Dems should nominate either Clark or Edwards

Whoah there flaimers, let me first say that I support Howard Dean. I love his campaign, the way he is raising money from the Little People in order to defeat the Big Bad Corporate Whores.

Having said that, I have come to decide that the best choice as a nominee (in terms of electability) would be Clark or Edwards, in that order. Before you go blasting away at me, let me explain why:

- The South is the key to this race, and the Dems have been doing badly in the South for quite some time. Dean says reach out to them and I think he is right, but I also think that it will ultimately take someone from the South to do so. Whether this is fair or not is up for debate, but as a cold hard reality I don't see it any other way.

- Dean and Kerry, the two other major contenders in my opinion, could be easily painted by the Bush Administration as out-of-touch Northern Liberals. Kerry especially would be open to attacks of being an "elitist liberal", and his condescending holier-than-thou mannerisms would not help that. This means that both Dean and Kerry would lose big in the South, in my opinion.

- Clark should be able to easily destroy Bush. He is charismatic and plays the "compassionate" part MUCH better than Bush ever could. Also, with being a former General, there is absolutely no way Bush could wrap himself in 9/11 and the War on Terrorism to defeat Clark as he undoubtedly would do against any other candidate. Finally, and this is important, Clark will not be seen as a highly partisan candidate like most of the other Dem possibilities. Once again, whether it is right or wrong is beside the point: the American public likes to vote for people they don't consider to be too partisan. That is how Bush did so well with his bullshit "compassionate conservatism" platform. It was like the Repubs were saying: "he is a Republican, but nice like a Democrat." Just like 9/11 and the War on Terrorism, Clark can take that tactic and turn it on its head against the Repubs.

- Both Clark and Edwards have that charming personality that will translate well to today's television based campaigns. There is absolutely no way that Shrub could, with his evil little smirk, come across better than either of these two guys. Kerry, on the other hand, would come across as an elitist in comparison to Shrub; and Dean runs the danger of coming across as an angry liberal.


So what say you DUers? Neither Clark or Edwards is my favorite candidate, so I would love to be convinced that a northerner could win this election. Please give it your best shot.

vote that keeps alot of people from supporting Edwards.

Kerry voted for the Iraq War, and didn't he vote for the Patriot Act as well? Why isn't he taking the same heat for those votes?

And as far as Dean and Clark go, it is FAR easier to say, in hindsight, that you wouldn't have voted for the Iraq War or Patriot Act than it would be to actually face the political fallout from doing so. The fact of the matter is that neither Clark or Dean were in a position where they had to compromise at all, and that is why they are both so free to say they would have voted against it.

And, BTW, Clark is full of shit when he says he wouldn't have. I nearly fell out of my chair when they showed his video during the debates last night and he made that claim. As I recall he actually praised the Bush Administration for having the guts to go to war and his only disagreement with the war early on was over how it was being fought.

...but I'm willing to forgive Clark on that because, well...I'm digging Clark right now, lol. He really should, all seriousness, confront that with a simple, "I was wrong, I apologize..." much like all the pro voters should.

Later.

RJS

I'm digging him too. I'm just saying that he shouldn't lie so damn blatantly. Anyone who has been paying attention KNOWS full well that he would have supported that resolution. But I agree, he should just come out and say "I thought the Bush Administration was going to do it right and I was wrong" or something like that...not quite a full on apology but at least an acknowledgement.

He's not ahead in most polls either and it's probably for this reason.

who acted from the very start as if the nomination should just be handed to him, no questions asked. His initials are JFK after all! ;)

& I kind of like Kerry anyway.
Not nearly as much as I like Dean though.

Just don't care too much for his personality. Of course, *I* wouldn't let that stand in the way of voting for him over Bush since he would be FAR better than Bush, but we all know the general public doesn't react the same way. The morons wouldn't vote for Gore because he was nerdy and boring. Those sound like two GREAT traits in a President to me.

what a big cop out! Dean's going to win so why should we settle for crumbs?

Edwards lost any hope of getting my vote, unless it is him or Bush.* Clark to this point, I would vote and work for. Dean is my true love, however. lol

and then Clark..but those IRW "YES" voters, who are lying out their asses right now are making me just as pissed as when they voted for the damn thing.

infact a Marist Poll has Dean running 8-points behind Bush while Clark is running 19-points behind. As for Edwards, no one ever polls him vs. Bush becuz he isn't doing well enough nationally. In his homestate of North Carolina he is losing to Bush by 12-19 points in various polls.

This doesn't prove anything of course at this early date, but I don't think putting a southern democrat on the ticket is automatic win. We had Musgrove in Mississippi campaigning with the support of the NRA talking about jobs leaving the state and he still lost--and he is a pretty conservative candidate.

it just doesn't jell with logic. Clark is probably running behind because he hasn't been a candidate for long...come January he will have much better name recognition.

about these polls that show how well Bush stacks up against the dem contenders in NC, but nobody ever cites a source or offers a link. I'd sure like to read one of these NC polls for myself. Any chance?

