Which candidate can take votes from McCain? (poll)

[Dawgs]

Poll question: Which candidate can take votes from McCain? (poll)

If McCain is the candidate in 08', we need to find someone that will counter his appeal by independants and some Democrats. Who do we have that will energize our base, bring in new voters, and pull from the McCain lovers?

IMO
-----------
Edwards is young, but does he offer anything that would take votes from the McCain independants?

Gore and Dean have the energy, but they've been around for awhile, and are seen by many as "crazy".

Kerry was worth trying once, but not again.

No on Biden.

Maybe on Richardson.

Mark Warner is young, a governer, and intelligent. I don't know enough to say that he would take people away from McCain.

Hillary carries too much baggage.

Clark would be a good candidate, but are people going to want a military general.

Obama would be my choice. He would attract the young, the black voter, and many independants.

[waiting for hope]

1. Someone posted

the other day a Edwards/Obama combination would do the trick...

[Dawgs]

2. Can someone explain why Edwards would pull voters away from McCain?

:-)

[last_texas_dem]

44. Edwards has several strong points against McCain

I believe that the bulk of McCain's popularity with "Independent" voters is simply based on him playing himself as such. Consider his voting record, which is one of the most conservative in the Senate. He takes occasional moderate stands on high-profile issues, which has caused him to be misperceived as a moderate and a "maverick."

If McCain ends up being the Repug nominee it will be absolutely necessary for the Democrat to tear down his moderate facade. Of the potential candidates, Edwards would be one of the best at doing this.

Edwards is a very successful lawyer and thus an excellent debater. He is very charismatic and is perceived positively by more familiar with who he is than many candidates are. He is also liberal to moderate on the bulk of issues and yet does not come across ultra-partisan.

Why would this allow him to play well against McCain? Well, considering that many see McCain as likeable, it would be an asset for the Democrats to also run a likeable candidate. Considering McCain is a skilled politician and media schmoozer, it would be an asset for the Democrats to run a candidate who can hold his (or her) own in such situation. (Media bias and irresponsible reporting is another issue altogether, of course.) If the Dems want to effectively call out McCain on his pseudo-moderation and show him as the right-winger he really is, it would be good to have a candidate who can appeal to moderates and has a moderate-liberal voting record.

Additionally, perhaps McCain's strongest weakness is his edgy, angry demeanor that occasionally comes to the surface; I can think of no better candidate than Edwards to contrast to hotheaded McCain.

I like many of the possible '08 candidates (particularly Gore, Edwards, and Feingold), but those are just a handful of the reasons that I think Edwards could run an effective campaign against McCain.

[1932]

54. Edwards actually does the best against McCain according to a recent poll

that included Hillary, Kerry, and a couple others. He was the only Dem who could beat Guilianni and Frist (?) and came closer to McCain than the rest (within margin of error).

http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

[last_texas_dem]

56. These are some interesting results

Thanks for posting these polls. It's good to see Edwards's substantial support among both Democrats and independent voters, especially for a potential candidate now out of any elected office. I think Edwards's appeal is often underestimated.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Unless you want to recruit inside the Salvation Army

A military General is the only kind of General you are likely to find. OK, seriously. The simplest answer to General Clark winning or losing votes due to his military career is, are you talking about the Democratic Primaries or the General Election? I assume it is the latter. Most observers have always agreed that there is much more ingrained suspicion of the military within Democratic ranks than inside Republican ranks or with Independents. Clark is a Liberal on most issues, so Democrats would rally to him if he becomes the Democratic nominee, though I am sure that a few otherwise Democratic oriented military haters will vote third party or stay home or whatever. However I think that would be far offset by many more otherwise Republican oriented military supporters who will think the Democrats are finally running an honorable American for President, who would vote for Clark and perhaps no other Democrat.

