Rank the three smartest Democratic candidates

For fun: Who are the three smartest candidates running for the Democratic nomination (in order)? No negative attacks, just ranking and possible explanation. And by "smart" I don't mean wit or cleverness or glibness or even mastery of political minutiae: I mean sheer intelligence and brainpower. (Whatever that means!)

Here's my list:

(1) Clark
(2) Dean
(3) Kerry

Clark is brilliant. He's the only one with a historian's mind, who can go through an assemblage of facts--the Iraq war, the PNAC ascendancy, the UN--and pick apart the underlying trends and pressures driving events. He is very good at coming up with concise summaries of things, but unfortunately can let his intellectual integrity trump what needs doing politically (witness his foolish speculating on whether he would have voted for the IWR; I think he's learned that ideas can be maligned by the dishonest)

Dean is a doctor. He's obviously smart as a tack, with quick responses, but knows how to make the right tactical moves in his campaign (it's not all Trippi)--and has a keen sense of the political moment within the Democratic party. I'm not sure he can transfer this well to the general, but that's a whole 'nother tired thread entirely. I'd imagine this guy would be the first in the class to finish the test, and would get an A-; I see Clark taking 50% more time and having his test framed by the teacher.

Kerry I'm tempted to rank with Dean. I know people call him longwinded, but I suspect that's the soundbyte mentality bitching. Hear him expound for a few minutes and you get a hint of that deep knowledge and analysis that Clinton displays virtually on command. It seems a different kind of mind that Dean: Dean is almost more of an old-fashioned can-do practical, politcally wise Yankee, where Kerry is the more very sober, very wise statesman, who thinks of needful things, with all the footnotes.

This is all speculating, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.

(PS Graham would be here had he not dropped out)

Because his politics are good or because he has the best mind?

Dennis Kucinich is the epitome of the politico who, pardon the cliché, "Thinks out of the box." It takes a good mind to do that - he would definitely be in the top 3.

Kucinich just doesn't sound that smart. His message might be ahead of its time, but the messenger really doesn't strike me as much smarter than his competitors. Any reasonably intelligent person who reads the Nation could give the same answers...

But that's my biased, probably too negative opinion.

From the Oct 27 issue of The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031027&s=taibbi):

But here is Kucinich in a crowd full of 19-year-olds, explaining the intricacies of our militarized system of government and inviting his audience to join in a movement whose roots date back to Thoreau and Emerson and Gandhi. He outlines a revolutionary plan, centered in his creation of a Department of Peace, that would "make nonviolence an organizing principle of society." He quotes from Jung, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Thomas Berry, Morris Berman. Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate whose speeches need to be annotated.

Will read. Perhaps I misjudged the Rep from Ohio.

He is well read and versed on the issues, but the heart has it's own intelligence and Kucinich has that in spades.

Well everyone knows Kucinich has the biggest heart Dover and that could be why some think him unelectable. I believe it was Socrates who said I knew I was wise when I realized I wasnt. The thing about Kucinich is not that hes brain smart and I bet he is too but he is very smart in the heart, he talked about the human cost of this war, and the many who would die, I dont know if anyone else did but to my knowledge Kucinich had not only that this war was illegal that it was wrong too,

is confused with weakness. It's quite the opposite, but not in a masculine culture where might makes right, and Arnold is electable.

I do think there are subtle signs this is changing. And if someone like Kucinich can run and have so many supporters...that's a good sign change is happening.

I value wisdom in leadership much more highly than intellectualism.

There are plenty of bright GOPers with degrees from Harvard, etc. Doesn't make the man or give them wisdom.

Yes Kucinich has more support than most think he does. I really gotta urge my dad to put that Kucinich sign on a tree at my Nana's house so people can see it as they go by. Heart wisdom or whatever one will call it is a beautiful thing, I think RFK had it and Wellstone and maybe FDR too. Dennis is a small man with a big heart.

identified by Bloom in his taxonomy: the ability to see relationships, pull things together, and synthesise a new insight. What we usually call 'wisdom'.

(Most smart people have the second-highest-order ability: the ability to analyse, find seams, and pick things apart. What we usually see as 'intelligence'.)

