Wanted Edwards for VP, but now believe that Clark is the better choice..

[VOX]

I have been a big booster of John Edwards, and have been set in the notion for months that he would be the best choice for rounding out the Democratic ticket.

However, as international events continue to boil up and threaten to seriously impact global peace, and as these stories now saturate the broadcast and print media, it seems clear that there will be a **very** heavy emphasis on foreign policy, security and world affairs in the coming election. * has already positioned himself as a "war president." (As phony as that claim is for him to make.)

For these reasons, I am now convinced that the addition of Wes Clark to the ticket would offer the best hope of victory come November. I hate like hell to just drop Edwards, because he has such a gift for connecting with the public, and, in many ways, he personifies the future hopes of the Democratic Party.

But as the salient issues shift, and the U.S. death-toll mounts daily in Iraq, the Democratic Party must move quickly to present a sane alternative to the * administration's deadly lack of strategy, and to patch up the numerous strained international friendships.

IMO, Kerry alone (or with a "domestic-issues" VP) is inadequate to the task of convincing voters that he can single-handedly tackle this monumental endeavor. But a team of Kerry and Clark could easily accomplish this. More important, it could project to the average voter a willingness to tackle the Iraq/Middle East problems with sanity and international inclusion; a capacity for keeping the U.S. strong and secure; and possession of a healthy intestinal fortitude to clean up the chest-high global mess in which the U.S. is now mired.

[freetobegay]

1. Very well put

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

[Adelante]

2. It's not easy to change in midstream

I give you much credit for being open-minded. :hi:

[chimpymustgo]

3. Salient arguments, but I beg to differ. Let's not play their game.

What's their game?: war, terror, fear.

Kerry is a WAR HERO, with YEARS of foreign policy experience. He doesn't need a VEEP to shore up his credentials. He needs a strong Sec of State, Sec of Defense to show how we will do Iraq - and the world better.

But Iraq has to be internationalized, and we need to get out sooner rather than later. We are facing so many, much more pressing domestic problems.

Kerry needs a running made who will energize him and voters - give Americans hope and optimism about the future.

I think if Kerry emphasizes that, he shows his confidence and his vision.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[VOX]

17. Three things contributed to a shift my thinking...

1) My own escalating sense of anxiety about Kerry's lack of responsiveness. I know about the "rope-a-dope" strategy, but I'm not altogether convinced of the effectiveness of that.

2) An article in todays L.A. Times, being discussed on DU here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=515954
"If Election Hinges on Iraq, Kerry may need added firepower"

3) A Buzzflash editorial posted today that really hits the nail on the head:
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/05/edi04034.html
Message to John Kerry: In Today's Television-Dominated World, Form and Image are Content
<snip>
...what most distressed BuzzFlash the past few days was John Kerry's excuse when supportive veterans wanted to know why he had allowed the Bush slime machine to put him on the defensive about his war record.

What was Kerry's response? "Americans aren't listening to all that junk," he said, according to the New York Times.

Excuse us. If John Kerry REALLY believes that, we are in BIG, BIG trouble.
<snip>
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Don't get me wrong -- if the nod goes to Edwards, I'll be thrilled. But as Ive been mulling it over, I keep coming back to Clark, and the ticket-image of vet + (high-ranking) vet, and how Kerry combined with Clark would probably be near-impervious to any smears made against them.

[chimpymustgo]

18. 1 and 3 make a stronger argument for Edwards!

And I don't buy #2. Kerry should NOT play the war, terror, fear game. By picking Clark (for those reasons), he's saying the Rethugs are right.

Kerry has plenty of war and foreign policy experience and then some. He will have a strong Cabinet. He will have international support.

But he needs a candiate who can energize the electorate - bring an aura of excitement, make Americans feel better days are ahead. Remember the very heady days of Clinton/Gore - with Hillary and Tipper and their families riding that bus through America. Let's fight them on our turf, by our methods.

I want people to feel secure about their jobs, about sending their kids to college, to feel a sunny vision about the future.

Not war, war terror terrror. You're not safe, so vote for us.

Please, no.

[Old and In the Way]

26. You know it and I know it, but does the general electorate know it?

The legacy of this administration will be that it "terorized" the American electorate while it picked their pockets clean. Like it or not, that is the worldview this administration has cultivated over the past 3 years. Has Bush uttered a single sentence without terror or war in it, since 9/11?

I think Edwards could be a great VP, but I also think that the average voter is putting more stock in "security" because he believes we are "at war". The combined biographies of Kerry/Clark can overcome that fear....and I think we will need Clark's skills to sucessfully disengage from Iraq. He's got the international name and respect. Edwards wouldn't help Kerry there.

[VOX]

29. This is certainly how I'm thinking about it...

If we are to believe (at least a part of) the polls -- and what else to we have to go on right now -- then most Americans *still* think that * is doing a better job at national security, etc. than a Democrat would, as insane as that idea is.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Actually, I think Clark can be an asset ig getting us extricated from Iraq

It's going to take 1 executive fulltime on Iraq and Clark has the proven track record of defining a mission and sticking to an exit plan. He'll be invaluable in getting the UN and NATO onboard to transition us from the quagmire we are in now. Clark brings an appearance of bi-partisanship and I think he'll be an asset for the Southern/military vote.

Bush/Cheney will try to run on their "war" record which I think is ridiculous. But with corporate media underpinning this meme, Kerry/Clark offers a real leadership team that knows war 1st-hand. And they also understand that our security is not attainable if it is at the expense of the rest of the world. They'll pursue and get it in multi-lateral agreements where we are a partner, not the owner.

[Nightjock]

4. Either one would be great but I like Edwards a little better

I just worry about the Republican Magical Bullshit Machine that spits out lie after lie. They will be playing that clip of Wesley praising Bush over and over again, mention how Clarke was once a Republican and blah, blah, blah...

and the 10 percent undecided, flyover state, tipped over trailer voters will eat it all up.

[markm]

7. Won't help them

The "Clark is a Republican" meme only hurt during the primaries, in the general election this meme helps Clark. Independents don't see Clark as purely partisan and that is a good thing.

[dlviper]

88. I totally agree.

In California, Arnold would have never made it past the California Republican primary. But he was successful going straight to the general (recall) election because he wasn't a ring-wing conservative.

[asjr]

10. I would like to see Edwards as Atty Gen. He will

know what he is doing.

[Justice]

12. I Agree - Either would be Great

My view is that on the ticket, both men are terrific.

Actually I would like to see Edwards as AG and Clark as Secretary of State. I believe they would have far more influence/presence in those roles.

[Adelante]

21. For clarity

Clark was never a Republican; he was an independent.

[Skwmom]

42. Compared to Edwards channeling of an unborn child

I'll take the attacks on Clark any day.

[Leilani]

5. It is obvious that you are putting John Kerry s election

ahead of your own preferences, & that is really hard to do.

Congragulations to you for a well thought out decision.

[rock]

6. Kerry can almost not go wrong with so many good choices

almost

[MsMagnificent]

8. Personally I think Clark is ideal

I liked him even for the #1 spot

Edwards?
Sorry, we've had WAY too much bible in the White House lately.
(and yes I am a Christian)

Separation of church and state is needed now more than ever!

[chimpymustgo]

9. Huh? What are you talking about?

Do you have some specific examples, or is this just a generic smear of John Edwards? He is no Bible thumper - why do you imply that?

[VOX]

14. I have never heard any "thumping" from Edwards...

I saw him speak in person during his campaign, and I don't believe he even once invoked the "God" thing.

[MsMagnificent]

46. No, no thumping but...

...can you really blame me if I'm a touch over-sensitive regarding the religious in the White House?
It's sad, but for me at least it's true: once badly burned, you tend to look at the griddle on the stove top as more hot than cold, even if the oven's off.

I did not mean to besmirch Edwards at all. If it was taken that way my apologies, he's a good man.

[chimpymustgo]

52. Yes, you can certainly be blamed for mindlessly besmirching Edwards.

Based on NOTHING at all. But there's an epidemic of that these days. It should settle down very soon.

[Darkamber]

78. Separation of church and state

It was mentioned that Edwards does not 'thump'. I'm not sure where this came from. A Clark supported on the Kerry boards also just called him something like this and I asked where in the world he got this view from, but there was no reply.

I do agree about the separation of church and state. I did watch Clark during one rally with the primary when he walking about abortion and his personal feelings on it. He was very heavy on religion in his discussion.

Now, I don't have any problems with Clark, though I would prefer Edwards, but at that moment, I almost felt like I was listening to Bush. In all the time that I listened to Edwards, I never heard that same kind of tone.

[w4rma]

11. I don't see how a bunch of media reports stating that Kerry chose Clark

to shore up his appearance on the national security issue will help Dems win. I think it would be better for Kerry to build up his own national security appearance. I think he has the credentials and the background and the experience to be a great leader, especially on national security and foreign policy.

If I saw some some shift in the way the media is reporting why Clark is being considered for VP, I may reconsider.

[sampsonblk]

45. Kerry should SAY that - nt

nt

[Gothmog]

13. I like your analysis

I personally like John Edwards and have been hoping that he would be the VP nominee also. It may well be that Wes Clark may be the better choice. However, I am concerned about loading the ticked on the defense side.

