10 posts tagged “political blogs”
Steve Clemons is all a twitter at the thought of Chuck Hagel entering the presidential race. Since Steve’s forte is national security, I can understand his excitement.
Agree with him or not, you have to admit that Hagel’s has been the loudest, most consistent voice (except for Wes Clark) among possible contenders, on the debacle that is Iraq, and indeed, Bush’s whole foreign policy “vision”.
I think Clemons is right in as much as his entry could really shake up the race….
……..I’m must concerned about getting the Democratic contenders to shape up. I think with Hagel in the race — they will have little choice but to mimick his views on the Iraq War and foreign policy.
Wes Clark played this role on being the first significant political player to endorse direct negotiations with Iran.
Hagel will stir the pot in good ways. Americans need to get to know him to see if the other issues they care about mesh with the Senator’s views — but on foreign policy and national security and Iraq — I think he gets it right.
With Hagel in the mix, the current Dem contenders will have to face
national security head on, instead of the usual sound bites and we all
know how much they prefer to retreat to the safe cocoon of domestic
politics.
Read more at A Time To Lead
I was fortunate enough to see Wes Clark interviewed by Amy Goodman at the 92nd St Y in NYC last night. He was, as usual, wonderful, knowledgeable and brutally honest.
He and his lovely wife Gert met with a small group of supporters before the event. Wes spoke to us and answered questions for about half an hour. He told us how much we all meant to him. He took questions, of course, about a potential ’08 run but said nothing committal, only that he’s trying to turn the conversation to a discussion of the issues and doesn’t know if it can be done. Running for President was too much about celebrity, he said.
Someone asked about his trip to Saudi Arabia and he said that there’s a lot of anger toward Americans, not just the Bush Administration as before but now toward Americans. He spoke of how he’d talked to people before the ‘04 election who said they did not hold all Americans accountable for what Bush was doing because we didn’t all elect him but things would be different if he put him back in office...and he won "an uncontested election", I think that’s the way he put it. Someone suggested he hadn’t won and Wes didn’t discount that but noted that, for whatever their reasons, the Democratic leadership chose not to contest the election at the time when it would have mattered....It was an interesting little exchange. Take from it what you will.
Read more at A Wes Clark Democrat
- - - - -
To order stopIranWar buttons to pass out, go here.
Concerns have been expressed (I know, I’ve seen them) that General Clark might have trouble finding talented political staff still available to work on his campaign for President, because Clark will be entering the race for the Democratic nomination several weeks or even months later than other Democratic candidates. This is a concern that never seems to come up regarding Al Gore, when people assert that he may still make a late entrance into the Presidential race; it is only raised about Wes Clark. And that is probably because in 2004, when Wes Clark entered the race late in September, he had to cobble together a campaign staff quickly from national political operatives who were not yet spoken for at the time, and that became problematic for him.
Fair enough as far as that goes, but a wrong lesson can be drawn from Clark’s 2004 campaign experience. Obviously entering a race in September is a different matter than entering a race in, let’s say February. The truth is there are many good potential campaign workers and managers still out there to hire to guide a Presidential run, though not all of them have previously established strong national reputations. While John Kerry got the pick of the litter of national Democratic campaign advisors when he became our nominee for President in 2004, there are some who now say he might have been better off with a runt.
Read more at A Left Turn FOR CLARK
-snip
I imagine he would have known before hiring the feminist Pandagon blogger for his campaign what it was she blogged about; he would take responsibility, even in the unlikely event he had not known what she blogged before she worked for him, for that staffing decision.
I can't imagine he would permit a Dem-bashing wing nut bigot like William Donohue to abuse his staff or dictate his campaign actions; nor would he credit the Catholic League with representing all Catholics or the Catholic Church; or fail to call a coordinated right wing attack, a coordinated right wing attack.
I imagine, as a man of faith himself and as a constant gentleman, Clark would not care for the style of Marcotte's criticism of Catholic doctrine; he would say so.
As a soldier, I don't imagine frank language hurts his sensibilities.
As a cultured man, he might recognize strong, but satirical writing when he sees it.
As a political philosopher, he might recognize that Marcotte meets an obligation, as a feminist political blogger, to criticize an institution that involves itself in the politics of reproductive rights. (All. The. Time.)
As a warrior, to my mind, he would respect that fight.
He would understand, I imagine, that faith and reason, (most Catholics make practical adjustment to dogma all the time in their personal lives), is not irreconcilable, and while words may hurt a little bit, they are not bullets to be avoided as if your life depends on it.
I imagine he would say that even a lapsed Catholic atheist lesbian feminist (horrors!) has the right to make a living and not be hounded from her job by someone who opposes her on her political views, personal life choices or spiritual path.
Read more at A Wes Clark Democrat
I'm giving the General a great big salute. The man has balls the size of Mt. Rushmore, IMO!
The General walked into the DNC Winter Meeting as an undeclared candidate to Johnny Cash's "I Won't Back Down" and does the job he came to do against CW calculated odds!
Here's the set up;
Wes Clark was scheduled to speak in between two of what the media has consistently labeled as the greatest political orators of our current times; Barak Obama and John Edwards.
