Which Candidate Has The Best Chance Of Making Red States Blue In 08

[DemocratSinceBirth]

on edit -added John Edwards name and deleted Howard Dean's name since I had it on twice...

[alevensalor]

1. You need an option for Barack Obama n/t.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. I was very taken with Obama too... and he was a DFA candidate

We were one of the first groups to support him. But I think we need to stop making instant stars out of first term senators. Look what happened to Edwards. He just wasn't ready and now we have lost another senate seat where it is possible he could have won again in NC if he had actually done the job he was elected to do FOR AT LEAST ONE FULL TERM.

Let Obama get some credentials. Let's see what he will do in office. Anyone can talk a good game, but what they do under pressure is key.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Don't Think He's Going To Run In 08.....

nt

[Cheswick2.0]

13. I hope you are right

I think he is too good a politician to blow it all on a premature run at the whitehouse. Let him work his magic in the senate and then get some executive experience somewhere. Maybe as Governor? He's a young man.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Would Be Suprised If Obama Is Not On A National Ticket In 2012 or 2016

If he wanted to run in 08 he would have to start running now...

[ArtVandaley]

46. He said he wouldn't

On Meet the Press Russert asked him if he would serve his ful term and he said "absolutely, I intend to be in the Seante for a long time." I'm guessing 2012 or 2016.

[liberalmuse]

11. My first thought on seeing this poll.

Barack Obama would be the best bet.

[AntiCoup2K4]

59. No one term Senator is going to be elected President.

Not even Obama. However, I could see him as VP under Howard Dean, and then after 8 years of executive branch experience, winning easily.

[Cheswick2.0]

2. Do you know you have Dean in the poll twice?

[Wickerman]

5. shhh

its called push polling. /kidding :)

[StopTheMorans]

3. where's Edwards?

thanks:)

[Cheswick2.0]

10. he's where ever washed up politicians go

he not only lost the VP race, he lost us a senate seat because of his arrogance in running during his first term in the senate.
He could have kept his seat in the senate I think it he had run for it and been doing his job instead of running all over the country running for VP.

PLEASE, NO MORE FIRST TERM PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.. and that includes Obama, as much as I admire him.

[StopTheMorans]

15. ARROGANCE?

sorry, the idiots on the other side won with *, who had only held office for about the same time Edwards was in the Senate. I don't agree that he should have given up his seat, but he's certainly qualified enough to run for the presidency. and if you want to talk washed-up, i'm still a deaniac, but post-scream; there's less future for him on the national level than there is for Edwards...

[AntiCoup2K4]

61. Not to defend the chimp, but he WAS the governor of a fairly large state..

...yes his daddy bought him the job, and yes, the Texas governor is actually a mostly ceremonial position with the Lt. Gov doing most of the actual work. But on paper, it gave Junior enough legitimacy to run. And from there his name and the BCE political machine took care of all the rest.

Governors are better candidates for President than Senators. It's been that way for both parties.

[BOSSHOG]

7. A CLARK-OBAMA TICKET

I'm sure the grand old party is setting up their swift boats for these guys right now.

[liberalmuse]

12. There's the ticket! n/t

n/t

[Eurobabe]

21. yes, some are already on DU spreading the Regressive memes.

Remember, to always keep this in your pocket...

[blue america]

24. Absolutely

[bowens43]

8. There will be no more elections.

There will be repeats of 2000, 2002 and 2004.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. we might as well shoot ourselves then...

I'm not a quitter...

[robbedvoter]

17. True, but if they were, Clark would be it

[JNelson6563]

16. I'd like to see a Gore/Dean ticket

That would be great!

[Larkspur]

67. Me too!

Though a Dean/Feingold ticket would be good too.

[KnowerOfLogic]

114. Me too; I think Gore got a clue after 2000, and he deserves to be Prez;

and Dean would be the perfect VP.

[ArthurDent]

18. Warner/Bayh 2008 (or Bayh/Warner 2008)

That'd switch at least two red states and probably four to six. Virginia would almost certainly go blue, as would Ohio. WV and Indiana would also likely switch. Plus, Clinton-friendly states like TN, AR, MO would be potential switches.

[StopTheMorans]

19. that ticket is almost as inspiring as a Lieberman/Miller ticket

if people are going to be FIXATED on nominating candidates who aren't from the northeast; can we PLEASE nominate a dem from the south or mid-west who isn't center-right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. It's Unfair To Put Lieberman In The Same Category As Miller

And would a Bayh-Warner ticket really be more conservative than the 1992 Clinton-Gore ticket was...

[StopTheMorans]

22. not more conservative than Clinton-Gore in 1992, but we'd also be

16 years removed from 1992, and i'd like *to think* that we've made some progress on most social issues (i.e. in '92 even civil unions were not a possibility).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I'm Controlling For Time Periods...

