Clark or Edwards?

[Clarkie1]

If it came down to a choice between these two for the 08' nomination, who would you choose and why?

[DaveinMD]

1. this is a tough one for me

These are my two favorites.

[IndianaGreen]

92. A very tough poll for me too!

What an awesome ticket this would make with either man at the top! I voted for Edwards solely on the basis of emotion. He is better looking than Clark (I know, it is shallow!).

[FrenchieCat]

94. Depends on who's doing the looking, I think!

Some like their men manly..... :)

[NCarolinawoman]

152. Not tough for me.

My roots in North Carolina run deep, and I choose Clark.

[chimpymustgo]

160. Tarheel roots here, too. Edwards all the way! nt

nt

[mikehiggins]

2. Clark is overqualified, at least by comparison to *

Still, I'd cheerfully vote for him (and will certainly work for him if he runs for the nomination, and even moreso if he gets the nod) for President, although there are few Democratic candidates I could not see my way clear to voting for unless Cheney was running for the GOP.

Lieberman comes to mind.

[xultar]

100. My toe jam is overqualified compared to *.

[Codeblue]

3. Edwards

He seems to want to do more for the poor and unfortunate in our country. Not that I dislike Clark...quite the contrary actually. Edwards just seems to represent me better.

[america_in_08]

137. I agree Edwards is more in line with me too.

His work with minimum wage, helping unions, College for those who want to go, Universal Health Care, Poverty worldwide, bringing our troops home in a timed withdrawal,just for a few, and also
improving Americans image with the world.

I love the fact that he also is a Attorney and can use his experience in Washinton to stand up to the many in the Senate and Congress who use their expertise to help the corporations rather than the people.

[capi888]

161. Unless the war in IRAQ is solved....our economy, the poor will

NEVER get ANY help. We are spending 2 BILLION a week in IRAQ...the middle class is moving down to the lower class. 90% of U.S. taxpayers are making under$100,000. Of that 90% of that, is making less than $50,000. Of that, 70 % make less then 50,000 per family. Heres the clincher, Of that 50% of that fiqure. make less than $30,000. per family. We are borrowing money from China and Japan, to pay the TOP 10 % their tax breaks, and support the war....
I believe in helping the poor, but with WHAT...we have to start by ending this insane policy of the Gov't beginning with IRAQ....
Think about it folks...who is best quilified...to put an end to this madness...
Statistics inArticle OCT 30, TIME MAGAZINE ON THE FIQURE QUOTES ABOVE!

[snowbear]

4. You shoulda had a 3rd choice of "they should team up"

[John Gauger]

5. I'm just a big fan of Clark.

I don't know if I can trust Edwards. He has the whole rich lawyer thing going against him. Sure, he's sent a few poor kids to college, but that doesn't mean much. Bill Gates has donated more money than other person in human history; that doesn't stop him from being a crook. But as far as I can see, Clark is on the up and up. Kind of an Eisenhower thing going on. He seems genuine to me and he knows what the fuck he is talking about, two traits that both of our previous prez candidates lacked.

[davidwparker]

10. "whole rich lawyer thing" - funny, that was the conclusion of some

focus group. I don't see Edwards that way. I see him as someone who is self-made, who doesn't need to hit another lick the rest of his life. However, he is fighting for the poor.

What's wrong with lawyers or rich lawyers? Aren't they the ones who give the common man his day in court? It's the Repub spin to be against lawyers -- unless they are about to loose an election if the votes in Florida 2000 get counted.

[John Gauger]

25. It's not that he's a lawyer

My brother is studying to be a lawyer for the ACLU. It's that he got fabulously rich doing it. It just isn't easy to get $150 million without stealing it. I have a general distrust of the wealthy. I don't know how wealthy Clark is - maybe he's richer than Edwards - and that could seriously hurt my opinion of him. It's important to note that my opinion of Edwards is not based on any facts that I know about him - it's just a bad feeling I have about him. He just doesn't strike me as trustworthy. It's nothing more than that.

[davidwparker]

76. "studying to be a lawyer for the ACLU" -- good for him. If I

had known that I'd become this political later in life, I would have done the same.

[philgobluemi]

147. Edwards' personal wealth is only $13 M

It's no where near $150, if it was, he'd be President right now.

[ksclematis]

28. That's his current "cause"....

but he got all his $$$ millions by taking only the high dollar civil cases that he was sure to win. He's on record as never taking a pro bono (for free) legal case. He also talks of his foreign policy knowledge as having gone to many foreign countries.....Clark has a vast knowledge in dealing with foreign leaders.
Clark has a master's degree from Oxford U. in economics, politics and philosophy and has taught economics at West Point for several years. When he was NATO SACEUR, he was like a "governor" or "president" of many thousands of troops, their families and civilians in Europe, part of Africa and part of the middle East. I think he has probably more experience in helping the poor and disadvantaged, as well as having lived it himself, as any of the potential candidates. He's been working for the Democratic candidates win their campaigns for Congress, not campaigning for himself for two years.

Clark's got my vote.

[davidwparker]

77. Just waiting for Clark to announce. And Gore. For 2004, I thought

the winning ticket would come from Dean, Clark, Edwards. For 2008, I think it comes from Gore, Clark, Edwards. I do think Clark has to be in one of the two slots.

[MrSlayer]

6. Clark and very easily.

Clark has forgotten more about foreign policy than Edwards ever knew. Plus he's as good if not better on domestic issues. I don't dislike Edwards though, if he were to get the nod I'd have no problem voting for him.

[AJ9000]

108. You're right. He knows geo-politics and military strategy. Might come in handy in 08. I like

the fact that he's an outsider too. We could do worse.

[Clarkie1]

7. Hmm....this one's quite a horserace, too.

:popcorn:

[davidwparker]

8. If Gore, then Gore/Clark. Without Gore, then Edwards and Clark in some

fashion. Feingold would be a good alternate either of these get stubborn.

Gore/Clark is what is needed. That the domestic, international, and national defense in spades.

[rep the dems]

9. I voted Clark again.

There's just very few others that I'd like to have as President as much as him.

[madfloridian]

11. Clark will win every poll here at DU or anywhere online.

It is pre-ordained, pre-organized or whatever you call it.

You know he will win, everyone else here knows he will win any poll here in which his name is mentioned.

These polls are really too much right now.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Why madfloridian.....why do you do this?

Did you talk in such dismay when Howard Dean was winning all of the polls back in 2003? :shrug:

DO you just "Hate" Clark supporters or what?

[madfloridian]

13. Do what?

Be honest?

[Pithy Cherub]

14. Hi ya mad! You know kos yesterday

had interesting points when he laid out all of the 2008 contenders. It was rather cathartic. kos acknowledged after stating Clark didn't have a geographic base (which I disagree with btw) and a Clarkie asked if Clark could claim the netroots as his base. kos said yes. He's making a poll that's going to be spam proof so that ought to have interesting results too.

[madfloridian]

17. I missed that.

I know that Kos and Skinner and I think MyDD gave warning about skewing the polls very firmly. But it wasn't followed through with.

But I should not have said it, no one ever does say it. It is just not ever talked about.

[Pithy Cherub]

19. We all post when

maybe the better angels are sleeping. It's not spamming since it's one to a customer here on DU - it just seems that people want to characterize it in a way that they shouldn't. Thanks for being honest - but we know you wouldn't acuse Clarkies of bad things!:hi:

[madfloridian]

23. I did not say a thing about spamming....just to be clear.

I meant I shouldn't have said it because it is topic no one discusses, ever.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Post solely to whine that Clark will win every poll?

So what?

As you know, DU ain't real life.....

Had you been wanting to be honest, you would have answered my question....

[madfloridian]

24. I was not whining at all.

Not at all. Just stating facts that no one ever states.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Actually you always state what is a fact only to you....

no one else seems to give a shit.

[wiley]

102. Best. Post. Ever. (Today at least)

[mtnsnake]

117. I will gladly second that emotion.

[madfloridian]

145. As a matter of fact...

they do give a you know what. They just are not able to do anything about it. So no one talks about it, because they get attacked. See you told me no one gives a shit about what I say.....and guess what...two people said it was the best post today.

Now that is truly amazing. To tell someone that and get such high praise. Sure tells me it is much better to love Clark and not criticize.

[ICantBelieve]

18. That's right...

Wes must really not be a Democrat because we know that this party is completely unorganized. God forbid we should be able to communicate with each other and work together. Next thing you know, we'll be getting out the vote! Cracks me up every time... "You Clarkies.. you're.. you're ... you're ORGANIZED!!! For shame!"

[jonnyblitz]

20. If there was a poll between Clark and God at DU, Clark would

win.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. That's because

Clark is a better Democrat than God.

[imlost]

118. I guess it would be Clark, because I don't know if I believe in God n/t

[Clarkie1]

21. Perhaps you would like to visit the Kerry/Edwards of Vilsack/Clinton poll.

I tried to provide lots of flavors just for fun, but if you don't like any of them then don't click on them!

[Larry in KC]

45. I wish you would give serious consideration to the possibility

that he wins all of these polls among politically-active Democrats simply because he is the best person for the job.

It's a real possibility. It's not a negative thing, either.

[MonkeyFunk]

83. I don't understand...

are you saying the administrators fix these polls?

[TSIAS]

85. No

During the '04 campaign, DU Administrators discovered that Clark supporters put out a "call to arms" on their ClarkBlog, suggesting that they come here and vote in polls.

Overall, polls are pretty worthless. Clark may have a lot of supporters online, but that didn't translate into votes last time around.

As to the question itself, I like Edwards. I think his populist message will play well in 2008. I don't want to see another John Kerry "reporting for duty", military inspired campaign. I admire that Edwards was willing to admit that he was wrong in his assessment of Iraq. See Sen. Clinton -- it's okay to admit you made an error.

[MeanBone]

142. Clark came in 3rd in the biggest one so far.

DailyKos straw poll on Wednesday, Dec. 6:

Edwards first, Obama second, Clark third.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/6/114644/671

[Tom Rinaldo]

144. Two per cent seperated all three of them, with Gore not listed

Gore won going away when he was included in a second poll, and in that one Clark edged Edwards. It's pretty clear at the moment which men have strong netroots support; Gore, Obama, Edwards and Clark.

