|
 |
September 10, 2003 DEAN/CLARK IN 2004?....Will Wesley Clark run for president? How about vice president?
It turns out there's probably less here than meets the eye, but it's still an intriguing possibility. Just for the sheer drama potential, I'd like to see it happen. Plus they might actually make a good team and govern the country well. I guess that's important too. POSTSCRIPT: By the way, I'm still trudging my way through Clark's Waging Modern War, but I've gotten distracted by other things. This obviously doesn't reflect one way or the other on his fitness for office, but one thing I can tell you is that he sure isn't a very exciting writer. On the other hand, at least he wrote the book himself. Posted by Kevin Drum at September 10, 2003 10:19 PM | TrackBackComments
"He sure isn't a very exciting writer." Jeez, ain't that the truth. I'm stalled around page 200. Posted by: Ted Barlow at September 10, 2003 10:22 PM | PERMALINKHoly crap batdude. The dream team. So much for that Democrats are weenies schtick. Man there is so much dirt on Chimpco, I dont think they will be able to get to it all. This election season is gonna be reeaalll interesting. Jesus howie has got big brass ones. Posted by: Shaun at September 10, 2003 10:31 PM | PERMALINKYeah Im a deenie. you got a problem with that. didnt think so word Posted by: Shaun at September 10, 2003 10:36 PM | PERMALINKI still think Dean would benefit from having a running mate who is a) a southernor, and/or b) has Washington legislative experience. But Clark would bring a lot to the ticket in the foreign policy dept... Posted by: Mike D at September 10, 2003 10:44 PM | PERMALINKAs much as I would like to see this I still think the early Dean/Clark announcement rumor is in the same category as the Hillary or Gore will enter in 2004 rumors: things that are whispered about around town that occaisionally gain enough cache to make it into print but which more basis in the fevered dreams of political reporters than in actual reality. Posted by: Chris Andersen at September 10, 2003 10:46 PM | PERMALINKI have noticed that Clark and Bush have similarly shaped heads. I don't know, but it seems significant somehow. Posted by: spacetoast at September 10, 2003 10:57 PM | PERMALINKIt's time that somebody fired up a Dean/Clark blog. Are there any tech-savvy youngsters with time on their hands out there? Posted by: peter jung at September 10, 2003 10:59 PM | PERMALINKLike my old pappy used to say If yer gonna dream, dream big. Heres a nice dream. Dean/Clark Everyone else drops out right now. Put the dean machine to work straight away for the democratic party. No more repug legislation without a screaming knock down fight. 24/7 democrats united and in your'e face. 6-7 peices of legislation a day calling for yet another investigation into GOP shenanigans. Tie california recall and Co and Tx together and hammer that sucker all day and all night who cares if its true or not. say it enought times and it might as well be. and it probably is. Let Big Al off his leash. You like? Posted by: Shaun at September 10, 2003 11:01 PM | PERMALINK"He sure isn't a very exciting writer." Isn't it fortunate that at the senior executive level reading memos is more frequent than writing them? ;) Posted by: Linkmeister at September 10, 2003 11:21 PM | PERMALINKHas any modern (post 1900) presidential candidate ever indicated- prior to securing his party's nomination- just who it was that would likely be his running mate? I'm fairly confident that didn't occur within either the GOP or democratic party. But does the same hold true for significant 3rd party tickets over the past century? Posted by: Sovereign Eye at September 11, 2003 01:19 AM | PERMALINKMike D.: Clark IS a southerner -- from none other than Arkansas, in fact. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 11, 2003 03:08 AM | PERMALINKDean/Clark has been telegraphed for quite a while, to be honest. Both have very similar domestic goals and ideals. In fact, both have been using the same type of rhetoric lately. And on foreign affairs,, well I think the focus on this is a bit over-stated. However, Clark is very respected in the international community, and it would make it a whole lot easier to mend the fences that Bush has torn down. And yes, frankly Dean/Clark should give the GOP nightmares. That would be like an independant vote vacumn for the Dems. Posted by: Karmakin at September 11, 2003 03:57 AM | PERMALINKAnd speaking as an Arkansawyer (who has not read Clark's book), von Clausewitz is kinda dull, too. Posted by: adamsj at September 11, 2003 03:58 AM | PERMALINKThis is my Dream team. If Clark joined Dean, it would clear up my last concerns about Dean AND it would be a really cool/good governing team. We might still lose with that ticket, but we would at least lose fighting for a good group. Posted by: MDtoMN at September 11, 2003 04:01 AM | PERMALINKI'm a broken record on this point but it doesn't matter if we get Jesus Christ and JFK