If we let Bush/Cheney make the war on terror the main issue, then we are playing to their strength. While a Kerry/Clark ticket is clearly superior on defense issues to the chickenhawk ticket, it may be a better idea to focus on jobs and other domestic issues.

We have a little time to see how Iraq plays out before Senator Kerry needs to make his choice. I am very open minded on this issue and would support both tickets happily.

[chimpymustgo]

16. War, war, terror, terror, fear and loathing. WE'VE GOT BETTER STUFF!

Please, Kerry, show your confidence in your own war and foreign policy experience. We've got to shore up the domestic issues.

Win with optimism.

[w4rma]

25. Bah. ShrubCo is horrible on national security. It isn't their strength.

It is one of their weaknesses.

[salonghorn70]

15. How The Media Will Report A Clark Choice

I don't think that the medial would report a Clark choice as "shoring up" Kerry. I think that they will call the ticket an experirnced team who will put national security and the war on terrorism first on the agenda. They will talk about how different this ticket is that any the Democrats have ever nominated in terms of past military service to the country, heroism on the battlefield, and experience in foreign affairs. The public will view this as a very serious ticket.

[FrenchieCat]

24. The Kerry Clark ticket

is the winner. National Security is what John Kerry polls weakest in. Why would he not want to make his campaign the theme of security and take the issue away from Bush/Cheney. THEN, AND ONLY THEN Will John Kerry be able to discuss jobs, the deficit and the economy. The April Marist poll showed that the issue of National Security tops the concerns of 53% of Americans (the War on Terra (33%) and the Iraq Situation (20%)) while the economy is at 44% http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/PZ040426.htm

Buffet on board of the Kerry Campaign is a good sign. Buffet had donated $2,000 to the Clark campaign. Also the Former Clinton/Clark speechwriter got on board about 2 weeks ago. Also a good sign! When you add Sec. of The Navy Dalton and Jamie Rubin (previously both endorsed Wes Clark) both are now on board of the Kerry Train....and Kerry hopeful about Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana (Breaux was a Clarkies) (polls show Arizona and Arkansas at play....Clark came in a good 2nd in Arizona...and wasn't receiving any free media in getting there).

Kerry doesn't need any help with the economic issues. He's got Bush beat in the polls on that issue. Plus, Kerry doesn't want to paint himself as not only Liberal...but also as a populist (that's what Edwards appeal was during the primaries).....discussion today on NPR that Kerry does not want to alienate the large corporations and is trying to convince them that a Kerry Presidency will have positive but well reasoned policies for Corporations.

[atre]

86. Yeah, the media loved Clark the first time around

... so they're bound to continue the trend.

Oh wait - Isn't that the stock excuse for Clark's failure as a candidate?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

22. I read on the Edwards blog

How a public relations firm has been hired to push Edwards for VP. Could it be there isn't anything to Edwards after all?

Tee hee, whoever you are. :eyes:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

30. Are you calling me a liar, Carolina Girl NC?

Bad Carolina Girl.

So it's just an ugly rumor that a public relations firm is behind John Edwards' campaign for the vice presidency? Is that it? Or is there any truth to it?

[Carolinian]

33. A PR company would be smart

for anyone in the public eye, particularly Clark. He needs someone with personality on his side cause he's just a boring old man.

[Adelante]

35. Only to shallow, inconsequential types

Who don't know a real man when they see one.

Just for fun and for no other reason, but then you can show me yours ;)

On August 9, 2000, Wes Clark was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation’s highest civilian honor.

His military decorations include:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal (five awards)
Distinguished Service Medal (two awards)
Silver Star
Legion of Merit (four awards)
Bronze Star Medal (two awards)
Purple Heart
Meritorious Service Medal (two awards)
Army Commendation Medal (two awards)
NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to Kosovo
NATO Medal for Service with NATO on Operations in Relation to the Former Republic of Yugoslavia

His foreign honors include:

Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (United Kingdom)
Commander of the Legion of Honor (France)
Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Orange-Nassau, with Swords (Netherlands)
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy
Grand Cross of the Medal of Military Merit (Portugal)
The Commander’s Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of Republic of Poland
Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Grand Medal of Military Merit (White Band) (Spain)
The Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold (Belgium)
Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defense First Class (Czech Republic)
Order of Merit of the Hungarian Republic
Commander’s Cross, The Silver Order of Freedom of the Republic of Slovenia; Madarski Konnik Medal (Bulgaria)
Commemorative Medal of the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic First Class (Slovakia)
First Class Order of Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas (Lithuania)
Order of the Cross of the Eagle (Estonia)
The Skandeberg Medal (Albania)
Order of Merit of Morocco
Order of Merit of Argentina
The Grade of Prince Butmir w/Ribbon and Star (Croatia)
The Military Service Cross of Canada

[AP]

44. So it's better to pretend you don't want to be P or VP, and getting draft-

ed makes you look better?

