MyDD :: General Clark to not attend Convention

General Clark to not attend Convention

by Blazers Edge, Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:18:14 PM EST

Well, if you go to openleft right now, Stoller has linked to an article about Wes not even attending the covnvention. His office has allegedly confirmed that Wes will not be attending the convention at this point. What may be ruffling some feathers is that Obama's people allegedly told Clark that there was no reason for him to come and that effectively he was not needed to speak on the day dedicated to "Securing America's Future." As of right now, Wes has no role at the convention.

I hope this is a headfake (doubtful because his office allegedly confirmed this point) because even if he's not an actual VP candidate, it strikes me as absurd that a four-star general has not been given any role or has not even been asked to speak at the convention. What it confirms for me is that the incident on Face the Nation really damaged Wes's chances at the veep and that it was not a coordinated effort.

I'm sure some folks will see this non-invitation as another slight to a guy closely tied with the Clintons but I'm willing to give Obama's people the benefit of the doubt. Rangel shouldn't be speaking given that he's under some scrutiny pertaining to his properties; that may also be why Chris Dodd has not been given a speaking engagement. Wes was planning to be out of the country anyway so the Obama folks may have thought "hey, you are not going to be the veep, so don't worry about coming." I hope Obama's folks reconsider as Wes brought the house down in 2004.

[editor's note, by Blazers Edge] UPDATE: There's no evidence that Wes was disinvited , a la Saxby Chambliss at an Obama fundraiser because it was discovered he was federally registered lobbyist, as some posters have claimed. However, the evidence seems to establish that Wes was never invited, meaning that Wes had to call Obama's people to find out if they wanted him to play any role on a night dedicated to "Securing America's Future." You can draw the inference that it didn't even cross the minds of Obama's people to have Wes speak on such a night as Wes was the guy who had to initiate the first call. Some posters, as I predicted, have posited that Clark's close ties to the Clintons is why he was never even asked to participate at the convention. I'll only believe that if Dodd gets a speaking spot because it wouldn't make any sense to deny an African-American veteran such as Rangel with a speaking spot on the eve of MLK's I have a dream speech and provide one to a guy that is coming under fire from a similar controversy.

Tags: Wes Clark, Barack Obama, convention (all tags)

Permalink :: 138 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 0)

Yeah I had seen that a while ago .

Clark , Clinton are not going to be VP.

For Mccain I would change my prediction from Romney to Rob Portman of Ohio.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:25:37 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 2)

I hope it's a head fake too. I would be happy to see Clark (or Biden) as our VP.

Earlier in the week Biden was my No. 1 choice but I've evolved into thinking Clark would be better. I can see Clark as President in 8 years.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

At that point, he'd be the same age as McCain is now. I'm not saying that's an automatic disqualification, but it is a notch against him.

by TCQuad on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

A "notch" against him? (Whatever that may mean -- the word notch is not used in such a phrase.)

But only idiots and fools would hold age against someone.

by cuppajoe on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 2)

Untrue. I absolutely think McCain's age is an issue, and the people who claim that it isn't are fooling themselves. He is not as sharp as he was even three years ago, and he keeps aging more and more rapidly before our very eyes. I do NOT WANT a president who can be relied on to steadily lose judgment, awareness and reason.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 1)

McCain really is too old it's not nice but after living that long most people are not evolving like they once were and they don't have a fire in their belly. McCain is set in his ways because not a soul challenges him. As he has told us I'm sorry to tell you the U.S. will be involved in MORE wars that's "Straight talk" I take him at his word look how he handled Russia.

by Politicalslave on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 1)

Noun
notch (plural notches)

a V-shaped cut

such a cut, used for keeping a record

an indentation

a mountain pass

(informal) a level or degree

This car is a notch better than the other.

The second definition is the one in question.

While it may be a regional expression, a "notch against" would be equivalent to a "point against", for the purpose of counting the positives and negatives of a topic (in this case, a Clark presidential run in 8 years).

And, considering age has been discussed for McCain fairly extensively, one would assume that it would be in the consideration for Clark.

by TCQuad on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point. Age is a factor. (2.00 / 1)

Clark looks so young, I assumed he was in his fifties. Biden will be too old in 8 years too as he's 65 now. Well, there go my top two choices.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. Age is a factor. (2.00 / 1)

Well, two things:

-I'd rather choose a good VP than groom a presidential candidate for 8 years from now. If I may quote Mitch Hedberg:

When you're in Hollywood and you're a comedian, everybody wants you to do other things, that are related to comedy, but are not stand-up comedy. "All right, you're a stand-up comedian, can you write us a script?" That's not fair. That's like if I worked hard all my life to become a really good chef, they'd say, "OK, you're a chef. Can you farm?"

Being a VP candidate is substantially different from being a presidential candidate. Find a good, solid VP candidate, someone who can bring expertise on an issue, campaign well, not screw up... You're golden. Find a presidential candidate for eight years from now and you risk not getting the first four years of the eight.

-Eight years seems to be an eternity in politics these days. Go back to 2000 and say that Hillary Clinton will lose the 2008 primary to Barack Obama, a state senator from Illinois. How many people would believe you? We got two great candidates developed very rapidly, one a product of opportunity (Obama's anti-war stance needed a stupid war to get going) and one a product of the system.

Eight years from now, we could be talking about the results of a Richardson-Clinton primary or we could have a whole set of new names thrown into the mix.

So, I suppose in summary, I wouldn't count either of those names out as VPs, even if they may never be elected as the top name of the ticket. Unfortunately...

by TCQuad on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:26:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 3)

Bad news and bad strategy on the part of the convention planners and the Democartic party leaders overall if this is true.

Seems somewhere, somehow, someone inside the Democratic party always plans a way to shoot themselves in the foot.

Clark should be there with a substantial role.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:28:51 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 6)

This is kinda unfortunate. Clark is one of our best assets.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:33:27 PM EST

completely insane (2.00 / 6)

so what now? Tim Kaine to be the vp and address national security issues? Just when national security becomes front and center the Obama campaign presses the self-destruct button. I mean to not choose him as VP is one thing, but to disinvite him??

by tarheel74 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:35:22 PM EST

Re: completely insane (2.00 / 1)

Actually, an article by David Broder I read today said that when he visited Obama HQ, he said the news that Warner was going to be the keynote speaker was viewed as meaning Kaine was NOT going to get the spot.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: completely insane (2.00 / 2)

It'd be crazy to have Warner on Tuesday and Kaine on Thursday. You don't serve chuck roast to guests when you just served them prime rib two days prior.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: completely insane (none / 0)

Vcalzone should be in charge of the menu. The larger question is what do we serve on Thursday and oh yea Monday. I'm so confused.

by Politicalslave on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:36:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (1.75 / 4)

Obama plays hardball, and he holds grudges. He said at the beginning of the campaign that he goes by Chicago rules. So this isn't surprising.

Obama wants to win, and he knows how he wants to win. He wants as close to total control of the party as possible, and one way to gain that is to smack down people who talk out of turn.

by souvarine on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:36:03 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 1)

And more Obama hat from souv. How surprising.

by venician on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 2)

It isn't hate, I admire Obama's political ruthlessness. One reason I supported Hillary Clinton was because she is somewhat ruthless herself. Obama is strategic, he won't punish someone with a constituency that matters to him, but he does not hesitate to demonstrate that he is in charge.

I disagree with many of his moves, and I think some are counter-productive in the long run, but I haven't called him ineffective since Iowa. The man knows how to take people out.

by souvarine on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 2)

hate? where was there hate in that comment? the truth of the matter is the news of how this convention is shaping up, if true, is pretty damn bad. this disinvitation of Clark is REALLY tossing a great Democrat under the bus and for what? for SUPPORTING obama. well, that is just not acceptable if this is as it's being reported. make excuses all you may want, but voicing upset over this is far from hate.

by swissffun on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:22:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

You should read more carefully. Venecian clearly said "Obama hat". And you have to admit, souvarine's post was chock full of hat. ;-)

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Given the Clinton's prominence @ the convention, (none / 0)

I have a hard time believing he holds a grudge for very long.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

it's something we don't yet know, he has to prove that he doesn't. I think he'll pick HIllary to be VP, I think that's what he decided when he decided to support the nomination votes. I think he's reading the polls and realizes that he can't bring up his message of unity and consensus, if he can't unify the party and bring together the two halves, his and her voters. It's what he stands for and he can't run on it in the fall if he's shown it's just words.

if he does not pick her and he loses, he's lost his personal chance and he's set us back many years. and if he does not pick her his message will be hollow.

It's soon to be time for him to show his stuff. It's possible that they made the clumsy Clark comment to show that he's not the VP, that it's Hillary. Or, it's possible that while he's on vacation all thinking has also taken a vacation.

what a relief

by anna shane on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 0)

Over on DKos, Gen. Clark's son said that the general called to see if there was a apecific reason for him to be at the convention because, otherwise, he needed to be in Milan, Italy, and he was told that, no, there was no specific reason he had to be at the convention. I think it just got jumbled in the retelling.

I understand if you are not yet convinced that he doesn't hold a grudge, but the way he has dealt with President and Senator Clinton satisfied it for me.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 3)

not convinced one way or the other. It's a small kind of characteristic, but yes, getting behind the convention vote, and the speaking gigs does indicate that he doesn't hold a grudge. On the other hand that Atlantic Monthly email piece proved he has nothing to hold a grudge about, she never tried to harm him. She sure doesn't hold grudges, but she's been around so long we have lots of evidence.

I want to think the best of Barack. That's my desire.

I can see that he has a message problem and he needs to figure out how what he says may be read and make his statement clear enough to avoid that kind of ambiguity. Once he has a good reputation for being big, he'll be given the benefit of the doubt. But until then he needs to phrase carefully.

what a relief

by anna shane on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 1)

"...he has nothing to hold a grudge about, she never tried to harm him. She sure doesn't hold grudges...." I fervently disagree with all of this.

Given our very different perspectives, I don't think we're going to come to any kind of agreement here. The good news is that before too long, we'll have answers one way or the other.

Maybe we can agree to hope that, however it goes, it works out well for Democrats.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 2)

then back it up. I have the Atlantic Monthly email story, that shows how protective she was of his candidacy. I have her New Orleans address. I have his list of nasty personal character assaults, that have been proven false, by an expose on her. Even in that there was only evidence that she refused to do anything that might hurt his ge chances were he the nom. Hurts to be sooo wrong?

what a relief

by anna shane on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To back up my statement that I disagree with you, (none / 0)

I have only to say that I disagree with you. I refuse to be baited into arguing about the primary; you'll have to poke at someone else.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To back up my statement that I (none / 0)

you can disagree, but it isn't an opinion question. I can back up my claim about her, and you have an opinion.

what a relief

by anna shane on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then we both have only opinions. (none / 0)

My opinion is that I disagree with you, and your opinion is that your evidence supports whatever claim it is that you want to make. I am sure that it supports it to your satisfaction. However, let me say, once again, I will not be baited into arguing with you about the primary.

Go ahead and declare yourself the winner of whatever kind of pissing contest you're trying to start with me. I'm not interested in the kind of exchange you seem to want to engage in.

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then we both have only opinions. (none / 0)

This is a person who thinks that
Hillary, after having blown $250 million on the worst major campaign ever run would bring "competence" to an Obama administration as VP, just to give you an idea.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then we both have only opinions. (none / 0)

Thanks for the heads up. I actually try to avoid getting into exchanges with people that I see arguing a lot. Maybe I'll do better next time, huh?

by Liberal Monk on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then we both have only opinions. (2.00 / 1)

If her campaign was run so badly, what does that say about Obama's? Obama should have been able to beat someone with that bad of a campaign hands down. Everyone knows the story didn't go like that though, don't they? Your response is so full of holes and contradictions, it isn't funny.

by Scotch on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Considering (2.00 / 1)

Obama was trailing by 20-30 points in November and managed to beat her six months later, it says his campaign was remarkable.

Remember, Clinton and Obama didn't start the race tied.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:57:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Remarkable???? (none / 0)

Surely you jest.
But if what you say was true, then that campaign machine ought to have been having a cakewalk over McCain. Bush is hated; Hillary was not. Bush and McCain have both trashed SS, trashed civil rights legislations, and insist the war is good. These are issues all of the left and much of the moderate right can agree on and yet he is barely beating McCain in polls and the truth is he barely beat Hillary, if at all.

No doubt in the minds of many that Axelrod ran a rovian campaign and his charges of racism were dirty, untrue and unfair. As well, we all know who Dean wanted......

by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

*rolls eyes* (2.00 / 1)

I should know better than trying to knock sense into milkshake-thick heads.

Newsflash, Bush is hated, McCain is NOT. I don't know why Obama isn't winning in a cakewalk, maybe it's because he's not running in a Democratic Primary, but in a general election and getting non-Democrats to vote for a Democrat is a lot harder than getting Democrats to vote for one.

Why wasn't Hillary 20 points over McCain in June? Because a lot of Bush haters are voting McCain no matter who we nominated.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *rolls eyes* (none / 0)

I should know better than trying to knock sense into milkshake-thick heads.

Are you a name calling middle schooler (I taught middle school for years and it is common to hear name calling there.....in adult conversations it's out of place!) because I don't know you and I cannot tell your age except from your words.

Or perhaps you assert authority with threats of violence all the time?

End of conversaion. I don't need any sense "knocked into me" at all. I am an adult with the right to an opinion. Your tone speaks scary volumes.

by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 0)

Anna, if that is your desire why are you posting on PUMA sites. You're a front page poster on NO Quarter. Please don't come here and try to pretend that you're all about unity while at the same time posting there.

by venician on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

you again. You need to meet some real people to provoke and mischaracterize, this is no way to make friends.

what a relief

by anna shane on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

And you should stop being a hypocrite and maybe even think about associating with racists and hate mongers.

by venician on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

and you should never change, I'm sure we're all very elevated by your personal opinions and knee-jerk judgments.For your sake I hope you're young.

what a relief

by anna shane on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, No Quarter. (none / 0)

Are you in fact a front pager there?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 1)

You're a front page poster on NO Quarter.

Wow. My opinion of NQ just went up.

I must have missed your appointment by the mods to the "other board" police, not that it matters one bit, b/c I'm sure you post on other boards as well. Or did I miss the loyalty oath upon registering?

MyDD is a group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power. We do polling, research, commentary, analysis, and activism.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another NoQuarter (none / 0)

blogger?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:09:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another NoQuarter (none / 0)

Sure, it must be right?

Nah, I've only been there once, after googling something. Try again.

Quizzical, no?

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another NoQuarter (none / 0)

Jeering and Sneering All the Way Where? »
By Anna Shane on May 30, 2008 in Bamboozling, Barack Obama, Chicago politics, Hillary Clinton, Hoodwinking, Michelle Obama, Misogyny, Race, Race Card, Sexism | 119 Comments

Straight from the horses mouth, No Quarter

by venician on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

I read Gen Clark's son's posts too. Clearly it was seen as an insult. In one of his comments, he mentioned his father was waiting and waiting to hear from the Obama campaign. And then when he realized he was not going to be "needed" he called to make sure. The man knows spin and knows if he didn't show up without asking if he was needed, Axlerod would play it as General Clark making the decision to snub Obama for "some reason."

A four star general who has been a military face for democrats and Obama's camp tells him he is "not needed." The message is loud and clear.

by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

This is GOSSIP!

by Politicalslave on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 04:31:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

And you have to prove that you are different then the other hate mongers who post on the front page on NO QUARTER, and Alegre's Asylum.

by venician on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 1)

no I don't. You ought to stop making ugly allegations, but even you don't have to stop. I guess it beats thinking? (I"m getting weary of your insults, can't one of Barack's original supporters give you some lessons in being less offensive?)

Please, someone tell this blogger she's unpleasant and is still fighting the primaries, and that it's counterproductive?

what a relief

by anna shane on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (none / 0)

Could someone please tell Anna, that No Quater is a racist hate site and is also very unpleasant and VERY OFFENSIVE.

by venician on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 07:39:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Given the Clinton's prominence (2.00 / 1)

Um, I think you might have to prove your a Mod or have the authority at least to make demands of anyone.

let's start there. M'kay?

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 2)

Idiots. He's our best man when it comes to foreign policy and military matters. Guess they really think they have this in the bag. We'll find out in November I guess.

by Iceblinkjm on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:38:40 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 1)

Not really .

He could go with General James Jones .

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 3)

on the basis of name recognition Wes wins IMHO. that being said I really really really hope it was not put to him that way. that would be wrong on so many levels and be so offensive it could have it's own blowback.

by zerosumgame on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

I've thought from the beginning that it's going to be Biden. He's the prospect everyone can live with.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:40:43 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

Sen. Biden might prove quite effective both in foreign policy experience and in Washington connections. Ironic, isn't it? Of all the possibilities, he and Dodd would be the "insider's insider." (By the way, that statement is not said as a negative. Biden has strength and prowess. The statement is said in irony only.)

by christinep on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hm (2.00 / 1)

Anyone notice that this is rumor?

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST

Re: Hm (2.00 / 1)

Clemons claims to have confirmed:

I have reconfirmed with General Wesley Clark's office that he has not been asked to play a role at the Democratic National Convention. His staff have told me that while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked.

You may interpret that differently, but I wouldn't say it is rumor.

by souvarine on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hm (2.00 / 1)

Well then show us your FACTS!

by venician on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 3)

I just heard about this. I can't believe Clark's comments defending Obama really did that much damage. Sheesh. After "Bitter-Gate" you would think that Obama would be a little more sympathetic to surrogates who go slightly off message while advocating for him.

Funny thing is, if you go back and read through the transcript of Clark's interview with Bob Schieffer, there is no other way Clark could have responded to Schieffer's observation that Obama had "never ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down" without conceding that Obama was unqualified to be president and McCain was.

This is unfortunate. I thought Clark gave one of the best speeches at the 2004 convention.

by Will Graham on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:46:03 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

really don't think this had anything to do with the CBS interview. The reason is open to speculation but it is a dumb and self-destructive move.

by tarheel74 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 4)

getting real crowded underneath that bus...

by Iceblinkjm on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:55:45 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 6)

I'm with the overused cliche police, we're going to need you to surrender your bus and any bus-related metaphors you may have on your person.

by Cincinnatus on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:58:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

Yeah, even Michelle better watch her step. With Granny, Rev.Wright, Father Pfleger, and now Wes Clark all cast aside, anyone can be next.

But there is redemption: Austin Goolsby, banished to the Witness Protection Program after his clumsy overture on NAFTA to the Canandians last March, surfaced yesterday morning on CNBC's "Squawk Box". Obama's original Capital Gains Tax Increase proposal of 28%--trimmed down to 25% in June--is now down to 20%, Goolsby told the panel. I expect he'll be propose eliminating the damned thing sometime in late September....

by BJJ Fighter on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (2.00 / 2)

I would find it very difficult to believe (but not out of the range of implausible) that Obama will use the exact name of Clarks PAC, have the spot for the VP announcement on the night where the theme is National Security and honoring the Veterans, and not include Clark in some way.

Doing so, and playing Chicago style politics, would be the reason that Chicago style politics only work in Chicago, and not on the national stage. That would not be very smart use of assets, forum or even opportunity.

Who's runnin' the campaign, Mark Penn? sheesh.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:57:49 PM EST

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

What exactly do you have against the great city of Chicago?

by Cincinnatus on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chicago, San Francisco (2.00 / 1)

It's cool to use the names of strongly Democratic cities as epithets these days.

by JJE on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

When has Chicago even been a 'truly' Democratic city?

It may have people who call themselves Democrats, but I don't know any who engage in payoffs, scandal or corruption to be a true Democrat.

You must be thinking of Republican tactics...not cities.

But here's a word for ya: oxymoron

Chicago+Democratic=oxymoron

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:44:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Wow, so everyone in the city of Chicago is corrupt and not a democrat. Not to paint in broad strokes, or anything.

by Cincinnatus on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (2.00 / 1)

How very Chris Matthews of you...but not quite.

I said politicians, not everyone. And that those politicians do not act like Democrats. Thanks for your W impersonation, but there's no twang in your stang.

Broad strokes, think strokes, left-to-right, and up-and-down. It doesn't matter which way you twirl the brush, the corrupt politicians and what gives 'Chicago-style' politics it's bad name.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (2.00 / 1)

Saying all politicians from Chicago are corrupt is still a little, I don't know, moronic.

by Cincinnatus on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Yes, much more than acknowledging the reason for the term "Chicago-style politics".

As they say, if the shoe fits. But you're right, maybe not all Chicago politicans are corrupt. But if 4/5 are, wouldn't you say there is a problem?

I think there is a problem when it's 1/5, but then again, I see you have the W way of thinking down, and if only just a few do it, then well...it must be okay, b/c just a few do it.

I have only one thing to say to that line of thinking......

"You're doin' a great job Brownie".

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:00:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Good to know you are willing to subscribe to underinformed attacks not only on politicians you don't know, but also on your fellow posters at MyDD. Demonstrates a real depth of thought and maturity of rhetoric.

by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 04:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Here's the rub.

I don't subscribe to to attacks on posters at MyDD. Politicians, well if they wanted ball room dancing, then they signed up on the wrong sheet. Uniformed? If I'm so uninformed then, please explain to me the term "Chicago style politics", and how it doesn't apply to those politicians who continue to symbolize those values.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0812/p02s0 1-uspo.html

It's not that Chicagoans are at all surprised about the idea that patronage, money, and political connections influenced who got jobs. No, what's new this time around, they say, is that people are going to jail for it.

-snip-

Even amid Chicago's storied reputation for corruption, this has been an unusually significant and far-reaching investigation involving 30 indictments and 23 convictions. Those charged have included a top official at the mayor's office of intergovernmental affairs and the former deputy water commissioner, who pleaded guilty to taking bribes, shaking down companies for political contributions, and rigging hiring. With a number of cooperating witnesses, including the water czar, the investigation is far from over.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section =news/local&id=4654947

Online searches of campaign finance records indicate Antoin 'Tony' Rezko has donated more than $300,000 in cash and services to the state and local politicians. A top aide to Gov. Blagojevich, Rezko was indicted on fraud charges Wednesday.
Most of the donations -- made to about four dozen politicians -- went to democrats like Governor Rod Blagojevich

And it doesn't even stop with politicians:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=15149792

The Chicago Police Department is disbanding its elite Special Operations Section. Seven officers have been charged with robbery and kidnapping.

-snip-

Heinzmann says the arrests and scandals are troublesome for Chicago on many levels -- from moral among the rank-and-file police officers, to Daley's offices

The depth and breadth of my "rhetoric" must be much farther and vast than the average bear, as evidenced by your response. I've only got one further thing to say to you.

<Honk!>

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Regardless, you continue to argue the clearly erroneous position that "some Chicago politicians are corrupt implies all Chicago politicians are corrupt". Post all the anecdotal evidence you want, attack me for being "W-like" for not wanting to make generalizations, the fact remains that you are just wrong.

by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

anecdotal evidence? how about factual, real evidence? And you're still trying to make a straw man argument and failing. I didn't say all Chicago politicians, I said the one's who embody the "Chicago-style politics" that are prevelant within the Chicago Party system.

However, I do find it just as bad if 1/5 or 1/40 are taking bribes, kickbacks, or "pay-for-play" monies. What's even worse is, those that know or even suspect there is one, and do nothing are just as guilty.

You can claim to be right, and all sort of things to justify to yourself the veracity of what I've pointed out. However, it still does not change the fact that there is a reason it's known as "Chicago-style politics".

And that fact no matter your protestations won't change.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Luckily, you've been good enough to debate your own point, so I don't even have to lodge any protestations. You, earlier in this very thread:
"Chicago+Democratic=Oxymoron"

You, later in this very thread:
"I didn't say all Chicago politicians"

Thanks for playing.

by Cincinnatus on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:54:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Guess the conversation was too much for ya, as you're again trying to put words into my mouth that I never said. Unless you're arguing that Democrats actually do endorse payoffs, scandals, and corruption. Well, I mean you are from Chicago and all, so I guess it may not be a foreign concept to you, but to the rest of the country, yeah. Those things are wrong.

Let's recap, shall we?

When has Chicago even been a 'truly' Democratic city?

It may have people who call themselves Democrats, but I don't know any who engage in payoffs, scandal or corruption to be a true Democrat.

You must be thinking of Republican tactics...not cities.

But here's a word for ya: oxymoron

Chicago+Democratic=oxymoron

So, class shall we re-examine the fallacy of Cincinnatus' statement? Nah, it would be an exercise in futility. It's just easier to say...

1..2..3...strikes, you're out.

But thanks for playing. Class is over.

Oxymoron...

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

First of all, you just highlighted a completely different part of the quote that says the exact same thing. You're saying that democrats in Chicago are not real democrats, which is a gross generalization. It's called generalizing experience. For instance, I could say that all Texans are condescending morons with poor reading comprehension. I would be generalizing from my own experience, and you would be right to call me on it.

Second, I am not from Chicago, I am from the great state of Oregon. I don't need to be from Chicago to know that the statement "Chicago+Democratic=Oxymoron" is utter bullshit. I imagine you can find true blue democrats in any of the fifty states, and people who share our values and ideas anywhere in the world. To paint Chicago democrats, whether the politicians or the people, with such a broad brush does a disservice to the many who are likely wonderful people.

by Cincinnatus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Are you serious? I gave you the entire post, not just a twisted summary of it, like you tried to do, and are still trying to do.

Here is exactly what I said:

It may have people who call themselves Democrats, but I don't know any who engage in payoffs, scandal or corruption to be a true Democrat.

So, if you can't understand or have difficulty, let's walk throught shall we?

1. There are some people(politicians)who call themselves Democrats. =True

2. But I dont' know any who engage in payoff's, scandal or corruption to be a true Democrat=True

Just b/c the have a D behind their name does not innoculate them from wrong. In fact I would say it makes it worse, since those with that designation have been trying to right the wrongs of the past three Republican administrations. However, in Chicago, thier politics are a little funny. It's called 'Chicago-style' politics, because even the everyday good citizens of Chicago know that some of their politicians get their palms greased and take for granted that their gonna be on the take or that their will have to buy influence or do favors in order to get things done. Hey, they like it that way, and it's okay for them? Fine. All politics is local. But don't tell me that it embraces the Democratic Party principles and that those people who do engage in those activities should be honored or even recognized. And I also say that if there is a Democrat who knows it's going on and doesn't say anything is just as guilty of doing it themselves. It's the same principles we are holding the Bush administration to, for Iraq, Valerie Plame, 9/11, Katrina, FISA, Torture, CIA prisons, Domestic spying, etc.

Before we go cleaning up someone else's yard, we should clean up our own. But I will say that you are right dead-on on one thing, which until now I didn't realize I'd made that mistake. It should be:

Chicago politics+Democratic=Oxymoron

And sometimes if you don't paint with a broad brush, you don't get enough of the painting done, and no one realizes the actual need for a remodeling job. Trying to use a fine point water-color brush, to do the side of a house is just not gonna cut it. Doing so does a huge disservice and is an insult to those people who want to serve honorably and with integrity. They deserve the same honesty and beautiful way of life as you do in Oregon, which is a wonderful state. What is bullshit, is that the Party stands for it, b/c "we don't want to make waves". Well, if we don't stand for anything, we stand for nothing. And get left over with people like Joe Lieberman, and Zell Miller.

I'd rather call it like it is, and then start to clean up the mess, instead of putting flowers in a corner and calling it done. Remember, this election is about *Change. We can change it, and not allow it to come back, or we can say that's bullshit, and just talk about change.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:10:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When's the last time Texas delivered for the Dems (none / 0)

Oh, right, never.

You should seriously stop talking about a city you clearly know nothing about. It makes you look foolish.

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:10:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Na na na nanna...... (none / 0)

Hahaha. I'll play your little game, but here's the catch, when was the last time Chicago did the same?

When was the last time Chicago had any real substantive effect on a National election?

Oh, that's right.....NEVER. Chicago is too busy greasing it's own palms that National politics don't come into play too often.

Talk about foolish, you should stop talking about a city that apparently you say you live in, and obviously know nothing about. The amount of Chicago scandals in the last 10 years alone, could fit in to a 'Hired Truck'.

The political machine that has been in place from the early 1900's is still in place, and is still churning out the same politics and substance, despite the promises and protestations of politicians from Mayor to Govenor.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar y/foolish

1: lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion

I would say that about sums it up.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

Whereas Texas, need I continue?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chicago, San Francisco (none / 0)

I never said Texas didn't have a-holes, I mean just look at the New Englander's who claim to be form Texas who have been in the White House.

Hell, look at Tom DeLay.

The difference is, we at least acknowlege them and try to get them out of office, instead of paying lip-service and letting them continue to no-holds barred politics that Chicago is famous for.

Hell, even in Texas we let citizens protect themselves from criminals. Not the other way around.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From this Chicagoan (none / 0)

You can shove those Right-wing, Limbaugh talking points up your ass.

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:12:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From this Chicagoan (none / 0)

Yeah, that's funny. What's even more funny is that you know it's true, and highlighted by the bull-shit, whiner response you just gave.

Weak!

Come stronger next time or don't come at all.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, you leave SFO out of this. (none / 0)

Only those who live in Southern California can use SFO as an epithet =)

Do you live in Southern California ?

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey, you leave SFO out of this. (none / 0)

Would Huntington Beach for about 3 years count?

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:04:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I used SFO as an epithet (none / 0)

many times when I lived in SF. But I currently reside in a decadent enclave on the other coast.

by JJE on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I used SFO as an epithet (none / 0)

Well, personally... I love SFO.

Greatttt food there =)

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 04:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Me too (none / 0)

I am talking about SFO as the shorthand for the airport, not the city. I love SF and want to move back.

by JJE on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, the airport aint bad either... (none / 0)

now that they have BART running to it...

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:48:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (1.50 / 2)

I love the city of Chicago, it's the way their politicans operate that bugs the crap out of me.

The pitting and playing of the races and race card against different minority groups in order to gain power and influence over both.

Patron serfs put into powerful positions to keep the promises flowing, but keep real power centralized.

Scandal, corruption, direct monies for legislations and contracts for sub-standard public works.

That's the problem with Chicago style politics, and it continues today.

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

unless it is a real head-fake...but I doubt that.

by tarheel74 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: General Clark to not attend Convention (none / 0)

Yea, I totally agree with your first paragraph. This has to be a joke.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (2.00 / 2)

maybe the faux news people will ask him about this?

MEDIA ALERT! - 8/17/08: FOX's "American Election Headquarters" , Sunday, Aug 17 @ 12:30PM EDT / 11:30 AM CDT
Start: Aug 17 2008 - 11:30am
description:

General Clark will appear on FOX's "American Election Headquarters" , Sunday, Aug 17 @ 12:30PM EDT / 11:30 AM CDT
12:30 PM EDT | 11:30 AM CDT | 10:30 AM MDT | 9:30 AM PDT
All appearance times are subject to change. We suggest tuning in early.

http://securingamerica.com/node/3072

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST

Waste of a great resource (2.00 / 2)

I wouldn't necessarily consider this to be a slight to the Clintons, but I do think it's a waste of an incredibly articulate and dedicated Democrat...not to mention the fact that Clark has been a tireless campaigner for Democrats at the state level. The Republicans would love to have someone of Wes Clark's caliber in their ranks.

I understand why Nancy-I have to save the planet-Pelosi is scheduled to speak, given that she is the highest ranking Democratic office-holder. But the reality is that Wes Clark has already forgotten more than Pelosi will ever know, and should be included in the convention's schedule. With Pelosi's opposition to free trade, and to drill/drill/drill, this is starting to feel eerily like a party drifting leftward again. I can't ever remember that drift as a formula for Democratic victory.

by BJJ Fighter on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:07:13 PM EST

Re: Waste of a great resource (2.00 / 2)

It is lamentable.

