Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Clark

I, like a lot of Democrats, did not support Wesley Clark in the 2004 election. I was worried that he really wasn't a Democrat! He seemed to be a Johnny-come-lately to the party, hoping to capitalize on his notoriety for a Presidential bid. So I immediately threw my support behind Kerry. Well, I picked the wrong horse. Clark has a new article in USA Today, and it's really good. The man is articulate and definitely a Democrat (now). Is he the front-runner for 2008? Discuss.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

That does sound impressive! He seems to be tackling THE issue in a more sophistocated way than any of the Democratic candidates (Clark included) did in 2004. Good for him.

I didn't see anything in there that would make me think he's more a Democrat now than I did then though. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

No, not there, but in other things he has said. He's certainly not a Republican, anyway. 

// posted by Bell Curve

Dr. Strangelove said...

I always liked Wesley Clark and I wanted Kerry to pick him as VP. He's still make a good VP. Clinton-Clark in 2008, anyone?

Anonymous said...

Hilary Clinton would gaurantee a Bill Frist Presidency. I really wish the media would stop catering to her celebrity driven campaign.

I'd vote for her naturally. The Republican theocracy has turned me into a Yellow Dog Democrat (and I've voted for the yellow dogs to prove it). But I'd much rather get the bums out of office than have a year long struggle defending Hilary Clinton and all her baggage.

How about Clark-Bayh? Or Bayh-Clark?

"Its the Great Lakes Stupid" should be the new motto of the Democratic Party. That is, the Democrats should stop asking New York and California who they like and rather ask "Would they win Ohio?" Hilary would almost certainly lose that state. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

I'm also in the "no on HC" camp. Too much baggage. Edwards, too litle. Clark-Warner?

(Warner, dem VA).



// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Warner would be interesting. Like Evan Bayh (D-IN) he would put a state in play that Republicans usually take for granted. Also, like Bayh the positions a Democrat takes to win in a Republican state make him almost unbeatable in a swing state like Ohio.

HC has been somewhate lionized in the coastal areas but her name is still "Mudd" among the vital Great Lakes suburban voters.

Clark's military background would force the GOP to use their old tired strategy of having chickenhawks (like Frist? Jeb Bush?) accuse combat veterans of being soft on defense. I think that they've just about played that one out by now. At least I hope they have. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Dr. Strangelove said...

I understand the baggage, but Hillary's husband is an incredible asset as a campaigner. Just at thought.

Anonymous said...

Warner would also put VA into play, which was close to being so in 2004.

Bill Clinton will be a big asset for ANY Democratic nominee who chooses to use him. Kerry did a little, and Gore ran from him.
Somehow "Vote for mah wahf, 'cuz I want to git another blowjob in the oval" doesn't work too well. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Hillary isn't Bill. Bill's ideological positions and his ability to sell them are what made him popular. And while Hillary is largely seen as a better person than Bill, she is also tagged with the "arch liberal" lable much like Ted Kennedy is. She is certainly not a DLC "New Democrat" like Bill is/was. Bayh and Warner are both DLC guys I think. I know Bayh is.

I do wish though that Bill could run again. Every time I see him on TV now I think of the final scene of the movie "Shane" where the little boy chases after the hero/gun-slinger calling "Come back Shane! Come back!" 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Dr. Strangelove said...

According to recent Gallup poll, from June 2005, 55% of Americans have a favorable opinion of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, vs. 39% who view her unfavorably. Also, 52% of registered voters say they would be somewhat or very likely to vote for Clinton in the 2008 presidential election, while 47% say they would be not very or not at all likely to vote for her. Finally, 56% describe Clinton as liberal, 30% describe her as a moderate, and 9% as conservative.

The liberal label is down from 62% earlier, and other polls put it closer to 45%. So about half the nation sees her as liberal. At any rate, I think at least this suggests she is not viewed as "arch-liberal" like Ted Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

Why run a candidate whose unfavorables are already at 39%? Sheesh. Unfavorables rise during election. By comparison, according to Gallup , GWB's unfavorables did not hit 39% until after labor day 2000, six weeks from election day. 

// posted by LTG

Dr. Strangelove said...

I am not sure that the unfavorable ratings comparison is applicable in Hillary's case, because she is already such a known quantity. The Republicans probably cannot define her in the public's eye as they did to Kerry. Besides, after the whole impeachment outrage, I think the Republicans deserve to suffer under another four years of smiling Clintonism.