Boiling down Clark v. Edwards to the bare bones

[Scoopie]

We see it daily.
Threads upon threads upons threads of the Gen. Wesley Clark v. Sen. John Edwards flame wars.
Each side probably will not persuade the other - but it's still "fun" to argue the point for your guy.
However, maybe it's time we took a look at why there is such seeming animosity between the two camps and I believe it has to do with what people think should be the direction of the Democratic Party.
First, you have the Edwardians. They seem to long for the pre-9/11 days of the greatest personal populist and economic guru this country has seen, at least in my lifetime, and that is Pres. Bill Clinton. Edwards seems to have modeled himself after Clinton (and that's a good role model), even down to the "aw shucks" Southern charm. I, personally, don't think that Edwards has anywhere near the gravitas and experience that Clinton did and does, but I can see where many a Democrat may look at Edwards and feel the whisper of nostalgia for better days.
On the other hand, you have the Clarkies. These folks, and I am obviously included in this bunch, think the Democratic Party needs to shed some of its perceived wimpiness in a post-9/11 America and bring to the forefront it's non-neo-con foreign policy and national security agenda. We also see a bit of Clinton in Clark: both are from Arkansas, both came from the home of a single mother, both were Rhodes Scholars and both rose to the tops of their chosen professions. However, we are the people who don't feel that optimism and sunshine has done much for the Democratic Party, particularly among independents (me) and classic Republicans.
If the Republicans are the "Daddy" party and the Democrats are the "Mommy" party, the Clarkies would like to see a "single parent" party - one that can handle, not only the domestic issues, but also the foreign affairs issues.
As far as the flame wars are concerned here - I can only speak as a Clarkie, but you Edwardians feel free to jump in. I think that Clarkies are frustrated. They feel that Clark was overly put upon by the media and Edwards, not enough. I, personally, feel that Edwards wasn't properly vetted and has more skeletons in his closet that meets the eye - stuff that should have been put out there to the general public during the primaries.
I'm NOT using this thread to put Edwards down and I would hope you Edwardians afford Clark the same latitude. What I'm saying is that Clarkies feel gyped of his intelligence and a bit tired of defending against incorrect memes laid upon him by the corporate media, while Edwards - in OUR opinion - gets a free ride.

Feel free to jump in - and I really DO NOT want to see the same memes over and over. I want to hear from you guys why you think there is this divide.

[jjmalonejr]

1. Both are excellent candidates

Although, I think that a Kerry/Clark ticket is not properly balanced. Both are serious intellectuals and the tone coming from the campaign might seem overly pedantic to some.

I believe Edwards gives Kerry a shot of charisma and optimism that might otherwise be missing. He does lack the gravitas of Clark, but Kerry already has gravitas in spades. I don't think the ticket needs more.

Either way, both tickets beat Bush/Cheney in a heartbeat.

[The Traveler]

4. I basically agree

Though I was a Clarkista during the primary season, I could have voted for Edwards in a heart beat. Or Dean. (Best field of Democratic candidates I've seen in a long time.) Beating Bush is only begins the solution ... we have a big, bad mess on our hands, and on all fronts ... our international stature is in shambles, our economy is sputtering and under stress, and our defense strategy is insane and inept.

Kerry has to put together not only a winning team but a team that has a realistic prospect of cleaning up the mess. I dunno if Clark or Edwards are the only or best choices for VP ... but I strongly suspect they both will have a lot to contribute to the solutions we as a nation must conceive and implement.

Kerry is no fool, and I suspect he will make a good choice ... and that it may be a surprise.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Hmmmmm..... for me,

it's the fact that we can't have a VP just because people think he has a great personality, good hair and a great smile. Just because someone can give a great stump speech doesn't mean he would be a good VP. In THIS election, 2004, with our country at war, the entire world hating us and our Homeland Security underfunded and under staffed, we MUST have a VP with FP experience.

I think we were gypped by not having elected the greatest gift of my lifetime to be our nominee. The media was on his ass IF they talked about him at all and they were so BLATANT with their favoritism toward Edwards. He had a free ride as far as I'm concerned.

[Auntie Bush]

7. That really bugs me too!

"I think we were gypped by not having elected the greatest gift of my lifetime to be our nominee."

I could scream...makes me so mad. x( :argh: :gr: :cry:

Now we should vote for bush* because he'd be more fun to have a BBQ with. What has happened to our country? :scared:

[AP]

18. I think Edwards didn't get enough attention.

In the early debates he often got less than half the time Gep, Lieb, Kerry and Dean each got (they were often over 10 minutes while Edwards rarely cracked 5 minutes) -- he was alwasy in the bottom three with the Kooch and CMB.

I saw studies of reporting that consistently had him at the bottom of the news coverage and the only coverage he got was on his personality -- kind of like the way it's the only thing you apparently know about him. If you only watched the major media, you wouldn't have known the first thing about him.

Furthermore I think it's pretty obvious that if he had gotten more attention, what happened in the informed voter study would have happened nationally. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

Edwards had the steepest rate of increased appeal as people got closer to election day, and I think if people knew more about him earlier (and more than just about his personality), it's very likely he would have won the whole thing.

Also, I am no idiot. I can interpret a political speech, a biography and voting record. It's absurb to claim that Edwards is a personality and nothing more.

I have a relative who is from the same exact generation as Elizabeth Edwards and is a RAGING liberal. I have heard this friend talk about formative experiences, formative historical moments, etc. I heard Elizabeth Edwards talk about her and her husband in a small group of people. She talked about the effect of Clark Kerr and the Free Speach Movement on her and her husband's thinking. She talked about a lot of things. They were almost identical to the things my close friend has said. I know where she's coming from and were her husband is coming from. I know the historical moment that created them, and I understand the historical moment to which they are responding by Edwards running for president.

These people are coming from an experience of American that I know and it's one that produces a very effective and productive form of liberalism. And it's not just from this small group setting with EE that tells me what they stand for. Listen to his speeches. Listen to what he says in the debates. This guy is a fucking political genius who is milimeters away from tappign into something that could really change America in an important way.

Here's a really good speech: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/03/03-12edwards-audio.html

If you can't figure out what's what from that speech either you don't want to get it, or you're just not listening.

[Auntie Bush]

3. I share your opinion 100%. Thanks for posting that and

taking the time to put it into words. EXCELLENT! :hug:

[hedda_foil]

5. Not to spoil anybody's fun, but ....

Do you guys who so passionately want either Clark or Edwards to be the VP candidate get it that none of us on the outside have the slightest bit of influence over who is ultimately tapped?

It's not about who's the best pick, the decision will be made at the top levels of the Kerry campaign in coordination with the DNC as usual. You can fight about it all you want, but none of us have any say in this at all.

Sorry to bring reality into your discussion. Carry on.:eyes:

[Scoopie]

6. I agree with you and know this to be true

However, my goal with this thread is to get people talking about WHY there is a divide - not that we don't have any influence over the choice.
That's all.

[Auntie Bush]

9. I think we all agree with that!

Good thing we don't...Heads would roll and the mods would quit!
But it is still fun!

[AP]

19. Then Edwards doesn't have a chance. DNC doesn't like him.

He didn't vote for their trade bills as often as they would have liked.

[troublemaker]

30. We obviously don't influence whether we invade countries either, but

people still enjoy talking about it.

[ThatPoetGuy]

8. Excellent post

You've managed to express many of my own ideas, such as the Daddy and Mommy parties, and done so quite well.

I'm also behind Clark.

The voters who look for a nurturing president, who found one when Clinton heard our pain, will vote for any Democratic ticket.

The voters who look for a protective president, one who will keep them safe, will vote for Kerry-Clark.

It means, basically, we get every vote except the Freepers.

[Auntie Bush]

10. "It means, basically, we get every vote except the Freepers."

Right on! LANDSIDE!!! :bounce:

[angryinoville]

11. My love for Clark...

stems from the fact that he represents everything that I would look for in a president (and now VP). War hero/army general, Rhodes scholar, debate team captain, professor (taught economics at college level) speaks 6 or 7 languages, white hair and chiseled face make him look like a president, has a well thought out answer for all questions, and comes across as very genuine. He just seems like the kind of guy you could have a great conversation with and cut out all the bs. Edwards doesn't possess many of these qualities in my mind.

[goclark]

119. Clark is a Global not a Regional

candidate. He can lead and yet he can be a team player.

He is a GOOD and HONEST man.
We need that in the Vice President and the President.
It would be a real change.


:bounce:

[Justice]

12. Clark and Edwards

reminds me of Clinton (but without Monica-issues. I think integrity, safety, solid, authority, empathy, intelligence, vision.

Edwards makes me feel optimistic about the future. I think intelligence, empathy, caring, fighter, dedication, happy.

Both are strong, great men. So much better than Cheney, et al.

[Nicholas_J]

13. To be honest

I think almost evertthing points to Gephardt getting the nomination.

MOst articles point out one very strong thing that makes an Edwards nomination unlikely and that is the issue of not selecting a running mate who could outshine the presidential candidate personality wise.

The most obvious choices with this as a consideration, are either Gephardt, or Evan Bayh.

SInce 1960, every VP selection has been a first tier candidate during the election process, has been an opponent for the nomination, and so, this leaves Gepahrdt as the likely nomination.

While the polls are boosting Edwards as being the most desired running mate, Kerry has consistantly displayed on characteristic, during his career, but especially during this campaign. That is his tendency to not pay attention to polls, and in fact, to frequently act in opposition to what the polls are indicating. While the anti war movement was riding a large wave, and the polls indicated very strong opposition to going into Iraq without the U.N. Dean jumped onto the anti-war bandwagon, becasue the polls indicated that was the place to be. Kerry did not, but maintained the position that he held continually, that the problem of Saddam Hussein had to be deal with, but not pre-emptively and not without the United Nations.