[MasonJar]

16. Again, two incredible citizens of the world. What happy choices

we Democrats have.

[nickshepDEM]

22. Edwards

[Zorra]

26. I like General Clark but....

I just can't get past the fact that he voted republican for most of his life. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and GHW Bu*h. What was he thinking? Yeah, people change, but as a yellowdog Dem that never even considered voting for a republican, I wouldn't be happy about my Democratic Presidential nominee being someone that voted for an evil fascist like Ronald Reagan. It's just too far outside of my democratic ideology.

So I'd take John Edwards over Gen. Clark. He's a lifelong Dem and has lots of good cred.

I'd vote for Gen. Clark if he got the nomination, but I wouldn't vote to nominate him.

[Clarkie1]

30. 1. Clark was independent like most voters all his life until he chose the Democratic Party.

2. I'm not sure the Reagan Democrats we need to win would agree with you, nor the dozens of Democrats Clark has campaigned for, many in red states where no other Democrat would tread.

3. Judge Clark on the issues, not partisanship. Very few people have belonged to one political party or voted on strict party lines all their life, and in any case Clark was never a member of the Republican Party (not that that matters; we should welcome new members, they are our strongest asset!)

[ultraist]

96. Clark voted for Reagan and Bush I n/t

[FrenchieCat]

32. Edwards voted for Nixon...although when asked, he kinda of couldn't

'remember'! :eyes:

[Zorra]

34. Do you have a source for that information?

I couldn't find one.

Thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

48. here....

First published at this link which is no longer available.... http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/eyeonedwards/story/1401790p-7371865c.html
but I found it here: http://www.eurolegal.org/greendogdem/gdd0704/20040708gdd.htm

The Edwardses were solidly middle class. For most of the time in Robbins, they lived on leafy Frye Street. Their neighbors included an insurance agent, a teacher, a lawyer and a truck driver. An optometrist now lives in the house where Edwards spent the longest period of his childhood.

His father eventually left Milliken, frustrated that he could not advance further in the company because he had not attended college. He set up his own consulting firm advising textile companies.

His mother held a series of jobs, including starting a small roadside antiques store where she bought furniture, refinished it and sold it to help put her son through college. She worked for the county board of elections. She took her last job, as a rural letter carrier in West End, to provide her family with health insurance.

The couple reared three children. Kathy now lives in Columbia, Md., where she is the mother of two and works for a researcher at the University of Maryland. The youngest, Blake, lives in Fuquay-Varina. He is an electrician who travels around the country working construction jobs.

snip
His parents were lifelong Republicans, in part because of the corporate culture of the company headed by Roger Milliken, a major GOP donor who encouraged his executives and managers to become Republicans.

"John and I used to debate the Nixon-McGovern election," said Garner, his NCSU roommate. "I kind of went in the direction of protesting the war. John was more firmly seated in supporting our government. Part of that was the influence of his father."

Garner remembers that Edwards was undecided about whether to vote in 1972 for President Richard Nixon or whether to vote for the Democratic challenger, Sen. George McGovern.

Edwards says he does not remember how he voted. But he says he might have first registered as an independent. He says he thinks he changed his registration to Democrat by 1976.

One of their classmates was David Brooks, who would become active in Republican politics and served on the Cary Town Council and as chairman of the state Industrial Commission.

[last_texas_dem]

55. How does this article prove an Edwards vote for Nixon? nt

[FrenchieCat]

58. Because if he wouldn't have....he would have remembered.....

Amazing how someone wouldn't "remember" who they voted for when so many young people had so much at stake in reference to what was happening in Vietnam. What was Edwards' draft number and why would he remember casting that particular vote? It was probably his first vote. How could one not remember their first presidential vote? :eyes:

Edwards also happened to have been in college....and college campuses were the hotbed of Anti- Vietnam war activism at that time all around the country. You'd have to have been under a rock or on another planet not to "remember" what you did and what you thought during these turbulent times.....also, understanding that his parent were Republicans, I think I can "sherlock Holmes" my way through this one pretty quickly, as I wasn't born yesterday.

So maybe I didn't offer "proof" that he did vote for Nixon, but no one has proof that he didn't vote for him either....so bottomline is one can say without a doubt that he "may" have voted for Nixon, and with some speculation, that he probably did vote for Nixon and just doesn't want to admit it.

[last_texas_dem]

59. I think

saying that Edwards' claim that he doesn't remember who he voted for in '72 indicates that he supported Nixon is about as fair as when people call Clark a former Republican because he voted for Republican Presidents in the past. Many Clark supporters (and non-Clark supporters) seem to have a problem with this mis-classification of Clark's political history; why is acceptable to play fast and free with the facts when it comes to Edwards?

[guruoo]

61. How they voted 30 years ago is utterly irrelevant - n/t

[last_texas_dem]

62. I agree. nt

[FrenchieCat]

65. Of course, I only raised the Edwards issue because the issue of

Clark and who he voted for was raised with this post.....

I factually made the correction that John Edwards was NOT a "lifelong Dem" as was stated....he became a Dem later.....with which I have no problems with.

Zorra (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-01-06 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. I like General Clark but....
I just can't get past the fact that he voted republican for most of his life. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and GHW Bu*h. What was he thinking? Yeah, people change, but as a yellowdog Dem that never even considered voting for a republican, I wouldn't be happy about my Democratic Presidential nominee being someone that voted for an evil fascist like Ronald Reagan. It's just too far outside of my democratic ideology.

So I'd take John Edwards over Gen. Clark. He's a lifelong Dem and has lots of good cred.

I'd vote for Gen. Clark if he got the nomination, but I wouldn't vote to nominate him.

Clark did not ever say that he voted for Bush Sr. There is not documentation on that, and he never said it.

But in reality, I don't give a damn who either voted for years ago either, period. :)

[FrenchieCat]

64. I have proof that Clark was never registered as a Republican....

and he was honest enough to state who he voted for....cause I guess he could have "forgotten". I respect him for that. He was in the military and had his reasons to vote for whom he voted for, and he never shyed away from that history...

You cannot prove who Edwards voted for, cause he doesn't remember.....which does seem odd; cause most folks do remember their first presidential votes and who they voted for.

So no, it's not the same thing.

I didn't "play" with the facts....I posted the facts, a link and gave you my sensible rational based on the oddities of the situation at the time. You don't have to buy into what I say, but doesn't make me a liar or anything else.

If you want to equate it all the same thing, fine....but that doesn't mean it is.

[last_texas_dem]

66. Yes

I believe you when you say there is proof that Clark was never registered as a Republican; I have heard this referenced before. I also agree that it would be inaccurate to claim Clark was a Republican simply based upon the fact that he voted for some Republican Presidents in the past.

However, when asked for proof that Edwards had voted for Nixon in 1972 after you had claimed this in an earlier post, you linked to an article that indicated that Edwards was conflicted about who to vote for in the '72 election and says that he doesn't recall which candidate he voted for. This is in no way proof that he cast his vote for Nixon and to claim as such is a distortion.

It is not my intent to split hairs on whether it's an equal offense to claim Clark was a registered Republican because he voted for Republican Presidents or to claim Edwards voted for Nixon when no proof exists that he did. My point was, and the bottom line is, both are distortions of the facts and to make either claim is dishonest.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Well the beauty of it all is that everyone can reach their own conclusion....

but after 6 years of Bush deceptions, I prefer the candidate who is honest about his voting history....where-ever that may lead. Period.

[last_texas_dem]

68. I agree

and if any proof actually existed indicating that Edwards was being dishonest when he claimed that he didn't remember who he voted for in the 1972 election, I'd hold it against him. Since none does, there would be no logical reason for me, or anyone else considering the facts at hand, to do that.

[Wesin04]

37. Like Jim Webb, for example?

In his effort to take down George Allen of Virginia, many of the party regulars refused to support Webb in the primary because he had once voted Republican. Thank goodness, sanity prevailed and we saw that he was the best candidate we could offer up. Just think if we'd had this holier-than-thou attitude and nominated the wrong man...macaca Allen would still be the senator, and the Senate would still be in Republican hands.

Wes Clark is able to see the whole, big picture, so what he has voted for in his past life does not have bearing for me on what kind of man and what kind of candidate he is now. He never campaigned for Republican candidates and he never ran as a Republican, but he worked his ass off for Democrats over the last 2-3 years. He can bring so many of those Reagan Democrats back to the party, like Webb did, and we cannot win without that crossover in many states.

[Catchawave]

39. He "once voted Republican" was not the reason

I believe it had more to do with his position in the Reagan administration and not supporting Kerry in '04.

[guruoo]

63. Ahh, you like to run that one by us again...

Caption: Kerry got a boost when ex-rival
Wesley Clark endorsed him in Madison five
days before the state primary.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Think she's talking about Jim Webb...... not Wes Clark! n/t

[guruoo]

60. IMHO, That attitude could be construed as being anti-Democratic in itself

[Jai4WKC08]

89. Just to be a stickler...

Clark has never said he voted for Ford or Poppy Bush. So you really can't say it was "for most of his life." He also says he supported Kennedy (both Jack and Bobby, if I recall) but he would have been too young to vote for either of 'em.

I wouldn't be so sure about Edwards being a "lifelong Dem." For sure, his parents were not Dems, and his roommate in college says he was undecided in '72.

I think if you has been in the military after Vietnam, you would probably understand voting for Reagan. I know I do.

[rolleitreks]

27. Why do you want either?

Clark is only marginally mainstream and Edwards the definition of lightweight. Gore is the man. Now let's find a real candiadte for VP.

[Clarkie1]

29. Gore is my 2nd choice behind Clark. nt

[FrenchieCat]

33. What in the fuck does "Mainstream" mean.....

YOu mean like Mainstream media? Who WOULD want to be that? I mean, why be a whore when it ain't required?

[rolleitreks]

38. I mean he's viewed by many as a crank. n/t

[Pithy Cherub]

36. Sez such a wunderkind of political analysis

devoid of content. The only thing Gore is running for is having an Inconvenient Truth nominated for film awards. They don't need VP's for that.

