Is not a Edwards Clark (or vice versa) ticket fabulous?

[usregimechange]

I just think that is one of the most impressive tickets I can think of. Although I have a special admiration for Russ Fiengold.

[Comicstripper]

1. I don't think that ticket has enough experience...

...but for charisma, can't get much better than those two.

[AP]

2. Experience is overrated. What would have mattered was that people...

...would have understood what the Democrats stood for if, say, it was Edwards-Clark. They would have understood that Democrats stand for opportunity, work and against poverty, and that they also take national security seriously. It would have been the absolute right prioritization of values.

Another note about experience: if you need it so that you can learn how to act, then good for experience. But if you know how to act, you don't need to show people a long CV of theoretically relevant bullet points. People ultimately care much more about what you're doing and saying and not what you did and said (so long as you're not being inconsistent).

[Clarkie1]

3. I hear what you're saying...but

Edwards/Clark would have run the risk of highlighting Edwards lack of international leadership experience, and experience with crises that might face the leader of the free world in general. People vote for the president, not the vice president. I don't think Clark as VP could have overcome that image and might even highlight it (like Edwards needed Clark because he lacked something in his own experience, knowledge, and skills), and the Republicans would paint it that way.

Clark/Edwards could have been fabulous. Clark supports the same general principles and policies as Edwards as far as domestic policy, and Edwards is a great populist speaker who could have put some progressive fire into the ticket, while Clark at the top would lend a feeling of security and gravitas.

"The Southern man" ticket...

Edit: Not sure why I put this in past tense...who knows what the future will bring!

[AP]

6. I think the Democrats stood a much better chance if they worried more ...

...about showing how much they cared about how people in America are actually living their lives.

And I think that the Deliberative Poll proves the point (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html). When people thought of Kerry v Bush, they were thinking about national security and Vietnam service, and they didn't find Democrats very complelling. When people thought of Edwards v Bush, they thought about opportunity, class, work and poverty and they saw a reason to vote for Democrats over Republicans (and that included Republicans).

Edwards-Clark, as I said in my previous post, would have but Democratic values in exactly the right priority and exactly the right relief.

[Clarkie1]

7. Again, I hear what you're saying and agree with a lot of it.

If it weren't for 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and all the rest I'd say Edwards/whomever was a winning ticket.

But in my opinion, it's not.

However I do understand your opinion and agree with you on more than I disagree.

[AP]

9. The Cold War. Vietnam. We've been through 'global insecurity' before and..

...these rules still apply.

The Democrats win when they convince people that opportunity, work and fighting poverty are the most important issues.

Read this article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

Tell me these people weren't considering ALL the issues, including national insecurity.

They were considering all the issues (and all the candidates). What is implied by this article is, in my mind, the blueprint (along with Lakoff's theories and arguments) for Democratic success.

[Clarkie1]

11. I'm certain they were considering all the issues

And that is why we need to have all the issues covered by our presidential candidate.

National security can't be covered by the VP.

We just disagree on this one...if Clark runs (and I don't know if he will) I expect from what I heard from him in 08' that he will run on a very progressive platform...affirmative action, environmental protection, making college acessible for all, health care, job creation, and the whole liberal progressive agenda.

I think given a hypothetical Clark candidacy a VP such as Edwards who would assure democrats like yourself that the ticket was a strongly progressive one, and would promote a strong progessive agenda, would help get out the base, which is the role I think the VP is most suited for...getting out the base, not reassuring the swing voters (it's the presidential nominee who needs to do that).

I agree with you on Lakoff. One of the beautiful things about a Clark candidacy (you won't find this in Lakoff but it's an extension of his ideas) is that it "reframes" who a liberal can be, and that reframing will open up a great many minds to our causes.

We just disagree on this one...I understand your postition completely, and I hope you understand mine.

[AP]

45. ...and Kerry v Bush even at 47, Edwards v Bush, Edwards +11.

Notice the Kerry v Bush numbers were almost spot on. This suggests Edwards could have won by 8 or 9. I would have taken that, FP experience or not.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

If you elaborated more on your second last paragraph, I could comment on it.