[xkenx]

6. Thanks for the succinct, spot-on analysis

I have encountered and heard about SO MANY Republicans who cringe when talking about Bush, but can't bring themselves to vote for a Dem. UNLESS it's Wes Clark. He is the only Dem. who can literally wrap the flag around him and be believable (as he did at the Dem. Convention and on the stump for Kerry). Anybody think Wes Clark can be Swiftboated? Think again. This is a man who, as a 3-star general in his 50s, rappelled down a mountainside in Serbia during a war in an attempt to save members of his team whose vehicle had gone over the edge. When asked during the primaries how he would deal with Rethug smears, forgetting he was on CSPAN camera, said "I'll beat the shit out of them." When the horrified MSM asked whether he meant to say that, the answer was "No, I meant to say I'll beat the living shit out of them." Wes Clark is the Dem. the Rethugs fear the most because he trumps them in their supposedly strongest arena. Plus being a true progressive.

[wiley]

31. Get out of my mind!

:yoiks:

[Bucky]

32. Quit leaving it open!

[wiley]

30. Smartest Statement Ever Made

[nickshepDEM]

4. Warner, Feingold, Clark... Bout it.

[Dawgs]

5. Why?

Because I don't think message is enough to defeat McCain.

[safi0]

7. Beating McCain IMO

Requires someone whom the CR will stay home for. They don't like McCain that's well documented but if Hillary is the nominee they'll go to the polls to vote against her. Warner is the first guy that comes to my mind in that regard.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I think that Clark is the best match against a McCain or a Hagel....

Why? Because the issue of strong creds in the leadership area of National Security and Foreign policy becomes neutered and the emphasis of the campaign would be forced to switch to what they differ on. McCain and Hagel were both "for" the Iraq Invasion....Clark was not....thereby the debate on national security would hinge on that particular issue, as well as the issue of investigating "how" we got to Iraq. That is something Americans would welcome....considering that a majority of Americans now understand clearly that this war was a bad idea. The fact that McCain was "misled" with bad intelligence, while Clark was not, is also a case that could be made. You see, it can be said that the Commander in Chief needs to be one who cannot be easily misled. Democrats could make that kind of a case in supporting a Wes Clark.

In addition, General Clark neutralizes the issue of future Terrorism in and out of the United States, i.e., the War on Terror. McCain and Hagel only have their 30+ year old military background and their days in the senate to rely on; Both followed Bush into a disaster. Clark led and won a war only six years ago. An Osama Tape appearing at the 11th hour would not "damage" the democratic candidate, something that the PUGs have used over and over again to bring out the fear of the electorate into casting their vote for the Republican candidate.

Add the fact that Clark is co-chairman of Witt and Associates also makes him an expert on Emergency preparedness....something that neither McCain nor Hagel are. Witt has been lauded by both party as someone who knows what he's doing. Clark having been on board in that organization as Co-Chairman since day one helps alleviate the fear of Americans against issues such as pandemic outbreaks, national emergency disasters and possible future terrorist attacks.

So what will be left if the Terrorism/War issues are taken off the table (more or less)?.....that would be domestic policies; social and economic issues. On those points, Democrats have the clear edge.

Have Clark select a running mate who is known for bipartisan cooperation and political savvy, and the Democrats can enter the White House in 2008 and make important changes.

So I think the Rhodes Scholar, 1st in his Class at West Point, Non politician, wounded with 4 bullets in Vietnam, handsome and married for years, Democratic General could beat McCain, while other Democrats (who are for the most part considered weak in the area of National Security) would have a very hard and difficult time attempting to rival McCain as a strong and determined leader.

Also remember...McCain's PR appeal is mainly artificially media generated, while Clark's appeal is real (cause as you may know, the media ain't been very helpful when it comes to promoting Wes Clark). If enough people knew Wes Clark, even a McCain couldn't "undo" what he represents....someone who truly cares for our nation and its future.

[Dawgs]

12. Thank you, and I agree...

I would love to see a Clark/Obama ticket.

[NCarolinawoman]

17. Maybe you can verify something for me....

I read that during the summer of 2004, the swiftboaters were scheduled to give a press conference at the National Press Club. Wes Clark was in Washington DC at the time so the Kerry campaign sent General Clark down to the National Press Club to refute them. The swiftboaters got wind of this and suddenly cancelled their press conference.

