Dem nomination is about determining the nature of the party (Dean v Clark)

[dkf]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1002-02.htm

My point is, the Democratic nominating contest is essentially about determining the nature of that party, not the "electability" question. Howard Dean represents anti-establishment insurrection from the ground up. His popularity is not about left or right issues (as the media and his opponents keep claiming) but rides upon the swelling anger people feel toward Bush and the Dems' own complacent, top-down, risk-averse, corporate-compromised leadership. The press is still on Dean's case, picking away at his supposed contradictions. But the Washington Post fronted an insightful counter-version by Laura Blumenfeld (October 1) that explains Dean's empowering language and angle of vision. It's not about him, he tells voters, it's about them -- all the people who feel ignored and disenfranchised, not only by Bush the right-winger. but by their own party's Washington elites.

Dean is profoundly correct in this critique. If he survives their assaults and prevails in the nomination (I think he can), it will be like an implosion of the insider illusions governing the Democratic party. He lacks their esteemed connections to the corporate-financial infrastructure that runs politics, so why is he raising more money? Because he has a list of people -- active citizens, not monied contributors -- unlike anything the party itself possesses (I've heard Dean's database variously described as 400,000 or 600,000 or 1.2 million names).

This new form of power is derived from the wondrous technologies (computers and the Internet), but actually involves the way the party used to organize voters before it converted to spin-marketing techniques. The party does not itself keep such lists any more (though it might rent them from other organizations). Why bother with names and addresses when they have polls and focus groups? The Doctor might stumble, of course, but his nomination (even if he then loses to Bush) would produce a profound ventilation -- actually a violent shake-up -- in the modern methodologies of what used to know as the party of working people.

Who could be against that? The Democratic incumbency. The last thing they want in their lives is competitive elections or citizens who come out of the woodwork to launch their own techno-grassroots campaigns. Yes, incumbent Dems all want Bush out, but they would much prefer it's done by a safer, more reliable candidate.

read more on Clark

[chaumont58]

1. Good post

*

[boxster]

2. No offense, but this post would have been just fine without the line

"read more on Clark". Or any reference to Clark, for that matter.

I find it difficult to understand why posters cannot simply provide thoughtful, intelligent arguments re: their candidates (just like this one) without adding either a) a snide remark about another candidate unsubstantiated by any documentation, or b) as this posting does, tack one last line or comment that adds nothing to the posting.

Again, it's a good post, but if you're going to couch this issue in "Dean v Clark", I think it is fair to expect more than "read more on Clark" if you're going to convince anyone of the differences in the candidates.

I think it's interesting that Dean is perceived by many as the anti-establishment candidate, and it's usually portrayed by his supporters as if this is something new and unheard of and that Dean is the only candidate in the race who fits this description. I'm pretty sure that Kucinich supporters - and many others - would beg to differ.

[drfemoe]

14. Editorial choice

I believe dkf was just indicating that if you click the link to the article, it continues on to discuss "Clark" (in that author's viewpoint).
You may not agree with the article, :shrug:
but why attack the poster for simply indicating there was more content to the story?

:kick: Frankly, I've seen much more "acting up" by Clark supporters since I've been here than anyone else's.

You can't really disagree with one point of the article, and that is there is a battle in the dem party.

I hope we can work it out. :pals:

[boxster]

16. Sure, it's editorial choice, however....

"read more on Clark" assumes that there was anything in the posting about Clark to begin with. The poster is making a point about Dean without having a counterpoint about Clark except for "read more on Clark".

I was neither disagreeing with the article, nor was I attacking the poster. My point was that if you're going to include "Dean v. Clark" in the subject line, it might be a good idea to actually have something about Clark there, pro or con, opinion or otherwise.

[maha]

3. I agree with what you say about Dean and the party

But I don't get whatever point you're trying to make about Clark.

[boxster]

4. I'm pretty sure dkf's point is to say that Clark is the "chosen one" of

the establishment, so we should all vote for Dean because he's anti-establishment.

[maha]

5. But I don't think that's true.

Who "chose" Clark? Was it the DNC? Or was it the very grassroots "draft Clark" movement? Or was it people in the media like Michael Moore, Joe Conason, and Eric Alterman? I believe it's a combination of the 2nd and 3rd, not so much the first.

Clark is even more outside the Democratic "establishment" than Dean is, if anything.

I like Dean a lot; I like Clark a lot. They're my two faves of the group. Dean has better credentials on domestic policy; Clark has better credentials on foreign policy. Dean has more experience in politics, but he can come across on TV as a little brusque. Clark is an amateur in politics, but he has good "camera presence." I just don't get why we have to tear down one guy in order to support the other one.

If either of these guys gets the nomination, I will be very happy and support him wholeheartedly. As for which one I will vote for in my state's primaries -- well, I'll decide after I see more of them in the campaign. There's lots of time yet. Probably by the time of the New York primary one guy will already have the nomination. I hope it's Dean or Clark.

[Larkspur]

6. Clark's campaign staff is stocked with Clintonoids

and they shut down the grassroots Draft Wesley Clark campaign. Clark is running a top-down campaign, just like the Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Graham.

