why it will come down to Kerry v. Clark . . .

[OneBlueSky]

- Sharpton can't win because he's African-American and too far left
- Kucinich can't win because he's too far left, and funny lookin'
- Lieberman can't win because he's an orthodox Jew and too much of a Bush clone on foreign policy
- Edwards can't win because he has no foreign policy experience, and he just comes across as too young
- Dean can't win because he has no foreigh policy experience, supports repealing even middle class tax cuts, and just comes across as too angry

that leaves Kerry and Clark . . . both look presidential, have significant foreign policy (and military) experience, and are adopting populist, progressive themes for their campaigns . . . Kerry will likely win because he has experience in elective politics and in government, which Clark doesn't . . . if he does win, and selects Clark as his VP, they will be unbeatable, imo . . .

that's how I see it, anyhow . . .

[HazMat]

1. Honestly, I like Clark but

he has no chance. What Clark has demonstrated is that he's not ready for prime time. I guess not being a career politician also has disadvantages.

[hope42mro]

2. Yeah, but how would you like him as VP? nt

[bowens43]

24. As for me, not at all.

Edwards is the best choice for VP no matter who gets nomination.

[Myra]

3. The conventional wisdom is that *IF* Kerry wins, he'll run with Edwards.

Wouldn't he want another insider?

[Shanty Oilish]

4. Yikes! Kerry/Clark

I'm a Kerry supporter, but if he taps Clark I won't vote for them. No way. I'm sure he won't, though. Let's hope Edwards instead.

[JohnKleeb]

5. Whats your problem with Clark?

I would prefer Kerry-Edwards too. I am just wondering about Clark, not dissing you at all, just wondering if we have simliar opinions because I am very :shrug: about Clark, I dont know how to feel.

[Jack_Dawson]

6. Drive-by Smear Much?

Do you have any "reasons" for feeling as you do?

[Shanty Oilish]

9. Reasons, plenty.

I've stated them before, but I don't like offending sensitive souls so I don't keep harping on it. Since you're asking, I find him lacking in Democratic credentials. He wouldn't even acknowledge being a Democrat until a few months ago. Nobody has convincingly explained to me why he would not. It appears to me that the Democratic party was a secondary concern, and his primary interest was the presidency. Then there are the issues of his conduct in Europe. His lack of experience in politics, which leaves us having to take his word for so much. His concept of a civilian service corps as described on the Clark website indicates that in time of crisis he advocates mandatory service by civilians. His recent modification of his pro-choice stand, which formerly was clear-cut and now approves states passing laws restricting the right of choice. I could go on, but I'm not alarmed about his chances.

[roguevalley]

27. Amazing. I am glad we were dems back to the Civil War because I

would hate to be a newcomer now. If you aren't an old
dem, you aren't a dem. I feel a lot of anti-military
bias in this here old alley tonight.

[BootinUp]

32. Any quotes, or links

about this change in his pro-choice stand, I must have missed it.

The rest of your reasons need no rebuttal IMHO.

[QC]

10. Do you prefer Bush/Cheney?

Because, realistically, that will be your only meaningful alternative, should the ticket end up Kerry/Clark.

[Shanty Oilish]

11. Highly unlikely it'll be Kerry/Clark

But if it is, my one little vote won't be missed. Each of us draws a line somewhere, when it comes to a candidate. Such a decision is not made lightly and is certainly not the equivalent of voting for the opposing faction. But you know that.

[QC]

13. The intent is certainly different, but the effect is the same.

For what it's worth, there are some candidates who irritate the hell out of me, but I don't run around DU trashing them, and if they get the nomination, I will gladly vote for them. As someone who is gay and struggling financially, I cannot afford to take a chance on four more years of Bush. Treating my vote as a matter of moral purity is a luxury that I do not have.

[krkaufman]

17. Actually...

> my one little vote won't be missed. ... Such a decision
> is not made lightly and is certainly not the equivalent
> of voting for the opposing faction.

No, you're right, not voting in the GE is *not* the equivalent of voting for the opposing faction; but, because of how the Electoral College works, it *is* the equivalent of voting for whoever wins your state.

If "we" win, you defaulted to a vote for "us."

If "they" win, you defaulted to a vote for the "opposing faction."

If you vote for a losing candidate, your vote is effectively discarded. One person, zero votes. (Gotta love that EC!)

[Shanty Oilish]

14. 'Anyone not with us is against us'

That would be the argument you're making. Do you think that is Clark's way of looking at it?
ps: Are you saying I 'trashed' Clark?

[bowens43]

25. Me neither.

Clark is a ticket killer as far as I'm concerned. Edwards is the guy.

[Rebellious Republican]

30. "Yikes! Kerry/Clark" ....

I'm a Kerry supporter, but if he taps Clark I won't vote for them. No way.WTF DC!