I highly doubt that Edwards hired a PR firm. But I would discouraged if a guy who so clearly understands what's wrong with America (that there has been a one-way transfer of power from people like those with whom he grew up, to the kind of people running America today in the Republican Party) isn't doing everything he can to get elected, and doesn't really really want to work hard for that goal.

[LandOLincoln]

48. "Boring old man??" If so, then he's the handsomest,

most dynamic and SEXIEST "boring old man" on the planet, and you don't have to be an old broad like me to think so.

The last time he was in Albuquerque, there were four pretty college girls--all under voting age, according to them--who managed to cut class and sneak into the group of us volunteers who were waiting to have our pictures taken with him.

Every one of those girls was ready to jump him, and they were downright heartbroken when I told 'em that he'd been happily married for approximately twice as long as any of them had been on the planet.

So you can take your "boring old man" and stick it, silly child. Maybe you should to back to ogling the likes of Justin Timberlake, and come back to politics when you've grown up a bit.

[JPJones]

23. Bull to your bull!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=505884#507748

Read post 37

[VOX]

28. Thanks, JPJ, for "de-bulling" me!

Much appreciated!

:toast:

[chimpymustgo]

31. Carolina Girl. Exposing the bullshit. Thanks so much.

"If your guy is so great, why can't you just sing his praises without attacking Edwards?"

My, my my...that is what these threads seem to boil down to.

I love John Edwards. And I really love his supporters. Thanks, Lara for the chuckle of the night.

[Scoopie]

38. And you, too.

I am from TENNESSEE - you can check my e-mail here - it is a derivitive of the name I use on this board. I used Scoopie here, Lara on the Clark Board and ScoopLT on DU Clarkies.

You ALSO need to apologize to the original poster.

And I stand by my indictments of Edwards. I think he's an empty suit and doesn't have near the gravitas of the General.

[MajorFlaw]

101. I dissent.

Edwards is a very good public speaker. He generates warmth similar to Clinton's. While I would prefer that he had a longer political resume, he is very good at turning issues he is not well familiar with into a soothing and reasonable answer. I'm not taking sides on the VP question yet, but look at the pictures of Edwards campaigning with Kerry. They seem to have very good chemistry. Edwards "warms up" Kerry and treats him like a wise leader. Kerry complements Edwards well, also. One is left with the feeling that Kerry is worthy of the respect Edwards shows him, and that, after eight years with Kerry, Edwards will be well suited to make his own run. I believe that K and E are on exactly the same page, and I would be surprised if Edwards is not chosen. Having said that, I would also be happy with Gen. Clark or anyone else Kerry chooses.

[Scoopie]

37. Excuse me...

But THAT is not Lara.
I'm Lara and I believe you owe the original poster an apology.

I was NEVER an Edwards fan - for obvious reasons.

Now - go on - apologize.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

39. Laura?

ROFL...I hope you don't work for a private investigator hon, cause you're really bad at snooping.

OMG...how funny is this?

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Why do you think he's been a Clarkie all along?

He has been on this board since long before Clark joined the race. I don't recall seeing any pro-Clark posts that he's made. Do you know about some secret identity of his?

Have you looked through the archives and found pro Clark posts that he's made? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

And where on earth do you see him attacking Edwards anywhere in his post?

And by the way, we do argue alot here, but we also try to treat one another with a certain level of respect, even when we strongly disagree on certain issues. You may want to try doing that in your future posts. You would probably get more respect for your positions and your candidate that way.

And welcome to DU.:hi:

[AP]

32. I would be happy with Clark, but I'd be happier with Edwards because...

...not only do I think Edwards has his finger on the pulse of EXACTLY what's wrong with American (and it ain't terror, it's what terror, and taxes, and everything else is used to achieve: the one-way transfer of wealth and power up the ladder to a few people at the top), but I think Clark's bad campaign skills would be costly to the ticket if not in 2004, then in 2012.

If Clark is the nominee, basically, the best you can do is point to him and say, hey, he was a general. You can't send him around America generating excitement about the future of America, getting out votes.

Also, after seeing him in the primaries, I highly doubt he could win a general election on his own.

If Kerry picks Edwards, he patches the one hole in Edwards's resume, and Edwards becomes the sure favorite for the 2012 election. Kerry should take this opportunity to give us 16 years of Democrats in office, and not just 8.

Furthermore, after 8 years, we'd have a president who knows how the average American lives his or her life, and will fix whatever Kerry is unable to fix, and get Americans valuing the right things again.

[dogman]

36. Patch the one hole?

They don't make patches that big. All of you who think that politics is "The Candidate" and think you have found your Robert Redford, need to realize that there has to be something there besides the ability to charm gullible people. We need more in tis country than a front man. There has to be depth of character and experience. Edwards should have spent more time in the Senate so he could show us a reason to vote for him.

[AP]

40. No, I think I found FDR's committment to the working class, with

JFK's charisma and with WJC's compassion & LBJ's rags to riches biography.

Hmm, sounds like the recipe for Democratic success.

[dogman]

47. Still no experience.

All show-no depth.

[AP]

51. If Edwards has no experience, Hillary has less than zero.

Hillary Clinton was a lawyer in a corporate law firm for years and then was not in the work force at all for 8 years, and is now a senator for fewer years than Edwards, yet I've never heard anyone say she was unqualified to be VP or P.

I give Edwards more credit than Clinton because he worked for people not for corporations, and because he built his career without being married to the governor and then the president, and because he was voted one of the eight best trial lawyers in the country by his peers.

All depth, and a great show if you ask me.

[dogman]

54. Hillary has more political experience than Edwards could imagine.

She was on the legal team in the Watergate hearings. As the wife of the Governor of Arkansas she was active in public policy. She was co-president for 8 years. She herself has said she's not ready. I have no doubt Edwards is a great lawyer and could potentially be a force in politics. I think he jumped the gun and should have gotten the experience in leading people that is required for higher office. Obviously he is more qualified than Dan Quayle was but that's not a very good campaign theme. At this time it will be hard enough for Kerry to defeat B$$$ a VP candidate on training wheels is not the kind of help he needs. However if Kerry picks him, he will have my vote.

[AP]

55. Edwards was a federal clerk for the same amount of time Hillary was

on Watergate team, I believe. I'll give those equal weight.

"As the wife of the Governor of Arkansas..." says it all.

Why is being first-lady a qualification for Hillary, but not for Nancy, Barbara or Laura? It's because of who these people are and not where they slept for four or eight years.

If you think Hillary Clinton can be president, then I don't see how you can say that Edwards isn't qualified.

I've NEVER heard Hillary say she's "not ready" -- in fact I'd be surprised if she said that.

He's been great at everything he has tried. He has had no advantages, no connections, and no well-placed spoused to do it. Those are skills you want to tap into, not ones you want to put on ice.

[dogman]

57. I do not nor have I ever endorsed Hillary for President.

You brought her into this as a qualifier for Edwards. I heard her say she was going to finish her term as Senator before she would run. I personally think she would lose. Like Edwards, even with all her qualifications I don't think she's ready. I would think you would have to admit she was more involved in her husband's Presidency than Nancy, Barbara, or Laura. None of them pursued a life in politics on their own, she has. I still think working as a lawyer on the Watergate hearing is significantly more involved in the political process than being a clerk.

[AP]

58. My point: nobody thinks she's unqualified to be president and I think

Edwards matches or exceeds her qualifications.

She wants to finish her term not so that she can gain experience to be president, but becuase she feels she owes it to the people of NY.

Whether or not YOU think she's ready, I reiterate: I've never heard anyone say she's not ready before I put this in the context of JRE's experience. When people say, "Hil for P" or "HIl for VP", even people who disagree come up with 100 other reasons, and NEVER say it's because of experience.

However, 'experience' seems to be a common charge against Edwards.

I think it's because a lot of Americans still think in terms of last names, blood lines and privilege, and with Hillary, well, she's got the last name, and the privilege of being related to someone who was president, and that somehow counts for experience.

I think Edwards lack of name, blood line and connections, while having a great resume (which any child of the middle class or working class should be really proud to have) is a qualification way more important than blood and connections, and, in some ways, would make him a better president because it's an even more potent combination of conviction and experience.

BTW, Clinton probably did little on her Watergate commission that was more sophisticated, legally speaking, than what a federal clerk does. She worked on one, very interesting case. Clerks deal with a new case every week, and have to research and write on a broad range of federal issues.

[Jai4WKC08]

70. Oh get real

LOTS of people think Senator Clinton is unqualified. You hear that criticism of her all the time. Even SHE says she's unqualified. Quit making up stuff and pretending it's evidence, will ya? Sheesh.

If Edwards thought he'd had a prayer of reelection, he's be campaigning like hell for a second term.

