Which potential Democratic candidate has the most winning personality?

[mtnsnake]

If the Democratic Primary was a personality contest ONLY, who do you think would win?

Be honest. Don't just pick your own personal all-around favorite. Pick the one who you think has the best personality and combination of charm and charisma.....likeability, if you will.

Disclaimer: I couldn't fit all the candidates I would like to have had in this poll because there is only room for 10 choices. Other potential candidates would be Dennis Kucinich, Tom Daschle, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, and Al Sharpton. If the poll was for funniest, Sharpton would win hands down, LOL. Feel free to add your own "most likeable" if he or she isn't listed in the poll.

Listed in alphabetical order by last name:

[mtnsnake]

1. I was torn between Obama and Clark, but ultimately went with Obama

[blm]

16. Out of curiosity, if you feel it's very important, did you pick up

Walter Shapiro's book on the 2004 candidates from an extended, more personal viewpoint? You might find it interesting.

Book is called One Car Caravan

[Adelante]

54. I liked that book

Even though it was written in the period before Wes got into the race. I enjoyed reading the up close observations.

[blm]

57. People get only one dimension from media edit rooms. I certainly wouldn't

base my perception on what the corporate media heads have to say - the shallowness of the current crop really has to be historic.

[mtnsnake]

60. Haven't read it, but it sounds intriguing

I just checked out some of the reviews on it at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586481878/104-8757487-0828747?v=glance&n=283155

I'd love to read it, but first I gotta read some of the other books I haven't gotten to read yet that have been collecting dust on the coffee table. :)

[Radical Activist]

97. In Illinois, Obama has a reputation

for coming off as arrogant at times. Hopefully he's learning to deal with that.

[freexone]

2. good list

Would kill to see Gore on the ticket but Obama/Feingold get my vote if Al is too busy saving the planet!

[Virginia Dare]

3. Edwards and then a tie between Obama and Clark...n/t

[rinsd]

4. Agreed.

[liberal N proud]

5. Personality... That is what elections have come down to

Elections no longer are about issues, rather they are about the personality of the candidate, Could I sit down and drink a beer with them.
I remember hearing people in 2000 and 2004 saying that is why they were voting for bu$h

[Vexatious Ape]

6. Thats a big problem

but unfortunately we have to deal with it, and go for the guy who isn't necessarily the brightest but who is the most affable.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. We have to "deal with it"

But we don't have to settle for the most affable.

It is possible to have both charisma and ability.

[mtnsnake]

35. "It is possible to have both charisma and ability"

bingo

[mtnsnake]

7. Yup, there's a lot of truth to that

Personality and looks.

The short and fat bald-headed guy, who's a little bit on on the reserved side personality-wise, just doesn't stand much of a chance, even if he's the most qualified person on earth to run the country.

[blm]

8. I think postKatrina, people will be favoring COMPETENCE and intellect once

again for their president.

Besides, if Bush was actually well-liked as corporate media said he was, then why did BushInc have to go to such GREAT LENGTHS to suppress the vote, purge voter rolls, and rig machines all over the country.

[mtnsnake]

9. I wish you were right

but people have very short memories. Unfortunately, we're living in an MTV/Survivor/The Apprentice/Reality Show/Brat-a-lina Baby type country where people are easily swayed by almost anything BUT reality.

[blm]

11. To an extent - but, I am quite certain I am right - not to mention that

BushInc wasn't very well-liked as media claimed, and indeed felt the need to suppress the vote, purge voter rolls, and rig machines all over the country to maintain power.

If their campaign was REALLY so good and Kerry was REALLY such a bad candidate, then why did BushInc have to go to such great lengths and work feverishly to steal so many votes and feverishly work up a bogus issue like gay marriage to lure the bigots?

[Jane Austin]

42. They had to go to such great lengths because Bush is the worst President

in history, had us mired in an unwinnable war, was giving perks right out in the open to his cronies, lied as transparently as your own 9-year-old kid or nephew, couldn't answer a simple question at a press conference, and was a deserter. There were also photos extant of him giving the finger, picking his nose, punching a rugby player in the stomach and babbling drunkenly at a wedding. Very Presidential. :sarcasm:

People did see this, so they had to convince them with the scare talk to get it close enough to fix in Ohio and New Mexico.

It wasn't an even match, not because Kerry wasn't a great candidate, but because Bush was such an AWFUL President.

[blm]

52. Most people didn't know that - the corpmedia was selling him as stoic

and a STARIGHTSHOOTER who always means what he says, he has impeccable iintegrity, dontchaknow?