[Clarkie1]

69. Edwards is at 48, Bush 37 in that poll.

It definitely lends support to your argument, but notice still Edwards does not break the 50 percent mark and this is just one poll conducted with a very unusual group of individuals who have participated in the online "deliberations."

I wonder who the 15 percent undecided in that poll would end up voting for.

The other problem is it is impossible to know if this poll asked questions in a way, or the deliberations were conducted in such a way, as might have favored one candidate over the other.

Also, only Edwards and Kerry are included.

[AP]

75. I think undecideds would NOT have broken better than 13:2 for Bush

Do you really think Edwards only would have gotten 2 of the 15% undecideds?

Even Gore got something like 66% of the people who were undecided 1 or 2 months out.

If you want to know more about what great predictors of voter sentiment the Deliberative Poll is, you can read some of the links on that site. Deliberative Polling has been used in 5 or 6 elections in the Europe and the US and are developing a reputation as excellent predictors of voter behavior.

Finally, read the links -- all the candidates were considered. That point is made explicitly.

[Avis]

4. Love it

[Historic NY]

5. me too, something fresh.

[leyton]

10. They are both outsiders.

Yet Clark has plenty of military experience, and Edwards packs a lot of punch on domestic issues. If 2008 is less security-oriented than 2004 was - and it may be - this would be a killer ticket.

[politicasista]

8. Sorry, too early for me

Both men are cool though.

[Carolab]

12. I don't think so.

Edwards is essentially unknown but I do know that he is even more of a hawk than Kerry, who is at least as much of a hawk as Bush.

I also don't like that Clark is DLC.

I want a candidate who is ANTIWAR.

[kevsand]

13. Clark IS antiwar.

Most generals are. I know the founding fathers wanted ultimate control over the military to be in the hands of the civilians, and they were probably right, but I strongly suspect that if a general had the last say we'd have been in a lot fewer scrapes the last twenty years.

And there's no doubt that Clark was more antiwar than any of the last round of folks except Kucinich.

I actually was pulling for a Clark/Edwards ticket last time. I like to think of it as "Double Bubba."

[Carolab]

14. Okay, but what about his DLC connections?

Does he subscribe to PPI, the DLC's version of PNAC?

Or is Wayne Madsen considered too out of touch here on DU nowadays? I know lots of people here think counterpunch is too "leftie".

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen09182003.html

A quote from the above:

"The "New Democrats" (neo-cons) are as much masters at the perception management (lying) game as their GOP counterparts (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld). Clark's presidential candidacy announcement in Little Rock is one warning sign. This city is a sort of "Mecca" for the neo-con Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its main nurturers, Al From and Bruce Reed. It was from Little Rock where the DLC propelled a little known governor named Bill Clinton into the White House. And although Clinton did not turn out exactly as conservative as the DLC hoped for, his support for globalization and selected use of U.S. military power abroad were neo-con keystone successes.

<snip>

A long time ago, the French, tired of war, turned to a short general named Napoleon to lead them to peace and prosperity. Instead, Napoleon seized imperial power and ensured the French would have more war. After four years of Bush, the neo-con Fifth Column in the Democratic Party is trying to convince us that Clark is the "anti-war" candidate. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Tell that to the coca farmer in Bolivia or Colombia who is trying to feed his family. Let's not fall for the deception and tricks of the neo-cons again. If you are tired of Bush, Cheney, and the neo-cons and their phony wars, Clark is certainly not the answer. He has been, and remains part of, the great deception of the American people."

[kevsand]

16. Chestnut alert

I'm sorry, but using the same word (neo-con) to describe Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton, and Wesley Clark kinda renders the word totally meaningless, don't you think? As far as I can tell, both the General's words and deeds are as far from the neo-cons as it gets.

I don't think Madsen is too "lefty." I've actually enjoyed reading a lot of his stuff. I do think he sometimes forgets to take the tin foil hat off before he goes out in public. And this tired old piece of his has been repeatedly demonstrated in the pages of DU to be significantly mis-representative of the histories it claims to relate.

Still, people persist in bringing up Kosovo and Pristina et al over and over, even though they've all been refuted till we're blue in the face. I saw something somewhere online today about why people persist in believing lies. I think it was Bill Moyers talking about this; I'll try to find it again.

