Dream Ticket: Clark - Webb

As noted in another diary, Jim Webb is already showing what kind of Senator he will be.  This display, along with his entire campaign, gives an indication of what kind of Senator he will be.  That is why a Clark - Webb ticket would stomp the opposition.

More below the fold.

Both are former Republicans. Both have strong military experience.  Both are educated, intelligent, and articulate -- but at the same time can communicate to the regular folks without talking down to them.  Both have a vision of America that is based on fairness, equality of opportunity, and justice for all.  They both are cut from the same cloth as Teddy Roosevelt.

Their demeanor is the most important thing of all.  They are believable when they say that they would stand up for us against corporate power and Christo-fascists (to paraphrase a label now in vogue among the neocons).  They are LEADERS and it radiates from them.

I am thrilled with Webb as you can tell.  He will have a great future and play a very positive role in American politics over the next generation, mark my words.

•  While I agree with you

  about Webb, I think that 2 years as a Senator is a pretty short time of service for a vice-presidential slot.  But maybe shortly down the road.

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:54:51 AM PDT

  •  Clark-Edwards

    I'd rather keep our Dem Senators in place as long as possible.

    by teeb on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:11:59 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely! You have to look at balance here!

      Clark = strong national security, foreign policy
      
      
      Edwards= strong domestic policy, oversight, etc.
      
      
      Either this duo or a Dem governor with executive administration background with one of them.

      by Moesse on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:11:08 AM PDT

      •  I have to agree Clark for his diplomatic exper

        ience as well as his military experience, NATO Commander the same position that Eisenhower held before becoming President, Edwards, on social and political experience on Capitol hill and how to get legislation slid thru   unbeatable in my opinion and does not have anywhere the negatives that HRC has going in  those numbers are not going to change they aren't undecideds  those are people that just plain dislike her are over 40%

        by testvet6778 on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:42:27 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          

          by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:29:25 AM PDT

          •  America's team

            

            by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:11:41 AM PDT

      •  Clark-Obama

        Clark is my first choice for president for all the reasons stated above but Webb is too much like clark to be a goood VP choice.  Your Veep is supposed to help you pick up votes you otherwise wouldn't get.  Thus Kennedy, a, chose LBJ as his veep to appeal to those folks in the party most suspicious of Kennedy, that is, Southern Dems.

        And for Clark, Obama is that guy.  As a Veep, his relative lack of experience won't hurt him as much (Dan Quayle forever lowered that bar nearly to the floor), and give him a solid base to run himself whenthe time is right.    Clark, on the other hand  gets to take advantage of the  Lightning in a Bottle that is Obama's Charisma and Media favor.  Not to mention such a choice would energize minority votes and even some of the disaffected evangelical Republicans who have ben very warm to Obama's message of late.

        by Magorn on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:59:36 AM PDT

        •  very valid point and his charisma level is thru

          the roof

          by testvet6778 on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:34:04 AM PDT

        •  I am not sure where you live

          and sometimes I question if the planet I live on is the same many Good Dems are on...

          But this country still has a problem with that pesky secret ballot.

          Lots of people you would not suspect are not going to vote for an African-American for Vice President.

          They may not even be able to admit to them selves as to why.

          Here in very blue Seattle, when counting ballots in 04, in ultra blue districts, I noticed a huge number of ballots that split the ticket by voting Dem except where a woman's name was on the ballot.

          I will wager some of them may not be able to answer why.

          I am originally from NC and I expect such things there, but in Seattle it was a surprise and I kept looking for more evidence to disprove what I was seeing.

          by NCrefugee on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:36:32 AM PDT

          •  honestly

            aside from maybe a few pockets of the deep south; I think this issue looms larger in our minds than it does in reality.  The very same thing was said about Kennedy's Catholicism.  Alf Landon's defeat supposedly "proved" that fact for all time.  But when the election actually came, was it even a measurable factor?

