If the '08 nomination came down to Clark, Clinton or Kerry..

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: If the '08 nomination came down to Clark, Clinton or Kerry..

who would you support?

[inslee08]

1. Clark

He'd be the only one that stands a chance.

Edit: Though if it looked like Rudy was gonna be the nom. for the Repubs, then Hillary wouldn't be a bad option (bringing attention to Rudy's infidelity?)

[Adelante]

2. Clark for me nt

[Virginia Dem]

42. none of the above

I would leave the party if that sorry lineup is all we can come up with

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Given those 3 choices, I'd definitely go with Clark.

But I still think he needs to get something on his political resume first. If the Arkansas Governor's mansion opens up in 2006, he should go for that. Of course then he would probably have to avoid making any pledges to serve out a full 4 years.

[Jai4WKC08]

21. Doesn't matter what he promises

Altho I am certain he wouldn't break a promise made, for all that many have done so in the past.

Even if he made no promise, it just wouldn't work. Look at it this way: Elected in Nov '06, takes office in Jan '07... when do you think he would have to begin his presidential campaign? Feb? March? What could he accomplish as governor while campaigning? What would be the point?

Clark has the experience of office comparable to a state governor hands down. More really, because he has the foreign policy and defense experience too. So there should be no question as to whether he can govern. It's only a question of whether he can campaign and win.

Seems to me it makes more far sense to judge his campaign skills based on how he campaigns for the nomination. If it turns out true that he's a "bad campaigner" (instead of what Clarkies say about his late start, second-rate staff, how much he's learned... yada yada) then there's no way he'll win the nomination so you have nothing to worry about. But if we do turn out to be right, you'll see a very different campaign than the one he ran in '03/'04. I hope you'll keep an open mind when the time comes.

[Skwmom]

76. The republican/media created "Clark is a bad campaigner" meme

Funny how in the end it wasn't Clark who turned out to be the bad campaigner.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Of the three:

Kerry would be Adlai Stevenson, Clinton is too willing to sell out to the Republicanites, and Clark would be a fresh face (to most people) who knows how not to take any crap from anyone.

[iamjoy]

5. None Of Them Are Very Electable

in a general election.
methinks there's lots of mud for Clark yet to be slung, perhaps stuff that would make what the Swifties did to Kerry look like child's play. I have nothing really against Clark, mind you, just that I don't imagine one gets to be a Supreme Allied Commander without pissing off a few people.

[mikehiggins]

24. Start off with "butcher of Kosovo" and crank it up from there

The difference in a Clark campaign would be two-fold, however.

First, Clark wouldn't let a minute go past without launching a vicious counterattack, ripping into the people making the charges for everything from robbing the church collection box to throwing disabled widows out of their foreclosed houses into the streets in February. To start with.

Second, a Clark campaign would be on the offensive from the first day, filling the time from Iowa to ELection Day with a contiuous, coherent campaign hammering away at the faults and failures of his opponent.

Clark in 2008 would not be politics as usual and America would be better off for that one fact.

The real question is who do the GOPukes turn to now? After Dubya they have no credible national candidates out there who will be acceptable to God's Fascists on the right. Four years of red meat will leave them unwilling to accept a compromise candidate and we could see a replay of the Goldwater fiasco.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[Pepperbelly]

28. remember how many Americans he lost in Serbia during the Kosovo

affair?

Exactly.

I think it can ahndle itself (with a little help from his friends).

[ProgressiveWarrior]

46. American-Albanians will tesify to being saved from genocide in

commercials to help General Clark.

The only Butcher of Kosovo was Milosevic.

[Ediacara]

56. Welcome to DU!

And I agree completely re: Milosevic.

[ProgressiveWarrior]

71. Thank you so much, DinoBoy

I took the plunge today and jumped in with both feet. I've read enough to see who some of the DU diplomats, bullies, thinkers, and issues are.


Milosevic is a Hitler fan and the Serbs in this country have been huge Bush backers.

[sandnsea]

63. A clue for you

Did you see the exit polls on who attacked more in this campaign???? Kerry. That's right. That's what the public believed. And if you have your friendly lefties rolling their eyes and sniffing their noses at the "militarist", just like they did the "corporatist"; and helping the right by repeating the talking points instead of fully cooperating with the campaign; then you're going to have the exact same results. The problem is as much with rank and file Democrats who don't know how to fall in line as it is with the campaign strategists. Too many cooks spoil the broth. That's what's wrong with the Democratic party. If we don't learn anything else from this election, we ought to learn that.

[high density]

41. OH yeah, the "World War III" stuff will be back

But unlike Kerry's team, I don't think we'd see Clark just sitting back and letting these distortions take root.

[FrenchieCat]

73. The World War III thing would just make Clark look like a tough hombre...

during a general election, cause you've got to remember that Americans eat that sh*t up for dinner. They like "bring it on", etc....

Plus the press wouldn't allow that one, cause many in the U.S. military really don't like British General Macko Jacko of Bloody Sunday fame...

PUTIN ENDED UP INVADING CHECHNYA BECAUSE OF IMBECILE GENERAL MICHAEL JACKSON DISOBEYING CLARK'S ORDERS.

The result was a humiliation for NATO, a tonic for the Russian military and an important lesson for the then-obscure head of the Russian national security council, Vladimir Putin. As later Russian press reports showed, Putin knew far more about the Pristina operation than did the Russian defense or foreign ministers. It was no coincidence that a few weeks afterward, Russian bombers buzzed NATO member Iceland for the first time in a decade. A few weeks after that, with Putin as prime minister, Russian troops invaded Chechnya. Putin learned the value of boldness in the face of Western hesitation. Clark learned that he had no backup in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic...

[Mojambo]

6. A Clark nomination would take me similarly to the Kerry one in 2004

Not a guy I would be pushing, but probably I guy I would vote for.
I might not be exceptionally excited about it though.

It's way too early to say.

[KittyWampus]

7. Love Clark But There Are So Many Other Options... I Won't Respond

:)

It's a longggggggggg way to 08.

God, I hope we even make it that far.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. So you didn't vote in this poll?

ummmmmmmmm okay

[arcos]

8. Clark will always win any DU poll...

The other choices really don't matter much, he will always win :P

[mikehiggins]

25. Are you saying the Clarkistas dominate DU?

Where did the other folk go?

[arcos]

74. Ever since Clark decided to run he has dominated DU...

At first there were a lot of Dean supporters, but when Clark announced things became even. A lot of DU folks supported him, and lots of new Clark voters were drawn to DU later on...

[ProgressiveWarrior]

45. Does DU only serve up sour grapes?

Is it any surprise that Clark is winning? He's certainly not business-as-usual. And there aren't alot of votes up, considering DU many thousands of members?

[ginnyinWI]

9. Kerry for me

He still has a solid base of support, and is still on the job, trying to make America better. He has a heart and passion for his country. You can tell he means it--he's not doing the stuff he has lately only for his own political purposes. I don't blame the loss of the election on him, or even his campaign. I blame the media primarily, and the war, which Bush/Cheney used to scare and fool people with.

edit: That's why the election was close: if all the votes had been counted, I believe he would still have had the most electoral votes.

[zulchzulu]

68. Agreed

Despite all the Kerry bashing here on DU, he is doing a fantastic job and will continue to do so.

Kerry came the closest to any wartime president since 1916 in not "officially" winning.

I think he won, but thanks to Diebold and BBV as well as a lazy media more concerned about Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson and working for the Pentagon to "cover" the war, Kerry is now just a senator slugging for us (like he has for over 20+ years).

Until otherwise (and 2008 is a political infinity away), I'm still with Kerry in 2008.

