VP choice: Edwards, or Clark?

:)

he has incredible foreign policy and intel experience. That makes up for his lack of domestic policy experience. I think Kerry/Clark would make an incredible team. Sorry, but we don't need gravitas and good looks we need experience. Not bashing Edwards, I like him alot and would like to see him have a role in the administration.

and Kerry does not need really anything that Clark would mainly bring as a vp candidate. For Kerry next to the box of quality military experience, quality foriegn policy experience, being a war hero, Kerry gets a check a check and a check.

I don't think either of them would be the BEST choice but with Edwards you get someone with a quality, even if not overflowing in quantity, of a balanced understanding and expertise in all the major pertanant issues in foriegn and domestic policy, and you get a couple of really good campaigners in him and his wife.

Clark complements Kerry because Kerry is already being pidgeon-holed by the Bush administration as soft on defense. Clark would banish that notion in one swoop, unlike Edwards.

Cleland lost 3 limbs in Vietnam but republicans still beat him on National security issues.

People thought Reagan was tough on defense despite his complete lack of military and foreign policy experience when elected.

Furthermore, we don't want this election to be about Vietnam. Voters are more concerned with who can protect them today not with who served in a contreversial war 30 years ago.

It has to do with Kosovo, saving over a million lives without the loss of a single American in combat. It has to do with making the NATO military alliance work. With being able to internationalize military operations to defend American interests. With constructing a multinational framework for the solution of international problems. With negotiating peace treaties between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors. With bringing a tyrant and mass-murderer to international justice. With capitalizing on the confidence earned among foreign leaders throughout Europe and in much of the rest of the world.

Both Kerry and Clark have combat experience, as junior officers in Vietnam, which no doubt was a significant factor in each man's character development. Both are decorated war-heros, which attests to their personal courage. But that's where the shared military experience ends.

Nothing against Kerry--he chose a different route--but being a young lieutenant in Vietnam is NOT military experience at a level relevant to the presidency. Clark on the other hand knows force development and force deployment. He knows strategic planning. He knows post-combat and nation-building operations. He knows the constraints imposed by theater-level logistics. It's a whole 'nother ballgame than Kerry's military experience as a swift boat captain.

You're right about one thing. Reagan was "perceived" to be strong on defense, even tho he was only a lieutenant in the special services (making Army training films). McGovern was "perceived" to be a peace-nik even tho he won a Distinguished Flying Cross (pilot's equivalent of the Silver Star) for valor in combat.

So it's likely that Kerry's combat record will not BY ITSELF dispell voter concerns that Democrats are weak on national security. The most recent polls show that Kerry still comes in behind Bush on issues related to defense, terrorism, and "keeping America safe." That's where he needs to shore up his image, and that's precisely where having a career miitary man, a SENIOR officer, a "Supreme Allied Commander" on the ticket will do him him the most good.

I would never deny that and I would never deny his tremendous accomplishments in Kosovo or his obvious intelligence. However, intelligence, experience and resume are not necessarily what wins elections. Clark entered the race as a front runner because of his intelligence, experience, and resume but he sank like a rock because he lacked political skill.

Bush's main line of attack against Kerry on defense issues will not be his lack of experience. It will be that Kerry is a flip-flopper who panders rather than leads. Clark's propensity for gaffs and misstatements and restatements of policy positions actually makes Kerry more vulnerable on defense because it helps the flip-flop charges stick.

Why do you think voters trusted Reagan on defense? It wasn't military experience. It wasn't foreign policy experience- he had none when he was elected President. It was because he was perceived as decisive and strong.

True. Clark has knowledge of troop movements etc. But every president has generals who already know that stuff. Voters don't expect a President to know this. They expect a President to have good judgement, ask the right questions and make the right decisions. You don't have to have been a general to do this.

Clark didn't make any more gaffs than any other candidate. Certainly no more that John "who's Rabin" Edwards. The difference was purely the way the media reacted to them.

How much that was a function of media bias and how much the skill of Clark's communications staff is certainly subject to debate. His inexperience in politics MAY have contributed to his selection of a staff and his ability to oversee them, but I think his late entry was a far bigger factor.

But I can assure you that Clark is no novice to speaking before a camera, and he is NOT prone to mistakes. I think his appearances since withdrawing attest to his skill. Among other things.

When you say "intelligence, experience and resume are not necessarily what wins elections," you practically prove my point. Because all that's left is image. And image is a media creation.

Just like it was with Reagan. He was an actor, and not a decision maker. As they say, he just played one on TV.

Like it or not, elections have been won by candidates without intelligence, experience, or resume-witness our current President. And candidates have lost who have those three qualities in spades. I said Clark's resume qualifications aren't necessarily enough to win this election. I did not say that Edwards does not have the qualifications to be president or vice president.

I think Edwards has the qualifications to be a great president or vice-president and, unlike Clark, Edwards mouth is not a time-bomb waiting to go-off.

As the candidate Clark is the one who bears ultimate responsibility for the words that come out of his mouth. You can't blame what he says on his staff. Being a successful candidate means being able to handle off the wall questions and think on your feet.

As for Clark being great on tv and not prone to mistakes:
Was having his picture taken wearing Milosovich's hat a mistake? Was his complete flip-flop on abortion issues a mistake? These are the kinds of things that can cost us elections.

"...that Edwards does not have the qualifications to be president or vice president."

No, I did.

The rest of your post is ludicrous as well. It totally ignores what I'm saying, and shows you're seriously out of touch with reality.

shows you have no valid argument to make.

You can't seem to tell the difference between an ad hominem attack and an appraisal of your argument. Which is NOT based on facts, but your own presuppositions.

If you had read and answered my previous post, there might be some basis for continuted discussion. But that would mean addressing facts, and that for some reason, you don't seem willing to do.

that I was "seriosly out of touch with reality." How is that not a personal attack?

Because anyone who thinks that Edwards didn't make as many gaffs as Clark (more serious ones in my opinion), who thinks Clark can't "think on his feet" or has a mouth that's a "time-bomb waiting to go-off" is not dealing with the facts about either candidate.

Wearing Mladic's hat (not Milosevic) is a good example. Not a gaff. A fairly normal thing to do under the circumstances. It was the media that tried to make something of it--you never saw the diplomatic community voice a concern, not when it happened, and not later when a large number of them endorsed him. Albright herself thought Clark was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

There was also no flip-flop on abortion, but it was taken out of context and replayed over and over. Which was the story of the whole campaign.

I'm willing to admit General Clark is ultimately responsible. He has claimed as much. But that was then and this is now. He's working Kerry now, whether picked for VP or not, and Kerry's staff is running the show. The media will be better managed.

-Claiming to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act because he thought it does the exact opposite of what it does?
-Embarassing himself in his first Meet the Press appearance, especially regarding foreign policy?
-Not knowing who Yitzhak Rabin is?
-Never being able to coherently explain why he *still* supports invading Iraq but not the $87 billion Iraq appropriations?

Edwards wasn't known for making gaffes because he had good media timing: no one cared about what he said until he got hot with a reputation for being well-spoken. The fact is, it's almost impossible to face cameras 24-7 without saying something that someone could construe as stupid, so it really all comes down to how the media wants to spin things.

