Display:


Re: I've been wondering..... (3.00 / 1)

I like them both too, but I would describe their common threads intelligence, thoughtfulness, courage, and paying more attention to the issues than to the politics of the issues.    In the case of Clark, his biggest weaknesses on 2004 seemed to be lack of preparation and doubts about his true commitments, so simply showing up and running again in 2008 would make him a stronger candidate the second time around.

by LastToKnow on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 06:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've been wondering..... (none / 0)

Agreed. And many people, including seemingly ill-informed swing voters, can smell authenticity and phoniness from miles away. Of course some candidates can successfully fake authenticity, but others try to and fail miserably (Kerry, HR Clinton).

Also, I don't really think that Clark qualifies as "establishment" in anything like the sense that Clinton, Kerry, Biden et al do. I certainly don't see how he's any more "establishment" than Warner or Richardson, for example. To say the very least. Part of the establishment flirted with him briefly in 03-04 as the only apparent alternative to Dean, but they dropped him like a cold fish as soon as their boy Kerry surprised everyone by actually winning Iowa. Gore has also moved quite a ways away from the establishment over the past couple of years. I know that Clark, Gore and Feingold all appeal in different ways to many people who are dissatisfied with or infuriated by the current establishment, and while I can't see the numbers I would suspect that there is probably a significant correlation between support for these three here as well. That's a hypothesis based on substantial anecdotal evidence, anyway.

   

by human on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 12:36:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]