Whoever it was, their point was that people tend to continue to believe the first story they hear about something, even when it's disproved later. This is especially true if the story matches any preconceived notions. It's why so many people believe the stuff Bush and Rove say (or imply). And I think it's why some people never bother to understand the truth about Clark.

I do have some misgivings about the DLC. I never felt as though Clinton and Gore did as much as they could or should with the eight years they had. On the other hand, they had a Repub Congress for too much of the time. We need to change that, too.

I don't think Clark is a little puppet for anybody, though, and that's one of the things I like best about him. That and the fact that his policy positions and stated agendas are built on the kind of common sense that comes straight from the heart, and not some ideological playbook.

Let's face it, I love the guy. A lot of us do. I haven't felt this way about any candidate for decades. I'm sticking with it while I can...

[Totally Committed]

42. Ive said it before (Once this morning already!)...

and I'll say it again:

The Democrats have a death-wish. Better to faction off and vote your particular "bent" than (*God Forbid!!!*) maybe rally behind the right canidate and vote for better good of ALL America -- read: win a goddam election for a change!

I am not a supporter of Kerry (in the extreme, truth be told), but went to the polls and voted for him all the same because he was the only other choice other than Bush. If I could put aside what I feel about Kerry and actualyy go to the polls and vote for him, then sure-as-heel Wesley Clark can be given the benefit of the doubt over all other comers!

I sincerely believe he is the only D E M O C R A T (he's a Democrat!) who can win against the Regressive Extremist Wingnuts next time out.

TC

[Totally Committed]

41. This is RICH...

You worry about Clark's DLC ties when Edwards actually is a MEMBER of the DLC...

TC

[Carolab]

72. Actually, I worry about BOTH of them being "DLC".

The DLC is the Democratic "death wish", IMHO.

[cidliz2004]

46. Antiwar means knowing how to keep the peace

as well as how much a war really costs a country. Clark has hands down the best experience for that. No grandeur ideas about how great our country could be using our might. Read how Clark thinks and you wouldn't have a concern about his philosophy on aggression.

[karynnj]

73. By what stretch of logic are Kerry and Edwards more hawk than *

Kerry would not have led this country into war in Iraq - he said this many times. At this point, he may not be calling for immediate withdrawal as he did in Vietnam, but his stated reason of wanting to prevent a failed state in a critical area seems reasonable. The huge difference between him and Bush is he has vehemently said that the US should not be building permanent bases in Iraq.

He spent hours talking about international diplomacy with nations working together to roll up terrorist networks - this is different from attacking nations where the terrorists are. If you remember comments such as these were thrown back at him by the Republicans as weak. Look up his terrorism speech given in Philadelphia in late September.

Look at Kerry's history. He is consistent. He fought Nixon on Vietnam, he fought Reagan against the US sponsored wars in Central America where he compared our Vietnam era destabilization of neutral Cambodia by bombing and aiding rebels, he was against the first Gulf War. It would be hard to find anyone who fought harder against the US covert actions that have led to many of our current problems than Kerry. Add in his work to close down BCCI which provided terrorists such as Bin Laden easy hidden movement of money to their cells, Kerry may have been working harder than anyone to prevent the problems we have today. Through most of these efforts, he got little or no support and often was criticized by his own party.


From every thing he has ever said, I can think of no one I would trust more to not take the US to war unless it was absolutely needed than John Kerry. On the basis of how he would interact with other nations, there is no one I would want more to be President

[Radical Activist]

15. Edwards and Feingold are a much better combination.

Go with that instinct. Feingold can carry a swing state, has more political experience than Clark, and is a better speaker with a populist message.

[independentchristian]

17. Clark doesn't have a chance

Now, if you want to keep letting the GOP dictate the debate and you "want" 2008 to be about "war" instead of about the economic crisis that Bush has created in this country for this country and especially working and middle class people, then nominate "General" Clark.

2008 will not or at least should not be allowed to be about war, in my opinion, so Clark is a wasted nomination, and yes, that's what he is most comfortable talking about and that's what he would talk about, and that's what the GOP wants to talk about.

