Love it!! General Clark is going to blow people away when he gets in the race! Those who are convinced he ran a poor campaign last time won't know what hit 'em! BTW, for getting in late, having no staff, policy papers, campaign experience, he ran a fantastic campaign last time. A quick study and a brilliant strategist, he will have it down this time!
I think you are missing a huge factor -- the media decides who gets the news and who doesn't.
There is absolutely no reason to not give equal time to all the candidates, yet they choose who the "newmakers" are and push those down our throats. Just as they do with everything -- OJ Simpson, Lacy Peterson, Anna Nicole -- whatever THEY decide is infotainment, that's what they push.
Many people, (majority?) who have no time to be online searching out information and watch teevee to get that information, are woefully uninformed and misguided.
We are living in a media driven society and the damage done in the last 6 years should have been enough to wake people up, but so far it's not looking good.
Anyways, thanks BigDog for putting this together. I'll get over to your blog tomorrow to read it.
Couldn't disagree more! If Edwards is the Dem candidate in the GE, we'll have 4 - 8 more years of a Publican WH.
He is not a leader, he is not a diplomat, he has no executive experience, he has no foreign policy experience/knowledge, and he had the astounding lack of judgement to co-sponsor the IWR and vote for the Patriot Act.
Apologies are well and good, but it does not qualify him to be the leader of this country.
Indeed, looking back, I think the conventional wisdom is that John Edwards excelled as a candidate, while Clark never really caught on with voters. That's not quite what happened.
After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates -- Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards -- met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.
In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests.
In fact, in those first eight post-Iowa primaries, if we look only at top-two finishes (candidates who came in either first or second), Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one.
But the media was unimpressed. A day after Clark and Edwards each won their first primaries, and Clark outperformed Edwards in a majority of the mini-Super Tuesday contests, news outlets praised Edwards and dismissed Clark. Salon, for example, ran a major feature, taking a look at the race for the nomination. The headline: "And then there were two." A big picture accompanied the article with Kerry and Edwards. The article said Clark "posted disappointing numbers in the seven-state primary" and "may not be long for the game." Again, this was a day after Clark actually did slightly better than Edwards.
I for one will not be lead by Corporate Press to decide who I will support, and that is exactly what's happening. If one didn't read blogs, one would think Clinton and Obama were the only candidates running.
Running for president for 2 years is ludicrous -- a waste of time, energy and money.
It's obvious you have absolutely no knowledge of who General Clark is, what he has done, what he stands for, or his stand on the issues and it's equally obvious you don't care to know. You seem satisfied with the current crop of candidates and maybe even have a favorite.
Well I for one am not satisfied with any of the current candidates and will wait for Clark. I know enough about the man to know that HE knows exactly what he's doing and will enter the race when he's good and ready.
I so can't wait for General Clark to declare his intention to run! The level of discourse among the candidates will be uplifted 1000%.
Who among those currently running has come even close to spelling out their ideas for what's going on in the ME? and what needs to be done?
With Clark in the race, they will be forced into outlining their plans for cleaning up the gigantic mess that Jr.and his cabal will leave in their wake. And once that happens, it will be all too clear who is most qualified to step up and lead us out of the nightmare we're in.
Thanks for bringing this over here kevin. I hope many read it. It's pretty chock full of information and I will have to read it again later (and probably again) to fully absorb it all.
Rock stars are great but not so much for president at this point in time. Leadership is the key. Clark has spent his life being a leader -- and not for the power of it, but because he decided early in life that he wanted to serve his country. He always has, and he's never stopped.
This is part of what Clark said last night in NYC:
"You were very generous to give me applause for what I said about education and health care and the work force, but I think almost every other Democratic candidate would say exactly the same thing. I know. I said it the last time I ran. It hasn't been done. It needs to be done.
"And we'd be making a big mistake if we made our decision between candidates on the basis of roman numeral three, sub-paragraph alpha... of their health care plan. You know, when you say you'll give fifty dollars deductable for people with incomes less than, than fifty thousand dollars a year, but he says he can pay that and there's no deductable, therefore I'll vote for him -- that's not what makes a successful president. What you've got to do is look at people's actions.
"I'm in the business community a lot. I'll tell you what any businessman will tell you. When you're going to put someone in a leadership position, look at the record of their actions. People repeat their actions in life again, and again, and again. Are they strong? Can they make decisions? Can they handle pressure? Do they have a track record of dealing with tough issues effectively? Now, that's the basis on which you start when considering candidates in my view. That's my experience. So, you know, when I found--to, my--I wasn't surprised, I was a little disappointed. But when you put 10 people on stage and last time it was like a beauty contest, you know. We had a lawyer, a doctor, um, a general, we had an African-American man, we had an African-American woman, we had a governor. You know, we had everybody out there, and, it was like a beauty contest. And the amazing thing was that pretty soon, after about five or six debates, everybody started sounding just alike. And I'm finding it now.
"Three years ago, I was the only one saying we needed a new strategy [in Iraq]. Now everyone says 'Oh, I got this great' -- okay. Okay. Fine. It's not about what people say. It's about who they are and what they've done, because that's the best indication of what they can do."
Once Clark enters the race -- and despite what Corpress shoves down our throats NOW, there is plenty of time -- his many benefits will be apparent, including unparalled foreign policy expertise and his liberal domestic policies.
The others have various good qualities -- Clark has it all.
Hope this isn't a dupe -- didn't seem to post first time.
Looks like everyone, including many of the blogs, are buying into Corporate Press's insistence that we're in the semi-finals. Heaven help us if we once again allow "them" to decide who our candidate will be. That Corpress talks only of Clinton and Obama should be a warning of who they'd like to go up against whatever clueless Publican is put up.
It is strange though, that the original post on CCN with the 3 month statement was not refuted by anyone. Not until kos posted it did anyone speak up.