One of the things that happens as we age is that our brains seem to reorganise, somehow. We start losing the ability to remember facts (the infamous 'senior moments'), but in exchange we start seeing relationships that were invisible before. Interestingly, many languages have some catchphrase that identifies a person who's 'wise beyond their years', but I can't think of any that have one for someone who's less-wise.

I think that Dennis's Peace Department comes out of that ability to synthesise new insights (and that his defence of Muny Light came from the same place). And I'd bet that we can predict with some accuracy a DUer's age from knowing how s/he views the Peace Department. We'd get people like John and Alex completely wrong, of course, but I'm sure we'd get oh, maybe .75 confidence -- much better than random, anyhow.

... I agree with your ranking.

We want our politicians to be just smart enough, but no smarter. ;) ;)

In no particular order (other than alphabetical), I think Clark, Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, and Mosely-Braun are all rather brilliant. The others, while smart, don't seem to me to be as sharp as they could be.

.

That's mine.

Not impressed with him from the debates.

1. Kerry - this guy is smart, maybe too smart, his speeches need to be toned down from all the long words and too many complex concepts he uses so he can better appeal to the average joe.

2. Edwards - I know a surprise. But this guy was a Perry Mason stature lawyer, and his debate answers have been very impressive. He is sharp as a whip.

3.Kucinich - quite intelligent, a man ahead of his time with his ideas.

Clark

Dean

Edwards (I like him)

3.Kucinich - quite intelligent, a man ahead of his time with his ideas.

Kucinich is not "ahead" of his time. The Dem Party used to be a progressive party at one time. Dennis is trying to steer it back to the path it once occupied. Somehow the party got derailed...I think it was disco that did it. }(

Seriously, the Dem leadership long ago stopped representing what the Dem Party once stood for. Everyone got complacent, rich, and lazy.

Dennis is trying to correct the denegration of the true Dem doctrine.

Having said that, Dennis is obviously head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to intelligence. He wasn't snookered into the IWR or the Patriot Act. Saw the PNAC and the writing on the wall. Tops hands down! :)

I think that Clark and Kerry are probably the smartest, all of the others haven't really shown that they are quite at their level. Or that they are at all smarter or dumber than each other

Edwards is probably the best civil lawyer in NC history, he's brilliant in respect to persuading people in a one on one setting.

But I'm not sure he'd be great on jeopardy or anything. He was a jock in highschool and went to public college. One wouldn't expect him to be on the same level as a rhodes scholar

(so I hear), and he got a Federal Clerkship after law school, which is a sign that he was definitely smart. Fed Clerkships are the most competitve thing to do -- Supreme Ct clerkships are for the smartest laws students graduating every year, and then you do down to appeal courts and fed trial ct. I think Edwards was a Fed trial Ct clerk which is great for a kid out of UNC in the 70s. (I think his wife was also a fed ct clerk.)

Actually, after the Supreme Ct, the next smartest law graduates go to the fed trial courts in Hawaii and St. Thomas, VI. If you know anyone who clerked there, you know they were the smarted lawyers in the country after the ones clerking for SCt judges.

as those going to the top private schools. Check out the stats. The difference in where smart people go is largely a function of money and non-ability factors.

prestigious colleges. However, they attended UNC more recently. In the 70s I think it might not have been as competitive, wealthy and prestigious as it became in the late 80s and is today.

While I like Edwards and do think he's very intelligent, please do not use law school or clerkships as indicators of intelligence. As a lawyer myself, I can tell you that is certainly NOT the case. And I graduated with honors and had the opportunity to clerk for a federal judge, so this is not sour grapes from me.

But law school in and of itself can not be used as a marker for intelligence. (Just as I think Dean is smart, but not just because he graduated from med school).

they wouldn't be politicians.

... just look at Lincoln, Jefferson, and Churchill.

My order: Kerry, Clark, Edwards, and Kucinich

BTW if you're so smart what are you doing wasting your time on a political board? :shrug:

Dean
Edwards
Carol Moseley-Braun

I know Clark has the "Rhodes Scholar" label, but I have not seen evidence of sharp, quick IQ. He is on a sharp learning curve for for a lot of new things right now. We will see how that shakes out.

His New York Review of Books essay, or either of his pieces on war and its intersection with politics. He has a very fine mind. Dean could not write such things: political skill is not intellectual brilliance.

to come from nearly nothing like he did and become one of the formost trial lawyers in the land is impressive. I don't think any of our candidates is below average or even average in intelligence. I wouldn't being to rank them though.

