Democrats need to find their center. Can Clark do it?

[RobertFrancisK]

The Democrats are in big trouble right now, as we all know.If Bush is re-elected, there will be stopping him. The Republicans will most likely keep the house and the senate regardless of who wins the presidential election and the supreme court could move to the very far far right.
Democrats know this but have no idea what the solution to the problem is. Moderate-conservative democrats (Lieberman, Miller, Breux) would say that the democrats need to shun the liberals of their party and run on more "centrist" issues. The problem with that idea is that if they allienate the liberal base and lose lots of votes and money. Not to mention that the conservative wing of the party really stands for nothing at all except winning, so what good would they do us. The liberal-far left wing of the party would say that we need to run someone who will call out Bush on everything bad he does and not roll over and die. I agree for the most part, but we really could not expect mainstream AMerica to go for a Kucinich (don't get me wrong, I love the guy) or even Dean. I love Dean's positions on most issues, but foriegn policy will kill him. It's a fact. I'm glad oppossed the Iraq war, and I don't see how he couldn't have, but he doesn't have a clear vision of his own on what America's foriegn policy should be and has no experiance. Without those two qualities, he will be labelled as a McGovern by the republicans and the public will buy it. The party would be bitterly divided between his supporters and his very reluctant supporters in the moderate wing. And I'm sure he would lose. No matter how much we dance around it, we are at war, with terrorism and Iraqi guerillas, and the people will want someone they can feel comfortable with.
That's why we need Clark. Clark's background as a general will automatically get the DLC and democrats that want to look "tough" on defense behind him. And he came out more strongly against the war than Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman or Gephardt, so the liberals will appreciate that is they can avoid stereotyping him as crazy-hawk military man. And his positions on the issues are pretty solidly progressive.
When Dean bashes Bush, he looks really pissed. And hey, I'm pissed too. We need people like that in our party. I'd be in favor of making him head of the DNC, boot out Terry. But no President is ever a junkyard attack dog, other than maybe Nixon. Not FDR, not Truman, not JFK, not Reagan and even Bush II pretty much steers clear of shouting down his enemies. When Clark insults Bush, he is very calm and collected, but very sharp and to the point, even moreso than the other Democrats. And for foriegn policy he does have a clear vision of what he would do instead and in the future, which I really think all the others lack. If you go to some of the Draft websites and look at some quotes of his, he really cuts to the quick on issues without seeming like a "crazed liberal" but as a rational person.
Dean's a great guy, but I think he would only appeal to hardcore Democrats, while Clark would appeal to the entire country. Reagan was a conservative, but at some moments you could see that he was clearly the president of the United States and all the people (like after the ship exploded). Dean is running for president of the Democrats, and that's a ticket to nowhere. Is it better than Lieberman? Oh my good God yes!! But Clark is in the true center that the Democrats need to find: someone that embraces our progressive ideas and someone that all American can get behind.

[tsipple]

1. No, and No

Wesley Clark is a great guy and, likely, the next Secretary of Defense. But he isn't really that well known, unlike Eisenhower.

Dean is a moderate, by anybody's definition. If a moderate doesn't deserve to win the Democratic nomination, who does?

You're also presuming that Democratic voters are somehow dumb or uninformed. Democratic voters already include in their calculus "electability." Dean has crossed that boundary now, and Democratic voters see him as more and more likely to defeat George W. Bush. (That's due in part to his ability to run an extraordinarily smart campaign, despite previously better funded and better known opponents. He's also tapping into public sentiment much better than his rivals.)

Sorry, I'm not buying this line of argument. The only way I can agree is if I assume that Democratic voters are stupid, uninformed, or both, and that idea doesn't make any sense.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

38. I stopped reading your post when you said Dean was electable.

nm

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

47. Spam? I'LL DECIDE

yes

[joeybee12]

2. It's too late for Clark to run

He should have entered a few months ago--Dean is picking up the pace, as is Kerry--the race is becoming more defined.

As for Clark, I can't get behind a man whose views on SO MANY ISSUES are unknown.

That said, Dean could pick him as a running mate--might work.