Of course that will tick off his minions, but hey, sometimes the truth hurts.

As for Feingold and Edwards, Feingold probably has more "political" qualifications to be at the top of the ticket, but like I've said before, you have to think like the stupid people in this country do, and that's most voters. If you do, you'd understand that he looks "too arabic" to have a chance of winning the Presidency. Hey, I'm just telling you what to be prepared for. Don't underestimate the stupidity of voters.

[trillian]

20. It was about NS and it will be again

It has nothing at all to do with letting the "GOP dictate the debate and you "want" 2008 to be about "war"

National security and Iraq will still be the primary issues in 2008 whether you like it or not and Bush "won" because he made people feel safe.

You can talk all you like about the economy and with a masters in economics, Clark can and will do so, but the difference in this election and will be again in 2008 is that post 9/11, Americans want a president who makes them feel safe.

Pretty hair and a good speech isn't going to cut it and please......no more Senators, no one who voted for this damned war and no one who co-authored the Patriot Act.

:mad:

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dogman]

31. Talk about clueless!

If oil is $100/bbl the likelyhood of war and turmoil is much greater. Foreign Policy and National Securiy are not going away any time soon. As for the economy, I would recomend a Rhodes scholar who gained a Masters Degree in Economics and was a White House Fellow, serving as Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

[independentchristian]

60. I know enough about Peak oil to know that, duh.

Voters are going to be "feeling" the squeeze on their wallets, and that's what they are going to be focused on.

If you want 2008 to be about war, then you may as well get ready for a GOP administration and say hello to President Chuck Hagel and VP Santorum.

[dogman]

63. That's why we have a great opportunity and alternative.

I don't see how you're going to seperate war and economy. We have a gifted person that understands both and is still a supporter of Democratic values.

[cidliz2004]

51. Guess again, National Security and the Economic Crisis are INTERWOVEN

If you think you can use one OR the other, than you are thinking politics of over a decade ago.

Clark is best equipped to handle BOTH of them AND to understand how to balance the needs of b o t h c r i s i s e s !

To look at one without being expert in being able to simultaneously consider the implications of the other, is downright dangerous in this day and age.

Welcome to the NEW world of politics - we can no longer be a 1 50% expert party, today it's all or nothing.

[independentchristian]

61. I don't guess, I know.

When will you get that it's not about "you as an intellectual", it's about thinking down to the level of the voters?

The only thing they will be concerned about is "my pocketbook and my bills."

It's like now when you look at Iraq, of course "Iraq and the freaking economy are intertwined right now," duh, but people in this country say, "why is he spending money there to fix up schools when our schools need money here."

Think down to the level of the freaking voters why don't you?

They will be feeling the squeeze and they will not see their pain and "war" as being one in the same, duh!

Regardless of how much you disagree with me Wesley Clark does not have a chance at all of winning a general election.

Post away, nothing changes. I'm done with this thread, because it's a waste really. He can't win.

[cidliz2004]

62. O.K. so be done, but people voted for SAFETY w/ Bush

and the joke is on them.

People didn't vote their pocketbook, because if they did, Bush would have lost.

[Radical Activist]

39. Why fight a battle we can't win?

You make a good point. The public will always see the Republicans as better on defense no matter who we nominate. If we let the Republicans define that as the #1 and #2 issue of the campaign like we did in '04 then we will lose. The Democrats just can't use fear as a weapon like Bush did, and if a Democrat did do that well I would be too ashamed to vote for that person.

As for how Feingold looks. The fact that he is Jewish will be such a big topic of discussion that no one will mistake him for an Arab.

[dogman]

44. None of the Dems are likely to sway Republicans.

But Clark is our best shot in that department and could influence a number of Independents. I personally know Republicans who would have voted for Clark over B$$$, but we won't have B$$$ the uniter next time.

[trillian]

18. Clark/anyone

With Clark at the top of the ticket you could have anyone, even Mickey Mouse as his running mate.

He is the ONLY Democratic that will bring over Independents and moderate Republicans, without whom we cannot win.

[independentchristian]

24. Really?

You obviously don't know what it takes to win.

