Each of us know who we want to get the nomination. Who does the GOP want?

[wyldwolf]

I'm a Clark supporter. Before I was so heavily involved in the daily happennings of the democratice contenders' everyday lives - back when I was a strong John Kerry supporter and thought Dean was just a maverick - I found the stories about Karl Rove wanting to take Dean on funny as hell.

Did the GOP REALLY want to tangle with a pissed off democratic base as well as millions of other progressives?

But lately I'm reading more about how the GOP seems to really be in Howard Dean's corner (NOT because he wants them there). I hear from my republican counterparts how, of the top tier candidates, Dean is the most beatable by Bush.

This is, of course, debatable. And not my opinion. But still, when you hear stories about Rush Limbaugh giving Dean advice on the air on how to take on Wesley Clark, you start to wonder if the republicans really are hoping - maneuvering - for a Dean nomination.

Here is a Rush quote from yesterday:

"Governor Dean, for his part, continues to campaign against me. Now Howard, governor, with all due respect, I'm not Wesley Clark, the Clintons or Terry McAuliffe, and I'm not trying to do you in."

Rush continued to rant away about Wesley Clark. Drudge posted what appears to have become a very beneficial report on Clark in terms of garnering moderate working class democratic and independent votes.

In my opinion, Howard Dean has the best chance by far of getting the Democratic nomination IF the honor is determined by voters.

But apparantly the GOP wants that to be a reality as well. Will republicans, in states that allow it, crossover in the primaries and vote for Dean?

Do they want to make sure someone they see as beatable gets the nod so they don't have to face Clark - provided Clark survives the political process and the coming wave of conservative smears on his campaign?

We KNOW Clark is the GOP's nightmare candidate - able to one-up Bush on every issue important to the American people.

But do they really want to tangle with Dean? I don't think so.

[phillybri]

1. They want Dean....

Rush proved that yesterday. That being said, I think they're full of shit and Dean could still take down Bush...

[OHdem10]

20. You are right they want Dean.

As I write this do not get angry with me I am only trying to explain the Republicans stategy and tactics. This does not mean I agree. We are stronger when we know what and how they operate.Right now the Iraq situation is mess--the jobless recovery is threatening to Republicas. By our ceding the Morals issue to the Republicans , Morality becomes their ace in the hole.They plan, by using push pollsm mail and TV ads they can get away with, to twist Deans Civil Unions in Vermont into Gay Marriage. They are the best in the world at morphing issues. They believe even with things bad in Iraq theycan tist his anti-war stance easier than any other candidates'.
Is this fair, Absolutely not but when has the Republican Party ever played fair. The latest drumbeat is Dean's temper'after all we cannot have a steaming teapot with his finger on the Nuclear button"
Peggy Noonan on Hardball after the debates. This thene "temper" was point of discussion on CNN's Capital Gang on saturday. In other words Dean is seen by Republicans as the easiest to take down. We have to rememer out in the country Americans even Democrats are not as passionate as we are on issues--they get their news primarily from TV and can be more easily swayed in their thinking than Activists. This in no way reflects my views--I just know the awful garbage they spread bout one of their own--John MCain.

[janx]

42. "Rush proved that yesterday" ? Can you elaborate?

I'm curious.

[RogueTrooper]

2. They do not want Dean

They do not know how to campaign against Dean. I would not put much credence in what the Republican party say publicly regarding their thoughts on the Democratic candidates. What they are doing is trying to sow discord in our ranks not hinting about the Democrat they think they can most likely beat.

[LuminousX]

37. And since when

do all the Republicans move in lockstep. I know it is joked about but California is a prime example. Rogue Republicans supporting one Republican candidate over another Republican candidate.

How did the Republicans suddenly gain the ability to detect the weakest candidate and how come Democrats don't have that ability? Did they get some sort of Uranium exposure that gave them this psychic ability?

