Just to recap, though, so's Chopper can have some hope back:
- The House Majority Leader is being indicted for corruption.
- The Senate Majority Leader is being investigated for insider trading.
- The Bush Administration itself is being investigated for illegally blowing the cover of a NOC.
- A "lobbyist" is being investigated for maintaining a political slush fund used by everyone from Norquist to Rove to Delay to everyone at the center of Republican power. (Not to mention the whacking of his former business partner.)
I do think that if Democrats have a shot in hell, they have to run someone in '08 who's capable of running against the culture of Washington. Hillary ain't it, IMO.
Maybe Feingold? He's got his name on squeaky-clean legislation...
God, I just had an awful thought. Please don't let McCain, that miserable pro-torture piece of shit, assume the mantle of cleaning out DC. After all, W's initial election strategy was to run against DC after the Republican Congress had shat all over it.
i can't believe I just did that- of course I meant Gov. Mark Warner, who ran against the Senator a couple of years back with the bumper sticker: "marknotjohn"
Hopes you mean Mark Warner, Mike D--John is the GOP Senator who, as head of the Armed Services Committee, has made clucking noises while keeping a lid on the torture stories.
I think Drymala and Slo are both right. The problem with Clark was his inconsistency. I'd see him give an interview that was absolutely brilliant and then give one the next day that was so retarded you had to wonder why they even let him out of the house. Edwards had a bit of this in the beginning but managed to pull his act together very quickly. Clark never did. (Full disclosure: despite all of this, I voted for Clark. Sigh.)
Clark has plenty of time now to practice. I think a Clark-Edwards ticket would be formidable. Stirling Newberry had a post making the Clark=JFK, Edwards=FDR analogy that I found pretty interesting.
I'm also a huge Edwards fan. I just don't think he can make the sale; I think he's been written off. Although he's already got a dedicated Iowa staff that would walk through fire for him, which is no small thing.
I think, sadly, that it will be Hillary, in which case we'll have a replay of the 2000 and 2004 elections -- petty, dirty, uninspiring.
I think Clark's the only one who can beat Hillary in the primaries.
The other frustrating thing is, the Republican party is going through its biggest period of internal/political crisis since Bush took office, but it's only 2005. They've got a whole year to make people forget all this ever happened, and I will never, ever underestimate their ability to do so. And it's 3 years to the general. That's a freaking lifetime. If the gods were smiling upon liberals, this would all be happening in September of 2006, or September of 2008.
Okay, have they been saying that an H R-C nomination would mean the Democratic Party has become truly pointless, a feckless mob boondoggling on the American majority's wishes for better -- even adequate! -- government?
Just anecdotal, ogged. Watching him now vs. watching him then. And even watching him then, seeing how he improved as the campaign went on.
Also, I've heard a few first-person accounts of private conversations with the man, and he sounds like the absolute real deal -- I don't mean in the sense of being a great politician, but in being a great leader with actual vision.
Believe it or not (and this is all I'll say about this on the internets), Wes Clark is far more "Howard Dean" than Howard Dean actually is (Howard Dean was never really "Howard Dean").
Re 31 -- I meant people have been saying that Dems aren't serious about winning the presidency, not that Hillary will get the nom or what it would mean if she did.
Is this...is this...is this what happiness feels like?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:27 AM
Worst part is, Democrats will still lose in '06 and '08.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:31 AM
4 minutes, Joe. 4 freakin' minutes. THat's all you could give me?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:40 AM
Would you say you're a Knight of Doubt, or merely a Knight of Infinite Capitulation?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:40 AM
Just to recap, though, so's Chopper can have some hope back:
- The House Majority Leader is being indicted for corruption.
- The Senate Majority Leader is being investigated for insider trading.
- The Bush Administration itself is being investigated for illegally blowing the cover of a NOC.
- A "lobbyist" is being investigated for maintaining a political slush fund used by everyone from Norquist to Rove to Delay to everyone at the center of Republican power. (Not to mention the whacking of his former business partner.)
Just so everyone's clear where we are.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:43 AM
Also, that "lobbyist" probably had one of his enemies killed.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:47 AM
I have invented skimming! Congratulate me!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:47 AM
Thought Abramoff invented skimming.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:48 AM
I do think that if Democrats have a shot in hell, they have to run someone in '08 who's capable of running against the culture of Washington. Hillary ain't it, IMO.
I think Wes Clark would be pretty good.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 11:55 AM
Joe: keep an eye on John Warner from VA...
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:00 PM
Maybe Feingold? He's got his name on squeaky-clean legislation...
God, I just had an awful thought. Please don't let McCain, that miserable pro-torture piece of shit, assume the mantle of cleaning out DC. After all, W's initial election strategy was to run against DC after the Republican Congress had shat all over it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:00 PM
i can't believe I just did that- of course I meant Gov. Mark Warner, who ran against the Senator a couple of years back with the bumper sticker: "marknotjohn"
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:01 PM
Hopes you mean Mark Warner, Mike D--John is the GOP Senator who, as head of the Armed Services Committee, has made clucking noises while keeping a lid on the torture stories.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:01 PM
OK then. Reminds me of the Illinois GOP slogan: "A Bunch of Ryans who suck."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:02 PM
Isn't the Montana gov (Schweitzer?) supposed to be a ood fire-breathing dem? IMHO, we need a governor--Senators don't win presidential elections.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:03 PM
Personally, I hope Howard Dean breaks his promise not to run.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:04 PM
I think Wes Clark would be pretty good
Looks good on paper. But have you seen / heard him speak?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:05 PM
By the end of the campaign, he was fantastic. And keep in mind, I was working for someone else at the time.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:07 PM
Harry Reid just called Tom Delay's indictment "unfortunate" on Al Franken's show, "a sad day," he said.
It's sad that the man was majority leader, but something that might bring an end to that, is a good thing.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:37 PM
Harry Reid just called Tom Delay's indictment "unfortunate" on Al Franken's show, "a sad day," he said.
I think this is just politician-ese for "Boo-ya!"
Posted by JP | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:50 PM
You never can tell with Harry Reid.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 12:52 PM
Digby said what I said above, but much prettier and more thorough-like.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 1:23 PM
I think Drymala and Slo are both right. The problem with Clark was his inconsistency. I'd see him give an interview that was absolutely brilliant and then give one the next day that was so retarded you had to wonder why they even let him out of the house. Edwards had a bit of this in the beginning but managed to pull his act together very quickly. Clark never did. (Full disclosure: despite all of this, I voted for Clark. Sigh.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 1:31 PM
Clark has plenty of time now to practice. I think a Clark-Edwards ticket would be formidable. Stirling Newberry had a post making the Clark=JFK, Edwards=FDR analogy that I found pretty interesting.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 4:49 PM
That's a nice piece.
I'm also a huge Edwards fan. I just don't think he can make the sale; I think he's been written off. Although he's already got a dedicated Iowa staff that would walk through fire for him, which is no small thing.
I think, sadly, that it will be Hillary, in which case we'll have a replay of the 2000 and 2004 elections -- petty, dirty, uninspiring.
I think Clark's the only one who can beat Hillary in the primaries.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:05 PM
it will be Hillary
That would say to me, the Democratic Party does not want to win the Presidency.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:20 PM
People have been saying that for the last five years, slol.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:22 PM
I don't love Clark, but I would prefer him to Rodham-Clinton.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:26 PM
Does somebody have evidence that Clark is a better campaigner now than he was then?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:28 PM
The other frustrating thing is, the Republican party is going through its biggest period of internal/political crisis since Bush took office, but it's only 2005. They've got a whole year to make people forget all this ever happened, and I will never, ever underestimate their ability to do so. And it's 3 years to the general. That's a freaking lifetime. If the gods were smiling upon liberals, this would all be happening in September of 2006, or September of 2008.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:28 PM
Okay, have they been saying that an H R-C nomination would mean the Democratic Party has become truly pointless, a feckless mob boondoggling on the American majority's wishes for better -- even adequate! -- government?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:30 PM
Just anecdotal, ogged. Watching him now vs. watching him then. And even watching him then, seeing how he improved as the campaign went on.
Also, I've heard a few first-person accounts of private conversations with the man, and he sounds like the absolute real deal -- I don't mean in the sense of being a great politician, but in being a great leader with actual vision.
Believe it or not (and this is all I'll say about this on the internets), Wes Clark is far more "Howard Dean" than Howard Dean actually is (Howard Dean was never really "Howard Dean").
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:33 PM
Re 31 -- I meant people have been saying that Dems aren't serious about winning the presidency, not that Hillary will get the nom or what it would mean if she did.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:34 PM
Oh, right. In that case, the Dems haven't seemed serious about winning the presidency since 1964.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 09-28-05 5:38 PM