We can see who won, and what effect the polls had on it.

[Thrill]

14. I have said since this

begun. Watch out for the suprise guy. Mark Warner.

[Nicholas_J]

16. I think Kerry will choose

Someone from the midwest. Kerry is solid in the Northeast. Every state in the Northeast is SOLID blue, and Kerry has double digit lead in every state in that region. Kerry solidly hold New England, New York. Both New Jersey and Maryland are in high sigle digit leads for Kerry. Pennsylvania and Ohio are moving stringly towards Kerry. Iowa, Illinois.

Much of the northern tier of midwest states are starting to move into solid blue territory, Like Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan

What Kerry needs is to firm up those states that he is in the lead, but not as stronly as in other states. In the midwest, that gives us Illinois and Iowa, where Kerry has a lead. Now Missouri has not only droppoed out of the strong red, away from the leaning towards red, and is now in too close to tell territory.Kerry needs a regional chouce from the midwest to give him as much a chance of taking those states as possible. Gephardt, Evan Bayh, and Tom Vilsack all have the regional popularity to strenthen Kerry in that area. Most of the deep South is solid red. Edwards North Carolina is stringly leaning towards Bush. Arkansas is too close to tell, but the rest of states around both North Carolina and Arkansas are likely to be Bush wins regardless of who Kerry selects as VP. Edwards mighe be able to give him North Carolina, Clark, has a better chance of giving him Arkansas, but it is the midwest that will make the election for Kerry, not the south. And a midwesterner on the ticket will do far more to assure this than a southerner.

[Aspe4]

122. you don't

necessarily have to choose a vp because he brings a state though. Bush didn'y seriously think Cheney was going to bring in Wyoming's 3 electoral votes and there was no need for Gore to get Lieberman's Connecticut that was already solidly Democratic. I think Kerry needs Edwards to round out his ticket with qualities he doesn't have, not whether Edwards will win NC (though that could be possible).

[JI7]

15. with Kerry's decision to compete in Virginia do you still think Gep

you are right about kerry and his record ofnot always doing what the polls show especially in terms of how it will help in elections.

but with his decision to compete in virginia, do you still think it will be gephardt ? even if not edwards, it could be mark warner, or wes clark if he wants to play up the military thing since virginia has a large military population.

[AP]

21. Being anti-war was never an option for the likely nominee.

Kerry is going to win without having been anti-war, and any democrat in the GE who was anti-war would have easily been cast as anti-national security, and that would have been a decision based on the polls.

Dean wasn't even anti-war, and he didn't want to be the anti-war candidate. The media cast him as that (passing over Kucinich) and Dean took it up because it was good for getting money. But he also must have known that that position was never going to be successful in the GE (again, the polls must have suggested as much).

Actually, only Clark, having been in the military, had the remotest chance of getting anywhere while being anti-war, but, clearly, voters rejected all the candidates who seemed too anti-war.

[PeaceProgProsp]

17. "Gravitas" and "Clinton" aren't two words I don't put together.

And I don't think Clinton suffered by not seeming sufficiently grave.

I think that a lot of boomers saw themselves in Clinton and I think that's a powerful democratizing perception that's MORE important when the neo-fascists are trying to roll back all FDR's advancements by appealing to fear and danger and terror.

[Thrill]

20. No one from the Midwest will help

Kerry there anymore than Edwards. Edwards can appeal to midwesterns just as much as Gep or Vilsack. Vilsack is a weak speaker especially on the stump. And Cheney will probably eat him up in debates

[emulatorloo]

22. In polls - Kerry beats bush on all but Terror - Which VP is best then?

Kerry beats bush on economy, on war in iraq, but bush still beats Kerry on War on Terror.

Which potential VP helps him in that area?

[Darkamber]

26. There hasn't been a poll with the effects of Kerry/Clark

Although I support Edwards as the best pick, I wouldn't mind Clark. And I would like to see a poll like the recent CBS poll that shows what votes come to Kerry with Clark as the VP.

They did it with McCain and Edwards, but not Clark. It was interesting that Edwards brought Military votes with him in that pair, but I think that is because of Edwards war stand. And Edwards brought some more conservatives and independents.

I just really wish they would have done Clark. I really would have liked to have seen what the effect of that pairing would be.

[troublemaker]

28. Clark's probably worth 4 points in such polling

Not McCain's 8 points, but pretty good. (That's obviously just my thinking since there's no public data one way of the other)

Funny how nobody on TV is mentioning why Kerry does better with a VP added... it's probably not so much because America loves John Edwards who most haven't even heard of, but because hearing Cheney's name in the question costs Bush a few points.

[robbedvoter]

38. Can you guess why not? Who makes the polls? A hint:

GOP pollster Luntz revealed Limbaugh's role in new survey
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405250004

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, CEO and president of Luntz Research Companies, appeared as a guest on the May 21 FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes to present the results of his new poll that purportedly showed that a plurality of Democrats say if they had the choice they would prefer Senator Hillary Clinton over Senator John Kerry as their presidential nominee. Luntz admitted radio host Rush Limbaugh had a role in instigating the survey:

[Darkamber]

44. What democrats was he talking to?

Hillary represents in my view a love/hate view in Democrats. If the GOP want to promote anything to make sure that Bush wins it would be to promote Hillary.

Both Clark and Edwards can attract more conservatives, independents and swing republicans. The groups that threaten Bush if they come to Kerry. While this is my opinion, I think these same groups would run from Kerry if he brought on Hillary as a VP. I know my husband, who is a lifelong Democrat said he would vote Nader if Kerry brought on Hillary as his VP.

[robbedvoter]

60. Point was it's the RNC media deciding what gets polled and what doesn't

And that's why Kerry Clark is not polled. Joe Conason said the VRWC would do their best to stop such a ticket because it would demolish the GOP as the tough guys/wimpy dems stereotypes.

[Darkamber]

89. Sorry...can't believe that....

Personally, I think media is motivated by money and big stories. I don't buy that the the RNC is out controlling the polls. If they were then Bush would be ahead or something like that.

I think they wanted the Kerry/McCain polling because it was a story. But they had to include atleast one other Democrat. Prior polling as shown Edwards as the most popular choice among Democrats..leading double digits over the other choices. So most likely they picked him because they only wanted to spend the money on two options.

The big story wasn't Edwards at all, but McCain. That is what was on the radio and the news...Kerry/McCain. Why? Because it was interesting and exciting and thus sells. And I expect that if Clark had the highest poll numbers with Democrats they would have gone with him against McCain.

Even with all that...I still would have liked to have seen the Kerry/Clark data.

[PurityOfEssence]

23. Some thoughts

from an early and vigorous Edwards supporter.

The real problem is that the two were inevitable adversaries: both from the South, from somewhat humble origins, and somewhat outsiders. Clark--to his great credit--saw Edwards as a very serious opponent when many others had written him off, and was very tactically engaged from the beginning. Since they were fighting for much of the same constituency, they were born to lock horns, as were their respective followers. I'd say that the competition for the same voters is more of an explanation for the ongoing enmity than the issues or the individuals themselves, but here are a few to distinguish the two guys.

Clark is more of a corporatist and Edwards more of an anti-corporatist.

Clark had the heft of military experience, and the "correct" take on the war, even though many of us aren't convinced that he'd have voted against the resolution if he'd been in office.

Edwards' experience is in the civilian world, where one has to make his/her way with remarkably few rules and the consent of constantly fluctuating mini-coalitions. Clark's is in a rigid hierarchical structure, where rank guarantees some control, but the Byzantine maneuverings are ever-present. Both, although extremely different dynamics, are good training grounds for politicians.

The prism of character issues are so personal, that they really are a question of one's taste in people. Edwards can come off as too slick to some who are suspicious of the smooth and gregarious, and Clark can come off as inconsistent and muddled to those who are looking for polish and finesse in their politicians.

Beyond all this, there were moments in the campaign when things happened that simply stuck in peoples' craws.

It was, lest we forget, the season of dashed hopes, and there was quite a roller-coaster ride for all. Clark burst onto the scene as an instant front-runner, and many felt he was entitled to it. Edwards was the ONLY candidate who picked up steam after Iowa; every other candidate either held steady of fell off. Much of the tenor from the more strident Clark supporters smacked of conservative rhetoric, and boiled down to this: bend to our superiority, loser, and get out of the way. Edwards not only didn't slink off and accept inferiority, he improved, and was very competitive. That galled many of the more vocal Clark supporters, and extremists define the terms in life.

The infighting as Edwards was possibly getting a shot sat very badly with some of us, and Edwards' very existence was galling to many Clark supporters, sapping, as it did, their guy's support.

At the end, Clark went very negative, using lies (voting record, tax-cut votes, etc.) that had been long-since disproven when Dean used them; this, too, sat very badly with many of us. It shows poor judgement, questionable ethics and just general sloppiness; any one of which is a truly bad trait for a leader.

Having said all that, Clark was a newcomer and out of his element. He's a hell of a fast learner, and is also quite tactically suited to the profession, and some of his actions are understandable in the heat and emotion of the situation. He's a pretty decent guy, for all that, and he has a lot to offer the world, but I just absolutely hate lying; that's why I don't really like Clinton. To his credit, Clark only engaged in this in the clutch, but then again: the value of a person is not determined by how he/she acts at his/her birthday party, but in moments of dire stress.

[Scoopie]

25. Thank you

for answering the question - even though I don't think Clark lied. In fact, I never heard him engage Edwards at all.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. He certainly did after Oklahoma

Knowing that he had to do well in Tennessee, he hit so hard that the Edwards campaign responded with a press release refuting allegations and asking for a retraction. Instead of a retraction, Clark hit back with more distortions.

