Senator Sunshine vs Tricky Dicky

[Finch]

Now that would be a debate I would pay to see… a man who was formally one of this nations most gifted courtroom performers vs. a man who’s one of the GOP most able debaters, despite being in many people’s minds synonymous with the shady, corrupt side of this administration.

First why not Clark?

Clark is bad on TV, he's got better, but with Kerry on the ticket you need charisma.

Clark claims to have moderate positions, but he has never been "put on the spot" and told to vote in congress, so we have no concrete way of knowing if he is a moderate or not. Added to this the only concrete position he has taken is he opposes the war, which is a positions (wrongly imho) associated with the left...

Clark could so easily be caricatured as a flip-flopper, even more so, having supported Bush and the GOP, then his quasi-conspiracy theories after 9/11.

Sorry, but Wes is many things and would be good in a cabinet... but as a debater he was uninspiring (if improving) there where three great debators in the priamreis Edwards, Sharpton and Lieberman with Kerry and Gephardt in the second tier... and beyond that he never appealed to independents and moderates in the same way as Edwards nor did he ever instil such enthusiasm amongst the broader elecotarte for any extended period of time as did Edwards.

So how do we find a VP for Kerry?

To find a VP you just need to identify Kerry's weaknesses...
1.) Charisma (he's dull)
2.) Liberal (His voting record is Liberal)

So this leads me to think to compensate for these deficiencies, we need a charismatic, moderate or populist... Edwards is the obvious choice, however Edward's very charisma could be a problem for Kerry, that's why I think that Mark Warner would be the obvious second choice.


So Why Edwards for VP?

As i have said Kerry’s two big weaknesses are his liberal voting record and his rather dull speaking style… yes at times he can become animated and engaging…but lets be honest that is very much the exception rather than the rule. Edwards more than any other candidates for the VP spot addresses these weakness in an amazingly direct way, he is charismatic and likable and can frame arguments in a very clear manner (far better at it than Kerry) added to this Edwards has a moderate to populist record and he is popularly perceived as a moderate populist by most people who are aware of him. Clark on the other hand is perceived purely as anti-war and by association leftwing (unfair yes but true). Edwards on the ticket would provide a potentially very significant boost for Congressional and Senatorial candidates in the south and other competive regions of the country, Clark offers no such boost. So to but it simply Kerry is seen as a dull, dourer, liberal, Edwards is perceived as a happy, charismatic, moderate populist what better fit for Kerry? Kerry can be rambling and boring, Edwards is usually charismatic and inspiring… what does Clark bring apart from an A4 sheet of medals, a faltering speaking style, weak debating style and no proven ability to win votes or to campaign effectively (in fact the opposite)… Sorry but it has to be Edwards.

Don’t get me wrong put Clark in the cabinet have him as an advisor… get him and Richard Holbrooke to lead the campaigns foreign policy effort and send them both round the tv networks and talk shows… but do no put Clark on the ticket.

[LittleApple81]

1. Kerry has my vote no matter what for this election. I just personally

like Clark: he is the cutest, smartest, all around "good man" I see in this group right now.

[Leilani]

2. Americans chose charisma in 2000!!!!!

And what did it get us?

Remember 2000?

Gore was dull, he was a policy wonk, & on & on.

Bush was a nice guy, funny, CHARMING, a guy you would want to have a beer with.

Well, guess what? 9/11 happened, & we were stuck with a guy who did not have a clue.

We are at war, & charisma does not cut it.

Gravitas, experience, been-there, done-that, is what matters.

The world is in flames, & I do not want on-the-job training needed candidates. The VP must be able to help Kerry with the overwhelming task he will face. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, must be able to take over in a heartbeat.

[Finch]

3. Wouldn't say Bush was charismatic...

..charming and folksy yes... Gore dull and moderate/populist... that fits the picture, Edwards is an excellent debater and really connects with people W just doesn't and didn't in 2000... comparing the two is like comparing Chalk and Cheese imho.

[Leilani]

5. You are splitting hairs

The people voted popularity over gravitas.

I hope they learned their lesson.

[spooky3]

12. That's one of the most bizarre arguments I've seen posted yet.

So, if Bush is charming and Edwards is charming, they are essentially the same people?

And, another implicit argument--so, if some (many?) people vote for charm along with other attributes, rather than (whatever your favorite candidate possesses), that should automatically disqualify any candidate who has charm IN ADDITION to many other great strengths? Exactly how do people get elected in this country?

[Leilani]

15. Not bizarre at all

unless you are an Edwards supporter.

I am saying we need gravitas this time. If charm is part of the package, great!

But charm alone, will not do it.

John Edwards does not have the experience or knowledge of foreign affairs, military operations, or terrorism/national security to be 1 heartbeat away from the Presidency.

[Jai4WKC08]

18. Hey, let's not get off track here

Clark has plenty of charm. Anyone who has met or listened to him knows that. He just happens to have brains, heart, experience, and incredible determination. With the platform of the VP nomination, he'll be many times as popular as Edwards ever was. And that can only benefit Kerry, and us all.

[Leilani]

21. You know I think Clark is charming!

I also think he is handsome, charismatic, & HOT!!!

And he has EXPERIENCE!!!!!

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Oh, I know you do hon

We're on the same sheet of music on ALL of that. I just didn't like the way the conversation was being shaped, that Edwards' charm is somehow more marketable than Clark's experience. Clark has both, as I know you know.

[last1standing]

24. They haven't.

And neither have we, apparently. Clinton won because of "a place called Hope". Bush the elder won because of his "wimp" speech with Dan Rather. Reagan won because of "morning in America". None of these ideas meant much in terms of policy but they tugged on America's heartstrings and won the election for each person. As a nation we vote for inspiration, not intelligence.

As a side note that often needs repeating, Gore won the election, not bush*. Anyone who says otherwise is lying, ignorant, or incredibly forgetful.

[RafterMan]

4. Heh

"his quasi-conspiracy theories after 9/11."

You mean the ones that were repeated by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil and Paul Bremmer?

[leyton]

6. Charisma for VP is overrated, I think.

It seems to me that charisma boils down the question of "is this the guy I want in my living room for four years?" Well, the President is the guy in the living room, not the Vice-President. The VP choice can have all the charisma he wants, but who cares? It's not like Kerry will be down in the situation room handling some crisis, and Edwards will be there to back him up with some likeability. It's not like Kerry will be on the stage debating Bush and Edwards will be there with a good spoonful of charm. Charisma is not transferable.

Other things, I think, are. Like experience. Bush did not have experience, so he picked Cheney; it was understood that the latter would be a steadying voice of wisdom in the White House. Gore needed to break away for the Clinton shadow and the perception of having no "values" so he picked Lieberman, the family-values Democrat.

Kerry should pick between Vilsack, Richardson, and Clark. The first two add executive experience and good geography (and in Richardson's case, demographics). Clark adds national security credibility, which Kerry may lack in the eyes of the electorate. These are not matters closely related to the likeability of the candidate at the top of the ticket.

[TheDonkey]

7. It better not be Gephardt, I'll take Edwards or Clark

[Auntie Bush]

8. That was a very misleading and poor title for your post.

You posted that it is about Cheney and Edwards in debates...then it turns into a diatribe of falsehoods about Clark. You should be ashamed of yourself. I don't agree with anything you say. It is all your personal feelings and you make them sound as if it were fact. Sorry but you are all wrong about Clark and also Edwards. I'm proud to be a Clarkie and we wouldn't post such nasty things about Edwards.
Clarkies post why they support Clark. You post what you don't like about Clark. Some people make it hard to like Edwards. You are not helping Edwards...you are hurting him and I think he would agree with me.

[Finch]

9. I am not posting a diatribe...

...I have gone out of my way to argue that Clark would be a good figure to have in a number of capacities but as VP he would be imho an awful, choice Edwards or possibly Warner are far far better choices... I simply do not rate Clark at all...

