Skip to main content

Other people here on DailyKos besides me sense the whiff of fascism about Rudi Giuliani:

DocGonzo, I think, said it best on April 16th:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Giuliani's a Fascist (14+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
   Grand Poobah, cookiesandmilk, TexDem, Nelsons, jen, eve, SherwoodB, Shullat, blueintheface, Nespolo, Blue South, elwior, IrishCatholicDemocrat

Giuliani treated his NYC cops like his private army, and poor/black people as the enemy. He's a straight-up fascist, the worst wannabe fuhrer in the tradition of Hirohito, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Peron.

And if people vote for Giuliani, they'll get their chance to taste the fascist gun butt breaking in their own teeth.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

by DocGonzo on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 12:18:22 PM PDT

I recommended DocGonzo's comment of April 16th because I remember visiting New York when Giuliani was mayor and fearing for the poor and minorities who were at the mercy of their mayor's tactics.

Should Giuliani win the Republican primary, his so called social/cultural liberal "positions" on abortion, etc, may help neutralize those concerns in voters won over by Giuliani's threats that the Democratic nominee is weak on "terror", a tactic that is already key to his campaign rhetoric.

Giuliani is a danger to our democracy because his candidacy appeals to the worst in us and he is a shameless self-promoter willing to say anything, do anything to win power while lacking the judgment to have even provided first responders in NYC with decent communications equipment prior to 9/11 and to have set up his "anti-terror" security command post where he was told it would be safe in Brooklyn. Instead he chose the tragic target of 9/11, one of the World Trade Center buildings, for that command post.

The MSM has already anointed him as a hero of 9/11 and I have no clue why that is. Yet even some progressives seem to be in denial over what Rudi Giuliani really represents and that is worrisome.

Here's Inland's March 30th take on Rudi's proto-fascist appeal:
http://www.dailykos.com/...

If he wins the Republican  primary it will be a slash and burn campaign where truth is trampled at every opportunity.

I've never trusted Giuliani and it didn't help when he became business partners with Bernard Keric, another sleazy operator.

Sorry if I'm offending New Yorkers. I lived in New York for close to a year. My husband's from new York and we've visited frequently and I saw for myself what went on under Giuliani while he was mayor.

I saw how weak the Republican field is after watching their debate, and given how weak it is, I think Giuliani has a reasonable chance to slash and burn his way to victory.  

For some here, who worry about crime, there are better ways to combat crime than creating a state of terror for poor and minorities while corruption runs rampant.

There have been several diaries about Giuliani recently. Should he win the Republican primary, I think he has a better chance than most of the other Republicans on the list to come close to winning in the General and I think that would be a terrible thing.

I hope Wes Clark will run in 2008 and I want him to know that I believe he is not only the most progressive of the candidates, the most capable of stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home, the most likely to bring transparency, the rule of law, and justice and equity back to us, but also the one best able to crush Rudi when he starts threatening the voters with  "terrorist attacks".

Originally posted to eve on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:20 PM PDT.

Poll

Which Democrat would demolish Rudi's fear tactics

1%2 votes
64%107 votes
1%2 votes
1%2 votes
9%16 votes
9%15 votes
0%1 votes
8%14 votes
1%2 votes
2%4 votes

| 165 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What ya waiting for Wes? (9+ / 0-)

    I am so disappointed that he has announced his plans to run.  Clark/Obama is my dream ticket.  I am even resigned to a Gore/Clark ticket too.  I anxious to see Wes go mano to mano with the GOP fear factor candidates.

  •  He's our only hope! (10+ / 0-)

    Without him, we're doomed! Great Caesar's ghost!

    (That's my vote for Biden. I like being able to see my vote.)

  •  Wes Clark was also the most (17+ / 0-)

    visible post-election Democratic presences in late 2004.  When everybody else was shellshocked and numb, Wes was on every channel carrying the Democratic party message forward when there weren't many prominent Democratic voices  being heard.   He was soothing and authoritative, and it's just one of the many things we owe him thanks for.

  •  Clark supporter here too (12+ / 0-)

    I volunteered for his Oklahoma campaign, where he won the primary.  You are correct that he is the most progressive candidate, plus he had a brilliant military career. He has stronger foriegn policy experience than any candidate, and more experience at actually running a large, complex organization than any candidate. He is articulate and smart.

    I too wish he would run.  He has been effective in fighting against the Great Usurper's plans for war against Iran.  I do think the nation needs his leadership.

    That said, I will vote for any Democrat, regardless of who it is, against any fascist candidate from God's Own party.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

    by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:30:06 PM PDT

  •  He is first and foremost at VoteVets (13+ / 0-)

    trying to wage a war against the Iran War. He is recruiting Generals and such to speak out. He will be the third General in the current series. That will be a major event.

  •  To prove your point... (6+ / 0-)

    I asked a co-worker who voted for Bush if he had to choose between Clark and Rudy right now, who would he pick.
    "Well, Rudy did handle 9/11 beautifully."
    "But that was just one city. But CLARK..."
    "Yeah. You're right. Clark."

    (he's a fan of Clark because he read "The Switch")

  •  I have mixed feelings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mathGuyNTulsa

    MSM ruins everything....but I'm contemplating whether it's better to play defense to the GOP offense of "Boo! Terror!!"....a thankless task...........

    Or better perhaps to go on the offensive with bigger, better, new, improved FEARFUL FUTURES that we Dems will save you from?

    Advertising experts say the best ads mix negative and positive emotions because the brain notices and remembers them better.

    I also worry that calming fears about terrorism play right into the hands of military-industrial complex profiteers who offer 'solutions'......

    My 'fears' include car crashes and food poisoning.....and lack of affordable housing.

    But, hey! Who's listening to kitchen table issues when it's the big multinationals who control America?

    •  All very good points (8+ / 0-)

      Although, perhaps if you're not familiar with Clark's positions on these issues, you might enjoy checking out his web site:
      http://securingamerica.com/

      The military industrial complex is all about ripping off the taxpayer through corruption, profiting off of fear and using "national security" whose financial details of "defense" are shrouded in secrecy.

      Wes Clark knows from the inside how this all works and he is as appalled, I think, as we all are, how our fears were manipulated to destroy Iraq and break the army so a handful of special interests could benefit.

      He's sick at heart over Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and he, unlike most of the other Democrats running, hasn't pandered to this misuse of American power out of fear of being called unpatriotic.

      Karl Rove's tactics just don't work against Clark.

      He won't be pushed around. And he's not alone. There are a growing group of courageous retired military who have had enough of the misuse of "imperial" power to benefit a few while threatening our democracy.  

      http://securingamerica.com/

      •  So why is the site called "securingamerica"? (0+ / 0-)

        It has that GOP talking point ring to it.

        Before 9/11 I was thinking along the lines of "fulfilling America's promise" (democracy, equality, etc. per Founding Fathers.....)

        •  I think one of the reasons (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eve, LNK

          is to take the National Security meme away from the Republicans.  

          National Security is more than just armies and border patrols - it's energy independence, human rights, positive trades and other innovations - and I think that's what General Clark is doing - subverting the meme.

        •  Because Clark believes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eve, LNK

          That it takes much more than military strength to make America secure.

          You know what he says in the vision statement at his website are the two most important elements of a secure America?  Protecting our Constitution and protecting our environment.  Does that sound like a Republican talking point?  According to Clark, it is those two things which will determine if America as we know her will exist in a hundred years.

          He also believes that America will not be secure in the interim if we are not educating our children, keeping our workers employed, and taking care of our people's health.  An America that cannot perform those basic functions of maintaining the "common good" cannot compete with the growing economies in China and India and elsewhere.

          Clark believes that Americans will only vote for a party that they believe can keep them safe and secure, so it's up to us to remind them what real security is about.

  •  Not sure if Giuliani (12+ / 0-)

    has a chance, but imo, no matter who Publicans end up with, Clark would wipe the floor with them.

    He has said many times he has some preconditions that must be met before decides to run, that it is way too early and the only ones benefitting are consultants and the press, that he thinks about it every single day, and that he won't make the same mistakes he made last time.

    Those who believe it is too late for Clark to enter the race may choose to support one of the current candidates and that's fine, but there's a whole slew of us who are happy to wait for the best.

    I find it interesting that Cororate press has decided there's still time for Hagel and that actor guy to enter, but that it's too late for a Democrat to enter. I think they are quite happy with the current line up of Dems and would like to keep it as is.

    Whatever preconditions Clark is taking care of -- stopping a war with Iran being one -- I think if he feels he can do a better job than anyone currently running, and feels that he can win, he'll enter. I'd say June/July, but of course that's a guess. With the primaries moved up, anything later than that will likely be too late, imo.

    It sort of sucks that the candidates will be settled on by next spring, then no matter what happens between then and Nov. we're stuck. That doens't make sense to me.  

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

    by jen on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:38:25 PM PDT

    •  Excellent Point (7+ / 0-)

      You make an excellent point that the MSM are happy to say that Fred Thompson can still enter the race for God's Own Party but it is too late for any Democrat to enter the race.  Yet another example of the relentless bias of the MSM.

      I do think that the tens of millions of dollars the leading candidates have raised make it difficult.  Regrettably, US elections are for sale whether we like it or not.

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

      by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:45:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're ready to work hard for your campaign, (10+ / 0-)

    General Clark!!

  •  I trust Wes to be president... (8+ / 0-)

    And I trust him to know when to announce his candidacy...

    George W. Bush... wiretapping the Amish since 2001...

    by ThatSinger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:48:04 PM PDT

  •  It's too late for Wes (6+ / 0-)

    We all saw what happened to him the last time he entered late.  And the Democratic field is stronger this time around.

    He would make a fine cabinet choice though.

    •  Hope you are wrong (4+ / 0-)

      Fear you are right.

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

      by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:57:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I guess that cinches it then. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pithy Cherub, eve, mathGuyNTulsa

      Pack it up, everyone. JR says that it's too late so it must be so even though all of your points are valid and we're living in unprecedented times where America has never been more polarized and we're losing a war. No reason to think that a decorated general like Clark would be able to be garner a huge appeal from the right as well as the left.

    •  He got in the race mid September.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eve

      ....last time around. It's only May fercripessake.

      As for the strong field? Well for 1992 mebbe. But not for 2008.  The voters will still gravitated to a "daddy" party/candidate just like they did in 2004, because in their minds they will be asking the question..."who do I want in charge if we are attacked again"  They did not feel that Kerry could keep them safe.

      Our great field, as you call it, are strictly "mommy' candidates. There isn't a "daddy" amongst them.

    •  The Democratic field is not stronger . . . (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AKTup, roseba, Blackstar, jen, eve, jasmint53

      in 2008 than in 2004, in my opinion.  The media has already basically narrowed it down to 3 - Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.  And this "field of 3" is a strong field by what standards and whose standards?By Labor Day 2003, there were still at least 4 candidates considered viable and the potential nominee - Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt.  Those 4 certainly brought at least as much to the table as the current 3.  And, of course, one of them appears both the current list of 3 and the 2003 Labor Day list of 4, and I don't think his "strength" has improved much.

  •  On Giuliani (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, jen, pat208

    Actually, I don't think Giuliani will turn out to be an electoral challenge in 2008.  He is pro-choice and pro-gay rights.  It is almost unthinkable that God's Own Party would nominate Jesus Christ himself with those positions.  

    In the very unlikely event that Giuliani gets the nomination, I think it is almost certain that the religious right would bolt and form their own party, perhaps nominating someone like Sam Brownback.  That could very well be the end of God's Own Party and the unholy alliance between the religious fascists right and the rapacious multi-nationals.

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

    by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:54:58 PM PDT

    •   I don't see it that way (5+ / 0-)

      what you say is logical, but doesn't seem to work in practice.

      From what I've observed, the cultural issues of the religious right are a smokescreen for what's really important, money.

      A one paragraph back page item in the NYT years ago makes my point:
      A missionary interviewed after returning from a trip to Africa on Pat Robertson's plane expressed dismay that Pat Robertson said nothing about the missionary work and couldn't stop talking about his gold or diamond mines (I can't recall which) on the flight to Africa.

      So I think the cultural issues are a red herring and if Giuliani is seen as the guy who can deliver the pot of gold to the guys who run this country (that includes the ones who attended Cheney's top secret energy meetings), he'll be the nominee and he'll get the financial resources to Willie Horton himself to victory if we don't have a solid candidate who can overcome the fear and the lies.