[graham67]

3. Great post!

"When Clark insults Bush, he is very calm and collected, but very sharp and to the point, even moreso than the other Democrats. "

I agree totally with this, except I don't think "insult" is the right word. Clark doesn't need to insult anyone, he makes his point with the simple truth. He does it beautifully :-)

[Mz Pip]

4. Clark has a good chance IMHO

You make some excellent points, particularly about Dean. I like Dean a lot but I agree that his anger can turn people off. To win this election we will need cross over votes. I just think Clark will appeal to a much wider base than the other candidates.

After Labor Day is not to late to enter the race. He will get plenty of attention by being the new kid on the block. Most people aren't paying much attention at this point anyway.

We shall see.

MzPip
:dem:

[Nashyra]

5. I don't think it is too late for Clark

but I do think he needs to keep to the time frame he mentioned in his last interview which should be by mid august. Let's hope he declares soon and knocks Arnold off the front page.

Clark/Dean would be a great ticket, so would Clark/Kerry

[revcarol]

6. No.

Undercurrent here is believing the Bush line:WE ARE AT WAR.And adding...SO WE NEED A MILITARY MAN.FALSE,AND NO,NO,NO.

Just like we needed a military man to run the WAR ON DRUGS.<SARCASM>

[Pastiche423]

7. No, Clark can't do it

He's not even in the race.

My support goes to Dean who has already defined where he stands on issues and he is not far left.

[DemNoir]

8. Its all wishfull thinking

Not one person knows anything about Clark as a candidate for the simple reason he has never been one.

[poskonig]

9. If you want a slick moderate, vote for Edwards.

If we want someone who is slick, Edwards is the king of slick.

In addition, Clark's position on Iraq is identical with Dean's. If you think having a record of military service makes you immune from Republican attacks, I have two words for you:

Max Cleland.

Dean aggressively challenges Bush on defense, and that is exactly what we need if we are going to win.

[Terwilliger]

10. No

Clark is a military man running for a groupthat stresses rights and social welfare

HES NOT THE ANSWER! STOP PLAYING BY REPUKE RULES!

[chaska]

11. Lefty anger and the importance of a positive message. Go Clark!

We on the left are angry, and justifiably so. This is why Dean is popular. He's an okay candidate, but really, when you step outside of Deanworld (no slight intended) you see that anger is really all his campaign is about. If he is to have any chance of winning he must at some point drop that anger. If he doesn't drop the anger we will lose. No question. Voters don't like it. Period. Attack dog is the role of the vice president. But when he does drop the angry act we will find a pretty average candidate underneath.

Clark is the superior candidate. He has an ability to say the most damning things without resorting to personal attack or appearing angry. He is a very 'likeable' candidate. I point to Ronald Reagan for evidence of how important that quality is. This whole race (all Dem candidates) so far has been about anger at Bush. That is a losing strategy. We must begin to sell 'us'. Talking about how bad the other product is does us no good. Wesley Clark doesn't fall into the bashing trap.

Clark has speaking abilities superior to anyone else in the race. But more importantly, he understands the importance of inspiration. If we can't inspire, we can't win. Again, I point to Ronald Reagan. The man was basically an empty suit, but he could inspire people. We on the left make the mistake of thinking that elections (or winning policy battles) are about facts. They simply aren't. The candidate that touches the feel good places in voters is the candidate that wins. This is why Clark is the man. He has not only the gravitas (far superior in that regard), but he can connect with voters on this emotional level. He's smart enough to understand that a positive message is what will win the day.

[TheBigGuy]

12. Clark would be the best candidtate but hes too late.

the camaign has already started and he is to late getting into it.

[Cheswick2.0]

13. who?

Did he figure out what party he belongs in yet?

[otohara]

14. Doctor vs Military Guy??

I'll take the liberal doctor. I have a real problem with a career military guy (don't care who he is) being the president. Too cozy with pentagoons, just like Bush. Yick

[jfkennedy]

15. Clark already said he would run for President

I'm confused. Clark already said he was running for president months ago. I read it in some progressive publication. He just will probably make it official when he wants to.

I wonder why the media never covered the story of Dean saying he would run, and not Clark. Could it be that Clark can win?

[Pastiche423]

17. Clark has not declared that he is running

nor has he declared that if he were to run, which party he would be affliated w/.

[jfkennedy]

43. USA TODAY: Clark seriously considering a presidential bid 6/20/2003

USA TODAY 6/20/2003

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-06-20-clark_x.htm

Clark told hundreds of municipal officials from around his home state that he was seriously considering a presidential bid next year and would decide in a couple of months.

On Friday, he accused the president of squandering a $5 trillion budget surplus in two years, largely by borrowing to give large tax cuts to the rich.

"If it weren't for the law, you'd call that theft," he said, with uncharacteristic criticism.

[Pastiche423]

50. Considering

is not declaring. As of today, August 9, 2003, Clark has not declared which party he is affliated w/ nor if he is running.

That means: HE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT as of today.

IMHO, Clark supporters have bought into * and his enabler's FEAR. They are good little rove followers.

[KG]

18. nope. clark hasn't declared himself a candidate.

but don't feel too bad. there are many DUers that have heard al gore twice say he isn't running but believe is still is a candidate. :)

[LEFTofLEFT]

16. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The only GI we would ever want at the top spot is the one who know that the spending must be cut in half.

Save him for sec of def

It is sad that if a person emerges that would put a stop to MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX he would be killed - quickly.

[RichM]

19. Only jackasses become generals -- it's a job requirement. You have to

kiss ass a lot, be comfortable & cozy with militarists, act like you love the Pentagon (or, worse yet, REALLY love the Pentagon). You have to be authoritarian. You have to have chosen this career, above all other types of career paths. What kind of person does that?

You are not free to indulge in sharp criticism of US foreign policy. Clark served in Vietnam. Is that supposed to be a positive? What does he say about the Vietnam War? Is he willing to say it was a horrible unjustified crime, wrong from start to finish? Of course not - people who talk like that don't become generals.

I don't want any militarists, or people who are cozy with militarists, as leading political figures. There are many good reasons why only one US president since the Civil War has been a career military officer. This is one tradition we should continue to uphold.

The typical DU argument for Clark is that he would make the Democrats look "tough" on defense. This kind of thinking is typical of Democrats -- it concedes most of the terrain to rightwingers in advance, then struggles frantically to adjust to fears of what the rightwingers will say. IOW, it concedes that the main problem faced by the US is "security" (an idea that is pure fiction cooked up by the right wing), & it admits that most Democrats look soft by this (Rightwing) standard. So the poor, frightened, clueless little Democrats feel compelled to scurry around to justify themselves in the eyes of the rightwing. That's what the whole idea of Clark is all about.

[KG]

20. agreed

when will dems stop dancing to the repooks tune?

support of a clark candidacy is a further admission of the weakness of the dems. message.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. "Only Jackasses Become Generals"

Wow

Was Ulysses S. Grant a jackass?

Was George Washington a jackass?

Was Dwight Eisehnower a jackass?


As one of the posters once said," some of the posters here are as reactionary as the Freepers but in another direction."

[RobertFrancisK]

31. Have you ever known a general personally?

Or, to back your statement, do you know every single general currently serving in the US Military? I'm just curious, because I highly doubt you would make such an outragous claim is you didn't.

[Mz Pip]

33. There is so much

more to Clark than his being a General, but do your own homework.

It's kind of hard to have it both ways. You criticize Clark for being military, but then Bush and many members of his team are ciritcized for being Chickenhawks. So what is the perfect combination here? And exactly what are the "many good reasons" only one Pres. since the Civil War has been a career military? Why is this such a good tradition? It's going to be pretty hard to find someone with all the perfect credentials.

Personally, I would prefer a career military officer who has stated that war must be the last option and would understand when that point occurs, than someone who never served and is willing to pull the trigger at the drop of a hat or some naive idealist who doesn't get it that sometimes we have to defend ourselves.

