Wesley Clark: Whom will he harm the most if he runs?

[dean4america]

Okay, I'm hoping we can have a sane discussion on the topic of Wesley Clark and his possible candidacy (that is, let's not candidate bash). I was wondering which candidate(s) you think will be hindered the most by a Clark entree into the race. From the people I've talked with--who represent the full range of candidate-supporters--there is no general consensus as of yet. I am of the opinion that he has the potential to hurt Kerry the most, but only if Kerry tries to run on his military record (in a two-person race between he and Kerry, then he obviously runs on his lengthy political record). I'm less clear how he impacts Dean, inasmuch as I think it is harder to define Dean in the race when it comes not only to the candidate, but also his supporters. This is further revealed in the numerous polls that show how each candidate is effected when Hillary or Al Gore are put into polling models (where Dean shows the least weakness insofar as loss of support, % wise, as compared to the other candidates).

In the end, and should Clark be in the race, I see it coming down to Dean, Kerry, and Clark (with Dean prevailing and choosing Clark as his running mate). If Gephardt were to somehow stay afloat/make gains, then it depends on whose expense he has made such gains (figuring it is off of either Dean or Kerry).

Food for thought...

[tedoll78]

1. Agree with you somewhat.

Dean's support is pretty solid, even with Clinton or Gore entering the race. This could be a trend.

[Trajan]

2. Well, considering you chose negative language ...

to couch this question, one might question whether this wasnt intended as flame bait ....

[ReadTomPaine]

3. If Clark enters the race, he'll win the nomination.

Esp. if he selects a strong running mate, such as any of the top tier candidates or even a surprise like Gore himself. Dean’s supporters may feel some stolen thunder at this development and it would be a fair fight for the nomination, but I don’t see Dean winning against him. The best chance for Dean in that situation is to head off a Clark candidacy by persuading him to come aboard as VP, there would be some natural synergy there as many have noted.

The other candidates don’t measure up to Clark’s perceived presidential timbre or public stature. I’d agree with your overall analysis that it’ll come down to those three and I think Kerry would be the odd man out. In many ways he’s a less impressive iteration of Clark though to be fair that’s largely because the actual business of politics is soiling to a reputation especially over the course of several decades. It’s a messy business.

I also feel Clark would win the presidency by a wide margin. Given that his balance of strengths is well suited to a comparison of Bush’s weaknesses, the best chance the current administration has against Clark would be a well placed rifle bullet. Personally I'm as yet undecided but would be pleased with any of these three in the White House.

[hayu_lol]

4. Whom will he harm the most?

Bush!

[HFishbine]

5. Is Clark

a democrat?

[Bread and Circus]

57. Yes

Be patient, you will see.

[True_Blue]

6. He will hurt Kerry in Veteran vote

I'm not sure about anyone else.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. He Hurts Dean The Most

Clark's military credentials allow him to oppose the Iraq War while innoculating him from charges that he's weak on national security.

Of all the candidates, only Clark and Kerry had the military bona fides to challenge the Iraq War and Kerry chose to support it.

I think Wes Clark is 2004's Bobby Kennedy. Just as Bobby Kennedy stole Eugene McCarthy's anti-war thunder Wes Clark is poised to steal Howard Dean's anti war thunder. And like Bobby Kennedy, Wes Clark gets a pass on the war because they have already established their toughness.

[ReadTomPaine]

8. Let's hope he avoids Bobby's fate.

See post #3

[dansolo]

79. He hurts Kerry the most

For exactly the reason you give. Kerry is relying on his military experience as his main credential on being strong on defense. Clark trumps that. If their positions on issues are similar, I see Kerry's vote being split, especially by people who objected to his vote in favor of the Iraq resolution. I don't see the people who support Dean being swayed by Clark's military background. You could easily say that Dean's fiscal experience will clearly override Clark's lack of experience, especially if the economy is the major point of the election.

[rasputin1952]

9. I've got to go with post #4...

Clark's entrance into the fray would ensure Bush's political demise.

While the other candidates could mount an attack...Clark could utterly destroy the current administration.

He is remarkably intelligent, has great prowness in diplomatic matters, an impeccable military record, a good sense of humor, has great speaking ability; in essence, he is the anti-bush.

I honestly believe that he would take the current administration to the cleaners.

As for the Dem candidates, it would behoove them to avoid confrontation, barring a surprise revelation. The object is to get rid of bush....not create an atmosphere of division and derision.

[Merlin]

10. Clark is not a real contender for the top spot, imo.

He's a magnificent candidate. But he's untried and untested, and I don't believe this party will favor him with the top spot.

He's not Ike. He did not command a successful operation under which half of all young men in America served which wound up changing the course of history. Nor is the current Democratic Party as enamored of military men as the Repubs were in the aftermath of WWII. The party wants military cred. It does not want to be governed by the military.

Further, based on what I read in the thread a couple of months ago by Clark's son, he is a public spirited guy who is deeply devoted to dismantling the current regime, and who is willing to play whatever role he can best play to do do so, including VP.

I don't believe history repeats itself neatly. He's not RFK. The facts are different. He's Wesley Clark. This is 2003-4 not 1968. Thank God!

In view of the above, who does he hurt most? That would be Graham and Edwards. Why? Because both are really, imo, running for VP. Both are supporting actor types, not seen as ripe for a leading role.

The nomination goes to either Kerry or Dean. I now believe there's a real chance Dean can take it. Clark is a no-brainer for VP and butresses all of Dean's weaknesses. It could be an exciting, stellar ticket!

[tedoll78]

11. I adore that ticket.

With NH + AR + Gore states, we win.

Dean delivers NH. Clark + Clinton deliver AR. Soros will help deliver the Gore states, along with a reduced Green threat, and a disarmed NRA.

[ReadTomPaine]

13. Not to mention an excellent platform for Dem reelections thru 2016

<eom>

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. A Kerry-Clark Ticket Makes Sense

A Dean-Clark ticket doesn't make sense because it highlights Dean's weakness-his lack of national security bonafides.

And I repectfully disagree with you that the Republicans chose Ike because they were "enamored" with military men. They chose Ike because they saw a winner who could lead them back into power after being in the wilderness for twenty years. Ike could have had the Democratic nomination if he wanted.

Kerry and Clark are the only Dems that can challenge the militarism of this reactionary junta run amok without being accused of being reflexive, effete, anti-military types.

[TheBigGuy]

14. he might pick up undecided voters....

Im thinking there is still a large pool of undecided voters out there who maybe like two or three candidates but not enough to wholeheartedly comitt yet..

I think Clark could pick up those voters.

[wndycty]

15. I think he hurts Dean the most and it becomes a 3 person race. . .

Dean, Kerry and Clark. I doubt he will take votes away from Dean as much as he will probably claim a lot of undecided Dem votes and I think he will take votes away from the rest of the field which will have his numbers rivaling Dean's. So he might drive people out of the race, but he does not hurt those people as they had no chance.

[poskonig]

16. I'm not so sure.

At first I held your position that Clark hurts Dean the most, but then I saw some polling data when Gore or Hillary enters the race. Dean has the most loyal supporters out of the current crop of candidates. Given Clark's war record, much of the hurt will be placed on Team Kerry.

[wndycty]

18. I am not sure if you understand my point. . .

I don't think Clark takes any existing support away from Dean, however he is an alternative to Dean that might keep Dean from getting new support. Gephardt, Lieberman, Graham, Sharpton, Edwards, Moseley Braun and Kucinich will be dropping out over the next 6 months and there will be literally hundreds of thousands of NEW people who will start paying attention to the Dem primary. . .I think Clark will get a whole hell of a lot of people from these groups. He does not take Dean votes away but hurts Dean's growth.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. That's An Interesting Point

but what if I want a candidate that opposed the war but also has impeccable military bona fides.