[maha]

7. I know some people in the draft Clark campaign

When I heard about Clark sites shutting down I emailed a guy who's a good bud and who's been running a site called "The Clark Sphere." This site is still up. According to my bud stirling, the problem was that there were several dozen "Clark" sites of various quality and the Clark campaign wanted to be sure the message didn't get diluted or confused -- it was hard for the casual browser to tell which were "authentic" Clark sites and which weren't. So they asked several sites to shut down. Not really all that sinister.

My bud stirling has been working hard for Clark as a grass roots supporter without pay, and he's still working, along with a lot of other people. He says he wouldn't take money from the campaign if they offered it; he has purity issues.

As far as the Clintonites joining up with Clark -- I'm not sure why that's a problem, except that some of these people have had mixed results in the past.

As for your claim that Dean's campaign is not "top down," I doubt that. The campaign's done a wonderful job of raising money outside normal channels, but if you think the "grassroots" is actually running and coordinating Dean's campaign, I do believe you are seriously deluded.

[boxster]

9. Dean's grassroots campaign.

The one thing I give Dean's organization credit for (and that his supporters seem to ignore) is that they knew exactly when it was time to shift into a full-blown campaign vs. the grassroots one.

You don't raise the millions he's raised in a short period of time without some "professional" political help.

[maha]

11. Absolutely

Dean's running a very smart, professional, top-down campaign. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't see how anyone can get elected without a disciplined organization behind him/her. What makes Dean "better" are good people like Joe Trippi who know how to make smart and innovative use of the web to reach out to people.

[Larkspur]

15. It's not a top-down compaign

The campaign does not dictate to us what to do at our Meetups. The give us ideas or request that we do activities, like write letters, but we don't have to do them.

Also, we are free to form activities on our own, without notifying the campaign headquarters. The only thing that the campaign tells us is to put disclaimers on any flyers we make about Dean and advise us on FEC rules for fundraising. The planning and creating the activities or events is up to us.

Also, the campaign welcomes criticism and ideas, which top-down structures don't encourage. That is the point of the o-blog and feedback functions on their web site.

Dean's campaign is best described as open source or empowered team approach. The campaign provides Dean's issues and statements and templates for flyers that we can use but those things exist to empower us to spread the word about Dean in our communities.

The only part of Dean's campaign that could be considered top-down, is who makes the decision on spending campaign funds, and that is reasonable since funds are the lifeblood of every campaign.

[boxster]

17. Argh, what the hell difference does it make?

Forgive me for ranting, but you're so determined to argue the semantics of the campaigns that you don't appear to realize that it's meaningless to the average voter. I guarantee that the average voter doesn't care whether or not your activities are scripted by Howard Dean or not.

There have been SO MANY postings like this. I don't understand why Dean voters think every other campaign is some kind of totalitarian organization. Trust me - every campaign has get-togethers. Those get-togethers aren't scripted by the campaign headquarters. Every campaign is open to criticism and is open to ideas from their local networks. You're telling us nothing that doesn't exist in every other campaign, except that you think his organizational structure makes Dean better than everyone else by default.

Don't get me wrong. I like Dean a ton and would still consider voting for him in the primary. But, please understand - arguing semantics like this is going to do nothing other than turn people off. Dean's hardcore supporters need to realize that they aren't the only campaign that had a grassroots organization. They aren't the only ones that used the internet. They aren't the only ones who accept feedback from their local supporters.

[boxster]

8. I agree with you. It's an easy cop-out, though.

It's much easier to say that the grassroots campaign for Clark was a fraud (run by "insiders") than to actually discuss the issues. I think Dean supporters are a little offended that someone other than Dean had the nerve to develop a grassroots organization. They seem to think they own the patent or something.

Re: Clark more outside the establishment. Damn right he is. What's more anti-establishment than a non-politician running for President? :P

I like Dean and Clark both, as well. I've had a really hard time keeping Dean's supporters from clouding my view of Dean himself (in a negative way), but so far, so good - I'd be perfectly happy voting for his next November if he wins the nomination.

[maha]

10. Me, too.

I am determined to continue to like Dean in spite of his DU supporters. I've gone to some Dean meet-ups and met lovely people, so I know it's not all Deanies. Dennis Kuchinich's supporters on DU have pretty much ruined Kucinich for me; I hope the DU Deanies wise up.

[boxster]

13. Your first sentence sums up my position exactly.

The really funny thing is that sometimes it's hard to tell the Dean supporters and the Kucinich supporters apart in the Clark attack threads, despite their obvious differences on the issues.

My theory re: Dean supporters is that they're a little offended by Clark's seemingly easy early success and that it's a threat to what they believe their campaign stood/stands for. And, of course, they believe Dean is the front-runner and eventual nominee, so Clark is an obvious threat there.

While I'm leaning Clark, I'm still trying to keep an open mind and consider the alternatives. I've defended Clark a lot, but then I'd defend Dean or Kerry or Kucinich or any of the others if there was a constant barrage of "X is a Republican" statements made about them.

[Kahuna]

12. Commondreams doesn't get to decide for us Dems..

The nomination is about ousting the bushistas. If it wasn't for this phoney strawman about the direction of the party, Gore would be in office right now instead of bush.

[Larkspur]

18. The Dem nomination is not about ousting Bush in favor of Bush-redux

which I see in Clark, who couldn't make up his mind what party he wanted to join until a couple weeks ago.

The Dem nomination battle is about CHANGING the way things are done now. About getting our government returned to the People over the Special Interests, which Clark had lobbied for.