What Edwards/Clark VP choice boils down to

Clark--Could shore up Kerry on Iraq and provide a piercing critique of the current administration's failures.

Edwards--Could shore up Kerry among those who view Kerry as too aloof, especially blue collar trade issues.

Defense appeal vs economic appeal. Polls keep flipping back and forth on what the bigger issue will be.

I like them both and I'm greedy and I want them both.

My solution?

Edwards for VP. Announced at the end of this month. He's a better campaigner than Clark (better campaigner than anybody).

At the convention roll out an entire foreign policy team. Headed by Clark and Richard Holbrooke. Hasn't been done before, but these are unusual times and you can't be waiting for a transition period. Have to be ready to hit the ground when you win.

before you can govern.

Kerry/Edwards 04. And beyond...

I think Kerry will seal his fate as a loser to Bush if he screws around the picks Gephardt. I understand the regional assumption implicit in that idea...the Midwest is in play and Gephardt is a political icon in the Midwest.

Unfortunately as we all saw in Iowa, Gephardt couldn't even turn out a winning campaign in his own backyard. If he couldn't do it then versus other Democrats, how is he going to help versus the Bush/Cheney Selection Machine?

Besides that damning tidbit, I can't imagine a more droll and colorless rhetorical and charismatic combination than Kerry and Gephardt.

I like Clark a lot, but I hope Kerry and his folks will do the sensible thing and pick Edwards. And not because he is somehow going to mythically deliver the South, because he won't. Pick him because he's charismatic in any part of the country and because he offers a great policy and personality compliment to Kerry.

Edwards could sway some of those voters who look for optimism and/or a "good ole boy" persona in a candidate. There are a lot of them. Certainly Bush has lost a lot on these qualities since he began relying on the fear factor for everything. And Cheney has none of either.

Clark could talk defense policy and military options with real credibility. With two decorated combat veterans on the ticket, it'd be hard to see how two chickenhawks can match it. Although there'll doubtless be a lot of sheepies who think Smirk and Sneer's little boy fantasies of playing war still make sense.

The question I'm not sure about: Which of them would be the best attack dog to counter Cheney's lies and insults? Again, you can make a good case for either: Clark's rational and smooth answers to attacks, that we saw so well during the primary campaign. Or Edwards' experience as an aggressive and successful trial lawyer.

Forget about taking the Midwest with Gephardt or Bayh. I spent most of my life there, and IMO it wouldn't make all that much difference with either of them as VP candidate.

Dick Gephardt. Why? he admires his political experience and years of leadership in the House. Second, he will think Gep is the only one who can deliver a swing state--Missouri. I think that Kerry will come down on the side that Edwards will not deliver NC and Clark will not deliver Arkansas.

Would I be happy with Gep? NO!! but I'll bet that is who he will choose.

Kerry campaign read my lips please

Is that it?

Here is the pro-list for Wes Clark as VP....

Had strong polls numbers nationally and in many states (southwest & the south) until the media tried smearing him....They then gave up and started ignoring him instead....

Southern and comes from a battleground state

Applied and tested National Security credentials

Name recognition nationally and internationally

attractive in a masculine manner with humble star magnetism

Articulate

attack pitbull that doesn't take any shit

attracts both the left and the right and the middle

shores up Veteran vote

shores up Security Mom vote (formally Soccer moms)

Shores up Nascar Dad votes (it's the machismo of a General on the ticket appeal)

was Nato commander who won a war w/t no casualties and is a genuine 4 star

Negotiated peace treaty

Will better Muslim relations (saved 1.4 million Albanian Muslims)
was endorsed by the Arab's largest magazine

Knows the pentagon inside out....Dick Cheney and knows where the bodies are buried

Knows the State Department.....has Security clearance

Self made man from humble roots

38 years of public service with no votes to dig up

Married 36 years to same woman.

Son served in Armed services as well

has voted Republican in the past (this is now an advantage)

has a strong "stand-alone" organization--Internet and on the ground
Stellar fundraiser

Rhode scholar = intelligence

Genuine War hero

Masters in Economics

Has Commander in Chief experience/Executive

Soros liked him....Buffet donated to him....Hollywood loves him

He was the second choice of many...and Many wanted him as Dean's VP

was against the Iraq war and was very prophetic in it's outcome

knows those who work in Washington on both sides of the aisle

not typical politician....not an insider

Ultimate patriot

Can speak on faith

was on debate team at West point.....and when participating in a REAL debate, will wipe the floor with Cheney.

Is a positive selfless man who is energetic, in excellent health
Is not a "I, I, I" man -

The Right Wing is scared of him

Understands what PNAC represents and is not afraid to talk about it.

Originated some of the best lines of the campaign...including, Going Toe to toe with Bush....They will not take this flag away from this party....Bush did not do all that he could do before 9/11....

Is being quoted by Nader and was endorsed by Michael Moore...which shores up those who are supporters of each to do the "right thing".

Was already vetted by the media during the campaign...and vetted by a Republican Congress as recently as 1997.

Want's Bush out really, really, really badly....

This ain't the time to trust the media who sold many on Edwards and will SELL HIM OUT in a media minute!

Clark is the only one that will shore up Kerry's weak National Security flank and define the Kerry ticket as the Heavy Medal War Hero ticket to pit against the Wartime incumbent president and his mighty VP, the War Zeros!

Clark is articulate, Rhode Scholar scary smart, hard angle Good looking but humble, and a real attack dog....though done in a smooth but profound way. He's an outsider who'll get results. The one who was against the war all along. The one that correctly predicted Iraq exactly as we see it today. The one that put the flood lights on Bush's shortcomings on 9/11 long before the other Clarke spoke out. The one who started the discussion of Bush's war service record. The one who started the ball rolling in saying that dissent is patriotic! The one who first stated that the flag did not belong to the Republicans. The one who correctly linked religious faith to Democratic family values, e.g., Jobs and health care. The one called a Republican throughout the primaries (good for the general election I believe!)

When the Republican party starts talking about not switching horses in the middle of the stream (cause now they've got it right!)....we can say....BUT THE HORSE WE GOT IS WAY MORE EXPERIENCED FOLKS!

We get more Veteran votes, we get more southern vote, we get the Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oaklahoma, Wisconsin and New Mexico vote....We even get tbe majority NASCAR Dad votes plus the Security Mom votes (formerly known as the Soccer Moms)....hell they may be hesitant in voting Kerry....but they ain't gonna turn their backs on a real live 4 star General....As they start realizing that the Bush Machismo is nothing but a myth! They will happily vote for a southern General during these scary times(yes, they are scared....just like us of what Bush will do next...just don't want to admit it! The NASCAR Dads want someone to vote for.......it's all about mano mano imagery and pride for them!

The April Marist poll showed that the issue of National Security tops the concerns of 53% of Americans (the War on Terra (33%) and the Iraq Situation (20%)) while the economy is at 44% http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/PZ040426.htm

"but support from women is not Kerry's biggest problem. Closing the male side of the gender gap is." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4863243 /

The quote above from this article should remind us all of the meme that was being floated in New Hampshire back in January (the one that spurred all of the "sweater stories"....that Wes was not polling as well with women....but was doing extremely well with the male vote).

And the best part is that the Repugs already threw all of their garbage at Clark during the Primaries...

Shelton said, and I quote....when asked about the comments that he made on Wes Clark's character....when called by the Hague Procecutor, during the Misolovic trial back in December....."it's just politics".

You wrote:

"This ain't the time to trust the media who sold many on Edwards and will SELL HIM OUT in a media minute!"

John Edwards earned every vote, every admirer he got during the primaries. Clark supporters seem hellbent on blaming the media for Clark's failures and Edwards' successes. That's not correct, and it's not fair.