Before you start to flame me as a Clark supporter DC, be it known that at this point I am undecided about any of them. I hope that there are not many like you. Down south we have a saying, I would vote for a Yellow Dog before I would vote for a Republican. I know you did not say that you would vote for Bush, but whats the damn differance.I suppose if everyone felt that way about their candidates, we know who would win the election in "04". You must not be to unhappy with Bush! Because most certainly thats who will win. I for one will vote for whoever is on the ticket in November, I refuse to give up one single vote to George W. "F**king" Bush. No wonder the repubs are running everything, because of Dems like you!My apologies for the flame, which I do not normally do! I am sure you are passionate about your candidate, and I wish him the best! But think about that statement! Is that what you really want?

On edit: Here is one other thought, none of the Democratic candidates have ever been President of the United States. Yes some have proven track records as elected officials, some have military backgrounds so on and so forth. We do not know how ANY of them will do as president. Have you ever been a worker bee then promoted to a position of authority, ie, manager/boss. It really does have an effect on the way we make are decisions. There is a big differance when we are not the one that has to make the big decisions and when we are put in that position of authority. So for that reason we can not say how someone will actually be when they are elected president. The BIG differance between Bush and all the Dem candidates is that Bush is a known factor. He has been President, we know exactly how he wil be if elected again! I am willing to give anyone a chance to try to do a better job.

[Shanty Oilish]

31. Either way it's a feeble gesture

Noble, but feeble, one single vote or the withholding of it. I would not care to be put in the position of voting for someone I truly believed unfit for the office. To vote on those terms would be to participate in a farce. The farce would occur with or without me, and I'd prefer the latter. I would be voting against Bush, yes, and that matters, but I'd also be voting for his opponent, and that would send a message I don't wish to send. A tiny message, but still...
I have other ways of protesting against Bush and impeding his agenda, without suspending my judgment and voting against the dictates of conscience.
BTW thanks for the apology. I've been in more crackling flames :) but it was nice of you to be sensitive.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Crude, but essentially correct, I think.

Kerry/Clarke would be awesome. Kerry focuses on repairing international relations and Clark can work Pentagon reform and domestic economic policy.

A bulletproof team, I think.

[maxr4clark]

8. interesting

I think you may have dismissed Edwards too easily; voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have given him more support than I think Edwards himself expected.

As many Clark supporters (including me) have posted here before, Clark is unlikely to accept an offer to become VP. I do not believe he has aspirations to run for President again if he does not win the nomination this time, which for some is the main attraction of becoming VP. If he were interested in becoming a career politician, he could have followed the path that John Kerry chose. Instead, I believe Clark is running because he sees that this election, this next four years, he has a lot to offer the country serving as President, helping us to move toward a more progressive tax system, get out of a costly and ill-advised operation in Iraq, salvage our international reputation, turn away from a costly and ultimately unimportant missle defense system, and thereby free up the funds we need to address critical domestic issues: job creation, healthcare, education, and protection of the environment. I do not believe that he is interested in the title of President, so much as he is interested in the good he knows he could do at this point in history for the American people in that role. And I agree with his view that he is more prepared and more suited to the particular issues we face at this time than Kerry is. At the same time, I value John Kerry's service to our country, and would be very happy to see him continue the work he has done in the legislature as our Vice President.

The duties of a VP, who deals mostly with legislation via the Senate, do not match Clark's background nearly as well as those of a President, who is the manager of the executive branch and makes high-profile foreign policy appearances and decisions. By the same token, I believe Kerry's experience in the legislature makes him an ideal Vice Presidential candidate, where he can use his extensive knowledge of the legislative process and his ties within the Senate and with members of the House to enact a firmly Democratic Party legislative agenda. I therefore think that a more effective pairing of these two candidates would be a Clark/Kerry ticket, rather than Kerry/Clark.

It is also unclear whether Kerry will get the nomination: he is now the front-runner, but he has yet to prove that he has a lasting appeal throughout the country, and especially in the so-called Red States. He also has a long history of just the kind the Rove machine would be happy to run against, as may become apparent this week when the spotlight turns on him as the new front-runner. And he is not the most inspiring speaker on the campaign trail, although he has improved since replacing his campaign manager.

Although Kerry is a decorated war hero and his military service is something for which we should all be grateful, he was also a war protester, and would ignite a division between Americans that view the war in Vietnam from starkly contrasting and irreconcilable perspectives.

In contrast, I see Clark as the candidate who has the most to offer voters in the Red states. He is of impeccable character, has a history of impartiality on the divisive partisan politics of the past twenty years, and combines traditional midwestern and southern values with a strong stand on national defense. It will be very difficult for Bush, Cheney, and Rove to attack Clark on the issues with which Republicans have traditionally beaten Democrats, when they have done so.

I therefore share your opinion that the two of them would be unbeatable as a team, but believe Clark should be the President and Kerry the VP.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

12. you have to ask yourself why the media plays big Kerry-omits Clark

Kerry Kerry Kerry-
That's your daily dose on T.V.
and they say Dean is weird because he got fired up with a hoarse voice.