to run if the vote is rigged. The GOP learned a whole heck of a lot from Florida and, apparently Tennessee, last time. 2004 will go the same miserable way unless there's a hue and cry for a paper trail - and even then they may manage to steal it since privatization seems to be the trend with vote management. Call your congress people AND all the Dem campaigns. Posted by: casadelogo at September 11, 2003 04:15 AM | PERMALINKI've been pulling for a Dean/Clark ticket for about 3-4 months now. Yeah, I know, 2 white guys. But the main goal in 2004 is to dump Bush. Can you imagine Clark debating Chickenhawk Cheney? Posted by: WK at September 11, 2003 05:22 AM | PERMALINKAnnouncing a VP candidate before the primaries would be a major victory for democracy. How many Democrats voted for Al Gore in the 2000 primaries, then were disappointed to learn he chose Joe Lieberman? How many Republicans voted for Bush I in the 1988 primaries, then were disappointed to learn he chose Dan Quayle? Let the voters know before we cast primary votes. Such an announcement would generate media coverage that would make Dean's Q2 fundraising/Time/Newsweek look like nothing. It would swell Dean's Q3 totals beyond estimation. Every other candidate would be asked for a response. (Are any dumb enough to say, "I think it's bad for voters to know which VP they're voting for."?) If they think it's a good idea, then every question will be "Who and when do you choose?" Their message -- such as they are -- would be drowned in the noise. Dean/Clark would establish the overwhelming frontrunner for the nomination, making them virtual nominees before the primaries even began. As noted above, Dean and Clark could then go into 24/7 opposition mode. The media would love the story: every BushCo lie questioned in the same news cycle. Posted by: RonZ at September 11, 2003 05:25 AM | PERMALINKThe Draft Clark people *hate* all the "vice president" talk, as you can probably imagine. I don't care. As others have said, Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark, at this point I'd be happy either way. Their strengths and weaknesses complement each other pretty well, don't you think? Time to form Megazord. Time was, I thought Dean was unelectable. He's still got some of the same problems he always did, but I'm thinking now that the other major Democratic candidates are more unelectable than he is, so something's got to give. Posted by: Matt McIrvin at September 11, 2003 05:29 AM | PERMALINKI'd rather see Clark/Dean than Dean/Clark, because I pretty much prefer Clark/* to any other combination. Posted by: phil at September 11, 2003 05:48 AM | PERMALINKIs Clark's book supposed to be 'popular', or a campaign-oriented fluff piece, or is it more of a serious textbook kinda thing? Frankly, a candidate with a serious book, as opposed to a fluffy compendium of focus grouped BS, is a good thing, even if the book is a bit boring. Posted by: Jon H at September 11, 2003 05:57 AM | PERMALINK>>Has any modern (post 1900) presidential candidate ever indicated- prior to securing his party's nomination- just who it was that would likely be his running mate? 1976 - Ronald Reagan famously tabbed Richard Schweicker well before the GOP convention I personally don't see a Dean/Clark ticket. While a professional politician would settle for the second spot on a ticket, I don't see the kind of "take charge" guy who rises to become a military general settling so easily for the second spot Posted by: Andy at September 11, 2003 06:14 AM | PERMALINKJon H: I couldn't agree more. When I heard Paul Wellstone was running for the Senate, I thought, "The guy who wrote How The Rural Poor Got Power?" That's a great book, honest and unsparing and full of heart and spirit, and I recommend it to everyone I know (and now to a bunch of strangers). It left me certain that man stood where I would be proud to stand. Posted by: adamsj at September 11, 2003 06:15 AM | PERMALINKThis brings up the perennial question of whether a VP generally does a damn thing for the Presidential candidate. VP candidates sure can do some harm, but do they do any positive good, correcting the defects of the top of the ticket? I need some convincing. Posted by: frankly0 at September 11, 2003 06:23 AM | PERMALINKSorry for the OT, but this just had to be pointed out. The FCC has ruled that Howard Stern's show is a news program, thus is exempt from equal-time rules, and so can feature Schwartzenegger and Mary Carey without having to feature the other billion candidates in the California recall. http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/10/news/funny/fcc_stern.reut/index.htm Posted by: Jon H at September 11, 2003 06:37 AM | PERMALINKI still think people are kidding themselves thinking that a VP can cover any important weaknesses for the presidential nominee. Most people vote for president, not for the ticket. If peope think Dean is soft on national security, he will lose the election, no matter who he picks as a running