Opinion About Clark/Ability to Win Nomination

Do you think Gen. Clark will be able to hold his second place lead on Sen. Kerry, and eventually catch Dean and win the Democratic nomination? I think he is very capable, he just needs to keep his steady climb in the polls and at the same time earn more money. If Clark does get the nomination, do you think he'll be able to beat Bush, why or why not?

well, he does have Madonna's support after all.
(I think her endorsement is silly - but those hollywood/celeb/entertainers can and do give away large chunks of change!)

Seriously, I think Clark has a good chance among the dems. The other dems are going after Dean and it could possibly clear the way for Clark because I don't see any of the other candidates doing all that well. With no one really attacking Clark now it may hurt him later, say he gets the nomination. Clark's stance on the war and support for the Bush team in the past (emphasis on 'the past') may push the anti-war crowd to someone else, possibly a 3rd party candidate like Nader (if he runs). That group, while a minority all along, could grow or shrink depending on how things go in Iraq. He would have to have a strong VP though. That could be hard since so many Dems are throwing their support behind Dean at such an early stage (probably bad of them to do, really). Again, Clark's past may be an issue, especially with anti-war 3rd party types in a presidential race. (Clark: "I would have been a Republican if Rove would have returned my phone calls).

And, why do you think he is very capable?? Why do you support him?

Because he has credentials. I mean he was a GENERAL (four star). "He graduated first in his class at West Point; He is a Rhodes Scholar, an international relations scholar and he served Bill Clinton as the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander."
That's why. Compare that to the other candidates. Sen. Kerry is the only one that comes close.

hey, I'm just asking

I'm not saying he doesn't have credentials but what about Gebhardt with 26 years in congress and Liebermans time in the Senate of 14 years. Clark is up against hefty democrats, in my opinion, and not having political/domestic experience isn't going to help either. I think he needs a strong VP? What about you?

I've flip flopped on Clark since he threw his hat in...

From overly anticipatory to discouraged, now I'm slowly climbing back up.

His recent polls are intriguing, but like we all know being number #2 in every single state still = LOSER. But he is climbing. The south shall be interesting.

I actually think it was good for him to take those hits early, now it's rebuild of strong, real support. There's no straw man anymore. Anyone backing Clark by now isn't likely to go Dean.

Plus his VP can only help. I think a Clark/Edwards would SWEEP the south and pose the only real threat to Dean at this point. And would be a tough ticket for Bush/Cheney to debate.

I'm not sure. Something tells me that Dean will find a way to hang on. Just a gut feeling. Of course, you can never really know until it's all over.

There are two more general moverments against Bush...Dean and NOT DEAN! I have been a BIG Clark supporter since before he officially threw his hat in. If you don't want Dean, vote Clark! We have a major problem with terrorists, he's a general and completly capable of handling the situation. We need someone with a capable mind not a capable wallet. Remember? Bush was an idiot until 911...we supported him, and rightfully so after such a tragedy. But he did not deal with our nation's security problems...he tried to clean up his father's mess. Hussein is a tyrant and I'm trilled that he is out of power. But the US is not safer as a result. OBL's henchmen are still thrilled about shedding American blood. Clark is a Rhodes scholar...Bush is and Idiot...take your pick.

I don't care who the Dem nominee is as long as the VP is good.

I want to see the Cheney debate. I'll laugh bullets at that one. The man hasn't spoken in public in hardly three years.

Its going to be Hillary as VP, no doubt in my mind. That's the only reason the Clintons arn't putting their full weight behind one canidate, They're waiting to see who gets the Nomination. That will make the Dems a shoe in for the win. Unofficially, the Clintons are supporting Clark. So, if you long for the Pre-Bush days...VOTE CLARK!!!!

And I would be happy with him as president. After all, the monumental clusterf**k that has occured since Bush stole office, on some levels, is going to need a military efficency to clean up.
On the other hand, the post of VP has morphed into a job share role since Reagan ( with a blip via Qualye ), not just the dead guy stand in it used to be. Bush ran the country & Gore headed so much. In that scenario, and since they spoke of it at length prior to Clark running, I see a Dean/Clark ticket as being unbeatable.

The funny thing is, you heard the Right moaning about " 9 Dwarves" and " Pick someone already & get behind them".......many have done that with Dean & the RIGHT IS STILL COMPLAINING !!

Honestly, I can not see a ticket of the top two Democrats being beaten, ESPECIALLY after debates.

Originally posted by Bob88
hey, I'm just asking

I'm not saying he doesn't have credentials but what about Gebhardt with 26 years in congress

and Liebermans time in the Senate of 14 years. Clark is up against hefty democrats, in my opinion, and not having political/domestic experience isn't going to help either. I think he needs a strong VP? What about you?

Sorry if the post came out a little harsh, I didn't mean it.

All this media attention for Dean is making me sick, it's like there aren't even other candidates, or like the Democrats have already chosen their candidate. That really annoys me because the right wingers are complaining about Dean and his horable (sp?) past, when they know there are much more qualified candidates, but are only reporting on him and giving him this much media coverage because he is the front runner. They (the media) needs to look past Dean (which they are starting to do) and look at other candidates.