But, really, this is a silly pissing match. I think Edwards would be better as VP sinmply because the media seems to like him there, and there's no sense in fighting their narrative, especially when Clark's talents would be much better applied as Sec'y State.

P.S. Clark was not photographed wearing Milosevic's hat.

But if you are implying that the media was just as mean to Edwards then that pretty much nullifies any Edwards advantage, perceived or otherwise.

If Edwards is on the short list where has Kerry been sending him out to campaign for him? When has Kerry asked Edwards to attend events in his stead? Oh, that's right.......... nowhere and never.

Clark may very well be Kerry's runningmate. What I've been arguing is that I think Edwards should be.

No, I wasn't implying that the media was treating Edwards just as badly. I was really asking when and where did this happen. I did a lexus search to try to find what the context was. I searched all major newspapers, magazines and journals, and news transcripts for the past 10 years for any document with rabin and john edwards in the text. I found no mention of this ever occurring anywhere. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying I never heard it anywhere outside of this thread and I found no mention of it anywhere on lexus.

Do you have a citation? Or can you at least give me where and when this happened.

This claim about Edwards and Rabin is based on an unsubstantiated story, in what amounts to a gossip column. The columnist who reported the illegid incident characterized it as "a story told to me by a reliable source." This illegid incident that no other source ever verified anywhere, supposedly happened during Edwards' Senate race five years before the claim appeared in his column. In other words, you are smearing Edwards based on complete hearsay, a second hand story from a single unnamed source that had supposedly happened five years earlier before Edwards was even a Senator.

I did a lexis search of all major newspapers, journals, magazines, and news transcripts for the past 10 years for any stories with the words John Edwards and Rabin in the full text. Guess what? I didn't find a single story about this illegid incident. Why? Because this story doesn't meet the journalistic standards of any mainstream news organization, none, nada, zip.

Please stop spreading rumors about John Edwards.

PS Clark was photographed wearing Ratko Mladic's hat. Sorry I had the wrong indited war criminal.

I am very thankful to those Edwards supporters who make a case for their candidate WITHOUT spreading lies, rumors, and slime about my candidate.

As someone else pointed out, Clark was NEVER photographed wearing Milosevic's cap. He was photographed swapping a cap with someone else who was part of another group that some people don't like. I can almost remember the name but not quite.

Also, it is sad that many citizens of our country have such a hard time understanding the difference between personal opinion and public policy postions. What Clark said about abortion is that he is personaly opposed to it but in favor a woman to have the right to choose. That is not flip-flopping. Sadly, however, it can easily be made to look like it is due to the fact that the media can say it is and non-thinking people automatically agree.

why does Clark outdo Edwards by a margin of 2 to 1 in every DU poll ?:shrug:

selected sample of Democrats. The general election will have Republicans, Independents and Democrats and people who follow politics closeley, not so closely, or not at all. A DU poll is absolutely useless for predicting the effect of Clark on Kerry's chances in November.

I'm sure Kerry's staff is smart enough not to put any stock in a small internet poll of active Democrats.

You don't answer the argument or question posed, but just the part of it you think you can rebut.

Of course, DU polls are unscientific. And of course, there are a disportionate number of Clark supporters here. This is a liberal place, and he's a liberal. According to Joe Conalson, the most liberal of the "serious" candidates. So you would expect him to have a lot of support here.

But there are MANY DU'ers who were not Clark supporters, who prefer him as VP over Edwards. Probably the liberal thing. But the fact remains that the question was...

IF Clark is Kerry's poison... why the support? Everyone here wants Kerry to win (well, almost). Some think there are better choices than Clark, but it seems that only the Edwards people think that Clark would actually damage the ticket. Why is that?

That's a rhetorical question... we know the answer.

1.) I made an argument that Clark was not a good vp choice because he lacks the necessary political skills.

2.) He responded by asking why Clark won DU vp polls if he was in fact such a political liability.

3.) My argument back was that a du poll is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it is unscientific and is in no way indicative of what will happen in November. That's why I didn't answer his question.

That's a perfectly consistent and logical line of argument.

Your argument, on the other hand, seems to be that more people agree with you and only Edwards supporters agree with me. Therefore, you are right. You're right because you're in the majority? If that's the best you can do I've made my case.

the rest of it crumbles from there.

Clark has FAR more political experience than Edwards with his unfinished single senate term. How many heads of state has Edwards met with personally while being solely responsible for conveying the position of the United States or a Multi-National Force? NONE. How many treaties has Edwards negotiated? NONE. Hell Edwards has been gone for about 1/3 of his job? How many votes has he missed?

And you STILL didn't explain why DU, a place populated almost entirely with persons who want Kerry to win at almost any cost would support Clark for the ticket if he were in fact likely to harm it. That is not logical in the least.

If I thought for a nanosecond that Clark would harm Kerry's chances, as much as I love him I would personally write to him and ask him to decline any offer. Some Clark supporters don't think he is the best choice for VP and they are certainly entitled to their opinions but that stance leaves them in a minority in this overall forum.

I think you have done a very good job of taking an emotion based argument and giving it a nice enteric coating, but it's still pretty easy to discern for what it is.

Kerry's own cold answer to the Edwards VP question during the final debate should have clued you in to Edwards chances anyway. The entire point is all but moot. He could have at least said he would be considered along with all the other candidates or something equally placatory but he didn't.

<<3.) My argument back was that a du poll is completely irrelevant to the discussion because it is unscientific and is in no way indicative of what will happen in November. That's why I didn't answer his question.>>

It IS consistent, but only tactically--there is no "line of argument." You evade questions and arguments that challenge what you already believe. Whether a DU poll reflects what COULD (not will) happen in November or not, that was not the point. It does reflect that within this small portion of Democrats, mostly just the Edwards supporters think that Clark would be "poison" to Kerry.

My point was not that we're the majority. It's that the minority is made up of people who have an ax to grind--making the case that Edwards should be VP. I fully admit that we Clark supporters have the opposite interest, but it seems to me that those coming from neither base do not see Clark as a liability (except for the few who think he's a Republican--lol, maybe not all of them), even if they prefer a third alternative.

But on second thought, I may be making an unfair reversal of cause and effect. Perhaps Edwards supporters really do see Clark as a "liability" because they value form over substance. That's why they supported Edwards in the first place. You know, the "Kerry is old, boring, establishment, but Edwards is fresh, young, exciting" line. I've heard that one more than once. Well, we know how the Democratic voters ultimately felt about old boring Kerry over pretty-boy Edwards.

I do not accept that Clark is an incompetent campaigner--the job he's doing now could NOT be better in terms of attendance or money raised. Well, it could be better, if Clark were the VP nominee. A fact not lost on Kerry, I'm sure. Perhaps Edwards could do as well, but so far he hasn't even tried.

Personally, I think Clark's ability to raise money is probably more indicative of his ability to generate interest and excitement, since it is not wholly dependent on media coverage, not in this phase of the election. But I'll admit to some prejudice on that score. Still, Clark always did do better at fund-raising than Edwards, and better than anyone for most of his 5 short months of campaigning. Now that he is part of Kerry's larger campaign, he can be focused on places like Kansas and Nebraska, and even Ohio, where he is headed this next week. Those are the places he's been most effective for Kerry so far, and where he is more than proving his value. Altho Clark is a southerner, he has far more mid-Western appeal than Edwards. Remember that he was the strong second in Wisconsin before he dropped out.

Now obviously, money is not as important as votes, altho it sure helps in getting them. That said, the FACT is that historically the VP nominee has little to do with winning any state other than his own. Edwards shows no likelihood of bringing in a Carolina (take your pick). Clark is almost certain to bring in Arkansas, which went red in 2000 but swings fairly easily, but Arkansas doesn't have enough electoral votes to make the difference by itself.

So between the two, what we're left with is who is better suited to actually step in if, God forbid, anything should happen to Kerry. And who can best help overcome Kerry's biggest weakness. No, not security issues (altho that too, given that we are a nation at war and the campaign we know our "war president" is going to run), but competing with the Republicans for the big money. Those, imo, are the significant differences.

far more grassroots, especially netroots support. The draft movement was formed online, and Clark's campaign was heavily supported by independent people who did stuff on the Net and eventually a very healthy campaign-supported online community (the Clark Community Network).

DU measures independent activists, not voters--that's also why Dean's and Kucinich's support are so large here. Almost DK's entire support base consists of people who work for him. So it's not surprising that Clark has more support here.

Edwards ran a relatively typical campaign, and when he got hot it was due to media exposure, which turned last minute undecideds. He never did get a lot of truly committed people, except perhaps a bunch of angry Dean people after their candidate dropped out, not exactly for positive reasons.

If you worked the campaign on the ground, you will know that Clark and Dean often had far more volunteers outside of their areas of strength than you'd expect--for example, even though Clark's region is even further away from New Hampshire than Edwards' we had far, far more volunteers there. Same goes with CT: barely any Edwards people, but a healthy Clark contingent.

I also note that it's ironic that katy insists that Clark only appeals to hardore Dems when we spent half the time fending off attacks that he's a Repub...trust us, we did well enough with indies and Repubs...

First, let me say you make some good points about why Clark has strong support at DU.

However, I never said Clark appeals only to hardcore dems. never! What I said was that this website consists of hardcore dems so it's polls are not representative of the general population. I have no doubt that Clark has support outside of hardcore dems, but du polls are not a scientifically accurate way to gauge that support. Therefore, du polls should not be accepted as evidence that Clark would help Kerry in November.

And that DU polls are pretty worthless for predicting most things. Although they are *not* worthless for predicting how well a candidate is doing among Dem activists. That's one thing the pulse of DU does reasonably well, and it *is* a factor that could help any candidate--this group significantly contributed to the astounding $50 million that Dean and Clark raised last year--although clearly doing well among this small sub-sample is insufficient to win on their own.

But your post also suggests that Clark would have less support among the general population than Edwards, because Edwards has more appeal among Indies and Repubs than Clark...I disagree, as Clark had a strong base of support among these groups as well, although we can clearly agree to disagree on this open empirical question...apologies if I overread your post...

debating against you. that was a slam dunk.

This claim about Edwards and Rabin is based on an unsubstantiated story, in what amounts to a gossip column. The columnist who reported the illegid incident characterized it as "a story told to me by a reliable source." This illegid incident that no other source ever verified anywhere, supposedly happened during Edwards' Senate race five years before the claim appeared in his column. In other words, you are smearing Edwards based on complete hearsay, a second hand story from a single unnamed source that had supposedly happened five years earlier before Edwards was even a Senator.

I did a lexis search of all major newspapers, journals, magazines, and news transcripts for the past 10 years for any stories with the words John Edwards and Rabin in the full text. Guess what? I didn't find a single story about this illegid incident. Why? Because this story doesn't meet the journalistic standards of any mainstream news organization, none, nada, zip.

Please stop spreading rumors about John Edwards.

Kerry/Edwards 2004

not to have to debate his anti-terrorism comission with Clark but exchange soft balls on the greatness of permanent war with pretty boy!

NT

...and the 'Clark is a republican' meme is getting BORING!

:boring:

gravitas implies a seriousness, a soberness, a weightiness. Edwards lack these qualities -- he simply does not present himself in these ways -- and he lacks experience; next candidate, please.

http://tinyurl.com/2fl7r
1. The above link is to graphic of where the candidates rank as left vs. right and libertarian vs. authoritarian. Clark and Kerry almost coincide - not nearly so Edwards. Its tough to campaign for someone who holds different views than the presidential candidate. By the way you can test yourself out on their scheme at http://tinyurl.com/bso6. Its actually fun!

2. Clark can deliver Arkansas which is one of 15-17 swing states. I read one article that said one swing state and Bush is toast. Toast would be quite and improvement from shrub.

3. Latest polls show Kerry leading Bush by a small margin. Kerry is comfortably ahead in domestic issues but trails Bush in national defense (go figure!). Edwards could only lower the security and national defense and do nothing for domestic issues.

because he has taken different positions from Kerry. Clark has said he would have voted for the IWR and also that he wouldn't have. This undermines Kerry's credibility.

ridiculous bull. Clark said ONCE, in ONE interview 3 days into his campaign that he would probably have voted for A bill authorizing the use of force if certain criteria were met. It wasn't a 2 second simpleton answer but of course that didn't stop the dipshit reporter into twisting it into one. I know you are probably a better person than that so I'll just assume your head's been buried in the Democratic Underground sand every time that issue was addressed and the myth debunked.

BUT EVEN IF THAT MYTH WERE TRUE........... The notion that Edwards, who thinks the Iraqi war was and still is JUST DANDY would be more "credible" on the Kerry ticket is just this side of hilarious. Kerry is rightfully campaigning against the war even though he did vote to support the action. That in itself nullifies your assertion. If Kerry voted for it and changed his mind it's rather silly to say that someone else with a similar stance to Kerry's would "discredit" him. Sounds like wishful, wishful thinking. Don't worry, JE is a really young guy, he can run on the ticket in 2012 - but it's not going to happen this season.

vp candidate.

It's fine to say that a "dipshit" reporter twisted clark's words because Clark didn't give a simpleton answer. However, don't you think reporters will do that in the general election campaign too? Politics is about perception. It requires choosing words and actions carefully so as to manage those perceptions. Clark has not demonstrated that skill.

Clark was the front-runner when he entered the primary race because of his resume. Yet, he sank like a rock because he wasn't a skilled politician. You can't make the kind of gaffs Clark does when you are up against Carl Rove. This is the big leagues. Clark running for vp now is the equivalent of a man learning to swim in a pool of sharks.

Please explain how Edwards, who thinks the Iraqi war was and still is JUST DANDY would be more "CREDIBLE" on the Kerry ticket? Kerry is campaigning AGAINST the war even though he did vote to support the action.

