by Chris Bowers, Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:21:40 AM EDT
Tags: General 2008 (all tags)
This is a real error in judgement. You don't trust the snakes at FOX. Anybody willing to trust their image to FOX is a person I won't trust in with the keys to the White House.
As even the right-wing denunciations of the latest Hillary smear shows, Hillary is now bulletproof to right wing opposition research. There is no dirt left to throw at her. She cannot be swift-boated.
Hillary has taken a fairly strong position on voting rights. That's by far my number one issue in the current cycle. Hillary is our best chance of getting rid of the Diebold machines now.
Yes, yes, I know he was a Republican while in the military. But they all are for the most part.
He's on our side, I believe.
Let's wait and see what happens.
Clark great once and then edited down to soundbite that seems to be attacking Dems running 20 other times a day throughout the FOX program day is real bad math for Democrats.
Nothing Wesley Clark wants is going to change the fact that Roger Ailes is going to manipulate Wesley Clark's image for every bit of advantage that he can get for the neo-cons.
I've already shown that Ailes is already editing the transcripts of Clark appearances.
Clark was a shill for the clintons and
the news media corporations.
Theres saudi money in this deal, blood
money. Fox news? You think he's primed
to run as a correspondent for fox news?
Think that would remove media corporate
influence from Govt.?
How about this interesting statement.
There are no republicans anymore.
If you presist in presenting terribly erroneous concepts I'll have to assume you are a troll.
I've worked in TV. Was a film and TV major...worked campaigns where media was a real factor....know a little about it.
Stopped spreading erroneous info please.
Anyway... I don't need a guy who did a TV internship to tell me how broadcasting works, thank you.
You are filling this board full of false info regarding the way TV news uses soundbites of interviews done live, but then is later cut into soundbites for other programming. Why do you think you see soundbites of interviews that Soledad O'Brien and Bill Hemmer do during CNN's American Morning show all day long on CNN? Because CNN edits soundbite highlights they want from the live interviews Hemmer and O'Brien do in the morning and repeat them in other CNN programming all day long... just as I described.
BigDog, as I said up thread, I understand and empathize where you are coming from. I invested 5 years of my life into Gary Hart and watched him Rice it away stupidly. Days your guy makes a screw-up that will cost them dearly is a damn tough day to get through. I'm sorry you are having to go through it.
That said... you really need to back off on this. Roger Ailes is a snake, and unfortunately, Wes Clark has just set himself up to be the next one to get snakebit.
They do not 're-edit' out of context their own commentators and replay them on other programs.
If that happened once and wasn't retracted Clark would take a walk.
If you were worling in TV today like my friend who just left Fox TV News as a producer then you might know shit. Right now you are a failed radio host with no experience in an entirely different medium saying something different than anyone eles.
Take the hint and since you are the only salmon in the water check what stream you are in.
The management of a M$M outlet can and do put anything they damn well please on the air now. The talent shuts up about it. Clark is nothing but air-talent to Roger Ailes. Contract... bwa-ha-ha-ha. Clark will do as he's told or he'll see himself slapped with a very expensive breach of contract suit faster than you can say "Rupert's lawyers on retainer."
As for your attack on my career, I was on the air when both the Tyson rape mess and Jerry Tarkanian's firing from UNLV happened. I was both anti-Tyson and anti-Tarkanian... and as I said we were based in Vegas. I was NOT the most popular guy on the staff. Sure makes people listen, though. I never had a ratings drop my entire career. The worst I ever did was a flat book early in my career at an Oldies format station... Anyway, my phone lines stayed packed, and I got half a dozen calls an hour calling me an idiot better worded than that weak effort you just wrote. Definitely NOT a BigDog effort. BigDog looks like more of a YapDog. I also noticed you had to respond in terms of the career memories of a friend, not yourself. Looks like I was right about you being nothing but an intern, huh? Looks like intern was as far as you ever got.
San Diego Sheriff Dep't. thinks that I was attacked by a one of those thugs who gets paid to lead illegals north. Said he got lost on the trails and panicked when he saw people. I don't know. I still don't remember the attack to this day.
And if the noise machine attacks a decorated GENERAL, there could be serious trouble, no?
Interesting...
'Course, I could be wrong. And probably am.
I then looked at the rest of the field, where John Kerry and Howard Dean seemed the best. After the cheese-steak incident (which became a metaphor of John Kerry's ineptitude) Howard Dean was the man. But they both had problems -- for Howard Dean, it was get a grip; for John Kerry, it was dial it up. Neither one ever did, and here we are.
