Reply #72: Sorry, but I don't believe that Kerry was the "Best" candidate..... [View All]

I think he could have won....but I don't believe he was the best we had to offer.

The fact that Kerry lost by a "hair" (if that) means that just a slight improvement in just about any area or on any issue would have helped.

I do believe that Wes Clark would have achieved the difference needed by having more Republicans and Independents vote for him. He was not a senator...he was a General during wartime running against an “incompetent”. To begin, Clark's grassroots was more energized than any Kerry grassroots (which was small and didn't multiply until after the primary). In addition, we would have ran a more national campaign...and possibly would have fared better in the Senate and the House races. Baucus, Breaux, Lincoln and Prior, all had endorsed Clark….but were more skeptical of Kerry. Those like the Oklahoma Democratic candidate for senator, Chandler, would have fared better with Clark on the ticket.

The whole 9/11 strong resolute leader story for Bush would not have been as effective against Clark...who is perceived as a strong leader himself...and had more current and intense National Security and Foreign policy credentials than Kerry had. The percentages leads that Bush enjoyed on the issues of Terrorism and the War on Iraq would not have been as high with Clark on top of the ticket. The convention would not have been about Vietnam redux....it would have been about 9/11 and what Bush did wrong (that was Clark's platform to some degree...after all), and about the economy. Voters hungering for a change would have given Clark more benefit of the doubt as opposed to an "established partisan" a la Kerry.

The fact that whatever the Republicans had in store for Clark...most was thrown at him during the primaries. We must remember that the GOP tried very hard to make Clark disappear during the primaries....and more or less succeeded(because of the nature of Democrats during a primary)....but had a mighty hard time of it.

I don't think that the GOP and the MSM figured that Clark could even win a primary...which he did...and come in second in quite a few (3 on mini Tuesday)...because they had written his epitaph back in November of 2003. The video praising Bush, the out of context words taking from his '02 testimony, the Waco tenious link (disproved during the primary), the Shelton (j'accuse) smear which was recanted in Dec '03 due to Milsovic and the Hague trial, and the Jacko Jackson "he would have started WWIII" all were a "NO GO", i.e., it did not make Clark go away. His Republican votes would not have harmed him (Reagan Dems)....and the Extreme Left...just as they did for Kerry would have stayed on board (MM did endorse Clark). Even with the press' attempts to fry Clark during the debates for the Michael Moore deserter comments would have helped Clark more than they did Kerry (Clark did not protest after Vietnam...and his Vietnam wounds were more serious...his medals the same ones as those earned by Kerry).

It is remarkable that even with no press covering him at all....Clark still managed to keep on coming.

I think that Clark's southern roots, his charisma, his superior NS/FP experience vis-a-vis Kerry, his no votes to twist, his outsider status, his sincerity (Kerry did at time seem jaded), (even his wife Gert and Lefty son)would have left Republicans hard pressed for material and would have only had his words to twist.....which are easier to untwist and prove false than an entire "hero" saga dating back from 35 years ago to be proven or disproven.

If Clark would have had the entire Dem party behind him....as Kerry did, the 527 and the millions.....I just do think that Clark would have gotten the better of the small margin that Kerry was unable to pull off.