[AP]

71. She's never said that she needs to finish her term to get qualified.

She says she must finish it because that's what she was elected to do.

I've NEVER heard anyone say she wasn't qualified to be president before I made this analogy. I've never heard anyone say anyone except GHB wasn't qualified to be president in fact. I've never heard anyone say Sharpton wasn't qualified to be president. I don't think anyone would have said MLK wasn't qualified to be VP had RFK picked him.

Americans tend to have a very flexible notion of what it means to be qualifed to be president, and it encompasses people like Perot, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Shaprton, Kucinich, and many more.

It's absurd, and slightly classist to say that Edwards isn't qualified, but HRC is.

[Jai4WKC08]

53. You can't?

AP: "You can't send (Clark) around America generating excitement about the future of America, getting out votes."

Quick! Somebody tell Kerry!!

Cuz that's exactly what he's been doing.

I heard that the Kerry people attribute Kerry's win in GA (over Edwards) directly to Clark's stumping for him.

[AP]

56. I don't see it happening.

I think Clark mostly says to the public, these are serious, dangerous times, and we need people who have worn the uniform.

I'm not saying that doesn't have its value, but I don't see it generating enthusiasm and excitement.

Furthermore, I don't think Clark has those skills.

[Jai4WKC08]

59. How many times have you seen him?

Since he dropped out and endorsed Kerry?

I've personally seen Wes Clark speak three times, twice of which he appeared as a Kerry-surrogate (once was a Little Rock event, but he also spoke about Kerry's campaign). All three times he fired up the audience BIG time. And these were NOT groups who were already Clark supporters (well, maybe half of the LR event).

You do know, I hope, that on TV they've pretty much only asked about Iraq. But when he sets the agenda, he talks about jobs, health care, the whole gamut of Kerry's programs.

Those 3 times were just the ones fairly local to me, but there have been many more, and more still scheduled (Alabama next week, NYC a week or so later). I mentioned the work he did for Kerry in GA. He's been all over the country.

When the last time Edwards appeared at a public rally, FOR KERRY (not with him)? I heard he was in SD with Daschle... Any others?

You really should get out more. If you think Clark doesn't generate excitement, you've lost touch with reality.

Like I said, Kerry doesn't seem to have a problem with Clark's "skills" on that score.

[AP]

60. Edwards stumped for Kerry in Washington and Florida recently.

I think he was just in Columbus too.

As for not seeing Clark as being super-talented in the charisma and excitement department, maybe it's because I've seen Edwards too many times. And if I need to get out more, then so do all the primary voters who were similarly uninspired by Clark.

OK, let me try this again. I understand that the supporters of a candidate will find their candidate to be the best at whatever we're talking about. But I think it's beyond debate that Clark did not have grate stump skills, and that Edwards actually had pretty good stump skills.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. There's only one reason it's "beyond debate"

And that's because it's purely a matter of opinion.

I won't convince you and you won't convince me. But you act like you have empirical evidence and you don't. You ignore the primaries where Clark beat Edwards, and the effects of the media coverage (the difference in which HAS be proven empirically). And you ignore my question about when you've actually seen Clark on the stump.

So what's the point?

[AP]

65. It's a matter of record...the voters recorded their opinions during

the primaries.

Although I wouldn't be disapointed if Clark were the VP, and I do realize that it's rare for the VP to be a source of excitement for the ticket, I really don't know what more people think Clark would do as a VP candidate after seeing him as the P candidate.

Do you think that he's suddenly going to be something that he couldn't be during the primaries? (Do you the think the media will suddenly be nice?)

As for seeing him, I've caught him here and there since he dropped out. Nothing really stands out. I'd be happy to check out a CSPAN link if you want to suggest one.

As for Clark beating Edwards in a few primaries, there probably isn't a candidate in the primaries who hasn't been beaten by another candidate. Nonetheless, look at the delegate total if you want to see who beat whom. Look at WI too. When the primaries finally congealed around a policy debate (NAFTA and the value of American labor), who was debating?

[Jai4WKC08]

94. It's not a matter of the media being "nice"

I just can't discuss anything with someone who ignores the reality of what happens. I'm through hAP. Bye.

[AP]

96. I'm not sure there's anyone here more willing to engage in a discussion of

what really happens and happened.

It just seems that reality doesn't help you make your argument.

[BootinUp]

34. Thats mighty big of you

Well written and thought out post. :toast:

There were a lot of great candidates this year. I'll always remember the last Iowa debate, Edwards won that one.

[DaveSZ]

43. I agree 100% Rezmutt

Plus, Bush and Kerry are tied up in Arkansas, and Clark could put him over the top there!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x517146

National security is Kerry's perceived weak point (by the public anyways).

