Interesting point regarding hypotheticals - I get so tried of explaining to people that not everything I (or others) say should be seen as advocating, but rather as hypotheses for testing and refining. It's a distinction that appears to be lost on a lot of people in many contexts.

Sharon has suffered a major stroke, is currently in surgery (I presume for intra-cranial bleeding) and has almost certainly suffered severe impairment. I wish him a speedy recovery, preferably in retirement. Electing a man who single-handedly and maliciously sparked an intifada with his Al-Aqsa walkabout stunt equates in my mind to re(!)-electing a President who waged pre-emptive war based on incompetence, selective evidence use (to put it mildly) and personal vengeance.

I'd highly recommend Juan Cole's latest posting, dealing with the charity funding Abramoff diverted to buy sniper scopes, camo gear and other 'dual-use' equipment for illegal Israeli settlement communities.

Are you so sure that Hillary Clinton is the dem nominee?

While he has a lot of support among the Republican grassroots and independents, I can't really see McCain as the nominee -- too many of the Republican party's big donors are tied to industries which need protection from environmental regulation, and McCain's positions on those issues would get that wing of the Republican donor base very motivated to do in his candidacy.

I tend to agree with your view about "hijacking" one of the two existing parties, rather than developing a third-party, as a means of shaking things up, and promoting better policy outcomes. Even with the Internet's effect on politics -- diffusing power somewhat, IMHO, from the 'party insiders' of the two major parties -- there are still a lot of hurdles for any third-party movement to overcome.

And speaking of "hijacking" a major political party, I'd be remiss if I didn't get in at least a brief plug for my online activism project-du-jour: Draft James Webb, which I hope will make at least a small contribution to shaking up the foreign policy debate within the Demcratic Party.

I wonder if Powell's lingering "Bush stink" prevent his re-entry into public life. At least, as a candidate for office.

I'm not sure the Dems have enough decisiveness to even pick an '08 candidate - one thing's for sure though, another Kerry and a third party would literally pop into existence purely on the wings of frustration.

Julia at Hullabaloo has a somewhat different take on Fineman's obvious desire for a third party because Democrats certainly aren't even worth thinking about.

I will leave it to the thread to decide whether Steve is more sympathetic to Fineman than Julia and the Democrats, and why, and what that means.

Charles H. Keating. Lincoln Savings and Loan. Pictures of McCain's big sloppy embrace of George Bush.

McCain tried to sell himself as a reformer before. George Bush countered that with his "reformer with results" spiel and stomped him.

And I think that HR Clinton's chance would have been much greater had she stayed out of Washington. She now has the worst of both worlds: she's a senator and has a rather undistinguished record as a senator.

Third parties are exercises in futility, because they generally arise from an inability or unwillingness to engage with other people and their stupid wants and needs. So you have a politician who grows impatient with the political process and walks out with his supporters, but the party is no bigger than the politician who forms it, and when the politician loses interest, the rump is squeezed away with ease. Or you have people who break off from the main party and form what amounts to a vacuum chamber, because their viewpoint and concerns are paramount and they aren't terribly interested in listing to other points of view.

"...but the notion of a McCain, Lieberman, Feingold, Powell arrangement while highly unprobable is not impossible."

You left off Clark. And to many, he's the guy that takes it to the realm of "not impossible".

CMG -- you are right. Thanks. Fixed that.

Steve Clemons

fineman only touts a third party now because he is establishment, and opposes progressive policies. naturally, he gravitates towards the republicans, so all he sees in their absence is a third party. everyone says it's understandable because the dems are a bunch of do nothing, stand for nothing slackards, etc., who can't agree on a basic platform, but this misses the most important aspect of the pickle we are in. a political movement can only come from the left at this point, people. anti war, anti big defense, big pharma, big energy, pro individual rights, health benefits, and family issues, like child care and security at HOME. the sooner everyone gets used to this idea, and dispels notions of hillary clinton, as some avenging conqueror, or of john kerry as a serious candidate, the better off our NATION will be. mccain giving the illusion of some sort of piddling reform is useless. we need a return to a great society. we need a new frontier. we need a popular movement of some sort to overcome what is just over the horizon.

ya know, a green, peaceful and popular movement

Wes Clark strikes me as being the "independent" in the Democratic Party at this point. If they woke up
and appreciated him, they'd solve a lot of their problems. To top it off, he's mastered the art of talking to FOX viewers, which is no mean feat. No other Democrat has that experience.