Bush is the worst president, but it took a category 5 hurricane to blowback the mediaspin on him - he's still the MOST PROTECTED President by the media and has been since 1999.

[Jane Austin]

64. I don't disagree with anything you say.

:)

[blm]

10. According to Walter Shapriro who spent a year with the 2004 candidates

and wrote a book about it - he said after spending many hours and days with all of them, the one that holds up best over time is Kerry. The service industry people in Iowa who were polled voted him the nicest and most considerate candidate, too.

Shapiro said he was surprised, because he had believed all the spin against Kerry early on.

And the most IMPORTANT FACTOR for me: Kerry is an anti-corruption, open government Democrat who will do what this nation needs most - Open the books on BushInc crimes.

[jrandom421]

12. Don't give a damn about 'winning personality'

I want intelligence, competence, a drive for excellence, an appreciation of the complexity of the real world, superb diplomatic skills, hard nosed realism, ideals appealing to the best our natures, and an all consuming sense of integrity and truth.

If a candidate has all that, I don't care if they have the personality, charm and charisma of a wet newspaper.

[ksclematis]

46. Who's got the "winning personalitiy"???

So we both voted for Clark???? :)

[Bucky]

13. Finally a poll where I don't have to vote for Clark

I don't "get" Edwards--I've known too many smooth lawyers in my time to buy his routine. But it definitely sells to the crowd better than Clark's clipped bureaucratic demeanor or Gore or Kerry's patrician images. Obama's okay, too, but he's about 10 years and twenty pounds shy of being presidential. Eat a sandwich, sticks, and we'll talk.

Let me clarify what I mean by smooth. I don't Edwards is insincere. Slick lawyers can be good or bad at developing and implementing policy; they can be genuine or fake in how much they care about the people or causes they represent. Underneath, I think Edwards is an okay guy and I'd gladly work for him if he's nominated. When Clark dropped out two years ago, I was more attracted to him than to Kerry. But on the surface, most trial lawyers wear a mask, act out a persona that conveys sincerity. I find John Edwards's easy to see thru. For me that is a turn off. But I really can't argue with his appeal to the public and I've never seen a thing from him to suggest that he'd be in any way a bad leader, or anything less than a very good president.

I just find nerds like Clark more appealing.

[Totally Committed]

14. I honestly don't care about a "winning personality"...

What I care about is a "winning mindset"... a determination to fight as hard as necessary to win. Give me a fighter who has the best interests of this country and the American people as a #1 concern, and that's the "winner" for me.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. You know who I picked

:)

And I did pick him because I truly feel that way. I have had the privilege of meeting him and he is an honest, warm, caring, sincere person with loads of charisma and "presence." Obama is probably runner up.

[Virginia Dare]

20. John Kerry is probably one of those people...

that comes off alot better in person than he does on T.V. I get the impression that George Bush is the exact opposite.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. He definitely is

Kerry's got... I dunno, an "aura" about him that you just can't sense as well on TV. He's a total confident, charismatic alpha-male. Hell of a nice, sincere man, too.

I have ALWAYS thought Dubya would be the biggest prick in person. His phony glad-handing doesn't fool me.

[Jane Austin]

45. "I have ALWAYS thought Dubya would be the biggest prick in person."

Oh, he is.

[mtnsnake]

21. Hillary?

How's it going, Wild :evilgrin:

Charisma? C'mon now. I guess I just don't know him as well as you do!

Honest, warm, and sincere don't count, btw. :shrug:

:hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Trust me, he's got charisma

Spend five minutes in his presence and you'll know.

Hillary unfortunately is lacking her husband's prodigious talents in this area. I think she's a very bright woman, but charismatic? Not so much. Maybe she'd be better in person, who knows.

:hi:

[blm]

27. Ever see who he dated? You don't get a date list like that without sizzle

and charisma.

I'll give you that Hillary can be sparkling more often than not, but, when it comes down to it she will NOT do what this nation needs more than anything else to save its democracy, and that is OPEN THE BOOKS on BushInc.

[mtnsnake]

32. Sizzle? Now I've heard everything, blm!

Ever see who he dated? You don't get a date list like that without sizzle and charisma

Tune in same time same place tomorrow for another good story!

Although that one is going to be hard to top! }(

:toast:

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. There is DEFINITELY sizzle

Although I sadly have not been on the receiving end of it. Teresa got to him first. :evilfrown:

[blm]

36. I know alot about sizzle - Kerry has more than you want to know.

And you act as if I'm merely exaggerating, but I am guessing you just really don't know as much about Kerry as you claim and even as you pass judgements that could have been taken from corp media spin - something they started doing for Nixon back in the 70s and ramped up for Reagan and Bush in the 80s and 90s.

