Won't be Clark or Edwards

[sandnsea]

Long story. Looking at Clark and Edwards blog/forums on the internet. Various ones. Both are posting nasty things about each other and engaging in flame wars, both are posting negative things about Kerry to bolster the need for their own candidate.

What that means to me is Kerry can't choose either of them because he'll piss off the other supporter's candidates if he does.

And in the mean time, the people who are convincing themselves Kerry isn't doing well by only looking at a negative poll or article here and there, are contributing to an impression Kerry isn't doing well. And slowing down any momentum that might be built.

Something I thought you guys might want to think about. The campaign might decide the venom is so great that they don't want to take the risk so you might be hurting your own cause. I don't know anything for sure, just a thought.

[DjTj]

1. So he would alienate both groups?

...instead of just one of them?

[Mike L]

37. The Solution

Pick Edwards for VP. A week later announce that Clark will be the National Security Adviser in the Kerry Administration. This will give Kerry two straight weeks of good press and pull both camps into the fold.

I was a Clarkie, but I think that Edwards will make the best VP. Some people say he will make Kerry look bad by comparison personality-wise. However, I say Edwards will spice up the ticket because Edwards has the "likability" factor. He would also loosen Kerry up. The Clarlies will be happy as long as Clarke has a prominent position. I know that from being on their blog after Clark withdrew. Case closed.

[incapsulated]

2. Hmm...

I doubt that Kerry is going to make such an important decision based on what a thousand people, at most, scattered across the country posting on these blogs would think.

At least I hope not.

[MontecitoDem]

3. So if he pisses off clark or edwards supporters -

who are they going to vote for? Nader?!

I'm not saying I think he's going to pick either one. But if he chooses someone else, I don't think your theory would be the reason for his choice.

(although I absolutely agree with you that the flame wars suck.)

[Mattforclark]

4. Nah

I'm a Clarkie (just look at my name), but I won't be at all pissed off if Kerry picks Edwards. If that should come to pass, then Kerry/Edwards all the way.

[JI7]

5. i don't like those blogs because they always bash Kerry

they always insist their candidate is the one everyone really loves. and that kerry wrongly took the nomination away from something that is supposed to be their candidate's. and other crap.

[Scoopie]

13. Not true

The Clark blog does NOT bash Kerry.
There might be one or two people who float in from time to time who bash Kerry, but, for the most part, the Clark bloggers are satisfied with a Kerry nomination.

[eileen from OH]

6. Oh, Jeebus

This SO reminds me of the campaign blog wars that went on during the primary. (Well, okay, it wasn't just the campaign blogs - it was here, too.)

Was it just a few short months ago when different candidate's supporters were screamin' bloody murder at each other for even SUGGESTING that their guy should consider the VP slot? Now they're slugging it out FOR it?

If Kerry has his choice affected by some hard core screamin' meemies on a blog, he's got bigger problems than a VP choice. I 'member very clearly how (supposedly) some super-ardent Deaniacs, Clarkies, Edwardoes (since they don't have a name), etc., would never, ever, ever, get behind anyone but THEIR choice. And they were sooooo pissed at things that another candidate did that they'd never, ever, ever, with God as their witness, support 'em.

For the most part, they DID get over it, they will CONTINUE to get over it. In the end, after all the dust settles, it really does come down to Beating Babs' Favorite Bozo.

So, relax. We've been here before.

eileen from OH

[surfermaw]

35. You got it, all of us want to defeat Bush #2

Yes

[Darkamber]

7. You might be right...

Certainly we can't read Kerry's mind. He'll make the best pick and it may not be Edwards or Clark. But I doubt that it would be because of any flame wars here.

My picks for VP for a long time have been Edwards, Clark and Richardson and in that order. I would have no problem if it was Clark.

Personally, I think Kerry will have both Edwards and Clark involved in some position. Clark because he's an expert and the Democrats don't want to loose him and Edwards because the Democrats don't want to loose him and want him to get more experience.

By the way, anyone seen the new Bush ad? Where he's saying that Bush is optimism and Kerry is pessimism. I wanted to gag. It's so much fun being in a targeted state...

[robbedvoter]

8. BS! The only difference with Clarkies would be voting vs campaigning

I bet it was not on Clark blog than you found scenarios where kerry implodes and our guy is named at the convention.
Besides, you can speculate all you want, the decision is made. ;-)

[Adelante]

9. I don't actually see much of this at all

"both are posting negative things about Kerry to bolster the need for their own candidate"

I don't go to other blogs, but this is extremely rare on Clark blogs. Initially, when we were all in pain, yes, but this has been very much resolved among Clarkies. I'm surprised to even hear about it.

[Jai4WKC08]

10. Not buying it either

I'd need to see a link, or maybe a couple, and to something recent. As you say, we were hurting for a while and a few people may have lashed out. Clark himself did a lot to turn that around.

I dont frequesnt the Edwards blog(s), but on DU I see Edwardniacs quite often talking about how boring and uncharismatic Kerry is ("posting negative things about Kerry to bolster the need for their own candidate"). How Kerry needs Edwards to "energize" his campaign.

About the worst I've ever seen from a Clarkie is to point out that Kerry is vulnerable on his post-Vietnam protesting and his being a Senator/"Washington insider". But I've never seen a Clarkie state there was anything wrong with Kerry's having protested the war--far from it! And not really anything wrong with his being a Senator--altho we would have prefered our "non-politician" as the nominee, we mostly just think that there shouldn't be two senators on the ticket. In both cases, the point is only that the Repubs will use these points against him.

Mostly Clark supporters want our guy to be in the best position to help Kerry implement his national security policies once in office. We even have arguments within our own camp on whether he should be VP or SecState.

I've never seen an Edwardniac argue for anything but VP. 'Come to think of it, until yesterday, I had never seen an argument for Edwards as VP that had anything to do with the job he would do as VP (and it was a pretty lame argument at that). It's almost always about how popular and exciting and charismatic he is (bleech), with the stated or implied accusation that Kerry is none of those things.

Well, THIS Clarkie would much rather listen to Kerry talk than Edwards. I like to hear potential leaders actually say something.

[Darkamber]

12. As an Edwardian...that's what we call ourselves...

I have supported Kerry since Edwards dropped out. Most of us do and will do whatever we can to get him elected. We do not cut down Kerry. By saying that Kerry needs Clark to bolster his NS and Foreign policy experience is the same kind of back slap that you are accusing Edwardian's of.

But you do end it correctly...and that is the view that I have seen. Most Clark supporters are MUCH more negative against Edwards then Edward supporters are against Clark.

I don't know any Edward supporters on the DU,who say that they will not vote for Kerry if Clark is the VP pick. I do know several Clark supporters on the DU, who state that they will not vote for Kerry if Edwards is the VP.

So who is more hurtful to Kerry?

[Scoopie]

14. Don't use me as an example

I'm an Independent. I'm sure most Dems will go Kerry, regardless.
The thing with me is that I can't vote for people I deem as irrelevant, which is my position on Edwards, and why I can't vote for him. (And, also why I'm an Independent. Sometimes the choices given me in general elections by the Dems or Repubs aren't worth my time of day.)
I would, however, vote for Kerry if he picks ANYONE, SOMEONE with FP creds. It doesn't have to be "only" Clark.

[Mike L]

38. Scoopie,

What if Kerry picks Clark as National Security Adviser (Rice's position under Bush) or Sec of State?

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. My take

And this really is subjective, and of course no one answer fits all because everyone is an individual...

I have seen one or two Clarkies express doubts about voting for Kerry if Edwards gets the VP nod. Those are strongly held views but very very very much in the minority of Clark supporters, who for the most part rushed to start Clark for Kerry support sites and began showing up at Kerry Meet Ups while Edwards was still running. We quickly fell in line with Wes Clark's reasoning, and have been working for Kerry to win a lot longer than Edwardians have, for the simple reason that Edwards remained active in the race for the Presidential nod, directly competing with Kerry, for weeks after Clark had already endorsed Kerry. So the vast majority of us are very comfortable with John Kerry as our nominee, and whoever he picks as his VP choice. We trust Kerry, simply put, to do what he must do, and once the choice is made we will not second guess him.

The way relative negativity is expressed on this board regarding Edwards and Clark seems to primarily play out in the following way. "Edwards doesn't bring enough substance to the ticket" vs "Clark was a failure as a candidate and won't generate enthusiasm as a campaigner". There are other themes I know, but I think that covers the bulk of it. Members of "both camps" veer toward the deep end sometimes in heated moments where those themes get pumped up toward "Edwards is a slimeball opportunist" and "Clark was a miserably inept excuse for a politician".

It is stupid for anyone to contend that there are not potentially good reasons for either man getting selected. There are for both. One thing that Clark and Edwards supporters have in common, ironically, is that we all had good reasons for why our own guy should get the Democratic nomination rather than John Kerry. I think all of us thought we had damn good reasons in fact. Well that's history now, but I have no regrets about having advocated those reasons while the question was still in play. Soon enough the Democratic Ticket will be settled, and from that moment forward I will enthusiastically support it regardless of who is the VP nominee. Until then, I still make the case for why it makes sense for America that Wes Clark become our Vice President. I fully expect Edwardians to do the same. Speaking for myself only, I try not to get ugly about it.