I think Hillary's popularity is highly oversold by insiders. Her popularity is somewhat comparable (though better) than Lieberman's at this point in 2002, but voters will reject Hillary on electability, I think.It's not Hillary.

The guy from VA, Mark Warner, is a huge political talent. Yes there is a current trendy surge of interest in the guy, but the fundamentals are legit. At this crazy early stage I see him as the D nominee.

HClinton is just stiff and cold; if her last name weren't Clinton can you imagine her winning over voters?

McCain is wrong; fundamentalists hated him. If he had real guts he would have done the Indep thing in '00; I might have voted for him. Never at this point.... He just looks very old now, too.

Why in the world does anyone think that Colin Powell should be a candidate for high office? The guy has been an obedient shill for the Bush administration, and still can't manage to find the courage to speak up now and reveal what he knows about our disastrous Iraq policy. Why does Colin Powell always get a free pass?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060104-3.html

totally fucking bogus

The US Chamber of Commerce rates McCain by far the lowest of GOP senators on business policy every year. The GOP establishment will never choose him. Still, there's hardly anyone more popular.

Wes Clark would be a great nominee for the Dems. However, I think it's way too early to even begin to ponder.

Of course, if the Dems were to win back the House and congressional investigations and oversight is allowed in Washington again, then I think it won't really matter what Dem. is the nominee.

A third party in the White House and NO third party on the hill is laughable. I can see the silver daggers flashing already. Won't work. Get over it. Desperation is not a plan.

Wesly Clark may have developed the campaigning skills that he didn't have in 2004. I've thought that maybe he diliberately set out late the last time so he could lose without loosing his rep, but still have learning time on how to be a politician. I've been impressed with his understanding of what's at stake in this business.

Let's not put the cart before the donkey. Prezidential speculations seem a bit premature at this point.

In light of Abramoff, we should be discussing this year's Congressional elections, not who will disappoint us in 2008.

For all of that, please call your local/state/federal reps and demand impeachment. Only collectively can we preserve the illusion that this is a democracy.

The inside DC narrative about the Democratic party is getting so frigging old. Fineman just laughs at the notion of listening to anything but Republicans. That attitude went hand in hand with his problem in seeing the truth before Bush invaded the sovereign country of Iraq in 2003. The media is so jaded, so used to living in a Kafka-esque, Orwellian world that I do think they've lost touch with basic American values.

To my mind, most of the on-the-ground Dems are smart, decent people and the concentration of tolerance, decency, and true democratic values are held in the minority party. Let the Dems and GOP compete to grab the progressive ideas of supporting the Constitution, scientific reality, and transparency in government, and see who wins. I'm optimistic about the Iraq veteran Dems running in '06. Plenty of great ideas, great people. It's not all Lieberman and H. Clinton, but I'd take even them over the current crop of criminals.

Finally, the Butcher of Beirut, Sabra and Shatilla, Ariel Sharon, may have to cross the river Acheron and ironically it would be Charon who takes him over if the monster is allowed to cross.

Not that I believe in any mythology, including the Christian one, but the bottom line is this, Sharon is a beast.

Although even a believer must wonder at this point whether there is a God, Goddess, random fairies, etc., because if Netanyahu succeeds Sharon then millions will die in a World War III launched by USRael, among them our troops and eventually our children.

Get Israel out of our foreign policy: Iran and Syria are no threat to the US.

It is time for true Americans to stand up for our country against our government and not allow USRael and its toadies in both parties to launch what might truly be the War To End All Wars.

Because we may all die as a result of ceding power to these madmen and women, including McCain, Clinton femme, Lieberman, Pelosi, DeLay and all the Zionists and their sympathizers in power in the US.

Would you give your child's life to "free" Syria? Better ponder that question fast because another staged "terrorist" attack is on its way courtesy of the neo-cons and martial law will be declared and America will then become the Fourth Reich, with both parties cheering it on.

Is delay REALLY the loser? It's almost like the prosecutor was hand-picked by George Bush ...

“The case of Alice Fisher and her oversight of the Criminal Division is troublesome not so much because she will spike the Abramoff deal, although she shouldn’t be anywhere near it. It is problematic because Abramoff potentially leads to so many other targets, and as head of the Criminal Division Fisher will have a great deal of discretion about who they decide to purse. Do they chase Tom DeLay, K Street and the elaborate GOP money laundering scheme, or do they go after Harry Reid for taking $5,000 in money with no obvious quid-pro-quo ties from Abramoff’s victims, the Indian tribes?”

Jane Hamsher on beat. Where have the rest of the bloggers (never mind main-stream media) been on this one? Fisher should have recused her smirking self months ago.

Sorry-- in my glee about Sharon's dire condition (did I make clear that I'm not a Christian, though I was raised as one? But no residual guilt on this particular Sharon glee -- the "man" deserves much worse than a plain old stroke - drawing and quartering while ants eat his balls would be too good for him) --

I rushed to make my point and would now like to respond to the comments of other posters:

Fineman is the sorriest example of a "mainstream" journalist that I can think of at the moment, in a very crowded sorry example of mainstream journalist field. His mouth is firmly pressed to the Bush administration's collective anus. And he swallows ;-)

John McCain is a Zionist pure and simple -- he'd sell our kids out to USRael's war on the world for half a scooped out bagel.

McCain is not an independent, rather he is a far-right conservative on just about every issue -- check out his voting record, or just listen to the a-hole speak.

The Hildebeast Clinton, in her May 2005 address to AIPAC, then under FBI investigation, promised Israel Iran, as did Nancy Pelosi. As did Howard Dean in his debate with Richard Perle.

Democrats? Bah humbug. Pelosi and Rockefeller knew about the NSA wiretapping, but didn't bother to tell us. Feinstein's husband's company cut a $400 million deal to reconstruct Iraq.

We as Americans need to get a third party or die.

Oh, and BTW, Wesley Clark (whose real name is Kahane -- which is the same name as the Israeli commisssion that charged Arik Sharon with war crimes at Sabra and Shatilila) is considered a war criminal by many people across the world because of his actions in the former Yugoslavia.

You Democrats are idiots while the Republicans and the Democratic "leadership" are evil creeps. Again, we have to have a third party or we will all die in a War To End All Wars.

yo frowning dimples

believe me i am just as frustrated as you... but you gotta take a chill pill man. go take a surfing lesson or do some yoga - and come back with constructive words - this ultra negative stuff just hurts all of us.

"McCain could team up with a Democrat, say, Sen. Joe Lieberman."

ROTFLMAO!!

Two over the hill guys! McCain has turned into a wimp who wants to be president so bad he will say anything to keep in the good graces of BushCo!
Lieberman.....you have got to be kidding me! This neo-Con "Democrat" had his 15 minutes of fame years ago.

If we don't stop our government, no one will. It is our right, but even more, our RESPONSIBILITY, as Americans, to control our government when it is out of control.

We are the only country that has ever used atomic weapons (under a Democrat), and we are threatening to use them again, with new-fangled bunker busters.

But even at this moment we are using depleted uranium, which will have long-lasting effects on our troops and the people of Iraq, not to mention eastern Europe (that was Bubba Clinton's call)

Israel, with our financial and technical support, has at least 200 nukes and the delivery systems to reach the former USSR, Europe, South Asia and North Africa. For instance, the LA TIMES reported in 2005 that we provided Israel with submarines capable of launching nukes into any country within 900 KM.

Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran has. What gives?

What gives is WAR FOR ISRAEL, like Iraq, except now Russia and China, which both have massive stakes in Iranian oil fields, will be involved.

Opposition -- I care way too much to see another war. I've been in two as an observer -- nada mas.

But this one really will be the war to end all wars, because there are rogue states (Pakistan springs immediately to mind) with nukes. I know a bit about that part of the world and it ain't pretty.

