My prediction: Kerry-Edwards. And I am glad.

I think it will be a Kerry-Edwards ticket in 11/2004.

I am glad. They are both intelligent, well spoken, and
have the ability to beat Bush/Cheney hands down.

I still think Clark is the better man. He's done more with
his life and that's what counts for me.

Nonetheless, I actually think Kerry will be a better person
to put against Bush. Kerry has a great speaking voice and he
is tall. That's what is going to win for us. I think Edwards is
smooth and sharp as a tack, even though I abhor trial lawyers
and their ilk.

Clark, I repeat, Clark would not be a good second banana. Edwards
is total second banana material. Kerry is the alpha wolf and
John can be his beta.

I think Clark should have a good showing in VA and Tenn. and then
go home and enjoy a well earned pension/retirement.

Politics is for people that have a stomach to tell a lie with
a straight face. I think Clark never really mastered that.

I think he should have run as an Independent.

But this is politics and in politics its all about getting into
bed with strange fellows and going with what wins. Kerry will
win in 2004. I am damn convinced of that. Which is good, because
it will break the Southern strangehold on the Presidency. Thank
Gawd!

However, I am not liking party politics at all. It's a joke.
It seems as if the people are there for the party and not the
other way around. I am going back to being a Liberal Independent
after the dog and pony show is over. I probably will pull the
Green Party lever for kicks just like I did in the last election
(except I did vote for Gore). John Kerry and the Democratic
Party obviously doesn't need folks like me.

P.S. Get rid of Terry McAuliffe. I met him. He is conceited
and acts like this is all a big football game and only jocks
like him need apply.

There's gotten to be too much business and not nearly enough passion in the party lately. My first campaign was 1968 and I remember when we all felt like we were on a crusade rather than just a campaign.

So don't give up on the party -- help it to return to it's former greatness.

thanks for the thoughts....

You may end up right but it's way too soon for anyone to know how this will all turn out. In spite of the media, Clark could end up surprising everyone.

Clark is the best candidate for this country and to beat Bush.

You're right on target with this part of your post:

"Politics is for people that have a stomach to tell a lie with
a straight face. I think Clark never really mastered that."

Isn't it a shame that this actually hurts Clark?!

We'll see what happens. I still have faith.

"A good politician can tell someone to go to hell, and he would look forward to the trip"

Insider-Insider. :thumbsup:

PS: ;)

first, it's unusual for any candidate to choose one of his primary opponents as his running mate (but not unheard of).

But I think two sitting Senators running together doesn't provide enough real balance to the ticket.

first, it's unusual for any candidate to choose one of his primary opponents as his running mate

The drooler did it with Poppy Bush back in 1980.

I believe LBJ ran against JFK in the primary

ANd LBJ was one of the strongest candidates running against JFK.

The same sort of thing happened. Johnson, very strong in the south, but Kennedy very strong in the Northeast, Midwest, and strong showing in the southwest. I would not imaging Edwards turning down a VP offer. And Kerry looks like he is repeating JFK's strong suit, in the midwest, the southwest and the north. By next tuesday, more than 25 percent of the states will have had their caucuses and primaries, adn the polls in the states though next tuesday are leaning rather strongly towards Kerry.


As of tonight, a little less than ten percent of the states have held made their choices. As of tonight, Kerry has ten percent of the delegates needed to become the nominee. And the polls for the next week are leaning as strongly towards Kerry as this weeeks have,

but not unheard of.

That's wrong on both counts.

Gore didn't run for president in 1992, and both Clinton and Gore are from the south.

Bullet-proof, so to speak.

We are going to need to Presidential level leaders to begin to fix the problems that the misadministration has wrought on this country.

I'd really like to see Clark reforming the military. He'd make a great SecDef if he'd accept the challenge.

Is that supposed to be some kind of compliment?

Until this year, I've always supported Dems but never been one. I registered Dem this year, and volunteered to work both for Clark and the local Dem party, but I was really turned off by the extreme level of irrational partisanship I saw, not so much in Dem HQ and the Clark campaign, where I met several folks I liked a lot, but on this message board and elsewhere. Far too many Democrats/leftists are simply the mirror image of rabid Republicans, and it turns me off.


By the way, guys like Clark don't retire. I don't know what's next for him (and he still has a chance to pull this out, albeit a faint one); but retirement isn't for someone who's a youngish 59, and a lifelong over-achiever.

Is that I have little faith in his ability to repair the post-Bush damage. That is going to be a tall order no matter who wins in November. That sick, twisted part of my psyche sez, "Let the idiot who did this try to fix it! That oughtta turn the public off neoconservatism for 25 years or so." But I don't think we can really afford that.

And while Kerry has gained wide support recently, it has not been fairly won and it feels fairly shallow to me. This is opposition to Bush, not support for John Kerry. And I think many supporters of Clark, Dean, Edwards and others do not appreciate his word-for-word plagiarism of their speeches. Intellectual theft is no way to win respect. He is doing it far too frequently for it to be taken as a compliment.

No matter who wins the nomination will have a tough fight ahead of them ... but the toughest fight begins after sending the Shrubman back to the ranch. This nation is in trouble. We are poorly positioned from a geopolitical viewpoint. Our treasury has been depleted. Our economy has been structured in a fashion which saps the strength of the middle class. The Pentagon is now planning to cope with global climate change, and it is not being done in the context of a long range plan according to recent CNN articles. (Makes ya wonder what they know that the neocons refuse to admit, doesn't it?) Civil rights are deteriorating. And you can almost feel this country getting ready to rip itself to shreds over matters of ideology.

I see little in Kerry's voting record to suggest he is equipped to deal with this mess. Nor do I see the training in formal analysis and strategy that will be essential when it comes time to navigate all those mine fields. We need someone inventive in the White House ... and if Kerry were all that inventive, he wouldn't need to plagiarize as frequently as he does.

