Clark/Edwards

[SHRED]

in '08.
Just dreaming but...
Sounds good to me!

[jobycom]

1. Nightmare to me, but

that's why we have primaries.

[greekspeak]

3. I suppose you would rather have Clinton LIEbermann?

[jobycom]

6. Clinton, not Lieberman. But the reason I don't like Clark

is that I don't think he's a liberal. His history doesn't show me a consistent ideology. It shows me a good man who he lets the situation dictate his beliefs, rather than his beliefs dictate his actions.

And Edwards just has no experience. Nice guy. But it's not a job for amateurs.

Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Boxer (as a VP)... I'm not up on the governors, but surely there are a couple who could make the step up. It isn't that I prefer someone over Clark, it's that I don't trust Clark.

[Donna Zen]

12. To each his own

The reason I do not want to see a Hillary run is because that she (and other members of the DLC) let the situation and the money dictate her beliefs, rather than her beliefs dictate her actions. Specifically, I'm thinking back to her votes on The Patriot Act, the IWR (she knew,) NCLB, and her recent votes regarding spending on pork barrel. Further more her statements to AIPAC, and her speech that included how wonderful life is now for the women of Afghanistan and Iraq. There are other reasons, but I'll stop with those.

As for Clark, I remember when Samatha Powers (A Problem From Hell: America and The Age Of Genocide, We Wish To Inform You That We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories From Rwanda) introduced Wes Clark with these words about leadership: "...a leader is someone who stands up when no one else is standing up." In her book, she said that Clark was the only voice who stood up in Washington to advocate for doing the "right thing" in Rwanda.

I also think that Sy Hersch, Richard Clarke, and Michael Moore would differ on take on Clark taking responsibility and standing up for what he believes. Yes, and after watch Wes Clark taking difficult positions, often while the weak DLC members hem-and-haw, time and time again, I differ with you.

I'm glad that there is one Democrat who called this war "a strategic geo-political blunder" long before the polling data made it safe. I'm glad that there is a Democratic voice who when asked said: yes, I'm a liberal we live in a country founded on liberal principals.

Chosing politics as usual is not getting the Democratic party or our country very far. I'm sick to death of those who vote for the interests of their largest donors. I too want a leader who stands up for the "common good," what is best for us, not spin their way into convincing us that they'll vote for the rest of us the next time. I know that Hillary Clinton, although I don't dislike her as a person, is not that leader, and the more I know about Wes Clark, he really is the president I was promised.

[jobycom]

16. Clark praised Bush on the war.

In the London Times, He praised Blair and Bush for showing resolve "in the face of so much doubt." 4/10/03

In the New York Times he said he'd have voted for the IWR. 9/19/03

He's told Republicans he would have been a Republican if Rove had returned his phone calls. He's praised Bush, Rumsfield, Rice and Powell, and thanked God that Bush was our leader.

Sorry, but Moore himself said the reason he backed Clark was because Clark supported him on stage once. Moore is a flake who backed Nader, then tried after the election to claim he didn't. I like what Moore has done, but I don't really like who he is.

Sorry. I repeat. I don't trust Clark. I've watched Hillary. She plays politics, usually when it doesn't cost us anything, but I've seen her enough to know what side she's on. Anyone who can tell the difference between politics and ideology sees it. But Clark either believes the last argument he's heard, or just tries to make whoever he's speaking to happy. I don't know what he believes, and I don't think he knows what he believes. Once he's president he might fall for the next clever argument he hears. I don't trust him.

[Donna Zen]

18. Did he really?

He praised the troops, Tommy Franks, and Blair who (skilfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally.) If you've read the article then you will also know that Clark went on to warn them of what might happen, which is exactly what did happen:

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven't yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed...As for the diplomacy, the best that can be said is that strong convictions often carry a high price. Despite the virtually tireless energy of their Foreign Offices, Britain and the US have probably never been so isolated in recent times. Diplomacy got us into this campaign but didn't pull together the kind of unity of purpose that marked the first Gulf War.

Anyone who's been around these boards long enough and can read, knows that the phone records were checked. Clark never called Rove; on the other hand, Clark did tell a joke. Sorry, if you didn't find it funny; some people just would rather keep in their smear bag rather than get the chuckle.


As for the resolution, well Adam Nagourney taking Clark's words about the IRW out of context, I just checked his blog where he is now busy defending Karl Rove. You might as well just start quoting Judith Miller. Nevertheless, the congressional record shows that Richard Perle said:

So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action.

Hillary Clinton also praised bush etal after Afghanistan, in fact, she voted to approve of that team. It interesting that you think that her votes haven't hurt Americans. I really don't even know what to say about that. Personally, I think that this war, the curtailment of our Constitutional rights, and the degrading of our education system will hurt us for years and years to come. But as I say, to each his own.

And no, I don't like politicians with their fingers in the wind who care more about their political careers than they do about their country. "Playing" with our future is a cruel game.

Note: I've always thought it was funny that Clark referred to bush as "irrational" in the London Times article. Again, some people missed, in this case, the back-handed compliment.

[jobycom]

21. And Bush

"He praised the troops, Tommy Franks, and Blair." And Bush.

You want to see Clark's non-liberal comments as sarcasm or political necessity, but not Hillary's. That's your choice. Hillary's votes haven't changed one thing--Iraq would have been invaded no matter how she voted. As did JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and every other possible candidate with an actual voting record, Hillary has voted in ways that would keep her in office when her vote wasn't going to change anything. In the case of the IWR, Bush was declaring he had the authority to invade without Congressional approval. The IWR was a compromise bill that gave Bush the authority to invade, but put restrictions on his invasion. Bush would have invaded if the bill had been defeated, and may not have bothered to go to the UN for approval, as he said he didn't need to. The IWR required him to. As a result, he crafted an excuse built upon a series of lies that would put Hussein in violation of agreements he had signed. Bush had to pretend their were WMDs. He lied to do it. Now, we are waiting to see if he will finally be punished for that lie, as part of Fitzgerald's investigation.

Without the IWR, Bush may have invaded on his first excuse, that Iraq was a terrorist state that had to be taken out. If so, we might have nothing to hold him accountable for.

That's the ugly way politics works. You can't always tell what a candidate is thinking when they vote a certain way. Most of these votes are decided before the actual floor vote, anyway, as I'm sure you know. It's all a charade. The real legislative work is done behind the scenes, and the real reason for these votes are too complex for candidates to bother explaining. They do it in soundbites, instead.

All of that is why Clark said he would have likely supported the IWR. He wasn't misquoted, he was misrepresented, in the same way as Hillary. Clark understood what the resolution was really trying to do, and he supported it. As did Clinton. The difference is, Clinton had to put her name on record, and Clark didn't.

I said I like Clark. I just don't trust his consistency, and that's based on his comments supporting Bush, then criticizing him. He doesn't know exactly what to think. He eventually came down on the right side, but it isn't clear he was there from the beginning. So he was trying to praise the troops more than Bush. What if he beleives the best way to support the troops is giving in to their wishes, because he doesn't really have this ideology inside him which says "Unavoidable war is always wrong?"

I don't trust him. You do. Fine. Maybe you're right. But I've been right often enough to believe my opinions over someone else's, and I trust my own ideology to guide me. So that's how I decide.

As I said in my first post, that's why they have primaries.

[Donna Zen]

26. History is fun

So now Hillary's votes are a joke? I don't think they're funny, because they were not quips, they were votes. Furthermore, Hillary is from NY not Kansas. Her votes had little to do with her constituents or keeping her job. Actually, the Democrats were in control of the Senate at the time of that vote. A vote that 23 senators voted against; some of them in tough races which all of them won btw. I appreciate that Hillary has a sense of humor, and enjoy her jokes, but I do not laugh about these votes. On the contrary, they disgust me.

Actually, Clark did think that we should "dump" Iraq on the UN, but he counseled against giving bush a trigger to go to war. If you check the polling data at the time and continuing into January, the American people did not want to go to war without the UN. The night that Gephardt caved, Clark was on the phone with Daschle trying to craft a resolution that would stop bush from taking the country to war. So no, he would not have voted for the resolution that Hillary voted for because he knew how dangerous it was. He was trying to stop it. It is unfortunate that more people bent on making excuses for their "favorites" fail to appreciate just how hard he tried.

Exactly how has Hillary been misrepresented about her vote. She voted. She has said that this war was good for the Iraqi women. Of all of the IWR voters, Hillary was aware of the letter her husband had received from PNAC, and she knew exactly what they were up to.

And it was Clark, not Hillary, who called the Iraq war "a war of choice." He absolutely believes that you can support the troops without supporting bush. According to Gene Lyons (The Hunting of the President)

I do think his concerns are honest. I think his criticisms of Bush are exactly what he believes. One reason that I think that is I have had an opportunity to talk to him in a sort of a semi-private way.

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

I respect Gene Lyons very much, more than I respect Nagouney.

War "only, only, only as a last resort" is Clark's mantra. The rhetorical question that you've raised: "What if he beleives the best way to support the troops is giving in to their wishes, because he doesn't really have this ideology inside him which says "Unavoidable war is always wrong?" is really odd to someone who has actually listen to Wes Clark and read his writing. The man took four bullets, lost a quarter of his lower right leg, and refers to "the pornography" that is war. Sorry, if it disappoints you, but unlike many politicians, Clark understands exactly why you do not want to go to war.

I really think that if you had any interest in intellectual honesty, brushing up on Clark might be a good start.

[jobycom]

39. "people bent on making excuses for their "favorites""

I hear you on that part. That's what I see you doing. I can't believe anyone would support him otherwise. You downplay his praising of BushCo, but until he decided to explore a presidential run, I heard him praise Bush too often.

I don't pick favorites and then make excuses for them. I weigh everything I think important and then pick my favorites.

And I didn't say Hillary was my favorite, that was just the name you threw up. She's in the top two right now of the possible candidates, and there are others I'd choose before her, but I'll wait until I see who all is running and what they are saying before I choose.

But I won't choose Clark. You think he's really a Dem, then vote for him. I think he's an opportunist, like Powell, only smarter and a lot better person. I think he reacts to situations based on what he thinks is common sense, rather than from a deep understanding of what he believes. I think he's got a military mindset that is used to being malleable and adapting to what he's told to do, rather than a core ideology and belief system that guides him through his decision making. I don't trust him. I think he's a good person, and he'd be a better leader than what we have now, but I just don't trust him on key issues. It takes a lot of compromise to be president, and I want to know that when my president makes compromises he or she will not do so on the issues that are important to me. Clark doesn't have that history for me. He was more flexible on the invasion than your carefully chosen examples indicate, and I hope you know that even if you won't say it.

Vote for who you want, but I won't vote for him. (In the primaries--in the general elections I'll vote for the Democrat, even if he is a Republican.). He's not pure enough to make me comfortable.

There are a handful of people I might choose Clark over. Biden, Gephardt, Lieberman on one side, and the completely unprepared, like Kucinich or Edwards (and maybe not Kucinich cause I like him, I just don't think he's presidential stature). Probably others. But Clark is way down my list of the candidates I'd seriously consider.

And Edwards--he didn't just vote for the IWR, he supported it wholeheartedly. I see a Clark/Edwards ticket as pro-war and without an ideological anchor. It's a nightmare ticket to me, as I said at first.

[Donna Zen]

54. Recent history as in your recent posts:

"people bent on making excuses for their "favorites"

Post #6 and #12. You projected your beliefs as facts while listing your favorites. I countered your statement, because I disagreed with you. Spin away, but the record is very clear here.

I hear you on that part. That's what I see you doing. I can't believe anyone would support him otherwise.

This statement makes not sense to me. I countered a statement that you made because all of the evidence about Clark having no core values is contrary to everything that is known about this man's whole life.

You downplay his praising of BushCo, but until he decided to explore a presidential run, I heard him praise Bush too often.

Gen. Clark, along with many of the Democrats you name, praised the action in Afghanistan. Even in the London Times article, he voiced strong criticism about the Iraq policy. It is you who have chosen to dismiss the bulk of that article.

A reminder: General Clark was drafted into the political process. Like Eisenhower, and in accordance with a strong military philosophy, he remained "unaffiliated" which is as it should be. 70,000 Americans wrote to him along with a call from Jimmy Carter who knows quite a bit about honesty, love of country, and the office of the presidency. And no, Bill Clinton didn't call him.

