why Clark voters should have a vested interest in Edwards doing well

[Bombtrack]

In the primary

Up until this point I'd get angry when dems, both on this board and in real life, would dismiss Edwards as running for veep, or saying "he'd make a good veep but...". The reason there dismissal was
annoying and ignorant of the facts was because Edwards did not make sense as the veep of any of the then current frontrunners, namely Kerry and Dean. He couldn't carry any of the states in his region for dems like them, who wouldn't come close enough to carrying any of them in the first place.

But now that Clark has become a top-tier candidate, that changes things. I really hated how he started his campaign(by snuffing out Edwards announcment). But I don't know that that was his decision, so I'm not in position to hold it against him until I know. I watched his townhall, and his performance, along with Edwards slow campaign growth, is really weakenning my one-track commitment to the senator.

I think that the strongest POSSIBLE dem ticket right now would be Clark, with Edwards as his veep.

People have suggested Clark/Dean ad nausium.

But here's why Clark/Edwards would be better for a number of reasons.

Most people, including almost half of democrats still think the war in iraq was the right decision. Having Edwards as his veep would help keep alot of non-anti-war dems and independants from voting Bush or not voting.

the vast majority of Dean/anti-war voters would vote for Clark, and none would vote for Bush.

Dean brings no swing-states or regions into better play. Edwards helps in NC, TN, SC, and GA(all states inwhich he's lived) as well as VA, WV, LA, and perhaps most importantly Florida.

Edwards is the only candidate campaign who is truely not dominated by Clinton donor money. TNR had a good article about that a few months back. His dominant source of trial-lawyer cash is a big part of what has made him such a serious candidate so far, and it would really help Clark
--------

The Clark movement should hope for and support in ways that you can, the prosperity of the Edwards campaign, to make at least a serious dent in the primary process. He would/will be a much more likely VP candidate if he stays in long and puts up what is considered to be a serious fight. Because him joining Clark as a veep helps Clark more than it helps Edwards

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Edwards has been sort of populist, that's good

Clark/Edwards is the ultimate establishment sort of left of center ticket. The Dean people have to be rewarded. What will you give them? :)

[Bombtrack]

2. How is it establishment?

Dean had some high-position in the national governors association. Maybe chairman, I forget. But is a DLC, pro-bussiness dem, and has demonstrated less willingness than Edwards to appose corporate interests, as governor and in his platform

Clark has been a casual supporter and friend to democratic causes, only officially becoming a dem a month ago.

Dean comes from of all things the eastern establishment. Edwards and Clark come from nothing, and rose on there own merritt to highest levels of the military and legal world.

The Dean people need to be rewarded? I think that kind of extortionist attitude is incredibly warped

and you clearly have a distorted idea about what establishment means

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. I like Edwards

Edwards is an American success story, a working class guy who made good. You won't hear me bashing Edwards. He brings populism to the South and we really need it. He is the Democratic establishment, he's a trial lawyer, but he's on my side. I'd vote for Edwards over any Republican any day. He would be a perfect VP and he could be president too.

[AP]

7. Give them Edwards-Clark -- a real populist on the top

of the ticket, with the most liberal message about taxes and a guy who's plan to reward work with wealth rather than reward the already wealthy more wealth without having to work for it is just about the only plan offered so far which is going avert the impending train wreck of the American economy.

[Bombtrack]

11. I don't disagree with your assessment

but Edwards needs alot to break to the top.

Clark can beat Dean. Which I believe is vital. I've wanted Edwards for a long time. But Kerry and Clark are the only other 2 who could beat Bush in all probability. And Clark has the momentum to do that.

Look at what the right-wing media is doing to Clark now? The same thing they focused on doing to Edwards when he began. Lying about how he's running for veep, he's unprepared etc.

[tjdee]

15. They are threatened by both of them.

For some reason, Edwards is receiving no press, but the RNC was threatened enough to put out a 10 page memo on him and the insurance industry were all set with ads against him. Then it was media blackout time.

Thinking of that now, I'm a bit more interested in seeing the two of them together.