[Darkamber]

20. Excellent responsse...thank you...

Exactly, there are good reasons for both of them to be picked. And you are right, all us wanted our guy to be picked, but Kerry was picked.

And I believe that our future is too important that Kerry must be our next President even if 'sponge bob' is VP.

And, yes...a good thing about both Clark and Edwards supporters is that they are passionate. I remember over on the Kerry board there was an independent, who was a Clark supporter, who pretty much stated that they would not vote for Kerry if Edwards was VP.

Later that person described how they had been a democrat and then lost interest and hope in them and turned to an independent. But they said they heard Clark and for the first time they were inspired again and wanted to be active again. It was the same for me, but insert the word "Edwards" and always a democrat but not inspired.

What we have in common is our respect and trust in these men and the way they inspire us. Both of these men, Clark and Edwards are working their butts off for Kerry. Both represent different groups and different interests and I can see the good in Clark as well. I won't attack Clark. Hell...he's my #2 pick for VP.

I think we would all be better off to acknowledge or at least respect the ability that both of these men have to inspire those who listen to them. To me, Edwards is not an 'empty suit' and he's quite able to speak on any issue. I have absolutely no fear of him stepping into the #1 spot if something were to happen to Kerry.

The anger seems to be generated by a few, but I hope it comes from inspiration and that will directed towards getting more Democrats in the House, Senate and getting Kerry elected President then anger over what did or didn't happen in the primaries.

[Scoopie]

21. Actually,

Spongebob might not be a bad choice.
He'll be needed to... hee hee... clean up... hee hee... after the current administration.

:crazy:

[Darkamber]

27. LOL...thanks for that....

that was a good one...Spongbob for VP!! go team go...

[Jai4WKC08]

17. Clarkies ARE more anti-Edwards than the opposite

Can't be helped. One reason we support Clark, and for most what initially attracted us to him, is his experience. Especially in diplomacy and defense, but also in handling people issues like health care, education and civil rights. Executive experience. Edwards has none of that. In fact, he's the very antithesis of what most of us looked for in a candidate.

You just can't say the reverse is true. It seems to me that most people who support Edwards do so for his ability to make people feel optimistic and his vision of bringing people together in "One America." Well, Clark believes in the same. He may not have spent as much time talking about it (or more correctly, the media didn't cover it when he did--he was portrayed as a one-trick pony). But he is a positive and forward-looking guy, and it was a basic premise of his campaign that those with the most have a moral obligation to reach out to those with the least. In fact, from the beginning he emphasized the growing diparity between the haves and have-nots, essentially the same "two Americas" theme.

I can understand that Clark's speaking style as a candidate may not reach the people who supported Edwards, or at least not as strongly as Edwards' does (I don't agree, but different people are affected differently by personality and style). But there's really nothing about Clark's positions on the issues or in his background or character that should alienate them (except for those few who can't bring themselves to support a retired general, but there aren't that many of those in the Edwards camp).

Most Edwardniacs who do attack Clark do it solely based on what happened during the primaries or since. And those arguments just don't hold a lot of water for most people.

There are other, more emotional reasons why Clarkies are likely to be more anti-Edwards. Shelton, for example. And the whole "son of a mill worker" thing. And the media coverage we see as grossly unfair and unwarranted, altho I personally don't blame Edwards for that--I just wish his supporters would recognize it.

[Darkamber]

30. You make some good points too...but...

One of the reasons I would never attack Clark is because in part of what Edwards represents...raising people up and not tearing them down. Also, I don't see Clark as the 'enemy'. I see him as a fine man who is working hard to help Kerry. He blows me away when he speaks of Foreign policy issues. He's really at ease in that area. That is part of the reason why I'm certain he will be involved in the Kerry administration one way or another. Hell...I wanted a Edwards/Clark ticket, which I thought would have been a great ticket and would have really grabbed the independents and the swing voters and we might have been able to make serious gains in the South.

As for Shelton...to be honest I never heard anything about that in the media. The only place I heard about that at all was from Clark supporters who were angry at Edwards. I just don't see the connection. It's not like Edwards sent Shelton out as an attack dog against Clark. Shelton happened to make one single comment that resulted from a question that was asked him at an event that had nothing to do with Edwards. I think that perhaps, the Clark supporters, because they felt hurt and angry over that comment, put more weight in this one comment then needed to. I don't recall one person in the media talk about that at all when they mentioned Clark.
It certainly had no effect on my view of Clark one way or another.

As for Media...from the other point of view, from Edwards side, we felt Edwards didn't get any media as well. Prior to Iowa, Clark was getting media attention. He was kind of the 'anti-Dean' candidate. Edwards wasn't a blimp on the radar. Even when he moved up to the four way split in Iowa, he was discounted because he didn't' have the money or the organization behind him. When he came in 2nd there was a moment of glory before the Dean scream.

Then both Edwards and Clark were lost to the Kerry/Dean story. And Clark did make a few mistakes in his statements during the key week in NH. I remember the press even mentioning that Clark was having a bad week. At the end of that week, I remember that Clark's throat was so bad that he could hardly speak. It was awful...they had one week. One week to make or break and then only one more week after that.

And to be fair both sides would have listening for press covering their guy. It would have been hard to see Clark, who had NH almost all to himself and would have done well I think if Dean had emerged as #1 out of Iowa, slip from #2 to #3, especially if you saw someone like Edwards who had been totally discounted suddenly come out of no where and get mentions.

But I don't think it's a point worth fighting over anymore. And I don't believe in RW or LW media or favoritism. They look for stories and quite frankly until Iowa, they hadn't done hardly any stories about Edwards. They might have tried to play catch up because they were caught with their pants down. Did that hurt Clark? I think not going to Iowa and the Dean scream hurt Clark alot more then the little bit of additional media that Edwards got.

But...here's the solution...Let's all get behind Sponge bob for VP!!!

I like that cleaning up the mess that Bush leaves behind ideal!

[Jai4WKC08]

31. You weren't paying attention

If you think the media didn't replay the Shelton story over and over. He never went anywhere he wasn't asked about it. Literally. News shows. Debates (more than one). Even David Letterman fer gods' sake. So that in itself damages the credibility of your arguments. Shelton was probably the biggest single factor, or maybe one of two (with the Nagourney NYT article on the IWR), that caused Clark to drop from leading all the national polls after the initial buzz from declaring his candidacy.

And yes, there WAS an Edwards connection to Shelton. Shelton was an old friend, was sponsored by Edwards for his highest award, and ultimately made a formal advisor to the Edwards campaign. When this last was discovered, a Clark spokesman specifically asked for clarification and was told by Edwards himself to buzz off, that he'd have whoever he wanted to advise him, owtte. Then shortly after that, Edwards' chief of communications essentially reissued the smear, including in a press release that other senior military officers (not further identified, of course) felt the same way as Shelton.

So yeah, the Shelton thing "had (something) to do with Edwards." Another general officer who knew both Clark and Shelton even confirmed it, and it was pretty clear that Schwarzkopf got the word too when he recanted his criticism. Was Edwards specifically behind Shelton's remark or did Shelton take it upon himself to do his old buddy a favor? That we don't know (I tend to believe the former). But Edwards had every opportunity to distance himself from it, and pointedly declined.

I don't think you appreciate just how dirty Shelton's smear was. Totally beyond the pale of "politics as usual." Goes straight to the honor of the officer corps. I would like to think that anyone should be similarly appalled at that kind of slam, but I've come to understand such is not the case. Well, the good news is Shelton has NOT been asked to participate in Kerry's general officer advisory group, and I'd bet real money it ain't because he doesn't want to be.

As for the media, I will agree that Edwards was ignored unfairly early in the campaign. But in the days before the Iowa caucus, he caught someone's attention because he was definitely being covered (and probably deserved--he was running well). Those last few days were the most critical, and he never lost that attention afterwards.

So I just don't buy that the media coverage was all Kerry/Dean after Iowa. That's just not the way it went down. After Iowa, Edwards was on TV constantly. I saw a huge number of his NH rallies covered, far many more than Clark's. And after NH, he was given many times the media attention that Clark was, even tho Clark beat him there. May not have been by much, but the media should have at least been equitable.

Most voters don't pay much attention until right before an election or primary. Edwards media coverage may have been weak for a long, long time, but it was there when it counted. And Clark's wasn't.

Look, I agree that not running in Iowa, and Dean's fall there, were the two biggest factors in the downfall of Clark's bid. And fwiw, I also agree that it's not worth fighting over. But I offered what I thought were the reasons that Clarkies tend to be anti-Edwards--his lack of experience and expertise, precisely what we were looking for when we drafted Clark. I only think that the other issues are part of why some of us get so emotionally fired up in our opposition.

[spooky3]

41. well-put; I've observed the same thing.