I don't pick favorites and then make excuses for them. I weigh everything I think important and then pick my favorites.


Excusing Hillary's voting record puts a rather large hole in your argument. I consider the bankrupting of our country's future very important.

And I didn't say Hillary was my favorite, that was just the name you threw up.

See post #1 & #3, you voiced your support of Hillary.

She's in the top two right now of the possible candidates, and there are others I'd choose before her, but I'll wait until I see who all is running and what they are saying before I choose.

Who you chose to support is your business, but when you chose to spread disinformation based on your beliefs as if they are facts, then I will object. Every time. I am not a spineless Democrat. Note: I didn't post a word on this thread until you dredged up your talking points.

But I won't choose Clark. You think he's really a Dem, then vote for him. I think he's an opportunist, like Powell, only smarter and a lot better person. I think he reacts to situations based on what he thinks is common sense, rather than from a deep understanding of what he believes. I think he's got a military mindset that is used to being malleable and adapting to what he's told to do, rather than a core ideology and belief system that guides him through his decision making.

Total and complete projection. You have made up your mind about what fits your stereotype of the military mindset. The problem that you have is that the strongest voices with the most credibility against this war have come not from the usual rank and file Democrats, but from the military, and more specifically the Generals and Admirals.

I don't trust him. I think he's a good person, and he'd be a better leader than what we have now, but I just don't trust him on key issues.

And looking over the record, I don't trust the politicians, especially those who talk "left and vote right."

It takes a lot of compromise to be president, and I want to know that when my president makes compromises he or she will not do so on the issues that are important to me.

Speculation. Basing a decision on nebulous speculation, when it departs from the record. The Democrats of the DLC and others have compromised repeatedly on issues very important to all of us. They have put their political fortunes and fundraisers ahead of "love of country."

Clark doesn't have that history for me. He was more flexible on the invasion than your carefully chosen examples indicate, and I hope you know that even if you won't say it.

In the interests of this discussion, I do know his resolve regarding his opposition to this war. So, if your asking me to lie, it is not going to happen. Are you calling Gene Lyons a liar as well as Wesley Clark?

Vote for who you want, but I won't vote for him. (In the primaries--in the general elections I'll vote for the Democrat, even if he is a Republican.). He's not pure enough to make me comfortable.

As for you personal purity litmus test, it would put forward your decision making process to understand that General Clark was never a Republican. Unlike the republican ethos, I do not condone the simple-minded propaganda technique that dictates that a lie told often enough is the truth.

There are a handful of people I might choose Clark over. Biden, Gephardt, Lieberman on one side, and the completely unprepared, like Kucinich or Edwards (and maybe not Kucinich cause I like him, I just don't think he's presidential stature). Probably others. But Clark is way down my list of the candidates I'd seriously consider.

Which leaves Hillary, Bayh, (both pro-war) Kerry, Gore, Feingold and the governors. Feingold I consider having earned my vote, and Gore has been a voice of reason since leaving the DLC. Of the governors, well, none of them had to vote and although Richardson at best shilled for the policy, at least they can talk about the war in a general election giving the Democrats a fighting chance.

And Edwards--he didn't just vote for the IWR, he supported it wholeheartedly. I see a Clark/Edwards ticket as pro-war and without an ideological anchor. It's a nightmare ticket to me, as I said at first.

Edwards had a positive education agenda, and gives a good speech. But, I agree with that his positions on the War and Patriots Act are a deal breaker. Reminder: it was the civilians who have never seen war that got you into this mess, not the military.

While this undefined ideology that you hold seems to be some sort of guide in your thinking, I admit I am not an ideologue. There are many components of what is needed to turn this country around. I'll begin: honor, duty, country.

[Mz Pip]

14. Yeah

the regular Dems are really throwing out a consistant ideology these days. :eyes:

Honestly, people do evolve in their beliefs and change as their experiences dictate. You make it sound like a bad thing.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[nvliberal]

19. JRE certainly isn't an amateur,

and the Republicans knew that, and that's why he was buried in the primaries.

It's too bad so many Democrats can't see the obvious.

Had the primaries not been manipulated by the media especially, we wouldn't have a second Bush term, or election fraud would have been far more obvious.

Edwards would have been president.

[jobycom]

23. What?

Edwards was a bigger war supporter than Lieberman until he started trying to match up to Dean. He didn't just vote for the IWR, he openly praised Bush and the invasion AFTER the fact, and criticized Dems who opposed the invasion. He lost the primaries because he was pro-war, and because he was a lightweight on everything else.

[Awsi Dooger]

27. No, Edwards lost because we predictably had zero clue on electability

Against an incumbent, electability means charisma and likeability, not background and resume. I got sick of trying to emphasize that here in spring 2004. Edwards's votes meant nothing, nor did his single term as senator. Both sides had a minimum of 45% locked up, and we desperately needed someone to positively inspire the swing percentage our way. Instead, we decided Kerry's military background was somehow necessary post 9/11, and conducted a negative campaign that focused on Bush and not ourselves. That is a losing recipe every time. Looks like we didn't learn a damn thing.

[Skwmom]

35. Once Edwards personal injury background became

common knowledge (especially the cases against doctors using flimsy scientific evidence and the channeling of an unborn child statements) he would have delivered every state to Bush (which is why the Republicans were pushing for Edwards in 04 and have already begun to push for him in 08.) The Republicans could easily paint him as a phony populist who adopted his anti-poverty platform so that he would have something to run on.

[skipos]

38. You are correct, and we also haven't learn this yet

Look at the last six Dem Presidential candidates first time runs:

Clinton, 370 electoral votes in 1992, from Arkansas
Carter, 297 electoral votes in 1976, from Georgia
Gore, 266 electoral votes in 2000, from Tennessee
Kerry, 252 electoral votes in 2004, from Massachusettes
Dukakis, 111 electoral votes in 1988, from Massachusettes,
Mondale, 13 electoral votes in 1984, from Minnesota

The three worst performing candidates (electorally) were all from the north.

[jobycom]

41. And

The three best performing candidates were the most moderate of the six. In fact, you can order them from most moderate-appearing to most liberal, and you'd have that exact same order.

