Can Hillary or Clark win swing states?

[jcrew2001]

Along with experience question for some candidates, there's the more
important questions of winning the swing states that cost Kerry and
Gore their elections.

As of now, the republicans have the advantage, so the Dem ticket must target those states that are vulnerable.

Edwards - might be able to win NC, VA, SC
Clinton - could win Ark, Iowa, maybe Florida
Clark - could win Ark - Although he would be an asset as VP and
increase turnout among independents, I'm not sure if he can actually help win a southern state. He really doesn't have any regional base. He might
help out in the west, which is more vulnerable to swing than the south -
such as Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico.

Richardson as VP- would def win NM
Bayh as VP - could help win Indiana, maybe ohio
Warner as VP - could help win Virginia

For the Republicans, most of their candidates are from the south, but
can they keep the swing states.
McCain - can probably keep the swing states
Romney - if he's against Edwards, mitt will lose the south
Brownback - won't win any Dem states
Huckabee - will keep Arkansas
Jeb Bush as VP - will keep Florida and Texas

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yes. Don't count ANY Dems out yet. The Reps might nominate an ass. nt

[Bucky]

28. Has that ever stopped them from winning?

[Labors of Hercules]

84. With a pot full of nothing but potatoes...

is it possible to spoon out a carrot?
:shrug:
the same logic applies to asses.
:kick:

[citygal]

2. I am not so sure about McCain keeping the swing states.

I just saw a poll recently that said McCain has lost a lot of independent voters. The independent voters often translate into swing voters.

Now that Hilary Clinton is the Senator from NY, I am not so sure she could carry Arkansas. I think she would have difficulty with most of the south. I think Edwards would be stronger in the southern states.

[MasterDarkNinja]

44. Yeah, I don't think McCain is so unbeatable against a democrat in the presidential election anymore

You're right that McCain has been losing a lot of independent voters lately. Not only that but he's making himself very vunerable on some issues that are sure to be very important in 08, like Iraq and the troop surge which will fail if it happens (and the surge probably will happen). He's also flip flopped on a number of issues to try to gain support from the conservative base to win the republican nomination.

What states that translates into McCain being vunerable against a democrat in however, I don't know.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Gore won enough swing states (you mean votes in swing states, right?) to

win the Presidency.

[k_jerome]

4. voter disenfranchisement cost Gore the election. nt.

[brazos121200]

5. I think a ticket of Hillary and Wes Clark could do this:

Carry all of the Gore/Kerry states. Then, Hillary could appeal to voters in both Ohio and Florida, both of which were carried by her husband, Ohio twice. Then with Clark as running mate from Arkansas, the ticket would stand a very good chance of carrying several midwest swing states right in Clark's neighborhood: Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, New Mexico, Colorado. All of these states are winable by a popular Democratic ticket ( all were carried by Clinton/ Gore at least once).
If Hillary could carry EITHER Ohio OR Florida and keep all of the Kerry states, that alone would be enough to put the ticket over the top. Then, add just a few of the midwest swing states as insurance and you have a recipe for victory.

[k_jerome]

7. clark is a ticket killer...

i would much prefer edwards or obama.

[Auntie Bush]

29. "clark is a ticket killer."???????????

I beg your pardon!!!!!! Where'd you get that profound statement?

I suggest you read up on him because obviously you know NOTHING about him! He could get many swing states and Southerner's who like religious and military people with honesty would vote for him. REALLY!!
Those are the qualities Southerner's and Independents admire.

I repeat...Where did you get that idea? Who've you been listening to?

Someone has seen serving you a crock of soup.

[k_jerome]

31. my own research into his past...

you are entitled to your opinion though.

[Auntie Bush]

41. How about enlightening us with some of that research?

I don't mean you have to show proof or web sites to prove it...just your own personal reasons so the statement doesn't come out of thin air.

Yes, you certainly are entitled to your own opinion. I'm not denying you that. I have mine too. But, the way you flat out stated it as FACT was a little disconcerting. I really would like to know why you think the Southerners, Conservatives or religious right would like your candidate or other candidates better than Clark. Why? :shrug:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

46. That poster thinks Hillary could win a general election, Auntie.

Obviously, he/she doesn't know jack diddly.

[k_jerome]

48. i hope she will win...on the other hand, i know Clark has no chance. nt.

[Clark2008]

50. Clark has a better chance in the general election than Hillary

I'm sorry - but I can tell from your other posts than you know absolutely nothing about life in the "Heartland" states. None. Zilch. Nada.

[k_jerome]

53. in this strong field he has the same chance as biden or kucinich...

but keep hope alive.

[Clark2008]

54. He'll have a tougher time in the primary than the general election.

But, if it's Hillary, Obama or Edwards, I'm resigning myself to a Republican president.

[k_jerome]

55. we will win with any of those three...

without the south.

[Clark2008]

56. Whatever.

You're stuck in statistics and not real people.

Real people in Pennsylvania and Michigan aren't going to vote for anyone who doesn't come across as someone who has seen a gun in real life, much less knows how to operate one (Hillary is NOT Bill, for example) or who is pretty (and I ain't talkin' about Hillary here).

Obama has the best shot of the three, but it's still a crap shoot.

[k_jerome]

59. as i said, any of the big three will win going away...

without the south. clark will not win the nomination in my estimation. we shall see.

[Clark2008]

61. Michigan and Pennsylvania are in the South?

You don't read. But, maybe that's hard for bigots to do.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group or in k_jerome's case, Southerners) with hatred and intolerance

[k_jerome]

62. michigan and penn will vote for one of the big three in '08....

clark will not be an issue because he will have long since gone away, back to fox news or wherever he came from.

[Clark2008]

63. Well, I won't vote for Edwards if you paid me.

But, you are a bigot.

You just said that all Southerners have stars and bars on their cars. I don't. I'm a Southerner. My mother doesn't. She's a Southerner. My step-Dad doesn't. None of my co-workers do. None of my friends do.

To characterize a whole region based on some piece of shit stereotype is bigotry. Pure and simple. You fit the definition and I'm through talking with you. You're just as stubborn, stupid, ignorant and intolerant as you claim ALL Southerners to be.

Bye, now.

[jen4clark]

67. Hahaha!!!

NOW I know who ya'll are responding to! I had to put that poster on ignore as I think it's a Repub plant. Am I allowed to say that? :/

Dang, it's nice to not see those posts! :D

[Auntie Bush]

79. I'm too curious to put them on ignore

If it gets too bad I just don't answer anymore. If no one replies they can't argue with themselves...so they will get tired and go away. If they continue to make fowl lying comments then we should all put them on ignore.

[Dinger]

76. Same Old Stuff

That is all.

[Greyhound]

6. Clark is very appealing to the traditionally repuke stronghold of the

less-educated white male, which in turn could well flip the west and his impressive military history in addition to his not being a career politician is a great asset in the south. His appeal among independents across the board is already well documented and his negatives within the party are not significant with the rank and file. His greatest hurdle will be within the party among the established power brokers, they hate and fear him as an unknown variable whose support cannot be counted on.

As for HRC, as long as the re:puke:s don't nominate the grand wizard or a convicted child molester, she is a slam-dunk victory for them.

[WI_DEM]

8. Why do you think Hillary would win Arkansas? because of Bill?

I have serious doubts she could carry any southern state.

[stranger]

11. hillary cant win a single southern state-neither can kerry.

its either Gore, or edwards or we lose
to another imbecile-probably romney

Barack Hussein Obama is way too green,
he would implode up in
a long rigorous and nasty campaign.

remember he has won one senatorial election against alan keyes (in a blue state) for goodness sakes.

maybe in 8 years, but not now.no way.

[karynnj]

19. If the Democrat won all the Kerry states plus Ohio - they win

In case we lose some close ones, here are ones we can pick up:

- Iowa
- NM (where in 2004 there were rumours of voting problems in Native American areas.)
- VA Especially if Webb grows even more popular. (In fact he could be a cool VP candidate for either Kerry (if they can heal the Vietnam rift - they can lead the country to do so for it and the likely echo Iraq one.) or Obama.
-Co very likely could be in play - especially as any Democrat will make the environment an issue. Allard is not standing for election. Imagine if Hart does.
-NV is also suppose to be shifting
-FL if we can get UN inspectors :)

The South is the least likely place to look for Democratic states - it's like the Republicans focusing their energy on winning MA, RI, VT, CT, NY, DE, MD, DC and NJ. Without a lanslide it won't happen

[brazos121200]

12. A Democrat can not win the White House without carrying at

least some southern states. Hillary and Bill lived and her husband governed Arkansas for many years, they know her. Bill is still very popular in Arkansas and would presumably campaign for his wife. Wes Clark is also from Arkansas and would only add to the ticket in that state. Clark was able to win the neighboring state Oklahoma primary against the Kerry juggernaut in the 2004 primary season.
The political atmosphere will be very different in '08 than it was in 2004. Many states that weren't even in play in '04 will be in play in the next election. Put this all together, and the outlook for Democrats in the '08 electon looks very promising. You only need to add very litle to what Kerry or Gore carried to obtain a victory.

[SaveElmer]

40. Of course they can...

Republicans won for years without support in southern states...

[brazos121200]

51. That was when northern states had WAY more electoral votes than they do now.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Simple mathematics says otherwise

Kerry would be President without winning a single southern state if not for 50,000 votes in Ohio going the other way. Now that we have a Democratic Secretary of State in Ohio and we just got a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Senator elected there, our chances will be much better in '08 than they were in '04. Not only that but there are several states out west that we can tap into.

I'm a proponent of the 50 state strategy so I'm not saying that we should abandon the south. I'm also realistic in recognizing the fact that for the most part the south is staying red while the rest of the country is going blue. Florida, Georgia, Texas, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee all yielded good results for the GOP in 2006 despite the overwhelming national trend the other way. Arkansas, Missouri, and Virginia show some promising signs but how promising remains to be seen.

The fact is that the solid south is gone and Bill Clinton carried fewer southern states than any winning Democrat before him which is not just a single instance, it is a trend. Also, conditions were quite different when Clinton ran for President than they are now. If you factor out Perot, Clinton still would've won but it would've been by a narrower margin in the electoral college and his strength in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee would've been a crucial factor in putting him over the top. Keep in mind also that until Clinton, the blue states did not exist like they do today. California was a red state that hadn't gone to a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson. Putting California solidly in our column yielded us about 20 electoral votes in exchange for giving Texas to the Republicans. Not only that but from about 1960 until 2000 when we basically gave up on Texas, Democrats had to actually compete there to try and win its electoral votes. California is a safe blue state.

Clinton also solidified Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, and more or less New Jersey and Michigan as blue states. Without doing the exact math, that's about another 70 electoral votes that we don't even need to seriously compete for anymore.

Carter won almost none of the states that I mentioned above and Kennedy lost many of them and had to rig the vote to get Illinois. We're not playing in a field where we need the south to win anymore. That may change if the GOP moderates itself somewhat and becomes competitive in New Jersey, California, and Michigan again. But for now that is not the case and we can win an election without the south.

[jcrew2001]

39. bill

Yeah, Ark is a strongly Dem state - its a Dem machine down there - so Bill will win it for her.

[FrenchieCat]

9. In a general election, Clark would do well in

New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia and possibly New Hampshire and Iowa.

Those are swing states, I believe.

His base?
Considering the mess the Military is in currently, Clark may have a deeper base than can be currently measured with military families which I believe has been estimated as large as 12 million. He did win a war without any American casualties, and based on the concerns of military families nowdays, his detailed plan to negotiate our way out of Iraq will resound greatly with most of them....as it is neither considered "Cut and run" nor "stay the course". So will his work on behalf of Veterans.

McCain running with his signature issue of the "Surge" would alienate many of the military families who might have gone with him over Clark.

I added Virginia because of Webb (who Clark was helpful in getting him to run)

Clark is perceived as a moderate by many, although he at least as progressive as other Dems who are in the race.

[ArkySue]

69. You forgot Alabama

Alabama loves Wes Clark. Huntsville has a street named after him.

Clark also campaigned for Tim Kaine for Va. Governor.

[earthlover]

10. Clark would be a safe bet for electoral victory

Hillary will have difficulty among swing states. Dems will vote for her. Reps will hate her. Independents are swinging Dem now, but she does turn off many who might otherwise vote Dem. In my view.

Clark is from the South. He has strong security and military background, as well as humble roots--being raised by a bank secretary. Southerners won't pass him off as a Yankee liberal aristocrat. I think he would be very strong in the South, as well as the West. He would win Ohio, hold on to every state Kerry won, and add some more states as well, probably Florida, Virginia,ARkansas, and New Mexico for starters. An almost guaranteed election victory. Now as for getting the nomination....many Democrats think that, even though he was the most liberal among those who ran last time besides Kucinich, somehow being in the military makes him a war hawk. So many of them would rather support someone who supported the Iraq War Resolution than someone like Clark who opposed it, because somehow Clark is a warlock and even though he only supports war as a last resort and other Democrats are more likely to support a war that is NOT...... *Scratch head*

Obama will do well in the South. Many blacks who haven't voted before will.

[citygal]

13. Good point about Obama in the South.

Plus, I think the DNC (thanks to Dean) have improved its "get out the vote" effort in all fifty states. I think that is what helped bring victory in Congress last November.

[bigdarryl]

14. 2008 ELECTORAL MAP

http://prorev.com/electmap.htm
2008 ELECTORAL MAP

[brazos121200]

15. Massachusetts a tossup state? Hardly, Mass is probably he Democrat's

safest state in the country, even with Mitt Romney as the Repub candidate. Also, Maine is a very strong blue state, no tossup.

[karynnj]

21. according to many MA people who comment on him

MA may stay ESPECIALLY BLUE if Romney runs - they aren't very happy with him.

[karynnj]

16. Note - Ohio now has a Democratic governor

Who knows with a Democratic governor Kerry definately would have won and it is possible similar tricks (Ohio's tricks were more subtle than Florida's) maybe Gore did too.

[brazos121200]

17. This map is WAY off. It apparently doesn't take into account the

new anti-Bush mood in the nation. The Democrats won the House with many midwest Rebub. seats swinging to the Democrats. The midwest is where the great shift in '08 will occur, from West Virginia all the way west to Colorado. All of these states still show red on this map.

[bigdarryl]

20. according to the website this is what the electoral map looks like at this moment it..

doesn't mean it will not change

[MasterDarkNinja]

49. I agree, so it seems like none of the swing states Bush won are swing states on the map

Ohio and Florida were definitely considered big swing states in 04, and will probably be swing states again. PA was definitely a swing state in 04 to, Bush really put a lot of effort into trying to win PA in 04 (visited it more times then any other state), and whoever the republicans nominate will spend a lot of time in PA as well.

And I'm sure there's other swing states in 04 that I'm forgetting as well that the map doesn't say are swing states.

[pocoloco]

18. Clark won Okla last time, It won't be contest this time!!

[SaveElmer]

22. Hillary as the nominee would break down this way...IMO

Hillary wins...

Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Delaware, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Pennsylvania, DC

Total 297

Hillary Loses

Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Indiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee.

Total 187

True Toss-ups

Ohio, Arkansas, West Virginia, Arizona

Total 41

On a great day for Democrats

Virginia

Total 13

[Moloch]

70. I disagree about Florida....

no chance we win it regardless of our nominee, there are just too many fundies down there. I mean, we barely beat mark foley.

Georgia and Tennessee and especially Louisiana are trending very red and I think we should just cut our losses in the deep south.

Recent wins show that our best bets for pick ups would be Missouri, Ohio and Virginia. Possibly Montana.

[fuzzyball]

23. Did Bayh quit the race because Hillary made him an offer for VP?

If true, clears a lot of smoke.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Possibly.......

has to pick someone that is somewhat asexual!

[fuzzyball]

35. LOL

[McCamy Taylor]

25. Guys, vote for the best candidate. The Democrat will win. Just don't fight too much before then.

I like Edwards but I will be happy as a clam with Hillary, Clark, Obama or any of them except Zell MIller.

[Lord Byron]

26. "im not going to sit at home and bake cookies"

enough said.

no.

[Ignacio Upton]

27. Hillary would be lucky to carry MI, MN, and PA

Just because Bill carried a lot of states (and with Perot's help...with Perot his EC margain would have been narrower, as he would not have won in states like MO or KY) does not mean Hillary will carry them.

[politicasista]

30. Depending on the infrastructure, which was not strong in 2004 n/t

[IndianaGreen]

32. Hillary won't carry Pennsylvania, and Ohio is iffy (to her anyway!)

Hillary won't carry Indiana, even if she had popular Evan Bayh as her running mate.

Hillary is disliked by independents, and many Democrats in Indiana.

Wes Clark and John Edwards will do well in Indiana, particularly Edwards.

[MrSlayer]

33. Clark, Yes. Hillary, No.

Clark could flip a bunch of red states while keeping all of the blue states. Hillary would lose some blue states such as Pennsylvania and gain no flip states.

[SaveElmer]

34. Hillary would win between 297 and 351 electoral votes...

No less than 297...

[MrSlayer]

37. Maybe in some parallel universe.

Not in this one.

[SaveElmer]

38. Bookmark this thread...

And get back to me Nov 5, 2008!!!

[MrSlayer]

42. I shall.

And I'll buy you a bottle if you're right.

[Donna Zen]

36. Snorting about a deep-blue Maine

Earlier this evening I was on the phone lining up a Dem. retreat for our area. My friend is not connected with the internet buzz, so I'm kinda the go-to digital Dem. Anyway, when I told him that the net believes we are deep-blue, he just cracked up. We are extremely purple folks once you leave the south. The ancestors of my neighbors were very republican, and if they are now willing to vote for some Dems., it wouldn't take much to turn that trend around.

We'll keep working to sell our message, but please don't send us Hillary. Actually, my friend thinks that Gore might do well here. We have a huge independent and Green population; however, all my neighbors have 4-wheel drives. Maybe. I'd certainly be willing to do all I could. Clark is easy. We have the highest per-capita demographic of retired military of any state. This is a gun-loving, NASCAR watching, Christian area. Maine may not have many electoral votes, but if you want them, you have to a candidate that doesn't scare them into the republican line.

Remember, Edwards not only never served, he's never even owned a gun. That matters.

[Clark2008]

45. Clark would flip more red states than Edward, Obama or Hillary

and here's why:

Southerners and mid-Westerners respect machismo and, even though Clark doesn't make this a major part of his persona, those four-stars do it for him. He'd win Arkansas, Virginia, New Mexico and Arizona (if McCain isn't the nominee). He'd also have a hell of a shot in Tennessee and Florida. All because he's a "man's man."

See, that's something that Edwards, Obama and, certainly Hillary, haven't got.

It's not where one is from. Edwards is from the South, but he's not the type of candidate rural white males would vote for. He was, for lack of a better phrase, "an ambulance chaser." Clark's from the cusp of the South and the mid-West AND he's a decorated military man - even if he doesn't exactly fit the mold of one.

Unfortunately, for Obama and Hillary, they're both political minorities and that hurts them among swing voters. It's a sad but true fact out here in swing-vote land. I saw it with Harold Ford Jr., who I know isn't popular on this board, but still was a much better choice for Tennessee than Corker. He, however, couldn't make up the 3 percent deficit he lacked because A.) he's a Democrat, B.) he has a powerful media working against him and C.) he's black. He was MUCH more intelligent and thoughtful and more similar to more Tennessesans than Corker, but he just couldn't overcome all those roadblocks. If it were only the first two, then he probably would have won.