John Edwards had his family out on a bus touring Iowa and New Hampshire all summer. He was trekking from town to town, talking to voters listening to voters. His campaign staff assured people he would catch fire, that he was laying the groundwork. But many supporters, including me, grew weary and disillusioned, as Edwards languished at 2,3% - and got absolutely NO media coverage. Even his big day - when he officially kicked off his candidacy - he got completely pre-empted by none other than Wesley Clark (in what I thought was a politically savvy, but morally indefensible move).

Edwards was going nowhere, and Clark got in the race. HUGE coverage - cover of Time and/or Newsweek? All CNN, all the time. I found Clark quite impressive, and argued forcefully on his behalf on this board. I just wanted the best guy to win, and have supported not only Edwards, but Kerry - because I have always liked him and thought him "Presidential", and Clark because I thought he just might be "the one".

But I, and many others didn't see Clark develop much beyond that wonderful resume he brought to the campaign. He just never caught fire. Meantime - John Edwards DID. He went out before crowds and talked his heart out. he listened, he sharpened his message. The crowds grew and grew and more and more voters started giving JRE a second look. He won hearts and votes and had everything going for him except time.

I am writing this long post because I am weary of defending JRE against a host of disgraceful slanders - just because some people don't like him, and many of them are Clark supporters who clearly feel threatened by/ jealous of John Edwards. Yes, it looks as though Edwards has a strong shot at getting named VEEP. Time will tell. But till then, this nastiness needs to stop.

What you wrote earlier was a small slight in comparison to some of the others I am sure you have read on the board. But I see you as a leader of the Clark supporters, and I hope you will prevail upon them to be fair.

John Edwards is a good Democrat who will fight to win the White House and seats in Congress - whether he is the VEEP or not. I'm sure Wes Clark will do the same. We are, after all, on the same team.

Just read through the threads about Edwards. Is this vitriol from non-supporters necessary? Then read the threads about Clark. There is very little denigration of Clark - and I am sure only a tiny percentage of it - if any - comes from Edwards supporters.

Yes, we have what we perceive at a heated horse race right now. But Kerry will make a good decision. And we will all work for that ticket. Till then, let's at least be civil - and debate and discuss in a manner both our candidates would be proud of.

This very thread started with a slam on Clark's campaign skills. Sorry, but we don't buy it. Clark accomplished more in a short time than anyone else in the race. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, he WAS cut out by the media and that has been documented, by independent sources who counted total coverage and positive vs negative presentation. If Edwards was such a stellar campaigner, he should have swept out of Iowa and kicked Clark's butt around the country. Lord knows he'd been laying the groundwork much longer. But instead he finished behind Clark in five of the next eight contests. How do you explain that inability to exploit the Iowa momentum? For a "great campaigner" that is?

If Edwards fans wouldn't keep denigrating Clark's campaign skills, I'm sure we'd be much less hostile. Just because the media keeps repeating that "not ready for prime time" meme doesn't mean it's true. In fact, it sort of proves what we've been saying.

Edited to add: See note #16

Look I just came from a thread where a Clark supporter called Edwards a Bible thumper.

The harshest thing Edwards supporters - and many other Dems have said about Clark is that he was an inexperienced campaigner. That is a view held by MANY Democrats, many Clark supporters - and obviously many voters.

That is not a personal attack, or an attack on his character, as Edwards supporters have to suffer from Clark supporters. Read the threads. Compare.

More open minds around here might mitigate some of the vitriol.

Your subject asked Frenchie to "lay off Edwards." That sounds like blame to me. In the context of the original poster's argument that Edwards should be VP by virtue of his superior campaign skills. And the subtext that Clark's skills are inadequate--don't tell me you haven't seen that repeated by Edwards supporters.

Well, sorry, I don't buy it, for all the reasons I gave. None of which you addressed.

In case you missed it, see message #16 below.

called Gen. Wesley Clark a "boring old man."

You can't have it both ways.

What is this grade school? The goal is to win this election. The media *hores and Bush supporters have been singing the praises of Edwards because:

1. His channeling of an unborn child. (He either lied to a jury in his closing arguments or is another Democratic kook.) "In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl."

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

2. Who is Rabin? (Just what we need, someone who makes Bush look smart).

3. His illegal campaign contributions.

4. He's a phony populist. (A Populist Make-Over Meet John Edwards, the Corporate Man, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm
How much pro bono work has Edwards done? Zero.


If the goal is to make the Democratic ticket a joke (and the Democratic party in the process), then I guess Edwards is the man.

Just say nice things about your guy, if you think he's so wonderful.

What do you think Wes Clark would think about his supporters flinging this vile bullshit about Edwards? I wish he could see this shit - and share his reaction.

"This ain't the time to trust the media who sold many on Edwards and will SELL HIM OUT in a media minute!"

--- It's the media that "elected" Edwards and I am damn suspicious
of those fuckers.

longer than Clark, he didn't praise Bush & Co. at a Republican fundraiser in 2001, and he had been legally elected to a political post prior to running for Prez.

Edwards is more telegenic than Clark. The problem with that is that Edwards is more telegenic than Kerry. Would Edwards overshadow Kerry?

on your planet.

4 Star General vs Trial Attorney

We are at war....repeat...we are at war...repeat...we are at war...

we are at war....repeat...we are at war...repeat...we are at war...

we are at war....repeat...we are at war...repeat...we are at war...

War on terror....War on Terror....War on Terror....War on terror.....
green alert.....yellow alert...orange alert....red alert.....
homeland security....national security.....war in Iraq....wartime prez...
War on terror....War on Terror....War on Terror....War on terror.....
green alert.....yellow alert...orange alert....red alert.....
homeland security....national security.....war in Iraq....wartime prez...
War on terror....War on Terror....War on Terror....War on terror.....
green alert.....yellow alert...orange alert....red alert.....
homeland security....national security.....war in Iraq....wartime prez...

Calling all Security moms......Do you want Edwards? Didn't think so.

Calling all Nascar Dads.....Do you want Pretty Edwards Personal injury attorney....Nope? Didn't think so.

Veterans who don't like Kerry or Bush....want Edwards? Don't kick my ass, I'm Sorry I asked!

an appealing "Background".

A New England Liberal and a Trial Lawyer that made millions in litigation --- it's kinda easy to stereotype, no?

He was the first to talk about progressive taxation.

Why did he talk about these things which relate so deeply to the central problem in America today -- the transfer of wealth to the top??

Could it be because his life is more entwined with these issues than any candidate running?

I think that's a great deal to offer.

Edwards talked about some of those issues as well.:)

I'm not sure which candidate "talked" about progressive taxation first.

But I know Clark was the only candidate to actually include progressive taxation as part of his economic platform - the 5-point tax spike on millionaires (above and beyond "rolling back" the tax cuts).

way the tax code burdens people who work for a living, rather than people who get income from stock options, dividends, and other sources of unearned income, then I have to wonder if you were paying much attention to Edwards.

Edwards talked a good game, we can all agree on that.

But when it came time to lay out his actual tax plan, progressive taxation was not a part of it.

Clark's tax plan actually WAS progressive. If you didn't know that, then I have to wonder if you were paying much attention :hi:

source of income -- stock sales from his "consulting" business.

That's because Edwards cared about HOW you make money in addition to how MUCH you make.

Clark only cared about how much you make, and would have left his cap gains taxed at a lower rate.

since most of his income now is investment income (even though the invested money was originally earned income taxed at rates higher than we tax anything other than inherited income inherited from someone super rich who didn't consult an attorney on how to form a trust).

So Edwards was willing to pay more in taxes so that the rest of America would work, whereas Clark was willing to give himself his first 50K of income tax free, but wasn't willing to raise his taxes at all (? - I can't remember what his plan wanted to do to income over 50K) or at least as much as Edwards's (or even Lieberman's) tax plans would have taxed him.

"That's because Edwards cared about HOW you make money in addition to how MUCH you make."

I don't dispute that Edwards went after capital gains.

But he didn't increase the tax rate for the wealthiest based on earned income. And that's a key component of progressive taxation.

You earn more, you should pay a higher rate.

I'm not saying Edwards' plan was bad - I'm just saying it would've been a lot more impressive, and progressive, had he actually included a rate hike on earned income.

But this discussion is moot, really.

I don't think the Kerry campaign will be selecting a VP based on his tax plan :hi:

(his rescinded the rate reduction Bush gave them).

And by creating the second, higher rate for cap gains over 300K he was REALLY making the good more progressive.

Not only is it DE FACTO progressive to have two tiers for cap gains (as you note), it is DE JURE progressive, since cap gains is the way most rich people make most of their income.

Even if the COULD take more in earned income, they figure out a way to take it as cap gains (eg, stock options) to avoid the higher earned income rates.

The higher tier for cap gains would have really shifted the tax burdens back to a way that would create a more productive economy.

(Why do people argue so passionately without knowing basic facts, like that Edwards would have raised the rates on earned income over 200k?)

We don't need a VP that looks good, we need a VP that makes Kerry look good.

Does Edwards make Kerry look good? I don't think so, if anything he makes Kerry look even more aloof. Those who are attracted to Edwards won't feel any reason to vote for Kerry, they'll just be reminded they'd rather be voting for someone else. Also, Edwards is the 'political' choice, which makes Kerry look like someone who only cares about winning and power, not what is best for the country.

Clark, however, emphasizes Kerry's strengths as a veteran and potential war-time president. No one defends Kerry stronger than Clark. Also, picking the VP is Kerry's first presidential decision. Clark is the 'serious' choice, proving Kerry puts country first.

Heavy Metal, all the way.

That's the Heavy Medal ticket!

A Ticket with grown ups that can take over from the current inept president with the National Security issue.

Cute ain't gonna get it....but if it's a factor, I think that Clark has the mano mano machismo appeal needed to gain the male vote...which is a problem for Kerry right now...as we speak!

"but support from women is not Kerry's biggest problem. Closing the male side of the gender gap is." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4863243 /

The quote above from this article should remind us all of the meme that was being floated in New Hampshire back in January (the one that spurred all of the "sweater stories"....that Wes was not polling as well with women....but was doing extremely well with the male vote).

:yourock:

EXCEPT, I think it should be done SOONER!

Roll out Edwards as VP, say, in 2 weeks.

Then wait a couple weeks for the buzz to subside, then roll out a heavy hitting foreign policy "shadow cabinet," including Clark, Holbrooke, and my fave Clark supporter, Samantha Powers, in June, just in time to deliver some solid criticism of the mess that will inevitably be happening in Iraq. That should be close to adequate to carry the momentum into the nominating convention...

EXCEPT, I think it should be done SOONER!

Roll out Edwards as VP, say, in 2 weeks.

Then wait a couple weeks for the buzz to subside, then roll out a heavy hitting foreign policy "shadow cabinet," including Clark, Holbrooke, and my fave Clark supporter, Samantha Powers, in June, just in time to deliver some solid criticism of the mess that will inevitably be happening in Iraq. That should be close to adequate to carry the momentum into the nominating convention...

your scenario.

I don't like Edwards but I can't deny he is a smooth one.

While Edwards soared, Clark was pretty much DOA when he announced he was skipping Iowa. For all the hoopla, he was never really in the race.

Clark has a ton of support at DU but none nationally, Edwards leads by 30% in pretty much every VP preference poll. He's the better campaigner, he's younger. Clark got no traction with the foreign policy experience in the primaries and I don't think the Vietnam experience and general stuff really helps bolster Kerry. Kerry needs to be balanced out with somebody more vibrant, and that person is John Edwards.

Clark & Edwards each won 1 state, before Kerry sewed things up.

Clark beat Edwards in New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, etc.

In every state where they are both on the ballot, Edwards continues to beat Clark, who barely registers in terms of cast votes. I think it's time you Clark folks got real--- no one but you is excited by wes Clark, and it shows in ever VP poll around.

And as far as no one being excited by Clark, check the Kerry online forum, where Clark is the favorite.

And these are people who were the original Kerry supporters. They want their guy to win, & realize, Wes brings more to the ticket.

So yes, you are obviously unaware. :eyes:

because Kerry has the nomination won, except for some dreamers who do not want to give up their useless quest.

There are many Edwards supporters who are out to undermine Kerry, & I have learned this from the Kerry site.

With Edwards, it is all about Edwards. It is not about getting Kerry elected.

Oh, sorry, I know you can't, because IT'S NOT TRUE.

Dammit, would you guys stop slandering John Edwards?

Say something nice about YOUR guy. Sure you can.

of the them comes from the Edwards supporters, as far as I can tell.

I think that tells you alot about who really wants to win, and I think it's no accident that people who really wanted to win really liked Edwards.

I post at the Kerry on line forum and quite frankly the Clark supporters here are in general much better then there.

There are a couple of people there who go out of their way every day to make a point that Edwards is out for himself and have a long list of other attacks against him.

Attacking another democrat who is out there defending Kerry and fund raising for Kerry, I find to be pointless. I would never attack Clark. He is a fine man, who appeals to a set of people and he's doing everything he can to support Kerry.

There are a few Edwards supporters on the Edwards Blog who have been unable to support Kerry. One of the main one of this position has finally left because of the purpose of One American, which is to get John Kerry elected.

I've been an Edwards supporter since before Iowa and I an assure you that 95% of us are totally behind Kerry. Yes, we believe that Edwards would be a great VP, but we would never undermine Kerry. That is just foolish.

Not quite every VP poll around. LOL! :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=515828&mesg_id=515828

For the record, in case someone hasn't heard, I can enthusiastically support Edwards for VP too. They each bring strengths.

and they're the people who need catering to.

AHEM....


(I'm an Independent who will NOT vote for Kerry if he chooses anyone who does not have foreign policy experience. It's time to take the national security issue away from the GOP. Period. It doesn't have to be Clark: it can be Graham or Biden or Cleland - but it shouldn't be Gephardt or Edwards or that guy from Iowa. I will write in a vote in my VERY SWING STATE... and I HATE ShrubCo.)

If Independents were truly so excited about Clark, I would suggest that he would have done better in the primaries. I happen to LIKE Gen. Clark, and have enormous respecct for him, but I'm not going to have smoke blown up my arse about him having trememndous support from Independents--- the numbers just don't back up that statement. :shrug:

Bill Clinton nailed it then, and it's still correct. People will vote their pocketbooks, so Edwards is the logical choice.

Just watched Newsnight with Aaron Brown; there was 1 story during the hour that was not about Iraq, terror, war, Middle East, etc.

The situation in Iraq is NOT going to improve.

We have kids dying over there every day, & when you are at war, NO story is more important. I am in Hawaii, about as removed as you can be from Iraq, & the economy has not been too great. But the top story is Iraq. We have loads of people from Hawaii in Iraq, & it is front page every day.

You know why the Hawaii economy went down the tubes? 9/11!!! We still have not recovered our tourism economy because of terror.

And for the people who will vote on the economy being a negative, Kerry ALREADY has their votes. The people happy with the economy, will go to Bush.

People are becoming more & more concerned about Iraq. Kerry needs to demonstrate he will handle this better than Bush. Therefore, Clark is the logical choice. And if Kerry does not select Clark, he still needs to choose someone with HEAVY foreign policy/national security credentials. And John Edwards does not fit that requirement.

Kerry already does better than Bush in the polls on the economy. Where he fails is in the national security department.
Plug the hole...
And...after tomorrow's headlines regarding Kerry, I think he'll want to.

It is not 1992 as much as I wish it were. The economy is in the crapper, but the biggest issue right now is the war and the general geopolitical crisis. This is not a figment of the Republicans imagination that can just be wished away. The Repubs created the situation, but we are stuck with it, and have no choice but to seriously address it.

This will be the number one situation that Kerry must deal with, just in order to free up the resources to begin repairing the economy.

According to the polls, it is also the most important issue in the mind of the electorate, and for some insane reason, they believe that Bush is better equipped to deal with it. As much as we may wish it, Edwards is simply not equipped to change that equation.

Also I don't think that even Clinton thinks he would have won had the present day circumstances been prevailing in 1992.

Clinton running in 2004 would pick Clark for VP. Take that to the bank.

This should come after the election, First it is time consuming and the campaign has better things to spend its time on. Second, the foreign policy team might distract from the campaign message.

Then THIS BLUE COLLAR, SOUTHERN voter will write in Wes Clark...

don't make assumptions.

Do we beat the Republicans at their own game (national security)?
Or do we lob someone who doesn't shore up what Kerry's already ahead of Bush on in the polls (the economy)?

For the LAST TIME:
The MEDIA DID advance Edwards - Clark beat Edwards in more states up until Clark dropped out, yet it was Edwards who got all the press. Look it up.
Clark also beat Edwards in every closed primary state. In open primary state where neo-cons could vote in the Democratic primaries (the South), Edwards won - with polling indicating that his alleged supporters were "enthusiastic" or "very supportive" of the Bush Administration. Figure that one out - it's not rocket scientistry.
Clark was wobbly at first, but he was much improved after his voice rest - he just never got credit for it.
I'm sorry - I simply don't see how repeating "son of a mill worker" over and over and over and over is "good" campaigning.
And, if you don't think Clark talked about class and poverty, then you weren't listening.

I don't understand all the urgency to select a VP. In fact, I advocate waiting as long as possible. My reasoning is simple; this is going to be a close race and tilting even one state over into our column could make the difference between winning and losing in November. Let's continue to keep an eye on the battleground states and hold off pulling the trigger as long as possible.

A month is an eternity in politics and the political landscape can change on a dime.

Clark will not be VP. If that fact loses us your vote, well - that's your decision - but it wouldn't be a wise one.

Edwards is far and away the best choice from an electoral point of view (well maybe McCain would be better but that wont happen)... anyway the idea of a foreign policy team to "do the TV networks" with Clark and Holbrooke is excellent very very good idea... Holbrooke would be great and Clark (who was improving in the primaries) would get better and would be an authoritative voice to have supporting Kerry on defence... the two of these should really go into the ad i suggested that Kerry run on defence...hum...but Clark would not be a good pick for VP, in fact he would be very bad, Edwards however has the potential to really help Kerry win this thing!

are not backed up by anything.

"but Clark would not be a good pick for VP, in fact he would be very bad, Edwards however has the potential to really help Kerry win this thing!"

Your statement quoted above has no substance or weight to it. It's just you saying it....which doesn't make it so.

If you want to add some cognitive reasoning to it, point to some facts, maybe someone other than an "Edwards for VP supporter" will be able agree with the point that you are trying to make.

arguments.

Hope Kerry's campaign, not just Mike, reads your post. :hi:

They BOTH have their plusses and minuses...I'd take either on in a heartbeat. I think BOTH of them have a place in a *Kerry* administration.

I saw Edwards in Portsmouth, and he is a dynamic crowd pleaser, he's very articulate. JRE is just very likable, it was evident in NH.

I worked my ass off for Clark from Sept.-Jan., met him personally countless times. He's solid, smart and he listens. Wes would be fabulous too. (So he's not a career politician, he made some stumbles out of the gate.)

Clark has the gravitas, JRE has the dynamism. Just my .02 cents.

Thank you!!!

I think Edwards could be a better campaigner.

But Clark could deliver Arkansas (which is currently tied 45-45). And Clark could motivate the veteran vote (which could be big this election)

I'm leaning Clark, but I'd be delighted with either.