      •  You make good points too (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927, jen, eve, historys mysteries

        I guess the issue is how the true believers will react.  I just don't see the likes of Dobson supporting Giuliani and losing their most reliable cash cow (hatred of gay people)

        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

        by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:15:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  $$$, power (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jen, eve, mathGuyNTulsa, LAMaestra

          "Dobson thrives on a role as a political kingmaker" said Charles Kimball, a religion professor at Wake Forest University, in North Carolina.

          And Dobson is willing to use almost any tactic, however incendiary and divisive. On his radio programs, publications and speeches, his favorite targets are gay civil unions, which Dobson would have you believe threaten the fabric of a moral society. He even has a program to "cure" gays.

          Dobson deeply immerses himself in Republican Party politics. He was part of a regular conference call with White House operatives during the 2004 campaign and was consulted by Karl Rove, the Bush adviser, before the nomination of two Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He has a close working relationship with a former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich.

          A few weeks ago, Dobson declared that Thompson was not a Christian. That was news to the former senator from Tennessee, who figured this was simply a calculated Dobson move to help Gingrich, the other potential new Republican entry into the presidential race. Dobson, sure enough, soon praised a Gingrich candidacy.

          Link.  Dobson can easily manipulate his followers and apparently relishes his political power.  I truly believe that his efforts are more cynical and self-motivated than religious.

          •  Of course (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GN1927, jen, eve

            He is a lying SOB.  He certainly knew about what-his-name, the closeted gay preacher from Colorado and said nothing because it was expedient.

            But bashing gay people is so thoroughly embedded in his campaign, and is so reliable a cash cow and route to political power, that I don't see him giving it up, ever.  So Giuliani is unacceptable to him.  I think he'd delight in being the spoiler in 08 thinking it would enhance his power later.

            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

            by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:08:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I heard a man who I think was (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blackstar, jen

          introduced as the head of the Southern Baptist Convention. He refused to distance himself from Giuliani on cultural issues.

          I think there's the leadership of the religious right that as you say is laughing all the way to the bank. Then there's the flock.

          It will be interesting to see how they twist the truth  in order to have their cake and eat it too.

          They were successful in keeping the flock at bay on deficit spending which is supposedly a "conservative" ideal. And even on this issue, Clark is the winning choice since he received a Masters from Oxford in Economic, Politics and Philosophy as a Rhodes Scholar and taught economics and would, based on his 2004 platform, work to make taxes fairer for poor/middle and pay down the debt.)

      •  A columnist for Wapo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eve, mathGuyNTulsa

        has long exposedRobert$on's pharisee tendencies.  This is information available to anyone.  Yet people still shower this charlatan with cash.  I'm with you on this one: I think conservative voters have proven quite malleable and would not stop a Giuliani ascension.

    •  Giuliani could get the nomination (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, mathGuyNTulsa

      It won't be easy, but it is possible.

      Like the democrats in 2004, the republicans want 'electability.'

      And if Giuliani doesn't implode, he might even run a better campaign than Kerry (though that wouldn't be hard).

      Still Giuliani should be easy to beat (but Bush should have been easy to beat both times).

      Clark wasn't a good candidate in 2004 and I haven't seen any evidence that he is better now.  He really should run for another elected office first.

      •  Correct (0+ / 0-)

        You are correct that Clark was not a good candidate...there were numerous gaffes that were quite surprising given his media experience.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that the MSM wouldn't have ignored those gaffes from another (i.e., repub) candidate.

        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

        by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:24:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was a staffing problem...not WKC's (5+ / 0-)

          He simply was surrounded by incompetent media people who didn't do their job of preparing the Candidate and managing the press.

          The MSNBC 'embed' for his campaign said afterword, in print, that his communication person had alienated every press outlet within 6 weeks of the formal campaign starting. What a travesty!

          This I believe to be a fact.

          He's had a ton of experience on the Trail since then...different story.

          •  Good to know (0+ / 0-)

            But why didn't he have a better press person?  It is really bad judgement to have a press person who has bad relations with the press!!!

            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

            by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:34:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  He was with the person at HQ who (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jen, eve, mathGuyNTulsa, LAMaestra

              didn't have the 'chops' but was supposed to when he made the gaff on the first major interview. But this was the same person who ALLOWED him to be grilled for 90, repeat, 90 minutes on the airplane. That was idiocy.

              Idiocy again I say, but that was the person on the ground at the moment. Remember he made the decision on Monday at 5pm at dinner with his family and announced on Wednesday at 10am.

              That person was instantly replaced by someone who was supposed to be a solid pro...and wasn't in my opinion.

              At that time WKC didn't have the experience to best judge the staffers chosen.

              He does now.

              Give him credit for this: He refuses to this day to criticize any staffer. It was his decision, he says, and he takes the consequencs on himself.

              It would be easy to throw someone under the bus but he refuses to discuss the subject.

              He won't make the same staffing mistake twice.

            •  PS: The communications person didn't HAVE (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jen, mathGuyNTulsa

              bad relations...he created them in the course the campaign. That's two very different situations.

              Good question.

            •  It was bad judgement (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eve, mathGuyNTulsa

              and he said he learned lots of lessons from his last run. He also learned a lot about campaigning during his non-stop appearances throughout 2005 and 2006 stumping for Dems across the country.

              When I compare Clark's poor judgement of how to run a political race to the poor judgement of some of the current candidates, it doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me! (Not to mean you said anything like that!)

              Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

              by jen on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:49:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  THanks again (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jen, eve

                And I'm not at all surprised that the General did not publicly criticize his staff.  I have personally seen the damage that an abrasive (or disorganized) press person can do.  A press person who is organized and builds good relationships with the media is golden -- I am fortunate to work with such a person in my current job (alas, she is a Republican).

                The local Clark organization was supported by some folks from the national organization.  The national people seemed good -- better than the local people, actually.   But they were frustrated by some coordination challenges.  These didn't seem major to me (a shortage of yard signs, for example).  There were good phone lists and lots of volunteers -- including a former national committeewoman from the other party, now converted to the Democratic party!

                I expect to volunteer again for the Democratic candidate, and would certainly volunteer for Clark in the primary should he run.

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

                by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:57:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  If Clark had been the nominee, (0+ / 0-)

        the people would have looked closer at his resume, and if they saw any deficiencies in his ability to campaign then it wouldn't have mattered...at least in race against President Magoo.

  •  Clark has detested Rudy (9+ / 0-)

    since Rudy blamed the troops for iraqi weapons stockpiles being left unguarded.

    "Clark is the only one I would trust with my son's life"

    by ParaHammer on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:58:54 PM PDT

  •  While I look forward to voting for Wes Clark (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, eve, pat208, mathGuyNTulsa

    the way it looks today, most any of the Dem candidates will win next year. Especially with all of us campaigning.

  •  I like Wes, but you are wrong. (9+ / 0-)

    Any variation of the "X is the One Democrat Capable of doing Y" statement should be viewed with cautious skepticism.

    Many seem to have an infatuation with messianic politics, and it's counterproductive.

    The real antidote to Giuliani's demagogic fearmonguering is to attack the culture of fear itself. Wherever fear has been resisted and eventually overcome, the common denominator has been empathy and solidarity – the ability to abstract from our lives, realize that others experience the same adversities, and make societal commitments to institutions of mutual aid. In short, we need to nurture civil society, not delude ourselves into naive hopes for a knight in shining armor.

    History doesn't work like that.

    "Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception." -- George Orwell

    by Autarkh on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:00:26 PM PDT

    •  Hi, you spoke carefully and I agree with you in (8+ / 0-)

      part, but why does this come up with Wes Clark but not the other candidates. Similar things are said by Edwards supporters and such but only with Wes does this seem an issue. I know Clark supporters are enthusiastic, but I don't believe any more than passionate supporters of any other candidate.

      Any Democratic nominee is better than a Repubnut one, but we are in such desparate straights that an extraordinary leader would be a boon. It is not messianic to ask that of an extraordinary person like Wes. He is truly uniquely qualified to lead this country back to sanity.

      •  Fair point. (3+ / 0-)

        But you'd be hard pressed to find me making such arguments.

        There is nothing wrong with extremely capable leaders -- but keep it in perspective (from a recent diary):

        Progressive change is animated and energized by masses of people yearning for justice. To ascribe the impressive gains of the abolitionist, labor, civil rights, antiwar or feminist movements to extraordinary leaders is to cheapen the struggles of countless people whose names we’ll never know.

        [...]

        True leadership is not coercive, but persuasive and, above all, responsive – all of which is anathema to the present occupant of the Whitehouse. We are ready for a leader who envisions himself as an instrument of the people. Someone who trusts us, exhorts the noblest facets of our nature, knows how to marshal our support, demands all that we can give, and remembers that, in America, we are sovereign not he.

        "Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception." -- George Orwell

        by Autarkh on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:12:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eve

        We're in a war going very badly, so how can you say that a brilliant military strategist who knows how to use diplomacy--and CAN because of his international stature--isn't uniquely qualified to take over now, especially since he's got SO much experience in dealing with the bureacratic side of Congress and the Pentagon and has so much experience in economics?

    •  This is what Wes Clark has been doing . . . (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, jen, eve, mathGuyNTulsa

      for the past 4 years - attacking the culture of fear itself, attacking the Bush administration and others for using fear as a political tactic, saying, in fact, that the Bush administration wanted the American people to live in a certain amount of fear because they thought it was to their political advantage.  Maybe you can give me examples of our current candidates doing that on any consistant basis over the past 4 years, if even at all.  

      And I disagree, I do think that sometimes there is a single candidate who is the only one capable of doing certain things.  That isn't the same as saying that a single candidate is the only one capable of doing everything.

    •  I agree with your point (5+ / 0-)

      about attacking the culture of fear. Sadly, not all of the Democratic candidates have proven that they are up to doing that.

      Those who voted for the Iraq war Resolution were fearful, I believe, of being called unpatriotic.
      So fear ruled the day and Rove knew it would. Bush almost immediately pointed out to his critics on the war that Democrats had voted for it.

      So, my point is that Wes Clark has the stuffing to stand up to this culture of fear, he's proved it time and again. He also has the credentials and the experience.

      I also believe that Al Gore has responded to his vicious "defeat" in 2000 by overcoming his wooden, polite persona to standing up for what he believes.

      I prefer Wes Clark, but I wouldn't mind seeing an open convention with Clark, Gore and perhaps Obama to hash out the issues in front of the voters.

      That would be democracy, not a candidate wrapped up and tied with a bow by back room interests and delivered by the MSM.

      •  Candidates have to demonstrate the willingness to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eve

        ...do it, and I think Wes Clark has, but the larger point is that we have to blunt the appeal of fear from the bottom up, so that Guiliani's scare tactics fall on deaf ears. This requires looking at politics more systemically – that is, with greater emphasis on institutions and movements and less on individual actors. It requires building up the sorts of forces in civil society -- like labor unions -- that sustained the New Deal coalition, and later, the conservative coalition that now appears to be disintegrating.

        "Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception." -- George Orwell

        by Autarkh on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:43:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It seems that Clark very much agrees with you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Autarkh

          he has talked of empowering unions so that workers have true representation and giving unions new responsibilities to retrain and educate workers.

          Clark said that his experience in the military led him to the idea that workers should be able to carry with them access to education and health care through their unions and universal single payer health care because we can no longer rely on a lifetime job at one company.

          Clark's talked a lot about institutions providing the backbone of our democratic life.

          thanks for your thoughts.

    •  perhaps, but the fact remains that much (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eve

      of America is VERY ill-informed and fear-based. That's just a reality we have to deal with. Besides, even if everyone were smart and informed, Wes is still the best man for the job. (Not too mention most deserving.)

      •  I couldn't disagree more. (0+ / 0-)

        America is VERY ill-informed and fear-based. That's just a reality we have to deal with.

        Successful progressive politics is about transformation. If we we're content with the status quo, then why even bother?

        This, of course, requires acknowledgement with reality, but it emphatically does not entail accommodation.

        I don't disagree that Wes is an excellent, qualified leader, but deserving?

        No one "deserves" leadership -- they exercise leadership.

        "Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception." -- George Orwell

        by Autarkh on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:48:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I never said he deserves leadership. (0+ / 0-)

          I meant that he deserves to be the president. It's quite an honor to be the president dontcha know. And anyone who took 4 bullets in Vietnam and insisted on staying on the battlefield shouting out commands unti his platoon won the battle and then went on to serve his country for pittance and a life of major inconvenience has earned that honor, especially when they've proven that their worthy and capable of the position.

          I think you're incorrect to say that it's one or the other. It's called picking your battles. Are you telling me that if a crystal ball told you in 03 that we'd lose with Kerry but win with Clark, yet you'd have still insisted that we nominate Kerry because....?

          •  Ugh. So it's going to be one of these discussions (0+ / 0-)

            I meant that he deserves to be the president. It's quite an honor to be the president dontcha know.

            You’re playing semantical games. Do you contend that the presidency isn’t a position of leadership?

            And anyone who took 4 bullets in Vietnam and insisted on staying on the battlefield shouting out commands unti his platoon won the battle and then went on to serve his country for pittance and a life of major inconvenience has earned that honor, especially when they've proven that their worthy and capable of the position.

            Again, I totally disagree. The presidency is not an honorific post. It’s the highest federal elective constitutional office. One cannot "earn" or be "proven worthy" of the presidency; one can only be vested with it by the sovereign people of the United States.

            This is such a flawed premise that I am put in the position of involuntarily arguing against someone I’d willingly vote for ahead of any of the current candidates. Military experience is useful, but it isn’t a requirement, nor is having been wounded in combat.

            Sigh.

            Let's just leave it at that.

            I think you're incorrect to say that it's one or the other. It's called picking your battles. Are you telling me that if a crystal ball told you in 03 that we'd lose with Kerry but win with Clark, yet you'd have still insisted that we nominate Kerry because....?

            Forgive me, but I’m not going to respond to this. I think it will be less painful that way.

            "Deaf and blind, and dumb, and born to follow; what you need is someone strong to guide you... like me." - Maynard James Keenan

            by Autarkh on Mon May 14, 2007 at 01:18:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How did you conclude that I'm saying (0+ / 0-)

              military experience and being wounded is a requirement??? And how on earth did you conclude that I'm suggesting that the presidency isn't a position of leadership?

              According to you:

              [The presidency is] the highest federal elective constitutional office. One cannot "earn" or be "proven worthy" of the presidency; one can only be vested with it by the sovereign people of the United States.

              What. The. Fudge. Why on earth would the people vest such power in one man unless he had demonstrated the characteristics of a good leader? The example I gave was just one that is quintessential of what an exmplary leader Wes is and always has been. IMO and many others, those who have been wounded and almost killed in service to the country--ESPECIALLY voluntarily--deserve a special kind of respect and trust. In other words, if you had 2 guys who were equally capable and trustworthy in all respects except that one had served and took four bullets AND demonstrated amazing courage under fire in order to save his comrades' lives, but the other one had not seen combat, wouldn't you say that the hero was more deserving to be chosen to be the president? And leaving relativism aside, if I was chosen to be president, I'd be honored that so many people thought I had the qualities of a good leader.

              I'm so curious to know what your response WOULD be if you did to my Kerry question, but at the same time I'm so indignant at you for trying to have it both ways. Bringing something up and saying you won't respond to it as if bringing it up isn't a response in itself. And it's doubly irritating since it's not only a perfectly valid question, but it's a simple yes or no, so instead of enlightening me as to why I'm wrong, you wasted both of our time by getting all patronizing instead of satifying my curiousity. And I say that as someone who voted for Nader in 00 and say it was the biggest mistake in my life. And in light of how many people feel that way about Nader, it's highly sanctimonious of you to act as if I'm the only one who sees it this way and that you're too damn wise to even deign to dignify such a question.

              •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                What. The. Fudge. Why on earth would the people vest such power in one man unless he had demonstrated the characteristics of a good leader?

                We agree, then – the presidency is a position of leadership.

                The example I gave was just one that is quintessential of what an exmplary leader Wes is and always has been. IMO and many others, those who have been wounded and almost killed in service to the country--ESPECIALLY voluntarily--deserve a special kind of respect and trust. In other words, if you had 2 guys who were equally capable and trustworthy in all respects except that one had served and took four bullets AND demonstrated amazing courage under fire in order to save his comrades' lives, but the other one had not seen combat, wouldn't you say that the hero was more deserving to be chosen to be the president?

                No, because that’s a highly theoretical situation unlikely to be replicated in real life – people aren’t equally trustworthy or capable. The person who wasn’t wounded might have some other relevant experience. For instance, they may have been dedicated their life to labor organizing, or teaching, or some other worthy pursuit. Why do you assume that only the soldier is a hero? And there’s the word "deserving" again. Someone could single handedly save the world tomorrow, and they still wouldn’t deserve to be president. My point is that deserve implies entitlement, and there is none when it comes to elective office – it’s for the people to decide.

                And leaving relativism aside, if I was chosen to be president, I'd be honored that so many people thought I had the qualities of a good leader.

                When did relativism enter into this discussion?

                I'm so curious to know what your response WOULD be if you did to my Kerry question, but at the same time I'm so indignant at you for trying to have it both ways. Bringing something up and saying you won't respond to it as if bringing it up isn't a response in itself. And it's doubly irritating since it's not only a perfectly valid question, but it's a simple yes or no, so instead of enlightening me as to why I'm wrong, you wasted both of our time by getting all patronizing instead of satifying my curiousity.

                I didn’t answer it because I don’t believe you posed it out of honest curiosity:

                Are you telling me that if a crystal ball told you in 03 that we'd lose with Kerry but win with Clark, yet you'd have still insisted that we nominate Kerry because....

                I cannot get past the inanity of the question: crystal balls don’t exist, there’s only 20/20 hindsight. It is self-evident that a rational progressive, knowing with certainty--in advance--that one candidate would lose to Bush, and that the other would win, would chose to nominate the winner. And? Did you really need me to say that? How is this relevant in any way?

                And I say that as someone who voted for Nader in 00 and say it was the biggest mistake in my life. And in light of how many people feel that way about Nader, it's highly sanctimonious of you to act as if I'm the only one who sees it this way and that you're too damn wise to even deign to dignify such a question.

                I voted for Nader as well. It wasn’t in a swing state but, like you, I regret it to the subatomic level of my existence. I’ve never claimed superior wisdom. Rather, I merely suggested that we should be cautiously skeptical about any formulation that says only candidate X can do Y. I genuinely fail understand how that can be interpreted as me insisting on the nomination of someone I knew was going to lose.

                "Deaf and blind, and dumb, and born to follow; what you need is someone strong to guide you... like me." - Maynard James Keenan

                by Autarkh on Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:08:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Clark is uniquely positioned (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eve

      to undercut the culture of fear, plus his years of military service will make him a very attractive crossover campaign.  Also, his national security background can free him up to discuss other matters - he can respond with credibility on those issues, but also discuss domestic ones, instead of having to spend an inordinate amount of time "looking tough."

  •  Wes Clark's former aide, Eric Massa is (8+ / 0-)

    live blogging on health care now. Drop over and join the conversation as well if you have time.

    Massa Live Bloggingon Health Care

  •  At this point... (7+ / 0-)

    I believe a mildly intelligent ferret could demolish Giuliani's terror tactics.

  •  tags (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ourprez08, Blackstar, eve, mathGuyNTulsa

    Tags, which indicate the primary subject of a diary, are meant to help us search for diaries. Consistency and frequency are our friends; creativity and redundancy, not so much.

    No need to mention every candidate. I changed yours from DocGonzo, Rudy Giuliani, 2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats, Republicans, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Recommended to

    2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani, Wesley Clark, Recommended.

  •  Clark fan here, but.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave Montoya

    What makes you think a pro-choice (sort of), socially moderate (by GOP standards) candidate will survive the GOP primaries? Guiliani looks like a goner already.

    Clark has waited too long -- this cycle is well along already, and Edwards, Clinton, and Obama have already lined up big money & donors. Too late again.

    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else. Yogi Berra

    by Twin Planets on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:09:07 PM PDT

    •  Not sure it is too late (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ourprez08

      Kerry was an also-ran at this stage in the 2004 cycle.  I agree the money is hard to overcome.  Even harder is the MSM bias.

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

      by mathGuyNTulsa on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:11:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really think that.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jen, Gabriele Droz, mathGuyNTulsa

      .....big money donors only donate to one candidate?

      Au contraire mon frere.......they donate to multiple candidates, and always have. In fact there was a stink reported about a month ago that Hillary was trying to pull that one off. They laughed at her. Lots of big money donors have donated to both Hillary and Obama, and there's more where that came from.  

    •  It is too late for Clark (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jxg, mathGuyNTulsa

      He should at least give a timeline for his hardcore supporters when he will make a decision.

      At least a NEW timeline. Because Late Jan/Early February came and went.

      Proud to be a Jim Webb Democrat

      by Dave Montoya on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:17:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clark doesn't have to give me a timeline . . . (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AKTup, eve

        As a Clark supporter from 2003, he doesn't have to give me, who I suppose could be described as "hardcore", a timeline for anything.  I'm not waiting to see whether Clark runs or not to decide whether or not I'm going to jump on the primary bandwagon of another candidate.  I'm haven't jumped on anyone else's bandwagon and I'm not going to.

    •  Maybe so (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AKTup, eve, Gabriele Droz, mathGuyNTulsa

      but maybe not. If Clark thinks it's too late, he won't run. Money is not in short supply and will never run out. Wealthy donors can max out on any particular candidate -- that doesn't mean they've run out of money to give to another.

      Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

      by jen on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:20:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Too late for what? (6+ / 0-)

      There are far more potential donors than you can count who have not "lined up" with anyone.  I am already sick to death of the mediocrity of the current candidates. Two of them voted for a disastrous war and continued to support it until it became politically "safe" to oppose it. One is a new senator with not an iota of experience with real life security issues or world economic knowledge.

      There is not a single declared candidate who is credible on national security and that will be the issue for '08.  Just as it was in '04 when the Democrats failed to recognize it.  Unless we grow up and start nominating leaders who can win the presidency instead of selecting candidates as if we're voting for American Idol we will end up with another Republican in the White House.

      How many failed candidates do we need to show us something is terribly wrong with our selection criteria?

      To God: Please stop talking to George Bush. Too much is being lost in translation.

      by miriam on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:22:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  As said in another thread on another diary (5+ / 0-)

    to paraphrase:

    "Clark's the one who is least likely to win the nomination and the one most likely to win the General Election..."

    That's the goddamn truth. WesPac isn't responding to those of us who even have access.

    I hope WKC is holding his fire until the game is well under way so he doesn't have to run a full year or more race.

    He is the man with great credentials and experience of all sorts.

    There's another guy in the race that I think could also be a great president and also won't get the nomination. But that's for another day....and no one measures up to Wes Clark for education, experience and sheer intelligence.

  •  As much as i appreciate DocGonzo (0+ / 0-)

    that was way over the top.

    "Here they come, marching into American sunlight." – Don Delillo, Mao II

    by subtropolis on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:13:56 PM PDT

    •  Please explain your view . (0+ / 0-)

      I'd like to think better of Giuliani especially since we may be saddled with him.
      Right now he scares me big time.

      I believe he ruthlessly intimidated minorities and poor people in NYC. When we visited NY during Rudi's term there were some dignitaries visiting.
      Instead of an open, welcoming spirit, the city had a locked down feel to it.

      And my degree of comfort in writing this is reinforced by my husband, who is analytical rather than political by nature. He's troubled by Giuliani as well and for the same reasons.
      I think DocGonzo's judgment on Giuliani is on target.

      Do you have some experience that would say otherwise.
      I'm not interested in character assassination, but the truth here.

      •  Hitler? Mussolini? (0+ / 0-)

        Come on.

        "Here they come, marching into American sunlight." – Don Delillo, Mao II

        by subtropolis on Sun May 13, 2007 at 03:14:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well I think that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          subtropolis

          those two, Hitler and Mussolini, seemed like they were psychotic, mentally ill. Hitler enjoyed seeing his "enemies" hung by piano wire.

          It's not particularly evident that Giuliani suffers from mental illness. But I do think he is extremely ruthless, secretly so, and he doesn't seem troubled by corruption.

          I honestly would not want to find out how he would react if he found his presidential power challenged by dissidents fighting for their constitutional rights.

          Who knows what evil may lurk in the heart of a man on whose watch minorities and poor people were brutalized  for the sake of power.

          How many would have thought that Bush - on whose watch Texas became the execution capital of the country and first time offenders were given draconian sentences for having a small amount of marijuana - would sanction Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?

          Who knows how Mussolini and Hitler acted in public before they were given such enormous power.

          Hannah Arendt said evil was banal.

          I just don't like the lack of a moral compass from Giuliani...not on personal matters which is not for me to judge but on public policy which seems pretty   ruthless.

          •  well, the evidence is pretty slim (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eve

            I mean, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of anyone? Guilliani isn't an angel, sure, but i think characterising him as a potential Hitler or Franco requires a bit more meat.

            … on whose watch minorities and poor people were brutalized  for the sake of power.

            We could say the same about a lot of politicians, actually.

            How many would have thought that Bush … would sanction Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?

            Oh, i did, that's for sure. I've always seen the badness in that one.

            I'm not trying to stick up for Guilliani, i just think the comparison was a bit much. Sorry for the terse response earlier—i was cooking dinner.

            "Here they come, marching into American sunlight." – Don Delillo, Mao II

            by subtropolis on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:01:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  wes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eve

    I agree that Wes would be an effective anti-Rudy.

    I don't agree he'd be the only effective anti-Rudy.

    I think Rudy could win the primary, and I also think the religious right would fall in line.  They're patient and they had a good run with Bush, and they can also see how some of their experiments have failed.  They need to retool and I think they know it.  They might generally be fine to take what they can get for now.

    But even if all that happens, I think Rudy's being a bit overestimated here.  He's a dipshit.  I think the top three + Wes could all wipe the floor with him.  So could Biden and Richardson.  His approval is based entirely off of 9/11 and it is an illusion, easily exposed once it's actually HIM on the national stage and not his crafted image.

    Check out my podcast of piano improvisations.

    by tunesmith on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:14:04 PM PDT

  •  Wes Clark isn't running for President (0+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately. It's the biggest heartbreak of my life. But he's not running he's getting on New Boards, Chairing new things, and most of all working for UCLA's Center for International Relations.

    If Clark runs for President I will max out to him, and I can't even afford it.

    However, he's not running. Not now, not ever.

    Here's hoping Gore will actually run now.

    Proud to be a Jim Webb Democrat

    by Dave Montoya on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:16:19 PM PDT

  •  Couple problems with your assumptions... (4+ / 0-)

    1 -- To win the democratic nomination it would be advisable to actually agree to run for it.  I'm sure you noticed that Wesley Clark is not even in the race.  

    2 -- Giuliani would need to win the Republican nomination.  This seems unlikely in light of his stands on social issues.  

    3 -- No other democrat could beat Guiliani?  I disagree entirely.  It is possible that the Repub. primary gets split several ways and Guiliani barely emerges with the biggest vote.  In the general election evangelicals will stay home and middle America is dead-tired of the war so they vote to start fresh.  Just about any dem candidate will win.

    •  Clark's not in the race <em>yet</em> . (0+ / 0-)

      Clark has said there are a couple of preconditions before he can make a commitment...he's working on stopping a war on Iran and doesn't want that critical effort to be "tainted" by an appearance of political self-interest.

      I see Giuliani as one of the stronger Republican candidates...not that he has any ideas or policy positions warranting his selection, but he can outmaneuver his opponents some of whom are rather dimwitted.

      Giuliani's capable of a vicious smear campaign, painting opponents as weak on "terror".

  •  Actually, there are five (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mathGuyNTulsa
    Gore, Edwards, Obama, Clark, and probably even Hillary.  But as we all know, Hillary probably couldn't win.

    Alex
    Choose Our President 2008

  •  What qualifies Rudy to lead this country out of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eve, Gabriele Droz, mathGuyNTulsa

    the disastrous foreign policy, gargantuan debt, dangerously weakened military, and loss of moral standing in the world left to us by this administration?

    That is why I support General Clark as the most extraordinarily qualified leader for President if he runs.  And if he runs, I will work my heart out for him.  

    I educate everyone I know about him.  Hope he makes a firm decision soon.

  •  Guilliani is the ultimate opportunist (5+ / 0-)

    and always has been.  I've watched him from afar since he broke onto the national scene in the 80's.  He is unabashed in taking all the credit and no blame.

    He would be a miserable failure as a President.  I seriously doubt though that he can win the Repug nomination with all of his baggage.

    "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Abraham Lincoln

    by JEB on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:21:52 PM PDT

  •  We need to stop reacting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries
    to whatever the Republicans are doing.
    That's what got us into trouble against Bush.

    It's not a good idea to make a decision about who to nominate based on who we think can best combat Giuliani's fear mongering.  That was one of the reasons our primary voters went with Kerry in 2004 instead of someone like Edwards who was a better candidate IMO, but didn't appear as "strong".  We need to go with our best candidate this time regardless of who we might be facing in the General election and who we think might do best against them.

    •  I happen to think Clark is the (3+ / 0-)

      best candidate.

      That said, I think that any one of the Democrats would be a helluva lot better than what we've suffered the last 6 1/2 years.
      Giuliani would be a horror as would the other Republicans on the list.

      I don't believe that the dems are a shoo in and my evidence is :
      Reagan
      Bush I
      Bush II

      and sadly that the other Democratic presidents we had were more or less responsive to a system that too often ignored sensible energy policy, sensible health policy, sensible environmental policy and pandered to the pressures brought  to bear by special interests.

      Clark would be a breath of fresh air.

      Gore has said some good things that convince me he would be a possible alternative if Clark does not run.

      I believe Clark would make a real difference to this country because of his experience and strategic thinking and commitment to democratic ideals.

      .....just one heartsick but hopeful, granny's opinion.

    •  People decided Edwards wasn't ready . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AKTup

      in 2004 and he wasn't, and as far as I can tell, he's still not ready.  Changing one's story, changing one's positions on issues, changing one's almost everything doesn't make one ready to be president or a better candidate.

    •  You're wrong. And the Dems were wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eve

      to think that Kerry was the one who would have beaten the margin of their fraud instead of Clark. The bottom line is that, a) our side underestimated how badly Iraq was going,  b) those who didn't jump on the Clark bandwagon were misinformed or not fully informed about him, and, c) there was a huge media bias against Clark; proven when the MSM ALL declared that it was down to just 2 even though Clark made a better showing in the previous day's primaries.

      •  media bias against Clark (0+ / 0-)

        Clark would do what's right, instead of towing some media sanctioned corporate line.

        Perhaps Keith Olbermann would be one person who would give Clark an opportunity to fully express his views.

        If he runs, we'll need some letter writing campaigns I suspect:))

  •  I forget the name of the doc (6+ / 0-)

    that discusses Abu Ghraib and torture and links it to experiments about people divided into guards and prisoners in a fake prison and watching them devolve. I watched it recently.

    There were bits about well known crimes which happened while large groups watched and did nothing and about four boys who killed their frat brother with excessive water drinking and did nothing while he died right in front of them.

    The conclusions were striking. 1) That the majority of folks are average and will just not think of or act on their 'right instincts' or pricks of conscience until someone else does first. 2) That heroes or leaders are needed for that first 'right action' to take place within this majority. 3) That heroes are rare.

    Taking that conclusion and juxtaposing it with the current crisis in the USA and the world, by extension since you affect the rest of us with your choices, a hero is the only antidote to the problems we face. Therefore, Clarkies are not to be maligned for their hero-worshipping, but rather awarded a medal for constantly, tirelessly bringing a real hero to the attention of others.

    The sad fact is that the vast majority of us will not act until someone who is a born leader and qualifies for the term 'hero' acts, at which point we will follow. Future generations will be asking us why we didn't act sooner and we will have to answer them. What will you say?

    Aragorn asks him if he's scared and Frodo says yes and Aragorn says, "Well, you're not nearly scared enough" - The Fellowship of the Ring

    by Blackstar on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:41:23 PM PDT

  •  Funny - 84 comments, no mention of Kerik, (4+ / 0-)

    and this in a diary about demolishing Rudy G.

    Rudy will be strangled with Kerik's intestines by Romney, et al.

    Good WaPo article today or yesterday about Rudy Giuliani.  Talk about vulnerable . . .  .

    Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car. © 2006 All Rights Reserved

    by oblomov on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:44:27 PM PDT

    •  Here is WaPo article (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eve, mathGuyNTulsa

      Famously loyal, Giuliani chose as his partners longtime associates, including a former police commissioner later convicted of corruption, a former FBI executive who admitted taking artifacts from Ground Zero and a former Roman Catholic priest accused of covering up sexual abuse in the church.

      One of his clients at Giuliani Partners was

      a confessed drug smuggler who hired Giuliani to ensure his security company could do business with the federal government

      And this

      Kerik took the lead building the Giuliani Partners security arm. But even before Giuliani left the mayor's office, city investigators had warned him that Kerik might have ties to organized-crime figures, a warning Giuliani recently testified that he did not recall. Kerik abruptly left the firm in early 2005, after his nomination to be homeland security secretary -- supported by Giuliani -- collapsed. That was a year before he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge that he accepted free work on his apartment from a contracting firm accused of having ties to organized crime.

      To replace Kerik, Giuliani turned to a respected former FBI executive, Pasquale J. D'Amuro, who had risen through the ranks as one of the bureau's savviest antiterrorism agents to become its third-ranking official. In 2004, a Justice Department inquiry into the controversial removal of souvenirs from the World Trade Center site disclosed that D'Amuro had asked a subordinate to gather half a dozen items from Ground Zero as mementos just weeks after the attacks, and D'Amuro later acknowledged that he kept one piece of granite that he received in June 2003. The FBI took no action against D'Amuro, and he donated his memento to the New York FBI office before retiring.

      It's a good, long, and long overdue article.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      And this gem, the snubbed farmer:

      http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...

      Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car. © 2006 All Rights Reserved

      by oblomov on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:50:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Romney is a bigger threat.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    historys mysteries

    Romney is more likely to be the candidate anyway, and it's because he's a much bigger fascist that Republicans will prefer him.

    I think some here are way too focused on Giulliani.  It's true that Giulliani is too authoritarian and inclined to exceed what should be the limits of government.  But in Giulliani's case this has always been primarily directed towards fighting  crime.  Of the current frontrunners in the GOP field, he probably is the least likely to abuse government power for political purposes, and the most likely to have some competence on policy and have some respect for people with different views.

    The Christian fundamentalists in that group are far more dangerous.  Some of them really believe they're justified in ignoring earthly laws, or in persecuting people who aren't like them.

    And Romney is the worst.  He's not quite one of the fundamentalists; he'll just say whatever he has to say and do what ever he has to do to get elected.  He's the most clearly fascist; it's all about more power for Mr. Romney.  He's the type of guy who will develop a fascistic cult of personality.  Watch the comercials he's starting to run.

    Finally, in either case, the absolutely worst way to counter this is to run an authoritarian older white male on the Democratic ticket.  We don't need to be more like the Republicans to beat them.

    I like Clark, but his only qualification is his experience as a successful General. Generals are used to people following orders.  The type of leadership that works in the army, and that is developed there, is somewhat authoritarian.  Maybe some people really think we need that, but I see no evidence that the majority of the country really feels that way at this point.

    •  Agree with you re: Romney! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blackstar, eve, historys mysteries

      As for Clark's only qualification being his experience as a successful General, he is not your "typical" General.

      He was first in his class at West Point, a Rhodes scholar, masters in economics from Oxford, served as a fellow in the White House OMB, head of strategic planning on the Joint Chiefs, negotiated the Dayton Accords ending the war in Bosnia, stopped a genocide in Kosovo and is regarded as a hero by a million MUSLIM Albanian Kosovars (his trump card in the war on terrorism, IMO), frequently called before Congress as a military expert, was against military intervention in Iraq (and his opinion influenced Senators like Kennedy and Wellstone to vote against the IWR), 34 years of management experience including base commander (which includes responsibility for families and civilians and is the equivalent of governing a small state), high level experience with consensus building among numerous heads of state (19, to be exact, the number he had to keep on board for the NATO engagement in Kosovo), willingness to go by the book if it's the right thing to do, even if it pisses off your superiors, someone who heeded Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex, and knows where all the bodies are buried in the Pentagon budget, someone who isn't owned by corporate special interests...

      h/t jasmint!

      Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right. --Hunter/Garcia

      by jen on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:36:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't consider Clark an authoritarian at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AKTup, jen

      On the contrary, he is someone who loves to listen and to engage in thoughtful, informed debate.

      Eric Massa the Navy Commander who served as Wes Clark's assistant said he only received an order from Clark once.

      Massa's wife called Wes Clark because she was worried about Eric Massa's health. he had been told he had lung cancer and a short time to live.

      Wes Clark called Eric into his office and said he was giving him an order to go back to the States and see a doctor. That saved Eric's life because he did not have lung cancer but another life threatening illness for which he was treated.

      You have Clark all wrong...please check him out if you wish to see why some of us here believe he'd be our best hope to save this democracy.
      rule of law
      transparency
      check out:
      http://www.democracynow.org/...

    •  You don't get to be a four-star (0+ / 0-)

      simply by barking orders at people. You need their cooperation and support.  

  •  Wes Clark would be a fantastic President (5+ / 0-)

    And he would get more cross over votes than any other democrat. That will be important for getting majorities in as many state houses as possible, for the 2010 re-districting.

    Join Draft Wes Clark for 2008

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site