In that order.

Kucinich and Edwards are the smartest of the bunch in my estimation. Not only that but they both have a very positive, intelligent presence that is remarkable in person. Kerry I include because you ask for three and he clearly is a very intelligent person, an intellectual really. But he lacks street smarts.

Dean is a tool who is not that bright methinks. I would be interested in seeing his college transcripts. Med school, like intro biology, is all about memorization and regurgitation. Deep thought not encouraged.

Clark as Rhodes scholar reveals a tenacity of mind but that doesn't mean smart per se. His mastery of history apparently doesn't include political history; I assume he is well versed in military history. He probably knows a lot more about the civil war battles than the labor movement of the early twentieth century, for example.

Everybody wants to graduate first in their class at West Point. I've heard "first in his class at West Point" more than I've heard the phrase "first in his/her class at Harvard" -- it means something, and, therefore, isn't easy to achieve. You have to be smart.

Also, the Rhodes Scholarship -- although they take two from every state, so that you'd think that maybe the Rhodes Scholars from CA and NY have really beaten out stiff competition, and the kids from Ark didn't, it's still very stiff competition.

went to school and for some years afterward, women were not eligible for Rhodes scholarships (and many universities practiced discrimination as well). I'm not sure if blacks and others also faced discrimination in the Rhodes process.

Rhodes Scholars, so they've been admitted at least since then, and many of these candidates are the same age as Clinton or younger.

http://www.rhodesscholar.org/press.html

"With the elections announced today, 2,982 Americans have won Rhodes Scholarships, representing 305 colleges and universities.  Since 1976, women have been eligible to apply and through 2001, 323 women have won the much-coveted scholarship.  Approximately 1,800 American Rhodes Scholars are living in all parts of the U. S. and abroad.  In this year’s competition, a Rhodes Scholar was elected for the first time from the University of Central Florida."

I think most of the candidates are past 50, but I could be wrong.

http://www.aboutfamouspeople.com/article1133.html

Women were not eligible then. Maybe those he met were students at Oxford without Rhodes scholarships.

and when questioned about it he was quick to point out that at the time student leadership and athletics were important components of the scholarship and downplayed his own intelligence. He also implied that the scholarship was not as acedemically oriented as it is today, something about it being a a program to bring the future leader-types of America and the UK together, not necessarily the most intelligent students.

They don't take two from each state, but rather a few from each region of the country. Fewer that forty each year, if I'm not mistaken. It is unbelieveably competitive.

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

Clark - First in his class at WP, Rhodes Scholar, college professor, rose through the ranks to the top of his profession.

Edwards - Graduated near the top of his class in college and law school. Was a Fed Ct Clerk. Rose to the top of his profession. Ran a brilliant campaign to win his senate seat, and is running a brilliant presidential campaign (which will probably win). Also did all of this coming out of working class family, so you know it was all effort and intelligence that brought him that far.

Lieberman - immigrant family. Yale college and law graduate (not a legacy). I believe he graduated near the top of his class. Clearly smart, hard worker. Not so sure what he's using his intelligence to achieve, though, and he seems kind of socially awkward. Sometimes he's funny.

Sharpton - Just listen to what he's saying. He's smart.


As for Kerry - all the advantages, by why didn't he go to a better law school? What were his grades like in college? Not sure he's really achieved much that's out of proportion to what you'd expect from someone with all his privileges. But he has got a good heart and he's on the good side of almost all the issues.

And Dean? Well, he has more explaining to do than Kerry. What exactly did Dean do for four years in college. So many advantages for Dean, yet so much wandering, and false starts. Has he ever been the best at anything he has tried to do? I don't get how people think he's smart.

Dean is a doctor for Christ's sake. They don't get their degrees nor go through their residencies by being idiots. Dean could cure cancer and you would bitch about how the cure tasted. You really are just completely negative. Just compare my post here and yours.

On edit This is from an AP article via Dean's webiste

Howard Dean completed medical school in three years rather than the traditional four and was sent to Vermont for his residency in 1978; Judy Dean followed when she graduated a year later. In 1981, Howard Dean opened his medical practice in Shelburne with another doctor; Judy Dean joined them in 1985 after a fellowship at Montreal's McGill University

And we all know that idiots are commonly able to get through medical school in one year less than the normal amount of time.

