What if the Democratic nominee takes office in Jan 2005

[Skwmom]

and 1 month later there is a major terrorist attack on the U.S (for example, a suitcase nuke goes off in a major city). The public is in a panic. The president will address the nation from the oval office. When you turn on the television to hear the president speak to the American people, who do you want sitting behind the desk in the oval office delivering this address to the American public (and why).

I would want Clark because I think he would be a great leader in a time of crisis, the American public would be confident in his ability to handle the crisis (thus preventing widespread panic), he would take steps to make America safe but would keep in mind what makes America great is our freedoms (and would be able to over see the development and implementation of such a plan because of his experience) and he would be in control of the situation instead of taking a backseat to the pentagon brass (which could potentially occur if a novice was commander-in-chief).

(Please note that while I think Clark would be the best candidate to handle this type of situation, I also think he is the best candidate to get this country back on the right track (so please no "you only go with Clark because he makes you feel safe" posts).

[aquart]

1. And none of the other candidates would know what to do?

Well, exactly, please, what is it you expect him to do? He's already made airports safe by violating the privacy of every human being on the planet. What's left?

[NoMoreRedInk]

2. It can't be Clark. He's already guaranteed it won't happen....

every news channel in the country would replay his guarantee over and over and over.

[brainshrub]

3. And Dem who's name doesn't start with the letter "L" will be fine.

They are all qualified.

[For PaisAn]

4. Yes

I agree.

[SheilaT]

5. So?

The worst attack on U.S. soil occurred when the worst president in our history was occupying the Oval Office and thus far we're muddling through.

The problem with these what if posts is they are utterly meaningless. We can play guessing games forever and it won't matter. What does matter is the reality at hand. NOTHING could be worse than what we have now, except for him to be re-elected (or re-selected as the case may be) along with a continued Republican House and Senate. The second worst thing would be for the Democratic nominee (including whoever is your personal last choice for the nomination) to be elected but the House and Senate remain Republican.

So along with campaigning for the Democrat, we must do all possible for the election of senators and representatives of our party.

[Exgeneral]

6. it's too early to count Joe out

He sure knows a thing or two about terrorism. He knows we can't be soft on it. If I were to argue with General Clark about anything, it's his continued percieved softness on terrorism.

At least Joe is consistent on this issue, and he's rising in the polls because of it. Nipping at Clarks heels in several states.

Overall, the general is probably best in your scenario, except it begs the obvious question: we elected you to make us feel safer: now what?

[isbister]

7. None would tell us to shop...

I would like to see John Kerry there. We need someone familiar with Washington, someone who knows how to get the job done.

[cindyw]

8. Kerry, Kerry and Kerry

n/t