Clark is the most qualified

[cjboog]

Anyone else agree that Wes Clark is the best candidate for president?

I recently wrote a diary on DailyKos.com about Clark and I got a big response. I got 276 comment responses, 555 votes in my poll, and my diary got added to their list of recommended diaries because it was recommeded my so many people. Have a look and let me know what u think...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/9/185329/0784

 

[BVS]

When Sharpton can beat you, you know you're screwed.

Is he the most qualified? No, not at all. What makes him more qualified than others?

Don't get me wrong I like the guy alright, I just don't think he's electable.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Im sure that the "Rich New York money people" will stop him somehow.

 

[cjboog]

When Sharpton can beat you, you know you're screwed.

Is he the most qualified? No, not at all. What makes him more qualified than others?

Don't get me wrong I like the guy alright, I just don't think he's electable.

Explain to me how Sharpton beat Clark. Clark won Oklahoma and got second in several other states, the best Sharpton did was get 3rd in one state. Read what I wrote in my article and you would probably know that.

 

[BVS]

Explain to me how Sharpton beat Clark. Clark won Oklahoma and got second in several other states, the best Sharpton did was get 3rd in one state. Read what I wrote in my article and you would probably know that.

Sharpton beat him in South Carolina. It's right there on your link.

 

[cjboog]

Yah but that was only one state. Clark beat him in every other state while he was still in the race.

 

[BVS]

Yah but that was only one state. Clark beat him in every other state while he was still in the race.

But that's bad, even if it is one state.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Anyone else agree that Wes Clark is the best candidate for president?

I recently wrote a diary on DailyKos.com about Clark and I got a big response. I got 276 comment responses, 555 votes in my poll, and my diary got added to their list of recommended diaries because it was recommeded my so many people. Have a look and let me know what u think...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/9/185329/0784

Yeah, he's the most qualified; the most qualified to foam at the mouth at rant like a raving lunatic...he's even got Gore beat at that, and that's quite a feat.

 

[cjboog]

But that's bad, even if it is one state.

So by that logic it is TERRIBLE that Kerry lost to Clark in Oklahoma because Clark lost to Sharpton, even if it was one state, that was bad....and Kerry had a lot of difficulty with the rest of the nomination didn't he?

(sorry for the sarcasm, it's in my nature)

 

[BVS]

So by that logic it is TERRIBLE that Kerry lost to Clark in Oklahoma because Clark lost to Sharpton, even if it was one state, that was bad....and Kerry had a lot of difficulty with the rest of the nomination didn't he?

(sorry for the sarcasm, it's in my nature)

Well why don't you show me how he's more qualified rather than nitpick this one comment. I mean I read your article but it really didn't really answer the question.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

what's really bad for the dems in that last election isn't so much that many of them lost to al sharpton, it's that quite often al sharpton made the most sense... which is a frightening thought.

ya really gotta get annoyed at that... all they needed was a nominee with a pulse and they would have won the election, and they couldn't get that right.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

what's really bad for the dems in that last election isn't so much that many of them lost to al sharpton, it's that quite often al sharpton made the most sense... which is a frightening thought.

ya really gotta get annoyed at that... all they needed was a nominee with a pulse and they would have won the election, and they couldn't get that right.

I hate to agree with this, but it's true.

A lot of 2004 was run on "Anyone But Bush". Hopefully in '08 the focus will be back to the issues (which I know, it's usually hardly ever about the issues, and instead more of whoever has the most money/greatest spin doctors wins).

At this point, I haven't even decided who I might back. It's a scary thought that for the first time I may - may - even back a Republican (Gulliani).

 

[anitram]

At this point, I haven't even decided who I might back. It's a scary thought that for the first time I may - may - even back a Republican (Gulliani).

If I may - why?

Even if the Republicans had a reasonable candidate (and I don't believe Giuliani is one), I would never vote for him because it is clear that the party is completely destructive and antithetical to every concept of a modern liberal democracy.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

If I may - why?

Even if the Republicans had a reasonable candidate (and I don't believe Giuliani is one), I would never vote for him because it is clear that the party is completely destructive and antithetical to every concept of a modern liberal democracy.

I just thought of something, anitram. Didn't I read somewhere that if he registered he wouldn't neccesarily register as a Republican?

In any case, that may should have been typed in a 24 font.

The Dems would have to mess up pretty badly for me to make me even remotely consider that option.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i'm still holding out for bloomberg's self financed independent run

 

[LyricalDrug]

Clark ran a disastrous campaign in 2004. I think he's a great man and I admire him, but I wouldn't vote for him with a 10-foot pole.

Hillary is your racehorse, if you're looking to pick a winner. The Clintons know how to beat Republicans in elections. They simply do not lose elections.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Clark ran a disastrous campaign in 2004. I think he's a great man and I admire him, but I wouldn't vote for him with a 10-foot pole.

Hillary is your racehorse, if you're looking to pick a winner. The Clintons know how to beat Republicans in elections. They simply do not lose elections.

As a conservative, I hope Hilary does win the Democratic primary. I think that would guarantee a Republican victory. I am 100% serious about that.

 

[verte76]

I like Wes Clark. I signed onto his campaign in 2003, right after he announced. By the time the primaries got to my state (Alabama) Clark had dropped out and I voted for Kucinich. Yep, a Clarkie voted for Kucinich. I guess that shows there are liberals that would cast a vote for Clark.

 

[LyricalDrug]

As a conservative, I hope Hilary does win the Democratic primary. I think that would guarantee a Republican victory. I am 100% serious about that.

I know what you mean, and if I were a Republican, I would be excited by Hillary's getting the nomination, because it means that hardcore conservatives who REALLY dislike her (and yes, there are lots) may turn out in large numbers.

But here's why I think Hillary can still win:

1) the Republicans will have no "dirt" on Hillary. There are no skeletons in her closet -- conservatives have already dug up everything they can on her.

2) the Clintons don't lose elections. they are the only Democrats who ALWAYS beat Republicans. That's why they drive Republicans bonkers.

3) She'll be disciplined on the campaign trail. She won't make the same strategic mistakes that Gore and Kerry made.

 

[anitram]

Hillary has 101 problems but she is most certainly electable. If anything, Bush has made her more electable because he has split the country so much that 90% of the states will vote for whatever party they always vote for. The question will come down to maybe 3-4 states that can lean in either direction.

 

[BVS]

I hope Hilary does win the Democratic primary.

I think conservatives will be hard pressed to win an election in 2008. They can't bank on weak Democratic opponents this time around. True conservatives are pissed at the Republicans, and I don't see anyone running a neo-con campaign...

 

[verte76]

I don't think the Republicans can count on weak Democrats in 2008. If the Democrats have a solid, but not necessarily great candidate, they'll win. Not necessarily Hillary. I think Obama or Edwards could win, too.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Hilary won't win, fo several reasons.

No conservative female will vote for her.

No conservative male will vote for her.

Many men would not vote for a woman, no matter Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying whether that is a right attitude or wrong attitude, just a fact.

 

[anitram]

Many men would not vote for a woman, no matter Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying whether that is a right attitude or wrong attitude, just a fact.

In case you are not sure,

it is an APPALLING attitude.

 

[BVS]

Hilary won't win, fo several reasons.

No conservative female will vote for her.

No conservative male will vote for her.

Many men would not vote for a woman, no matter Republican or Democrat. I'm not saying whether that is a right attitude or wrong attitude, just a fact.

I agree, although it's funny how you on to someone about speaking for all women, yet you just did the same thing for conservatives and men...

But the problem the conservatives will have is I perceive a low voter turn out on their behalf.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I agree, although it's funny how you on to someone about speaking for all women, yet you just did the same thing for conservatives and men...

That is kinda funny, isn't it. But hey, you yourself said you agreed with me., so that's one miracle I can refer for those "who believes in miracles" threads that pop up every once in a while.

But the problem the conservatives will have is I perceive a low voter turn out on their behalf.

The thought of a Hilary presidency would energize the conservative voters like no other candidate in the history of American politics.

 

[80sU2isBest]

In case you are not sure,

it is an APPALLING attitude.

I know some women I would vote for, that's for sure.

But you do admit that the attitude is quite alive and well in American society, don't you?

 

[anitram]

Of course. I think it's probably alive in every society, not just the American one.

That doesn't make those men any less bigoted and idiotic.

 

[cjboog]

Well why don't you show me how he's more qualified rather than nitpick this one comment. I mean I read your article but it really didn't really answer the question.

- Supreme Allied Commander of NATO/4 star general, gives him the understanding and experience at handling the military and foreign affairs. Clark has strong connections with our allies in NATO and many foriegn leaders around the world.

- Because of Clark's high rank, he was responsible for the families, healthcare, education, etc. of thousands and thousands of people. He has "governing experience"

- First in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, degrees in politics and economics makes him one of our most, if not the most well educated candidate

 

[BVS]

I agree he's well educated and much more qualified for commander in chief than almost anyone, but if we weren't in Iraq would he even be considered? That's my point he only seems to have one qualifier. Where does he stand on social issues? Education? Etc...