Electability: What do Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have in common?

[katieforeman]

Answer: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to be elected and re-elected in the past 30 years and they both beat incumbent Presidents.

What else do they have in common?

1.) They were both incredibly optimistic and articulated a positive vision of what America could be. Remember Clinton was the "Man from Hope."

2.) They were both great communicators.

3.) Neither one of them had any military or foreign policy experience when they were elected.

4.) Neither one of them was born into a wealthy family.

What does this tell you about which presidential candidate is most electable?

To me it says John Edwards is the one who will beat Bush in November. He is Bill Clinton minus the sex scandels. He is positive and optimistic and he connects with voters.

Furthermore, Edwards has more foreign policy experience than either Clinton or Reagan when they were elected. During his five years in the Senate, he has traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, met with world leaders, and introduced legislation to improve homeland security.

Go to www.JohnEdwards.com and make a donation or get involved to volunteer. The first step in beating George Bush is selecting the right nominee.

[MAlibdem]

1. I seem to remember watching the VA Jefferson-Jackson dinner last night

Kerry was full of optimism.

Constant talk about 'dreams' and 'creating a better future'

[DjTj]

15. Did you watch the end?

Kerry and Clark got almost all their applause from one-liners attacking Bush.

Edwards got applause when he talked about protecting American jobs, about a world where the color of your skin doesn't matter, about a moral responsibility to lift 35 million people out of poverty.

It's true that a lot of candidates have adopted a good mix of Dean's criticism of Bush and Edwards' optimism, but if it's the optimism that you want, you can't get any better than the source itself.

There's only one campaign that is built on hope and where optimism is valued over cynicism, and that is John Edwards' movement to change America.

[John_H]

30. I was there--they all got applause for their proposals

[katieforeman]

31. Edwards brought everyone in the room to their feet, and I don't remember

him making any attacks.

[adamrsilva]

2. A lot of Presidents didn't have those things

I don't think Edwards could beat Bush in a post-9/11 America. In 2000 sure, but not now.

[katieforeman]

5. Remember Max Cleland!

I agree that security is especially important post 911. However, military experience alone does not make a candidate strong on defense issues.

In 2002, an election largely about national security, Republicans beat Max Cleland by picturing him with Osama Bin Laden and distorting his voting record in the Senate to make him look weak on national security issues. The fact that Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam did not protect him from these unfair attacks.

Kerry has an even longer voting record to distort. In the 1990's he was quoted saying that America spends too much on intelligence. Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, and for the second Gulf War. Republicans will use all of these things to paint Kerry as a politician who panders to public opinion instead of leading. (This is totally unfair, but Republicans will do it.)

A candidate is weak on defense if the Republicans can make him look wishy-washy or raise questions about his integrity. They will have an easier time doing this to Kerry or Clark than to Edwards.

[Bombtrack]

10. it's still preferable to have had military experience than to not have had

it.

That doesn't mean that Edwards couldn't translate being on the intelligence committee during and after 9-11 as at least being on an equal if not better footing than Bush


And Cleland also was hurt by the pro-confederate flag voter wave that also ousted Roy Barnes that had not voted in the same number in the previous senatorial election

[mlawson]

3. You are right, katieforeman.

But sadly, I think the DNC (Dem establishment) has a different agenda going on. I have never thought that electability is their top criterion, when deciding which candidate to back. If anyone doubts that, think back to 1984 and 1988. Clinton got it in 1992 by default, IMO.

[Dolphyn]

4. Kucinich too!

Your argument also supports my belief that
Dennis Kucinich is profoundly electable!

But, I would stop short of saying "Kucinich is Clinton," LOL.

[charlie]

6. Presidential middle names

It's obvious, that's the key.

[Bombtrack]

7. They were also from the south or the west

and when Reagan was running he was from a crucial swing state that had he not been on the ticket might very well have been won by the democrats

[katieforeman]

9. Another good point

[Mz Pip]

8. My candidate

doesn't fit with #3 but does with the rest. Clark does have the foreign policy experience.

Perhaps we should be asking what Bill Clinton and Wes Clark have in common, as well.

I like Edwards, too. He's my second choice.

MzPip
:dem:

[Bombtrack]

11. ditto

In 80, 84, 92, and 96 foriegn policy wasn't as important an issue as it will be in this election. We have a better chance of beating a fool with an expert on the issue than a smart novice

[katieforeman]

17. The Cold war and Iranian crisis were pretty serious foreign policy issues

It's true that a great candidate with a military record is better than a great candidate without a military record. It's not true that a poor candidate with a military record is better than a great candidate without a military background.

Kerry can be made into a weakling on defense if the Republicans succeed in painting him as someone who panders instead of leading. Furthermore, Republicans are going to try to blame 911 and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction on Democrats who cut intelligence spending and passed laws making it more difficult to collect intelligence. Kerry is already on the record in the 1990's saying we spent too much on intelligence. That fact alone could make him incredibly weak on defense issues.

It's true the confederate flag played a part in Cleland's loss. However, there are tons of cultural issues the Republicans can use to attack Kerry. He is already being painted as more liberal than Ted Kennedy. There are lots of things in his voting record tailor made for the kinds of ads they ran against Dukakis.

[Bombtrack]

22. The cold war had been going on for 35 years, the WOT is new

150 thousand troops occupying a hostile country is new.

The hostage crisis was a big deal but it was just one of many crappy things going on that Carter got blamed for

[DjTj]

18. Bush never claimed to be the policy wonk...

...and the person on the top of the ticket doesn't need to be either.

Gore had far more experience than Bush but couldn't capitalize on it because GWB has an uncanny ability to smirk and shrug serious policy debates away. He defers these things to his advisors and his VP.

I would love to see Clark go up against Cheney, because that's where the real foreign policy debate can take place.

However, against Bush, you are fighting against which candidate can connect better with the people and which one is more likeable.

Carter and Bush I clearly had the better resumes and a better handle on policy, but they were beaten by populist candidates who were better able to connect with regular people.

The blueprint to win this election is right there in front of us, and we're letting it slip away.

[katieforeman]

13. They'd also been elected to political office before.

I have tremendous respect for Wes Clark as a person and I think he has some good ideas. However, I really worry about his propensity for gaffs and the number of statements he has to retract or modify. If he goes up against Rove in Novemeber, I'm afraid it will be like watching someone learn to swim in a pool of sharks.

Unfortunatley, I think Republicans will use some of his contradictory statements and some of the contreversies in his military career to paint him as someone who changes positions to serve his political ambition. They are really good at that kind of thing and I'm afraid that Clark might lose in the general election and have his reputation ruined in the process.

[Bombtrack]

16. Clark doesn't have a controversial military career

he's been called the most decorated officer since Eisenhower, and it's only fitting that he be the next former general to run and be elected to president.

And I really don't see how an Edwards supporter gets off going after Clark for lack of political experience when obviously that isn't something that Edwards believs a premium should be put on.

He believes that some WASHINGTON experience is a good thing, which Clark has, but that the campaign/reelection/money process corrupts people, which Clark also beleives

[katieforeman]

21. If he wasn't contreversial, why was he fired?

I'm sorry to do this. I really do like Clark and I considered him myself. We would be fortunate to have him or Edwards for President. But this is just a sample of what the Republicans would have to work with in the fall:

Clark was fired from his NATO command by Bill Cohen. He had his picture taken with Milosivic wearing Milosivic's hat. The former Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff under Clinton, Hugh Shelton, said he would never want to see Clark as President because of integrity issues. Just recently he has been in the Washington Post, because of his comments accusing the Clinton administration of putting concerns about Al Gore's reelction over the military situation in Kosovo. A general under his command in NATO refused to carry out one of Clark's orders because the general feared Clark's orders would provoke a military conflict with the Russians.

Wesley Clark helped stop a genocide, and he is a brilliant man. However, the Republicans have a lot of ammo against him.

[Bombtrack]

25. Virtually all of that has been debunked in this primary

The Hugh Shelton comments hold very little water due to his obvious bias towards wanting Edwards nominated.

If you think Clarks stint being cut short could be used by republicans against him, think again. The GOP does not not want to open up that can of worms, the reason Clark was let go, is because he wanted to be tuffer than the Clinton adminstration wanted to be! He wanted more Apache combat helicopters in Kosovo. And he had run ins with a nutball discredited British general named Michael Jackson.
Generally speaking, Clark wanted to pursue the war more aggressively than those he beefed with.

At the very end of the war, after Slobodan Milosevic finally gave up under withering NATO bombing, Russia demanded that they control a section of Kosovo, though they weren't (then) in NATO. (Russia has traditionally been a close ally of the Serbians, whose attacks on Albanians in Kosovo triggered this war, and Albanians rightly feared living under a Russian controlled, pro-Serbian government.) Clark flatly refused any Russian control, and -- despite promising not to -- the Russians sent 200 troops to take over Kosovo's main airport, as a power play.

Clark, who had negotiated with Milovic, Serbia and Russia in the Dayton Peace Accords, was determined not to let that ploy work. With the approval of Javier Solana, the NATO leader, he ordered British troops to occupy the other end of the airport -- where there were few if any Russian troops -- and prevent Russia from flying in more troops to build up their presence. British general Michael Jackson refused in a way Clark called "emotional."

The way Jackson tells the story, he told Clark "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." That's a great sound-bite, but it seems a bit overblown considering this was a post-Soviet-collapse force of 200 soldiers. (Jackson is a charismatic but controversial British figure, known to his troops as "the Prince of Darkness." He was the British second in command during the "Bloody Sunday" massacre in 1972, when British troops killed 13 unarmed Irish protestors.)

NATO forces in Kosovo had an unusual structure -- they were under Clark's command, but the countries involved could veto the use of their troops in a given engagement, and most of the ground troops were actually British. So when Jackson refused to move his troops to the airport, there wasn't much Clark could do, militarily. (As it turned out, the U.S. convinced Hungary to deny Russian jets flyover rights, so they were not able to reinforce troops anyway. After a standoff, Russia backed down and they never did control a part of Kosovo.)

[katieforeman]

27. It has not been debunked. These are just some of the reasons Clark's..

support dropped off so precipitously.

You had to give me awfully long explanations for each of these incidents. In a general election soundbites count. Bush will have tens of millions of dollars to spend on commercials with these negative soundbites. Furthermore, I don't think most Americans would think of Clark's willingness to get us involved in a groundwar in the former Yugoslavia, as a good thing.

[Bombtrack]

29. He didn't want to get us involved in a Groundwar

he stood up for international law by not letting the Russians, the great power most responsible for the genocide make a power play.

[katieforeman]

32. This exchange makes my point.

We are debating contreversies about a war that occurred in the 90's and about the circumstances of Clark being fired which is exactly my point. Republicans attack by continually making charges with only a kernal of truth to them. Voters remember the soundbite charges but not the somewhat more complicated and lengthy defense.

Furthermore, Clark's charges about the Clinton administration have the real potential of sparking internicene conflict among Democrats. As members of the Clinton administration defend themselves, Republicans can use their words to label Clark as someone who is always making accusations. Reporters love digging into this kind of thing, and these types of issues will dominate the news cycles if Clark is the nominee.

I don't see how you can say there are no controversies when Clark levels charges like these at the Clinton Administration. I'm sure they don't agree with what Clark said. That is by definition a contreversy and it won't leave clark or the Clinton Administration looking very good.

[ozone_man]

12. They were both governors.

They both had executive experience, which is the key requirement for the top position. FDR was elected four times, another governor. Richard Nixon, another governor, was elected twice.

Dean is the only governor running, the only one who has balanced a budget.

[Bombtrack]

19. take a look at your history book, Nixon was never a governor

he ran for governor after Kennedy beat him and he lost.

And Clinton was successful because he was an extremely charasmatic politician. And he was the man from hope running against supermarket scanner-impressed GHW bush

[Gman]

14. Both Reagan and Clinton would have been elected to third terms

as politicians, they were both that good. Politicians with the skills you outlined don't come across very often.

[DjTj]

20. Also consider JFK and GWB...

...two candidates with relatively little political experience who beat 2-term VP's in Nixon and Gore.

Kennedy was a 1-term Senator. Bush had served 1.5 terms as a Governor. Neither Kennedy nor Bush could measure up to their opponents in terms of experience, and JFK was elected in a time when foreign experience was certainly very important.

The way Kennedy and Bush won was by connecting better to regular Americans. Gore and Nixon were both seen as wooden candidates and didn't really excite anyone.

John Edwards is the only candidate that can outplay Bush at that game. He is someone who can really connect with Southerners and working Americans. Edwards cuts right into Bush's appeal.

When we need to win a hard election, playing it safe by picking the best resume never works. Dole was clearly the wrong choice in '96, Dukakis was the wrong choice in '88. Playing it safe is walking into a trap that we have fallen into before.

I know many people on DU are still wondering how the heck Dubya won in 2000. I'm really afraid that we'll be asking the same question at the end of this year when we don't learn the lesson that 2000 taught us. Resumes don't win elections.

[katieforeman]

24. Were you in Richmond Saturday?

Edwards was incredible. Wasn't he?

We got a very good response doing our visibility during the day. I'm hoping he might pull off a victory in Virginia.

[DjTj]

26. I was there.

It was totally better than anything I've seen on TV. I think he really fed off the energy of the cramped space, "You think we can fit any more people in this room?"

I hung out outside for a while in front of the cafe and we got a pretty good response from the cars driving by too (except for the people with Kerry and Clark signs of course).

The union people were really cool too. It's great that we picked up that endorsement.

[texasmom]

23. Getting the people who voted for both Reagan and Clinton

is key to our success in the fall. I think Clark can do this, and the next best chance goes to Edwards.

Clark has leadership experience on the world stage. It's not like he was a toy soldier. He didn't just make it to four star general overnight.

Wes Clark is definitely not an experienced politician--he is an experienced leader. Still he connects with voters, and I think he has a great television persona. That is how most voters will get to know our nominee--on the tv. We overlook this at our peril. Those people who voted for both Clinton and Reagan don't read policy briefs/statements. They vote on gut feelings.

I definitely think Edwards has the positive demeanor and charisma that Reagan and Clinton had, but I think Clark's depth and breadth of experience is greater. I don't see how anyone can top Edwards on charisma.

[leyton]

28. I agree.

Bush performs better in personality/character polls than he does in policy-related polls. That goes to show that his personality and his perceived character is what somehow attracts moderates. We have to be able to match that; all of our candidates can beat him on policy, Edwards is the only one who can do that.

[katieforeman]

33. Well said.