That nullifies your original assertion. If Kerry voted for it and changed his mind it's rather silly to say that someone else with a similar stance to Kerry's would "discredit" him. Sounds like wishful, wishful thinking.

How is J. Edwards not knowing who Rabin was any less damaging than Clark's long answer to a gotcha question?

Also this assertion of yours that Clark was ever the FRONT RUNNER is totally and completely false, utter bull as it were. He started with low poll numbers in Iowa which he skipped in favor of hoping to take New Hampshire. For a while he had very good poll numbers there because he had the state to himself. Then Kerry came out of Iowa with an ENORMOUS win, and all of the sudden EVERYBODY was in New Hampshire. Clark very nearly tied JE there but Kerry buried everyone, giving him what would become unstoppable momentum. Clark won in Oklahoma, Edwards in South Carolina Kerry gets the rest (except for VT). Clark was smart enough to see the writing on the wall and honorable enough not to continue taking peoples money to do something selfish like try to further his own future political career. Clark was never the front runner nor did he "sink like a rock" no matter what feeling you may have injected into his run.

He never would have approved a pre emptive strike, skipped the UN altogether, and he would have went after the perps of 9 11 (Bin Laden) first, as he and al Quaida were the immenent threat at the time. Many dem senators were duped with the bull crap that was presented as the IWR. When shrub went running off half cocked with his blank check and ignored the UN, many dems that voted for IWR felt duped. Clark said VERY EARLY on that he may have voted for IWR as it was presented, not what it actually turned out to be.
Also, in light of my post, I fail to see how this distracts from Kerry's integrity. If anything it enhances it, as well as the rest of the Democrats that got duped by the IWR, thereby giving more credibility to the entire Democratic Party. WTG! Clark! :toast:

Clark opposed the war saying it was a strategic mistake, and in my opinion he was right. However, Kerry's criticism against Bush on Iraq is that Bush rushed to war without exhaustong diplomatic relations first.

Depsite his obvious intelligence, Clark is relatively inexperienced at politics. He tends to make gaffs and statements that need to be retracted. This together with his position on the war make Kerry muchh more vulnerable to the flip-flop charge.

I would love to see Clark in the administration someplace but we need the best campaigner for Kerry on the ticket. In my opinion, that's John Edwards.

But he doesn't. The only candidate I know of JK has been sending out specifically in his place, to represent him .......... is Wesley Clark.

:shrug:

This claim about Edwards and Rabin is based on an unsubstantiated story, in what amounts to a gossip column. The columnist who reported the illegid incident characterized it as "a story told to me by a reliable source." This illegid incident that no other source ever verified anywhere, supposedly happened during Edwards' Senate race five years before the claim appeared in his column. In other words, you are smearing Edwards based on complete hearsay, a second hand story from a single unnamed source that had supposedly happened five years earlier before Edwards was even a Senator.

I did a lexis search of all major newspapers, journals, magazines, and news transcripts for the past 10 years for any stories with the words John Edwards and Rabin in the full text. Guess what? I didn't find a single story about this illegid incident. Why? Because this story doesn't meet the journalistic standards of any mainstream news organization, none, nada, zip.

Please stop spreading rumors about John Edwards.

Kerry/Edwards 2004

we need experience, but Wes has got all three so it's a win/win situation all 'round.

Edwards is the better politician, but Clark's resume is unbelievable. If I had to pick one, I guess it would be Clark, but that's no slight to Edwards. One of these two guys would be my preference for the VP choice, although predicting these is often difficult. I never guessed Joe, for example. ;-)

but a vice presidential candidate is something quite different. Clark would make the prudent choice of vice president for a different presidential candidate, someone who's biography wasn't overwhelmingly ripe in issues dealing with military and foreign policy issues as Kerry's obviously is.

Clark would have made a really good vp for Edwards, and he probably would have been the only choice for Dean. (If he would have agreed to for either of them). But Kerry requires things Clark doesn't clearly have most. And he doesn't require Clarks biggest strengths much.

AND I'm pretty sure Clark just said that he isn't interested in the last couple of days. It's one thing to say your not interested when you your self are running for president. It's quite another to when there is already a de-facto nominee

Edwards has the clear edge in crossover appeal.

particularly his wife.

They're both great campaigners, and Edwards is an awesome 'stump speaker', as they say here in Illinois. :)

I so do not agree....

The whole Edwards meme is media manufactured. I realize they were effective......but I didn't realize just how much.

Many of the same reporters that said he's a great stump speaker also complain that he only had one speech.....and that most of his supporters knew the speech by heart.

Being VP means selling someone else...not yourself. Edwards being the self made SOMW, and his economic populist speech is only good if he is selling himself.....the job of the VP, during a campaign is to sell the one at top of the ticket and to be an attack dog against the opposition. The "positive campaigning" that Edwards is so regarded for does not fit the bill. As an attack dog he is untested and the chore would not fit his style nor his image.

Further, The Edwards was popular because the media made him so...by training cameras on him most of the time (most after Kerry) after Iowa.

Just like the media sold Bush during the 2000 election,
the war in 2002,
shredded Cleland during the mid-term
denegrated Gore during 2000,
attempted to convict Clinton in 1998,
sold you the notion of liberal bias....
talked many into Dean in 2003,
The media can make or break ya....

They have made Edwards, but there is no guarantee that they would not break him. They have yet to really talk about malpractice insurance rates (and what Edwards' cases impacted that), the fact that he was a personal injury attorney who did not pro-bono. The fact that he missed hell of votes in 2003...

There are so many other things that have not come out about Edwards as he has not been raked over the coals by the media...yet.

Add to that the question whether 2 senators for the price of one is redundant...considering that Edwards will not add to the chance of either South nor North Carolina would go from the Bush column to Kerry's. As Edwards was beaten by Kerry in the South during a Democratic primary, and Edwards had mucho free publicity surrounding him during the entire time doesn't demonstrate any advantages that Edwards brings. Clark beat Edwards everywhere in the Southwest swing states....so Edwards' appeal was also not in evidence there.

The VP also must effectively neuter Cheney during any debate....which I don't see the 2 America speech providing that force needed to bring Cheney down in a public forum.

Edwards charisma and youth are really all that he brings to the table along with his media made popularity. I don't think that Kerry would want to be upstaged by that bright of a light for the small return that Edwards brings to the table.

So as the obvious media choice...he is totally suspect and not a good pick....IMO.

I love listening to Gert Clark speak. It would be difficult for me to vote for Kerry this fall if Clark isn't on the ticket.

4 more years of Bush. That help? :hi:

Kerry's going to win here anyway. I would never ever ever vote for Bush. I just really want Clark on the ticket

:)

It's a Cleland Chabliss thingy...

I can't say enough good things about her.

Even though I was a Clark supporter up until he quit, I always beleived that Mrs Edwards would make both the best first lady and best first lady candidate.

It's not a disparagment towards Gert at all, it's just a recognition of what I see as a standout.

I still don't have Edwards as my first pick for vp, but I've come around somewhat to the idea of it. One reason for that was the letter his wife posted on his blog that AP reposted here(the DUer, not the newsservice)

But Gert Clark freakin' ROCKS THE HOUSE!


The woman just radiates, it's really easy to figure how the general came to fall in love with her and very obvious how he still does as well. She has a presence and an energy that just takes over a room everywhere she goes. God I hope to have one tenth her energy....... well I'd like to have it now actually.

We need someone who will secure enough additional votes in the right place or places to secure a victory for Kerry in November. That may or may not be the person who most excites the most voters, whoever that may be.

Sometimes excitement doesn't do the trick. Sometimes people just want assurance around something. Sometimes they just want to vote for their native son, and that swings a state. Sometimes the ticket plays good cop, bad cop, with the VP as bad cop. People don't even have to like him or her, so long as they like the "good cop" at the top of the ticket. The "bad cop's" job becomes to make people like Bush less than they like Kerry.

But at the risk of sounding old fashioned here. Politics exists to serve our country, not the other way around. Personally I think we need a Vice Presidential candidate who is fully ready to step into the Oval Office in case anything were to happen to Kerry.

Clark is exciting. Edwards and his buddy Gen Shelton can take their Clark bashing and ...well...put it where the sun does not shine. If Edwards had said "I agree with Senator Kerry" in the last debate/abc debacle, one more time, I seriously would have :puke: . A self made man, fighting furiously for what was right his entire life, at great personal risk, while somehow managing to never sell out his principles, is exciting.

Although it's "selling" you JRE's principals when you purchase the book, it's content & merits tend to back up how Edwards fits your description of how, "... A self made man, fighting furiously for what was right his entire life, at great personal risk, while somehow managing to never sell out his principles, is exciting...."

to me. It swayed endlessly between self-pity and shameless self-congratulation until I just couldn't read it any more.

nope Clark more exciting, sorry

Our VP should give us a head start on 2012, and I think Edwards would be a more formidable obstacle to the GOP while keeping the Dems looking united. Kerry's got enough foreign policy experience, and Edwards would have eight years to learn!

:headbang:
rocknation

So you see a big difference in a 51 year-old as opposed to a 59 year-old. I guess I don't....

Clark's only eight years older than Edwards - hardly a generation.

But, I agree with the above poster - I don't think I can vote for Edwards - unlike the meme about Clark being a Republican, it's actually Edwards I worry more about being a Republican (Shelton and neo-con voters going for the guy).
And I'm IN a swing state and I'm not alone.

It's so obvious, especially in light of how much the GOP does not want a Kerry/Clark ticket. Notice the lack of any of the talking heads bringing up Clark in that regard? Very, very telling.

The ability to energize Independent and Republican voters, which Edwards does do.

Edwards has some flame walking to do, he was virtually unmolested in the primaries. Clark on the other hand did very well while being mistreated by some in his own party as well as the republicans who were afraid of him, and many journalists who repeated repug talking points, all the way.

Clark was doing very well with moderate and conservative Dems, and Independents prior to Iowa



edited to add more mistreaters

How was Clark 'mistreated by his own party'? BTW, please remember that I LIKE Clark, and always have....

I try to respond too quick sometimes.

It was sounding a lot like an "Edwards is evil" thread, for a minute. :hi:

You know the way things are going for Bush, it might not make too much difference who the VP is. And Edwards does have appeal. But I'm paranoid and still think Clark is the stronger choice, and besides I thnk I would take a bullet for that man.

God forbid something were to happen to President Kerry, I would not fear for this Republic, with President Clark in the Oval Office. I would say the same about a President Edwards.

:)

And the only people I knew who were for Edwards were - yep, Republicans.
Now - they may have been for him in the primaries, but I doubt they will/would have voted for him against Bush. You guys need to really think ahead!

admitted it)

Georgia
Angry (32%) 3% 32% 56% 2% 7%
Dissatisfied (43%) 1% 34% 58% 0% 6%
Satisfied (13%) 2% 64% 23% 1% 6%
Enthusiastic (8%) 5% 70% 9% 2% 11% - second number is Edwards

What they really want
Would You Be Satisfied...
Only if Edwards Wins (21%) 2% 88% 6% 0% 3%
Only if Kerry Wins (27%) 1% 4% 90% 0% 4%
If Either Wins (42%) 2% 42% 48% 1% 6%
Only if Someone Else (7%) 6% 34% 12% 7% 35%
WI:
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html
Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry
Voters who are enthusiastic about the Bush Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry
Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards
Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.
****

The Kimmer, Kim Peterson Reich Wing AM radio show host for AM 640 GA
afternoon drive is advising Right Wingers for action tomorrow.
They are planning to vote for Edwards to give him just enough
strength to drain Kerry's dough. They are doing what they did during
the Cynthia McKinny election 2 years ago.

Clark is out. I still don't care. I care more about wingnuts screwing
in our already screwed up primary. I hate the fact that my primary
vote doesnt count. I hate even more that wingnut votes count more
than mine in an open dem primary.

So, for those of you who didn't think Rethug impact on Clark was
imaginary. I got your imaginary proof right here. Except now it is
much too late.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=417143#417173

I guess you think that the corporate media and radio cheerleading for Edwards played no part in those votes?

Clark's brand of energizing rethugs is scaring them into silence, evidenced by complete media black out)

They revealed the fact quite cxlearly that Independents and Repubs broke CLEARLY in Edwards' favor.

of your ridiculous claims. No link, no fact.

Not having anticipated running into any posters in deep denial about the subject, I didn't bother bookmarking the CNN post-WI and -GA exit polls, since the results were broadcast nationwide for several days, and only those living in the Gobi Desert were unlikely to have heard the results. I did, however, find a link to the results of Tuesday's exit polls of Democratic primary voters' perefernce for VP in four Southern states, 2 of which are 'battleground' states---LA and FL. Guess what? Sen. John Edwards is the CLEAR favorite for VP in ALL FOUR STATES, including FL, where he beat out the states' senior senator, Bob Graham, by an almost 5:2 margin:

Florida
John Edwards 44%
Bob Graham 19%
Hillary Clinton 17%
Wesley Clark 7%
Dick Gephardt 4%
Bill Richardson 2%
Mary Landrieu 1%

Louisiana
John Edwards 31%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Mary Landrieu 22%
Dick Gephardt 8%
Wesley Clark 6%
Bob Graham 2%
Bill Richardson 2%

Mississippi
John Edwards 43%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Wesley Clark 9%
Dick Gephardt 8%
Bob Graham 2%
Mary Landrieu 2%
Bill Richardson 1%

Texas
John Edwards 43%
Hillary Clinton 27%
Wesley Clark 7%
Dick Gephardt 6%
Bill Richardson 4%
Bob Graham 3%
Mary Landrieu 2%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/03/09/index.html

AFTER he is out of the race, fine. I doubt he will though, just my opinion though.

in this DU poll.

What do you mean "after he is out of the race?". He suspended his campaign before those southern states voted. He already gave his last speech urging the backing of Kerry to his supporters.

Look, I respect Clark. I've heard him on military matters and he blew me away with his knowledge. We are very lucky to have a man of his skill on the Democratic side.

We are also very lucky to have a man like John Edwards. It was listening to Edwards that I actually felt really proud to be a Democrat for the first time in about 20 years.

I think if you want to go after Bush on the War issue then you need Clark. But if you want to go after Bush on the Economy then you need Edwards.

They are both fine men and both have strong beliefs and both have risen to the tops in their fields.

If we are lucky, Kerry will include both of them somehow on the ticket or his cabinet.

to back your original claim that

The ability to energize Independent and Republican voters, which Edwards does do.

democratic primary voters are not independant and republican voters.
apples and oranges

interpretation. It is true Edwards got more republican votes in the open primaries. In the GE, we don't know that these people would have voted for him. Primaries are just very different, and those in politics often talk about crossover voters causing mischief.

I think Clark can do a great job of bringing in swing voters, idependents and moderate Republicans.

bearing in mind that clark was a four star general, which makes him very appealing to moderate republicans and older republicans.

And they have certainly been trying to shove Edwards down our throats. Edwards wouldn't even win his home state for Kerry. he barely won it in the primaries. Why? Republican mischief makers, not kerchief makers.

Bush fears Clark over all. Add Edwards to Kerry, you lose 20% of the electorate that would have voted for Kerry/Clark.

Jingoistic Republicans would abandon Bu$h like a burning pile of dog shit if they had the chance to vote for a ticket with Clark on it.

I just spewed tea all over my monitor when I read 'burning pile of dog shit'! Is that a WV-ism? :P

or as someone said: Clark and Kerry have more medals between them than W and Dick have DUIs"

Hands down, Clark is the most qualified.

Recent polls show Kerry viewed weaker on FP than Bush. It doesn't matter that the 'box next to FP experience' for Kerry has a check mark in it--it isn't enough. He hasn't run a war, and he has not had diplomatic and extensive military planning experience.

Clark fills that gap, Edwards does not...he makes the gap wider.

Clark is the clear, clear choice.

It's possible that Kerry would be also be seen as exploiting the misguided war on terror if he chooses Clark. And I think Edwards has a personality that would complement Kerry better. I'd choose Edwards, but Clark would be a good choice, too. Clark would be a good attack-dog, and Edwards could possibly not give North Carolina to Kerry. I think Clark could sure up Arkansas for Kerry.

at Ground Zero takes credit for 9.11. Kerry just loves it!

Edwards went out of his way to contradict Kerry on the "exaggerations"
Blix seems to agree with Kerry (and the non'W/Edwards world)



__Blix: Danger of Global Terror Exaggerated by Bush and Blair

"The world is overestimating the dangers of global terrorism, especially when compared with a possible greater threat posed by environmental risks, says Hans Blix. "I think we still overestimate the danger of terror... There are other things that are of equal, if not greater, magnitude, like the environmental global risks."
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,6119,2-10-1462_1494680,00.html

here's your "VP":

You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

Like it or not, it IS, and it will be a HUGE issue, come November. OTOH, Hans Blix will NOT be a huge issue, come November...

:eyes:

a war on terrorism - rather than a Hallibuton entreprise. Do you?

So gross, in fact, that it borders on an outright mischaracterization.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.


MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.


MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/
To me, that IS gross!

Great GOP tactics!

:eyes:

differs from Lieberman on war. And I'll add some of that foreign policy stuff:

In the June 2003 Washington Monthly, its
iconoclastic editor, Charlie Peters, reported the
following anecdote: ?One evening while he was
campaigning for the Senate in North Carolina, Edwards
was faced with a choice of several events he might
attend. An advance man suggested, ?Maybe we ought to
go to the reception for Leah Rabin.? ?Who?s she??
?Yitzhak Rabin?s widow,? replied the aide. ?Who was
he?? asked Edwards.?

It's quite clear from the tone and tenor of the vast majority of your posts on every pro-Edwards thread that 'Edwards is to blame' for Clark's downfall. There is no point in even trying to reason with you about anything having to do with Edwards.

that unfolded against Clark, edwards was a very insignificant, barely aware little piece. I do wait for the lightning to strike him for one thing only: Hugh Shelton.

How could I forget? :tinfoilhat:

And I still think Edwards sucks. He's way too far to the right for me. I didn't want him for prez, and God forbid something happens to President Kerry I still don't want him for Prez.

No conspiracy there.

...he lost. Big time.

It will strike again when he Kerry tells him he will not be his VP.

That Hugh Shelton Karma is a bitch.

I'll kick it the day Kerry chooses Edwards as his VP, and laugh my ass of.

Edwards ain't it for ANY administration. BYE!

:)

"Can't we all get along?"

this is not directed to you Cuban_Liberal, just sorry to see what was a nice thread get turned into a fight.

Oh, well, this IS GD-Crunchy, after all.. :shrug:

when did this forum get named for me? What did I ever do?:silly:

A Lounge nickname for it. :P

...backing up Robbed because CL seems to always, always want to pick a fight.

He doesn't pick fights; he is, however, rather peremptory in dealing with utter foolishness, which some might confuse with 'picking a fight'...

Let's review the bidding, shall we?

Robbedvoter gave CL very specific proof of Edwards' IWR position.

CL said it was "out of context."

RV asked "how so?" and added Edwards' indefensible Yitzahk Rabin gaff.

So what does CL do but start up that tired old misdirection that somehow any time a Clark supporter criticized Edwards, it is merely a product his having hung on longer than Clark (because last I looked, Edwards hadn't WON anything but his birth-state), and throws in the notion that we're all conspiracy theorists anyway.

In other words, when CL can't refute facts, he resorts to an emotion-based argument.

I'd call that picking a fight.

It sure as hell ain't reasoned debate and discourse.

He/she drug in some irrelevant bullshit quote from Hans Blix, slathers that like icing on top of W's future appearance at Ground Zero, and tried to cobble together some logical (sic) argument that that somehow makes Edwards a bad choice for VP. You need to read further back in the thread, hf_jai...

not sure that's ever going to happen in GD2004. :(

I'll laugh with you cosmokramer.

:toast:

will be interesting to see who Kerry picks. :)

because the election will be over and Bush will have won.
:(

When I close my eyes and try to think of a Cheney/Edwards debate, I shudder.

That's just not how the real world works...

True Blue, As good as True, True for You

Uniting our party is a GOOD thing, because it makes us feel GOOD about the ticket, rather than having a 'lesser of two evils' attitude about it...

Your arguement is WEAK, at BEST.

Sorry, but YOUR opinion is just that-- yours.

:eyes:

...your OPINION that Edwards would unite the party.

Yes, and that is true in the past...however...this is now...and I think whomever Kerry decides upon for the VP slot...could, most likely be, the most important decision he will make in this election season....and could have a huge effect on how it all turns out....

Hi Cuban_Liberal, There is nothing to the Edwards Rabin thing. I'm trying to get them to stop spreading this rumor. Here's what I've been posting in response to their posts about it:
******************************************************************
This claim about Edwards and Rabin is based on an unsubstantiated story, in what amounts to a gossip column. The columnist who reported the illegid incident characterized it as "a story told to me by a reliable source." This illegid incident that no other source ever verified anywhere, supposedly happened during Edwards' Senate race five years before the claim appeared in his column. In other words, you are smearing Edwards based on complete hearsay, a second hand story from a single unnamed source that had supposedly happened five years earlier before Edwards was even a Senator.

I did a lexis search of all major newspapers, journals, magazines, and news transcripts for the past 10 years for any stories with the words John Edwards and Rabin in the full text. Guess what? I didn't find a single story about this illegid incident. Why? Because this story doesn't meet the journalistic standards of any mainstream news organization, none, nada, zip.

Please stop spreading rumors about John Edwards.

Kerry/Edwards 2004

I've talked to someone who worked for him at NATO in Europe. She's stationed back in the US now, and guess what, she's an Edwards supporter. Would it be fair of me to post what she said about Clark? No, because it would be hearsay that no one could verify.

In June 2003, Peters referred to this illegid Edwards-Rabin incidenent as "a story told to me by a relaiable source." That's double hearsay and completely unfair because there is no way for anyone else to confirm or refute it. You're printing a second hand "story" told to a reporter by a single source about something that had supposedly happened five years earlier.

I did a Lexis search for the past 10 years of all major Newspapers, magazines and journals, and news transcripts for stories with John Edwards and Rabin anywhere in the full text. Guess what I never found a mention of it anywhere. This "story" doesn't even meet Drudge Report standards. Please stop repeating it.

It would be best to have a ticket that is as heavy as possible on national security, while not buying into the Republican interpretation of what national security entails.

Thank you for making such a strong case for Clark as VP Paddy.;)

He has experience in the Senate, has proved he has appeal in most parts of the country. Has the "Clinton" affect--Edwards makes people feel that he really cares and would be a strong, viable candidate in 2012.

This is not a slap at Clark. I like and respect the man very much. I liked his issues but I never really felt he would make a good President or VP for that matter. HE needs more political experience for the higher offices. He would make a good cabinent member in my opinion.

Exactly. The media is so good at creating images. Most people believe things that are exactly the opposite of what they are. Who started that McCain rumor. UGLY!

Clark has more nationwide appeal - he came in second to Kerry in four Feb. 3 states, won one and came in fourth in one - Edwards was a distant third or fourth in all the rest but his home state and Oklahoma - a reverse of Clark.

And Edwards makes people THINK he cares - the key word is "think."

No - I don't think Edwards was to blame for Clark's leaving the race - the media was. Even though Clark did MUCH better than Edwards in the Feb. 3 races, it was Edwards who got all the press. By the time the race came to Tennessee and Virginia, two open-primary states, the neo-con machine, spurred by Southern conservative websites, had all the Bush supporters voting for Edwards because they wanted Clark OUT.
Look, you don't have to believe me, but, considering I live down here, I should know. I'm not Tommy - deaf, dumb and blind (and I can't play pinball, either).

Being a Dean supporter, I know all about the "media" spin. But I think my points justify why I would rather have Edwards over Clark as VP. I'm just answering the poll question that's all.

did it's damnedest to get rid of Dean and Clark? The only two grassroots candidates out there.
With Dean, they focused a magnifying glass on him with such verosity that he exploded from the heat. Not putting Dean down, there - NO HUMAN could have lived through the scrutiny the media put Dean through.
And, with Clark, they ignored him. Didn't get his policies out and only reported stupid crap - like his driver getting a speeding ticket in OK.
Odd how the media hated the people that real-live, usually non-political people supported.

(BTW, I was a reporter for 10 years. This is also a subject with which I'm familiar.)

how that speeding ticket story even made the news.

"If they try to use 9/11 as an issue they will find it like a loaded gun pointing back at them"

Wes Clark, of course.

I'd like that toast BURNT, Thank You!

He just rules. I want to see Cheney have a heart attack on stage from Clark's relentless attacks on his record and person.

Clark complements Kerry's lagging poll numbers on nat'l security, etc.

I think Edwards will be a good candidate for the future. Kerry should appoint him to Ambassador someplace. Then he can get some int'l experience.

He 's be a great Ambassador, charming, independtly wealthy (needed), & he could run again as a more well-rounded candidate.

I thought Clark said the other day he didn't want the VP spot.

;)

Also - I think he was just responding to Judy Wood-be-a-Republican's stupid assumption that Clark sent the Kerry fundraising e-mail and was he trying to pander to Kerry for VP... yadda, yadda, yadda.
I wasn't interested in that, either, considering I clicked one button and discovered that the Kerry campaign sent the e-mail, not Clark. :)
I was more interested in what Clark went onto say about how Bush is, well, a failure. :D

Now that Wes has caught on to the fact that these "journalists" are not his friends, and are actively out to screw him, his answers are much more "nuanced" than they were at the beginning.

Clark might not be interested in being VP but if Kerry tapped him on the shoulder he'd sign on in a New York minute.

They're right. Bush has driven liberals like me crazy. The lens was on soft focus. My head was swollen with rage at the thought of losing to Bush/Cheney because of Edwards and I went blind! My emoticons exploded.

I know Bill Clinton. He's several pounds heavier than you and a heavyweight to boot, Senator Edwards. You are no Bill Clinton, Senator Edwards.

that others are much better at articulating than I am.

But I wouldn't have much problems with Clark, Edwards is just my preference.

or should I strap this on :tinfoilhat:

with any concrete evidence?

Clark and Kucinich are both GROSSLY over-represented here at DU, as opposed to the real world...

I voted for him in the poll and I would love to see him debate Cheney. I don't see Edwards doing a lot of good in that debate. However, Edwards is a good campaigner, seems to appeal to the real center which is not a plus for me, but it is in the GE. I don't know that it'll be either of them, but if it's Edwards, Kerry's people should insist that he only be allowed to mention that he's the son of a mill worker once in the whole campaign.

Edwards can't make the south for for Kerry. Clark can't make anyone vote for Kerry, he has no constiuancy at all.

Gee - who WERE those 86,000 people who voted for him in Tennessee?
:shrug:

take your pick. You might have made more sense askng about Oklahoma. A least he eked out a win there. Not third place.

You question whether Dems will vote for Clark? I remind you that it was Edwards in exit polls in WI, OK, and GA that was getting repug support.

How ever did Kerry manage to win it anyway? Do you have anything that makes sense?

Let Kerry pick his own running mate.

Or, Kerry could do what Adlai Stevenson did in 1956 and ask the convention to choose the nominee for VP.

Other candidates for the vice-presidential nomination, before or during this convention:

Albert Gore, of Tennessee; Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minnesota; John F. Kennedy, of Massachusetts; Robert F. Wagner, Jr., of New York

http://politicalgraveyard.com/parties/D/1956/

Well, I have a difficult time deciding between these two as vp choices. Both have some real strengths. I think, for instance, that southerners see John Edwards as being more one of them, because he actually has an accent! Clark is originally from Chicago, and that is a northern state. Still, it is true that Tennesseans voted for Clark in the primaries. And he would bring in Arkansas, and maybe Oklahoma.
The reason I have trouble with these two, is that I'm extremely liberal. It is difficult for me to fathom what people who live in industrial midwestern states or in the South- and who are not activists (or left-leaning)- would think about in deciding. It seems that many will be abb, so it might'nt matter too much. I don't like to see the war credentials overplayed at this point. Yet my own preference would be Clark- I've spoken to many many people who prefer Edwards. It's too bad one of them isn't Hispanic, but I think we'd do great with either as vp.

Of all the candidates that ran for the presidency, he rates among the most liberal. Even though he is liberal, most don't recognize it because of his military experience. His rank in the military gives him crossover appeal to add to that liberalism.

Also remember that Clark came in second in Arizona, South Dakota, and New Mexico. He also has a latina for a daughter-in-law. He commanded many minorities in the Army as well. So despite not being a minority himself, he has close ties to minority communities.

http://clark04.com/issues/

There's some great stuff on that page.

Yeah, I plan on looking at Clark's stats more closely. Having a Hispanic daughter-in-law aint exactly the same as being Hispanic, but would help in the campaign if publicized. I agree that his being a 4-star G makes one less sure about his stances. But it may be that is partly why I do feel attuned to him , because he is liberal. Also, I like that he is highly intelligent, and somewhat scholarly. And being half Jewish is a good thing, too.
I think a Kerry/Clark ticket would be more than good, it would be a winning ticket.

Given that "jobs, jobs, jobs" is the top issue on voter's minds I say Edwards is the best pick.

If the economy were to suddenly turn around then I'd say go with Clark and hope Osama doesn't get killed/captured.

I'll be almost as disappointed as I was when he voted for IWR.

As for Edwards, he should be Kerry's first pick for The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is critical and the first pick would go a very long way to reversing the damage done from years of the Federalist society getting their guys into lifetime appointments to the Federal Benches.

A lifetime (remember that folks - lifetime)Court nomination for Edwards would reset the direction of the top Court - it is very very crucial that this mission to correct course be accomplished right off the bat by President Kerry.

Strategically, Edwards would be a great pick, the "collegiality" of the Senate would make it a slam dunk. His former GOP Senate colleagues could not turn him into some kind of rabid crazy activist "librul" out to destroy the country - because with the exposure he got in the campaign, people know he is a decent, intelligent guy, loaded with common sense.

On Clark :thumbsup:

But on Edwards, he is not qualifieto be a Justice of the Supreme Court. He would need to serve on lower Federal Courts and get experience with constitutional law IMHO.

but it's a damned good idea if he's amenable to it.
Damned good idea. But... His personality is better served to an elective office since he has such a positive image.

nothing against Edwards at all!

Clark is the best, the absolute best, with the media whores. he would eviserate Cheney...

Based solely on the fact that he has no legislative experience.
Secretary of Defense would be a great post for Gen. Clark. IMO, this is where he can be the most effective at this time.

You have to be out of active military service for 10 years to be eligible for Sec Def. Clark isn't eligible. That's why Colin Powell is Sec State as well....

I'd say either one would be beneficial to the ticket.

I think they both had an advantage over other potential VP picks in that they've each been through the press grinding mill and can withstand the scrutiny.

Out in the real world, Edwards is winning by a landslide. The handful of committed Clark supporters dying to tear down Edwards cannot change that fact.

I'm guessing the VP choice will someone that has not been mentioned here at all, and will not likely be a previous Democratic candidate. That is very unlikely and smacks of sentimentality from those who have not let go of their candidates yet.

Rivals in the primary, winning ticket in the GE

Little Rock - Fifty-five former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats, women and men who have served in some 36 countries during the last four administrations, believe that Wesley K. Clark is the right choice to lead America at this critical time in the world.

"Serving as representatives of the United States has allowed each of us to meet with world leaders and see what terrific leadership looks like," said Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to theNetherlands and co-chair of Ambassadors for Clark. "We know that the world is more interconnected than ever before, and so the impact of good and bad leadership impacts America and the world more than ever before. Wes Clark appreciates that and ambassadors understand the interconnectedness of the world and the critical need for a new leader to repair and strengthen our global ties."

"I am thrilled by the endorsement of those that have the respect of world leaders on every continent," Wesley Clark said. "They understand the importance of rebuilding America's alliances and restoring our country to a position of leadership based on cooperation and respect."

Ambassadors and Diplomats for Clark grew out of the unique phenomena of the Draft Wesley Clark movement. Not only did Wes Clark receive encouragement to run from thousands of individuals from across the U.S., the letters of support came from people, both U.S. citizens and citizens of many other nations, who understand that Wes Clark is the person we need to lead America at this crucial moment in history. The full list of ambassadors and diplomats is below.

1. Morton Abramowitz, Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand, Assistant Secretary of State
2. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania.
3. Christopher Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay.
4. Jeff Bader, Ambassador to Namibia, Senior Director National Security Agency
5. Robert Barry, Administrator, Agency for International Development; Head, OSCE
6. J.D. Bindenagel, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.
7. Donald Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary
8. Amy Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD
9. Avis Bohlen, Ambassador to Bulgaria, Assistant Secretary of State
10. George Bruno, Ambassador to Belize
11. Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium
12. Tim Chorba, Ambassador to Singapore
13. Bonnie Cohen, Under Secretary of State
14. Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
15. Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of State, Chief U.S. Negotiator, SALT II Treaty
16. Thomas H. Fox, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development
17. Mary Mel French, Chief of Protocol
18. Edward Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco
19. Richard Gardner, Ambassador to Italy & Spain
20. Robert Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia & Bolivia, Assistant Secretary of State
21. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada
22. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil, Assistant Secretary of State
23. Anthony Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil
24. John Holum, Under Secretary of State
25. William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama
26. Swanee Hunt, Ambassador to Austria
27. James Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa
28. Rodney Minott, Ambassador to Sweden
29. John McDonald, Ambassador to the United Nations
30. Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica
31. Gerald McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal
32. Arthur Mudge, Mission Director for Agency for International Development
33. Lyndon Olson, Ambassador to Sweden
34. Donald Petterson, Ambassador to the Sudan, Tanzania & Somalia
35. Kathryn Proffitt, Ambassador to Malta
36. Edward Romero, Ambassador to Spain & Andorra
37. James Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania
38. Nancy Rubin, United Nations Commission on Human Rights
39. James Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State
40. David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State
41. Howard Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
42. Teresita Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives
43. David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
44. Cynthia Schneider, Ambassador to the Netherlands.
45. Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland
46. Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State
47. Thomas Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden
48. Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations
49. Peter Tarnoff, Under Secretary of State
50. Peter Tufo, Ambassador to Hungary
51. Arturo Valenzuela, Senior Director, National Security Council
52. William Walker, Ambassador to El Salvador & Argentina, Head, Kosovo VerificationMission
53. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union
54. Phoebe L. Yang, Special Coordinator for China Rule of Law, State Department
55. Andrew Young, Ambassador to the United Nations

ALL of the polls show Edwards is the favorite pick for VP. Besides, he has a LOT MORE MONEY than Clark and we need it!

:-)

best way to gain control of the terrorism issue...two experienced military men as leaders. :thumbsup: