Yes! Dean/Clark!
 

Gen Clark reportedly asked to join Dean

Hell yeah, this is perfect. If they do end up running together the democratic primary is over. They take it.

Come on Superbelt, with the field this weak you know A. Gore or H. Clinton are going to jump in. All this primary crap is just that, crap.

Gore won't run. He has all but endorsed Dean already. He also won't run against Lieberman. He also lost alot of support already by not running from the get go.
Hillary won't run because she already promised NY she would serve out her first term, and though she would be giving up on a presidential run until possibly after 2012 she can't go back on that promise cause it will risk her losing New York support and that would kill her if her "home state" won't stand behind her.

To JBX: Such a strong argument. "That's dumb!!!11"

Okay then mark this thread, then mark my words. If H. Clinton remotely thinks that a Dem can win 04, it blows apart her 08 potential. As for A. Gore he still thinks he should of been President. I don't think he can stand the on side lines much more. He's itching for a rematch. Now, I don't think I know any more than the next guy, it's just my opinion.

Dean, you mean that guy that was upstaged by Al Sharpton at the debates? People think he still has a chance?

ok, i guess i'll make the first educated response.
I think a Dean-Clark ticket would be very tough to beat, not only in the primary, but in the general election as well. Clark would make up for Dean's weakness in being perceived as a chicken dove. Still, I can't say yet whether I would personally vote for that ticket since Clark hasn't made all of his positions clear.

ok, good bye gwb!

dean/clark ticket will surely win the white house for the democrats.

as for gore/clinton, nope. i dont think they will run as both have come out in tn the public and said that they wont run

Everyone gets upstaged by Sharpton. The guy is an excellent orator with excellent ideans. He, unfortunately, has way too many skeletons in his closet to be anyone I or most Americans can support.

And there is no way Bush can beat Dean or Clark in a debate, so don't compare a performance against an excellent preacher to one against a deserting fool.

yeah, i would like to see a of gwb vs dem nominee in an impromptu format.

Bush would look like a total dipshit and will get 0wn3d.

The electoral politics work against us (the dems), but the facts and GWB's record only help. The biggest difficulty will be in finding a message that resonates with the voters. If they remain ignorant of our message, victory is difficult. No red-blooded american will vote for a message-less nay-sayer for the nation's highest office.

Fortunately, Clark seems like the kind of guy who could offer such a message. He is untainted by personal scandal, and overendowed with desireable character traits and resume lines. West Point valedictorian, Rhodes Scholar, 4 Star General, Supreme Allied Commander, and even his lack of political experience might work to his advantage with voters.

If he has a message, I am convinced that Wesley Clark can win the White House.

Scipio, umm, can you clarify? Maybe I missed something. What is the Dem's message?

Who cares if this Wesley Clark runs. Dean is still too liberal to be elected. It doesn't matter who the VP is if the President is out of touch.

Listen,

If the democrats had any chance of winning this election, Hilary would have tossed in her glove. The fact that she is waiting till Bush cant run anymore speaks more than Dean ever could.

XXX tell me why Dean is liberal?

Is it his pro-gun policies that got him an A rating from the NRA?

How about his fiscally conservative policies in his home state of Vermont.

Or maybe he really shines as a liberal by the Green party's total rejection of him as a democratic candidate.

I am fed up to my eyeballs of people calling Dean "too liberal"

Dean is a moderate and I defy you to make a valid case that can paint him any other way.

I think the rich that got a tax break from him in vermont like him.

I'd happily look at any documents you can point me towards.

There are a lot of lies going around about Dean.

There was one I heard today where he was being called an abortion doctor, (like it was a horrible thing)

Dean has never performed an abortion but he used to be employed at Planned Parenthood as a counselor. And later he served on the PP board. But someone got carried away and automatically assumed any doctor associated with PP was doing abortions.

Better yet, maybe you could name one president the entire nation has supported in history.

Then you could sit back and realize that the reason the Dem's 'message' isn't reaching you is because the speaker isn't talking to you.

Then you can ponder the sting of having a leader that not only doesn't speak your language, but doesn't care to either. Of course, this is the position many in the country are in right now. The issue becomes whether we can mobilize our factions more than you. Until you learn that civics lesson I won't pay too much attention to your doomsday predictions regarding the efficacy of my representative's 'message.'