The only possible explanation I can think of is that Clark is viewed by Obama as some sort of political 'threat'. Everyone at the top works to keep anyone with the potential of overtaking them from growing that potential. Perhaps this is the only reason. Now that Clinton has had her chance and missed, and Edwards has shot himself in the foot, Clark is the person I would choose as the next most formidable plausible political force in the Democratic party.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Entirely possible.... (2.00 / 2)

Your suggestion is entirely plausible...it invites unfavorable comparisons with elder Bush's selection of Dan Quayle. The only reason anyone could give for the choice is that Senior didn't want to a running mate who would overshadow him. Given that Indiana's other Senator--Dick Lugar--had an incredible resume and 100 times more stature (not saying alot) than Quayle, it made the choice an extremely curious one.

by BJJ Fighter on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 05:25:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Waste of a great resource (none / 0)

Democratic principles being part of the Democratic Party, how terrible!

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 10:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Opposing free trade is not a principle, (none / 0)

it's just a cave-in to labor unions. And it's a loser on two fronts:

1) Economically, it impedes growth in GDP, and loses jobs. NAFTA has grown real wages and GDP in all three countries who signed on; if you need a refresher course, go back and watch the debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot. Perot and Pat Buchanan have been the spokesmen against free trade, and are now joined by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. If you want to join up with the likes of Perot and Buchanan, have at it.
2) Politically, we lose with the likes of Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry-Obama. Pro-growth Democrats, led by the Clintons during the 1990's, showed us how to win...and even more importantly, how to grow the economy. Some of us like winning....it sure beats losing!

Opposing energy exploration and drilling is not a principle, either. Even the Chinese Communists--who will be drilling 60 miles from our coasts in about six months--realize that to lower price, you have to increase supply.

So tell us, asshole: you refer to "Democratic Principles"...what are they? And hopefully, you'll agree that winning--DLC style--is a lot better than losing.

by BJJ Fighter on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:39:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

NAFTA has made things better, eh? (none / 0)

Are you sure you're on the right blog? Maybe you should be back over at Redstate, dipshit.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:13:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, look at 2nd Quarter GDP numbers (none / 0)

The only component of GDP that grew during the second quarter was exports, which increased by 9%. Without those exports, we would be in a recession. So yes...NAFTA is a huge success; just look at the numbers.

The current fight in the Democratic party is between centrists and liberals and has gone on for decades; Obama and Clinton are just this year's players. The only time the Party has been successful is when it embraced a muscular defense, pro-growth, pro-defense agenda...as in the 90's. Obama prattling on about an energy policy which incorporates inflating tires properly is on a par with Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater, and telling us to turn down our thermostats. Such "policy" recommendations don't even pass the laugh test.

by BJJ Fighter on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your numbers are false and misleading. (none / 0)

We are in a recession, Einstein. We've shipped millions of jobs overseas, no thanks to the Clintons, who are enabling every sort of outsourcing and making a ton of money from their efforts. Indian PHDs are being imported and housed in apartments at 30K a year. Our xrays are being read in Asia and diagnosed by who knows who. Feel good about that? Thanks for nothing, DLC. Thanks to you and the repugs we can't even educate our way out of this mess.
We had a name for you back in the 70's before the great yank to the right provided by the various right wing think tanks and A.M. talk radio......republicans.
You were probably all in favor of the Iraq invasion, too, along with the cowardly Dems in the House and Senate and the DLC, which thought it was a great idea.
How'd that work out for ya?
Time for a change from failed policies. Time to protect American jobs. Time to kick the DLC to the curb.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The DLC may end up winning this thing (none / 0)

Once you wake up, you'll see that the latest Gallup Tracking Poll has the race tied at 44%-44%. The last time a DLC candidate--Bill Clinton--was nominated, we won. This race is shaping up as another Mondale-Dukakis-Kerry type election, featuring a liberal loser.

So given history, "kicking the DLC to the curb" wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. And if McCain picks Joe Lieberman, centrist Democrats who have been wavering will head for the exits....and to McCain. In that case, we'll have one of the pillars of the DLC in power...what a shame if it takes the Repubs to get us there.

btw, it takes two successive quarters of GDP decline to constitute a recession. Saying that we're in one now is false and misleading...not to mention pretty ignorant of basic economics.

by BJJ Fighter on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ask any realtor if we're in a recession (none / 0)

Ask any salesperson. Ask any car dealer. Ask any restaurant