The reason southern Democrats win is because they've had to appeal to conservatives their whole life to get elected, so when they run nationally they know how to do it, and they have a moderate record to point to.

But they have to be electable in their own districts. Edwards wasn't, as we saw. Gore was borderline, and he had a borderline election.

[jobycom]

40. I don't agree.

Voters are not that shallow. They aren't going to throw out an incumbent that the media promises them is doing a great job in a time of war for an inexperienced one-term senator with a Jimmy Carter smile, who would have been Swiftboated as much as Kerry, thus negating his wonderful charisma. BushCo's MO is to find their opponent's greatest strength and make it a weakness. With Kerry they attacked his war record. With Gore his honesty and integrity. With Edwards they'd have made him look like a southern dandy prettyboy out for a joy ride before Edwards had a chance to defend himself.

He couldn't even get the Democrats to vote for him, but he's going to win over the moderates? No way. He would have looked like Mondale against Carter in the electoral college.

[Kahuna]

63. Yepper. Edwards brought zero to the ticket. If he couldn't help the

ticket how can he stand on his own?

[skipos]

36. Your logic is one of the reasons Dems lose elections.

It is funny how Republicans will embrace Dem defectors (Zell Miller) or Rep moderates (Guiliani) because they KNOW that those candidates appeal to independents, the voters who often make or break elections. But Democrats "won't trust" a Democrat like Clark who voted for Reagan a couple of decades ago, even though he would easily appeal to independents, disgruntled Republicans, and people who are sick of politicians in general.



Yeah, what a conservative in disguise.

Can we please nominate another New England senator for 2008? We have done so well with that formula. :sarcasm:

[jobycom]

42. Yeah, right.

Explain to me how Clark was going to win the general election when he couldn't even place significantly in the primaries? He was an easy BushCo slander victim, too. They could have pulled out quotes all day long of him supporting Bush or Republicans over Democrats. "You say that now, general, but back in May of 2001 you said you were grateful I was in charge." Hell, Bush could even write those answers on his own.

Even if I trusted him, I don't see him as electable.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Please

There is plenty of room for differences of opinion, which is the main reason why I don't feel a need to counter your somewhat negative opinion of Clark (I get that you would vote for him over some other Dems, I am not misreading you) on every post. We all have the people we more or less trust, and we all have our reasons.

However I challenge the premise of this post of yours: "he couldn't even place significantly in the primaries". Clark had the third highest number of votes and delegates at the point where he withdrew from the 2004 race. He was ahead of Dean, he left Gephardt and Lieberman and Graham behind in the dust, and they were all National Democratic Party leaders. He was far far ahead of Kucinich etc. Clark was running ahead of Dean and Edwards in polls for the upcoming Wisconsin primary, but he pulled out because he knew Kerry had it sewn up and he thought the party had to pull together behind him. Clark was the only Democrat other than Kerry who won a primary in a state that he was not born in or held elective office in.

Further Clark was the only major candidate who didn't run in Iowa and that certainly put him at a disadvantage Kerry Edwards and Dean did not have. That is because Clark had a year less to campaign in than any of the other Democrats. He didn't have a campaign staff when the first candidate debate was held without him. I believe. Clark "placed significantly" under the circumstances.

edited to add mention of Kucinich

[skipos]

47. Clark's biggest mistake was not running in Iowa

and Democrat's biggest mistake was nominating a New England millionaire senator and expecting him to swing the states we need to swing.

[jobycom]

49. Not according to CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.main/

"Kerry wins in South, Clark to quit
Clark to withdraw Wednesday

Wednesday, February 11, 2004 Posted: 1:19 AM EST (0619 GMT)

Kerry is leading with 510, Dean has 182, Edwards has 163, Clark has 98, Sharpton has 12 and Kucinich has two."
------------------
He was in fourth place, with less than twenty percent of the delegates of the leader, and half the delegates of the candidate in second--Dean.
------------

Here's a poll from just before he withdrew. He was in fourth amongst Dems, with 10% saying he should win.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/elec04.poll.prez/index.html

"Among registered Democrats surveyed, Kerry was the choice of 52 percent, compared with 14 percent for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, 13 percent for Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and 10 percent for retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark."

----------

The state he won was Oklahoma. It's a beautiful state, but I don't see it as a bellweather, or indicative of anything, other than that Clark won a Democratic primary in a very conservative state. He wouldn't have carried it in the primaries.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. The numbers are screwy. Take a look at this AP Report from March 17th

Five weeks after Clark withdrew, and after Dean won Vermont and picked up delegates in Wisconsin, DC, and other places.

They list Dean with only 152 Delegates then, including super delegates:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/delegateCount.html

In following your link it seems that CNN has some later revised delegate numbers up. They note: "For a historical look at the full results and delegate count reported immediately following the conclusion of each state's race (through March 9), click on the state name." Those numbers are different from the ones on the presenting page, but I do not know why. I do not know if there were errors, or if delegates were allowed to later change allegiances as candidates dropped out, or if State Party leaders were able to replace or add some delegates to their State's delegations.

Having said that, my figures are screwy also, lol. They were based on research I did for an exchange I had on DU with an Edwards supporter, "AP", back in February. So I will take responsibility out front for my errors. First off I forgot to mention here that in the exchange I was trying to recall I compared only the races that Kerry Edwards Dean and Clark all were part of, hence I did not count totals from Iowa, which I noted there at that time but failed to state here. Second, I was recalling a separate count I compiled then, from official records published, of the popular votes cast from all actual primary election States (which by definition did not include some caucus States where Dean did well such as Maine and Washington) for the purpose of comparing the relative popular votes received in Primary Elections by the four top candidates. By that criteria Clark received more votes than did Dean during the period that Clark remained in the race, less than Kerry or Edwards. (Clark 376,687 vs Dean 254,031).

However to the best of my ability to confirm now from the past records I just reviewed, Howard Dean won 77 delegates from Primaries and Caucuses that both he and Clark were part of (that includes 13 contests and only excluded Iowa where Dean won another 5, nor did it include "Super Delegates") to Clark's 60. Dean did well for himself in caucus States. In that very important matter of delegate totals I was clearly in error, I concede.