While I like Clark, I personally am not that impressed with him as a presidential candidate. Hillary is a guaranteed loss.

[IndianaGreen]

10. It's ABC for me!

and that's Anybody But Clinton!

[dand]

11. Pitiful choices, Clark would be the least embarrassing.

Kerry and Clinton are in bed with the Republicans.

[LittleClarkie]

12. I'll thank you not to lump Clinton and Kerry together

Kerry is not in bed with the Republicans. Most of his votes have been quite liberal and progressive, especially the legisation he's pushing now.

The most conservative things about him is he's a budget hawk and something of a foreign policy hawk where terrorism is concerned. I don't fault him for that because he came to his knowledge of foreign policy and terrorism though his BCCI and Iran/Contra investigations. He's seen the organizations involved.

I voted Kerry. Clark is still too green with not alot of political experience. I'm also afraid that we only saw the tip of the iceburg of what the Republicans could smear him with given half the chance. Clinton at the moment, until I give her a good gander, doesn't hit me right. There is something I don't like, I don't know what.

[ginnyinWI]

16. I also don't think the issue of military experience is going away,

and she doesn't have any.

[ProgressiveWarrior]

34. Thanks, LittleKerry

I noticed how having alot of political experience served Kerry so very well during the last year right up until his No Surrender on Nov. 3.

:eyes:

The vetting to be a VP or President is child's play in comparison to the vetting needed to become THE top officer in the Army. A career politician with a long history of voting on every side of an issue is much easier to target.

[dand]

38. Kerry is a sell out. thanks for the thanks,

but he quit so fast I got whip lash. He is a total loser.

[saracat]

18. Kerry ? In bed with the Repukes? Are you snorting silly string?

Do you watch how he votes? Have you been paying attention? Clinton is acting weird lately , I grant you that but Kerry? That is preposterous. No one is doing more to piss off the repukes than perhaps Boxer.

[kerrygoddess]

19. Snorting Silly String!

ROFLMAO!

[Cheswick2.0]

13. did you make sure to get all those links to this poll out to the Clark Web

sites?

[janx]

15. It has probably already been done.

;-)

Give it an hour or so and watch what happens!

[kerrygoddess]

20. Good... Spam the poll results!

That's democracy in action. Spewed poll results... who else does that?

[ProgressiveWarrior]

35. Another Clark Thread blessed by Whining Complainers

That Medicare Bill cut off so many unbalanced people's abilities to get the help they need to keep on an even keel.

Yeah, there's no way else Clark could win. Uh huh.

[BillZBubb]

17. Right now, they all look like losers.

But four years is a lifetime in politics.

Kerry has the best chance of the three to win, but he's still an underdog against the Repug attack machine. He's got a lot of work to do to restore his credibility and his favorables. A lot of us on the left have very bad feelings about his policies and his campaign.

Hillary just cannot win given her current tack. She's moving right, yet is despised by the right. This is a classic Democratic screwup. She'll never win any converts over there and she's alienating the active members of her base. A proven recipe for defeat.

Clark needs some hands on governing experience. As someone else pointed out, the equivalent of the SwiftboatScum will appear and take him out--count on it.

[roguevalley]

22. Personally, Clark is the one. Hillary is pissing me off so much I

would be challenged to vote for her if I lived in New York. Kerry is still too much heat for me right now. Clark because he's a good accomplished man that scares the pigs.

[windbreeze]

58. Governing Experience??

I would say, when you get right down to it, Clark has at least the equivalent of being a Mayor or Governor under his hat...What's running a military base considered? Or being head of NATO?...A military base depending upon it's size, has tens of thousands of men, women, children living inside it's proximity..There are schools, churches, stores, bars...That same base, has police, firemen, hospitals, and lots of bases have their own air facilities...and most likely more arms than you would find in any city....That same base can exist independently from any civilian entity in the same area...oh, and the head guy, runs it all, and IS responsible for every aspect of it..Every aspect of it..from the GI getting along with his wife, to their children's schools...to morale, and making sure his troops are in a ready state..IF that is NOT considered governing experience, I will eat my hat...
windbreeze

[Pepperbelly]

75. How much "governing experience" did Washington, Jackson, or Ike have?

There is nothing in the Constituition requiring that. And, as we look at it politically, it doesn't seem to be a requirement historically either.

