Rank the Top four Candidates

[Quixote1818]

and discribe there best and worst qualitys in a few words. Hear is my list:

1. Clark - Green as hell as a politician but underneath is brilliant

2. John Edwards - Most charisma but untested, he is the wild card.

3. Howard Dean - Most dynamic and unique but woounded bad

4. John Kerry - He is a solid speaker but the New England Liberal thing will kill him and he can't win the south

Most likely to beat Bush. Two reasons why

1. Clark - Voted for Reagan/National Defense
2. Edwards - From the South/Who could hate this guy?
3. Kerry - Sold performer/Veteran
4. Dean - Tough as nails/might intimidate Bush

[Kathleen04]

1. My list:

1. Clark-intelligent, expert on foreign policy, likeable, great leadership qualifications; never held elected office.

2. Edwards-charismatic, youthful, and as a laywer I think he'd be 10 steps ahead of Bush* in a debate; short political career.

3. Kerry-statesman, experienced politician, solid background and long career; often described as "aloof", needs to be more succinct..he's getting better at this though.

4. Dean-gets people excited to support him, can effectively rally support, doesn't go by a script and appeals to those looking for a different kind of politician; highly volatile.

[Shanty Oilish]

2. The fab 4

1. Kerry. Most experienced/most boring. Most likely to beat Bush. I've been 100% for Kerry since Gore said no. Kerry knows his way around DC and can deal with Congress from Inauguration Day on. No other candidate has his experience and credentials, and he'll demolish Bush in debate. The rest of us will fall asleep though.

2. Edwards. Nothing sleepy about him. He has a brilliant future and if we're lucky he'll be veep. I wouldn't feel good about any other candidate debating Cheney. If somehow Edwards wins the top spot, he's got 2nd most experience in Washington and he'd be an inspiring leader. Foreign policy strength is a plus.

3. Dean. Good man, but out of his league. Domestic and economic policies are his strength, but he has a shot foot in his mouth and people won't forget it. I hope he makes a decent showing in the coming primaries, he doesn't deserve the oblivion they're predicting for him. Neither do his supporters.

4. Clark. Sorry, I see no positives whatsoever in Clark. I agree with Dean that he's a Republican. At best he's an independent in donkey skin, and I am deeply suspicious of his motives and sincerity. Wouldn't vote for him if he were running against a Bush third term.

[dsc]

3. here are mine

1 Dean 11 balanced budgets, health care for all, civil unions, tough fighter/ misspeaks at times

2 Clark great resume, says liberal things/ no political or office holding experience voted for foreign policy over domestic issues

3 Kerry great liberal on many issues/ lousy speaker and most difficult to elect

4 Edwards Natural on the campaign trail/ no experience and no interest in or knowledge of gay lesbian issues.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

4. Did Dean change his healthcare position?

TWL

[dsc]

11. I sould have used kids and working poor

but I stand behind that otherwise.

[spooky3]

7. Edwards supports equal legal rights for gays/lesbians

He said so in the debate this week and has said so consistently throughout his campaign.

[dsc]

10. He had no idea what DOMA did or didn't do

which is bad enough, but on top of that he gave vague answers to the HRC on gay marriage (he said he would review each right on a piecemeal basis) and he skipped their forum. Yes, like Clinton, he talks some good talk, but I fear, like Clinton, we will have nothing to show from his Presidency.

[AP]

14. Explain what you think Edwards didn't know.

[dsc]

15. He appeared to be under the impression

that DOMA didn't ban the feds from recognizing state granted marriages which they clearly are.

On edit. Here is his answer from the debate and I will correct what I said below.

Senator Edwards, President Bush, as you know, is worried. He said it again in the State of the Union address the other night that the Defense of Marriage Act is not strong enough, as he says, to protect the institution of marriage.

You were not in the Senate in 1996 when it passed overwhelmingly. Senator Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against it. I'd like to know from you whether or not you think he was right or wrong, and why?

EDWARDS: I think he was right. I think he was right because what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues.

These are issues that should be left -- Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision, the supreme court at least has made a decision, that embraces the notion of gay marriage.

I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it -- you're right, I wasn't there when it was passed -- but as I understand it, it would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states.

JENNINGS: Do you believe that other states, for example, should be obliged to honor and recognize the civil union which Governor Dean signed? Should other states be obliged to recognize what happens in another state?

EDWARDS: I think it's a decision that should be made on a state- by-state basis. I think each state should be able to make its own decision about what they embrace.

Now, if I can take just a minute -- since you've asked me a lot of process questions, can I talk about what I believe...

JENNINGS: Let's talk to our moderator.

EDWARDS: ... for just a moment, if you don't mind?

Here's what I believe: I believe it is the responsibility of the president of the United States to move this country forward on this important issue.

And there is so much work to be done to treat gays and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples with the respect that they're entitled to. They deserve, in my judgment, partnership benefits. They deserve to be treater fairly when it comes to adoption and immigration.

We should examine -- whoever the president of the United States is; I believe it will be me -- should examine with our military leadership the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that resulted in a number of linguists who we desperately needed being dismissed from the military.

HUME: Senator?

EDWARDS: There are clearly steps that should be taken by the president, in some cases in conjunction with the Congress...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: I just want to follow up with on the Defense of Marriage Act, which of course is the law of the land.

EDWARDS: Yes.

HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?

EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it.

end of quote

His problem actually was that he thought the law prevented states from recognizing gay marriages which is still wrong. They could, but the can't extend federal rights to them and the feds won't. Bottom line he was still wrong.

[AP]

16. I thought he said it prevented states from recognizing mariages they ...

... wanted to recognize.

Hume challenged him saying it prevented them from being forced to recognize marriages they didn't want to recognize.

To me, it was the differnce between Edwards imagining living in a liberal state which wanted to extend full faith and credit to other states' same sex marriages and couldn't because of DOMA. Hume imagines himself in a conservative state which doesn't want to be compelled to extend full faith and credit to the hypothetical liberal state in which Edwards imagines he lives.

Have I missed something?

Doma actually defines what a marriage is (bewteen a man and a woman) so Edwards was right in his assessment on another level: there can be no same-sex marriages -- only civil-unions -- no matter what the states want to do.

[AP]

17. I think Edwards knew what he was talking about, but, because he

said that he wasn't an expert and because Hume challenged his six-of-one with an half-dozen-of-antother, the media jumped on it becuase they could squeeze it into their meme about Edwards: lightweight prettyboy who doesnt' know the facts.

[AP]

18. And the bottom line is you can fight this debate on Andrew Sullivan's...

...ground and lose another two or three generations to misery, or you can reframe the debate as Edwards wants to do, and get people all the rights (which handles the material reality of people who can't get married) and then in the next generation you can address the spiritual part of the equation after a gneration of those rights getting entrenched.

I think Edwards's plan is going to get you to the ultimate goal way faster, and it will reduce suffering in the interim.

[dsc]

20. I editted and supplied his answer

First, he didn't claim not to be an expert as you say below, that was the Islam answer.

Second, he clearly stated, and was erronious, that the law banned states from recognizing gay marriages. If a liberal state wants to it can. Bottom line he was dead wrong and as a lawyer he is an expert.

[AP]

21. He said he wan't there when the bill was written...

...ie, wasn't involved in it's passage, never worked with it as a laywer, doesn't now it's contents verbatim. And, in fact (on edit) he says "I don't claim to be an expert on this." Take a close look.

But I'm still not sure he mischaracterized it. I haven't read the bill, but it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But I'm not sure if it imposes that definition on the sates. Ie, does it say that no state can join two people of the same sex as married? That's not the same thing as a civil union. The law might, in fact, prevent gay marriages, but not civil unions. Do you know?

And there's some confusion in terms here -- "recognizing" -- do you mean recognizing another state's marriages or its own?

The whole point of DOMA was that family law is the domain of the states and the constitution requires states to extend full faith & credit to the laws of other states. If you're married in another state, you're married in all states. You know the story.

So Doma prevents states from having to extend FF&C to other state's sam-sex "marriages." Right?

What I still don't know from you is whether it prevents states who want to extend FF&C from other states, if they want to, and, more broadly, does it prevent states from joining people of the same sex in marriages altogether (which would make the other question moot)?