I found it personally noteworthy that Wesley Clark received almost 50% more actual secret ballot voting booth votes in primary elections where both men were 1) on the ballot and 2) in the race than Howard Dean did, others may obviously disagree. So I stand corrected, but in my opinion not as dramatically so as the sources you cited seem to indicate. I have always said on DU, going back to the Spring of 2004, that there ended up being 4 Democrats with significant support during the contested Primary season, those being Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark. I still believe that. Here are some interesting statistics:

During the 13 contests contested by all four men, Edwards had One first place finish, Four second place finishes, and Two third place finish. Clark had One first place finish, Three second place finishes, and Three third place finishes. Dean had Four second place finishes, and Four third place finishes. Kerry had Eleven first place finishes, One second place finish, and One third place finish. Kerry ran away from the whole field.

The break down of States in which Edwards, Clark and Dean finished in one of the top three slots, in races in which they all were candidates, is also interesting. Edwards was in the top three in Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Michigan. Clark finished in the top three in New Hampshire, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. Dean was in the top three in New Hampshire, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Washington, Michigan, and Maine.

Edwards finished first or second in South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. Clark finished first or second in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. Dean finished second in New Hampshire, Main, Michigan, and Washington.

[skipos]

51. This was how Clark was going to win...

because other than a handful of DU take-my-ball-and-go-home types, I have never seen any indication that there were people who chose Kerry over Bush in 2004, that would have chosen Bush over Clark if he was nominated. If you have looked at any exit poll from 2004, you know how much of the Dem vote was ABB.

Many people who voted for Bush voted solely on the fact that he made them feel safer from terrorism. I think a 4 star General would have taken a serious chunk out of that voting block.

Many people are sick of life long politicians on both sides of the aisle. I think Clark would have appealed to many people who want someone who is a sort of "non-politician." 20 million votes for Perot lead me to believe that there are many of those people.

I think Clark would appeal to many Republicans who are growing disenchanted with their party. The fact that Clark voted for Reagan makes him look unbaised and credible to many Republicans.

Southern Dem candidates do better than northern ones in the last few decades.

Pres candidates win their homestates about 90% of the time in the last few decades. We don't need help carrying MA, we do need help in Arkansas.

Senator's records are easy to pick are apart and make look bad to the general public.

Last and probably least, 90% of the people I know who voted for Bush would have voted for Clark, or so they said. Not a scientific poll, but interesting nonetheless.

Do I think Clark would have done A LOT better than Kerry? No. Do I think the slime machine would have come out in full force against Clark. Of course, it always will. But what matters is how much the slime sticks. I think anything directed towards Clark would not have done half the damage the Swift Boat Vets did.

It is obvious you don't like Clark, and you probably never will. I doubt anything he or I can say or do will change your mind. He voted for Reagan and you can't get past it. I can, and I think most voters can.

I worked for Kerry, and I would do it again if he was nominated in 2008. I just hope he isn't.

[SHRED]

5. I have read both their websites

I must have missed the 'nightmare' part.

[jobycom]

7. I've read Bush's website

Makes him sound pretty good. Thing is, he isn't.

[nickshepDEM]

44. Ditto. n/t

[Trajan]

2. Edwards/Clark ? ...

Hmmmmmmmmm ... I like either one ....

[Erika]

11. Edwards/Clark would make the dream ticket

Edwards intelligence, enthusiasm, and charisma with Clark's experience would be great.

[Adelante]

15. Backwards

A former Senator should preside over the Senate. A former Commander in Chief should be in the Oval Office.

[VOX]

28. "Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command, Panama"

for one year, from June 1996 to July 1997.

Don't get me wrong, I really like Clark. But his experience in matters of public office is slim -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing!

[Adelante]

31. Supreme Allied Commander Europe nt

[Jai4WKC08]

60. also "Commander-in-Chief, US European Command"

For almost three years, from August 1997 to May 2000.

CinC EUCOM is a US office always held concurrently with the NATO position of Supreme Allied Commander, but includes responsibility for non-NATO Europe as well as parts of Asia and most of Africa.

[nvliberal]

20. Clark's "experience"? Where besides the military?

Nope, the ticket for 2004 would have been Edwards/(Bob) Graham, for the two of them would have complemented each other perfectly.

But the Republicans made sure Edwards would never get the nomination through media manipulation.

I chronicled all of that on my blog.

[nsd]

62. But Edwards' "experience" consists ...

of only a single term in the Senate, a sizeable fraction of which was spent running for president or vice president. On the relevant experience scale, Clark clearly trumps Edwards.

[Donna Zen]

65. Clark's experience

Clark's best known strengths are his complete grasp of the nation's National Security Policy, and his standing in the world as foreign policy expert. When he was 31, he was consider an expert, so I imagine that he has improved.

But there is also Clark's master of Economics/Philosophy degree from Oxford, including his time spent as a professor of both economics and philosophy. In addition, as WHouse Fellow, Clark worked in the OMB. He was tasked with writing the budget and an intelligence audit which covered the entire flow of the many intelligence agencies.

While he ended up graduating from West Point with a degree concentrated in Foreign Policy, that was not his first love. He entered the school as a major in mathematics and physics, where we know he achieved a "First" in every class.

Later in his career, he would work in the chair of the Joint Chiefs, J-5, which handles policy and planning. This meant his return to working at the White House, since that chair is liaison between the Pentagon and Oval Office.

After his retirement, Clark concentrated his position as an investment banker, into putting together the funding for emerging technologies. That interest would lead to his heading up a company developing hydrogen engines.

The qualifications, 3 years in the WHouse, world-wide diplomatic skills, managing, as others have pointed out, huge communities of people both civilians and military with all of the necessary schools, hospitals, roads, and living conditions, business experience, and providing leadership to thousands of people, are much broader and deeper than those of any candidate currently running. And wait, as a general, he's even had to go before congress and make the case for building schools and housing.

In short, anyone who thinks that Wes Clark is limited by his life experience to shinning his shoes and marching, really needs to understand what this man has accomplished. And, he's scary-smart.

[Sanity Claws]

4. Best looking ticket

They should get some votes on their looks alone.

[OKNancy]

8. Edwards voted for IRW

so NO.

( I'd vote for any Democrat in the general fwiw)

[nvliberal]

22. And Clark never voted for ANYTHING.

So why is he acceptable when he wasn't put on the spot of having to answer to constituents?

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. He was put on the spot in the Pentagon and he fought to stop genocide

He tried to get the United States to send troops into Rwanda to stop the slaughter, it just wasn't politically popular to do so at the time after "Black Hawk Down" in Somalia. But had he won that fight over half a million people who were slaughtered there could have been saved.

Clark picked another real political winner when he put his reputation on the line this year strongly calling for international intervention, with U.S. involvement, to stop the growing genocide in Sudan. I wonder what polling group he consulted on that one? Well it is common knowledge that showing concern for poor black Africans is an easy way to win elections in the United States.

Clark is answering us about many issues right now as a matter of fact. He never shut down his web site from grassroots participation after he "didn't need us anymore" in 2004.

[jobycom]

24. Not only voted for it, but praised Bush for it AFTER the invasion, and

criticized Dems even during the primary for opposing not just IWR, but the invasion itself.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-04.htm

[BootinUp]

29. You know, by continually referencing that op-ed

as proof that Clark praised Bush, you only show your lack of ability to comprehend the article. In reality Clark is telling you, yeah folks that was the easy part, now comes the hard part, (the part that he warned them about in Sept 2002 in testimony before the Senate. )

But don't worry jobycom we'll interpret stuff for you whenever you need it.

(edited Sept not Oct 2002.)

[Crunchy Frog]

32. Actually Jim

The op-ed that he referenced in that post is called "The Disappointing Selection of John Edwards, A Foreign Policy Hawk"

In September of 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush Administration’s calls for an invasion of Iraq, Senator Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually “a grave and growing threat” and Congress should therefore “endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.” Claiming that “our national security requires” that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted that “we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action....”

I pretty much agree with it.:blush:

[BootinUp]

33. LOL, I guess I should have looked

but his comment in the post seemed to indicate another well known smear piece on Clark. I am not into talking about Edwards this morn so I'll leave it there.

[jobycom]

43. I hope not, you're lousy at it

You don't bother reading the posts I'm responding to or the points I'm making or the articles I cite, but you sure do know better than me what I'm talking about, don't you?

You go ahead and interpret stuff the way your little mind sees it. Hopefully the rest of the party and the nation will pay more attention to what they are talking about.

[BootinUp]

55. This is your post right? (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2175601&mesg_id=2175768

Real sorry about responding to the wrong post about it, I guess I'll have to admit it, I occasionally make an error like that. Oh well.

However the substance of the post, in regard to your misrepresentation of Clark, I made no error as far as that goes.

[bobthedrummer]

9. Forget about that ticket.

No way SHRED-sorry to bust up your dream.

[Prodemsouth]

10. Sounds good to me! The bottom line Democrats are not trusted

to defend this country. Democrats have been and continue to be associated with weakness in protecting the country. McGovern to Carter's weak response on Hostage in Iran situation still is a albatross around the Dems necks. When there is international trouble, the American Public will trust Republicans over Democrats always. We will gain more than we lose by having someone who has credentials with national defense lead the Democratic ticket. Its way pass time for us to break the lunch pails and the pragmatic back home, forget these weirdos their number keeps getting smaller year by year. With Hillary or Kerry it will mean fighting for the same states and hey we might try to finally get Ohio.

[Erika]

13. Bush has been a disaster to our military & world strength

The GOP have weakened us by their misuse of our military.

[Prodemsouth]

17. That is all true- but the Democrats are still viewed as weaker

on defense issues.

[bowens43]

30. Democrats don't like Clark.

Weren't you paying attention to the 04 primaries? Most Democrats do NOT want a GENERAL in charge of our civilian government. He spent 30 years seeking military solutions to political problems. No thank you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Sure, And Democrats like Dukakis better than Gore, right?

That's why Dukakis rolled over Gore for the 1988 Democratic Presidential nomination the first time Gore ran for President, right?

Note: This isn't written to knock Gore, simply to point out the "problem" of extrapolating too broadly from a failed first Presidential run.

[jobycom]

46. That year, yeah, and they should have.

Dukakis was a better choice. However, Gore stayed in the Senate, gained more experience, then served eight years as VP. That makes a difference.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Not saying it doesn't.

Just saying that having experience running a national campaign also helps a lot when it comes time to run one again. At this point both Gore and Clark have plenty of experience on the world stage, some others too. Campaigning and leading are related but very seperate skills and both Gore and Clark learned from their first go arounds.

[jobycom]

53. Yeah, good point, but keep in mind

Clark has not only never won any election at any government level, but he has never run in one. He ran in the Democratic primaries, which is very different from a general election, and even there he only won one state.

The experience in the primaries prepares him for running again, so he can concentrate on message instead of organization. That's good. But then his first election ever would be for the presidency. That's a tough race to learn on. And if he won, he'd have an even tougher job of learning the game of politics. He's a smart man with strong abilities, I have no doubt. But... well, I've explained my hesitations enough above. I want someone with a track record. That's one of my strongest criteria.

[Jai4WKC08]

59. Not all THAT different

Running a primary campaign, especially if it's contested close to the convention (unlike winning two states and rolling thru the others on momentum and free media alone) is helluva lot closer to a campaign for the general election than running for the Senate or a governor's office in one state.

Gore, of course, has run a national campaign. Didn't do a great job of it, but maybe he's learned. The fact that he was involved in two Clinton campaigns, even if not calling the shots, and didn't learn enough to apply it to his own run doesn't speak well to his learning curve. But if Gore chooses to run in 08, he'll have a chance to show us, and I for one intend to keep an open mind.

Hillary Clinton was, of course, close to her husband's campaigns as well, and she has him as an advisor now. It ain't the same as running one for herself, and vastly different from campaigning in a very blue state like NY, but perhaps it will suffice.

Clark was very close to the Kerry campaign, in some ways closer than Edwards was. But both of them have had the opportunity to learn something. We'll just have to see whether either one has learned enough.

None of the rest of the potential candidates whose names are being batted around have any national campaign experience at all. But if one of them can put together a primary campaign good enough to win the nomination--especially with the differences I expect to see in 2008 with more and varied front-loaded contests and no ABB--then I think they'll have proved themselves ready. It's not like any of the GOP competition will be in better shape.