Clark lied. Edwards voted against all of the tax cuts, as did Kerry. The one "tax cut" that they voted for was part of a bill of relief for NYC after 9-11, wasn't a major part of the vote, and only applied to small businesses hurt by the attacks. This was deliberately misrepresenting facts, since the "Bush Tax Cuts" are public shorthand for the '01 tax cuts and the '03 dividend tax cuts. At one point where the latter was unstoppable, Democratic Senators did try to float a smaller cut as a compromise to lessen the damage, but this just shows that they were tireless in their opposition and fighting a dogged rearguard action. Dean used these lies earlier and was called out for it, so it's not like Clark didn't know. Clark's a smart guy, but this wasn't his finest hour.

The statistical distortion of Edwards' voting record that Clark made so much hay about in Tennessee is deliberate misrepresentation and well beyond the pale of excusable misspeaking. Sorry, but the end of Clark's campaign was a moral embarrassment.

[AP]

43. Another thing that Clark said that was misleading...

...was that his tax plan was more progressive than Edwards's.

Clark may have wanted not to charge anyone under 52K any fed income tax, but his plan would have actually been less burdensome on people like himself than Edwards's plan would have been.

Edwards's plan was going to tax capital gains at two tiers, with the higher tier starting at 300K. Edwards also had repeatedly made the point that he wanted to shif the tax burden off people who work for a living, and one of the ways to do that was to acknoweldge that the highest income earneres in the US weren't making it from earned income, and he wanted those people to pay more in taxes.

Clark had just sold 1 million worth of stocks he bought with money he got from a Goldman Sachs loan. The way that Clark made that money was exactly the way Edwards was talking about during the campaign as being too lightly taxed relatively to people who worked for a living. Edwards would have increased Clark's tax bill by over $140K just on that transaction. That's only fair since Clark risked nothing and barely worked to earn all that money.

I thought it was dishonest of clark to tell TN and VA voters that Edwards's plan was less progressive for them without disclosing that it would have actually increased his tax burden.

That's a misrepresentation that an economics professor shouldn't have made.

Who's side is Clark on when he says things like that?

[Qutzupalotl]

45. But Clark had already sold his stock.

And if his plan were implemented, it would be because he'd be president, and making $400k with no dependents. So he'd be paying higher taxes.

You may resent the way he made money off that transaction, but consider how much risk he took on. I agree that it's not "work", though.

I thought Clark's tax plan was the most progressive one I'd seen, because of the lifting of the tax burden from low income families. The burden has to go somewhere, and that's to the top earners.

[spooky3]

46. "The terms ensured that Clark bore no financial risk."

Clark was paid $555,000 in consulting fees for his 21/2 years on the board, Clark aides said. Goldman Sachs also arranged for him to acquire stock in Messer worth more than $500,000, through a low-interest loan by Messer that Goldman Sachs purchased the same day it was made. The terms ensured that Clark bore no financial risk.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58300-2004Jan28_2.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I think you are straying afar from the point of this thread

This was meant to be an overview discussion of the causes of seeming divisions between Clark and Edwards supporters.

The last thing Democrats need now is to replay old wars over who is purer than who over individual issues. None of us get a chance to vote for Clark or Edwards anymore. With the exception of Kucinich (sort of) no Democrats are still competing with each other. Edwards is richer than Clark. Clark made more money than Edwards last year. So what? Did they break the law? Are we still in the business of digging up lines of attack that Republicans can use against us?

[AP]

56. At least we're having a discussion about how the tax code works.

And that -- I've argued since I first came to DU -- is probably the most important policy issue in America today since it is the RW's NUMBER ONE tool for transferring midddle class wealth straight to the top of the income pyramid.

[spooky3]

58. I'm simply pointing out a factual error from the prior comment.

Please go back and reread the prior comment and mine, and please do not infer intent that was not expressed.

[Qutzupalotl]

53. I stand corrected.

Thanks for the clarification, spooky3.

[AP]

47. How's that relevant? The point is Clark said that Edwards's plan wasn't

progressive while failing to mention that it would have taxed him more on income that he earned over 300K from a no-risk business deal.

It was a wilful misrepresentation of Edward's plan designed to hit Edwards where he was strongest.

Also, notice that Clark's first-52K tax free plan was a benefit EVERYONE rcv'd. Even Clark would have rcvd it.

Say Clark got 90% of his income from selling stocks and only made 100k in earned income. Clark would have just given himself a HUGE tax cut. How's that progressive?

Clark's tax plan may have sounded progressive to people making less than 52K, but I'm not sure it was all that progressive.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. I wish you would give it a rest but I doubt you will

Please read my last post about the point of this thread, but go ahead and be cynical about Clark if you must. The logical extension of your arguments is that Clark was running for President so that he could manipulate the tax codes so that he could personally pay less taxes. If that is not the case, than you should look at his and Edward's and Dean's and Kerry's etc tax plans from the perspective of how they will effect average Americans, and most especially poorer ones. That's how the electorate looks at it. Many thought Clark's plan was quite progressive from that vantage point. Others thought Edwards had a nifty and progressive scheme etc. I wish we as Democratic party activists would follow the lead of the candidates we supported. None of them are revisiting the areas of conflict between them during the Primaries. All of them are doing their best to show a United Democratic front behind Kerry. All of them are out their trying to help the Democrats retake the White House. Speaking ill of our own guys merely undercuts the effectiveness of Kerry's key surrogates, because all of them are just that.

[AP]

54. I didn't start this discussion about taxes, I didn't start this subthread,

and I didn't start this thread.

What I wrote is responsive to the post to which I responded, which is responsive to the post to which it responded, which was responsive to the original post.

And your summary is not the logical conclusion of my post.

Purity made an argument about why Clark made the statement about Edwards's position on taxes, and I merely offered aditional evidence that related to taxes.

Purity aslo commented that Clark came off more as the pro-corporate candidate, and THAT was the point to which I alluded with my question at the end of my post.

My point is also that Clark's plan looks more progressive to someone making less than 52K in the same way that a flat tax with a huge deductible seems progressive if your income is at or under the deductible limit. The truth is, unless rich people are paying a larger % of their income in taxes, it isn't progressive, and Edwards's plan was more progressive in that it increased to 25% tax on rich people's main source of income: unearned income... capital gains. And it selected out people making over 300K for this special treatment. That's progressive. And, in that it would have taxed Clark more (he was the kind of person Edwards was trying to get to pull more weight) it was clearly pretty progressive.

I'm not trying to promote disunity, but I think there are several good reasons to bring this up. Among those reasons is that it lets people know where Edwards supporters are coming from (we can do math and we understand how the tax code works).

Also, I'm not saying any of these candidates are RW. I'm saying that if you want to talk about progressivity, giving everyone (even the rich who don't need it) their first 52K in income tax free might not do the trick. I think it's OK to continue to break down the candidate's policies and do a close analysis of what they mean.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. OK I agree a discussion of what is Progressive taxation is a good thing

And perhaps my comment to you and the other that I made above was partially off base, but only partially lol. A discussion of relative tax burdens is core to Democratic Party values, certainly. As I recall all of our candidates had plans that were significantly more progressive than Bush's, and while they went around claiming that their own was better than the other guys, I don't think anyone accused anyone of being regressive, and relatively speaking, no one was. It was always an argument about who was more progressive.

I just am wary about reliving the intra democrat attack phase we just came out of from the Primaries. If someone wants to start a discussion about progressive Tax plans, that's great. If we dig up and through all the statements made about each other by all our candidates while they were directly competing with each other, more of us will walk away highly distressed than not. That's really my point. "To every thing, turn , turn , turn..."

[Qutzupalotl]

52. Because it's a one-time deal.

You implied that he was working for his own self-interest. If he were president, he'd be getting a president's salary, not stock income.

[AP]

55. I wasn't saying he was self-interested. Say he got elected, his tax plan

relative to Ewdwards's would be a huge boon for people similary situated him -- financiers and people who can arange to earn their money by selling stocks rather than by getting paid a salary.

Whether Clark is in that category or not, it's still bad policy. And I was a little miffed that Clark was contributing to confusion about how the tax code works, rather than helping people clarify in their minds how it works.

It was not cool.

[Sopianae]

63. You make it sound as if his plan was helping "financiers." LOL!

His plan would help the poorest families who need help most. It also includes a 5 percentage point increase in the tax rate on income over $1 million per year (in addition to repealing the Bush tax cut on income over $200,000.) It looks pretty progressive to me.

Btw, he is also committed to simplifying capital taxation which affects a lot of middle-class families (not just fininciers as you put it).

[AP]

73. Many super rich people have income over 1 million that isn't earned.

Like Clark, it's dividend income or income from capital gains.

Clark himself would have been taxed more by Edwards's plans than his own because Edwards's plan was designed to target the people who since '98 have been paying very low rates on capital gains. (Look at Kerry's wife -- she had an effective rate of taxation of 14%, even though she is deriving dividend and cap gains income on over a half billion dollars in assets. Why? Because 15% is the highest rate she's taxed on any of her income.)

I think I read somewhere that although 50% of Americans own stock, 98% is owned by 2% of Americans.

The low rate of taxation on cap gains (and now dividends) is a huge way that the tax burden has been shifted on to people who work for a living (the vast majority of Americans) and off of people who don't get their income from working (the top 1 or 2 percent).

I don't think you can talk about progressive taxation without talking bluntly about people who make money the way Clark made money in 2003, and without explaining how you are going to capture that income in a way that is much more fair. If a secretary is going to pay an effective rate of 25%, Theresa better be paying 30% -- but the reality is that Theresa probably only needs to pay an effective rate of about 18% and we could lower the secretaries' effective rate to 12%, and we could have IBM pay about 20% to round out the difference. Edwards was having that conversation. Clark was trying to blow smoke.