Because no one who knows his bio would dare accuse me of making up a story. And no one who knows me would even try and dipute that I have radar for sizzle.

[karynnj]

51. Kerry was routinely described as charismatic

in 1971 and through his time in the Senate. In 2000, some articles listing the potential VPs referred to him as the "charismatic Massachusetts Senator". As he became the leading Democrat, the media suddenly repeated daily that he had no charisma. They also said he was boring - in spite of having the most interesting life story of any candidate in my lifetime.

[blm]

55. Right - it wasn't until 2001 that he became "aloof" and "boring" in the

media. Which is exactly when BushInc started targeing the next likely Dems they'd be running against.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Feingold: I lived in Wisconscin in '92, during his

first run for Senate (against a total Neanderthal named Bob Kasten). Feingold ran this charming, witty campaign and his personality came through as same in his televised ads and appearances.

In addition to being smart, he's got a winning personality (imho).

[tkmorris]

18. I love that someone picked Joe Biden

I mean, more power to them and all that but.......

The winning personality of Joe Biden? :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

23. Somebody just messin'. Had to be. Either that or they went to vote for

Hillary and missed! :think:

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. LOL, you and your Hillary

:evilgrin:

[mtnsnake]

30. I just hope she doesn't find out I didn't vote for her in this poll

Not that I don't think she doesn't have personality or anything...because she does. Very charming lady she is.

Any charisma Kerry has I heard he learned by watching Hillary when she's at her best charming the masses. Ooh lala. :7

[WildEyedLiberal]

33. I'm sure she'd feel jilted if she found out

;)

[karynnj]

79. In 1971????

Kerry had an enormous amount of charisma and charm even back then - look up the Cavett appearance with O'Neil. Hillary can sparkle - but I saw her speak back to back with Kerry at a LIHEAP press conference, a Rosa Parks memorial service and an RFK memorial. Kerry was far warmer, better spoken and better received (at the latter 2 where there were people there). In fact, if Kerry could arrange to ALWAYS speak after Hillary, it would end any comments on Kerry connecting and his warmth.

Kerry's eloquence at the 2 memorials was in stark contrast to Hillary's more prosaic comments. His had a sense of history, reverence for the 2 people and were clearly thinks he said from the hear.

[mtnsnake]

88. Well of course he likes Hillary to speak just before he does

In fact, if Kerry could arrange to ALWAYS speak after Hillary, it would end any comments on Kerry connecting and his warmth.

That's because by speaking AFTER Hillary does, and paying close attention to her mannerisms as she speaks, he can get some tips from her on how to be charming, smooth, charismatic, and bubbly himself! :evilgrin:

[karynnj]

93. Make your jokes - or better yet check if CSPAN still has video of the

second two. Hillary was NOT charming, charismatic or bubbly at these appearances. She was cold as ice, but she was smooth. Kerry was definately not bubbly (which would have been inappropriate), he was sincere, warm and eloquent.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I like my leaders to have "strong" personalities......

While still pleasant yet serious.

Since I am voting for a man....the least I can ask for is a Man's man....which is why I voted Wes Clark.

and I think that the Beautiful Gert would agree, after 35 years, that Wes Clark has an awesome personality!

<--Gert Clark

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Strong, yes, but very approachable

Every time I have been at a public event with Clark, he always lingers well beyond the point that his staff is trying to get him out of the room to head to his next event. He enjoys mixing with people, all sorts of people, they don't have to be important people.

This is part of what the late Col. David H. Hackworth had to say when he apologized about having made wrong assumptions about Wes Clark before he actually met him:

"At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel’s owner. An appealing common touch.

But if he wins the election, don’t expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark’s an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike’s – that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president."
http://www.sftt.us/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Hacks+Target.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=35&rnd=908.3537190930426

But even that doesn't quite capture Wes Clark today. I think getting out of the military and being able to travel around the country speaking his own mind to people about his personal opinions has been a liberation for Wes Clark. He is warm and frequently extremely funny in person. I hear he does a fantastic imitation of George W. Bush hunched forward glowering over the podium that really cracks people up, and his pretend memos from Karl Rove always have people in stitches.

Clark NEVER talks down to people. He doesn't dumb down answers, but instead tries to actually explain his thinking on complex matters, usually quite well if he is given more than a ten second sound bite to do it in. Personally I take that as an indication of respect he shows us as citizens. He doesn't try to manipulate emotions through cheap tricks.

[Clark2008]

38. She's so pretty.

And smart.

And, well, just lovely.

