If You Had To Choose In 2008-Edwards Or Dean...

Since Edwards decisively beat Hillary Clinton he now moves to a head to head battle with Howard Dean

n/t

this is a round robbin tournament and she lost to John Edwards...


Da rules are the rules...

another previous poll?

Dean versus Clark...


My approach wasn't rigorous enough but I know the board well enough to know the three most popular politicians are Clark, Dean, and Kucinich in that order with DK a distant third...

helped the ticket. Furthermore, John couldn't win his own state. I went Dean even though Edwards has a better chance of winning the presidency in a GE.

Clark would whoop them both though...

Yes I'm a Wes Clark Democrat.

be less of a landslide with Edwards, IMHO. :7

better than Dean. But there is something about Edwards that doesn't resonate with me.

I'd go with Edwards. :shrug:

I was on board for the first two, but c'mon.

That's like having the play offs without the SuperBowl...

And, therefore, more electable. I prefer Dean's message, but Edwards is more electable.

unless we can uncover and expose the theft of the 2004 election, they'll just do to us in 2008 what they did to us this year, and in 2002, and in 2000 . . . when are the Democrats going to stand up and fight? . . . because if they don't do it now, there will never be another Democratic president . . .

He would have much better chances to win than Dean.

Don't get me wrong. I love Howard Dean. I think he's passionate, outspoken, and really is willing to say what he believes. However, I don't think the presidency is the place for him...he needs to be in a place where he can energize the base. Did anyone get DNC chair yet?

but I'll pick Dean.

At least running him would resolve an open question in the Democratic party, and he might surprise me.

though I'm not at all crazy about him. I will NOT vote for Edwards should he be nominated. I voted for Kerry this time in spite of Edwards.

:headbang:

So far I'm not convinced that either Dean or Edwards has what it takes. I concede that this may change in four years.

A lot can change in four years. Especially with Bush in office. It's frightening to wonder how our priorities might change in the ensuing term.

because running as a military hero is not the way to win as a democrat. Haven't some of you learned anything from what just happened? They can just as easily find something to smear Clark on just as they did Kerry.

The fact is that Rove didn't want run against Dean. He said so in private...unlike his public statement that he did hope he was nominated. Ever hear of reverse psychology anyone?

The "scream" was nothing and it won't work against Dean anymore because more and more people including republicans are realizing that everything Dean said during the campaign is true. The war was wrong. We aren't safer without Saddam and neither are the Iraqi people. We are starving social programs and the economy to fight a losing battle in Iraq and no one is proffiting like the war profiteers (which by the way includes Clark, though he is casing in on Terrorism at home rather than in Iraq)

Dean would have kicked Bush out of office with the help and cooperation of the party this year. But as usual since the mid 80's they would rather lose than have a reformer in office.....lots of cushy jobs and petty 2nd rate party power at stake don't cha know.

I have no idea of Dean will run in 2008 and I think it's idiotic for people to be planning that far. But I do know I would rather him than someone who has no political identity except what was manufactured to take votes from Dean. Clark can give all the fabulous sounding sound bites he's fed, but without a public office record democrats would be crazy to nominate him.

Clark won't even be a blip on the political radar screen by 2008 if he doesn't run for some other office before then.
The man simply has no political experience and no party loyalty (except his followers) and no political capital without Clinton.

He's a lobbiest and consultant for the war on terror industry. That is very similar to what he was doing before he was a cheerleader for the war on cable. He was lobbying the MIC. This year lots of democrats might have been willing to vote for Clark to get Bush out. But in the future his ties to the war industry are not going to make him popular with the Democratic base.

You all really need to get over the idea that pandering to peoples fears about national security is a good idea for a democratic candidate. It works for Bush now,that doesn't mean it is going to work for democrats in the future.

in his political career. He was a rising star and he was over promoted. He voted wrong on IWR, NCLB and the Patriot ACT. He's done not because he doesn't mangage to "look good" but because he votes like a republican.

Edwards showed promise but he supported the war. That is totally unaceptable. Dean is the grass roots candidate of all time. He needs the DNC; the DNC needs him.