Link

http://www.4states4dean.org/hd/jsd.htm

like his biography either.

He probably placed out of some of those classes because of the classes he took at Columbia when he got tired of Wall St.

There are measures of talent for Doctors too. Match day, right? The best students go to big cities and prestigious hospitals.

I'm not saying Dean is dumb. I'm just saying that the other candidates have been the best at their chosen fields and have some very impressive achievements on their CVs. I don't think Dean does. And, for someone who was given so much in life and so many opportunities, you'd expect something, anything impressive.

and I doubt he took a whole lot of science classes. The college I went to had a large pre med program and those people took science up the yin yang and still took four years to get out of med school. So I think he tested out isn't good enough.

As to your second point, I have no earthly clue. I would guess that there is some of that but also that people would go where they wish to practice. He chose to live in Vermont and if he made that decision (his wife is originally from there I believe) before his residency that may explain why his residency was in Vermont.

Finally he chose to be a general practitioner. That is a low glory but rewarding path. He may simply have different values than you do. Maybe he wanted to be a good father and be home with his kids at night. Maybe he likes helping people and doesn't give a damn about awards. Maybe he wanted to have a practice where he could relate with a variety of patients. The best, smartest, doctor I have ever met was a family practitioner in my hometown. She emigrated from Lativa with a medical degree in the 40's and got a second degree here. She was a doctor in my hometown for decades and was terrificly skilled at it. Why did she choose that route instead of some specialty I have no earthly clue. But it wasn't due to being dumb that much I can assure you of. And just to say I have met many, many skilled specialists over the years including one of the best heart surgeons in the state of PA, one of the best ear doctors in the eastern US, and one of the best cardiologists in the US. She stacks up favorably to all of them in intellect. The ear doctor was mine while the others were my dads.

Both her parents were doctors, she grew up on Long Island.
She went to Princeton.

Sharpton is smarter than all of them. He can outwit any candidate in any party in the country in a debate. Just look at how he handles himself in the Dem debates. You can tell he's extremely smart.

Clark and DK come in next for me.

Actually it really doesn't matter. They all are very smart, and all of them are about 100 times smarter than Bush.

...means. It appears that a lot of people here think it has to do with demeanor.

There are actually more concrete measures of intelligence -- professional achievement, awards from your peers, writing a brilliant book, graduating at the top of your class, law review, clerkships, inventions, scholarshisp. Some of the candidates have actually met these measures, but don't seem to be getting much credit for them.

Clinton, incidentally, was a genius. He might be one of the smartest Presidents since Woodrow Wilson and might be in the top three with Thomas Jefferson.

I wonder whether the DU'ers who think Kerry and Dean are smart would think that Clinton was smart if they didn't know anything about his biography and listened to him talk for five minutes.

I've listened to Kerry's longer speeches and I really think he has some depth of understanding.

Dean I think is very clever, and subtle, and even sneaky. My opinion of his intelligence is unsure, but I really think he's a smart guy.

And I think Clinton is utterly brilliant. At least Wilson's equal.

He probably has a genius or two on his staff.

Like I said about Dean, if he's smart, then why's he hiding it? To me, he seems like a typical rich kid who doesn't see the need to work too hard, doesn't apply himself, and still rises to the top.

Becoming an MD is just SO EASY.
Guess we should ALL go out and do it.

I've met with those degrees. Of course, that is just on a level of intelligence. Becoming a doctor involves a lot of hard work (for example the residency), which probably demands a high level of dedication and persistance.

I have a Ph.D. in physics but I could never make it through medical schools because I am not that good at memorization. Being a good doctor also requires one to be good looking at a set of sometimes confusing symptoms and coming up with a logical diagnosis. Many doctors also need good dexterity (surgeons for example) which I don't really have. Of course many doctors don't have the mathematical skills to become physicists either. There are many types of intelligence, and each should be admired and nurtured.