[AP]

16. I really don't think Kerry can win anywhere in the south at all

and his privileged background won't energize working class dems and black and latino voters. As for Clark, it's great to see a guy in a uniform slap Bush around, but Democrats in uniform don't win national elections on their own. Edwards is the guy who offers the greatest contrast to Bush and has the "FDR/ I care for the Tom Joads of the world and the economy is the most important issue" thing going on for him. People are going to be most affraid of the impending Great Depression II next year, and not about any impending WWIII. Clark's great on Nat'l Security, but that's not where most people's hearts will be.

[tjdee]

18. Clark is doing it also...good combo.

Clark is doing it similarly, from an "Apple Pie America" vantage point. Edwards had "New American Optimists", Clark has "New American Patriotism".

Quick, who said this:
"And together, we're going to march forward. Forward with a new vision. Forward to bring our children and grandchildren into a future, brightened by hope, courage, and our determination that we can do better. We will do better. And we will do it together."

It was Clark, and it sounds a lot like Edwards when he says things like:
"Americans dream that their children's lives will be better than their own. Americans dream that hard work deserves a real return. Americans dream that their future can be greater than their present."


and the day before Clark said the above, Edwards was saying this:


"Together, we can make their voices heard!
Together, we can make opportunity the birthright we all share!
Together, we can restore the promise of America!"


In fact, if I thought less of Clark I'd think he was wholesale pilfering portions of Edwards' message.

[Bombtrack]

20. I think that Clark sort of has the best of both Edwards and Kerry

I disagree that people's hearts will not be on foriegn policy. It will be atleast equal to the economy on peoples priorites.

Clark has a simliarly humble background to Edwards. And he owes as much to a good public education as him.

But I think that Clark speaks with more authority and ease about Foreign policy than Edwards, and maybe not too much less on domestic issues.

I agree with your opinion about Kerry. He does and would have a hard time overcoming his richest senator/european wife/icy image, and it would make more of a difference than his supporters will admit.

His motorcycle, windsailing, and diverting the converstaion to vietnam wouldn't be enough to not lose most of the nascar moms and dads who should be voting dem.

Although, despite all that, I think he's still more broadly appealing than Dean.

[AP]

21. I sat in a room with people listening to Krugman talk about the

economy recently. I looked around the room when Krugman said that the American economy could deflate slowly or suddenly -- he said we could have a Wile E. Coyote moment, where were running out eight steps from the ledge, look down and see there's nothing beneath us and plummet -- and the people looked more frightened than people looked on 9/11. With 9/11, if you weren't in a plane or a high building you figured you were probably going to make it. But the people I looked at were like, 'do I have any future? Is this going to be like the Great Depression?"

[tjdee]

22. Clark taught economics at West Point.

LOL, I'm not going to convince you to like Clark or not...but I do think that Clark is more than foreign policy.

Clearly, clearly, though, Edwards is superior on domestic issues (on edit: at this point). In terms of actual plans, his economics plan is even better IMO than Clark's, and since Clark's an economics type guy, I thought it was interesting how much better Edwards was yesterday--but, that could have been Clark's inexperience with those types of debates.

[AP]

25. I don't think the guy who taught poetry at West Point is going to be the..

...best or most liberal poet, and I don't think the guy who taught chemistry at West Point is going to be the best or most liberal chemist. :)

And, in any event, I'm listening to what they're saying on the stump, and Edwards is the one who sounds like FDR.

[Bombtrack]

26. ok

.

[depakid]

4. In real life Edwards is inexperienced

and I think most DU'ers (and most voters) are well aware of that. In addition, and Edwards choice loses many of the new partipants and Greens that Howard Dean and others have brought into the process, and offers little in the way of replacements. This not only jeopardizes states in places like places like Oregon, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, but there's little evidence much less a guarantee that Edwards can even bring his own state of North Carolina to the ticket.

So, really your argument boils down to that sorry old regional saw, which alone just doesn't cut it.

[Bombtrack]

8. so about what fraction of Dean people wouldn't vote for Clark?

in the general election?

Why wouldn't Clark win the anti-war vote? which might as well be synonomous with the Dean vote thus far? Because he's too pleasant about it?

You don't explain why PA, OR, or NH have some draw to a Dean vice presidency.

That old regional saw?

just need some elaboration. Edwards would help alot more to get the 80- odd electoral votes of non solidly red southern states than Dean ever would for NH. Gore lost 4 points from the left and by 2 from the middle there, but Dean would probably lose 8 points from the middle that Gore won.

and the resources Bush used to shore up the south and most of rural america against Gore that he wouldn't need to spend against Dean, would be easily rerouted to the midwest, west, and suburbia everywhere.

