Centerfield

Maybe the most interesting paragraph in the Washington Monthly article:

"Arguably, Clark matches each of the strengths of the current crop of contenders, and then raises them one. His Army background--stretching from Vietnam to Kosovo--out-oomphs Kerry's military record. His service as commander of NATO forces compares favorably to Dean's executive experience as governor of a small New England state. He adds gravitas to Edwards's aesthetic appeal, charisma to Lieberman's thoughtfulness, and sincerity to Gephardt's liberal policies."

Here's a link to the full article:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.sullivan.html

Rick,

As the author of the piece you cited in the Clarksphere, I was saying precisely the opposite of what you interpretted. The whole essay was in fact devoted to why Clark is adopting a nonpartisan approach, and approvingly so.

Matt,

My apologies. I guess I was thrown off by 3rd person voice in that paragraph.

Then, we're in agreement. I would have Clark to take a minimally partisan approach, trying instead to attract cross-over voters in primary states a la McCain.

I believe it is of the utmost importance that democrats look not at which candidate they like, but rather at which one can defeat King George II. Our current (P)resident has lied to America, Congress, and the UN. He has spoken on TV while the polls were still open in Fla. He has been accused of overseeing the greatest vote fixing scandal in modern times. He has siphoned billions of dollars to big business with massive tax "relief." He has allowed the worst attack ever on our nation's soil, under his watch. He has allowed bin Laden and Hussein to escape capture for 778 and 230 days respectively. He has encouraged the three largest one-year defecits in our nation's history. He allowed the use of chemical weapons (Anthrax from Ft. Dietrich, a US military installation under his command) against his own people (Tom Daschle, NBC, Nat'l Enq.) He has sent over 300 troops to their death without proving any reason (unless you count speculation, lies, conjecture, and forgeries) for their need overseas. He must be stopped in the name of democracy. We must choose a nominee who can WIN, regardless if he stands for every issue we stand for. No Democrat has won the Presidency in 39 years without first being a Southern governor. Since no Southern governors are running at this time, one must think that governors on the whole might stand a better chance than the collection of Senators who have failed recently (Gore, Dukakis, Mondale.) I believe that Howard Dean stands the best chance of winning because he comes from a small state with a rural population. This man can play in Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc. He has more charisma and more integrity than his future opponent. Furthermore, the fact that he is willing to stand up to King Geo. II means he has a lot of courage (considering King Geo. I was Director of the CIA for many years.) If this propensity to attack GW Bush and his fourth reich doesn't get him killed (ala Wellstone, McDonald, Kennedy x2, etc.,) it may help him win the Presidency. Remember, if an uncharismatic Al Gore had won just one of numerous small states he would be President now, and the fighter jets at Langley, VA might have actually scrambled to get the plane that hit the Pentagon. Just remember the victory is not if your particular favorite wins, but if GW Bush and his cronies are removed from office (and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as Dean would have it.) Remember all of the lies when you go to the polls. And Remember W.Clark has campaigned for the GOP as well as Dems in the recent past (GOP plant into the race).

DVD R, CD
Duplication, CD
Duplicator. CD Packaging,
CD Replication, CD
Rom Duplication, DVD Duplication,


DVD Duplicator, DVD
Replication, DVD Packaging,
DVD Rom Duplication