mate. Ceeps make very, very marginal contributions to a campaign. They don't provide regional balance, and usually can't even deliver their home states. Pundits love VP choices because it gives them something to specualte about, and adds a second moving piece to the puzzle, allowing for lots of speculation and strategizing. But come election day, it's the top of the ticket that matters, not some weighted balance of the two of them. Posted by: Doug Turnbull at September 11, 2003 06:38 AM | PERMALINK"Is Clark's book supposed to be 'popular', or a campaign-oriented fluff piece, or is it more of a serious textbook kinda thing?" It's a serious memoir of his experience as Supreme Allied Commander in Yugoslavia/ Kosovo. I think it was written for historians as much as anyone. It's absolutely not campaign oriented; there's very little red meat in there for Democrats. (And yes, I flipped to the index to check.) He's writing another book, "Winning Modern War," which I expect will be more political and campaign-oriented Posted by: Ted Barlow at September 11, 2003 07:09 AM | PERMALINKI think he's hooking up with DEan. I'm not 100 percent sure but logically if he didnt want to hook up with Dean after that talk he wouldnt have any reason to deny it. Which means that he's definitely thinking about it att he very least. Together they are a behemoth.. and if they have sense they know it. Clark by himself has laughable civilian political experience (however General is a very poltical job) There are other reasons but these will suffice....besides I just have a feeling about it. I think he's teamin' up Calpundit Blog dudes! Posted by: Silvan at September 11, 2003 07:30 AM | PERMALINKOn the topic of Veeps and administration officials, wasn't it made
very clear before Shrub was "elected" that he would be bringing on
seasoned old hands from earlier Republican administrations? In other
words, wasn’t the Republican strategy to deflect W’s lack of experience
to indicate that he would be bringing on Cheney, et al? I don’t know the
exact timing of all of this, but I do remember hearing from some
Republicans that W “will have a very strong core of competent advisors.”
(no, no, let’s not go down THAT path right now) Or something to that
effect. Anyone who read "Earth in the Balance" probably feels a bit of redux then. Can anyone name a serious thoughtful book actually written by a Republican President or presidential candidate in the last 50 years? The last 100? Posted by: Edge at September 11, 2003 07:32 AM | PERMALINKif dean picks clark as veep, so what if clark doesnt have any legislative experience. veeps usually dont do much. what has cheney done lately, he had hidden out for 3 years. but my 2nd choice of vp would be gov bill richardson of new mexico. he will bring an influx of minority voters especially hispanics voters(there are 30 million hispanic votes out there for the taking. so if you get at least 20 million hispanic votes and 10 million extra black votes, its all over). he has an impressive resume, congressman,un ambassador,secretary of energy, and now governor. 3rd choice is bob graham. good guy. smart. is rightly focuses on
intelligence and homeland security. is also a prototypical attack dog
type vp candidate who will not hesitate to expose dirt on bush and
cheney. I was a bit underwhelmed, I must admit, to see the NY Times story saying that Clark is currently chairman of a company trying to sell electric bicycles to the military. Posted by: Jon H at September 11, 2003 07:41 AM | PERMALINK“will have a very strong core of competent advisors.” Think that sentence was garbled. Should be: On the topic of Veeps and administration officials, wasn't it made very clear before Shrub was "elected" that he would be bringing on seasoned old hands from earlier Republican administrations? In other words, wasn’t the Republican strategy to deflect W’s lack of experience to indicate that he would be bringing on Cheney, et al? In many ways, Bush is a pretty special case. He was a Bush, and obviously VERY well connected to the Washington establishment, and all the wisdom and experience thereof (you are allowed one laugh here). Cheney may have helped a bit with the perception that Bush would indeed go hunting for advice from that establishment. Dean, on the other hand, is a pretty naked candidate, from this point of view, one of the downsides of running an anti-establishment campaign. So far as I know, Clark does not himself come with a think-tank trailing behind him -- in contrast to Cheney, there is no "Clark, et. al." as best I can make out. It's hard to see how Clark by his lonesome is going to alter the perception of Dean's weakness on national security. Posted by: frankly0 at September 11, 2003 07:52 AM | PERMALINKThis is just disinformation put out by the Dean campaign. Clark and Dean do not stand for the same things and Clark doesn't want to be VP. This is just an attempt, and there have been many, to marginalize Clark. Posted by: MattS at September 11, 2003 07:59 AM | PERMALINKClark is kind of a bad choice if you had your pick of generals. He headed a war against the UN. Much better would be Zinni or Shinseki if it has to be a general. For my money the smart choice VP would be Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. Posted by: Eric M at September 11, 2003 08:01 AM | PERMALINK"I still think Dean would benefit from having a running mate who is a) a southernor, and/or b) has Washington legislative experience." Seeing as how Clark is from Little Rock, Arkansas, and all, doesn't that fulfill "A", at least? Posted by: Kenneth G. Cavness at September 11, 2003 08:05 AM | PERMALINKMY CHOICE IS CLARK-PRES. TEAMED WITH GEORGE MITCHELL OF MAINE FOR VP. NORTH/SOUTH TICKET, BOTH HIGHLY RESPECTED AND WILL ATTRACT "INDEPENDENT" VOTERS. Posted by: Dave at September 11, 2003 08:20 AM | PERMALINKClark wouldn't want to be the VP? Doesn't wash. Think of it this way. If you were gung ho to kill the enemy, and had the choice between flying youre mission in a plane that hasn't been tested and may or may not fly, or you get to be co-pilot and lead bombadair on the biggest baddest stealth bomber on the base, what do you do? What do you do? Dean debates the shrub, clark debates cheney. I get chills. Posted by: Shaun at September 11, 2003 08:35 AM | PERMALINK"While a professional politician would settle for the second spot on a ticket"? Someone who cares first and foremost about the future of this country. Dean/Clark! frankly0 - "in contrast to Cheney, there is no "Clark, et. al." as best I can make out." Isn't Clark a darling of the Clintons? Posted by: Alex in TX at September 11, 2003 08:41 AM | PERMALINKI never understand why a lot of people give people who served in the military a complete passing grade just based on the fact that they wore a uniform, but whatever... If it gets votes, great. Posted by: squiddy at September 11, 2003 08:58 AM | PERMALINKIf you're worried about electronic voting, contact your Congressman and urge them to rush HR 2239 -- Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003. Mandatory voter-verifiable paper trails, random audits, open software...all the fun. Posted by: Morat at September 11, 2003 09:35 AM | PERMALINKI'm not giving this story much credence. Clark has been advising Dean for a while now, and it could be some kind of exaggeration. I know Clark supporters go ballistic if you say the word "veep," but a few months ago, Clark appeared on some show and said he'd be happy to serve as VP. I think he wants to do whatever he can to help the country; serve wherever he's needed. In that article, Dean concedes the possibility that Clark could get the nom; I think portraying this as an attempt to derail Clark is a bit over the top. Oh, and Bill Richardson has said he won't take a VP slot, that he has plenty to do in New Mexico, so cross him off the list. Posted by: hamletta at September 11, 2003 09:38 AM | PERMALINKEdge: As for Republican efforts, Herbert Hoover wrote a serious book about Woodrow Wilson. TR wrote a history of the war of 1812 that I used for a high school paper, he wrote a book about early westward expansion called The Winning of the West, and of course he wrote tons of books about the wilderness. Then again, he bolted from the Republican party... Posted by: Keith at September 11, 2003 09:53 AM | PERMALINKI disagree with those who say that VP choices cant help a candidate significantly. It depends what kind of candidate. Dean, on his infamous "Meet the Press", admitted to being clueless on Foreign Policy, but made the good point that Dubya was just as clueless coming in as a Texas governor. (a reason he picked Cheney). (BTW, Cheney does quite a lot; just because he makes few public appearances does not mean he doesn't have much influence over foreign policy) So, Clark would obviously be of great benefit to him, much more than Clark would be of benefit to, say, Lieberman or Kerry. I don't think it's simply that Clark wears a uniform that makes him a good choice (after all, doesn't anyone remember Admiral Stockdale?). He just happens to be an intellegent and promising leader. Posted by: kokblok at September 11, 2003 09:57 AM | PERMALINKCan anyone name a serious thoughtful book actually written by a Republican President or presidential candidate in the last 50 years? The last 100? I'm pretty sure he never wrote a book, but until the late 70s, Reagan wrote most of his own speeches. Love him or hate him, if you're interested in Reagan's own, unfiltered writing, I'd highly recommend this compilation of his weekly radio commentaries from the 1970s. Eisenhower, who has to be Clark's model, wrote his own account of World War II in 1948, four years before running for President. Nixon, of course, wrote numerous books, the most famous of which (among the pre-presidential books) was Six Crises, written in 1962. (If you go back far enough, Teddy Roosevelt was also a prolific author). You don't have to write books to run for president, but