Kerry is an electable candidate, but tell me why he's better than Clark

[Bombtrack]

I think Kerry is a smart and honerable person, a war-hero, and his platform is on a whole very good and an improvement certainly over the Bush policies, but also the Clinton policies as well.

But I still can't get my head around what Clark lacks, firstly as a candidate, that Kerry has to beat Bush, because their biggest differences are biographical, not ideological(in there presidential platforms).

The things Kerry supporters(and I consider myself a Kerry defender quite often here) are starting to back up their (he's more electable than..) claims here with, are unfortunately the same things that Dean supporters were saying the whole time he was the frontrunner. The head-to-heads, the 'good in a primary equals good in a general election argument' (which is probably the dumbest argument out there, even dumber than the one that the gun-nuts are going to get Dean elected)

I don't think there is anything wrong, as somebody who recognizes that Kerry, Edwards, and Clark all had pretty similar(and good) platforms, that electability among them should be one of if not the most important deciding factors.

I see a HUGE disparity in how much ammunition Kerry would give to the GOP, with how little Clark does. I really think they're holding back now hoping he gets the nom, over Clark(or Edwards) and focusing on silly things like botox, and not the fact that he's married 2 different women worth over 300 million dollars each, or the fact that he actually has a more liberal record than Ted Kennedy, which might be a good thing in a primary, but is gold for the republicans in a general election.

I'm not one of those people here who go about spreading parnoid idiotic nonsense about Kerry being some republican Skull and Bones plant who actually wants Bush to win, or that we can't trust him as a democrat. I just am not confident that he is even close to as well equipped to take on the right-wing as at least one democrat, Wes Clark

[Guava Jelly]

1. He's no better than Clark

He just has Momentum right now
Not to mention the pundits sold him to us as the front runner.
Next week or 2 if others survive Kerry maybe Chop liver and someone else may be the shiznit.
A week in politics is a lifetime

[billbuckhead]

10. Actually I think Clark is a more electable candidate

Dems big problem group is white guys outside the Northeast and West coast. My instinct is that Clark would do well with this group without losing our base. I also think that Clark being new to the political process he will have an easier time being the new sheriff in town. Another factor is that Clark has no legistlative record to pick apart.

[arewethereyet]

19. may not have a political record

but he still has a lot of spainin' to do for his endless damning string of statements, retractions, explinations and clarifications.

No amount of BS in the world will get his around that.

[MurikanDemocrat]

2. The biggest deciding factor between Kerry and Clark for me is

Clark has NO political experience at all. He has no record. He has no experience in domestic issues. He has always come across as unprepared to me.

I've never looked at Clark seriously. Sorry.

[kiahzero]

5. If you've never looked at him seriously...

How can you have an informed opinion?

[MurikanDemocrat]

22. He has no political record to consider

I want someone who knows his way around the political system and understands how the legislative process works. He also has no experience on domestic issues.

As I said, I also thought he came across as unprepared during the campaign. Maybe he just wasn't ready this time. Perhaps he would make a good President, I don't know. He just doesn't have a resume to go with it for me.

All I know about Clark is what he says now. That's not enough for me.

[deminflorida]

6. All those things you just named turn off about 70% of Americans...

n/t

[eileen_d]

11. Having experience in domestic issues turns off 70% of Americans?

Do tell.

[Guava Jelly]

12. i totally dis agree

From 1971 to 1974, Captain Clark served as an Instructor and Assistant Professor of Social Science at West Point, teaching, among other subjects, political philosophy.
Clark studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar from 1966 to 1968, receiving a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.
Clark is a great man who is underestimated.

I like Kerry
But Clark would make a better President..

[Bombtrack]

13. Clark has alot of political experience, he just has no elected experience

The further up you get in the armed services, the more you're involved in politics.

And he has a proven record of domestic issues in providing for military families.

[arewethereyet]

3. Kerry is a polititian. He doesn't talk himself into trouble.

And thats really enough of a reason.

I'm more concerned that you don't think General Clark has provided a wealth of ammunition to the GOP. Kerry's is largely ideological as you would expect being a polititian. Clark's speaks to integrity and to me, thats far worse.

[Bombtrack]

20. Kerry has made plenty of gaffes, more than Clark has

at least, more genuine ones(the media ran with plenty of jokes Clark made as if he were being serious)

what do you call Kerry's comments about not needing the south to win. I know he wasn't "telling the south to go to hell" as the right wing has put it, but it wasn't at all prudent and really would become a self fulfilling profecy for someone who has no natural appeal to the south for a democrat as it is.

[arewethereyet]

25. that one was just accepting his reality

he'll never be able to get the south and needs to ease the party into thinking he has a plan for dealing with it. So was it a gaffe ? Not really but I guess tahts a matter of opinion.

A gaffe is saying on national TV that the White House was calling you to get you to talk up Hussein's ties to terrorism. When the lie is dragged out with lots of iterations and finally exposed, thats a gaffe and NOT a matter of opinion.

Some statements are thought out, others not. It all goes back to political skills necessary to compete. You tell be who has them ?

[lastknowngood]

4. I don't buy your premise He is not electable in my opinion

n/t

[Bombtrack]

15. I never said Kerry wasn't electable, I said he was electable in my title

,

[poskonig]

7. Kerry can raise more than 45 mill before August.

Bush will be throwing 200+ mill at us. I want to be able to fight back.

[eileen_d]

8. I don't think Kerry is necessarily "better"

I really go back and forth between the two.

I think there are some very logical reasons why Kerry is doing better:
1) Kerry has a record as an elected official
2) Clark's entry in the race was late

And I do believe media coverage of Clark is lacking.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bombtrack]

27. Can you talk about how Clark is "gaffe prone"

Because the "gaffes" that he's been attributed to are mostly media creations.

[arewethereyet]

36. I saw him speaking the words

not saying it was impossible to fake but... it wasn't.

[Bombtrack]

37. Well the fact that he isn't a politician will appeal to a hell of a lot of

people. Like Edwards, he's can successfully run as post-9-11 acceptable outsider. Someone who's familiar with Washington but not entrenched in it's status quo.

But unlike Edwards, he's not a politician or a lawyer, and he will be able to get away with a bit more, not that I beleive he's really said anything that serious calls into question his judgement or character

[arewethereyet]

43. yes, that appeals to some

and considering there are 150,000,000 some odd voters (give or take) that 15% is a lot of people.

He will 'get away with' nothing to the voting public. Bush 'got away with' mispronunciation and the like. Its very different when you're unexpectedly asked to justify the actions of an endorsement and have to flub over it. Compare that to Kerry realizing that he had to nip the Mass SC decision issue as quickly and decisively as he could.

I think that he has done far more than is necessary to render his character insupportable and the GOP can gleefully pound him to death with it.

Michael Moore was a HUGE error of judgement (accepting his endorsement to be specific, he was bound to embarrass him at some point). Lying about calls from the White House pretty well nix his character without even having to go back to his Army days to find out what Shelton was talking about.

[anti-NAFTA]

14. 2 Reasons.

1. Kerry is trustworthy and has votes to match most of what he says. Clark hasn't proven himself. Anyone can just talk without voting. I also don't know what Pentagon scum he might be affiliated with.

2. Kerry can debate and attack Bush well (Boston College Law School, you know).

[Bombtrack]

28. Kerrys pedigree is what will hurt him

Bush has a Yale bachelors and a Harvard MBA but it doesn't mean he was a good bussinessman, as it apparently should.

The fact that Clark has a public education, and has achieved pretty much 100 percent of his success on Merrit alone, stands in stark contrast to both Kerry and Bush.

Tell me why a Harvard Law degree(actually come to think of it, he doesn't have one, he went to Boston College law) is superior(both debate-skills wise and overall electoral appeal) to a number 1 class rank at West Point, a Rhodes Scholarship, and 3 masters degrees

[anti-NAFTA]

35. Bush can just try.

When I look at Kerry, I don't cringe and whince in fear that he might say something dumb. Boston College Law School pretty much guarantees better debate skills than West Point. That's not debatable.

Clark's lack of experience is more helpful in general elections than having a long voting record (I don't buy the "no experience" = unelectable; in fact I think it's the opposite), but Kerry's voting record means I can trust him and that I know where he stands (even though he stands in favor of NAFTA).

[cally]

16. I think Clark stumbled at the wrong time

right before the NH primary. The charge that he was a Rebulblican lobbyist hit the papers in NH, he stumbled on the abortion question that week, and had a less than stellar NH debate performance. He had a drop in poll numbers that allowed Kerry to rumble into NH with the big mo. Kerry peaked at the right time and Clark stumbled at the wrong time. :shrug:

In retrospect, I think Clark should have attended the Iowa debates. It would have helped prepare him better for the NH debate. I also see Clark as trying to run as the anti-Dean and his campaign didn't readjust quickly enough to Kerry's rise to frontrunner when they came back to NH.

I think Clark is a much better candidate to run against *. I just don't see it happening. :cry:

[Bombtrack]

29. Clark was never a "republican lobbyist", please edit your post to omit it

He was never a republican and he was a lobbyist for interests that suited his expertise for a short period of time.

[cally]

34. I know that...I'm reporting on headlines that

hit NH papers the week before the primary. I saw it in the Concord Gazette but couldn't find it online that day when I was campaigning back there. It hurt Clark and he didn't respond quickly to it. Took him a few days to respond by opening all his records. That's my point, he stumbled and wasn't prepared for that attack IMO.

[knight_of_the_star]

39. His "less than stellar performance"

Was because they only asked him FOUR questions in a TWO HOUR debate and only ONE of those questions had anything to do with policy!!! Kinda hard to perform when you get asked TWICE, "Are you a real Democrat?" and asked about your opinion of Micheal Moore saying Bush is a deserter.

[quinnox]

17. I agree with

some of the other posts that said Clark is too green at this point. Clark may have a better shot with more seasoning, maybe 2008.

[ShaneGR]

18. Polished politician vs. Newcomer with no experience

I repect Clark's military service, but I'm not about to trust taking on Bush to someone with little political experience.

If it had been Dean vs. Clark like everyone thought, I'd be all for Clark. But the dynamics changed.

[Bombtrack]

31. Like Adlai Stevenson vs Eisenhower????

There have been the same number of former generals and sitting senators elected president in the last 50 years

[NNN0LHI]

21. I will take either one of them. No problem n/t

[Sibanetta]

23. Of course Clark is a better candidate..

in absolutely every way. He's smarter...shoot, he's smarter than most of us, he's experienced, he's personable, he's a "self-made" man,he's a "winner" and he doesn't have all the Senate baggage that Kerry is bound to have after all these years...Rove and his hit squad will want to keep military records as a non-issue...understandably:) ...so the General can take the high road, and keep it there...and let's face it...Bush wouldn't know the high road if it rose and and bit him on his Republican ass.

I respect all of the Democratic candidates, and it kills me to say this, I mean it really sucks, but I think if Kerry is the nominee, Bush will win...and who knows what will be left of our Democracy when he's done!

Sibanetta.

[jpgpenn]

24. He isn't better then Clark!

but to hear the media pump this guy up you would think so!

...And the same group of insiders continue to hijack our voting process and run our party into the ground!

[curse10]

26. Well, I like Clark, but one of the main reasons he's not my first choice

is that he has yet to be able to articulate his views on domestic issues on a level I would like. I know Clark and Kerry have many of the same views, but Kerry can say what those views are.

I like Clark and I would have no problem voting for him in November. I think he has a great foreign policy plan. I think he's intelligent and well-spoken. But he just hasn't said what I want him to. :shrug:

I had high hopes for him when he entered the race. Maybe that's it- he hasn't lived up to the pedestal we put him on. :shrug:

[Bombtrack]

32. He hasn't been able to articulate YOUR views?

What's more important, who throws more red meat towards your major issues when both candidates have extrememly similar policy positions or who is way better equipped to defeat Bush?

[curse10]

41. That's not what I said

I think Clark's inability to express his domestic policies has been a liability in the primaries and will be a major liability in the GE.

I know I agree with Clark on most issues, but if he can't articulate those ideas, what the heck is the point?

[Bombtrack]

42. but he can articulate them

whether Kerry can articulate his better is purely an arbitrary opinion.

[adamrsilva]

30. I think people see Clark this way:

-He has no domestic experience, and with Democratic voters, and voters in general, domestic issues have returned to the forefront (economy and healthcare especially).

Other people may see him as somewhat untrustworthy as well.

[Bombtrack]

33. Foreign policy is more important in this election than in any in 30+ years

And more important in the next presidential term for that matter. Meaning domestic issues are therefor LESS in emphasis. I'm sorry but I don't know what your talking about domestic issues "returning" to the forefront. 2000 and 1996 were about domestic issues. And this election will be as well, but not as much as before.

[arewethereyet]

38. that may be true

but thats also an opinion and not one shared by the majority of those who have voted.

Percetion IS reality to that citizen standing there looking at those choices. If they're worried about their checkbook and that stack of bills, they may not be focusing on foreign affairs.

[Bombtrack]

40. well everyday patriotic people will have those 160,000 troops occupying

Iraq and Afganistan in addition to their pocketbooks on their minds.

It's not one or the other