John Edwards blew it on MSNBC, IMO

[grasswire]

He was asked by Tweety what he would be doing differently, were he currently the vice president under the Kerry administration. He answered that he would be telling the truth about Iraq, trying to bring the troops home, yada, yada.

The correct answer would be to say that America would not be in Iraq were a Democrat in the WH after 2004. We'd be out by now.

[snowbear]

1. I didn't see it, but his responds sounds great to me...

You said Tweety asked "what he would be doing differently"

Not...

"What he would have done differently"

His response was right on from what you've written on here!

Way to go JE

[Stinky The Clown]

2. We should always keep this in mind when we get our guys on teevee ......

.... "Answer the question you want to answer, not the question they asked."

We have NO friends in the media.

[Auntie Bush]

3. " We'd be out by now." NO! We wouldn't have gotten in it

in the first place!

[grasswire]

14. Bush got us in into Iraq in 2003. ...

If Kerry won in 2004, he would have had to get us out in 2005.

[Impashund Ubique]

31. Yet, he promised nothing as such during his run.

I think this is a misleading claim. The public wasn't against the war (the majority, that is) in 2004, so after his re-election, Kerry would have had some time to get things together. If done right, we would be preparing to leave Iraq now with a stable government in place and no or little internal violence. That is the best case scenario. We might be there in less numbers and a lot more success, but we wouldn't be totally out of there by now. I don't think that is a credible hypothesis. But then, your educated guess is as good as mine, especially since neither can be tested.

[sandnsea]

121. Yes he did

"If the President would move in this direction… if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces … train the Iraqis to provide their own security… develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people… and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year… we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19947/

We may not be completely out, as you say, but he did commit to a plan that included removing troops from Iraq. Over 1600 soldiers have died since the election.

[Impashund Ubique]

15. Sarcasm?

I thought we had already invaded Iraq before the 04 election :shrug:

[Auntie Bush]

40. Sorry! Failed to notice date!

Having a touch of brain fog!

[alfredo]

4. As vice president it isn't his call, it would be President

Kerry's call. He could advise the President to withdraw, but that's about it.

[spooky3]

53. Exactly.

[alfredo]

55. Gore had a lot of power as veep, but only the power given

by Clinton. Now we have a Veep that is more powerful than the president.

[karynnj]

127. As VP, he would be working on something he and Kerry agreed

would help the country. Kerry had the better grasp on foreign policy and diplomacy and it is his passion, so I seriously doubt that that would have been something Edwards would have been assigned. Hurricane Katrina would still have happened and though the response would have been better, the damage and the underlying poverty was immense. Leading an effort with key Democrats and Republicans to fix some of the problems would have been a great use of Edwards. (Good for the country, good for the Kerry administration and good for the 50 something Edwrds' career.)

Edwards wouldn't be advising Kerry to withdraw as Kerry proposed withdrawing before Edwards did in the real world. Kerry would have done what he proposed in 2004 and we would now have fewer soldiers there. If. in spite of Kerry's efforts, the situation became a civil war, Kerry would have the soldiers out - anyone who heard any comments he's made this year knows that is true. I think this was a tacky political answer - it implies that Kerry would need his advise to do this.

Although they both voted for the IWR, Kerry called on Kerry not to invade and called fro regime change at home when he did. In 2003, Edwards said it was right to invade - they were not in the same place in 2004.

Kerry's plan in 2004, 2005, and 2006 are logically consistent and deal with the events on the ground.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. I thought he was comfortable and confident

and that he answered the questions well and easily. He didn't pause and try to recollect "talking points" - my sense was he had a good grasp of the subject and was comfortable with his answers.

I don't think there's a "correct" answer. There's the answer that you believe and that you will be comfortable answering months from now as situations change, and you can easily recall it, because it happened to be the TRUTH of what you felt.

[FrenchieCat]

6. But does Edwards NOW know the truth about Iraq?

Cause he didn't know much before....

Here's another interview with Matthews...


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask about the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.
MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWARDS: But now we're getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there's clear inconsistency between what's been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there's a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don't think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn't believe-But you weren't misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the "don't tread on me and if you don't we'll leave you alone." We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn't get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't.

I don't think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush's approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn't work with others. He doesn't build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we're seeing what's happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.

[Texas_Kat]

7. But he's "sorry' now, so that makes it all better.

Don't misunderstand me.

[philgobluemi]

39. It doesn't make it all better

The IWR was a tough vote (the alternative was a Republican-only IWR that would have had no conditions at all). If that is your only issue, the IWR vote, then Edwards isn't for you. If you care about other things to -- his current withdrawal position, poverty reduction, college aid, expanding kindergarten, raising the minimum wage, improving unionization laws, etc -- then you should give him a look. Otherwise, you're only correct vote is Feingold because I think you're kidding yourself that if Gore wanted reelection in Tennesse and Clark wanted reelection in Arkansas you think they wouldn't have voted for the IWR with the same reservations Edwards had.

[Texas_Kat]

49. In his career as a Senator

His co-sponsorship of the Patriot Act was another nail in the coffin. If I recall, there were 22 other Senators who had the good judgement to vote against the IWR.

I was an Edwards supporter early in his presidential campaign -- okay VERY early. The more I learned about him, the less impressed I was.

I'm through supporting candidates who vote for such serious legislation based on their personal poltiical ambition. There was not a single more important vote in Edward's career than the IWR. He failed the test and opted for ambition.

[IDDYBUD]

44. Think with more realistic clarity

We can repeat that old Tweety-con all we like, but the only position Sen. Edwards had ever taken is the position that, through his good faith IWR vote, he saw a need for the President of the U.S. to protect Americans.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he never got any support from George Tenet when there were some doubts about the integrity of the intelliegence, which Tenet had implied off the record. When asked to put it in an updated NIE, Tenet failed to back it up with anything on the record. What the hell was a responsible leader supposed to do? Just one short year fronm the 9/11 attacks, Senator Edwards believed and trusted Bush to do what he needed to do to protect teh country. I would hope, if the tables have been turned at that time, that Republicans would have supported a Democratic president.

Edwards didn’t support a half-assed war — he supported Bush.

Bush failed us all. Not Senator Edwards or Senator Kerry.

BUSH.

Senator Edwards now has said, with retrospective clarity, that he made a mistake. He takes responsibility for his vote. He was the first one of the pack to be politically brave enough admit it. If a political leader cannot admit that, despite giving their President the benefit of doubt, then he (or she) would be a coward in my book. Senator Edwards is not afraid to tell you that he's sorry that he gave a good faith vote, on behalf of America, to a man of whom time has revealed to us a totally proven and disastrous boob!

[spooky3]

67. Welcome to DU, IDDYBUD!

:hi:

[Texas_Kat]

108. It's actually crystal clear to me

Instead of using his own judgement and listening to all the input, he chose to believe Bush.

It was a mistake that he will never live down, "apology' or not.

Either he was too uninformed on the issue, displayed very poor judgment, or allowed his personal political ambition to dictate his choices.

"Senator Edwards believed and trusted Bush...." Anybody that gullible shouldn't be the commander in chief --ever.

Republicans would have supported a Democratic president..... well even though it's a stretch, the only comparison might be Kosovo and no, the Republicans didn't support the Democratic President.

[OwnedByFerrets]

8. EVERY person who voted

to invade Iraq was wrong and should be willing to say so now. Excuse it by saying that they were caught up in the uber-patriotism that was par for the course during that period, but they must be willing to say they were wrong. Anyone unwilling to do that will NOT get my support.

[ultraist]

10. A three year old tv interview?

Here is more current info on where Senator Edwards stands on the Iraq war:

http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/headlines/wp20051113/

An Op-Ed by Senator John Edwards
Washington Post
Nov 13, 2005

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told — and what many of us believed and argued — was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong — and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president — and that I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war. Con't...

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. And that my friend,

is why I support him as well as all the others who have done the right thing on this subject.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Why do you support him again? Because it took him longer

than a majority of Americans to finally understand the problem with his vote and his Co-sponsorship of that blank check resolution?

Interesting.

[Impashund Ubique]

32. OR

Maybe because people vote on multiple issues and multiple tests of judgment? ;)

[Clark2008]

101. So you support the PATRIOT Act, too, then? n/t

[Donna Zen]

35. Sounds good

Nevertheless, to push off what was a politically motivated vote onto the tired saw of "inaccurate" intelligence is to add insult to injury. Everyone knew that Saddam was not a threat to this country, and the 22 brave Democratic senators stood up for the good of the country and voted "nay."

In Edwards' case, this may have been tempered by his association with Shelton who believed in the neocon theory of "clearing the swamp." After all, Edwards' co-sponsered the IWR.

Every one of them knew. If they didn't, then considering the open push to war, and all of the information available at the time, one would wonder about their qualifications regarding foreign policy. Of the four generals who testified, three of them told them not to rush to war.

[Impashund Ubique]

17. And he realizes his mistake.

Imagine a leader who is not arrogant enough to admit and apologize for a mistake. What a change that would be. *sigh*

[FrenchieCat]

21. When one apologizes 3 years after the fact, and after the polls have

turned.......they are no leader!

Sure, folks Looooove John Edwards, but I will go against the CW that he is Presidential material although he sells himself quite well and the media seems to handle him "hands off" (which is helpful unless they turn on you when it counts)!

Granted, Edwards finally took the responsibility, but couched it with the reason that he was misled....meaning "he was wronged".......but if you read his "I was wrong" editorial, he says exactly that...."Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
Snip
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

We have been knowing this for a long time what he is claiming "we now, in late 2005, know" and if nothing else, he, as a politician and a leader should at the very least known one year later (but he still didn't really know as he states in that October 2003 interview) that the intelligence had been fixed and at that time he still stated that he had not been misled. What changed? Time past and polls shifted, and he lost the election...that's what.

Maybe I am overly cynical, but if you read my sig, you will note that there is a quote from someone who knew then what it took John Edwards two more years to realize and admit....as it was known in October 2003 that the intelligence had been "fixed". I knew it then as well as many others.

Originally 21 other senators "Knew" better! John Edwards essentially is saying that he was misled (since he is saying that if he had different information, he would not have voted for the War)...and in fact, He even co-sponsored the IWR! Look here at the list of who co-sponsored Lieberman's Blank check resolution! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

I don't want a President that is that easily misled at crunch time! I don't need a President that has to be hit over the head with the irrefutable prior to making an admission (when the coast is clear). I'm sorry, but that the truth. That was a dire issue.....that is costing lives, billions and irrepairable damage to our own country!

I applaud John Edwards for finally admitting that he was wrong, but this would not lead me to reward him with the Presidency for this "admission". I'm looking for competence, not an after the fact slow motion realization! I marched multiple times against this war. My shoe leather didn't walk those miles to then vote for someone without a clue. The fact that it took a majority of Americans being against the war 3 years later before Edwards more clearly understood his wrongness, means more to me than his "attractiveness" and his speeches on the poor.

[Impashund Ubique]

29. "his speeches on the poor"

You have me on some of your arguments above, but the despise for "his speeches of the poor" is sickening to say the least. If this is how democrats see the importance of the issue of poverty then I can't expect much else from the rest of the country. Clearly poverty isn't that important an issue for you, hence, it was trumped by some misguided anaylsis of Edwards' war beliefs.

First of all, to watch a real speech on the poor, I hope you'd check this out and then ridicule: http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=90D6367A88FAF49C

Secondly, you are right that Edwards was wrong. You are also right in some of your cynicism. I won't argue with that. But I think that you are wrong about Edwards' timing. Edwards turned against the war before the public opinion turned his way.

And this is what Edwards said on Hardball in March, 2006:

Well, here`s -- what I honestly think is that Bush, the administration, members of his administration, grossly misled the country, I think made an effort to mislead members of Congress.

But I think the other truth is, and I believe this very strongly, Chris, those of us who voted for this war -- and as you know, I`ve now said my vote was a mistake. Those of us who voted for this war, we had our own responsibility and we need to take responsibility for what it is we did.

Speaking for myself, you know, I was on the Intelligence Committee, I went to many hours of hearings and briefings, I talked to member -- former members of the Clinton administration and I made a judgment and it turns out that judgment was wrong.

Well, I`m responsible for that, but Bush and the administration are responsible for misleading the country, and making -- and just being absolutely incompetent in the way they`ve administered this war.

source: http://oneamericacommittee.com/media/tv/20060316/

That is not a man trying to shift blame, he is taking responsibility for his wrong judgment. He is not saying that he was misled or driven to any conclusion. He is saying that he made a wrong judgment based on the things he studied and part of those things was the intelligence by the administration. At the same time he is making the point that Bush & co. are responsible for the mess too and they deserve to be held accountable too.

I think you are being harsh on the man. Hate him for everything, but let's give credit where it's due ;)

p.s. What's with the digs on the guy's "attractiveness?" lol

[FrenchieCat]

33. I just don't feel as you do......

However, in reference to his speeches on the poor, that's truly wonderful, and I applaud him on that work....but he is not the only one who speaks about the poor and he is certainly not the only one trying to do something about it (although I have yet to have someone provide me with concrete actions that his poverty center has actually accomplished of any great significance-- ).

I was at a scholarship ceremony in where Jesse Jackson handed out 50 $1,000 checks at our church a month or so ago (that just one neighborhood. I applauded that too! But I wouldn't vote for Jesse Jackson for President in 2008...and yet he has been working at helping the poor far longer than John Edwards...even if most don't want to recognize that about Mr. Jackson as easily as they are willing to lyonize John Edwards for it.

As a Black Progressive Baptist Minister's wife and a Black person, I am very happy that Sen. Edwards has taken such interest in poor folks.....and although he has made it "his" cause which is not a bad thing, I don't think that it is an area that his exclusively his. However, for now, it does work for him in reference to the Democratic base and his possible re-emergence into elective politics, granted.

However, for me, it is an amazing irony that so many billions are being spent on a war, that I and others (in fact all of the senators on the same committee as John Edwards voted "NO" on the resolution)tried so hard to stop before it started...but yet one he supported. Those hundreds of Billions translate into a whole lot of money that might have gone into poverty programs now cut. We are poorer because of this war....in many ways...and the large corporation have definitely profited.

Again, I just do not believe that John Edwards has what it takes to be the type of leader that I would require for a President that I would vote for.....in order to make the right decisions at "crunch-Time"....in reference to International relations (an area very important to me and to many voters). Sure, if he won the nomination, I'd have no choice...but until then.

It is my informed opinion that National Security and Foreign relations will be more pressing issues than even poverty in 2006 as well as in 2008 (in particular after Bush and Media finish with us via their manipulations...cause they will always claim National Security as their strong suit). An Osama Bin Laden tape released at the right time would nulify Edwards' populist passion with voters...and I'm just not ready to lose again!

In reference to his "attractiveness"....I will just say frankly that this is one of the reasons that some support him; because he is youthful and attractive. To deny this is not sincere, even if that's not why you support him. And I will also admit that he must be very charming...cause he got Kucinich (who was truly against the war to have his folks vote for Edwards at the Iowa Caucus--Cause Kucinich didn't want any of the alternatives) and got Howard Dean to later to the same elsewhere, and Kerry did pick him as VP.

So I do give him credit for being a smooth charmer, among other things.... but I get the feeling via my BS meter that he is not as genuine as some believe.

As I said before, I'm going against the CW.

