An ABB Defense of Wesley Clark

[WilliamPitt]

In a better world, a man like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination and barnstorm into the Presidency.

Howard Dean's wise (and not opportunistic, despite some hysterical commentary to the contrary) stance that a 60-day waiting period before going to war in Iraq would quite possibly have saved over 300 American lives, spared some 6,000 more Americans from getting maimed, and spared tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians from being slaughtered and wrecked. Dean is a solid centrist, which is fine and dandy with me. The only reason the media paints him as an 'ultra-liberal' is because he speaks up, and speaks loud, and speaks well. That is a sad damn commentary on politics in America.

Dennis Kucinich...what can I say? I've met him three times, and loved him more each time. He is an inspirational speaker, and his rise to the Presidency would, quite simply, change the world. Dean has a fight on his hands as to who was the 'anti-war' candidate first. I think Dennis was 'anti-war' from the moment rational thought first took hold within his mind and soul.

In a better world...but this isn't a better world. This is this world, and this world is a mess.

America rules this world, and a great many Americans are hypnotized by 'WAR WAR WAR GOOD GOOD GOOD' from the television and the talk radio. As much as we here know better, we cannot ignore this. 2004 is not the year for revolutionary change, unfortunately. We are backed up to our own five yard line, it is third and ten, and the two-minute warning just went off.

We need the right quarterback for this game.

Wesley Clark fulfills a number of vital slots right now:

- He supports affirmative action
- He wants to roll back the tax cuts
- He supports a woman's right to choose
- He wants to fix the nonsense of the Patriot Act
- Whatever his prior stances may be, he is a savage critic of the war now

And he is a General. This chaps a lot of asses. But we are dealing with an American people who have been fed a diet of fear for two and a half years. I worry that they will be so afraid that they will stick with Bush, because Change Is Frightening In These Uncertain Times...

...unless we give them someone who bats down that fear. I think Wesley Clark can fill that role. Wesley Clark will be someone Americans can trust to Do What Is Right In These Uncertain Times, and I also think he is someone who will actually DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

And here's one more thing.

We yap alot about the White House. We forget the House, and the Senate. A strong General Clark campaign could very well alter our fate in Congress in 2004, and coat-tail in a Democratic majority in one of them, especially the Senate. Asa Hutchinson should be shitting nickels right about now.

DO NOT underestimate how important it is to take back Congress.

General Clark.

Don't be yourself as you read this. Be an 'average American' fed a poison diet of fear and bullshit for two years. Imagine what a General Clark could do for the Democrats.





At the end of the day, I believe with all my heart and soul that we need to win this one. That makes me a whore, and I am fine with that. We need to save Social Security, Medicare, roll back the tax cuts, smash the Patriot Act, rehabilitate our standing on the world stage, and get these pirates out of power. Wesley Clark will do this. He will give the American people full confidence that Things Are Well In Hand. Don't underestimate the power of that.

P.S. I am not flipping over to Clark. I just thought he needed some defending around here. I'm going to bed, and leaving for NC in the morning, so I won't be responding in this thread. Just fyi.

[Kahuna]

1. Oh Boy. Don't smack us up side the head with common..

sense Will.
Whew! What do you think we are? We're Dems. You think we would actually nominate somebody who could beat a republican. Hell NO! We'd rather lose everthing than to nominate a winner! </sarcasm>

[bicentennial_baby]

2. Amen

I'm with you on this one, Will. I will sleep well tonight after reading this, thanks! :toast:

[knight_of_the_star]

3. Most Eloquent, as always Will

I often wonder why CNN hasn't given you an offer yet to serve as a pundit for them. You are certainly more articulate than some of the people they employ.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[oasis]

4. What you say would make sense to any clear thinker.

[SaintLouisBlues]

14. "Clear thinker" being the operative words

Jerking knees are tiresome.

Great point about congressional coattails. We must crush the Repukes
to have any coattails, and to overwhelm any voting fraud.

While it does seem like more than a few of the Dems could win if the election were held today, I believe Clark is the only one that can eat into the 70 percent white guy Repuke vote, which is neccessary for a landslide victory.

[FauxNewsBlues]

5. Let's not put all our eggs in one basket though

I am as of this point supporting Dean, but will enthusiastically support Clark if he gets the nod. Clark needs to get his positions up to date. He is running as a democrat. He can not do a W, and fake knowledge on a wide variety of issues.

I am not arguing pro or con removal of MFN for China, for an example, but Clark needs to bone up on those issues, take a position and be able to defend it.

Let's watch this first debate with him in it. We shall see how he does on questions he wasn't expecting. Hopefully, he will be picked first on a couple, so it won't appear he is cribbing off other candidates. Clark is a very bright guy, so this is not a big issue, other than one of temperment. If he decides that he doesn't need to know the big picture on everything, he is going to get called on it.

I am hoping he does well. Just refusing to jump off Dean's bandwagon until Clark shows me his knowledge on issues that will be crucial in the election. Again, it's not just a matter of agreeing with him on everything, it's a matter of him being up to date on what he should know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Small Point

Wes Clark was on the debate team at West Pont...

I'll bet those guys were aggressive and smart....

[Kool Kitty]

7. A small point maybe-

but it's a good one. :)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

8. Everybody will come around to the General sooner or latter.

From

Dean is making a fuck*ng threat not to tell his Deanettes
to back the nominee and he will not back the nominee himself!

to

Well, Dean is not making fuck*ng threats after all and he is
not going to not tell his Deeaneos to back the nominee after all.

to

Well, will the Deanettos themself back the nomineee??

to

General Clark.

You got to love it. Welcome home, Will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Well said

[Cha]

10. This I like.. what Michael Moore has to say about the primaries...

"We, the voters, have a job to do right now: Remain strong and steadfast in pushing these candidates to behave, straighten up, and do the right thing. There will be plenty of time to get behind the one candidate who is nominated to defeat Bush. What we should be doing now is making our voices heard so that we can influence them to take the right positions."


"He comments on the imperfections of all the candidates and we need to be careful of candidate worship....May the best one win in 2004!!!!!!" Sweetpea

[MrPrax]

11. Good Rap...

But maybe I have missed something over the summer...
Bush is toast anyway...
Lest We Forget...the American Public isn't that gullible and Gore did win the popular vote last time
What is Clark offering that the top candidates aren't--

There seems to be this rationale appealing to some notion that 'we have to get rid of Bush'

The dude is Gone!! Bush can't recover

So now people should be asking...why is Clark running now? Raise more money from an already strapped party? To provide what isn't already being provided by Dean, Kerry or Gephardt...
Yes I like Dennis, but he won't get the Nod...

This I have problem with:
"2004 is not the year for revolutionary change, unfortunately." why not? people are livid and this gov't is corrupt...stop watching TV
And when is it the right year?

[SaintLouisBlues]

26. Radical change would be a centrist Dem in the White House

We're starting on the far right, and as much as I'd like a liberal
POTUS, when has this country ever gone from one extreme to the other?
Hoover to FDR maybe, and that took the Great Depression to pull it off.

Down the road, with the hoped for emerging Democratic majority, perhaps we can maneuver further left.

[regnaD kciN]

94. Not really...

A "centrist Dem in the White House" combined with a solidly Republican Congress (and likely to be more solidly so, what with the successful Texas and Colorado gerrymandering), would be a rehash of the last few years of Clinton...gridlock and compromise with Delay and company, while the latter bash the Democratic president as "too liberal," and react to Democratic moves "to the center" by moving even farther to the right (if that's possible).

The end result will be, at best, another restriction of the "acceptable" range of the political spectrum, so that it will run from Tom Delay and Rick Santorum on the far right to Wesley Clark on the "far left" -- anyone more progressive than Clark (and that would include most of the current Democratic candidates except Lieberman) will be automatically considered too "far out" to be taken seriously in the future.

Don't believe me? Then, let me ask you: after eight years of Clinton, did we see a move toward liberal resurgence? On the contrary, the nation had shifted further to the right than before. I see no reason why cashing in our chips and going with the "'electable' centrist" candidate more than a year before the election will result in anything other than more of the same.

:-(

(Once again, I'll repeat: what bothers me most about this whole Clark issue is not the candidate himself -- about whom I still know little -- but the hard-sell, knee-jerk stampede mentality with which he is being "sold," and the rationale behind it, which seems to me little more than "we're telling you he's electable because he's military, so decide now!" It's like talking to persistant evangelical door-to-door missionaries, continually pushing you to stop thinking critically and take their offered "salvation" now or never...or maybe a particularly high-pressure used car salesman, whose "deals" will "only be good if you buy now!". There may be a time to decide that candidate A, although he or she may appeal more than candidate B, is not "electable" while the latter is. However, that time is not fourteen months before the general election, and even five months before the first primary, when the candidate who's being "sold" has barely been in the race for a couple of weeks, has no prior track record in politics, and hasn't even presented a comprehensive set of positions on major issues yet. Anyway, consider this: if we had used the same "electable" standard four or five months ago, the same case could be made that we all needed to get behind Joe Lieberman!)