Also, on a personal note, I think Clark never should be the VP. It's an incredible waste of his talent base. If not president, Clark should be the Secretary of State (he's forbidden by federal code to serve as the Secretary of Defense until he has been out of active-duty service for 10 years, which would put him into 2010, two years after the 2008 election).

My two cents from a blue city in a red county in a red state.

[NCarolinawoman]

47. No Democrat will ever win South Carolina.

Edwards will not win NC.

My state is turning more blue all the time, as is Virginia. I always thought that Mark Warner had a shot in NC; the old school Democratic infrastructure felt very comfortable with him and he was invited here to speak several times, Biden seems to have name-recognition and is well thought of. Clark is not well known in NC but would have great potential, I think. I know some people at Seymour Johnson Airforce Base who love the guy.

We shouldn't leave out Montana. I think General Clark was one of the few out-of-staters who was asked to campaign with Tester.

In a poll taken last summer, both Hillary and Clark beat Huckabee in Arkansas.

[FrenchieCat]

57. On that poll you mentioned in Arkansas.....Clark beat Huckabee by a

by a similar margin, although Clark was not as well known.

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/08/25/News/337438.html

In poll results released Thursday, 51 percent of respondents said they would vote for Clinton in a head-to-head match-up with Huckabee and 36 percent favored the governor, with 15 percent undecided.

Asked about a potential contest between Huckabee and Clark, respondents favored the retired Army General and former NATO commander 51 percent to 37 percent, with 12 percent undecided.

The Opinion Research poll showed Clinton with the highest favorable ratings among the three possible presidential contenders with 56 percent. Huckabee's favorable rating was 54 percent and Clark's 43 percent. Thirty-seven percent had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton, 35 percent thought unfavorably of Huckabee and 15 percent for Clark.

Both Clinton and Huckabee had 98 percent name recognition, to Clark's 63 percent.

[jcrew2001]

66. Edwards in NC

How come Edwards won't win in NC?

[ribrepin]

80. That's what worries me about Edwards

We need to nominate someone who can win their home state. You are not the first North Carolinian who says Edwards can't win his home state. I like Edwards, but I'm a northerner.

I don't think we can run someone who can't win their home state. That eliminates a lot of southerners.

[jcrew2001]

85. NC turning blue

If NC is turning blue and if Warner had a chance, then why couldn't the same be said about Edwards. Granted, he doesn't have the name recognition that Warner might have, but I still think that depending on the Repub nominee, Edwards can carry his home state.

Edwards has name recognition from being on the ticket in 2004. I think Lieberman could have also done better in 2004 based on the 2000 ticket, but Lieberman waited until Gore left, and by that time he didn't have the structure in place to win in Iowa or NH.

[ultraist]

52. Edwards is polling number one in Iowa and NC

And...we ARE in play here in NC. He could also swing VA, where he campaigned for Webb, Ohio and FL two other states he campaigned for midterm candidates. I'm not so sure any other Southern states will be in play.

[Clark2008]

58. Well, I know at least 10 Southerners who aren't voting for him. eom

[ultraist]

60. There were 5000 people at the recent Chapel Hill rally

The Edwardses are highly respected here in NC. We love John and Elizabeth. People here on the ground are already getting organized to put our own, John Edwards in the White House.

[NCarolinawoman]

64. Recent polls showed him getting 29% of the NC Democratic

primary/caucus vote. He may well win that, but that leaves 71% of Dems divided, and wanting someone else.

When it comes to the general election you have to take into consideration the votes of Independents and Republicans, and most importantly, the Bluedog Dems--the ones that helped us get a Democratic Governor, Attorney General, Legislature,etc. Most of them will not vote for Edwards again. They feel used and they are angry. He never won the coastal military counties back in '98, so I wouldn't think he would suddenly win them in 2008.

[ultraist]

65. Edwards will win the NC caucus as he did in 04

There is no way Hillary or Obama, who are polling way behind Edwards in NC will win NC during the caucus.

And...we will be in play. It will be tough to swing NC but it is doable. Edwards has polled time and time again as having very wide appeal, he will do well in the rural areas.