I do believe they later DID give a press conference there, but it was when Wes wasn't in town. Am I the only one who read about this story?

[FrenchieCat]

19. I remembered that story too! Here it is!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

The Vets Attack
In August, when the Swift Boat vets scheduled a press conference at the National Press Club, the Kerry campaign dispatched Gen. Wesley Clark to hold a counter-press conference. At the last minute the Swifties canceled.

[xkenx]

27. Wes Clark, the Dem. that the Rethugs fear the most

[stray cat]

13. agreed Feingold, Clark and Warner would all do well

All are straight speaking competent, practical independent thinkers that come across as real individuals. Also anti-corruption. They also all can cross partisan boundaries and unite people and politicians to get things done.

[enough already]

8. If you think McCain will get their nomination, you are kidding yourself

Those right wing crackpots will never nominate him.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Actually, the are "crackpots" for a reason......

They will do whatever it takes to win. Don't underestimate their willingness to do whatever it takes. They understand that winning is everything. It's the Democrats that don't quite have that concept down yet.

[xkenx]

11. Don't Bet On It-They May Nominate Him

McCain has demonstrated by his statements, votes, and Bush-hugging that he's Rethuglican through and through. Once in a while he slips on the sheepskin and comes out for something honorable, and suddenly he's a moderate? In the pre-Reagan Repug. Party, McCain would have been the right-winger.
Even on his "holier-than-thou" attitude re campaign finance reform, the man was out campaigning in CA for SchwarzeRENEGER's misguided propositions funded by mountains of corporate money. So McCain is nothing but a Rethug HO, and the other RWers will recognize the scent of one of their own and nominate him if they think he can snooker enough Dems. to win.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Worst of both worlds. McCain DOES have a shred of decency in him

AND he is very willing to compromise on 80% of whatever he starts out disagreeing with most Conservative Republicans on, that's after you factor in that he agrees with them on 80% of things to begin with. What does that leave you with? A fig leaf of personal integrity to hide his complicity in the right wing rape of America, and you damn well can count on that "fig leaf" featuring prominently in news coverage of him during a Presidential campaign, rather than what it covers. The Republican power brokers never forget though.

McCain sold his soul to the devil to remain viable within the Republican Party when he embraced Bush after his primary defeats to him. That makes him an acceptable "Mr.Clean" if too many scandals engulf the current mob running the country. And it is looking like that is exactly what will happen between now and 2008. McCain would be the Republicans fresh "new leaf" to turn to, like Gerald Ford was to the G.O.P. after Nixon/Agnew. Ford actually almost won, and probably would have had he not pardoned Nixon.

[Bucky]

34. On Ford... have you ever wondered why he did so well after Watergate?

By any reasonable measure, '76 should've been a slam dunk year for the Democrats. Instead we pulled out a squeaker against a really dull candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. Good question.

Ford contrasted really well with Nixon. Ford was obviously a basically honest and sincere man, and people may have been relieved and grateful for that. Carter and Ford later became good friends. But I don't know it that explains all of it. Republicans perfected hard ball very effective campaign tactics, many of them below the radar, under Nixon. Lee Atwater was already on the scene, and while I don't know if he had any hand whatsoever in Ford's campaign, his stamp was already on Republican political operations. But I don't know if that explains any of it either. Good question.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. Most people who think Gore and Dean are crazy

Are Fox News republicans.

Everyone I've met be it Dem or Independant wish they could have voted for Dean in Nov despite the scream.

Don't buy into the right-wing hype...they smear the biggest threats.

[Dawgs]

16. You are right, but that wasn't the question...

It's not about who you would want; It's about who could take votes away from McCain. I think the "crazy" label would be enough to scare some people away.

[Catchawave]

18. Crossover appeal ?

Here's a <snip> from a Pew Research Poll done recently....

