Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


I still don't think Clark is a very good candidate at all as I've said, but time will tell.

I do not think that Powell has shot at being on the ticket in 04. He does nothing but but heads with the administration, Republicans on the hill, and has been too pro-UN for most conservatives liking.

Rice would be my choice for VP. And she would be a tough act for Hillary to beat in 08.

To point one: I don't think he's the best candidate out there, but I beleive he's the best shot of winning the democrats have without risking Hillary. This is of course assuming Gore is truly gone... which perplexes me, it would seem to me that he has the best shot, being able to now criticize Bush for mistakes he has made (they may have been unavoidable mistakes, or successes that will take time to show, but for now it looks like he has made some mistakes).

To points two and three: YOU WIN... RICE in '08, RICE in '08. A female minority, whether one wishes to admit it or not, will win a lot of votes based on those two qualifications alone, it could mark the Republican party as the party for minorities (which many would argue they already are based on what they have done and not what they have said - affirmative action not being one of the points they have gained anything on). I don't necessarily think this is shallow btw, I beleive many people would just like to see people like them in power. You will have some who refuse to vote for a person because of one of those two reasons, but I beleive they would be outweighed by the others. Many of use would simply look at issues as with any candidate. The hard right-wingers, after loosing in the primary, would come around.

[Rooster]

Rice has a good chance of being VP. There will not be a woman president in this country for another 20 years. Why, becuase too many in both parties will not vote for a woman. Look at the Democrats largest support. Not the minorities, they rarely show up to vote in huge numbers; the labor unions. How many do you think would vote for a woman?

[Albinonewt]

The Labor unions support anyone that's a Democrat, so do the teacher's unions.

And time will tell on Clark. I think he's too much of a nobody and his military record isn't nearly the asset that people think.

CNN has a poll that shows Clark maybe beating Bush and as the front runner in the primary. I think in a couple of weeks once the hoopla from the announcement dies down you'll see both of those numbers go soft.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

And time will tell on Clark. I think he's too much of a nobody and his military record isn't nearly the asset that people think.

You place a lot of faith in the voting public

BTW - I could have REALLY REALLY liked Clark. His attitude in Kosovo (the problem) had a certain ring to it - I'm getting tired of everyone else stepping on our military and treating America as if it did not have the ability to go anywhere in the world with a military presence, something we have TRIED to use to make the world a better place for everyone lately (we may have failed). I think this view may be more widely held than one would think first, with people honest with themselves, either that or my psychotic personality is going towards a world view (I may be joking).

However, his "I would not have gone into Iraq without the UN" kind of disheartens me. His love of the UN and NATO bother me (I really don't like the UN) - I am also tired of having mutual defense clauses with other countries that only benefit them. I may be very wrong on the abilities of the American military but I beleive America needs to reevaluate who its friends are and quit giving to the rest of the world that are not our friends (we are "nicer" to our enemies than we are to Israel) - it has not worked, terrorism and hatred of Americans worldwide has proven that - I mean, we were giving money to the Taliban (and still give $$ to other countries that present a threat to us/harbor terrorists).

As such - I beleive Clark had a chance... had he said that going into Iraq was right, declaring major combat over was wrong (I see where we had accomplished our objectives). His attempt to move towards the rest of the democratic candidates views on the subject (ok, he was there before now) have only hurt him in the eyes of the center/right voters he would have to lure over to beat Bush.

[Collegeboy]

I am not sure if Clark will get the nod, but I think he has the best chance to beat Bush.

His military record is remarkable, he has the political experience needed (no matter what anyone says being an 0-10 in the military and the supreme commander of NATO is more political experience then many life long politicians. His views are to the true center, not the made up Bush's center. He has a plus for being against the so far unjustified war in Iraq. And even if Bush waits to show his cards, the Dems will get him for purposely holding off of information vital to international security to gain some votes.

The republicans are scared of Clark, so they are trying to hit him hard on everything "wrong" he does, they much rather Dean wins, for Dean can not compete against Bush.

Read his book, the man is a genius on modern war, and I can not wait for his new one to come out (it is on preorder :) )

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not sure if Clark will get the nod, but I think he has the best chance to beat Bush.

I would have originally thought this - he does seem to be the ideal candidate

His military record is remarkable, he has the political experience needed (no matter what anyone says being an 0-10 in the military and the supreme commander of NATO is more political experience then many life long politicians. His views are to the true center, not the made up Bush's center. He has a plus for being against the so far unjustified war in Iraq. And even if Bush waits to show his cards, the Dems will get him for purposely holding off of information vital to international security to gain some votes.

