March 03, 2004

• Personally, I don't see Kerry/Clark - two vets is needless redundancy. Edwards/Clark would have been a ticket, but Kerry needs someone to shore up the parts of his reputation that are shaky - which my incisive, informed, in-no-way-made-up-on-the-spot analysis suggests are his voting record, coming from Massachusetts and the fact that he's the most boring, wooden man ever to have walked the earth. Er... how about Edwards? Damn, here I am commenting on American politics again. Always get sucked in. Ho hum. England are doing pretty well in the cricket, by the by.
• I have to admit, I was hoping against hope that Edwards would be able to pull this off. I am sincerely disappointed in this outcome. Kerry might have a chance against Bush if he does choose Edwards as a running mate. Otherwise, I can't imagine Kerry has a chance in hell against Bush.
• England are doing pretty well in the cricket, by the by England doing well in cricket? When did the aliens land?
• From my understanding Kerry was getting ticked at Edwards for staying in too long. I'm thinking that the VP spot was offered to Edwards if he would have dropped out earlier. The Kerry/Clark ticket would work. It makes it hard for Bush and Cheney to say Democrats are weak on national security. Okay, what are the benefits of having Edwards, who only won one southern state, on the ticket? With a NATO general the Bushies can say that Kerry is soft on national security. Kerry (smartly) has been attacking Bush on the issue. Edwards didn't do much in the South against a NE liberal. What makes anyone think that he can help Kerry beat Bush in the South. Clark also won one southern state. So he did as well as Edwards, dropped out early and endorsed Kerry.
• Has a president and his VP ever had the same first name before? Think of the implications, people!
• Um, quickly dashed off thoughts before going to bed - Edwards can actually speak with charisma and conviction, and his solid ethical background would bolster Kerry's flaky voting record. The repubs will go on Security whatever, and they'll find ways to smear the war-hero Clark just as quickly as they did the war-hero Kerry. Clark's complete lack of experience does nothing to help Kerry on the issue of his voting record. But then - I don't know. I'm just hoping that Simon Jones will be fit soon, as I think if he can find some good reverse swing it would really trouble the Windies batsmen. i feel unusual - yes, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. I think.
• So now we have to worry about what Reynolds is not writing? Who died and made him the Iron Chef?
• Vice president? Since when have we had a vice president? Oh, you mean that guy. That was years ago. Right?
• My short list of VP potentials includes: 1) Sen. John Edwards - NC. I do have some (albeit small) concerns about having 2 senators on the ticket. Edwards is charismatic, enthusiastic and a great orator. VP 2.) Gov. Bill Richardson - NM. Keep an eye on Bill Richardson. He is hugely popular and successful as Governor. He served in the Cabinet, as a U.N. ambassador and as a member of Congress. He will galvanize the Hispanic vote. Sec. of State 3) Gen. Wesley Clark - Arkansas (obvious) Sec. of Defense 4) Sen. Mary Landrieu - Louisiana. She may make it interesting. She's strong on education and national defense... once dubbed "Military Mary" 5) Sen. Bob Graham - Fla. Sec. of Labor 6) Sen. Max Cleland (retired) - Georgia. Atty General AND... 7) Gen. Colin Powell - Sec. of State. Why not? He's not too happy with his current bosses. Gov. Howard Dean - VT. Surgeon General
• Dean ended up winning one more state than Edwards did. I've been pro-Kerry since the getgo and am now suffering a bit of buyer's remorse... more like buyer's angst. I hope he turns out to be what I thought he was. I'm thinking Edwards as veep would just be a nice show of solidarity and name value marketing. The pundits have been throwing Hillary's name around but that's just crazy talk, right? /still fearing the potential bush/giuliani ticket popping a bin laden summer surprise
• Kerry, Dean, Edwards.. sheeit, even Ouchie the Clown is better than Bush and his medieval-minded pack of cronies. Turn on the bubble machine!
• I want Edward to get the nomination. He sees dead people.
• Personally, unless Kerry manages to convince the Repoublican apparat to ignore his lackluster voting record AND convince the voters to ignore his lackluster luster AND Bush is caught on tape in a bathtub full of coke with a 15-year-old prostitute AND it comes to light that Osama bin Laden is really Dick Cheney's brother Daryl in a kaffiyeh, I don't think Kerry needs to start collecting boxes to move his office supplies over to Pennsylvania Avenue anytime soon. Even the people who are *for* him talk like they've just arrived at a funeral - hushed tones and a LOT of shrugging. Dream ticket? Dean/McCain. Even better? Powell/Edwards! The ultimate? Me/Rodgerd!! Wait a sec, to hell with that, make that rodgerd/me. Then after we're hounded from office in disgrace, a permanent position for rodgerd on Capital Gang (along with occasional cameos on Scrubs) and the Ambassadorship to Portugal for me.
• I say... KERRY-NADER IN 2004!!! woot woot!!!
• Make that the Ambassadorship to Italy. I can always just visit Miguel to seek his counsel as my mentor-slash-consiglieri.
• Please, please please make it stop. I've said it before, I'll say it again: How the hell does America make its elections last so bloody long. This already feels like its be going on since last summer. Almost half way there, I suppose. (silent sobbing)
• Same reason our hockey and basketball seasons are so long, and why we obsessively track the rise and fall of Paris Hilton's fortunes and backside - we're bored out of our minds. *hands dng a hankie* There, there, it'll be over soon.
• Yeah, but then it all starts again. Forever and ever. A question, to redeem my comments a bit - assumming that two thirds, or maybe three quarters of voters would probably vote for the same party pretty much regardless of the candidate (if this assumption is wrong, it only partially invalidates the rest) and that only about 40% (or is it 50%) of the population votes, why don't candidates make a concerted efforts to appeal to the non voters. Because if you could just get even a small amount of the non voters to vote for you, you'd probably win the election. If for example you convinced an extra 10% of the population to vote, and they were all pretty much voting for you, that'd easily win the election, surely. Especially when you think that the votes last time were split roughly 50/50 between Gore and Bush (This is all said without any real understanding of the electoral college, or even why you still have it - it seems like in a presidential election all you really want is to count up the votes and see who has the most) I suppose my comment can be watered down to this - why the bloody hell do politicians seem so unconcerned by the non voters. Stupid defeatism, if you ask me.
• Kerry needs to zig when everybody else thinks he's going to zag. He should pick Carsen from "Queer Eye" as his running mate.
• I would love it if Edwards was on the ticket. He's such a freakin' puppy. Can you imagine a debate between him and Cheney? That would be awesome. You can't kick a puppy and get away with it. You don't hate puppies do you?
• Kimberly, I would *love* to see Edwards debating Cheney too- he may look like a puppy, but he's also a highly skilled trial lawyer- I suspect he's been pulling most of his punches and not going too hard after Kerry, but in a debate with Cheney, that puppy would be the one doing the kicking. Just a guess. Besides, he *looks* like a VP, straight out of Central Casting.
• Don't underestimate Cheney. The dark side of the Force is strong in him. Better than debating him would be to hire a cadre of young turks to follow him around a pop air-filled lunch bags behind him in an attempt to finally get that black heart of his to release his spirit into the Void.
• Stephen Gillers (NYT Op-Ed, reg. req.) asks, why not Bill Clinton?
• So now we have to worry about what Reynolds is not writing? Who died and made him the Iron Chef? Reynolds did. When he started his blog shorty after 9/11 (interesting timing) he e-mailed a link to it to newspapers all over the country. He has been distorting Kerry's record like a madman. Example 1 UPDATE: Rob Bernard wonders why, when Bush and Kerry seem to have the same position here, it's Bush who's being called the bigot? But not this guy! Example 2 I'm also against it because I don't believe in amending the Constitution easily, and I don't think that this is an issue that ought to be constitutionalized. But I wonder why there's so much confusion on this subject, when the real news here seems to be that Bush supports leaving things exactly as they are. Kerry and Bush have the same poisition on gay marriage? Monkeys, raise your hands if you believe that. Now if someone challenges him on what he wrote he will say in shock, "That's not what I meant." Mark Kleiman Reynolds approvingly quotes Sullivan as calling Clark "Perot-crazy," without ever even asking the question whether Sullivan's hostile analysis, based on Boyer's hostile account, might not be entirely accurate: which, unsurprisingly, it isn't. Clark, who (agree with him or not) surely qualifies as an expert on military affairs, has made an extended argument that attacking Iraq made the United States less secure than it otherwise could have been, because it distracted attention and energy that should have been devoted to hunting down Osama bin Laden and the rest of the remnants of al-Qaeda. It is that argument that leads Sullivan, whose credentials as a military analyst are perhaps less obvious than a four-star general's, to question Clark's sanity. Kevin Drum Now, I'm sure this line gets plenty of applause from the same addlepated fans who also high-fived each other over renaming the French fries in the Capitol cafeteria, but I'm just curious: outside of the ANSWER crowd, can he provide even the slightest evidence for this idea, which he's repeated too many times to count? Or does he just think it sounds cool? Glenn Reynolds covering his ass. I'M CONFUSED. Mark Kleiman has a rather overwrought post in which he's angry at me for impugning Wesley Clark's patriotism. The only problem is that the only one doing so is, er, Kleiman. Here, in its entirety, is what I wrote: Atrios Note to self, add "overwrought" to the short list of Instapundit debate tricks. It's always the word he uses when someone calls him on his bullshit.
• I've read in random odd places that Clark almost started a war with Russia, during the NATO capaign in the Balkans. Like it was some sort of accident, when the Russians were coming into a Serbian airport, or something like that. I'm pretty sure it was in some persumably respectable magazine like Time, which was just lying about my house. Am I the only person who has heard this? I'm having issues finding links. I don't want to sound like a rumour-spreaading conspiracy theorist. I heard this somewhere, I swear to God. Jesus will totally back me up--he's my homeboy. I have the shirt!
• Clark wanted to block the Pristina airport from the Russians. Remember, they came in without permission. BBC

  General Wesley Clark, Nato's supreme commander, immediately ordered 500 British and French paratroopers to be put on standby to occupy the airport. ''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War. ''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'. General Jackson: Backed by UK Government ''I said: 'Do you consider I have the authority to do so?' He said: 'Of course you do, you have transfer of authority'.'' But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander. "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange. General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''

  I think the incident has gotten blown out of proportion. Clark had no idea what the Russians intentions were. He planned to put troops on standby. That's different then ordering shots fired. Clinton left him hanging. All in all it worked out. We needed the Russian troop presence to keep the peace.
• He also bombed the Chinese Embassy, don't forget. And it was deliberate. (Second link from a freaky, freaky site, the actual Observer page having screwed up for some reason, and that being the only other place it's reprinted.) There's your Clark smear stories that'll come out if he was put up for VP - he was either criminal, or more likely plain old incompetent. No matter that the current administration wouldn't think twice about doing the same thing; since when has consistency been a feature of this administration's arguments? No, all of a sudden, Clark wouldn't be quite the hero the American people thought he was. After all, he was a General under Clinton...