In order to stop Sen. Kerry, who do we unite behind, and when?

[Cuban_Liberal]

I know that I am far from alone in believing that Sen. Kerry is not the best nominee our party could field against Bush in November, but with each succesive primary and caucus win he gains momentum. At some point, that momentum will reach and unstoppable level, unless a strong, credible, single candidate remains to challenge him.

My questions, then, are these: 1.) Which candidate do we unite behind, and 2.) when do we do so? I will not alienate or antagonize by suggesting that my first choice is 'the one', because there ARE others. For example, despite not a single win (except the DC preference primary), Dr. Dean continues to accumulate delegates, and has the second largest number. Both Sen. Edwards and Gen. Clark have primary wins and solid second-place finishes.

I'm not ready to 'jump ship' yet, but I will honestly say that in light of this weekend's 3 second-place finishes, I AM taking a good, hard second look at Dr. Dean. If my guy doesn't win at least one of tomorrow's 2 primaries, he's in trouble, all rhetoric aside.

Your thoughts?

:)

[molly]

1. I am hoping Edwards will be Kerry's VP pick

[HFishbine]

2. I think you need to begin with the question

"Why do we want to stop Kerry?" The answers to that question should point us to the candidate we should unite behind.

[Bombtrack]

5. Because he's the second least electable major candidate after Dean

.

[bowens43]

41. What makes you think so?

What make you think that you are right and those who have overwhelmingly voted for kerry are wrong?

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. No one has voted 'overwhelmingly' for Sen. Kerry.

The reverse is true--- a substantial majority of Democrats so far have voted for someone other than Sen. Kerry.

[bowens43]

53. Kerry has received far more votes then any of the other candidates.

Spin it how ever you like, it's quite clear that Kerry is the candidate with the most support. Adding up all the votes cast for others is meaningless.

[Cuban_Liberal]

56. Not 'meaningless' at all, and not 'spin'.

It says a great deal that a substantial majority of Democrats voting so far do NOT want Sen. Kerry as their nominee.

[bowens43]

58. Yes, it is meaningless unless they supported a single candidate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

59. Again it is NOT meaningless.

That is your preferred 'spin' on it, not mine.

[bowens43]

61. Most presidential elections are won with fewer then half the votes

going to the victor. The person with the MOST votes , majority or not, usually wins. I think that you will find that when those who are behind, Dean, Clark and Kucinich start seeing them drop out, they will give their support to Kerry. Maybe not here at DU but we are not the norm in the Democratic party. Those who are in the norm will get behind Kerry when they see their candidate is finished.

[Cuban_Liberal]

64. Historically, that isn't true.

Can you prove that statement, going back to 1788?

[bowens43]

70. No need to.

The fact is that there are more , right now, 7 candidates , the chances of any single candidate having 50% or more is slim. No candidate needs 50% to win. They only need a plurality. Unless all those who prefer someone else back the same candidate, it's meaningless no matter how many times you say it isn't.

[Cuban_Liberal]

73. It an opinion, no matter how many time you say it.

My opinion on whether it is meaningless or not is just as valid as is yours, my friend.

[dansolo]

81. But the nomination is not

A majority is required for the nomination, not a plurality. If Kerry does not manage to get 50% of the delegates before the convention, he doesn't automatically get the nomination, and it becomes a brokered convention.

[Cuban_Liberal]

84. Bingo!

But he is also wrong about the Presidential electionns not being won by a majority, most times. Most presidential elections have been won by the candidate who also received 50.1%+ of the popular vote.

[MrPeepers]

62. Yes, it is meaningless

For this reason. More democrats voted for a candidate other than Kerry, and yet somewhere around 75% of democrats (I forgot where exactly the polling data on this came from, but I remember it distinctly; can anyone dig it up for me?) say they would be pleased with Kerry as the candidate. Might I add that Kerry has a far more substantial portion of democrats who have voted for him than any other candidate. That six other candidates together got more votes than Kerry alone is hardly surprising. What is telling, however, is how close Kerry is to having more votes than the other six combined. We must ask how many of those other voters would, when or if their own candidate drops out, will turn to Kerry. The answer is clearly that a significant majority would, making Kerry the chosen candidate of the Democrats. There you have it. That's not spin.

Peepers

[Cuban_Liberal]

63. Your statistic is meaningless.

See how easy it is to be dismissive?

[magnolia]

92. Hey...I'm an Edwards supporter too...but...

Let's face it...if a majority of dems don't want Kerry...a much, much bigger majority don't want Edwards...an even bigger majority don't want Dean...and so on. It is the guy with the most votes, majority or not...that counts. If we have such a guy...why stop him. Even if you could get everyone here at DU to get behind someone other than Kerry, it's just a drop in the voter pool bucket.

We have really great candidates and it's wonderful that everyone is so passionate about their personal choice. But let's not let that take away from the bigger goal...winning. If you don't like everything that Kerry stands for...fine...write him a letter when he's in the Oval Office.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. My answers will be different than others' answers, to a degree.

This is more of a 'brain-storming' type question. I think most supporters of candidates other than Sen. Kerry have quite a bit of 'common ground'. :)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Wait for Wisconsin to see what Dean does there

really.

[SheilaT]

4. Dean is the one who stood up from the very beginning.

He won't crumble under the attacks that will come to the nominee, whoever he is. I don't see Kerry doing that. He's still not willing to admit he might have been wrong about his IWR vote, and come out and say that Bush lied to us.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. I'm taking a good, hard look at Dr. Dean.

He's my second choice, and there is a LOT that I like about him and his ideas.:)

[Mairead]

17. You might want to re-visit your assessment, Sheila: "the one who..."

isn't really accurate. Dean was "one of the ones who..." and perhaps "the other one who...", but Kucinich did it first.

[MrPeepers]

65. He actually has said

that Bush lied to us. Many times.

Peepers

[blm]

87. HAHAHA. Dean crumbled at the first real media scrutiny.

He caved on almostt every issue.

He backed off from LIHOP. He backed off "evenhanded" remarks. He backed off from secularism after criticism and started talking about Jesus. He brought his wife out to campaign after criticism she wasn't there. He toned down after media critiques of his overthetop speeches.

Dean ran a classic reactionary campaign.

This claim that he stands his ground is pure mythology.

[underpants]

7. Bush

That will do it. GO ahead.

[xultar]

Clark, Now. I know

a lot of you think that Clark supporters are rude and mean. I don't see that. But please take the time to read my post.

Clark has 34 years in the military. I know the majority of you you don't think that gives him any experience to become President.

Clark has had responsibility over schools, preschools, hospitals, healthcare for his troops (employees), he has had to deal with leaders on a diplomatic level, he has worked with ambassadors, diplomats, he has been in and negotiated the end of a war. He's done that for almost 34 years. Also included, he has had to make sure that his XOs were stocked with food and supplies. Right now, our female sodiers can't even get Tampons and all soldiers need stuff like soap, toothpaste and toot brushes, and National Guard troops haveto buy their own boots, made sure that soldiers famlies were taken care of, that their children went to school stateside and abroad.

He has had to order troops into war. He has had to dictate and enforce policy both stateside, southern command, and for NATO internationally.

You mean to tell me that none of his experience qualifies for experience for President.

If the rethugs were thinking of running Colin Powell as a presidental candiate for 2000, a BLACK man, because of his experience, which isn't much unlike Clarks'. Why shouldn't we consider Clark. They really thought that Powell could win also. HE would have because of the black vote. I would have voted for Powell.

[NNN0LHI]

8. Thanks. But I am going to concentrate on stopping Bush and his minions n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. So am I.

I just happen to believe that someone besides Sen. kerry would be a better candidate to do that come November.

[robbedvoter]

11. Clark. Today. he speaks truth to power and has a chance tomorrow

Kerry + W vs Constitution, Clark, Byrd, Welstone, Kennedy (IWR)
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/2/1/84318/48694
That was in 2002.
Yesterday he said this:
"And to me, the problem is less about the intelligence community and more about how the president made his decision to take us into war in Iraq. We still don't know why we went to war in Iraq."


But Wolf, one of the virtues of being experienced in the national security business, as I am, is that I know a thing or two about how to read intelligence reports. And I would always be very wary of acting on the kind of inferential intelligence that the United States tends to collect. It has to be taken with a grain of salt. I learned that throughout my military career, and this is no different.

What we have here is an administration that wanted to find a pretext to go to war with Iraq. And that's the heart of the issue."

"But since when does the United States go to war with people because we don't like them?"

"It looks to me like reckless and poor leadership, and that's what I call it".

" Did those more than 500 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq so far, did they die in vain?

And that question you've asked me is the ultimate question that George W. Bush is refusing to answer"

"I believe that the president of the United States told them and ordered them to do the wrong thing. And he should be held accountable."

"Is it a good idea to let these commissioners take their time to study what went wrong?

CLARK: No, it's not a good idea. And if the intelligence is so bad that we went to war by mistake, then the intelligence is so bad that it needs to be fixed on an urgent basis. I would say 90 days is an appropriate period of time if you've got a major flaw that you're looking at in the intelligence community.

What we've got here is a president who simply doesn't want to be held accountable. This is an administration that's quick to take credit. They're very slow to take responsibility, Wolf."


"I'm going to try to help the party in every way I can. And the best way I can help the party is by being the candidate, because I'm the one candidate in this race that can not only pull the Democratic Party together, but can bring over a lot of Independents and moderate Republicans who want a change in Washington".
"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/08/le.00.html
Tha man is fearless, knows where rhe skeletons are burries and is on our side.
He is also the only one who can withstand the GOP attacks, congress opposition AFTER he wins. He disd it with NATO - kept 19 nations together.

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. A Clark/Dean ticket would be hard to beat, ...

... as would a Dean/Edwards, Dean/Clark, Clark/Edwards, etc...

[bowens43]

45. I don't get it.

Neither of these guys is doing well with Democrats , what makes you think they can beat bush?

[Cuban_Liberal]

47. What makes you think they CAN'T?

In the first place, over half of the Democrats voting so far do NOT support Sen. Kerry; in the second place, saying in February what voters will do/think in November is just plain silly.

[bowens43]

55. Clark has a hard time beating Sharpton.

Your thing about 'over half of the Democrats voting so far do NOT support Sen. Kerry' is meaningless unless they all supported a single candidate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

57. Again, it is NOT 'meaningless'.

The whole puprose of this thread is to attempt to get people to identify WHO to back to stop Sen. Kerry, and WHEN to do so. When over 1/2 the poeple in the party want someone else, that is not meaningless.

[bowens43]

72. You assume that over half of the people

would prefer other candidates they don't now support to Kerry. I think you will find that that is NOT the case. Instead of trying to stop Kerry by ganging up on him , how about proving that your preferred candidate is the best choice.

[Cuban_Liberal]

75. I *assume* no such thing.

And how about I just do what I want to do in my own thread?

[bowens43]

79. What is the point of this thread if not to try to rally

all those who's first choice isn't Kerry to support another candidate, the same candidate?

BTW this is a PUBLIC forum, you don't own the thread.

[Cuban_Liberal]

82. I never said I owned the thread.

The point of the thread is very clear in the initial posting. Further, I merely objected to being told what I should be doing with my postings.

[edzontar]

13. Dean is the one. An alliance with Clark, DK, and Al might

do it, if only because it would be so extraordinary.

An anti-war coalition.

I think Clark might even go for it, but don't know about Dennis, who seems much too friendly to Edwards and Kerry for my taste.

[sallyseven]

15. Democrats are voting

for Kerry. All the others don't negate the number of votes out there. Clark and Dean did not have to vote neither did Sharpton on the War. Kerry by the way did say bush lied to him. Maybe people should look at what he has done and what he says more closely and with an open mind.

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. My mind is open.

But my eyes are also not closed to his MAJOR flaws as a candidate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. Look at the numbers: it has to be broader than an 'anti-war' coalition.

That might be a nice starting place, but as a 'litmus test' it denies you a winning coalition. The primaries have proved that, if nothing else.

[edzontar]

54. OK, call it a PROGRESSIVE coaltion if the war bothers you

I think the IWR vote should have disqualified Kerry as our nominee, but then I am "sensitive" about things like lies, war crimes, and mass murder.

[Cuban_Liberal]

60. I was against the war, too.

But I'm not a 'single issue' voter; putting aside the IWR vote, those of us who oppose Sen. Kerry have a LOT in common.

[edzontar]

74. True--but I keep harping on the war because people who were alive

Last years are dead now because of it, and this makes me extra sick.

[Cuban_Liberal]

78. It sickens me, too.

Let's not forget, though, that whether one voted for or against the IWR, we now know that Bush would have gone any way. I say this not as an apology/pardon to my candidate, but simply as a 'what we know now as opposed to what we were told then' statement. What we now have to do is take back the reins of government and straighten the mess out, along with all the OTHER messes ChimpyMcFlightsuit and his cohorts have made.

[Ninga]

21. There is the beginning groundswell of a movement

to continue to move the progressive agenda.

At this point, with Kerry looking like the defacto nominee, EVERY
VOTE FOR DEAN gives the progressive movement bargaining power.

We have the hope of seeing policy change through sheer numbers.

The stronger Dean gets, that will be used as bargaining power to influence the policies in the Democratic platform.

So there is a concrete reason to vote for Dean. Because each continued vote for him represents a growing, strong number who want to see change.

The stronger we are, the less we will be denied.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Probably a better idea to get used to the notion that nothing will change

I think there have been a lot of misconceptions that the election, whoever is chosen as figurehead, or by whom, will change the status quo.

It will not, nor is it intended to.

For crusade victims and their families, it does not matter who sends which death squads to kill them.

For the poor in the US, it does not matter who does not give them a living wage, or a right to housing.

For the disappeared, it does not matter who decrees that they stay disappeared.

[King of New Orleans]

18. It's probably too late

Kerry would have to do say something seriously wrong.

Supporters don't all flow to another candidate en mass. Plus there's a certain arrogance (and I don't mean that in a bad way) involved. You don't run for President unless you truly committed and you believe your better than the other guy. Why should any of three bow out?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

19. Clark is the one person who I see the majority of people being able to

unite behind. Clark did not vote for the Iraq War Resolution, is from the South and has the National Security and military experience. He's a liberal but cannot really get the label of liberal stuck to him because he's a four star general. He's got everything. He will also be able to get the vote of Independents and Republicans. He's improving as a campaigner.

I think a pretty large number of people just don't feel comfortable with Dean and don't really feel that he can beat George Bush. In addition, there is some ill will towards him because of his attacks on other candidates. Edwards is way too conservative for me and still thinks voting for the Iraq War Resolution was a good idea. He has no national security experience and I will not vote for someone who does not have that becasue I don't beleive that they could win this day in age. I keep hearing that he was sort of sleazy as a lawyer and tht also worries me.

[Don_G]

22. I Like Dean A Lot

And I'm not certain that Kerry is the best choice, but I'll gladly vote for Satan if it can break the arrogance of the Rethuglican Party and restore some checks and balances into our governmeny.

[goclark]

34. I Love Clark

We have already seen the picking away at Kerry in the main stream media and his personal life in the National Enquirer...the blond that dropped by his house. That is probably a big lie but it is the same old story. Repugnates LIE,especially about their sex lives, unless Larry Flynt pulls there coat tails. He was simply brilliant during the Clinton Impeachment Days!

By the way, where is good ole Larry - I thought he was going to make a big announcement about his findings on * about 2 months ago?

I still believe in a gentle giant named CLARK for President!


G

:bounce:
:bounce:

[hyphenate]

23. If everyone had that frame of mind

Bush would be re-elected, and we would be subject to another 4 years of hell.

If Kerry is popular enough to be the most stablizing candidate right now, why would anyone wish him ill? The point is to get the mental midget OUT of the white house, regardless of which of the Democratic candidates does it.

If the Democratic party can not stand behind the one candidate moderate enough to attract vacillating moderates and centrist republicans, who is willing to take whatever shit the pukes throw at him in the next four years, who is likely willing to forego a second term because of all the shit he's going to have to clean up and field criticism for, and who will essentially fill the main criteria for election--that he IS a Democrat--what the hell good are ideals, issues, the need to reclaim our constitution and save our country?

It appears to me that some ideology and many issues MUST wait until 2008, and that the main focus of the 2004 should be to take back our country regardless of our personal belief systems, regardless of how much we would like to see one of the other candidates win the nomination, and regardless of how opposed we are to that particular candidate's stance on some of the issues. There are so many things wrong right now, between the economy, an unpopular war that should never have been started in the first place, a completely evil cabal in the white house, a president who is willing to lie about anything and everything, a secondary governing group pushing the buttons of a do-nothing, know-nothing moron, and the untold greed of many in this current regime that I would be willing to stand behind and elect Pat Paulsen for president if he was the candidate that the masses were supporting! Except for the fact that Pat Paulsen is dead, and that many other fine people are on the campaign trail right now, even Bugs Bunny would be acceptable.

I think we should support who we've decided to support when a candidate represents our own point of view, but those of us who have some knowledge of politics, and who strongly believe in overturning the illegal resident in the white house, must stand behind whoever the general populace decides to declare their candidate, even if we "know better." We can't educate and poll every single person in this country between now and the Democratic convention, so we've got to accept that. This year truly IS the year of ABB, because without standing together, we lose that edge to get the lying cabal out of D.C.

I can understand people wanting to see their own idealized candidate in the same enviable position as Kerry is now, but let's look at the complete truth: would you rather have another 4 years of Bush, or would you rather that at LEAST one Democrat be elected? Surely MOST people will be more inclined to admit that however less than perfect Kerry--or any one of the other candidates--is, they're a whole world of difference better than the chimp.

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. What if a majority of us DON'T believe he's the best candidate?

So far, when you combine all the votes Sen. Kerry DIDN'T get, he is the choice of fewer than 50% of the voters. 'Divide and conquer' is a GREAT strategy, if you happen to support Sen. kerry; if you don't, however, it's not worth a damn as a strategy.

[King of New Orleans]

27. And Edwards, Dean, and Clark

are each the choice of about 15% of the voters (each) so far.

But to say you can just group all the people not voting for Kerry together behind one of them and then you outpoll him, well, the world just doesn't work that way.

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. That wasn't my point.

My point was simply that Sen. Kerry is not the choice of 50.1% of Democrats voting so far, which DOES say something about Sen. Kerry being 'the presumptive nominee'.

[King of New Orleans]

32. No your point seems to be

That all the people voting for the candidates not named Kerry would all fall in line to support one the not Kerry candidates and thus "stop" Kerry. I'm just saying that's just not a reasonable theory.

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. I didn't say that at all.

I'm saying that more than 50% of us agree on one thing, above all else--- Sen. Kerry is not our 1st choice as a nominee.

[bowens43]

67. How is that in any way relevant to the nominee selection process?

It isn't. As long as the are more then two candates, the chance of no one having 50% is pretty high.

[Cuban_Liberal]

69. It's relevant this way:

More than half want someone else, and share that in common.

[RobinA]

86. Well, Until

your mysterious Mr. Not-Kerry, whom everybody who does not have Kerry as #1 will vote for, shows up on the ballot, your point is moot. Most primary voters understand that their first choice may not end up on the GE ballot. Hell, most people's first choices probably aren't on the primary ballot, I know mine isn't.

By your reasoning, you'd have to bring in Mr. Not-Kerry from among the many non-candidates. After all, If there was a Not-Kerry already in the race that everybody could agree on, he would be leading the race.

[Cuban_Liberal]

88. Please read the initial post.

Your argument is that a single 'not Kerry' doesn't exist; MY argument is that SEVERAL 'not Kerry' candidates exist. At some point before his momentum becomes unstoppable, the 'not Kerry' vote should decide who to coalesce behind.

[seaglass]

38. If you count all the votes Gore didn't get in 2000, he was

the choice of fewer that 50% of the voters (well he was even without the votes counted against him).

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

The last time a President won with over 50% of the vote was 1988.

It's not that unusual in our voting system and with 3 or more candidates running for the winner to get a plurality rather than a majority.

[bowens43]

51. If that were the case, he wouldn't being winning so convincingly.

So Kerry's starting is divide and conquer? That's ridiculous. His strategy is to 'win' just like the rest of the candidates. I am getting so sick of hearing everyone blame their candidates poor showing on everything but the candidate. I've been a Dean supporter but I can see that Dean has done himself, it wasn't the other candidates and it wasn't the media. Kucinich, Dean, Clark and Sharpton are not dong well because more people prefer Kerry. I find the idea getting together and ganging to attack another candidate repulsive.

[BootinUp]

29. A couple of counter-points

1) What makes kerry a moderate? I have seen no eveidence that he is a moderate, rather, he has a voting record that is more liberal than Sen. Kennedy.

2) You seem to think Kerry would fall on his sword for us and forego a second term to do what is right. I have seen no evidence that he would do that. He seems more the fair weather type to me.

[hyphenate]

36. No what I'm saying

>>>>> You seem to think Kerry would fall on his sword for us and forego a second term to do what is right. I have seen no evidence that he would do that. He seems more the fair weather type to me.<<<<<

No, what I'm saying is that regardless of who is selected as the nominess will have to take a lot of shit for the morass that the idiot Bush is pushing us into, that will affect our children and our grandchildren, and much of it will be blamed, regardless that we KNOW it's from the chimp, on the new president. With that in mind, anyone, no matter WHO it is, will likely survive only one term, because most people don't understand the fucked-up legacy that GWB will be leaving behind. A Democratic president would be unpopular from the get go to a LOT of people, because the first thing they're going to do is raise taxes. Then they're going to have to make some reductions in spending, and they're going to have a great many people mad at them, unless they can find a way to actually show it was the freaking chimp, his policies and lies that led to that point in time in the first place. Most people aren't going to understand that, and will assume, wrongly, of course, that it was the "new" president's fault--ALL of it.

[BootinUp]

42. I think with the right economic plan

Jobs will turn around pretty quick actually. The deficit will not be bad either cause it is going to take longer to enact new spending that it will take to reverse the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy assuming we get an election mandate to do so.

I think if we pick the right guy for the job we are in great shape two terms.

[hyphenate]

49. I would like to hope that

is true. But the past four years have put such a bitter taste in my mouth, that a great deal of whatever sanguinity I had before has been hopelessly lost.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. might as well ask the Easter Bunny

Because he has as much chance of stopping Kerry as anyone else does. :)

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. We'll see.

Lots of votes yet to be cast. Over 1/2 of the oens cast so far have gone to candidates OTHER than the senator, bear in mind.

[molly]

28. LOL!

good one!

[JNelson6563]

35. no doubt

with the media heralding Kerry's nomination there is no stopping it. It's a done deal. Anyone who thinks this will change is in for a surprise.

Julie

[DancingBear]

31. If Dr. Dean does not win Wisconsin

and holds true to his unspoken message, then the choice must be Wes Clark.

Kerry is a fine man, but to think he will be anything less than the Democratic version of status quo (i.e. maintain Roe v Wade, reverse Bush environmental disasters, etc.) is folly. The party has proven itself to be interested in nothing more than putting its own man at the head of the gravy train - it is certainly not interested in derailing same.

Dean was. I will be honest here in saying I was never a Dean man - right message, wrong messenger. Having said that, what the media and others in the Democratic party (conspicuous by their absence) did to him was obscene. They can not allow grassroots support to dictate what the Democratic party will look like. Kerry and Edwards both offer "safe" solutions - easy rhetoric within the framework of what constitutes acceptable "outrage." Clark, Dean and Kucinich do not.

They killed Dean, and marginalized Kucinich from the start. I must be honest here again in saying that I did as well - I did (and still do) believe he (Dennis) does not have a message that resonates outside the far left part of the party. Not saying that is good or bad - just stating my beliefs.

They have tried to kill Clark as well - but the son of a bitch actually is running because he BELIEVES in something. He is the other grassroots candidate, and if we ever needed a grassroots movement the time is now. If you've not heard him speak, please do so. We've heard it, we believe it, and we believe in the man. For those of you out there who believe that a candidate NEEDS to be more than status quo AND be electable, I've got a General I'd like you to meet.

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Only One Choice

I'll give you a hint: Dick Cheney is his running mate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

39. Wrong answer.

There IS a choice--several. Not supporting Sen. Kerry does not mean supporting Bush.

[DrFunkenstein]

48. I'm Sorry

I thought you said "strong, credible, single candidate." The only one with a shot at taking Kerry was Dean, and that's just not going to happen. No other candidate is capable of coalescing such a large share of the field.

[Cuban_Liberal]

50. Dean may do it yet.

Sen. Kerry does not have this in the bag by any stretch of the imagination.

[AP]

40. It's up to Clark.

[BootinUp]

44. Uh-huh and thank you for the endorsement ;)

Don't worry I get you. But of course the same could be said of your guy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. The only candidate who has a chance (not a good one) to stop Kerry

is Bush.

[Cuban_Liberal]

52. We'll see.

Not even close to being locked up for Sen. kerry.

[douginmarshall]

66. Go to Clark

What the results so far have shown us is that each candidate (Kerry, Dean, and Edwards) are appealing for different reasons. Kerry started to gain support as the Anti-Dean because of his Military background. Dean's support comes from those wanting chang in Washington and like him because he is a Washington outsider. Edward’s support comes from his modest background and that he is from the South.

We can have all of these qualities in one person in General Clark. His military and national security background is more impressive than Kerry's. He is even more of an outsider than Dean because he has not been in politics at all. Clark is just as much Southerner and from modest background as Edwards but has 34 years of service to this country and lived most of his adult life very modestly.

In addition he is arguably the brightest of the bunch and knows what it is like to order men and women into harms way.

On the issues the candidates differ very little. All support traditional Democratic values, all want a new administration in the White House. So, how do you decide? For me it comes down to two factors. Character, and who will be able to stand toe-to-toe with George W. Bush and come out the victor. In my opinion General Clark is the clear choice.

Clark is a retired four star general who served his country proudly for 34 years. He is one of this countries most dedicated soldiers. But, don’t take my word for it, see what those who know him have said.

John H. Dalton secretary of the Navy from 1993 to 1998, “I believe that Gen. Wesley Clark is uniquely qualified to revitalize our economy as well as to lead our nation back to its rightful role of world leadership in international affairs”.

Dan Christman and Chuck Larson former superintendents of the Military Academy and the Naval Academy. “In light of the character and judgment displayed by Clark, from Vietnam to The Hague, military students will study his actions for generations to come. His career models the very values that our service academies seek to instill in 21st-century leaders duty, honor, courage and commitment to country”.

If any of the other candidates get the nomination the Republican’s will try to say that Democrat’s are soft on Defense and that we should not trust them with national security. Clark vs. Bush on national defense, who do you think would win that debate? 34 years in the military vs. 1 year missing from Guard duty.

I believe that Clark is the answer. I will strongly support the party this fall but, I think we loose if it is not Clark.

[deutsey]

68. I thought the "Stop Dean" movement among Democrats was stupid

and, of course, self defeating.

I think the same about a "Stop Kerry" movement. I don't like Kerry, but if he continues building his momentum and racking up delegates, why continue inflicting the same kinds of wounds that Kerry and Gephardt and others inflicted in their desperation to stop Dean?