[SaintLouisBlues]

130. Reread please

Who said anything about rehashing Clinton (although that sounds pretty good to me). My point is that it is not realistic
to think that this country will veer from far right to left-of-center.
I believe history bears this out. Maybe Shrub's complete idiocy will buck this trend but I don't think we can take any chances with this criminal crowd.

Yes we went from center to right in 2000. Bolsters my argument. The electorate will take only one step at a time (left-center-right), which is why we will elect a centrist Dem in 2004, and not a left-of-center Dem. I wish I didn't fee this way, but my idealism was stomped out by Fat Tony's selection.

You are right to withhold judgement, especially with Clark and his blank political slate.

My overall point is that we can not afford to be too idealistic with what we have at stake, and that electability can not be dismissed.

[dfong63]

12. you're giving clark way too much credit

Wesley Clark will be someone Americans can trust to Do What Is Right In These Uncertain Times, and I also think he is someone who will actually DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

you're giving Clark way too much credit. you're assuming he will not only get elected, but have bigger coattails than Dean. but you're talking about a man who has never run for public office, let alone actually getting elected. there are many pitfalls along the way, and i seriously doubt that Clark has the savvy to navigate them as successfully as the 6-time governor Dean. the presidential contest is not a game for rank beginners.

you assume Clark will Do What Is Right. yet look at his past. did he do "what was right" in the Kosovo war? no. he used depleted uranium, leaving behind a toxic radioactive battlefield. he bombed civilian targets, in violation of international law. did he do what was right when he voted for Nixon and Reagan? no. did he apologize for it? no. in fact, he praised Reagan at a REPUBLICAN FUNDRAISER in 2001 - which was LONG AFTER his supposed conversion to the dem party by Clinton.

in short you're projecting your fantasies on Clark.

on the other hand, you're assuming the worst about Dean, that he's somehow unelectable - despite an incredibly strong start and an impressively well-oiled campaign organization. Dean has passed hurdles that Clark hasn't even dreamed of yet. you're projecting your fantasies on Clark, while projecting your fears on Dean. your analysis is based on your emotions, ignoring the facts. of course, that's your personal prerogative, but i don't find it very convincing.

[WilliamPitt]

15. I will donate $100 to the DUer of your choice

if you can find one time where I said Dean was 'unelectable.'

Dean does not have a lot of coattails among rank-and-file Democratic officeholders, if I have been reading the DLC news correctly. That is certainly to their detriment, but there it is. On the other hand, Congressional Dems are craven opportunists, and Clark may well inspire voters. We shall see.

Take your straw men home.

[Eloriel]

46. Did you ever hear: where the people lead the leaders will follow

Fuck the DLC shits who don't want to yield any Power to the People. God, are they playing you -- and so many others. It's sickening, and very disheartening.

Boy, Will, with THIS little essay you have pretty well destroyed your credibility with me as anything but a good writer. Political commentator? No. Sorry. You're not -- not one with any credibility, anyway.

You have been all over the fucking place. First you're a diehard Kerry supporter. Then you waffle toward Dean. Then you're back to Kerry. And now your rapturous over Clark.

I don't think it's so terrible YOU can't make up your mind. It's early. You don't have to yet. What I think is terrible are your various presentations on the subject as if you've gotten God's own Revelation from on high.

Too, there's so much you don't KNOW about any of these candidates which you've flipped and then flopped over. GET A CLUE, MAN. Do some research. Hell, you're not even paying attention to the research that's here on DU for the taking. Maybe it's because you're not spending as much time here. But for God's sake recognize your limitations on these subjects and make adjustments.

It does no fucking good for someone in YOUR position to be all over the place, each time just as cocksure of yourself as the last time and each time just as short-sighted and frankly fucking ill-informed as the last time.

DO SOME RESEARCH. Grok it. Withhold your judgment -- AND YOUR WORDS DECLARING YOUR UNDYING LOVE, DEVOTION AND MOST OF ALL CERTAINTY -- until you fucking know what you're talking about.

I don't care which ABB DLC shit you finally choose. I just think it's time for you to quit presenting the various rest stops along the path of your indecisiveness as Revealed Truth. And do some goddamned RESEARCH into the dirty nooks and crannies. Quit being so sniveling fearful about this. They've all got their flaws. Face it. But FIND those flaws -- you need to know about them without retreating into your little corner of denial as I've seen you do, and trot it out here as something by a deep thinker worthy of our consumption.

Your beautiful, powerful writing does harm when you're so wrong.

Sorry, Will, it's the truth. When you're ready, pick one. I don't care which one. Just do it for the RIGHT reasons, not the fearful, utterly ill-informed, in denial ABB ones.

Eloriel

[WillyBrandt]

55. But this makes no sense

Knowing more about the various candidates--and Will seems to have done some homework--can often increase uncertainty and fickleness.

We're analyzing folks from afar in how they would do in hypothetical situations. There are many excellent candidates, and especially at this stage of the game it's easy to zoom between them with passion no matter how much you know. I've zipped in the Kerry-Dean-Clark triangle at least once, and will likely do so again.

Will posting his thoughts in this format is a little peculiar, but it's interesting. No reason for anger. No reason for CAPS.

[CWebster]

112. Oh Eloriel

You're just gonna get put on "ignore"- if you aren't already. He doesn't want to hear it. It's gone to his head.

[newsguyatl]

133. well said eloriel

>>>>>Boy, Will, with THIS little essay you have pretty well destroyed your credibility with me as anything but a good writer. Political commentator? No. Sorry. You're not -- not one with any credibility, anyway.<<<<<<<

my sentiments exactly.

[Clark Can WIN]

166. There he goes, off to write his new song

"Alone in my principles".

:nopity:

[Cha]

170. "He is so Not "alone".... There are so many with Principles

you wouldn't believe!

[dfong63]

92. pony up

I will donate $100 to the DUer of your choice if you can find one time where I said Dean was 'unelectable.'

OK, here ya go.

In a better world, a man like Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination and barnstorm into the Presidency. ...

In a better world...but this isn't a better world. This is this world, and this world is a mess.

how else can the above quote be interpreted, except as a claim that Dean is unelectable? and if you don't believe that Dean is unelectable, then your use of the "ABB" rationale to select Clark, does not make sense. Dean is just as much of an "ABB" as Clark is.

i request that your donation be split 50/50 between liberalnurse and Tinoire.

[bloom]

141. that's how I interpreted it, also.... n/t

[dfong63]

167. how else can it be interpreted, in the context of an "ABB" argument?

it's just simple logic. Will said that in a better world, Howard Dean would be elected, then said this isn't a better world. how else can those words be interpreted except as a statement of belief that in the real world Howard Dean is unelectable? this is especially true in the context of an "ABB" argument. yet now Will would have us believe he didn't say Dean was unelectable.

if Condi or Rummy or some other administration whore tried to get away with a similar evasion, Will would tear them apart.

[Forkboy]

161. lol

Red Sox fans use the term "Cowboy Up" now :)

[Cha]

176. Props to you! dfong!

[Jim Sagle]

13. This thread ain't nuthin' but DLC shit and neither is Clark.

[WilliamPitt]

16. Ouch

I usually love when you post that, but I'm gonna ask for backup on this one.

[Jim Sagle]

53. Who started from zero money,

zero prospects, no media coverage, and total obscurity to become front runner via two years of the hard work and hard-earned money of many thousands of people?

Who made it possible to blast w when nearly all the other Dems were sucking him off?

Howard Dean and his grass-roots campaign, that's who.

Ever notice how Wes Clark is all about Wes Clark? How his website doesn't even have an issues section? How his followers talk about Wes Clark's resume, Wes Clark's experience, Wes Clark's uniform, Wes Clark's looks ad nauseum? Well, I and many millions of others don't and never will give a flying fuck about this narcissistic jagoff or his worshipful followers or the narcissistic ex-President he rode in on.

Howard Dean's campaign is about US, OUR needs, OUR opinions, and even our SOLUTIONS. That's his "secret". Some secret. Listen to the people and respond to their concerns.

Isn't that what we wanted? Someone who respected US enough to tell us the damn truth? To point out that ulitmately it was up to us, not him and other politicians?

And now some Wesley come lately strolls in, says "Thanks, guys. I'll take it from here" and we're actually supposed to swallow it?

Fuck that bullshit. NO FUCKING WAY ARE WE GOING TO ACT AS WES CLARK'S FLUFFER!

That is all.

[Cha]

61. Well there ya go!

[Jim Sagle]

74. (blush)

[sfecap]

70. Excellent!

Perfect summation.

That is why Howard Dean will win.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

75. And You're Calling US Worshipful?

Sounds like you're pretty emotionally invested to the point of worship yourself there, pal.

I'm sorry you find Clinton so distasteful, and I'm sorry you're projecting all kinds of negative traits upon both Clark and his supporters. I love Dean, myself, I love what he's done, and I think he'd make a fine President.

But I love Clark, too. Not for his uniform or looks, and not JUST for his resume and experience (both of which are pretty important for a Presidential candidate, last I checked). I love him for his positions, I love him for his character, I love him for his integrity, I love him for his service to this country and for his continuing sense of duty that has called him to serve now.