            Its a circular piece of thinking to to say "well America will never vote for a Black person because they are racist;  therefore we'd be foolish to put a black person forward as a candidate"

            in other words, you won't know until you try.

            by Magorn on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:06:44 AM PDT

        •  You know, I've thought of this ticket before

          I think it would work well for a lot of reasons.  As you point out, a national ticket needs balance and Obama would provide it.  Also considering the loyalty of minority voters and our need to get high turnout in minority communities, it would be a good idea to have a minority on the national ticket.  Who is more qualified for this than Barak Obama?

          by SoCalLiberal on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:03:15 AM PDT

          •  And having met him in person

            I can tell you he is a DAMN charming guy.  Still kicking myself for not helping out on his campaign when I got an invite (though he was a dark horse, running 3rd in his own primary at the time)

            by Magorn on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:08:37 AM PDT

            •  You know what's funny

              My freshman year, I met this kid from Chicago.  And we got to talking Illinois politics.  He was unaware that Peter Fitzgerald was not standing for reelection.  And we began talking about politics and he explained to me how candidates in Illinois, to be successful, couldn't be successful.  Later I began reading up on Barak Obama and I thought to myself what a great guy this was and how wonderful it would be to have a guy like him in the Senate.  So a few days later, I asked my friend from Illinois "Hey, can a guy with the last name "Obama" get elected as Senator in Illinois?" and he laughed, shook his head and responded "No way".  Well we all know how that one turned out.  Remember how the Democratic Party wanted Blair Hull at the time, a guy who hadn't even bothered to vote?  

              Kind of reminds me of a friend of mine in New Hampshire who to me anyway, is an expert of politics.  About a week or two before the election, I told him I thought Charlie Bass was going down to Paul Hodes.  And he told me that Hodes would run stronger than last time but would lose because "people really like Bass and they're going to reelect him."  Ahhhh, I LOVE being right.  :)

              by SoCalLiberal on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:26:41 AM PDT

              •  A Law prof of mine was an early Obama guy

                The law prof, who headed the Criminal defense Clinic at the School, was almost a character out of a novel.  He'd been living Legend at the PD's office with his trademark cowboy boots and ferocious courtroom style, and he was  beloved by his students.  He was also a self-described "last of the 1960's bleeding heart liberals" and a constant crusader for social justice as much as the criminal kind.   So when he said at a clinic meeting one day:

                "Hey anybody want to come to a Fund-raiser tonight?  its for this great guy who hasn't got a prayer of winning, but he SHOULD win cause he is an intelligent, articulate guy whose heart is in the right place"

                I went out of sheer curiosity.  Sure enough that "guy"  turned out to be Obama, and he was everything the law prof said.  My stupdity came from not listening to my heart and deciding I was too busy with school to play Sancho to this Don Quixote candidate.   My loss and a good life lesson about idealism I think.

                by Magorn on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:44:40 AM PDT

            •  Oh and his wife Michelle

              would make a wonderful first lady.  She is on the board of the Chicago chapter of Facing History, a non profit organization that seeks to educate students, especially students in poorer schools, about important historical events.  

              by SoCalLiberal on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

    •  Amen

      Teeb, you are correct on that!! Clark-Edwards 08!

      by browne48 on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 08:53:10 AM PDT

  •  I Definitely like Clark for President

    Webb will be extremely valuable with his expertise on military and veterans affairs, so I think it would be better to have him remain in the senate. I would like to see him run for President or VP sometime down the road, but it would be better to choose someone else for VP in '08.

    by thursdays child on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:35:10 AM PDT

•  Absolutely

  agree with Clark-Webb combo. The weak on terror mantra could never work on a tandem like these two. The Dems would also probably also get to keep the independent voters who were key to winning the midterm elections while the progressives will be fired up.

  However the odds are againts Clark getting the Democratic nomination and againts Webb getting the VP slot.

  Nevertheless, it is still what it is, a DREAM ticket.

  by urgello on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:11:34 AM PDT

•  Asdf..

  Both have strong military experience.

  Don't get me wrong, I like both Webb and Clark, but I'm getting tired of this "military service equals win". It doesn't. Ask Silver Star John Kerry or draft-dodging, Vietnam war "supporting" GW Bush.

  That said, I'd vote for Webb or Clark over Hillary in a heart beat. I like their smart stands on Iraq and populist positions on domestic issues, but most of all I like their compassion, something lacking in so many politicians today.

  by assyrian64 on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:27:51 AM PDT

  •  Webb is fine for Virginia and for the senate

    "I'd vote for Webb or Clark over Hillary "

    I'm not a big Hillary fan or anything, but you do know where Webb stands on the issues?  He's hardly a progressive.

    by Nihilvor on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:42:37 AM PDT

    •  Zxcv...

      I'm not a big Hillary fan or anything, but you do know where Webb stands on the issues?  He's hardly a progressive.

      I know one very important thing: when faced with the ultimate life and death issue of war, Webb made a rational decision, and came out against what he knew was wrong, but Hilary did not, and instead supported this illegal, immoral attack.

      Hilary did this because of (1) political considerations (wanting to look "tough" on defense, etc), (2) because she was foolish enough to trust the easily untrustworthy Bush or (3) because she also believes in the Bush preventive war policy.

      It is for these reason I would vote for Webb over Hilary Clinton.

      by assyrian64 on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:11:12 AM PDT

  •  Clark

    is a little different from Kerry.

    Despite Kerry's military service, they were still able to tarnish him with the Jane Fonda liberal from Massachusetts crap.

    You can't do that with Clark.

    My blog. Come visit.

    by hekebolos on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:54:35 AM PDT

    •  Maybe not

      but they'll just tarnish him with someone like Michael Moore instead.  And they'll say he's not a real Southerner.  And they'll mock the way he speaks.  And they'll question his switch from a Nixon/Reagan voter to a solidly liberal presidential candidate.

      Of course, they'll tarnish any candidate we put out there.  We can't really let that decide who to nominate.  

      by MattBellamy on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:47:00 AM PDT

      •  the question

        is whether it's believable.

        With Clark--who still speaks like he hails from Arkansas--it's a lot harder to make that case.

        And, of course, his son is involved in the movie business out here in L.A., so they'll accuse him of being in with the Hollywood Crowd.  All the typical crap.

        My blog. Come visit.

        by hekebolos on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:19:27 AM PDT

      •  I agree they will attack any candidate

        And that we shouldn't decide based solely on Repub attacks -- a candidate's vulnerability to personal attack should be a factor, but more important imo is how we believe the candidate will react.

        That said, switching from Nixon/Reagan will NEVER hurt Clark in a general election.  It can only help him, no matter how the Repubs try to twist it.  Personally, I'll be very surprised if they try.

        Only Democrats care about whether Clark voted for Repubs 20+ years ago.  And ya know, most of the rank & file Democrats really don't care either.  But of course, most of the rank & file don't bother to vote in primaries.  Missouri was an important primary in 2004 and there was only just over 10% turnout.  Is that pathetic or what?  But it does give those of us who are activists a bigger say in the results than we probably deserve.

        Ummm... what the hell's wrong with the way Clark speaks?  I've never heard that one before, and I thought I'd heard 'em all!

        by hfjai on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 09:05:21 AM PDT

        •  Markos

          Kos used to be a Republican too.  Is he not a true Progressive?

          by nocore on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 11:21:04 AM PDT

•  ...we have more stalking horses than reindeer...

  just what we need: as many stalking horse candidates as possible.  We need a board of directors in the White House, not just a CEO and Exec. VP.  And I would wager you a cupcake that's just what we'll be styling come Nov.'08.  I can't wait to see the primary, and the runoff!

  by ezdidit on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:48:45 AM PDT

•  maybe the only people who should run are vets?

  by ezdidit on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:49:19 AM PDT

  •  No

    But it doesn't hurt when military issues are at the top of the agenda.  Especially with Clark's experience as a coalition commander I think he is well placed to be an effective president with two ongoing conflicts.

    by slothlax on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:13:47 AM PDT

  •  Oh, you're serious

    Saw your post on another thread.  I like vets and all but no Starship Troopers for me thank you.

    by slothlax on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:17:01 AM PDT

•  Dreams

  Gore - President
  Obama - VP
  Clark - Sec. of State
  Spitzer - Attorney General
  Salma Hayek - my new girlfriend
  Ponies - free for everyone

  by joejoejoe on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:23:28 AM PDT

•  Can't imagine Webb and Clark

  getting along.  Webb is Corps, Webb Army...I'm not seeing it...

  by Barbara on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:35:18 AM PDT

  •  Clark is Army

    Clark and Webb met when they served on the board organizing and raising funds for the Vietnam Memorial. They get along very well as far as I know. Clark actually wrote a blog at Kos urging us to support Jim Webb, and endorsed Webb in the primary.

    by Donna Z on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:01:22 AM PDT

  •  They get along extremely well

    Clark campaigned for Webb several times.  

    by LSophia on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 03:35:27 PM PDT

•  Enough!

  I think Webb and Clark are both great assets to the party and to the country but it's time to stop defining the Democratic party by Republican talking points (as in we need military guys to give us credibility on security). How many 'tough guy' Republicans ever put themselves in harms way for their country?

  We need leaders who aren't afraid to take a stand and don't define themselves according to Republican spin whether or not they have got military background. Kerry was proof of that.

  by hankg on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:46:54 AM PDT

•  err

  Both are former Republicans.

  That will never be the headlining item in my list of reasons to back a Presidential Nominee, let alone a joint ticket.

  by zenbowl on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:47:22 AM PDT

  •  Not.

    Clark was NEVER a repuklican; he may have voted for a few early on, but later voted for democratic candidates. (Clinton, Gore, Kerry) Military officers cannot declare a party; their loyalty is to the constitution. When he retired and had to make a choice, he has stated that his beliefs were firmly on the democratic side and finally registered in AR as a DEMOCRAT.

    by donjo on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 08:12:37 PM PDT

  •  Was donjo said, and this

    Reagan actually was a Democrat.  Republicans were smart enough to see the advantage in that.

    by hfjai on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 09:07:46 AM PDT

•  Great...

  two more white men.  Not that I dislike Clark or Webb, but, I would like to see a woman or a person of color running.  

  by Finn on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:48:52 AM PDT

  •  Clark/Obama or Clark/Hillary? n/t

    by urgello on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:11:19 AM PDT

    •  The first pair is terific

      Bith foriegn and bread and domestic bread and butter issues covered

      by wuod kwatch on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:13:23 AM PDT

  •  Lets not kid ourselves

    if Hillary loses the nomination to Clark he will be under huge pressure to choose a woman as running mate. I cant figure him choosing Hill herself.

    So it would probably be Clark / Napolitano (giving a regional balance southern/western too)

    or

    Clark / Sebelius.

    Since Sebelius is more conservative than Napolitano and would probably not be able to deliver Kansas, I would opt for Napolitano giving us a real shot at Arizona with some neighbor state effects in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.

    Of course Clark could show his real independence defying expectations by choosing Bill Richardson.

    by MarcTGFG on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:27:53 AM PDT

    •  Why do you think there would be

      huge pressure to choose a woman as running mate

      This next election needs the focal point to be on competence not gender equality.

      by witchamakallit on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:58:55 AM PDT

  •  Clark's half Jewish

    Does that help?

    by mariawells on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

•  Clark will choose

  What ever is best for the country. I may not be what is best for the party members who think they have paid their dues and "deserve" the job.

  I am ok with who ever he chooses.

  The job now is to get him past the wannabes who read the "Keys to the White house" and realize we are one economic or charisma key away from the Dem nominee being a shoe in.

  If you though the opportunist came out of the wood work in 04, you "Ain't seen nuttin yet".

  by NCrefugee on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 04:50:46 AM PDT

•  Clark/Webb "Kickin' Brass 2008"

  I proposed this a few weeks ago.

  by jhecht on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:36:09 AM PDT

•  Keeping the record straight:

  Wes Clark was never a republican.

  Jim Webb was once a republican.

  It makes little difference to me since both of them are smart, believe in the ideals this country stands for, and advocate for policies that include at least most of the progressive-liberal agenda. Besides, they both do not suffer fools lightly which is a sure sign they live outside the beltway mentality.

  by Donna Z on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:07:13 AM PDT

  •  I Was Under The Impression That Clark Voted For

    Reagan as did Jim Webb. Is this faulty information? If not, what is your premise for stating that Wes Clark was never a Republican?

    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:03:48 AM PDT

    •  As an Independent

      I too have voted for Republicans through the decades. That doesn't make me a Republican.

      Clark did vote for Reagan, something we know only because he doesn't duck questions and answered honestly when asked.

      A great many people voted for Reagan, many of them Democrats.

      To BE a Republican or a Democrat it's usually expected that one has registered as such in their state of residence.

      by witchamakallit on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:32:16 AM PDT

      •  O.K. I Get The Difference

        I'm one who thought that Reagan's policies both foreign and domestic were disastrous. So I guess to be really comfortable in voting for Clark in the primary, I would like to know exactly what policies of Reagan's appealed to Clark so as an Independent he would vote for him. If those policies still appealed to him or how his views have changed since then.

        by MO Blue on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:53:02 AM PDT

        •  Reagan built up the military

          Whether any of us agrees with what Reagan did overall or not, it's just a fact that the military was in real bad shape after Vietnam.  Anyone who stayed in after the war and tried to rebuild it was bound to be thankful for much of what Reagan did.

          He pushed thru pay raises at a time when soldiers and their families were really struggling to make ends meet.  He budgeted for enlistment incentives that attracted higher quality of junior personnel to the ranks.  And he fielded new weapons systems like the Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Blackhawk helicopter and many others, but probably more important, replaced much of the old worn out common junk, like vehicles and maintenance gear.  To a soldier, new and better equipment means fewer lives lost if combat becomes necessary.  And he put a helluva lot more money into training and education, also critical to battlefield preparedness.

          Clark says that after the Soviet Union fell in 1991 (and I suspect the fact that he became a general officer and had access to a higher level of policy maker), he realized that the Repubs really didn't have much of a handle on the way the world was changing.  He tells a story of meeting Paul Wolfowitz after the first Gulf War and being rather horrified at their plans to "clean up" all the old Soviet surrogate states thru out the Middle East even then.

          So somewhere in that time frame, Clark had cause to reevaluate what he thought about politics and policy.   He voted for Bill Clinton and, while still maintaining his military non-partisanship, has basically backed Democrats ever since.

          by hfjai on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 09:36:39 AM PDT

•  CLARK / OBAMA

  IDEAL

  by wuod kwatch on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:12:02 AM PDT

•  Clark was never a Republican

  Sigh

  One more time with feeling
  Clark was never a Republican

  While in the military he was an unaffiliated voter, as are many career military. The Arkansas voting rolls shows his unaffiliated status.

  How many times must this be pointed out?

  When he became a civilian and it came time to choose a party affiliation his liberal views and progressive ideas led him to join the Democratic Party.

  And as we all know, the weasle who claimed he wasn't--Lieberweenie--has been a Republican mole for a looooooong time.

  by witchamakallit on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:15:00 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for this

    While I do not like the idea of an all military ticket for a variety of reasons (I think that there should be balance of foreign and domestic policy backgrounds, of state and federal experience, etc.) I do like some aspects of Wesley Clark's credentials.  I just don't think he is the be-all and end-all of possibly electable candidates.  And Webb simply has not been around enough as a Democrat for me to judge.  Frankly, a close affiliation with Reagan is a disqualifier for me!

    by annetteboardman on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:27:27 AM PDT

    •  No one is the be-all & end-all

      All of our potential candidates are mere humans with human faults and failings.

      While we sort through their histories, their vision for the future and their stands on matters important to us we have to be willing to weigh the pros and cons, forgive the cons (or not) and find the one that best fits our idea of the "ideal" candidate. We will never find the perfect candidate because they will ever be imperfect men.

      Wes Clark is the man I am most comfortable with--the man I can picture as the leader of the free world who would mend our tarnished image around the globe. I've been in his camp since the Draft Clark movement and have studied his positions from every direction. He doesn't walk on water, he can't heal the sick, but he fits my idea of a visionary leader. One who would give me the ability to say, with pride, "That's MY president."

      by witchamakallit on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:47:34 AM PDT

    •  Webb needs to stay in the Senate

      But please take a closer look at Wes.  Take a look through the stuff on http://www.securingamerica.com .  And take a look at his campaign platform from 2004:  http://www.clark04.com/... .

      by mariawells on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 11:46:48 AM PDT

•  Teddy R is not a very good example

  His military experience involved getting a lot of men killed and the birth of PR as a national policy.
  The Spanish American war was much uglier than school books would have us believe. However Teddy did understand how to negotiate and the value of a big stick in that process.

  Sure he did a lot of good things but his foreign policy work (except the canal) was not treated well by history and hindsight.

  And repeat after me.
  Wes Clark was never a Republican. He never registered to vote as a Republican. AR does not (or did not) require voters to choose a party affiliation.

  by NCrefugee on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:53:24 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for pointing this out

    Everyone seems obsessed with Teddy Roosevelt.  I think that people have a lot of mistaken notions about the guy.  The Spanish American War was a PR stunt with a fabricated cause.  And we are still grappling with its results today.  We went in supposedly to free Cuba yet we ended up passing the Platt Ammendment which gave us virtual control of the island.  It seems like a very fashionable thing today for young, left leaning, often well off students to say "I'm a TR Republican" (there's also "I'm a libertarian" although that is used more by right leaning students).  Well I am NOT a TR Republican, I am a true blue Democrat who understands that the last thing we need are presidents with a violent streak who want to start wars to make a name for themselves.  I will say though that TR's distant relative, FDR, is perhaps our greatest president.  So if anything I'm an FDR Democrat (or its modern equivalent, a Barbara Boxer Democrat).  

    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:17:45 AM PDT

•  I want someone who will not vote for war

  or get us involved in any more unnecessary wars.

  That throws out Clark and Edwards.

  by dancewater on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:09:31 AM PDT

  •  Huh?

