Dean would lose because he’s too vulnerable to characterization as a “leftist”. Most of Bush’s big election ammo is very finely tuned against people just like Dean.
Hah. Point well taken.
As opposed to the nutcases in the Republican party, who brought us our current President?
Daniel
Clinton, you may recall, did not win the 1992 New hampshire primary. He finiashed a respectable second behind Paul Tsongas.
Oh yeah, and Clinton was clobbered in Iowa in '92, getting only 2.8 % of Caucus votes. (Native son Tom Harkin won the state.)
Actually, most of the extremists and cultists in the Democratic Party seem to have lost their power, oh, about eleven years ago when Clinton got nominated. You have apparently confused them with the Republicans. 
Say what you may about emoticons, people, but they are what help you separate people like me (wiseasses) from extremists and nutcases. For instance, if Dogface were to use one now and then we could determine that he is NOT the dead-serious, unthinking, knee-jerk follower of the most conservative Republican party line that he sometimes comes across as and is instead the thoughtful conservative Republican who just likes to rib Democrats now and then (cuz it’s just so darned fun!) that he normally is. (big, friendly 
)
As for Gen Clark’s campaign, I’ve been waiting for him to make his decision for several months. He is not only electable but is a smart cookie and I don’t cringe when I hear him talk. Granted, a Clark presidency would not have the entertainment value of a Sharpton or Kucinich presidency but I sometimes have to sacrifice my perverse pleasures for the common weal.
Dogface
I asked this question of Puddleglum above, but he has not yet responded: are you using Democrat as a slur, as in
Because that would be pretty sad.
Second, we’ve been over your argument, Dogface. The opposition party is more likely to nominate someone who they think is electable when they are out of power, rather than someone who more closely conforms to orthodox principles. The party doesn’t need to pander to the “cultists” to energize the base because Bush, Ashcroft, etc. can do it for them. Or were you not alive in 1992, when we nominated a centrist named Bill Clinton?
Third, and I’m inferring here, you seem to think Dean is a moderate who’s easily tarred as a liberal. But this would seem to torpedo the logic of your thinking – specifically, Dean is a prime example of moderate who can energize a liberal base, even in your own mind. So please elaborate if I’m not reading you right.
[BDropzone[/B} wrote:
Slight hijack: I would love to see Kucinich or Sharpton debate Keyes or Bauer. Any permutation thereof would bring me intense pleasure. Also, I think that if you crossed Kucinich with Bauer you would have Peter Jackson’s Gollum. Seriously, look at the pictures: Bauer is like Smeagol, and Kucinich is like Gollum. Anybody else agree?
Moderate Republican checking in. I’ll vote for Clark over Bush.
I said before that I’d go to work for his campaign if he runs. Looks like soon you can consider me washed of all pretense of impartiality. I’ll formally announce that myself if and when they take me.
I’ve also said several times that Clark is the guy the hypercons fear the very most and will attack the hardest, and true to form, the Ministry of Propaganda made certain to drop the H-Bomb in the middle of their take on the pre-nouncement:
As I suspected, this fellow has a strategic plan which could generate quick cash and lots of free exposure. I particularly like the fact that he’s going to box out the irrational Hillary-hating ultra-right wing from the get-go. Frothing contempt means no favors need to be paid once he wins.
I expect he’ll be marginally in front by next spring.
Brother, you have begun to think like a politico!
I liked this nugget:
That’s a partisan attack? Do any Republicans believe that Bush effectively built an international coalition in the war on terrorism? More importantly, did Clark actually say that, or did he just say that Bush didn’t effectively build a coaltion in the war on Iraq?
I’d never read an actual Fox News report before, they seem to be very low on quotes/facts and high on innuendo.
That’s practically hate speech, according to the current administration.
Daniel
Hi ShibbOleth.
Since a certain rock bass has recently been put on the barbecue in this here pond, you might not find another fish which will rise to the bait, so to speak. However, I think that the general party-line argument is that a coalition was created, the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
I think that some of those nations have in fact sent–or are going to send–peacekeeping troops to Iraq. Georgia was mentioned a couple of weeks ago. Turkey is getting there, but the nominal Iraqi leadership was balking at the idea of having Turkish troops on Iraqi soil a couple of weeks ago. (I think the Turks were balking somewhat, too, but that appears to have been all fixed up.) I think Japan has pledged some money and humanitarian aid.
I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide if negotiation of an occupation deal months after the war ended is “effective” coalition-building.
Regarding Clark’s statements, he did reportedly say recently,
And he had a few questions of his own:
I suppose the fact that he sure as hell looks as if he is absolutely right doesn’t change the fact that he’s talking crazy partisan talk, because you’re either with us, or against us, “us” of course being the United States and its benevolent master, the Republican Party.
Hi ShibbOleth.
Since a certain rock bass has recently been put on the barbecue in this here pond, you might not find another fish which will rise to the bait, so to speak. However, I think that the general party-line argument is that a coalition was created, the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
I think that some of those nations have in fact sent–or are going to send–peacekeeping troops to Iraq. Georgia was mentioned a couple of weeks ago. Turkey is getting there, but the nominal Iraqi leadership was balking at the idea of having Turkish troops on Iraqi soil a couple of weeks ago. (I think the Turks were balking somewhat, too, but that appears to have been all fixed up.) I think Japan has pledged some money and humanitarian aid.
I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide if negotiation of an occupation deal months after the war ended is “effective” coalition-building.
Regarding Clark’s statements, he did reportedly say recently,
And he had a few questions of his own:
I suppose the fact that he sure as hell looks as if he is absolutely right doesn’t change the fact that he’s talking crazy partisan talk, because you’re either with us, or against us, “us” of course being the United States and its benevolent master, the Republican Party.
I am a Republican. Clark is a far better Republican than Bush is. Bush is a caricature of a Republican and a vile, perverse stain upon the Republican party. Any true Republican would support Gen. Clark and vote Deserter Chickenhawk Bush out.
He’s affiliated with Clinton? He must barbecue babies and throw kittens into bark chippers! :rolleyes:
Amazing, isn’t it, how what looked like a boring election season has suddenly gotten a lot more interesting in the space of about a month?
Well, it’s certainly nice to see two Republicans come out in favor of Clark. Let’s hope this isn’t his high-water mark.
Okay, I’ve been looking for right-wing talking points against Clark, and a few common threads are emerging. The first is that he “almost started World War Three,” based on an editorial in the Guardian newspaper. Incidentally, I think this may the first and last time Republicans use an editorial in that paper as a basis for anything. But it can’t just be dismissed; to do that would require knowledge of the Kosovo campaign that I just don’t have.
A second, related charge: war criminal. This one’s a bit indirect, as it targets all of NATO and the Clinton administration. This is another interesting cite, this time from fair.com, which calls Bush, among other things, a liar regarding his uranium claim. But it does appear that Clark ordered the bombing of a t.v. studio, that, according to him, was a propaganda arm of the Serbian govt. I think this one will be popping up as a great debate sooner or later.
A third charge is that he was an orchestrator of the siege at Waco. This one is utterly loony, noting that even though Clark was not present at Ft. Hood during the siege, the assault " bears characteristics typical of Gen. Wesley Clark." I think it’s pretty clear that whatever materiel Clark gave to the FBI, this was the FBI’s project, and that they bear the blame, for those looking to assign it. Only the rightward fringe will buy into this one.
Here’s an article in the American Spectator. Not unsurprisingly, it’s really more about the evil Clintons, and Clark’s ties to them. Anyway, I like getting a head start on political memes, to see which flourish and which die. I’m hoping that the ‘Bush is a liar’ meme takes root, particularly after that egregious education lie he told yesterday. And Sofa King: I’m thinking of going to work for Clark, too. Also, I’m going through his book right now, which is a bit boring, to tell you the truth. I’ll keep my eyes open for his defense of the train and tv studio bombings/airport saber rattling.
Don’t forget the fact that Clark is (sort-of) Jewish, Southern Baptist and Catholic.
You can talk about wafflers, but this guy’s an unleavened cornbread communion wafer…