You are not suggesting that Blue Dog Dems would vote for a Repub over a Dem for the general election are you? That is absurd. Of course Edwards will carry the Dem vote in the GE.

[Jai4WKC08]

72. Edwards campaigned for Webb in NoVA

Essentially the suburbs of DC. Webb didn't want him anywhere near the downstate red districts. For those, he took Clark.

Clark was also the ONLY national Democrat Tester allowed in MT. Same goes for Chet Edwards and several of the other winning Democrats in TX.

Was Hillary Clinton asked to campaign anywhere? If so, I never heard about it.

[jen4clark]

68. video of Clark in Huntsville, AL

yesterday! Thanks to Ruth at CCN!

www.ptnine.com/clark_huntsville_01_16_2007.wmv

[generaldemocrat]

73. Clark: Absolutely, Hillary: Heck no

General Clark's position is unique in that he is the only candidate who would have a harder time winning the primary than he would in the general election. The easiest part is harder and the harder part is easier for this guy.

[Greyhound]

82. Nailed that one General. Wes will have one hell of a time getting through the primaries

because the party power brokers are afraid he'll do what's right for the country, even if it costs them personally.

[xkenx]

74. Wes Clark flips red states.

2008 is ALL ABOUT flipping a few red states into our column. Hillary certainly can't do it. Wes Clark is a progressive wolf in military uniform sheep's clothing. Many Republicans who didn't care for Bush, still couldn't vote for Kerry. Clark was the only Dem. they could consider. Clark has had more EXECUTIVE leadership roles than any Senator by virtue of his military commands where he had responsibility for the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicepeople and their dependents--the whole range of housing, education, training, healthcare, social services, sometimes in a dangerous spot. When Clark was Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Eisenhower's last military position), he had "Head-of-State" status, meaning that he dealt directly with prime ministers/presidents, not underlings. And Clark was virtually the only voice urging help for Rwanda. And Clark and Madeleine Albright were the ones who convinced Clinton to take action against the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, where Clark carried out the military action w/o the loss of a single American life. In this he stood up to the Pentagon brass who wanted nothing to do with "saving Albanians." And it was Clark who served for more than 30 years AFTER getting shot up and winning hero medals in Vietnam, when he could have gone for the big bucks in private industry. Try Swift Boating this guy--the smackdown will be heard around the world. Clark is all about duty, honor, country. When Clark's American Dream/American Hero story gets out to middle America, watch how many red states flip. And the beauty of Wes Clark is that HE IS A REAL LIVE D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, with a progressive agenda equal to anyone.

[DuaneBidoux]

75. Clinton could not win a single swing state. Clark could win many presuming

he works a little on his personal charisma and speaking capabilities.

[election_2004]

77. Clark would turn out more votes in Florida than Hillary would

There is just still too high a concentration of wingnuts in Florida, who are salivating at the thought of baiting other Democratic candidates into comparing themselves to LIBRUL Hillary.

[roseBudd]

78. Wes Clark is Jim Webb Version 2.0, a dove cannot win

Clark has never been a senator and doesn't fillibuster when he speaks. People do not want to hear senatorial diarrhea of the mouth. Senators all have cast votes that can be held against them in an attack ad.

[Blue_In_AK]

81. Clark much more likely than Clinton, I would think.

[jcrew2001]

83. Clark

Having the last name clinton might keep the voters that voted for her husband in the south. Do you think Southerners who voted for Bill will vote for Hill?

Clark is a lock for VP - i'm not sure for president. I agree that a dove cannot win in this country or at this time. The America majority wants someone who can talk a strong game without making aggressive/stupid decisions.

Clark can talk about military strength and about using it wisely. Edwards might be able to lawyer his way about strength. Hillary's "strength" only comes from her last name.

I honestly feel this is why Kerry lost - Bush sold kerry to be "weak" and Kerry did't convince enough people he had more "strenghth".

George Bush Sr lost because he was a wimp, he had the wimp label since 1980 and reagan carried him in 88, but when Sr ran on his own in 92, he was still a loser and a wimp.