College and you might find it's not that hard.

and so would you I'd wager. I don't know that I could physically handle residency, and while I'm well above average in grasping concepts presented to me... I'm not all that good at memorization either (another problem I'd have). I'm not saying Dean is the smartest of the group... I just take exception with your characterization of him.

and he knows how to work or he never would have made it out of med school. One thing, and I am not talking specifically about Dean, doctors are often very smart about medicine and very dumb about other things. Dean does not seem to be one of those but using med school as an example of being smart does not always translate well into other subjects.

I was just taking exception with AP's statement that Dean has everything handed to him.

And he does very well. And while he brings it up constantly, his Vietnam and post-Vietnam experience convinces me he is not a typical rich kid.

As for Clark, I think he's head and shoulders above the other guys (and gal) in terms of brainpower.

Doesn't have (or need) a speechwriter, IMHO.

since he converted Dean from a rich, white, pro-business DLC-style centrist into the populist "savior" of the Democratic Party.

That, my friends, is sheer political BRILLIANCE.

but he didn't sign civil unions, didn't decide to oppose the war, and didn't take the fight to Bush. But Trippi is at least as good as Carville was and maybe better.

I think it probably was Trippi who decided Dean should oppose the invasion and massacre, because Dean switched his stance almost literally overnight. Up through the 20th Feb Salon interview, he was in favor; immediately after that, on the 21st, he was opposed.

Dean Clark Edwards

If Sharpton really started delivering sermons at the age of four, that would be indicative of a huge amount of raw intelligence.

Clark. Rhodes scholar, #1 at West point, obviously not a mental light-weight.

Gephardt. This guy went to Michigan law school, that is a top-notch program.

I would love to see a tape of him delivering a speech at 4! Sometimes its easy to forget that raw intelligence does not always translate into graduating from fancy schools, etc. etc. But intelligent people do tend to make the most out of the resources they have available to them. Sharpton is clearly the only candidate who has demonstrated a strong grasp on what is happening to America under the Bush administration.

Sharpton obviously can think on his feet and deliver an insightful consise reply with an edge of humor. I think he is absolutely brilliant. Clark has the credentials. The others are a hundred times smarter than the weasel in the White House.

Sharpton-streetsmarts
Dean-well he is a doctor
Clark-Kerry-Gephardt, 3way tie

...
(1)Edwards
(2)Kerry
(3)Lieberman

Just goes to show, that intelligence ain't everything ( it's not taking me anywhere) - Kucinich is the most principled and committed, and also the best candidate.

Edwards is quite smart...

I'd go:

1. Clark
2. Edwards
3. (tie) Dean/Kerry

but I can't leave #4 off the list.

Kucinich, Clark, Edwards and Sharpton, in that order. I can't bring myself to ignore Sharpton's ability to think on his feet, but the others have well rounded knowledge behind them, based on everything I see, hear and read from them. Dean just doesn't have the same quality to his knowledge, or at least not from my perspective so far.

CLINICAL! That's it, it's that Doctor's clinical demeanor, and like the lady said at the debate, I don't see any "heart" from Dean. The others have some clearly observed appreciation for great writers, and other great minds. I don't see that much from Dean.

Clark and Dean or Dean and Clark are one and two. And yeah, Kerry's probably number three.

has a masters in Econ/politics/philosophy, first a West point, Rhode scholar.....although he came from a regular public school

SO, that would be quatrelingue Clark as the smartest is #1

Dean's a Doctor.....and that ain't easy....he's #2

Edwards/Kerry Tie

Al Sharpton is quick, but not always smart.

Edwards - high honors from college, honors from law school, great attorney, and did you watch that town hall in New Hampshire on C-Span where it was so hot and everyone was sweating? He was incredible. Questions from every direction and he was on top of every one of them, even after the debate when someone tried to sandbag him.

Clark - hard to argue with first in his class at West Point and then a Rhoades Scholar. Articulate on CNN I put him second only because he has been a little bumbling in the debates, not thinking quickly or talking clearly.

Then, I don't know. I tend to think Kerry because he seems to have such a wide range of knowledge.

(I am not dissing Dean. I just don't know anything about the medical school he went to, so I can't make any judgment about how hard it was and I read something his wife said about his not doing that well in med school or having trouble getting a residency or something. I am willing to be corrected on this. But he hasn't shown any brilliance in interviews or debates and doesn't seem to do the tough things like town halls.)

them good, effective leaders. You have to engage the heart of the nation and it's people to be effective. As I said before, I value wisdom much more highly than intellectual prowess. Intelligence is an important "tool" but doesn't make the man/woman.