[Impashund Ubique]

34. I think it's true that we feel differently....

and that is great because I am not too sure that I gain much from conversing with entirely like-minded people. I, therefore, am compelled to reply to a few of your statements:

he is not the only one who speaks about the poor and he is certainly not the only one trying to do something about it

Of course, that is true when you put it broadly, as in "the only one." Yet, the question is about a credible national voice. He is the only National Democrat running for the Presidency who is considered a good shot (in fact, a better shot in 08 than 04) and who has never hesitated to address the issue of poverty. Everyone is for poverty elimination or alleviation, but which other credible Presidential candidate is willing to make it a key part of his/her platform with a plethora of ideas to actually address the problem? Jessie Jackson doesn't fit the bill, though his efforts are much appreciated. It isn't rare to have national figures like Jesse Jackson be involved in social causes dear to us; but it is, indeed, rare to have national politicians with ambitions for the highest office to spend so much of their time and energy on an issue much ignored due to the lack of votes the poor account for. Regardless of whether Edwards wins in 08 or not, he is going to make poverty a national issue in the primaries and given our growing economic stratification, I would say that it is about time for it to be so. Plus, I don't like Edwards because he talks about poverty; I like him because he has actual ideas to confront it.

although I have yet to have someone provide me with concrete actions that his poverty center has actually accomplished of any great significance--

The poverty Center is an academic center, oriented around studying the problem, not taking practical measures to put their analysis to work. You can check out their work for yourself here: http://law.unc.edu/Centers/details.aspx?ID=425&Q=3

We are poorer because of this war....in many ways...and the large corporation have definitely profited.

No arguments at all. You are not going to get me into defending the war... lol

It is my informed opinion that National Security and Foreign relations will be more pressing issues than even poverty in 2006 as well as in 2000

I don't agree with that. I think that national security will be a pressing issue, but not more so than the economic ones. We have seen the economic pressures rising lately. No one can contest that Iraq will be of major concern, but at the end of the day, the economy has become a troubling matter in people's daily lives. While folks worry about security, they can't do so at the expense of bringing home smaller paychecks week after week that just can't keep up with the rising costs of everything. I think that Edwards' economic message is not just productive due to its policy focus but it is also effective because people are able to connect his message with their own lives. And that matters. However, neither of us can predict the happenings of the next two years, which will largely influence the focus of the primaries.

But even on foreign policy - I do not think that there is only one credible way to gain foreign policy experience i.e. through a government resume. Don't misunderstand - I value experience, but I am an unorthodox person. As a person talks, we can tell whether or not he has an understanding of the subject of his talk. Edwards, though not traditionally experienced, makes tremendous sense on his worldview and how he assesses international issues. Iraq is only one aspect of our foreign policy. I am not too sure you've actually explored his views on foreign policy, other than his apparent lack of a lengthy resume.

I will just say frankly that this is one of the reasons that some support him

That would be a minuscule amount. Dan Quayle was an attractive guy, but no one took as much as a second look at him. I think you underestimate the American people's wisdom. Edwards' attractiveness might pull people to give him a first look, but he wouldn't be able to sustain that interest unless there is more to him, and there is plenty more to this guy. Bar a tiny minority, I don't think Americans vote solely on such aspects. It might play into their overall decision, but there has to be some other bigger considerations too. He is a very intelligent and skilled guy, and has proved to be a quick study throughout life (graduated college in 3 years, was the youngest lawyer ever at the age of 37 to be inducted into the Inner Circle of Advocates (top 100 lawyers in the country), elected to the senate in his first run for public office, etc.). And, apparently, the polls show that he, indeed, has been able to sustain people's interest in him:



Your suspicions and points are reasonable though. I would just hope that you would give Edwards a fair shot, rather than see him through a cynic's eye. I favor Edwards, but I would like to assess every guy who is going to run in 08 with a fair mind. I see favorable qualities in almost all of them (Okay, maybe not Vilsack... ;)) and at the end of the day, I kind of like the fact that the guys and gal on our side are all smart and skilled and likable (with expertise in different areas) unlike the Republicans.

I don't have to support them for the presidency to see their strengths... and their weaknesses.

[cali]

36. Your disdain

for Edward's work on bringing the enormous problem of U.S. poverty to the fore is troubling. I must say, that when people as partisan as you, criticize another potential candidate, I take it with a box of salt.

[FrenchieCat]

66. I didn't articulate "Distain" for the issue ....I also didn't articulate

what Clarkies are generally accused of; Hero Worship for John Edwards because he has found his niche issue.

Poverty is certainly a worthy issue, that cannot be denied......and my statement that John Edwards is not the only one that works in this area is absolutely true.

Has he made a dent in that issue? I don't know. Is that his intent? I sure hope so!

Look, John Edward might become President (in spite of the fact that I don't support him in that endeavor)....and if he does, then hopefully he will make a real difference in the area of poverty and everything else we need. My point is that I just don't find him as "Magnificent" as others might. That's no crime, last I checked!

[chimpymustgo]

71. This is so goddam OLD. We know how you feel. You cut and paste the same

crap about Edwwards in every thread his name is mentioned in. We got it, really. Your malice and disdain (his speeches about the poor? - wow.just.wow.) are noted.

Support your guy - he's at about 2-3% in the polls. Perhaps your energy could be better spent promoting him!

[ChipsAhoy]

73. Another poster against free speech?

This is getting out of hand. Whatever happened to live and let live? If you don't like what someone says, skip over it. Damn!

[philgobluemi]

90. What?

He didn't even tell the guy to shut up, he just gave advise that he might want to promote his candidate. Can't see where he ever called for censorship, chicken little.

[ChipsAhoy]

92. haaha - now with the name-calling.

If you can't figure out that chimpy was telling him to shut up - gee, in the caption of his post ALONE, then I can't help you. What do you think it means when someone says, "This is getting so old, enough already, lalalala?" Do you think it means that the poster endorses free speech? lol

AND I do find it funny that you had to resort to name-calling when trying to make a point. Funny.

[philgobluemi]

97. I refer you to my original post nt

[ChipsAhoy]

104. I refer you to your name-calling post(s). n/t

[last_texas_dem]

118. That suggestion was hardly a suppression of "free speech"

And besides, doesn't it go without saying that practicing one's own freedom of speech opens one up to criticism from others simply exercising their freedom of speech? Suggesting that someone is beating a dead horse in their practice of "freedom of speech" is in no way denying them their right to keep beating the dead horse; it's just expressing a view. Making the same "point" about a certain candidate practically every time his name is brought up may be an exercise of free speech but it also amounts to spamming.

[FrenchieCat]

132. You are absolutely correct, that Freedom of speech is a two way

street. That is something that I do understand...as I have had to respond to many a spammers in my DU lifetime.

I'm sure that you are speaking of me when you say that YOU FEEL that I make the same "point" practically everytime Edward's name comes up and therefore you feel justified to conclude that my posts could be characterized as spamming. But if one was truly fair they would also FEEL that many Edwards supporters also make the same point (what a wonderful President Edwards might make, that he is working very hard for the poor, that he apologized so "it's all good; get over it!")over and over again....and so those who don't support Edwards could possibly be justified in calling that spam as well. In fact, many supporters of possible candidates make the same general point each time they post; including myself many times when it comes to Wes Clark. After all, the same points are being made about plenty of things, by plenty of posters, i.e., Lieberman dittoe points are all over DU over and over again....and I'm certain that certain posters can be found in many Lieberman threads making the same points.

So the bottomline is; who is to determine which points can be made over and over again, and which points are just "beating a Dead Horse"? Those who support the point, or those who don't?

PS. In reference to someone telling me to "enough already".....I don't have a problem with that....because as far as I am concerned different readers read different threads at different times, and although it is all the same to you, that doesn't necessarily apply to as many as you have decided to assume.

Plus, there is a difference between making a reasoned point based on facts(which is what I think I do, even if you don't) and just calling names and spreading lies.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Just some questions.....

to you, since I am being soooo "malicious and Distainful" according to you....(funny how my comments on a politician would result in being personally attacked!)

Are you saying that JOHN EDWARDS DIDN'T SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR ON ITS ONSET?
Or are you saying that IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED?
Or are you saying THAT WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT IT SINCE HE APOLOGIZED,
AND WE SHOULD ALL LOVE JOHN IN EVERYWAY NOW?

and Are you saying that it is "speeches" that feed the poor?


PS. I must be out of line......and forgot that only Wes Clark can be criticized at DU with long winding threads, and John Edwards is "hands off" or else one may face the "Wrath"! :eyes:

[philgobluemi]

89. Reply

1. Yes, he didn't support the war. He voted against the $87 billion "I love W's War" Bill despite the continuing popularity of the war in America and especially in North Carolina. You've come up with one quote from Tweety's show. I've got a vote. Edwards was as critical, if not more so, of the war than Clark who continues to fail to understand that American troops in these numbers doing these things are not helping. Is he still calling for more troops?
2. Uh, dude, you are discussing it. Please, not the waaah, poor me stuff.
3. Don't forget. Take it into account along with the dozens of other important issues.
4. No, but we ought to have a healthy respect for good Democrats and not flail away and everyone except "The General."
5. Well, he has given $300,000 of his own money to help rural, poor North Carolina kids go to college. He has developed PLANS at the NC Poverty and Opportunity Center that if inacted would help millions of people. He has spent a week in NOLA cleaning up homes in poor neighborhoods. Have you?
And since you mention it, has Clark's speeches on the war done anything other than get him a paycheck from Fox?

[FrenchieCat]

96. A reply to your reply....

Thank you very much for answering my questions (much better than elsewhere in this thread where you ignored all of the information that I provided you twice (by stating that somehow I hadn't provided any information) although you had announced that you wanted to play "Hardball" with me...) and rather than to defend John Edwards in a factual and documented manner, you chose to drag Wes Clark into the frey as though that in itself is a "defense" about John Edwards' original Iraq position(which was a losing proposition for you due to the fact that on the issue of Iraq, Clark's position was much more reasoned and prescient than Edwards' from day one).

In reference to your actual answers, here are my comments:

1. John Edwards did support the Iraq war, and he did it at a time when what we needed were voices of leadership in congress to stop it, instead of rubber stamp Senators and Reps. You saying that he didn't support the war clearly shows your denial. He even apologized and said that he was wrong....that he made a mistake; but according to you, he never made any mistake...cause he didn't support the war. So what in the world is he apologizing about now? :shrug:

2. When I am being personally attacked and called out for having "malice and other untoward motives" for saying that Although Edwards may be a good Democrat, that I don't support him in his bid to win the Democratic nomination....and then I provide my reasons why...might as well be telling me to STFU. Further, I am no Dude, dude!

3. According to most polls (and since 2004), Terrorism and the War in Iraq have been the number 1 issue to voters when the two are totalled together...whether it is convenient for you to believe this or not, your denial of what will most likely be "the" issues that determines 2006 & possibly 2008 elections is frightening to me. Good strategy electoral or otherwise requires that we be prepared, not act like what is isn't.

If some kind of peace is achieved prior to 2008, and foreign policy is no longer the important issue that it is now (which would mean that Bush was able to clean up his shit prior to leaving office--which I doubt--and making the GOP much harder to defeat)then I will be willing to give Edwards serious consideration on his stance on those variety of issues.

4. I don't "flail" against good Democrats just because. That's your interpretation based on the fact that I dare suggest that Edwards' Initial judgement on the Iraq War matters to me enough that he is not someone that I would support as President unless he was the nominee.


5. In reference to his Personal gift, I think that is wonderful!!!

Can I please get a link to the source of your information on this? I have asked in the past for various Edwards' supporter to provide me with some concretes, but to date have never been provided with links to anything that would back up what Edward's has actually done.


In reference to what I have done for NOLA....no, I have not personally physically gone there. I did however participate in the best ways that I could under the circumstances--1. participated in a drive via my church in where we collected $30,000 to donate directly to certain parrishes in LA; 2. Although I didn't go, my husband (who is our pastor's personal assistant) did go with our pastor to various Black church venues and determined how best to help the displaced Black community there. 3. I did make phone calls in the Bay Area (to congregation members) in an attempt to place folks coming in from LA shortly after the disaster struck. 4. I did counsel a young woman who had just started her first year of college in LA, when the disaster struck, and was forced to return home and attend a local college here instead (the change of plans broke her 18 year heart).

In reference to Wes Clark, your question of "Has his speeches on Fox done anything other than get him a paycheck?

I would answer Yes....although his commentary on Fox is not all that he does. I think that he has been one of the few voices calling for discussions with Iran and Syria, has an approach for North Korea and Iraq, and has defended many Democrats against the Right wing media...
Further, he was instrumental back in 2002 in getting senators to vote "NAY" on the IWR.....and was instrumental in making sure that folks like Sy Hersch and Richard Clarke came forward with whatever they had to report on the Bush administration failures. He has also been instrumental in supporting great candidates on the Dem side for the 2006 election. So I rather think that Wes Clark has done plenty to impact the dialogue in this nation, particularily in the arena of Foreign relations. He was also part of the Witt Team that the Governor of LA utilized in getting recommendations on the NOLA situation http://www.wittassociates.com/.

So yes, I think he "earned" his dues beyond just receiving a paycheck...although, no, as of yet, he hasn't gone to Iowa 10 times! :eyes:

Want proof? I thought so! :) although there is so much, I doubt that you will actually read any of it!

HERE ARE THOSE SENATORS QUOTING WES CLARK ON HIS IMPACT ON THEIR IWR DECISION--THESE QUOTES ARE FROM THOSE WHO VOTED "NO"

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and the late Great Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

In terms of Fox......yes, he is making an impact in the way that we would want, and that we need!

News Hounds: Wesley Clark Delivers Another Wow PerformanceBut General Wesley Clark did it again Tuesday (August 1, 2006) in another appearance on "Dayside." Clark, a former supreme allied commander for NATO and ...
www.newshounds.us/2006/08/01/wesley_clark_delivers_another_wow_performance.php - Similar pages


News Hounds: Fox Undercuts Wesley Clark's Sane WordsWesley Clark provided a few minutes of sanity on Fox News Monday (July 24, 2006), but the hosts of "Dayside" did their best to undermine him while he spoke ...
www.newshounds.us/2006/07/24/fox_undercuts_wesley_clarks_sane_words.php - Similar pages


News Hounds: Wesley Clark Stands His Ground - Defends Cindy Sheehan- Wesley Clark because the General met with anti-war Gold Star Mom Cindy ... I have no problem with Wesley Clark meeting with Cindy Sheehan--a mother who lost ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/09/24/wesley_clark_stands_his_ground_defends_cindy_sheehan.php - Similar pages


News Hounds: Plain Talk From Wesley Clark About North Korea On FOX- Wesley Clark told Kasich, " The world's a dangerous place". He assured Kasich that North Korea is a definite threat and " war could occur through an ...
www.newshounds.us/2006/07/05/plain_talk_from_wesley_clark_about_north_korea_on_fox.php - Similar pages


News Hounds: Wesley Clark Surprises Hannity Of course, Hannity called for Wesley Clark to condemn Durbin calling it "over ... You know, I'm surprised Wesley Clark didn't beat the shit out of Hannity, ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/wesley_clark_surprises_hannity.php - Similar pages

News Hounds: Who Says the Democrats Don't Have Solutions?O'REILLY: And joining us now from Little Rock, Arkansas, is FOX News military analyst General Wesley Clark, who has been thinking about Iraq policy. ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/10/04/who_says_the_democrats_dont_have_solutions.php - Similar pages

News Hounds: Campaign to Blame Louisiana Continues as O'Reilly ...Wesley Clark on the topic of hurricane readiness. General Clark offered a slightly new take on what transpired in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/09/24/campaign_to_blame_louisiana_continues_as_oreilly_plays_race_card_once_again.php

News Hounds: "Chicken Little" and Big Bad Oliver NorthFirst you have Wesley Clark dumping all over George Bush and his ... Gen Wesley Clark is a brave and patriotic American who just happens to be a Democrat ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/11/22/chicken_little_and_big_bad_oliver_north.php -

News Hounds: Wes Clark: Intelligence Was HypedWesley Clark, obviously an efficient time manager, wasted none softening his statements to Kiran Chetry on Fox & Friends this morning. ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/11/12/wes_clark_intelligence_was_hyped.php

News Hounds: Hannity Tries To Spin London Attacks As Proof Of ...I couldn't understand how he made the connection, but here's what he said, verbatim, to guest General Wesley Clark, FOX News analyst or contributor or ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/07/08/hannity_tries_to_spin_london_attacks_as_proof_of_bushs_wisdom.php - Similar pages


News Hounds: Hannity Calls For Durbin's ResignationIt seemed like Hannity was trying to make up for Wesley Clark's support of Dick Durbin on last night's H&C by joining forces with Bob Livingston to ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/hannity_calls_for_durbins_resignation.php

News Hounds: Muslim Viewpoints on Middle East Crisis – Kasich Isn ...... and balanced” discussion about the Middle East crisis with retired General Wesley Clark, ... Clark stated that Israel’s focus needs to be on Hezbollah, ...
www.newshounds.us/2006/07/16/muslim_viewpoints_on_middle_east_crisis_kasich_isnt_interested.php -

News Hounds: Nope, No Karl Rove Here Either12:24pm - Sellers interviewed Wesley Clark (Fox News Analyst) about the people arrested in Pakistan & US-Pakistan relations in general . ...
www.newshounds.us/2005/07/23/nope_no_karl_rove_here_either.php

HERE'S A LIST OF WHAT HE'D DONE AS OF MAY! (This is August and I haven't yet updated the calendar of event yet--sorry!).

January 3rd: Email fundraiser for Jim Pederson, running for the US Senate in Arizona

January 5th: Fundraiser for Eric Massa, candidate for US Congress NY-29, Honorary Chair, Barroom NYC, New York

January 10th: DNC Statement on Bush failure to provide body armor for troops

January 10th: Liberal Supper Club, Washington DC

January 11th: Letter-writing campaign to demand body armor for troops

January 17th: 7:30PM, Sears Lecture Series, "Do We Really Care about Human Rights?" - Purdue University, Loeb Playhouse, West Lafayette, Indiana - "The Balkans: A Strategic Vision"

January 19th: Securing America: "Where is the leadership and the rule of law?"

January 24th: Press conference with Senator Schumer introducing "Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006"

January 25th: Release of "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report

January 26th: Paul Begala's Radio Show, WOR-AM NY

January 26th: 1PM, Fundraising Reception for Bob Gammage for Governor, Hotel Derek, Houston TX

January 26th: Rally with Representative Hubert Vo in TX House District 149, Houston TX

January 26th: 6PM, Kickoff of Juan Garcia's race for Texas House District 32, Selena Auditorium, Corpus Christi TX

January 27th: "Take Back Your Privacy" E-Mail Campaign in support of S. 2178, "The Consumer Telephone Records Act of 2006"

January 27th: Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus Third Annual Conference, Little Rock AR

January 30th: "Real State of the Union" speech before New America Foundation, Washington DC


February 1st: WesPac Reception and Fundraiser, Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables FL

February 2nd: WesPac Reception and Fundraiser, "Evening in San Francisco with General Wesley K. Clark" at Hotel Monaco, San Francisco CA

February 4th: Bloggers' Roundtable, Los Angeles CA

February 4th: "Take Back the House with General Wesley Clark" in support of Democrat Francine Busby for CA-50, Hollywood CA

February 4th: WesPac fundraiser sponsored by 4-Star Democratic Club, Los Angeles CA

February 6th: ABC World News Tonight

February 7th: Email fundraiser for Tammy Duckworth, Democratic candidate in IL-06

February 8th: Veterans for a Secure America fundraiser, Washington DC

February 9th: Stephanie Miller radio show on AAR

February 10th: "Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark," Council on Foreign Relations, Washington DC

February 11th & 12th: Hosting C-Span Book-TV program "After Words"; Guest David Rieff, author of "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention"

February 11th: Speech at National Student Leadership Conference, Washington DC

February 23rd: Book signing with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography" at Barnes and Noble, Broadway and 82nd Street, New York NY


March 5th: "This Week" interview by George Stephanopoulos

March 10th: Ed Schultz Radio Show

March 10th: WesPac fundraising luncheon, Cambridge MA

March 11th: Congressman Marty Meehan's St. Patrick's Day Breakfast, Dracut, MA

March 11th: Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA

March 12th: Washington Post Book Review, "The Commando Option"; To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, from Achilles to Al Qaeda By Derek Leebaert

March 13th: Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Slobodan Milosevic "A Petty Hitler"

March 13th: PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, discussing the life of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic

March 14th: Diane Rehm Show, WAMU

March 14th: Fundraiser for Eric Massa NY-29, Washington DC

March 15th: Chicago Public Radio

March 16th: IAVA PAC Founding Members Reception, Washington DC

March 18th-20th: New Hampshire House Democratic Caucus

March 18th: Town Hall Meeting, New England College, Henniker NH

March 18th: New Hampshire Veterans Home visit, Tilton NH

March 18th: Salem/Windham Democrats host General Clark, Windham NH

March 19th: Upper Valley Democrats and Young Democrats of Dartmouth College host General Clark, Hanover, NH

March 21st: Ed Schultz Show, AAR

March 21st: Project H.E.R.O. pilot, home of disabled veteran Shelby Bowling, Hamilton OH

March 21st: Meeting with Democratic activists, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH

March 21st: Fundraiser for John Cranley, Democratic candidate for OH-01, Hyde Park OH

March 21st: Ohio Democratic Party fundraiser, Hotel Westin, Cincinnati OH

March 23rd: "Evening with General Wesley Clark" Reception and Dinner, The Houstonian, Houston TX

March 25th: C-Span "Booknotes" with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography"

March 26th: ClarkCast: Conversation with Nick Lampson, candidate for the House of Representatives from the 22nd Congressional District of Texas

March 29th: Press Conference, House and Senate Democrats "Real Security Plan," Washington DC

March 29th: Congressional Radio-Television Gallery Dinner, Washington DC

March 29th: Endorsement event, James Webb running for Senator of Virginia, Arlington VA


April 1st: North Dakota Democratic-NPL Convention, Fargo Civic Center, Keynote Speaker, Fargo ND

April 1st: Democratic Radio Address on Democratic national security plan

April 2nd: C-Span "Road to the White House" General Clark's recent visit to New Hampshire

April 4th: Campaigning for Mike Weaver, Democratic candidate for KY-02, Elizabethtown and Owensboro KY

April 5th: Press Conference Call with Chairman Dean for DNC announcement of new "Fighting Democrats" website and formation of Democratic National Veterans and Military Families Council

April 9th: ClarkCast: "Leadership and Global Warming"

April 10th: Boston Globe Op-Ed, "A US Plan for Darfur"

April 10th: Emory University Presidential Distinguished Lecture Series, "Strategic Leadership in the 21st Century" Atlanta GA

April 13th: Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade, Panelist: “The Age of Great Immigrations” Doha, Qatar

April 15th: Email fundraiser for Andrew Horne running in KY-03

April 16th: ClarkCast: "Common Voices, Global Warming"

April 20th: News & Notes with Ed Gordon, "Why the U.S. Should Care About Darfur" NPR

April 22nd: Address to Arkansas Young Democrats State Convention; tribute at Arkansas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with former Senator Max Cleland, Little Rock AR

April 22nd: Arkansas Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Master of Ceremonies, Little Rock AR

April 23rd: ClarkCast: Conversation With Senator Barbara Boxer

April 24th: 8AM, breakfast fundraiser for Steve Filson, Candidate for California's 11th Congressional District, Zazoo's, Oakland CA

April 24th: 10:30AM, Veterans forum: “Defending America, Defending Veterans”; Karl Ross Post No. 16, Stockton CA

April 24th-26th: Milken Institute Global Conference; Panelist: "Global Risk: What Should Be Keeping You Up at Night" Los Angeles CA

April 25th: 9AM, fundraising breakfast for Russ Warner, Democrat running for Congress in CA-26, private residence, Pasadena CA

April 25th: 6PM reception and 8PM dinner; fundraiser for Mike Beebe, Democratic candidate for Governor of Arkansas, at the home of Ron Burkle, Beverly Hills CA

April 26th: Albuquerque veterans meeting, Bataan Memorial Park, with Democratic candidate Patricia Madrid, Albuquerque NM

April 26th: Fundraiser for Democratic candidate for NM-01, Attorney General Patricia Madrid, at the home of Mikey Weinstein, Albuquerque NM

April 26th: 7PM, "Take a Meeting With the World" Public Lecture Series, Interview by George Stephanopoulos, University of Judaism Gibson Amphitheatre, Bel-Air CA

April 27th: 6:30PM, WesPac fundraiser at the home of George Soros in New York City; 8:30PM dinner at the Hotel Carlyle.

April 29th-30th: Senate Democrats Weekend Policy Retreat, Philadelphia PA

April 30th: ClarkCast: "Final Thoughts on Global Warming"


May 1st: Al Franken Show, Air America Radio

May 3rd: Arab American Institute Foundation Kahlil Gibran ‘Spirit of Humanity’ Awards Gala, General Clark will present to former President of Poland Lech Walesa

May 5th: Boys and Girls Club of America Centennial Celebration, Guest Speaker, Boston MA

May 5th: Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO

May 7th: ClarkCast: "The State of the Middle East"

May 10th: Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire 9th Biennial Convention, Nashua NH

May 11th: Project H.E.R.O. launch, Washington Court Hotel, Washington D.C.

May 12th: Press Conference with Rep. Leonard Boswell, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) services for troops, Capitol Rotunda, DesMoines IA

May 13th: Hawkeye Labor Council fundraiser for Workers for a Better Iowa, Cedar Rapids IA

May 14th: Meeting with Polk County Democrats, Iowa

May 14th: Meeting with Draft Clark 2004 supporters, Cedar Rapids IA

May 14th: ClarkCast: "Common Voices From Iowa"

May 19th: Wagner College Commencement Address, Staten Island NY

May20th: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Commencement Speech and Honorary Degree, Troy NY


June 8th: Texas Democratic State Convention, Opening Speaker, Ft. Worth TX

June 8th-9th: YearlyKos Convention, Panelist: "Championing Science," Las Vegas NV

June 15th: Association of Alternative Newsweeklies Convention, Little Rock AR, Opening Remarks; An Evening at the Clinton Presidential Library, Little Rock AR

June 24th: Tennessee Democratic Party Jackson Day, Featured Speaker, Ryman Auditorium, Nashville TN


==========

Endorsements in 2006:

For Congress:

AZ Sen., Jim Pederson
CA-11, Steve Filson
CA-26, Russ Warner
CA-50, Francine Busby
IA-03, Leonard Boswell
IL-06, Tammy Duckworth
KY-02, Mike Weaver
MO Sen., Claire McCaskill
NM-01, Patricia Madrid
NY-29, Eric Massa
VA Sen., Jim Webb
WI-03, Ron Kind

For Governor:

Arkansas, Mike Beebe
California, (Lt Gov) Jackie Speier
Texas, Bob Gammage

For State House:

TX-32, Juan Garcia
TX-42, Richard Raymond
TX-149, Hubert Vo


Democratic events in 2006:

-Arkansas Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Master of Ceremonies, Little Rock AR
-Arkansas Young Democrats State Convention, Arkansas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with former Senator Max Cleland, Little Rock AR
-ClarkCast: Conversation With Senator Barbara Boxer
-ClarkCast: Conversation with Nick Lampson, candidate for TX-22
-C-Span "Road to the White House" - General Clark's visit to New Hampshire in March
-DNC Statement on Bush failure to provide body armor for troops
-Democratic Radio Address on Democratic national security plan
-Email fundraiser for Jim Pederson, running for the US Senate in Arizona
-Email fundraiser for California Lt. Governor candidate Jackie Speier
-Email fundraiser for Tammy Duckworth running in IL-06
-Email fundraiser for Andrew Horne running in KY-03
-Fundraiser for James Webb running for Senator of Virginia, Arlington VA
-Fundraiser for Mike Beebe, Democratic candidate for Governor of Arkansas, Beverly Hills CA
-Fundraiser for Steve Filson, candidate in CA-11, Oakland CA
-Fundraiser for Russ Warner running in CA-26, Pasadena CA
-Fundraiser/rally for Francine Busby running in CA-50
-Fundraiser for Mike Weaver running in KY-02, Elizabethtown KY
-Fundraiser for Mike Weaver running in KY-02, Owensboro KY
-Fundraiser for Patricia Madrid running in NM-01, Albuquerque NM
-Fundraiser for Eric Massa running in NY-29, New York NY
-Fundraiser for John Cranley, Democratic candidate for OH-01, Hyde Park OH
-Fundraising Reception for Bob Gammage for Governor, Houston TX
-Honorary Chair, Fundraiser for Eric Massa, candidate for US Congress NY-29, Washington DC
-IAVA PAC, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America PAC to support veterans for Congress
-Kickoff of Juan Garcia's race for Texas House District 32, Corpus Christi TX
-Letter-writing campaign to demand body armor for troops
-Liberal Supper Club, Washington DC
-Meeting with Democratic activists, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH
-Meeting with Polk County Democrats, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
-North Dakota Democratic-NPL Convention, Fargo Civic Center, Keynote Speaker, Fargo ND
-Ohio Democratic Party fundraiser, Hotel Westin, Cincinnati OH
-Press Conference Call with Chairman Dean for DNC announcement of new "Fighting Democrats" website and formation of Democratic National Veterans and Military Families Council
-Rally with Representative Hubert Vo in TX House District 149, Houston TX
-Salem/Windham Democrats, Windham NH
-"Take Back the House with General Wesley Clark" in support of Democrat Francine Busby for CA-50
-Tennessee Democratic Party Jackson Day, Featured Speaker, Nashville TN
-Texas Democratic State Convention, Opening Speaker, Ft. Worth TX
-Town Hall Meeting, New England College, Henniker NH
-Upper Valley Democrats and Young Democrats of Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
-Veterans for a Secure America fundraiser, Washington DC
-Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA



Congressional Events in 2006:

-Congressional Radio-Television Gallery Dinner, Washington DC
-Press Conference, House and Senate Democrats "Real Security" plan, Washington DC
-Press conference with Senator Schumer introducing "Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006"
-Senate Democrats Weekend Policy Retreat, Philadelphia PA
-"Take Back Your Privacy" E-Mail Campaign in support of S. 2178, "The Consumer Telephone Records Act of 2006"
-"The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report


Civil Liberties events in 2006:

-Press conference with Senator Schumer introducing "Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006"
-"Take Back Your Privacy" E-Mail Campaign in support of S. 2178, "The Consumer Telephone Records Act of 2006"
-Securing America: "Where is the leadership and the rule of law?"