Clark ran because we asked him to. That's the only reason. He didn't have a big campaign all planned out, he decided to run at the last minute, the Monday before his announcement, after thinking it through very carefully and huddling with his family. He ran because he believes in service, and he believes in duty, and he believes in this country. I would normally chuckle at idealistic claptrap like I wrote in my immediately preceding sentence, but with Clark, it rings true. You should have seen Mary Steenburgen speak, you should have seen Wes Clark Jr. speak, you should have seen Astrid Clark speak. Then I honestly believe you would know what I know: that Clark is an incredible, brilliant man of honor who decided to serve his country one more time.

I'm really sorry that you feel this way, Jim, not just because I've always liked your posts, but also because I can't help but feel you're being unfair toward someone who might just surprise you (and pleasantly), if you gave him a chance.

DTH

[Cha]

88. I sensed nothing "worshipful" in that post! Maybe some passion...

hell yes! some passion...Dean tends to inspire passion.

It is a very passionate thing.. being a part of the process of getting your Country back from the roving marauders.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

89. Well That's What I See in Clark Supporters, Too

Lots of passion. Tons of passion. Just like Dean.

DTH

[_NorCal_D_]

135. Yes, it is a passionate thing.

We are working for the same goal under different candidates. I'm glad we have some common ground.

[Forkboy]

162. OUCH

what a cartoon!

[dfong63]

93. clap, clap, whistle, stomp

[jumptheshadow]

105. Give it time

If Dean's campaign is as powerful as you contend then he will win the nomination and will carry Congress on his coattails. If it isn't as compelling as you think then he will lose.

Conversely, for Wesley Clark to win he must go beyond generalship, lay out detailed, consistent positions, and quickly adapt to the role of political candidate. Otherwise he will lose.

The proof will be in the pudding.

[cally]

182. YES!!!! Great post

If Dean inspires such devotion and has such a great campaign, then he will win. No question. If Clark is such a great man and inspires such devotion, then he will win. I just don't think the Deanies and Clarkies need to trash each other so much. Have some faith in your candidate and the process. Their strengths and positions will be known shortly.

I'm still not eliminating Kerry and Edwards. I think they both may be the Dem candidate or VP selection.

[seventhson]

106. FINALLY: Dean supporters with Ovaries and Cojones FIGHTING BACK!!!

I thought you were wearing a Will Pitt T-Shirt: (Let's Roll....Over!!!)

(C'Mon folks, it's a joke. T-Shirt? Let's Roll...Over? Pitt admitted he was a "whore" in this topic intro...?)

Let's NOT Roll....Over.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

127. Juxtaposition.

zero prospects, no media coverage, and total obscurity to become front runner via two years of the hard work and hard-earned money of many thousands of people?

...

And now some Wesley come lately strolls in, says "Thanks, guys. I'll take it from here" and we're actually supposed to swallow it?


Anyone who has been paying attention knows where all the candidates stand on the issues and roughly how they would handle them. How do we know this? Months of debates, policy statements, stumping, campaign rallies and interviews. Except one of the ten hasn't done those things. Clark is an incubating egg...we don't know if he's going to be an Eagle or a Turkey, yet. Even though I'm suspicious of the massive Dem insider support and media coronation of Clark, I think I'll wait until after the egg cracks open before I decide if he's worthy of my support. Right now it just seems a little too conveniently packaged. We'll see.



Great post, Jim.

[KoKo]

128. Jim Sagle, Well Said! Clapping hands from me, too!

This line had me ROFL! in it's truth!

And now some Wesley come lately strolls in, says "Thanks, guys. I'll take it from here" and we're actually supposed
to swallow it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

131. I'm shocked more people don't see it.

:shrug:

[Eloriel]

134. Yeah, Jim, we were desperate for it -- NOW we're desperate

to throw it all overboard, forsake it all. WHY? Our pitiful, contemptible fucking FEAR. I can't tell you how hysterical I am about that self-destructive, self-loathing, irrational FEAR.


But my favorite line, btw:
Well, I and many millions of others don't and never will give a flying fuck about this narcissistic jagoff or his worshipful followers or the narcissistic ex-President he rode in on.



Eloriel

[Mairead]

147. Was that meant to be irony?

A multi-millionaire with no money?

A governor with zero prospects?

A guy who was at the center of a media feeding-frenzy with no coverage and total obscurity?



About the only thing you didn't claim for him was the foretelling of his birth. :)

[Cha]

156. It's the truth there for anyone who wants to see!

[RetroLounge]

159. My sentiments exactly

Well, except for the Fluffer part.

That's one image I could never conjure up in my head.

[Cha]

17. This I like...what Michael Moore has to say about the primaries..

It's from thread started by Sweetpea! :D

"We, the voters, have a job to do right now: Remain strong and steadfast in pushing these candidates to behave, straighten up, and do the right thing. There will be plenty of time to get behind the one candidate who is nominated to defeat Bush. What we should be doing now is making our voices heard so that we can influence them to take the right positions."


"He comments on the imperfections of all the candidates and we need to be careful of candidate worship....May the best one win in 2004!!!!!!" Sweetpea

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php

[dave29]

18. We agree on one point

"I believe with all my heart and soul that we need to win this one"

agreed. But thats about it. I refuse to follow the RNC talking points about the electability of specific candidates. We have to stomp that crap down rather than allow them to set the tone. It's BS BS BS. Not to mention, remarkably cynical. I understand where you are coming from, believe me, but we don't win by allowing the other side to set the tone. If you guys think is the perfect antidote, more power to you, I happen to think there is a better chance of seeing great things come from our party by electing Howard Dean.

We have winners all around, so I'm not biting. And don't you guys "worry" of course I'll support Clark if he gets the nod.

[WilliamPitt]

19. I have not listened to one single RNC talking point

Remember that I don't watch TV news or listen to the radio. These are my own unadulterated opinions.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[dave29]

23. go to bed Will

there will be no ass kissing tonight. You've been around DU long enough to know the unelectable argument started as a Republican talking point, and was soon thereafter pushed by Lieberman and his kind until suddenly Clark supporters started using it when he finally decided to announce. It's sad but true.

I do admire your ability to avoid TV. Seriously.

[_NorCal_D_]

136. A Republican talking point?

Dare I ask why Republicans want Dean to win so much?

Doesn’t it at least make you wonder?

I certainly doubt that it's reverse psychology.

[Cha]

171. You can ask anything you want about Dean~ It's no big

Secret! Some repugs are actually sick of bush like the rest of us...Is that so hard to understand?

And Dean is Very Electable!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

24. I admire your purity

I hope you can eat it when the time comes.

[sfecap]

25. Maybe if all the Dems can just be a bit more like the

rethugs we can win back Congress.

Maybe it'll work the second time, huh?

[WillyBrandt]

29. Who said that?

Who said that we should be more like the GOP? Looking at Clark's or Kerry's aggregate political views, they aren't Republican, and aren't even closer to the GOP than Dean's.

This makes no sense. It is Dean who consistently says that he is a centrist, and his defenders rightly point out he is no liberal.

Fine. Why are the alternatives smeared as rethug-lite?

[dave29]

33. Because so many of them

use the rethug-like argument that Dean is unelectable - despite all of the qualifications you just mentioned. Welcome to bizarro DU, where Dean is to far to the left, too far to the right, would be elected "in a perfect world", but has no chance.

[Cha]

36. Cause they don't want to give him a chance....but Dean is going

to take a Chance anyway!

[WillyBrandt]

41. Then explain to me

How Clark and Kerry and the rest are Republicans in disguise? And how is it that Dean's supporters manage the feat of cognitive dissonance that makes Dean seem like the REAL progrsesive while at the same time exclaiming that he's a centrist, not a liberal.

I'd rather have a liberal who runs a boring, uninspiring campaign in the White House than a centrist who runs an exciting one. More ordinary people would have their lives improved that way.

[dave29]

67. You can't label Dean

is the point I was trying to make.

He passed a civil unions law in Vermont. How many progressives have pulled that off?

And yet he believes gun control is a state's issue.

I'd say that puts him in the center, but doesn't mean he isn't progressive on many of the important issues. Especially social issues.

In reality Dean covers the idealogical spectrum from far left to center-right, which makes him appealing, and dare I say even more electable.

[WillyBrandt]

73. You can't label a lot of people

Really. A lot of politicians have idiosyncratic views. Try labeling Clinton: he was no Republican, and his ideas were all over the map.

Dean really just seems like a centrist with the odd liberal (civil unions) or center-right (guns) flourish. I prefer just plain-old liberal views myself.

There are a lot of good qualities in Dean. I just don't like folks thinking that he's the only one with these qualities.

This is a good lot.

[Cha]

83. The point is ..everyone is always trying to stick a label on

Dean and it's always wrong...ergo "ya can't label Dean"...Dean tries to work out issues with People .."so everyone can come to the table"
Dean's a Maverick who is not popular with the big boys!

Makes me like even more!

[sfecap]

35. The DLC.

Oh, I'm sorry...the "new" Democrats.

