I don't think we should assume that a 72-year-old is particularly likely to be confused, but insist on digging deeper into his medical history. I can't help but wonder if McCain hasn't had some mini strokes in the last few months.
Ads like this one and the 3 am ad seem to think that there is something magical about Hillary. Now if this were about 2 candidates where one could tout his great military experience, 4 languages, many years in the senate or as governor, versus someone with virtually no experience, then okay, they have something. If it were someone like Kerry able to say I got As in law school and went on to.....while Texas law school in his father's home state, while his father was vp wouldn't even take him in... okay that would make sense of this, too. But as I'm watching either of those ads, I'm not saying to myself --- oh, man, you are so right, Hillary would be much better at these things than Obama. And that's because neither has any relevant greater experience. So I'm left with the movie star approach --- who would make me feel better on a superficial level shaking hands with diplomats, etc. And beautiful, tall, eloquent Obama wins hands down. Have they really tested these ads?
What's your evidence for Hillary being a corporate Dem (and Edwards not)?
I remember reading a comparison of how they voted in the Senate, and each time the two differed, it was Hillary who leaned left and Edwards who leaned right. That impressed me. It seemed to say more about where she stood.
I realize that her campaign is utilizing corporate "sponsors" and that her husband was certainly "all about the economy, stupid." But Hillary is not Bill, and I have to say that rhetoric in a campaign strikes me as less important than what people have actually done when it came down to it in the past. And on that, Hillary wins.
I tried clicking on your name to see what you've written before, but I can't seem to make that work. I'm curious about what progressive education means to you and to others at this time. I'm a fan of William R. George's Junior Republics, from about 100 years ago. (His best book on the educational experiment is The Junior Republic.) He was once embraced by a number of progressives in education.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, of course, yeah. I, I- There's, there's no, there's no, nothing to be gained at this point by saber-rattling. What the United States needs to do with respect to Iran is talk to Iran. W-we may have some interests we can work on together. It may not be too late. It may be too late, and we're going to be coming up soon on the horrible question of whether we live with the Iranians with this government with a nuclear weapon, or whether we try to take military action to try to stop them from acquiring such a weapon.
Ed Schultz: So, we're nearing a crossroads with the Iranians?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Within 12 months, according to the intelligence, the unclassified intelligence that, that I'm reading - yes.
Ed Schultz: That's a big statement.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It's a very dangerous time coming up, and many people in Washington believe that, you know, we're over the hump on this, because the President's done so poorly in Iraq that he couldn't possibly imagine taking action against Iran. But there's still a strong group on the White House that's pushing for that very action.
The "Walk for Change" thing really turned me off, as well. Gotta love that change.
So can we talk on Clark switching to MSNBC as a strategy? Instead of floundering behind the pack, trying to get face time on tv, he can be making friends with people over at MSNBC and getting plenty of facetime talking about real issues instead of his hairstyle and sweaters.
If we accept the premise that only Obama and Hillary got anything out of announcing early, could this be a good strategy for an August announcement?
Yes, it could go very wrong. Fascism will be more of a threat in the next three decades than it has been in the last six.
I guess what I feel I've read here is a lot of terrific stuff about the process of organizing, but without acknowledging that, as you say, "content is king."
What Democrats are ABOUT is what is going to determine whether we do well in these coming decades.
Reagan and company decided to be about big business and social conservatism and that alliance put them over the top for all but the Clinton years. Clinton was able to emerge because of his "It's the economy, stupid," mantra and his moderation.
The most important decisions we can make right now aren't about the process of organizing, but about the banner under which we are organizing.
Who are Democrats? What do they stand for? Why should you join us?
Nobody's going to join us because we have a good organization. At least, I hope they won't. It's going to be about the ideas that we have. The alliances we make now. The things we choose to emphasize and the things we choose to let fall by the wayside for the time being.
It is no longer about "the economy, stupid."
It's about a populist agenda.
Will the Republicans or the Democrats be the first to understand that and re-structure alliances?
Don't want to do a line-by-line analysis. I've just finished a first draft of a book that has clues about these issues, but I can't point you to other things, so you'd just have to take me on faith.
"On faith" is meaningful here.
We are moving into a time when people are looking to be a part of something greater than themselves, to take on faith. Loyalty to a dream of greatness.
Conservatives have an advantage in these times, but it is also a time of working class organization and grassroots movements on their own behalf. It is a time of populism.
Very little of what you have said above relates to content. It is a very rational presentation of progressiveness. But this coming time isn't about that. It's about feeling. There are grassroots elements to it, but the people who control the country are the people who appeal to working class interests. That's why the Republicans aren't set up to do well right now --- they're too much owned by big business. So this is a time when Democrats can become the party of the working class, but if they still picture their agenda as being about social justice as opposed to populist programs that expand the safety net for the working class and keep them in jobs and cheap entertainment, they're likely to lose. If they don't address the need to stir their audience at gut level, if they don't embrace patriotism, they're likely to lose.
So that's my advice. Find the new Roosevelt. Oh, and do we have to call this generation the millennials? Don't we have enough millennialism going on right now with the Left Behind series? (Not that we won't see more of it.)
If that's the single most important job --- and I'm not saying I disagree --- then he should get out of the race because he's patently underqualified.
I don't like people using national security as cover to lavishly spend on the military without sense, but I do like Clark's talking about global warming as a national security issue, helping to draw new people to the issue, and making Republican congressmen who vote against it look weak on security.
And it is really annoying that we pick presidents based on 60-second commercials that are either "feel good" or attack ads. Where is substantive understanding of the differences between the serious candidates supposed to emerge?
but couldn't Kerry have found an issue other than the one Gore has already made his own?
Not that environmentalists don't need help, but there are other issues out there. And the book sounds more passive than active. How about a well-researched look at health care around the world and a reasonable plan for us? Or alternative energy? Or the problems of American diplomacy in the middle east? Or poverty?
Ah, sorry, still just a little mad at how he called the last days of his last campaign "Closing Arguments." Because you know how much Americans love lawyer-speak.