[high density]

78. Gore?

Where is all this Gore stuff coming from on DU? Yeah I "like" him and I enjoyed his movie, but he has so much baggage just like Clinton and Kerry. I voted for him back in 2000 but I'd rather not go through that same crap again. That vote was despite his love for NAFTA in the early 1990s. Kerry and Gore have a lot of the same deficiencies when it comes to managing the media and that's a serious problem in this day and age.

[Jai4WKC08]

90. "Marginally mainstream"?

Clark too far to the left for you?

[MMartin]

35. Two incredible choices

In my mind, we win the presidency with either Edwards or Clark at the top of our ticket. Edwards is generally considered one of the most gifted rhetoricians of our time, and he has become a passionate voice concerning the major domestic, pocket-book issues that affect average Americans. I listened to him a few weeks ago on NPR and was simply astounded about what a powerful vision he has for our country.

Wes Clark is a candidate who also could win red state and moderate voters, has the most distinguished record, militarily or otherwise, of any candidate in either the Dem or Republican field, and has the foreign policy credentials to assure voters that we would be kept safe under his tutelage.

I find it a difficult choice to choose between these two candidates and see them, whether on the ticket or not, as vital to our efforts to win back the White House in 2008.

[demokitty]

40. Clark, enthusiastically! (eom)

[clarquistador]

41. Clark, but I will vote for the nominee.....

so long as it isn't Hillary Clinton or some other lesser neocon.

[MMartin]

42. Both are in debt from 2004 campaigns, apparently

One impediment to both Clark and Edwards running may be that they are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from their 2004 campaigns, apparently. This would put them at a disadvantage with Bayh, Clinton and Kerry, all of whom have several million dollars ready to go for a 2008 bid.

"Democrats John Edwards and Wesley Clark have debts of several hundred thousand dollars from their unsuccessful White House bids in 2004, a burden as they consider presidential runs in 2008."

http://www.localnewswatch.com/jordanfalls/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=31140

[Pithy Cherub]

43. Wrong. Clark has a surplus.

Debts versus cash on hand show Clark with over a $130,000 on the plus side. Clark can choose to retire the debt or carry it forward - with available cash. Facts are important little details to have right.

on edit: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[MMartin]

46. Facts are important

Yes, facts are important, and the fact stated in the AP article is that the Clark campaign has "debts totaling more than $260,000." Once he pays those off, he will have $130,000 in surplus, but he hasn't done so already.

The larger implications for an Edwards or Clark presidential campaign, though, is whether either candidate would start off at a financial disadvantage because of their lack of funds on hand. On a basic level, Bayh, who has over $10 million to dedicate to his presidential campaign, would have about ten times the amount of funds than Edwards or Clark, as would Kerry and Clinton.

Interestingly enough, according to the article, for PAC contributions, the One America Committee outraised WesPAC by about a 3-1 margin, so Edwards seems to have stronger fundraising prowess than Clark, judging from this.

[Pithy Cherub]

49. Because he hasn't doesn't mean he won't. However,

Warren Buffet and George Soros love General Clark and they have a few extra pennies and friends with pennies. A good portion of the netroots loves Clark. Clark has been a supportive blogger since the beginning unlike others. Clark has not yet set up a fundraising apparatus that is focused on presidential fundraising. Bayh has taken a significant hit especially from Dailykos, MyDD and others for not ponying up during the recent cash call. Bayh also needs evey dime because he has no discenible presence on the web where activists and money hang out. Bayh has to pay for buzz. Clark is already there and its unpaid free media.

Edwards will have a tougher time going forward as the Obama bus is about to roll with contributions, significant primary voter adulation and not having voted for the worst national security disaster conceived of by Americans. Bayh has that as an Aye vote Iraq issue as well with primary voters. Judging from the article the traditional media wants to go by traditional metrics: name recognition and dollars. The netroots is gaining strength and Senators Webb (A Clark friend) and Tester would not be there without the netroots/grassroots. It's a new day.

[MMartin]

56. Traditional Media, Momentum

While Clark may not have fundraising in motion right now, he may need to take a page from Vilsack's book and get in early, as he said he would do in not repeating the mistakes from 2004. I do hope that you are right about netroots and grassroots activists having a greater say in the nomination process rather than the insider Washington Dems who have helped us lose two straight elections.

As someone who is on both the One America Committee and Securing American sites, I can say that there are about twice as many Edwards supporters in an organized fashion between these sites, Edwards' PAC has raised more money, and he already has some degree of infrastructure in the early states. The Aye vote that you mentioned is indeed an albatross, but he apologized for that vote, unlike Clinton, and he wrote an op-ed in the Wash. Post saying he would have never voted for the war had he the same opportunity. Clark's position is a bit nuanced on that, including the quote in the NY Times concerning him saying he would have voted for the original resolution. Hence, Feingold seemingly was the only candidate with that golden mark of voting "No" on his record, though Clark does fair better than Edwards in that regard since he wasn't in congress at the time. Obama is the other natural anti-war choice in this election, and you're right that he has some tremendous momentum right now.

Bayh may be alienating some of the online activists by not ponying up money; both Clark and Edwards have been stellar in supporting Dem candidates and raising money for them -- Warner's PAC, Forward Together, has been one of the most successful Dem PACs on the federal level for providing support for our candidates. On the other side of the equation, though, someone like Bayh already has the funds to compete and claim the "moderate," sensible choice in comparison to Kerry and Clinton, who also have over $10 million to get started.

[Pithy Cherub]

57. Unfortuntely

for Bayh, he needs the money because he has to woo primary voters who by definition are not his voter profile. The middle third way stuff plus a yes on IWR puts him at risk of having to sell himself and he does boring in a bland way. Stand for something and defend it to the last - that is not a descriptor of Bayh. Personally, not a fan of his or Mark Warner's. Warner was smart enough to drop out early and I maintain he should have run for the senate, oh well. Obama really will alter the map. The after effects of Obama at the Saddleback Church are still being discussed here (it's nearby) and they really enjoyed him.

Gore also would redraw the map as he may have some shiny new prestigious hardware from us grateful Southern California Liberals. California money talked to Obama while he was here. Clark will be teaching at UCLA and is not without his own Southern Cal mega-contacts. California is a must for money to run for president. Hillary has a big base of support here too. Hillary has also locked up all kinds of New York money. Edwards not nearly as much - and its eyes on Obama here. Obama actually endangers Edwards fundraising because big donors want to back a winner and here star power is BIG. Obama has serious star power.

Clark's internet and field adviser from Oklahoma, Jessica Vandenburg, put the internet strategy together for Jim Webb who had no money. She was successful in making a campaign work on virtually no funds - and spoke to that on Thursday as Clark's representative at the Hotline Journal review of the 2006 elections and 2008 presidential forum. A choice was given to the presidential campaign representatives as to whether they wanted the endorsement of the netroots or union endorsements. Richardson's campaign guy enthusiastically said he wanted his candidate to work hard to get the endorsement of the netroots. The netroots/grassroots has many powerful players who are Clark supporters and they have been out campaigning and getting candidates elected which will be big come the endorsement primary. In the book Freakonomics, the economist makes strong points that the best financed candidates inherently don't always win as conventional wisdom says. It is how a candidate utilizes resources that matters most with a compelling story out front. Clark has a compelling story.

National security will figure prominently. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR resolution, defended the Patriot Act and has a tight affinity with NCLB which that trifecta is anathema to many primary voters. Obama made a much bigger "splash" in Africa. Clark just stands head and shoulders above in that arena and no one has the "chops" to play ball with him there, though it will be enetrtaining watching them try. Gore certainly can, but Gore can also wait until the last minute to jump into the race.

Personally, Clark is my ideal choice, Gore has my full attention and support should Clark elect not to run and way in the back Obama. Nobody else comes close to Undecided after that.

[MMartin]

71. Infrastructure, Edwards, Clark

Seemingly, part of the issue we're discussing is the centralization of power in the Democratic Party and whether any grassroots activists will have the ultimate say in our nominee in '08. The economist that you mentioned echoed some of the same ideas the five panelists at the Center on Politics forum you cited said on money and politics: they disagreed that one needed lots of money up front (citing Dean as an example) to begin the groundwork for a campaign. In a recent Clark article, he lamented that he started late ("a faith-based initiative"), four months before the first votes and without any campaign money. I'm still not sure that he is running and have heard rumblings that he won't if Clinton does indeed run; if he doesn't, that makes my painful choice between him and Edwards (I plan on volunteering for the latter) much easier.

Bayh may have alienated some core voters, as you mentioned, and has a rather boring and bland persona, but he has emerged as an attractive alternative to Clinton and Kerry, though Vilsack may also have that distinction. Edwards, who is emerging as the liberal alternative, has done everything he can possibly do to disavow his IWR vote (every Dem except Feingold voted for the flawed Patriot Act), and he has lots of labor and personal support in the new primary/caucus states of Nevada and S.C. I don't share your enthusiasm for Gore, I'm afraid, since he doesn't seem like someone who can offer a fresh alternative, nor does he even seem interested in running.

Obama is throwing us a surprise by possibly entering into the race. You had mentioned he was popular in Calif.; imagine just how popular he is here in the Philly suburbs, including a recent campaign appearance for Rendell and Casey that drew thousands. Biden (who, along with Clark is a probable VP candidate if Edwards is our nominee) of all people, has some followers here, too, and our primary is moving up to February, if the state legislature has its way. Clark will need to get on the ground soon, as he did for one of our North Jersey congressional candidates, Paul Arohnson, to generate some momentum, but recent op-eds in USA Today certainly help keep his public profile. I think that you are arguing that the network and infrastructure will follow once a candidate is recruited by nontraditional sources (netroots, unions, etc.), and I agree to the extent that one needs both, perhaps simultaneously, though.

[Pithy Cherub]

72. Would disagree

heavily about Biden being a VP selection, his ego and ambition outrun his ability to deliver a constituency to a candidate. His little green monster came out saying Obama would not run, but he's on everybody's number two list. LOL! Biden is all about Biden.