[SaintLouisBlues]

27. Green idealists were a big help in 2000

Welcome to the real world

[Cha]

32. There are no Greens in this race...Not one of the ten candidates...

is a Green..these are Democrats.

[SaintLouisBlues]

39. Who said they were?

Green idealists in 2000. I assume you know that was the last Presidential election.

Calling someone a whore for factoring electability into their decision
making is too idealistic, Green, fringe or otherwise.

[Cha]

48. Will called himself a "whore" and he was agreeing with him.

And yes I know about the 2000 selection...I apologize if I confused what you were saying about the Greens.

[SaintLouisBlues]

51. No problem on the 2000 thing

And I'm defending the rightousness of whoredom as defined here. I'll gladly wear the whore label if my opinion on electability makes me one.

[regnaD kciN]

96. "Factoring electability"...

There's definitely something to be said for this. However, one should beware in putting all one's faith in "electability" at this time in the campaign.

At this point, there may well be a few candidates who, because of high negatives "earned" over many years of being in the public eye, are likely not electable, no matter what may happen between now and November 2004. (Al Sharpton immediately comes to mind.) But I think it's a fool's errand to look at the polls this early and conclude that, since Clark is currently the closest to Bush, that this would necessarily continue for the next fourteen months.

Clark is still in his "honeymoon" phase, while all of the other Democrats have had the opportunity to be bloodied by each other. What may happen to Clark's numbers vis-a-vis Bush after having to fight for his candidacy in the marketplace of ideas, rather than in his current status as "the man on the white horse?" Similarly, how can you tell where any of the other Democratic candidates may fare in the next few months, or where Bush himself may wind up?

Think back to 1992. In mid-spring, when Ross Perot first started making noises about running, he caught a big surge in public opinion, and was the beneficiary of the same sort of "supporter stampede" we are currently seeing for Clark. I was unimpressed by Perot (and even thought of him as somewhat nuts), but every time I pointed out my reservations to newly-converted Perot supporters, I received the same response, which was essentially "it doesn't matter what you say -- Perot's the only one who can beat Bush, and we need someone new in the White House." And, do you know what? They were right...at that particular moment. Perot was, at that time, pulling high enough poll numbers to be a threat to Bush, while Clinton was still trailing. In fact, the conventional wisdom was that Clinton, with his reputation as a womanizer and a draft-dodger, was "unelectable," and that, indeed, he would lead the Democratic Party to an historic debacle.

Well, we all know how that turned out. By the time of the conventions, the previously-"unelectable" Clinton had gained the momentum, and had opened a lead over Bush he would never relinquish, while Perot had flamed out and was finished as a serious threat to win in November.

And this is far from the only time this has happened. On the Republican side, Reagan was thought to be "unelectable" in early 1980, due to his age and right-wing positions. (Carter strategists admit that they put most of their energy into the primary battle with Ted Kennedy, figuring that any of the Republican candidates would be easy pickings after that.) Bush Senior, widely regarded as a "wimp" as vice president and distrusted by Republican conservatives, was considered to be "unelectable" in early 1988, until he disposed of Bob Dole in the Super Tuesday primaries.

There may well be a time to decide who is more "electable" among two or more serious candidates with strong followings, and choose accordingly. But that will become clear over the next months, as the campaign process winnows out the chaff. Making an "electability" decision -- let alone one mostly based on one candidate, lacking any sort of a track record in political office, having a General's uniform -- is not an attempt to work through the process, but to short-circuit it. Who really knows which candidate will be most "electable" by next summer? I don't. You don't. Will Pitt doesn't. So, let's wait and see before locking ourselves into one partcular candidate based on "electability" until we've had more of a chance to see how the candidates are doing through the primary season.

[SaintLouisBlues]

115. I agree, too early

And believe it or not, I'm still undecided. But Clark's electability
was very attractive before he announced. The early beauty contest polls are reaffirming this opinon for many.

I'm from the Show-Me State, so my jury is still out. I'd like to see more of the knee jerkers take this approach also.

[LeahMira]

160. Whores?

Calling someone a whore for factoring electability into their decision
making is too idealistic, Green, fringe or otherwise.

OK, let's wait and see what Clark has to say for himself.

If he says much of the same things that Dean and Kucinich are saying and has the "electability factor" then nobody is whoring around, are they?

I don't think we should ignore anything he has to say with which we disagree just because he's "electable." I really want it all. :-)

[oasis]

42. "Dreamers" want revolution, not evolution.Incremental steps are a cop out.

Get with the program, fuck the "establishment".

[SaintLouisBlues]

47. "Dreamers" being the operative word.

Would I like revolutionary change? Hell yes!

Do I think this country will go from the far right to left-of-center?
Hell no!

[oasis]

54. When your drowning, don't pass up the rowboat waiting for the luxury liner

[SaintLouisBlues]

59. Sounds like we agree

I'll take what gets me there instead of waiting for an ideal mode of transportation that most likely will not materialize.

[oasis]

68. I don't mind taking "baby steps" if I'm going in the right direction.

How long have women been voting in America's 200 year history?

[_NorCal_D_]

139. Well said oasis.

That about sums it up.

[WillyBrandt]

28. In Weimar Germany

... the Communists and the Social Democrats did not work together. Their antipathy for each other outweighed the goal--obvious in retrospect and to common sense--of thwarting the rising Nazi Party. Their feelings--the need not to compromise, not to work with those who weren't "true" socialist, etc.--led to disunity and an opening for Hitler.

The US isn't Weimar Germany. But it's at risk: a gang of radicals has captured power, and our primary and only goal is defeating them. We are NOT trying to oust Bush Sr. We aren't trying to get rid of Senator Dole. I don't like either of them, but life would go on with them.

If you place your own feelings of righteousness above the needs of the nation, you are making a sore mistake.

But wait. We don't have to compromise. We have a field of VERY electable candidates who are true progressives. We have two real liberals, Kerry and Clark, each of whom could just whoop Bush. And we have a less liberal centrist, Dean, who is frankly simply a wildcard. I could see him doing wonderfully or horribly: I don't know.

You can argue about who is most electable. You can even debate the epistemology of electability. But to impugn those whose primary goal is practical, to insult those who see the danger of the moment, and are willing to sacrifice their own preferences to save our politics, is really doing a disservice.

Anybody But Bush is the most principled position for any moderate or progressive. If you think X is more likely to win than Y, say why. But if you offer only insults, you only miss the point.

[WilliamPitt]

30. Excellent post

Thanks.

[sfecap]

31. Thanks for the history lesson.

Let me put it this way.

I'm a Democrat. Have been all my life. I have seen this party compromise because of desperation. I see it happening with Clark. It invariably leads to defeat.

I will no longer compromise.

YMMV.

[WillyBrandt]

37. Thanks for the smugness

But this addresses nothing. Are you really just going to cross you arms and shake your head? Are you offering a mood or an argument? All I see is snideness: it's almost as there's nothing to address. It's like a boo in a dark crowded room. What to respond to?

Clark is no compromise. He is not a radical. He has progressive political views. He is a Democrat who was foolish enough to not hate Reagan back in the day. He is not perfect, but he's one of us.

Dean is not perfect, but he's one of us. Same, believe it or not, of the rest of the crowd: Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, etc. None of them are advocating another war, or cutting taxes, or mowing down education.

In fact, each of them is racing to distance themselves from Bush. Except for Dean, who triangulates on gun control, apeing Republican positions for Democratic gain is dead. Even Lieberman speaks of Iraq is harsh tones now.

I mean, I really just don't get it. Why is anything but Dean or Kucinich a compromise?

[sfecap]

40. You're quite welcome.

I get a bit tired of your lectures.

Tell 'ya what...you support whom you wish...I'll do the same. We'll see how it works out.

[WillyBrandt]

43. I give up

But you never say anything. You're throwing snowballs, not providing arguments.

I just grow tired.

Whatever.

Just vote for a Democrat in the general.

[sfecap]

49. Why argue?

Clark is the saviour.

If you like him, go for it.

Forgive me if I disagree.

[WillyBrandt]

50. That isn't the point

Why is anyone but Dean or Kucinich a compromise?

I really think Clark is a good choice based on qualities OTHER than electability. I admire his writings and views.

There are a lot of good candidates. It's one thing to cynically support a bad candidates. It's another to cynically support a very good, almost-there one.

[sfecap]

62. OK...if he works for you, fine.

n/t

[WillyBrandt]

64. Man!

alright--I really am dying to know why you think Anybody But Dean/Kucinich/whomever is bad.

there are lots of good people with good views, both moderate and progressive.

but it's late.

good night.

[JohnKleeb]

71. I am a Kucinich supporter who prefers Kerry to Dean

I am just saying that is me for the record and I am pretty left not far left but pretty left ok I am far left.

[Cha]

85. Well I am a Dean Supporter whose second choice is Kucinich...

[JVS]

123. I support Kucinich too, but as a secondary choice I prefer Dean

One can make the argument that Kerry is more liberal than Dean, but I don't think that that captures the entirety of the situation. Dean has the willingness to take this fight to Bush, he's not afraid to be labeled a liberal. Of course Kucinich has this fighting spirit and is more liberal than either.