Edwards could have won this time if he'd have been at the top of the ticket. The GOP would have had to work a lot harder to steal it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

[Clark2008]

32. That's a load of garbage

Sorry - but it is.
I'm not going to back it up and I'm not going to argue.
Edwards wouldn't have won (or come any closer to winning despite election fraud).
It's just garbage.


And so is your assertion that foreign policy has nothing to do with domestic policy.

[independentchristian]

56. Tell that to PBS

What, you shocked by reality? 48 to 37 percent, Edwards over Bush?

Edwards was always the best candidate out there, period.

And I am "objective," and that's just a "fact," it has zero to do with "affection."

[Totally Committed]

43. Amen!

I believe this with every fiber of my being!

TC

[independentchristian]

19. As long as the ticket is not focused on "war"

Any ticket with Clark at the top of it will be just what the GOP wants because they don't want 2008 to be about the fallout from Bush's economy. They want it to still be about terrorism and which party do you "trust" in a time of war so that dummies will run out and vote GOP, and that's exactly the debate Clark will give them.

2008 needs to be about Bush's economic and domestic record and changing that and lifting up people who are struggling in this country.

Once the oil crisis really starts hitting hard and Bush's economic policies start to squeeze everyone, people will be longing for someone who focuses on the issues that Edwards does.

[trillian]

23. Are you kidding???????

The GOP are terrified of Clark as an opponent. Why do you think the corporate media all but blacked him out during the primaries?

And, to prove how wrong you are about concentrating on the economy during a NS crisis.........Kerry's numbers were dropping like a stone when the economy was his focus. Clark and Clinton's people were begging him to talk about national security and the war and when he finally came around....only then did his numbers start to climb again.

Dems are living in a dream world if they think they can win on the economy alone, post 9-11.

We have to become a full service party or we will be consigned to the ash heap of history.

[independentchristian]

25. Blacked him out during the primaries??? Please.

He blacked himself out. It was him and Dean, him and Dean, him and Dean, him and Dean, and Clark screwed up by not going to Iowa. Because he did not go to Iowa he cut his own "coverage." Then he spent all of that time in NH and just barely finised ahead of fellow southerner Edwards in that primary, and then he stayed in Oklahoma for an entire week, John Edwards didn't even go there that week at all because Zogby was showing polls with Kerry closer than he ever was, forcing Edwards to stay in SC, and Clark still only managed to be Edwards by a "disappointing" 1,000 votes in Oklahoma.

If Edwards wouldn't have been locked in SC thanks to Zogby, and he'd have gone to Oklahoma for even one day, Clark wouldn't even have won that state.

Clark performed terribly during the primaries and the debates, and that's what blacked him out. As soon as Edwards finished second in Iowa, the media began labeling him as the "running mate", essentially telling people, not to vote for him because they'd get him anyway. I'll never forget Chris Matthews on MSNBC saying "Is this the ticket" after Iowa, and hearing the panel on CNN saying "This will be the ticket."

They were trying to keep Edwards from being taken seriously as the nominee, so they immediately started calling him the running mate after Iowa.

That was intentional.

No one "blacked out" Clark. He did it to himself.

[trillian]

30. CNN did not mention him once.......

....during the whole month of December. If that isn;t a media blackout I don't know what is.

And Clark did extremely well in the primaries for someone who got in the race late, had no money, no staff, no policy papers when he entered. He raised more money than anyone else except Dean and even beat him one month. It is a RW myth that he was a terrible campaigner, one that the media and for some unknown reason, some Dems like to parrot.

He won a primary that wasn't his home state, and came in second in others. Considering Edwards had been running for two years, I don't think Clark did too badly against him. He then had the class to drop out when he saw he wasn't going to get the nomination unlike others who hung on to the bitter end.

He won't make the same mistakes next time around, believe me. He'll have the cash, the backing and unlike Edwards and Kerry, he'll always have his grass roots base.