[themaguffin]

49. depends

Edwards clearly struck a chord, with Dems anyway. Clarke, I liked, but never really seemed to gain much traction. In any case, I hope they both have an opportunity to serve. I would stick with Edwards. I think he can get away from being labeled an insider with only 1 term, yet have enough know how to claim experience. Regardless he has charisma and I have a feeling, even more than Clarke a chance to grap some Southern states...

[Auntie Bush]

61. I must assume that

you haven't studied much about CLARK. Obviously you haven't been here long...you really must read up on him! I don't want to be the pot calling the kettle black...(since I'm the world's worst speller and I would never correct someone's spelling) but anyone who adds an "e" to Clark's name...shows you really can't have spent much time getting to know him and his qualifications.

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. If ever we needed Wes Clark

on the ticket...IT'S NOW. If we thought we were hated before.....multiply that by 1000. Wes Clark has the experience in the international community to save face. He personally knows the leaders and they LIKE him. He is, without a doubt, the man who SHOULD be VP. We now NEED, NEED, NEED him like never before. IMCPO

[Thrill]

63. The VP needs to be a good

speaker. One who can get people excited. Also the person needs to be someone who can go stump for the Senators in the South so we can keep those seats. I think Edwards is clearly the best person as of right now.

[Scoopie]

73. Saying son of a mill worker

over and over and over again....

does NOT get me excited.

And... weren't you the same guy putting down Southerners on the other thread?

[AP]

75. George Lakoff might disagree with that:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18573

Edwards created a frame, about class and opportunity, about the American dream, which he repeated over and over again, and people connected with it and responded to it.

This is what Lakoff says successful politicians do.

This is something Edwards did right and did well.

[Thrill]

82. It Might not get you excited

but I bet the last thing Chimpy and company want is Edwards down there in FL, ARK, and LA talking about "he knows what it feels like" and "he was a son of a millworker". All people want really is someone who can have empathy for them. And NO comes across that better than Edwards at that

[Nimble_Idea]

64. We ALL know what must be done......

it's pretty obvious.

[LiberalBushFan]

66. Also, with the war spiraling downhill as it is these days

it'd be good to have someone who's been opposed to it. As far as I know, Edwards still supports it.

[AP]

67. It'll be bad to have a P and VP who disagree on the war.

That's if the war is going to be such an important issue.

[democratreformed]

84. What makes you think they disagree on the war?

Seriously, I have heard Wes Clark say many times that he does not advocate pulling out and that he has a plan to solve the situation.

Maybe they disagree in theory on whether or not the war should have been started in the first place but, not that we are there, I believe their positions are similar.

[AP]

89. Then why are people saying they want Clark on the ticket because we

can't have two people who were "for" it?

[democratreformed]

102. I can't answer for why someone else is saying something.

As I have said many times, I have mixed feelings about Clark as VP. The ONLY reason I have to want him on the ticket is b/c I like him very much and believe in him 110%. It would make me happy if he were picked but will not devastate me if he is not.

I also like Bill Richardson alot. I like Gephardt. I like several paople.

For the most part, I believe that if Kerry is good enough to be the nominee, he is certainly good enough to make a wise decision.

Back to your original question. These are just my beliefs and understandings - it is my understanding that Wes Clark does not agree with the decision that was made to go into Iraq. He has spoken very decisively about the fact that it was the WRONG decision and that it is the WRONG war at the WRONG time. He has said that our soldiers are being misused. He has said that it distracts from the war on terror and the hunt for OBL. That being said, he believes that, with the invasion now a reality, the U.S. cannot simply "cut and run". He believes that there is a way to bring international cooperation to the situation and stability to the region. He feels that it is our duty to do those things since we are the ones that started the crap in the first place.

[shivaji]

68. Clark would be a terrible choice for VP because

the repugs will run ads saying Kerry does not
have enough military gravitas to require the
general to step in.

[Scoopie]

69. That makes no sense

EOM

[Dinger]

76. Because He will make KerryWin, That's Why, So

Why is that terrible?

[Borgnine]

72. I wasn't a huge fan of Wes in the primaries.

He was usually third in my preferences behind Dean and Edwards (I love Kucinich, but viewed his run as nothing more than a pipe dream). However, in the last few weeks my opinion of him has changed dramatically. I guess I used to view him as Republican-lite, but after doing some reading on him I see that's not the case anymore. I will be very, very dissapointed if Kerry doesn't pick him to be VP.

What will those little bitches in the White House say with a four-star general on the ticket? Hah, I can't wait.