[WillyBrandt]

45. No, the hell with this

You haven't responded to anything anyone has said. Will Pitt wrote a nice eloquent piece, with a humorous "whore" joke and you just threw it right back at him.

He might be right or wrong, but not an iota of effort went into that response. It was disrespectful. I'm sorry--that ain't right.

But I guess I'm just cribbing from DLC talking points. Nevermind.

[sfecap]

58. Any response is immediately disregarded as "bashing".

Wes Clark is as yet, a totally unproven, relatively unknown candidate who, for all of the months of "teasing' seems woefully unprepared for a national campaign.

Yet, for all of that, he is suddenly the only "electable" Democrat. (At least he's a "new" Democrat....) That is beyond ludicrous.

If the man wasn't the formerSUPREMEalliedcommander, he whouldn't be getting the time of day from anyone.

Yet, he's the only "electable" one, and the only one who can save our country! Wow. Nice, neat package, huh?

He's never been elected to any office. He's never governed, he's never been in a national campaign, and yet he's the only electable candidate. Uh huh.

You have got to be shitting me.

[WillyBrandt]

65. Good!

Passionate, but a clear response.

But this seems to be the inverse of what I thought you were saying. I thought you were saying that Dems shouldn't compromise their beliefs for elusive "electability."

You're saying that there's nothing that makes Clark electable, NOT that his particular views are not progressive.

Sounds like a pragmatic argument.

[regnaD kciN]

97. That's where I'm coming from....

What bothers me is that people are, IMHO, jumping to an unknown quantity politically (and, by that, I don't just mean positions on specific issues, but no track-record to go by -- I can get some idea of how Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, or other candidates will perform by how they've handled political office in the past, but there's no way of telling the same about Clark) based on their pre-conceived notion that he is more "electable" because he was a General. I'm not at all convinced that being a retired General will have all that much of an effect in the long run -- after all, we've already seen Democratic veterans and former officers defeated by Republican draft-dodgers who merely "talked tougher" on defense -- compared to articulating campaign themes that resonate with voters. And I think the only way to perceive that is to watch what happens in the run-up to your particular state's primary or caucus, not by deciding that the situation that prevails on 9/25/2003 will be the same next November, or even next February. Perhaps, by mid-May, all of the remaining Democratic candidates will be "electable" in a contest with Bush. Perhaps none will be. Perhaps the issues will have shifted so that people are looking for someone with the expertise to turn the economy around, and Iraq, the military, and foreign policy have faded as issues, making one's status as a former General almost irrelevant. Who can tell? I certainly can't as of tonight, and this is why I'm skeptical on committing myself to one candidate this early, solely on the unproven notion that he is more "electable" today.

[RichM]

56. What a crock. ABB is the ultimate in cynicism, & you call it "principled!"

The goal is not simply to get rid of Bush. The goal is to get rid of him WITHOUT handing power over to someone who's more articulate, but who defends basically the same interests.

The long rightward march of the Democrats has been justified at EVERY STEP by appeals to "pragmatism." Pragmatism begins to stink after a certain point, & that point was reached a long time ago. Thus, I see no problem with "impugn(ing) those whose primary goal is practical." Bush is only in office because the Democratic Party has been so damn "practical." Bush only got his reactionary measures passed because Democrats were so "practical" that they were complicit or quiet while it was all enacted. F*ck Democratic "pragmatists" -- they're exactly the ones who got us to where we are now.

[regnaD kciN]

98. There is something to be said for pragmatism...

...but I'm not convinced that always trying to appeal to average Republicans (as has been the case with virtually every Democratic "move to the center" espoused over the past thirty years) is a particularly pragmatic thing to do. It seems to me that it usually means abandoning and alienating traditionally-Democratic voters while trying to appeal to Republicans who are most likely going to vote for one of their own anyway. (The general, mostly-unspoken premise is that, in terms of progressive Democrats, "where else are they going to go?" The obvious answer, which many self-proclaimed "pragmatists" seem to have not noticed, is that they aren't going to go anywhere -- particularly not down to the polling place to vote for another uninspiring Republican Lite.)

There's a reason why Democrats have faded from power, even as polls regulary show that Democratic positions are more popular than Republican ones. Might it be because the Democratic leadership, terrified of being called "liberal," has spent so much energy trying to convince people that there's virtually no difference between themselves and Republicans that most people no longer consider them strong advocates for those very same popular positions?

[Eloriel]

143. No, Rich

What you describe isn't pragmatism or practicality, it's selling out. BIG difference.

Selling out to anti-democratic measures; selling out to stronger, nastier fightes; selling out to big money; selling out to political expedience; selling out to cowardice; selling out to "the easy way;" selling out to polls.

None of that is practical or pragmatic -- it's weak, unprincipled, self-serving, arrogant, despicable. But it AIN'T pragmatic.

Eloriel

[RichM]

145. Yeah. That's exactly why I put the word in quotes.

In reality, it's precisely selling out -- of course. But it's always CALLED "being pragmatic." It's justified with that more-acceptable sounding term.

Nobody every stands up and says, "I propose, dear friends, that we now sell our constituents down the river, because we lack the guts & principles to resist." They say, "We must be pragmatic..."

When you hear the "pragmatists" coming, LOOK OUT -- it's sell-out time.

[dave29]

57. Ok here's why I think Dean has the better shot

"If you think X is more likely to win than Y, say why"

1) He's got the base - despite being a centrist
2) He's got the cash
3) He's got the right position on balancing the budget, and he's done it himself.
4) He's had an unambiguous and politically courageous stance on Iraq, while clearly not being a Dove on the war against terror.
5) He's been outspoken against Bush and the entire administration, and LED others to be so.
6) He's been better than anyone on Health Care (according to Bill Clinton himself)
7) He has inspired hundreds of thousands of people to work for his campaign
8) He has the courage to "change his mind" when the evidence supports it.
9) He was courageous enough to pass a wildly unpopular civil unions law in Vermont.
10) He wants to get rid of "don't ask, don't tell".
11) He has a common sense position on gun control which could help nullify the NRA in the South and the West.
12) He wants to give the power back to the people - and walks the talk.
13) He wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts which have been a disaster - return them to Bill Clinton levels - and invest in actual Homeland Security, Education and Jobs.
14) He is bringing people back into the process, which is inspiring.

There are many many more reasons, but I'm tired and must go to bed :)

[Cha]

66. Thank you for this list of reasons ..Dean Can Win!

[WillyBrandt]

69. Good List

I think Deanians overrate the NRA thing--the NRA is owned by the Republican Party; Grover Norquist is a board member, I believe--this is a worthwhile list.

Dean's just a wildcard to me. I feel like he'll either win 30% or 75% in the general election. Still, great list.

[sfecap]

77. The NRA thing isn't overrated...

...and here's why.

Permit me an anecdote...I'm a union member. I watched many, many of my fellow union members vote against Gore in 2000 becuase they were utterly convinced (as irrational as it was...) that Al Gore was going to take their guns away. Very stupid, but it's true.

They voted against their own future because of the gun issue, that was masterfully presented by the NRA.

These are (allegedly) intelligent, educated, professional people who really believed that 'ol Al was going to round up their guns. Of course some of them sorely regret their votes, but that's another story...

Well, this time the NRA won't be able to attack the Democratic nominee. He's got a 100% rating.

[JohnKleeb]

78. I think this is a good point indeed

Another thing though the NRA doesnt give percents they give letter grades not that it matters I am fully aware of Dean's A rating from the NRA, I just wish the fucking NRA would fucking piss off.

[WillyBrandt]

82. Maybe, maybe not

You're underestimating the potential of the lie repeated. (Why do so many folks think Al Gore said he invented the Internet?)

The NRA is not an objective gun-owners club. It has merged political forces with the GOP. Not merely one way, in that the NRA influences the GOP, but the other way too. Important GOP strategist and wingnut Grover Norquist (who said bipartisanship is "date rape") is a board member of the NRA. Expect a flurry of spin: "revocation" of his rating, etc. I'm afraid the "A" rating won't survive the slime machine.

Look: this is just why I support Clark. Quoth the General:

"I have got 20 some odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons should join the United States Army, we have them."

The perfect response to gun owners. Clark can take more liberal positions preceisly because he does not fit the liberal stereotype: four star general, voted for Reagan.

Only Nixon could go to China. And (maybe) only Clark can lead this nation left. That's my take...

[regnaD kciN]

99. That's correct...

...it was found that Gore's defeat in normally-Democratic West Virginia was primarily due to a heavy campaign from the NRA, claiming that, if Gore became president, he'd be "coming for your guns!" And remember that, if Gore had won West Virginia, he'd be in the White House today.

:-(

[SaintLouisBlues]

116. The right might spin Dean as a anti-gun mole, as a crazy example

And it seems lots of DUers suddenly are buying right wing double-agent
stories. If DUers fall for this kind of crap, what about mainstream voters afraid all Dems are out to take away their precious guns.

[Cha]

144. I'm not buying into any

" right wing double-agent stories"...I just think Dean's stance makes sense and I do not even own a gun.

Dean isn't going to let the wingers define any issues for him..