I think if you are going to be the anti-war candidate you are bolstered by having strong military credentials.

The dream ticket-


Clark-Kerry vs. Bush-Cheney

The military heroes versus the chicken-hawk zeroes.

[poskonig]

21. Attacking Bush on defense is more important than credentials.

A good example of this principle is seen in the Kerry-Dean squabbles. Kerry touts his experience, professionalism, and Vietnam when explaining how Bush duped him, and Dean quickly responds about how even he figured out Bush was lying. We can get into mindless specifics about Biden-Lugar and everything else, but the *political* point should be clear. If not, we only need to look at what happened to Max Cleland in 2002.


Given that Iraq has been a monster fuck-up since "Mission Accomplished," I'm looking for a candidate that really goes after Bush on defense. So far, Howard Dean has been a winner.

[wndycty]

24. Agreed. . .but Clark can attack Bush and has the credentials. . .

Don't forget that come November of 2004 we need a candidate that plays well to our base to get out the vote, but has the appeal to get the swing voters. I think Clark has strong appeal to swing voters without compromising the base. I feel Dean definately plays to the base, but I have serious concernes about his ability to get the swing vote. We can have a candidate we love, but it really does not mean shit if he cannot win.

[poskonig]

29. I have not seen Clark campaign yet.

Attacking Bush requires more than mumbling a few comments. It requires spellbinding speeches, working the media effectively, organizing massive amounts of supporters to get the message out, et cetera.

Clark has never ran a campaign, has zero political experience, and even worse -- his supporters are just Democrats scared on the defense issue.

We cannot afford to run a reactive, risk-averse campaign right now. Clark won't even call himself a Democrat.

[Kahuna]

33. Clark, mumble??????? Surely you jest. Clark answers off -the-cuff

questions better than almost anyone I've ever heard. He answers questions better than most professional politicians. I have no doubt that Clark will be able to deliver on the campaign trail.

His only challenge will be debating domestic policy with professional politicians during debates. It is my guess that if Clark enters the race, he will study the issues and get top notch coaching. Who knows, maybe Gore or Clinton can help him out.

If Clark fails to hold his own in a debate forum with the other candidates, so be it. Time will tell. I don't know how he would do and neither do you. But a lot of us believe that Clark is intellectually gifted. We believe that he is so gifted that he will be able to overcome that challenge.

[Donna Zen]

54. All good points, and...

IIRC, Clark was on West Point's debate team. <sigh, does this man ever sleep?> Also, his first in economics from Oxford coupled with a year working on the budget in West Wing, would indicate at the very least, a knowledge base of domestic policy. Finally, Clark occupied the J-5 post on the Joint Chiefs, that position handles the political and policy arm of the organization.

Speaking of the Kennedy years, it should be noted that Ted Sorenson has been topping the heavy weights of the Clark movement. Sorenson understands the politics of running a 50 state presidential campaign; therefore, I'm not going to concern myself with "can he run a campaign" aspect.

As to the question posed by the thread title, Clark hurts bushco by pulling both indies and repubs. Try selling Clark to disenchanted repubs, I did. It is effortless. Bush fatigue is setting in with the more moderate of the repub. faithful, but they need a position they can feel comfortable with.

While I'm ABB, I also want to win. Taking a measure of a candidates strengths as well as their weaknesses is important.

[wndycty]

35. Well I am not here to convert you. . .

. . .it is pointless for me to attack Dean or to convice Dean supporters to vote for Clark. But one only has to watch Clark on Crossfire, Meet The Press, even Hannity & Colmes and see that he will be able to go after Bush without alienating the swing voters. I and most Clark supporters are not afraid of shit. . .but in Clark we have seen someone that speaks to us, while at the same time attracting swing voters.

Clark is not Lieberman pandering to the right, he is a progressive who happens to be a highly decorated General. As much as I hate war and Bush, I am not so wrapped in defiance of all things military that I will not support the one candidate that can beat Bush.

[Bread and Circus]

58. Clark is running the most cost effective campaign yet

I believe Clark has run the most cost
effective campaign yet. He outpolls many
already "running" and hasn't spent a dime.
Don't underestimate his savvy.

[CWebster]

17. Kerry, I suppose

For whomever thinks that stutting military experience is all that matters in politics---when it increasingly appears that supporting the Iraq invasion was a poorly justified position and the troops want to come home.

Even if Kerry has Sunday front page, above-the-fold coverage in the NYTimes claiming that he has some kind of resounding message. Yawn.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. I am sure you know

that Wes Clark said the Iraq invasion was "the greatest strategic blunder in American military history."


and that Howard Dean

supported sanctions which many on the left opposed and said he would have supported an invasion under a United Nations flag and after other alternatives had been exhausted.

[wndycty]

22. So are you saying. . .

That Clark has been very critical of Bush's war (which I have always known) and that Dean is not as anti-war as many would have you believe?

So on the war issue they balance each other out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Yes And Yes

Howard Dean is not as anti-war as some of his supporters want to believe.

Let me preface my remarks by saying I was agnostic on the war and the sanctions.

Howard Dean supported sanctions. The sanctions were anathema to many on the left.


Howard Dean's position on Iraq was much more nuanced than his supporters believe or would have you believe.

Howard Dean said he would support an invasion under a U N flag and after the inspection regime was proved to have failed.

Also, it will be much easier to tar Dean as a reflexive, effete, anti war girly boy than it would be to tar the Supreme Allied Commander and decorated Viet Nam War veteran Wes Clark.

I will support any Dem that emerges from the primaries but if the Republicans are able to tar the Democratic candidate as a relexive, weak,effete, anti-war girly boy we are in for a long election season.

[graham67]

23. Not to nitpick..

but Clark referred to the lack of UN involvement in the run-up to war as the "greatest strategic blunder since the end of the Cold War."

[wndycty]

26. The greatest strategic blunder on America's part not. . .

. . .Not the UN's part.

[graham67]

27. Yes...

he was referring to the Bush Administration and the failed diplomacy with the UN.

[wndycty]

30. LOL

I had to clarify that because you know there are those who would say that he was criticizing the UN.

[graham67]

31. Yeah, you're right

I should have phrased the sentence a bit better. I edited :-)

[Kahuna]

25. I think he hurts everybody.. He picks up at least half of the

undecideds while chipping away support from all of the current candidates (only exception being, Kucinich). That's a recipe to win the nomination.

Dean's support is not as solid as everyone claims. There are Dean supporters on DU have vowed to switch support to Clark if he runs. If you read through the petition letters on the draft Clark websites you will also find Dean supporters vowing to throw their support to Clark if he runs.

[graham67]

28. I agree....

I think he's going to put a hurt on all the top tier candidates. I'm hearing lots of people say they're going to jump ship when/if Clark enters the race.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Clark-Graham

makes sense

Clark and any of the Dems make sense.

A Clark-Graham ticket or Clark-Dean ticket make sense because they both bring executive level governing experience that Clark lacks

Clark has beaucoup executive experience but Graham and Dean have hands on executive experience at the legislative level.

[LTR]

40. Good in theory, but a bad idea overall.

Suppose Clark/Graham win the election.

Graham gives up his senate seat. And I believe the Governor of FLorida would appoint a replacement.

Do you really think a smarting and angry Jeb Bush would appoint a Democrat? I think not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. No-Graham's Seat Is Up in 04

Presumably, the Dems can hold the seat with a strong ticket.

I like Alex Penellas. He's Cuban and the Demoocratic mayor of Miami.
He could help us with the Cuban vote which votes overwhelmingly Republican.

[LTR]

43. Well, that changes everything...

I was thinking that Bill Richardson would be the ideal VP candidate.