"Among possible Democratic candidates, former Sen. John Edwards has the greatest crossover appeal­ he is viewed favorably by 85% of Democratic voters who can rate him, 68% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Sen. Joe Biden is viewed favorably by 42% of Republicans who are familiar with him, but only 56% of Democrats. Fewer than half of registered voters knew Biden well enough to give a rating.

By comparison, Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry remain highly polarizing figures. Democratic voters view Kerry favorably by roughly four-to-one, while Republicans view him unfavorably by the same margin and independents are divided (49% favorable, 51% unfavorable among those able to give a rating). Sen. Clinton receives similar ratings, though somewhat higher than Kerry among independents"

Source:http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=261

[FrenchieCat]

21. What's amazing about that Pew Poll is that......

Wes Clark's not even in it.

Maybe they are afraid of what would happen to the poll if Clark was included....hey?

I still don't see how Edwards is supposed to be so strong. He couldn't even win his own county, let alone his state. I realize that voters vote for the top of the ticket...but still, if Edwards was that strong a draw, he could have least won his county...doncha think?

[Catchawave]

22. Wonder why he wasn't on it ?

He wins all the polls on DU :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

24. Maybe "they" don't want to really know the answer.....

After all, corporate America likes "Status Quo". Has Edwards ever spoken against media monopolies? Clark has.

Curious though....Looks like McCain and Guliani have Edwards beat though.....

What does the "can't rate" number mean? Edwards has a higher one than many of the others....his is at 27, while

Guess we will never know with Clark, since they didn't "oops" list him.

[Catchawave]

26. I was just responding to the OP and

the subject of crossover appeal.

As of now, I'm a huge supporter of Edwards, Feingold and Warner. I think Clark is 11 on my top ten, as I know very little about him, other than he wins DU polls and works for Faux News :silly:

May the best (wo)man win :hi:

[Jai4WKC08]

59. Willful ignorance is really sad

And in a democracy as in much trouble as ours, irresponsible as well.

[last_texas_dem]

53. I don't think state/county results reveal all that much

Most of all, because of your own statement, "I realize that voters vote for the top of the ticket..." That, to me, is the bottom line here. I think there are very few recent examples of a Vice Presidential candidate having all that much effect on a Presidential candidate's performance in a state. I mean, just how much did having Lloyd Bentsen on the ticket really make Texans more likely to vote for Michael Dukakis? And how much did Jack Kemp make New Yorkers likely to support Bob Dole? The last instance I can think of when a VP pick may have helped a Presidential candidate carry a close state is Al Gore's inclusion on Clinton's ticket. Then again, Gore's effect couldn't have been that substantial considering his failure to carry Tennesse in his own bid for the Presidency.

Which I think makes a larger point about statewide inclinations. Even if Gore had run the best campaign in history, it would have been tough for him to carry Tennessee which had trended substantially from a conservative Democratic state to a right-wing Republican state in the period from Gore's days as a Senator to his days as Presidential candidate. Consider that in a matter of a few years their Senate representation went from James Sasser and Al Gore to Bill "Cat Killer" Frist and Fred Thompson (and now Lamar! Alexander).

Now, consider North Carolina. The state hasn't voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976, almost thirty years ago. Carter ran a campaign significantly to the right of Kerry, and even Clinton, who also ran his campaign to the right of Kerry and managed to carry a handful of southern and border states, failed to carry North Carolina in either election, albeit coming quite close in '92. That "Massachusetts liberal" John Kerry, even with a North Carolina Senator, was able to maintain essentially the same margin of defeat as Al Gore in his campaign is actually fairly impressive, as odd as that may sound. It probably says more about the political trends of North Carolina than it does about Kerry's strength as a candidate, however. On the subject of Edwards having an effect in North Carolina, consider that NC is one of the very few states where, depending upon how one accounts for the "Nader factor" in 2000 vs. 2004, the Democratic ticket actually made a small gain. Again, that may have more to do with North Carolina's statewide political trends than the influence of John Edwards but, if that is the case, it simply reinforces the point I made earlier about Vice Presidential candidates having a negligible effect on how people cast their vote for President.