A Bayh -Warner ticket would essentially be as conservative as the Clinton-Gore ticket...

I think it's safe to say they are center-left candidates...


It's also safe to say that Indiana and Virginia are not the best states for a candidate to show his liberal colors....


That being said I don't think it's the best ticket imaginable...

[StopTheMorans]

25. fair enough

:)

[Bush was AWOL]

41. Nope

about the same.

It would be a winner.

[ArthurDent]

55. It'd inspire a lot of people.

The ticket would probably win. Why are you "fixated" on nominating a losing, far-left ticket?

[Crunchy Frog]

52. That would be a fine ticket.

I wouldn't vote for it, but that wouldn't matter because it would be so powerful that it wouldn't need my puny vote.

[ArthurDent]

56. Out of curiosity....

Would you have voted for Warner/Bayh if they were the '04 DNC ticket? Or would you have gone Nader or Green (or Libertarian)?

[Crunchy Frog]

62. They were not even on in my thoughts in '04,

but the closest approximation I can think of to them was Joe Lieberman. He was the one Democratic candidate that I would not have voted for. I would have voted for Cobb instead.

[ArthurDent]

73. So, AABB?

"Almost Anybody But Bush"? Strange, but fair enough.

[Crunchy Frog]

79. Yup, exactly. n/t

[Lenape85]

80. Me too

And I don't know if I would want to vote for Bayh or Warner either.

[AntiCoup2K4]

64. How about Beeblebrox/Beeblebrox '08?

One head for President and the other head for Veep. Save office space, and they can use the VP residence for something else that can make money.

Hey, it makes more since than any more DLC tickets, right?

[ArthurDent]

71. I'd prefer the DLC

But that should go without saying.

[charlie]

83. DLC over Beeblebrox?

Turn in your towel, chump.

[Crunchy Frog]

74. I would vote for that ticket.

That might make a good bumpersticker, although I wonder how many people would get it in our illiterate society.

[ArthurDent]

81. Ineligible

Zaphod isn't eligible for the POTUS for a lot of reasons.

But in any event, do you think that reading HGttG is required to be literate?

[Crunchy Frog]

86. He will be eligible

once they pass the Schwartzenegger Ammendment.

No I don't believe that reading Hitchhiker's Guide is required to be literate, but I do believe that understanding the reference in the suggested bumpersticker would be an indication that one was at least somewhat literate.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. If 08 Is A Fear Election We Have No Choice But To Run Him (nt)

[Mike L]

28. Clark would be a good VP pick, but......

he doesn't have any political experience holding office and America has never elected a general President unless he won a major war.

[ventvon]

32. Wes Clark rambles too much

He doesn't have a chance.

Whether you love him or not, he has zero chance of winning the White House.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Zero

If he was the candidate in 04 he would have won the same states as Kerry...

The pregnant question is does he win AK, FL, and OH or some combination thereof...

American politics is polarized... Just having a D or R in front of your name guaranteees you 45% of the vote...

[ventvon]

36. Edwards would have won more crossover voters than any other Dem

You have to take votes from the other side in order to be a successful Democrat.

Edwards would have easily done that as the Primaries showed, and as the deliberative study conducted by PBS showed.

Kerry and Bush were tied at 47% in the study, exactly like they were tied for most of the Presidential race.

Edwards led Bush by 11% (48 to 37) because he took votes away from Bush. In a post-9/11 world, being a one-term Senator meant nothing.

The people wanted Edwards over Bush, they were split between Bush and Kerry. Democrats could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by nominating a candidate who attracted voters from the other side instead of fighting for the "undecideds."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I Like Edwards...

In retrospect he would have been better off not being on the ticket because I believe in my mind and the mind of others he has been tainted by this loss...

[AP]

72. Lieberman was tainted by his loss because he actually did dumb things

like laugh at Cheney's lies as if they were true and funny jokes at the debate, and he said that the Gore campaign wasn't going to challenge unfranked (ie, illegal) military ballots when they were.

For Edwards to be tainted, I think he would have had to have done something wrong. I think he actually was pretty impressive and that people liked him.

[Sparkly]

44. I think at the time those polls were taken

the public didn't know what the Rove machine had to say about Edwards: that he was one of the "most liberal" senators, that he'd been absent a lot, that he was inexperienced, that he was a "trial lawyer," etc. etc... And if he'd been at the top of the ticket, they'd have pointed out that he had no military/national security experience.

I'm not saying that's fair or correct. I'm just saying I think there's a reason Rove didn't attack Edwards from the start -- didn't want to, didn't need to.

They'll drag up -- or make up-- dirt on ANYbody. They just choose who they want to deal with by focusing on some of them early on during the primaries.

[AP]

66. The Deliberative Poll accounts for that. The people who participated in...

...that poll were given a lot of information to read and were able to ask experts their opinions about the candidates.

Informed voters like Edwards a great deal, relative to Bush, after being given a lot of information, including the criticisms.

Regardless of what Rove was GOING to do, I'd rather start from 11 points up than even.

As is noted above, the Deliberative Poll was a pretty good predictor of where people went.

[Kahuna]

45. Edwards....As the primaries showed???? The primaries showed..

his losing all states but his home state. :shrug: So, what IS your point?

[ventvon]

50. During the primaries he won crossover Republicans

and anyone who considered themselves conservative.

He also got more of the veterans' vote in a lot of the states.

Kerry won most of the Democrats who jumped in line and voted for him because the state before theirs did and the media kept saying, "he can beat Bush," so on exit polls, Kerry voters repeated that brainwashed crap and said, "Can Beat Bush" or "He's not George W. Bush."

These Conservative Dems and Moderate/McCain Republicans said of Edwards, "he Cares about people like me," "I agree with him on the issues (like his message)."

Look at the internals.

That's why Edwards did so well in SC, WI, and Oklahoma (lost by only 1,000 despite not going there the week before because of Zogby's push polls showing Kerry closer in SC than he ever was which forced Edwards to stay there, and Clark spending the entire week in Oklahoma before the Tuesday).

He won the voters who would have crossed over for him in the General Election, but never would have for any of the others.

[AP]

68. Edwards also did better the farther you moved into the suburbs.

He also did better with middle class white men than any other demographic, and did better as people got wealthier. Even though he came in second overall, if you look at his results, it was pretty obvious to whom he was appealing and why.

Kerry really did well with most of the traditional Democratic Demographics (unions, African American voters). I think it's obvious that Edwards wouldn't have had a problem with those demographics at all, had he been the nominee, which makes it interesting to look at the people to whom he did appeal.

In all the demographics with which the Dems traditionally have trouble, Edwards was strongest. Which I think is why in the Deliberative Poll he pared up so well against Bush.

[ventvon]

87. Don't just say "pared up so well againt Bush"

Just say, smoked Bush by 11 points.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Edwards repeats the same speech over and over again.

It gets boring after awhile. He has almost none of the experience that's relevant for running the country, in peacetime, let alone a time of war and international crisis, which I think will only get worse over the next four years.

He doesn't have a chance.

Whether you love him or not, he has zero chance of winning the White House.

[AP]

69. Psst. That's how Clinton won. He repeated the Boy from Hope speech so many

times that everyone knew it.

When people start saying they've heard that speech before, that's a sign that the candidate is doing everything right: they have a consistent message that's seeping into the popular conscience.

It's like hearing people on the street humming the theme from Star Wars. That means the movie is doing something good.

[lilfroggy]

107. Bull

Bull.

[Clark2008]

103. Hate to break it to you, but this isn't true

Republicans voted for Edwards in the Southern primaries because he was the weakest candidate once the "Dean scream" pushed Howard out of the picture. They weren't voting for him because they liked him (most all of the Southern states have open primaries and Shrub wasn't being challenged, so they had a vote to play with).

I can prove this: Edwards didn't even win his home county, much less his state.

Besides, with his wife, bless her heart, sick - he really shouldn't be putting her and those two little children through another grueling run. Not only is it not healthy for Elizabeth, it won't play well in the "family-values" portion of the United States.

[lilfroggy]

106. How dare you

How dare you try to bring Elizabeth into this to justify Clark for 2008. You Clarkies are starting to sound exactly like Bushies. I kind of wonder if Bush and Clark didn't work together just to tear Edwards down in the primaries. George and Wes do have an eery resemblance if you look at photos of them - they even talk the same.

[Clark2008]

111. How dare you accuse me of such a thing

I live in a red state. I know what people are saying about Edwards running with his wife still sick.

Personally, I don't care what he does. I wouldn't vote for him. But, I do know that if you want to make any red state flip blue, putting a guy out who is PERCEIVED to be so politicially hungry that he runs while his wife is sick will not play down here. And that's all I was saying. I didn't mention Clark ONCE - YOU did.

And, I'm not even going to justify your stupid Clark equals Bush comment because that has got to be the dumbest thing ever written on DU. And there have been some pretty dumb things.

:eyes: Of course, it just proves that you have not listened to a word Clark has said or how he says it.

[arewenotdemo]

108. Totally disagree

As a matter of fact, today it finally hit me...Clark would have won.

No war protestor/"traitor" smears, no Taxachusetts liberal smear and the Vatican wouldn't have singled him out for destruction.

[Qutzupalotl]

118. Right.

He would have split the Republican vote. Divide and conquer.

There are a lot of Republicans who say they will NEVER vote for a Democrat, ever. Then you tell them about Clark, and they start to warm up to him. Some will make exceptions to their rule. And that's how we win.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. So Who Do YOU Support, Sparky?

Won't say? Thought so.

:eyes:

DTH

PS: I love how some people call us Clark supporters astroturf...yet we stayed here after Clark dropped out, and we're still here now. Seems like we're loyal and committed Dems, just like Clark is.

[ventvon]

30. Like I have said a million times since I got here

John "Conservative Democrats and Moderate Republicans wanted me nominated so they could vote for me instead of Bush" Edwards

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. Funny For You To Say a Million When You Have a Whopping 98 Posts

I have no beef with Edwards. Get over your beef with Clark. Unity starts at home.

DTH

[ventvon]

33. I have no beef with Clark

He just has no chance of winning. If he did, I'd say so.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

38. You're Entitled to Your Opinion

My opinion is that yours is total crap.

DTH

[ventvon]

51. That's why Dems like you will continue to pick poor candidates

[DoveTurnedHawk]

63. LOL

My guy won as many states as yours did in the primary, and isn't saddled with the unfortunate baggage of being on a losing ticket. AR was also closer than NC was, and Wes wasn't even on the ticket.

I think Clark and Edwards are both electable, however. I've written reams of material defending both, in the past. In contrast, your opinion, as expressed here, is completely empty. So I'm discounting it completely.

DTH

[AP]

70. If Clark had been on a losing ticket with Kerry I bet you wouldn't be...

...calling that "baggage."

For the sake of argument -- and let's be honest here -- what would you be arguing if Clark had been on that ticket?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. That He Got More Seasoning, Since It Was His First Campaign

Not sure that argument is as applicable for Edwards, however, since he did get elected once before.

That said, I really don't think it's a plus, regardless of how you or anyone might want to spin it.

Regardless, I'd have no problems with an Edwards candidacy. I just prefer Clark more.

DTH

[AP]

77. And you know what the truth is?

That for either of them, it introduces the candidate to more people, which would be a platform for him in the next primaries, and they'll either live or die on the strength of the arguments they make to the public from that platform.

Edwards's platform isn't lowered by having been on the ticket, and Clark's isn't as high as it could have been had he been on the ticket.

I guess the open quesion -- the one that is relevant when debating the merits of Clark vs. Edwards -- is whether we've learned that you can't fight Fear with Hope.

Had Edwards topped the ticket and lost miserably, we might have been able to conclude that you can't fight fear with a hopeful message about the economy and about class and opportunity (which was the message of the Edwards campaign). Had Clark topped the ticket and lost, we might be able to conclude that you can't fight Fear with Fear (or you can't fight Fear by only talking about what you should be more afraid of, terror with Bush at the help, or terror with someone else at the helm -- which was the core theme of Clark's campaign).

Because Kerry topped the ticket, and because we mostly talked about Vietnam War Service, it's hard to say whether we know if more hope or more crticism about Iraq would have made the difference.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

95. I Think Those Are All Pretty Reasonable Points

I would only say two things in response. First, Clark absolutely does not represent "fear" to me. Second, I'm not aware of any unsuccessful VP candidates in recent history who've gone on to get the nomination the next election season. (I don't really count Mondale because he was once VP, not merely a VP candidate.)

DTH

[AP]

98. Re that second point: it's more of a reflection of the kind of candidates

who get picked to be VP rather than a structural problem or problem of perception with being a losing VP candidate.

Remember that Kennedy was actually a loser for the VP race the one time that candidate in modern times said that the VPs should campaign for the spot at the convention. But the opportunity to run for VP raised his profile enough so that he had a platform from which to run for president the next cycle, and Kennedy took full advantage of that platform.

Beyond that, I think VPs who are picked to patch holes or satisfy some tiny niche end up not being successful P nominees because they were only ever meant to be patches. But VPs who are picked because they're good candidates in their own right (or reaffirm strenghts of the P nominee) have much better chances at getting the nomination in their own right. For example, if Clinton lost in '92, Gore probably would have had a great shot at the nomination even though he lost a run for pres in 88 and was on a losing ticket in 92, and that was because, essentially, he had the persona of a winning candidate (even if it wasn't the best persona). People like Kemp, Cheney, Ferraro never EVER would have a chance to get nominated, and this is reaffirmed by the fact that they'd never ran seriously themselves before or after thieir selection (OK, Kemp might have been one of 20 Repubicans running in 88, or whatever, but I don't think that was a serious run). Being a patch for weakness doesn't make for a well-rounded, winning P-nom persona.