[AP]

24. For emphais: It was my impression that Edwards is talking about

Full Faith & Credit of other state's marriages when he says DOMA prevent the recognition of marriages. He already talks about Mass trying to work out a civil-unions/gay marriage law, so he obvioulsy knows states can do it for their own citizens.

What he's talking about (and the way I understood it from the first time I heard it) is that he's saying Mass can't do what it wants in terms of recognizing OTHER states' marriages/civil-unions when those people move to Mass (effectively, it would require everyone to get married again in Mass if they had a civil-union somewhere else, because DOMA says states CAN'T recognize other states' same-sex unions (right?).

As I said in my previous post, DOMA is a bill aimed at the heart of the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the constitutions.

Clearly, his audience doesn't know as much about the constitution as an audience of lawyers would. However, I don't think many lawyers would have been confused about what he was saying. And even if he were genuinely confused, he would have stumbled into making sense. The statement he made at the end seems to be about recognition of other states' marriages. The comment about Mass working it out shows that he know that they could make their own laws (civil unions, if not marriages) -- but other states wouldn't be compelled to recognize them, and, perhaps, couldn't if they wanted to because of DOMA.

[dsc]

25. If it prevented states from accepting gay marriage

don't you think that some conservative in MA would have figured that out? It flat out doesn't. It does two things.

1) Defines marriage federally.

2) Permits states to not recognize marriages from other states.

In short he was out and out wrong.

[AP]

26. ...accepting OTHER STATE's marriages. It was a bill aimed to disable the

full faith and credit clause. It prevents Ohio from recognizing a Mass civil-union/marriage, as you say in #2. That's what Edwards was saying. It prevents states from doing what they want in terms of recognizing other states' civil-unions. Furthermore, as you note in #1, it prevents states from even joining people together in a way the federal gov't would accept as married. Again, it prevents states from doing EVERYTHING they want to do in terms of joining people together -- they can't have it, they can't accept it, they can't embrace it if they wanted to, as Edwards notes.

Obviously Edwards knows that states can pass civil unions. He talks about Mass trying to do that right now.

[dsc]

28. It allows not prevents

and that is different. But bottom line, and I am going to bed so this is my last post tonight, this is part of a disturbing pattern. He skipped the forum, gave vague answers which I still have yet to see filled in, and now this answer. He would never misspeak this way on the issue he cares about and that is my basic point. I really fear he won't fight for this issue and if he doesn't then it will be just like under Clinton when after 8 years of a Democrat we have no ENDA and no hate crimes. Edwards hasn't convinced me that he cares.

[AP]

29. You said it prevents:

(2) it defines marriage viz federal law. The states cannot marry same sex people and confer upon them federal rights as they do for married people. They can't for same sex people if they wanted to, because of Doma.

OK, I looked at the act. It does give states the option of extending FF&C. So they can recognize them if they want to. But it also tells states what marriage is viz federal law. So it does limit what states can do in terms of granting marriage rights.

The other interesting thing was that, if Edwards was confused about FF&C (and wasn't referring to the restrictions on the definition of marirage) he presumed that DOMA was MORE restrictive than it is. He thought it was worse. If he's going to have a misunderstanding, this is the one to have. (And this is, as I think I've revealed above, was my impression of the bill before I read it.)

And I don't know where you're gitting the rest of this info. He missed one forum, right? I vaguely remember that. But he spoke at another one.

If you're confused about answers he gave to a quesitonairre, I'd be happy to discuss them, but if you're talking about the HRC questionnairre, I'll telly you now as I did last time you posted that, the HRC has a couple Andrew Sullivan cronies on board, and they're tight with big corporations, and the last thing they want is to see REAL economic power flow down and out, and I think their questionairre and their intentions are crap.

The bigger issue here is that you need to recognize that the RW has a strategy to absolutely destroy the Dems on this issue, thanks to Andrew Sullivan and George Bush creating this stupid axis on which the media happily frames and debates the issue. Have fun hating any candidate who has a plan to avoid their traps. Fight hard for the candidate who'll get skewered on this issue. He won't win the election, and you'll be stuck where you are for two more generations. At least Edwards is going to confer on you all the rights the Fed gov't is able to confer, and create an environment within which some cultural progress can be made.

