Wesley Clark Gaining Popularity with the Left?

[BonJoviJones]

Why is he unpopular with the dems? I don't really remember specifics, but I think I had a good impression of Clark during the last election (I'm pretty right-leaning). My one-off answer is, leftist, but still good on national security, seems like a winner. What's the deal? Does he have genital warts or something?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is he unpopular with the dems? I don't really remember specifics, but I think I had a good impression of Clark during the last election (I'm pretty right-leaning). My one-off answer is, leftist, but still good on national security, seems like a winner. What's the deal? Does he have genital warts or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what makes actual leftists scratch their heads; and this is nothing against you BonJoviJones. But when people on the left hear things like "Clark is a leftist" or "Hilary Clinton and the far left", they should realize the deck is stacked against them and they never had a chance.

[Matty]

We don't dislike him. He has about a 60-15 favorability rating among Dems and that 15% probably just don't like that he voted for Reagan and the responsible Bush. It's just a name recognition problem nationwide. Hillary could conceivably have $50 million in the bank by early '07, and there is a tendency to back the winning horse. Most of us liberals who closely follow politics really love Clark. I'm really putting my money on him being Hillary's VP.

There are many Democrats I would be happy with in 08, Warner, Clinton, etc. But only two could beat McCain (who really does have a chance at winning the Rep nomination) and they are Wesley Clark and John Edwards.

A friend of mine tapes FoxNews whenever Wes Clark on (he's a contributor for them now) and I gotta say, this man has potential out the roof. He could unite America like no one else. His failure to win the nomination in 04 was only due to his unbelievably late start and a general lack of preparedness.

Being from Virginia yourself, would you cross party lines for Warner?

[lehighguy]

John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal. And you can't beat his backround story.

Dems should ahve picked him in '04. He was the only candidate of the nince of them I liked at all.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal. And you can't beat his backround story.

Dems should ahve picked him in '04. He was the only candidate of the nince of them I liked at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted for him in the primary. I think he's done though (he probably doesn't think so).

-ptmusic

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edwards reputation during the 2004 campaign was that he was bad on the stump and wasn't much more than a good looking guy with a nice hairdo (IOW, he had no cache). Take it or leave it, but certainly after the primaries, 'great campaigner' and 'John Edwards' were not frequently heard together in the same sentence.

IMO, he's so photogenic that people don't take him as seriously as they might otherwise; and it unnecessarily contributes to the criticism that he's "too young" to be President, despite the fact President Bush was only two years older than Edwards when he became President.

[lehighguy]

I don't know. Like I said he was the only Democrat I could really stand when he opened his mouth. Even if I disagreed with him I got the feeling he cared alot and was trying to do his best.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]Edwards reputation during the 2004 campaign was that he was bad on the stump and wasn't much more than a good looking guy with a nice hairdo (IOW, he had no cache)

[/ QUOTE ]This is pretty much the opposite of the truth. lehighguy is right, we should have nominated him.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
John Edwards is a tremendous campaigner. He has huge personal energy and appeal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edwards reputation during the 2004 campaign was that he was bad on the stump and wasn't much more than a good looking guy with a nice hairdo (IOW, he had no cache)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much the opposite of the truth. lehighguy is right, we should have nominated him.

[/ QUOTE ]



Edwards's has won two elections in his life: his first victory came in his 1998 Senate race against an unpopular, 70-year-old first-term senator. Then he lost every presidential primary save South Carolina and was an ineffective campaigner for Kerry down the stretch. His supposed strength was that he could connect with Southerners, but forget carrying any southern states, or his home state: Edwards couldn't even carry his home precinct.

Like I said earlier, I like him alot and I don't think he's treated as seriously as he should be. But if he were even a medicore campaigner, let alone a tremendous campaigner (as some here have claimed) - he'd be President right now; he easily could have been a media darling. Consider all the characteristics about him we've mentioned - he's got a fantastic biography, a cute family, is highly telegenic/photogenic, had a "Two Americas" populist message that could even put a smile on Bill O'Reilly's face: put this all together and he should have ran away with the general election, let alone the primaries.

Why didn't he? He's got a reputation, and it's not a good one: many seem him as a stuffed shirt, a pretty face, a nice hairdo, and not much else. Is it a fair reputation? I don't think so. But it's certainly dogged him. But he certainly hasn't helped himself with lackluster campaigning/stump speeches.

[slamdunkpro]

The big spear through Edwards was that he made his millions as an ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer.