|
Edited on Fri Oct-28-05 09:19 AM by WI_DEM
If the GOP nominated Sen. McCain the democrats would be better off nominating Gen. Clark. Why? McCain will make much of his military/POW past and to counter it we have Gen. Clark who also has a stellar military record. While McCain is a strong hawk on Iraq, Clark opposed the war. It would be an epic battle of the gray hairs.
What if Rudy were somehow nominated? (according to a recent poll he leads in NH)then I would say our best hope would be John Edwards. Why? Rudy has the 9/11 thing going for him, but he also has very strong character problems. Let's not forget that while he was Mayor and married he was carrying on an affair and living in the apartment of another woman. Why would Edwards be a good counter balance? Because Edwards has a squeeky clean private life with the same wife for years and a good looking family. Also, the GOP can't say that Edwards doesn't have enough experience. His term in the US Senate and experience as Kerry's VP nominee is worth Rudy's time as Mayor of New York City. (Somebody who has only been a Mayor has never gone all the way to the presidency). (Also, Rudy would probably make headroads in the Northeast, but he might not sell as well in the south, and Edwards as a southerner might be able to pick up some southern states to make up for the possibility of losing NY).
What if the Repukes nominated Condi? Hate to say it, but I think that the best candidate v. Condi would be Hillary. It would be a first--two women nominated. Some Dems worry that Condi would siphon off portions of the African-American vote, but Hillary is a "Clinton" and Bill has a terrific amount of affection in the African-American community and that could help Hillary. On the other hand, Condi is identified with "W" who only has a 2% approval rating among African-Anmericans.
What if Frist, Gingrich, Brownback, or Romney were nominated? I believe any credible democrat could beat any of them.
|