[AP]

9. Edwards's life is closer to reality than any of the candidates

other than Kucinich and Sharpton (and maybe CMB) and his policy positions reflect that he's the one who understands how Americans live their lifes, and I think Americans are going to connect with THAT.

[Closer]

5. No surprise there

From your posts, I'd say you fit right in with the Clark supporters here. I say you should make the switch!

[AP]

6. I've said before that a nominee's VP has to be someone who

affirms the central message of the nominee. You'd don't want the VP to balance something you think you don't have, because that's admission that something you don't have is important. When Bush picked a young, uh, "good-looking" Quayle, it was like saying I'm old and ugly. But when Clinton picked Gore it was like saying it's right to have a young white southern baby-boomer as president -- it's time to have a president who represents America as it is, and it's time we start looking into the future. Most recently, if you think being an oil man from TX is the best thing you have to offer, then pick another one.

So, I think people are missing something when they try to pick tickets that are regionally balanced, or balanced on policy stances.

That's why I'm starting to think that it's going to be Edwards-Clark (not Clark-Edwards). The knock on Edwards is that he's inexperienced and, from the left, that he didn't pass the Iraq purity test. I think picking Clark is way to say, "experience in DC isn't what counts, and that a nuanced, firm attitude about Iraq is the right way to go (rather than absolute criticism or absolute "patriotism").

Of course it works with Clark-Edwards, but I just don't see how America is going to go with a guy who has NO experience running for anything on the top of the ticket, and I don't think he's going to be a good enough campaigner to pull it off.

I think they would have let Clark get picked as the VP without running, but they (1) needed him to deflate te Dean hype, and (2) they needed him to introduce himself to the public.

[Clark Can WIN]

10. I love Edwards alot

and I enjoy listening to him every time I get the chance. I hope he stays in it for the long haul and I hope that he reaps great benifits from his efforts because they are noble. I believe he is a good, good man.

[tjdee]

12. Plus, they'd be the CUTEST ticket in the world!

Well, they would be.
:crazy:

Clark is absolutely beguiling. He just is. I watched him in...NH tonight? and he is natural, he's charming, straightforward....the people in NH seemed to want to just eat him up.

But at this point, my preference is with Edwards' message and Edwards in general. I would be delighted with any combination of the two.

I think they fit together quite nicely, for a number of reasons.

[Bombtrack]

13. It really would be a superior Clinton-Gore redux

in 92 it was mostly about domestic issues. Clinton was a heartland governor with a great mind in foreign policy as well.

in 04 it will(although many here don't think it should be) mostly about foriegn policy. Clark is a General with a good mind in domestic issues.

And of course Clark comes off as alot more trustworthy but just as brilliant as Clinton. And Edwards comes off as alot more likable than Gore, and has had not had the pampered, but the opposite of the life Gore lead.

[tjdee]

14. We'd be set for some 16 years, in any case.

I think the Republicans are hard pressed to come up with 2 of theirs as intelligent, capable, *and* likeable as those two.

[union_maid]

17. I would love to see Clark/Edwards

Eight years of that and eight years of Edwards/whomever and the country might be a place I'd be happy my grandchildren were born into. My only issue with Edwards was that he bought into the Iraq thing so totally. However, a couple of terms as Clark's VP and he'd be an expert in his own right when it comes to foreign policy. I love Edwards on domestic issues, though. Making scabs illegal - is that great or what.

They are the best looking team and very personable in all ways. Anyway, did you see the way Clark was looking at Edwards in agreement during the debate. I said at the time, he's thinking, "That's my VP." OK, I might be kind of projecting there, but he did seem to like what Edwards had to say.

[tjdee]

19. I caught that look too.

He was watching him very approvingly, I thought. But I'm biased.

[union_maid]

24. Or AG

If for some reason, Edwards wasn't the VP, then I think he'd make a kickass Attorney General for the next administration. Actually, he'd be very valuable there, but I want him in the campaign, too.

[Rowdyboy]

23. Clark/Edwards, Edwards/Clark

I'd be in heaven either way. This, my friends, is a dream team to send that stupid pig back to his sty in Crawford...