Reply #69: I think the beating he took in the media

[Clark2008]

was because he IS honest and doesn't speak with a forked tongue. He hasn't done anything horribly wrong for them to dig up and play, "Gotcha," so they took the alternative route: they played around with his words, let others besmirch him without proof and listened to Karl Rove's marching orders.

He could have beat Bush in a rout (barring the electronic voting machine fiasco of 2004) because he actually appeals to red-state fence sitters. He speaks and knows of the "values" that appeal to so many of us below the Mason-Dixon Line, but is completely progressive.

Look at it this way:

If Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination for 2008, she would divide the country and bring out the loonies. She isn't as liberal as she's tagged, but people PERCEIVE her as being so.
With Clark, he's MORE progressive than Hillary, but is PERCEIVED, by virtue of his past voting record and history in the military, as being more MODERATE.
Which would you rather have? A moderate perceived as a liberal who won't flip a single red state or a liberal perceived as a moderate who probably could carry Arkansas, Virginia and possibly Tennesse and Ohio?

Me? I like the second of those two odds.

Plus, Clark is driven, kind-hearted, tough, intelligent and actually experienced in both economics (has a masters in the subject and taught it at West Point) and in commanding a military (unlike Saddam Bush).

I hope that you are being honest and will read some of his opinion pieces and books. They take more time than perusing a thread, but they would give you great insight to the person, Clark.