[dsc]

34. Unless the HRC is out and out lying

about what Edwards said, and I have seen not one bit of evidence of that, Edwards gave a very vague answer in this regard. I have repeatedly asked if he finished his review or if he hasn't. You clearly have no idea, which isn't your fault but Edwards. Barring your showing him finishing that review and determining which federal rights we are fit to have I don't see anything you could offer on this.

The HRC reported Sharpton and Kucinich, hardly corporate tools, in a very positive light. I hardly think Edwards is a greater threat to them than those people.

[AP]

43. Edwards has a chance of being president. I have no doubt that the

Republicans (and some Democrats who want to beat him) are stirring up antipathy to him among the single-interest left groups (sort of like you're doing).

Clinton said, to win, you have to appeal to the middle and convince the far left you're not going to hurt their issues. He said, you don't appeal to the far left and hope the middle understands.

I'm sure a lot of Republicans heard Clinton say that too. So, what's the strategy? Plant seeds of doubt among the far left. I can already see it coming from the people who like Andrew Sullivan (who have influence on the HRC), and the other group that's starting to stir is the Medical Marijuana people.

I'm totally confident that Edwards will survive this.

You know, there are gay rights groups which would look at Edwards's answers to that HRC survey and admit that although they are not appealing to the sentiments in the public that they wish Americans actually felt, the rights-based (rather than marriage-based) approach is actually going to arrive at the ultimate goal much faster, and will reduce misery, and help economic, political and cultural power flow down to same-sex WORKING couples much faster than any of the other candidate's plans.

Becaue of the Andrew Sullivan connection, the big corporate friendly shit they do, and because of their endorsement of Al Damato, I don't think HRC is falls into the category of gay rights organizations who'b be willing to admit that.

It's one thing to be a gay rights group. It's another to be a group which helps corprotions find niche markets.

[dsc]

44. I am not some far left interest group

Your candidate, not me, not Sullivan, not the HRC, your candidate did all of what I said he did. He chose not to show up for the forum. He chose to take the position that he will look at rights and decide what to give me and what not to give me. He gave a bizarrely wrong answer on a question about that issue. You can call me names until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but that doesn't change the fact that your candidate has shown very little interest in or knowledge of, this issue. And until I have my basic rights no amount of calling me a Republican is going to make me vote for a person who doesn't care.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. You're dead wrong on Clinton, and I'm no Clinton fan

He literally screwed himself right out of the blocks with the gays in the military stance, and he did it purely as a point of honor. This was something that caused him to get a bloody nose from the right, and it was something from which he stood nothing to gain; truly, this was an act of pure nobility on his part. He paid dearly for it, and it was virtually the first thing he did as President.

I have real problems with our veracity-challenged, right-dragging former President, but he was a real champ on this one.

[dsc]

33. I actually don't blame him on that one

and have said so many times. But to have no ENDA and no Hate Crimes after 8 years shows a real lack of effort no matter what one wishes to say.

[spooky3]

5. I like 'em all so...

All 4 versus Bush: sorry, I can't type, I'm laughing too hard.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

6. Kucinich, Sharpton, Kerry/Edwards, Clark

TWL

[wabeewoman]

8. My list...

1. Dean-best: He speaks to people, spoke up first and is a fighter. Anti-gun cost Gore but won't Dean. Has well thought proposals and is willing to speak up on issues the others won't bring up. Negative: the media is out for him.
2. Clark- Smart, could do the job but think he really would rather be Secretary of State. Questions about voting repug won't hurt him.
3. Edwards: Maybe next time. Charismatic but shallow... VP?
4. Kerry-where was he the last 3 years? Positve: Teddy Kennedy supports him.
I think the 'who would beat bush' is a fallacy. The one who will beat bush is the one the most people would choose if they could vote their heart(who they really want) because they won't desert him at the first sign of trouble. As long as we let them define electability, we won't win.

[Loren645]

9. Clark,

Edwards, Kerry, Dean

[frustrated_lefty]

12. 1 word each

Dean- honest
Kerry- wooden
Edwards- green
Clark- uncertain

[AP]

13. Edwards.......Clark/Kerry...........Dean

Edwards: best coverage for GE.

Clark: Demographically strong. Rhetorically iffy. He isn't lighting up the boards the way it seemed he would.

Kerry: looks the part, has the experience, will be too liberal for middle America, making it very hard to improve on Gore's vote in 2000.

