Edwards/Clark ticket

[MattNC]

What does everyone here think of an Edwards/Clark ticket? I discussed the election for about a half hour with one of my professors this morning who specializes on the presidency and elections. He seemed to think this would be our best ticket and that we wouldn't have much of a shot with Kerry/anyone.

And I throw this out there as a Clark supporter.

[abburdlen]

1. Sounds great

if you fix the typo

Ought to read Clark/Edwards

[Bombtrack]

2. Either Clark or Graham if Edwards is the nominee

They both work

[AP]

3. I agree that that's probably the sure-win team.

[Lefta Dissenter]

4. Speaking as someone who is totally unbiased ;)

I think it's stronger the other way around. Clark is a natural leader, he has the gravitas and the experience. That, of course, also sets Edwards up nicely for 2008!

Besides the fact that I prefer Clark as my president, I think that Clark is in a much stronger position to debate bush (and rove) on virtually all the issues than Edwards is.

[AP]

6. Clark wasn't in a strong position to debate Democrats!

How is he going to be stronger against Bush?

My biggest problem with Clark is that he's not a great communicator or persuader.

If debating Bush is what people are voting on, I think Clark would be the one in the top three you'd have to have most hesitation about.

[Lefta Dissenter]

21. I totally disagree with you! (surprised?)

I think he's a great communicator - have you watched any of his town hall meetings, for instance?

I think, though, that a debate format with 7 or more participants, when the moderators take more time grandstanding with their 5-minute long questions, allowing just moments for the responses, does not allow for anything other than sound-bites, and Clark is not a 'sound-bite' guy. I guess we'd have to vote for Sharpton if we were voting for sound bites, he's quite clever with those!

I am voting for the man I feel will make the best president for our country. He has incredible experience in executive positions, dealing with health care, housing, budgets, education and personal issues for the thousands and thousands of people under his wing. He is an experienced diplomat and negotiator, he is well-respected by the many world-leaders he has worked with, and he has seen enough of war to know that it should be used only as a last resort. He understands the dynamics of the foreign cultures and policies, and he has compassion spilling out at the seams.

[AP]

23. I just watched him on The News Hour attacking Kerry and Edwards and having

to pause and look down at a cue card before finishing a sentence he should have memorized.

It was awkward and it made him look he didn't have conviction.

[BootinUp]

25. I think you greatly exagerate

I guess Rhodes Scholars aren't smart enough for you.

I have never read anything on Clark that suggested he was lacking conviction. It happens to be the other way around.

[AP]

32. Exaggerate what? That he looked down at a card?

I'm pretty sure that's what I saw him do. He was in the middle of a criticism, and he looked down, pauses, and then completed his sentence.

He looked like a person without convicition.

It was when he was misleading people about Kerry and Edwards "voting with the president," so I'd probably admire him a little more if he didn't have enough conviction to say that out loud. Yet he said it, and he didn't look good saying it.

[Leilani]

37. You Are Right that Clark is not as Smooth as Edwards

You are completely right, & I say this as a Clark supporter.

Clark is not an experienced politician & it shows.

But, is this what matters? I don't think you would say that Clark is not brilliant, & able to be President of the US.

A large part of my support for Clark is because he is NOT a pro pol.

If you watch him in a town hall, he's amazing. The depth & breath of his knowledge is mind boggling. But when he is scripted, he doesn't do as well.

In the last debate, Edwards had some trouble with DOM act, & also with the question on Islam. Clark could have probably given a 3 hour dissertation on Islam.

So let's look at the differences without tearing the candidates down.

Edwards is a brilliant communicator, who for the most part, is excellent on domestic policies, & differentating between class & wealth; a very good populist message. He is also a very attractive candidate.

Clark, on the other hand, has a life devoted to military service. He is a true military hero. Because of his intellect, & his positions overseas, there is probably no one more qualified to deal with the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, terrorism. He will be able to put our relations with other countries back on track, which will contribute to a more peaceful world. He will cut the Pentagon & free up money that can be used for domestic programs.

Therefore, I propose to you that they both have different strengths & weaknesses.Let's accentuate the positives, because both can be attacked on their weaknesses.

[AP]

39. Edwards has everything you need to win. He has a perfect set of policies

wrapped up in a persona and biography and human being which can deliver them straight to the hearts of Americans.

Clark is nice guy on paper who would probably lose to Bush.

[Leilani]

41. You failed to address my points

And I don't think Clark would lose to Bush.

[digno dave]

49. Misleading???

You mean misleading people by saying that Kerry and Edwards supported Bush by voting for the Patriot Act, No Ch Left Behind and the Iraq War? Is this untrue?

[AP]

54. Yeah. Edwards and Kerry are enabling Bush. That's why they're going around

the country campaigning to be president.

[OKNancy]

5. The same problem as Dean/Clark

Have any of you had a boss who knew less than you did and was less mature? It's a special kind of hell. Clark is too smart for that trap.

If Clark doesn't win, he could be used in so many more productive ways than VP.

[AP]

7. there are only two things Clark has done since leaving military:

Lobbying for defense corps and commenting for (media whore) CNN.

I think being VP would be a very productive use of his time.

[Leilani]

40. Not True

Clark has written 2 books, which have been praised as important for international discussion.

How many of the candidates have written their own books, no ghostwriter, & written something other than political tripe?

I don't believe he was a media whore on CNN. Our military was at war, & he was an expert commentator, to explain tactics, strategy, etc.
He spent hours with Aaron Brown, doing what was I think, the best coverage of the war. He was also criticized by the right, for being negative, anti-war, unpatriotic, etc. because he presented a balanced view.

[digno dave]

50. You're right, Clark's a greedy opportunist

Yeah, i guess after serving 34 years in the military in a leadership capacity it is absurd for him to assume he could go and make some real money for himself. I am sure Edwards did all of his work pro bono before being elected to the Senate. Good point!!!

[Skwmom]

9. Edwards has spent the majority of his life being a

personal injury attorney. That hardly qualifies him to lead this country.

[AP]

10. He spent most of his life committed to transferring power -- economic and

therefore political power -- from people with too much of it to people without enough. That includes himself, his clients, and all those black voters the Helms machine prevented from voting in the Gant elections.

That's the BEST kind of experience, and it captures EXACTLY what is the problem in America today.

[BootinUp]

13. Do you have any links to articles that lay out some facts

on the Edwards story of fighting for the little guy?

[AP]

16. Four Trials. Read the book.

Most of his cases resulted in changing laws and corporate policy that resulted in less misery for way more people than just his client.

One of his cases resulted in the Republican state legislature in passing a law protecting big corporations from the sort of liability his case estabilished. Which is part of the reason he switched to the less lucrative, but more powerful profession of democratic representative.

[HereSince1628]

8. It would lose in the North and cost us a handful of senate seats

The south can't win without the north...etc,etc

Perfect as a reflection...a reversed image of other posts in this forum...

[Bombtrack]

18. No, not based on history. Southern democrats just seem more reasonable

to independants everywhere even if they are about just as liberal or left or whatever as your average New England democrat

Clinton and Gore won by healthy margins in New England(minus NH) Illinois, and the West Coast because Bush had to do things to excite southern republicans that turned people in the afformentioned areas off.

The same would happen if we ran a southern/southern ticket, or a southern/Graham ticket(Miami isn't part of dixie)

[BootinUp]

11. Well.....No

to Edwards at the top, definitely not. As a VP, yes.

[John_H]

12. Edwards'll get killed by the fear machiine just like Dean--he's a VP

[AP]

14. Actually, Edwards is the best defense against the fear machine.

Like FDR, he's the only candidate who gets people to think about more noble emotions than fear.

[John_H]

29. Trouble is, fear beats noble every time. 2000 yrs of history aren't wrong

[AP]

30. Fear struck out with FDR, JFK, LBJ and Clinton, and will again in 2004 if

Edwards gets nominated.

I can't think of a single Republican who has really won with fear. W is trying something not even Reagan and his father tried.

What W is trying is something so incredibly unusual for the modern American era -- Hitler was the only person who really succeeded with it. Mussolini did too, I guess. Maybe Franco.

But it hasn't worked in the US ever. You have to take away democracy before it would work. Maybe we have taken away democracy.

[Democrats unite]

15. Edwards voted for IWR & still thinks it's right

That reason alone Clark would never be on a ticket with Edwards.

[AP]

17. And it looks like voters all over the country are saying that's what they'

looking for in a candidate.

And even Kucinich says that other things are more important -- like whether you care which direction power flows in America.

[Democrats unite]

19. So are you saying we have to tow the Republican line

Because allot of other people are?

[AP]

20. Uh, I'm saying a vast majority of DEMOCRATIC voters are saying that they

understand that the IWR vote was a trap by Buch, that we would have gone in no matter what, that they appreciate what Kerry and Edwards did with that vote.

[Democrats unite]

24. The Vast Majority have not voted yet

I think they would like to speak for themselves. 10% of the primaries does not make a vast majority.

But then again someone who would argue that Nixon was a good President because he was a Lawyer...

[AP]

28. A vast majority of those who have voted (& Kerry polling well among rest)

Furthermore, I didn't say that Nixon was a good president. I said that he actually was concerened with the working class probably because he was from the working class (and there are way more measures of greatness for a president than whether they're concerened about the working class -- this may be one of two things Nixon got right, and he was very bad on the rest).

I also said that he probably was able to rise from the working class, because he entered a profession which is one of the few in America which rewards you greatly for your willingness to work hard, and not for your last name or for who you know rather than what you know.

[citizen snips]

31. Here we go again.

What a pathetic comparison between Edwards and Nixon if that is all you can say.

[Jack_Dawson]

22. Clark/Edwards would be a strong ticket, you're right

:-)

[bowens43]

26. Edwards would be good

why degrade the ticket by adding Clark when there are so many qualified Democrats available?

[mmonk]

27. probably too south redundant

as well as principled differences.

[dawn]

33. I think that would be great! nt

[Mattforclark]

34. I could live with that ticket

not my first choice, but I certatinly wouldn't cry about voting for Edwards/Clark.

[mmonk]

35. I actually want him on a ticket

in some capacity.

[Nashyra]

36. I'd prefer to see a Clark/Edwards

but would "Work" for an Ewards/Clark if it came down to it. I would only vote for Kerry in the GE....In the meantime I will work my a&^ off for Clark.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. I don't believe he would

be VP nominee on an Edwards ticket. He doesn't believe philosophically in bottom heavy tickets which is why he said he wouldn't be Deans running mate. There are exactly the same issues with Edwards, namely lack of qualifications and experience especially in foreign policy.

I'm not knocking Edwards by the way, he's probably my second choice after Clark, I just don't think that particular ticket would be a good one.

I do think that Clark might be a good choice as running mate for Kerry.

[xultar]

42. Ahhhh, No. n/t

[mlawson]

43. Up until the last 48 hours I was all for it.

But now, I am not. I prefer Edwards/Graham, or Dean, or someone else.

Like it's going to matter; we know perfecty well who the ticket will comprise. :-(

[HoosierClarkie]

44. ?

n/t

[mmonk]

45. so who?

[mlawson]

46. Who?? I suspect that has been settled, now.

Kerry/Gephardt. I know I can't wait..... x(

[mmonk]

47. I know about the endorsement

but why so sure?

[mlawson]

51. Just accumulated observations of over 40+ years: how the system works.

I predicted that the DNC would cause Kerry to suddenly catch fire, over a year ago. And Gep sounds exactly like the type of VP, of which the establishment would think, "Well, it's Dick's TURN this time!"

"What's that, beat BUSH??? Well, they will win a FEW states, and make a good showing. But just wait until 2008!! It will be _______'s turn then!!"

:eyes: ______ help us.

[Leilani]

53. I agree with you

I think today's endorsement seals it.

[mlawson]

56. Like they are reading from a script, isn't it?

I bet the bush handlers are all at Camp David this weekend, partying like crazy.

[Beaker]

48. Clark/Edwards is the only way that combination would work.

Edwards is painfully low on experience, and has absolutely no foreign policy experience...
why can't Edwards supporters see his glaring weaknesses to the highest office...?

[JohnLocke]

52. kick

[k_blagburn]

55. Clark/Edwards the right ticket to beat bush

If you look at the demographics and not the political hooplah, this is the most logical ticket. Clark brings the leadership, foriegn policy experience. Edwards balances with his knowlege of washington. Plus the repugs couldnt play the patriotism card. This would truly be a national ticket that would scare the hell out of rove.

[AP]

57. Edwards doesn't really bring knowledge of DC. He brings conviction and a

concern for how people who work for a living experience America, all in a vehicle custom-made for winning elections. Which is why he should be president.

[arewethereyet]

58. neither is interested in veep, neither gain from the other

so firstly, its not going to happen.

Secondly, either guy needs better help.