:kick:

Dean for President
Clark for Vice President.
Wouldn't that do it?

Judging by when he got into the race, I'd say Dean wants it more too. Clark would be a strong candidate of course.

...ooooh, I hear bells.

Later.

RJS

May very well be the ticket. That way you have the South represented and you can still point to Clark whenever Bush tries to use the War on Terrorism as a defense for his miserable failures.

Not who wants it the most. Clark is that man. Dean is not.

Dean has experience as a Governor, which is much more applicable to the presidency, IMO, than that of a retired general.

I don't really know who would do a better job, those things are hard to predict.
On the who wants it more idea, I'm thinking about how candidates get votes from the "general" electorate (that is, those who vote based more on perception than investigation) often based on how "macho" or ambitious they appear. That is one of the things that I think makes Dean a strong candidate.
Paradoxically, although Clark has been a high level military commander, I'm not as sure that he will be perceived as having this kind of ambition in a general election.
Of course these things are always provisional and hypothetical at this point in the game.

nt

November 03, 2003

A newly released Washington Post-ABC news poll conducted October 26-29 confirms that Kerry polls best among the leading Democrats and is in the strongest position to take on George W. Bush, far outpolling Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.


Kerry....Bush
44%......50% ... -6

Gephardt.Bush
42%......51% . - 9

Clark....Bush
40%......51%...- 11

Dean.....Bush
39%......54%...- 15

He smacks of it. *I* was even turned off of him in the debate before the Rock the Vote one, and I AM an elitist liberal as well (to be honest).

maybe it's the voice that works for me? i dunno.

You misreported the numbers from the ABC poll.

Kerry...Bush
43%.....52%... -9

Gephardt...Bush
42%.........51%... -9

Clark...Bush
40%.....52%... -12

Dean....Bush
39%.....53%... -14

Margin of error is +/- 4%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

The Marist College Poll, with a MoE of 3.5%, shows a closer among the top three.

Kerry...Bush
42%.....48%... -6

Gephardt...Bush
43%.........48%... -5

Clark...Bush
36%.....55%... -19

Dean....Bush
41%.....49%... -8

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=652555#652737

but still my fault for not double checking

to apologize. But not really necessary. Your point still essnentially stand, except that it's a little closer and Gephardt is right there in it -- if these polls have any meaning at this point.

I mean, I think the guy is an absolute sure thing. There is no way he could be dumber or less articulate than Bush, and he would kick his ass hands down when it came to national security, which is what Bush will certainly hinge his election on. Essentially, all Clark would have to do to NOT win in a landslide is NOT fuck up.

noone will ever accuse Dean of that.

the 911 request that he blame it on iraq turned out to be from some canadian and not the whitehouse

the 911 memo he claimed about the first of five countries he now says was not a memo but a rumor.

sorry if he's your guy but he's going nowhere.

I just salivate at the thought of a landslide defeat of Bush, which I think Clark would be most likely to achieve.

my view of Clark is he is just not strong enough for the job .. he would be like the dem version of gwb .. soz, think you need to reconsider.

Consider this. The Dems could attempt to go head-to-head with Bush in the south and try to win Georgia, or South Carolina, or Missisipi and end up sorely dissapointed. Or....

We could hold the states Gore won and add just one of the following:

WV
OH
IN
VA
NH
MO
AZ

Bring it on. We will have the people on the ground to do it this time. Our side is motivated.

...you can't TELL me he couldn't keep all of Gore's states and add New Hampshire. That's ridiculous.

Later.

RJS

I missread your post. My bad.

But I don't blame you because I did too at first. I think what he was trying to say was that Dean would be certain to win all of Gore's states and AT LEAST New Hampshire as well.

...sorry, hehe, I might've used too many negatives there. ;)

Later.

RJS

They would DESTROY(using your word) Shrub.

I don't think both of them would be on the ticket. I see Kerry or Dean on one side and Clark or Edwards on the other.

If we lose MI, or PA we can kiss it goodbye

But you won't get it from me.

I agree those states are key, but the Dems do need to reverse the downward trend of the last three decades in the South. If not for this election, then certainly for future ones.

Ohio and Missouri are good. If a state where we can make a gain happens to be in the south, so be it, go for it. But trying to appeal to the South as a whole is the epitome of grandiose over-reaching. The South is the Republican breadbasket. Our breadbasket is the Northeast, north of Virginia and East of the Miss. River. Republicans have made inroads in traditionally Democratic states. WV and NH were traditionally dem. states that we lost in 2000. Either one of them would have won us the election. Resources that were used in Florida, where a corrupt state government was in on the fix anyway, were basically wasted. similarly there are reports of irregularity from TN. We cannot put good money into states that won't run clean elections.

And thanks for noticing the Avatar, you are the first to notice.

Essential. Kerry knows where the bodies are hidden and while he could play a key role in the Senate... He could help Clark aout immensely...

Wonder if Kerry and Clark get along.