[OKNancy]

3. The Republicans are in a panic

I think Clark, Kerry, and Dean would have a chance, I just happen to think that Clark has the best chance of beating Bush. I know for sure that he has the best chance in my state.

[clar]

4. Who Cares?

No, really I'm not being flip, and even though I'm a Dean supporter, I think you're right and the repubs probably do prefer Dean over Clark. I love that Clark scares them, and if he can survive the primary process and get the nomination, that's fine with me. But, Clark has to prove to me that he has right stuff politically. Dean's demonstrated that he has political chops and teflon. In any case, I'm not going to worry about who the repubs want.

[w13rd0]

5. The GOPs nightmare...

...is to have Bush's lies and incompetence exposed in such a way that it can't be denied even by the clattering Bushbots.

How do we know Clark is the GOP's nightmare candidate? They attack everyone. And they revise what happened last week, last month, last year on a daily basis. How does Clark "one-up" Bush on "every issue important to the American people"? What issues are important to the American people?

They attack EVERYONE that doesn't rubber stamp their agenda. They also suffer from hubris and petulence, and tend to denigrate and underestimate all opposition. After years of attacking Clinton at every opportunity, they act with a victim mentality that everyone is being "so mean" to their boy. Seriously, who gives a f'ck what they think? I say give them a lazy-boy recliner, a can of beans, and cable tv, and let them continue to think they are in the "top 10%". Let them continue to rant and whine and lie from the comfort of their own homes. They are so big on family values, they should spend all their time with their families, and quit polluting the public spaces with their bullshit.

The attacks have been, to a large degree, complete bullshit. But having, for months, been critical of those representatives that, supposedly having more information than your average voter, said they stood "shoulder to shoulder with the pResident"...there are legitimate reasons some might be concerned. I myself am not. I think Clark is bringing people into the Democratic process that might not otherwise have been involved, for completely seperate and unique reasons distinctive from the way that say, the Dean camp is.

So if we bring the Greens, and the dissaffected Republicans, and the Reagan democrats, back into the Democratic Party tent...

If one of those "coalition partners" holds more sway than another...well, let's just say I think that considering what it is that the GOP "dreams" for, I would feel rather dirty considering what their nightmares might be like.

I'm not interested in giving the GOP or Rove or Bush or whatever nightmares. I'm interested in removing them from power, and JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, denying their backers and the writers of their policies a lock on the direction our nation takes. I've said this in response to the many Impeach Bush threads. Remove a figurehead, and you've simply made the target harder to define.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Sharpton.

Republicans are pathological liars. If they say they want Dean it translates into "Dean scares us." If they say they want Kerry it translates into "Kerry scares us." Etc... For previous examples look to "Clear Skies," "NCLB" and "smaller government."

[JNelson6563]

7. They fear Dean

In my local paper, Traverse City Record Eagle on 9/20/03, there was this story:

GOP meets on island, looks to '04

Cox takes shot at Dean

MACKINAW ISLAND-

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox planned to have Republican activists shivering in their seats Friday night with these words:

"Imagine this: 'Michigan's 17 electoral votes go to Howard Dean.' Think about that. Let those painful words haunt you as you go to bed tonight: 'President Dean.' Let those two words drive you to write one moreletter to teh editor, give another dollar and knock on one more door for the Republican cause."

No link, I copy this blurb from the hard-copy paper.

Do you smell that? I do. Smells like someone pooping the shorts to me. :-) I love it when they tip their hand, which they are doing with increasing frequency I might add.

Julie

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Speaking of "shorts"...what's the market forecast for today?

:hi:

[JNelson6563]

48. Run for your life

;-)

[MoonRiver]

8. Clark IS their worst nightmare.

Which is why Pigboy and disruptor clones are spreading their Clark hating messages across the rightwing media and, yes Internet boards. Their goal is obviously to try and spin Clark as the devil incarnate. Pigboy spews his lies directly at Clark, while the trolls act like dedicated Dems who are "horrified" by absolutely innocuous statements Clark has made, when put in context.