[ZootSuitGringo]

48. Your love for Edwards is overwhelming

your senses, if don't realize that Edwards was pushed by the media BIG TIME during a crucial time of the primaries; when voters get ready to vote. It started slowly enough with the DeMoines Register's endorsement (never seen a single endorsement do so much good for a candidate so quickly), and it just snowballed from there. Edwards became the media Boy Wonder who could do no wrong. No mention by the media about him being a personal Injury Attorney or any of the nasty media that all of the others were getting. It was; He can talk owls out of trees and he's so much like Clinton (yeah, sure), his speech is to die for, and he's a hell of campaigner. Those things were not true to the extend that they were announced loudly to us by the Corporate whores.

The media kept pumping and pumping Edwards as though he was the 2nd coming. And although it is true, that he received scant media publicity until the last 2 weeks before Iowa, the timing of the publicity was the key; Dean got tons of positive publicity forever, but right before voters were to go out and vote, his coverage became overwhelmingly negative. It's all about the timing, baby!

South Carolina's primaries were called for Edwards after 1% of the vote had been counted. They were called early because the media knew that voters were still voting in southwest states, and this was their way of influencing those drones who like to vote for the winner (asinine horserace, anyone?)in places like Oklahoma, Arizona, etc.

If you don't understand why Edwards SC birth state win was called early everywhere on the tube, and why he kept being talked about constantly until he became the VP pick, and then was "disappeared", then you don't truly understand American media and it's manipulation skills. naivety is not a virtue when attempting to understand the blood sports of politics and the obvious allies that manipulate our system.

Considering the unsurmountable odds and manipulation against him, Clark did unexpectantly well (to the chagrin of the Corporate media) on mini Tuesday.

Considering the unsurmountable positive manipulation by the corporate media for John Edwards during mini Tuesday and prior, he didn't fare as well as Clark.

That's what makes General Clark a better candidate. period.

[ISUGRADIA]

67. Sorry, polls showed Edwards moving into a strong position

ahead of Gephardt and near Dean, Kerry before the DSM Reg endorcement. Clark blew it by blowing off Iowa and concentrating on NH. When a surprise like Kerry 1, Edwards 2 in IA occured, Clark got lost in the publicity of that surprise.

[cidliz2004]

52. Isn't NH quite close to N Carolina?

[cidliz2004]

53. You really didn't follow Clark too closely, or you wouldn't be

saying things so 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong.

ANYBODY who watched anything in the primaries knows that Clark and Dean were hatcheted out by the DLC. In the short time Clark was running and actually on the political scene he made a strong showing.

He was blacked out, being a Clark supporter, I witnessed that time and time again.

Whereas, Edwards was treated with kid gloves because he was an "anointed" one. The 2nd coming, the new and better Clinton, the new Kennedy- - - blah blah blah. The problem is that Edwards didn't deliver ANY of the south PERIOD. So, while Edwards has a great appeal, a less than 1 term experience (I say that, because he spent part of his 1 and only term campaigning for another job) in politics as a whole and he voted FOR the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act.

Edwards can have a future in politics, I am not saying that he cannot, I am simply saying, if you are talking about experience - Edwards is in need of much more experience to be qualified for the top of the ticket.

Edwards ran no better than Clark THROUGH to the end, when Clark was "yanked". Clark's debate performances were excellent when he was asked legitimate questions, which many times he was not. Edwards had his own problems on the debates with the "marriage" question. The difference was that Edwards was COVERED by the press all of the time. If you just watched T.V. regular news shows, you would have thought that it was a 2 man race after NH. It was pathetic. All they covered was Kerry and Edwards, it was as plain on the nose of anyone's face as to who was "blessed" by the DLC and the media.

It had nothing to do with debate performance, Kucinich was great at the debates, what coverage did he get? How about the Dean scream? How much coverage did THAT get? And THAT was a lie and mechanically altered to assassinate Dean - and it worked.

Unless you are able to analytically see what is going on right in front of you, you will NEVER get the WHOLE picture.

I hope that the DLC actually allows the Democrats to choose their candidate next time.

[Mark E. Smith]

21. Any Ticket With Clark At The Top Would Be Great

But having Edwards running for VP a second time would be unfortunate. My pick for VP would be Bill Richardson. 8 terms in Congress, a wildly popular governor in his home state of New Mexico, and a guy who can really put in across on the tube.

[rjx]

26. Dean/Clark

That would be sweet!