Obama intrigues me because he is essentially a political Rorschach test. Edwards holds absolutely zero interest for me due to his exceedingly poor judgment on matters of national security. His apology is deeply appreciated, yet he needs time for building/repairing a national security portfolio. Obama showed maturity and judgment in being against the war from the outset so he makes a more persuasive and compelling case when discussing leadership, courage and judgment. Obama is about to inhale cash and the politics of compare and contrast put his offering as a more attractive one to primary voters. Edwards charisma was most often cited as a political asset and now it gets trumped by somebody who's name recognition is nearing Clinton and Gore range without spending one dime. Edwards has to relaunch which will be expensive because his rationale for running is being appropriated wholesale by Obama. Obama has more liberal credibility and Edwards has a history that can not be rewritten. I will support Obama in the event that Clark elects not to run.

Clark also has his own union supporters and due to the splits in the union voice it can be further factionalized amongst certain candidates. Edwards is not beloved by many teachers... Union support is interesting as will the rank and file follow the leadership, especially the members of color, if someone else wins the leadership endorsement. Besides, Union endorsements come later in the process after the media has a chance to pick apart the horse race. That is where the new heft of the blogosphere matters. Clark also appeals to many veterans.

It will be interesting with many possible outcomes. The smart money is if Obama can hold his own after a withering assault on him, he will be the candidate to beat. Otherwise my money is on Clark because Bush is determined to continue this Iraq Debacle and it will be the most divisive political issue going. Clinton fades into the sunset on that since she has not recanted or repented. So Clark can potentially thread the needle and that is my greatest hope.

[MMartin]

84. Edwards, Obama, Clark

I'll gladly get behind an Obama campaign if he ends up being the nominee, but who knows if he or Clark will even be running. The same criterion that you applied to Edwards, however, concerning his lack of foreign policy experience, is certainly magnified in Obama, who has even less experience. The withering assault on him has already started, seemingly, and I note disparaging media representations of Clinton, Kerry, and now, to extent, him rather often these days. Edwards does trump him in current Union support and has even been on several striking frontlines, along with having a recent anti-Wal-Mart campaign with Obama. Edwards speaks to domestic issues at a time when many Americans are realizing our folly in Iraq has led us to neglect central domestic concerns, from health care to living wages and so on.

Biden is not my favorite nominee, but at least one recent poll shows him to be the most trusted Dem on national security (ahead of Clinton, who was ahead of Clark, surprisingly); I thought of him as someone who could round out the prospective Edwards presidential ticket, but Clark would be a natural choice there. In fact, unlike some Clarkies who seem to have an irrational disdain for Edwards, I actually see the Edwards-Clark-Warner triumvirate working together, since all three candidates would gain independent voters, be attractive to moderates and purple/red staters, and hail from the only part of the country where our Dems seem to be elected; the Warner supporters seem to be coming to the Edwards campaign since he dropped out, at least from my judgment.

I'm not so sure that Clinton is going away, as you suggested, and I actually see her, not Obama, as the juggernaut in this race. She, Kerry, and Bayh have a financial advantage at the start, and their people, at least Bayh's, are already on the ground in S.C. and elsewhere. The African American vote (in S.C.) and labor vote (Nevada) will have particular influence in the nomination process; Obama is the wildcard, but Edwards plays to both constituencies quite well. Edwards also has been completely vetted -- the Jesse Helms machine went after him in his senate bid -- and has no baggage whatsoever; I hope Clark has dotted all his i's and crossed all of his t's, because the Republicans will come after him for any possible misstep in his past, too.

[Pithy Cherub]

86. Clark's been vetted heavily, but Clinton wins that contest.

A four star general plus his initial run for president did not turn up any thing. Edwards was the one crass enough to try and use his advisor's, Hugh Shelton, smears against Clark right before Clark went to the Hague to testify against Milosivic. It was gratifying to see the most decorated generals come out in support of Clark. It was an unnecessary cheap shot smear from a presidential candidate novice with impaired national security credentials. Clark's creds on that score are much intact, while Edwards has a required apology on the record for Iraq.

Clark is not ideologically aligned with Edwards or Warner. Clark's tax plan is more progressive and he is not without his own contacts in Labor. Edwards is not compelling when compared and contrasted to Obama and more and more Obama is appearing as a candidate. The candidates that hurts most are Clinton and Edwards. As an African American myself, with ties to the South, my anecdotal evidence is its Obama right now, hands down, with Clinton in reserve. That will indeed rearrange the political demographics potentially opening a new opportunity as constituencies realign. Edwards had the field to himself for a long time because he has been pseudo campaigning. With declared candidates it becomes much harder to predict anyone would retain that advantage especially as the Blogosphere weighs in.

The netroots are waiting to engage and Edwards has started his wooing process as much as Warner did. Warner and Edwards both believed in the irrelevant DLC concept, though Edwards is backing away from that now and coming to embrace economic populism. The premier economic populist with the biggest mic and ability to make some legislative "noise" will be Jim Webb with Jon Tester providing strong back up. Webb and Clark go back a long way together.

Biden and his racially insensitive Delaware comments are beyond the pale. Clark has many supporters who are people of color and he had the Native Americans endorsement which will play well in Nevada as he has kept his ties. I am an avid Clarkie who appreciates that Obama is about to reset the bar and have cash. Obama doesn't have a name recognition issue and a best selling book that will be on the lists for the next month won't hurt. Obama's trip to New Hampshire this month is generating serious buzz that already overwhelms those who have been in that state trying to build enthusiasm. Again, Obama just reconfigured everything and the netroots has yet to weigh in with monetary support, buzz and critical thinking which the mainstream media will follow.

[MMartin]

105. Edwards' status, foreign policy

Obama cannot be considered a credible figure on national security, and I say that as one of his admirers. The Republicans will hammer that home over and over again, and he'll need to be able to fend off those attacks. This is a liability for Obama, just as it is one for Edwards, who has been brushing up on his national security credentials since 2004, including serving on a foreign relations task force to Russia with Jack Kemp. If you mean by national security that Obama opposed the war in Iraq, then you are right in supporting him, but that's not what I mean. Obama is the only candidate left in the field who was against the war from the start, but Edwards has come out to the left of Clark and others in his position on the war (Clark calls for no troop withdrawals in his latest op-ed piece; I know you disagree with that) and had an op-ed in 2005 in the Wash. Post outlining why he was wrong in supporting the war. Of course, there is a NY Times article that cites Clark's support for the original IWR, so criticism would have to be directed at him, too. And, of course, Clark was raising money for Republicans in 2001 at the Pulaski County Republican fundraiser. I don't hold this against him, but I think a bit of flexibility towards earlier stances, ones that were indeed wrong, should be applied to Edwards, too.

S.C. has already gone to Edwards in 2004, and I don't see why it wouldn't again in 2008. He already has operatives on the field in S.C., Iowa, and Nevada, has recently hired a former congressman as his campaign director, and is polling the best out of any Democratic candidate against McCain and Giuliani. Strategically speaking, Edwards is the person we need as our nominee to have the best chance to win in 2008. Clark certainly has strong netroots support, but so does Edwards and Obama; and Clark has ties to the DLC and the Clintons, which makes him less of an outsider than he may be portrayed. Edwards, of course, has been an economic populist for quite some time, and that really resonates with middle class voters and the protectionist beliefs that allowed Sherrod Brown to come to office. He has an authenticity that many voters see most Democrats as lacking; Clark could also have that, but he hasn't been in the spotlight as much, and we already know that Edwards has that appeal.

I have no idea about the Shelton disagreement you mentioned, because I haven't heard of such a thing. Edwards is not a smearing candidate, however.

The pragmatists in the party want a winner in 2008, and Clinton is looking less like one to them, though she has quite a bit of support, money, and status to give her a headstart over many other candidates. I don't consider Edwards as being given the mantle of top-tiered candidate such as Obama and Clinton, though he is given more credibility as a nominee than Clark, Biden, and several others. I don't see a schism, however, between his second-tier candidate media status as a possible candidate and a lack of ground support to back up that status; no one is unduly propping him up, from my vantage.

[Pithy Cherub]

107. Clark & Gore have the national security creds.

Edwards is hopelessly lost and was on a commission with another failed presidential and vice presidential candidate. Edwards seems to surround himself with failed prospects rather than those who have actually negotiated treaties (Clark, Albright, Clinton, Holbrooke, Richardson), won a war (Clark, Bill Clinton, Albright), or opposed a war (Clark, Obama, Gore, Dean). Edwards judgment is at best suspect on national security which due to Iraq not going away will be on the political scene for 2008 making Edwards have to defend his mistake and propose a solution while he hasn't graduated with any foreign policy dissertations to date that are legislation.

On the other hand, Obama got a thousand times the positive coverage for his amazing trip to Africa than did Edwards. Edwards was here in California last week and he appeared in print. Obama was here last week and was spoken about both locally and nationally for four days. Obama is a name here while Edwards, amongst others, have some real work to do. Edwards is a future cabinet member in my estimation, especially if the Clark, Clinton, Gore or Obama trains take off - but its more than a year away. Gov. Dean started much the same way and Edwards seems to be following that model without having Dean's compelling narrative on Iraq.

Obama trumps Edwards easily by saying what he said today, He spoke out against this war and he can point to Edwards lamely co-sponsoring the travesty and apologizing profusely. Obama is actually growing in stature while Edwards as even kos says, he may have reached his ceiling of support and peak early. Edwards does not have a compelling resume for leading the nation after being a signatory on this county's worst foreign policy disaster ever. The attack ads against him will be brutal. Edwards believes in himself after making a train wreck of a bad vote and Clark, Obama and Gore have moral authority and clean hands.

Edwards is pumping up his brand now while people have a year to see if it wears well. The polls now are meaningless unless the thesis is that Edwards is a front runner a la Joe Lieberman circa 2004. Clark was at a fundraiser where he chided the president by starting with damning with faint praise. Edwards is not in Clark's firmament because of his fatal missteps on national security and domestic policies with NCLB. Clark in my estimation supersedes the super nova named Edwards by being consistent, a proven leader - (Edwards career is testament as an individual contributor, not leader) and Wes has maintained his moral authority without the gaping holes that the candidates that voted aye on the war have.

Wes Clark has a committed vote with me and mine because he already has the full package of required talent for the role. Wes doesn't need to go to national security school.

[MMartin]

110. Domestic issues favor Edwards, our strongest candidate

Gore, as much as I like him, is old news, and there is no other sure-fire way for us to lose in 2008 than to have him as a nominee. He, not Edwards, has peaked already and, like Kerry, had his opportunity. The time has come for Gore to follow his important project, that is, global warming, and make a difference in that arena rather than running for president, which he doesn't seem interested in doing; we're not even sure that Obama and Clark are going to run either, and I imagine one of them won't.

Edwards doesn't have the foreign policy experience that Clark has; I have never argued with you on that point. It is, however, also true that he has stronger foreign policy experience than Obama, as he served in the senate longer and served on a foreign policy committee in his post-senate life. Obama is an advocate for the disenfranchised, but his work pales in comparison to Edwards' work on: poverty, rebuilding in La. after Katrina, labor rights, minimum wage increases, and other issues. If Clark has the creds on foreign policy, Edwards has them over Clark and Obama on domestic policy hands-down, and he has stronger foreign policy creds than Obama, of course.

If you are looking for a long resume, then you would fully support Clark, even though he has no political experience, and you would then shift support to McCain, Kerry, or someone like that; of course, Obama wouldn't even be mentioned if that is your criterion for support. Voters support candidates based on them having a compelling vision for the country's future and whether they trust said candidate, and those two reasons are part and parcel why Edwards is our strongest candidate.

As someone who has protested the illegitimate war in Iraq from the beginning, I see Edwards as someone who is in my camp, not against it. He shouldn't have voted for the war, but there is a big difference between him and, say, neoconservative enabler Lieberman. Neither Clinton, Kerry, Bayh, or several other Dems have their hands clean from that vote; only Feingold had the golden vote. Edwards is a powerful anti-war voice these days. Clark made mistakes in the past -- fundraising for Republicans, saying he would vote for the IWR, according to the NY Times -- but these facts haven't tempered your support for him.

Of course, I am one who wants to win in 2008, and Edwards gives us our best chance. In a head-to-head match-up with McCain, Clark loses every state except for Arkansas, Obama wins only three states, and Hillary loses nearly 2-1, according to SurveyUSA; Edwards, a proven fundraiser (One America Committee outgained WesPAC 3-1, according to finance reports), is in almost a deadheat with media darling McCain, only losing 272-266, according to the poll.

California is akin to N.J. in the Democratic nomination process and influence, that is, we are good for money and dependable votes, but then Dem nominees scatter, so it probably isn't that important who is popular in SoCal. Your state needs to do what our state legislature is proposing, that is, moving your primary up in the calendar to have more influence.

[Pithy Cherub]

113. That spectacularly flawed analysis

is based on what you see today without any conscious or critical thinking of what happens over the next year. You are clapping your hands and believing in a vapor version of Edwards that remains static over the next year in a vain hope that he can justify his presidential run on the basis of blathering about domestic policy with no true impact. Edwards can not speak to poverty in the same way as an Obama by virtue of Obama's entire career, his ethnicity and his background, a trifecta that Edwards does not have. Edwards is a recent convert after his failed DLC embrace of neocon policy making and upon his failed presidential bid. He should be congratulated on his efforts to redeem his polical standing, but he is not an advocate that has the intellectual heft or results of a Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bono or a William Julius Wilson on poverty. Bill Clinton OWNS the domestic distinction ( and will share it with his wife) and the international creds on that issue through CGI. Edwards was nowhere in sight when the power players, including a recent Nobel Prize Winner on the issue were discussing it. Edwards is a press release machine and a couple of scholarships on that effort. Obama, at the least, started his career on the issue of poverty after attending one of the most prestigious schools in Hawai'i. No recent conversions there unlike some.

Obama is running and amassing a team and money. Edwards has no choice but to get out front early so he can try and maintain a lead - since his baggage of voting stupidly for the Iraq War will get discussed ad nauseum. That is a bet the house strategy because John is hoping to use the publicity to paint himself as reformed and getting a bright & shiny eDiploma from the school of the Google on national security. Again, the fatally flawed supposition is that what Edwards thinks matters today lasts through a year of infrastructure building and defending his paltry one term record in the senate will take a toll.

Obama is sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee with an opportunity to legislate and enact reform on Iraq - that will be timely and recent efforts rather than a former senator from North Carolina who got everything wrong because of exceedingly poor judgment and lack of overall leadership on national security. Edwards was aligned with Lieberman on the war, too bad for Edwards.

Contrast that with a Clark, Gore or Obama who have immediate platforms with strong serious people giving credence to their proven and fact based opinions. Gore brought a plane to NOLA and rescued people from Katrina,(us black folks KNOW who did what). Edwards talked and talked and sent out a press release. Gore can wait eight months or more, then blow everybody out of the water after winning an Oscar. Nothing burnishes credentials than being exceedingly successful at an outside worthy global endeavor with more than a billion people watching the ceremony.

Obama has more natural talent and has made significant inroads in speaking about AIDS, faith and one America. His stage is world wide and nationally focused. Who's book is doing better these days? Edwards stage is confined to hoping he can win Iowa, or New Hampshire. Obama has already had to increase his schedule in New Hampshire due to overwhelming demand. Haven't seen that with Edwards. Clark gets immediate attention due to his cogent and intellectual ability to speak on the mind share issues of the day, especially since the current occupant has no intention of doing the right thing. That is what happens when inexperience coupled with ambition like Edwards or Bush are awarded the presidency on nothing more than charm and a vapor resume on the things that matter to true Americans.

Citing today's polling and projecting it forward is merely a specious tool for those that have bigger hopes than experience. I shall work diligently for one of three candidates, Clark, Obama or Gore. McCain would only be the choice of a failed Edwards supporter and that certainly is not where I would waste a vote in either case.

[MMartin]

128. an example of wrongheaded thinking on the Democratic nominee

You've been absolutely nasty about John Edwards and his candidacy and criticize him at the expense of having a blind eye towards your own hypocrisy towards your candidates. Are you sure you're not a Republican? I say this because you seem more loyal to your own candidates rather the Democratic Party. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "failed Edwards supporter," and the vitriol towards any dissenting voice from your opinion is clear and present in all your posts.

You criticize Edwards for being on a losing ticket... then cite Gore, who shouldn't have even made it close with Bush, as a palatable choice. The logic here is wanting, to say the least.

You criticize Edwards for originally supporting the Iraq War... then cite a candidate, Clark, who supposedly, according to published reports, would have supported the IWR and currently calls for no troop withdrawals from Iraq. His plan on the latter is wrong, as it doesn't put any pressure on the Iraqi government for specific goals for autonomy based on U.S. aid. Again, you turn a blind eye to this is subservience towards your Edwards bashing.

You mention Edwards as not having the gravitas or presence of Obama, even though Obama has less senate experience and foreign policy experience. Edwards is considered by many to be the greatest rhetorician in either party, so you're wrong there, though I, of course, consider Obama an inspirational speaker and would readily get behind his candidacy. That seems to be the difference between you and me: I support the Democratic Party, and you only support certain candidates.

Edwards is far above any other Democratic candidate in the field when it comes to domestic issues, and is currently director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC. I'm glad that Obama is speaking out on AIDS, but do know that Edwards has been to Uganda and Sudan for huminitarian missions long before Obama, he worked hand and hand for weeks with an organization he started to provide relief for Katrina victims, he started a college scholarship program for poor, rural North Carolinians so that they could go to college, he has been on the front lines of labor protests -- there is little wonder why he has such solid labor support -- and with labor leaders, and he has done much, much more. There is a reason the media went to Edwards for advice on poverty after Katrina, and that is because he has emerged as one of, it not the, authoritative voice on the issue in the country. As someone who grew up rather poor in the rural South, I can say that Edwards is a more authentic figure when it comes to such issues.

Of course, I'm imaginging that you campaigned for Kerry last time, even though he voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Edwards and Obama's positions on this awful war are about the same and include a phased withdrawal of our troops. Edwards is certainly becoming a voice for the anti-war left, and his position is more approximate to mine than Clark's position, which doesn't call for any definitive troop withdrawal. Clark's foreign policy experience trumps Edwards, and Edward's foreign policy experience trumps Obama's. That's just a fact, whether you feel inclined to face it or not.

Edwards has a massive upside and appeal; intense media scrutiny will not diminish that, and, as I mentioned before, he was already vetted up and down when he defeated an ultra-conservative candidate from the Jesse Helms machine in NC. Strategically speaking, we don't start off losing by 500-some states to McCain with Edwards as our nominee, unlike with Clark and Obama right now. I imagine that the American public would very much warm to Clark, even though he is somewhat already in the public eye with his Fox News analyst position, but that is all based on hypothetical progonoses -- we already know that Edwards is a candidate for whom the American public, including many so-called moderates, holds a very high opinion.

I don't mind if you attack a candidate's positions or viability based on reason arguments, but your ad hominem attacks on both Edwards and me are in poor taste.

[Pithy Cherub]

130. Thin skinned a bit?

Edwards was taken to task on his meager record nothing else. If that's the reaction then he really is in trouble and at the apex of his support. Too bad your resorting to ad hominen attacks because of the massive deficiencies in your candidate of choice. Not my problem. I support people with proven good judgment, thank you, not those that have to be rehabilitated because they were wrong on the most important thing a president makes a decision about- WAR!

[MMartin]

134. More attacks, waiting for substance

The only thing you've done in your preceding posts is prove your hypocrisy by not applying the same criteria towards Obama and Clark as you did towards Edwards. By any objective standard, you've certainly lost this debate, and your positions have been proven untenable. Again, I'm waiting for your rebuttal on why you think that Clark, who reportedly said he would support the IWR and favors no troop withdrawal, is a more palatable choice for the left and whether you agree with his no troop withdrawal stance. I'm also waiting for you to back up why you consider Obama, who has been in the senate only two years, someone who has superior foreign policy experience to Edwards, a claim you made which I refuted. You also stated that Obama is a more authoritative voice when it comes to domestic issues -- then didn't provide much in way of substance to back it up. Of course, there is the stance you've made that Edwards has lost before as VP and therefore shouldn't be on this ticket; but then you advocate Gore, who has already "lost" the presidential election, as a viable alternative. Are you too beginning to see a pattern in your myopic, less-than-consistent stances?

[Pithy Cherub]

135. Once again, a record matters.

The point is on the MOST important vote ever, edwards blew it. He has the rest of his life to atone and make amends. Those that were correct, Clark, Gore and Obama don't have to waste time making amends for what they knew to be wrong. Gore, Clark and Obama each have different strengths and weaknesses than Edwards. They just happen to have more strengths in critical areas. Compare and contrast. Gore did not lose, ask another President Jimmy Carter - and Edwards policked his way onto the Kerry ticket and then did a horrible job in a debate where he was just pummeled. That is not leadership. Would not happen to the other three. If rehabilitating a flawed candidate like Edwards is your wont in life, carry on with the heavy political baggage! I prefer those with proven talent, skill and abilities without such glaring lapses of judgment and moral authority. Clark, Gore or Obama, with a stong preference for Clark. Wes has the presidential portfolio and accredited intellectual chops.

[venable]

148. You know, it's absurd

that you attack Edwards so obsessively, when your man was at least back and forth on the war.

You'll tell me that's not true, and you, or someone else, will present massive quantities of text, presumably in support of your argument. I have read it all, and can tell you that you are reading it incorrectly if you think it means Clark has always been anti-this-war. I will not read it again. You are wrong on Clark's attitude on the war. So, if you want to bug out whenever Edwards name is mentioned, you ought to pick something besides his wrong IWR vote. Find another reason, or abandon Clark on the same basis. Your choice.

[Pithy Cherub]

150. Tell the truth and it hurts those who

are valeting the Edwards policy luggage. Lucky for you, the national security bag is empty. None of what was said was not true - since the truth is not something you wish to deal in why not take your state of denial elsewhere.

You obviously want to inflate Edwards skills and talents to equate with Clark's and it can't nor will it happen because you wish it. Clark has a proven pedigree in the most important skill set because the Iraq war will be a 2008 issue. Edwards stupidly voted for it and apologized as he should have, but has no means to fix it because he has no plan that has been offered by him. He does mean press release action though - I am sure you can quote one by heart.

Clark has national security creds & plans that Edwards doesn't. Obama has a movement that Edwards doesn't. Gore has an issue that is global and critical to the planet that Edwards doesn't. If Edwards is your choice so be it - and as above it was already said that edwards is not my choice for the following reasons. Don't you think your time would be better suited finding people who want to receive press releases from your candidate rather than someone who has no intention of voting for an under qualified candidate with poor judgment and a lack of political courage when it matters?

[venable]

151. I don't want to inflate Edwards

I have admitted many times that I think his vote was wrong. I thought it then, and I think it now.

I also think he has extraordinary qualities that make me want to see him as a leader of this country.

I also like Clark. I think he also has extraordinary qualities, and can serve this country well, just like Edwards. What I don't want to do is pretend Clark, or Edwards, is someone they are not. They both had unfortunate early positions on the war. That's where we disagree.

I also like Gore and think he would be an exceptional President.

I also like Kucinich and, maybe, Obama (way, way too early to tell). I also like Sharpton and Feingold. I also like Howard Dean.

My point is that if you hold the IWR vote against Edwards (which is fair), do the same for Clark's early and shifting positions.

I don't give a hoot if Clark voted for Nixon or Reagan. I care that Clark want to get us out of this mess now (I hope he does), and I care that the others listed above feel the same.

[high density]

79. Well, his 2004 campaign has a positive net worth

But it is still "in debt." ...

[renate]

119. welcome to DU!!

:hi:

[DemInTX]

44. General Clark, hands down...

My vote is for General Clark because I feel he is the most qualified. I won't waste my vote for anyone with less leadership abilities. I've seen what the other potential candidates have to offer and I'm not impressed.

[Catchawave]

47. Why do you feel he's the most qualified?

Who knows, you may be the key to my supporting him instead of Edwards :bounce:

[Pyrzqxgl]

50. Right now my ticket is Edwards/Clark but I'll keep my ears open

[Alexander]

51. I'd take Clark, Edwards is just a pretty face.

Haven't we had enough empty suits in the White House?

BTW my vote went to Edwards for vice-president. But what has he done in the Senate?

[Catchawave]

52. 'splain to Lucy...empty suits, pretty face

...voted for vice president, or did you mean President....? What has he done in the Senate (clue: hasn't been there in 2 years)....???

sigh, would have much rather learned your reason for choosing "I'd take Clark" than piss on my boy, 'k?

If you mean empty suits, do you mean combovers too? Just trying to level the playing field :hi:

[kiteinthewind]

53. Gore/Clark

:toast:

[LWolf]

54. I would choose to write someone else in. n/t

[fujiyama]

69. Clark over Edwards

but I haven't seen much of Clark recently that impresses me as much. His plans on Iraq have not sounded all that different from typical "we need troops there for now...blah blah blah", or "we should engage in diplomacy with neighboring nations" with the latter being a "no shit", obvious thing to do. Now I'm not expecting Clark to have a plan to save the world (maybe he does though), and I believe he's very intelligent and capable...but then again, I could just be getting bored from his extremely vocal fanboys and girls here on DU. It just feels like they've mentioned his name so many times over the last several years, I've just got tired of hearing it.

But I'm still willing to listen to what he has to say. And I have no doubt him (or Edwards for that matter) would make fine presidents. I also think Clark has an exceptional history of military service and leadership (including diplomatic skills) which would be invaluable in today's climate.

Though, my own ideal ticket is Gore/Obama, but I could get behind Gore/Clark as well. I just feel like Clark's fans here have been campaigning for him nonstop for over two years now.

[bobbie]

73. Edwards blew it by voting for the Iraq invasion

Won't support anyone who did that. They knew what they were doing.

[GreenArrow]

74. not only did he vote for it

he was a frequent Democratic point man on the various talking heads shows helping to sell it.

Hell yes, he knew what he was doingand his talk of running again insults me.

[bobbie]

75. Really? I didn't know he was a mouthpiece for imperialism.

Appreciate the info.

[PurityOfEssence]

87. Please cite examples

This is NOT how I remember this period at all. If you have examples of how he was a salesman for aggression, please list them.

[FrenchieCat]

88. Here's some cites on Edwards' role in reference to the Iraq War!

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

October 7, 2002
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel.
snip

After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm.

At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.

Eliminating Iraq's destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.

We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.
snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html

December 18, 2002
What we do here is, of course, cast in the context of America's responsibilities abroad. I have said this before and I want to say it again: I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein.

We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time, we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5440/homeland_security_address.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

But by supporting the Iraq war so intently, Edwards has carved out a position of a far more credibility than the increasingly bitter Gore. And so his speech today should be seen less as a serious attack on Bush than as a statement that he is the true inheritor of Gore’s previous centrism in the Democratic Party. He’s wily, this guy. And flagging the speech to the Washington Post beforehand is worthy of Blair.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100702.shtml

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

(BELOW, EDWARDS INDIRECTLY LINKS 9/11 ATTACKS TO WHY SADDAM MUST BE ATTACKED)

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002

"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.
Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074



What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?
The Lies of John Edwards
By JOHN WALSH
The apology of John Edwards, former Senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, for voting for the Iraq war in 2002, has been widely praised. But his apology is based on a lie, one that other Democrats are likely to embrace and one which will serve their ambitions but hide the truth. We should have no illusions about this, for to believe otherwise is to set ourselves up for the continuation of Bush's war by a Democrat.
......cont.....
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12052005.html

"Edwards had always been a firm supporter of the war. I was at the fateful California Democratic Party convention in early 2003 in which Dean exploded onto the political scene. Forgotten from that convention, Edwards was booed for announcing his support for the war just a couple days before bombs started dropping.

But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30

[ultraist]

95. Outdated info

Why do you continue to post outdated info? A lot has changed since 2002.


http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/headlines/wp20051113/ Right Way in Iraq


An Op-Ed by Senator John Edwards
Washington Post
Nov 13, 2005

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told — and what many of us believed and argued — was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong — and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
con't...

[westcott]

98. Words..

Keep your words.. Judgment and experience are what matter.

I'm glad he finally admits he was wrong. But tell that to the nearly half million people DEAD and tell that to the entire region that is half on it's way to complete chaos because of this thing. Too little too late.

Why on Earth a discussion still exists on who is better to serve as President of the United States of America between John Edwards or Wes CLark is completely beyond me.

[FrenchieCat]

101. I was responding to someone's challenge as to what Edwards was saying

then (in 2002)! If you don't see an Edwards supporters asking exactly for what I provided, then you should read the responses and answers right before my post.

Now that you've read it.....you will clearly see that an Edwards supporter was requesting to be shown some cites as to How John Edwards was a spokeman supporting the Iraq War before it happened.......Poster was not asking about what Edwards said in November of 2005, after the polls had turned! :eyes:

However, I guess that according to you, we are supposed to act like none of it ever happened and just look at his apology and be done with it? Even his apology is not as genuine as it could have been....in particular when he states......... "I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

This comes in direct conflict with what he publicly was saying a whole year after his vote (which I posted via both the Hardball and the Tim Russert cites) which was that it didn't really matter that WMD hadn't been found.......his vote and the war were still the "right" choices.

So what did matter to John Edwards then? The intelligence was flawed in respect to the WMDs, and in his apology he now clearly states that if he had known that there were none, he wouldn't have voted for the War. So which is it? What it what he said one year after the war, or what he said 3 years after the war? Plus in 2002 he was actually saying that Saddam might have a nuke in less than a year! Well, where did he get that from? Those were Bush, Rice and Cheney's lines, while the testimony from much of the experts were that Saddam "might" get nukes down the road, at least a few years away! Yet John Edwards, at the time, chose to emphasize the same card that Bush and them played....the Mushroom cloud scenario, and he also linked what had happened on 9/11 directly to justifying that we should invade Iraq!!!! (That's the 10/07/02 piece I posted)

So it is my opinion, and you can get upset if you want to (but that will not silence me) that John Edwards has still not truly taking the rap because he really was very much behind that war.....and nothing you say or he says can change that....and his apology is nice and appreciated, but it doesn't change his extremely bad judgement when many's were better; a judgement that is one important track record of his that one can look at when assessing who's got leadership qualities and who doesn't.

Now, You as an Edwards supporter are "frustrated" that I should dare bring up "old stuff" that we are still fighting, and still paying for in so many ways? A mistake that was so large that the 2006 elections turned on it! My goodness!

Look, Edwards got some great qualities, but this "mistake" of his can't really be "fluffed over" in the real realm of Presidential politics, even if it may have been back in 2004. An OpEd doesn't "quite" do it for me in terms of avoiding certain mistakes when assessing John Edwards' leadership skills, in particular in the arena of Foreign Relations. He has a great wife, beautiful children, charismatic looks and a worthy cause, but he's got some flaws as well, and the stance that he strongly took back in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005(till Nov) that you'd like all of us to "excuse" surely is one of them.

Your posting of his "my mistake" article he wrote as the answer for his actions is telling! It demonstrates you really don't expect for him to really "take" any real responsibility in terms of actually paying any real price, do you? So how is John Edwards to "take responsibility"? Just putting a few words out there and hanging his head and then be rewarded for bad judgement by being supported for the presidency of this country?

Me thinks you'd rather he not be held accountable or responsible.
Me, I say, no thank you....don't think so.

[FrenchieCat]

104. Also....what is odd, is you seem to very much care what happened

in reference to Clark voting for a President over 20 years ago.....

yet, John Edwards actions of less than 4 years ago are outdated? :shrug:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2996680&mesg_id=3003944
ultraist (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-05-06 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #30
96. Clark voted for Reagan and Bush I n/t


BUT actually Clark never said he voted for Bush I, and Like Edwards who couldn't remember whether he voted for Nixon or not, guess you can't really count something he never admitted to against him.

[venable]

149. I've posted this on the thread already

but I'll do it again, for this section of the thread.

If you want to attack Edwards' vote, that's fair. I disagree with the vote, too. I support him in spite of the vote, even if that is difficult (which it is).

But don't try to sell Clark anymore, if that is your criterion. I have read your Clark texts endlessly, and, you know what - you are wrong if you think it proves he has been unequivocally against the war. You just are. I also said above that I will not read it all again, nor will I get into a textual analysis. I read it once, and it proves, to a native English speaker, that Clark was, often, pro war, if not always happy with the particular IWR.

So, drop the Edwards war vote obsession, or drop Clark on the same basis.

This has gone past surreal.

[westcott]

97. Hardball Oct 13 2003

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

[PurityOfEssence]

106. If you're supporting GreenArrow's contention, then this is crap

This is not the appearance of someone with pom-poms deliberately going out to root for the Iraq War Resolution. If you're backing this poster's characterization of Edwards as someone who was being an operative front man to sell the Resolution to people by citing this interview then you're being either deliberately deceptive or have some serious analytical issues. GreenArrow also alleges that Edwards was a regular advocate and point man for the resolution; this is simply wrong.

Edwards was sandbagged in this interview. Regardless of what one thinks of his responses, he certainly wasn't going on Hardball to "sell" the IWR. It's rather obvious from reading the interview that this wasn't what he wanted to discuss. Matthews went for the jugular and dictated the terms of the discourse.

I have yet to hear of a credible instance where Edwards was a running dog for the establishment who vigorously went out to sell the Iraq War Resolution to the public. The decision was difficult for him and he BELIEVED the information that he was given as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, bound by a security clearance. We STILL haven't heard all of the lies and distortions that were made behind closed doors.

This is a popular fiction: we all have the same information. We don't.

Regardless of what you think of him or of this particular vote, he was NOT a cheerleader and salesperson for the Resolution. To say so is indefensible, and the pathetic defenses of this mis-characterization show this. Making a bad vote is one thing, but that doesn't mean that one was a tireless advocate of that vote. There is simply no evidence for this, and to say there is is disgusting.

Continued repetition of this is either partisan dishonesty or flippant obfuscation. Either way, it is underhanded and should be explained or apologized for if a shred of morality exists within the posters who persist in this nastiness.

[GreenArrow]

114. crap, schmap

As Mike Brady once said, "exact words, Greg, are not so easy to live by". Did you not read the various articles that Frenchiecat so kindly posted above?

However, you say "This is not the appearance of someone with pom-poms deliberately going out to root for the Iraq War Resolution." (I wonder how he managed to co-sponsor the damn thing without advocating for it?)

John Edwards' Pom-pons: "Congress Must Be Clear" (Op-ed column from The Washington Post on Thursday, 09/19/02, an op-ed so gratifying to certain elements, that the State Department put it on its website.) Read it for yourself at:

http://italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=/file2002_09/alia/A2091910.htm

Is that a "credible enough instance where Edwards was a running dog for the establishment who vigorously went out to sell the Iraq War Resolution to the public?" I mean, gee, it's not like anyone made him write that thing.

Now further, it's interesting that you bring up his position on the Intelligence Committee, a position made even more interesting due to the fact that four of his Democratic colleagues on that committee, including the Chair, Bob Graham, voted against IWR, even though all had seen the same intelligence. How come he was fooled and his colleagues weren't? Though Frenchiecat has already linked this, here it is again, with all the details.

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12052005.html

One more thing in regards to the "intelligence" shared behind closed doors. Considering the flimsy and transparent, patently horseshit nature of the justifications that were given in public, how much credibility do you think the private intelligence actually had? If we ever do get to see that intelligence, I suspect it will largely prove to consist of slightly embellished versions of the same offal they slopped out into the media/propaganda troughs for the consumption of the public at large. But I doubt we'll ever see it.

Really, don't you think that since he had a) voted for IWR and b) actually co-sponsored IWR, that he would be out defending those decisions? What, for heavens sake, prompted him to write the op-ed cited above? You can't blame Blitzer or Matthews or whomever for asking about it.

"Operative"? That's your term. "Point man" was mine, and I stand by it. He made a political calculation and was forced to defend it, thus putting himself in a position as de facto defender of BushCo's designs. Whether that calculation has any long term effects on his ambitions remains to be seen.

[thatsrightimirish]

80. did you know

that in April 2006 Pew did a poll and it showed that 64% of Americans have a favorable view of Edwards?! Woah mama!
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=275

And the Des Moines Register did a poll and Edwards had an 83% favorable rating among Iowans
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS09/606110338/1001/archive

[Pithy Cherub]

81. Obama is about to road test his.....

Harkin said his fish fry with Obama was one of his largest crowds ever.

on edit: that was in August so more recent data.

[Clark2008]

93. And Democrats would be wise to choose the one candidate

the corporate media ISN'T pushing.

Listen closely to who they're NOT talking about - and vote accordingly.

:hi:

[venable]

111. really?

we should vote for the person least talked about?

not a good way to vote, IMO>



Edwards is mentioned more than Clark, but he is hardly being 'pushed by the MSM'

[Clark2008]

140. Why?

Once they become the nominee - the media HAS to talk about them. I was speaking about the primaries. The media doesn't want to see a clear-thinker, someone who will challenge their power and/or a populist to come out of the primaries, therefore, they don't talk about them in hopes they "just go away."

If that person becomes the nominee, then they'll HAVE to talk about them.

[goodhue]

91. Edwards

[MMartin]

99. Practical Reasons to Support Edwards over Clark

Edwards completely trumps Clark in a current polling head-to-head hypothetical match-up vs. McCain in a recent survey by Survey USA. In it, they did polling data for Clark and Edwards against McCain (and other Republican candidates). Edwards carries S.C., N.C., Florida, and other states and only loses to McCain 272-266; according to this poll, Clark only wins Arkansas against McCain, thus losing by over 500 votes.

http://www.surveyusa.com/default.html
(*Note: you can only do one or two match-ups before having to pay for it, so choose wisely).

Further, Edwards has been introduced to the American public in 2004, and the overwhelming consensus is that Edwards is viewed favorably by the majority of Americans, receiving the second highest favorability rating of any Democrat in at least one recent poll. Moderates, Southerners, populists all like Edwards.

Perhaps most important, Edwards has a proven track record of fundraising prowess, raising over $30 million for his bid in 2004. His PAC, One America Committee, has outraised Wes Clark's PAC by a 3-1 margin.

I hold a very favorable view of both Edwards and Clark but think that these pragmatic reasons support an Edwards candidacy over a Clark one.

[FrenchieCat]

103. It ain't about who is the media pushing.....

which is the reason that Edwards as gotten as far as he has, and if you don't think it is, you haven't been watching.

For me, it will be about who makes the better President. I ain't hopping on a bandwagon created by the corporate media and their conventional wisdom and the ability to hand out name recognition as though it was a gift! I remind myself that they are also the ones who brought us George Bush Jr., the Iraq War and The missing blonde in Arruba! :eyes:

Read this, if you want to know why Edwards "appears" to be so much more popular and the convential wisdom puts him over Wes Clark...who by far is more qualified....and just as handsome (if you ask me!)

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html#more-9242

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/primaries/index.html
The date of that article was BEFORE mini Tuesday.....yet, the media had already decided....and so apparently, it was a done deal!

[Pithy Cherub]

109. for now...

Edwards does not have the compare and contrast effect taking place yet. Will his image stand up under intense scrutiny, especially after Iraq is not resolved. Foreign policy credentials will matter and not having supported the Iraq debacle will be important to Americans. For now, Edwards has a message limited to economic populism which Barack Obama and even Hillary Clinton have an opportunity to legislate on in the 110th Congress. Edwards can only talk about it. Talk is cheap.

[ultraist]

112. Edwards won the first Kos 2008 Straw Poll!

Obama came in at a close second to Edwards.

[JNelson6563]

115. Very intersting!

I wonder how Gore would do. That would be interesting too.

Thanks for posting that info.

Julie

[Pithy Cherub]

116. Actually Gore won.

Gore won the poll he was in. It was not decisive in the poll without Gore. Clark Obama and Edwards are very close in numbers. Kos apologized because he pushed leaners with out having an option for no freakin Clue or other. He considered it a trial run until the poll in January. His analyis of the poll was more interesting as he said Gore is the clear favorite. ;)

[JNelson6563]

122. No surprise here!

Rock on President Gore! :toast:

[champt10]

120. Clark not old news.

I just think that Edwards was very weak in 04 and though Clark lost in the primaries. There is a lot less old news things about him

[FrenchieCat]

121. Welcome, and

you are accurate!

