"My intuition tells me [Bush] will probably win the election unless there are Republicans that are willing to vote against him."

Very true. Here's the thing: 45% of voters will vote Republican, no matter what. 45% will vote Democrat, no matter what. It's the remaining 10% that's crucial. Bush has alienated many true conservatives, and the hope to defeat him lies with folks like Cruiser. We must establish a dialogue with that 10% and do whatever we can, between now and November, to help them decide that Bush and his criminal cronies are bad for America.

The problem with the voting public is that any candidate must appear "presidential", meaning serious, respectable and level-headed, and at the same time come across as down-to-earth and charming. Not an easy thing to pull off. Plus it helps if he's attractive.

The Democratic choices are not so great, obviously. The biggest problem with Kerry is that he's a New England patrician, just like Bush Sr and Jr (no, they're not Texans), and a member of the same Skull & Bones secret society. And he's ugly.

Dean, of course, is not at all "presidential" (witness his little scream-fest after Iowa). Neither are Kucinich or Sharpton. And they're all ugly.

Lieberman might be able to fake "presidential", but not down-to-earth or charming. And he's ugly.

Edwards has good looks, and charm in spades (practiced in many courtroom appearances, no doubt), but is too young to be convincingly "presidential". And as a lawyer, he has a credibility problem.

It appears to me that Clark's public persona is best suited to the task of defeating Bush. He has military cred, is reasonably good-looking, smart and funny, and should be able to easily out-debate Bush. Of course we don't yet know where he stands on many issues, and he already switched part affiliation once, but hey, you can't have everything.

I believe Clark is the man most likely to have a chance of winning against Bush.

Cheers,
Michael