Watch the Draft Clark TV Ad...if you want to.

[tjdee]

Everyone knows who I support, but I was interested in seeing what the ad looks like. I imagined others would be too, even if you think the campaign itself is going to be fruitless.

It kind of lays on the "America" thing kind of thick, but I think it works at what it's trying to do--casting a glowing light on Wesley Clark. And, LOL, where do they FIND those voiceover guys!

Frustratingly, Clark himself had nothing to do with it.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/tv_ad.htm

[CarlBallard]

1. Hot damn!

"Ended Slobodon Melosivic's genocidal dictatorship." The differences between that and what's happened in Iraq is great.

The little flag fluttering underneath. The voice, hell yeah!

[Ohio Dem]

2. I think the voice over guy is from the Miller High Life commercials.

And he did some Repub ads in Ohio (and who knows where else and for whom - these guys will read anything) in 2000.

[Poiuyt]

3. Great image ad

>>And, LOL, where do they FIND those voiceover guys!<<

Ah yes, the voice of God. Just like NFL films.

The ad was targeted directly at moderate Republicans who think that all Democrats would be soft on national security. As an introduction to a candidate, I think it did a great job. The general public has to know that Bush isn't the only person in the US who can protect us from the evil-doers.

[tameszu]

4. My moderate Republican roommate's jaw dropped when he saw it

"You don't understand how much middle Americans just eat this stuff up," he said, with not a little bit of awe. He thinks Clark could take Bush in the generals but doubts Clark can win the primary...we'll see...

I think it's pure cheese, but let them eat cheese and vote W out!

[Pepperbelly]

5. what saves it from pure cheesiness is that ...

unlike so many of the pols, Wesley walks the walk as well as talking the talk.

It ain't bragging if it's true.

[Minstrel Boy]

8. Good point. It's clearly targetting

the soft Republican vote. And it could do so very successfully.

My lefty Canadian self, I have problems with it (the Serbs themselves ended Milosovic's rule, and the image of Kim Jong Il just perpetuates the axis of evil nonsense), but then it's not meant for me. So go Clark, if it means goodbye Bush.

[tameszu]

12. Also a lefty Canadian here...

...and I remember Kosovo putting a lot of Canadian lefties in a very weird place. They seemed to mostly keep quiet at first; then a few radicals and Serbians started protesting, but with liberal internationalists like Axworthy backing it, as well as human rights groups, while critical of bombing, happy that the ethnic cleasning would finally be stopped, the left had a hard time putting together a coherent position. Oh, and of course, Muslim groups were very supportive.

(I did get the satisfaction of siding with, I think, the right side on Kosovo)

The Serbs themselves did end Milosevic's rule, but there was a ton of enabling by NATO there. Which is pretty much how it should work? As with NATO's enabling of Bosnian independence through limited airstrikes and allowing the Bosnians access to arms, I can't see how the Serbian opposition could have overcome Milosevic's grip on the armed forces and media without NATO seriously damaging his power base and image.

[robbedvoter]

6. Wow! They packed everything very professionally!

If he runs, I'll contribute, volunteer.

[msanger]

7. is this like the ball game in "one flew over the cuckoo's nest?"

I see everybody praising the ad, but I don't see any link or ad. Am I missing something?

Or is this an "in" joke?

[tjdee]

9. You're missing it, LOL.

In my original post I linked to the tv ad page on the DraftWesleyClark site, and if you scroll down, there's a little "download here" type icon.

Here it is :)
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/tv_ad.htm

[CarlBallard]

10. It's not working right now

It may be swamped. Your link takes you here and you can also get it here

[tjdee]

11. Oh, thanks. I didn't know they had it at MSNBC too. Hmm! n/t

[Pastiche423]

13. Nationalism at its best!

How does it feel to be a Dem and buy into the * cabal's FEAR propaganda?

P.S. When did Clark register Democrat? Sometime between March 2003 and now? How long do you have to register w/a party before you declare you are running for that party?

