It probably is a Dean/Clark race and the tragedy is that we won't

[dkf]

be able to see a one on one debate.

I honestly don't know who would come out on top if it did happen just because their strengths are completely opposite of each other with Dean knowing domestic policy better and clark knowing foreign policy better.

Are their plans even fleshed out enough to be able to compare and contrast? Health care maybe, but the rest, who knows? I rarely hear any of the candidates tout their plan over the other guys plan.

[cavebat2000]

1. I want a Dean/Clark Combo

I think that would unite the democratic party a little bit.

[Born Free]

10. "I want a Dean/Clark Combo"

Originally that seemed like a good idea, but unfortunately, democrats tend to burn their bridges as they go. I think Dean has reached the point of no return, he has the financial support of too many democrats to lose now. Once people start sending him money they are going to stick with him and that is what you are seeing, the other candidates can throw punches at him, but they can't peel off his current support. Dean was not my original choice, but I am sending him donations now, and most the democrats I know ( and a couple republicans) that talk with me about him say they plan to send him money when he wins the nomination. Was it the old song, "Love the one you are with" , I am thinking of to describe our support for Dean? NO; He is not perfect, not the one we originally wanted,but damn it, he is getting the job done. He is able to get the people moving, he is able to unite and lead. It's not a question of who is best qualified, it's who does the best job of getting the people's support, and like it or not Dean is the one that has his act together.

[BobbyJay]

2. I agree. I'm still pissed that we have 1,625 candidates.

It makes watching the debates awful.

[Dookus]

4. heheh...

I agree. The debates just aren't terribly useful with this many people. However, I still enjoy them because I like all the candidates, and it's nice to see them.

I will disagree with the earlier poster who says Clark really doesn't have domestic policy experience. He was a White House Fellow working in the office of Management and Budget. That puts him in the top .0001 percent of Americans with domestic policy experience.

[dkf]

7. When asked about the Brady bill, Clark said he didn't know enough

about the bill to comment.

I don't know if he was being coy because he didn't want to answer the question, but I think a lot of bills are really hideously involved and racked with stupid provisions. Knowing the ins and outs of the bills would be helpful.

I didn't know what a White House Fellow was so I looked it up and here is the description:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fellows/
Founded in 1964, the White House Fellows program is America's most prestigious program for leadership and public service. White House Fellowships offer exceptional young men and women first-hand experience working at the highest levels of the federal government.

White House Fellows typically spend a year working as full-time, paid special assistants to senior White House Staff, the Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries and other top-ranking government officials. Fellows also participate in an education program consisting of roundtable discussions with renowned leaders from the private and public sectors, and trips to study U.S. policy in action both domestically and internationally. Fellowships are awarded on a strictly non-partisan basis.

--
I don't think one year of working with the OMB is enough to understand all the domestic policies of the US.

[Dookus]

8. I never claimed it was....

enough to understand all the domestic policies of the US. I don't think being Governor of the second-least populous state is, either. Nor is being a congressman. The world of domestic policy is enormous, and nobody can grasp it all.

Clark was asked about a specific bill, and if he wasn't familiar with every provision, he was right to demur. Most politicians wouldn't. I find Clark to be very careful and measured in what he says, and I find it refreshing that he'd not pretend to know something he didn't.

I'm not arguing that Clark has the best resume on domestic issues. I'm simply saying it's untrue to claim he has NO experience.

[dkf]

9. Hey, I didn't claim Clark had NO domestic experience...

I just said "Dean know(s) domestic policy better and Clark know(s) foreign policy better.

[dfong63]

3. maybe not a tragedy

and the tragedy is that we won't be able to see a one on one debate.

imho it'd be a real tragedy to see the two leading dem candidates fighting each other instead of fighting Bush. personally i think there have been enough debates among the dems already.

[dkf]

6. I don't want to see a fight, I want to see an exchange of ideas

and a critique on why one would be successful vs. the other.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. You know I like Dean right now

ABB after the primary

Quite frankly my preference is a Dean Clark combo though, no particular order

[Kathleen04]

11. A one on one..

debate would be very interesting. I'd like to see that too. :)

[deminflorida]

12. I think Clark is going to need Dean and the grass roots support

to run in the general election, although Clark has a pretty good grass roots base himself. I don't think any of the regional scenarios I've seen will guartantee victory against Bush. I think it has to be an across the party combined effort against Bush in 2004.

Clark/Dean

[TexasSissy]

14. Dean needs the more moderate Democrats (Clark supporters).

You can't win a general election with 15% of the vote (half the Democrats).

But those who support Clark are more moderate, representing maybe half the Democrats, a good percentage of the Independents, and some of the more-left Republicans who are disgusted with Bush.

They both need each other, probably. But if Clark wins the nomination, he's in a better position, numbers wise, than Dean, since he appeals to a broader spectrum. IMO. But time will tell.

[izzie]

13. May not ,as things do go up and down. We may not be down enough.

n/t