In short, Dean isn't too far 'left' for the people he's speaking to and the polls reflect that--he's just too far left for your ears; the problem for you is that he isn't counting on your vote nor will he need it.

smooth, well said!

Your naive commnet won't fly in here. We all know that the tax cut was for the TAX PAYERS of this country!!

Both may WANT to run, but I think it's far too late to actually run. Presidential campaigning starts generally two years before the election. Money buys the election, and it takes a while to get that money garnerned.

I think you didnt understand my comment.

Deans new tax codes in Vermont allowed for a nice tax cut for the wealthier people in Vermont, then he goes and slams Bush for doing what he claims is the wrong thing. So why isnt anyone upset that Dean did it in Vermont?


PS I am all for Bush's tax cuts. Anything that lets me keep the money I am working for is a damn good thing.

You could use the same argument about Bush, i.e. tell me why Bush is conservative?

Is it his protectionist steel-tariff policy that was an obvious pander to steel unions? No one in his right mind would call Bush a liberal because of his stance on one issue; it's the same way with Dean.


You have to realize context here; Dean's "fiscally conservative" is largely attributed to him balancing the budget in Vermont. However, one, Vermont is a very small state. Two, in the artifically inflated economy of the late 90s, even California ran a surplus; I, for one, would hesitate to call California a "fiscally conservative" state. You could get sued for libel for writing that about California...

Third, he vastly increased the range of government run health care, i.e. Medicare, and increased the overall property tax burden on Vermonters earning over $75,000 a year. Not exactly conservative. Though to be fair, Dean is conservative compared to the careless free-spending policies of the Bush administration.


Again, I don't think you can use that as an argument. Similarly, I can't sarcastically say that maybe Bush really shines as a conservative by the Libertarian party's total rejection of him as a Republican candidate. Perhaps the Green party might want to nominate its own candidate, after all.

As I wrote in a prior post, it's this venomous anti-Bush strategy that will cause the Democrats to lose the race; nominating a far-left governor from a far-left Northeast state is the last thing you want to do when the Republicans absolutely dominated the midterm elections. It should've been a clear sign that the anti-Bush, anti-liberation strategy is being completely rejected by the American populace. Unfortunately, it seems that the Democrats haven't gotten the message.

Howard Dean on "Meet the Press" (June 22): Raise taxes, reduce veterans' payments. As governor of Vermont: over the opposition of the majority of Vermont residents, instituted civil unions. Pro-gay, anti-religion, characterized Republicans as "flat tax, flat earth people who say evolution can't be taught in schools.'' Showed up at ultra-left Campaign for America's Future rally with Jesse Jackson and NOW.

If I had a choice, Lieberman/Edwards. Edwards for youth and to pull geographically, Lieberman for his strength on terrorism and support for religion. Hypothetically, how's that?

-- Alvin

Are you saying he implemented a progressive property tax? I've never heard of such a thing. Do you have a source for this?

Just curious, not arguing...

Dean is hardly a liberal. His environmental policies in Vermont stunk. He had no choice but to allow for homosexual civil unions due to a Vermont Supreme Court decision and the legislature being likely to apss a much broader law to allow homosexual marriage. In fact, he explicitly stated he would never sign a bill into law that allowed for homosexual marriage and would only allow for civil unions. He is against medicinal marijuana, for the death penalty, and his health care reform platform will not even help the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society.

Check out:
http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0603-08.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0610-01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0610-01.htm
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Archive/.../Article/23996

hahaha.. so... why exactly is he a good candidate for the Democratic party?! You had might as well vote Republican.

I can tell you why he is an amazing candidate for the Democrats, before I heard some of the things Dean had to say, I wasn't planning on voting based on my pessimism of the political system, after hearing those things, I am most assuredly voting.

HarmlessRabbit: It's in a BusinessWeek article entitled "Who's the Real Howard Dean?" I believe the publication date was June 22. I disagree with the article's overall assessment, but in general I thought it was a pretty fair article.