Remember that most VP choices weren't even in the running for president. Kennedy picking Johnson, Reagan picking Bush and Kerry picking Edwards are the rare expamples of a candidate picking the second best candidate from the primaries. But notice what the first two have in common: they ended up becoming president eventually. I know they did it because their guy won, but Johnson and Kennedy were also candidates who were pretty serious candidates in their own right, and who actually ran reasonably well for president and didn't get the nomination. I'd group Edwards in with those candidates more readily than I would with Agnew, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Geraldene Ferraro or Dick Cheney

[JNelson6563]

76. Who's to say we would've lost

on a Kerry/Clark ticket?? Clark may have helped more with the South and the people who are concerned about the war and national security. I don't think it's far fetched to believe that at all.

Just my .0125

Julie

[AP]

78. I don't know how the Dems could have done better in the south unless

they actually campaigned there.

I don't think picking Clark would have changed Kerry's strategy of not campaigning in the south.

[JNelson6563]

84. Maybe they would've campaigned there

if Clark insisted on it.

Ah speculation. Fun isn't it? :-)

Julie

[AP]

85. Why would they have campaigned with Clark in the South but not Edwards?

I presume that if they picked Clark it would have been because the wanted to give people who thought war was the biggest issue some extra convincing. Why send Clark to the south to do that instead of to Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Pennsylvania, which were the states where Kerry was spending all his money?

[ventvon]

90. I'll say it.

Clark wouldn't have made a difference for Kerry.

Kerry was a veteran at the top of the ticket. Bush was AWOL.

Clark's "military service" wouldn't have helped him any.

[AP]

99. In fact, the press might have drawn out the fact that Clark and Kerry did

not seem to have the same position on the Iraq war.

It would have been more "flip-floppery" to the press and "mexed missages" for Bush.

[ventvon]

88. Clark is not electable

Never was, never will be.

He ain't no "Democratic Ike".

Get over that dream people.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

94. You Have Completely Convinced Me With Your Powerful Facts and Arguments

:eyes:

DTH

[Catchawave]

109. Clark just doesn't have "it"......

nor the support of veterans, believe it or not.

[quaoar]

35. You left off a potentially powerful candidate

Brian Schweitzer, newly elected Democratic governor of Montana:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/politics/14montana.html

[ventvon]

37. Montana?

It be interesting to see if someone from "Montana" could win anything national.

[quaoar]

42. Why not?

No one from Arkansas ever won the presidency until Clinton.

[fujiyama]

65. We'll give him some time

Hopefully it'll work out well enough for him.

I think the mountain west/southwest states are interesting...I don't see Montana as a state that's in play any time in the near future but some other states in the West are.

Democrats have been doing better in places like CO as well...picking up a senate seat and several seats in the state legislature.

[napi21]

39. I voted for Warner, but think we need to tay OUT of the Senate!!!

I think we would have the BEST SHOT with a popular Governor from either the South or the Mid West. It's been a very long time since a senator has won the Presidency (not having been the VP first). The other significant point is that we already have a pretty wide gap as the minority in the senate, and can't afford to loose any more Dems!

We all need to look at the current governors for strong possibilities. Sorry, I can't help you! I live in Ga. and all our senior office holders are Pubs! I can't even suggest our ex-governor, Roy Barnes. He was sort of popular with the Dems here, but hated by all the Pubs, so he wouldn't even be able to take Ga. is he were a notional candidate!

To the rest of you, do you have any recommendations?

[DinahMoeHum]

43. What about Mike Easley, gov of NC?? Any take on him?

thanks.

:kick:

[ventvon]

91. Mike Easley is a good NC Candidate.

He's not a good national candidate.

That's my NC take on him.

He has steadily created jobs while Bush has ruined things nationally. I think that helped Burr and Bush in this state, although it helped Easely of course.

Things are not as bad in this state as they are in a lot of them, which I think helped shield Bush some.

Either way, Easely just doesn't appear Presidential to me, and I see him all of the time.

[NewJeffCT]

92. wondering that here, too

He won re-election in a landslide in a state that went for Bush by the same percentage in 2004 and 2000 despite Edwards on the ticket.

That has to count for something unless his opponent had major scandals or something?

I think Easley pretty religious as well.

(Please note - I'm an atheist & always score extremely left on those "where do you fall on the political spectrum" tests, but I would rather have a moderate Easley in there than radical righty Frist or Owens or whomever they run)

[Zynx]

113. I agree. Warner is our best shot at turning red states blue.

[ArtVandaley]

47. Bil Richardson is from a red state that Kerry lost by 1%

I'd guess he might be able to make that state blue. He's the best candidate in my opinion.

[ArthurDent]

54. Two enormous problems

1) His state didn't matter. Bush would have won without it. The Democratic nominee needs to take multiple states.
2) He has a rather easy record to exploit from his tenure at the Dept of Energy.

[fnottr]

121. without a doubt NM would go for him

This is the first election we've been red since '88. And Richardson's way popular here

[DuaneBidoux]

48. Which one is the Dem governor of New Mexico?

I think he could win. Although I know he is moderate I don't think that's why he would win. I think he really connects, something Dems should have learned with Bill Clinton is vital.

[fnottr]

120. that would be Richardson n/t

[Moloch]

49. I voted Warner....

I was a Clark supporter all throughout the primaries and I voted for him
in mine. I was not in New Hampshire or any of the early states, but he apparently didn't do very well. Maybe it is because he had no experience running a campaign. Warner, however does. He is a Democratic governor of a red state and that has always done us well in the past.

[Killarney]

57. Warner or Clark

[LionInWinter]

58. Bill Richardson ...

and he will sweep the Southwest!

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. No one knows.

Ask me again in 2007.

:shrug:

[Bush was AWOL]

82. These men

Warner, Clark, Easley, Richardson

I think you need either Richardson or Clark on the ticket cause both have strong National Security credentials.

But any combination of these 4 would win.

[cyr330]

89. Wes Clark

I hesitated and almost voted for John Kerry, but I truly think Clark stands the best chance. He's gone through part of the trial of running this year, and he'll have four years to get ready and practice his debating skills. He would be a really strong candidate, and he's less conservative than many of the other possible candidates.

[Larry in KC]

93. God, it releases endorphins...

...to be able to push the lever for Wes Clark again.

I want to keep doing that, right through election day 2008, with the same smile on my face.

[Bombtrack]

96. I really hope Clark reads DU

or at least someone connected to him that can show him the groundswell he already has for 2008.

[AP]

100. Groundswell at DU is the kiss of death for a candidate. I can't...

...think of a Democrat for whom there has been a groundswell who didn't fall at the first hurdle.

Oh, and I remember the days of trying to get people interested in Obama last February. It wasn't until the convention until DU'ers started getting excited. And this was a guy we all love now. If they're really good and worthwile, you better hope their burn rate is slow and steady at DU and not all at once immediately.

[Bombtrack]

102. I was paying good attention to Obama as early as you were

as soon as I saw that he had meetup numbers above almost all of the PRESIDENTIAL candidates I knew something was special about him.

I don't agree with you about the groundswell thing though. There's nothing to compare this point in history with any semblance of parallel. Particularly to the 2004 primary.

[AP]

104. Dean was all the rage in Fall 2002. He was first out. Then Clark.

Before that, there was huge groundswell for Bill McBride. Hmm.

Every candidate that gets early enthusiastic attention at DU loses.

It's either the curse of DU or it's the shame.

There was a reverse curse too. Any candidate about whose chances jiacinto was cynical turned out to be a winner.

Go figure.

[RafterMan]

110. Dream on

None of the candidates turned out to be a winner.

[AP]

112. Every time DU turned it's lonely eyes to a candidate...

that candidate struck out. Where have you gone Joe Dimagio?

Maybe a better metaphor: the reverse midas touch.

You'd thik that the law of averages would mean we'd get it right once in a while. Nope.

[renate]

97. okay, I admit I'm biased....

Well, it's not necessarily to admit it, it's pretty obvious. ;-)
But I honestly don't see another name on that list with a better chance of winning votes in the South. Speaking in sweeping generalities (no pun intended), Clark is a man's man (military guy, hunter), a woman's man (listens to others' opinions, devoted husband of what, 39 years?, security-minded, good-looking), an intellectual's man (Rhodes Scholar, and the guy has facts at his fingertips as though he were a walking encyclopedia), a non-intellectual's man (an officer who served under him said that he doesn't make anybody feel "less than," an important quality for any group of voters, red or blue), and his faith is important to him (but he doesn't shove it down anybody's throat or, needless to say, want it to play a part in government). Basically, he is on paper the opposite of an East Coast liberal even while espousing liberal Democratic ideals.
None of this is to say that the other guys don't have their merits, but in terms of taking back some red states (while keeping the blue states blue, as a liberal Democrat), I honestly believe that Clark is the best bet.

[KnowerOfLogic]

101. NONE, since the Reds will still be counting the votes.

[welshTerrier2]

105. The correct answer is: Tom Delay

he's got a much better shot at turning red states blue than any of the Dems you listed ...

[mcscajun]

115. Gotta Love being able to vote for Clark!

even if it is just an online poll :)

[ermoore]

116. Clark?!

What is the fascination on this site for Wesley Clark? Totally unwarranted. If I had to guess, I'd say it was the same thing that caused the entire Democrat Convention to be about Kerry being in Vietnam.

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. Start with this Speech

Wesley K. Clark
Remarks for True Values Tour
Tulsa, Oklahoma
January 28, 2004
(As prepared for delivery)

"Good morning, Tulsa! It's great to here today, in my first stop after a very successful night in New Hampshire!

For four months now, I've traveled the country, talking to voters, and more importantly, listening to them. And what I'm hearing down here in Oklahoma is no different than what I've heard in New Hampshire and across America: under George W. Bush, America has lost its way. Eight million Americans are out of work. Forty-four million without health care. College costs are through the roof. And twelve million children are living in poverty.

For all his talk about values, George Bush doesn't really seem to lead by them. And I think it's time he did. It's time he remembered the American values that built this country. The true values that make us Americans: patriotism, faith, family, and inclusion.

I'm running for president because I long for a better America.

An America where everyone has a shot at the American dream, no matter where you're from, or what your background is.

An America where families come first, and a good education and top notch health care aren't just luxuries for the chosen few.

An America where we don't just preach our faith - we practice it.

An America where we look up to our leaders, believe in our government, and trust our Commander in Chief.

That's the America I believe in. And I'm running to bring those American values back to the White House. To bring a higher standard of leadership back to Washington.

And it starts here, on this campaign, with all of you.

I should tell you up front, I am not a career politician. I haven't spent years holding hearings and cutting deals with high-priced special interests. Four months ago, when I decided to run, the Washington-types tried to warn me off. They told me to leave politics to the politicians - that I was an outsider, just a soldier from the South. Maybe it's because I've never been in politics, but I don't believe that America is run by politicians in Washington. I believe it's run by people like us, in places like this.

And if there's one thing I learned during my thirty-four years in the Army, it's that real leadership comes from acting and doing. Not talking and debating. It comes from setting real goals, and being held accountable for achieving them. It's about putting the nation's interests above any personal or political interests. And I simply couldn't stand by and watch the country I fought for unravel before my eyes, while the people in Washington did nothing to stop it. I had to stand up for the ideas and the values I believed in.

Today I want to talk to you about some of those values, and how, over the past three years, our President has abandoned them.

First is patriotism. When you're President of the United States, that means, first and foremost, protecting this country and all its citizens - at home and abroad. To do that, we need the strongest armed forces in the world. But we also need to commit ourselves to using force only as a last resort, after we've exhausted all other options.

Unfortunately, our President has a different approach. He took us to war even though there was no connection to September 11th and no imminent threat to the United States. Even though our allies weren't fully on board, and we hadn't exhausted all diplomatic alternatives. Even though we didn't have a plan to win and get our troops home safely. That's not patriotism. It's bad leadership.

And today, even after the capture of Saddam Hussein, our troops are still in harm's way, and al Qaeda is still at large. More than 120,000 service men and women are still in Iraq, placing enormous stress on tens of thousands of families back at home. And more than 500 have been killed -- sixteen in the last week alone.

This simply cannot go on. We need to clean up the mess in Iraq. I've got a success strategy to do just that - to get our soldiers home with Iraq and America standing strong, so we can focus on the war on terrorism and the real enemy: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We've got to rebuild our alliances and restore America's historic role as a leader around the world. And we've got to give our veterans and soldiers the care and benefits they deserve.

The second value I want to discuss is faith. Not just where you pray, or who you pray to, but the fundamental value all faiths teach: that if you have more in life, if you're more fortunate, or more favored, then you have an obligation to reach out and help those with less.

Growing up in Arkansas, I learned that a lot of people can talk about religion and quote the scriptures, but not everybody practices what they preach.

We're seeing a lot of that today in Washington. Our President talks a lot about leaving no child behind. But since he took office, half a million children have fallen into poverty. He talks a lot about compassion. But his compassion seems to be directed more at the Enrons and Halliburtons of America than at the millions of American families who can't make ends meet.

That's unacceptable. And when I'm in the White House, we're going to reach out to those who are struggling. We're going to lift two million children out of poverty by raising the minimum wage, giving tax relief to hard-pressed families, and providing help with housing, childcare and transportation to those who need it most.

And that brings me to the third value I want to discuss - family values. I know what it's like to struggle to make ends meet - and to watch every penny you have. I didn't grow up with much. My dad died when I was four, and he left us with less than a few months rent. My mom took a job as a secretary just to pay the bills.

We didn't have much more when I was in the Army. For more than half of my thirty-four years, I earned less than $50,000 a year. I spent the summer of my fortieth birthday with my family living in a trailer in the Mohave dessert. So I know what it's like to struggle at the end of every month just to save a few dollars for a rainy day. I know what it's like to drive a car with tape on the muffler because you don't have the money to replace it. It isn't easy. And as president, I will never, ever forget where I'm from and who I'm for -- America's working families. They will be at the heart of every decision I make, starting with the most basic decisions about our economy. Because you can't take care of your family without the opportunity to work and make a decent wage.

But the sad fact is that today, too many Americans are working harder and harder for less and less. Under George W. Bush, the typical working family has seen its income fall by nearly $1,500. And as incomes have fallen, expenses have gone up - way up. The result is that too many families are struggling to make ends meet. The Republicans talk a lot about family values. It's time they started valuing families.