One small digression on what you said about how Clark's campaign experience will allow him to concentrate on message. I think that's true to an extent, but it overlooks the fact that his biggest handicap in both message and organization was time, not experience. Neither will be a factor if he chooses to run in 2008.

All that said, I think you make a major mistake when you mix preparation for campaigning with preparation to hold the office.

Clark has a track record, and those of us who support him would argue that it's a stronger record than any senator or governor. He's fought a war. He's handled diplomacy with foreign heads of state. He's managed health care, infrastructure, environmental protection, and a whole host of other "domestic" problems for the families, military and civilian, who lived in the communities he's governed.

Most of all, Clark has played "the game of politics" in the sense of getting what he needs from Congress and the rest of the federal bureaucracy. Even under the best of circumstances, it's never handed to a senior military commander from the Pentagon; in Clark's case the Republican-led Dept of Defense was working against him.

Senators may debate and vote, but they don't actually lead, manage, or administer anything, and governors don't do it with regards to policy at the national level policy or bureaucratic organization at the national scale.

[jobycom]

61. Primaries and general elections are completely different.

The voting target is different, the structure is different, and there's also the difference between a regular season game and sudden elimination playoff. In a primary you are trying to appear the most likeable to your party. The audiences are friendlier. You are appealing to knowledgable voters, since they are more likely to vote in a primary. Your opponent generally has a similar ideology to you, so the campaign is about nuances.

In a general election, you are appealing to everyone. You will be violently attacked. The people you are trying to win votes from will be the least motivated, least informed voters--the ones who make up their minds late in the game, and do so based on personality, media reports, or some single issue you aren't even sure about.

Also, the scrutiny will be more intense, since the race is down to two people. Any misstatement, strategical blunder, personal slip up, can destroy you. The least little thing can be blown up by the other party, or by the media, or misinterpreted by the general public. Gore lost votes after he won the first debate against Bush because a high school principal claimed he had lied. It turned out the principal lied, but the media had no interest in proving that. Gore went from a double digit lead to losing in the polls over a debate he won.

They are very different games. A statewide general election teaches you more than 30 primaries. A presidential run is nothing more than 50 statewide elections, and really only about a dozen, since some states are givens in most races.

Clark will have to learn on the job, and he'll have to learn something completely counter-intuitive to everything his done his whole life. He'll have to learn that people believe lies more than truth. He'll have to learn that it's better sometimes to let the public believe a lie about you than divert attention away from your message by trying to defend yourself. He'll have to learn things that no one has thought of, because every election is different, and only someone with a strong political sense will have the instinct to understand.

None of this is to imply that Clark isn't smart, or that he couldn't do it. It just means I won't spend my vote on someone who doesn't know the ropes, especially when I don't trust them on the issues, anyway. Again, he's a nice guy, he's a smart man. I just haven't seen any signs of a ideological depth to his issues. I don't know for sure that he won't decide that he can compromise on the abortion issue, for instance, once he has a hundred lobbyists telling him he should, and once he realizes how much easier it will be to get X done if he does. I don't know that he can keep his head during that political game.

I agree with your assessment of senators as presidents. Governors make much better presidents, because they've had to do exactly the same type of job as a president, but on a smaller scale (different issues, but same job skills).

Clark has not been in that position before. He's never been accountable to the public the way an elected official is. He's fought a war--about as opposite from a political situation as you can possibly get. He's handled diplomacy. That's a far cry from being the one who makes the diplomatic decisions that guide diplomats. He's governed communities, but not for a community as diverse as the US, and with as many varied and sometimes opposed needs and concerns, not to mention having a party opposite you that would rather see nothing done than see what you want done done.

You said that the skills to govern and the skills to get elected aren't the same, but that's not true. A political office like the president has to be good at politics. You can't get anything done unless you know how to run a campaign, how to make all sides happy, how to compromise without compromising your core. You have to deal with people who would rather see America fail than see you succeed, and who won't give you anything you want just because you want it. And unlike the military, there is no higher authority to go to the settle the argument, and there is no way to make someone listen to your decision when they won't.

I'm sure Clark knows all of this and could handle all of this. But to start him out at the highest office in the land is just too risky to me. I know how to fly a plane. I've never successfully landed one by myself, but I know how to, and I've landed them with a minimum of guidance. And I'm very smart, and learn fast, and have a high level of education. None of that qualifies me for being a commercial airline pilot. I've met airline pilots that I am easily smarter than, write better than, am cuter than, and can learn much faster than. I'd probably even be able to fly and land a large jet my first try. But who in their right mind would bet their life on it?

That's how I see Clark. I'll vote for him if in the general if he gets there (Just winning enough delegates to get him there would boost my confidence in him). I'd vote for him over Biden, Lieberman, Gephardt, and a few others. But it's unlikely I won't find someone in the primaries I like better. Who knows, though, maybe not.

[Jai4WKC08]

67. The difference is large, but not NEAR as large

...as it is between a state election and a national election. And since we almost never have any candidates who have ever run a national election (granted Gore, if he runs, will be an exception), I really don't think it much matters.

I mostly agree with what you say about the primary game, but I think you're mistaken some about how the general election differs. Perhaps it's because my closest exposure to the primaries was with the Clark 04 campaign, but it seemed to me that Clark was in fact scrutinized every bit as closely as Kerry or Bush (ha ha)--perhaps because he was a newcomer--and attack ferociously (not as badly as Kerry was, but close to) by both the right and the left.

Nor do I accept that primary voters are all that more informed than the general voting public. In TN, we found LOTS of people who didn't even know who Clark is on the morning of the primary, even as they lined up to vote, and that was in a state in which he'd made his hardest push. I found the same thing in MO, altho Clark didn't campaign there much--no one did, since they assumed Gephardt had it sewn up. In Iowa and NH, maybe the voters pay closer attention. But not the rest of the country. And without free media, it becomes next to impossible to break thru. At least in the general election, most people know who the two candidates are, even if they don't know much more than what's said in a few campaign ads and the nightly news. And as election day approaches, most who intend to vote are inclined to make a little more effort to find out what they're all about.