    What makes you think Clark would get us involved in an unnecessary war?

    Clark has been 100% against the war in Iraq from the beginning.  He testified against the IWR before the armed services committees of both houses of Congress.  He even implored Congress not to pass it in a Time magazine op/ed piece that came out just a couple days before the vote.

    As far as I can tell, Clark's the only one who's been speaking out consistently for the last couple years about Bush trying to take us to war against Iran.

    Like most people who've actually seen war up close, Clark believes using armed force should always be "the last last last resort."

    by hfjai on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 09:51:56 AM PDT

  •  One of the advantages

    of someone like Clark or Webb is that they actually know what military force can or cannot do...  unlike our current Administration, who seems to have no idea.

    by LSophia on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

•  besides....

  Clark and Edwards both lost in the last presidential election (neither got the party's nomination), and it is time for some fresh people, not reruns.

  by dancewater on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:11:40 AM PDT

•  Can't we have a ticket

  without any "former" Reagan supporters on it?

  by davybaby on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:21:20 AM PDT

  •  Can we win an election without

    former Reagan voters would be a better question.

    The answer is, probably not.

    What we need is a ticket that would call home those known as "Reagan Democrats".

    Clark just might be that person. Only time will tell.

    by witchamakallit on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:37:33 AM PDT

    •  hooey

      Wes Clark did more to get Democrats elected in 2006 than every other 2008 pesidential candidate combined.

      Questioning his political leanings is just silly.  You can read scores of speeches and position papers on his site: securingamerica.com

      You will find that Clark's views put him clearly to the left of Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Bayh, Richardson, or Vilsack- all are milquetoast DLC supported-the-war centrists.

      Of all the potential 2008 Democrats, there were only three who took the Progressive position and opposed the Iraq War from Day 1.

      • Wes Clark
      • Al Gore
      • Barack Obama

      by nocore on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 11:30:18 AM PDT

      •  You mis-understand me

        I was involved in the Draft Clark movement, I worked and donated once he entered the race and I continue to support him.

        I've read his speeches and position papers, listened to him speak in person, attended the NCCM in Little Rock last year. In no way do I question his bona-fides.

        He is my choice for president in '08 just as he was my choice in '04.

        You need to pull in your claws a bit. If you can't handle someone saying "might" and "time will tell" in regards to the man you may be doing him more harm than good.

        Just a suggestion. :)

        by witchamakallit on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 05:18:05 PM PDT

•  umm... are you shitting me?

  ...the christ? really now. webb barely squeaked by in a race where his opponent did everything short of saying "i'm an idiot, vote for the other guy!"

  ...and the people that ~did~ vote for him voted with spite. webb made a campaign stop here in cville and one of my friends, in meeting him, told him to his face "i can't believe i've got to vote for scum like you." she wasn't alone...

  ...webb hasn't shown shit as far as what kind of senator he'll be. he's just shown he knows how to shut up and let his opposition keep shooting itself in the foot. he's shown he gets pissed off when the smirking chimp gives him chimp-lip about his son over in iraq. he damn sure isn't charismatic, and since when is a candidates status as a magic bullet?

  by koan on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 08:18:26 AM PDT

  •  Hey you live in VIRGINIA

    Home of

    NCPAC
    NRA
    Moral Majority
    700 Club

    The fact that a Dem won that seat is nothing short of a miracle.  And Webb may not be Saint Obama (who I have begun to think is quite a slick self-promoter more than a real leader) but I am not going to hold something he said 20 years ago against him and call him scum, especially when he has acknowledged these statements were a sign of immaturity and poor judgement on his part.

    by Wintermute on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 06:47:20 PM PDT

    •  yes, i know...

      ...i'm just saying it's a bit silly to heap so much praise on the guy for getting pissed off at bush. i mean, christalmighty! all he did was say that he was pissed and people are heaping praise on him like he came up with an exit strategy. woo. webb's pissed. we're all fucking pissed.

      ...aye... he won in va, home of utter redneckery and such. but va's northern bits are quite blue and they're the bits that're growing. and he wouldn't've won at all if allen hadn't repeatedly shot himself in the foot.

      ...besides, man's a former republican in virginia. i don't trust those any farther than i can spit.

      by koan on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 07:09:41 AM PDT

•  Fixed tags

  added first names per request to use both first and last names in tags.

  Changed "2008" to "2008 elections" since some people (wrongly) use the year tag for events that happen in a year and not election related diaries.  

  by SarahLee on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 10:44:30 AM PDT