CLARK stays well ahead of the pack...

...The General stays WELL AHEAD of the pack as Veepstakes voters continue to ponder the future of US involvement in Iraq. Clark's military resume may be too attractive for Kerry to pass up, given that November 2nd could well be a one issue election..."

And it will be a one issue election:

Kerry/Clark -- two HEROES (All patriot, NO act)

vs.

Bush/Cheney -- two ZEROS

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4565073

even if he has a ham sandwich as VP (no repugs, though). But why settle for a ham sandwich when you have CLARK!

Perfect place for Wes! At the top!

Go Wes!

after what happened on Babylon 5. :dunce:

I think this is supposed to be funny, but I'm lost. LOL!

This is funny, though:

Consider yourself lucky.

I'm a geek - I like computers and to read, a lot, but I'm not big into Sci-Fi, so I guess I'm not a nerd. :)

Does that mean you were for or against Clark for Veep.

:bounce:

I think Clark would make an excellent Sec. of Defense. I think his talents would be wasted as a V.P.

What's wrong with being Sec. of Defense? It's more of an honor than being V.P., IMO.

Once again, he can't be Sec of Defense because he hasn't been out of the military long enough.

There's no comparison between a cabinet position and the VP. I wish he were our candidate, but this is the next best thing and I pray that Kerry ignores the Rethug pundits who are desperately trying to undermine Clark. They FEAR this man. He is their worst nightmare on the ticket.

that the Rethugs are scared of the General. The role of the vice president can be virtually anything, and I think Kerry would give Clark a very active part and a heavy set of duties. They'd be a very strong team together, and they really cover all ground in the campaign.

a strong voter base from varying constituencies. I also think they genuinely like each other. That's going to be critically important as they will be battling both the media and the Rethugs, not just through this election cycle but into their administration. I'm desperately hoping we take back the Senate and/or House. Then Kerry can do something about media consolidation and make it a more level playing field for Dems. But if that doesn't happen we'll face a non-stop struggle and Kerry's administration better be on the same page, united, and intensely compatible. I'm sure that will occur with Kerry/Clark.

...unlike one of the other contenders for VP.

I think Kerry/Clark ticket is the ONLY way go to increase our odds of winning in November. And Clark as VP will change the duties and importance of the vice presidency.

for help in doing it and going to Israel and helping get the peace back on track. there is no job he can't do and the world respects him and he already knows most of the big wigs in the world personally. the diplomats that signed on for him confirm this.

Add further that he actually knows his geography better than any US President, and is 'scary smart'. Note also that the man has a heart of solid gold.

His background suits him for SOD, not VP.

...let me scream it from the rooftops for the 1,000th time:

Clark CANNOT be Secretary of Defense. One must be out of the military for TEN years before they are eligible for this post.

Second: Gaffe prone? Hardly. Clark is very, very wellspoken, outstanding on the stump and in townhall meetings, and terrific in his media commentary. You have allowed the media set the bar rather than the speaker.

although I still can't decide between Clark or Edwards as VP.

if Edwards is chosen, we lose one senate seat, am I correct?

Edward is not running for re-election to the senate.

The way he is almost NEVER mentioned by the so-called pundits is proof positive that "the powers that be" want to downplay his popularity.

It does seem that John Kerry has a good relationship with Clark, more so than with Edwards.

Clark is the perfect choice with his defense expertise. He's the best of John McCain without the handicaps: McCain is not pro-choice, not pro-affirmative action, and not pro-health care. Clark is all three. Pus Clark would pull away a good chunk of the veteran vote currently staying with Bush -- due to Clark's dedication to helping the plight of the veterans.

If you ever watched the video on Clark's old website that was produced by Linda Bloodworth Thomason of "The Man from Hope" fame, you would agree that showing this film at the Dem Convention before a Clark acceptance speech would be overwhelming and strip the Republicans of their near-monopoly of the military and veterans vote. They certainly don't deserve the support they get from the military.

Kerry/Clark is the worst nightmare of Karl Rove.

Don't you think that's important? Or no?

I can just see Cheney wiping up the floor with Clark, as he hems and haws trying to think of answers to questions. Debating is an art and a skill that Clark just doesn't have. He got LOTS better at it, as the debates continued. But he was far behind the rest of the pack, IMO.

Remember him telling the moderator, "Well, India can keep the computer jobs." I know what he meant. YOU know what he meant. And he wasn't familiar with what we now all know is a flight of computer jobs (but it wasn't well known at the time of that debate). And there were other equally embarassing performances at the debates.

