Analysis: Is It Too Late for Wesley Clark?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

This is an interesting study commissioned by the DraftWesleyClark.com website. Despite the obvious bias/methodology issues inherent in such a study, the analysis is quite interesting, IMO.

http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/documents/August%202003%20DWC%20-%20Is%20it%20too%20%20late.pdf

DTH

[imhotep]

1. its never too late

for the military industry complex to buy their way into the white house.

[MiltonLeBerle]

2. military-industrial complex-??

It seems that you may not be all that familiar with Wesley Clark.

[IranianDemocrat]

19. Military Industry complex?

I hate it when people post when they don;t have the facts. You think ALL military people are right wing nazis.

[imhotep]

28. lets make a deal

I'll wager any amount of money donated to DU, that IF Clark runs as a Democrat, he will lead all the others in donations from "defense" corporations. I doubt any of you Clark supporters would take my bet.

[MiltonLeBerle]

44. More than Holy Joe?

Don't they build stuff like submarines in Connetticut? And Howard Dean is already on record as saying that he would NOT cut the defense budget-

[tameszu]

27. Say it with me friends:

...oohmmm...ignorrrre...

:hi:

Nah nah nah nah...

[Kahuna]

33. Aaaah. The old, 'military industrial complex' refrain...

One of these days you're gonna post more than just an ad homienen attack and put add to substance to your allegations.

[fishnfla]

38. It was backed up with a bet!!

Makes it true!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. It's Never Too Late

for some cipher to make a knee jerk comment.

[MiltonLeBerle]

3. Clinton didn't announce for the '92 race until October 1991.

so No- it's not too late for Clark.

[dfong63]

8. not the same thing

when Clinton announced, he had a fine track record in electoral politics. unlike Clark, who will be coming in as a novice. sorry, i'm not willing to bet the election on a man who (a) has never run for office, let alone won; and (b) won't give straight answers to simple questions like "are you running" and "are you a democrat".

[MiltonLeBerle]

21. yeah, you've got a point---

with all his proven "leadership", Bush is obviously a better, more qualified choice than Wesley Clark for the job.

:eyes:

[Kahuna]

34. If he doesn't win, he doesn't win. That shouldn't stop him from trying..

Why should it concern you if he wastes his time or my time?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. You're Right

Wes Clark is a total loser.



NOT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Bobby Kennedy Didn't Get Into The Race Until March of 68

after the New Hampshire primary.

[Eloriel]

4. I want to know where these people are getting their money

They sure seem to have a lot of it.

ANyone know?

I'm particularly interested in knowing if ole Jackson Stevens (Stephens?) has his hands in there somewhere. He reportedly bankrolled Clinton too.

Eloriel

[Proletariat]

7. Clark is very popular.

Many people donate to the site I think.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

9. Good On Jackson Stephens!

His support of Clinton helped us elect a fantastic President.

Frankly, I hope he is helping the DWC movement. Because General Clark would also make a fantastic President.

DTH

[Pastiche423]

10. I'd like to know that too

As well as who is the money behind draftclark. Something is just not kosher here.

On edit: One too many "is's".

[JasonBerry]

12. Troubles me too....

A lot of money for a guy who's not even running yet and LEGALLY can have no contact with this group. (cough, cough)....

[tameszu]

26. The new FEC info isn't out yet

Since I know you have been very concerned about this, I decided to do some research for you.

As of the end of June, the group with the PAC (the Draft Clark 2004 Committee) had raised $15K, according to the FEC.

If you want to keep an eye on this yourself, go http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00387712">here

I poked through it--now, I don't really know what I'm looking at, but nothing too sinister jumped out. No anagrams that I could unscramble to make "Karl" or "Rove," as far as I could see. I noticed that women who paid $1,000 for the MRE "fundraising dinner" over eBay.

Of course, I think stuff really started to pick up last month, so the report almost certainly have any of the money they used to pay for the ads and so on.

I should also note that there are a bunch of other disparite groups--the movement isn't yet centralized, and I'm pretty sure you can spend money doing other stuff besides ads without filing (especially if you don't yet have a candidate), although the group that's doing the ads and I think the biggest spending is the one that filed a PAC.

P.S.: Wow, I've only got 3 people on my ignore list, but, wow, there's a lot of holes on this thread. Certainly saves me reading a lot of stuff I've seen before, and my blood pressure...healthy debate is one thing; having to endure the relentless chirping of the same old whinging stalkers is another...