those are a good start. Posted by: Crank at September 11, 2003 10:03 AM | PERMALINKI could see Dean giving a VP much more visibility and a bigger role in his administration than is traditional. It seems like it would suit his style - confident and nontraditional. Actually Clinton did that with Gore. I don't know if it helped his election or reelection though. As a person who works with a government agency (the patent office) I can tell you that the "reinventing government" thing was not just PR. Gore really did cut through some red tape and make some things work better. I also know he was a good fund raiser for Clinton. I do think Cheney did help get Bush elected, on the "hire good people" theory discussed above. Posted by: Emma Anne at September 11, 2003 10:13 AM | PERMALINKHe might not be an exciting writer, but hell, after you read the intro and the first two chapters, you think "Wow, what if the War on Terror and the War in Iraq were conducted with these strategic principals in mind? How much easier would winning the peace have been!" It's truly prescient. Posted by: GFW at September 11, 2003 10:16 AM | PERMALINKI think it could be dangerous for Clark to sign on as Dean's VP candidate before the primaries. If Deam somehow stumbles before or during the primaries, Clark could be sidelined from the VP nomination all together. If another gets hets hot late this year (i.e. Edwards) Clark might be prevented from being an eventual VP candidate with the eventual nominee. I personally think Edwards/Clark would be a great ticket. It would force Bush to campaign in the South which would greatly help divert attention from key battle states. A Dean/Clark ticket does sound appealing though especially from a governing perspective. Posted by: Craig at September 11, 2003 10:17 AM | PERMALINK"Bill Richardson has said he won't take a VP slot, that he has plenty to do in New Mexico" I much prefer my politicians to serve at least one full term in the office to which they have been elected before seeking higher office (sorry, John and Hillary). Richardson, however, looks like a future star--a state governor with serious foriegn policy credentials. Remember the Bushies calling on him for help with the N. Koreans? Posted by: rea at September 11, 2003 10:23 AM | PERMALINKCraig, I love the idea, and the possibility occurred to me before the article, but I still think it's wishful thinking on my part. Dean would actually be almost as good a VP choice for Clark as vice versa--though Clark might feel even more need of a Washington legislative insider than Dean. Posted by: Katherine at September 11, 2003 10:45 AM | PERMALINKI think it's important that Clark runs for President, whether it nets a Clark presidency, a Dean Presidency, a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean. A run for the top spot would give him maximum exposure to the public. I monitor digitalclark.com and watched a clip of Clark on Bill Maher's show the other night. Among other things, they discussed (based on statements from Dean and his campaign manager) the Republican smearing of the concept of a liberal. Clark forcefully and eloquently defined and took back the word and the concept, cleaning the negative charge off the word. He also wondered increduously why the Republicans think they own the military. Folks, with his help, the winds will change. These issues are core to the political atmosphere, especially in light of current security and foriegn policy debacles. Honestly, almost anybody but Bush. But with Clark, we have a unique opportunity to redefine the national agenda instead of defending ours. He can have the backing of most of the military, the mainstreamm media (who loves or at least respects him), and the biggest majority of people--those who make decisions based on sound bites. He has both style and substance. Because of his experience, Clark offers a flavor of crediblity the other candidates can't match. Posted by: Adrienne at September 11, 2003 11:09 AM | PERMALINKIt appears that Clark will run. He is in the process of hiring high ranking former Clinton, Gore, and McCain staff. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/11/national1356EDT0653.DTL I expect it will quickly become a two man race between Clark and Dean. Posted by: Rob at September 11, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINKI'm not wild about Dean, though you have to respect his accomplishments to date. The thing about Clark is, it'd be nice to have someone with military experience to reassure the public. Who else is Dean going to trot out? Joseph Nye? Kevin Pollack? Warren (ack!) Christopher? Those names don't quite have the heft of Colin Powell and Dick Cheney (hey, I don't like Cheney either, but a lot of moderates saw it differently a few years ago.) If Clark runs, he's my presumptive favorite. But if he doesn't I think he'd add a lot of heft. Why not Sec. State? About Rendell, does anybody know whether he'd be likely to consider it? Posted by: TedL at September 11, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINKI'm a Dean supporter. But there is a lot to be said for Clark/Dean over Dean/Clark. Clark communicates a presidential temperament better than anyone. Dean can take up the traditional VP campaign role of attack dog better than anyone. If Clark runs, I also think Dean would be an excellent choice because Clark needs a strong partisan Democrat for VP out of respect for a party he is only now publicly joining. Dean/Clark would be great too. Posted by: copithorne at September 11, 2003 11:54 AM | PERMALINKI think there is something to be said for strengthening the position