Finally, on this issue of how the Kerry-Edwards ticket fared in Edwards's "home" county, I'm not sure just how relevant this is. For one, if all of my information is correct, Edwards was born in South Carolina, grew up in a rural North Carolina county, went to college in a different county, did practice law in Wake County for several years, and now lives in a different county (in Chapel Hill) so the issue of what his "home county" is does not seem particularly cut and dry to me. If we do consider Wake County to be Edwards's home county, however, it is important to consider that it has not voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since Bill Clinton in '92, when Clinton prevailed 43-41 percent with Perot garnering 15-percent of the vote. It voted for Dole over Clinton in '96 and Shrub over Gore in 2000. Shrub beat Kerry by a margin of 52-48. Considering the fact that Clinton's first statewide contest against Bush was very close, while Kerry lost NC 56-44 percent, the Wake County results actually show a considerably stronger showing by the Democrats in Wake County compared to the state as a whole. Again, this could have more to do with political changes in NC than on the strength of John Edwards as a VP candidate. In fact, it likely does. But, as I've pointed out earlier in this post, I tend to think it speaks more to the fact that Vice Presidential candidates don't have all that much effect on voters who determine their vote based on the top of the ticket and says very little along the lines of John Edwards being a weak figure.

[Bucky]

36. The Dean scream was a farce too. But any Dem will be smeared.

Clark - he's crazy; he got fired for incompetance; he never blinks; he's a Gen'l Jack D Ripper type
Warner - he's a con artist; a failed businessman (I'll love it when Republicans trot that one out!); a country club limo lib; unqualified in military issues
Edwards - he's an ambulance chaser; a Huey Long-type class warrior; unqualified in military issues; gay
Biden - he's a chronic liar; an egomaniac; a bloated corrupt pol; a tool of special interests; a leaker of classified info
Richardson - he's ashamed of (then is manipulating) his Hispanic roots; he's tied to the Alamogordo spy ring; he's a liar
Clinton - actually I can't think of any slurs they might try against Hillary :eyesroll:

No matter who we run, there will be a character smear job run on them. That's SOP for the GOP.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. You are SO right

Ya know, I don't think McCain will be the Repub nominee. The religious right, extreme conservatives, and the party-above-country faithful all despise him; probably more important, he appears to be too much of a maverick for the Repub powers that be to allow any real power.

However, I do think he would be hardest for us to beat (in a straight-up election, without voter fraud... assuming such a thing is possible) if he should win the nomination. So I don't really want him to get it, but some little part of me does because he has always tried to portray himself as "above" all the nasty, slanderous, Rovian-style attack politics. I'd love to see how low he would sink if it was his own campaign on the line.

[otohara]

63. Crazy Gore Only Won The 2000 Election

got more votes than Dimson nationwide as i recall - what an irresponsible thing to say.

[saltpoint]

20. McCain's health may be what subtracts from his vote total.

If he stays robust he will be a tough challenge for the Democrats. But if he is hospitalized for something-or-other, it may reinforce the idea that his health has been iffy at times in the past.

I think just about any Democratic ticket could whomp Bill Frist. About half or more maybe could beat Allen. A healthy McCain is a steeper hill.

[MadisonProgressive]

23. This will beat McCain

Is he fondling * balls?

[NCarolinawoman]

25. Ha! Ha! You may be right! n/t

[loyalsister]

28. ugh!!

This love affair with Clark is just getting tiresome. A friend referred to military matters as the national G-spot.
The recent Dem recruiting of Veterans for '06 elections in order to capitalize on it is a little sickening to those of us who have issues being ignored while dem.s pander to try to win the hearts of white men.
Trying to steal votes from John McCain is a losing strategy. People who are actually affected by policy will stay home if a candidate with no real experience dealing with domestic policy is running.
Many of the loyal dem activists are going to have a hard time getting excited about nomination to steal votes from the other party.

