The best democrat candidate?

[afleitch]

I'm backing Edwards on this one too. Kerry will win New Hampshire, but Edwards will sweep South Carolina, Missouri (where he will pick up Gephardts old support), Oklahoma and Arizona. A month ago Clark was a dead cert to take these (after Dean took Iowa and New Hampshire we were told!), but the tide has turned against Clark.

[© tweed]

I'm backing Edwards on this one too. Kerry will win New Hampshire, but Edwards will sweep South Carolina, Missouri (where he will pick up Gephardts old support), Oklahoma and Arizona. A month ago Clark was a dead cert to take these (after Dean took Iowa and New Hampshire we were told!), but the tide has turned against Clark.

that's the best case secnario for Edwards.

[Huckleberry Finn]

All right. I have closed the poll. (because after NH primary situation will be different) It seems that Edwards is favourite number one. (51%!) The poll which showed that Kerry could defeat Bush obviously increased his credibility and got him some extra votes. But Clark.. I'm little surprised his zero popularity!

[opebo]

The more I think about it the more Kerry ties with Edwards in electability.  I think Edwards is a sort of Clinton figure but without Clinton's intelligence and depth of knowledge, and with the Trail Lawyer stigma attached.  On the whole I'm not sure he'd be any better than Kerry once Bush gets his campaign going and starts negative ads.  Kerry is left wing, but then again so is Edwards.  Edwards wouldn't win any southern states accept WV if you count that as Southern.  And I think Kerry would do just as well as Edwards in WI, MN, IA, OH, and PA, which is where the election will be decided.  Ok I'll include MO in that line-up though I really think it is securely Bush.  

The only thing Edwards has going for him is the Southern accent and the attractive appearance.  He is definitely not confidence inspiring, which will I think be even more important than inspiring a 'feel good' response.  The Clinton slimy but likeable appeal worked better in an era of peace and prosperity - I don't think Edward's Clitonesque strategy will work as well in an era of threats and anxiety.  Kerry seems reliable, and that is important right now with 'independents'.

[Gustaf]

The more I think about it the more Kerry ties with Edwards in electability.  I think Edwards is a sort of Clinton figure but without Clinton's intelligence and depth of knowledge, and with the Trail Lawyer stigma attached.  On the whole I'm not sure he'd be any better than Kerry once Bush gets his campaign going and starts negative ads.  Kerry is left wing, but then again so is Edwards.  Edwards wouldn't win any southern states accept WV if you count that as Southern.  And I think Kerry would do just as well as Edwards in WI, MN, IA, OH, and PA, which is where the election will be decided.  Ok I'll include MO in that line-up though I really think it is securely Bush.  

The only thing Edwards has going for him is the Southern accent and the attractive appearance.  He is definitely not confidence inspiring, which will I think be even more important than inspiring a 'feel good' response.  The Clinton slimy but likeable appeal worked better in an era of peace and prosperity - I don't think Edward's Clitonesque strategy will work as well in an era of threats and anxiety.  Kerry seems reliable, and that is important right now with 'independents'.

I'd say these are the liabilities with Edwards, but Kerry is an ugly robot! Sorry, I just have to say that...I don't know if Americans vote for that, but apparently they may. Edwards has an out-sider, poor Soutnern boy appeal that might work. But Edwards is a risk strategy that might work, but could fall flat, Kerry is more of a safe, generic Democrat.

[jravnsbo]

Kerry has a lot of stuff to defend, Ie 93% liberal voting rating, lt gov to dukakis, voting against the first gulf war, voting to cut CIA funding, but now complains about lack of good intel.

Edwards brings nothing electorally, little political expereince, no foreign policy experience, looks good, lack of knowledge as evidenced int he debate but too young to many.

I really don't think either will be a strong candidate in the general election.

[Beet]

Well Bush had no foreign policy experience in 2000 and allowed himself to be surrounded by ideologues, but that doesn't seem to have hurt him. He also had basically no political experience before running for Governor in 1994, and that wasn't even a national office like Edwards has, plus he didn't (maybe still doesnt) know what Slovenia was, so he really didn't know very much either.

[Gustaf]

Well Bush had no foreign policy experience in 2000 and allowed himself to be surrounded by ideologues, but that doesn't seem to have hurt him. He also had basically no political experience before running for Governor in 1994, and that wasn't even a national office like Edwards has, plus he didn't (maybe still doesnt) know what Slovenia was, so he really didn't know very much either.

How many Americans know what Slovenia is?

[Beet]

Well they don't know what the Federal Reserve is either so I guess thats one thing G. Bush and Al Sharpton have in common.

[Beet]

Ha ha.

