Dream ticket 08 - Clark/Edwards

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

What you all think?

[dalloway]

1. clark yes edwards no

[Loge23]

2. I prefer Gore/Clark (eom)

[we can do it]

14. Me too.....n/t

[Southsideirish]

24. Me too!

[Neocondriac]

34. I can't give Mr Snore another chance....

he blew what should have been a gimme!

[peabody71]

39. Yeah well, media corruption and election fraud.....

May have had a tency-weency part in it.
Yes that is sarcasm.

Gore is a great man and an all new man I might add.
I would support him any day.

[SammyWinstonJack]

77. "Mr Snore" Oh My, how original and creative.

:think:


Not sure I've ever heard that description of President Gore. :eyes:

[laruemtt]

57. Gore / Clark - me three! n / t

[NewJeffCT]

67. that would be a good ticket

I have a feeling Gore may come back in '08 and do well.

[Snotcicles]

75. count me in on this one n/t

[bryant69]

3. I like it

I like Edwards a lot, and I like Clark prtty well.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Skink]

4. How about Clark/Fiengold

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. That could be something good.

[acmavm]

5. I would most definitely vote for that ticket. Looking around at what we

have out there, this is not only a 'dream ticket' but also the best ticket we could come up with realistically.

[autorank]

6. Edwards supported the war -- terrible judgment, not a good qualification.

We can't afford any more stupidity in the White House, not a step away from the presidency.

I find Edwards an appealing personality when he assumes the populist position but supporting a war that everyone knew was bogus is not what I call being an advocate of the people. He also did not come through as a candidate for VP. Much better than LIEberman but not up to expectations.

Clark has the intelligence, the courage, and the persistence to be an excellent president. My real preference would be: Conyers/Byrd. My second choice, in the realm of possibility would be Gore/Clark.

All Clark needs to do is separate himself from the fews foreign policy establishment ties he's got (tied to a couple of foreign relations organizations that are really just meddlers). He also needs to get good advice on electronic voting (he support internet voting which is a disaster).

Nice ticket but only 1/2 right.

[ultraist]

58. Clark said he probably would have voted for the war

But, since he didn't vote, there is no way to really know. He did however, praise Bush at one point for the war. So, Clark, has no better record than any Dem Senator on this issue.

[Kahuna]

7. Clark, yes. Edwards, no. I still don't see what he brings to the table.

:shrug:

[nvliberal]

45. Clark, NO, for he brings nothing whatever to any ticket.

He's never held any kind of political office, and it's obvious he has no intention of doing so.

Given what a poor campaign he ran in 2004, borrowing huge chunks of his stands on domestic issues from JRE because he was so brazenly ignorant of domestic issues, and given the fact he was never a serious candidate anyway, any notion he is going to run in 2008 is pure fantasy by those in his fan club.

[lanlady]

8. Why Edwards?

So we can listen for the gazillionth time about his mom the postal worker? No way. Let's run Clark for nat sec issues with someone who has economic credentials to bring to the table. Edwards has nothing to offer but a pretty face.

[i_c_a_White_Ghost]

10. I take it Edwards is not popular anymore

Why Edwards? I just wanted to get a feel of what people around here thought. I like some of the other choices put forth on here also.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. I liked Edwards, but once you've lost it's tough to overcome that image

I think the key is 2 new faces, and not having to overcome the "he lost last time image", even though it may not be a fair one to judge a candidate on.

We must have big wins in 06 and 08 - no excuses this time.

[1932]

27. FDR lost as VP and then won as President.

[nvliberal]

47. Strange, for Edwards is STILL popular.

You have to go beyond this forum to find his support, just as you will find very little support for Wesley Clark outside this board and a few blogs.

[K-W]

43. But Edwards is strong on economic issues.

So, Im not sure what you are talking about.

Have you seen him talk recently, did you see him on the daily show?


Edwards got it right about poverty
By Thomas Oliphant | September 20, 2005
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/20/edwards_got_it_right_about_poverty/

[nycmjkfan]

9. ?

How about Clark/Obama?

