have criticized Dean for the unnecessary harshness of his comments. Democratic senator Joe Biden distanced himself from the comments, saying that Dean “doesn’t speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don’t think he speaks for the majority of Democrats.”

Former senator John Edwards said that “the chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the Democratic Party…He’s only a voice. I don’t agree with it.”
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060807.html

[OneBlueSky]

9. not only that, but I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for both Clinton and Obama if . . .

they were devoting their time, 24/7, to addressing the Pandora's box of critical issues facing this country and the planet rather than running around the country trying to convince people that "I'm better than him/her" . . . they were elected to solve problems, not to run for higher office . . . they are NOT doing their jobs! . . .

[Spurt]

11. There is the winner.

Dead right.
We should all be watching how they perform in dealing with the current problems before deciding who to elect.
Whoever might eventually be the next POTUS will have much more to deal with than we see today.

Presently I do not approve of any of the declared candidates (office holding) due to their collective lack of precise focus 24/7 on the urgent matters of governance. Anybody who really wants to win should cease campaigning for the nomination and/or funds right now, and stand front and centre in leading us all out of the current mess. As you said - do the effing jobs their election requires them to do.

[Adelante]

15. HEAR, HEAR!!

Do we really need a primary campaign right now? No, we do not. We need Senators in the Senate, not on the campaign trail. There is time for the primaries. There may not be time for Iran.

[windbreeze]

18. Thank YOU!!

someone needed to say exactly that...
wb

[Parisle]

19. Totally agree,...

---To poster BlueSky,.... Clinton and Obama give the lie to any notion that the political industry has priorities greater than its own. Jeez,... look at what Al Gore accomplished just in his "off" time.

[pnwmom]

10. If Clark isn't elected, I'd think ANY Democratic administration

would put him to great use.

[Dinger]

13. Thank You

And I do think he'll run, and win.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[capi888]

14. Great Post

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words.

[kath]

16. 23 months (plus a few hours)

but who's counting? ;-)

[Parisle]

17. I imagine that Bush is counting,....

--- And the PNAC is, too. The reasoning in their Strangelovian gameplan does not absolutely require that they control the executive branch,... only that they get us deeper into a war, with no way out. Future PNAC members began reasoning in the early 90's that there would be no better time for the US to use its military superiority to conquer the rest of the world.... to put it bluntly.