[tjdee]

14. You don't register for party in Arkansas.

And he has voted in Dem primaries...

Pepperbelly lives in Arkansas, and has said as much.

[Pepperbelly]

15. give it a rest ...

It has been noted time after time on the various threads that in Arkansas, there is NO party registration. One expresses their party by which primary they vote in. I have always voted in the Democratic primary.

So, I believe, has Wesley.`

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. I Agree, Give It a Rest

Another Clark thread, here you are like clockwork.

:eyes:

How does it feel to be a Dem and buy into the * cabal's FEAR propaganda?

The simple reality is that we live in a complex world where foreign policy experience is important. Clark has that in spades, tons more than Shrub, and tons more than just about any other Democrat currently running for President.

Sorry that simple fact seems to chap your hide so much. I find it quite amusing, however.

[DemPopulist]

16. I don't like it

Not Democratic enough. I agree with some others in this thread, he's targeting the soft-Republican vote but I'm not sure how successfully you can target opposition party voters, I think they either come to you or they don't. And is that really a smart strategy for the Democratic primary? I'm not questioning whether he's a Democrat, I'm just curious how his people think he could pull this off with a non-partisan campaign.

[tameszu]

17. They're not HIS people

Clark has no contact with the draft people. They are just random people who have put together an organization to push Clark into running.

But for random people, the production values are pretty good.

[Starpass]

18. Well, let's run this one up the flag pole

..for those who think they are just trying to appeal to moderate republicans: After 9/11 Bush was at 86%; and he was in the mid-70's after the first bomb dropped in Iraq. NOW, that says to me that a hell of a lot of Dems (people who did NOT vote for Bush in 2000 and voted for Al) got all liquored up and backed Bush. Thus, there are a whole hell of a lot of DEMS (yes, I said Dems) who would flock to someone with a big service record as opposed to someone who could offer none and thus be on a par with Bush (or Bush even ahead because of his glorious Guard duty that most Americans won't admit was really an AWOL situation). Bottom line: you have a hell of a lot of Dems to satisify in this "security/protection" hysteria that Bush has spread over this nation. Don't believe me??---go check the results of our stunning destruction in the midterms.

[KoKo]

20. Starpass......Max Cleland wasn't Militaristic enough? Is it because he

was injured and Dems thought that meant he was weak? Clark managed not to lose any body parts so he will get the Dem vote while Cleland had the misfortune of not being "lucky" in war?

I don't get your logic on this one. Not about the "mid-terms." Especially with Cleland! ???????

[LTR]

22. Well, Wesley Clark did lose PART of his leg in Vietnam

Lost part of his calf.

[tjdee]

27. And part of his finger.

I think it's his right hand trigger finger.

[tameszu]

23. Clelland did not hit back against his opponents sufficiently

And more substantively, neither he, nor the Dems as a whole, had a coherent message on foreign policy and defense, or a constructive alternative to Bush. As the IRW vote showed, they were all over the place--it was "we like Bush," "no wait, we don't like Bush," "ah, I dunno". Now, I'm not saying that none of the Democrats had a coherent message, but given what the election was, the Congressional leadership's disarray on this issue and their unwillingness to "nationalize" the election hurt very badly.

In the presidentials, the focus is on the candidate, and Clark has a coherent (and rather sharp) critique of Bush, along with a clear but not overly simple constructive and concrete alternative.

So we Clark supporters aren't just counting on the star to dazzle Americans--we this message is very strong too. Although, of course, we have no doubt that those stars will help very much in making people who don't normally listen to Democrats more likely to be give his message a chance, and others potentially more receptive to his message.

[KoKo]

21. tj, the flag pins that the Bushies wear is enough to gag me......but to

see a potential Dem candidate doing a Flags and Military thing.......as if that's the only thing that's important really is kind of hard. Do we need to be like them to beat them? Hasn't that always been a question here on DU? The balance?

