I'm going to let you people in on a secret

Wes Clark helped John Kerry be the nominee. Had Clark dropped out
earlier, it just might have been Edwards as the nominee. And since
Clark made the votes split nicely between Edwards and himself, Kerry coasted to the nod. Yes my friends, one kind turn deserves another.

Clark WILL BE the V.P.

goodnite.

:hug: :loveya: :bounce: :hi:


Night, sleep well.

..because the idea of Gephardt as the veep nominee could have potnetially LETHAL consequences in November...

He did kind of act like the "blocking fullback" at the end
there.

I guess that's politics.

Was General Clark a draft dodger with multiple deferrments?
I DON'T THINK SO!

A VP candidates debate would be fun. Career military against the "Oil Wisperer".

Clark had more votes, how could this scenario have been planned out in such a manner?

- he apparently wanted to drop out after Oklahoma and was convinced by his wife and others to stay in and fight it out in Tennessee and Virginia, where he and Edwards split the vote for second and Kerry won with less than 50% of the vote both times.

Then he endorsed Kerry immediately and has been his strongest supporter ever since.

I hope it's true. I think General Clark would be a great asset to the ticket.

Of course, they already have to an extent. But faced with actual accusations, it would be so simple for him to overwhelm them with all his service records. And he has the "just under the surface" passion that is lacking in Kerry.

Would be refreshing to have an anti-war President and an anti-war Vice-President/General.

Gave Dean my heart and soul and money. Never gave a penny to Clark. I just see a Kerry/Clark ticket appealing to the middle more effectively than a Kerry/Dean one.

And I think Dean probably sees that too. LOVE that man!! :)

He push this party in the direction that it needed to go in.

Hope you agree that Kerry/Clark can take us to the WH is 04

I don't see how Clark dropping out earlier helps Edwards at all, in fact I think it would have helped Kerry more because they were fighting for the same Veterans votes.

So no, I don't think there is a scenario where Edwards was going to be the nominee. People made their mind up on Kerry over Dean and Kerry over Edwards and when it came between Clark and Kerry people were leaning towards Kerry heavily.

Now do I appreciate the efforts made by all three since the nomination was wrapped up? Oh hell yes, and my personal choice would be for it to be Kerry/Clark because I am completely enamored with Clark as a person even moreso than as a military candidate.

I like Edwards too but this has truly proven to be a National Security election and I just can't see how the public can honestly take a draft dodger and an AWOL rich kid over a General and a Navy Lieutenant.

Rp

out Clarkies telling Deanies "get over it, your guy lost".

While all the while hope springs eternal in the Clark camp. heh heh

Nothing like a healthy serving of irony with my morning coffee.

Julie

I can tell you have a real dislike for some of us, but, sincerely, I liked Dean too and was sorry to see him go. Also, I can understand that, when you really believe in someone, it is very hard to "get over it" - especially by placing your faith in someone you don't 100% believe in (that's the point I'm at).

I can tell you have a real dislike for some of us

I don't have any ill will toward Clark supporters. Just enjoying a little irony.

Julie--fan of irony

I love Dean and know how much he contributed and is contributing to our party. We had such beautiful candidates, that as each fell, I cried. I am so proud of all of them. They are making our party stronger and stronger, and each has a strong role to play.

Speaking of roles, Dean is so talented, what role do you all think he would fill best in a Kerry administration?

which is what they are doing, Clark is the best choice. He is also southern and gained a lot of support amoong moderate repubs. Gephardt couldn't even win the state next to his own, and couldn't deliver the union vote, so what is he bringing to the table?
Plus I live Wes Clark.

http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/ Type in Kerry.
As we know him. Quite the site.

Clark and maybe Edwards will do all they need to do for Kerry in 04

Iowa

Great analogy. Wonder how many people got it.

If its Gep, we know the deal was done in Iowa. And if thats the case, I'll leave the top spot on my ballot empty.

Though I hoped he would be Dean's Veep :)

Still, I find it amusing to see posts that assume to know the outcome in advance.

Cheers if you're right NI, and cheers anyway if you're not...

And he took a lot of the hype away that Dean was riding on when he entered the race.

In addition, Clark has been very visible lately in defending Kerry on tv.

getting nominated, one could argue, now is the time to undo the damage that has been done to chances of winning in the general election: select the person who would have won.

This is a democracy, right? It's not an oligopoly where the powerful reward favors when they help interfere with democracy.

The night he won Virginia and Tennesse was the moment John Kerry became the nominee. At that moment, Wes Clark was still in the race. The implosion of Howard Dean and a steady, well paced campaign won Kerry the nomination.

...hanging on after not doing well in NH, and after not doing as well in OK as he thought he'd do put him in the spoiler role for Edwards.

Now, I happen to think that you deal with the landscape that you're given. I don't believe that Nader caused Gore to lose.

And I'm totally satisfied that Kerry is the winner and that he should be.

But I do think that if Clark had dropped out when it was clear that he wasn't going anywhere (which was before TN & VA) then people could have focussed on the debate that utlimately evolved: Kerry vs Edwards.

Even if Edwards hadn't won that debate, I think it would have done the eventual winner a world of good to have people focus on things like trade and class and opportunity and Iraq and military experience in a very narrow head-to-head context.

I feel that it was circumstances that led to Kerry's vicotry, rather than people making choices based on an understanding of the real issues, and the candidates' positions on those issues. It was money and vague perceptions that gave us a winner, and not much more.

Clark beat Edwards in both New Hampshire and Oklahoma.

And - until the media hype, Edwards wasn't even a blip on the Tennessee radar screen.