Dick Durbin was a keynote speaker at the first Take Back America conference, and he told a story from his youth -- about the first time he saw the County Courthouse in Saint Louis, MO. He talked about the slave auctions held there, and the injustice of not giving Ronnie White a hearing for a seat on the federal bench -- because John Ashcroft put cheap racism above fairness.
The speech was a stem winder, and it was clear that Dick Durbin gets it -- he understands logic, and rhetoric, and how to move an audience. It's no accident that he's the Senate whip, and Barak Obama's mentor. In fact, it was Dick Durbin that blazed the trail for Democrats like Obama in downstate Illinois.
John Kerry's acolytes keep telling us that Kerry was a strong closer. That was pure crap -- just another way of saying he is a lousy politician, who's managed to wake up and pull his chips out of the fire at the last minute -- in Massachusetts, no less.
No such problem with Dick Durbin -- as I recall, he won re-election with more than 70% of the vote. A Democrat from the Land of Lincoln will not abandon Missouri, nor lose in Iowa and Ohio.
Go with the best -- Dick Durbin for President!
IMO, this brand of thinking is flawed. In a presidential election, clarity isn't generated by position on the political spectrum; it comes from the candidate's message itself...
Consider the succinct clarity of the following statement:
"We need a new declaration of independence in this country, a declaration of energy independence, because it is not right that we are as dependent as we are on places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and Russia. It's not good for our economy. It's not good for our national security. It's not good for our imbalance of payments and we need to do something about this to set our children free"
This comes from Evan Bayh... And imo, it is so, so true... Energy independence should be our single most important goal -- with it, we no longer will have to coddle corrupt regimes (the very type of alliance that created Osama Bin Laden); we'll create millions of jobs here at home; and if we win the "independence race", we'll lead the world in exporting the technology...
I'm just asking you folks to not give up on the moderates...
Hank
Criticizing Dean for criticizing Republicans is bizarre. Warner stepped on his anatomy and so did Biden and Lieberman when the criticized Dean.
Have you got any links to moderate Dems slashing out at Bushco? I'm looking for Bad Ass Democrats, not oatmeal mush moderates. Kerry, Biden and Lieberman are all dinosaurs.
Job One is kicking Republican butt. The more, the harder, the better.
I think some people are taking it as a bigger blow to his chances than it really is. Feingold is a guy who you can root for, because you actually like him.
Still, didn't we learn our lesson with Kerry last year? Trying to go for the "electible" centrist is a good way to NOT get the kind of momentum we need.
Although perhaps the fact that he isn't even on the list here suggests an even broader lack of traction outside the lefty blogosphere. Maybe that brief explosion of Feingold mania a few months ago was more of a burp.
Russ could probably do well in IA or NH, because the people who vote in IA are pretty hardcore, and NH, 61% (in the dem primary) have a favorable view of McCain, so they would at least recognize him for campaign finance reform.
How about Feingold/Boxer or Dean/Boxer?
A Feingold/Clark ticket would be great, IMHO.
Hillary Clinton did defend Boxer. Feingold did not.
That said... further research find Feingold did join John Conyers in a brief related to the Ohio recount...
Congressman Conyers, Senator Feingold, and 17 Other Congresspersons file Amicus Brief Opposing Ohio Elections Contest Sanctions Motion
On February 14th, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Senator Russ Feingold, and 17 other Congresspersons filed an amicus curiae brief in the Ohio election contest suit, in opposition to the sanctions motion brought by Ohio attorney general Petro.
The brief recommended that the Court not sanction the attorneys who brought Ohio election contest in Moss v. Bush (no.04-2088). Mr. Conyers offered the following statement:
"The attorneys in this case had reason to believe that the election results did not reflect the will of the electorate. In good faith, they brought a case based not only on statistical probability but the depositions and affidavits of computer experts, statisticians, and election volunteers. In only a couple months, these attorneys have amassed over 900 pages of evidence.
"While we take no opinion on the underlying case, we firmly support the right of citizens to challenge elections results in court when they have a good faith basis to do so. Truly, Secretary Blackwell's attempt to sanction these attorneys is meant to send a message to anyone who dare challenge his questionable election administration. For our democracy to work properly, we can't allow this sort of intimidation by state officials."
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohamicusbriefpr21405.pdf
Anyone know why Feingold was MIA on Boxer's defense?
We could do a lot worse.
Now-- if McCain is the nominee, my belief is it would be pointless to run either Schweitzer (maverick westerner) or Clark (military experience/character) against him - people voting on those criteria will go with McCain.
Here are some intruiging tickets:
--Schweitzer/Richardson
Two western governors. One hispanic. Guarantees us NM, MT, NV, CO and makes AZ insteresting.
--Schweitzer/Clark
If it appears Schweitzer needs a foreign policy boost greater than what Richardson provides (remember Schweitzer spent years in business in the middle east- that counts).
Remove Schweitzer and my top choices:
The wingnuts aren't going to let their one sure thing, McCain, have it.
The second choice, Guiliani, will likely end up as veep (but they're still not winning NY).
So who is the nominee?
I think CO Gov Bill Owens. Why?
Personally, he's someone who fascinates me as someone who could capture the hearts of America, not to mention helpful in that whole Western strategy. If he's made it absolutely clear that he's not going to run, I don't want to get my hopes up.
Wasn't Richardson the boy genius diplomat/negotiator of the Clinton administration? How much of a foreign policy boost does one need? Bush couldn't even name the three main ethnic/religious groups in Iraq two months before the invasion started.
Dems need to start making reality-based arguments and loudly rejecting the total bullshit frames set up by Republicans and the corporate media.
with bill paving the way for her, I'd say polls like this are almost an exersice in futiliy. Really, they would be more worthwhile if they excluded her, on the off chance that she does run. Otherwise, I have a hard time not seeing her methodically sow this one up.
Biden is already toast. I'm not sure he could win re-election in Delaware. Kerry the same. The era of liberal hawks is already kaput.
Descrates nails it, if she runs, HC will methodically sew everything up. It'll be like throwing your high school football team against the New England Patriots or whatever. Never confuse the blogosphere with even the primary electorate. Your gnashing your teeth and ranting will have as much effect as King Canute telling the tide to hold back.
How about it? A $100 towards a mutually agreeable charity, e.g., Move-On?
65 Approval, 27 Disapproval.
Her move right will not discourage liberals.
It may however discourage progressives if we organize like hell for the next 2 years.
I don't support her but I agree she is like a machine and could be unstoppable.
It's still early but anyone who dumps on other Democrats (especially those who have fight in them, Dean) have put their worst foot forward. Scaredycrats don't win.
Bush would have to nominate somebody else. My guess is he would nominate the same person he nominated to be Ashcroft's replacement: Gonzales. And this would be before the torture memos, so there would be no reason to be violently against him.
Who is better, Ashcroft or Gonzales? If forced to pick, I would have to say Ashcroft.
Ashcroft was (barely) qualified for the job.
Gonzales was not (he thinks the president should be above the law, and, in theory, it would be his job to investigate the president for any malfesance).
Feingold voted against Gonzales.
Basically, I think Feingold made the right choice here.
In any case, it wasn't a "scaredycat" move or a "whimp-out," but easy to buy as a principled stand in that his philosophy places very high standards for rejecting appointees. I didn't like it one bit, I wouldn't share his philosophy, but it doesn't mark him as scared.
Basically, Feingold believes, unless there is an extreme, fatal flaw in a canidate, the president gets to pick his cabinet. This means he will vote for people he despises, on principle.
Gore would likely be a great leader, but as a politician, he just did not get it. That said he did win the vote. That just wasn't enough to become president in the last two elections.
I think he has a clear vision of what he wants to see for America. I also think he is a much better politican than he was in 2000.
Personally with it unlikely that Dean will run in 2008 due to his charimanship of the party I'm a Gore 2008 man.
Still unless some Benedict Arnold like Lieberman or Biden gets the nomination I'll work hard for whoever ends up on the Democratic ticket.
Our Democratic Senator? Voted for the bankruptcy bill.
That was the final straw. I know I'm repeating myself here, but no way in hell will I work for that spineless DINO. Oh he talks big now and then but show me something he's DONE. Show me a bill he's pushed and taken the lead on that was a truly Democratic Party bill. I'd really like to see one if there is one.
Former governors can say, I oversaw... or executed... or enforced... or calmed... as much as you're hooked on the bankruptcy bill, with all due respect, energy is a much bigger problem...
hank
Warner is famous because he helped to run Nextel from basically a non-entity in the celluar market into the only national firm left that did not have a landline business originally. They did merge with Sprint after he left...but the man knows lots of people in the telecom industry and he has that sense of gravitas as governor. He really worked hard to address revenue and spending problems in Virgina...at a time when the state was crawling out of being a backwater and fast becoming a very important state in terms of economic vitality to the country.
www.draftmarkwarner.com has a list of reasons he should be the nominee in 2008.
