i think being vice president might kill an ex-general.
I thought about this, but I've ultimately come to the conclusion that it would be a good learning experience for him. Bring him into politics in a way where he is forced to learn compromise at the political level. I think he'd be a much better Presidential candidate after 8 years of learning.
Sure Clark is electable versus Bush, but I have a feeling that Dean or Edwards would be too. Bush is not unassailable. In 2000 everyone was saying "who the hell is this guy," but now we know what the hell he has been up to. For any opponent with half a brain, Bush's record is the most target rich environment in recorded history!
What would Clark do differently than Bush anyway? He was a republican till a couple months ago and donated to Bush's campaign against Gore. He's from the same special interest loving Clinton wing of the party. No vision. He doesn't even have Clinton's charisma. Did you see him last night?
Besides, he's creepy. Too many frickin generals in politics is the reason the Israel's politics are so screwed up. And if someone posts comparing Clark to Eisenhower I think I'm going to throw up.
Dean on the other hand really has the ability to get people excited. HOPE is what he is offering. That is what no one on the Democratic side gets. Sad old Lieberman or timid Gephardt just don't get it. You don't win elections from behind by aspiring to be the lesser of two evils. You'll never win elections if you can't inspire people. YOU DRIVE PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR PARTY IF YOUR PARTY DOES NOT STAND FOR ANYTHING.
Dean is the guy that actually wants to change things. With his embrace of the internet and by being right on the war he marries vision with the ability to develop the political tools to make it a reality. Gore might have moved in this direction, but Gore is too beholden to the insiders for his power to really set out on a journey towards common sense policies. However, Gore sees that Dean CAN take the party in the right direction because he developed a brand new constituency, the internet generation, that Democrats - and all other politicians for that matter - haven't used well up till now.
Bottom line, Americans are far more disgusted with the Shrub at 1600 Pennslyvania than the media or the insiders know. People want to get rid of this man who has made us look like such fools. If any candidate can actually give the average American hope that there is a viable alternative, he will be elected. The Democratic nominee WILL BEAT BUSH if he can generate any sort of national interest in his candidacy. The only man generating the kind of excitement needed to up the ante like this is Howard Dean.
he's impotent politically, and this get's his face in the papers and maybe he'll get a chance to be a sabbath gasbag with tim russert, or stephenapoulos. he's hitchin' his wagon.
if dean had any balls he'd say "i do not except an endorsement from a pinhead who couldn't even win his own state in the last general election."
blaming florida is like blaming a football referee for blowing a pass interference call in the 4th quarter. you already lost just getting to that point.
so he screws the pooch 3 years ago and now he's trying to inject himself into the equation. clinton's been advising wesley clark, but he wouldn't pull a stunt like this.
and yes i lay all the blame on him for losing. he lost tennessee, for gods sake!
I feel a bit of envy on Gore's part, so I'm not sure he didn't do this to one-up Bubba & Clark. I still think Dean & Clark backed by Bubba & Gore would be a tough ticket to beat.
Clark would have to settle for pulling a Cheney, running everything behind the scenes while Dean takes a lot of glory. But when all were said and done, Clark wouldn't lose Tennessee in 2012 or 2016.
he's impotent politically, and this get's his face in the papers and maybe he'll get a chance to be a sabbath gasbag with tim russert, or stephenapoulos. he's hitchin' his wagon.
if dean had any balls he'd say "i do not except an endorsement from a pinhead who couldn't even win his own state in the last general election."
because you're a dean supporter (and i may be too, but right now i'm undecided, it's too soon to tell, i want to see the candidates in action on the campaign trail.) you think gore's endorsement is a great thing. i assure you it's not.
because you're a dean supporter (and i may be too, but right now i'm undecided, it's too soon to tell, i want to see the candidates in action on the campaign trail.) you think gore's endorsement is a great thing. i assure you it's not.
Well, first, we must agree that Gore's endorsement changes the dynamics of the race. I haven't read anything that says it has no effect, which would be the result of an impotent politician's endorsement. Josh Marshall argues that it obviously helps Dean out, but it also sets up a Dean vs. Clark dynamic. In what ways do you think it's bad for Dean?
gee, sorry that i don't want al gore deciding what the dynamic of the party is. (as al gore's dynamic seems to be losing) i thought that should be left to voters, albeit maybe just the new hampshire and iowa voters, but they're real people.
obviously gore's endorsement does have an impact, but only within the party fundraising aspect. most people don't care.
and as for al gore not being responsible for losing tennessee, as tenessee is skewing republican, they have 5 democratic house seats (out of 9) and just elected a democratic governor.
gee, sorry that i don't want al gore deciding what the dynamic of the party is. (as al gore's dynamic seems to be losing) i thought that should be left to voters, albeit maybe just the new hampshire and iowa voters, but they're real people.
obviously gore's endorsement does have an impact, but only within the party fundraising aspect. most people don't care.
and as for al gore not being responsible for losing tennessee, as tenessee is skewing republican, they have 5 democratic house seats (out of 9) and just elected a democratic governor.
I don't think he has definitively [b]decided[/i] the outcome of the race. I think his endorsement only exacerbates certain trends (ie. giving Dean more momentum, effectively ruling out Lieberman, and setting up the Dean vs. Clark dynamic that Josh Marshall talks about). Whether or not he should, you know, exert his influence in this democracy is a totally $$$$ing moot point. How the primary is still not left to the voters is an issue that's far beyond my comprehension.
I think that the effects of Gore's endorsement certainly operate through the fundraising aspect. But I think you're being excessively hard on Gore, who despite losing the President race by a handful votes and losing his own conservative state, still remains very popular with Democrats generally speaking and with certain demographics that Dean needs to reach: like African-American voters and even moderates.
Comments
Why is it that Clark could 'destroy' Bush, but can't beat Dean?
Originally posted by alcimedes
it's easy. if you had a choice between bush or clark, you'd vote clark.
if you had a choice between bush or dean, you'd vote dean.
if i had a choice between bush or dean, i'd vote bush.
if i had a choice between bush or clark, i'd vote clark.
dean is not electable to folks who sit between voting democrat or republican, but he is very pallatable to democrats.
clark on the other hand is someone i would vote for. that's what i mean.
Bingo!!!!! Did somebody make my point other than me?
I knew there was some sanity in the world
Fellows
Originally posted by chu_bakka
People come at him with lame questions and he doesn't just play along. The media tries to pidgeon hole him and he refuses to be labeled.
sounds like rumsfeld.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i think being vice president might kill an ex-general.
I thought about this, but I've ultimately come to the conclusion that it would be a good learning experience for him. Bring him into politics in a way where he is forced to learn compromise at the political level. I think he'd be a much better Presidential candidate after 8 years of learning.
What would Clark do differently than Bush anyway? He was a republican till a couple months ago and donated to Bush's campaign against Gore. He's from the same special interest loving Clinton wing of the party. No vision. He doesn't even have Clinton's charisma. Did you see him last night?
Besides, he's creepy. Too many frickin generals in politics is the reason the Israel's politics are so screwed up. And if someone posts comparing Clark to Eisenhower I think I'm going to throw up.
Dean on the other hand really has the ability to get people excited. HOPE is what he is offering. That is what no one on the Democratic side gets. Sad old Lieberman or timid Gephardt just don't get it. You don't win elections from behind by aspiring to be the lesser of two evils. You'll never win elections if you can't inspire people. YOU DRIVE PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR PARTY IF YOUR PARTY DOES NOT STAND FOR ANYTHING.
Dean is the guy that actually wants to change things. With his embrace of the internet and by being right on the war he marries vision with the ability to develop the political tools to make it a reality. Gore might have moved in this direction, but Gore is too beholden to the insiders for his power to really set out on a journey towards common sense policies. However, Gore sees that Dean CAN take the party in the right direction because he developed a brand new constituency, the internet generation, that Democrats - and all other politicians for that matter - haven't used well up till now.
Bottom line, Americans are far more disgusted with the Shrub at 1600 Pennslyvania than the media or the insiders know. People want to get rid of this man who has made us look like such fools. If any candidate can actually give the average American hope that there is a viable alternative, he will be elected. The Democratic nominee WILL BEAT BUSH if he can generate any sort of national interest in his candidacy. The only man generating the kind of excitement needed to up the ante like this is Howard Dean.
he's impotent politically, and this get's his face in the papers and maybe he'll get a chance to be a sabbath gasbag with tim russert, or stephenapoulos. he's hitchin' his wagon.
if dean had any balls he'd say "i do not except an endorsement from a pinhead who couldn't even win his own state in the last general election."
have i mentioned that?
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
have i mentioned that?
Actually, Gore did win Washington D.C.
He's been talking to Dean about the issues for over a year.
It is about steering the party back to it's base and grassroots support.
His candidacy probably failed because he listened to much to
his campaign staff during his run. Yes he could have done a better job of
campaigning... but you cannot lay all the blame on him for losing. He BARELY lost... within a count of illegal military ballots close.
blaming florida is like blaming a football referee for blowing a pass interference call in the 4th quarter. you already lost just getting to that point.
so he screws the pooch 3 years ago and now he's trying to inject himself into the equation. clinton's been advising wesley clark, but he wouldn't pull a stunt like this.
and yes i lay all the blame on him for losing. he lost tennessee, for gods sake!
I feel a bit of envy on Gore's part, so I'm not sure he didn't do this to one-up Bubba & Clark. I still think Dean & Clark backed by Bubba & Gore would be a tough ticket to beat.
Clark would have to settle for pulling a Cheney, running everything behind the scenes while Dean takes a lot of glory. But when all were said and done, Clark wouldn't lose Tennessee in 2012 or 2016.
everyone seems to agree with me in that gore's a putz.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i think gore wants to appear to be a kingmaker.
he's impotent politically, and this get's his face in the papers and maybe he'll get a chance to be a sabbath gasbag with tim russert, or stephenapoulos. he's hitchin' his wagon.
if dean had any balls he'd say "i do not except an endorsement from a pinhead who couldn't even win his own state in the last general election."
have i mentioned that?
What's wrong with you?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What's wrong with you?
what because i don't agree with you?
because you're a dean supporter (and i may be too, but right now i'm undecided, it's too soon to tell, i want to see the candidates in action on the campaign trail.) you think gore's endorsement is a great thing. i assure you it's not.
uhhh right... the south has been trending that way for 2 decades... it's not Gore's fault.
It's Leiberman's! hehe.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
what because i don't agree with you?
because you're a dean supporter (and i may be too, but right now i'm undecided, it's too soon to tell, i want to see the candidates in action on the campaign trail.) you think gore's endorsement is a great thing. i assure you it's not.
Well, first, we must agree that Gore's endorsement changes the dynamics of the race. I haven't read anything that says it has no effect, which would be the result of an impotent politician's endorsement. Josh Marshall argues that it obviously helps Dean out, but it also sets up a Dean vs. Clark dynamic. In what ways do you think it's bad for Dean?
obviously gore's endorsement does have an impact, but only within the party fundraising aspect. most people don't care.
and as for al gore not being responsible for losing tennessee, as tenessee is skewing republican, they have 5 democratic house seats (out of 9) and just elected a democratic governor.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
In what ways do you think it's bad for Dean?
i don't think it's bad for dean, i think it's bad for the party.
edit = why are you afraid to have dr. dean go through the primary process?
it will be good for him if he wants to defeat president bush.
Originally posted by BRussell
I think Gore wants to be Reagan to Dean's Goldwater.
gore in 2036?
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
gee, sorry that i don't want al gore deciding what the dynamic of the party is. (as al gore's dynamic seems to be losing) i thought that should be left to voters, albeit maybe just the new hampshire and iowa voters, but they're real people.
obviously gore's endorsement does have an impact, but only within the party fundraising aspect. most people don't care.
and as for al gore not being responsible for losing tennessee, as tenessee is skewing republican, they have 5 democratic house seats (out of 9) and just elected a democratic governor.
I don't think he has definitively [b]decided[/i] the outcome of the race. I think his endorsement only exacerbates certain trends (ie. giving Dean more momentum, effectively ruling out Lieberman, and setting up the Dean vs. Clark dynamic that Josh Marshall talks about). Whether or not he should, you know, exert his influence in this democracy is a totally $$$$ing moot point. How the primary is still not left to the voters is an issue that's far beyond my comprehension.
I think that the effects of Gore's endorsement certainly operate through the fundraising aspect. But I think you're being excessively hard on Gore, who despite losing the President race by a handful votes and losing his own conservative state, still remains very popular with Democrats generally speaking and with certain demographics that Dean needs to reach: like African-American voters and even moderates.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i don't think it's bad for dean, i think it's bad for the party.
edit = why are you afraid to have dr. dean go through the primary process?
it will be good for him if he wants to defeat president bush.
I'm shaking in my boots?