Dean: Timmy! Gobbles?

[One Taste]

19. That's how I'd rank them

:toast: :thumbsup:

[isbister]

22. list

1.Clark - intelligent/politically a little fish in the ocean
2.John Edwards - fantastic speaker/inexperienced
3.Howard Dean - better politician than given credit/misleader
4.John Kerry - visionary leader/virtually unable to deliver sound bite

Most likely to beat Bush. Two reasons why

1.Clark - general/leadership
2.Edwards - comes across as honest, sincere/for the little guy
3.Kerry - vast knowledge of issues facing country/visionary leader
4.Dean - gifted politician/can fire up a crowd

[Edge]

23. My humble list....

1. Edwards--great man, like his views.
2. Dean--One tough SOB who I wouldn't wanna mess with...Dubya should be scared of him.
3. Kerry--A Veteran, kick-ass speaker.
...
4. Clark--I don't care for him. I don't trust him at all for some reason...

Kucinich is actually my #1 choice, but he isn't at the top of the polls. :(

[maxr4clark]

27. CKDE

1. Clark -- international experience/character
2. Kerry -- domestic experience/character
3. Dean -- domestic experience/can do attitude
4. Edwards -- more ego than experience/no gravitas

Sorry to say such negative things about Edwards, but I've been thinking a lot about him today. I don't think he's electable, because he has no foreign policy experience and a pretty face, and we're at war. There is simply no way America is going to take a chance on a lawyer to replace an oil baron; the potential evil you don't know (speaking from an independent's point of view, now, not my own) can't beat out the evil that has created the situation, and says that he can get us out of it.

As for the 'no gravitas' comment, I'll say this. Suppose North Korea tests a nuclear bomb, and then says they'll drop one on Tokyo if we don't withdraw from South Korea. Who do you want to see give the speech that day, reassuring us that we will survive and do what is right? The guy that looks forty, the lawyer with a dazzling smile and perfect hair--he is not the guy that is going to convince me he knows what to do, no matter what he did before becoming President.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Dean

Edwards: head and torso above the others. Devastating focus and presentation, and a reassuring warmth and engaging nature literally shine from this guy. Even as brilliant as he is, he doesn't come off as such (good thing, too, since being smart is death in American politics) and he has remarkable control. He's made essentially no missteps in the primary process and has no sound bites, video clips or statements that can be turned against him. (I've been a partisan for a long time, as most of you know.) He can beat Junior more thoroughly than any of the others.

Kerry: Great record, patrician champion of the masses. He's imposing and reassuring, and he's getting more comfortable. There have been missteps, though, and he often goes too far out of his way to disprove an allegation, as he did with his response in the last debate about gun ownership. Unfortunately, he'll have the "intellectual" tag stapled to his forehead, and being from the Northeast, he'll have a tough row to hoe in the South.

Clark: very spotty and erratic, but sometimes thrillingly dead-on. His performance in the half of the last debate I saw erased lots of his recent gains for me. He was very unsure, and his answer about Michael Moore was a terrible ducking of the issue and deflection to another topic. (He's a newbie, and the LAST thing he can get away with is saying that he isn't fully versed on something.) He has major baggage about his past speaking about the administration and missteps when he started his campaign, and he may cause a slight defection of the extreme left of the party. The guy's got something, and he's improved more in my eyes than any of the others, but I am truly underwhelmed even as I get enthused.

Dean: I don't want to kick the faithful when they've been so thumped on of late; I'm quite on record for not liking the guy for policy and personality issues. He has less chance in the general election than any of the others, and I'll just leave it at that.

[spooky3]

46. I believe Clark's heart is in the right place but lack of campaign

experience is making it very difficult for him, in this era of total RW assault. If he doesn't win the nomination, and the process does not thoroughly discourage him, I hope he will be back either in the administration itself or as a candidate in future years.

[dusty64]

32. Leaving Kuncinich

off the list it would be Dean/Clark, Kerry, Edwards. For what its worth.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. Kucinich, Edwards, Dean, Sharpton

[Indiana Democrat]

36. My Top Four?

1) Kerry: He can win.

2) Edwards: He can win.

3) Clark: He can win.

4) No one else matters: They can't win.