They are also the best debaters.

Kucinich always seems to know the right thing to do, such as vote against the Patriot Act and the IWR. He has been a poli-sci and communications teacher, and was smart enough to put himself through college and grad school after coming from a background of extreme poverty. He seems to have the best interests of the people in his heart. He is against war.

Mosely-Braun has been a lawyer, a law teacher, a farmer, a businesswoman, a homemaker, an ambassador, and she was an excellent legislator. She seems to have the best interests of the people in her heart. She is against war.

People can be highly intelligent without being smart. Highly intelligent people can be downright dangerous if their hearts are not good. A smart leader is someone that looks out for their people, always looking out for their best interests, and trying to do the right thing for them. A smart leader does not cater to special interests over the interests of their people.

What we often dismiss as Kerry's nuances are actually indicative of a very bright and complex intellect. Kerry is probably the closest thing Democrats have to a John F. Kennedy.

Howard Dean is second.

John Edwards is third.

nt

can't be that smart!

Admiral Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear navy had an I Q >170....

Kerry, because nobody has a better grasp of the issues.

Edwards, because he can think on his feet better than all the other candidates.

Clark, because everyone says so.

for sheer brain power.

Dean is clever like a Rove type clever, but, not intellectually powerful. I always get the sense he's winging it. Bill Maher said when Dean used to appear on Politically Incorrect he got the impression he was kinda dumb. I see Dean as someone who is hustler smart.

Who moved out to the sticks and ran a small, state government.

I can't remember anyone praising Dean for his intelligence. He fumbles over too many words to ever be considered eloquent.

He's not dumb. Just not in Kerry's league, intellectually.

IMHO, this ranking is over simplified because research has proven that there are many ways of being smart. For the politician, a preacher or a lawyer interpersonal intellegence would need to rank highest. Anyway, I believe that each of us the answer is not so much a function of smart, smarter, smartest, as it is a bar graph that illustrates how our abilities add up to present the whole picture. Following are the list by Gardner of multiple intelligences http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm :

Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that Howard Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence.

Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. In Howard Gardner's words, in entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.

Musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. According to Howard Gardner musical intelligence runs in an almost structural parallel to linguistic intelligence.

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. Howard Gardner sees mental and physical activity as related.

Spatial intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas.

Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence.

Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations. In Howard Gardner's view it involves having an effective working model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives.

On the interpersonal scale, I would rank Sharpton first, Edwards second, with third being up in the air. In intraperson intelligence first place goes to Kucinich closely followed by CMB.

Nevertheless, within these areas of intelligence fall the hierarchy of levels of thinking. As a critical thinker, I rank Clark as number one. Not only for his ability to connect the dots, but his broad and intense range of interests that contribute to the depth of his analysis. He recently used a "Tristram Shandy" quote in a speech which would be the addition of a philosopher not a speech writer.

Clinton of course, would produce a bar graph that would exhibit many strengths; while junior ranks as a top-notch back slapper, fund-raising super star with low marks on all other scales. (note: if he ever touched by back I'd puke)

Finally, Gardner has added to this list; however, I didn't think it was relevent to this conversation. Also, this type of evalution is important to us; the best stump speaker is not necessarily the best problem solver and thus, often proves useless as a president.

Are you forgetting that it was Kerry who pursued BCCI, uncovered IranContra and CIA drugrunning and wrote a book about the international covert funding of terrorism back in 97?

Read Kerry's foreign policy and environmental speeches (issues he's worked on actively for over 30 years), then read Dean's (new to both issues) and then come up with an analysis of the two.

I think Clark may be the most intelligent given his background, but smarts doesn't alway mean success as a president. Jimmy Carter is often considered one of the most intelligent presidents we have ever had but he had a very tumultuous administration due not to a lack of overall smarts but a lack of political smarts.

i dont think anyone said lieberman, and only one said gephardt.

1) Clark first, the on the fly pnac analysis with tpm nailed it for me.
2) Dean med school in three years is no small feat.
3) too hard - probably the next person to drop out.

ps - i would've thought a freeper troll would've chimed in with 'Hillary first' by now