I think it’s worth noting that Clark never really got his due as a candidate. The Times said he “struggled to master the difficulties” of being a presidential candidate, while Scheiber said Clark failed because he “turned out to be a pretty lousy politician.”

I followed Clark’s campaign pretty closely in 2004 and I remember things slightly differently.

Indeed, looking back, I think the conventional wisdom is that John Edwards excelled as a candidate, while Clark never really caught on with voters. That’s not quite what happened.

After the Iowa caucuses, which Clark chose not to compete in, the four main Democratic candidates — Kerry, Dean, Clark, and Edwards — met in eight primaries. Kerry won six and effectively wrapped up the nomination in the first week of February 2004. But taking a closer look, Clark did pretty well, particularly if you compare him to Edwards.

In those eight primaries, Clark finished ahead of Edwards in five (AZ, NH, NM, ND, and OK), while Edwards bettered Clark is just three of the eight (DE, MO, and SC). If you include Iowa, Clark still outperformed Edwards in five of the first nine contests.

In fact, in those first eight post-Iowa primaries, if we look only at top-two finishes (candidates who came in either first or second), Kerry had seven, Clark had four, Edwards had three, and Dean had one.

But the media was unimpressed. A day after Clark and Edwards each won their first primaries, and Clark outperformed Edwards in a majority of the mini-Super Tuesday contests, news outlets praised Edwards and dismissed Clark. Salon, for example, ran a major feature, taking a look at the race for the nomination. The headline: “And then there were two.” A big picture accompanied the article with Kerry and Edwards. The article said Clark “posted disappointing numbers in the seven-state primary” and “may not be long for the game.” Again, this was a day after Clark actually did slightly better than Edwards.

I also recall that Clark delivered a pretty solid speech at the DNC that year, widely considered one of the better speeches of the convention.

Clark got into 2004 very late, had very little money, a small staff, and no experience to speak of. But he still managed to do surprisingly well. He “turned out to be a pretty lousy politician”? That’s not how I remember it.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9242.html#more-9242

[Catchawave]

126. Why did Clark drop out then ?

Sounds like he was doing pretty good.

Delegates won:

Kerry 2162
Edwards 534
Dean 170
Clark 57
Sharpton 27
Kucinich 23

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

127. Because he correctly saw that Kerry could not be stopped

Clark didn't keep running to boost his name recognition and chances to become Vice President. Once it was clear to him that John Kerry was going to be the Democratic nominee it was clear to him that it was time to close ranks around John Kerry to help him defeat George Bush. Clark of course was right. No one won any victories against Kerry after Clark dropped out (that wasn't in their own home State - Edwards picked up North Carolina and Dean got Vermont.)

And the totals you posted here of delegates won are the final totals, long after Clark withdrew and urged his supporters to vote for Kerry in all of the many races that folllowed.

[Catchawave]

131. There was more to it Tom.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4236413/

With hopes he builds a better team this time :patriot:

[Tom Rinaldo]

133. Sure there were reasons why he didn't do better than he did

But the reason why he pulled out before Wisconsin where he had a good organization and strong support and was still polling second in the polls, was the fact that he believed Kerry could no longer be stopped. That was the reason HE decided to pull out.

I think Clark learned the lessons from 2004 pretty well Catch, and if he runs it is indeed his intention to build a better team. Did you see this interview with the Brown University newspaper? I like his sense of humor about it:

The Herald: How likely is it that you'll run for
president in 2008?

General Clark: I haven't said I won't run.


The Herald: If you do run, how will your campaign
differ from your 2004 campaign?

General Clark: In virtually every respect.


The Herald: Why do you think you were unsuccessful in
winning the Democratic presidential nomination in
2004?

General Clark: Because I got in too late. Because I
had no political experience. Because I had no money
prior to the time I announced, and because I had no
staff. Other than that I was a pretty good candidate.

[CarolNYC]

132. True,

once it looked like Kerry was going to be unstoppable in the primaries, he put all of his energy into trying to make Kerry's run against Bush stronger. For him it was about what was best for the country and four more years of W was certainly not it.

Interesting that some can't seem to fathom a political figure who puts his country's future before his own...and kind of a sad commentary on the state of politics in this country. :(

[cali]

123. You do realize that all this poll does is affirm

that DU is home to a large Clark contingent? In kos' much, much larger poll, for example, Clark doesn't fare particularly well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

129. Right about the first part, wrong about the second

Clark does poll stronger at DU, it's a fact. But you are wrong to say he doesn't fare particularly well at kos. It has been noted above that Edwards won the Kos poll, and he did, very narrowly. Clark polled two percent lower than Edwards there. If you want to take credit for Edwards doing well there then you can't say that Clark didn't fare particularly well. Actually in the second kos poll that kos did that included Al Gore, Clark got more votes than Edwards did.

Clark is the one potential candidate at kos with strong upside potential, IMO, because he is scoring so dramatically higher with a cross sample of people there who are somewhat familiar with him, virtually as high as Obama and Edwards, than he currently does with a lesser informed General Public.

[leftyladyfrommo]

124. I really like both of them. n/t

[PassingFair]

125. I gotta go with Edwards.

I can't get past the fact that Clark's wife
was Kay Bailey Huchison's assistant.

Can't. Get. Past. It.

Can't.

LOVE Elizabeth Edwards, though.

I think John can bring the south, and
Elizabeth can bring the the rest of
the states!

[FrenchieCat]

136. I looked for such a reference, and only found one google reference to this

leading to a dead link. Do you have this source of info? When was this?

I do know that Theresa Heinz Kerry was married to a Republican Senator before she was married to John Kerry and that didn't seem to be held against her! :shrug:

Personally, I still can't get past the fact that Elizabeth's husband co-sponsored the IWR.

[Pithy Cherub]

139. Snark alert!

Passing Fair is an adamant hold their feet to the fire because they voted for IWR. That's why the missing link - PF is clear that he/she hates the vote and justifications and obfuscations practiced by Dems until this last election cycle for the IWR debacle and the Aye vote. PF is very outspoken on that - not that we haven't been!

:pals:

[abburdlen]

138. assistant?

I can find mention that she volunteered to work on constituent services and military families' issues for Hutchison but her assistant... that's a bit of a stretch.

[Milo_Bloom]

141. No question, CLARK

I could NEVER trust Edwards and here is why: (from Wikipedia) He co-sponsored Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. Edwards also supported and voted for the Patriot Act.

I understand the political positions involved and WHY he may have done it; however, it is really this simple for me. When you CO SPONSOR and SUPPORT WAR, you better have examined it from ALL angles and be sure what you are doing is the RIGHT THING, not just the politically right thing, because there is no excuse for causing death and destruction. People paid for his mistake with their lives and maybe I am cynical, but I believe that the senators who voted for the war either didn't care OR covered their eyes and ears to the mountain of evidence that suggested their position was WRONG.

With that said, if Edwards becomes the nominee and I sincerely hope he doesn't, but if he does, and there is no VIABLE progressive candidate in the general election, I would, of course, vote for him.

[Proud MD Liberal]

143. Tough Choice

Went with Edwards - I really believe the economic inequality and poverty issues are the most important things this nation has to confront.

[On Par]

146. Prior Military Experience Is Not Necessary...

..or in my thoughts wanted. As for a rich lawyer, isn't Hilary a rich lawyer? Isn't Kerry a rich lawyer? They're all rich. You rarely find any of the poor folk running for President.

[1932]

153. "War is too important to leave to the generals." Abraham Lincoln

I read that quote today in Kevin Phillips's American Theocracy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

154. True. I plan to vote for a civilian in 2008. Not only that

I also plan to continue to support the United States Constitution that gives Congress the power to declare war. Furthermore, I will oppose any Constitutional amendment to put the sitting Joint Chiefs of Staff in line for Presidential accession. I am counting on you to join with me in taking these stands.

[Pithy Cherub]

156. It's also too important to leave to the inexperienced.

We're watching that live and living that Hell without having to read Kevin Phillips to catch a clue.

[1932]

158. Like one-term congressman Abe Lincoln?

It's not experience that matters. It's how you see the world.

[Pithy Cherub]

159. Lincoln's one term and good judgment

did not mean he had to write op-eds apologizing saying oops. He was on the right side of History! ;)

[1932]

162. ?

I don't understand your point.

[FrenchieCat]

166. Her point is Edwards ain't no Lincoln...not even close!

[1932]

167. So that's what passes for "pithy" these days?

At least the argument isn't that Lincoln was no Lincoln.

[antiimperialist]

155. Clark vs. Edwards on top 5 issues

Top 5 issues: Edwards vs. Clark

Iraq:
Edwards: I was wrong in voting for it
Clark: Opposed the occupation of Iraq since the beginning.
Edge: Clark

Taxation:
Edwards: For more tax cuts for middle class, not multimillionaires.
Clark: Zero tax for families earning under $50,000
Edge: Even

Health Care:
Edwards:pushes universal health coverage
Clark: Supports universal health coverage. Says "Stop giving a handout to the HMOs"
Edge: Even

Immigration:
Edwards: Wants Illegal immigrants to earn citizenship after meeting requisites
Clark: Wants Illegal immigrants to earn citizenship after meeting requisites
Edge: Even

Energy and Oil:
Edwards: Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Clark: Bush's energy policy "stuck in the past"
Edge: Clark

Disclaimer: The "edge" part is just my opinion.

[1932]

157. On Taxation

Clark didn't want to increase the capital gains tax and didn't talk about dividend tax at all. Edwards wanted to create a second tier for dividend tax (starting at a couple hundred thousand.

Clark wants to roll all tax credits into a single credit for families. Edwards wants to expand the earned income tax credit, and doesn't want to limit it to families.

I'd have to give the edge to Edwards on taxation.

[FrenchieCat]

165. Clark has been talking about Single Payer Health Insurance this year....

and so would he continue if he ran....and so Clark gets the edge on Health Care!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/1/30/17455/5250
http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2006/01/clark_supports_singlepayer_hea.php

[otohara]

163. The Capricorn

of course!

[RetroLounge]

164. I voted for Clark due to his refusal to back down

in interviews, his military acumen, and his intellect.

But I think Edwards would be a very good choice also. Smart as hell, a good speaker.

I love that the Democratic Field is chock-full of great choices.

RL