I have illustrated both the reasons for Edwards being the best possible choice and the reasons why Clark would be pretty much a "dead weight"... I think that in order to make my case it was important to do both and i reject the idea that i should not provide viable criticisms of Clark. I think that i have been fair to both, it just so happens that Edwards is far and away the better candidate... in fact the only candidate apart from perhaps Warner. :-)

[incapsulated]

10. Your "critique"

Is nothing but your highly subjective opinions about Clark, which are incorrect and shortsighted in my opinion and clearly biased because you are pimping Edwards.

C'mon.

I don't even really want Clark as VP that much, I'd much prefer Sec. of State, but this isn't any kind of "fair" criticism at all.

I'm so sick of this VP shit, already. :puke:

Edit: "quasi-conspiracy theories after 9/11"? You mean the one's that were proven to be true according to Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil? Please.

[chimpymustgo]

11. Good grief. The critique was quite fair. Lighten up, please.

It's all a matter of opinion, and the one that counts is Kerry's. Clark supporters started saying evil crap about Edwards, after Edwards became the clear number 2 during the primaries. Just stop it already.

But to now try to turn the tables and criticize anyone who asserts Clark may not the ideal VP candidate is just bizarre.

I wish Kerry would pick already. Wes Clark is a great guy, no doubt, but some of his supporters do him an injustice with the blind fervor, Clark or nothing approach.

Just what are Wes Clark Democrats? You are deliberately separating yourselves from the rest of us Democrats.

I really credit the Dean supporters who were similarly passionate during the primaries. But when Dean lost, they supported Kerry. They didn't transplant the passion for Dean to a war for "number 2".

We have to come together. The VEEPstakes speculation can be provocative, amusing, creative. But we should not use it to be more divisive. There really is nothing to be gained on blind insistance about a matter most of us will have very little, if any say in.

Hey, I think Edwards would take the ticket over the moon. But I'm not going to insult, deride and defame another candidate to make my point. I trust Kerry to make the right decision. I hope it's soon, so some people can get over themselves.

[incapsulated]

13. You have GOT to be fucking kidding me

"I really credit the Dean supporters who were similarly passionate during the primaries. But when Dean lost, they supported Kerry. They didn't transplant the passion for Dean to a war for "number 2"."

Clark supporters where on board with Kerry BEFORE ANY OTHER SUPPORTERS. Clark endorsed Kerry DAYS after he dropped out and with the exception of 1 or 2 at most, Clarkies have followed his lead. Dean supporters were the last to come on board with Kerry and that is a FACT.

I don't give a fuck who is VP and I haven't insulted Edwards. I defended Clark which I have every right to do when Edwards people slam him to pimp their guy. Just because you are enthused about one does not mean you need to deingrate the other, and that goes for both sides.

Calling yourself a "X" Democrat or Republican is hardly new, it means nothing in terms of supporting Kerry or the Party.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Jai4WKC08]

16. Edwardniacs are just runnin' scared

They know their guy hasn't got a prayer for the VP slot. He's even getting left out of the "short lists" lately. So they make baseless attacks on Clark instead. They know he's the most likely selectee.

If Kerry thought Clark was no good on TV or on the stump, he wouldn't have Clark appearing for him everywhere, on the news shows, and delivering responses to Bush and Cheney. Kerry's opinion on Clark's speaking skills is the only one that matters.

[chimpymustgo]

17. What is with the HYSTERIA? Same team, right?

Right?

WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

But I won't die if it's Kerry/Clark!

[Adelante]

19. Do not confuse anger with hysteria

It may cause you to appear sexist.

I am sick of the lies and I am angry about the lies.

[chimpymustgo]

20. Hysteria is not peculiar to any particular gender.

BTW, I am a woman, and try my best not to be sexist, LOL.

But I, too, am sick of the lies, and angry about the lies.

Kerry/Edwards '04. And beyond...

[Adelante]

22. I withdraw my charge, then, and apologize

Since apparently you did not intend it in the way I took it. Although I suppose they should find a new word for "hysterectomy." ;)