Clark may have wanted to start a new bracket on income over 1 million, but HE probably didn't even have earned income that was in that bracket. He made the bulk of his income in 2003 by selling stock which was taxed at either 15% if he held the stock for a year, or 25% if not, which is a lot lower than the 38-44.5% rate he wants to tax earned income over 1 million.

I'm not really that mad at Clark and I know he wants to make the tax code mroe progressive. I'm just disappointed that, in order to hurt Edwards in TN and VA, rather than tell people why his tax plan (or any other policy of his) was better than Edwards, he chose to mislead people about Edwards's plan and about the tax code generally.

[Sopianae]

76. When did he mislead people about Edwards's tax plan?

Clark's plan is better. It is not perfect. He wanted to simplify the capital gains tax code as well. He understands the problem. I agree with you that capital gains should be taxed higher. But for working low- and middle-income families his plan is BETTER. PERIOD.

Also, it is insulting that you keep assuming that his tax plan is based on how it would affect his own tax burden. This is a man who risked his life to save others more than once. He also risked his career to save others. His plan is NOT based on what would benefit himself. :grr:

His focus was on helping the families that needed help the MOST. His plan would have provided substantial tax relief to more than 30 million families. All of it paid by raising the tax on the wealthiest Americans.

The BEST tax plan should incorporate both of their ideas. But when you have to pick one Clark's plan wins hands down.

[AP]

80. By saying it wasn't progressive, when he knows...

...that the point of Edwards's plan is to shift the tax burden off of people who work for a living, and to ask people who get their income from unearned sources (dividend and cap gains to bear more of the burden, especially, cap gains earners who make more than 300K).

Clark's plan would shift the burden off of people who can arrange to get their income through cap gain and dividends (eg, financiers, CEOs, etc) and on to people who sell their services directly to the public (a doctor in private practice or a lawyer who doesn't represent big corporations can't ask their clients and patients to pay them in stock options, or to form a corporation with them through which they'll issue dividends). Granted, Clarks plan wouldn't start to burden the income earners more than the financiers until they reached 100K in income, however, 100K in income is two school teachers. Furthermore, the people who make 100K or more in EARNED income are the engines of our economy. We can't throw the tax yolk on them and tell them to pull ALL the weight. And, contrary to Republican myth, the people who can get a no-risk loan from Goldman Sachs to buy stock in a company they advised a couple times, are NOT the engine of economic growth in this country, and we can't keep shoveling huge amounts of wealth (along with political and cultural power) their way taxed at 15%, rather than 30 or 40% and expect this country not to turn into a banana republic in short order.

Just because Clark risked his life in combat doesn't mean he's entitled to not tell the whole story about the difference between his tax plan and Edwards's. Furthermore, it doesn't mean he gets a pass on full disclosure.

Frankly, I don't think Clark's plan would raise enough money. Like I said, the first 52K tax-free applies to everyone. It's a benefit millionaires get, and it's a benefit poor people get. So it's a revenue reducer. Certainly people will do productive things with that money which will raise revenue, but you still have to deal with the fact that cap gains and dividend tax rates are so much lower than earned income rates.

Jacking up the top rate on earned income will simply increase the push to pay executives with preferred stocks that pay large dividends taxed at 15%. Here's what would happen under Clark's plan: The only people who would pay the higher rates on earned incomes will be doctors, lawyers, artists and athletes (ie, people who get paid by the public). Everyone who works for a corporation will try to draw SALARIES as close to 52K as possible, and they'd ask for the rest of their compensation in the form of dividend paying stocks and stock options.

So people who don't work within corporate America (regular people who earn 100K and up) will begin to pay 15% effective rates at about 100K in income, and that rate will increase to about 40% as you get closer to a million, and will level out at about 42% from that point on. Meanwhile, people who do what Clark does these days will pay a 15 to 20% effective rates of taxation. And when it turns out that we're not generating enough tax revenue, then what happens? We can't afford to do anything? Do we make it up from fees and from state taxes? Do you raise the rates higher on earned income without touching unearned income? There was a big hole in Clark's plan. Eventually he's going to have to address the fact that he'd be burdening workers (albeit, 100K and up earners) more than financiers. When was he going to address that? When they had even more wealth and power so that the hierarchy would be totally entrenched and impossible to break down?

As an aside, many people would say that the work people like Clark do (financiers) creates economic inefficiencies, and that it is work by income earners that creates REAL wealth in America. So we shouldn't be charging people who work for a living more for the money they make than we charge financiers. If you want America to work again, you have to encourage work by burdening it less.

That was the core of John Edwards's message during the campaign, and it resonated deeply in his tax plan. And I don't think it was very cool of Clark to mislead people on this issue in TN and VA. He could say that he had a higher rate on earned income over 1 mil, but until he talked about the fact that the richest people in America are not getting their money from earned income, and that the way we treat cap gains and dividends is the reason we have such an unfair tax structure, he wasn't telling the whole truth.

[Sopianae]

84. HUH?

Just because Clark risked his life in combat doesn't mean he's entitled to not tell the whole story about the difference between his tax plan and Edwards's.

HUH? I mentioned his willingness to sacrifice for others because you basically accused him of basing his tax plan on self-interest. He is just not that kind of a person. Where did I say that he is entitled to do anything? :wtf:

Furthermore, it doesn't mean he gets a pass on full disclosure.

What are you talking about? He opened up all of his records. Also, where did I say that he should get a pass on anything? :eyes:


And I don't think it was very cool of Clark to mislead people on this issue in TN and VA. He could say that he had a higher rate on earned income over 1 mil, but until he talked about the fact that the richest people in America are not getting their money from earned income, and that the way we treat cap gains and dividends is the reason we have such an unfair tax structure, he wasn't telling the whole truth.

HUH? Just because he didn't talk about capital gains it does NOT mean that he mislead anybody about anything. YOUR argument IS very misleading, though.

Again, I agree with you that capital gains should be taxed higher and that would make the tax code fairer. But that doesn't justify any of your charges against Clark.

[AP]

85. Whether or not you're acting in a self-interested manner, it's always

good to disclose when the things you're arguing for would benefit you imensely relative to the thing you're criticizing, especially when you're claiming that your plan will mean that rich people bear a larger tax burden.

I'm not saying that he was motivated by self-interest. I'm just saying I'd respect him more if he acknowledge the relative impact of the tax plans on him, especially since he knows the point of Edwards's plan was to make people like him bear a fair tax burden.

Furthermore, his milarty record has nothing to do with his tax plan.

Also, I don't think I'm being misleading at all. I think I've set this out very honestly and clearly.

[Sopianae]

87. Minor correction

I never said that his military record has anything to do with his tax plan. The point I was trying to make is that his heroism reveals his character which in turn gives insight into his motivations in general.

[robbedvoter]

68. I remember Edwards on This week being caught lying by Snafi

if we are talking embarrassement, let's look at the transcript, shall we?
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2004/2/9/16042/22236

[AP]

74. What's the lie?

[robbedvoter]

79. They are all spelled out at my link:

If this is what they were referring to (although it's not Oct 6th, it's
Sept 22nd), then Edwards lied on three counts:

1. He voted NAY.
2. McCain did not even vote on that one.
3. Chuck Hagel voted NAY.
Also Sens. Kennedy, Harkin, Kerry, Wellstone, Lieberman, Biden, Cleland
and others voted YAY.

But the embarrassing matlock moment was when he said "no I didn't" and Snafi put the roll call under his eyes (also available at the link).
For all the dissembling done prior to that, he WAS the only Dem in a list of GOP-ers - and it was a Wellstone amendment he voted against. So then he started with new arguments about what else was in the law (kinda like W's rationale for war - ever-changing). It was GLORIOUS!

[AP]

82. The Oct 6 vote shows that Edwards voted the same as Hagel and McCain.

So, when Edwards says "some of those votes I voted with McCain and Hagel..." he was telling the truth.

I even think Steph was asking about the Oct 6 vote specifically.

Show me where I'm wrong.

Also, I heard David Axelrod talking about Bush's "Kerry voted against body armour" ads are so stupid because there was no "body armour" bill -- these things are part lf bigger bills, that include all sorts of things, or they're compromise bills.

He says that Bush commericial is ridiculous for that reason.

Clark's criticism of Edwards on this count is the same sort of thing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. I agree with much, not all, of what you have to say

Even being on our best behavior it is hard for either of us to not see the comparison between the two men except through the prism of factors which attracted us to one of them in the first place. I think your post in sincere, and appreciated in that spirit, though from my vantage point I see bias. Some of the Clark supporter posts here I am sure seem biased toward Clark.

Most of what I differ with can be found in one paragraph of yours, which includes these comments:
"Clark burst onto the scene as an instant front-runner, and many felt he was entitled to it." And "Much of the tenor from the more strident Clark supporters smacked of conservative rhetoric, and boiled down to this: bend to our superiority, loser, and get out of the way. Edwards not only didn't slink off and accept inferiority, he improved, and was very competitive. That galled many of the more vocal Clark supporters".

