Clark stops Edwards from stopping Kerry.

[windansea]

1. Oklahoma. When Wes Clark entered the presidential race five months ago, I said it was a rebuke to John Kerry for failing to catch on as "the candidate with the war record, the candidate who was supposed to keep the party in the center and fend off the standard-bearer of the left." I still think it was a rebuke. But Kerry reclaimed his role, and now Clark is clearing his path to the end zone by blocking the only candidate who could stop Kerry: John Edwards.

First Clark squashed Edwards' official campaign kickoff in September, leaking word that very day that he would get into the race. Then, a week ago, Clark beat out Edwards for third in New Hampshire by a fraction of a percentage point. That cost Edwards the ability to claim plausibly that he had continued his momentum from Iowa. Tuesday night, it happened again: Clark eked out a margin over Edwards in Oklahoma so narrow that the state election board will have to review the ballots before declaring an official winner. Edwards argued that he had "exceeded my expectations" and that his finish in Oklahoma, combined with his win in South Carolina, was "a continuation of the surge we've seen in other caucuses and primaries."

Nice try. I think Edwards would be the strongest Democrat in the general election. Nobody expected him to do this well in Oklahoma. But when the history of the 2004 race is written, my guess is that we'll look back at Oklahoma as Edwards' Stalingrad. He had to kill off Clark. The media were itching to write off Clark, and a no-win night would have given them license to do so. Now they can't. Clark will go on to Tennessee and Virginia, where he'll do what he did in Oklahoma: split the non-Yankee vote and keep Kerry in the lead. Maybe Edwards will win Tennessee and Virginia, and Clark will fade. But by then it may too late to stop Kerry.

more....

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094915/

[JasonDeter]

1. Some of us don't necessarily think thats a bad thing.

A Kerry/Clark ticket would be an awesome power that I don't think the republicans can stand up to.

[windansea]

2. Kerry will pick a VP for 2 reasons

1. viability/experience to be a heartbeat away fron Prez

2. ability to bring non-Gore states to the table

[JasonDeter]

7. Clark fulfills 1 and 2. But I'm open.

[Virgil]

23. Kerry's wife has already said she liked Edwards for VP

Kerry and Edwards are highly similar. Kerry will pick Edwards when Edwards see he cannot beat the Democratic machine behind Kerry.

[WiseMen]

24. Could someone stop this nonsense rumor, please

[Momof1]

3. I want Clark to win

But if Clark is on the ticket... I would be alot happier voting for Kerry

[Julien Sorel]

4. Gee, Saletan can write an article without

taking cowardly cheapshots at candidates. Amazing to see a piece of shit that isn't brown through and through.

[BootinUp]

22. stop kiddin around - you really don't like that guy right? :)

[Tim_in_HK]

5. If Clark doesn't get the nomination

I really believe he's going home. I think Wes Jr.'s comments point to a feeling that he'll just say screw it, I'm done with this nonsense. And the country will have lost something very special.

Also, if Kerry gets it, I don't think he'd ask Clark anyway. As supporters, we can admit Clark is not the best campaigner. That can possibly work for a President, but not really as a VP.

For me, if Clark doesn't win, then I wish that he would continue on with something else (such as VP). But I really don't see it happening. I don't know if he'd even do something along the lines of Sec of State or Sec of Defense.

I think he'll return to his original plan: writing books and playing golf. And I won't blame him, but I will feel like we lost a rare chance to have a truly great president.

[windansea]

6. yes...it seems the status quo

is all we are capable of....

[Blayde Starrfyre]

8. No VP for Clark

The Clark campaign is starting to get negative which will not make him a good choice for VP.

[windansea]

10. LOL

I guess Kerry can't be Prez then...he put out negative flyers on Clark in NH...I wouldn't worry though...Clark is not running for VP of politics as usual

[Myra]

9. I've always wanted Clark to win, 'cause he's the best option.

But when Edwards claimed he'd won via a third place "tie"
in OK, well that wasn't OK with me. I resent it.
Now, as they say, it's personal.

[anti-bush]

19. Ummm...

Maybe you didn't notice, but he wasn't in a third place tie. He was in a virtual first place tie. When the official results are posted, you can dispute who won.

[Racenut20]

11. Perhaps FINALLY it was the voters speaking in OK

That regardless of negative campaigning against him, a media blackout, and the Repubs doing everything they can in order not to have to run against him, Clark is the faaaaaaaaaaaaar best nominee.

Edwards should drop out and allow Clark to take on Kerry one on one, instead of trying to kill off the Clark campaign as he runs to be Kerry's VP.

[windansea]

13. tag team WWF

corporate DC insiders vs most credible outsider candidate

the people lose as usual

[LiberalBushFan]

12. Replacing Kerry with Edwards is not worth the trouble

If Edwards wants to help stop Kerry he can drop out.

[LiberalBushFan]

14. good.

"The media were itching to write off Clark, and a no-win night would have given them license to do so."

I thought we were supposed to hate Saletan. He seems okay.

[robbedvoter]

15. Edwards - the kinder gentler "be like Bush" brigade...Is it kinder?

He not only voted for the Patriot act, but authored it . He is proud enough of that to include this embarrassing exchange in his literature:

Patriot Act is being abused by the Attorney General
Q: The PATRIOT Act is two years old. There has been criticism of John Ashcroft for enforcement of legislation you authored. Shouldn't those who wrote the legislation take responsibility?
EDWARDS: There are provisions, which get no attention, which did good things. The reason we need changes is because it gave too much discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused his discretion. We know that now.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27, 2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm
to be consistent,

 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan04/Ireland0129.htm
And while Edwards, when campaigning, bashes John Ashcroft for assaults on civil liberties, his pamphlet boasts that he'd "create thousands of neighborhood watch groups by 2007," which sounds suspiciously akin to Ashcroft's infamous TIPS program of setting citizen to spy on citizen.
and finally, he thinks that WMD or not, the war in Iraq was somehow justified by 9.11:
Debate
"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

[anti-bush]

18. Haven't you learned anything

There's a thread entitled "Top Ten Lies about John Edwards". You've repeated a good number of them.

1. Edwards didn't write the Patriot Act. Look it up. Read it. Memorize it. Repeat it.

2. How is it embarrassing to point out that there are some good provisions in the Patriot Act? Please read the Patriot Act and report back with your findings before you claim that everything in the Patriot Act is evil. Pay attention to things like FBI officials being able to share information with each other, obtaining wire taps for voice mail with the same warrants that have been available for years for answering machines, and obtaining warrants for ISP records that are located outside of the county of the suspect. When reading these, be sure to make sure that you read that each of these require a warrant being signed by a judge so as to prevent trampling of your civil rights.

3. The Ireland article is a gigantic smear piece. Neighborhood watch groups is not the same as paying people to spy on their neighbors. They never have been, never will be.

4. I dare you to ask somebody whose father, mother, spouse, or child died in the WTC whether they think the threat of terrorism is exaggerated. Senator Edwards never said the threat of Iraq was not exaggerated. He said terrorism. As in terrorists. As in the people who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

The blatant lies spread on this website are getting out of control.

[LiberalBushFan]

32. Someone just started a thread showing where Edwards admits he did

help write the Patriot Act. Look it up. Read it. Memorize it. Repeat it.

[krkaufman]

16. Clark to become the anti-Kerry

Most interesting bits from the article, IMO...

Edwards said, "This race has narrowed dramatically tonight." He said the differences between himself and Kerry would "become clearer and clearer as the race focuses on the two of us."

A good point. Except after next Tuesday, it may be General Clark who becomes the beneficiary of the mano a mano scrutiny.

And evidence of Saletan's bias...

I think Edwards would be the strongest Democrat in the general election.

...

Clark's doing it, but it doesn't carry much punch, since he has failed to establish himself as a plausible nominee. Edwards is more plausible but refuses to attack.

No details are provided as to why Edwards is "plausible" while Clark is not; strange given their neck-and-neck campaign fight.

Also worth noting is Saletan's oblivousness to Kerry's free media attention and the effect it has in places like Missouri and Michigan, where the previous favorites' declines have left opinion vacuums just waiting for someone to step in.

[LiberalBushFan]

17. well he admitted that the media is trying to write off Clark

that might be why he said Clark is less "plausible"

[windansea]

20. strange how Clark threatens all the pundits

right left....they all seem to be on point

[misterphelps]

21. Clark should stop Edwards!

For crying out loud. For all of his "washington outsider" bit, Edwards voted with Bush over 70% of the time. Why should we forsake the only remaining clear choice in these primaries so that TWO Bush-lites can dictate the debate?

[incapsulated]

25. If this were actually true

I would be all for it.

I'll take Kerry any day of the week over Edwards. I actually want a shot at the WH, when all is said and done. This Edwardsmania is the silliest thing yet in these primaries. He's running for a VP spot or has one of the worst cases of self-delusion in politics.

[AP]

27. I don't know why people want to dismiss the obvious fact that Edwards

gets the most bang for his buck. He gets attention out of proportion to his resources.

That's a pretty good quality for a democrat who will have to go up against Bush.

If it were a straight up match between Edwards and Kerry on a level playing field, it's pretty clear to me that Edwards would probably win and then go on and do the same thing in the General Election.

If people are celebrating the fact that there are candidates standing away of that head-to-head because they want to PREVENT that from happening, I wonder why they would.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Bush?

[incapsulated]

29. I said *if* that were true..

And I couldn't disagree more with the idea that Edwards has the slightest, remotest chance against Bush. Most bang for buck, what is that? This is a fantasy based on charm, good looks, a southern accent and a great stump speech.

He has all the superficials, none of the substance. He looks like a great candidate and talks like a great candidate. In reality, he is a successful trail lawyer (oh, god, the things Rove can do with that) who hasn't even done one term in the Senate, since half of that was spent campaigning for the nomination. He hasn't even proven he could win re-election, and many think he dropped out because he could not.

Jesus, even Hillary knew she wasn't ready and she was effectively the co-President for eight years.

If you think that's our best chance against Bush, I would like some of what you are smoking.

[mmonk]

26. Yes

only Edwards and Kerry are running. The rest are just spoilers (not real candidates seeking the same office).:eyes: Why oh why is the rest of the nation so goo goo eyed over this man? My wife said she won't in the presidential election if its between bush and Edwards. Funny how NC is so split about the man (not just on repub vs. dem lines).

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Edwards is attractive but

Edwards is not a complex enough candidate to overcome a revitalized Kerry campaign. Very few Democrats (outside of DU of course) ever felt Kerry was a poor candidate, he just wasn't an exciting one. He took on the look of a loser compared to Dean. That all changed with Iowa and New Hampshire. Edwards is still seen as relatively inexperienced by many, particularly on the world stage. It is no coincidence that Clark surged when Kerry slipped and vice versa. Dems want someone who will match up well against Bush across the board.

Without Clark, Edwards would have a brighter star, certainly, but not bright enough to win. He probably would have been solidly the second choice. There usually is an honorable loser every four years, who wins some primaries but loses the nomination. That would have been Edwards this year. He would have been pegged as having strong regional strength, but would have lost to Kerry's attrition. Everyone would then push for him to be VP (they still may).

This year's election cycle has been determined by rapid shifts in "momentum". One of Edward's problems is that his momentum has been in lock step with Kerry's momentum. He didn't surge against Kerry, he surged with Kerry. That didn't give him the "edge" he needs to steal the election from the more experienced Kerry.

Ironically, I think only Clark and Dean have any chance of beating Kerry now, and they are both long shots, Dean even more than Clark. The reason is because Clark and Dean have been out of media favor for awhile now, so each man could still produce real shock waves with an impressive victory. Clark and Dean have more complex story lines to their campaigns than Edwards does. A strong Clark showing next Tuesday, or a Dean win in Wisconsin, have more potential to create the perception of a shift in momentum than would another Edwards victory next week, given that Kerry will also be chalking up victories of his own at the same time.

[Rooktoven]

30. Clark's behavior insures one thing

If for some far-fetched reason that JRE has to drop out, my money and support will go to Kerry or Dean.

[John_H]

31. God, I hope he is. Kerry might be able to beat chimp. Edwards can't.

[TexasSissy]

33. Edwards stops Clark from stopping Kerry.

Edwards is running for VP (occasional delusions of getting the nomination, but knowing there's no chance, really). He's stopping Clark from showing better in the southern primaries than he would otherwise.