Sunday, April 17, 2005

Election '08: Wes In

According to Mark Kleiman, it looks like Wes Clark is in for '08. It will be interesting to see him take on (presumably) Hillary Clinton, given that the General was Clinton's private choice for the '04 nomination after Kerry's early primary campaign looked moribund. Personally, I'm interested in hearing what Clark has to say. I was against him in '04, but only because I couldn't be sure this guy was a Democrat. It was, after all, his first political campaign ever. But the man seems to have stuck with it, so I guess he deserves a look.

On a side note, prior to joining the '04 fracas, Clark was seen as a good friend to Dean, a candidate who was disliked by the Clinton wing and now the head of the Democratic party. How that will affect the '08 primaries is anyone's guess.

7 comments:

Garrett said...

I believe the only reason right now to even have Hillary running is so Republicans will spend tons of money destroying her, and hopefully won't have enough in the tank to trash whoever actually gets the nomination.

Steve said...

Even though I was a Kucinich fan (even though he is scary looking and not the most eloquent speaker) I voted for Wes Clark in the MI primaries because I thought he was the best choice to beat Bush. He's a veteran who has led major offensives, and he was not seen as a super liberal by the media, even though his policies (according to his old presidential website) were not that different from Kerry's or Dean's. I had reservations given his lack of political experience, but if he does run in '08, I will have to research him some more :)

And I hope Hillary does not run for President right now, unless Garrett's reasoning works - maybe she can take one for the team. Or if election '08 ends up being Clinton vs. Rice - that would be interesting.

Pepper said...

It will not be Rice. Not because she said she wouldn't run (we all know that means nothing), but for the same reason it won't be McCain. The church fundies won't vote for her. That's the consequence of 20+ years of sucking up to the Christian right, at first you own them, now they own you.

Garrett said...

I agree. There won't be a pro-affirmative action or pro-life GOP candidate any time particularly soon.

Alison said...

2008 is way too soon for the US to see a two-woman presidental race. If the Dems put Hillary up, the GOP would be sure to have a traditional alternative, or imagine the outrage from the far right. Rice wouldn't make it through the primaries.

Clark was a quality candidate who just entered way too late... If everyone hadn't falled into the electability trap with Kerry, they might have seen that there were other candidiates who could have been dynamic and GOTV. I particularly like that Clark's health-insurance-for-all-kids plan (traditional Democrat stuff in '04, but) defined "kids" as up to age 22 to make sure college students could still get coverage from somewhere.

Steve said...

Hee hee - I like the term fudnies. It makes them sound cute and nice, like Fraggles.

Clinton v. Rice would be so interesting though - I know it won't happen, but how cool would it be. Who do the I-think-the-Civil-Rights-Movement-Sucked conservatives vote for - the black woman? Or the uber liberal, every-conservative's-nightmare Clinton (not that I think she's that super liberal, but that's her rep)? Or the working class Reagan-Democrats in my hometown of Eastpointe who are "Democrats" but who can be some of the most racist people I know? Or would this be the election where the libertarians actually get votes??

michael said...

libertarians getting votes? keep dreaming steve. americans scream and shout about rights but would gladly give it up for welfare.