The "entitlement" view of Clark for President never came form Clark or Clark's supporters, it came from the supporters of other candidates who were suspicious of Clark's motives and saw him as a tool of the political establishment attempting to regain control of the Democratic party from upstart grassroots activists. It was their view that Clark was sent into the race by Clinton to do his bidding, assuming that Clinton somehow felt entitled to pick our candidate. The media at the time, especially the right wing slanted media, absolutely LOVED to view Democratic Party politics as a never ending progression of Clinton conspiracies. Clark supporters not surprisingly simply saw Wesley Clark as a gift. We believed he really really SHOULD be our President NOW, much as Dean supporters felt about their guy. The "instant front runner status", it is obvious to me now, provided a perfect set up for the media to immediately start tearing down Clark as a failed candidate, when an infant campaign, with thin staffing, little initial money, and no time for a shakedown cruise, ran into its first choppy waters. From that time the media tag line for Clark became: "disappointing".

Most of the tenor of Clark supporters I read here smacked of Progressive rhetoric, if rhetoric you must call it. Sure a rivalry developed between Clark and Edwards supporters, but the dominant rivalry for the longest time was between Clark and Dean supporters. A constant theme there was which man was MORE progressive. When someone like I commented on the importance of having a Presidential candidate who was highly credible on matters of National Security, I didn't see that as conservative rhetoric, I saw that as political reality, and not undeservedly so. It is not inherently Liberal or Conservative to believe that our Nation's leader should be experienced and skilled at International relations, especially in a time of real and present dangers. Clark being up for the job as we perceive it, has a lot to do with why some Clark supporters backed him rather than Dean or Edwards.

When I spoke of the value of having a Presidential candidate who could reframe and reclaim concepts like Patriotism, Service, and Family Values, it wasn't to pander to the Right, it was to wrest FROM the Right basic and essential American beliefs that had been hijacked for narrow ideological purposes.

The issues many Clark supporters have about Edwards at its root goes to questions about his depth and breadth of experience, and of his ultimate sincerity. Edwards is clearly a highly competent man with leadership skills. He clearly is a Democrat who fits well within our Party, but it is a rather large Party after all. You spoke of Clark being Corporate and Edwards anti Corporate. It probably won't surprise you that I don't see it that way. I saw Clark as having achieved his life standing outside and beyond the influence of moneyed special interests, and I saw Edwards as someone who for most of his adult life gathered great personal wealth, and swam in moneyed circles.

I saw Clark leaning on some of Clinton's old domestic advisers as a realistic short term fix for his need to instantly produce realms of position papers on domestic economic issues. Clark is brilliant and has a better grasp of economics that most politicians, but he needed a coherent structure of talking points, and he needed them quickly. He would have been dead meet had he said, "Look, I know what my guiding principles are, but I will need a few months to familiarize myself with various economic options. Trust me, I'll get the best talent available together, and we'll come up with some proposals later."

Here is an area where many of Clark's progressive supporters admittedly took a leap of faith. We saw a man who grew up with a very modest middle class background, who from an early age put service to his country above personal gain, who worked almost his entire career at middle class wages (moving over time form lower middle class to upper middle class, but not breaking $100,000 a year until the last few years of his career) and who was comfortable working in a system that was dependent on the general well being and loyalty of the entire "work force", down to its lowest levels. I trusted whose side Clark was ultimately on. And his Income tax reform proposal was astonishingly progressive for working Americans when he finally unveiled it.

I did look at Edwards early on as someone who I might end up supporting. Not as my first choice admittedly, since I was solid for Clark, but as my second or third choice. I liked him more at first blush than at second blush. The one thing that I am rock solid certain of about Clark is that he sincerely is exactly who he presents himself to be. I worked in psychology for a long time, I worked in movements for a long time. Clark is a straight arrow true believer. You get what you hear. I am not as confident with Edwards. I loved what he was saying in the debates. Actually it was his stump speech that gave me the most trouble. Trouble is I watched CSPAN and saw it too often. Repetition made me see how carefully rehearsed it was, I could see the heart strings that he was attempting to yank in the audience.

Here is why I believe Edwards may in fact have the potential to be a great President or Vice President, beyond his obvious inherent ability. First, he did grow up poor. That does mean something to me, though I know in life that some of those who did now have actual disdain for those who still are. I also know that some people learn what to say to win votes, and exactly how to say it. Edwards does not have a long enough and solid enough progressive record for me to truly feel on solid ground with him in trusting the depth of his sincerity. Which brings me to number two. I took note of Edward's life story, of how the loss of his son seemingly profoundly changed his life course. That could be the key. Edwards learned some pretty slick skills in his wealth accumulation days, perhaps he now really wants to turn those skills toward a greater social good. He may have had a real break through and defining moment that profoundly altered his personal values. I am open to believing that.

Beyond that I agree with much of what you said about the natural, almost unavoidable, rivalry that developed between the men and their camps. Probably the only thing Edwards actually did that stuck in the craw of Clark supporters was his attempt to claim a tie for third in NH and a tie for first in Oklahoma. That and his refrain after Iowa, which kept gathering in intensity, that the race was boiling down to him against Kerry. I don't blame him for attempting to establish that perception, but that was where Edwards came off sounding like he was "entitled" to a shot at Kerry, if only the rest of the riff raff would just get out of the way. Though Clark "beat" Edwards in the first contest they both competed in in NH, he only public ally said he was glad to be in the final four. The "clear the field for me and Kerry" was unique to the Edwards camp.

Clark supporters were much more angry at the media than at Edwards, jealousy is more the emotion we felt toward Edwards from Iowa on. Jealousy that Edwards got ample coverage starting with Iowa, while Clark was relatively starved, despite both men showing flashes of strength. Clark did go after Edwards some in the last week or two. Without revisiting that time in depth, I'll admit that some half truths were spoken, mild compared to much that passed as political discourse throughout the primaries, including much that was thrown at Clark. In reality Clark ran a very positive campaign for many months, yet he rarely was given credit for that. It seems the media chose Edwards, who also ran a positive campaign, to focus on in that regard. So Edwards got some positive press for being positive, while Clark did not. Given the media blockade he was facing in his efforts to get free air time, Clark experimented at the very end with going mildly negative, and I do know that it infuriated some of Edward's people.

[LuLu550]

35. Well put, Tom!

How was your trip back to the Catskills after Monday's festivities? Did you see the pictures? LuLu :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Hey Lulu!

Trip back went fine. We stayed overnight in the City, took in the South Street Ship Port in the AM, and took the train back up the Hudson Valley. Great trip and a great event (launching of WESPAC - seeing Wes go at it again!) How 'bout for you? No, I haven't seen the pics yet, guess I better get busy and go looking. Sure hope we get more opportunities to meet like that!

[Jai4WKC08]

98. I know you like to play "peace-maker" Tom

But I think you've forgotten a lot of the ugliness in Edwards' campaign directed at Clark. Hugh Shelton, for example. And the follow-on response by whatshername, Edwards' communications director (who's now working for Kerry in Ohio, fwiw). And Edwards' own snotty reply.

Then there was that whole business of the attack notebook (not solely against Clark, of course) that Edwards disavowed knowledge of. Yeah right. And there were a number of dirty tricks reported by Clark campaigners in TN and Virginia as well--some of which may have been reciprocated, but that doesn't mean the Edwards people weren't guilty too.

I'll admit there's there's some "jealousy" on my part over the media coverage that Edwards got post-Iowa, but a large part of it is the media meme that Edwards ran such a "positive, sunny, upbeat" campaign when he played just as dirty as anyone and the media never reported it.

I also think you're incorrect about "half-truths" on Edwards' voting record. Clark never lied about anything he said. Sure, he only pointed to the votes that made Edwards look bad--what was he supposed to do, present a complete analysis of Edwards' congressional record? I don't think that's how campaigns work. ;) But there wasn't one thing that Clark said that wasn't completely true, so far as he went. It's wrong to give on that point.

[PeaceProgProsp]

34. That was a really easy read.

Thanks for that.

I think you've captured precisely my perception of the way events unfolded.

Simple, elegant, and true.

[Scoopie]

24. Erm...

Don't you guys get the question?
I'm not asking you who would be the best VP nom...
I'm asking WHY there is a great divide among Clarkies and Edwardians...
I'm not asking about Geppy or McCain.

PLEASE... I'm asking for the answer to the difference!!!!


Geez. For an Indpendent, I'm doing more to forward Dem unity than you guys are! We can't unite if we don't know our differences.

[troublemaker]

29. What divide? The only divide is personal

Few Clarkies hate Edwards or visa versa. The divide is because some folks relay really REALLY like one or the other. That's all.

There's no ideological content to the divide that I can see.

It's a win-win argument, like THE BEATLES vs. THE ROLLING STONES.

(Howard Dean is THE WHO. Kucnich is BUFFALO SPRINGFIELD. KERRY is, unfortunately, PAUL REVERE AND THE RAIDERS.)

[LuLu550]

37. Hey, wait a minute!

I LIKED Paul Revere and the Raiders.....

[Scoopie]

96. HOWARD DEAN IS NOT THE WHO!!

That's blasphemy!!!

:)

Before Wes Clark, I wanted to marry Pete Townshend. ;)



Edited to include my fave shot of the best lyricist in the world :D

[troublemaker]

27. Edwards adds little to the ticket

(If anyone take this as a criticism of Edwards the man, the senator or the presidential candidate, you're doing so in defiance of the meanings of the words used. I like Edwards, but this isn't about who *shoulda* won the primaries but about who should be VP)

All of Edwards' strengths are negated by the compressed national media driven last months of a presidential campaign. Edwards is likable up close and seductive if you listen to an entire speech, but who has ever listened to an entire speech from a VP candidate late in an election year? People who are going to vote for the ticket no matter what, that's who.

Clark adds everything to the ticket. His weaknesses as a candidate are not weakness as a VP in a national campaign. He's a walking resume... a one-man talking point... a *symbol* of earnest military seriousness. Just the thing that's needed. He's a reassurance to those (and they really exist, sadly) who fear that Kerry might sell us out to the A-rabs. (He also won't be the subject of a whisper campaign about whether we can afford to have a neophyte thrust into the office when the terrorists shoot down Air Force One.) Clark also has great name recognition provided 'former four star general' is part of his name. Everybody knows what that means.