[screembloodymurder]

107. Well said

We have a number of good candidates. Let's watch how this primary and the remaining debates play out. In the end, we'll need all the help we can get and electability is a real consideration.

[JVS]

120. Maybe that is because the SPD government in 1919 used right wing...

militias to kill off KPD leaders Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg

[Eloriel]

137. Please don't call Clark a "real liberal"

Nobody who works for Jackson Stephens is a REAL liberal. I think Clark is a liberal of convenience.

Kerry either, for my money. No REAL liberal would've voted for that war.

This kind of characterization is a real affront to those of us who ARE liberals.

Eloriel

[WoodrowFan]

157. Liberals for the War

Here is a list of all those Democratic Senators you just said are not "real liberals" Must be nice to be so "pure."

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[Cha]

175. I know for one that Tom Harkin said he made a big mistake...

and at least Tom Harkin is a Big enough man to admit it.

And didn't Hillary just come out and say she had been lied to?

And I'll tell ya two who didn't vote for the fu=king resolution....Jim Jeffords and Pat Leahy! And Independent and a Democrat From Vermont! :kick: Ass!

[_NorCal_D_]

140. Wow, that's great WillyBrandt.

That's an interesting historical parallel.

[iangb]

34. Another 'vital slot' Clark can best fulfil.

Restore the US's international standing.

Nothing could have been more humiliating than the polite sniggering during Bush's UN address. (Well OK, gales of laughter may have been worse......but this is the UN f'chrisakes)

[WillyBrandt]

38. Hear, Hear!

THIS I support Clark personally as opposed for electability reasons. I'd like the US to be respected, and maybe even admired, in the world again.

He, along with Kerry, has given the deepest thought to foreign relations, and can help put us better with the world.

[Eloriel]

150. Oh, you are so wrong about that -- Clark's hands are pretty dirty

re international relations. There are people who say it's been blown out of proportion or misconstrued, or even lied about, but the fact remains that the British general telling him, "I'm not going to start WWIII for you, General," has definitely preceeded him.

Further, and we've heard it from some of our international DUers -- they do NOT want to see a general of any stripe in the White House. They're sick to death of the U.S.'s militarism (and so am I). That nasty little quirk of the current American personality needs to be defused and decommissioned, NOT augmented and glorified by a new CINC who was a glorious war hero general. Nope, that will NOT help our international relations.

And I DO care about that.

Eloriel

[RichM]

44. You're becoming a major sell-out, you know. And you do indeed know.

"That makes me a whore, and I am fine with that."

In some of your better essays, you make idealistic-sounding appeals to the "better angels" of our nature. It is this aspect of your writing that makes those essays work. It is this aspect of your nature that lets you recognize, when speaking of Kucinich, that "his rise to the Presidency would, quite simply, change the world."

How sad, then, that you are so quick to jettison those finer, loftier elements of your thinking -- in favor of a cynical pragmatism that rests heavily on assessments of Clark that are as yet unproven & unproveable. At the same time, you embrace a deeply cynical view of the voting public, & of the potential for appealing to the best in them. In many ways, you're no less cynical than DLC strategists.

For all you know, right now -- which is no more than the rest of us -- you might well be urging support for a candidate who is little more than an appealing & articulate version of Bush. Since you've managed to get into a position where people listen to you, you should be using your influence to urge further clarification of Clark's stance on big issues like: the MIC, corporate power, & whose interests he really intends to defend.

Supporting Clark now, with these matters still unclarified, is way premature. It's disappointing that you're so willing to do it.

[Cha]

52. Well I'd like to thank you for your post! We all have our different

views on this and yours is the one I can relate to.

I guess I'm just too idealistic, too!

But like Michael Moore says..."We, the voters, have a job to do right now: Remain strong and steadfast in pushing these candidates to behave, straighten up, and do the right thing. There will be plenty of time to get behind the one candidate who is nominated to defeat Bush. What we should be doing now is making our voices heard so that we can influence them to take the right positions."

[oasis]

60. BTW, who does Michael Moore support?

[Cha]

63. Michael Moore is not endorsing anyone, yet.

[oasis]

81. He certainly likes the general.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/09/17/moore_clark/

[Cha]

84. Yes I know he does! And I like Howard Dean!

[regnaD kciN]

100. However...

...he has not endorsed him, despite the impression you may have received from many DU posts over the past couple of weeks.

[WilliamPitt]

109. That's my favorite part.

When people call me 'unprincipled' because I am living and dying by the idea that Bush and his gang have to be removed at all costs. Nope. No principles there.

:eyes:

So be it. I can live with condemnation like this, because people can't feed their children with principles after the shit goes down.

[RichM]

125. Removing Bush does no good, if he's replaced by a smoother more

competent version of much the same thing. What defines Bush is not the individual; it's the set of interests he's willing to defend.

If he is replaced by someone who is a defender of the MIC (or simply NOT a strong opponent of it), it is not going to change any of the dangerous underlying social forces that brought him to power. If a replacement comes in who is not truly committed to challenging corporate dominance & the lopsided concentration of wealth & power in our society, it is not going to do any good. If Americans are given the message that Yes, now the world is indeed so scary that we must choose a leader whose area of expertise is the brute force of the military, this in itself can cause great harm -- even if Clark himself turns out to be personally beyond reproach.

When Clinton won in 1992, he had some initial intention of challenging some of the basic undercurrents of American life. However, he was rebuffed so sharply on his overtures in that direction, and his "good intentions" were so mushy & irresolute, that he wound up delivering a program not much different than what Daddy Bush would have delivered. During his term, the concentration of wealth & power continued apace. No damage whatever was done to the right wing; they merely grew stronger, through those 8 years. By 2000, they were strong enough & had laid all the necessary groundwork to be able to steal an election in broad daylight. By giving them the Telecom Act, & by singing their song on Welfare Reform (& "The era of big government is over," etc), Clinton wound up actually handing the rightwing some of the keys to the palace.

What is needed is NOT just replacing Bush. He has to be replaced by someone absolutely committed to fundamental change. He has to be replaced by someone who, for example, will say loud & clear that the war & occupation are criminal outrages. It isn't enough to say that they were "flawed policy."

A slogan like "ABB" encourages people to oversimplify something that is in fact not at all simple. After you come out endorsing Clark, people are going to be saying things like "Clark's da man!" and "I support Clark because he kicks ass!" You will have succeeded in promoting stupidity & cynicism, when promoting courage, thoughtfulness & wisdom would have been preferable, & more appropriate to the kind of crisis we face.

We are where we are today because the Dem Party made so many concessions to "pragmatism" over the years, that they became unable to seriously oppose rightwing power. And here you are, urging yet more "pragmatism." The road that leads to selling out consists of nothing more than many individual steps based on "pragmatism."

[LeahMira]

155. True...

When Clinton won in 1992, he had some initial intention of challenging some of the basic undercurrents
of American life. However, he was rebuffed so sharply on his overtures in that direction, and his "good
intentions" were so mushy & irresolute, that he wound up delivering a program not much different than
what Daddy Bush would have delivered. During his term, the concentration of wealth & power continued
apace. No damage whatever was done to the right wing; they merely grew stronger, through those 8
years. By 2000, they were strong enough & had laid all the necessary groundwork to be able to steal an
election in broad daylight. By giving them the Telecom Act, & by singing their song on Welfare Reform (&
"The era of big government is over," etc), Clinton wound up actually handing the rightwing some of the
keys to the palace.


And while the Presidential race is always more interesting (and fun) to discuss, your points demonstrate the importance of taking back the Senate and the House too.

[VelmaD]

158. Ok, you're right that...

we need to replace chimpy with someone willing to make fundamental changes. And that is what we should all be working toward during the primaries - making sure the nominee is someone significantly better than the current resident.

However, we have to be realistic enough to recognize that if we don't put a viable candidate out there for the general election it will not make one bit of difference how much they would change the world - they won't get the chance to because they won't win.

Baby steps are better than nothing at this point. Can you honestly say that even Leiberman wouldn't be better than chimp-boy? Would we have soldiers dying in wars all over the globe? Would we have given the budget surplus away to Halliburton et al? Would we be an international pariah for our reckless disregard for multi-lateralism? I don't think so.

Fundamentally I want what you want. I want to see the MIC dismantled and a government that is back in touch with the needs of the people. But, if we don't rally behind whoever wins the nomination, if we let smirky win this election, then we are 100% absolutely guaranteed that that WILL NOT happen.

[Eloriel]

152. Okay, then, let's put it this way

It's far too early to be able to TELL which candidate is going to be able to help feed those children you're so worried about. It's FAR too early.

Hell, not a single one of them has even dropped out yet. We don't even have 3rd Quarter fundraising reports.

You're way off base to be running starry-eyed after this and then that candidate. As others have alluded, and so did I try, you are not just a regular citizen or DUer any more. You have a position of responsibility and you're not, IMO, fulfilling that responsibility very wisely at the moment if at all.

To insinuate, for example, that Dean is unelectable is simply ignorant. And that alone diminishes your credibility. To have ignored all the research which has been presented here about Clark which could make him the DEATH of our chances to win the presidency if he's nominated is similarly irresponsible.

