Wesley Clark Gaining Popularity with the Left?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
If I bookmark the page will the url always take me here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, because it will undoubtedly be moved to the archive server by that time. One of us will just have to try to remember. Maybe we'll even both still be on 2+2 when the time comes. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[lehighguy]

To harsh. Politics is completely random. People vote on the most random bullshit. I give any candidate a 40% chance to win if they are the nominee.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
I give any candidate a 40% chance to win if they are the nominee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, unless it's Hillary Clinton. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the mainstream Republicans are onto McCain in that he's a RINO - I doubt they'll fall for that again.

Warner would be a disaster - He has been here in Virginia.

As a Democrat - How do you think Dean's being the party chair will affect Clinton & or Clark considering what they did to him in 2004 ?

[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.

[DVaut1]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the right always accuse the left of being enamored with trial lawyers? If so, that should have made Edwards even more popular among the Democratic base; but even in the primaries, his inability to connect with voters was evident, despite all the positive qualities he has - and I think a lot of this can be attributed to his reputation; a reputation that has developed, in part, to his substandard abilities as a campaigner.

[lehighguy]

Kerry and Edwards did very well in Iowa. Kerry defeated him narrowly. The entire primary process was over at that point. At least that's how it looked to me. The person who won Iowa just plain won. Clearly, winning that state didn't make you the best (look at Kerry) but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

The whole idea of elected primaries is a relatively new political concept and largely a failure in my mind. They should go back to party selection. It tended to produce more moderate and intelligent candidates.

[lehighguy]

Dean will become the Karl Rove of the democratic party. A mudslinger and dirty political games guy. He's not as good as Rove though.

[shots]

My take on Clark is that his run in 04 was just to get his name out there. When Hilary wins the primary she will pick clark as VP to try to "toughen up" the ticket, this could only be done after Clark's 04 run because no one knew who he was before that. This is just my own personal theory but I think it makes sense.