He's a Democratic governor (of New Mexico), is somewhat of a modern-day hero in the Texas gerrymandering fiasco. And he's Hispanic.

Anything to wrestle the Hispanic vote in Florida from the Republicans would be a huge slap in the face.

[Kahuna]

46. Richardson would be great as a VP pick. I don't know that

he'd do it though. Clark and Richardson would surely rid us of the bush regime.

[chimpymustgo]

73. Isn't Pinellas the guy who sold Gore down the river during the recount?

He stopped the recount in Miami, went AWOL. He as much as anyone cost Gore the election.

That said, if Clark gets in, he probably gets the nomination, IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. I Don't Think As Mayor He Had That Power

I don't rememember where Pinellas fell in that brouhaha.

[tjdee]

51. I agree--everyone is going to scramble.

Wesley Clark puts a major hurting on all of the serious candidates. He is smart, well versed, and pleasant to look at. Not to mention his Supreme Commander deal.

The major challenge for him, though, will be to live up to his own hype--particularly in his approach to domestic issues and ideas.

[salin]

62. Not sure about the final assessment - but on the mark on the 'where'

the votes would come from. I think it is undecideds - and perhaps some angry nonvoters who view all politicians as the same. He and Dean (based on the use of internet) seem to have the best shot at pulling non-voters into the booths. Different non-voters, mind you, but non-voters nonetheless. Indeed the stature of Clark may pull in some non-voters who are socially more conservative even though they may not support those views, but because they are angry at politicians, angry at our current situation, and view him (as a recent military leader) as 'trustworthy'.

However, in my mind, still WAY too many variables out there to declare any sustainable "front runner" status to any candidate at this point.

[tameszu]

65. Very true

"in my mind, still WAY too many variables out there to declare any sustainable "front runner" status to any candidate at this point."

Clark could end up as a "paper tiger" in terms of national campaign like Edwards or Graham (so far--he could still pick up) or even to some degree Kerry, who hasn't been bad, but not up to expectations.

Since I like the way Clark looks, I wouldn't bet against him, but politics, like love and war is especially full of unpredictability. Anyone who can pick a winner right now without a shred of doubt is either a liar or a flat-out genius...

[KG]

36. "Wesley Clark: Whom will he harm the most if he runs?"

the democratic party.

[wndycty]

37. Wow. . .

. . .I did not know winning the election would hurt the Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Some Folks Want To Remake The Democratic Party

in their pacificistic image.


This is noble and well intentioned but betrays a willful ignorance of the history of the Democratic party.

Democrats presidents have prosecuted

-WW1

-WW2

-the Korean War

-the Viet Nam War

and

-the campaign against Serbia

[LTR]

41. Clark and pacifism

Granted, Clark is a career military man, but from what I've researched on Clark, he is one that has a certain respect for war, and a greater respect for peace.

Meaning that he realizes the consequences of blindly sending troops off to fight.

War must be the absolute last resort. Contrast that to the chickenhawks like Bush that send troops off impulsively and stage photo-ops on aircraft carriers.

Wesley Clark realizes that waging war is not a must, but if necessary, knows how to do it effectively and legitimately.

Remember, Jimmy Carter is a respected war veteran.

[Kahuna]

45. Wesley Clark nearly lost his life in battle. I just heard on CSPAN that

Clark was on the ground in Kosavo with the troops. Not at Centcom in Florida like Franks.

Clark is no war mongerer. He knows the wages of war better than anyone. All of these Clark-military attacks are based upon prejudice and ignorance. They have no reality in facts. I will admit though that when I was younger and Alexander Haig ran in primaries against Bush and Reagan I was very skeptical about him being a military person. But as the primaries progressed and I got to know more about the mindsets of Reagan and Bush, I feared them a whole lot more than I feared Haig. Realizing that Carter would likely lose the general election, I was pulling for Haig.

[graham67]

47. Oh Boy....

I don't know who said he was on the ground with troops...that's not exactly true. He directed most of the Kosovo campaign from Mons, Belgium.