[Padraig18]

27. It would be one of several good tickets.

:)

[Renew Deal]

28. Democrats always seem to do things one election too late.

It would have been good for 2004. I don't think we necessarily need either of them in 2008. Clark should try to become governor. Edwards should get a job. Otherwise, we are wasting time.

[tjdee]

29. That was THE BEST scenario for 2004.

But NOOOOOOO, the Democrats went with someone who had a lot of experience, because that means SO much to the American people.

You know, because Arnold lost in California, the most liberal state in the country.

:grr:

This is a sore subject for me. I don't know when the Democrats will understand just how badly broken today's political system is.

We had two good looking, charismatic, smart, and capable men, but NOOOOOOOO. They're too inexperienced (like GW in 2000, or now, because he's stupid), they don't fall in line completely with every single point I support.....

Ugh.
Yeah, fuckin', George W. Bush is WAY better than those two.
:eyes:

[robbedvoter]

33. The use of "fabulous" captures this thread. "2001 was a fabulous year

for Laura and I"
Combination of these two only works for people who do not believe in anything. I for one get whiplash - right-wrong-right.

[kevsand]

34. Clark has more experience than Edwards and Kerry combined

Did I get your attention there? Good, because even I don't completely agree with my subject line, but I wanted to see how many would stick around for the explanation.

This goes back to the whole senator vs. a governor (or commander) thing. If we were electing a chief legislator, senators would be great picks. But we're hiring a chief executive here, and guys who spend their whole lives in Congress don't always necessarily develop the chops for that.

Whether you agree with that or not, the public apparently does, which would explain why only two sitting senators were elected president in the entire twentieth century. Instead, they picked guys who they saw as executive material, people who appeared to have the experience of actually running big things: mostly governors, a commander, and a handful of VPs who presumably got some on-the-job training.

I think Kerry and Edwards are swell guys, with lots of valuable life experience, but Clark had actual command duties that were easily larger than most corporations and several smaller states (or even nations).

[LdyGuique]

35. Sorry, I don't agree at all

I would not support Edwards on ANY ticket until he gets more genuine political experience -- he's charming, but an egotist of the first rank. He decided that he was presidential material after only 4 years in the Senate? I would have respected him more if he'd hunkered down and rerun for his own Senate seat and won it, done a good job and rerun in 2010 and won that.

I realize that if the Dem nominee (unknown in 2002) had won the Presidency that he would have to wait until 2012, which he could have done and kept his Senate seat as he'd be in the early part of a 3rd Senate term. He's just too ambitious on too little evidence of being a "voice" for the South. He was unwilling to pay his dues.

As for Clark, he'll become just a marginalized voice for populism. He, too, needs to hunker down and show that he can win at his own state level and pay some dues. He doesn't have a chance of winning enough primaries to be a Dem ticket presidential candidate without holding elective office in his own state, Arkansas.

Both of these "potential" candidates are charismatic and seem to hold to Demo ideals, but both lack genuine political experience or a strong state constituency. I'd vote for neither one in the run up to 2008.

[tjdee]

37. Yeah, you know, Arnold Schwarzennegger paid LOTS of dues.

:eyes:

[LdyGuique]

50. Yeah, I know California has this "thing" about movie stars

fotunately, Ahnold isn't native-born and there isn't time to add a Constitutional Amendment before he implodes

[gulliver]

36. Clark was the one last time. We need him next time.

We let Clark slip by. We panicked and married the wrong guy.

Clark is still by far the best we have for 2008. Those who think he is all about war or want to pigeon-hole him as a "general" have not done their homework. Clark is primarily a compassionate intellectual, a kind of modern Marcus Aurelius.

If you want to get America out of the hands of the war mongers, you are not going to do it by trying to put a flower child in office. "If you want peace, prepare for war." (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.) A warrior is the only one who can sell peace right now.

[indie_voter]

38. I agree. n/t

[cidliz2004]

58. The best offense is a good defense

[cidliz2004]

59. It is best not to be reactive, but proactive for peace

[hippywife]

40. No. eom

[BamaLefty]

47. Edwards Might Be Clobbered

But we will cross the bridge when we get there.