And if Israel's operatives in the US government and media succeed in launching a war against Iran, then all bets are off.

There are rogue nukes all over the place, and after our invasion of Iraq, the entire world hates us. They will cheer on the next staged terrorist attack, while our government, as predicted by none other than former head of Centcom, General Tommy Franks in November of 2004, suspends the Constitution.

BTW Opposition:I just spent the entire late afternoon snorkeling, which I do often. I swam for at least a mile and a half in sometimes rough water -- the big island is having a northwest swell. Though thanks for the advice. Mahalo.

We definitely need either a Third Party or a non-party system in which all the parties are represented with some equanimity and able to compete on common ground with common funds.

If a Third Pzrty, it MUST be a more populist not elitist party -- reform would be a side issue implicit in its mission -- and must not be seeded with has-beens or disgruntleds from the Dems and Reps.

We have to wean ourselves from faux heroes like McCain and duplicitous pols (is that an oxymoron?) like Lieberman and Clinton and Biden, etc, etal.

This would demand the end of corporate financing and the end of the anachronistic Electoral College which simplye feeds the power structure in favor of a direct vote with run-offs.

"No Democrat can win in 2008 unless the American people believe that they can defend them! The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America, when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats."

Wesley Clark, April 16, 2005

Agree with comments above on Wes Clark esp. the one with him having some rapport with Fox viewers. Clark is the only credible Dem that take on the Republicans in Red States and actually win a number. He would be the most difficult candidate for the Republican noise machine and IMO would wipe the floor clean vs McCain or any other Republican candidate.

The question is who would be best candidate for running mate...perhaps Mark Warner ?

I don't know. Speaking as a Canadian who is a fascinated observer of the American political scene, it occurs to me that you've passed the points of no return.

Systemic corruption of both the Congress and the Electoral Process is too deeply rooted to be excised. You are increasingly a Democracy only in form and not reality.

It seems quite likely that Abramoff is going to take a number of politicians and lobbyists with him. It also seems likely that Delay is down and out. Even Frist may be in trouble with respect to his insider trading.

But unless the purge is far more radical than expected, all of the institutions, the structures, the methods by which these men operated will continue in place, and the systemic corruption of Congress and policy will continue.

Is there any sign of a more radical purge? Unfortunately not. There has been almost no debate in the media or the intelligentsia about the systemic problems and the desperate need for hard reform. The Democratic Party appears to be completely unwilling to contest the issue. There is no significant third party movement on the order of Ross Perot's Reform party or even Nader's Alliance with the Green Party. Both of these have shot their wad and are moribund. There is no counterculture movement to shine a spot light. There is no regional political insurrection.

In short, absolutely no one is rocking the boat. And if no one is rocking the boat, then we can't expect any meaningful change in the system.

Well, arguably if the system is sound, that is one thing. But every piece of evidence suggests that it is not. In particular, the system has been corrupted by money, and by a network of lobbyists, fundraisers and coordinated political advocacy groups, all of which feed off each other, and feed into the Republican Party, in support of a narrow set of policies which are not all that viable.

So, rather than the system being improved or reformed, what we are going to see is something along the lines that Steve's friend, Bandow, calls for... which is essentially, the legitimization of this corruption. Gone will be the flamboyant cowboys like Abramoff and Delay, to be replaced by quieter, colourless organization men, and ultimately, behaviour much worse than either Abramoff or Delay will pass uncriticized and legitimized.

In this sense, to blither on about third party reform movements, or the prospects of a McCain, a Clinton, a Biden or Powell, a Clark or Lieberman... its less than academic. It's a sort of meaningless political masturbation. Democracy is over, we're all just watching a Tijuana Donkey Show.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but the stock comment, "she is too polarizing" is straight out of the GOP phrasebook.

It lets lying gasbags like Rush Limbaugh (and all of his he-men wimmen-hating followers) off the hook for their irrational, mysogenist bigotry. Don't give the "polarees" a veneer of respectability.

You have already decided that Clinton is the nominee?