As far as conceding most of the terrain to the Right Wingers - Clark has hardly done that. He is very critical of the Iraq War, thinks the whole premise for going to war that was laid out in the SOTU is just the tip of the iceberg. He is pro - choice, pro affirmative action, pro progressive taxation and yes, strong on National Security. Rather than conceding to the RW, Clark appears to be more of the RW's worst nightmare.

MzPip
:dem:

[RichM]

51. Re: "..... sometimes we have to defend ourselves"

You mention critically an imaginary concept of "..some naive idealist who doesn't get it that sometimes we have to defend ourselves."

Actually, no. The US does not have a problem about being able to defend itself. The very idea is ludicrous. The US has enough arms, military toys, & various forms of strength & influence to be able to defend itself, many times over, from now till the end of time. The problem is not the US defending itself; the problem is getting the US to stop bullying & aggressing upon the rest of the world.

No one is going to attack the US, which spends far more per year on "defense" (translation: armed aggression) than the rest of the world combined.

What is needed is a rigorous de-emphasis of this entire area of fictional concern. Are you familiar with the term "military-industrial complex?" Are you aware that it has been wildly out of control for decades? Don't you see the connection between this, and attitudes like the one you're expressing? The very idea that it's so easy to convince individual citizens that "sometimes we have to defend ourselves" is precisely why the military-industrial complex has been able to grow to such insane proportions.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

40. Wow, you have a high IQ I bet.

not

[TankLV]

21. Your initial premise is dead wrong.

Democrats need to return to their base - fuck chasing ever rightward to some "keep away" game illusory "center".

FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU WANT! FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!

Don't try to "fix" a message to some imaginary poll-based voter.

FIGHT & FIGHT HARD!

ALL the great, successful leaders fought for what they, themselves believed in all their heart, ALL of them. You don't get to the top by trying to sacrifice what makse you you to some other guy's whims. You get there by trying to convince the other guy that you are the one!

No one likes a butt-kisser.

Lincoln was a nobody, a repeat loser, until he won the ultimate prise - by forthrightly standing tall and up front and center for what he believed in and desired. He bucked the establishment and won, but only after he discovered that it was all up to him, and not some "focus group".

[Ardee]

23. thanks tank

for expressing a seemingly forgottem concept, forgotten by democrats that is, namely, one must oppose or, by ones silence, be labeled in favor. We need the democrats to return to the "large umbrella" concept in which the agenda was an amalgam of right ,center and left.
Both parties have become so poll oriented that they cannot decide which side of the bed to get up from without a damn poll!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Even Jerry Springer Knew There Weren't Enough

Democrats in Ohio to elect a Democratic senator. So we can certainly infer that there aren't enough Democrats in America to elect a president.

We need to reach beyond our base........

[wndycty]

22. Clinton jumped in in October of 2001

Clark is most likely announcing by Labor Day. He has a new book "Winning War" scheduled for September. There is a national "Draft Clark" network that is actually raising money. I am the Chicago coordinator. I encourage you all to take him seriously. HE IS THE REAL DEAL and he can beat *!

[Q]

25. We need to seek the truth...not find the 'center'.

- All this talk about the 'center' is simply a distraction from us finally accepting the truth about our government.

[wndycty]

27. If you look at Clark I am not sure if he is center. . .

. . .other than the fact that he is a military man, many of his positions are left of center.

Pro-Choice

Supports Affirmative Action

Supports gun control (yeah he owns guns, but he supports gun control)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. You forgot that Wes Clark

is pro gay rights

anti-Bush tax cuts

and said the Iraq invasion was the "greatest strategic blunder in American history"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Whatever The Truth Is About Our Government

elections are won and lost in the center.

Neither party can win with their base only.

You need a base + strategy.

[RobertFrancisK]

30. I don't mean "center" in the traditional sense

To clarify to all, when I say the "democratic center" what I mean is someone that embraces progressive ideas and can bring the majority of Americans over to our side. I DO NOT mean someone like Lieberman that is too big a pussy to take a stance on an issue and stay in the "center." Finding that "center" is what Democrats have tried to do for too long and failed. But some far leftists refuse to care about appealing to anyone but the far left, which is a deadend aswell.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Exactly

like Robert F Kennedy

A liberal with brass ones.


