Bushkiller '04 Ticket: Howard Dean / Wesley Clark

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
It seems to me, for the Democrats in '04, a Howard Dean / General Wesley Clark ticket could be the recipe for a Bush-killer.

Not that I don't think Bush will bury himself in his own rhetoric and propoganda, ESPECIALLY if he really is running again as a "compassionate conservative", but the Dean/Clark matchup will probably be the best ammunition against Bush.

Complimenting Dean's great economic record, liberal goals, Northeastern base, will be Clark's military experience as General (a REAL, QUALIFIED person in command of our military), a leader within Nato really shows his political skills working with nations (that could really build the international coalition to REALLY work together for a better Iraq and war on terror), and his home base of the South that would certainly overshadow Bush's.

Whether Dean/Clark want/will run together remains to be seen, but it appears that would be the powerhouse ticket the Democrats could really shine with and the country could be excited about.

It does appear Clark wants to participate in '04, but he's not tipped his hat just yet. Stay tuned!

In case some of you aren't as familiar with General Wesley Clark, here's a link about him.

What do you guys think?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
so far deans appealing to the liberal elite. not so much to moderates who really don't care for the anti war bit etc. not good.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
Clark provides balance to that force, Oroo.

Besides, Bush has the country so far right, a leftist would be a refreshing breather of balance.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so far deans appealing to the liberal elite. not so much to moderates who really don't care for the anti war bit etc. not good.

Liberal elite? Who's that?
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
You might want to do some more reading about Clark before you claim him the American Caesar.

1

2 - What a real soldier thinks of Clark

Or

Liar, Liar
by George Szamuely
New York Press
10/5/99

It is hard to match the United States for mendacity and cruelty. The other day The Washington Post ran a story informing us that the "Clinton Administration increasingly sees [Kosovo?s] secession as inevitable." This was hardly a shocking revelation. To be sure, such an outcome would violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which speaks of the "commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." But the United States has been violating the Resolution from the beginning.

Kosovo already has its own currency (the D-mark); the border with Albania has ceased to exist; it has its own customs posts; Albanian flags hang on every building. And now, thanks to valiant U.S. efforts, the KLA has been delegated to act as the province?s official police force ? to be known as the Kosovo Protection Corps.

Yet thanks to our compliant media the United States continues telling fairy tales. However, the administration still felt obligated to issue a denial of the story: "Any suggestion that we have altered our policy on the question of the future status of Kosovo is wrong and incorrect," lisped the State Dept.?s Jamie Rubin. Well, that wasn?t quite the suggestion actually. "We are supporting the development of a democratic, autonomous, self-governing Kosovo under UN oversight and NATO protection," he explained. The pompous platitude is a lie. US policy has been to detach Kosovo from Serbia.

In a recent article in The New York Times the loathsome Richard Holbrooke let the cat out of the bag. He referred to the people of Kosovo as having "known nothing but various forms of oppression since at least 1912." His choice of 1912 was revealing. That was when Kosovo was detached from the Ottoman Empire and became part of Serbia. Evidently, according to Holbrooke, life in pre-1912 Kosovo was pretty cool. That Kosovo?s 1910 rebellion against Turkish rule was put down savagely does not trouble him. That the Kosovo Serbs were treated with almost unimaginable cruelty during both world wars concerns him even less. In Holbrooke?s view, Muslims can commit atrocities against fellow Muslims.

And they can commit atrocities against Christians in the bargain. The point of the Post story was to soften us up for the inevitable announcement that, due to circumstances beyond the administration?s control, Greater Albania is now a fact of life. We will then be told that, sadly, US policymakers have also had to give up on their commitment to create a "multiethnic Kosovo."

The United States, of course, never had the slightest intention of permitting the Serbs to stay in Kosovo. Even before NATO?s arrival in Pristina, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon was telling the world: "The fact of the matter is that I don?t think Kosovo is going to be a very happy place for Serbs? As Kosovar Albanians flow back in, our assumption is that many Serbs will leave Kosovo." But the TV sitcom-addled public will apparently believe anything. The Post?s follow-up to the Kosovo "secession" story was even phonier than the initial story. The reporter described a Punch-and-Judy debate supposedly going on behind the scenes. On one side were the Europeans. They believe that "ethnic enmity can fade, and Kosovo can be pressured to remain part of Yugoslavia once [Milosevic] is removed from office." On the other side are the Americans. They have given up on "multiethnic" Kosovo. Guess who will get the better of this debate!

We went through this charade last month on the issue of the KLA. The Europeans wanted the KLA to disarm. The Americans wanted to turn the KLA into the province?s security force. They split the difference and turned the KLA into the province?s security force. NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana announced that the new Kosovo Protection Corps would be "multiethnic." Now, the Corps is to be under the command of KLA Chief of Staff Agim Ceku. Ceku masterminded the worst act of ethnic cleansing since 1945 ? the 1995 expulsion of 300,000 Serbs from the Krajina region of Croatia. Obviously neither European nor American officials are stupid enough to believe that Ceku has any intention of presiding over a "multiethnic" force. Once again we are being told fairy tales about that great bunch of naive, humanitarian guys?our rulers.

Speaking of humanitarian guys, whatever happened to the Serb atrocities? Back in April, about a month after NATO bombs started dropping on Belgrade, the soft-spoken Jamie Rubin estimated that 100,000 Albanians had already lost their lives at the hands of the Serbs. Shortly after the arrival of the NATO troops in Kosovo, we were reliably informed that the number was 10,000. A few days ago, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ? a U.S.-run operation ? announced that it had exhumed bodies from 150 mass graves in Kosovo. And there were still 350 potential sites left to examine. Moreover, the Tribunal?s spokeswoman cheerfully pointed out, "new sites are reported?on virtually a daily basis. We anticipate just as big an effort next year as we have had this year."

Next year! Bosnia rides again. More than four years after the fall of Srebrenica, Tribunal investigators are still desperately digging and digging trying to find the bodies of those 8000 Bosnian Muslims supposedly killed by Serbs. So how many Albanians were killed in Kosovo? The spokeswoman replied that she would not be drawn into a "numbers game." However, she added helpfully, "we are talking about thousands." Month after month, the United States played the "numbers game." It had nothing whatsoever on which to base its wild allegations. Now that it has the free run of Kosovo and all its alleged "mass graves," suddenly it gets tongue-tied about numbers.

Lying about numbers, lying about almost anything, is the driving principle of the US government. As soon as NATO hoisted the KLA into power, the province?s Serbs were being murdered and expelled. Initially, the US line was to justify this by referring to the Albanians? understandable desire for "revenge." However, as the atrocities mounted the US had to come up with a new story. The KLA?s hands were clean, we were told. "There is no organized KLA effort to retaliate against the Serbs," a Clinton administration official announced in typically lawyerly fashion in June. The demented Wesley Clark went further: "From the leadership of the KLA, we?ve seen continuing expressions of support for multi-ethnicity?so I can?t put a finger on who is doing this."

This story, too, wore thin after a while. So Clark came up with another explanation. The Serbs were responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against them. How? Apparently, Milosevic was sending in Serb paramilitaries to provoke violence. Bernard Kouchner, the UN Secretary-general?s special representative to Kosovo, parroted the story: A "lot of non-official people are coming," he rumbled ominously the other day, "Some of the incidents have been organized." Asked if he had any proof for this allegation, he admitted that he had none. However, he blustered, Milosevic "has been accused of war crimes?and if he is capable of committing war crimes then he is capable of sending people to destabilize the regime." There speaks the voice of contemporary international justice! If he is "capable" of it, then he must have done it!

Kouchner, The Washington Post reported, "was initially viewed with suspicion in Washington but is now highly regarded as a valuable ally." One can see why. Though a Frenchman, he has become totally Clintonized.

Wesley Clark, however, was not done yet. The other day he came up with yet another story. There had been no ethnic cleansing of Serbs. "I discovered, interestingly enough," he announced, "that a complete survey has been taken of how many Serbs remain in Kosovo. It?s not 30,000. The figure that KFOR came up with is 97,000." "Came up with" is the appropriate expression. The International Committee of the Red Cross reckons that 160,000 Serbs and Gypsies have fled Kosovo. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees also estimates that around 160,000 have left. Therefore, both organizations calculate that something like 30-40,000 Serbs and Gypsies remain in the province. Clark does not believe a word of this. "I think one has to recognize that whenever one?s dealing in the Balkans there?s always a certain amount of incorrect information put out. So there?s a lot of mythology now about this reverse ethnic cleansing."

Clark is still NATO Supreme Allied Commander. The man is a mass-murderer. He clearly belongs in a straitjacket. One has to ask: Will the day ever come when Americans feel ashamed of themselves for letting a pack of liars, gangsters and lunatics speak for them?

There's more out there.....you just have to look for it.......Google is your friend.
 

Spamela

Diamond Member
Oct 30, 2000
3,859
0
76
dean has liberals fired up, but he's not as liberal as some of the other candidates.

dean/clark, clark/dean, kerry/dean - i don't care. anybody but bush.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so far deans appealing to the liberal elite. not so much to moderates who really don't care for the anti war bit etc. not good.

Liberal elite? Who's that?

english majors? ;)

academics/college students/activists... people who think clinton was too conservative... not enough to elect someone.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so far deans appealing to the liberal elite. not so much to moderates who really don't care for the anti war bit etc. not good.

Liberal elite? Who's that?

english majors? ;)

academics/college students/activists... not enough to elect someone.

Yeah, no need for GOP to turn out. ;)
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.

rolleye.gif
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.

And so is Bush.
I didn't support Clinton's bombing of Serbia. It was a blunder and a waste of resources. I think if anything, he should have been impeached for that. But Clark was a general SERVING under Clinton. I don't think he should be bashed for that. I think that's better than going AWOL.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.

And so is Bush.
I didn't support Clinton's bombing of Serbia. It was a blunder and a waste of resources. I think if anything, he should have been impeached for that. But Clark was a general SERVING under Clinton. I don't think he should be bashed for that. I think that's better than going AWOL.


which reminds me

http://www.awolbush.com/
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,306
36,456
136
I'm for anyone who can check their religion at the White House door. Being able to speak cohesive, complete sentences and having no affiliation with Dick Cheney is a big plus.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.

And so is Bush.
I didn't support Clinton's bombing of Serbia. It was a blunder and a waste of resources. I think if anything, he should have been impeached for that. But Clark was a general SERVING under Clinton. I don't think he should be bashed for that. I think that's better than going AWOL.


which reminds me

http://www.awolbush.com/
Ahh yes...never takes long for that to show up. Funny how the same people pointing that out now are the ones that insisted that Clinton's dodging of the draft was not a big deal.

 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.

And so is Bush.
I didn't support Clinton's bombing of Serbia. It was a blunder and a waste of resources. I think if anything, he should have been impeached for that. But Clark was a general SERVING under Clinton. I don't think he should be bashed for that. I think that's better than going AWOL.
Bush wasn't my first choice for President. John McCain was my first choice. Still when it came down to Bush v. Gore I voted for Bush and would do the same again.

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.

And so is Bush.
I didn't support Clinton's bombing of Serbia. It was a blunder and a waste of resources. I think if anything, he should have been impeached for that. But Clark was a general SERVING under Clinton. I don't think he should be bashed for that. I think that's better than going AWOL.
Bush wasn't my first choice for President. John McCain was my first choice. Still when it came down to Bush v. Gore I voted for Bush and would do the same again.

Not me. I want a divided government. The GOP now is out of control.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.

And so is Bush.
I didn't support Clinton's bombing of Serbia. It was a blunder and a waste of resources. I think if anything, he should have been impeached for that. But Clark was a general SERVING under Clinton. I don't think he should be bashed for that. I think that's better than going AWOL.
Bush wasn't my first choice for President. John McCain was my first choice. Still when it came down to Bush v. Gore I voted for Bush and would do the same again.
Of course you will, you are a Republican. Let me ask you this though, what would it take for you not to vote for Bush?
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
since shinerburke has felt the need to "prebash" Clark, I think he is a serious candidate.
Pre-Bash? So that's what you call linkng to stories that aren't glowing in their praise of someone.
rolleye.gif
Got your talking points in the mail?

Funny.....I just love you how you, and others, think that Republicans/Conservatives all follow some pre-defined script when talking about something. Sorry to disappoint you, but I think for myself. Always have, always will. In fact back when I ran for State office in 1996 I pissed off the Republican Party to the point they wouldn't give me any campaign funds. What pissed them off so much? I refused to back Right to Work. Of course the Democratic Party isn't any better. A friend of mine from College ran at the same time in another district as a Democrat....he ended up having the same thing happen to him because he wouldn't come out for gun control. Both sides have their extremes, and extremes are never good. Sadly both parties seem to be driven by their extremes.

As for Clark....I don't think he is the man many believe him to be. Many like to point to his position in the military as proof he is a great man. I don't think that is the case. There are far too many officers in the military that are there do to privilege. From what I know and have read of Clark he is one of those.

And so is Bush.
I didn't support Clinton's bombing of Serbia. It was a blunder and a waste of resources. I think if anything, he should have been impeached for that. But Clark was a general SERVING under Clinton. I don't think he should be bashed for that. I think that's better than going AWOL.
Bush wasn't my first choice for President. John McCain was my first choice. Still when it came down to Bush v. Gore I voted for Bush and would do the same again.
Of course you will, you are a Republican. Let me ask you this though, what would it take for you not to vote for Bush?
A decent candidate on the Democratic side....maybe someone like Evan Bayh or John Breaux.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Ahh yes...never takes long for that to show up. Funny how the same people pointing that out now are the ones that insisted that Clinton's dodging of the draft was not a big deal.
I don't remember Clinton pretending to be the fighting soldier's best bud. Bush "played"soldier during the Vietnam era and now is playing soldier commander as President but he's exhibited nothing resembling considerate reflection and then subsequent action when it comes to using US forces. Clinton was a draft-dodging nit that used US forces indiscriminantly but without reckless abandon. Bush is a draft-dodging AWOL hypocrite that's using US forces discriminantly (vital US interests) with reckless abandon. Clinton sux but Bush kills.



 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
It seems to me, for the Democrats in '04, a Howard Dean / General Wesley Clark ticket could be the recipe for a Bush-killer

HAHAHAHHA

don't you guys get it...the clinton's run the democract party..they OWN it, they control the money (Bill is their number one money raiser), Hillary has the single most lucrative political action committee (PAC) among the congressmen (and doles out money to other dems to assure their support), and terry McCauliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC controls huge amounts of money) was hand picked by Clinton.

even howard dean knows this. he stated the first thing he would try to do if he was the democratic nominee for president is to fire McCauliffe (like that's going to happen)

heck, bill even came out in support of bush's handling of iraq!

the clinton's don't want a democrat in the white house in 2004...they're planning ahead to 2008 when hillary will run........
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It seems to me, for the Democrats in '04, a Howard Dean / General Wesley Clark ticket could be the recipe for a Bush-killer

HAHAHAHHA

don't you guys get it...the clinton's run the democract party..they OWN it, they control the money (Bill is their number one money raiser), Hillary has the single most lucrative political action committee (PAC) among the congressmen (and doles out money to other dems to assure their support), and terry McCauliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC controls huge amounts of money) was hand picked by Clinton.

even howard dean knows this. he stated the first thing he would try to do if he was the democratic nominee for president is to fire McCauliffe (like that's going to happen)

heck, bill even came out in support of bush's handling of iraq!

the clinton's don't want a democrat in the white house in 2004...they're planning ahead to 2008 when hillary will run........

Riiight. It's a vast Clinton conspiracy.
Get Real.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It seems to me, for the Democrats in '04, a Howard Dean / General Wesley Clark ticket could be the recipe for a Bush-killer

HAHAHAHHA

don't you guys get it...the clinton's run the democract party..they OWN it, they control the money (Bill is their number one money raiser), Hillary has the single most lucrative political action committee (PAC) among the congressmen (and doles out money to other dems to assure their support), and terry McCauliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (the DNC controls huge amounts of money) was hand picked by Clinton.

even howard dean knows this. he stated the first thing he would try to do if he was the democratic nominee for president is to fire McCauliffe (like that's going to happen)

heck, bill even came out in support of bush's handling of iraq!

the clinton's don't want a democrat in the white house in 2004...they're planning ahead to 2008 when hillary will run........
Yes, we get it already. You hate Hillary Clinton. Almost every one of your posts contains a Clinton bash, whether it has anything to do with the thread or not. I'm not even sure if you ever post more than once in any thread. You just dump your little load and move on.

Do you have anything else to say? Ever? Don't you have something better to do with our time?

Edit: Oh yeah, Dean/Clark. Definitely has potential. I would want to learn more about Clark, but he presents himself well, should carry strong credibility with voters.