I guess I'm just saying I see a "Stop Kerry" movement as only damaging an already weakened Democratic position against Bush. I mean "weakened" in the sense that so many of us anti-Bush folks (and not just on DU) are angry at each other or at least reluctant to support "the other guy" that we have a few cracks in our foundation of support against Bush. Why deepen them?

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. Why rally behind the candidate we believe to be weaker?

That's a fair question, too, isn't it?

[bowens43]

77. You will be doing that if YOUR candidate isn't the one selected

for this great honor. You just don't like Kerry. That's fine but you are deceiving yourself if you think that those who have another first choice will rally around any of the losing candidates. people will go with who they think is a winner. Why switch support from one losing candidate to another?

[Cuban_Liberal]

80. Might not work that way.

I've seen no study that confirms that Kerry would be the choice of a majority for their second choice, or even their third or fourth. No one knows how deep the opposition to him would be, should a single challenger emerge.

[deutsey]

83. It's very fair

And I'm not saying I'm "rallying" behind Kerry. IF he gets the nomination, I'll be voting more against Bush than for Kerry.

Seems that's the best the Democrats can offer in presidential elections (no, I wasn't a Clintonite going into the '92 election, but I voted for him nonetheless).

I'm just saying that if we can't stop Kerry through the electoral process (and, let's face it, we're not doing a great job of that so far), I'm not in favor of sabotaging him, or smearing him, or doing what Kerry, Gephardt and the DLC helped do to Dean with their "stop Dean" movement.

Maybe that's not what you're saying. I'm thinking of that coordinated Stop Dean movement that hit Dean with negativity (the Osama ad, for example) along with the GOP's smears and the media distortion. If we can build momentum among voters for an alternative without tearing Kerry apart and alienating his supporters, great. But I'm not going to participate in anything that further weakens our collective effort against Bush.

[Cuban_Liberal]

91. I don't want to 'sabotage' Sen. Kerry, or 'cripple' him.

Not at all. What I want to do is to prevent him from obtaining the nomination, if possible, because i do not believe him to be our strongest candidate to face Bush in November. That said, if we shopuld not succeeed in stopping him I will, of course, support him wholeheartedly; 4 more years of Bush is unacceptable.

[edzontar]

76. Because people died in the war for no reason, perhaps?

nt.

[deutsey]

85. Precisely. Why divide and weaken ourselves against Bush?

If he wins in November, that's pretty much the death of what's left of our Republic.

And by the way, I was at most of the major and minor anti-war protests in DC and the big one in New York. I've also participated in a weekly peace vigil in our community and organized local actions against invading Iraq. I'm very sensitive to the fact that Kerry was among those who voted for IWR.

I don't want Kerry to be the nominee, but if continues building momentum and we can't stop it through rallying people to vote for someone else, I'm not participating in any coordinated effort that's going to go negative on Kerry and alienate his supporters. Enough of them have done that to the rest of us, in my opinion. Why add to it and face Bush that much weaker?

I guess I'm saying, I refuse to participate in yet another Democratic circular firing squad.

[MrSlayer]

89. Clark, Now.

[Cuban_Liberal]

90. Kick!

[jpgpenn]

93. It sure as heck CAN'T be an accomplished Trial Lawyer!

[Cuban_Liberal]

95. Better a general with a past record of supporting Republicans?

:eyes:

[douginmarshall]

96. What has Edwards done?

Someone please tell me what John Edwards has done as a Senator that tells you he will make a good president. I don't dislike him in fact I like a lot of what he says. I like a lot of what many people say that does not qualify them to be president. Has he been a great leader in the Senate?

If George McGovern can forgive Clark for voting Rep. then you should be able to. If that is the only thing wrong with him then he should be the next president.

[LuminousX]

94. I'm not interested in winning by stopping another

If I can't get my guy accepted and respected by a vast number of people while another guy is being accepted and respected, then so be it. That is how the system is supposed to work.