Looks like Evan Bayh is clearly running in ’08 (as is Hillary), because he intends to vote no on Roberts.
Also, Mark Kleiman writes about ’04 has-been and ’08 possibility Wes Clark:
It looks as if Gen. Wesley Clark is giving Congressional Democrats some badly-needed direction with respect to Iraq. If Clark can convince Barbara Lee that an American victory would be a good idea, I’m prepared to believe that he can convince anybody of anything.
Convincing voters might be a tougher nut.
Mr Furious
Convincing voters might be a tougher nut.
Uh, yeah. I think convincing Democratic politicians ain’t much of a challenge these days.
Mr Furious
And when I say that, I mean “convincing” them of anything. Not just the war.
Douglas
Does Russ Feingold’s “Yes” vote on Roberts signal that he is NOT running for President?
John Cole
I think Feingold doesn’t need to worry about his street cred with the left flank that runs the primaries. Plus, I don’t think he is running.
Another Jeff
Bayh and Feingold are two of the only Democrats i’d vote for. At least Feingold has a pair and knows what he believes.
Those upper midwest liberals are far more sane than the nutty ones we have here in the northeast.
Steve
Wow, yet another clue that Hillary may be running. I dunno, I’m going to reserve judgment until the next 23894732 hints come down the pike.
jobiuspublius
Looks like half the Senate opposition may run for president then, if a no vote on Roberts means a presidential run.
KC
Well, we’ll have to see who on the Republican side runs now won’t we. I just can’t wait to see the Allen Keyes campaign start gearing up.
danelectro
just like 2004, if the dems can’t close the gap on national security, then the gop is going win the white house. i’m backing clark.
and no senators allowed.
slide aka Joe Albanese
John Cole on a Wesley Clark nomination:
I don’t know about that. After the incompetence of the chicken hawk Bush adminstration (is there ONE combat vet serving in a high position in this adminstration?), I think America might just be in the mood for a non-ideological military man that has proven his competence. Don’t think Clark is going to appoint political hacks to important Federal positions either.
I agree that Clark was not quite ready for prime time last go around but for a guy that never ran for public office I think he did quite well. Everytime he talks, especially about the Iraq war, he makes total sense to me.
Gratefulcub
Judging by any fantasy poll I have seen, I am the only one that gets excited about John Edwards.
Before W, before the war, before 2000 when everything got so nutty….poverty was my issue. It is why i would never vote republican, it is why I harbor ill feelings towards the clintons. He is the only politician that can come out and speak on the inequality in our society and not seem like he is being political after Katrina.
So, the question I am asking is: Am I truly alone on this?
Mr Furious
I’m with “slide”, Clark should resonate with more than just Democrats by the time 2008 rolls around. He’s the ONLY guy who will positioned to run against “politics as usual” and I think plenty of folks of all sorts will be looking for that.
slide aka Joe Albanese
I doubt that you are alone, but I think Edwards is too inexperienced (and too cutsie) to be taken seriously for the top spot at such an important time in our nation’s history. I want someone with a little more ‘gravitas” to lead the Dem party in ’08.
Stormy70
Please nominate Clark, I beg of you.
slide aka Joe Albanese
don’t quite get this. Under Clinton, the poverty rate decreased every single year. Crime went down dramatically (poor are always disproportiantly the victims of crime). Clinton did more for poor people than a host of big government poverty programs could ever do and he did it by growing the economy and decreasing unemployment.
Gratefulcub
I don’t think the Great Society programs were as big a failure as some do. They weren’t perfect, and some were useless. But, they did actually work as a whole.
Of course poverty was reduced under clinton, he followed a 12 year war on the poor. I think he could have and should have done more. I thought his ‘welfare reform’ was atrocious. It was political, instead of what he believed was best for the poor of this nation. Just an opinion.
Doug
I’m a socially liberal, economically conservative Hoosier Democrat, and I’m not gonna vote for Bayh in the primaries. He’s the kind of finger-to-the-wind, Senator’s son cookie-cutter politician the Democrats are all too prone to run in the generals. (Think Al Gore without the sparkling personality.)
Of course, I still hold it against him that he voted for the permanent repeal of the estate tax. If we can get rid of all the taxes, great, let’s get rid of the estate tax. But, no way in hell should we start with the estate tax. I’ll agree that an heir has a moral and legal claim to a decedent’s estate that the government ought to respect. But no way is that claim stronger than the claim of a laborer to his paycheck at the end of the week. Once we get rid of the income tax, then we can talk about the estate tax.
KC
I kind of agree with Slide too. On the other hand, by the time the election rolls around, so many people could be tired of Iraq that whether someone is a general or not may not matter. We might be pulling/have pulled out anyway. I’m still waiting to see what happens with troop levels in 2006.
Gratefulcub
Personally, screw gravitas. I admit that it isn’t Edward’s strong suit, but he does have ample charisma. I want some one with ideas that isn’t afraid to have the conversation no one wants to have. i am not talking about him as a political choice, that is too far away. I like the man, and I would trust him (and that says quite a bit today). I believe his poverty schtik is sincere.
But, to speak of politics, I love the speech he gave the other day. ‘W says we want a Wealth Society, I say America wants a Work Society.’ He then went on to turn public assistance into ‘anyone that works, deserves to live part of the american dream.’ Everyone’s hatred towards welfare and public assistance comes from not wanting to support deadbeats that don’t want to work, and the other side potrays all welfare recipients in that light. I think it is shrewd to remove the deadbeats from the discussion, and focus on the working poor.
jobiuspublius
Yes, but, in retrospect Clinton seemed to pave the way for Worst-POTUS-Ever, even if only a bit. Besides, what’s wrong with new blood? Let him continue to play lightning rod the so the nuts can waste their energy.
ppGaz
Please nominate Frist.
jg
Switch to Independent and vote for him yourself.
Mark-NC
I’ll back Clark if for no other reason than it would be difficult for the Republicans to “Swift Boat” his 35 year career.
Not that they won’t try!
And, I suspect that Clark would get stiff opposition from the Republican side for a number of reasons. He’s not a crooked politicial, no rich parents, first in class at West Point (great student), served in the military and actually saw combat, AND was wounded in combat, etc.
All things that Republicans despise!
slide aka Joe Albanese
Haven’t you learned anything? Swift Boating is just making shit up and having your surrogates throw it out there. It then takes a life of its own. Cable news shows feel compelled to be “fair and balanced” so they have the Swift Boater and someone supporting the candidate debating the lies, as if both were equal. Its a very powerful tactic that could be used on ANYONE to drive their negatives up. Mother Theresa could be Swift Boated (as long as you have no morals and scrupels)
jobiuspublius
Clark made the switch from military to politics fairly recently. He might still actually bite people if they get out of line. I can’t help but appreciate that. But, he did “flip flop” on the Iraq war. I hope he can defend that with something better than, “I voted for it before I voted against it.” But, his get out of Iraq later strategy bugs me.
Dior
I was on the Wes Wing tour, I and I can tell you the General is the real deal. One example, when asked about how to fix the Education system in the country, he said (parapharase) I don’t know alot about education, I’m a career military man, but I would try and appoint the best people I could find that did. And it just seems to me that if we pay our teachers more, then we should be able to get the best people possible.
When was the last time you heard a politician admit they were not the expert?
When did any other General win a war with no US casualties. If he’s in, I’m the first vet to be in with him.
jobiuspublius
Then there is Hagel to counter Clark. Under those circumstances, I can’t see swift boating. But, I wouldn’t be surprised.
I can’t see Hagel saying I don’t know. I think Clark better start knowing stuff. The “I don’t know but I will hire the best” defense may be broke thanks to Worst-POTUS-Ever.
Now that I think of it. I have to keep reminding myself that Clark was a General. That’s not exactly a bad thing, but, he’s starting to remind me of Kerry.
I prefer Feingold since I saw him grill Roberts briefly about being interviewed by Worst-POTUS-Ever while working on Hamdan. He put some hesitation and forgetfull in Roberts. I think Feingold is sharp and can make people move when necessary. So, why did he vote yes on Roberts? Crap.
I grew to like Edwards. At least he got pissed when Kerry conceded. But, I don’t like his sometimes phoney smile. Crap.
slide aka Joe Albanese
Clark flip-flopped on Iraq war? how so?
joe public
I’m sorry if this offends (including my mother) but Edwards is smarmy.
As far as Clark convincing voters: he just needs to get in front of people. If you’re in the same room with him, as I was when he swung through Chattanooga, you get it. I would think. I voted (conscience) for Kucinich (no way in hell could he make it) in 2004 primary. I saw Clark speak after that. I went into the Clark event thinking “ho hum, General schmuckety” and came out sold. Held my nose and voted for Kerry/Edwards, as an original ABB-er who got burned in y2K, and concede that Clark’s time might not have had come yet, but if he goes again, I’ll likely be there. I voted for Dole in ’96; would have voted Perot in ’92 but didn’t register in time (hey, same-day).
Sorry for fractured style; ears ringing from Adrian Belew power trio.
jobiuspublius
Hmm, memory crapping out. I have images of him applauding a decision to go to war and it’s handling. I could be confusing Iraq War and Afganistan war. Sorry if I goofed. Must do research.
jobiuspublius
Hmm, bizzaro world.
DougJ
Bayh is slightly phony, but he’s smart and he’s smooth. I like Clark too. Could live without Edwards and Hillary.
This may be the margarita I just had, but I think the Republicans may nominate someone competent in 2008. I’d like to see Hagel or Lindsey Graham.
Mike
“jobiuspublius Says:
So, why did he vote yes on Roberts? Crap.”
Maybe he’s not insane?
slide aka Joe Albanese
jobiuspublius Says:
Well, you are not alone, Clark has been attacked for seemingly saying conflicting things on Iraq. He has said both that he would have, and would not have, voted for the resolution giving Bush authority to go into Iraq but that is not the same thing as being for the war. I think Clark has been pretty consistant that he didn’t think that we should have gone to war even though he may not have wanted to tie a president’s hands by not voting for the resolution. Some may see that as trying to have it both ways but there is a logic in that position that I agree with.
tBone
That must have been one hell of a strong margarita.
I agree Hagel or Graham would be good choices, though.
DougJ
Slide, he sounds like a flip flopper to me. I guess he was for the war before he was against it.
slide aka Joe Albanese
No, never FOR the war. For giving the president the option for war yes, for invading Iraq he has been pretty consistant that he didn’t think that was a good idea.
jobiuspublius
That bugs me. First, I never trusted Worst-POTUS-Ever, so, I’ve been experiencing a painfull “I told you so” for the past 5 years.
Second, I never heard of such complications. I though congress declares war and the president executes it. this resolution stuff sounds like a dangerous new limbo. You know congress can wake up in the middle of the night for Terri Schiavo. Why not war or peace?
I think I’ll prefer Kucinich. Laugh at him all you want, but, AFAIK, he is consistant, more than Worst-POTUS-Ever.
DougJ
Come on slide, the guy’s flip flopper. First, he was for Saddam Hussein, then he was against Saddam Hussein. First, he was for Osama bin Laden, then he was against Osama bin Laden. Oh, wait, that’s Donald Rumsfeld.