My Families First Tax Reform Plan is going to turn this around. Under my reform plan, families of four making under $50,000 will stop paying income taxes altogether - they will not have to pay a single penny in federal income tax. And all taxpaying families with children making under $100,000 will get a tax cut. The average family will get $1,500 - real money they can use for groceries, prescription drugs, and utility bills. I know how much of a difference $100 a month can make. I've been there. That's why we must give America's working families the tax relief they need and deserve.

And my plan won't increase the deficit by one dime. I'm going to pay for it by closing corporate loopholes and by having families with incomes greater than $1 million a year pay a five percentage point higher tax rate on the amount they earn over a million dollars a year. And we're going to take back the tax cuts George Bush gave the wealthiest Americans - those earning over $200,000 a year - and use that money for job creation.

That's just the beginning. You can't build strong families without basic health care. We're going to extend health insurance coverage to 30 million Americans - including every single American child.

And we're going to give every student who needs it a $6,000 grant for each of the first two years of college, helping an additional one million Americans enroll in college. Because the bottom line is that our children will never compete in the 21st century economy if they don't have a 21st century education.

These are the kind of family values that will unite our country, because strong families are the key to strong communities.

That brings me to the final value I want to talk about today - inclusion, and how we're going to bring people together.

Growing up in Little Rock, we learned about inclusion -- the hard way. I was twelve years old when we had the integration crisis at Central High School, when nine brave young men and women faced down a mob to get their education and educate all of us. It took the 101st Airborne Division to show us that fundamentally we're all alike, and that every single person in America must be treated equally regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, or any other factor.

That's what we believed in the United States Army. For 34 years, I served with men and women from all backgrounds under one flag: the American flag. And right from the beginning, I knew that our diversity is our greatest strength, and that the wider we open our doors, the stronger we are. That's why I've always stood up for equal opportunity and affirmative action.

And I'm leading this campaign the same way I led in the Army. The doors of my campaign are open to everyone. Because when we take on George Bush this fall, we want everyone to join us, no matter what your party registration says. We want Democrats. We want Independents. We want Republicans too - and we won't even make them repent. There's just too much at stake not to open our Democratic doors to all who share in our values.

That's how our party has succeeded in the past and how it will succeed in the future: by pulling together winning coalitions from across the spectrum. Coalitions of southerners and seniors, of veterans and rural Americans. That's what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did during the New Deal. And what led John F. Kennedy to victory in 1960 and Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992. And, I'm going to build on that same winning strategy in 2004 - on the same coalitions that built our great party -- to send George Bush back to that ranch in Texas.

That's what my campaign for president is all about - bringing those values to Washington. They are the values I lived and led by for thirty-four years in the military -- and the values we need now more than ever to set our country straight.

Let me finish up by saying this: I respect my opponents in this race. But I think that there is one issue above all others in this primary. And that is: Who is best equipped to beat George Bush. In a closely divided country, I think we need someone from the heartland to win. In a country at war, I think we need someone with the experience and understanding to lead. Someone who's been on the frontlines of battle and international diplomacy. In the face of a ruthlessly political President, I think we need someone who knows what he stands for -- who has put his career on the line for what he believes -- to stand up for Americans.

So, if you are happy with the direction of our country, you should support the politicians who are running it. But if you think we can build a better America, and you want someone who is part of the solution, then I am your candidate. If you want a higher standard of leadership back in Washington, then I am your candidate. If you want a leader committed to the national interests, not the special interests ... to open, honest, and accountable government, then I am your candidate. If you want leadership committed to the next generation, not just the next election, then I am your candidate.

Together, with your support, we're going to take America back -- and move our country forward."

Follow that up with the fact that Wes Clark knows the military and foreign affairs like the back of his hand, and the country is at war and wants reassurance about their leadership in regards to that. Follow that up with the fact that unlike John Kerry and John Edwards Wes Clark spent almost his entire career working at middle class wages, nothing "Liberal and elitest" about him. Follow that up with the fact that he is brilliant, and well received by voters in every region of the Nation. Then throw in that everyone who has gotten the chance to know him will completely vouch for his absolute personal integrity.

[Kosmos Mariner]

117. Clark! Arkansas 2.0, Less Flash More Substance....

The only prominent national Democrat that is well received by most Americans, and is 100% behind our platform and our values. We have the best ideas and policies for America, we just need a better salesman, a better leader. Once we eliminate the "values" argument, what do Republicans have to offer? Let's exploit the GOP weaknesses! Most people deep down, know that Republicans are the party for fat cats. Run someone who is authentic, an All-American, inspiring, a strong leader, and our issues will win every time.


:dem: