Out of the fire (Dean), into the frying pan (Kerry).

[gulliver]

We Dems did the right thing by balking at the Dean insurgency. Now we need to avoid overreacting and stampeding back into the hands of the old guard. We don't need a firebrand (Dean), and we don't need a "safe choice" (Kerry). We need a candidate that is both. I believe that is Clark.

Clark is every bit the fighter that Dean is, but Clark fights smarter. Clark is every bit the safe, grown-up candidate that Kerry is, but Clark is more beltway-free, a southerner, and a much more exciting speaker -- both in prepared speeches and off the cuff.

Sure, Dean or Kerry might win in the general election against Bush, but I don't like taking chances this time. Suffering under four years of Bush and his inept, rapacious, goon friends is too much. We should be shooting for a landslide here. I don't want to kick Bush in the pants a couple of times and hope it sends him flying out of the Oval Office. I want someone who can kick Bush repeatedly and relentlessly and won't stop even when his leg gets tired. That's Clark.

And the bonus is that Clark will be a great president. He can grow our party, win the respect of Republicans, and bring our country back to its senses. I don't have as much hope for that in a Kerry, Dean, or Edwards administration. They would be much better than Bush on all counts, but restoring unity and sanity to our country's politics needs an outsider with credentials that speak to all sides. That's Clark.

I appreciate the other candidates. I like the other candidates. But I think Clark is the best we have.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Actually since 9/11 a lot of people want "safe"

and it is a lot safer to vote for someone with a proven record who also has worked closely with congress.
Kerry brings everything to the table. Clark might too but we don't know that for sure.

5. NewYorkerfromKansas

I'm feeling feisty today, so I'll use a different nomdeplume there in the subject line for a second. Since 9/11 I'm tired of same old stuff.
I don't want "safe" anymore. I remember noticing in NYC for a day or two after 9/11 how unusual it was, everybody was looking at each other, in the eye, my god! That lasted for a day or two. It didn't take long for all the rhetoric machines to rear their heads and trot out all the doublespeak and (is it Them out there, like in Cuckoo's Nest?) for the fog to roll in.
So a lot of people want safe, yes; but a lot of people would like to see some deeper change & are not positive that Kerry or Clark would provide it. That's where the Dean support comes from I think & also the Edwards support, although for slightly different reasons.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. A lot of people are not like you

and they look at Kerry, and feel both that they know him, and that he is just what we need at this time in history. As I said yesterday, he is the oldest and most mature candidate in most every aspect. AND he represents a chance for some real change.
Remember John F. Kennedy was his idol growing up. He wants to inspire and provide that exact same kind of innovative leadership.

[w13rd0]

2. I'll vote for Clark if he's the democratic nominee...

...but he's a complete gamble in virtually every way, and his ability to "beat Bush in a landslide" is as much a wishful fantasy as any other unrealistic expectation on the part of any candidates supporters.

[gulliver]

3. We should shoot for a landslide and settle for a win.

Kerry, Edwards, and Dean are gambles too. They all are.

In the general election, I think Clark has the best odds.

[cthrumatrix]

11. but...in the GE...what happens if war is a Non-issue and it's all domestic

[gulliver]

21. I think ...

... the war will be a major issue. Supporters of IWR will be unfairly painted as supporters of the war and therefore hypocrites for attacking Bush. IWR votes on the part of Kerry and Edwards will blunt the attacks on Bush.

Domestically, Clark's tax plan is fantastic. It got an A from TNR.

Clark's credentials are just plain respectable, over and above the qualification for Command in Chief. Clark is "not a politician." He is a gutsy, brilliant guy who cares about people.

[liberalnurse]

4. Kerry is pounding Clark into the ground......

Clark can barely catch his breath. I just saw him on MSNBC....he defends reading from his notes during the debate....so what....but this has become an issue elsewhere too.

Bowtie remarked the other day that Clark has given his stump speech 6 times a day every day for weeks and still needs to read it.


Thats the fan on that issue. They are going for his juggler next.

I feel sorry for Clark.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Please don't feel sorry for Clark. He can take care of himself

He didn't get where he did by being weak and by whining about being picked on. Nope. I am still undecided in all of this but I would not bet against Clark taking the whole thing.

Don

[overground1]

6. We don't even know what Clark is

No political history, his newly-minted Democratic credentials and ever evolving positions puts him dead bottom on my list.

I don't care if he voted for Nixon or Reagan. What I do care about is he wears positions like band-aids.

What will his positions be tomorrow?
What would a President Clark do or say as opposed to candidate Clark?

How do we know he is up to serving in an elected office at all?
He never has before. We don't know if he is electable anywhere.
I notice Clark hasn't met a conspiracy theory he doesn't like. Do we really know how grounded in reality he is? He claimed that 9/11 wouldn't have happened with him as President, and there will be no terrorist attacks if he is. He troubles me.

[gulliver]

7. I like McGovern and Moore a lot.

I trust them to judge Democratic and progressive credentials.

[overground1]

9. McGovern's first choice for VP was a mental case; Moore IS one.

'nuff said.

[gulliver]

14. Love it when someone who doesn't support Clark says ...

... the kind of thing you just said. Love it.

Who do you support anyway? Let's go for a double whammy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Clark needs more than a military record

if we are going to trust him to lead our party.

[gulliver]

10. What about McGovern, Rangel, and Clinton?

I trust Clark as much as the others. I have not been too happy with establishment Democrats the past few years. (But I still trust them.)

[BigBigBear]

13. Good post

I agree.

I like Kerry, but I don't think he can win. He's a so-so campaigner, with a long history of Senate votes which can be spun in any direction.

Bill Clinton didn't win because he was an establishment Democrat - he won because he came in from the outside, questioned some of the dogma, shook things up. He pissed off some of the orthodox standard bearers.

Can Kerry really extend the party into new territory? He can win the hate-Bush vote, but I don't believe that's enough.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. Forced to choose between Sen. Kerry and Gen. Clark...

Kerry--- a proven progressive and a proven Democrat. :)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Thanks!

such sensible evaluation is very welcome here!

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. You're welcome.

I'm ABB, which helps keep me focused. None of the 6 others running is my guy's 'enemy'--- the enemy resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.:)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

18. Edwards might be the answer

I've sort of warmed up to Dean, simply for the amazing organization they have built. Edwards is great. You're right though, Kerry will be an election disaster on the level of his endorser, Mondale.

Kerry is the Bob Dole of 2004 - don't let it happen to us!

[damnraddem]

19. We? We have balked? Speak for yourself.

Many of us are still fighting to make Dean the Dem candidate. But what we all need to do, whatever Dem we support, is to limit who we think is beyond the pale. Thus, I support Dean, I distrust Clark; but if Clark is the Dem candidate, I'll be out supporting him. I draw the line at only one Dem who has any chance at all: Lieberman.