Edwards would have had real possibilities on the top of a ticket but that's not the question before us. As a VP pick he's almost in Dan Qualye territory. A real WTF??? kind of pick.

BTW I have no objection to Kerry lifting Edwards' stump speech. It's wonderful and hard to object to.

[PATRICK]

31. As an Edwards supporter

both are such good choices I find it very easy to sit back and let those individuals, now testing themselves and some of these theories in the field, make up there own minds and be perfectly content with the results since Kerry is dominating in the top spot and showing hard steady competence.

By all means the publicity of ticket selection is good. Potential hard feelings are bad if not downright out of bounds. Edwards keeping a Senate seat, ironically on Kerry's coattails MIGHT be more a necessity unless he can increase the annihilation gap so significantly his presence on the ticket would more than make up the difference.

Things are definitely resolving, but if there is a change in the current climate, in hindsight it will have been much better to hold off on the selection.

I really like Clarke and his supporters, by the way. It's great to have such differences and still trust and support the other. Of course anyone can go righteously negative on the whole field, but that leaves us with Bush.

[Claire Beth]

33. I like both of them! n/t

[robbedvoter]

36. One opposed war, the other would have started it and said 911 justified

Iraq. That's pretty much the bare bones for me.

[JohnLocke]

49. It's really easy for Clark to say. He wasn't in the Senate at the time.

[robbedvoter]

71. Not in the senate. Testified to Congress in Oct 2003 against the war

Wellstone used his testimony in his speech opposing the war.

"We have succeeded in destroying some Al Qaida forces, but many of its operatives have scattered, their will to kill Americans still strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the support of allies, including hopefully Arab and Muslim allies, would limit possible damage to that coalition and our anti-terrorism efforts. But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstoneaction.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=1865&catID=298


(21 other senators voted against the war as well, BTW)

[JohnLocke]

51. Edwards never said September 11 justified Iraq. Give me a LINK.

:wtf:

[robbedvoter]

59. In the South Carolina debate - corrected Kerry on it:

"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
Glad you don't question he said he'd start a war with Iraq had he been POTUS in W's place - my posts were not completely wasted!

[spooky3]

72. as has been posted here MANY times, there is NOTHING in the lines

you quoted, nor in the transcript as a whole, that supports your claim.

[JohnLocke]

75. Uh... what does that quote have to do with Iraq?

:wtf:

[Sopianae]

77. Read the transcript.

They were talking about the exaggeration of intelligence and the justification for the war in Iraq. Kerry insisted that they exaggerated the threat:

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.


Several minutes later, Edward had to "correct" Kerry on the issue of exaggeration:

Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.

Again, they were clearly talking about the justification for the war in Iraq. And what did Edwards do? He brought up 9/11. The best RNC talking point.

[JohnLocke]

78. He never mentions Iraq! WTF?

He was responding to Kerry's quote that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated.

[robbedvoter]

81. AS A REASON FOR WAR IN IRAQ - Kerry said connection Saddam - AlQuaeda

was exaggerated, Edwards said - no, it was just the thing!
The question WAS about the war in Iraq as all Kerrys examples demonstrate.
It was important enough for him to take time from his own question and jump on Kerry's answer (about Iraq). Moderate Independent had this to say at the time:


http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2scdebate.htm
That was completely absurd and a huge moment in this debate.  Edwards, whose weakest point already is his lack of gravitas and foreign policy credentials, now said flat out that he is incapable of understanding that, despite the fact that 9/11 occurred, the President could still have lied and exaggerated.
What does one have to do with the other?  The answer is nothing.
To stand there and assert that you can't say, "there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives," is to buy into the most basic lies of the Bush administration.  It is the sort of thing the amoral puppets at FOX News assert.
9/11 occurring did not make Saddam have WMDs, and if the President exaggerated, as the Carnegie Report detailed him and his administration doing, then he exaggerated, regardless of what else happened.  There is no connection, and no useful presidential candidate would ever assert that allowing the slaughter of American people somehow means that it is impossible for lying to exist.  What is the connection?

[JohnLocke]

83. That is a LIE and you know it!

Where is the word 'Iraq,' robbedvoter? Where?

BROKAW: Senator Edwards, do you think they would get enough help from our so-called Arab allies in this fight that is going on between those members of the Islamic movement who believe that we're unworthy and heathens in this country, and what the Bush administration is trying to do to close that schism that exists in too many areas?
EDWARDS: I think the answer is no, we don't get enough help in a lot of areas.
For example, the Saudi royals, who we're so dependent on Saudi Arabia for our oil, and we've not moved this country in the direction we need to go toward energy independence, which is desperately needed; cleaner, alternative sources of energy, more fuel-efficient vehicles, because we're so dependent on them for oil, the fact we don't get the cooperation we need from them.
And there's a complete disconnect between the leadership, not only in Saudi Arabia, but in a number of these Islamic countries and their people and their attitudes toward America.
Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.
I think the problem here is the administration is not doing the things, number one, that need to be done to keep this country safe, both here and abroad.
And number two, the president actually has to be able to do two things at once. This president thinks his presidency is only about the war on terrorism, only about national security. Those things are critical for a commander in chief. The president of the United States has to actually be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time, has to be able to do two things at the same time.

[robbedvoter]

117. Part you're omitting is in # 77

All about the lies W used to get us in Iraq. That was the question asked of kerry (kerry's most brilliant answer in that debate) and question Edwards wanted a shot at. he jumped at it from his question only to say: "no exaggeration, 911 was good enough to make us go in Iraq"



Which only matches what he told Mathews
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.
snip

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.
snip

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no. "


I wouldn't throw "liar around so easy if I were you. Blonde ambition humiliated himself by doing just that.

[Sopianae]

86. Kerry said that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated

then he gave some examples. All of them were used to justify the war in Iraq. His point was that they exaggerated the threat of terrorism in order to justify the war in Iraq.

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!


Edited for spelling.

[AP]

57. Where did Edwards say 911 justified the war?

[Capn Sunshine]

41. And the funniest thing is,

neither of the viewpoints accomodates the possibilty of Howard Dean, the man they mosts loved to flame.
It's a gimme, guys, go for it.

[robbedvoter]

42. Why were Deanies going for the pro-war guy then? Splain it to me.

Why did you support the guy who said would have started tha war with Iraq?
Was it conviction or fan club stuff?

[robbedvoter]

61. ***Crickets*****

[Exgeneral]

64. Wasn't it DEAN who asked for his folks to support Kerry

IN SPITE of the anti war vote? Something about " getting * out of office?

[Exgeneral]

65. ****crickets*****

[robbedvoter]

70. I appreciated that you waited a whole minute before the "crickets" post

Mine was added 3 hours later. And I am still waiting to hear from one deanie on that.

[robbedvoter]

67. Only after asking people to support Edwards and Edwards dropped

(before the closing of the polls - so as not to miss prime time). After that, Dean endorsed the presumptive nominee - the rational move. I still don't understand however why Dean supporters want the guy who said he would have started the war as VP.

I seem to remember a conference call where Edwards was connected by Dean to his supporters. An official endorsement was forthcoming, but somehow, the next results made it too lame to happen.

[Darkamber]

88. There were more reasons then the war for Dean supporters

Part of the reason I think you feel the way you do and many Clark supporters feel the way they do is that Foreign Policy and the war are the main important issues you have. For Edwards supporters is not the key issue..we have other issues...econocmy, education, health care and change.

Many Dean supporters are against the war, but they also wanted change. They wanted to take America back and give it to the people. TO many of them Kerry did not represent 'change'. He represented the 'establishment' and the way things have always been. Edwards was change. He reached out to them and touched them and brought them to him. Kerry didn't or assumed that they should support him. Also, both Kerry and Edwards voted for the war and voted for other issues that Dean was against. Both Kerry and Edwards has the same tax plan. Kerry voted as a Free Trader and Edwards positions were more anti-NAFTA. Clark was not an option. He supported Kerry.

Dean did not endorse either Kerry or Edwards but kept quiet. His supporters split the way they felt was the way they wanted to go. They made their choices on their own and without any input from Dean. To them both Kerry and Edwards voted FOR the war. Kerry switched his position and Edwards held firm to his position. Edwards held because though he believes that it was wrong to go in without an exit plan and without our allies, he believed it was good to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And Edwards never said he would have "started a war". Give me the quote where Edwards said, "I will start the war in Iraq" There is no such quote because it doesn't exist. And many Dean supporters want Dean himself for VP. Edwards is a Populist and Clark is a military man...a four star general. Dean supporters are generally young. They hold things like Education as important. Edwards can reach to them because he's like them. He worked his way through a state university.

And in the end, many of the Dean supporters could care less about who is VP. They have turned to just supporting getting Senate and House races and doing other grassroots things for Democrats in general. If you really want to know how Dean supporters feel, you should post over at the Daily KOS. There are a ton of Dean supporters over there. Ask them who they support and why.

[LandOLincoln]

91. As a matter of fact that quote DOES exist. Haven't time to

Google it now but IIRC he was on Hardball or maybe MTP. In any case, after Edwards said he believed Bush had done the right thing by invading Iraq, the interviewer said something like, "So if you had been president you would have gone into Iraq?"

and Edwards said, "Yes, I would have gone into Iraq."

[AP]

92. Based on the evidence he saw...

That's what everyone here criticizing Edwards refuses to deal with. Edwards has cosistently said that based on the evidence he saw -- presuming it was accurate -- he doesn't regret his choice. He also says that he wants an investigation of that evidence.

He has said that he looked critically at all the evidence that was presented. He didn't trust the Niger Uranium claim, but he trusted much of the other evidence.

What is wrong with that?

That's why Challabi is being investigated. That's why we have a 9/11 commission.

Does anyone really believe that the neocons expected Demcorats to fall in line with no good evidence. The neocons have spent 10 years fabricating evidence to get to this point. By saying Edwards and Kerry are now neocons, you're blaming the victims of the fraud.

[LandOLincoln]

93. I was responding to the poster who claimed flatly that Edwards had

never said he would have invaded Iraq if he'd been in Bush's place. Clearly that poster (Darkamber) was just plain wrong.

And exactly where do you find me saying that Kerry and Edwards are Neocons???

[Darkamber]

123. I asked for a quote and you found it...

The question was why Dean supporters did not flock to Clark for VP because of the war issue and I pointed out why Edwards was more appealing to them then Clark.

However, I do acknowledge you found the quote below with the exception that he says he could have gone about differently. He doesn't say how in that quote, but with his other policy I know he would have gone in with more support and had a clear exit plan.

If the only issue any supporter has is that we should have never gone in to begin with then Edwards is not their man. To me, that issue is not as important as many other things. For that matter, I don't think Kerry would have been your man either.

Given the information that was provided at the time, I think I felt exactly the same as Edwards. Also, Edwards is not attacked by the right for his war stand. Another thing you should listen to is Bush is now changing his policy so it looks and sounds almost exactly like Kerry's.

[troublemaker]

66. Personal pique

Kerry is the devil! Let's throw our support to a more conservative and grossly under-informed neophyte.

[robbedvoter]

69. Yeah, that's what I thought too.

[Capn Sunshine]

90. what a perfect description of Edwards

:nuke:

[last1standing]

94. Why do you presume "Deanies" are one issue voters?

Are you trying to say that Clark supporters are more complex then Dean supporters? I hope not. I voted for Dean and now support Kerry. I would be happy with Edwards or Clark for VP as either would provide benefits to the ticket.

What doesn't help is posters who continue to insult a large group here at DU. When will this nonsense end?

[Scoopie]

95. OK... so the Edwards people miss the point of

this post.
It wasn't to argue Clark v. Edwards... geesch!
It was to say WHY you think there is a great divide.

Instead, I get the same shit, different day.

For the last time: WHY DO CLARK SUPPORTERS WANT NATIONAL SECURITY TO BE THE ISSUE AND EDWARD SUPPORTERS THINK IT'S STILL "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID."

Sorry. I really don't mean to blow up - but AP, Purity - you guys really missed the point and drug a few Clarkies along with you.

[Sopianae]

97. I don't think Clark supporters want national security to be the issue

They just know that it IS the issue this time. It is a referendum on the incumbent. We also know that Kerry beats Bush in almost every other area. Still, we can't win unless we can convince the public that Kerry is better at defending the country. It doesn't matter that we know how incompetent Bush is. We have to attack on their (perceived) strongest issue. Clark can help on this front, Edwards can't.

It is naive to think that we decide what the central issue will be. We have to talk about jobs, education and health care. But we have to knock national security out of the way FIRST. It is NOT playing on fear or using Republican scare tactics. On the contrary, IF we can convince the public that they are "safe with us" THEN we can start focusing on domestic issues and voters can decide on these issues.

[Jai4WKC08]

99. If I may be perfectly honest...

I think a lot of the conflict between Edwardniacs and Clarkies, if not the emotion behind it, is rooted in one thing and one thing alone. We're both looking to 2012. Or 2008 if, God forbid, Kerry doesn't win. A standing VP has the decisive edge in getting the nomination--it was practically handed to Al Gore. And a former VP nominee has an definite advantage--Lieberman started strong and failed on his own personality and policy positions, but I submit he wouldn't have even been able to mount a credible campaign at all if he hadn't been Gore's running mate.

We are essentially fighting the presidential nomination battle of the future. We may couch it in terms of what each offers to Kerry (altho I think Edwardniacs are more likely to admit they are looking forward to the next race--because Edwards doesn't offer much now, imo). The heated emotions may be based more on what happened in 03/04, and from this Clarkie's perspective, get emflamed by the repetition of all the old lies. But fundmentally, each camp is still hanging on to the dream of their own guy in the top position. As Seinfeld would say, not that there's anything wrong with that. It doesn't mean that we support Kerry any less--he's the guy who MUST win now or we're all screwed.

But let's face facts. Both Edwards and Clark have a good shot at winning the next nomination, whether '08 or '12, even with the powerhouses currently growing up within the party. Edwards as VP gets some experience in foreign policy, which he desparately needs, and 4-8 years to grow a little older and look more "serious." Clark as VP gets the campaign experience, a shot at hiring a first-class campaign staff who will know his strengths and weaknesses, and believe in him, and the simple name recognition he never had.

And then there's the converse. What happens to our guys if they aren't VP? Clark may be Secretary of State, if the Dems take the Senate. That's a big "if." National Security Advisor is a step down from where he's been already, altho he might take it anyway. If Clark's not in Kerry's cabinet, there are no good opportunities in Arkansas likely to keep him in public service, and most of Clark's supporters are crushed to even consider his not continuing to contribute his talents and experience.

Edwards is in a similar boat. He's given up his Senate seat, so he's out of NC politics, at least in the near term. He may be Attorney General, altho that position usually goes to someone with prosecutorial experience. Or maybe Sec of Labor or Commerce or something else even less prominent, and less conducive to keeping his name up front to support another run.

I'm not saying we don't all believe everything we say about our guys with respect to the election and the follow-on Kerry administration. I don't doubt the sincerity of Edwardniacs about how great their guy is on the stump and how he can win votes (I doubt their "facts," but not their sincerity). And I am confident that every Clarkie on DU is absolutely convinced that Clark as VP is the best shot that Kerry has to defeat the "war president" who is "keeping America safe from terrorists," as well as that Clark actually can do some of that once in office. I just don't think all of that is the root of the conflict.

[AP]

100. Why doesn't Clark run for Senate? Doesn't Ark have a Republican Senator?

Clark would easily win that race, and being elected to something is exactly what he needs on his resume. It would help him transition his person from general to civilian democratic representative, which would make him much more interesting to a lot of democrats who still see only a uniform when they look at him.

[Jai4WKC08]

101. Nope, not an option imo

Both of Arkansas' senators are Democrats, and both endorsed Clark. He's not about to run against either. Besides, one seat is up for reelection this year, and the other not until 2008.

Now, Arkansas does have a Republican governor, who's a jerk, and probably a crook (aren't they all?) and who can't run for reelection in 2006 for term-limit reasons anyway. But there's already a solid and popular Democrat declared to run for the nomination. I don't see Clark trying to push his way in, and I'm not sure he's that interested anyway--he has essentially done "governor stuff" even if a lot of people don't realize it, and his greatest interest lies in foreign policy and national defense. This may come as a shock, and I realize people who don't support him may not accept this, but Clark did not enter politics for the "glory," but to contribute what he's best able for the good of the nation. Which is at the national level. As a senator, he could do some of that. Not as a governor.

Besides, from the perspective of my original argument, NOT from what Clark may or may not want, the governor job doesn't do much for setting him up for another presidential run. His biggest problem was name recognition, and how many people know who backwater-state governors are? He had more media exposure as SACEUR and then CNN analyst during the first part of the Iraq war than he would ever get as governor of Arkansas. Besides, he'd be sort of expected to run for a second term in 2010, and that's precisely when he'd need to start thinking about another presidential run, if that's his intention. He can't do both, and he can't really launch a national campaign within a month or two of the start of a second term in 2011.

[AP]

Ark. gov was a pretty good platform for Clinton...

...and we all know the Gov's have an advantage when running for president because, as Clinton said, when you're a gov you can stand for something -- you have a policy agenda realized in actual programs. You can fill out the persona you claim to be with concrete facts.

I appreciate that Clark may feel that his best contributions can be made in foregin policy areas, but if you want to be President, some times you have to pya dues to get to place you might not be already. If people need to see Clark as an elected chief executive with a clear, well-rounded policy agenda that is more encompassing than just foreign policy before the feel comfortable voting for him as president, he might have to pay his dues as governor first. (And I'm not saying that he needs that, I'm just saying "if...").

BTW, I don't think Clark's problem was name recognition. Wasn't he doing really well in the polls before he announced? I don't recall him being low on name recognition polls, but I could be wrong.

[Jai4WKC08]

108. How many terms was Clinton AK governor?

He was a much younger man when he started, I know that. He's only a few years older than Kerry and Clark now.

Clark will be 67 in 2012, 68 when he could take office in 2013. If he did two terms as AK governor, which I think would be a minimum, he couldn't run for president until 2016, taking office at the age of 72. Not technically too old for a first term, but it would be pushing it.

And besides, who knows whether there will even be an opening in the Democratic field in 2016?

Remember now, I'm not in any way suggesting that Clark would be interested in either the governorship OR another run for president, whether he's VP or not. I have no idea, and to tell the truth, if he wants to stay home and play golf once Bush is out, that's fine with me--he's earned it. I'm just talking from my original assertion that the root of conflict between our two camps is a desire for another shot at the presidency.

[AP]

112. If Clinton had been a general, ran for pres, didn't win, then was governor

he might have needed a term or less to convert that to a successful presidential run.

But then again, look at Colin Powell. He's never been elected to anything, but I understand that polls had him beating Clinton had he run in 96. However, I suspect Clinton still would have won when it came down to campaigning.l

[Jai4WKC08]

116. There's no way Clark would consider...

running a second time for president before he'd finished his first term as governor. Just wouldn't happen. I think I said that, but if I didn't (and it may have seemed obvious to me), let me say it now. That's not the way he operates. As I know I did say, he would probably feel obligated to run for a second term as governor, and the timing would be lousy to start a 2012 run for president.