[ksclematis]

49. Right on!, Frenchie Cat!

They're both winners! Spend 5 minutes, longer if possible, with them and you come away spellbound!

Love 'em both! Very charisnatic couple.....

[BootinUp]

28. breck boy? no thanks. n/t

[blm]

48. Come on Jim - you don't need to use RW slurs.

That's just beneath DU.

[mtnsnake]

59. What's "breck boy"?

Doesn't sound good whatever it is.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Just watch this, and you will make the connection....

http://www.slate.com/id/2108216/slideshow/2108085/entry/2108087/speed/100

[ArkySue]

73. Aw geez....

that's damn funny!

[Clark2008]

29. I guess it depends upon what you mean by "winning personality.

See... I like Clark (the complete package) because his personality is winning in the sense that he's bright (as in shiny, smiles a lot, is friendly) AND intelligent. I like Feingold for the same reasons, so, in that aspect, he'd be my second choice.

But, I guess if you're after the frou-frou, politician-like kind of winning personality the press recognizes as "charisma," then I'd have to say Edwards.

[Mass]

37. Excellent point. I am not sure what is a winning personnality either.

[Mass]

39. Most likeable is not winning personnality. Otherwise, we need Ben Affleck

[UncleNoel]

40. I voted Clark because he HAS "charisma"

Here are some reports from Yearly Kos where Wes made a big hit with both his party and at a panel he was on.

Mission Accomplished Man' - Last Night's YearlyKos Premiere
by WinSmith
Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 10:21:02 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/9/13212/32262

Afterwards we went to the Wesley Clark party at the Hard Rock and <b>the General was amazing</b>, speaking from his heart atop a bar stool for twenty minutes, then coming around and shaking everyone's hand and talking to them. I think he'd make a fine president, but if someone else wins I have three words for General Clark: SECRETARY OF STATE. He'll have a heady job ahead trying to rebuild our standing in the world after the trashing it's taken from the clowns in the Republican Party, but I know he'll be able to do it.

Yearlykos day 1 picture stream! - Sarah Carter, Wes Clark and more
by Neutron
Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:36:16 AM PDT
Gen. Wes Clark bought the drinks at the Hard Rock Cafe, <b>he's a damn powerful speaker.</b>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/9/113617/3557

Clark had to stand on a barstool to be seen over the huge crowd, he was <b>damn riveting and all the more impressive in person.</b>

This is not new, Wes was pegged as a "barn burner" during his campaign. It was the media who introduced and perpetuated the lack of charisma meme. Those who were impressed by his CNN appearances did not feel this way, despite the fact that those were "briefing" style rather than campaign style. And McAwful was stunned at the briliant speech that brought the house down at the Dem National Convention.

I think we can put this stupid meme to rest. Sure, Clark, like any speaker on the stump, has his ups and downs, but he can be a scorcher.

[PBR me]

41. go russ!

[IndianaGreen]

43. I based my vote exclusively on what the OP asked

I voted for Edwards.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

44. I think Evan Bayh has a lot of charisma and he is extremely

intelligent. And just as important, the midwest voters adore him, including the republicans. He has a very large following. I think he definitely qualifies for your list.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Good point! Evan Bayh's name should have been in the poll

Bayh is running for President while Obama is stumbling about his first term as Senator.

As to your characterization of Bayh, I will beg to differ and I'll leave it at that.

[mtnsnake]

58. Yeah, I wanted to get Bayh in, but only had so many spaces

to fill. Sorry about that. Just the same, Obama is listed more often than not as a potential candidate for 2008 whenever lists pop up. I thought Obama would do way better in the popularity end of things.

[catmother]

47. i voted edwards. he's a very likeable guy, but i don't think he's

electible. i'm still going with warner. i'm putting on my flame retardent suit.

[Clark2008]

74. Even thought I consider Warner a corporate shill, I agree with

your assessment.

I don't think Warner has ANY charisma, however, but I do think he's more electable than Edwards. A lot of ink has been spilled regarding Edwards as "Southern guy," able to convince my right-wing media brethern to vote Democratic, but I simply don't think that's the case. Edwards is too "pretty" and, well, he's one of "dem dar am-BU-lance chasers." Southerners don't like that in a man (pretty and in a profession that is needed, but much-maligned). He didn't help the Kerry-Edwards ticket in this regard, so that much is a proven point.

Warner, however, has a better shot at flipping some red states than Edwards does for these reasons. He's seen as "more manly," whatever that means, and he's thought of as a Southerner, even though he's from Indiana (or is it Ohio, I can never remember).

I have categories I put the potential 2008 Democratic candidates in: "electable, but not necessarily the best choice for Democrats," "not electable at all," and "electable and the best choice for Democrats."

Sadly there are only two... MAYBE three... candidates who fit the last criteria: Clark and Gore, for sure, and POSSIBLY Feingold (but I still think he'll have trouble in the flippable red states - the purple states, if you will, because of his last name and his divorces.) Warner and Bayh fit into the first category and Kerry, Edwards, Sen. Clinton fit into the middle category.

P.S. - I'm not sure where Biden fits in. Sometimes I think he's in the "electable, but not good for Dems" category and sometimes I think he's in the "not electable at all" category.

[catmother]

76. i think warner has charisma. one of my doctors knows him

personally. he's originally from virginia. actually his sister is a good friend of warner. my doc has been at an event with him and said he can "really work a room". By the way my doc is a repub. my husband who is also a moderate repub likes warner -- feels he can bring the country together -- that he can work well with both parties.

i personally would love to have someone more to the left, but my feeling is we have to first take back the congress and the white house and then we can force our liberal agenda on our elected officials.

i'm not big on hillary. if she is the nominee i think we'll lose. of course, if she is, she will get my vote. any one of the dems will get my vote.

[Awsi Dooger]

53. Personaility is not as vital in 2008

Open race. The focus is on competence and the proper course for the nation.

When you're trying to evict an incumbent, that's when you need to laser focus on personaility for your candidate, someone who can inspire the middle roaders, unlikely voters and soft supporters of the other side, to switch to your guy. Only Reagan and Clinton have knocked out an incumbent in the TV era.

Just my theory but I'm extremely confident in it. How does Nixon come within an eyelash of defeating JFK in '60 in an open race, if personality is so critical? If he runs again in '64, against an incumbent whether JFK or LBJ, he gets blasted. Then another open race in '68 and Nixon narrowly prevails. Gore absolutely made the correct decision in avoiding '04. He would have been dumped by bigger margin than Kerry.

In '04 I handicapped Edwards as our strongest chance, an upbeat charismatic populist versus an incumbent. For '08 and an open race I want Mark Warner and the margin for error via Virginia. Not all races and scenarios are the same. That doesn't seem to be understood on DU. Posters are backing the same candidate as '04.

[FrenchieCat]

56. You state that most posters are Backing the same candidates.....

Which I find nothing wrong with that. If one liked someone before, it seems consistent that one would like them still.....

But you, on the other hand, are reinforcing (what appears to be) the same theory that National Security and Foreign policy are not required knowledge via experience for those you support for the Democratic ticket, hence Edwards had none....and Warner has none.

Seems like you're on the same road Southern Road for '08 as you were for '04. Of course, as I said, that's fine....but know that every single damn day on the news, the topics are National Security and Foreign policy. Not all races and scenario are the same...and certainly 2008 won't be 1992....when security and Foreign policy just weren't issues.

[Awsi Dooger]

61. I guess it looks like a Southern road

But that's coincidence. In '04 I wanted charisma against an incumbent and it happened to be someone from North Carolina. For '08 I want someone who allows us to win the electoral college in a 50/50 popular vote setting.

That's what it figures to be. Just look at the examples in this situation, one party holding the White House EXACTLY two straight terms: 1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, 2000. Four of the five were toss-ups, among the closest popular vote results in American presidential history. Only '88 was lopsided when we had a flawed nominee and voters wanted a third Reagan term.

We need a route other than Florida or Ohio or bust. That's why I'm backing Warner and Virginia's 13 electoral votes. If the state allowing us to win without Ohio or Florida was a northern or midwestern state with a favorite son gov, I would probably be backing him.

You've made the case for national security repeatedly and well. If we fight on their issues I think we come up short. It's such a polarized era we're looking at a vital few percent to sway. In '04 I think Edwards could have done it, or should I say had a much better chance than Kerry, via charisma alone, regardless of a competent sentence about Iraq.

In '08 Virginians, or others from key states, may reject Warner based on foreign policy opinion or background. I'll take my chances, with his 74% approval rating in a red state and what that must signify. I've been a handicapper since the '80s and prefer the big picture. Your approach is big picture also and I really respect that. It's merely different criteria than mine.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Well ok, but I will say

that your statement, " If we fight on their issues I think we come up short."is misleading. Security and Foreign policy is not "their" issue, although they want voters to think that. These issues are the concerns of not only most Americans, but the citizens of the world. Bush has already said that it will be the next President that will have to clean up his shit......and as I see it, it's some real deep doo-doo. I am a pragmatic and I say that we let voters know that it is the Democrats who won WWI, WWII, and Kosovo...the only wars that the US ever truly won. Democrats are the ones strong not only in the area of Security and diplomacy, but also in the areas of Border control and emergency preparedness (see Clark here: http://www.wittassociates.com/ )

Voters know that Democrats are strong on the social issues....and they are becoming increasingly aware that Dems are strong in the Economic area. Health Care? There's not doubt in Voters' minds who wins that debate. The environment? Yes, we win that too. Doesn't matter which candidate we run to get points in those areas, because the party as a whole as a very good rep in these areas based on a track record. But, the area of National Security and Foreign Policy....well, that's the area that the Republicans can best manipulate events (based on the fact that they own the WH and the media)right before a "VOTE", and that's the area that Voters have been taught.....if you're not "safe", everything else ain't worth a damn.

I'm just one to want to hit the Pubs where it hurts....and an area that seems to matter more and more, not less and less.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. The lesson about personality from JFK vs Nixon

Is that personality did make the difference in the end. The race was very very close, and most thought JFK was behind until the televised debate. It's very likely that JFK's charisma, looks AND personality, is what pushed him over the top. I think if they had been running today, with the dominance of TV as THE medium whereby most people get their information, JFK would have been kicking Nixon's butt a lot earlier... except that Nixon would have hired media professionals to make himself look a lot better -- he did in 1968 and it made a difference.

None of that is to say that competence and issues aren't more important to the majority of voters. I honestly don't know whether that's true or not. Some days I'm more optimistic than others. But in a close race (and the way the electorate is divided on issues, I doubt we'll have many races that aren't close), personality can make the difference. At least so long as the perception of some acceptable level of competence is there too.

I do agree with Frenchie that a perception of competence also involves competence in the issues that are most important to voters at any given time. Papa Bush was perceived as incompetent (or maybe "out of touch" is a better way to put it) on economic issues. That mattered in 1992, and Bill Clinton won on it. I don't think it would be enough today, and I doubt it will be enough in 2008.

[mtnsnake]

62. I see Hillary has started to make a late move

She's overtaken Biden and I fully expect her to catch Clark by tomorrow morning. Anyone know Diebold's number?

[IndianaGreen]

63. Hillary's vote has gone up 100%

From 1 vote to 2. Whoohooo!

[Strawman]

67. Purely on personality, Obama

Edging out Edwards. Edwards is perhaps more likeable, but Obama is a bit more dynamic and is also likeable.

In any case, I won't be voting based on personality, but I'll at least try to answer the question honestly instead of just naming the potential candidate I favor. Wes Clark has some qualities I admire that Obama and Edwards aren't as strong in (gravitas, and an air of authority), but he doesn't have Obama or Edwards beat on personality. I don't see how he can be in first place in this poll.

[cheeto]

68. Watch this video

and then show me more personality in Obama or Edwards.
mms://youngturks.wmod.llnwd.net/a591/o1/6-9WesClarkSr.wmv

[FrenchieCat]

70. That Video is really wonderful.....

as it shows a strong man in command who's hella "human".

Especially liked Wes answer as to why Democrats don't Brag about the wars that they have fought.....and won (like Kosovo--without a single U.S. Soldier dying)--That was "deep"!

[Strawman]

89. That is a great interview

Thanks! Very interesting comments about his meetings with the Bush people and his motivation for entering politics.

The conversational nature of the interview definitely brings out his strengths as a communicator.

[ArkySue]

69. Wes Clark!

I've had the good fortune to meet him several times and he is genuine. He truly fits the oft-quoted "gentleman and a scholar."
I am really tired of hearing about politicians "moving to the left" or "moving to the right." Clark is real, he is who he is and won't compromise his values for politial gain.

[AtomicKitten]

71. After Gore's appearance on Leno, I think he might be a contender.

He was really funny.

[Totally Committed]

Lindsay Lohan knows what she did....

ROTFL!

TC

[AtomicKitten]

81. The only way he'd consider nudity is if it's integral to the story.

But he won't make any Shermanesque statements about it.

[Totally Committed]

84. That was a very funny inteview!

I really laughed out loud at some of it.

TC

[sandnsea]

72. Only 8 votes for Obama

Interesting. Clearly the best combination of personality, charm, charisma - overall stage presence. His politics leave a little to be desired though.

[mtnsnake]

75. Unreal.I just googled & found a dkos poll where Obama was 2nd most likable

from Daily Kos:

Most Likeable Democrat???
by Hlinko
Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 01:07:04 PM PDT

Question: Who in your opinion is the most likeable Democrat who could be taken seriously as a presidential candidate in 2008?