Educational events in 2006:

-Emory University Presidential Distinguished Lecture Series, "Strategic Leadership in the 21st Century" Atlanta GA
-National Student Leadership Conference, Washington DC
-Purdue University Sears Lecture Series, West Lafayette, Indiana
-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Commencement Speech and Honorary Degree, Troy NY
-"Take a Meeting With the World" Public Lecture Series, Interview by George Stephanopoulos, Bel-Air CA
-Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA
-Wagner College Commencement Address, Staten Island NY


Environmental events in 2006:

-ClarkCast: "Final Thoughts on Global Warming"
-ClarkCast: "Common Voices, Global Warming"
-ClarkCast: Leadership and Global Warming
-Clark Community Network: "Real Science Blog"
-YearlyKos Convention, Panelist: "Championing Science," Las Vegas NV


Foreign Affairs events in 2006:

-ClarkCast: "The State of the Middle East"
-Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade, Panelist: “The Age of Great Immigrations” Doha, Qatar
-"Iraq: The Way Forward—A Conversation with General Wesley Clark," Council on Foreign Relations, Washington DC


Grassroots events in 2006:

-Bloggers' Roundtable, Los Angeles CA
-ClarkCast: "Common Voices From Iowa"
-Meeting with Draft Clark 2004 supporters, Cedar Rapids IA
-Meeting with Democratic activists, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH
-Mississippi Delta Grassroots Caucus Third Annual Conference, Little Rock AR
-YearlyKos Convention, Las Vegas NV


Human Rights events in 2006:

-Arab American Institute Foundation Kahlil Gibran ‘Spirit of Humanity’ Awards Gala; Clark presented to former President of Poland Lech Walesa
-Boston Globe Op-Ed, "A US Plan for Darfur"
-C-Span Book-TV program "After Words"; Guest David Rieff, author of "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention"
-News & Notes with Ed Gordon, "Why the U.S. Should Care About Darfur" NPR
-PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, discussing the life of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic
-Sears Lecture Series, "Do We Really Care about Human Rights?" Purdue University, Indiana
-Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Slobodan Milosevic "A Petty Hitler"


Labor events in 2006:

-Hawkeye Labor Council fundraiser for Workers for a Better Iowa, Cedar Rapids IA
-Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire 9th Biennial Convention, Nashua NH


Publishing/Media events in 2006:

-Association of Alternative Newsweeklies Convention, Little Rock AR, Opening Remarks; An Evening at the Clinton Presidential Library, Little Rock AR
-Book signing with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography" at Barnes and Noble, Broadway and 82nd Street, New York NY
-Congressional Radio-Television Gallery Dinner, Washington DC
-C-Span "Booknotes" with Alan Axelrod, author of "Patton: A Biography"
-C-Span Book-TV hosted "After Words"; Guest David Rieff, author of "At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention"
-Editor, "Great Generals" biography series, Palgrave Macmillan
-Washington Post Book Review, "The Commando Option"; To Dare and to Conquer: Special Operations and the Destiny of Nations, from Achilles to Al Qaeda By Derek Leebaert


Security events in 2006:

-Democratic Radio Address on Democratic national security plan
-Press Conference, House and Senate Democrats "Real Security" plan, Washington DC
-Milken Institute Global Conference; Panelist: "Global Risk: What Should Be Keeping You Up at Night" Los Angeles CA
-"Real State of the Union" speech before New America Foundation, Washington DC
-"The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report


Technology events in 2006:

-Digital Universe web browser


Veterans/Military Events in 2006:

-Albuquerque veterans meeting, Bataan Memorial Park, with Democratic candidate Patricia Madrid, Albuquerque NM
-Clark Community Series Blog: Troops & Vets
-DNC Statement on Bush failure to provide body armor for troops
-IAVA PAC, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
-IAVA PAC Founding Members Reception, Washington DC
-Letter-writing campaign to demand body armor for troops
-Letter-writing campaign to "End the Widow's Tax"
-New Hampshire Veterans Home visit, Tilton NH
-Press Conference with Rep. Leonard Boswell, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) services for troops, Capitol Rotunda, DesMoines IA
-Press Conference Call with Chairman Dean for DNC announcement of new "Fighting Democrats" website and formation of Democratic National Veterans and Military Families Council
-Project H.E.R.O. pilot, home of disabled veteran Shelby Bowling, Hamilton OH
-Project H.E.R.O. launch, Washington Court Hotel, Washington D.C.
-"The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk" for US Senate National Security Advisory Group; aka Albright/Perry Report
-Veterans Forum: “Defending America, Defending Veterans”; Karl Ross Post No. 16, Stockton CA
-Vietnam and the Presidency Conference, JFK Library, Boston MA


Youth Events in 2006:

-Boys and Girls Club of America Centennial Celebration, Guest Speaker, Boston MA
-National Student Leadership Conference, Washington DC
==========

Advisor, US Congress Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Advisor, Global Green USA "Healthy Homes, Smart Neighborhoods" Task Force on sustainable housing in post-Katrina Gulf Coast areas

Advisor, IAVA PAC, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Advisor, ManyOne Network, Digital Universe web browser

Advisor, US Senate Democratic National Security Advisory Group

Chairman, City Year Little Rock

Congressional Task Force on United Nations Reform

Editor, "Great Generals" biography series, Palgrave Macmillan

Foreign Affairs commentator, FOX News

National Chairman, International Code Council Foundation Project H.E.R.O

Stop Global Warming Virtual March

Vice Chairman, International Crisis Group
-------------

This just posted yesterday at KOS by a Webb campaign staff member!....

General,
Thanks for your comments and observations and particularly for your support of Jim Webb. For those who might not be aware, General Clark was one of the key early endorsers and supporters of Jim Webb's when Jim really needed a shot in the arm in the primary campaign.

General Clark added credibility and legitimacy to Jim's candidacy and I thank him for that...but I am not surprised.

To me, Wes Clark is an American hero. General Clark is someone who understands the meaning of ledership and sacrifice. General Clark is beholden to no one but to the American people. I believed that he would have made a great president -- I still do.

Thanks again for all you have done for this country. Thank you as well for all you have done and for all you are committed to do for Jim in this campaign.
Steve
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/11/134559/798

and let's not forget his action letter to Lieberman posted on these here boards (if you look)!

[philgobluemi]

99. you can't honestly expect anyone to

read that document dump can you? I'll stick with what I've written before.

I could only get to #1.
You've conflated the IWR and the War.

[FrenchieCat]

102. I didn't expect you to read the documentation provided....NO!

based on some of you previous posts in this thread, in where you did the same "not bothered yourself with a such mundane task of substansive effort"......but the beauty about that, is that others will (as you are not the only one who reads my responses to your posts).

Because those who are interested in the actual debate that has been going on (rather than those who conveniently believe what they want to believe regardless of the FACTS) when one actually reads what I wrote.....one will see that I answered each and everyone of your points fully and sourced.....

Had you had the courage to plow through my informative researched and sourced text, and had you had the fortitude to select at least one of the points in my reply (maybe like...could you please provide the link that discusses John Edwards $300,000 gift from his personal funds to college students--you should be able to google this, although I couldn't find anything on it prior to asking you)...

you would at least have given the "appearance" of playing the "HARDBALL" as you suggested you wanted to play...specifically with me! I tried to warn you that your offer in reference to playing Hardball with Frenchie may not have been the best decision on your part.

So then, one question remains unanswered; if you AREN'T going to read the responses to YOUR OWN posts, why BOTHER TO POST on these boards? Was your plan to "do" one way conversations or somethin'? I could have told you before you started on me that Debate is a LOT OF WORK; a real bi-Otch...! :eyes:

[philgobluemi]

111. Edwards Gave $300k to Rural Kids for College

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/22/214348/778

[FrenchieCat]

113. Thanks for the l ink,

and I'm very elated to read Sen. Edwards' effort on poverty to be more than speeches and research studies and plans and that there is a concrete portion to it. I would ask, because the article doesn't say that it was his own money......was this an assumption that it came from his own fortune, or is there information elsewhere that states specifically where the money came from? Could it have come from his Poverty Center which receives donations from those who are interested in Edwards work? Just want to know.....(not a "trick" question!)

[1932]

117. Two minutes of googling produced this:

College for Everybody -- Funded as a non-profit through John Edward's Center for Promise and Opportunity

http://www.kinston.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=30861&Section=Local

The Center for Promise and Opportunity is a registered charity located in DC: www.sos.state.ms.us/regenf/ charities/charannrpt/2005SectionI.pdf, so it's not the Poverty Center, which is an academic unit at UNC.

It looks like they're too new to have a 990 available, so we'll probably have to wait a little while before we know what percentage of their funding comes from Edwards.

I took the time to do this because I can't wait to see how this can be spun into a bad thing...

[philgobluemi]

114. Your still not getting it

What you've done thus far doesn't have anything to do with my demonstration that Clark had about the same position as Edwards on the war. I've still seen nothing and a document drop of links and meaningless quotes without analysis doesn't a counter-point make. Got it?

[FrenchieCat]

105. In reference to #1,

You are separating how we got to go to war with how the war was conducted.

Edwards' vote against the 87 billion was a tactical vote based on the fact that he was running for President at the time and appealing to the Dem Base. When Edwards was initially asked in a primary debate whether he would or would not vote for the 87 billion, this was his reply, although he later must have had a "change of heart"......

"So let me start with you, Senator Edwards. How would you vote on the $87 billion?

EDWARDS: Well, what’s happening, Gloria, is we have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what’s necessary to support them.

The second thing is, when we went into Iraq, we, the United States of America, assumed a responsibility to share-and I emphasize share-with our allies and friends the effort to reconstruct.

That does not mean George Bush should get a blank check. He certainly shouldn’t get a blank check under these circumstances.

So the answer to your question is, we will vote for, I will vote for, what’s necessary to support the troops.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3088203

However, as one event led to the other....I choose to see them as one event called; The Invasion of Iraq.

I tend to think that history books will not separate these events the way that would make it convenient for one senator to look the better for it.

[philgobluemi]

110. I fail to see your point

What exactly are you arguing about in those quotes?

[karynnj]

129. As neither a Clark or Edwards person, this is not fair

"Edwards was as critical, if not more so, of the war than Clark who continues to fail to understand that American troops in these numbers doing these things are not helping. Is he still calling for more troops?"

Clark has been critical in terms of how the war has been fought. Edwards in his Nov 2005 Wahington Post piece was not speaking of withdrawal - and was vaguely describing pretty much the same points that Kerry did in 2004, when Kerry could assume a sane CIC would take over in 2005.

In the debates, when the question was asked about the $87 billion, Kerry answered first. He described very well how he supported the amendment that would fund the war by rolling back tax cuts and would provide oversight on how it was spent. He voted against the version that took these 2 provisions and more body armor for the troops out. Edwards basicly said that he voted as Kerry did for the same reasons. (This is from memory - so it could be somewhat wrong. The point was NEITHER said the vote was to cut off funding for the war. It was a protest vote for reasons mentioned.) It can not now be taken as anti-war.

[ChipsAhoy]

94. Good for you, Frenchie!

I often wonder about the type of person who would resort to personal attacks on a message board. And this being a Democratic message board makes it even more bizarre.

BTW: I'm a big fan of Wes Clark. When I criticized Howard Dean, you would have thought the world was coming to an end the way a few here were spitting nails. Very odd. Some actually insist on ALL of us walking in lockstep. I never have and never will.

[philgobluemi]

72. Getting told that we

Edwards supporters are "hero worshipers" by a Clarkie. PRICELESS!

[FrenchieCat]

74. That's what I meant!

Clarkies are hero Worshipers and Edwards just can do not wrong! Got it! :thumbsup:

PS. Do y'all operate as a group? I didn't realize that, but guess if you said "WE", ya'll do!

[philgobluemi]

88. strange reply

I'm new here, not sure how things work, but is that all you got?

[FrenchieCat]

103. Not strange to those familiar with the subject matter.......

But ok...you are new here. Guess you will learn!

You never want to say to me...."is that all you've got?".......cause my answer to that statement is normally, "NO....I've got plenty, plenty more!" :rofl:

I'm just not sure that you are up to the challenge of Hardball that you called me out on....is all! :(

[ChipsAhoy]

106. I don't think so either ---

--- unless phil's version of "hardball" is simply name-calling. lol

[Texas_Kat]

50. Imagine a leader who has the good judgment not to make 'a mistake'

this serious in the first place. Tenet wasn't the only source of information on the subject. Whether you want to admit it or nor, there were many voices (Wes Clark, Carl Levin, Paul Wellstone to name a few you've heard of) that were pleading with Senators NOT to vote for the IWR.

His language from the interview Oct 15, 2003 is clear an the "who knew" defense is inadequate.

[orleans]

24. rather disconcerning

"MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me. "

he still would have gone to iraq? he still stands by his vote?

wtf?

[FrenchieCat]

26. No he no longer stands by it......

that interview was when he was running in the primaries...in October of 2003.

As of October 2005, he realized he was wrong and that he had been given "bad intel". In November 2005, after the first polls showed up in where a majority of Americans turned against the war, John Edwards said had he known what he knows now, he wouldn't have voted the way that he did.

Read this post here for clarification..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2772825&mesg_id=2773019

[orleans]

28. thanks frenchiecat--no excuses but i'm tired & spacey

(so what else is new with me these days?)

[philgobluemi]

91. Frenchie's link is 3 years old

and that's all he's got.

[FrenchieCat]

98. Frenchie's got much more.....

But to put perspective on your comments here....

The IWR vote was 4 years ago.....and Edward's comments were made during the primary run up for election 2004 which was 2 years ago...(note that Edwards didn't change his views other than how the war was fought while he was running on the national ticket as VP) --
So We then got 4 more years of Bush 2 years ago.
Edwards apologized less than 1 year ago.
The Iraq war has lasted 4 years; a long and expensive war in anyone's book
the Iraq War is not yet over.

Three years to you is "old Hat".

Got it! :headbang:

[philgobluemi]

37. OK

So, he was misled by the CIA, Pentagon, etc and would have done things dramatically differently had he been president (UN, NATO, inspectors), etc, but he felt the national security interests of the USA were at stake so he was for a hard line against Saddam up to and including military action.

Note that this is one show where you get about 10 seconds to reply. In the $87 billion appropriation bill "I Love W's War Act," Edwards voted no.

[Donna Zen]

76. The only people misled are the voters

Everyone in DC knew that Saddam was not a threat. Shelton was Edwards' advisor, and Shelton was absolutely for the war. Of course as a representative of Red Cap, Shelton was about to rake in some very big bucks.

Ooops does bring back the lives lost, nor undo the worst geopolitical blunder this country has ever made. I question the idea that our national security was part of the reasoning, since those who actually understand national security was advising against this folly.

Edwards has a very good campaign staff.

[philgobluemi]

38. Let's Play Hardball Frenchie!

1. "If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead…." - Wesley Clark at a Republican Fundraiser

2. Clark Shifts Position on Iraq War Resolution
On Hill Vote, 'Never' Replaces 'Probably'

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 20, 2003; Page A10

Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark reversed course yesterday on the issue of Iraq, saying that he would "never have voted" for the congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war, just a day after saying that he likely would have voted for it.

On a campaign trip to Florida on Thursday, Clark told reporters, after some equivocation, that he "probably" would have supported the Iraq resolution approved by Congress last fall, though he went on to say that he was "against the war as it emerged" and that he did not believe the war should have been launched when it was.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/

3. Clarks Time of London Oped on April 10, 2003, as Baghdad falls:

After a three-week campaign waged almost exclusively by U.S. and British troops, with no U.N. involvement, an article by Clark appeared in The Times of London calling it "a great victory."

Clark wrote :

"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled.

Liberation is at hand. Liberation - the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air.

. . . As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

The article contained no hint that Clark opposed the "great victory" and no suggestion that he would have preferred U.N. diplomats handle the job instead. He did write a few days earlier that for an occupation of Iraq to succeed "we must gather legitimacy from institutions such as the United Nations and NATO." That article appeared in the Washington Times on March 23. Clark has posted that article on his campaign website, but not the gushing Times of London article."

www.factcheck.org/article107.html

4. From the New Yorker article

Clark spent much of the Iraq war as an expert military commentator. Clark had reservations before the war , but his reservations seemed to fade as American progress became apparent. Clark said that Saddam "absolutely" had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." In the April 10th London Times, Clark predicted that the American victory would alter the dynamics of the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express." Clark praised the Anglo-American alliance, saying that Bush & Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.
Clark called for victory parades down the Mall, and in another column, cheered the spectacular display of coalition force: "American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try!"

Source: The New Yorker magazine, "Gen. Clark's Battles" Nov 17, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_War_+_Peace.htm

Frenchie, the lesson you've just gotten. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[1932]

42. There's also this

which reflects an evolution of his position since he apparently no longer things this is a condition for withdrawl (has he stuck his finger to the wind and decided he couldn't get elected president talking like this or is it OK for people to change the way they think based on new evidence?):

"We're involved in a war that we didn't have to fight. That's the simple truth," Clark said. "Now it's in trouble, deep trouble. I wish it was just as simple as saying, Mr. President, you made a mistake, get those troops out now."

The trouble is, he continued, that the Islamic extremists "really do want to attack us. Getting out of Iraq will be a great defeat for us unless we do it in the right way."

Clark said the anti-war movement should demand that Bush establish a "regional dialogue with other Arab states, including people we don't like, like Syria and Iran," and focus on "changing the minds and cutting off the recruiting" of those now blowing up tanks and buses in Iraq.

"We need to turn off the flow of weapons and fighters going into Iraq and turn off the invective and fears and create a climate where the Iraqis don't need to fight each other," he said. "And then we can come home."


http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/09/wesley_clark_sketches_an_exit.php

[FrenchieCat]

54. Also what?

Clark has always been one that doesn't think that we should withdraw from Iraq immediately as we cannot just think that we can close the Pandora box and be done with it. He has always felt that we need a different approach, and that we cannot leave that country to face a civil war, nor should we announce a timetable to the world, because then the Insurgents would just wait any date set out.

There is no prevailing "wind" that would make it advantageous for Wes Clark to stay with that position, as the "Wind blowing position" is now to call for an Immediate withdraw in order to "play" to the Democratic base! Wes has been consistent with his position as to what to do about Iraq.

However, the same cannot be said of Edwards who's position on Iraq has ever so slightly morphed based on popular sentiments...or, as some would term it....the finger in the Wind approach!

Back when Edwards first made his apology, his position mirrored Wes Clark's; gradual redeployment after a change in strategy.....with no timelines.

In his "apology" editorial, Edwards clearly states: "The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure. What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html
--------------
So what now? "I myself feel conflicted about it," Edwards replies. "But we have to find ways--and I don't mean just yanking all the troops tomorrow--but we have to find ways to start bringing our troops home. Our presence there is clearly contributing to the problem." So does he agree with Senator Russ Feingold that Washington should set a withdrawal deadline? "No. Even if we're going to say that internally, that we're gonna have our troops out by X date, there's no reason to announce that to the world. I think that's probably a mistake."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30
--------------

Then Edwards senses a "wind" and "adjusts" his position......to:
John Edwards Calls For Immediate Withdrawal From Iraq
http://www.wral.com/news/9634795/detail.html?rss=ral&psp=news
The former U.S. senator from North Carolina told reporters America should "make it clear (to Iraqis) we are leaving, and the best way is to start leaving. We should take 40,000 combat troops out now."

Edwards has said he regretted his vote as a U.S. senator authorizing President Bush to declare war in Iraq. He said Saturday that he would ask the country's military leaders for a strategy "to have the (rest of the) troops out in roughly 12 to 18 months."
---------------

However, I have not so much of an issue about what we would do now...cause we ain't calling the shots, so everyone can call for anything--

My problem with Edwards in reference to the War is that he did support it (not in a cut and paste manner, as some like to do with Clark), but very straight forwardly. He did stay consistent on this (although it was the wrong position) for a long time.... so my problem is not so much the inconsistency in Edwards position....I just think that he was too easily duped to begin with and that he too easily bought into the line of "Saddam's may have Nuclear weapons' line".

That's why I do not prefer him as the 2008 nominee, regardless of anything about Wes Clark that you would want to conjure up.

And please note that I would also support Feingold and Gore without hesitation....so Clark is not the "only" one. All of these folks demonstrated much better judgement in the realm of War and Peace and the issue of Iraq from the Git-Go.

Now, will Gore and Fiengold get attacked with "Cut and Paste" accusations too?" --Just askin'? :shrug:

[philgobluemi]

56. Cut and Paste?

There from actual articles and speeches? Interesting that you don't address them at all, but instead make a lame attempt to brush them off.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Considering that I provided you with a myriad of information in a post

which is oddly below this response ( :wtf: )

your response to me is curious. :crazy:

Brushing off is the last thing you might want to term what I posted in response to your "let me just attack Wes Clark (who's name was never mentioned--but I see his pic in her sig), since I can't seem to defend John Edwards' stance on the Iraq war adequately".

For you to get that bent out of shape because me, one person, is saying that I don't think, based on Edwards' very strong support to invade Iraq and despite his recent apology that he's the guy for me.....is stoopid.....but What-E-ver! :eyes:


Here, let me post again my numbered rebuttal!.....just in case you have my response confused with someone else's! Should I make the print bigger? Might that be the problem?

In #1, I provided you with the end of the sentence that, for whatever reason, you cut out of the quote from Wes Clark.

In addition, I rationally told you why he spoke at that Fundraiser, and informed you that he also attended a Dem fundraiser the next week (for Blanche Lincoln) and gave the same speech......obviously, he was lobbying for the sake of our NATO Alliance at the time, less than one year retired out of the Army that he had served in for 34 years, with his last stint being Allied Supreme Commander of NATO (duh). I also told you how those in the military have historically stayed non affiliated to a party due to the fact that they generally serve under various administrations, regardless of party....

Here's the part of the quote you posted....
we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead…."

Here's the actual quote without the convenient CUT off ...and put into its proper context....
we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe We've got -- (applause) We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans, where we still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well I, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United States and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest. We let them carry the economic ball; we're doing the security ball. Look, in politics they told me - I don't know anything about politics now; I want to make that clear. But they told me - I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you always got to protect your base. Well for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it.

If this is the best you can come up with it means that you are "hardpressed", and it would seem (if you just did a google), you can certainly find more GOP talking points against Wes Clark which were served up to those on the left who would play it their way....as the GOP was scared shitless of having ChickenHawk George Bush have to stand next to most decorated officer in American history since Eisenhower, as well as the first General to lead the last war won without Soldier casualty! One that was from the South, always a public servant throughout his life, respected around the workd, strong on the GOP turf of National defense and attractive to boot!

You see, this shit worked ok in 2004 when most didn't know Wes Clark. However, currently, considering that he has been named as one of the hardest working Democrats in getting 2006 Dem candidates elected, very few at DU, except of a few abhorations, question Wes Clark's credibility as a progressive Democrat. One who was smart enough to understand as far back as 2002 what this administration had up it's sleeve (while others remained clueless!)


Then to further illustrate how ridiculous that old and worn out attack was, I provided you with what some other Democrats did or said in reference to the Bush administration....and ODD as it is, you didn't seem to have a response for that. So who's brushing off who?

''I support the actions President Bush is taking, without reservation,'' Gore said.

During a brief press conference outside the luncheon at the Sheraton Downtown, Gore said Bush ''is doing an excellent job with this.''

''He gave a very, very good speech the other night,'' Gore said. ''And I think his immediate reactions to mobilize the country were just right.''
http://www.tennessean.com/special/worldtrade/archives/01/08/08857179.shtml

or.....
"I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/t65...

Or
Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml
------------

#2 to #4 of your accusations on Wes Clark

(simply because I don't seem to want John Edwards as my nominee--so shoot me, dang!)are answered more than adequately in the eight links that I provided....but of course, if you didn't bother to read any of them, you might accuse me of not having responded.

Anyone who "honestly" wanted an answer would have found many within those threads....and in most case, I permalinked the pertinent response to your specific accusation of Wes Clark.

I chose to do that rather than to "fillibuster" you with miles of debunking information, which I have done often enough in the past....and certainly, which most DU posters here damn well know that I could at the drop of a hat.

The swiftboating of Clark has already begun....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2483848

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484142

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484240

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484223

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484244

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484338

Further, I provided you with a blow by blow debunking (by a third party, Text, link and all) of that April 10, 2003 article written by Wes Clark, whose detractor routinely cut and paste...meaning they take a sentence at the top, and one at the bottom, link them together, and forget about the rest and then twist and shout in glee!

Part of what the author says below is something that you should remember and it is in the order of....."some people don't bother to understand what they read"....and I add.....others, don't seem to bother to read what they already think they understand.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/16/211703.php
Via Instapundit:

Roger L. Simon posts an op-ed Wesley Clark wrote on April 10th of last year, and claims that it proves that Clark supported the war. Had I read the op-ed quickly without knowing anything about Clark, I might very well have concluded that he was expressing qualified support for the war. However even a passably careful reading of the thing reveals that it fails to provide significant evidence that Clark supported the war. Everything Clark writes is consistent with opposition to the war--though perhaps combined with recognition that the world is better without Saddam and a desire to to portray the whole enterprise in a good light. All of these things are, of course, consistent with thinking that the self-defense case for war was a crock and that the decision to go to war was a sub-optimal one.

The most important passage for those who would portray the essay as strong (or even conclusive) evidence that Clark was for the war are as follows:
"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation ? the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

Needless to say we have to resist the urge to strain for a non-pro-war message here. Intellectual integrity is in short enough supply these days. Our question is not can we force a non-pro-war reading on this essay? but rather is there a sensible non-pro-war reading of it?

Well, I was against the war (torn, but just barely more against it than for it by H-hour), but I could have written this op-ed (er, were I smarter...and if I knew more...and if I were a better writer...and...oh, you get the picture...). I was happy to see the tyrant deposed, the statue come down, etc. And who could NOT think of liberations past? The only part of this passage I probably would not have written is this part:

"Liberation--the powerful balm that...erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."
(Note: these are not drudgelipses--they indicate that I have elided words rather than pages.)
This proposition is almost certainly true--liberation (like success in general) erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions--but I wouldn't have written that because it could easily be interpreted to mean that the war was a smart idea, or that this success should embolden us to undertake more actions of this kind in the future. But that's not what the sentence means. On the face of it, it's not a claim about what our reactions ought to be, but, rather, a claim about what kind of reactions we tend to have to such events--it, for example, makes us forget our doubts, it doesn't make them unreasonable (so it doesn't make forgetting them reasonable). If we are being urged to do anything here, it is to resist indulging too much in these reactions, to sober up a bit and contemplate the task ahead. In fact, the following seems to me to be a perfectly sensible gloss on what Clark wrote:
The scenes from Baghdad inspire us. They make us think of the fall of the Wall and the defeat of Milosovic. It's good to see those statues of that SOB smacked with shoes. Liberation is at hand. In general, liberation makes sacrifice worthwhile, makes you forget whatever doubts you had about the undertaking, and emboldens you to try other hard and risky endeavors. But, um, let's not get too excited yet--there's there's more work and more thinking to do.

I want to make it clear--on a first read, that's not how I interpreted it (I didn't know how to interpret it)--but we usually don't interpret things correctly on a first read if they are even moderately subtle or complex. And my guess is that what Clark is trying to do here is rather subtle and difficult--he's trying to counsel caution at a time when celebration seems to be in order, and he's trying to do it without sounding like a nattering naybob of negativism.

2.The rest of the op-ed is consistent with this interpretation. It praises the soldiers who carried out the battle plan, points out the good things about the planning and execution of the war, and notes the rough spots too. It's a sober and balanced assessment of the war, in my opinion. Clark notes problems without carping and dispenses praise when appropriate and without fawning. But there is nothing in it that shows or even strongly suggests that Clark thought that the war was a good idea. (Though there are some passages that can kinda sorta be read that way with a little effort.)
At the end of the essay, Clark does write:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Again, this might rather naturally be taken to indicate approval of the war, but it probably shouldn't be. Resolve in the face of doubt, if it is a virtue at all, is a virtue even when one has undertaken an enterprise in error. (I myself am not sure that it is a virtue at all, but that's probably just one difference between a pointy-headed geek such as myself and a four-star general...) Again, Clark is apparently simply giving credit where credit is due. But saying "you stuck to that project with admirable resolve" obviously does not mean the same thing as "boy, you sure were smart to undertake that project."
And note that Clark continues:
"And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."
So even (approximately) the resolve Clark has just praised he now characterizes as "almost irrational." So if these two components taken together constitute a compliment, it is (re: Blair at least) a highly attenuated one at best. Hardly unalloyed approval.
And I think that the end of the essay provides reasonably strong confirmation of my reading:
"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.
Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven?t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

3.Well, you probably know the kinds of things I'm going to whine about at this point. But I haven't slept in quite some time (note the crappy writing...sorry!), so I'll keep the whines short. Go back and read David Brooks's comments on The Great Unhinging (or better, of course, my own comments on those comments!). What we have here is probably a case of Mr. Simon seeing what he wanted to see and/or what he expected to see, plus perhaps the effects of political polarization and the pervasive influence of the gotcha atmosphere. And maybe something else I've been meaning to note as well: everything happens so fast in the blogosphere...speed is of the essence...nobody thinks very much about what they write. It's getting to be like academic philosophy--people get famous by saying outrageous things that they haven't really thought through very carefully, and then lots of other people waste their time going through the initial poorly-thought-out position explaining why it's wrong. Note that I don't mean to insult Mr. Simon here, he's just doing what what's done around these parts. But we should all do less of it.

Wes Clark is by no means perfect, and for some, they will never want him as President....and that's OK by me! However, I do believe in making sure the record is set straight, and this is how I see it; John Edwards supported the Iraq War, when he should have known better. Wes Clark did not support the Iraq War, because he knew better. To me, that's really the bottomline. One excercised a judgement that I can respect, the other was either hoodwinked or was riding the majority concensus of those times.

I don't reward the trait of gullibility or bad jugdment on the issue of life and death with the Presidency. But, you know, at the end of the day.....that's just me. But you and others should do what y'all prefer. :shrug:

[philgobluemi]

70. I admire your ability

to not let facts get in the way of your opinion. Congrats.

From your signature and photo it's obvious what your agenda is.

[FrenchieCat]

75. Your lack of response BOTH times that I answered your attacks

are what is obvious.

"Let's play Hardball" indeed! :eyes:

[philgobluemi]

87. You still don't get it

You've done nothing, other than screem "cut and paste," to contradict or explain anything in my original post, hense I don't need to add more.

[1932]

68. Also Clark's shifting threshold for withdrawal.

It is this now (as of May 2006):

“It’s necessary ... to make this year a year of transition in Iraq,” Clark told The Associated Press in an interview during his visit to Kosovo. “The Iraqi government must take charge.”

He said that ministers of interior, defense and national security should be appointed, but also said that a lot of help is needed from the international community to strengthen the Iraqi government in meeting the needs of the people.

“And then we should begin the process of withdrawing the U.S. soldiers and other coalition soldiers from Iraq,” said Clark.

“I do think that there should be no permanent bases there. I think that the United States should soon begin its process of redeployment,” he said, adding that he believed there will be “some withdrawals very soon given where we are.”

http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1825852.php

Before, "WE" (ie, the US) had to do a lot which was implicitly military (cut off supply of arms). These are no longer the conditions. Now, Clark says that we need to turn over control and then withdraw, and this is despite the fact that there are more deaths and more violence in Iraq now (more arms flowing in, and no farther from civil war).

So a person can change his opinion about Iraq based on new evidence?

Incidentally, the "no withdrawal without a victory" position is closer to what Clark argues about the US's failure in Vietnam, as he perceived it, as can be seen in his books (which is, no doubt, informed by his Master's thesis on Vietnam). In Winning Modern Wars, he writes about the Vietnam Syndrome -- pulling out when America suffers casualties -- as a shameful thing that hurt America's sense of itself and he argues that the Iraq invasion helped repair this damage at the time he wrote the book (p. 101 - http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586482181&id=Is7UW5d6X2wC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&vq=vietnam&dq=Wesley+Clark+Winning+Modern+Wars&sig=qon2fMSPM4dSLwf1Gf6KYd_4IqQ and p 165 http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586482181&id=Is7UW5d6X2wC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&vq=vietnam&dq=Wesley+Clark+Winning+Modern+Wars&sig=MuNfzx3pBHbsW81RHr-jccdMFcE and p.187 http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586482181&id=Is7UW5d6X2wC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&vq=vietnam&dq=Wesley+Clark+Winning+Modern+Wars&sig=TUKis3HAkx83qyIHzqjVKiejmZU).

Incidentally, Clark writes about the "failed gradualism" in Vietnam -- that politics prevented the US from raining as many bombs down on Vietnam as was required to finish the job. (Waging Modern Wars, p.7). That's interesting, because J.K.Galbraith did a very interesting study on WW2 bombing in Japan and Germany and concluded that it was a waste of time and resources. There was no politically-motivated gradualism in Germany and Japan, yet the consequences were the same as Clark describes in Vietnam -- the Nazis were able to rebuild factories overnight (and, in fact, the Nazis increased factory productivity every year of the war, right up to the end). Galbraith concluded that the British strategy of destroying rail lines was what really won the war in Germany, and interfering with naval supply lines into Japan won the war in the Pacific. The intense aerial bombings of factories and cities did not contribute much at all. But, alas, improving technology, and laser-guided bombs and all that...

[FrenchieCat]

78. Hey 1932......I Haven't seen you spamming Clark threads

with your "I read the book" routine in quite some time! Nice to see you in this here Edwards thread for a change! :hi:

Can you post what Wes said in a clearer manner, as opposed to what you said he said?

Cause first you quote an article....provide a link--but then comments that Clark has shifted in a position, but fail to provide linked information to show what he shifted from!

Then you start making comments on what you are saying he wrote about Vietnam....but only 2 of the 3 links work, and when one goes to the one link that takes you to page 187...it says nothing that resembles your "translation" of what Wes Said.

Don't you "approve" of what I'm doing now? what you did for so long in numerous Clark threads--REMEMBER?.....

Only difference is that my comments are stating the truth on John Edwards Iraq position, unlike how you operated all of those months, prior to unwittingly revealing that the true purpose of attempting to call Clark an "Empire builder" at the time was due to your solid admiration for John Edwards!

[1932]

83. "spamming"? Whatever.

The "from" part is in this post: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1586482181&id=Is7UW5d6X2wC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&vq=vietnam&dq=Wesley+Clark+Winning+Modern+Wars&sig=TUKis3HAkx83qyIHzqjVKiejmZU

If the links don't work, then check the book. I assume it's on your bookshelf. I gave you the page numbers.

[FrenchieCat]

86. Bad memory, hey?

Remember these book reviews by so many that "interpreted" Wes Clark's book so differently then Clark is for Empire and liked Vietnam as you did all of those months that you stalked Clark threads with your "interpretation" as to what he meant? :crazy:

RE: Vietnam--Clark felt that the air power that we used in Vietnam was ineffective. He also felt that IF one chooses war as a resort, then one should go to war and make an attempt to win strategically by using overwelming force as opposed to doing incremental damage that drags out a conflict or targets willy nilly whatever is there. Remember, we lost Vietnam, and lost many soldiers and killed many civilians -- of course, we should not have gone in in the first place....but once in, criticisms on how that war was fought is not off limits! But of course, I'm sure that General 1932 has got to know better how it should all have occurred once we were there--too bad you weren't in charge! :sarcasm:

Review from the Gardian
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1091...
The first 100 pages analyse the recent war in Iraq. Clark commanded US troops in the Iraqi theatre in the early Nineties, and provides useful insights. The true problems for senior commanders are supply lines and troop deployment timetables, not battle tactics. The secret of American military superiority, Clark shows, is, in addition to massive transport capability, a hitherto unheard of degree of co-operation between ground troops and air power. Only recently have the secure communications been developed that allow concepts of 'battlespace' rather than 'battlefield' to become a real-time reality.

He is scathing about the failure by war leaders to plan properly for the post-conflict period. This he attributes to a natural tendency of the American political and military establishment to play to their strengths. A marine in Iraq told me his job was to 'shoot people and blow things up'. Moving beyond that has proved difficult for a conservative Pentagon and civilian leadership suspicious of anything smacking of 'social work'.

The latter part of Clark's book is devoted to a sustained attack on the conduct of the 'war on terror'. Clark says the current administration's bullish unilateralism, dependence on military force, disdain for international law and institutions have been profoundly counterproductive and run against everything that made American great. He says, rightly, that military power should be the last resort and can only succeed when used in combination with diplomatic, social, political, economic, cultural and developmental measures.

America, he says, risks winning individual battles, even campaigns, but losing the war and losing itself. His analysis, manifesto or otherwise, is accurate, timely and important.

Review from Asian Reporter
http://www.asianreporter.com/reviews/2005/22-05winningm...
Drawing on his deep military experience at home and abroad, General Wesley Clark analyzes the U.S. invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Iraq and its relationship to the struggle against global terrorism in Winning Modern Wars. According to Clark, the American war machine is a dominant force unlike any the world has ever seen, except perhaps the Roman Empire at its apex. Yet the mess in Iraq should be a clear warning that we have much to learn about wielding our power effectively.

snip
In this age of embedded reporters, Internet bloggers, and instant news, "Public opinion itself has become a weapon of war," Clark explains early on. Winning Modern Wars shows that this supposedly retired general is still ready to fight, delivering a "Take no prisoners" assault on the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration.

General Clark knows what an effective military force looks like, and has nothing but praise for the amazingly competent American soldiers who delivered the decisive victory over Saddam Hussein. But if success results from the work of soldiers on the ground, it is unfortunately errors at the highest levels of leadership that lead to ultimate failure.
Snip
Worse, the whole fiasco in Iraq was nothing but a grave misjudgment by the Bush administration in the first place. There should have been no need for a postwar plan because there should have been no war in Iraq at all. On top of a laundry list of American mistakes laid out by Clark, including spurning of allies, lack of focus on Al-Qaeda, and coddling of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, President Bush’s September, 2003, statement that Iraq constitutes "The central battle in the war on terrorism" encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with the American response to 9/11.

snip
Most of Clark’s criticisms have been raised before, first from protestors on the street and later from disaffected staffers at increasingly higher levels inside the U.S. government. But Clark is no partisan shill, and has real credentials to back up his arguments; he has served as both European Supreme Allied Commander and Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Pentagon. The knowledge he displays of the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the U.S. Army is so thorough that anyone who wishes to understand the campaign in Iraq and the larger war against terror has to sit up and take notice. We can choose to ignore Clark only at our own peril.

"Powell's Books Review"
http://www.powells.com/biblio?partner_id=27104&cgi=prod...
General Clark criticizes George W. Bush's handling of the American Empire, especially as it concerns the War in Iraq. He argues that the war was conducted with brilliant tactics but flawed strategy and that vital opportunities to go after Al Qaeda were missed. Larger questions of Empire are discussed in concluding chapters, with Clark arguing that the "very idea of a New American Empire in 2003 shows an ignorance of the real and existing virtual empire created since the end of World War II" and calling for a "more powerful but less arrogant" foreign policy.

Review by Intervention Magazine
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?file=art...
This is actually three books in one, tied together by the common theme of the leadership failures of the Bush administration. The first three chapters recount the history of America’s preemptive strike on Iraq. The next two show how those actions have distracted us so badly from the true battle, against international terrorism. The final chapter could serve as a draft inaugural address, as Clark details his vision of a collaborative American strategy for success in an interdependent world.
snip
As a veteran leader with a global view, Clark also decries how the Bush administration broke treaties and denied international obligations with impunity. Such a unilateralist approach caused us to lose so much of the international sympathy and support which had arisen after the 9/11 attacks. By casting aside more than fifty years of strategic alliances, we have left ourselves at risk legally, financially, and militarily.

The Nation - Book Review
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031208&s=fitzger...
Most of Clark's views about the general direction of US foreign policy will sound familiar, for most are shared by the other major Democratic contenders. However, this book is nothing like the goo usually served up in campaign literature, for he is also a very good writer: logical, lucid and concise. Moreover, he has much of interest to say about military operations and the relationship--or lack of it--between specific campaigns and the overall US security strategy. He is well qualified for the task.
snip
In his final chapter, Clark attacks the Administration's conception of American power and substitutes his own. Last April, he tells us, there was talk in Washington of Iraq as the first stepping stone to a new American empire. As the US armed forces marched on Baghdad, the perception was that the US military had achieved such a degree of superiority over all its rivals that Bush might fulfill his vision of liberating Iraq and transforming the whole of the Middle East under a Pax Americana. But the truth was that the US Army, the only force available, was not suited to this quasi-imperial vision: It was built for warfighting; it lacked staying power abroad and it lacked nation-building skills. Further, the American public had little taste for empire, and the international community had turned against the war. As it is, Clark writes, the Army has become dangerously overstretched, and US foreign policy dangerously dependent upon it. Clark sees the aggressive unilateralism of the Bush Administration as having roots that go back to the reaction to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s.
snip
In Clark's view, American power resides to a large degree in the "virtual empire" the United States constructed after World War II: that is, among other things, its network of economic and security arrangements, the leverage it had in international institutions and treaty regimes, plus the shared values and reservoir of trust, or "soft power," that permitted past Presidents to lead by persuasion. Clark's forceful book warns that the Bush Administration is undermining this virtual empire and at the same time imperiling the "hard power" Bush counts upon, the power of America's economy and armed forces.

[1932]

115. I'm curious what you think any of this has to do with either

the cites I listed abovd by (regarding Clark's attitudes about Vietnam, winning once you've committed, and the damage to national psyche caused by withrdawing without victory) or my argument about Clark's attitude about empire from my posts over a year ago.

Volume doesn't equal rebuttal, and I don't think any of those reviews even address my argument about Clark's attitude about virtual empire.

[Texas_Kat]

51. Clark argued against going to war in 2002 working with the Senate Leadersh

Both Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy credit him with their "no" votes. Cherry-picking quotes and reinterpreting doesn't change history.

[philgobluemi]

57. There his quotes

from his articles and speeches. I've linked to the full speeches and articles. So it's interesting you call that "cherry-picking," but didn't say anything about Frenchie's "cherry-picking." Lame.

[sandnsea]

126. He argued FOR a resolution, a threat of force

He argued against war in 2002, but he also believed Iraq had WMD and that Saddam was a serious threat and that action had to go forward against him. He argued FOR a resolution that threatened force and unilateral force if necessary, as a LAST RESORT. Some people decided to vote against the IWR and others decided to go forward with it as the threat of force that it was said to be at the time. Clark, like Howard Dean and others, were great rabble rousers in 2002 but had the luxury of turning against the war when it didn't end up well because they never had to make an actual vote.

[FrenchieCat]

52. I didn't realize that you would find the need to teach me a lesson?

And I didn't think that you would do so by dragging in someone I support but who's name I didn't mention throughout this debate except to point to the quote in my sig!

But that's ok, :shrug:, as I'm used to the fact that even reasonable criticism on Edwards might lead to a counter "cut and paste" attack of another person not mentioned as a defense of Edwards.

#1. Yes, Wes Clark did attend one GOP fundraiser in May of 2001....and yes, he did give a speech discussing NATO, Europe and what foreign policy and the fact that he felt that it was important for the Bush administration to continue to forge good continuing relations with Europe and he was concerned with how the Bush administration would deal with NATO; NATO being Clark's focused interest since Kosovo, and the fact that he had just retired as the NATO Allied Supreme Commander, therefore the most influential voice in America as to the purpose of NATO!

The same speech was also given at a Blanche Lincoln Fundraiser 1 week later. Clark had retired less than a year earlier and was still considered himself a non-partisan....as most of the military did at that time. The speech is a very detailed foreign policy speech, and his polite recognition of the current administration was nothing but that, and the sentence that you quote but cut off before it's end continues like this.....

"We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe. We've got -- (applause) We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans, where we still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well I, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United States and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest. We let them carry the economic ball; we're doing the security ball. Look, in politics they told me - I don't know anything about politics now; I want to make that clear. But they told me - I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you always got to protect your base. Well for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it.

And if you want to quote anyone saying anything positive about the Bush administration at any point in time to somehow make them seem "questionable, then you should not be so selective.... :eyes:

''I support the actions President Bush is taking, without reservation,'' Gore said.

During a brief press conference outside the luncheon at the Sheraton Downtown, Gore said Bush ''is doing an excellent job with this.''

''He gave a very, very good speech the other night,'' Gore said. ''And I think his immediate reactions to mobilize the country were just right.''
http://www.tennessean.com/special/worldtrade/archives/01/08/08857179.shtml

-----
or.....
"I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transcripts/121300/t65...

Or
Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml


#2 to #4:
The swiftboating of Clark has already begun....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2483848

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484142

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484240

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484223

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484244

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2482830&mesg_id=2484338

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/16/211703.php
Via Instapundit:

Roger L. Simon posts an op-ed Wesley Clark wrote on April 10th of last year, and claims that it proves that Clark supported the war. Had I read the op-ed quickly without knowing anything about Clark, I might very well have concluded that he was expressing qualified support for the war. However even a passably careful reading of the thing reveals that it fails to provide significant evidence that Clark supported the war. Everything Clark writes is consistent with opposition to the war--though perhaps combined with recognition that the world is better without Saddam and a desire to to portray the whole enterprise in a good light. All of these things are, of course, consistent with thinking that the self-defense case for war was a crock and that the decision to go to war was a sub-optimal one.

The most important passage for those who would portray the essay as strong (or even conclusive) evidence that Clark was for the war are as follows:
"Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation ? the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph."

Needless to say we have to resist the urge to strain for a non-pro-war message here. Intellectual integrity is in short enough supply these days. Our question is not can we force a non-pro-war reading on this essay? but rather is there a sensible non-pro-war reading of it?

Well, I was against the war (torn, but just barely more against it than for it by H-hour), but I could have written this op-ed (er, were I smarter...and if I knew more...and if I were a better writer...and...oh, you get the picture...). I was happy to see the tyrant deposed, the statue come down, etc. And who could NOT think of liberations past? The only part of this passage I probably would not have written is this part:
"Liberation--the powerful balm that...erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."
(Note: these are not drudgelipses--they indicate that I have elided words rather than pages.)
This proposition is almost certainly true--liberation (like success in general) erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions--but I wouldn't have written that because it could easily be interpreted to mean that the war was a smart idea, or that this success should embolden us to undertake more actions of this kind in the future. But that's not what the sentence means. On the face of it, it's not a claim about what our reactions ought to be, but, rather, a claim about what kind of reactions we tend to have to such events--it, for example, makes us forget our doubts, it doesn't make them unreasonable (so it doesn't make forgetting them reasonable). If we are being urged to do anything here, it is to resist indulging too much in these reactions, to sober up a bit and contemplate the task ahead. In fact, the following seems to me to be a perfectly sensible gloss on what Clark wrote:
The scenes from Baghdad inspire us. They make us think of the fall of the Wall and the defeat of Milosovic. It's good to see those statues of that SOB smacked with shoes. Liberation is at hand. In general, liberation makes sacrifice worthwhile, makes you forget whatever doubts you had about the undertaking, and emboldens you to try other hard and risky endeavors. But, um, let's not get too excited yet--there's there's more work and more thinking to do.
I want to make it clear--on a first read, that's not how I interpreted it (I didn't know how to interpret it)--but we usually don't interpret things correctly on a first read if they are even moderately subtle or complex. And my guess is that what Clark is trying to do here is rather subtle and difficult--he's trying to counsel caution at a time when celebration seems to be in order, and he's trying to do it without sounding like a nattering naybob of negativism.
2.
The rest of the op-ed is consistent with this interpretation. It praises the soldiers who carried out the battle plan, points out the good things about the planning and execution of the war, and notes the rough spots too. It's a sober and balanced assessment of the war, in my opinion. Clark notes problems without carping and dispenses praise when appropriate and without fawning. But there is nothing in it that shows or even strongly suggests that Clark thought that the war was a good idea. (Though there are some passages that can kinda sorta be read that way with a little effort.)
At the end of the essay, Clark does write:
"As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt."
Again, this might rather naturally be taken to indicate approval of the war, but it probably shouldn't be. Resolve in the face of doubt, if it is a virtue at all, is a virtue even when one has undertaken an enterprise in error. (I myself am not sure that it is a virtue at all, but that's probably just one difference between a pointy-headed geek such as myself and a four-star general...) Again, Clark is apparently simply giving credit where credit is due. But saying "you stuck to that project with admirable resolve" obviously does not mean the same thing as "boy, you sure were smart to undertake that project."
And note that Clark continues:
"And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe."
So even (approximately) the resolve Clark has just praised he now characterizes as "almost irrational." So if these two components taken together constitute a compliment, it is (re: Blair at least) a highly attenuated one at best. Hardly unalloyed approval.
And I think that the end of the essay provides reasonably strong confirmation of my reading:
"Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.
Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven?t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed."

3.Well, you probably know the kinds of things I'm going to whine about at this point. But I haven't slept in quite some time (note the crappy writing...sorry!), so I'll keep the whines short. Go back and read David Brooks's comments on The Great Unhinging (or better, of course, my own comments on those comments!). What we have here is probably a case of Mr. Simon seeing what he wanted to see and/or what he expected to see, plus perhaps the effects of political polarization and the pervasive influence of the gotcha atmosphere. And maybe something else I've been meaning to note as well: everything happens so fast in the blogosphere...speed is of the essence...nobody thinks very much about what they write. It's getting to be like academic philosophy--people get famous by saying outrageous things that they haven't really thought through very carefully, and then lots of other people waste their time going through the initial poorly-thought-out position explaining why it's wrong. Note that I don't mean to insult Mr. Simon here, he's just doing what what's done around these parts. But we should all do less of it.

[philgobluemi]

58. Filibuster?

You don't win arguments simply by filling it up with meaningless words and quotes. I can't see how you've addressed a single point I made other than an excuse that doesn't work for why someone who attend a Democratic fundraiser and go out of his way to praise Bush and Rumsveld.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Words are normally "meaningless" if one doesn't bother to read them

You don't see how I addressed anything you wrote....cause you didn't bother to read anything I wrote.

What is fortunate is that other readers will clearly see my answers to you....and in the end, that counts more than whether you were prepared to do some reading.

John Edwards is a good Democrat, and a good politician....but he just ain't my cup of tea to support for President for the reasons I specifically outlined; his strong support for the Iraq War when it mattered regardless of his late apology three years later.

I'll see you round. :hi:

[1932]

41. You should have this part in bold font:

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWARDS: But now we're getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there's clear inconsistency between what's been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn't just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

[karynnj]

130. Or she should have bolded the NEXT set of paragrahs

which bother me more as it is contradicts his comments in his apology.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

[question everything]

46. Give him credit for being his own man

and not parroting what others are saying - from the left or the right.

At the time, most believed the administration that Iraq had WMD.

In hindsight, everyone is happy that Hussein is gone.

And he did say that he would have done this differently.

In the end, each country has to do what it thinks is best of it - if it can get away with it. France and German are physically closer to the Middle East and has high percentage of people from that area, so they have their own interests to consider.

Russia and China are known to be behind the scene supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon - again, their own interests.

I supported Edwards during the primary - even got to shake his hand - and I think that this country will be better off if he is the president. In a different interview earlier this year - Face the Nation or Meet the Press - do not remember, he refused to insist on impeaching Bush if the Democrats take over Congress, emphasizing that there are more important issues facing us.

Go get them Edwards!

[citizen snips]

47. Edwards is only human

and all humans are capable of making mistakes and miscalculations. Edwards has long since recognized his mistake on Iraq and he now believes we should get out.

[ksclematis]

60. Boy, am I ever glad that Johnny E....

isn't a heartbeat away from the POTUS and the "hot button"! It's scary enough to have "W" there.

JE doesn't have a clue about war strategy, when to get in war, and especially when NOT to get into war. He didn't mention negotiation as an alternative, nor that war should be a "last, last, last resort."
He just doesn't measure up for "even" a Senator's job -- no wonder he didn't run for Senate again.

I didn't see that Matthews' show, and JE's always been last on my list of candidates, but now he's for da** sure last.

[Impashund Ubique]

61. Then why don't you see what he said on Hardball before exploding?

That is a three years old interview. To judge the man, perhaps you should have watched him yesterday.

Here's part of his appearance:

video: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=b9e14859-7c02-4db9-8780-cf13edf81bf0&f=00&fg=copy

And the transcript is as such:

MATTHEWS: We are back with Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who served for a term as United States from that state, ran for vice president on the Democratic ticket and is traveling the country right now.

Senator, this is tough one, but when days like this come, do you feel more or less inclined to accept the mantle of commander in chief?

JOHN EDWARDS (D), FMR. V.P. NOMINEE: You know, I hope this is one of those things where all of us—Democrats, Republicans, all Americans—can celebrate what happened today. I mean, it was a great victory for security, for the security of the American people and we ought to applaud those who were successful.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you for your context. We just had Peter King on, who is a tough Republican. He says this is about willing to do the tough things, making decisions about surveillance that are tough, fighting those who say civil liberties shouldn‘t be changed at all or challenged at all, making it tough. We need surveillance, we need to be tough guys. He talked about Islamic fascists on the other side. We have got to hit them with everything we have got.

Then there are people like Senator Kennedy today saying, no, this results from the hatred of the United States for its manner in the world, the way we treat other countries. We‘re going to get more and more terrorists the more we get tough. Where do you stand on that fight?

EDWARDS: That there are things we have to do and be very tough about. We need to monitor al Qaeda and al Qaeda‘s operations in order to keep this country safe. My view is that, as an American, we do not need to violate the law, the laws that have been passed by the Congress and our constitution, in order to accomplish that and be effective at it. But I think what is equally important is to put this in the context of what is happening in the world at large. Because what is happening in the world at large is we are engaged in a failed policy in Iraq that is creating enormous problems for America.

We have huge hostility going on now in the Middle East in Lebanon and Israel. We have a Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, trying to get a nuclear weapon, a huge threat to not only the Middle East, but to America. And we step back from this, America is in a position where it is difficult, more difficult in fact, every day for us to bring other people with us in addressing these problems and we have seen that recently in the effort to deal with Iran and the effort to deal with this conflict in Lebanon and Israel. And that is all, go ahead.

MATTHEWS: I just want to get back to what Ted Kennedy, I know you trust and respect him. Ted Kennedy said today that our policies over sees have led to a lot of hatred and of course common sense tells you if a person is willing to commit suicide on airplane to get at us, they hate us and that is a contributing factor, if not the factor. Do you think our policies in Middle East, our policies of siding with a dictator Musharraf in Pakistan, our policy of going in to Iraq and basically occupying that country basically, of keeping troops in Saudi Arabia for all of those years after the first Gulf War. Do you believe that those, in each case, have contributed to the anger level, the hatred level that leads to all this suicide terrorism?

EDWARDS: Well, I would say in response to that I think you are mixing apples and oranges. I think there are people, Islamic extremists, who would hate us just because of who we are and any policy by the United States would have little impact on those people. But the policies that we have seen over the course of the last several years, I think, have inflamed that anger, made it easier for those groups to recruit, made it easier for them to sell their extreme ideology to those who otherwise might not be inclined to accept it. My concern is I don‘t think the rest of the world sees what I would call the goodness of the American people. They don‘t see our character. They don‘t know what we are made of. As a result, it makes it easier for these extremists to be able to recruit people to their cause and cause more and more people to have antagonism toward us. It makes it more difficult for us to help lead and solve the world‘s problems.

MATTHEWS: But doesn‘t it worry that you these people who are suspects in this case, the 24 that have been rounded up, are people who have spent many years living in London, living in England. They are British subjects. They know the west. They know a free society and with all of that knowledge and with all that familiarity they say let‘s kill these people by the thousands?

EDWARDS: Of course it does. I mean there are dangerous people in the world, including those who were just arrested. Those people hate the United States. They hate what we stand for. Our policies have not had a great deal of effect on them. They are going to continue to feel that way. There is a slice of radical Islam that just believes that and views us that way. But, but, in our effort to fight radical Islam and our effort to fight terrorism our policies matter, because it affects how the rest of the world treats us, whether they will follow our leadership, whether they will join us in acting together to address terrorism, to address the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to address the spread of AIDs and how America is viewed in the world is enormously important in that respect. So these two things don‘t operate completely independently of one another. They are, in fact, connected but I do think it is important to recognize there is a slice of radical Islam that hates us and probably always will.

MATTHEWS: Was our decision to invade and occupy Iraq a recruitment poster for terrorists?

EDWARDS: It made it much easier for them. There‘s no question about that and I would also, excuse me, Chris, I‘m sorry. I would also say that the ongoing problems that exist in Iraq today have aided that effort and it has helped with recruitment, it‘s helped them to bring terrorists. Iraq has been in some ways a place that terrorists can gather. So, I think there‘s to question it has aided the effort to recruit.

MATTHEWS: Great to have you on Senator John Edwards. He is going to come right back in a moment. We are here by the way still over here at the Department of Homeland Security talking about that, Homeland Security. We will be back with Senator John Edwards in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: We are back with Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who ran as a Democratic candidate, the Democratic candidate for vice president just a couple of years ago. Senator, it must be amazing to be in your shoes right now. You are a private citizen and you watch these events of such enormous caliber take place and you probably wish you had a hand in it. How would you, over the last couple of years, have been a different vice president than Dick Cheney?

EDWARDS: I think I would be dramatically different for a lot of obvious reasons. Number one, I think we would be telling the American people the truth about what is happening in Iraq. I would be doing everything in my power to influence the policy that exists there today. I think we have to start getting out of Iraq. The best way to show that we are going to get out of Iraq is to actually start withdrawing troops. I think that we ought to have at least 40,000 out immediately.

There are safe regions of the country that are secure where that could be accomplished and I think we need to be in the process of getting our combat troops out of Iraq. I would, I hope, help lead an effort to address the huge issues that face us here at home, not just abroad. We have a health care crisis in America. We have 37 million people who wake up in poverty every day, worried about feeding and clothing their children. We are a better country than that. America is a better country than that. We need to be strong. We need to be secure but we can‘t just act out of fear. We have to show our strength. We have to inspire this country. Americans ought to be proud of who they are and what our country represents and I hope that I would be helping lead that effort.

[citizen snips]

80. ?

Edwards is fighting for a cause to end poverty in this nation that is why he is now working at UNC. If you lived in north carolina you would understand how hard it is to elect democratic senators. This is the state that elected the intolerable jesse helms for 30 years. And I would suggust that you look at the transcript or video of the show because your post is waaaaaaaaaay off topic.

[sandnsea]

122. Who testified in those hearings???

Wes Clark, that's who.

[Digit]

9. Way to go JE!

:applause:

[ultraist]

12. Agree, Senator Edwards did very well!

Senator Edwards has been calling to pull the troops out for a while now and was quoted about his position on the Iraq war in a recent article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_iraq;_ylt=Aowc1MtAXVsQvRA5FleDQfuyFz4D;_ylu=

Edwards wants immediate Iraq withdrawal



MOULTONBORO, N.H. - Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who is considering another run for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Saturday the United States should start pulling troops out of Iraq immediately.


The former senator from North Carolina told reporters America should "make it clear (to Iraqis) we are leaving, and the best way is to start leaving. We should take 40,000 combat troops out now."

Edwards, who has said he regretted his vote as a U.S. senator authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, said he would ask the country's military leaders for a strategy "to have the (rest of the) troops out in roughly 12 to 18 months."

"There is no chance other countries in the world will help Iraq as long as we are an occupying force," he said

[Impashund Ubique]

19. Thoughtful and very confident...

He can't be pinned down as weak or a flip-flopper. He knew what he was talking about and made some very good points, especially when distinguishing between the radical Islamic terrorists and the young hopeless men they prey upon as recruiters. Good stuff.

[Impashund Ubique]

13. That would be totally disingenuous

He answered the question by stating what he would have tried to do (along with Kerry); whether we would be out of Iraq or not by now under their leadership is totally dependent on how their efforts would have been recieved in Iraq. Edwards is a pragmatic guy, not an ideologue; if he was in charge, he would be taking steps in accordance with the reality on the ground.

The answer you are offering tests the limit of one's imagination. Edwards is a thoughtful guy, he isn't going to make blanket statements as such. His was the answer of a leader, not a politician trying to score points by saying that "oh, we would have swept our forces out of there," as if they have a magic wand.

[grasswire]

20. he missed a strategic opportunity

By failing to point out that Democrats would have begun to disengage from Iraq almost immediately upon winning the 2004 election, Edwards blew the opportunity to contrast Democratic management of Iraq with Bush's management.

A "leader" will never win an election unless he is also a political strategist, quick on his feet before the camera and trained to fight for every bit of ground.

Howard Dean has trained himself to be that kind of Democrat. In my opinion, Edwards looked like a lightweight today.

Don't get me wrong, I admire his positions in this campaign. The populism is welcome. But he'd better prepare to scrap a bit.

[Impashund Ubique]

23. Quicker than him? You've got to be kidding.

I can fathom that you wanted to hear a different answer, however, you lose credibility when you say that he looked like a lightweight. He looked like a heavyweight tonight; a thoughtful guy who wasn't playing the partisan game. He seemed above that, which a President should.

Why would he say that the democrats would have started to immediately withdraw after the 04 election? Kerry and Edwards never advocated that plan during the election; he would be essentially saying a lie if he would have mouthed your words. He was being realistic about that, and not simply opportunistic. Everyone would have went: " look at him now, during 04, they didn't say a word as such."

The truth is that Kerry and Edwards would have first tried to bring some stability in the region and in Iraq by bringing in international help and training the Iraqis rapidly.


Dean is a thorough partisan, he is the face of democrats, and although I like him, he has no chance in a national election especially due to the style he has espoused. While we all agree with a lot of what Dean says, anyone who thinks that adopting Dean's style is the way to go for national candidates is sorely mistaken.

According to the GW poll, Dean's ratings are as such: 31% favorable/45% unfavorable

Edwards?

This is Edwards (Dean's there too):



Edwards is a skilled lawyer, a very shrew guy... he knows his stuff and how to present it. And the polls show that he knows the trick to connect with people. His favorability surpasses even that of Bill Clinton (dean's lowest in this poll):



Let's face it: you or I may like Dean, but the country at large does not. Edwards on the other hand is a very intelligent and as I said, shrewd guy... he knows the stuff better than you or I.

[grasswire]

25. Different strokes for different folks

Your subjective view isn't any more credible than my opinion. I saw him as a lightweight. It isn't the first time I've considered Edwards a lightweight.

Please note that I never suggested that Dean would be a presidential candidate again. I simply stated that he has trained himself to do well in front of the camera by offering strategic answers and missing few opportunities to contrast Republicans against Democrats.

[Impashund Ubique]

30. Agreed, but

The reason I brought up Dean's favorability is because you said that he has trained himself for a certain strategy, well apparently, the strategy doesn't work because at the end of the day, if people don't like Dean, they are not even listening to him, regardless of what he says on Hardball or any other show.

I agree though that different people can see the same thing differently, and perhaps, they both can have a hint of truth in their perspective.

Bill Clinton, FDR, JFK, Abraham Lincoln were all viewed as lightweights before their elections ;)

[GreenArrow]

43. He's not a lightweight

he's a self-directed pretty boy who wants to be President.

[saltpoint]

116. John Kennedy was a "self-directed pretty boy who want(ed) to be

President."

He did ok.

Self-direction is a plus in my book, a positive, an indicator of self-respect and personal vision.

Physical personlities are a factor in a media age when candidates who are, like JFKennedy, "media-genic," but they are not the only factor and certainly they should not determine personal worth.

Whether John Edwards is considered physically attractive or not, his appeal appears to be widespread and comprised of many different elements. Not the least of which is the sense of integrity he and his wife exude when the press interviews them.

I honor anyone who "wants to be president" because it's a hell of a tough job and a gauge of someone's commitment to public service. With power politics you get the worst sometimes: Nixon. Reagan. Daddy Bush. Idiot Son Bush.

But you also get the best. And there are a lot of Democrats who want to be president who have the soul and the chops to handle the job.

Edwards is one of them.

[GreenArrow]

119. "there's gotta be a pony somewhere"

We clearly percieve Edwards differently. I see his wanting to be president not as "a gauge of his commitment to public service" but more as the pure fulfillment of some personal ambition, filling in a blank spot on his resume. Perhaps he has done so, but I don't recall ever seeing any sort of convincing declamation as to why he wants to be President, believes he would be a good President, believes he is the best candidate to be President.

Other than his looks, and his glib optimism, Edwards has nothing to run on. He was a successful lawyer, though strangely, while making his name and fortune raking in huge settlements, he never found time to do any pro bono work.

His tenure in the Senate was largely undistinguished, though he did, notably, find the strength to support Bush's IWR and Patriot Act scams, (never mind his belated the-wind-has-changed "apology" for his support of the former) and a substantial portion of his time there was directed towards running for higher office, rather than focusing on the job that his constituents had already elected him to do. Then, failing in his attempt to win the Presidential nomination, he was essentially useless as a VP candidate. He has no executive experience, but has thrust himself into the limelight as a champion of poverty issues, speechifying and fund raising for his non-profit poverty center think tank. (As an aside, I predict that said think tank will come up with a variety of new ways to privatize/capitalize the sort of social programs that were the legacy of FDR and even LBJ).

