I don't like it but, a Clark / Kerry ticket blows w out of the whitehouse

I want to win this time and this ticket wins.
And if the truth be told no one will be able to get the things done that need to be done.
We need more that the top spot. We need more that the house and senate.
WE NEED THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE.
We just might have a chance. w is losing support on all sides.

Seems a Clark/Dean or Clark/Kerry ticket would instantly be tough to beat. That's way down the line though. Interestingly, Clark and Dean have about the same stance on the Iraq war (I believe) but I have a hard time believing the media would try to paint Clark as some wild-eyed liberal.

Clark can easily win, but he'll need a strong economic progressive to do so. Let's say someone like Kucinich or Gephardt who actually voted AGAINST Nafta and the rest of the corporate trade agreements. Clark as front man, who can win independents and even some Republicans, and a strong progressive to solidify the base. That's a winning ticket.

but if you want to match the General with a true populist who doesn't hurt the ticket than Gephardt's your man.

Also, Gephardt knows his way around Capitol Hill. He'd make a nice addition....


The south and the midwest...


Sounds good....

As long as Clark isn't a right-winger on jobs, I think that would be a great ticket, and beat Bush easily. I'm not sure I buy Kucinich "damaging" the ticket - they will same the same things about Gephardt, and lie as usual. But I'm flexible :)

If we are basing votes based on politcal experience and national security, Gore would of swept Bush out of the White House.

He's Head and Should above Chimpy but his stint as an army journalist doesn't put up there with Napolean.

but in terms of national security he was alot more qualified the Bush because he voted on issues as a congressman, Senator, and he was a Vice President for 8 years. Bush was a Governor for 6 years and really had no national security experience.


But the point I am trying to make, based on the qualifactions of a Clark/Kerry ticket, they would sweep Bush out of the WH. But as seen in the 2000 election, it takes alot more to win then qualifactions. Will they energize the young and first time voters? How will that ticket do with Anti-Iraq war activists? Far left voters? etc.

EDIT:Don't forget Bill Clinton beating George Bush I, a Decorated World War II Veteran.

Who choose that step as an act of conscience. Not saying that Bush went AWOL as a matter of consicence, but is tiring to read assumption that thos of us who have not served are somehow less manly...*Sigh*

the Viet Nam war and most of our contemporary politicians including George Bush and Bill Clinton failed.

The two honorable positions are serving when you are drafted

or

becoming a conscientious objector and risking the punishment which incluses imprisonemt like Muhummad Ali.

Many politicians on both sides of the political fence took the third way. The way of the deferment or sitting it out in "realtive" safety in the National Guard.

That being said I don't know if I would have had the courage to serve or to be a conscientious objector.

I guess that's why so many took the third way...

That we cannot win with "civilians"? Or is it that you think these are the two best men, irregardless of military service?

....Kerrey instead of Kerry.

Seriously, I think Kerry is a drag on any ticket. He's just dour and without any attraction for too many people.

Personally, I was proud of Bill Clinton's actions to avoid being in a situation where he had to willingly shoot with an intent to kill. And his campaigns are unequivocal proof that a military candidate is not necessary to win the election. He defeated George I - significantly more of a war hero than many past candidates or Presidents.

Remember - George McGovern was a significantly decorated war hero as well.

It is only meaningful when Repubs have served in the military. At least, that seems to be case from a recent historical standpoint. John Kerry's military service will only be significant because he threw his medals over the WH fence...that's just the way it is so I don't think we should obsess too much about whether we have a military guy or not on the ticket.

Military service records don't excite me or a significant number on the Left.

...so much as the message--a clear critique of Bush's foreign policy, paired with a concrete alternative, with the defense experience to back up its soundness--that excites people on the left.

Although I have also heard more than a few people on the left who like the idea of putting up "the general against the deserter"--Micheal Moore, for example...

That's the part I don't get. Why do you take the speeches so seriously? Dean supported every war until he was running for president.

on PT-109. He even got a movie where Cliff Robetson played him.

I think Max Cleland*, Bob Kerrrey, and John Kerry benefitted politically from their military experience.







*I know Max lost. I called his office the day after the election and said he was one of my heroes. Plus, folks say Max was the only Dem that could hold that seat. We'll see what happens when Zell Miller retires.

If he would have actively opposed the war and sought conscientious objector status like Muhummad Ali and risked imprisonment he would have certainly been deserving of our props.


That being said...


If Clinton was a pure conscientious objector like Ali he would have never been elceted president.

First off, I don't see Kerry taking the #2 slot.
Secondly, if Kerry gives up his Senate seat, his replacement is named by a repuke governor in Massachusetts.

__Bush Re-Elect Drops to 42%-47% - Tied with Unnamed Dem

"A Zogby poll released today shows that when asked if George Bush deserves re-election, only 46% of Americans said yes and a narrow majority, 47%, said it is time for someone new. The poll, with a margin of error of +/- 3%, on a generic 2004 ballot between Bush and a Democratic candidate, Bush received 47% of support, and a Democratic candidate received 44%, putting the Bush and a Democratic candidate in a statistical dead heat still a year before the Democratic candidate is selected. The second poll, released yesterday by Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and published in National Journal's Hotline showed should the 2004 election be held today, those planning to reelect Bush had dropped to 42%."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5528

I didn't see that on FAUX ...must have missed it...
<sarcasm off>

www.zogby.com

both campaigns have large grass root supporters.

would be a better ticket. Clark and Kerry are both strong on national security and Kerry would be strong on domestic issues.