How do I know? I live in Tennessee. :)

And he didn't get what he was looking for.

What you want from a candidate isn't someone how is high in the polls months before the primaries (Dean, and anyone who is a blip BEFORE the media attention).

You want someone whom, once to whom the media turn their attention, rises.

It is just too obvious that, once the media turned their attention to Clark, he went nowhere, and once they turned their attention to Edwards, he went up.

No amount of media was going to turn Dean into a candidate people would vote for when it came down to it. Kerry, on the other hand, was held back by the media for months, but when people were forced to think about him by having to actually cast their vote, he went up.

So, who are the candidates who can win GEs and who are the ones who can't?

I never said Edwards would have won. The thing Clark did was make it end quicker and Kerry had to spend less money on the process, that in the end, would have had Kerry on top of the moutain either way.

Reward the guy who helped protect you from having to be compared straight up with your best competion?

Hmm.

Why not get your best competition on the ticket with you?

Would John Kerry be Edward's VP????? the answer is...

HELL NO

Edwards wouldn't want a Liberal from MA on his ticket, that would HURT him and while it's not fair to Edwards to lump him in the south sterotype, he would more than likely caved into it and we wouldn't have any NE'sterner on the ticket, because we "feared" that we wouldn't compete in the south...

you know what %&#(! the south.
Florida isn't theirs, bank on it. And we will win Arkansa, and we don't need anything else. And we have a shot at MO.

so, if that's your only point, you're probably wrong.

or that he would consider it? Big difference.

consider him if he wouldn't pick him?

Did you see the debate?

Tennessee and Louisiana are both swing states, along with Arkansas.
Once the neo-cons are out of the picture (not voting for Edwards, that is), then Clark can carry at least two of those states for Kerry and that's all Kerry needs.

Once the media actually goes after Edwards' record, which they will do if he gets the VP nod, then it's all down hill for him in the South. His being the only Democrat to vote against military spending prior to 9/11 will be the deathnail for him in the Southern swing states.

of Haliburton, Becthel, etc.

It's going to be hard to convince people that was bad, and it's going to be hard to convince people Edwards isn't strong on defence and national security after everything else he has done as a Senator.

Furthermore, one thing recent political history (and that study by the Stanford and Texas professors) shows is that the more you know about Edwards, the more you like him.

I do not see anything going down hill for him.

a couple times.

but I see where you thought I might have implied that Edwards would have won, but I meant he "might" have won, BUT I thought it was unlikely, but we will never know and that's because of Clark.

for "HELPING" john kerry to avoid a democratic competition between him and Edwards.

You are saying that Clark had no chance, but his staying in helped Kerry becauase it made it harder for Edwards to compete.

I for one think that once you're having any influence on the outcome but have no chance of winning, the noble thing to do is to step aside and allow the remaining candidates get their ideas out so that the best rise to the top.

I wasn't impressed when Mosley-Braun stuck around to get a few zingers in on Dean's behalf only to announce that she had already struck a deal with Dean before that debate.

If Dean has something to say on stage, he shouldn't get his time and then Mosley-Braun's time to say it, and he should be responsible for what he says too.

And if you really think that Edwards was such a threat and that Kerry needed help against him, then you're probably making a good argument that Edwards should be VP. If Kerry didn't need any help against Clark, what's Clark bringing to the ticket that Kerry doesn't already have?

You DO say that you think there was a chance Kerry would have lost without Clark staying in. So that's a lot of help.

And since you posted that last night, you can't edit it.

So where do yo stand today?

DTH

Clark himself said he entered the race because he believed we needed someone like Kerry - but Kerry wasn't doing well. Clark also said he knew when Kerry won Iowa that his (Clark's) campaign was essentially over.

If Kerry had not won Iowa, Clark had a very real chance of winning NH. Then things would have been very different.

Having said that, Clark legitimately had the right to stay in the race -- you make it sound like he was a spoiler. He was doing as well as Edwards certainly. Clark had his sites on Tennessee - and again, when he didn't win decisively there he got out. If Clark had won a southern state decisively -- i.e. TN - that would have turned the direction of the primary. Clark winning TN would have had far more effect on the primary than Edwards winning SC. To me, Clark stepped out at exactly the right time = not too early, not too late.

Edwards stayed on perhaps longer than he should have --but again, his choice to make.

WTF??

LOL j/k scared ya, didn't I?

Get over it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What are you saying....didn't quite understand you drift. Can you clarify the meaning of your sentence. Thank you.

As a newbie here, perhaps you should spend more time learning about issues, & making intelligent, reasoned, comments, rather than butting in to EVERY Clark discussion, & insulting him & his supporters.

16?
You probably think Edwards is your Ken doll.

I'll get popped for this post - but YOU should be popped for every post you've made.

Maybe you should go out to the Muslim community in your neck of the woods and find out EXACTLY what THEY think of your Edwards? Maybe you should ask a few of his constituents on the western side of the state - they don't like him, either. He wouldn't even WIN his Senate seat back.

Please, stop your jabberwalling until you can come up with something a little more substantial than made-up curse words.

I just can't see that ... :shrug:

Kerry won the nom in Iowa -- it changed the race for everybody. The timing of Clark's dropping out had to do with two things as I see it: 1) he knew it was over; and 2) to defuse the Drudge intern smear on Kerry. Edwards had no chance over Kerry ever, because as much as people care about domestic issues, when it came time to vote, the national emergency was/is in national security over the economy. Iowa showed the decision made in the voting booth was based on national security and Kerry's traveling vet show made the difference. If Wes had been in Iowa, there would have been a battle of the two, but it didn't happen.