[Ediacara]

9. The GOP wants DK or Sharpton or Carol or Joe

Dean would beat Bush easily, and by a higher margin and with more states than Kerry.

[StopTheMorans]

11. this was discussed yesterday AD NAUSEUM and I was hoping

to not have to go through this so early in the morning, especially after I recently gave up caffeine:), but here goes:

"We KNOW Clark is the GOP's nightmare candidate - able to one-up Bush on every issue important to the American people."

WE do NOT know this. Clark is the GOP's nightmare candidate in ONE aspect, namely, national security. Right now the economy is proving to be a bigger player than people thought it would be, and the war in Iraq is directly related to this (Bush's 87 billion dollar request got him a sharp drop in the polls). People are not just looking for a national security candidate, no matter what you say, It's still the economy stupid, and Clark has never handled a governmental budget.

"I hear from my republican counterparts how, of the top tier candidates, Dean is the most beatable by Bush." Who exactly are your Republican counterparts? And when Rove started Chanting "Dean, Dean" at a rally, that was right after the war, when it still looked like * had gotten a bump b/c of his handling of Iraq. Now, the war is an albatross around Chimpy McCokespoon's neck, and Dean looks all the better for his stance against it. Have you heard Rove talking about Dean lately? No. If you want to continue to engage in "well Rove says, well Limbaugh says" I say that you are just falling into their trap, they are using reverse psychology on you. If Rove is indeed as devious as many claim, he is probably trying to convince you that Dean is the one the pukes want to face so Dems will defeat him in the primaries and won't put their strongest candidate forward! You're falling for his tricks, and Rush is in on it too!:eyes:


Sorry, I just see all of this as ridiculous paranoia and speculation on the part of tin-foilers in the Clark camp. You can read whatever you want into what Rove says, but do you really think that he would put his intentions on the table for all to see if he really is as devious and clever as you think he is?

[wyldwolf]

13. On the economy as well...

One third of being a Rhodes Scholar is economics. He is also an investment banker.

He know economics. Some could argue not as well as dem candidate A or B, but still he know then better than Bush. Which is my point. He one-ups Bush on the economy. Obviously.

Argue that point?

[StopTheMorans]

14. I didn't say he doesn't "one-up" shrub on the economy

most roadkill could "one-up" shrub on the economy. I'm not saying that Wes isn't an improvement, just that he doesn't have the creds "in practice" (i.e. managing a government budget) that many of the others do. Relax, you said he was the GOP's nightmare candidate, and I just called your bluff:)

[wyldwolf]

16. You're right, you didn't say "he doesn't "one-up" shrub on the economy."

...but by stating (truthfully) that the economy is a bigger issue now than the military, and Clark is the GOP's nightmare candidate in ONE aspect, namely, national security, you effectively implied it.

Defense is Bush's only percieved strength. Clark out flanks him there. He nuetralizes whatever advantage the GOP thought they had with Bush. That alone makes Clark the GOP's nightmare candidate.

But Clark is obviously better on economics, too. Compounding the GOP's frustration with Clark.

[StopTheMorans]

17. alright, fair enough, but I do think that you continue to overplay the

"Clark is the GOP's nightmare candidate card". That remains, by a long shot, to be proven. In 3 months that may be the case, right now, I really think you are reading too much into your own hopes rather than the facts IMHO:)

[wyldwolf]

19. Do you deny that the GOP was counting on defense as "the Bush issue?"

...and that Clark, being everything they try to portray Bush as, trumps that?

They know Bush has been a failure on the economy and every other domestic program.

Defense was their last best hope. And Clark nuetralizes that. THAT is a fact.

And since defense was all Bush thought he had going for him, Clark is his nightmare - provided Bush wants to be re-elected.

And I assume we agree he does.