Try to get beyond your fear. It's clouding your judgment.

Eloriel

[LeahMira]

154. Don't you think that...

When people call me 'unprincipled' because I am living and dying by the idea that Bush and his gang have to be removed at all costs. Nope. No principles there.


Don't you think that by election time with unemployment increasing and the post-invasion Iraq situation going from bad to worse that the Democrats could almost run Mortimer Snerd and win?

Bush's popularity is in slow but steady decline and there doesn't seem to be any U.N. speech or address to the nation that can manage to turn things around over the longer term.

Admittedly, the hard-core are going to stick by him no matter what, but those aren't the folks we need to reach. We need to reach the undecideds and the non-voters and the fence-sitter Republicans and independents.

Heaven only knows what sort of event or spectacle Bush might manage to stage just before the election, but I still think that all the candidates we have, Clark included, are offering the people good ideals and principles and plans that will carry through any "emergency" that comes along.

[Andromeda]

72. I'm glad you have the guts...

to come out and make a target out of yourself for making complete sense. I agree with you 100%. I, too, have been somewhat ambivalent about some of our candidates.

Kucinich is one of the nicest candidates, as is Bob Graham, but, realistically speaking, neither is going to have good shot at the nomination. Dean is my favorite guy but he is a William Wallace with a dash of Harry Truman. I know he could be a great president---unfortunately, most Democrats don't even know who is running let alone know who Howard Dean is. By the time the rest of the country gets up to speed on the candidates it's going to be well into 2004 and only because the election is going to dominate the news.

People just don't really want to be bothered with politics and don't realize the importance of this election.

Clark could very well be the one who wakes them out of their stupor. If he is, so be it.

[JohnKleeb]

76. actually I think Dean has a pretty high public profile

Was on the cover of Time and Newsweek and another one, he gets a lot of media coverage.

[Cha]

80. They will know who Dean is by the time Dean's volunteers get

through stomping around this Country! That's our job to make him known and what he stands for!

Dean's job too! I'd rather work for someone I believe in than jump ship because I think that's who everyone else will want.

[Andromeda]

90. I know what you mean.

It's really hard to switch loyalties. Wes Clark, Kerry and the others are good candidates too but my heart really is with Dean.

I wish everybody could see Dean the way his supporters see him. There really hasn't been anybody on the political scene, except for Bill Clinton, who has produced as much excitement among the grassroots as Howard Dean. He has so much personal magnetism and charisma that people who see him speak just go wild.

[GiovanniC]

142. And That's Exactly The Problem

The belligerent, abusive, arrogant, hotheaded attitudes -- even against fellow Democratic activists! -- of MANY of Dean's supporters (examples of which can be seen on this very thread) do not sit well with many. So when Dean's supporters get done "stomping around this country", I'm sure lots of people will know who Dean is and that will be the rub.

The thing that's amazing to me is, I like Dean on paper. I agree with most of his positions. But I do not like the culture that surrounds a Dean candidacy. Bush has really screwed up a lot of things in America, and one of those things is public discourse. Partisan shouting-down, "we're-right-and-you're-wrong" attitudes. I don't think a Dean presidency will change that culture.

[Cha]

151. Well you just don't understand the passion of a Dean campaign

..do ya? You equate "stomping around the Country" for our candidate as something undesirable? Dean's campaign has been built on "mousepads and shoeleather".

Dean supporters have Passion that you call "hot headed"...it's all in the semantics and you try to put a negative spin on it...well it ain't gonna happen. You can just have the General and I'll take the Govenor.

Dean is known for bringing People together..and what I'm saying on this Board is it Dean who I want and not someone else. I don't think that is "I'm right and you're wrong"...it's more like this is who I want ..you can like whoever you want...and Good Luck.

[Jim Sagle]

79. Clark and Dean and the Whole Damn Thing

Remember what Dean said to introduce himself? "I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Well, Wes Clark is here to represent the Democratic wing of the CORPORATE party.

We had eight years of that under Bill Clinton. Eight years of heaven compared to what we have now.

But also eight years of further corporate control over our polity and our media.

We can't have any more of that - it will destroy democracy altogether.

And that's what Wes Clark will give us - if we let him.

[Zorra]

86. I have to agree.....

if we don't break corporate control now, it's over. Clark would be far better than bush, but we need a cure for the infection, not treatment of some of the symptoms. Because when the infection fully recurs, it's going to kill.

[foo_bar]

87. man bites dog

Eight years of heaven compared to what we have now. ...
And that's what Wes Clark will give us - if we let him.

Greens against Clark: too heavenly. We need a leader who encourages girls to protest.

[Jim Sagle]

91. I'm no Green. And you didn't understand a damn thing.

[regnaD kciN]

102. Neither am I, and I agree!

For the record, I'm the one who sent letters, not only to my hometown newspaper, but to every major paper in every swing state in the country, urging Greens to not risk putting Bush in the White House by splitting the progressive vote.

And it really p*ss*s me off to see Clark-worshippers use that label to dismiss anyone who doesn't immediately throw in the towel on their preferred candidate and join the bandwagon.

The equation "anyone who might prefer a more progressive candidate" = "Green" = "enemy of Democrats" is a bit of "logic" more worthy of Ann Coulter than of anyone on this side.

:grr:

[WilliamPitt]

110. A lot of what happened in those eight years

was the progressive movement throwing it into neutral because, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush, they thought everything was finally cool. Clinton had no big base kicking his ass.

That won't happen again.

[CMT]

95. I think it is too early to know if Clark is our knight in shining armour

he just got into the race last week. He has barely spoken out on any positions. Yes we know some things such as he is pro-choice (so are all the candidate), He supports affirmative action (like everyone else running), wants to roll back the tax cuts (just like everyone else to a certain degree, Gep and Dean want to roll back the whole thing), Fix the nonsence of the Patriot Act (several of our candidates notably Kucinich and Dean have spoken out on this), "whatever his prior stance" on the war he is now a savage critic now--Good, because I was worried last week when he said he would "probably" have voted for the resolution.

The mentality that we need a modestly successful General turned tv commentator who was a Republican up until a few years ago says alot about where we are in this country. Yes, Bush has been a disaster and he needs to be replaced, but I'm not convinced that Gen. Clark is our best choice to be president from the group we have. I tend to agree with John Kerry who has questioned Clark's political past saying that while he (Kerry) was fighting Nixon and Reagan Clark was voting for them. Yes, Reagan Dems are important, but Reagan Dems are more concerned about pocketbook issues than if someone spent there life in the military (for instance, Clinton won a great many "Reagan Dems" back without any military experience because he campaigned on issues all Democrats could relate to--"It's the economy studid--and don't forget health care.")Frankly Clark is Howard Dean with medals--(but Dean is also a physician and with health care going to be a major issue next year I think he will bring more credibility with his background to this issue than would the General).

My feeling as of right now is that if we get Gen. Clark we will probably get a president who is much more conservative than he currently lets on, given the political make up of Democratic primary voters. Will he get my vote vs. Bush, yes, but he has a long way to go before convincing me that he deserves a Democratic presidential nomination against a stellar list of life-long Democrats who are opposing him for that nomination.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[SaintLouisBlues]

126. Revisionist campaign history. It was "compassionate conservative"

not "a revolution of republican ideas". Yes they throw red-meat to their base, but most of it is code words that the media and the disinterested fail to examine.

[screembloodymurder]

103. Just listened to Clark for the first time

I have to admit, I was skeptical of Clarks politics. I thought he might even be a Republican plant. But I'd never heard him speak.

He spoke of Democratic principles with a passion and sincerity that can't be faked. He's the real deal: smart, articulate, strong enough to be a General, but still caring enough to know you use our troops as a last resort. He makes Bush look like the impudent, spoiled rich brat that he is. I think he's the man that can take the swing voters away from the Republicans.

[seventhson]

104. "...can't be faked???"

I have a bridge to sell YOU, my man!

[SaintLouisBlues]

132. So you subscribe to the Clark is a mole camp?

Been watching the Manchurian Candidate?

[Skwmom]

108. In a better world?

Okay, I can agree with Dennis but Dean?


I respectfully disagree. Dean is arrogant and his record does not support the "candidate Dean" picture he has painted for his followers. Furthermore, he uses push polls and borrowed slogans (I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and Bushlite) to attack his opponents (this message kind of reminds me of Nader -there is no difference between Dems and Repubs and only serves to fracture the party and seems rather hypocritical when you actually look at Dean's record). Plus, based on a review of Dean's prior political moves, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Dean actually would have voted against the war resolution if he was in Congress. In addition, anyone who would think that an acceptable fix for SS is to move the retirement age to 70 is basically lacking in empathy for his fellow man (alot of people could not physically work their jobs until they were 70 and he as a doctor should realize that).

Also in reference to your statement (The only reason the media paints him as an 'ultra-liberal' is because he speaks up, and speaks loud, and speaks well.) I think Dean has helped with this impression (the media is certainly not the "only" reason).

With that said, do I think Clark is our best bet? Hell yes. If Dean (who hit the ski slopes instead of Vietnam) is the nominee and we have another attack before the general election (and it would be the type of attack that is difficult to prevent) Dean is certainly toast! Even without an attack the voters will want someone who is strong on defense.