Critical to Kerry's success as President will be wise selection of his staff and cabinet. Kerry is clearly not my favorite, but he will have my vote if he wins the nomination. Hopefully, any candidate asked to serve will put their differences and egoes aside for the national interest.

I am continuously impressed at the eloquence of the people here.

Yes, this nation is in trouble. It's obvious who I think can fix it. But I fear he will never get a chance to attempt it and then we all lose.

I am an Edwards supporter. I don't see it. I have always thought of Edwards as a top of ticket candidate - a great stumper who has broad appeal but is unlikely to bring a state as veep especially for a NE liberal like Kerry who should write off the South. Edwards and Clark, Clark and Edwards - I could see either of these tickets.

Strategically, if selecting for Kerry would look at electoral votes for veep: Bayh, Breaux, Gephardt, Richardson for example.

I think Edwards would upstage Kerry.
By the time the November rolls around everyone will be wishing they could reverse the ticket. Kerry needs someone less charismatic than he is.

on any ticket, North or South.

Edwards problem is image: too boyish and too much the trial lawyer.
He's demonstrated no sacrifice for the Country.

We can't make the chimp look like a chump unless someone has
medals on their chest.

which is what Edwards would be.

The man is such a lightweight it is an outrage he is even running.

Again, Edwards would never be more than a puppet who can act in front of the camera.

He is unable to answer questions given to him by moderators or the public in a substantive way.

And this is appropriate for a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate.

I just don't see how Edwards adds to the bottom of the ticket which is perfect spot for someone who CANNOT win a Democratic primary because they may be slightly too centrist. Edwards does not fit this description. Edwards is too much like Kerry in terms of ideology.


I think Edwards is too inexperienced, too liberal for the bottom of a Kerry ticket, and most of all, Edwards would be unable to carry his own state (NC is a conservative Republican stronghold).

Bayh and Breaux are a little too far to the right of Kerry. Such an 'odd couple' ticket would only serve to hightlight the flaws of each man, a la Dukakis/Bentsen.

Ideally, Kerry would need someone only slightly to the right of him, someone from a key swing state. I've heard Florida Sen. Bill Nelson's name thrown and think that would be a good choice. He's a former astronaut, great American, and well respected on both sides of the isle.

>P.S. Get rid of Terry McAuliffe. I met him. He is conceited
and acts like this is all a big football game and only jocks
like him need apply.

Clinton runs the party. McAuliffe is his guy. The only way he leaves is if Clinton says he leaves. So far, he's doing exactly what he is supposed to do, otherwise Clinton would have booted his ass.

Too many of my fellow Democrats either fail or refuse to accept the fact that the nominee will be whoever Clinton decides the nominee will be. And when Clinton wants him destroyed, he'll be destroyed. I, too, think Kerry will win the nomination and he'll lose to BushCo in November, not the least of reasons being that Hillary wants to run for president in 2008. You think she wants to wait until 2012? No way! Kerry can't win. It throws off the Clinton schedule. This is all about them, just like it was for 8 years. They view the Democratic Party as their vehicle to do with as they please.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary is named VP. It gives her a chance to become a figure on a national ticket opposing Repukes. They lose, and it doesn't reflect on her. The top of the ticket always gets the blame, not the VP nominee. It sets her up perfectly to be the "anointed" nominee in 2008.

Clinton pulls the strings, I'm fully convinced.

as Secretary of State. Don't know if he'd do it but he would be a whole lot better than Powell.

Politics is maddening. The media makes it more so. Listening to the talking heads made my head want to explode on ocassion. I do agree with Wes Jr. THe media really was detrimental to Clark's campaign. It ignored him or marginalized him or critcized him for the most petty things.

I'll push the buttons for Kerry. I want Bush gone. ANd maybe if enough Democrats really believe the Kerry can beat Bush they will get off their asses and vote to make it so.

MzPip
:dem:

but I feel pretty much disenfranchised from the process. Clark would seem in it except the media pushing the idea with some success, he's not, while the dem party seems to want it whittled down to Kerry/Edwards. If my senator had not voted along with the president on foreign policy and wasn't vulnerable in the election process on security questions the admin will bludgeon him with, I still would have issues in that Liddy Dole cleans his clock in working for the people of NC. I know they (repubs) will note nearly all of his major contributions are from the trial lawyers. Kerry pretty much has the same idea as some here might in that the south means nothing. Add in his support for the president's foreign policy, he's not near as strong as he appears now in the primary race. America will not, as it looks, have a conversation about itself concerning it's behavior, the admin's behavior, and the US standing in the eyes of the world (not to mention the current lack of checks and balances now in government).

I just don't get it. The more democrats pounding on Bush the better. Lets see what happens. Kerry has hardly been vetted out, I want to see a little blood from that war hero before he claims victory and before I get behind him.

Yes Clark is the "better man" for this job. And yes he is averse to politics. I believe it can still happen for Clark. It depends on whether the General is picking up more grass roots support, people that will work or contribute to the campaign. I don't have any idea if that is happening or not. But I think he should be getting some ex-Dean supporters and picking up support as things go along. Clark is so much more inspiring than Kerry it isn't even funny. I'm with Clark all the way to the finish.

The Democratic base is crumbling and the party leaders don't have a clue. The problem with billing yourself as the "real deal" (a term that many of us used to describe Wes Clark) and a populace who feels the pain of the working man, if those images are debunked the Democratic party is in for some serious trouble.

The Democratic base is crumbling and the party leaders don't have a clue.

Why do you think they are comparing Edwards to Clinton? Because once they expose Edwards, Clinton is tarnished with the same brush.