I also strongly disagree that a state race necessarily teaches a candidate more than a primary season. Maybe in a purple state, or red for a Democratic candidate. But in a state that leans heavily in the direction of one's own party, a candidate barely has to run to win, a la Kerry in Massachusetts. Nor are all state primaries always contested. Many candidates just walk into the nomination, for a whole host of reasons. Happens all the time.

It's true what you say that a presidential election is "nothing more than 50 state elections" with only a relative few that really matter. But then, that's what a primary season is about too. It's just which states are important (and the reasons why they are important) that differs. But the candidate still has to manage his/her resources to contest those few states while not giving up the others to the opposition. He or she still has to make the critical decisions about which states he/she has a natural advantage in, and which ones he/she doesn't, and whether the latter can be won at all. And mostly, the candidate has to fight for states that are important anyway where no advantage exists and that's something nominees in state elections almost never run into.

OK, so let's talk about what Clark has to learn, as compared to what the others don't. But first, let's not assume that Clark hasn't already had the opportunity to learn a lot of it.

"People believe lies more than truth." Check. He's got that, to the extent that it's true. A lot lies in packaging.

"It's better sometimes to let the public believe a lie..." No, I don't think so. That was the very problem Kerry and Gore had. They didn't react fast enough to smack down the lies (and the liars). We need someone who fights back and fast. It's one of the main things we Clarkies like best about WKC--he had some problems with it at first, but he learned that lesson real quick.

"He'll have to learn things no one has thought of..." As will they all, even Gore, because you're right: all elections are different. That Clark does learn so fast is a big plus in his column, as far as I'm concerned. And I think his political instincts are very good indeed--better than those of his professional advisors (mostly Gore people, fwiw). YMMV, but if he runs, you'll have plenty of opportunity to reevaluate, as I hope you will.

Now, as for what Clark has to learn for the office itself...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the "ideological depth" of Clark's positions on issues. I trust him and you don't. But I think you should admit that there is NO possible contender for the 2008 nomination with whom you can be sure they won't compromise on an issue you believe to be critical. I've seen Clark risk what he valued highly, his very life, and his 38-year career in the military, to do what he thought was the right thing. Can't say that about the others.

I also think you're dead wrong about governors. Yeah, they TEND to make better presidents than senators, for reasons we both agree on, but that ain't saying much. Usually, governors and senators are the only choices we're given.

But the foreign policy/national security/commander-in-chief piece of what a president does is NOTHING like anything a governor does, and nothing he does prepares him for it. Even a vice president really only gets to watch the boss do it, altho Gore was given a few, very few, responsibilities in that arena.

Clark has been closer to "that position" than any governor, and at least as close as the VP (who also made no diplomatic policy decisions). You think fighting a war is the opposite of politics, but it isn't. Not when you're leading an alliance, where the head of every member state can veto any action you want to take, and not when the House is opposed to the war and you need to go to them for all your funds, manpower, and approval of your support programs (success in war is as much about beans and bullets as tactics). Son, the Kosovo war was ALL about politics, and Clark was in the middle of it.

It was also about being accountable to the American people. Granted, not for himself so much, but the experience was the same. Media is critical to the American way of war today, and since neither Clark nor Clinton were trying to hide anything from the public (unlike the current bunch of crooks), Clark had to manage that media, and talk directly to the people--more to the Europeans than to the US where people didn't bother to care--and what he did or didn't do had a very immediate effect on Clinton's approval. And both Clinton and Clark were well aware of it.

The point being that Clark was accountable to Clinton who was accountable to the people based on no small part on what Clark did or failed to do. Not the same thing, but not all that different. He knows the way it works and has lived with the pressure.

So the simple fact is, being a very senior military commander is all about politics, both with Congress, with the rest of the federal bureaucracy (not just the Pentagon) and with foreign heads of state. Congress is very different from a state legislature, but I'll admit the tasks can be similar--depends somewhat on which parties are in charge. But the foreign heads of state thing is what governors just don't do, and it is usually the most difficult and always the most potentially dangerous piece.

Your statement that a US military community isn't as diverse as the US is just plain silly. In fact, it's a damn site more diverse than the average state or congressional district. And since approval for all programs and their funding come from Congress, the idea that Clark doesn't know how to work with an opposing party (especially given the landscape in the late '90s) is just as silly.

So you see, I don't buy your airline pilot analogy. No, Clark has never been president. Duh. Neither has anyone else who might run in 2008. And I would submit that Bush is living proof that having been president, and a governor, and won a national election, has no bearing whatsoever on whom I'd be willing to bet my life on supporting for the job.

[skipos]

52. You prefered DUKAKIS?!?

Was there a New England senator you prefered over Clinton in 1992 too?

[jobycom]

58. I prefered Jackson, actually

and voted thus. And Dukakis wasn't a senator, he was a governor.

[RedstDem]

37. You Mean Clark/Warner Don't You ?

Unless Winning Don't Matter, Edwards Needs A Term As Governor Before He Runs For POTUS. (Though I Would Support Him If He makes It On The Ticket.) I Think Edwards Will Be Perceived As damaged Goods/Inexperienced. Not By Me Just The Rest Of This Crusty Red Country Of Ours....Clark & Warner (Mark Va Gov.) Have Alot Of Cross Appeal, Enough To Beat McCain & Jebbie

[Kahuna]

64. Yep! That's the ticket!

:thumbsup:

[cyn2]

50. I agree

I think the combination of the two is genius.

[Sleepless In NY]

57. Gore/Clark

Gore was part of an adminstration that gave us the best 8 years this country has ever seen, and I think people are just starting to appreciate that fact. I don't know..everytime I listen to Gore give a speech, he is just so full of passion and seems to hit all the important points. If history has taught us anything, it's that a comeback is very possible, Nixon came back from nowhere to win 2 terms, when no one ever thought that was possible. And Gore has so much more to offer than Nixon..no comparison between them personally.

Gore has hands on experience, and proven successes, not to mention "lock box" and "global warming" are no longer something to laugh at.

I love Wes Clarke, he's personable, intelligent, articulate, experienced and would add a great balance to any ticket.

By the way...what "experience" did Eisenhower have when he ran and won besides his military achievments? Something to think about.

Added benefits...neither were in a position to vote for the war in Iraq, so it can't come back to haunt them.

[robbedvoter]

66. President has to be alble to trust his VP. Clark/his choice.