Den Valdron is right, of course, as are other commenters upthread. There is approximately zero probability of any political action of true significance in this country outside the two established parties, and absent either a socioeconomic catastrophe or the emergence of an unusually charismatic populist leader (I think the former is more likely; the latter do just fine staying within the system), there is an equally bleak chance of any real reform. There's simply too much money at stake for too many already powerful interests to allow any kind of serious change.

And no, this is not a call for, or a prediction of, some silly "revolution." What will bring the current system down, IMHO, are the Malthusian forces the current stewards of the system are themselves hastening. That a lot of innocent people will perish in the flood, and a lot of the current malefactors survive thanks to their ill-gotten gains, is just another historical tragedy, ho hum.

I'd like to believe in some progressive leader, and I'll certainly continue to vote for, and donate to and volunteer for, the white hats, if only because they can ease some pain at the margins. But 99% of them are bought-and-paid-for creatures of the current, corrupt system, and happy to be so. Until a REAL crisis emerges -- say, a large-scale collapse of the US health-care system in the face of a pandemic, or a sudden environmental shift (dust bowl, aquifer contamination or collapse) that causes an agricultural crisis, either of which could lead to a financial implosion and an economic depression -- the other 1% won't be able to do a thing about it. The system will persist. Only the talking heads (among whom I include the current president) will change.

Well, Bleh, I think that if there is one thing which the Katrina incident showed clearly - the current American political system is unable to respond effectively to a crisis not of its own making.

The Bush administration and Congressional Republicans are quite good at winning electoral battles, they've also proven successful at invading Iraq and implementing their own agendas.

On the other hand, when it comes to a crisis in which they are not the creators or triggers, and which is not guided directly by them, as in 9/11, the great blackout, Katrina, etc., they seem to go to pieces. The initial response is paralysis. The long term response is apathy.

It is likely that the US is going to be facing a series of major crises. First on the likely list would be some kind of financial meltdown resulting from the immense foreign trade and domestic budget deficits, neither of which are sustainable on their own, and which are likely to do weird synergistic things together. This is compouded by a variety of related items - Iran's non-petrodollar Oil Bourse, the American deflation of the housing bubble, the disintegration of the American manufacturing base through export of jobs and industries, or other items. There seems to be a general lack of awareness as to how fragile and vulnerable the American economy is.

There are of course, other areas of vulnerability. Much of the American Southwest is vastly overpopulated for the available water resources. A severe drought could well bring about a massive and massively expensive crisis which could see cities being evacuated, or immense quantities of water trucked in at prohibive cost. California is in permanent risk as an Earthquake zone. We've seen how Global Warming has begun to affect America's Gulf coast. One could go on. Disasters like this could be borne by a healthy society, but in my view, America is not a healthy society.

Still, even in the event of a socio-economic catastrophe, I still don't see the system reforming. Rather, I would see in that sort of event, a catastrophic consolidation of power, and a permanent reduction in even the forms of democracy.

Speaking of McCain, do you suppose he realized the folly of his quest?

Bush could bypass new torture ban
Waiver right is reserved

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

>>>>>>>>I've always believed that it would be easier and better to hijack a moribund or wayward party rather than to create a new one.<<<<<<<<

Good point. Old, mature markets, whether they're for cola drinks or national politics, eventually consolidate into two big powers and a bunch of niche players.

In new markets, first-mover advantage, innovation, and similar factors determine who wins. In old, mature ones, size advantages dominate.

To build an infrastructure (local/state politics "farm team," organizational apparatus) and brand strength that makes it capable of winning big elections and enacting its program, a new party needs a gargantuan amount of money, and a lot of time as well.

To promote an agenda, it's much cheaper, quicker, and easier to hijack an existing party, like Steve says. Build on an existing foundation: that's what the American right-wing has done.

Right-wing scions with lots of inherited money allied with owners and CEOs of big, mature-market corporations to hijack the Republican party and make it promote their agenda, essentially "Greed is good."

Unfortunately for the rest of us, these people aren't very good at running the country. It's no accident that they live off money they didn't earn, and run big companies that lack real competition.

Fortunately for us, they're like parasites harming the host. Their policies based on fundamentally unsound dogma, as well as sheer incompetence, have led to screwup after screwup that no amount of secrecy, propaganda, and political shenanigans can hide.

The question is: Will the damage they've caused to the GOP and the country at large have any effect on their political fortunes?

Will they be able to rig our old, mature market in national politics so they don't have to compete?

I've felt for a long time that the mistake that third parties always make is going for the brass ring right out of the gate, ie running for President before you have any presence in Congress. I think most voters realize that a third party President with no institutional support in Congress would have an impossible time getting anything done.

My hope has been that a key group of moderate Senators (think the nuclear option gang of 14 as your starting point) would break away from their respective parties and form a voting block in the middle that both extremes would have to make deals with to get their agendas passed. Yea, I know there are complications with seniority and committee assignments, but that could be part of their haggling with the two remaining parties. It seems to me that they would have influence way beyond their numbers. Establish that influence first, then run a candidate for President a few cycles down the road.

The question is who would be best candidate for running mate...perhaps Mark Warner ?

Personally, I was hoping for a Clark-Edwards ticket in '04 and think it would still be great for '08. Clark has international respect, is much more of a fighter than Kerry was in '04, and is a pretty bright guy. Edwards has been the only one really speaking about poverty consistently on a national level. Plus, it's like the "man from Hope" times two.

McCain has a staunchly conservative records and supports teaching Intelligent Design as science. Since he's been on perma campaign mode since '00, he has turned into someone that I can't trust. I'd support Hagel over McCain any day. Hagel has been more vocal about supporting a dissenters right to speak their mind. McCain says people are free to speak their minds but then throws in a Cheneyesque comment about that undermining our troops, etc in the very next sentence.

Sorry, once again, for the off topic posting. But, honestly, NONE of this is going to matter if our votes are not actually counted as cast......

From the Brad Blog......

Bush Recess Appoints New Federal Election Commissioners...

America Recieves Another Smack in the Face by the Democracy-Hating Bush Administration

The U.S. Senate convenes two weeks from now. George W. Bush could not wait and had to "recess appoint" the three latest additions to the Federal Elections Commission. You know...

The U.S. Senate convenes two weeks from now. George W. Bush could not wait and had to "recess appoint" the three latest additions to the Federal Elections Commission. You know how he is about those things. Hates to wait. And hates that whole annoying "Congressional oversight", "check and balances", blah, blah, blah stuff.

Amongst Bush's 17 recess appointments made today:

Robert D. Lenhard, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.
Steven T. Walther, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.
Hans Von Spakovsky, of Georgia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.

We had more previously on these characters when they were first nominated last month, including details on Bush crony von Spakovsky as well as Lenhard, who happens to be the husband of Vivica Novak (she, not just coincidentally, of TIME Mag/RoveGate fame). Novak will likely be testifying in some fashion concerning crimes surrounding the Bush Administration's alleged outting of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. Now, it seems, Novak will have to decide whether or not to give damaging testimony against her husband's boss.

Aside from being a key player in the 2000 Florida Election Boondoggle, a member of the extremist Federalist Society and a former Republican Party Chairman in Georgia, von Spakovsky was Bush's political appointee at the DoJ who recently made the papers as well. He was revealed to be behind the overriding of opinions given by career DoJ attorneys in the Voting Rights division concerning the Georgia Photo ID requirement laws and the Texas redistricting pet project of indicted former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay. 4 out of 5 attorneys said the Georgia law would disenfranchise minority voters. While 8 out of 8 unaminously found the new Texas congressional map to be in violation of the law for similar reasons. Both of those decisions were overriden with the help of von Spakovsky and resulted in an effective gutting of the very heart of the 40 year-old Voting Rights Act of 1965 as we reported in early December. Who better to sit on the Federal Elections Commission?!

The Georgia law has since been found unconstitutional by two Federal courts and the Texas law is headed to the Supreme Court where still more Bush appointees will likely be sitting in judgement.

One party rule. America rocks! Except for this whole "Decade of Shame" thing we seem to be in the middle of...Lady Liberty weeps...More encouraging news on other matters tomorrow...

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002237.htm

Steve,

I am hoping that there will be a movement to draft Al Gore. Personally, I like this idea...he has name recognition, government experience in two branches, and is an attorney. Has , at least if I hear his words, grown in both the intellectual and spiritual aspects of his personality. I also think there could be the possibility of a , damn, he should have won in 2000....maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
Back then, I didn't vote for Gore...I went for Nader. But, witnessing events of the past 5 years and Mr Gore's reaction and action, I am convinced that he should be the President of the United States.
Time will tell whether I am right or I am wrong, but looking out on the field and seeing the likes of Romney, McCain, Brownbeck, Clinton, Lieberman....I pray I am right.
As for VP? Tougher, maybe Richardson, Feingold, Clinton?
Maybe, it is time to consider a new party, something which has grown out of the Democratic Party....

I think Clark is the front runner for VP for pretty much every Dem/Ind. I have always believed Kerry/Clark could have won in 2004 (strange that Edwards won 1 neighboring state and was a star, Clark won Oklahoma and discarded)

However, I have always felt that Biden is gunning to be McCain's Ind. VP. Since he has flirted with running for Pres, he has done nothing to create his niche in the Dem party, besides parsing at every turn. I think Evan Bayh and Mark Warner could also fit the bill.

While it is far too early to call the 2008 Dem nom, the fact that the Repubs can't field a decent candidate against Hilary in NY, her war chest will be even tougher to compete with. And as much as I hope it doesn't happen, Al Gore's current business endeavors gives him a big donor list, and if he finds an opening, could cause a stir.

if a third party consisting of such stalwarts as lieberman, mccain,etal is what some will consider to be a viable alternative they better get their heads out of wherever they have stuck them.
What is not needed is just another organized group beholding to the status quo!
WAHE UP FOLKS, THINKING LIKE THIS NEEDS JUST A LITTLE PUSH IN ORDER TO FINALLY ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE DEMS ARE DEAD!
lets start the process. it will take alot of time but it is the only possible path and the longer it takes to start down that path, the longer it will take to achieve the goal of restoring the constitution to its rightful place.
billjpa@aol.com

Clark is a war criminal and Hagel was a partial owner and Chairman of the electronic voting machine company, now called ES&S, that counted the votes that mysteriously overwhelmingly elected him twice in the hardcore Democratic state of Nebraska.

You guys are losers. Romantic, idealistic, hopeless losers.

Democrat and Republican "leadership" are all in it together. Nader was the only remotely honest candidate --and I didn't even vote for him because I bought into the anyone but Bush mentality -- what did I get? Kerry conceding before my vote was counted!

And if the Democrats had spent 1/100 of the time and resources going after Bush in 2004 as they used going after Nader they might have won, even with that Israel-firster, warm-monger, Bilderberg lurver, Kerry.

Florida -- Dems spent their resources going after Nader when Bush filed late and could have been taken off the ballot.

Idiots.

Not only does the Electoral College have to go, but also this two Senator for one state, regardless of population. That is not proportional representation and amounts to taxation without representation.

You all really are idiots -- be party blind and attack the root causes our our malaise. The Democrats are the Good Germans of the 21st century, just like their GOP counterparts. The Dems don't have the guts to challenge the status quo, just bat around quislings like Clark, Clinton, Kerry and Gore.

Ugh. We'll play in blood for this country's collective stupidity.

Hillary will NOT run for president. So stop worrying. How do I know? Simple logic.

First, Hillary can't win and she knows it.

Second, everyone else who runs for president and loses still ends up in a better position (e.g., Clark, Edwards, Sharpton) -- but not Hillary. If she runs and blows it for the Dems in '08, she'll go from being the most powerful Democrat in Congress to being a pariah.

joe lieberman on a presidential ticket? you must be insane. you could carve a politician with more backbone out of a banana. during the last debates when howard dean suggested that american foreign policy deal more even handedly with palistinians and isrealis, lieberman had a fit. he said that would upset 40 years of foreign policy. obviously that policy did not work. joe just does not get it.

Jack,

Your inquiry as to whether General Powell's "Bush stink" keeps him out of office warrants the notion the man even WANTS office! Should he have been politically ambitious, rather than the true public servant he is, he would have been "President Powell" several years ago. The man is not an egomaniac, and this is what makes him so damn attractive!

Very interesting to read so many tributes to Wesley Clark...the red-headed stepchild version of Alexander Haig.

If Wesley Clark is elected President of the United States, I'm moving to Europe! (Didn't I hear the same type of oath from several Hollywood Libs in 2000 who have yet to move to Europe as promised should another certain person have been elected?).

With that said...all I have to say is this...."Mister we could use another man like Herbert Hoover, again." Anotherwords, it just doesn't matter anymore. It's all ball bearings these days.

Frowning Dimples...

Turn that frown upside down!!!!!!!!

Either that or walk over to your neighbor's house, knock on his/her door, and tell them that they are "stupid". See how far you get with that live and in person.

I think too that you need to relax.

Remember...like it or not, you too are a member of the "collective" mass of this Union we call America. If however I am wrong and you are not an American but rather a resident of another country on this website who has choosen to bash Americans...then f'you.

Submitted this day, (whatever it is)...

Douglas C. Neidermeyer, Sergeant at Arms.

McCain, Lieberman ... all useless in my view. They are in it - not necessarily the Abramoff mess, but the political culture. Bush will have screwed the country up so badly by 2008 that we'll need an FDR and New Deal type programs to fix the looting that's taken place. Feingold? Maybe. Gore, Kerry ... no.

Al gore in 2008

Watch

Al Gore? Maybe. I think he'd win too if he just told his handlers where to go.

But what Steve raises with Mcain/Lieberman is interesting because a viable third party no matter how it comes about is very much what this country needs to bring some balance into the political processes.

Either way. I hope that the public will bring some balance in 2006 so that we can bring truth to light and start a long needed healing process.

Look atthe rats abandanoning the sinking ship. I hope anyone who did business with the rat goes right down with him, Rep or Dem.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

Oberon...

"but not Hillary. If she runs and blows it for the Dems in '08, she'll go from being the most powerful Democrat in Congress to being a pariah."

Oberon she's already been a pariah her entire life.

My Mom and her 4 brothers and sisters grew up with her in Park Ridge, IL. Same school elementary to H.S. Same Methodist Church...confirmation class with one of my uncles. They all agree...she was a power hungry, fence sitting, see which way the wind blows girl then as she is now as a "woman". She is neither Republican (as she grew as) nor Democrat---she's whatever the flavor of the month is.

So anyway...GO JAGS!

Why would anyone think Lieberman was an asset on an independent ticket? He was an obvious drag on Al Gore. He did terribly in the 2004 primaries (Anyone remember his defining issues? I sure don't). He's the most popular Democrat for partisan Republicans, because he's the Democrat most likely to enthusiastically support their positions on controvesial issues. But they're not voting for an independant ticket (and they hate McCain). Any evidence he draws independent voters? I've never seen any. Just because you buck your party doesn't mean you're popular with the center.

It's hard for me to believe that Clemmons or anyone else, for that matter, still believes the John McCain has an ounce of integrity. He has renounced or betrayed nearly every position he held in the 2000 election to kiss the ass of Dubya, and ingratiate himself with the right wing fundies who rule the Repugs. Not the last of which is the trashing of social security. And not a day goes by when he isn't defending the Iraq disaster he helped inflict on our country. He isn't worthy of a moment's consideration for president. (Although his running might help the dems elect someone.) I doubt seriously that Wes Clark would be a part of a McCain militarist administration.
Bill R.

McCain, as much as I like the guy, and I do since he tried to take on the Tobacco Co.'s, I now think he is just not tough enough.
Ironic? No, when Bush pulled the little signing statement stunt basically nullifying McCain's anti torture language, he should have thundered, but he didn't.
This is a because he is just not tough enough, or more likely, just getting old and tired. I don't blame him. I doubt few could survive the Rove onslaught. But I know Gore could and give back as well...in spades.
I agree with one thing, the DLC has got to take a back seat......we have had enough of their losing ways.
I say draft Gore in 2008.
Let's win with grassroots.
It's time for small "d" democrats to get up, stand up, stand up for your rights.
Fight.