Is this...is this...is this what happiness feels like?
Worst part is, Democrats will still lose in '06 and '08.
4 minutes, Joe. 4 freakin' minutes. THat's all you could give me?
Would you say you're a Knight of Doubt, or merely a Knight of Infinite Capitulation?
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.
Also, that "lobbyist" probably had one of his enemies killed.
I have invented skimming! Congratulate me!
Thought Abramoff invented skimming.
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.
Joe: keep an eye on John Warner from VA...
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.
OK then. Reminds me of the Illinois GOP slogan: "A Bunch of Ryans who suck."
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.
Personally, I hope Howard Dean breaks his promise not to run.
I think Wes Clark would be pretty good
Looks good on paper. But have you seen / heard him speak?
By the end of the campaign, he was fantastic. And keep in mind, I was working for someone else at the time.
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.
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!"
You never can tell with Harry Reid.
Digby said what I said above, but much prettier and more thorough-like.
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.
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.
it will be Hillary
That would say to me, the Democratic Party does not want to win the Presidency.
People have been saying that for the last five years, slol.
I don't love Clark, but I would prefer him to Rodham-Clinton.
Does somebody have evidence that Clark is a better campaigner now than he was then?
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.
Oh, right. In that case, the Dems haven't seemed serious about winning the presidency since 1964.