Clark may be the only "Anti-Kerry"

[fujiyama]

The polls may or may not be indicative of anything, but if they are the only one with a sunstantial lead over Kerry in any of the states on Tuesday is that of Clark's in Oklahoma. His lead is some 28% Clark to 19% Kerry.

I don't mind either of the candidates but I don't want this thing to end so quickly. I firmly believe that whomever the candidate is, should be battle tested.

Unfortunately, Edwards' lead in SC is dwindling. Hopefully with the weekend campaigning he can regain it.

[Toucano]

1. I don't like anti-

As a prefix. It's a little hostile. I prefer to consider Clark the Kerry-Alternative, just as I considered him the Dean-Alternative a few months ago.

Symantics, symantics. You'd think I was in marketing! LOL! :)

[mikehiggins]

12. I prefer to think of Clark as the next President, not the "anti" anyone

Except, of course, George Bush the Invisible Airman.

[fujiyama]

17. Thanks for the symantics tip ;-)

Yeah, I should have kept it a bit less inflamatory I guess. That's why I put it in quotes.

Generally Clark has run a decent and overall positive campaign. His supporters (for the most part) also seem to understand what it takes to defeat this administration...and from what I've seen their supporters seem more likely to support the nominee even if it's not Clark (in contrast to a vocal minority from another unnamed camp)...

I wish him the best and think he would be stronger, were it not for his lack of campaigning experience.

[JohnKleeb]

2. Give Edwards a chance

Edwards definely could be it. If it comes down to Edwards and Kerry and Kucinich please please :), I'll be a happy SOB, these are my favorite three.

[Toucano]

3. How is Edwards comparable

to Kerry and Clark who both attract the Veteran vote?

I don't see Edwards as stong on defense or foreign relations.

What have I over-looked?

[JohnKleeb]

5. We didnt expect Edwards to do so well in Iowa and NH but he did

Watch the Senator, I think he will do good. Its Edwards populism that makes him attractive to people. True on the foreign affairs issues, it would be Kerry and Clark.

[girl gone mad]

9. Clark is a populist, too..

With less money from corporate interests than Edwards.

[jenk]

6. those are not the only issues

The veteran vote is not that huge, it's important, but I don't think these veterans just automatically vote for a guy just because he was in the military, I'm sure most will be voting for Bush in 04 anyway. Edwards is better at picking up the women, men, and minority across the north AND south.

[Toucano]

7. Okay

I'll grant you the veteran vote for now, although it is like 8 million people who can clearly be brought to our side since Bush has such a terrible record with their interests.

But what about foreign relations?

BTW, the exit data at CNN from NH didn't indicate that Edwards did as well with women as people thought he would do.

Edit: Boo boo.

[JohnKleeb]

10. Ive visited your guy's site before jenk and you know how they have meet

so and so supporter, well there was an Army Captain. Also I think you may get my grandfather, he was a Gephardt man and I am not sure if he would go to Kerry, not Dean and Clark I know, I dont know why he has problems with Dean, but I do know why with Clark. Hes a veteran. Youre right, you dont get votes from vets just because you are a vet but it does help.

[jenk]

4. while clark is unmatched on military issues, but I feel Edwards is better

prepared to take on Kerry

[Clark Can WIN]

8. No.

Clark is the ANTI-BUSH. That is Clark's best attribute. His vision, his plan, his ideas, his brilliance and his leadership make him the clearest alternative to Bush.

THAT's my guy.

[stickdog]

11. If Clark & Edwards keep staying "above the fray", neither will win a

single state.

[bicentennial_baby]

13. Clark lobbed his first shot today

at Kerry...I think we'll be seeing more offense from the Clark campaign now, and less defense, which I think is a good thing.

[isbister]

14. battle tested

That is one of the main differences between all of these candidates, Kerry's been battle tested since he was a kid.

Edwards, Dean, and Clark are short on the political experience, especially under the glare of the national media spotlight. Kerry's been there on a great number of occasions.

[mikehiggins]

15. Even if Kerry "cleans the boards" he still won't get all the delegates

and that will be the key to keeping this thing honest.

And by honest I mean, representing the Party and not the whims of the media.

If no one gets a decisive number of delegates it will go to the convention where the elected representatives of the members of the democratic party will cast ballots for the nominee. Once we are inside that building the media's influence is toast.

Delegates are not going to be influenced by editorials in the New York OR Washington Posts, or the AP, or Tweety. If we can get the campaigns to the convention we have a chance of choosing a nominee who is really the right man for the job.

Which is not to put Kerry down, of course. If he walks into that building with enough elected delegates to win outright, then the game is called.

If not, no matter what the media might say, its all up for grabs.

[H2O Man]

16. We have four good choices.

We have Clark, Dean, Edwards, and Kerry. I'd vote for a ticket that includes any two of them in any order. More: I'll donate $ and time and energy for any of them. The republicans have bush and cheney. Dick will probably withdraw in June. We are going to win, so long as we put our minor differences aside, and concentrate on all of those very important things that we have in common! We can make this where it is NOT a "close" election, if we invest that time and energy! How many of us are registering voters? How many are educating the general public (not simply writing witty things here)? Let's do it, friends! Let's take up the burden, the actual work, that will make this a turning point in our nation's history!