Clark/Edwards might be the ticket to the White House

[fishguy]

I have been thinking about the right combination to gain the White House.
Not who your favorite candidate is, but the right combination.
Everyone's goal should be to get rid of *.
That goal should supercede ANY OTHER ARGUMENT.
Been thinking this may be the best ticket.

I could go on forever about their demographic strengths, qualifications, issues, internation/domestic strengths, etc....
Not to sound superificial, but I think the average American woman would fall for this combination: looks, charm, appeal, intelligence, Southern gentleman.
In the media age, it would be hard to top these two on television.

[zulchzulu]

1. Two fairly inexperienced Southerners against a Southerner?

I like Clark and Edwards, but this ticket would be too regional and open to not having lots of experience...that's my initial feeling on it.

[fishguy]

2. We need to capture the South

Also, lack of experience may be an asset.
What will Rove's attack be, a Four Star General and a US senator do not have enough "experience"?


Bush ain't a true Southerner, anyhow.

[chimpymustgo]

3. Inspiring ticket. With coattails.

nt

[DemDogs]

24. Edwards doesn't seem inexperienced at all

He is cool, in control, never misspeaks. This guy has what it takes.
I am concerned about Clark, because of the "I Love Bush" videotapes. That will kill any ticket he is on.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. fishguy,

I don't think that will happen. Edwards hired General Shelton as an advisor. You know, the guy who started the "Clark has no integrity or character" rumor? Clark was NOT happy about it. I doubt Edwards is on the top of Clark's VP list.

[fishguy]

6. Politics makes strange bedfellows

Anyhow, I did not say it will happen. I just said it was the best ticket to take back the White House.
LBJ and JFK certainly weren't buddy buddy during the 1960 primary, anyhow.

[Bombtrack]

5. Here's why that would work better in 2008, with Clark/Graham in 04

The most damaging states for the GOP to lose and us to gain, and the most realistic southern states are in order, Florida, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

After 4 successful years of a Clark administration, states like VA, NC, TN, and GA will be alot more within range for democrats in all liklihood from population trends and job growth, and these are states that an Attourney General Edwards, then running as VP in 08, could help win for Clark, after Graham steps aside to REALLY retire.

[fishguy]

13. I thought about Clark/Graham also

I believe Edwards would come across better than Graham to the average American voter.

[Bombtrack]

14. but you have to think about what Clark would benefit from most

from his vp. Someone who ideally has exec experience in a state, preferably a large, complex state, and/or someone from congress who's done important work in congress, particularly pertaining to 9-11

Graham, as you can see is perfect for all these things, and does not outshine him.

Clark would have twice the chance of winning Florida as North Carolina.

Also, We'd be more likely to get Edwards Justice Dept. reform proposals through if he was AG than if he was VP.

[fishguy]

17. Good rationale about Graham

Like I mentioned in another post, I thought about Clark/Edwards or Graham. Just thought Edwards in the shower this morning.
Edwards would make a great AG!

[spooky3]

7. fishguy, I appreciate your sentiment

and I know you don't mean to insult us, but I don't think most women vote on the basis of looks and personal charm any more than you would vote for Madonna and Britney. (Sorry, I was hard pressed to think of any Republican women that you might find personally attractive :-)). If women don't like what these gentlemen have to say, they won't support them any more than men would support attractive women who held views different from their own (Dan Quayle proved that!). So the keys will be getting their message out and persuading the voters.

[fishguy]

8. You forget most people are not as informed as DUers

Many women would vote for this ticket based on these attributes in the November election.
I could almost guarantee it.
Think about how you vote in local elections.
Do you really know the backgrounds of ALL of the candidates in local elections?
Probably not. Good for you if you know the backgrounds of every candidate on the ballot EVERY election.
Think about a primary for a local election.
Do you know the backgrounds and qualifications of every candidate for a local primary election?
What about school board members?
Most winners of local elections are based on how the public perceives them or name recognition, not the actual stances of the candidate on all the issues. Unless there is one dominant local issue.
Now, apply the same principle to a national election.
Do most people really care about a President's specific stance on the capital gains tax? Probably not, it is how they perceive the candidate.
Dems need a team that will have a positive public perception with ALL voters, not just Democratic party members.
That is why I thought Clark and Edwards would make such a formidable team.
How would Rove attack this duo?