I want Russ Feingold... he would guarantee us Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and maybe Ohio.

[zulchzulu]

55. Russ would get both coasts (except mid-South) and many parts of midwest

It's Russ or Kerry for me in 2008 so far.

[independentchristian]

57. I repeat. Do not underestimate the stupidity of the American voter

Russ Feingold looks too "arabic" to win a Presidential election.

[BamaLefty]

64. LOL

I disagree though.

[XemaSab]

49. The problem

is that there were too many damn candidates in the primaries.

Between Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt, and uh... all those other dudes and dudettes, there wasn't enough time for the media to really vet all these folks before Iowa. Most of the coverage was focused on Dean, and he got his dirty laundry aired early and often, but the other folks didn't get much coverage at all, which makes it pretty easy to second-guess the primary results.

I strongly suspect that whoever the nominee was, he or she would have had a really tough time making it in the general election.

I think Edwards initially looks good on the surface; he's cute and can give a good stump speech, but his lack of political experience coupled with his pro-war, pro-patriot act positions are deal breakers for me.

I know a lot of Clark supporters who I have tremendous respect for, but a lot of the Clark hoopla seems to be about electability, and not actual positions on the issues. "Well, if we get Clark in there, we'll win!" Yeah, but what happens after that? We'd win with the ghost of Ronald Reagan too, but we don't want that. A lot of people seem suspicious of Clark's history of political fence-jumping, and for good reason. He reeks of "Reagan Democrat" to me. We already had one of those in office for 8 years, and where did that get us?

[ZootSuitGringo]

70. You made my point....had one of those in office for eight years,

that would be great to get a Democrat in the office for eight years.

You are wrong on his positions on issues. Do you know what they even were? Most Clark supporters do, and it appears that you don't. That's not the fault of Clark supporters that you don't know his issues or policies.

[XemaSab]

74. Clark's positions

I've heard that many of his positions are pretty liberal. But it seems that there really hasn't been much substantive debate over the general's positions, which is too bad. The lack of substantive debate makes the attacks on his party loyalty seem to hold water.

But it seems that too many Clark supporters on this site repeat a continual litany of "He'll get Republican votes. He's more liberal than you think. He'll get Republican votes. He's really smart. He'll get Republican votes." Without going into specifics.

I have a tendancy to like Clark, but I know that it's not based on actual knowledge so much as simple warm-fuzzies. I researched his positions back in the day, in November of 2003, but I don't remember much of them (It all blends together! Too many candidates!).

It's not the fault of Clark's supporters that I don't know what he really stands for, I blame the utter lack of media coverage and scrutiny of his candidacy. I also understand that some of the blame belongs with me.

I aligned myself with Dean fairly early in the primary cycle because he seemed willing to say things that many other candidates weren't willing to say, such as stating plainly that our energy policy and our national security policy should be the same policy. Clark was my number 2 choice for little reason other than the fact that all the other candidates had turned me off, and Clark seemed to present no major drawbacks, other than the fact that he has a history of voting republican. I think he would have made a good nominee last year, but again that's with the caveat that we haven't really seen his dirty laundry.

In order for me to really get behind a Clark candidacy in 2008, I'd like to see what he does between now and then. If I see him doing great works, then I'm all for it. But if all he's doing is appearing on chat shows, I'm not sure that entitles him to be our standard bearer.

[zulchzulu]

54. I bet Edwards AND Clark would deliver the South...

...since neither of them did in the primaries...Edwards barely won his home state. Clark didn't win his.

Yes, it's very early, but I'm not really seeing either of them as winning candidates in 2008. Perhaps you have some notions about 2008 that would make them be strong then...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZootSuitGringo]

71. Clark wasn't running by the time they held a primary in his home state

but he did win a state that wasn't his, and came in 2nd in 3 others, all in the southwest, all during mini tuesday. Clark would be stronger in 2008 if folks knew who he was, and what his policies were. He didn't get the media coverage to allow many to know him at all in 2004.

[ArkDem]

66. Sure to get at least 35% of the vote.

[Pastiche423]

68. No

[Nashyra]

76. Clark/Edwards

or Edwards/Clark I would prefer Clark as Pres. but would work for either scenario.