Again, this is not asking who your choice for 2008 is, or who you think has the best chance, but only who is the most likeable. Or to use the proverbial question: "Who would you most want to have a beer with." Poll

Who is the most likeable Democrat who could be taken seriously in 2008?

#1 Wesley Clark 25%
#2 Barack Obama 24%
#3 John Edwards 19%
#4 Brian Schweitzer (Governor, Montana) 7%
#5 Al Gore 4%
#6 Bill Richardson 2%
#6 Mark Warner 2%
#8 John Kerry 0%
#8 Evan Bayh 0%
#8 Russ Feingold 0%
# Other (add comment - note, names below were added later) 11%

Votes: 254

This poll was taken on their website around 6 months ago, btw. Clark was the most likeable, followed closely by Obama, and Edwards was third most likeable. Hillary wasn't in that poll or I'm sure she would've cleaned up ;).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/16/1674/8610

[choie]

77. Everyone has his/her own definition of "winning personality"...

Of the personalities I know on the list, I find myself leaning toward preferring our president's.

(Duh, President Gore, of course!)

I know his persona's not as smooth & powerful as Kerry, as charming & affable as Edwards, as down-to-earth & likeable as Clark. I'm not surprised at all that people love them as much as they do, personality-wise. They're great guys.

But as I said, the definition of "winning personality" is a highly individual preference that each of us defines differently. Me, I'm attracted to people who are underestimated, a bit reserved ... those who hide their lights under a proverbial bushel. There's just something so rewarding in discovering such rare folks (rare in public life, anyway). Maybe it's 'cause I feel proud of myself for recognizing their charms. As if I've found a hidden prize or joined a really cool club. :)

That's why for me, Al Gore bowls me over with his quiet dignity, self-deprecation, honesty, intelligence, sincerity, humility, grace under pressure, passion, and hilariously subversive dry wit. Even when he's in a room with others, I'm drawn to him as if a spotlight had picked him out of an otherwise dark stage.

So while I am charmed by almost everyone on the poll list, I had to go with Al. Most people's mileage can, and apparently does, vary!

[mtnsnake]

87. Sounds to me like you're smitten!

with Al :loveya: Gore

Nice post :)

[wiley]

78. Clark - Winning, Honest and Real

Integrity is his middle name.

[BamaLefty]

80. In this order

Clark, Obama, Edwards

[Totally Committed]

82. From all reports, Wes Clark had the crowd really going at

the Kos Convention. He even hopped up on a chair and spoke exptemporaneously to the crowd.



Wes has really learned to let his genuine personality shine.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

86. It was a narrow stool....much more difficult to stand on then a chair

and then give a speech....for which, of course, he needed no notes!
:)

[AlienGirl]

83. Russ Feingold is a great guy

He is very intelligent, approachable, and warm. He manages to be brilliant while maintaining a "guy I'd drink a beer with" image, and he clearly cares deeply about the future of the people he represents.

Tucker

[Awsi Dooger]

85. Looks like John Edwards is the real winner

Let's face it, Clark is the darling of DU polls. You basically throw him out in a case like this and look for the second place guy. It's something I would have said before a single vote was cast.

[FrenchieCat]

90. Counting votes like Repugs, are you?

Throw Clark's votes out and then you have the winner? What-E-ver! :eyes:

[Awsi Dooger]

91. It's actually a compliment

The Clark supporters here are remarkably energetic and loyal. But you've got to admit the poll results skew his way so dramatically that you can't use them to make judgements on Democratic public opinion in general. In this case I'd be very confident John Edwards would be the winner in a poll like that, and this thread merely confirms it. Remember, I'm a Warner guy for 2008 so it's not like I'm touting my own candidate, nor trying to pretend Warner's pathetic vote total in this category is misleading or innacurate. He's not going to charm middle America as much as convince them.

[FrenchieCat]

94. Maybe the Clark voters are right. Maybe Clark does have the

Best personality. Ever thought of that?

[Jai4WKC08]

95. No DU poll reflects "Democratic public opinion in general"

The question is, does it reflect DU membership opinion?

I personally think that Clark supporters here are more active than those of some other candidates, and that could skew the poll some. How much is debatable -- I wouldn't say "dramatically." Butcha know, some citizens are more active politically than others. When "scientific" polls are taken, usually the pollsters make no effort to determine whether the respondents are likely voters, so those are skewed in the opposite way. Think of it... Clinton gets 30% of a poll, but you know as much as 80%, possibly more, will not even vote in the primary. And of the percentage who will vote, many may not yet know who the most of the other people are.

I do think you go too far to say Edwards won this particular poll. He obviously did not, or rather hasn't yet (altho, that many more votes will be made is doubtful, since a lot of DUers apparently don't think "personality" counts for much).

