Who's In The Best Position to Attack Bush Where He's Weakest?

[rucky]

To determine this, first you must decide where Bush is the weakest. Soooo much to consider:

Iraq
Deficit
Jobs
Corporate Interests
AWOL
Plame
Foreign Policy
etc, etc, ad infinitum

Which weakness will play best with the voters? And for those weaknesses, which candidate(s) can attack with the most gravitas?

Who's attacking is just as important as the attack itself. For example, the obvious - A criticism of Bush's Iraq war doesn't carry the same weight when it comes from somebody who voted for IWR....

BUT

Is Iraq the winning issue? The country is still split on that - even leaning toward supporting the war. Conversly, Kerry or Clark criticizing AWOL Bush carries more weight than Dean saying the same thing.

So who is in the best position to criticize Bush in the places that would hurt him the most - and what are those places?

[GreenArrow]

1. Kucinich

.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Kerry.

Dennis is not on the short list, and AWOL was flagged out here.
Kerry has every front in this war against Bush covered.

[GreenArrow]

8. Kucinich IS the short list

Don't get me wrong, I believe Kerry will be the nominee, with Clark as running mate, and I think they will win the Presidency. Clark is critical here, due to his percieved anti-war position, military experience, and Southern background. But based on records and votes, Kucinch can smite Bush at every turn listed above, not to mention honesty and integrity. Kerry has supported the Bush far too much, which ironically, while losing him some support on the left, may gain him support among Independents and disaffected Republicans. And most fundamentally, by the time November rolls around, people will be so sick of Bush and his gang, they aren't going to pay all that much attention to his opponents record.

[dennis4868]

3. Probably Kerry, but....

Kerry is spineless when it comes to Bush's lies about the WMD in Iraq as well as Bush's AWOL/Deserter situation....Kerry never blames Bush for the lie about the Iraq's WMD threat....he says fire Tenet, as if Tenet really had something to do with the lies.....

[laruemtt]

4. gotta be clark

he didn't vote for the IWR like kerry - can't get him there. he's been a proven leader his entire career. he's TAUGHT economics. and i would pay to see him in a debate with *!

[krkaufman]

15. Without question... Wes Clark

As for who can BEST challenge Bush... Clark is arguably the best of the 4 "viable" Presidential candidates. However, I feel that any of Clark/Kerry/Edwards/Dean could beat Bush this fall, but I'd rather go in with the strongest candidate, rather than just an adequate one.

Not only did Clark not vote for IWR (since he couldn't :) ), he testified against it stating unequivocally that a resolution should not authorize the use of force and that Al Qaeda needed to remain our focus. Two of the remaining "viable" P-candidates gave Bush a blank check to go to war at his discretion.

Clark has executive leadership experience; Dean is the only other "viable" P-candidate with some of same. (Hit the ground running.)

Clark has already worked in the White House, in the past. No other candidate has. (Hit the ground running.)

Clark has 34 years military experience, including leading a modern army to victory in war; Kerry is the only other "viable" P-candidate with any military experience. Kerry's anti-war activity on his return home may be an issue in going for critical Independent and crossover-Rep swing voters, and Dean's medical waiver for Vietnam will also likely be used against him. Clark's extensive military experience will deflate any Rethug insinuations that the Dem candidate wouldn't be able to hit the ground running in an ongoing war.

Clark is a elective political outsider; no other "viable" P-candidate can claim this mantle. Dean is a Washington outsider but 12-year Gov; Edwards has only 4-years of Senate experience, so is not entrenched. Clark's newness to politics will make it easier for swing voters in swing states to vote Dem in November.

Clark has Southern roots; Edwards is only other "viable" P-candidate with same. Useful for swing voters in swing states.

Clark's graduated 1st in his class from West Point (one of the most difficult school's to gain entry to academically), and became a Rhodes Scholar.

Clark reads, but then all the candidates can take Bush on that issue.

It's Clark's all-in-one package that makes him best-suited to crush the uckfay out of George W this fall, across all the subjects you suggest. No other candidate comes close to the total package -- when you look at the paper, rather than listen to the siren songs.

[stickdog]

5. Dean, of course.

My most important advice to Dr. Dean:

Talk about your strategy for beating Bush. Talk about how you are uniquely positioned to take on George Bush because of your record. Talk about how when you say that you'll tackle the problem of creating jobs and getting Bush's out of control spending and deficits under control, you have the record to prove to the American people that you're aren't just making promises.

Say that when you talk about giving Americans universal healthcare that you have the record, experience and expertise that shows that you're not just telling voters what they want to hear.

Talk about how when you criticize George Bush on the Iraq War, you have the record that proves that you wouldn't have made the exact same mistake -- and 500 brave America soldiers would be alive today and thousands more wouldn't be disabled for life.

Talk about how when you say you want to help the Democrats take back the House and Senate, that you have almost a million regular Americans in 50 states and 20,000 zip codes willing to work and contibrute whatever they can to make that dream a reality.

[Doctor_J]

6. He's weak on everything

so this is a little bit mal-formed. The ONLY thing he has to run on is Schlock and Awwwwwww, so the person who can take that wawy from him should be able to pitch a shutout. Who is that person? See my avatar...

[afraid_of_the_dark]

7. Depends on the issue.

Dean would be good on the deficit issue, considering he balanced the budget in his state.