[Kahuna]

50. I didn't mean to imply that he was on the ground the entire time..

I thought enough of DUers to think they would realize this. :eyes: I didn't think I would need to be that explicit. You have proven me wrong.

[graham67]

52. I doubt he was on the ground much at all.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just keeping it real. The truth is that he was in his own "Centcom" in Belgium. That's how it's done.

[Nashyra]

60. He was riding in a convoy through an area that

Milosovich had not fortified and he was with I think the mans name is Richard Holebrook when one of the armored personel vehichles went over the side of a ravine/hill and plummeted down several hundred meters setting off landmines. He left the safety of his vehicle, attached a rope to a tree and repelled down to the crash site and burning wreckage all the while Mr. Holebrook (he was a civilian big dog for the administration) was yelling at him to stay put. He knew there was nothing he could do because yhey were all dead but he wanted to stay untill reinforcements got there to insure the retrival of the soldiers body. This is when he was a 3 Star General. This was told on C-span this morning.

[graham67]

71. Yep...

that was in 1995 before the Dayton Accords.

[tameszu]

56. Kahuna meant well, got the dates confused

Almost no allied troops were in Kosovo for much of the conflict, of course--it was an air campaign.

But Clark did risk his life in the Balkans when negotiating the Dayton Accords to end (to the extent that it could be ending without getting rid of Milosevic) the Bosnia conflict. He was in a convoy of vehicles that were a bit heavy and unwieldy for the dangerous cliffside route because Milosevic refused to guarantee the diplomats' safety. Sadly, one of the French APCs ended up fatally tumbling off of the road. Clark then rappelled down the cliffside to do to help, which is pretty hardcore.

Keeping it real is key--thanks graham67!

[graham67]

72. I'm a very strong Clark supporter...

I didn't want to give the impression I'm bashing him in any way. Its important to me to keep it real. I don't know exactly effect his candidacy is going to have or even if he win the nomination. There's just so much that is unknown. It'll be one hell of a ride though!

[Kahuna]

78. I know that you're a Clark supporter. You were just trying to keep it real

No harm. No foul. :D

[LTR]

53. He was seriously wounded in Vietnam

Shot three or four times.

lost part of his leg (calf muscle) there.

The only war injury Bush ever had was a drunken hangover.

[graham67]

49. Waging War

"Wesley Clark realizes that waging war is not a must, but if necessary, knows how to do it effectively and legitimately."

He's said repeatedly that war is absolutely the last resort, and if you've gotta do it then you have to do it right.

[KG]

55. the only willfull ignorance i see in this thread

is the belief that the chimp could only be beaten by a 'military' candidate. that the phoney 'war on terror' is the only issue on which to counter the repooks. that the dems have no other message.

that is a sign of the weakness of the democrats other messages and the desperation of their position. it shows the repooks are calling the tune and the dems feel compelled to dance to it.

his candidacy would be a short lived sideshow and a distraction.

[Nashyra]

64. Nobody has said that could only be a military candidate

what most want to see is some one with integrity and the Repugs are not calling all the shots. Whether or not the war on terorrism is phony or not the unfortunate fact is that the media has made it real and most prople are either too busy, tired or lazy to educated themselves with the facts. If the Democrats can field a candidate who is strong on National Security because of his experience and has a progressive message that appeals to moderates on the Repug side of the party pray tell me what that makes him a sideshow or a distraction? If your candidate is a better candidate then he will prevail. Why a hostile attitude to a would be candidate that clearly is knowledgeable, educated, experienced in diplomacy and progressive. Hostility is a sign of fear.

[Kahuna]

69. You assume that Clark's military experience is "the" attraction...

Since you never asked us Clark supporters why we support him in total, you shouldn't assume anything.