[JVS]

23. Ugh

[DemDogs]

26. Double ugh

Kerry didn't do it.
HRClinton's name alone would continue to raise more money for R's and than for D's.
Don't want to watch the videos anymore of Clark praising Republican after Republican, AFTER he was out of the military.

[jonnyblitz]

47. triple ugh. n/t

[ProgressiveWarrior]

52. Every 2004 Dem candidate praised Bush after Afghanistan

and no one was in the military at the time. Dean included.

Karl Rove's work to have put out a spliced out-of-context video clip so Fox News could play it time after time (and so other networks could pick it up on feeds) to smear Clark right after he declared his entrance into the race just so that the gullible Democratic base sheeple could be aghast.

Kinda like that Scream. Sheeple are so easily manipulated on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Texas_Kat]

82. Good, then watch Clark defending Kerry ...

...was there any more effective spokesman for Kerry during the 2004 election?

Here's a place to start.

http://www.u-wes-a.com/mediaclips-post.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I have reached saturation level on 2008 Presidential Polls

This is way too early to be so obsessed as a community with them. It may make some sense, I think, to speculate on who the contenders may be and what will help and hurt them, but endless straw polls?

By the way I am sorry to be directing any frustration at you, it is not personal. This poll makes as much sense as any of the others have. I guess I would rather just stay in discussion format for now regarding 2008 than do polling, but that is just my personal opinion.

[JHBowden]

29. Any would be fine with me.

I'm the most comfortable with Kerry, given he was fighting for us in the Senate when Clark was still a Republican. I trust him more than Hilary and Clark on our issues too, though I agree all nominally support most of our issues.

All of them would be better than Governor Owens, Chuck Hagel, or any other nimrod the GOP decides to run in 2008.

[Adelante]

31. "when Clark was still a Republican"

Your information is inaccurate. Wesley Clark was never a Republican in his life.

[JHBowden]

36. Clark only voted for the worst ones.

Plus he had glowing praise for team Bush. Clark is on our team now, but we shouldn't ignore facts, no matter how ugly.

[Adelante]

49. And in December 2000 AFTER the election was stolen

Howard Dean said George W. Bush was a moderate in his "soul."

He just moderately stole an election?

Yes, I agree, let's not ignore the facts. Let's just reach back to the primaries, dig out the facts, no matter how ugly, even though the management here has made it very clear they don't want it. Let's do it, anyway.

Do you have another Clark smear I can match with a Dean smear?

[JHBowden]

67. Go ahead and smear Clark and Dean.

Do I care? Both candidates have their share of fanatical supporters. I'm merely stating why I feel more comfortable with Kerry than Hilary and Clark.

[Adelante]

80. Sorry, I didn't recognize you there

It was that endlessly repeated, untrue talking point, the one about Clark being a Republican, that threw me.

You certainly have a right to your comfort and I respect your choice, John Kerry :hi:

[ProgressiveWarrior]

55. Clark wasn't a Senator on both sides of the fence --

EVERYONE HAD GLOWING PRAISE FOR BUSH AFTER AFHGANISTAN INCLUDING KERRY AND DEAN AND EDWARDS ETCETERA.....

and General Clark voted for nothing -- he wasn't in Congress.

[JHBowden]

69. Kerry's position was close to mine.

In October 2002, Hussein still wasn't letting inspectors into the country, and force had to be on the table. But pulling the inspectors out in March 2003 to occupy the country was a costly and probably stupid move.

[GiovanniC]

84. Not to Get Too Far Off Track Here

But explain to me why Hussein refusing to let inspectors in (which he had stopped doing when the US and Israel started stacking inspection teams with CIA and Mossad spies) meant force had to be on the table? In what universe do we have a right to tell other countries what they can and cannot do? Which countries have the right to demand to the US that we allow weapons inspectors into OUR country, and would we tolerate foreign spies on those teams any better than Saddam did? What would our reaction be if a country told us to open all of our weapons sites to them or prepare to be invaded?

I don't want to come off like a Saddam apologist, but you're starting off with premises that shouldn't be taken for granted.

[haypops]

48. Sounds like th pot calling the kettle Republican

Clark never was a Republican but it would seem that raising money for an election in '04 and taking the dam 15 million home instead of helping other Democrats or even helping himself makes Kerry a pox on the party.

[ProgressiveWarrior]

53. Why are you lying about Clark? Get your facts straight.

Yeah, Kerry was fighting for the IWR and the Patriot Act in the Senate
while most of us were saying, "NO!!!!!!!!!!!"

[joanski01]

30. Well, dammit, if we can't have Clark, then

let's have Kucinich! Oh, that's right, he's too short. Teresa has funny hair. Dennis doesn't have a wife. Dean??? Oh, yeah, that's right, he screamed too loud. All of these flimsy excuses about our candidates, and bush* gets away with absolute murder. I believe that the current US Government is anti-American.

I want an intelligent liberal for president!!!!!

[JoshK]

39. You raise a very good point. If the supporters of a party are not

willing to support a candidate for his/her IDEAS (as opposed to his hair, his height, his marital status, etc), they really don't deserve to win. Supporting someone primarily because he's "electable" just means "I'm superficial, and too frightened to support someone just on the basis of their ideas." If you think like that, you invariably wind up backing a pathetic Establishment weasel like Kerry.

In the primaries, Kucinich was the only one who had serious and meaningfully new ideas. The rest were run-of-the-mill establishment figures (Dean's main plus was more in attitude than in any carefully developed program or overall analysis). But the Democratic electorate scarcely even gave Kucinich a real look. It's hard to feel sorry for people (ie, the Dem rank & file) who have so little courage, and are so easily manipulated by conventional wisdom.

The Democrats of today wouldn't have the guts to support an FDR (a wheelchair-bound cripple), nor a Lincoln (too ugly), nor a LaGuardia (too short). (Yes, I know the latter 2 were Republicans.) Today's Democratic voters insist on someone who looks like he could play president on TV. It still seems almost unbelievable that Democrats could have supported a disgusting pro-war weasel like Kerry, just because he looks like a TV president; while completely ignoring a Kucinich, because he's short.

[JoshK]

32. Such a field would be more proof that the Dems are terminal.

Kerry was the most pathetic two-faced weasel that has ever run for president. He couldn't even defend himself from a bunch of transparent 2-bit liars like the Swifties. He didn't even mention that his opponent was a war criminal by all standards of international law. He didn't mention Abu Ghraib or Enron. He tried to hide the one good thing he ever did in his life -- opposing the Vietnam War -- as though ashamed of it. How did he expect the public should be aware of the danger that Bush represented, if he himself wasn't willing to tell them?

Hillary is a thoroughly disgusting politician. She should be in the GOP, for all intents and purposes. The rightwing is correct to despise her. I despise her myself (though not for exactly the same reasons).

Clark is less odious than the other two, but still miserable. He was unimpressive during the primaries, stumbling on whether he was for or against the Iraq war. Seems about like Kerry, politically (ie, a reliable stooge of the ruling class), but doesn't know the issues as well. He's intelligent, but not more so than many politicians of both parties. The fact that he should be touted as a great hope of the Dem Party speaks merely to the bankruptcy of the Party, not to any real virtue of the candidate. The Democrats, for those who don't remember, just tried in this last campaign to play the "Our guy is a war hero" card. It didn't work too well, you might recall.

[Clarkie1]

37. Josh...

"Clark is less odious than the other two, but still miserable. He was unimpressive during the primaries"

Clark did FANTASTIC during the primaries. To my knowledge, never has a candidate who started so late done so well. Even after missing Iowa he got the 2nd or 3rd most votes of any of the candidates in the field.

"stumbling on whether he was for or against the Iraq war."

Clark was ALWAYS againt the Iraq war and the neo-con doctrine. He praised the troops, but not the policy and his OP-Ed shortly after the beginning of the war expressed praise for the swift military victory, but great concern about the overall policy, long-term committement, and future political stability of Iraq.

"Seems about like Kerry, politically (ie, a reliable stooge of the ruling class), but doesn't know the issues as well. He's intelligent, but not more so than many politicians of both parties."

Ruling class? Unlike silver-spoon politicos like Kerry, for most of his life Clark earned $50,000 a year or less. He grew up in a single parent household and worked his way into Wespoint, where he was first in his class and became a Rhodes scholar in philosophy, politics, and economics. That level of intellect is unusual in a politician, with the exception perhaps of Clinton. It's unusual, period!

The Clark movement is not based solely on the fact he is a war hero, it's about his intellect, integrity, and a higher standard of leadership that will promote democratic values and a liberal agenda.

Framing that to red-state voters in the person of a southern, plain-spoken general who doesn't have to defend his national security credentials certainly doesn't hurt, though!

[JoshK]

44. You're entitled to your opinion! Here are my responses to

the points you raise:

- To be a stooge of the ruling class, you don't have to be rich. Clinton and Nixon are examples of this that come to mind.
- About having a candidate who doesn't have to defend his national security cred: that was THE WHOLE POINT of the Kerry campaign, too. Or so they thought. It is true that he is Southern, so that gives him an extra appeal point (though Edwards was Southern too, & this didn't obviously help him a great deal).
- About his real attitude towards the use of US military force: Clark supported what the US did in Kosovo. He praised the School of the Americas. There is every reason to suppose that he shares values widely held in the military-industrial complex (though I concede he didn't speak about this enough to permit a clear & current reading of it). And what does he think, for example, about the US role in Vietnam? From what I read, he is nowhere near willing to concede that the entire enterprise was a terrible crime.
- "Stumbling" -- I was referring to the first days of his campaign where a question was asked about whether or not he would have voted to authorize the invasion. He wound up calling to his campaign manager for help with this question. I don't remember the exact details, but recall that it was an embarrassing moment of his opening day, & was considered a "beginner's mistake."

[ProgressiveWarrior]

57. Yeah, and Dean gave tax breaks to Enron while he was Governor

and Kucinich was anti-choice until the primaries. According to your line of thinking, Dean is a corporate tool and Kucinich is a member of the Culture of Life club.

Read Wes Clark's books and get the real scoop. It's easy to be an armchair political commentator but harder to get the facts.

That's right...why don't you focus on the minutaie of opening day remarks by General Clark and I'll tell you about the Scream by Dean and the anti-choice stand by Kucinich and the IWR/Patriot Act votes by Kerry and Edwards....as well as the dumb things said on the trail by other career politican candidates during the primaries?

Pssst...it's 2005. That was 2003. General Clark has a very steep learning curve and acknowledged his mistake in not communicating better after the media had a f*cking filed day squealing like a stuck pig about it. What you're saying is similar to those who think Dean is going to be a screaming everyday as DNC Chair.

[Clarkie1]

59. Josh...

Using your definition, have we ever had a president who isn't "a stooge of the ruling class?" I am not sure what your definition is for this.

Kerry, in my opinion, had no national security credentials. Simply serving in Vietnam and being on the foreign relations comittee part-time does not give one strong national security credentials post 9/11.

About his real attitude toward the U.S. use of military force: he was one of the few to urge we take action against the black genocide in Rwanda (google a book by Samantha Powers for more on this). Clark also wanted to stop the murders of a whole lot of minority Albania Muslims. He is an internationalist who negotiated peace and WIDELY RESPECTED in the European and world community.

Regarding the vote whether or not to authorize force and how he would have voted, you seem to be confusing a vote for the authorization to use force (political leverage) with a vote for Bush's policies and war. I am not saying Clark would have voted that way, but you seem to be confusing the two issues.

[Clarkie1]

33. These 08' polls have become tiresome n/t

[dhinojosa]

40. Marilyn Manson/SpongeBob '08

Now, more than ever!

[dansolo]

43. Clark, no question about it

Though I would rather see Al Gore over all of them.

[AuntiBush]

50. GORE

GORE and ?? CLINTON. Hard to break away from my admiration for KERRY, though.

My dream... * is imPea-Ched, KERRY resumes. Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards all men/women presides again and all is well with America.

Then, I awaken to the dreary reality.
:shrug: :(

[PDittie]

51. Hillary only gets 7 votes? Same as undecided?

That's the only surprise here.

[fujiyama]

54. Clark for sure

I still think he'd have a decent shot at winning, moreso than the others mentioned.

I also like Kerry and Gore as well, but of the two I'd have to go with Gore.

Hillary is not getting my vote for the primaries...She'd be lucky enough to get it for the GE were she to be the nominee. Granted, my vote or not, she'd be a loser anyways.

[elshiva]

60. Kerry

Because he has the most experience and this country is too sexist to vote for a woman, even one as great as H. Clinton.

[Clarkie1]

61. Experience in being a senator and losing a presidential election n/t

[ProgressiveWarrior]

72. That's a fact in American history books now

and unfortunately, in the American psyche as well.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Wes Clark....

Of course!

One's been tried....the other is too blue!

[neverforget]

64. Clark! Kerry had his chance and I'm not impressed by Clinton but

would vote for her.

[cosmokramer]

65. Kerry? I think not! He couldn't beat the WORST...

...PRESIDENT E.V.E.R.

When you can't beat the worst president in human history, you don't deserve a second shot.

Gimme Clark ANYDAY, with a wide grin on my face as I punch the chad.

Hillary isn't running, so that is not an option at all. She knows how polarizing she can be, and she is quite happy being a US Senator.

[Califooyah Operative]

66. It's so early,

but in my opinion, clark never won me over last time, and he'd better work to do it this time. Kerry i respect and trust he got my vote on this crazy early poll, clinton; please....

[Gemini Cat]

70. Clark in '08

Best choice possible.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Nightwing]

78. Clark all the way

Had he taken part in the Iowa caucus, I honestly believe he would have won the nomination in '04. He has an extreme distaste for * and will take the bastards to the woodshed at every opportunity.

[NicRic]

79. A diamond in the rough >Clark

Perhaps in his bid for the nomination in 04 Clark was a little green behind the ears ,as far as being a professional politician .I actually found that to be one of his positive traits. However in this day and age ,with a media the will eat up a spit out any little mistake a Dem contender would make while letting the idiot son off at everyturn, you have to polish your politicial smarts .I believe Clark is a diamond in the rough ,and once he poishes his politicial veiws ,not some one eles, HIS veiws .He will make Jeb look like the goober he is, and lets face it ,I believe that its a given that Jeb Bush will be who is put up against whichever one of the three listed choices. Now I also want to say that I would strongly back any of the three listed above and any conbination of them running agaist idiot son #2 !

[JNelson6563]

81. Suckiest poll

ever.

[SharonRB]

83. I'm very torn between Clark and Kerry

Of course, whoever got the nomination would get my vote, but in the primary I just don't know yet. I definitely wouldn't vote for Hillary --not that I don't like her, but I think she's too divisive and has no chance to win. We're crazy if we nominate her.