[THUNDER HANDS]

37. ok

1. Kerry - got the whole package.
2. Edwards - can woo women with his cute looks.
3. Clark - can woo men with his miliatary background.
4. Dean - ????? Don't know what to say about him anymore.

[MoonRiver]

38. Clark, Kerry, Edwards, Dean

That's been my ranking for a long time.

[Sly Kal]

39. Dean, Clark, Sharpton, DK

I just couldn't bring myself to play by your rules.

[democrank]

40. No need to rent a flightsuit

for either Clark or Kerry. A real plus.

1. Clark....tested leadership, military record,intelligence,vision
2. Kerry....military record,intelligence
3. Edwards..uplifting biography,good communicator
4. Dean.....tough,intelligent, determined

The Republicans will no doubt try to lay claim to the flag and national defense. Clark and Kerry would strip them of that ownership and I`m certain that during the debates, Bush will be quaking way down deep at the thought of facing either of these war heroes. He`ll know the gig is up, no more cotumes, no more Rambo crap.

We`ve allowed the Republicans to define us for way too long and have a lock on family values and patriotism. This must stop. Like Clark said this morning, we need to open the doors of the White House, let the American people back in along with some sunshine.

[poskonig]

41. Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Dean

1) Clark -- good independent and foreign policy creds/vagueness makes him easily slimed by opponents.

2) Edwards -- Very positive, gives everyone warm fuzzies/no political and foreign policy experience

3) Dean -- can inspire political action, has good policy judgment/politically fragile and extremely error prone

4) Kerry -- oratory is very polished, good bio/doesn't take political initiative, fights battles on opponents' turf

Most likely to beat Bush

1) Kerry: foreign policy creds + unlimited $$$$- south
2) Clark: Kerry + south - unlimited $$$$
3) Edwards: south - foreign policy experience - money
4) Dean: unlimited $$$ - foreign policy experience - south

[WillyBrandt]

53. EXCELLENT POST

You really nailed it.

[VolcanoJen]

42. Clark, Edwards, Dean, Kerry

My Fab Four List! For the record, I must say that this is the best field of contenders this party has ever had, and I'd take any of them over Bush, in a heartbeat.

Clark: Best resume; best direct leadership experience; most intelligent and studied, not a politician, as evidenced by his appearances. Only agenda is to serve the United States. Refreshing! Will cream Bush, as Michael Moore says. Americans likely to feel comfortable with handing him the reins of leadership. Downside: Looking a little wooden on the stump; obviously a green politician.

Edwards: Running a very, very close second to Clark for me; he was my first choice until Clark entered the race. The only true populist in contention; speaks to issues that really, really matter; best conscience; most sincere. Great looking, and Americans enjoy looking at pretty people. Downside: Green, as far as leadership experience goes.

Dean: Single-handedly responsible for lighting a fire under our collective asses, and propelling this race to the front pages. For that alone deserves our respect. Think he'd be the best guy on the under-ticket, could unite the party and propel us to victory. Downside: Wounded.

Kerry: He really doesn't reach me, on a personal level, but he's great on the stump. Tall, war hero, Democratic party icon. Downside: He's too rich for me. Yes, this is a serious issue in my book. Hard to relate to this guy. Didn't really catch fire until he began to co-opt the messages of Clark and Dean, in my opinion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Dean, yes. Clark, yes. Pro-war Kerry & Edwards, no.

As simple as that.

[DjTj]

47. Edwards, Kerry, Clark, Dean...

1. Edwards - Southerner running his campaign as an outsider; I believe he can change Washington and change America.

2. Kerry - long liberal record and war hero, but he would need help to win in the South.

3. Clark - not quite ready for prime-time, but I'm still giving this decorated general with working class Southern roots the benefit of the doubt.

4. Dean - Without Dean in the race, Clark wouldn't have been so anti-Iraq, Edwards wouldn't have been so populist, and Kerry wouldn't have been so anti-lobbyist. Dean has reshaped the debate and built an incredible organization. I still haven't seen proof that the organization translates into votes yet, so he still lingers behind Clark.

[wyldwolf]

48. Dean might intimidate Bush? What, by screaming at him?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. That's What I Was Thinking....

In any case, Simian Boy is too stupid to be intimidated....