For myself, it's not "the" attraction. It's only part of the attraction. It's the part that will take the "wartime president" bit off the table for bush. After that, it's that he seems to brilliant, caring and progressive. It's the whole package that I'm supporting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. The Masses Think The War On Terror Is

real. Rather than debate the proposition we neutralize it with the Supreme Allied Commander and move on to the economy where we can make dust out of Son of A Bush.


The masses think the war on terror is real. Don't you get it.

"We must take man as he is not the way we want him to be."

-Edmund Burke

[Bread and Circus]

61. helluva statement

The democratic party would be fortunate
to have him add to the debate and help
us with cred on FP -- that is important.

[LTR]

39. The others will hurt themselves first

First off, this is my very first post here, and after having visited DU for a while, I am happy to see like-minded people who aren't falling for all the Bush hype, and want truth in our government. I see I am not the only one to avoid the Ashcroft 'Orwellian' brainwashing.

Many are concerned that it is too late for Wesley Clark to enter the race. I think the next couple months would be perfect timing.

Right now, the nine Dems are slugging it out to even make a small impact and resonate with voters. I'd be surprised if any of them get the nomination. Why? There's nothing exciting there. I don't want to sound negative, but do you really think the names of Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, et. al. are enough to get people excitied, especially moderates, independents an undecideds?

Dean and Kucinich are getting heavy buzz because they are looked upon as mavericks. They are not afraid to stand up to the Bush Regime. They bring something fresh and new to the table. They're turning heads.

Are either of them electable? Not likely. The truth (and I hate to admit it) is, their issues are not really in step with the average person. After being brainwashed by the GOP machine over the years by a 'war'-winning president, right-wing 'news' (Fox) and the flaming Nazis of AM radio, the mere mention of the word 'liberal' will send Joe Sixpack and his minions running for the hills. It is the sad reality. The GOP (Gestapo-owned Party)machine has won the propaganda war since the days of Reagan, sad to say. Liberals, they say, are weak on war, they spend too much money (not as much as Ripofflicans, but money is spent on issues right-wingers hate, like the environment, veterans, etc.), and are a bunch of weenies overall. Kucinich and Dean are going against the grain at a time when most are afraid to. Admittedly and realistically, both are the right candidates, wrong time.

Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, etc. are entrenched Washington insiders who are well known. This will become their achilles heel. TOO much is know of them. All three caved in to the GOP on the Iraq war. All three bend easy so as not to rock the boat. The perception has been and will be that they're wimps, afraid to stand up to Bush and the GOP'ers in Congress. This will kill them. They're wafflers.

Americans love mavericks. Outsiders. People that bring something fresh and unique to the table. Notice that all but one President in the last 28 years was a former Governor, with no Washington experience? People get bored with the ususal Washington crowd, since they associate them with the mess that's already there. That's why you see the rise of guys like Ross Perot. People are sick of the status quo. They want a tough talker that isn't afraid to roll up his sleeves and dig in and clean up the mess.

Enter Wesley Clark.

Many say it's too late to jump in. I say it's perfect. The nine guys now are beating each other up and killing each other off. People will tire of them, or they won't take them seriously. Wesley Clark can come in to the dance late and steal all their dates. It worked for Clinton in '92. After all, did you really think we'd have a President Tsongas? Naah.

Clark's military background is only part of the package. What he offers is honesty, integrity, and assertiveness. He is progressive on many issues, but not progressive enough as to drive away middle-of-the-road voters (who the Democrats need if there is any chance of getting rid of Bush). He has not given his opinions on all issues, only a taste to build the mystique. He has not declared, but there is a heavey grass roots movement, mostly internet based. I see it as perfect timing that a candidate is elected by a huge internet groundswell movement. He also stands up well to Rovites that would assail the patriotism of any other Democratic candidate.

Clark sounds like the complete package. Tough-talking progressive, decorated veteran, political outsider, and one that possesses the 'Perot-like mystique' that can sway the undecideds. IF Clark is a solid campaigner that eventually rounds up the nomination votes during the primaries, I sure hope the other candidates rally around him strong. Dem-on-Dem bashing would kill any chance of defeating Monkeyboy in '04.

