Should other Dems let Clark be the 'slammer" on Bush ?

[kentuck]

Clark is very effective in his style of criticism. He has credibility. The other candidates could send him out as the "pointman" and set back and talk about the issues in a civil manner for a week or so and let the "hate" talk die down somewhat. That is something they could do but I doubt if any of them would wish to let up at this time. Strategically speaking, it could be an effective strategy if used correctly.

After a while, the criticism loses its sharpness if used too often. It has to be used at the right time and the right place, otherwise people will see it in a negative manner. Of course, it might be easier to herd chickens and put them in a wheelbarrow? :)

[TorchTheWitch]

1. holy freakin' cow

I seriously can't believe I'm reading this.

Ok, so what you're saying is that it's your opinion that Clark is more credible and more effective against Bush then the other candidates... and you support who? Off the top of my head, I can't remember who you support but I do remember it isn't Clark. The irony here is that while it's your opinion that Clark is better at taking on Bush then any of the other candidates you support another candidate for president... you are aware that we're trying to nominate a candidate who is most effective at beating Bush, right? I mean, that IS the whole point here.

The other bizzaro point with your idea is that apparently you aren't aware that the candidates are COMPETING against each other to win the nomination... why the hell would they collaborate on anything??? What candidate in their right mind would choose someone other then themselves to take on Bush? That's what ALL the candidates are SUPPOSED to be doing! That's the whole freakin' point!

Dude, maybe you need some sleep or something.

[kentuck]

2. I can tell you are a great thinker ...

and a great reader also.. :)