They do NOT want to play any good Clark footage -Did you see Peter Jennings being a Jerk to Clark on the Debates???
They know!
The BIG BIG BUCKS know!!
The size of the media qualifies these networks to be major corporate powers of this country besides just being functional companies.
Chimp wants to help the corporates out--The corps have to want Bush to get their corporate welfare tax breaks.
So...
If they want to decide for the Dems who their candidate will be, will you listen to them?
They are Republicans and they are going to tell us who our candidate will be??

Well they know something.
They know that there is absolutely no way in the world that Bush could win against Clark
.....
A 4 star General would SMOKE Bush any day any way --thank you end of story.
But they will do anything in their power to not let that happen.

so believe them if you will--
Keep on Sheepin on !
But remember, when they play something over and over (like the Dean tape) or if they DON't play something, THERE IS A REASON.
Fair and Balanced?

Keep on Sheepin on !

[Bhaisahab]

16. u make a good point.

i urge all americans not to be influenced by TV coverage of candidates to make their decisions. the TV has been bush's best friend since 911. if they're blacking out a candidate, they know that candidate is bad news for bush.

[formactv]

15. Howard Dean is the primary

Dean has made the primary the interesting event it is. All the news is about Dean, because he is the one who says and does bold, interesting things. The rest of these guys are standup cutouts in comparison. Iowa and NH are small states. The primary has just begun. What matters so far is who has been weeded out. Remember Gephart? Lieberman? These were considered frontrunners once. Dean's campaign is alive, and the primaries have just begun.

[krkaufman]

18. Respectfully disagree

I agree, as I've posted before, that the Dems owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Dean for surgically implanting some backbone back into the Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates; however, I wouldn't say that the Doc is responsible for the rebellious fire in *all* the other candidates.

To opinionate:

• Kerry, absolutely
  
• Edwards, somewhat
  
• Kucinich, absolutely NOT
  
• Sharpton, just *try* telling Al that!
  
• Clark, I'm not sure he'd be in the race if it hadn't been for the Doc's 2003 campaign
  
• Joementum, just don't see any resistance
  

[formactv]

21. Sharpton and Kucinich stand on their own.

But Kerry built his campaign on Dean's.

[woldnewton]

19. Clark's poor showing in NH proves he should have tried running Republican

The idea that Clark is "too liberal" to have made inroads against Bush is ridiculous and offset by several very important aspects of American electoral history:

1) Moderate Republicans, Independents, not to mention CROSSOVER Democrats who saw the more ridiculous episodes of the Democratic contenders sniping at each other and especially at Dean could have voted for a serious Republican challenger. If RepubliKKKans challenged the legitimacy of the cross-voting (as you know they have to), the oppositions could counter with what happened to Cynthia McKinney. If they wanted to throw out cross votes, they would have to take the chance of reinstating McKinney to her seat. I don't think they want to do that.

2) Even some far right KKKonservatives would have voted for a serious challenger regardless of his idealogy to express their tremendous disappointment with Bush. Historically KKKonservatives have voted for a Democrat when the Republican incumbent has simply gone too far, not because they necessarily prefer the Democrat, but to send the incumbent a message.

3) There are several different Republican challengers to Bush that qualified for various state primaries. None of them had a shot. Clark would have.

4) Wasn't the field of Democrats crowded enough before Clark declared at the late date that he did?

5) Clark was hedging his bets on NH, bypassing Iowa all together. And guess what? He still lost even after the media vultures did their best to excoriate Dean.

6) Challenging Bush as a Republican in a primary election would have given the American people the opportunity to fight Bush on two fronts. Clark blew it.

[krkaufman]

20. Glad he didn't

Thank god he didn't.

[formactv]

22. Who in the GOP would challenge Bush

after the McCain slash and burn? The Republicans don't need no stinkin' primaries. The bosses select their guy, and everyone marches behind or gets run over. The Repubs are heading for a generation of disgrace- I hope it starts soon. And the turning point was Dean.

[roguevalley]

28. Second time I've read this exact post. Amazing. At least you could very

your spew.

[bowens43]

23. Dean can easily win

Clark on the other hand has way to many negatives and probably will get knocked out of the running next Tuesday. This is a Dean Kerry contest now.

[magatte]

26. clark has too many whats....?

Please, lurkers, do you duty and make the effort to listen to the candidates directly. Instead of these second-hand, partisan, insiduous blanket statements. "Clark is horrible public speaker, Clark is not ready for prime-time, Clark has just too many negatives, you cannot start supporting Clark, he is a loser who will get knocked out in the next week, unless he turns republican in the meantime that is... clark is evil". Lots, lots of rubbish.

Please listen directly to the guy on:

http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html


MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

[roguevalley]

29. I agree completely. Kerry was dead in the water a month ago. Iowa

was a total surprise. You cannot count out any of them.
As for my personal preferences, the more I see Edwards,
the less I like him. I know it is visceral. I am going
to read more about him tonight to correct any misconceptions
I might have from the sound bites that are political
discourse these days.

I sure wish people would do the same for Clark. I will vote
for him with joy. The others? I respect them but I don't
love them. But its anyone but Bush. Period.