[jravnsbo]

Yes but Bush grew up around all his father's advisors and always had his father to lean on for foreign policy questions.  Even democrats admit Bush 41 was about the best qualified foreign policy President in recent times.

Well Bush had no foreign policy experience in 2000 and allowed himself to be surrounded by ideologues, but that doesn't seem to have hurt him. He also had basically no political experience before running for Governor in 1994, and that wasn't even a national office like Edwards has, plus he didn't (maybe still doesnt) know what Slovenia was, so he really didn't know very much either.

[jravnsbo]

and really how many care?

Well Bush had no foreign policy experience in 2000 and allowed himself to be surrounded by ideologues, but that doesn't seem to have hurt him. He also had basically no political experience before running for Governor in 1994, and that wasn't even a national office like Edwards has, plus he didn't (maybe still doesnt) know what Slovenia was, so he really didn't know very much either.

How many Americans know what Slovenia is?

[Beet]

Yes but Bush grew up around all his father's advisors and always had his father to lean on for foreign policy questions.  Even democrats admit Bush 41 was about the best qualified foreign policy President in recent times.

Yes but Bush 43 despite his groomings was generally quite ignorant on foreign policy in 2000, in fact that was one of the biggest criticisms of him, while Gore had been VP for 8 years and before that had worked for decades in the government.

[Gustaf]

and really how many care?

Well Bush had no foreign policy experience in 2000 and allowed himself to be surrounded by ideologues, but that doesn't seem to have hurt him. He also had basically no political experience before running for Governor in 1994, and that wasn't even a national office like Edwards has, plus he didn't (maybe still doesnt) know what Slovenia was, so he really didn't know very much either.

How many Americans know what Slovenia is?

Most people don't care about anything, hence most people don't know anything, but that isn't really that relevant. Is it OK for me to be ignorant, b/c I don't care?

Now, you will say that Slovenia is not the world's most important country, and that's correct, but it still doesn't make it completely OK to not know stuff.

[StevenNick]

Asking which is the best democratic candidate is like asking which variety of cancer is best.

[mossy]

I vote for Clark.  He has Bush beat in every category I can think of.  This is a guy who found out the cholestoral level of his competion for promotion.  He finds out everything he can about his competition.  When the stakes are high, he has nerves of steel and icewater in his veins.

 That he held off announcing until Sept., drove those of us who wanted to draft him crazy by the delay.   But he was using his time quietly finding out everything he could about 9/11, confering with a variety Pentagon friends, ex-Presidents.   Remembering his statement of how he came to the decision to run as a Dem., it was not likely taken, but the only course of conscience he could take.  He could have gotten a red carpet treatment as a GOP.

IMHO he had his own game plan, and despite his competition had an entire year jump on him in organization, he's made a showing.    Whether he judged right in the delay, andn the acceptance of Fed. camp. matching, only time will tell.     If I am reading the GOP tea leaves correctly, they have had  him in the crosshairs for 2 months prior to his announcing,  and are busy dissing everything he says and a lot he never said.  But Clark is the toughest I've seen in a long time.   The GOP has met it's match.

Please count my vote.

[Huckleberry Finn]

Sorry Mossy, but I have locked voting. I think in any poll there must be some limited time for voting and it would be unfair towards others to unlock voting for just you.)

I think there will be right time for new poll after New Hampshire's primary.

Clark is superior candidate on foreign policy issues with his international and military experience!

[opebo]

I vote for Clark.  He has Bush beat in every category I can think of.  This is a guy who found out the cholestoral level of his competion for promotion.  He finds out everything he can about his competition.  When the stakes are high, he has nerves of steel and icewater in his veins.

 That he held off announcing until Sept., drove those of us who wanted to draft him crazy by the delay.   But he was using his time quietly finding out everything he could about 9/11, confering with a variety Pentagon friends, ex-Presidents.   Remembering his statement of how he came to the decision to run as a Dem., it was not likely taken, but the only course of conscience he could take.  He could have gotten a red carpet treatment as a GOP.

IMHO he had his own game plan, and despite his competition had an entire year jump on him in organization, he's made a showing.    Whether he judged right in the delay, andn the acceptance of Fed. camp. matching, only time will tell.     If I am reading the GOP tea leaves correctly, they have had  him in the crosshairs for 2 months prior to his announcing,  and are busy dissing everything he says and a lot he never said.  But Clark is the toughest I've seen in a long time.   The GOP has met it's match.

Please count my vote.

Wow, I thought he was a nut before, but now that I read that he apparently 'checked the cholesterol of his competitors for promotion' - that's downright creepy!  What a loon.

[M]

He used to scare me because I thought he could win, and would be an awful president. Now I think he's a sure loser, worse than Kerry.