People repeatedly say they remember hearing that Gore is not running but then Google searches only find one rumor on this reported by Chris Mathews. Gore is certainly doing everything he would want to do if he intended to run or preserve the option of running.
I'm with Ariana Huffington on her statement that I'll have one litmus test for my 2008 candidate, that candidate has to have a strong postition calling for a withdrawal of our occupation forces. Gore was strongly and vocally against the invasion in his Moveon speech. Feingold voted against the invasion authorization and all the rest have some variation of the invasion was a good idea, Bush did it badly, but now we are there and have to see it through crap.
Let's be honest. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law because there was no imminent threat. It wasn't a good idea then or now. We are not there for a short time because we are spending a fortune building PERMANENT military bases to replace our former bases in Saudia Arabia.
The Democrats who voted for the authorization were duped and need to stand up and admit they made a mistake and take their political lumps.
But the point of this post remains why not at least include some anti war candidates in our internal polling.
Factcheck.org has a piece that pretty clearly demonstrates that Wes Clarke was on both sides of the war in the beginning. On October 9, 2002 the Associated Press reported that Clark said "he supported the congressional resolution that would give President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq although he has reservations about the country's move towards war." More significantly, on April 10, 2003 just after the fall of Baghdad when it appeared that the illegal invasion would be successful Clark wrote an article that appeared in the Times of London that called it "a great victory".
I would love to be directed to someplace where Clark is currently quoted as unequivocably supporting withdrawal of our forces.
Anyone who wants to know the cold hard facts about this can check out the debunker on the CCN website:
http://blog.forclark.com/story/2005/6/17/41110/0267
And the best link in there is the story from the Washington Post after this year's HASC hearings, where the WP creditted Clark with saying, "I told you so to Perle":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html
Sorry, you just don't have the facts on this one. It's funny that you'd take on people who've followed him for years, people who joined his campaign because of his anti-war stance, when you're not even familiar enough with him to spell his name correctly.
This need to marginalize the left of the party, to pretend it isn't there, just goes to show that it STILL hasn't sunk in why the Republicans have been kicking our ass for decades.
What's it going to take, another pathetic loss after another wimpy shiftless campaign by yet another DINO before some change in strategy happens?
there's been some weird Clark thing bouncing around the net for the last couple of weeks. He's a shitty candidate, and in three years when the bodies are stacked like cordwood, a "warrior" is NOT what people are going to be looking for.
I don't like the "pick a southern democrat" strategy because I think it feeds in with the fact that our party is kind of a bunch of panderers and crowd pleasers. Let's face it, the bulk of our party is not southern and when we pick a southern nominee it feels like we're trying too hard to say "see! we're just as down home and traditional family and all as the GOP!" people don't buy it.
I'm saying this as a Democrat from Georgia.
hank
Feingold - Sinking Fast
Edwards - Unemployed
Clark - Possible
Warner - Over-rated
Richardson - Longshot
Clinton - Juggernaut
Exit Iraq (No strategy involved, just support the troops and bring them home), National healthcare, pro conservation/alternative fuel energy policy or straight Green party ticket in 2008!
Total votes: 299
Russ Feingold: 116 votes (38.8 percent)
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 59 votes (19.7 percent)
John Edwards: 32 votes (10.7 percent)
Bill Richardson: 27 votes (9 percent)
Evan Bayh: 20 votes (6.7 percent)
Mark Warner: 12 votes (4 percent)
John Kerry: 5 votes (1.7 percent)
Ed Rendell: 3 votes (1 percent)
Tom Vilsack: 3 votes (1 percent)
Write-ins:
-- Tammy Baldwin, 1 vote
-- Barbara Boxer, 2 votes
-- Howard Dean, 3 votes
-- Al Sharpton, 1 vote
-- Gen. Wesley Clark, 10 votes
-- Joseph Biden, 2 votes
-- Dennis Kucinich, 1 vote
-- Barack Obama, 1 vote
-- Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, 1 vote
Clark's going to FOX and there is no way to spin that as a positive.
When his poll numbers rise to the level of our VP nominee in 2004 I hope you remember this post....
In crass electoral terms I like Richardson because it virtually guarantees the take-back of New Mexico (pushes EV to 257). I think Bush fatigue will also yield a take-back of Iowa for most Democratic candidates, pushing the EV to 264. At which point, Colorado does the job just as well as Ohio or Florida and I think Richardson's appeal to Hispanic voters may be enough. Ditto Nevada. Colorado's 9 would make it 27-fucking-3.
And while I would like more of bulge for a "mandate", I'll take it as a start.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
129 Comments