[democratreformed]

74. Thanks for reading about him.

I have supported Wes since before he answered our draft.

[sparrowhawk]

77. Both are great choices

But Clark would be better in a crisis situation. What if something even worse than 9-11 happens during Kerry's administration?

[LandOLincoln]

93. Welcome to the DU, Sparrowhawk! and naturally I agree

with your post. Wes Clark has a very reassuring presence. I think he affects a lot of people that way.

[Auntie Bush]

98. Welcome Sparrowhawk.

Always nice to have another Clark supporter. There are lots of us here. I like your name...Sparrowhawks are one of my favorite birds.

[usscole]

79. Bill Nelson should be the choice

Kerry needs Florida.

[AP]

80. madfloridian in another thread says that her sense is the campaign...

...isn't going to dump a lot of resources into FL.

But, I think Edwards is still a better choice than Nelson for FL, since exit polls during the primaries showed that 40% of voters wanted him on the ticket, which was about 20 pts more than Graham, and I don't even remember if Nelson showed up in the top 4.

[Thrill]

83. Nelson? Come on

have you heard this guy speak? This guy makes a slow speaker sound fast.

[shivaji]

81. Yeah right, Kerry is repug light and Clark is repug from way back when

Take a REAL democrat instead. Even Al Sharpton would be better
because all african-americans will come out to vote if reverend Al
is on the ticket.

[Adelante]

85. Uh huh

Sure. Right. Whatever you say. :puke:

[democratreformed]

87. Best response, WesDem

I am so tired of the broken records, if ya know what I mean.

[VOX]

90. Uh, Kerry *will* be the Democratic candidate...

And as such he should have our full support.

This *is* Democratic Underground.

[Clausewitz]

91. Wes is a better choice for V.P.!!

Gen.Wesley Clark's impeccable military service record would and can induce the Kerry campaigns percieve weakness on Terrorism. It is not difficult to equate the vast difference between the charismatic John Edwards to Wesley Clark. NATIONAL SECURITY, is a top priority with youre current administration they are not even running or it seems like they're not putting the economic record on the forefront. Reason well because to put it mildly it is not a record to be proud of and most of the news nowadays are saturated with the situation on Iraq and the war on terror. No doubt John Edwards is well recognized as an esteemed speaker but we must not look for a debater without much substance (national security) and hope that he will learn N.S. as on the job training. What we need to look for as a democratic party is to counter the opponents perceived strength to tip the advantage. Gen.Wesley Clark has not only the charm but has the substance in terms of educational background I will proudly proclaim hes ahead on Edwards, having to graduate 1st on his class at West Point,Rhodes Scholar RECEIVING A MASTERS IN "ECONOMICS","POLITICS",AND PHILOSOPHY.
I want to highlight the fact that Gen.Clark have more to offer than John Edwards to the democratic party no I meant to the AMERICA AND ITS CITIZENS. If you ask for leadership Gen.Clark was there for AMERICA AND ITS VALUES ON WHAT IT STANDS FOR WHEN IT WAS CREATED THE PURSUIT OF LIFE,LIBERTY, AND JUSTICE. This he brought on to the oppressed people of Kosovar Albanians. Gen.Clark fought for what he inherently believed was the right to do even though it didn't do good for his career. Having witnessed the massacre in Rwanda Gen.Clark vowed not to ever let that massacre happen on his watch if he was on the position of power to do something about it. That or this is what we call REAL LEADERSHIP, PUTTING YOURE ASS UP ON THE LINE HIS CAREER ON THE LINE. For Gen.Clark's motto as it was during his time at West Point DUTY,HONOR AND COUNTRY. These are the underlying ingredients of REal Leader to serve with the next Pres.JOHN KERRY.

[Adelante]

92. Welcome to DU, Clausewitz

:hi:

[Auntie Bush]

97. That was great Causewitz!

Wow! You've done some studing and research. Where've you been all this time? Welcome aboard!

[Leilani]

100. Terrific post Clausewitz & Welcome!!!

You have hit so many important points!

Leadership, Experience, & Substance!

And the guts to put his ass on the line...courage.

Charm & charisma are in the eye of the beholder, but a lifetime of dedication & service to country, cannot be matched by any of the other Veep possibilities.

[LandOLincoln]

95. Rot. Pure, unadulterated rot. eom

[Leilani]

99. Al Sharpton is a real Dem?

Then why were the Republicans funding & running the Al Sharpton campaign?

Did you ever hear of Roger Stone, who was involved in the Sharpton campaign? Stone, the Republican trickster?

And if Clark was a Republican, why were some of the best Dems involved in his campaign, like Charlie Rangle? Is Charlie Rangle a Dem?