Going towards center, regardless of who you are, has its risks. I don't care why Bush has the views he has... I am not totally opposed to them. I do not have the ability to read the man's mind to tell you why he has his views, apparently you do... I will have to keep this in mind
As for being against the war in Iraq, I do not think anyone can play this well. The only good play is to say we had no right to go into Iraq because the presented no (zero, nada) threat to us (and most Americans don't care if it can be argued every country can threaten us). And this is a counter-intuitive argument. Hussein did present a threat to us, he did try to assassinate a President - he did hate us. With or without WMD most Americans don't oppose going in. Most Americans beleive he had something to do with 9/11 even after they have been told he did not. Now, the handling of the conflict, the declaring the end of... how was it phrased... full out combat was a mistake. They could win on the handling of the war, but not in going to war. BTW, Clark does not need to explain Kosovo, I don't think it will plague him. I do think his love for the UN and NATO could.

The republicans are scared of Clark, so they are trying to hit him hard on everything "wrong" he does, they much rather Dean wins, for Dean can not compete against Bush.

Read his book, the man is a genius on modern war, and I can not wait for his new one to come out (it is on preorder :) )

Whats going to hurt Clark, or any democrat, is the need to go after Bush. They feel the need to bring him down. This needs to be a fairly clean campaign - with no direct attacks. I think the Clinton phrase "are you better off then you were four years ago" is about as "dirty" as the democrats can get and stand a chance. A candidate who presents a clear view of a stable economy, a secure Iraq / mideast, and a respectful American military stands a chance. The democrat that goes out to bash Bush, will not win. Thats why I feel a late candidate, who is not drawn into what appears to be the competetion to see who can bash Bush worst, can stand a chance against him. Do I think they can win the primary, maybe Clark, maybe Hillary - however I dont think Hillary can keep from bashing Bush in the general election.

BTW.. as for Clark pulling off the center and the democratic base, is Clinton (that would be Bill) eligible to run for VP - I do not beleive this has been done before, but I think he has more draw than Hillary... we all know he lies, but for ability as a politician... I at least respect the man. BTW I don't actually beleive this will be done, just an abstract thought.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Lohman446



BTW.. as for Clark pulling off the center and the democratic base, is Clinton (that would be Bill) eligible to run for VP - I do not beleive this has been done before, but I think he has more draw than Hillary... we all know he lies, but for ability as a politician... I at least respect the man. BTW I don't actually beleive this will be done, just an abstract thought.

If I am not mistaken Clinton can run for Presidency for it is 2 consecutive terms or a period of ten consecutive years what ever comes first. But I could be wrong.

But all presidents lie, some just on different matters.

[Lohman446]

Don't fool yourself, Clinton lied about a lot of things. I really did not like the man in office, but the more I consider it historically, the more respect I have for his abilities... I did not like the way he handled things militarily, I did not like having to ask other nations for help in Somalia, I did not like running like a scalded dog after... but he used the military in a very "safe" way. He was very risk averse, and this is what I did not like about him. He did not see a goal, and go for it, only glancing at the costs, he let the costs determine his goal. But overall, he led as a modern President only has the ability to, with the approval of the people. Since Reagon redefined modern politics he has been the first democrat to catch onto the new game. I have a lot of respect for his abilities (especially considering what he had to deal with), I did not like his views. I however, am more concerned about an innefective President than one whos views I do not like.

This is where Clark has to prove himself to some people. He needs to get his views, not necessarily those of his party, and prove to me that he can be an effective leader - I personally beleive that NATO has no purpose in the modern world as it is today, and that the UN unnecessarily hinders America's ability to defend/look out for itself. Clark does have to prove more to me than Bush, I personally like his diplomatic style. Though I do not beleive he was as good a politician as Clinton.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


If I am not mistaken Clinton can run for Presidency for it is 2 consecutive terms or a period of ten consecutive years what ever comes first. But I could be wrong.

You are totally wrong, he cannot run for the Presidency again. I'm honestly not sure about elgibility to be VP, but he'd never do it.

You don't remember a few months ago Clinton started a fracas by saying he thinks the constitution should be rewritten to two consecutive terms so he can be President again. And then Hillary came out against it because if he was President again then she woulnd't be?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not sure if Clark will get the nod, but I think he has the best chance to beat Bush.

The way CNN is talking he's already President, but I still don't think the nod is there for him. Dean has become the run away smash hit of the Democratic party, much to their own dismay. Does anyone remember just a few momnths ago when Dean was the candidate the media adored and now they can't stand him.

His military record is remarkable, he has the political experience needed (no matter what anyone says being an 0-10 in the military and the supreme commander of NATO is more political experience then many life long politicians. His views are to the true center, not the made up Bush's center. He has a plus for being against the so far unjustified war in Iraq. And even if Bush waits to show his cards, the Dems will get him for purposely holding off of information vital to international security to gain some votes.

His views are not center. He puts too much stock in the "global community" to be so. Being against the war in Iraq really isn't a plus once you get to the general public, which still supports the war 60%. And I was hearing on the news the last couple of days that it looks like Bush is going to be unveiling the evidence in the next couple of weeks. I don't know if I believe that quite yet, but it's possible.

Oh, and using one's status as the former supreme commander of Nato before being fired early as evidence of a strong military background is like a former security guard at the mall that was laid off for suspected theft claiming he has an extensive law enforcement background. It just doesn't float.

The republicans are scared of Clark, so they are trying to hit him hard on everything "wrong" he does, they much rather Dean wins, for Dean can not compete against Bush.

The election would probably be easier against Dean, who's just looney left. But don't confuse preference for fear. Clark is a nobody that hasn't really ever done anything. And I'm sure the Bush team will start taking him apart if he's nominated, but prior to that I doubt we'll see much more then the occansional sniping and defense of accusastions against the White House.

Read his book, the man is a genius on modern war, and I can not wait for his new one to come out (it is on preorder :) )

Yeah, brilliant.

[Collegeboy]

A nobody, he has more experience in global problems and politics them Bush did when he ran. He served in the army, he did not run away. Clark is Bush's worst nightmare when it comes to a debate and a show down. Colin Powell is considered dead center, and his and Clarks views are considerable the same. Face it a global world view is center, the view of an isolated America is right. The republicans are scared for Bush can not beat Clark in a race.

As to the president comment, yes I was wrong, as I said I might be. But there is no limit to VP.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
A nobody, he has more experience in global problems and politics them Bush did when he ran. He served in the army, he did not run away. Clark is Bush's worst nightmare when it comes to a debate and a show down. Colin Powell is considered dead center, and his and Clarks views are considerable the same. Face it a global world view is center, the view of an isolated America is right. The republicans are scared for Bush can not beat Clark in a race.

Weirdly enough, the global utopiast view is far left. The isolationist viewpoint exists on both the FAR right and FAR left. The America is a sovereign nation that is part of the world community is more of a centrist view. I don't think that is Clark's global view. He (like many on the left) want to cede (what we on the right) think is too much of America's sovereign will to the global community. Mine is a view of the global community that is right of center, Clark's is left of center. And nobody is scared of Clark, the zero name recognition, never done anything, splotchy military record, fired from being Supreme Commander Clark. It isn't fear, it's bewilderment that his name is spoken with reverence in the left, let alone seriousness.

As to the president comment, yes I was wrong, as I said I might be. But there is no limit to VP.

Although there isn't a limit to the VP because the VP would have already (in this case) served two complete terms as President if the current president was assassinated in his first year that could put the VP in violation of the constitutional amendment that allows him to serve out the term of the deceased President. For that reason I'm not sure if it permissible for a former President (of 2 terms) to serve as VP. It's never come up so I doubt there's any credible papers that address the subject.

[aaron_mag]

Your looney left comments are just too funny. You guys are so indoctrinated in your dogma that you can't see a centrist view if it hit you in the face.

Now I'm not a big fan of Clark's (don't know enough about the man) but the idea that he has "done nothing" in his life is a bit foolish. I mean Bush is the quintessential silver spoon child for god's sake. Being supreme NATO commander is an accomplishment in any normal life.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
Your looney left comments are just too funny. You guys are so indoctrinated in your dogma that you can't see a centrist view if it hit you in the face.

Wait a second, Dean is the far far far far FAR left, which makes him the looney left (for the right there's really no good allieration, radical right, which is ok, but not as cool IMO). And Dean is not a centrist, which is who that comment was aimed at.

Now I'm not a big fan of Clark's (don't know enough about the man) but the idea that he has "done nothing" in his life is a bit foolish. I mean Bush is the quintessential silver spoon child for god's sake. Being supreme NATO commander is an accomplishment in any normal life.

But Bush isn't just that "silver spoon" candidate anymore. He never really was, since Dad didn't buy him the governership of Texas, he was elected into that. Even if you want to claim that he was before, now he's been the President for 4 years through 2 wars, the worst terrorist attack ever, and a (mild) recession. What has Clark done? Bombed Kosovo for a few days?

At least Bush (and Dean and Clinton for that matter) was an elected governor of a state. Clark was an appointed commander for a few years before being fired.

[Albinonewt]

And not to hijack that other guy's thread, but exactly how, CB, do you think yous is a centrist view?

I'm right (of center) and I know it. I'm not going to pretend I'm not because of less right of center on somethings then others. Although my abortion and gay marriage viewpoints aren't all the way right wing, they are not enough for me to consider myself a centrist.