[JasonBerry]

29. ERIC- You know a lot about American politics.....

considering you ARE a Canadian citizen, right? You cannot even vote in 2004 in the United States, correct? However, you DO know a lot about American politics and I have enjoyed reading some of your archived articles from Pundit in Canada. This one is very interesting:

http://www.punditmag.com/articles/attack.html

It explains why you seem very thin-skinned when it comes to political disagreement at DU. After all, you called on Canadians not to be "stained" by our negativity in politics. At least, my friend, our ultimate authority lies with the people and not a "Royal Family."

So, why the intense interest, as a Canadian citizen, in getting actively involved in Wesley Clark's campaign for President of the United States?

Just curious.

Following the links from your profile explained a lot.

[tameszu]

32. Ah, you've sniffed me out!

Actually, you could have figured out my citizenship by reading some other DU threads I've posted at.

But if you'd like to know the source of my interest, I am a long-term resident of the United States and a student of political science and political theory. I have worked in political campaigns here and I think that considering what Bush is doing to the world, I think I have the right, within the bounds of the rules set up by the INS and the FEC, to advocate for what I believe.

As for being thin-skinned about political disagreement--well, if you mean that I think there's more constructive things to do than to argue endlessly and get all worked up and antagonizedon an online forum, especially with people who should be your natural allies, then yes, may be that's an apt description for me. Although I'd like to think of myself as more of a consensus-builder. Considering the going alternatives, I like the Democratic Party very much, and along with a big chunk of the rest of the world, hope that it will be strong enough next Nov. to succeed in getting rid of Bush. But I think you would have an easier correlating my views on disagreement to the fact that I'm a quasi-Habermasian, than to my nationality.

Also, I think we had a pretty brisk mix-up the other night, didn't we? If I have more time, I dunno, a few weeks from now, I'd be happy to go for another round over Kosovo...

Quick notes: ultimate formal authority in Canada has lain in the Constitution and the People of Canada--and not Her Majesty, who is still our symbolic head of state, but no longer our source of sovereignty--since 1981...and it's interesting that I've drawn out the American nationalist in you...I wouldn't have expected it, given your other views...

P.S.:

"you called on Canadians not to be "stained" by our negativity in politics."

I did no such thing. I said I hoped that Canadians wouldn't inherit the legacy of the man who turned the Republican Party toward its current vicious incarnation. I'm sure that there's more than a few other people on this board who would have unkind things to say about Mr. Atwater...

[tjdee]

47. Canada doesn't have a royal family!

Not unless they're hiding them from me...

[T_i_B]

49. They are hiding in Buckingham Palace!

Canada is part of the British commonwealth and as such has our very own Queen Elizabeth II as head of state I belive!

[burr]

5. That depends...

First some of the candidates already running would have to drop out before the primaries begin. And then Clark would have to address issues like healthcare reform and trade to pick up this support among minority voters and other primary voters who are active in unions.

Being a general come lately won't cut it in an overcrowded primary contest!

[JasonBerry]

6. Interesting....My analysis of the analysis

I don't support Clark, but the analysis was quite good. I question why they would have paid for such a comprehensive study, complete with strategic ideas, and then put it on the internet! Was this for public consumption?

I would agree that it's not too late for Clark. It's a bizarre cycle because the very early start for so many candidates. The only problem could be money - but my guess is he could make up time fast.

With so many candidates having particular regional appeal, it won't be easy to gain early momentum. I just watched that Oklahoma Forum tonight and read an article in their paper about how Oklahoma will be a KEY early primary (they moved their primary up). It WILL be the first "breakout" state. It's not Midwest (like Iowa), certainly not East (like New Hampshire), or Southern (like South Carolina). What is Oklahoma? They get lumped in as a midwestern state, a southern state, a southwestern state, a "plains" state, a western state; Oklahoma is hard to pin down regionally. It WILL be important even though there aren't that many delegates at play because of that "breakout" status. The winner can claim a "break" in (pick the region you want to exploit).....

As I said, I am not a Clark supporter, but I see Clark as being more of a region-neutral candidate. That's important in THIS particular race - and will mean a lot when it comes to piecing together the 2,170 delegates needed to nominate.

[tameszu]

24. Yes

"I question why they would have paid for such a comprehensive study, complete with strategic ideas, and then put it on the internet! Was this for public consumption?"

I hope this won't sound too reductionist, but there are a lot of times when it makes good tactical sense to signal your strength or your strategy to your opponents. In politics and when attempting to harness big media, looking strong can mean being strong. Some (amateur, mostly, but there are some serious people picking it up) 'Net theorists think about discursive contestation as a battle of "memes." Clearly, for us Clarkies, the meme "it's not too late for Clark" is more advantageous in terms of gathering support and resources than the meme "it's too late for Clark." So, yeah, it's definitely in our (we Clarkies') interests to put it into public circulation.