Foreign Policy - Clark.

Jobs - Edwards

Corporate Interests... that's a toughie. Find me a politician whose hands are completely clean on this issue.

AWOL - Kerry, Clark

Healthcare crisis - Dean

Education - I tend to side with Dean on this as well, but many of the other candidates have good things to say too.

Defense is also a big issue, because whoever is chosen to run against Dubya is going to have to prove that he will keep us safe from terrorists. I'm not sure who I'd put for that one though.

[Freedom of Speech]

9. Domestic Policy = Dennis Kucinich

Everyone I've seen on CSPAN and where I live is most worried about losing jobs and healthcare.

However, he just hasn't caught on with the mainstream democrats.

Therefore, with Clark's liberal domestic stands and solid military background, he can really go after Chimpy on foreign policy.

I think our nominee has to be Clark.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. Dean.

He never voted for the Bush agenda. Clark supporters will no doubt say the same for their guy, but there's no doubt that Rove will throw the General's glowing endorsements of the Bush regime right back at him. They can't do that with the Doc.

[rucky]

11. I Say Jobs is the Issue & Kucinich is the best to criticize

He's the ONLY one opposed to NAFTA, GATT & WTO (maybe Sharpton, too), which has been largely responsible for the loss of 2.4 million manufacturing jobs.

Kucinich's opposition shows his commitment to creating & restoring our jobs. Pair that with his infrastructure rebuilding plan, small business loan program, renewable energy research, & breakup of big agribusiness, and you have a solid solution to creating real, lasting jobs.

Bush has absolutely no plan nor interest in restoring jobs. It's the issue he avoids the most, and is the one of most direct concern to the voters & their daily lives.

[redqueen]

16. Jobs, Iraq & Healthcare - Kucinich wins on all three n/t

[Skip Intro]

12. Dean, Clark, Kucinich. NOT Kerry or Edwards.

Iraq - BIG issue, investigation starting, support for the invasion is waning (52% in poll I saw this morning, and sure to fall further)
Kerry and Edwards supported the invasion, and still do, the same position as bush. Either of those as the nominee takes the issue off the table, at best, and allows rove/bush to paint Kerry or Edwards as a supporter, at worst. The same can be said about patriot act and NCLB. I think we do ourselves, not to mention the nation, a great disservice nominating someone who is virtually indistinguishable from bush on these issues. For these reasons alone, I am opposed to Kerry or Edwards.

Deficit - Dean has balanced budgets.

Jobs - Dean again, having created jobs, although Clark or Kucinich could take this fight to bush as well.

Corporate Interests - Definitely Kerry (gotcha). Seriosly, we need an outsider on this issue. Dean or Clark would be fine, imho. I admit I do not know Kucinich's history in relation to special interest, but knowing his level of integrity, I'm sure he'd be fine here also. This is another BIGGIE that bush needs to be pummeled on, and someone "up to their necks in special interest money" as a recent report described Kerry and Edwards is vulnerable, and greatly hampered in calling bush/cheney on their dirty corporate dealings. Dean's extremely attractive as best suited to take on this issue, because giving the power back to the people is and has been the cornerstone of his campaign.

AWOL - I'm gonna say Clark first here, though Dean or Kucinnich could be effective in calling bush on his deserter status too.

Plame - goes right back to the slimy way bush created the "war" conflict, lied about wmds, and then rushed to invade. We need an anti-invasion candidate to push this issue as well, imho. Dean, Clark, Kucinich again.


Foreign Policy - Clark's area of expertise here, tho I feel Dean or Kucinich could hit bush hard on the tremendous damage he's done to our respect and standing in the world.

I think any of the three would be fine in all of these areas, overall. My personal feeling is that Dean would be the best, because we know his knowledge of the issues is extensive, and that he will pull no punches. I would say a Dean/Clark ticket would cover all the bases nicely, with no apparent vulnerabilities. And as far as electability goes, that poll I saw today has Dean within 5pts of bush, and Clark within 3pts. Bush is below 50% in both cases.

We need to run a CLEAR alternative to bush, not someone who's in agreement with him on big issues.

fwiw

[genius]

13. Kucinch first

Second Kerry and Clark.

[creativelcro]

14. DEAN is in the best position, obviously.

[TexasSissy]

17. Jobs. But it's not who can attack best. The question is:

Who has charisma (the "it" factor), can legitimately focus on this (and other) issues, is a natural leader that others are inclined to follow, who has a plan to resolve the problem, who can inspire others to donate $$$, and who has the best communication skills (all the foregoing don't mean squat, unless you can effectively communicate and debate the issues, with other Dem. candidates, with Republicans, and with the media).

I think it's probably Kerry, at this point. But none of them are a Bill Clinton type person.

Dean is lacking the charisma factor (he has the highest unfavorable rating of all the candidates). Kucinich is missing the inspires people to donate and to follow him factors. Clark has everything except the communication/debate factor (the most important factor). Edwards is missing the "can legitimately focus on the issue," since he is lacking in experience to go one-on-one with anyone with experience (but he has all the other factors in spades). Sharpton is missing the same factors as Kucinich. Lieberman...poor Lieberman....he has none of the factors. But a likeable and well respected senator. He just shouldn't be in this race.