As for Colin Powell, I don't remember the poll, but it's quite likely. But then, Clark's initial polling jumped way ahead of all contenders. It's the phenomenon of a new face to take on the incumbent, and being a general didn't hurt.

I do remember a draft Powell/Kasselbaum movement, or maybe it was Kasselbaum/Powell... don't remember exactly. But of course, Powell declined consideration, due to his wife's objections, so it's really all moot.

Ironically, Clark held off for months because of his wife's concerns too. It's a big sacrifice for a family. Any family, but especially a military family, where the military spouse has been gone so much in the course of the career already. Not that I think that was Alma Powell's primary concern.

[LandOLincoln]

103. Look, AP, the simple fact is, it's your man who needs experience and

seasoning, not ours. I think we all agree that John Edwards is the future of the Democratic party; however, John Kerry and Wes Clark are the present--and that's where we live, you know--in the here and now.

Wes doesn't need the kind of on-the-job training that JRE does; he's already been there and done that, all of it. He's had head-of-state status as SACEUR; he's dealt as an equal with all the NATO heads of state like Blair, Schroeder, Chirac, et al., he held the 19-nation NATO alliance together and fought a successful war in Kosovo, all the while battling a hostile Pentagon and a Republican SecDef who waited until the war was over and won before he stabbed Clark in the back for his impertinence in being right all along. May William Cohen rot in obscurity for his scumminess and weaseltude. /rant

JRE is 8 years younger than Wes Clark and 9 years younger than JFK. That's two whole election cycles, by my count. What's yer bleedin hurry?

The VP, first and foremost, has to be someone who can take over the reins of power without a pause if something should happen to the president. Wes Clark can do that without missing a beat.

So here's what I'm thinking: Wes for VP now; then he wins the presidency in 2012 when he's still a youthful and vigorous 67 (just for comparison, Teresa Heinz Kerry is 65)--or maybe in 2008 if Kerry is worn out from cleaning out the BushCo litterbox--and Wes picks an older and by that time more seasoned JRE as his running mate.

Then in 2012/2016 JRE steps up to the plate, picks Harold Ford or Mark Warner as his running mate, and we manage to keep the White House in Dem hands for the next 12-20 years at least.

At which point the new Ice Age dawns and the human race is history anyway.

Pretty neat, huh?

[AP]

104. Lighten up. I'm trying to be constructive.

I'm not talking about experience. I'm talking about persona and perception. I'm trying to help figure out why it was that voters didn't respond to Clark in the primaries and offering ideas for improving...

[LandOLincoln]

105. Wull shiver mah timbers, and here I thought this was all about

who would make the best VP candidate in 2004, and why.

And if you think I need to lighten up, I think you need to turn your laugh-o-meter up a coupla notches.

[AP]

106. That's the new rule here? All posts have to be precisely on topic?

For future reference, in posts that I start, I welcome everyone to go off on tagents. So long as you have something interesting to say, say it.

[Jai4WKC08]

107. BS

You will never figure out "why it was that voters didn't respond to Clark in the primaries" until you recognize two things:

1) the role the media played
2) a helluva lot of voters DID respond.

Since you refuse to consider either, you will never figure it out, and I personally don't think you really want to--it's just an avenue of restating over and over that they did not.

I would also like to ask, why is it that Edwardniacs always say, "I'm not talking about experience. I'm talking about persona and perception." Trick question--I know the answer. Edwards has no experience, only "persona." And media plays too big a role in perceptions.

[AP]

109. I'm not surprised that you don't care about how politicans are perceived.

[Jai4WKC08]

110. Ah, but I never said I didn't

I merely wondered why you said you weren't talking about experience. Somehow you folks never do.

So don't try to pull a "nyah nyah same to you" reversal. I care about both. I just believe that Clark is perceived just fine by the people who get a chance to perceive him. That takes media.

You think it's a coincidence that Clark is shooting up the VP polls, now that he's getting media exposure thru the Kerry campaign?

[AP]

111. I wasn't talking about experience because I've talked about enough in...

...other posts.

I bet if I gave you test on what I believe about experience you could probably pass it if you really wanted to.

By the way, what VP polls are you talking about? DU VP polls?

[Jai4WKC08]

113. No idea what you're talking about

As far as a test. I know Edwards is deficient in experience to be President, and thus for VP. If you support(ed) him for either, then you can't care about experience. Period.

As for polls, there are many, some internet, some not.

Here of course, Now, granted Clark has always tended to do well of DU polls, especially after Dean and Kucinich fell out (to some extent--I know they both still have their supporters, and rightly so). But my only reason for even mentioning DU is because Clark's support for VP is much higher here than it was for President. And it has grown. A lot of Kerry folks like him (understandably--a lot of Kerry folks value foreign policy experience). A lot of Dean folks like him because he's an out-sider and grassroots guy, and also because frankly, he's much more liberal than Edwards.

But forget DU. Last Marist poll, which was several weeks ago, Clark had gained on Edwards a long way from the one before, esp among non-Democrats. I'm betting if one were taken today, he'd do even better still. I've also seen a couple other non-internet polls, the last one that Clark won outright was from a NY newpaper.

Internet polls are problematic, of course, but that never stopped the Edwardniacs from hawking CNN's, did it? What about MSNBC's? Clark went from way behind Edwards, to one point behind, to first place two weeks running now. And with somewhere around 10,000 votes, you can hardly accuse the on-line Clarkies of freeping enough to make a difference. LOL--as if the Edwards community couldn't (and don't) do the same.

Not only that one, of course. I'd say I've seen at least a half-dozen on-line polls where Clark has won, or come in a strong second.

Let me ask you. Can you find one recent poll where Clark has done more poorly than he did in an earlier version? Or even the same?

[AP]

114. When Edwards won the CNN poll, I don't think anyone felt the need...

...to have a separate celebration thread for it. Furthermore, I can't think of many people who ever even refer to it in order to make arguments about Edwards.

[AP]

115. I couldn't find the Marist poll.

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/

[AP]

120. I found the polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

(1) Marist College Poll. April 20-23, 2004. N=787 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (total sample).

"Which one of the following Democrats would you most like to see Senator John Kerry choose to run with him as vice president . . . ?" Names and titles read

 -------- John Edwards--Wesley Clark
ALL Reg.
Voters % --28-14

Dem. &
Leaners % --34- 12

So, among All voters, Edwards does twice as well, and just Dems+leaners, he does almost three times as well. He loses 6 points, and Unsure, Nunn Vilsack and Clark each pick up a few points. It seems to be Nunn that gets a lot more support from Repubs. Surprised to see that Edwards doesn't improve, but those Republicans include a lot of people who want the Dems to lose, and the pole was closed -- ie, they didn't get suggest McCain. So, this doesn't include only Republicans likely to vote Dem -- which was Edwards's strength.

(2) FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 21-22, 2004. N=376 Democratic voters nationwide.

"Is there anyone in particular you would like to see on the 2004 Democratic ticket as John Kerry's running mate?" Open-ended

John Edwards
18
Hillary Clinton
9
Howard Dean
4
Wesley Clark
3
This poll was taken at the same time. Why does Clark do poorly in this one relative to the other? Because this one is open ended, which increases the pool, turns it into a name recognition game, and includes Republicans. Also, the other poll included names and titles, and my guess is that Clark gets some mileage out of his title.

(3) Quinnipiac University Poll. March 16-22, 2004. N=1,865 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.3 (total sample).


"Who do you think John Kerry should select to be his vice-presidential running mate?" Among Democratic voters
John Edwards
27

Hillary Clinton
5

John McCain
3

Howard Dean
2

Richard Gephardt
2

Wesley Clark
1

It's not clear if this one is open-ended. That it includes Hil and McCain suggest it might be. However, the 'don't know' option (getting 52%) suggests maybe not.

Hard to draw conclusions, other than to say that it was pretty close to Super Tuesday and Edwards probably got a big bump from that. So either Edwards lost about a third of his support in a month pos-bump and Clark went from 1 to 3, or Edwards picked up 7 pts (25%) over the month with a closed-ended pole among Dems, and Clark picked up 11 pts.


There are more polls, but that's pretty much what they show. There was only one Marist poll, so it wasn't possible to identify a trend that was favorable for Clark over two identical polls.

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. Great post. Right on topic,

and not simply an opening for renewed Clark vs Edwards battles. I think you nailed the single most important factor in the "rivalry".

[robbedvoter]

118. Not to me. 2 points:1. Shelton 2, I would have started a war with Iraq

Can't vote for such a thing. Glad I won't have to.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/
MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

[LandOLincoln]

121. AHA! There's the quote I was referring to in #91 above.

Knew I didn't get it verbatim, but I was pretty close. Thanks, Robbedvoter.

[TexasSissy]

124. Kerry won't pick the young, good-lookin' Edwards. Count on it.

Why would he pick someone who steals the scene in every photo-shoot? It would not be wise.

As for Clark, I love Clark. I'd vote for him for Prez. Kerry's probably seriously considering him, but what would he bring to the ticket, really? Veteran status? Kerry's already got that. Foreign experience. Kerry's got that. War medals? Kerry's got that. Leadership experience? Hmmmm. Kerry's lacking that.

In fact, two military men on the ticket might be too much. Too macho looking.

But I'd love it if he chose Clark, AS LONG AS IT GETS THE INDEPENDENT VOTERS IN THE 16 SWING STATES TO VOTE FOR THE DEM. TICKET! I hope I hope I hope.