He opposed the Viet Nam War out of stregth not weakness

[burr]

32. You mean a tenth candidate can really help to find our center?

yeah, those damned liberals...they hate all generals. Time to execute the traitorous bastards, and have a party that can win!

Those idiots, thinking we can run without giving up the White House. Hell we don't want to thrown out into the political wilderness, or lose our huge base of support in the solid south. We don't want a Republican in the White House and as the House Speaker. Our useless party would be destroyed by liberalism and a nationalistic radicalistic socialistic agenda.

Time to talk about just people and names. Clark yes Bush no. Lieberman yes and shoot commie Kucinich. Forget Hell!

Take power, then people will figure out why the hell to vote for us!

[ignatiusr]

34. Clark

This is the beauty of General Clark. He is NOT in the "center." He is just as liberal as Howard Dean, if not more so. The only difference is his background automatically gives him the appearance of a centrist candidate. His candidacy would quiet the Republican's (as well as the DLCer's) arguments about moving right, and being strong on defense, but at the same time it would stay true to the Democratic principles- because, in actuality, Clark is a liberal. The only reason he hasn't declared his party yet is because it's part of preparations to gather a massive coalition of people from all backgrounds. With Democrats, Independents, and Republicans on his side, he'll be unstoppable. His belief in Democratic principles is what I respect most about him- the fact that a 4-Star General would have the courage to turn from the right-wing and stand up for liberal ideals, at a time when no other military man has the guts to do so.

And by the way- those that criticize Clark because of his military background and supposed "connection to the Pentagon" need to read more about him. He was removed from his post in 2000 by old Republicans in the Pentagon due to idealogical differences.

[burr]

52. I would consider him as a candidate only if...

three or four of the current candidates running, who do not have an agenda, drop out. Five candidates in the primary would be ideal, seven should be the max. But nine or more hurts our cause of defeating shrub.

[Snellius]

35. Clark may sound better in theory than in person

He's an admirable statesman. Someone to look up to. Handsome and personable. But from the upteenth times I've watched him on tv, he also seems uninspired and uninspiring and perhaps too cool for the kind of heated, politically ruthless infighting that seems to be brewing. The country is much too polarized for a moderate, centrist candidate. Both sides want a divider, not a uniter, this time. The stacks are much higher.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Bush

"I'm a divider not a uniter"

"I'm a reformer without results"

"No millionaire left behind"

"I'm a beneficiary of the quiet bigotry of diminished exoectations."

[ignatiusr]

41. Hmm

I don't know what appearances you've seen, but "uninspired" is certainly not a description I would use. It really does depend on what show you saw him on. In many appearances, he's been brought on as a military commentator, talking mostly about the situation in Iraq. In that sense, of course he's not going to be a very flashy speaker. Life and death is a serious issue. But in other, more '04 race-specific appearances, such as the last time he was on Hannity and Colmes and the first time he was on Crossfire, he was extremely inspiring. I REALLY don't think that charm is going to be a problem with Clark. There will be criticisms, but I don't think that will be one of them.

[Upfront]

37. Sounds good.

What party is he in? Is he running? Give me someone who ran when dim son couldn't be beat. Houard Deannnnnnnnnnnn!

[tameszu]

49. What party is he in?

If he runs, he will run as a Democrat.

His family members have said as much (he comes from a Dem family, BTW). He has only participated in politics as a Democrat. When he was investigating running for Arkansas gov, he was looking into do so as a Dem. He gets advice from Clinton. And most of his supporters lean Dem (although he has big cross-over appeal).

As for "is he a candidate?" Many people hope so! It looks like he's keeping his powder dry until late Aug. or early Sept. so as to come in with a bang and maximize his appeal to independents. Remember: you don't introduce new products in Aug--er, nevermind. O8)

And if not, I hope he ends up with a significant role in a Dean or Kerry administration...

[PurityOfEssence]

42. Whatever you do, cringe with the shame of being a liberal

This is ridiculous.

The right wing has successfully terrified so many people into thinking that all liberals and progressives are so marginalized and roundly hated by the vast sweep humanity that they should deny everything and ask permission to maybe have a crumb at the banquet of life. Fuck that.