All that said, I agree with your confidence that Edwards would win a similar poll taken of the Democratic public. But I think much of the reason would be that not many voters have had much chance to see the personality of most of the other possible candidates.

I've been reading a lot of blogs around the internet about the yearly Kos convention, and most of them have been pretty favorable of Clark's performance there, about both what he had to say and elements that make up "personality," even among people who did not support him in 04 and for whom he's not (yet ;)) a favorite in 08. From what I've read, Warner looked good to a lot of people too, altho I haven't seen as much about him... but that might be a case of not looking for it as hard. I read one MSM pundit who seemed to think that passing up the yKos (as Edwards did, as well as Clinton and all the rest in this poll except Clark, Warner and Dean) may turn out to have been a very bad move for anyone with 2008 aspirations. That remains to be seen, but my point here is that when people meet the other guys, they do change their minds and events like yKos are a step in that direction.

[saltpoint]

92. mtnsnake, I was just thinking, the outcome of your poll does not bode

well for Mike Gravel, does it.

:hi:

[Radical Activist]

96. We all know what animated personalities career military people have.

hehe The Clark people really crack me up sometimes.

[Jai4WKC08]

100. Don't know many of us, do you? n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

101. Ah, C'mon RA

I know your comment was in good humor. But my vote is based on my personal experience, not some 1940's movie.

I've never been a military groupie in this lifetime (can't say for sure about former ones), and I have been out there on the front lines fighting against way more than my share of wars going back to Viet Nam. I've met Clark about 5 times, and I gather you haven't met him yourself yet. Clark cracks me up sometimes, he has a wicked sense of humor, his energy is often playful, and his enthusiasm is contagious when he's on a roll. His personal warmth is obvious to anyone who sees him live, and his sincerity is a breath of fresh air.

A stereotype is about as useful in determining whether Clark as a military man has an animated personality as it is in determining whether an African American male driving on the New Jersey Turnpike is a criminal, as the NJ State Troopers were forced to concede when their racial profiling got exposed.

Most politicians I have met leave me cold, because they so obviously are playing off a script, with Clark it is the opposite. It's obvious he actually believes what he is saying, and that is pretty damn endearing to me.

Many of us Clark supporters who crack you up sometimes actually know Wes Clark, and knowing him has a lot to do with why we are such strong supporters of him.

[FrenchieCat]

102. It's the "radical activists" who support those who co-sponsored and

voted for the IWR that crack me up. :rofl:

[Adelante]

105. Nice one, sis

:)

[CarolNYC]

104. haha! You're funny RA.

Try telling that to the many who were wowed, smitten, bowled over, after seeing and meeting the good General this weekend.

Keep trying to sell that shit, RA. If you find any takers, tell them I've got a bridge to sell them too....a really big and pretty one. Looks great, especially when you shoot fireworks over the side. ;)

[TriMetFan]

98. I picked Clark

but there was no Barbara Boxer to pick.

[Geek_Girl]

103. I'm going to say John Edwards

He seems the most likable and personable. Though he is far from my first choice for president.

[paparush]

106. Which one is ready to come out swinging and give as much as

he/she is gonna get?

Which one is ready to get Rove-Nasty?

For Example-

Which one is ready to show ads that highlight Bush's Drunk Driving and Cocaine use?

Which one is ready to run an ad reminding people that Laura Bush killed a guy in a car wreck?

Which one is ready to beat McCain black and blue for cozying up to Falwell and for giving speaches at Bob Jones U?

Which one is ready to say, out loud, that Rove manufactured the theft of two presidential elections?

Which one is rady to SCREAM that Bush** et al lied us into Iraq?

That's the Dem I want to hear about.

That's the kind of Dem that will lead the effort to reclaim Democracy.

[FrenchieCat]

107. listen to this.......as it will tell you the answer to your question.....

http://www.dunckleystreet.com/clark/shit.mp3
(very, very short & soooo sweet!)

[paparush]

108. Well, that's a start! : - )

[Tom Rinaldo]

109. I loved when Clark called Karl Rove out by name

It was when Clark introduced his Progressive Income Tax Plan during the 2004 Race:

"If Karl Rove is watching today, Karl, I want you to hear me loud and clear: I am going to provide tax cuts to ease the burdens for 31 million American families -- and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty -- by raising the taxes on 0.1 percent of families -- those who make more than $1,000,000 a year. You don't have to read my lips, I'm saying it," Clark said.

"And if that makes me an 'old-style' Democrat, then I accept that label with pride and I dare you to come after me for it."