[ladjf]

13. Not bad. But, I'd like to see Conyers on the ticket.

[BayCityProgressive]

15. I would like to see

a minority or woman on the ticket. We rely on women, blacks, hispanics, jews, gays,arab americans, native americans, and asian americans for our votes and base...we should do all we can to end racism and sexism and I think a minority as VP would fly.

[ladjf]

22. I'm real high on Cynthia McKinney. I'd vote for her.

It doesn't seem too likely that she could get the votes. However, politics is changing fast. Who knows?

I also like Boxer and the lady representative from Chicago. (I can't recall her name - something like Rezinsky)

[hippiegranny]

16. I'd vote for this ticket

but I prefer Gore/Clark at this moment in time.

[onehandle]

17. For those mentioning Gore...

He has said that he will not run in 2008 and that his political career was over.

[peabody71]

41. If he saw that he could be of service...

A great man would feel a responsibility to do what he could.
We need a man like Gore a "recovering politician".

[Captain Hilts]

18. Clark/RICHARDSON !!!!!!! nt

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Dream ticket: Feingold/Edwards

because I applaud Feingold's call for withdrawal, and I think that more needs to be done with poverty, hence Edwards.

[gauguin57]

20. I think Feingold's second divorce is gonna sink him in the southern states

unfortunately. It's ridiculous ... and I think if he were a Republican, he could get away with it. But not if you're a Democrat.

[Donna Zen]

30. He could get away with it...

if the divorce were not so current. Also, it is not so much the divorce as the lack of a first lady. If Feingold were to remarry soon, that would be a problem, if he is not married, that is a problem.

Feingold is one of my very favorite Democrats, and I would vote for him without question, but then I'm not your average voter. I read.

So I agree, this is very bad for Feingold, but I would not confine this problem to the South.

Do we want to take this on when confronted with the DLC big cash steamrollers in the primary? I think we have some serious choices to make.

[SlowDownFast]

21. Whatever.

These kind of threads are a waste of time right now, and I feel like I have to waste my time stating the obvious whenever I see them.

Nothing personal.

[Pithy Cherub]

23. Clark most definitely.

Edwards NO! He is currently doing his life's work with anti-poverty. If that is only a means to a political end then the country would not be well served. He also has voted for IWR and the Patriot Act. I have not heard his apology for those votes.

[robbedvoter]

25. Clark/Someone who won't stab him in the back

[1932]

26. Tickets with candidates with different philosophies don't work well.

Clark, Bayh, Gore should be on the same ticket.

Edwards, Obama, Villaraigosa belong on the same ticket.

[Pithy Cherub]

28. Clark, Gore, Obama, Villaraigosa proud liberals. No to Iraq War Team.

Edwards, Bayh: IWR voters and centrists/third way/moderates.

[1932]

32. I'm dividing them on allocation of power -- wall st or middle class

and I'm thinking about things capital gains tax as one of the ways to allocate that power, and about how they talk about how military power should be used and what they say about globalization.

[Pithy Cherub]

35. That corporate strategy alignment

is divided incorrectly. Clark, Obama, Gore & Villaraigosa will put the people first. It will be about rolling back taxes for the wealthiest as a whole, not because some Wall Streeter is crying in their $15.00 beer about capital gains. Military only to be used as a last resort.

Edwards, Bayh will put the corporations first. Who never served and authorized the use of the IWR again? :freak:

[1932]

42. Yes, in Bizzaro America.

[K-W]

46. Edwards is NOT pro-corporate.

He is one of the more economically progressive democrats.

[ultraist]

60. True. Edwards is very progressive on social issues and very ANTI corp

Even as a trial attorney, Edwards was very anti corporation. He is a man of and for the people.

[K-W]

44. Umm yah if we base everything off one issue.

But anyone who has heard Edwards talk aboutt the economy wouldnt call him a centrist/third way/moderate.

[Pithy Cherub]

51. That "issue" is the one that matters most. n/t

[K-W]

55. Prioritizing issues is one thing.

I dont disagree that Iraq is the most important issue, and Edwards vote was an enormous mistake and ethical failure. Also, Edwards tactic at the moment of pretty much ignoring the issue is wrong, but I am not interested in settling grudges, I'm interested in the future.

If Edwards heads into a primary election with a hawkish or equivocating position on Iraq, then certainly I will not support him, but since I like how Edwards has been talking about poverty, and I think he is a good politician, I am willing to give him the chance to come around to a rational position on the war.

As I said, I see no problem with critisizing his war position, it should be critisized, but because he has been wrong on the war does not automatically make him a useless centrist.

[Pithy Cherub]

61. On economics

there was a collective failure to ascertain the cost in blood, lives and treasure. Historical record shows that most empires fall because of underestimating the full cost of war. The Iraq War has been no exception. The collective narrative is that the war enabled certain corporations and cronyism to run rampant and unchecked during Edwards tenure in the senate> A direct result of a vote for the Iraq War. It is deeply disingenuous to then claim to be a populist after already signing the check for the biggest expenditures for war, Lives, Blood & Treasure.

There was a failure to call into account no-bid contracts and the funding. Edwards also voted for a Patriot Act which lessened civil liberties. NCLB has not helped children and Edwards had great involvment with that as well. That being said, Edwards was also absent for many votes while serving the people of North Carolina.

Edwards is a likeable person and has a gift for articulating issues important to him. There are degrees to which one can enable the military industrial complex. Some have more of an opportunity to do so than others. Edwards embraced the war, which in turn embraced and emboldened corporations (outsourcing military jobs et al)and that has been no secret. Were Edwards to renounce his IWR vote, then the hypocrisy gap could be eliminated. It would go a long way to make his political positions consistent.

One can't argue eloquently on behalf of the people most of the time while granting permission for all that war entails.

[K-W]

68. Actually yes you can.

You can be wrong. You can defer your opinions about foriegn policy to the neo-liberal strategic class who produces rationalizations of war that match exactly the understanding of world politics you got from school and the media.

You can be a person who is fully interested in helping people, and still hurt people if you are wrong.

As far as the "hypocrisy gap" is concerned, as I indicated before, I dont care if he was wrong before, I care if he is right now. If he wants to run, he will formulate a foriegn policiy position. Lets judge him from that.

Unfortunately we probably wont get the option of selecting someone who has an enlightened understanding of corporations, war, and empire. We will have to settle for the Democratic politician who formulates the most progressive campaign platform.

[Pithy Cherub]

70. What has gone before, sets the stage for what will come.

Truly a leader has to acknowledge the history or culpability to be able to add to his/her experiences. I hope Edwards has the grace to do that. Until Edwards does, he will not be heard. Sad but true.

I agree with you wholeheartedly to let's see what he says. Past behavior is indicative of future performance. I hope he excels and exceeds that by saying here is what I learned...From there - here is the realm of the possible.

:toast:

[K-W]

71. Certainly.

Truly a leader has to acknowledge the history or culpability to be able to add to his/her experiences. I hope Edwards has the grace to do that. Until Edwards does, he will not be heard. Sad but true.

I do not think that is true. If John Edwards comes out with a position that the troops need to be withdrawn, he will be heard loud and clear by most progressives, no matter what he says or doesnt say about his complicity in the war effort.

I agree with you wholeheartedly to let's see what he says. Past behavior is indicative of future performance. I hope he excels and exceeds that by saying here is what I learned...From there - here is the realm of the possible.

I dont think we can neccessarily conclude from his past that he is anything but ignorant of foriegn policy. Lets hope he corrects that deficit.

[Pithy Cherub]

78. Progressives are going to want

WAY more than just the desired policiy perscription. Taking his policy of withdrawal without acknowledging past mistakes would not be realistic or prudent. Mix in a lazy msm that likes "gotcha" and...

Mr. Edwards has a lot to learn about national security and foreign policy. Later as voters, it will be our job to see if he passes or fails the knowledge test.

[K-W]

79. Progressives voted for Kerry.

Certainly progressives are going to want more, but most of them would settle a withdrawl policy without rehashing the past if that was the best they could get.

[KnowerOfLogic]

76. Exactly. Jeezus Christ; i guess we shouldn't hold WW2 against Hitler.

Don't want to be 'one issue' voters after all.

[K-W]

80. So John Edwards is like Hitler?

Right...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Let the 2006 leaders be the "dream ticket" for 2008.

Let them win 2006 so that the 2008 votes will be counted properly.

Let the leaders of 2006 run in 2008.

2006.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

31. Real close....

Edwards, Clark.

Got a winner there.

And while I don't agree with Edwards views on the war, I believe he would get us out of there quickly.

[Catchawave]

49. Agree ! Good looking package too!

Big votes for charisma on that ticket :loveya:

[TahitiNut]

33. Would an Arkansas/North Carolina Democratic ticket be enough to garner ...

... the "southern" vote? I dunno ... perhaps if they promised to campaign SOLELY in the southeast then maybe they'd get close to 49% of the vote in those states.

What could the Democratic Party do to get those Pacific Northwesterners to vote for any candidate not from the Pacific Northwest???

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[helderheid]

36. Edwards/Clark or Clark/Edwards - would 2 southerners be a problem?

[Bucky]

40. The country would NEVER elect a ticket with two Southerners on it. Please!

You might as well say "Why don't the Republicans run a ticket with two Texas oilmen on it?" These things NEVER happen.

[ultraist]

59. We don't need to cater to the solid Blue states

We need to appeal to the Southern and Midwestern states that could swing.

I'd support an Edwards-Clark ticket although I'd prefer Obama, Boxer or Conyers as VP.

[ruggerson]

37. Why do we want re treads from 04?

I'd prefer some fresh faces. Outside of Washington faces. Faces such as Warner or Schweitzer.

[K-W]

48. We should niether prefer, nor exclude retreads.

They can be good or bad. PLENTY of successful politicians have tried and failed before succeeding. Excluding every politician whos given it a shot before serves no purpose.

Thier record should be taken into account certainly, but getting new faces for the sake of new faces is to focus on a superficial issue when we should be focused on finding the best man/woman for the job.

[peabody71]

38. I have to say GORE! and whoever he thinks is right for VP.

[jackthesprat]

50. Never.

I genuinely am mystified by any support for Clark. Why? Weeks before the campaign he declared himself a democrat. What about that deserves giving major support?

[K-W]

53. He screams electability.

He was against the invasion of Iraq, an issue that most Democrats got tragically wrong.

That and people agree with his takes on other issues.

The same reasons anyone supports anyone, they like the ideas and they think he can win.

[jackthesprat]

62. Screams? come again?

made virtually no showing in the primaries.

[Renew Deal]

65. He was the only one in the primary to win a state

that he never lived in.

[K-W]

69. That just isnt true.

Considering the details of his campaign and the race, he had a perfectly respectable showing.

[Renew Deal]

64. Nothing about that deserves support.

The man deserves support because he is brilliant, hard working, honest, and good on the issues. He makes the Democratic party look good in so many ways.

[jazzjunkysue]

52. More cowbell

[bee]

54. Since we're dreaming... Conyers/Boxer. sigh~ n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

56. I think this would be one of the better possible Dem tickets. WAY better

than Hilary/Candidate X in my opinion.

[Renew Deal]

63. Clark needs to be in government somewhere.

I was thinking about this last night. He is one of the best and brightest in this country. He would be a great VP or Sec. Of State. He would probably also make a great President, but I don't think he needs the headaches.

[NewJeffCT]

66. I'm not sold on Edwards

I like a lot of what he represents, but I thought he did poorly in the debates (not just the VP debate with Cheney) and looked like a lightweight at times.

[TroubleMan]

72. Well my dream ticket would be Kucinich/McKinney

Clark/Edwards is acceptable compromise with the right that I would be willing to accept.

[troubleinwinter]

73. CONYERS for me.

[KnowerOfLogic]

74. Absolutely not. No war supporters, as either prez or VP. nt

[high density]

81. Edwards ain't gunna work

But Clark, hell yeah.