About ignore: I've sadly learned that the ignore button can contribute to discourse--as I noted, this is sort of a sub-hypothesis of my project on deliberative democracy. That's a rather optimistic theory, and I think of myself as a rather optimistic person. But it seems that there are some people whose discursive attitudes (not unchangeable in the long run, but on the Internet, the short run often matters more) are downright unproductive to constructive deliberation.

I'm pleasantly surprised to note that I seem to have misjudged your attitude based on our first encounter...

Peace...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. Yup. Noise, Not Signal.

But it seems that there are some people whose discursive attitudes (not unchangeable in the long run, but on the Internet, the short run often matters more) are downright unproductive to constructive deliberation.

It's classic static. I love being able to ignore it.

DTH

[dfong63]

11. an interesting question, indeed

is it too late for Wesley Clark?

the analysis repeatedly emphasizes the "opportunities for Clark", but does not seem to address the question of whether Clark is needed. the analysis also contains several references to the "surging" candidacy of Dean. interesting how the analysis seems to regard a "surging democrat" as a threat to the "opportunities for Clark" - a negative rather than a positive.

my question: since we already have a "surging" candidate - why do we need Clark? answer: i don't think we do. if Clark merely wants to ensure a dem victory, he could do so by campaigning for the candidate who is already surging (according to the analysis), rather than jumping in himself. therefore, if Clark does jump in, i have no choice but to interpret that move as an ego-driven power grab.

the analysis does nothing to dispel the suspicion that Clark is merely an opportunist who sees the dem party as a vehicle for his ambition, and who cares little for the effect that his decision might have on the overall probability of the dems' recapturing the white house.

[Kahuna]

35. Response..

<<my question: since we already have a "surging" candidate - why do we need Clark? answer: i don't think we do. >>

Response:

Two thirds of voters are not paying attention to ANY candidate at this point according to a recent poll. Two thirds can't even tell you who the candidates are. Also, the number of undecided voters in early primary states seem to be increasing instead of decreasing as the current candidates make themselves known. Many voters are saying that they are "uninspired" by the current field. Many are down right "dissatisfied." Finally, a great deal of the support for individual candidates is "soft." Meaning, voters are quite ready to move their support to another candidate.

If you think Clark is too late and has no chance, you should lighten up, sit back, watch and get a good laugh. But to the contrary, your posts sound as if you are absolutely against Clark running at all. Why?

[tjdee]

48. I notice a distinct dislike for him, ?????

Just like I'm not completely sure why people are 100% for Clark without one word from him about policy (sorry Kahuna!), I am interested to see that some here actively want him to *not run*.

Which is fascinating, because are these the same people who had no problem with all nine of the candidates running, whether they are good candidates or not? Isn't this the democratic way?

Hmm.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Maybe Wes Clark

is getting in the race for the same reason that RFK got in the race in 68.

He concluded that the anti war candidate Eugene McCarthy couldn't beat Nixon who was the presumptive Republican nominee.

All politicans are ambitious and have egoes as large as houses. It is a prerequisite for the job.

I think a four star general and Supreme Allied Commander is better positioned to make the case against Bush's pre-emptive war than the former Governor of Vermont.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Goddamn, I Love the Ignore Function

It makes dealing with the negativity here SO much easier.

DTH

[JasonBerry]

14. I NEVER ignore those with whom I disagree

Otherwise I am just chatting with others in the choir. Besides, even those of us who don't support Clark (at least most of us) will support him if he is the nominee.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. I'm Not Ignoring You, Jason

Despite your strong opposition to Clark, you seem reasonable enough.

It's the people who haunt every Clark thread, throwing around the same old attacks, despite all of the clear refutations of their weak positions, who I've recently started ignoring. So far the list is up to five.

I've tried having rational discussions with these folks. They have no interest in anything save grinding their axes.

DTH

[dfong63]

20. yep, the ignore function is great,

... when the opponents have a strong argument and you don't have an answer.

It's the people who haunt every Clark thread, throwing around the same old attacks, despite all of the clear refutations of their weak positions, who I've recently started ignoring.

clear refutations? you must mean mindless rah-rah cheerleading and wishful thinking. unf for your candidate, not everyone goes instantly gooey-eyed over a man in uniform.

in my book, Clark is like Arnie Schwarzenegger. total lack of experience in electoral politics, but wants to immediately come in at the top, despite the lack of any track record. primadonna who flirts endlessly with running. running mainly on image and ego.

i did read the analysis, and i thought it was quite revealing how the emphasis was on "opportunities for Clark" rather than "need for Clark". we have enough candidates already. if Clark wants to ensure a dem victory, he can help by campaigning for the strongest dem, or the dem of his choice.

[Julien Sorel]

22. Who defines 'need,' you? Sorry, not for me you don't.

You are setting your own irrelevant criteria; nobody else takes it seriously. If Dean can't beat Clark for the nomination, despite a head start, then Dean is clearly the lesser candidate. Who the hell defines 'need,' you? Maybe for yourself, not for me or anyone else. Elections are about winning, not some meaningless word like 'need.' The voters define need.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. You're Scaring Me, BB

We're agreeing far too much lately. :-)

Peace?

DTH

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. "Primadonna"

Did you get that from Colornel Hackworth's talking points?

Wes Clark was

First in his class at West Point


A Rhodes Scholar


Supreme Allied Commander


If Arnold had those accomplishments in his resume I'd take him as serious as Wes Calrk.

Since he doesn't your comparison is facile....

[Pastiche423]

16. Jason -

People that can not handle hard and legimate questions are the ones in denial - whistling w/their fingers in their ears.

[dfong63]

17. sure, dismiss all criticism as "negativity" and ignore it

sticking your head in the sand is a great way to show the strength and broad appeal of your candidate, and to prove he's a winner. NOT

[unfrigginreal]

18. I don't think it's too late

I tried to pull up the pdf but it was too busy for me to read...but I still think that Clark would be well received in this race.

I plan to reserve judgement for 30-60 days to see if he inspires me and if he can pass all the press scrutiny. I have a candidate right now that does inspire me and that's Dean, but if Clark instills the same feelings in me then I will support him because I believe he has a better shot at the crossover vote.

I'm actually feeling pretty high right now knowing that there are two candidates that I feel enthusiastic about supporting.

[Kahuna]

36. Hey Boo!

You forgive me yet? :D

[Oracle]

30. Just beginning.

Plenty of Bush bullshit...though Nov. 2004

Not that it matters...these fuck wanto play with a loaded deck...

Everyday, they are finding new ways (electronic voting, etc...to fuck us.)

These are fucking fascist...understand it yet? No
joke...real!

[BoogieBear]

31. AR has a vast fundrasing network

that Clinton left behind, and Clark would be able to utilize it.

[sendero]

37. Not at all...

... however, if he had waited much longer (> month or two), I think it would have hurt him.

I've been a Dean supporter but Clark looks very interesting to me. I'm looking forward to hearing more of his public statements, and how he takes on Bush*.

[Justice]

45. Do You Even Know Who Wesley Clark Is????

1. The man is a wonderful articulate speaker - he is very direct, very quick. He also has that ability (maybe it is his southern upbringing) to make great analogies that compare complex global issues to everyday situations. This ability will help him with voters. If he heard him respond to Delay's comment on Russert last week about hair blown napoleons, you'd know what I mean.

2. Hannity, King, Russert can't touch him. If you've seen Clark (and judging by most of the posts on this list, frankly, you haven't seen him and you should), you know that he is very credible, has huge integrity and is very willing to speak the truth. There is a story that Holbrooke tells about Clark traversing down the side of a mountain in Bosnia under heavy gunfire to stay with the bodies of three men killed in a vehicle crash so that the Serbs did not take the bodies. He risked his life to protect bodies. This man has deep deep honor and integrity - he does not shy away from the likes of these pundits.

3. He is really smart - first in his class at West Point, and a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar.

4. He has 33 years in the military - most of it managing people and operations. He has worked in other countries and with other governments. He gets it - people in America want someone who gets the big picture - we are in such a mess now on foreign policy - people will respond to a guy who gets it.

5. He understands financial matters. He was an investment banker at Stephens Group, Inc. from March 2001 through February 2003.

There are huge numbers of voters who are just not excited about any democratic candidate and no amount of Dean cheerleading is going to turn that around. It is not too late - we are just beginning this race.

Look, I have no ties to Clark, I have posted a few other posts about him. He is exciting - frankly far more exciting that the other 9 -including Dean. In my view Dean is combative, he does not present a profile that is anymore exciting that Clark - and he will not do well against Bush. Dean has the whole civil union issue in VT that will become a major issue in the general election -- foolishly in my view given that we have real problems - but southern voters will only hear that Dean supported civil unions and goodness what will he do as president. Dean's other work in VT will go unreported.

I started out this race thinking Kerry was the man to beat, but have been disappointed in Kerry's spats with Dean and his inability to fashion a message. I also think his support of the war undercuts him. Frankly, I like Graham because of his intelligence background/Florida roots - but he doesn't have the charisma. Edwards just doesn't have enough experience on the global scene.

People are entitled to their opinions, but I will respond to one particular comment - to compare him to Arnold in any way shape or form -is ridiculous, insulting really. Clark has done more with his life than Arnold could ever do. I expect more from du members.

[Garage Queen]

46. Clark said he would decide in "the next two to three weeks"

On CBS this morning.