[StopTheMorans]

23. I never said Clark doesn't trump * on National security

but, as we have agreed, that is not the issue in this campaign that many thought it would be just months ago. The economy is now foremost in most people's minds. So, by that reasoning, a few months ago, Clark would have been "the GOP's nightmare candidate" but now it's a different time, and economic policy and experience matter just as much. Clark definitely is light years ahead of * on national security, I'll give you that, and I have never said anything to the contrary. But we also aren't living in an immediately post-war, high national security approval-ratings world for *, and we have to approach it as such (i.e. the economy is now at the forefront of the campaign).

[wyldwolf]

25. The point still being..

Bush's only "strong" point has been nuetralized by Wesley Clark. The only issue the GOP thinks Bush can win on has now been trumped by Wesley Clark.

[StopTheMorans]

27. if you insist on calling national security

"the only issue * is strong on" thereby assuming "it's the only issue that will matter in 2004" (which I strongly disagree with), then technically, you are correct.

[wyldwolf]

29. Again, you misrepresent my views...

I have said again and again, in one form or another, the Bush's strength on defense is percieved.

I've never said nor implied that defense is the only issue that will matter in 2004.

Re-read the thread and come back when you get it right.

[StopTheMorans]

30. look at the pattern of your posts

you keep calling me wrong b/c you think that I don't agree with you on Clark's security credentials. This seemed to be your only bone to pick with my arguments. yet then, when I admit that I agree with you on Clark's creds, you say that "I don't get it". If you look at the pattern of posts, I address your original post, you pick one piece of my critique to go after, and only one, which thereby leads me to assume that this is the only point you have taken issue with. Then, when we finally has it out that we actually don't disagree on this issue, you say "Re-read the thread and come back when you get it right"? What is that supposed to mean? I responded to your points one by one, and then you come back and say that? You take an argument, kept obfuscating it over a series of posts, until finally, in your last post, you accuse me of not "getting it right". Where's the point?

[wyldwolf]

32. ho hum...

Your entire point is that strength on defense is a lesser issue now than the economy. Which we agree.

But you seem to let the fact that defense is Bush's "big issue" go over your head.

Thus my original point - somehow lost on you - that Clark trumps Bush on every issue - including Bush's percieved strength.

No more. No less.

Your replies amount to little more than whines, pouts, and misrepresentations of my words. Fortunately, the posts are here for all to read.

Again, there is an ignore feature. Use it if my posts bother you so much. Because you can't do a thing about them otherwise.

[StopTheMorans]

35. you keep calling saying all I do is "cry and whine" when I actually

made a whole post addressing "just the issues" before you started trying to confuse the issue, and yes, the posts are here for all to see, and I am glad that they are. you don't refute points, you confuse the issue, and then you call names. That is a great way to have an intelligent conversation and further the general discourse. I don't use the ignore feature specifically BECAUSE it allows some people to spread lies without being held accountable to them, and I, for one, don't like the thought of that.

[wyldwolf]

38. You obviously have high opinons on the quality of your posts...

...I started the thread. How can I confuse the issue? :eyes:

It is you who has tried to change the focus of the thread and you're frustrated that you couldn't do it.

The only "lies" you see is news about Howard Dean. Any other thread on any other candidate - true or not - goes over your head.

That makes you at best blinded by Howard Dean's campaign and at worst a hypocrit.

Well, if you're opposed to the ignore function I guess you and I will meet again in various threads.

[StopTheMorans]

39. The only "lies" you see is news about Howard Dean. Any other thread on any

other candidate - true or not - goes over your head." I can call you a liar right now easily if you'll go to the Edwards and Kerry threads in GD right now, and simply have a look at them. Why do you post things when you can't back them up? Just have a look at them, and then you can apologize, my posts there were made awhile ago, before you even posted this. and then you have the audacity to claim "That makes you at best blinded by Howard Dean's campaign and at worst a hypocrit" read my last post, and then check the Edwards and Kerry threads, and then apologize again, because not aonly were you wrong, you called me "blinded" at best and "a hypocrit" at worst. And by the way, anyone can confuse the issue, just because you started the thread does not make you immune to this. All you have to do is get off-topic, not respond to points that someone made questioning your thread that were on-topic, and there you go, you're confusing the issue.

on edit: just to make it a little easier for you to find the Edwards thread, it's called "John Edwards: where's the love" and here's the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=409904

waiting for the apology

[wyldwolf]

43. You're off the issue again, Mr. Moderator..

...oh, darn, you're not a moderator.

[StopTheMorans]

45. you keep playing into my characterization of you

a few posts ago; I make a substantive post addressing some issues you raised which refutes your points, you ignore it, and call names. So you see that you lied? Are you not comfortable in admitting that you lied? You did, plain and simple. You called me "at best blinded" and "at worst a hypocrite" and made this statement wholly reliant upon your claim that "I only respond to perceived lies about Dean and not any of the other candidates". I refuted that by showing you threads where I had posted about other candidates (both positively, negatively, and neutral) yet you somehow still can't admit that you were wrong in calling labelling me "at best blinded" and "at worst a hypocrite". What is your problem? You can't simply dismiss your lies by calling someone "Mr. Moderator", you only confirm the way I characterized you and make yourself look bad.

[wyldwolf]

46. You keep mischaracterizing me and DU as whole...

You can't simply dismiss a post by saying it belongs in the lounge.

A challenge: List my lies and tell us all why they're lies.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

50. make it stop? Put me on ignore?

Simple as that.

[StopTheMorans]

51. so you can keep posting lies about me in GD

and characterizing me as a stalker?

[wyldwolf]

52. Yes, so you can be out of your misery...

...and I thought you said earlier that you were exposing my lies.

Take the challenge!

[MuseRider]

12. I think it is just

fear. I think Dean scared the shit outta them when his campaign took off and they needed to discredit him quickly and thouroghly. They thought by laughing and saying they wanted him to win would do it and make him look really silly. Once his name was really out there the could smear him with all their cute little names and get him painted as a fool. I think it is just a tactic that has not worked.

[OBrien]

15. They want anyone but Clark

they know he'd make the juinor look like a little toy soldier

[Upfront]

18. Clark Might Be

our nightmare as well. To early to say.

[VolcanoJen]

21. The lesson here is: Be Careful What You Wish For.

The Republicans could be blowing it by hoping to campaign against Dean in the end. It's obvious that's what they want, as evidenced by the RNC releasing the videotape of Clark praising Bush and his cronies at a dinner in May of 2001. They're hoping to split the Democratic core early in the primary season, get the "military/resume candidate" Clark out of this thing, and isolate Dean as the frontrunner. They do so at their own peril, in my opinion.

You know, the Democrats were really hoping to get Reagan to run against in 1980. Dems felt he was too far to the right, too old, an actor, no gravitas... and look what happened.

The Republicans were hoping to get Clinton to run against in 1992. They felt that he was too southern, too young, too liberal (ha!), and had a "bimbo eruption" problem. And look what happened.

These kinds of early attacks are fascinating to political junkies, but in the end, rarely does the party of opposition get their "dream loser candidate" to run against.

Of course, when it became apparent in early 2000 that we'd get Dubya to run up against, I was confident that Gore would win in a walk...

[wyldwolf]

22. I agree with you except on one point...

The Republicans were hoping to get Clinton to run against in 1992. They felt that he was too southern, too young, too liberal (ha!), and had a "bimbo eruption" problem. And look what happened.

I'vd heard the Bush/GOP league asked Clinton not to run ... to wait until '96.

[Stuckinthebush]

24. Remember - they wanted Bill Clinton in '92

They saw him as an easy challenge. How can this hick governor from Arkansas really compete with George H.W. Bush? I mean, come on!

Need I remind you how Bill kicked their GOP asses.

They see Dean as a "McGovern. They think that he will be seen as too liberal by the masses, and therefore, can be whipped handily. What they fail to realize is that Dean gets a lot of traction in the party because of both his vocal anger and dismay at this administration, and his moderate policy ideas. This whole "ultra liberal" junk won't fly for long.