Also, I didn't think you were arguing, just calling me out for a source. When done properly (like you did) in a discussion, it's a good thing. Keeps us honest! I had a feeling I should've attributed it when I was writing, looks like I should've gone with my first instinct and put it in.

-- Alvin

Thanks for the links. I still disagree that Dean is not a liberal, however. He describes himself as "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." However, with regards to the conservative part, "He supports state-funded universal health care, generous state subsidies for child care, a higher minimum wage, liberal family leave legislation, and taxpayer-financed campaigns....After 12 years of Dean's so-called 'fiscal conservatism,' Vermont remains one of the highest taxing and spending states." (Cato Institute)

As for socially liberal, even allowing for civil unions is typically a liberal position, more so as the majority of Americans oppose it. You also mention his health care reform platform, but you criticize him only on the details. Like civil unions, it's a typically liberal position to begin with. And it's difficult to be less than a radical and earn a good rating from environmentalists in Vermont.

However, that's not to say that liberals aren't right about civil unions. Sometimes you have to stake out a position against the mainstream. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm a straight man.) But I'm not too concerned about gay marriage/civil unions. It's perfectly fine by me. In any case, I have a feeling that, like in Canada, initially few gay/lesbian couples will actually go through with it. But if we're going to establish federal marriage/civil union laws, we should take the opportunity to strengthen the divorce laws and make it harder to divorce. My hunch is that at first only the truly committed gay couples will go establish a civl union and not be likely to divorce. But in time, relationships are relationships, people are people, and the gay divorce rate will approach and eventually be the same as the straight divorce rate, which right now is disastrous. So we should take the opportunity to replace our hodge-podge of marriage laws and replace it with a strong federal marriage laws.

Sorry for the tangent. In all the talk about civil unions, everyone ignores one of the important issues: the divorce rate. Gays are no different from straights, and a relationship is a relationship. There's no reason to believe the gay divorce rate will be any different from the straight divorce rate. It's a fantastic opportunity to strengthen marriage/civil unions, and we should take full advantage of it.

-- Alvin

General Clark seems like the sort of man worth voting for.

I've just sent an email encouraging him to run; I believe the proper address is: info@leadershipforamerica.org.

I think it would be funny if McCain was Dean's running-mate.

I think it would be funny if McCain ran against 'W' for the GOP nomination.

McCain is one republican I would happily support as a presidential and vice presidential candidate. I was very disappointed when he wasn't nominated years ago.

Back to Dean though. I'll admit he may have some liberal intentions on some issues. But he is socially conservative on many issues such as the death penalty, medicinal marijuana, the Kyoto treaty (and alot of other environmental policies), the Star Wars missile defense system, & the war on drugs just to name a few. But this isn't to say he is a bad person by any means nor that he is more to the left than say Leiberman. But if he is indeed more left than Kerry or Gephardt it isn't by much. Consider that Dean told Salon (Feb19, 2003) that "I don't mind being characterized as 'liberal' -- I just don't happen to think it's true."

Second, I critique his policies on an implentation level because it is one thing to talk the talk and it is another to walk the walk. More to the point, it is one thing to say you want to reform health care in America and to support homosexual rights, but it is quite a different thing to put a plan forth that would actually achieve those goals as opposed to offering a piece meal plan that doesn't fundamentally change anything, but looks alright on paper and for intent purposes. Dean seems like a good man. It does worry me that he has sealed his gubernatorial records for 10 yrs (enough for 2 terms as president), but secrecy doesn't necessarily entail corruption. All I am saying is that Dean is a moderate, even a self describe moderate. So it goes without saying that he is a far cry from a Green, a liberal, and especially a progressive. If people take him for what he is without all the hype around his name right now and I'll respect their decision in a heart beat as a difference of values, but allow yourself to be fooled that he is much different than Kerry, Gephardt, Clinton, or Edwards and you are just letting yourself be mislead by the press.

Link to Salon article I cited:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

I think Clark is a good candidate. If he keeps on a moderate side of things, he'll probably has the best chance for the election so far. I'm glad he's running. I'd vote for a Clark/Lieberman ticket. It'd be nice to see that kind of middle-road politics, and I bet they would have the best chance together. They would sway a lot of moderate conservatives while still getting the core dems.