Not that I am a JFK fan, and he was no saint, but he was much more able and experienced than John Edwards. As a President he was arguably "ok" and maybe if he had lived longer, with a second term, he might have been good. Should John Edwards ever be elected President, I suspect he too would be "ok;" I envision an administration with no major scandals, with no major achievements, with the same sorts of foreign policy misadventures that have characterized US foreign policy for generations. I envision a return to the Pollyanna platitudes of the Reagan years, and I envision business as usual. He ain't gonna rock any boats, especially not his own.

He's selling a pile of manure and calling it a pony.

[saltpoint]

120. I don't argue about JFK's sainthood, but your slam on Edwards

is a slam on Kennedy, and the point is that Kennedy did ok. I don't really care if he screwed Marilyn Monroe, or if he didn't. I care that when he addressed the nation, he used language that inspired, as opposed to say, Bush, who mangles nearly every word he speaks, and the accumulative damage denigrates our current standing in the world, some would say irretrievably.

It's fine with me if you don't like one or another Democrat. But your words slam one of the most high-profile and successful Democrats, and according to the recent Des Moines REGISTER poll, an increasingly popular one.

I'm not sure where it gets us if we slam each other before the first vote is cast. By way of example, I'd confess to not being an Evan Bayh Democrat or a Mark Warner Democrat, but a practical, this-is-politics vein runs through some of us old-timers that says that one or the other of those two men may well be our next nominee, in which case I could throw a shit-fit and withold my vote and participation, or support them even though other Democrats might have been first-tier choices.

If someone can't look at our line-up of potential nominees and find worthy virtues, I would question his or her role in the process of removing Republicans. I happen to think the Republican Party gets what it pays for, and a unified and practical focus in getting rid of as many of them as possible strikes me as very much the task at hand.

[GreenArrow]

123. I'm not sure how you equate a slam of Edwards

as a slam on Kennedy, unless it's that a lot of the superficial elements that made Kennedy successful -- looks, charm, attitude, for example -- are shared by Edwards. As for myself, I tend to be immune to things like looks and charisma; though I recognize their value to anyone in politics, I'm certainly not going to base my support for a candidate on them, especially charisma. What you take as a slam against Edwards is perhaps more broadly directed at the American electorate and the system itself as currently constituted. Why vote for Hubert Hoag when you can vote for Winston Noble?

I do believe that a lot of what passes for Edwards' popularity and success is largely predicated on his looks, not on anything he has actually done or says he'll do. He radiates optimism, in the same way that Reagan did, and in the same way as Reagan, that optimism is sales-pitchy and platitudinous. It doesn't work for me now, and it didn't work for me when Reagan was elected twice. I don't believe that Reagan had any business being president, and though he is clearly a more intelligent and progressive sort, neither does Edwards. Reagan as Governor of California, at least had executive experience. Modern American politics is largely sales and persuasion, and Reagan was a good salesman. Whether Edwards is in his class remains to be seen.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree overall with your post #112 below, at least practically speaking, which isn't to say I find it at all comforting. The country has dark days ahead, regardless of which party gets elected in 2008; I suppose it depends on whether one prefers taking one's poison slow or fast. The country is not prepaed to except anything other than status-quo

Edwards has a very good chance, though I tend to think Warner is a better pick, even though I find him even more milky and even more status-quo than Edwards. Both Bayh (has no chance at top spot)and Warner are Edwards lite. I think Edwards may be more succesful at taking the status-quo viewpoint and making it seem new, a skill Clinton was also very good at.

[saltpoint]

133. For my part, I am drawn to people in the

Democratic Party who are able to use the language for uplift and inspiration. Mario Cuomo, for me, is the gold standard in oratory. John Kennedy may have wandered about the east coast with his fly open, but again, I respect very much his learning and his ability to speak to others. He had a mind, and used it, a value to me in and of itself and most certainly when compared with the vacuous jerk in the White House right now.

By way of extension, I like our line-up, even the Democrats I am less enthusiastic about, which is to say that apart from Lieberman and Miller (who aren't even Dems anymore) I'm sitting behind the blue dug-out cheering my brains out for the Democrats in 06, and then on to 08.

Republicans, even the most Pollyanna-ish of them, would have to admit they may have a bit of an electoral college obstacle. Giuliani and McCain poll well right now, but their detractors' ads have not begun to run painting them as unholy moderates, especially in the case of Rudy, who lived with two gay men in NYC after his public and messy divorce. I'd chide the gay men for not having better taste in roommates, but the Far Right would hang Rudy for living with abominators, etc. -- the usual fundie nutcase propaganda.

Frist, THE CAT BUTCHER, is a fool, devoid of political instincts if the Terri Schiavo case is any indication, and he appears to have serious financial/vested interest difficulties also. He's wooden and I don't see him sweeping Iowans or New Hampshire yankee Republicans off their feet.

Allen leads in his match-up with Webb, but I still have high hopes for Webb, and how sweet a day it would be for Webb to wipe out Allen's Senate bid for re-election and simultaneously take him out of the presidential sweepstakes. Loud cheers would ensue from my house.

Romney's insane and should be rounded up and institutionalized. Sooner would be better than later.

Brownback is even more unstable than Romney, and my solution to him as a political opponent involves a close-bound, nearly air-tight bamboo cage and several bags of cobras. I'm still working on the details, but it's a project I'm learning to love.

And so forth. Briefly put, the Republicans are not only assholes all the rest of the time, they're assholes in the next two election cycles when voters won't have that much to choose from on the GOP slate.

That's where my support for the Democratic Party comes in, and comes in fiercely. I'll take any nominee if the general emphasis is to undo the damage of the past 6-8 years of Dubya, not least in foreign policy. We need a competent and more people-directed Cabinet and Supreme Court, and I feel a Democratic president is far, far more likely to realize those goals, whether it's Kerry, Gore, Clark, Richardson, Bayh, Biden, Edwards, Warner, or someone else.

My own personal hierarchies of favorites aside, the change and the push has to be fierce and strong toward un-doing Bush's damage. It's the focus. It's the entire focus.

I tend to emphasize the tax cuts for the rich on many posts on DU because I find them the most cynical expression of Bush's presidency. That's not to discount his other myriad failures, only to say I find tax cuts for the very rich to be exactly the opposite of my conception of government of, for and by the rest of us.

So I argue for the blue team, and its more famous exponents.

[madfloridian]

16. He did a good job.

Boy, we sure are picky about everything here. Nitpicky.

[Impashund Ubique]

18. *ignore*

[oasis]

22. Edwards remains superb VP material. America would gladly swap

Cheney for a charming domestic fix-it man.

[citizen snips]

45. nice try

critique Edward's words all you want but I believe if Kerry and Edwards were in the white house they would have found a way out by now.

[grasswire]

84. that's what I said

So why didn't Edwards take the opportunity to contrast that (Kerry and Edwards would have already been out two years after being installed in the WH) against Republicans (who are still profiteering while draining the U.S. Treasury and allowing American men and women to be killed daily)?

He got sucked in by the questioner. Tweety's questions were probably written by the RNC. You do know that the RNC sends faxes to Tweety even while the broadcast is being aired, don't you? They send questions for him to ask his guests.

Democrats who are on the air must be prepared to push back against sneaky or subtly hostile questions.

[citizen snips]

124. Edwards believes in the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops

[Dr Fate]

48. No, I like his response. Telling the truth should have been an '04 issue

If he and Kerry had said "I promise to tell you the truth about Iraq" at every appearance, debate, etc, it would have resonated.

[karynnj]

131. Kerry did say that he would tell the truth - in EVERY rally

I saw on CSPAN. Telling the truth is as core Kerry as you get. It was even emphasized when one of Kerry's daughters said that not telling the truth was the thing that (as a dad) he was angriest about.

It was limited to Iraq. Kerry in his post 2004 speeches in his short concise list of what Democrats believe in has as the FIRST point "Tell the Truth". (This list was the highest ranked sound bite by far in the Luntz focus group. So look for others to copy.)

[Catchawave]

59. Fabulous diary at DKos....here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/11/14054/3065

JRE did just fine :hi:

[CarolNYC]

63. Well, I didn't see this appearance so I have no idea how to critique it

And I am glad that John has finally realized that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq...but boy he was way to hawkish on Iraq when it mattered, during the leadup to the whole thing, for me.

My first impression of most of the 2004 candidates was from their answers to the move on questionnarie early on when move on was having that poll. I wasn't really paying close attention to politics but I knew I wanted Bush gone.

So, not really knowing anything about these guys, I based my vote on their answers to the questionnaire...The first one I eliminated was Lieberman. He couldn't even be bothered to answer the questionnaire. Edwards was the one I eliminated next. Whether it was because he was trying to look tough or patriotic or because he really was all for invading Iraq, he was way too gung ho on the invasion for my taste....I just can't shake the impression that he'd be too quick to jump into another military venture if he had someone whispering in his ear that there was some bad guy out there that we need to take down....And with him turning to advisors such as Shelton, he just might have someone whispering such things in his ear...With the way the world is now, that's a scary thought to me.

BTW, I ended up narrowing down my choices to Bob Graham and Dennis Kucinich in the poll (both of whom were correct on the war when it mattered) and ended up, after convincing one of my sisters to vote for Graham, voting for Dennis....I had no idea who Wes Clark was at the time.

[Impashund Ubique]

64. This is what Edwards said in fact

Okay, now let's see what exactly the guy said:

MATTHEWS: We are back with Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who ran as a Democratic candidate, the Democratic candidate for vice president just a couple of years ago. Senator, it must be amazing to be in your shoes right now. You are a private citizen and you watch these events of such enormous caliber take place and you probably wish you had a hand in it. How would you, over the last couple of years, have been a different vice president than Dick Cheney?

EDWARDS: I think I would be dramatically different for a lot of obvious reasons. Number one, I think we would be telling the American people the truth about what is happening in Iraq. I would be doing everything in my power to influence the policy that exists there today. I think we have to start getting out of Iraq. The best way to show that we are going to get out of Iraq is to actually start withdrawing troops. I think that we ought to have at least 40,000 out immediately.

There are safe regions of the country that are secure where that could be accomplished and I think we need to be in the process of getting our combat troops out of Iraq. I would, I hope, help lead an effort to address the huge issues that face us here at home, not just abroad. We have a health care crisis in America. We have 37 million people who wake up in poverty every day, worried about feeding and clothing their children. We are a better country than that. America is a better country than that. We need to be strong. We need to be secure but we can‘t just act out of fear. We have to show our strength. We have to inspire this country. Americans ought to be proud of who they are and what our country represents and I hope that I would be helping lead that effort.

Read that answer (especially the part that is in bold) and then think about what you wrote. Edwards and Kerry are two different people. The question was about what Edwards would have done as a Vice President, and he talked about all he could do in that position.

Video is available here: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=b9e14859-7c02-4db9-8780-cf13edf81bf0&f=00&fg=copy

Full Transcript: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14303122/

[grasswire]

77. it was a stupid question, agreed

Tweety asked him how he would be different from Cheney assuming that he would even be a part of an administration that would have acted differently from its first day in office than the Bush administration has acted from the beginning of its second term which would have built upon its first term's wrong acts.

But Edwards still did not have the political savvy or lightfootedness to contrast Democrats against Republicans. He could have done it in a dozen ways, and he didn't.

Perhaps he was being polite. I will never vote again for someone who is too "gentlemanly" to go for the jugular when given the clear opportunity to do so. Both Gore and Kerry harmed the nation deeply in that way.

[Catchawave]

81. Why do you hate Edwards? Gore? and Kerry?

Just wondering, you're far too anal with your concern about a less than 10-minute interview on a stupid cable news (?) show that now includes 3 fine Democrats. Yes, gentlemen, everyone of them.

Who DO YOU SUPPORT ? Please, this inquiring mind needs to know if there is a PERFECT candidate :hi:

[grasswire]

85. my, my, my

Why is it that a criticism of candidates = hatred? That's quite an escalation.

I have no candidate. But I sure won't vote for anyone who has not proven his or her ability to push back against Republican treachery.

[Catchawave]

95. Maybe it was your "harmed the nation" statement ?

"Perhaps he was being polite. I will never vote again for someone who is too "gentlemanly" to go for the jugular when given the clear opportunity to do so. Both Gore and Kerry harmed the nation deeply in that way."

I'm sorry, didn't mean to offend, but I'm sensitive to Dem bashing :hi:

[grasswire]

107. you think the nation was not harmed by the actions of Gore and Kerry?

Their inability or refusal to push back against known tyranny is why we are where we are.

I am sensitive about Dem bashing, too. But I do not believe that real, honest analysis is bashing.

[Donna Zen]

100. So why go to Israel

Why go to Israel and threaten to bomb Iran if he wants to just get the troops home? I don't get this: to hawk or not to hawk?

[w4rma]

69. I disagree. (nt)

[midnight]

82. Why does this articulate man have to be seen as blowing it.

Bush is seen all over the world talking with food in his mouth that is falling out. I would have to say that Bush blew it out-out of his mouth.

[Zhade]

93. Well, isn't "trying to bring the troops home" trying to not be in Iraq?

It sounds okay to me.

[Catchawave]

109. RACE RANKINGS: WHITE HOUSE 2008 (7/26/06)

(This is updated each month)

Summer Stasis?
Last updated: July 26, 2006
The top 10 potential candidates are treading water in this round of rankings, with most still in the same spots they held in June. But that doesn't mean the White House 2008 stage is quiet: Prospectives are busy making endorsements (John McCain and Rudy Giuliani), staying positive (John Edwards), going negative (Newt Gingrich), playing CEO (Mitt Romney) and speaking at a steak fry that's more important than it seems (Barack Obama).

These rankings are based on a number of factors, including: organization, money, buzz and polling. The two candidates in our two top spots are the candidates who are doing well in all four attributes. As always, these rankings are done in coordination with Hotline Associate Editor Marc Ambinder.

http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/wh08/

Rankings listed at the linky :evilgrin:

[saltpoint]

112. The law of probability is useful in politics. If nothing else, it serves

as a circuit-breaker and allows for a kind of historical sorting of options.

Many columnists and analysts have noted and a few DU posters as well, that there is a lot of activity right now on '06, and some of us are volunteering for our local candidates. It's possible that we forget that the '06 election is actually the same election as the '08 and '12 and '16 elections -- that it is significantly about building the party into a much stronger, more grassroots-directed operation. Any given Tuesday is a contribution to a distant Tuesday 4 election cycles from now. We've taken some bad hits in recent years and there's work to be done. Anybody doing said work has my admiration and applause. It helps the party and the party is a hell of a lot better party than the other party. Which is the nicest way I can think of to say that the Republicans are overwhelmingly scumbags.

That said, there are realistically only about 40 or 50 human beings in the U.S. who fall within the law of probable election to the White House. The more famous names include Clinton, McCain, Kerry, Allen, Edwards, Romney, Clark, THE CAT BUTCHER, Feingold, Pataki, and so forth. We all pretty much know the list of those 40 or 50 in the two major parties. Their odds differ of course, but the list doesn't ever grow beyond that number within the zone of probability.

There are longer odds, though not impossible odds, for other names like Sebelius, Barbour, and so on, but again, these folks are possible but not nearly as likely. We don't clinically know if Haley Barbour is more likely to be our next president than Chuck Hagel, or if Joe Biden is less likely than Evan Bayh. We can guess, but that's not a clinical take.

Among this group of 40 or 50 people, a good handful have money, name recognition, knowledge of political history, command of one or more fields of expertise, a zippy ground game, varying but mostly excellent oratory chops, significant personal appeal, crack staffs, reasonably good to outstanding political instincts, and moderate-to-high electability.

In my personal opinion, John Edwards is one of the 5 or 6 most likely people to be the next president of the United States.

[Imagevision]

125. New day, new slate -- we need Russ Feingold!!

[GreenArrow]

128. yes, someone new please!

Feingold is decent, but I don't believe he can win a national election. Any candidate who intends real change is not invited to the party, and should one somehow crash the gates, they will be swiftly removed from the premises, or politely (or not so politely) ignored. Come 2008, when all the votes are counted (or manipulated, as the case may be) the status quo will hold "illimitable dominion over all".