So, I say give 'em what they think they want and let them choke on it.

[wyldwolf]

28. I always heard they DIDN'T want Clinton...

...that Bush actually asked Clinton to wait another 4 years.

[blm]

53. No they did NOT want Clinton...

they feared Clinton because Clinton had some of the goods on Poppy with his Mena/CIA adventure. That is the ONLY reason that Clinton was able to keep the GOP somewhat neutralized during the 92 election.

They fear Kerry now because he has encyclopedic knowledge of their connections to funding terrorism covertly from BCCI, Iran Contra and can connect it through the 90s and 9-11. They know if he has the focus of the people as the Dem nominee then there is nothing they can do to stop him from sharing that information.

[Yupster]

26. I guess Al Sharpton

would be Bush's dream opponent.

[Ruby Newsbee]

31. Every Republican I've ever talked to

said they would vote for Dean in the primaries for the reasons you have stated. Dean is beatable. Not enough dissatified Republicans will actually vote for him in the final election. The serious Republicans who want Bush out of office will vote for Clark. If Clark wins it will be because of republican, independent and libertarian voters.

[LuminousX]

36. Every Republican You have ever talked to is a liar.

Cross over voting just doesn't occur that often. It is talked about a lot, but when it gets right down to it, it just doesn't play that big of a role.

I love how people think Republicans are one big 'mass mind' and they are all instantly able to detect who the weakest candidate is of the top tier when we can't even tell who the strongest candidate is. Do they have superppowers I'm not aware of?

[Ruby Newsbee]

41. I doubt you can prove that allegation.

Since you have no idea which republicans I'm talking to. They're quite confident that Dean will lose, therefore are not crossing over, but voting in a primary to assure the best loser. The serious Republicans who do not want Bush will vote for Clark and there are plenty of them out there. Clinton knows this better than all. If republicans were of a "mass mind", you wouldn't be having dissenters from the Republican party.

[Capn Sunshine]

60. How many repubicans do you know?

Dean is beatable ? Because that swing vote is gonna vote republican again?

pay attention, goddamit!

You honestly think the mythical swing vote is gonna vote for W again after his hard screeching neocon right turn taken 30 seconds after being sworn in? They did NOT sign on for this, and barely enough of them voted for him to put him close enough to steal the elction Fla.
Over half a million votes behind when he was selected. Do you really think he's made up that many votes that Dean would not be "electable"

Republican Rovian memes aside, I find it hard to belive I have to continually post this over and over again about Howard Dean:

we are bringing in our own swing vote, at least twice, maybe 5 times when we're done as large as the swing voter. This is a new campaign, and if you only pay attention to the media you'll miss it; these voters don't show up on any radar because many of them haven't voted before. Finally energized by the greatest threat to our democracy since the fascist movement of the 30's they are coming out en masse and registering at our Dean Meetups. These are the mad as hell not gonna take it anymore voters and they don't know or care about party issues or conventions or Faux news or Rush. they are enegized by the genuine difference Howard Dean is offering them. Go to a Meetup this Wednesday and see for yourself what I'm talking about. (http://www.meetup.com)

This is not about some media pundits pronouncement of "electablity". it's so much more than that. Its new politics for a new day.

It's about YOU

YOU HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK.
Turn off the TV and get your ass out there. We can do this.

[LuminousX]

33. Does it matter who they want?

Since when do we allow the other party to choose our candidates for us?

Oh, right, ever since 2002 when the Democratic leaders lost their spines and all became Bushlite. Now they have the supporters paranoid. All they have to do is say "We want candidate x" and suddenly we flee candidate x like he is a sinking ship.

I choose who I support based on the full package that they bring to the table. Of our available candidates, in my humble opinion, only Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Lierberman, and Gephardt even begin to have the credentials. And of these 5, I prefer Dean because of his ability to take sensible risks (I think it is a Doctor's trait). Clark doesn't make it on the list because he has never had to deal with legislation on the backend and is used to giving orders and having people follow them. Fundamentally, I don't like military leaders as civil leaders. That is my bias.

