|
I think Kerry and Edwards have their plusses as candidates, but I think Clark does too. As you say, Clark also has backing--money, volunteers, some good endorsements. So why do you dismiss General Clark's chances of getting the nomination?
To me it comes down to character, personality, domestic policy, and foreign policy. I rank these three candidates (and I don't accept that Dean is out of it yet, but going with your list) as follows:
Character: Clark, Kerry, Edwards. Edwards has two issues to overcome: having most of his past experience as a lawyer, which is still a bad word in lots of places, and running for President during his first Senate term. Kerry has to overcome his ties to special interests and his negative campaigning. Clark is the least handicapped; being a general is seen as good on character, but bad on political experience.
Personality: Edwards, Clark, Kerry. Edwards wins this one big. Clark looks and acts like a President. Kerry's face is stiff and perpetually sad; unfortunate, but true.
Domestic policy: Kerry, Edwards, Clark. Clark loses this on lack of experience, not his proposals which are much like Kerry's. Edwards is a far second to Kerry, though, with only one term in the Senate and especially since he doesn't look old enough to run--even though he's over fifty. I haven't been able to see past these things to get to his proposals, and I don't think most voters will either.
Foreign policy: Clark, Kerry, Edwards. Edwards has no experience on this one, and voted for the IWR. Kerry voted for the IWR, but is otherwise okay. This is Clark's expertise, and everyone knows it.
By my count, not counting backing Clark would have two first places, one second, and a third; Kerry would have one first, two seconds, and a third; and Edwards would have one first, one second, and two thirds. So all three candidates have their good points and their bad. I happen to think Clark has a slight edge on these four things, but hey, my nickname is maxr4clark, what do you expect?
Then there are money and backing. Clark has money (raised $14M in Q4, second only to Dean, and he is raising at a faster rate since New Years) and backing; Kerry has his own money and some special interest groups backing him; and Edwards doesn't really have much of either, except the momentum coming out of Iowa. Again, I see Clark having a slight lead.
Then there is how they would fare against Bush in the general election. Bush will not get to run the flag-waving campaign he would like to run against Clark, and will have to lie to attack Clark successfully. Lies can be effectively beaten with the truth, and with challenges against Bush's other lies while in office. Bush will not have to lie to attack Kerry, who is a Massachussets Democrat, has support from special interests, and a long history of voting to peck away at. Kerry is fine by me, but independent voters won't throw Bush out to replace him with Kerry, and honestly I think the Massachussets Supreme Court ruling makes gay marriage a big issue if Kerry is the Democratic nominee, which is not what we want to try to win this election on. Edwards, frankly, looks to me like a lamb before the slaughter facing Bush and Rove; his very fresh-faced innocence will work against him. Bush will get to paint him as an innocent, inexperienced, and yes, unpatriotic bleeding heart tax-and-spend liberal--whether any of it is true or not. A first-term Senator with no foreign policy experience just won't beat an incumbent in time of war.
So I see these three candidates all having strengths and weaknesses, and Clark having one really great positive for the general election and the fewest negatives overall.
So I ask you again: what is it that makes you dismiss Clark so readily?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