of VP, both in reality and in the general public's perception of
reality. That being said, I'll admit I'd rather see a Bush/Clark debate than a Bush/Dean one, and that Clark/Dean probably is a better tactical pairing. I do worry, however, about Clark's ability to win the democratic primaries after sitting out for so long. The worst-case scenario is one where Dean and Clark split their votes in the primary, leading to a victory for Lieberman. Posted by: kokblok at September 11, 2003 12:52 PM | PERMALINKJosh Marshall at Talkingpointsmemo seems pretty convinced that this Clark for VP thing is a contrivance of the Dean campaign to defuse the potential of a Clark run for President. So do straight talkers do dirty politics? I had thought not, but I guess I must be wrong. Posted by: frankly0 at September 11, 2003 02:22 PM | PERMALINKLook, Clark has never run for anything. He's never had to deal with hard questions about his family and personal life. His ego says run, but he could, very easily, find himself learning politics on the job and getting hammered with kindness by Dean. Is Clark going to really have the instincts to be political? It's not a natural one. Dean has more money to spend and a team on the ground in key states, Clark does not. He has some volunteers and pledges. But he's going to find it hard to raise the millions he needs. It would be good to see him in debates, but I think the idea of him running is better than him running. Once he runs, it gets hard for him. And if he winds up in some kind of establishment stop-Dean movement, he may well be steamrolled. Posted by: steve_gilliard at September 11, 2003 02:41 PM | PERMALINKIn practical effect, saying Clark wants to run for VP now puts him in the position where he has no choice but to announce very soon if he wants to run for the #1 job. Which may be exactly what Dean wants: force him to make up his mind so that Dean can see who to plan against, perhaps prematurely before Clark can have confidence in his ability to finance a campaign. Deeper judo: perhaps Dean wants to force Clark into the race because a new entry will generate excitement and buzz and suck out some of the loose air that supports the intermittent movements to draft a heavyweight like Gore or Hillary, as well as undermining Dean's existing opponents. If Dean thinks he can win NH and Iowa, the Anyone But Dean camp will have that much less time to coalesce around a single candidate. Posted by: Crank at September 11, 2003 02:42 PM | PERMALINKRelevant link from Talkingpointsmemo: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0302.html#091103357pm Posted by: frankly0 at September 11, 2003 03:17 PM | PERMALINKI'm a definite Dean supporter, but what little I've seen of Clark doesn't set off any bad vibes. But then again, he's mainly a blank slate upon which people can write their own desires. Some of the pixie dust he's carrying around might rub off a bit once he actually has to define his positions on domestic issues. But I don't buy this crap about "He's a general, he won't be VP." First off, he wasn't always a four star General. It's not like he has this genetic need to be in control. Also, the man, while obviously an intelligent and experienced military officer, has never run for or won political office in his life. IMO, You don't start with the big chair. Nevertheless, if Dean doesn't win, I'd certainly prefer someone like Clark over Lieberman or Kerry. Clark's not running as Dean's VP. In a radio interview (WBUR Boston)on Monday, in response to a caller, Clark states that he is looking at the presidency, and not the vice presidency. Good interview: Connection Posted by: Adrienne at September 11, 2003 04:23 PM | PERMALINKI just posted another interesting new poll on robwire.com A new Zogby poll shows that if Gore entered the race it would be a virtual dead heat between Gore and Bush. http://robwire.com Posted by: Rob at September 11, 2003 05:31 PM | PERMALINKSo a candidate picks a running mate over a year before the election. Is this the wave of the future? Hypothetically, you could build a lot of momentum by setting yourself up as a "shadow administration." Media wants a dissenting view, they go to you. By election day, you're practically an incumbent, without being blamed for any bad stuff. kokblok: "...Dubya was just as clueless coming in as a Texas governor. (a reason he picked Cheney)." Correction: Cheney picked Cheney. He was in charge of the VP search, and he couldn't find anybody better. Matt McIrvin: "Time to form Megazord." LOL! If only it were true! Posted by: Grumpy at September 11, 2003 07:02 PM | PERMALINKIn the Sept. 8-10 Gallup Poll Dean is at 12% after two years of campaigning. Clark is at 9% before entering the race. Clark owes it to the party to run, as it looks like he may be the strongest candidate. The most effective, qualified and electable spokesman for the Party must be at the top of the ticket. Posted by: Sam at September 11, 2003 09:18 PM | PERMALINKThat sums it up well. On or about this date in 1991 people were sitting around talking about who Tsongas and Kerrey would pick for VP and a guy named Bill Clinton jumped in the race at the last minute. To be within a few points of Dean without announcing and even spending a penny it shows a lot of strength for Clark is out there. In the Sept. 8-10 Gallup Poll Dean is at 12% after two years of campaigning. Clark is at 9% before entering the race Posted by: Rob at September 11, 2003 09:53 PM | PERMALINKAcademy Award winner Michael Moore's letter today to Gen. Clark is a must read.
I can't wait until Academy Award winners Ernest Borgnine, Eminem, and Cher weigh in on their preferred candidates. ;) Posted by: Grumpy at September 12, 2003 05:14 PM | PERMALINKI am supporting Wesley Clark for President. Former Military General
of NATO,Vietnam Veteran,Rhodes Scholar of Oxford,Investment Banker and
CEO of a Technology Firm. Clark will give Democrats credibility on
foriegn policy and national security issues. Because Clark is a
political novice who spend most of his life in the Military and
Corporate Sector. Clark should select Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.
Rendell is a pro union Democrat from Pennsylvania- heavily populated
State in the Northeast/Midwest. Rendell is a fiscal conservative and
social liberal except gun control - similar positions like Wesley Clark.
Rendell will give Clark credebility on domestic economic and social
policy issues. Rendell would be a great concensus VP candidate. Clark-Rendell-D The Gore States plus I think you should win we don't need Bush anymore we need you. Posted by: monica williams at February 20, 2004 02:38 PM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 23, 2004 11:11 AM | PERMALINKHi, I just wanted so say thank you guys ! I really like your site and i hope you will continue to improving it. http://puppies.healz.com/ backseat bangers leila backseatbangers movie clips backseat bangers movie clips backseatbangers movies backseat bangers movies backseatbangers mpegs backseat bangers photos backseatbangers pics backseatbangers pictures backseat bangers samples backseat bangers sample video backseat bangers skyla backseat bangers sue backseat bangers thumbs backseatbangers trailers backseat bangers trailers backseatbangers video clips backseat bangers videos backseat bangers video samples bangboat bang boat bang boat chloe bang boat galleries bangboat gallery bang boat gallery bang boat heather bang boat luccia bangboat movie clips bang boat movie clipos bangboat movies bang boat movies bang boat mpegs bangboat pics bangboat pictures bang boat samples bangboat trailers bang boat trailers bang boat video clips bangboat videos bang boat videos bangboat video sample bang boat video samples bang boat video trailers bigcocksex big cock sex big cock sex gallery Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 22, 2004 01:22 AM | PERMALINKClassic Mature - Nasty Boys - Teen Sex - True Male Celebs Naked - Lesbian Pink - Online Casino Bonus - Penis enlargement pills - 14 Inch Dick - American Bukakke - Teen Goddess Posted by: please bang my wife at June 30, 2004 09:01 AM | PERMALINK
5380 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 03:03 PM | PERMALINK3026 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 1300 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 09:57 AM | PERMALINK8364 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 08:15 PM | PERMALINKDude, you're totally off the mark. Just wrong! Posted by: cd duplication equipment at August 11, 2004 10:08 PM | PERMALINK2065 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 02:52 PM | PERMALINK6209 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 09:53 AM | PERMALINK7920 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 5480 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:45 AM | PERMALINKGreat post! We're on the same page as usual. Posted by: text link ads at August 19, 2004 06:48 PM | PERMALINK2245 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 1856 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 22, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINK1180 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 07:39 AM | PERMALINK5467 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 10:42 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