So, tell me why I should care who the Republicans want to run against?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. They want someone who

won't challenge the status quo, so that they continue their dirty work even if the president technically has a (D) after his name.

[DemBones DemBones]

44. Bingo! They want a "Democrat" who won't mess with their real

interests, which are financial. Dean's a fiscal conservative so he protects their interests while simultaneously pissing off their socially conservative base by bting strongly supportive of abortion and same sex unions. They couldn't ask for a better candidate to run against since his policies won't hurt their wallets if he wins.

[bushisanidiot]

40. The Idiots Still Want Hillary To Jump In. They Are Trying To Draft Her

In the beginning they were really anti Kerry and anti Edwards and pro-Sharpton. Now there are so many running that they don't know who to attack. (good for us) Hopefully, some of the lower tier candidates will drop out in a few months and endorse one of the other candidates. I don't want to see our vote diluted between the 10.. because then the GOP cross-over voting tactic may have an impact on OUR election. Although, I really don't care who the GOP wants to win because all 10 are viable candidates IMHO.

[Blue_Chill]

47. They want Dean and they have said exactly that

Rove has said he wants Dean.
Rush was ranting the other day about how Dean should attack Clark.
Hannity has said they want Dean.

[gully]

54. A Gentleman close to the administration said Dean scares the crap

out of the Bushies* because they've never seen such a strong grass roots campaign for prez before.

Edited to add, I would think the'yd be happy with Clark as he was a Republican not so long ago?

[im4edwards]

55. to me it would break out so

Kucinich, Sharpton, Braun are tied for most hoped for, least expected.

Then Clark, such an easy target.

Then Dean, another easy target but not as easy.

Then Graham, very beatable but experienced and savvy.

Then Gephart, beatable but he could draw together many factions.

Then Kerry, like Gephart only with better presentation.

Then Lieberman, like it hate it, he's the best known and no fool.

Then Edwards, charismatic, smart, prepared, Southern. Sound like anyone else you know ? Did they win ? Hasn't the conservatively owned media acted as though he doesn't exist for the whole process to date ? Dontcha think there is a reason for that ?

Don't mean anything personal on the assessment but when I put on the Devil's Advocate hat, some things just glow red.

[wyldwolf]

56. So, you don't happen to like Edwards, do you?

:)

[im4edwards]

58. where would you get a whacky notion like that ? oh...

its hard to deny he's got the goods and I've yet to detect any baggage other than the lawyer thing.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

57. My guess is Clark...

Barring that they come up with a better repub to run than Dubya.
I feel Dubya is becoming a problem for them. The public and the media especially are starting to point out his GLARING inadequacies as da pResidolt.

They would love nothing more than someone who can make everyboy feel good inside but doesn't buck the system.

TWL

[Junkdrawer]

61. I'll go you one further...

Bush is the Bad Cop who makes the unpopular, aggressive moves.

Clark as the Good Cop who "repairs" the bad moves without reversing them. Sets it up for the next "jerk forward" at a later date.

And for "Clark", you can substitute any number of DLC candidates.

[Darranar]

59. Who cares who they want?

This campaign is going to be anti-Bush, not pro-<insert candidate name here> campaign. It almost always is when dealing with those who already hold office. That's why I don't think that any Democratic candidate has much of an advantage over any other in electability once the general election comes along...

[DealsGapRider]

62. Sharpton or Kucinich

Either would result in a McGovern-style loss for the party.

[found object]

63. bush is toast

at this point anyone can beat him (in a fair election). Al Frankin can beat him. Hillary can beat him. My old man could beat bush with one hand tied. This primary is not about beating bush, it's about who best will represent the Dem Party and which direction this country will take.

[Skwmom]

64. No brainer - they want DEAN.

It would be interesting to see how much the Repubs have been funding the Dean campaign.