[surfermaw]

9. Beg to differ fish guy on Quayle

he was neither good looking or intelligent. Bush chose Quayle because hate thought he was good looking and mainly because his wife was a lawyer, thinking he could match up with Bill Clinton and Hillary.. It is my opinion that Quayle was neither good looking or intelligent. The wives of Clinton and Quyale were both lawyers, but Hillary was 10 steps ahead of Mr Q. and a optomist...Mrs was Hillarys opposite. Neither V.P.Q. or his wife held a chance against Hillary and Bill.

[fishguy]

12. When did I say anything about Quayle?

Nowhere. Someone else did.

[Bombtrack]

16. Mitt Romney probably won because of his looks

I know 2 women in my family who got his vote on that basis

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. Troubling issues about that matchup: Acxiom AND the Patriot Act?

I'm inclined to live both candidates (especially Edwards) but I'm wondering how privacy advocates and civil libertarians would react?

[ClarkGraham2004]

11. I like Clark-Graham now, and Clark-Ford in '08

John Edwards AG or SOS

[Bombtrack]

15. Only if we have a democratic governor in Tennessee

otherwise it should be Edwards as vp in 08. Ford Should definetly be on the ticket at some point though

[rucky]

18. Maybe if the South seceded and ran their own election.

[ThomWV]

19. Hmmmmm

Six months ago I would have said Clark Graham, for the last two months I've been saying Clark Edwards. Either way works for me but purely in terms of winning I'd say that Clark Edwards would be an absolutly unbeatable combination.

Thom

[Eric J in MN]

20. I agee. Edwards would reinforce Clark's Southerness and add

I agee. Edwards would reinforce Clark's Southerness and add economic poplusism.


I would like to see Edwards debate Cheney.

The populist vs. the oil company CEO.

[delete_bush]

21. Clark / Gephardt?

Gephardt has been there for the American worker when it comes to jobs and trade, and would give Clark a link to inside Washington.

He could be a factor in bringing in some of the big Midwestern states.

[dkamin]

22. Why are we fixated on the South?

(I posted something like this in the Dean Running Mate thread first)

I think the Southern strategy is stupid. When will we figure out that we're not gonna win the South, and that's OK?

The GOP has a lockdown on all of the Southern states except Louisiana and Florida, and *maybe* Arkansas. They are effectively the party of the South at this point, and that's not going to change in this election. This is what all my friends down South are telling me, and I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise. Bush is polling incredibly there, and I haven't seen any head-to-heads that are even close. Clark/Edwards or Clark/Graham or Edwards/Graham is still not gonna win a single Southern state, other than maybe the 3 mentioned. The South is Bush Country. On the other hand, if we appeal to the South, we may end up alienating the true swing voters in this election: blue collar union guys, suburban women, and Latinos, residing in the MidWest and SouthWest.

E.g., imagine a candidate, let's call him Joe, making appeals to the South about how conservative he is on crime, abortion, religion, immigration, etc. He's still not gonna win a single Southern state, and will more than likely lose swing states like Ohio, Missouri, Arizona, and New Mexico.

I think the conventional DLC Southern strategy is a huge loser this year. The South is not up for grabs, and we're stupid if we pretend it is.

[SahaleArm]

23. Losing 5 Senate seats is a bigger loser...

If the Democrats continue on an *ignore the South* plan it will spell doom and a loss of the filibuster in the not so distant future.

[DemDogs]

25. Because we have never, ever won without the South

Gotta win several Southern states to win. Read "The Vital South"

[TexasSissy]

26. Hmmm. Edwards is articulate.

But is he experienced enough politically? I think Clark would look for a career politician? But then, this would be Edwards' stepping stone to the WH.

I used to think that two southerners on the ticket was not a good idea. But then I remembered the Clinton/Gore ticket. Hmmmm. Something to think about.