[wndycty]

44. Hey rat!

Welcome to the DU!

[Kahuna]

48. You're right. The more these guys go at it...

the larger the pool of undecideds grow. :eyes:

[robbedvoter]

59. Bushco.

He'll detrhone the junta.

[tameszu]

63. It depends what he emphasizes and how strong a campaigner he is

If he turns out to be a relatively weak campaigner, then I think he still hurts Kerry, Edwards, and Graham, who have a number of "profile" supporters.

If he turns out to be a pretty good campaigner, it still matters what his tone and emphasis are. If he does go heavily anti-Bush, than he hurts Dean and Graham the most. What he'll then need to do is convince enough Kerry and resistant supporters that his domestic platform is intelligent and liberal enough to be worth electing. If he can do that, then it will probably be just him vs. Lieberman, who will only have the only very hawkish Dems on his side. It will be a beating. If Clark can't convince lefties on his domestic agenda, then it will likely be Clark vs. Kerry.

If Clark is good campaign but doesn't go anti-Bush and campaigns as more of a constructivist, he will cripple Lieberman and Edwards immediately and cut seriously into Kerry's support. Then it will probably come down to a motivational contest between Clark and Dean.

If the primaries are fought cleanly and Clark either wins the nom or commits to play a significant role with a Dem admin, then Bush loses.

[Nashyra]

66. Hopefully we will see a Clark/Dean ticket

Clark and Dean would have massive wide appeal. IMHO

[chaska]

67. I'd just like to thank you all

for keeping this civil. Too many of the Clark threads deteriorate into bashfests. Thanks for your respect. It's Bush who's the enemy.

[chaska]

68. Draft Clark on C-span 12:15 pm est n/t

[strauss_sucks]

75. Clark-Edwards vs Bush-Cheney

Think like Rove or Atwater. What demographics would they be most worry about loosing? Who are the undecideds? Who have the Reds narrowly won over with their current Fear-based leadership strategy? How are the minority polls currently trending?

The Dems have the NE captured with or without Dean or Kerry on the ticket. Same with the West. The Dems need to pick up big numbers in the key "fly-over" states and the Southeast. Don't forget the distribution from the 2000 election:
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/map.html

The Dems also have to regain the minority vote, which Rove is doing a strong job at growing. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sailer111502.asp
(forgive the source, but, like the Dom sez, we need to "keep our enemies closer"

Don't get me wrong, myself, like virtually everyone on this site, will vote for any Dem on the ticket, but if we want to avoid another Dukakis or Mondale situation, we need to examine the demographics and polling data and pick our candidate based on their ability to raise money, ability to stay on a simple, strong, positive message, and their basic physical appeal. If their messaging gets beyond a 7th grade level, or goes down a negative rat hole, they're wasting their energy and likely loosing share. (I know that sounds terrible, but that's a marketing reality.) This is why Rove would love to have Dean on the ticket.

Clark provides a strong, positive leadership message, can appeal to the low-brow fear mongers, can recapture terrified soccer moms and many of their husbands, and he doesn't carry any beltway baggage - which has strong appeal across the entire demographic spectrum. Combine these attributes with Edward's money, his SE electoral votes, and good looks -- boom! Dat's money, baby.

[tjdee]

76. That's assuming he says the right things.

(Welcome to DU, btw!)

Clark is all the things you've said--BUT, we don't know how he wants to fix the economy, for example. He could say it's a great idea to hike up the retirement age to 95, for all we know.

So far, I've not heard from Clark anything but the no-brainer Dem positions--the pro-choice, etc.

Also, I know he is great on tv, but how are his stump speeches? When left to his own devices does he himself sound like a stump?

A few unknowns with Clark, but without any big surprises I do think he'd waltz to the nomination--although I'd like Edwards/Clark a little better right now.

[angee_is_mad]

77. Kerry

Enough said!!!