[MoonRiver]

11. At least here on DU there hasn't been much Clark and Edwards bashing

by the alternate group. Well, maybe some, but in general I see supporters on both sides saying they'll be happy with the other candidate. I just want us to win, although I obviously prefer Clark over anybody else.

[AP]

25. The biggest Edwards supporters all say Clark is their second choice.

[JohnKleeb]

32. more often that not in my observations

Many Edwards supporters liked Clark. I am not a fan of Clark, I do prefer Edwards but I would work my ass off for either ticket.

[Awsi Dooger]

42. Not me, the top priority in a VP choice should be 2012

I'll always believe it was Bill Clinton's biggest failure, identifying Al Gore in 1992. It was virtually impossible to lose in 2000 if our nominee even threatened likeability and normalcy. The VP choice means almost nothing to the success/failure of the ticket itself.

John Edwards can win a general election, Wesley Clark cannot. Edwards is a far superior campaigner and speaker, and is two inches taller.

I concede my priorities and my rationale differ greatly from the average DUer. I all but overlook policy specifics in favor of personal qualities that sway elections. Hosting debate watching parties among swing voters the last three cycles completely reshaped my views on the ideal candiate. It was stunning how the women in my living room abandoned Gore for Bush almost immediately during debate #1, incensed at Gore's juvenile antics. Bush will dominate the likeability aspect in the debates vs. Kerry. If you doubt that, you are nuts.

Clark supporters are terrific people and lousy handicappers. That was even more true of Deaniacs. Not a crime, just the truth. I gamble for a living and have an excellent track record, including offshore political wagering. We don't want a puny Wes Clark standing there in 2012, eye to shoulder with Jeb Bush, or whomever, and unable to explain why he's a relevant choice if it's suddenly all economy and no war.

It's like Smarty Jones a week ago. The tunnelvision DUers expected a Preakness replay or even more lopsided, given the added distance. Those of us who embraced the pedigree aspect knew it was inevitable Smarty would surrender in the stretch at 1 1/2 miles.

Let's shoot for 16 years, i.e. John Edwards

[TexasSissy]

15. Makes sense to me.

[WI_DEM]

18. you're right

I think it will be Vilsak or Gep.

[phillybri]

19. Wrong. Clark or Edwards will end up in the administration...

...even if it's not as VP. bank on it...

Edwards as Attorney General. Clark as NSA or some other Cabinet position...

[Scoopie]

22. Have a thought

Can Edwards BE the AG?
He didn't practice any sort of Constitutional law and, as far as I know, he doesn't even have clearance to argue in front of the Supreme Court (yes, you have to be cleared to do that).
Other than a law degree, does he have the other qualifications necessary to be the AG?

I'm not flaming - I'm just asking.

[Nashyra]

23. I have nothing personal against Edwards

What I do fear is the "trial lawyer" crap the repukes will use and the sound bite media. There is no denying they are planning big time to use this tactic. With Healthcare being such a big issue the idea of huge lawsuits and high malpractice insurance will take center stage and will not allow any of Edwards finer qualities to be made known to the general public. Also it has never been good business to put two Senators on the ballot. Just like Kerry is getting hammered about flip flopping and having to spend so much time, money and effort to dispell this crap it will be twice as bad with 2 Senators. Obvisously my 1st choice is Clark, and I will vote for Kerry no matter who is on the ticket, my only concern with Edwards being the veep choice is that it will make campaigning for Kerry that much harder when it comes to swing and moderate voters.

[surfermaw]

36. Nash...

The groups you sited are the very groups that Edwards can pull, lets all enjoy the Kerry/Edwards Ticket come November they will kick Bush out of office.

[AP]

24. I highly doubt Kerry is going to pick his VP based on what a bunch of

babies on the internet post about either of these candidates.

[Jai4WKC08]

26. OMG!

AP and I agree on something.

Mark you calendars.

[Adelante]

29. Duly noted nt

[Kahuna]

28. Rubbish!

:eyes:

[faithfulcitizen]

33. zzzzz...

:boring:

[surfermaw]

34. It has been cut and dried

Edwards, is the man, and the selection of Edwards will also carry the state of North Carolina and elect Bowel's as North Carolina's Senator.

[Adelante]

39. Speaking of Erskine Bowles

Wes Clark is hosting a fundraiser for him later this month.

[TSIAS]

40. I'd bet against Clark and Edwards

However, I doubt the "blog wars" will have any effect on that decision.

At the moment, I'd probably say that Vilsack will be the choice. I hope they are seriously looking into Edwards. If they can confirm the earlier poll suggesting Kerry/Edwards would win NC, I'd be all for that ticket.