[JohnKleeb]

49. here goes

Kerry
Edwards
Dean
Clark

[eyeswideopened]

51. Vote : Are the media unfairly characterizing Howard Dean's post-Iowa loss

Please go to CNN an Vote for weather or not the media is unfairly characterizing Howard Dean's post-Iowa loss. This is a Wolf Blitzer's question of the day.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/wolf.blitzer.reports/

Could someone please post this as a major thread. DU won't let me post yet because I haven't responded to enough posts yet... SORRY

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Kerry, Clark, And Edwards Are The Only Dems That Can Beat Simian Boy

Everything else is commentary...

With all due respect I can see folks reviving the slam on Goldwater during his 64 campaign to malign Dean...


Goldwater's campaign slogan was "In your heart you know he's right."


His detractor's slogan was "In your guts you know he's nuts."

[zoeyfong]

57. Get real- what about 2000 and 2002?

We don't have to go back to 1964 of 1972 to find a lesson for this election; how about 2000 and 2002? On paper gore looked great. he did what the pundits told him- distanced himself from clinton, sternly condemned clinton's "indiscretions," tried to appear as right of center as possible and not make too many "exageration gaffes.", and still voters gave a complete idiot almost as many votes as gore got. Then there was 2002; democrats had been rolling over for bush since day one, including casting politically motivated pro-war votes (kerry), and still dems lost the senate and lost seats in the house. Why does any sane person think 2004 is going to be any different? People were behind dean because he's been right when were wrong, or didn't have the courage to stand up for their convictions. Now it's time for democrats to stand up for our convictions, and not follow the punditry to another defeat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. It Has Nothiung To Do With Pundits...

Dean is a media creation.... A man devoid of substance....


He starts out as the most secular of candidates then he promises to "talk about his faith more" cuz he thinks southerners dig faith....


He starts out respecting the privacy of his wife and her desire to avoid the limelight then he schlepps her to Iowa in the waning days of the campaign and then to his bathetic interview with Diane Sawyer...


He starts out as the Red Bull fueled angry candidate and then after he is criticized for his over the top concession speech he becomes the passive candidate who looks like he just downed a bottle of horse tranqualizer....


Message to Howie...

To thy ownself be true...

Don't let the door hit ya where the dog should have bit ya...

[Insurance_Analyst]

54. Here I go...

Kerry - s/b at the top of the ticket. His decisions during Vietnam saved lives!!! He wants to preserve middle-class tax cuts!!! Also, the guy can explain how the war on terrorism, CREATING JOBS, reducing emissions, improving fuel efficiency, and decreasing our dependence on foreign energy are related and how his approach can make America better. Very intelligent.

Clark - VP or Sec. of Defense w/b better

Edwards - I can't imagine a better Attorney General

Dean - A terrific Sec. of HHS. Capable of reforming Medicare!!!

P.S. Gephardt a good choice for VP (Midwestern strategy better than Southern strategy for Democrats!!!

[John_H]

55. OK, I'm in

1) Clark--needs to focus more on domestic issues but easily the most electable of the bunch.

2) Kerry--a great Democrat in every way, but will get "Gored" by the press as "unlikable"

3) Edwards--Has the charisma and smarts to be a great president, but can't win in 2004 Americs.

4) Dean-- If only he had run on his record. Sigh.

Only two candidates stack up well against 200 mil in Chimp change.

Kerry can win if the media is fair (fat chance). Clark will beat * going away by taking away his only issue and refocusing the race on the issues we win with.

[styersc]

56. Absolutely no Dem candidate will win in the south.

we can only hope that post-2000 enthusiasm will bring voters out in Florida and pick up that state but conservatism is much to strong in the "Confederate" states to spend any time or serious money there. Do not make decisions beased on picking up souther states.

[osaMABUSh]

58. 1234 on 'electable'

1. Clark - good: war / national security experience, South; bad: inexperienced as a politician
2. Kerry - good: experienced, Vietnam Vet; bad: from Mass.
3. Edwards - good: great ideas, good looking, South; bad: young, lawyer
4. Dean - good: toughest, doctor, governor, hates Bush the most; bad: deemed too Liberal, hates Bush the most

[Jack_Dawson]

59. Clark, Edwards, Kerry , Dean