[FrenchieCat]

33. So what is your friend saying? We are not in a war that a civilian

President and his civilian congress started?

To insinuate that Military Dems are "capitalizing" by running in 2006 to make an attempt at defeating Republicans sounds like someone overly righteous is doing the talking. The meme is that the military is Republican. What's wrong if soldiers who believe Bush to be wrong want to run as Democrats? Why is that sickening?

Most of the military is made up of minority....African Americans, Native Americans and Hispanics. For you to say that somehow having Democrats who are also military is pandering to the White man is a wholy uninformed statement made without basis. In addition, the military is one of the largest socialistic organization in the United States.....if anything, more military should be Democrat. You should listen to Rhandi Rhodes.....cause she says the exact opposite from what you have "gathered".

Trying to woo the mushy middle along with everyone else is not a losing strategy, and has yet to be proven so. Votes are votes as long as they are counted.

Foreign policy affects domestic policy....and to speak as though it isn't so is lacking basic insight. Hell, even Kucinich says so. Where do you think the 500 Billion dollars to fight the present war came from? Who is hurt the most by the program cuts made to afford this war? Until we have a sound foreign policy, the domestic agenda is handicapped....cause no matter what "great program" some want to put forth, this government is broke...and defense spending is growing.

I think what you are saying, on its face, could be taken as making sense...but if one truly analyzes what you have actually wrote, it's just a bunch of blanket judgmental statements lacking any true rationale.

In brief, what your friend and you are saying is wrong.

[loyalsister]

41. ugh again

The point is military worship is so out of hand that the state parties are specifically RECRUITING veterans to run with the intent to participate in ignoring domestic issues and in effect, playing *'s game.
Point in case-- my new congressional candidate is one of them. He has Paul Hackett's guy helping him with strategy. He came to speak at an opening of our local headquarters. The guy talked about the other candidate and military spending. I had a one on one conversation with him and asked him about health care and disability issues he wouldn't even go there. No interest in learning about the people or the policy.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Soooo

Your conversation with one person equals a blanket statement against all?

You are stereotyping...which is something that as progressives, we need to steer from.

Military worship is not really as you say.....if it was, Paul Hackett would have won his congressional race, and General Clark would have won the 2004 primaries, and McCain/Cleland/Kerry would not have been smeared by the GOP....but they were.

Again, I see nothing wrong with Military Dems coming home and wanting to get into politics....

I don't know why attorneys can go into the hall of congress, but soldiers are not allowed....in particular soldiers who identify with the Democratic party.

You are only helping in spreading and perpetuating the inaccurate meme that Democrats and the military don't go together. They do many times....and during a war is a time when soldiers might want to get involved ultimately in having a say in how they got sent where they got sent.

Again, your rationale doesn't hold.

The ChickenHawks use our Military all of the time....but somehow the military can't use themselves? Why is that?

[loyalsister]

43. There's a distinction here that has been seriously misunderstood

These guys are being recruited based on the fact that they have military service records. It is a concerted effort across the country. I said or was awkwardly but obviously trying to say "case in point" that usually means "or example."
By the way, no one in my area is going to donate to the guy. No real interest or crediblility in any policy except foreign and no one wants to invest in him. People think the Senate race even the state campaigns are more worthwhile.
The Dems and people here appear to be expecting there to be military worship based on maybe action figure sales, box office draws or something.

[Sparkly]

45. There are many here who helped recruit General Clark

and with all due respect, I don't think it's for you to judge their motives.

For me, it's NOT that he fits into a box labeled "Military" -- but his career is definitely a plus. He's also incredibly smart (Rhodes Scholar), honest, courageous, self-disciplined, and thoughtful. His background shows all of that and much more. He's a liberal with a biography that can bring our values to moderates, even "repentent Republicans."

The fact that he's not a politician is, in my view, a plus. The fact that he's had a military career is, in my view, also a strength (particularly what HE did in the military) -- but it is just one part of his makeup, and NOT the sole reason for my supporting him.