It's simply not true. Bring up some serious class warfare issues and there will be a groundswell. It's disgusting how people constantly apologize and try to mollify and dilute everything. The constituency of the right wing is by definition much smaller than that of the left; the left needs to galvanize its base with some hope and vitriol.

[tameszu]

44. I think Clark would be 100% behind Dean...

...if the next election were only about Enron and Bush-onomics and not about Iraq and foreign policy.

If Sept. 11 had never happened, if Bush's crazy invasion had never happened, Clark would never even consider running. He will admit this immediately.

I like Dean very much, and, unlike some Dems (ahem!), Clark has only had good words for the governor.

But Dean and the Democrats all around, may have an achilles heel. It's 100-bazillion pound ogre that is foreign policy. That's the ONLY possible reason that Bush still clears 50% approval. I'm not saying that Dean would be unable to address this, or that he's unelectable. I am saying that we should consider someone whose positions and background may be able to just dominate it. If it's true that Clark turns out to be a significantly weaker campaigner or fundraiser and all that when he's tested, than the primary process has done it's job. But I want to see...

And to all those lefties who think that Clark's military background makes him any less worthy as a progressive: please seriously reconsider. The U.S. military has the potential to be a powerful force for progressivism, both internationally and domestically--despite the imperialist aims it's being used for today. Domestically, look at the background and racial makeup of the military: the poor and blacks are massively overrepresented. It has always been on the leading edge of socioeconomic and racial integration. Although Don't Ask, Don't Tell in an embarrassment, Clark may be the best placed to fix it--and when that happens, it will have great side-effects for gay rights in general. Internationally, history demonstrates that America's global outlook has had 2 distinct threads since WWII--the imperialist one that Chomsky thinks is completely constitutive and the "force for democracy" one that the neocons have appropriated for their own ends.

We cannot allow the neocons to continue their appropriation. Because the Chomskean "total critique" of the U.S.' record is factually lacking and cannot inspire more than a small fraction of the American people. And guess which thread Eisenhower advocated? If you think all generals are incorrigibly militaristic jackasses, then why did Ike coin the stable progressive warning about the military-industrial complex?

Regarding Clark specifically, one of the significant reasons he was relieved of his command early is because he clashed with his Pentagon superiors. Part of this was personal--he was a bit too forceful in his views and dealt with the media too readily. Part of this related to his views themselves: he's a liberal multilateralist who relished his diplomatic role at NATO's helm.

The point of the chickenhawk critique is this: a lot of the reason why many neocons are so rash and bloodthirsty in their views is because they don't have any real appreciation for war's awful nature. If a military background automatically made it impossible to hold progressive views, then the left would have lost some of the most poewrful voices against unjust wars. Please don't forget this.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bpilgrim]

48. they need to find some VALUES and stick by'em

instead of the corp 'middle' and they might be able to start a wild fire :shrug:

look at dean, kucinich, sharpton, etc...

i hope the leadership are taking notes ;->

peace

[Nashyra]

53. Core values

Something that Clark stands for, without his military experience he would be an attractive candidate for his progressive stands. He is a liberal and is prudent enough to "gather steam" from all walks. To count him out because the vast majority of his experience is military is closed minded. The beauty of a Clark candidacy is that he seems to have Kerry's military experience, Kucinich and Dean's liberalism and he has an enviromental stand that through an organization he started for alternative fuel has not even been focused on. He was against the war in Iraq, he started a site on Dialouge for Democracy which is extremely critical of the Patriot Act which he finds quite offensive, he believes that dissent is an integral part of Democracy, why in God's name wouldn't any Democrat at least like him to throw his hat in the ring?

If he fails to campaign well enough to win the parties nomination but wins support among moderates think of what he could bring to the nominee in the way of an endorsement for the general election. Bashing him makes those oppose to him sound afraid, I say get in, that's what the primaries are for, the more dialouge the better. So far I have not heard him bash other candidates and for the most part the people on this forum that support him don't bash the other candiates in their support for Clark.