Reply #30: You're right: "he can beat Bush" means nothing; at least half of them can [View All]

[PurityOfEssence]

If we were desperate in the face of a popular president with some kind of oomph behind him, maybe THINKING about following a shadowy servant of the establisment's enforcement arm would be in order, but those conditions simply aren't met.

There's some relevance to getting those with the best ability to stomp Bush, because the monarchists have a skilled machine and might be able to turn some things around, but to trade off what should be dearest for the thrill of being on the winning side doesn't mean much. I'm glad he's pro-choice, anti-war (???) and whatever else, but I'm not glad that he's pro-vouchers and so cozy with big banking.

Much talk has been made about how many swing and crossover voters he'll bring, but virtually no talk has been made about his contribution to a lefty third-party defection, or de-energizing of the groundswell. Clark will turn off many of the traditional Democratic voters. This has grave consequences; sure, they may still vote for him, but they won't canvass or actively argue and recruit. This campaign needs to be fought on a grand-tactical scale, and an individual hand-to-hand level as well.