[loyalsister]

49. Oh, for God's sake!!

I am talking about now and the state party leaders recruiting efforts.

snip.....

The vets also represent the Democrats' best hope of burying their GOP-crafted caricature as the Mommy party of John Kerry—unable to defend the country from terrorists or themselves from political attack. "A macho Democrat is someone who isn't afraid to stand up for what they believe in, to tell their story, to fight back when they're unfairly attacked," says John Lapp, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10219754/site/newsweek

A lot of people are smart. That doesn't give them experience.
Whatever your reasons, the military macho crap is what many hope will steal votes from John McCain.
It's cynical at best.
I deal with policy.
When I want something substantial done I look for an elected official who knows policy I am interested in backwards and forwards who is not a politician, but a public servant to sponsor the bill.

[Jai4WKC08]

62. Are you assuming that because someone is a veteran...

That they don't know or care about domestic policy?

Wes Clark has an Oxford masters degree in economics, and taught the subject at the college level. His economic philosophy is holistic and completely progressive. He also has an exemplary record on promoting education, was called to testify on the subject before Congress several times after he retired, and was courted in the state of CA to run their K-12 programs. He was extremely successful in improving health care and housing for the American families (military and civilian) he was responsible for. He won an award from the Audubon Society for his environmental work.

Now, I'm not saying that every veteran being recruited has that kind of experience. Most of 'em did not serve at high enough levels or long enough to get involved in so many different aspects of life within the military community, or interacting with the surrounding civilians. And I'm sure you're correct that many are being recruited largely for their military records, and are/will be advertised by the DCCC and state parties for their military experience. There's a good reason for that.

In case you hadn't noticed, Democrats run with a pre-existing deficit on security issues. We're already viewed by most voters as being the strongest on domestic issues but "weak on defense" and have been since the Vietnam war. That might have been ok in 1992, but it just doesn't cut it in 2006, and won't in 2008. I would think the results of 2004 would make that obvious.

The average voter never learns that much about the individual running to be his representative--he votes purely on the "brand label" of the party. He may learn more about presidential nominees, but not much, and is easily swayed by attack ads that reinforce what he already believes. Until Democrats change the way we've been branded by the Repub noise machine, until we're veiwed as a "full service party" able to handle domestic AND foreign/defense issues, we don't stand a chance at winning back Congress, and very little of recapturing the White House.

But to get back to your posts on this thread, you make a grave and in my opinion extremely biased error in asserting that just because someone has a military background, they aren't every bit as qualified to handle domestic issues, and in most cases just as progressive as any other Democrat. Veterans are no different from the rest of us. They live and work in the same communities. They come from the same variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds. They have families who need good schools, access to health care, clean air and water. And with few exceptions, they have proven their willingness to sacrifice personally for the good of society as a whole. They are almost by definition "public servants" first.

[loyalsister]

64. conventional wisdom and cultural mythology

One is used to preserve the other in the U.S.
Dems. are "weak on defense" is what keeps the mythology going in American Innocence that first of all we would do no wrong. And second, we must be a super power.
As long as we have candidates who are either buying it themselves or at least just selling it, we will remain the world's bullies, because there will be someone in office who is more hawkish and Americans are going to think it is just and appropriate for us to behave that way.

I used the example of the candidate I talked to who didn't have the party activists in my area fooled and that it was no way to win. He'll never raise enough money to get the job done. The hope is that he will have the rest of the body politic believing he gives a damn, but if the loyalists don't believe in him enough to donate, how does he reach those voters?
I was hoping he had some interest in policy. I asked him questions and he wouldn't engage just went back to security issues. It's not that they are all that way. It's that the recruitment is based on your argument (In case you hadn't noticed, Democrats run with a pre-existing deficit on security issues. The average voter never learns that much about the individual running to be his representative--he votes purely on the "brand label" of the party.), and many people seem to suggest.
I stand by my argument that we aren't going to win big by catering to the love affair with the national g-spot as people keep suggesting we should.
It certainly isn't a good strategy for the presidency.
I think we should make sure a person has well rounded background and knowledge, but choosing a candidate based on "who can compete against McCain, the veteran" puts us in a weak position from the outset. Besides. Why would we run on someone's history when we can run on someone's current activities?

[skipos]

48. Just as there are many things to like about Warner in addition

to the fact he is great southern* governor from a flippable red state, there are many things to like about Clark in addition to the fact that he is an accomplished and respected general. I find myself repeating that (epecially the first part) a lot.

And as for the "people will stay home" if a candidate has no real experience, the 20 million people who voted for Perot would probably disagree with you.



*I don't really consider VA "the south" but other people do.

[radio4progressives]

29. this is the kind of post that makes me wonder why in the hell am I in this

party..

why in the hell should anybody care about running against McCain?

whoever wins the GOP nomination is going to be by definition "wildly popular" among Repugs!

why are you trying to drive THIS party further to the RIGHT with this thinking?

for pity sakes!

[skipos]

47. If our nominee is supported by democrats and no one else, he will lose.

Only 35% or so of voters say they are democrats. It is a good idea to try to assess our nominee's appeal to independent and casual voters.

[WI_DEM]

35. Umm, Dean has not been "around for a while"

he has been around as long as Clark. And he's not crazy--he has consistently been correct about Iraq and a host of other issues. It's a shame our own people have to rekindle Republican talking points. But he's not running anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

37. When Truth = Crazy......

You know we're are sooooo screwed!

[WI_DEM]

38. The Republican truth

I don't think the DNC would elect a crazy man to head the party, but as I said he isn't running anyway, so I don't know why Dean was included.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Unfortunately the true problem is the fact that GOP truth oftentimes

morphs into generally accepted truth. That's one of the biggest problem that we face....the Republican Noise Machine and the Corporate Media as a conduit to rewrite perceptions and history.

So I am in agreement with you. Those speaking truth should not be labeled "Crazy".....especially by those who should be interested in the truth.

[WI_DEM]

39. P.S. but if Dean were running...

I think he would be a strong challenge to McCain with Independents. Both men are perceived as mavericks who speak their minds--which has not always ingratiated themselves to their party hierarchy.

[imlost]

46. I disagree

At least that isn't what I see in my "world". Most independents and Repubs I know consider Dean too be crazy and too liberal. I don't agree with them but that is how they see it. I believe the media has done a very good job of helping this out. I believe out of all the candidates in 04 the media screwed hi over the most.

I like your Carter tag. I love him and am reading his latest book right now!

[Crazy Guggenheim]

52. Welcome to DU! BTW, McCain is also considered crazy too.

[imlost]

57. Thanks for the welcome!

[karynnj]

50. I would love to see Kerry against McCain

Remember how he could cooly and precisely get Bush to explode - McCain will make Bush look calm. In McCain's account of the POW/MIA committee they were both on - Kerry took on the task of keeping McCain from exploding. From McCain's story Kerry did all the diplomacy both within a volatile group that included McCain, Kerrey and Smith (NH) and with the Vietnamese. Without Kerry they would never have had a unanimus report.

I think Kerry knows where all the buttons are and Kerry, even in the 1970s remained calm and in control - no matter how angry.

[wisteria]

51. Kerry is the only person who could take on McCain. n/t

[election_2004]

55. Feingold or Clark

Both have a maverick streak that could rival McCain's.

[GatoLover]

58. I like Bill Richardson a lot

You never know if a candidate has what it takes until he or she goes for it, but I think Richardson has a number of very desirable qualities. First and foremost are his foreign policy bone fides. This is a guy who has gone head-to-head with the North Koreans. He's apparently so good that even W sends him on missions. He looks great on TV. You'd think he'd take the Hispanic vote. He's not far left but I think most of his positions are pretty progressive, and he's been a good governor of New Mexico.

[snowbear]

65. Notice how the Hillary voters never fess up....

Why is that anyhoo? http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/duh!.gif