How Clark or Edwards can get Kerry: Say I'm electable in the South

Kerry's dismissal of the South WILL hurt him in the GE, no matter how many people say you can write it off. If Clark or Edwards want momentum, they have to hammer Kerry on this theme, or else * won't have to spend squat south of the Mason-Dixon, and pour his money into states like Pennsylvania, Wisconson, AND EVEN NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Now, can you picture those last two states going RED? THey will if * is allowed a solid south.

I have no doubt.

You're referring to the South that doesn't vote for us liberal democrats, right?

Yeah, lets pour money and resources into a region of the country that would spit on us before they'd vote for us.

Concentrate on the same states Gore did, win Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire, and let the south go.

We...don't....need.....it.

It's not like Bush is gonna be short of resources anywhere...he already has more money than he could possibly need to campaign fully everywhere. We should not be puring resources into a losing proposition. Go midwest, west, and southwest...that is where we will win this thing. There are alot more swing votes in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana than there are in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Clark will carry both Lousisana and Arkansas.

Clark/Edwards will win 275-263

I'm sure it'll come up. I wonder who will take advantage of it.

Should Kerry win SC or finish a very close and strong 2nd, the issue will become irrelevant with respect to the primaries.

Unfortunately, the primaries do not represent the general election: Kerry will not carry well in the south no matter how well he does in the primary races. I do not expect him to compete strongly in any southern states, including Florida. He won't do well in the border states, including Missouri. He might do well in WV but to win he will have to carry the two coasts, the midwest, including Ohio and the southwest (AZ, NM and NV).

This is exactly the kind of disadvantage the other three candidates will face in running against Bush- hyped momentum, money tide, media perception, public on the bandwagon. So far the people have NOT jumped on the bandwagon. Close analysis of what was happening, who was voting and who was getting the eventually crippling negatives suggest things directly counter to what both the media and perhaps the voters(another test for them!) are getting as "wisdom".

PBS's Morley Safer? rather timidly and mutedly hinted that it was Edwards surging among the undecideds that was the news story after Dean's eclipse, that Clark for his concentration on that state achieved mainly survival. Safer was warning it was the discontent and furious intent on the voters' part to find the candidate best able to beat Bush that was the core reality.

But the horse race mavens are doing just the typical job. The money and endorsements are sliding on the deck like loose ballast ready to capsize the ship. The people are in process and slipping on the bloody deck as well.

How does this compare to the past? Not exactly of course. Well, Mondale was the solid candidate the restive Dem electorate did not enthuse over. Hart was the young, new- well, he had the potential to win. Except he was vaguer on the issues than Reagan with a personal careless personal morality that made Clinton look the picture of political prudence. So the people had to pick Mondale and despite gearing up the machine, having truth and rationality in oversupply(fatal oversupply on the tax increase promise) got washed into oblivion. Dukakis was an inexcusable primary season. Wide open, post-Reagan opportunity only the wrong candidate choice could spoil. Gore was perhaps the "Southern" candidate, but no matter. Somehow Dukakis limped along as the choice until hitting my state. Our vote for Jesse Jackson was an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the party leadership establishment. It was a wild shot Jackson could not take any positive advantage of. They like to blame Jackson(or Kennedy vs. Carter) for ruining things, but the candidate proved very nicely that the people's instincts were absolutely correct(and the people remember also vote in November). Well, what of today?

We have better candidates. Every time a machine props up one it seems to run counter to people's doubts and judgments. That sounds familiar. But the other choices have not all self destructed. Kerry is no Mondale or Dukakis- unless he works at it. Edwards or Clark are no lightweight image like Hart, with impeccable personal and political credentials compared to other also rans in years bygone. They are also the sure fire winners the leadership establishment always pretended they were looking for in the past.

So, though I am hearing rumblings among the electorate similar to bygone days, the results are not predictable by analogy. Momentum is with the positives. When the electorate is poised on the verge of anointing a frontrunner or following another instinct, that will be the crux. And with two lousy states flip flopping the prediction Department on its well oiled heels, it would be tragic to push people against their best instincts.

I don't hear, for example, that Kerry is the popular choice, but "I guess Kerry will be the one." That is the same dubious qualification as Dean endorsers paying homage to Moveon.org and Trippi. Yet if people ignore the apparent momentum thing, Kerry is no weak candidate
and there is no certainty of any outcome if it comes to a brutal delegate contest.

Now people are saying it will be all over after seven more states. Don't bet the farm on it. I think the same is true of Kerry as of anyone else. Falter and fall. The last man standing should be someone who can keep growing and accumulate the fewest negatives and hold-your-nose acts of faith. The electorate must be cruel to the wisdom of their betters- most of whom I notice have managed to lose chunks of our nation and soul by wretched political judgment.

I want that in the debate tonight so bad, I wish I could be there to jump on the stage with a big "Kerry said Democrats Don't Need The South!!!" sign.

Nothing against Kerry. He's always been my #2. It's buisness, nothing personal. I want my guy to win.

but we shall see how it translates. I think Edwards will win SC. Will Edwards carry further than SC will be the question. I think Clark will be strong in some southern and western states.

and Kerry has beaten both

Forgive me for being too lazy to do a search. I've just seen this repeated ad nauseum with NO citations. Throw me a frickin' bone here, people...

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Kerry said, in response to a question about winning the region. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/kerry_south_040126.html

I now see it's one of those B.S. semantics issues that I need not bother caring about. Kerry did NOT dismiss the South; he downplayed the importance of it. I see the difference; others may not; ultimately, it's just semantics.

I don't think ANY candidate should talk about winning (or not winning) in the South -- they should just shut up and DO it. And I think Kerry, Clark and Edwards all have a shot. (Dean I just don't care about.)

Because if Kerry gets the nom, they will hammer him with this.

Let's not keep our heads in the sand. All the candidates have statements and issues that can hurt them. We had better look them in the face now.

Let's see if he can handle it in a debate now, 'cause he sure will get it in a Bush debate.

His opponents did.

I have no problem holding candidates to what they have actually said and god knows it's come back at Clark for his past statements. But at least it's fair, it's not insinuation or speculation.

Rove and company have all of this, and we know it. If you can't hold up to the democrats questioning you about your statements, you will get killed in the GE by the rethugs with them.

Do you have a cite for that or are you just paraphrasing what Kerry really said?