No problem for you guys if he loses debates with Cheney? Cheney will be a tough one to go against at a debate. You don't see this as a problem? The idea is to win the Independent voter in the 16 swing states. You think they won't notice that? (And it'll take more than just saying, "So what war did you fight in, Mr. Vice President? I fought in a bunch of 'em."

I'd LOVe a Kerry/Clark ticket....but mainly I want to WIN! You think the debating problem is a nonissue?

context of the debates as structured by the DNC and the various media outlets. Those "debates" were all about the soundbite and the quick comeback, and had nothing to do with structure and nuance. Plus you'll notice he generally got no serious questions, just the gotcha variety calculated to make him look as lame as possible.

Clark is an intellectual, he doesn't do soundbites, generally speaking (no pun intended)--although he's come up with some doozies. Who can forget, "I'm not attacking the president for attacking the terrorists, I'm attacking him for NOT attacking the terrorists?"

He was captain of the debate team at West Point, but formal debates are a whole different animal from the Entertainment Tonight "debates" of the primary season.

He'll demolish Cheney in a one-on-one confrontation. Trust me, it won't even be close. Clark Kent vs. The Undead. :evilgrin:

I really don't get it.

Clark did fine in all but the one Fox debate, and that one was skewed against him from the beginning. Every question a "gotcha" and one of those even asked twice (by different moderators).

In the other debates (and even a couple times on Fox) how did you miss the cheering and applause after many of his responses? Don't you know that he was credited as having won several? And not just the later debates--I think it was the second one they said he won too.

I don't even know what you're talking about with sending computer jobs to India. The reason we both know what he meant is because he SAID what he meant. That we create high-tech jobs by innovating new technologies. That was a basic plank in his platform from the beginning. Clark was NOT uninformed about the loss of computer jobs, but you seem to be about his position on jobs and trade. And a lot of things.

As for the debate with Cheney, it will be nothing like what went on with nine candidates being asked questions about different subjects, with no real opportunities to respond to each other. It will be a total slamdunk. Of that I have every confidence.

In fact, I can think of no other potential VP that has a prayer of doing half as well as Clark against Cheney. It is precisely his debate skills, combined with a vast knowledge in the areas that Cheney will emphasize, that is probably one of the best arguments as to why Clark should be the VP nominee.

...Clark will WIPE THE FLOOR with Cheney. Period. You must not have watched the same debates that I watched, or taken in to account the slime-ball moderators in the 10-person debate format.

Gephardt, IMHO, is the BEST debator of the group, though it is not his time and he injects no energy. And when it comes to foreign policy/military issues and war, Edwards flat out sucks. He couldn't answer a simple question about the war in any of the debates or on Hardball. And the war being the issue of this federal election season (guaranteed issue), Clark is the only person to toss up against Cheney--and Clark will clean his clock!

Kerry has his own hero/military credentials--he doensn't really need Clark for that--especially against two chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney. Clark's ok if he is chosen but he isn't the end-all in my opinion.

Usualy that implies hawkish, pro-interventionist, with authoritarian overtones. That ain't Kerry or Clark, but I think I get the point you are making, though I respectfully disagree. I believe you think the ticket could be strengthened more by adding someone for VP with an area of strength that Kerry is weaker in than his military credentials. It is a fair debate, but I will note one thing that only someone like Clark can help Kerry with. The Republicans are already coming right at Kerry over his days as an anti Viet Nam War protester. That is how they plan to neutralize Kerry's advantage as a veteran. Of course Kerry is a fighter and he can come right back at them, but that still throws Kerry partially off message and onto the defensive, which is what the Republicans want to achieve. They want the debate on Kerry's "failings", not Bush's.

Clark as a VP candidate would be perfect at defending Kerry and throwing it back at the Republicans, for he too was a Viet Nam War hero, except no one can link Clark to "Hanoi Jane". The Republicans want to reopen the divisive social war over the Viet Nam War, because that muddies Kerry's image with many of the moderate Republican leaning voters who have begun to move away from Bush. Clark slams that door shut without having to waste Kerry's time and energy doing so.

...then why does he do the WORST in polls on the issues of national security and foreign policy?

It is not too militaristic. What is too militaristic is the No Child Left Behind Act and it's provision that allows the military to take your child's information for recruiting purposes--if the school refuses to comply, federal funding is withheld. Bush/Cheney is militaristic.

Two vietnam vets, one of whom is a four-star General, should be embraced by we democrats as our ticket. That isn't too militaristic...it is SMART.