Sen. Barak Obama educated as an attorney, became a top Presidential contender based on, among other things, a single speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. With his rich baritone voice, Barak offers an effective rhythm and cadence reminiscent of a preacher/scholar with an unconventional approach to the subject of politics. Barak is simply a natural.
John Edwards, billed as a politician who can talk owls out of a tree
since his single speech the “Two Americas", was highly touted during
the 2004 Primary campaign as a great speaker. On the strength of his
one speech describing the state of poverty here in the United states,
Edwards became a top 2004 primary contender and was later selected by
popular demand as the Vice Presidential candidate by John Kerry, then
the nominee.
Read more at RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets
While his supporters sit on the edge of their seats pleading for an announcement of a second presidential primary run by General Clark, he will not be moved. He has said several times, when pressed, that partisan politics will have to take second chair to the more immediate issue of impending war with Iran. "Once a person becomes a candidate, then everything they say becomes viewed through a political lens. I don't want this viewed through a political lens. This should be viewed as a policy issue."
The Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies of Tufts University held a conference last week, "The War on Terrorism: Where Do We Stand?" where Seymour Hersh gave closing and chilling remarks.
Calling President Bush a "total radical," Hersh worried, "There's nothing more dangerous than a radical who doesn't have information, doesn't learn from information and doesn't learn from the past.... The fact of the matter is we have a government that will do what it wants to do for the next two years. The worst is yet to come. It's sort of like we're essentially powerless [and] just play it out."
I was reminded of General Clark's challenge in one of the 2004 primary debates to the candidates who had jobs in Congress: "Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it."
It's three years later and Clark's early warning is the here and now.
Read more at A Wes Clark Democrat
No I'm not talking about the approaching Academy Awards Ceremony, and the golden Oscar I have to assume that Gore is favored to win for "An Inconvenient Truth" for best documentary. I'm talking about the gentle glow of praise and respect Al Gore is now enveloped in emanating from grassroots Democratic activists, and in particular the netroots. Most of us like Al Gore, we genuinely do. For one thing, we all know that he was robbed. Al Gore should be sitting in the White House now, not the Son of a Bush who currently resides there.
But it's more than that. Al Gore is at the top of his non-political
political game right now. He is far along on a high profile mission to
stop Global Warming and save the planet. How can you not love that? Al
Gore is providing important leadership on a critical issue. For now
Global Warming is Al Gore's signature issue and none of us are second
guessing him on it. We all applaud Al Gore for what he is doing.
I'm not saying that a deep commitment to stopping Global Warming is all that Al Gore has to bring to the political table. Gore is a serious and thoughtful man with real leadership experience. The thing is though, that as long as Al Gore hovers above the daily political fray with his eyes fixed on Earth's eco-sphere, he is safely out of the line of intramural Democratic fire.
From the few recent comments that Al Gore has made regarding the current situation in Iraq, his position seems to be very similar to that taken by Wes Clark for example. Unlike Al Gore though, Wes Clark has been highly identified with an Iraq position precisely because he has talked and written a great deal about it. Unlike fighting Global Warming, there is not near unanimity among Democrats about the best policy for dealing with America's occupation of Iraq right now. Anyone who stakes out a clear and highly visible position regarding Iraq is going to get dragged through the mud by someone. Clark certainly has, but not Al Gore.
-Read more at A Left Turn FOR CLARK
A few points being offered up around the web for why Wes Clark should not run for president in 2008: He can't win because Democrats won't vote for a military guy; he can't win because he has no experience in governing; he can’t win because he’s a genuine liberal Southern general; he can’t win because the election will be about domestic policy; he can’t win because he can’t handle the bumps of a presidential campaign; and, somehow or other, he's going to ruin any chance of becoming Secretary of State.
I wouldn’t use such a positive assertion that "Dems won't vote for a military guy", period. I think it much rather depends on what people (i.e., Democrats) perceive as "a bona fide guy". In fact, I see no electability issue whatsoever for the primaries if the proposition is "a bona fide and competent guy (who happens to have had a career in the military)".
Read more on A Wes Clark Democrat
First watch this Segment of Wes Clark on Charlie Rose dated September 23, 2002.
Watch here or here
As you clearly see and hear, General Clark was not for going into Iraq at the time, and felt that the U.N. should be totally involved, in addition to NATO....and that our priorities should have been getting Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and working on strategies to fight a sensical war on terror utilizing our Allies as much as possible! In fact, the General clearly states towards the end of the Video, that a thorough Weapon Inspections program should be the goal, and it would most likely do the trick.
This video really tells the tale of the General's position on Iraq right prior to the IWR vote. He was definitely for the Levin Amendment to go the the UN and come back to congress for a vote....and since this was BEFORE the Resolutions existed, I'm sure that he was the one that provided the insight that led Sen. Levin to formulate the only Resolution that should have passed if congress would have been doing its job back in 2002.
Too bad that so many Senators and Representatives caved in and gave Pres. Bush a blank check instead!
If only we could turn back the hands of time, we could have avoided
the biggest strategic blunder known as Iraq, and if not, we could have,
at least, put Wesley Clark into the White House in 2004 as a minimum!
Read more on RAPID FIRE - Silver Bullets