Clarks draft committee obviously thought this would distinquish him from the "pack." But how about those of us whom it turned off because it reminded us of the "False patriotism and flag waving" we saw while we were protesting Iraq Invasion.

Given the ambitions of PNAC,... doesn't going all out in an ad to play up Clark's military strength give the impression that some Dems are fine with American Empire and Imperialism? I know Clark supporters say he's against our being in Iraq.....but the casual viewer isn't going to pick that up if they haven't paid attention to Clark or they haven't watched the Iraq coverage every minute. For some Clark is a new face. The ad makes him a "Military Face."

Edited: Can't type this morning.....typos.......

[tameszu]

24. OK, let's a get a bit deeper

First the easy answer.

"Given the ambitions of PNAC,... doesn't going all out in an ad to play up Clark's military strength give the impression that some Dems are fine with American Empire and Imperialism?"

Huh? OK, on substantive grounds, I don't care if this ad gives some viewers that impression, because if they actually go listen to what Clark says and his slams of Bush and his unilateral imperialism, then they should realize that he's not. If they listen to the Dems who will be likely be supporting Clark, that will be more clear. Like Pelosi? Micheal Moore? Not exactly warmongers.

Now, the deeper part:

"to see a potential Dem candidate doing a Flags and Military thing.......as if that's the only thing that's important really is kind of hard. Do we need to be like them to beat them? Hasn't that always been a question here on DU? The balance?"

What do you mean exactly by "doing the flags and military" thing?

If you mean that promoting a militaristic and thoughtlessly jingoistic nation is bad, then I agree with you.

But if you mean that it's intrinsically wrong to try to promote a candidate by drawing on people's feelings of patriotism and admiration for the military's honor, then I seriously disagree with you.

And I think this leads to a more general issue that highlights a real weakness of a small segment of the Democratic Party and perhaps the modern left in general: a instantly reflexive distrust of patriotism and all things military. I would submit that such attitudes, especially when not reigned in by a self-reflexive critique on its own, are politically suicidal in a modern liberal democracy--especially in America--for the simple reason that regular folks find it utterly unsympathetic.

The morality of regular people (and lots of thinking people as well) is not based on a dry rationality, utterly unattached to affective factors--that some progressives have been deluded into thinking this may be the worst legacy of Marx, as it was his great influence Hegel who had so persuasively argued the opposite. People vote with both their heart and their head. Right now, their hearts are giving Republicans a 40% lead on defense and foreign policy.

That last bit is a disaster. Part of is that the Democrats don't have a consistent message, but part of it definitely has to do with the left's (not generally deserved) image as resolutely anti-patriotic and anti-military. Democrats are going to have start getting through to Americans' hearts when it comes to patriotism and foreign affairs, or they won't be able to get their substantive message implemented--namely a multilateralist and peace-seeking foreign policy, real improvement to security, rather than aggressive and arrogant crusading; a military geared toward defense and peacekeeping, rather than the next world war; a security strategy that view peacetime civil rights as essential and not incompatible with defending America against terrorism, and so on.

There are plenty of reasons to mistrust the U.S. military, and there are plenty of reasons to mistrust people who wrap themselves in the flag (especially when they do so insincerely). But there's also plenty of reasons to mistrust people who publicly claim they're virtuous or that they're going to help the poor, shake hands to win elections, and so on. I think it's important to concentrate on the particular in this case--because the alternative of embracing the absolute syllogism "anyone who invokves their association with the military or patriotism is an imperialist" is politically untenable.

[tjdee]

25. Yeah....but...

I don't want to make too many assertions about Clark and American Empire just yet, because I'm waiting to see what *he* comes up with.

I think some Clark supporters, as you probably guess, want him because he DOES exude the military man thing. I'm not too into that, myself, and I don't think we need a military man. I *do* think that Clark has other qualities that help, not the least of which being his military title (if he was in business or something, it'd mean the same to me)--he is a 'big dog'.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

26. Awesome

He looks so presidential. What a great military career he had too.