Ignoring the defense angle, I still think Clark is the right man for the job. I believe Clark is the "real deal" and hope like hell that he is the nominee.

[Cha]

149. You're bringing up the "Dean is arrogant" ...tired old repetitive

slings again. You should really get some new anit-Dean material!

Surely there's fresher mud out than that.

[RetroLounge]

163. If Dean (who hit the ski slopes instead of Vietnam) ???

Sorry, if you buy this bullshit Right Wing talking Point then anything else you say is suspect.

[Cha]

172. I definetly have to agree with that!

[dfong63]

184. better to hit the ski slopes than to go and kill in an unjust war

oh, but he had to go because they told him it was a noble war?

sorry, that's not the kind of "leadership" i want in a president. if you believe that the Vietnam war was a noble cause, then maybe Clark's service counts for a lot. but to many who opposed the war, it's a question mark at best.

at least Kerry came back and publicly opposed the war. what did Clark do? or does Clark still believe that the Vietnam war was noble?

[CWebster]

111. Has Pitt

competed his final transition to the Right yet?

His pattern is thus: The set-up\disclaimer touts all those good and honorable motives of the progressive Left (with a little gratuitous bashing notwithstanding) and then dismisses them as irrelevant. He then lists all the general's fine-tuned talking points to peddle to his target audience, but that is as likely as Bush compassionate conservativism - the guy voted for Reagan, after all.
But it is only the prologue to set up the stage for what fires him up.

The military hero as savior.

What would Jesus think?

[Rowdyboy]

113. Thanks, Will, for a thought-provoking post...

Yours almost always are. I, too, will proudly claim the name "whore" and DLC shill if thats what it takes to get my country back. For someone as high profile as you to defend General Clark speaks very well for the General, which is why so many have their panties in a wad over your remarks.

Give 'em Hell, Will...Or, just tell the truth, and they'll think its Hell (apologies to Harry Truman)

[DemExpat]

114. Support for your intelligent openness, Will......

Love hearing your thoughts on the candidates, and love seeing the reactions!

I want a Dem President back in the White House - one I think will do a great job, get the world back more on OUR side while pushing liberal social policies at home.

I truly believe that Wes Clark might just be THE MAN....:D

I see him more as a 'uniter' on many fronts, (besides the fringe left and right) than any other candidate.

:kick:

DemEx

[zeemike]

117. Once again it is fear that rules

In this case it is fear of Bush, but fear never the less.
We are supposed to hook our wagons to the Clark campaign out the fear that THEY created. Fear that “only a military man can stand up to Bush” That is a Repug talking point that we have somehow accepted as truth.
I am tired of being manipulated by these fear spinners. And I cannot see how being hoarded by a shepard with a sharp stick is going to change anything.

[WilliamPitt]

118. No question about that

But just because it is miserable, and galling, and wretched, does not mean it isn't true. It is true. It is out there. It must be addressed, dealt with, and strategized. Avoiding it or hating it won't solve it.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

153. Sadly, you're right. '04 is a deadly game of TAKE BACK THE FLAG.

One wants to think better of the general population, believe they can make informed choices about their own lives. But that's not reality.

They've been indoctrinated with lies all their lives and will only salute a red-white-and-blue alpha male. That's how the repubs have gotten where they are. By knowing their audience and pushing their buttons.

If it takes Clark with all his military assoc's and baggage to take back the flag from the petro-nazi coup of 2000, then I'll support him.

I'd rather have a candidate with blood on his hands be a doctor than a soldier but the ship of state doesn't make sudden turns. I'll stop my 'shock-venting-against-Clark-posts' now and listen to the debates.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

186. Jay Leno (mainstream op weathervane) put Clark against Bush who loses.

"So, Wesley Clark is running for president. Pretty amazing guy. Four star general, first in his class at West Point, supreme commander of NATO, saw combat in Vietnam, won the bronze star, silver star, the purple heart for being wounded in battle.

See, I'm no political expert, but that sounds pretty good
next to choking on a pretzel, falling off a scooter and dropping the dog."
-- Leno

There's your TV nation take on it.

[Malikshah]

165. What about giving into it?

Rolling over and exposing one's neck in some pseudo-heroic fashion is not a mark of intelligence, experience, courage, or practicality.

Is this the next play from the playbook of how to eviscerate the Democratic party? First question the candidate--then question the supporters--now, when that tactic is in play-- "appeal to their sense of reality."

Oh, lord. I had given you the benefit of the doubt based upon your writing and ability to gather information into a coherent, well-thought out argument in the past.

This latest little missive--after having seen you on the last ill-thought out thread, say you'd not refer to Dean again because of the problems it raises--just cements in my mind that someone has succembed to Greek tragedy's most famous fatal flaw--hubris.

It is just so sad, however, that in taking oneself down, one has to inflict as much damage on the process as one can.

We are months away from the first primary--and yet the mental masturbation that many on this board exhibit--will have exhausted the majority of those that even care about the process.

As I've said in the past thread--- folks need to unclench their minds, relax, breathe and focus on their candidates alone. The American public will hopefully respond to the best of their ability. Once the process of nomination is over--then the real battle for the destiny of this country can begin.

It really is sad that some have so fallen into the trap of believing in their own god-like powers of pregnostication (this involves numerous posters on this board from all camps) that they lose sight of the bigger picture.

Because something new has come along in the form (stress form here folks) of the Dean movement--numerous political pundits have got their collective intellectual knickers in a twist. Struggling, gasping, and stretching the bounds of argument--they finally wheeze out..."We ... must...categorize... we ... must... explain away.. the D.. the De...the Dean movement." In the end--their intellectual software--which appears not to be compatible with new formats, new methods--shuts down--leaving the Blue Screen of Death. (Of course in this case--it will result in th Red Screen of Death with 50 red states)

Who knows what will happen with the nomination? (Rhetorical question) In the end--some will say--see I told ya so. Others--will refuse to play anymore.-- Hopefully people will pick themselves up and clean the filth off and move forward with the nominee to victory against the regime.

This thread, however, is unfortunate, disappointing, and beneath the potential level of discourse on the DU Underground.

Karl Rove and his minions must be quite happy right now, William.

[WoodrowFan]

119. Good Post, ignore the bashers

Good post Will, well reasoned IMHO (ok, I am biased, I like Clark, not worship, but LIKE). You can probably ignore some of the bashers, anything short of saying Clark is a repuke tool of some international banker's conspiracy will provoke cries of "whore" from them. They hate Clark like Flush hates the Clinton, no facts or perspective wanted thank you.

Hey, if prefering winning with a moderate (and I think Dean is a moderate as well) to losing with a 'pure' lefty make me a whore, then toss me the red 'fuck me' heels and find me a spot on the street corner dude. Remaining ideologically pure feeds as many poor people as trickle-down tax cuts (that is to say, NONE).

[Padraig18]

122. Well said!

... and I'm a Dean supporter! Loved that 'red fuck me heels' comment, too! :9

[PATRICK]

121. Catapulted to legitimacy

I'm speaking as how Clark has blitzed into the issues instead of retreating into clouds of magisterial mystique. Even knowing how the primary electorate is just as issue driven as in search of leaders he HAS begun to answer some of the questions of concern.

Someone mentioned Clark's stand on PNAC. His website section on the 100 years vision really hits the right counterpoint with me. Those of us not extremely committed to any one candidate tend to ignore the frantic attacks of competitors, the gaffes, the inconsistencies, to get at the whole candidate especially if he(she) is strong enough to overcome the flak. So far so very good. We do need someone to smash Bush, not just make a valiant Marquis of Queensbury show. I also note how the vote support is stacking up in something of a parallel for Dean and Clark, each possibly appealing to different sets of voters. I'd love to see a huge crowd of hundereds of thousands just to cheer on their candidates while Bush hustles his captive audience and shakes down billionaires in the bowels of Crawford Ranch. Does * brand W his pioneers on the forehead?

This is going to one helluva great primary season, when even the candidates with a longshot are worth listening to- AND if there is a brokered convention, your candidate might have a lot of clout to reward your efforts. And the voice of the party is going to be multiple and diverse(that actually could be much better) and the more voices enrich the liberal viewpoints that the majority of Americans agree with the sooner we blow out of our national mental stalag.

[OKNancy]

124. I've often wondered why Kucinich supporters

can say with certainty that DK has made a sincere change over to the pro-choice view, and then blast Clark because years ago he voted Republican.

As far as I'm concerned, Clark has the only chance of the Democrats to get my states electoral votes vs. GWBush.

[VelmaD]

129. I'm a whore too, but...

I just can't bring myself to support Clark in the primaries. I agree with almost everything you had to say about him - about all the positives he brings with him. However, I can't get past one big negative. He has ZERO experience.

I have a real issue with people who have never run for dog-catcher thinking they can start out in politics by running for the highest office in the land. I had this same issue (among a slew of others) when chimpy ran for Governor here in TX. It just sits wrong with me. Almost all of the other Dem candidates have been working and fighting for us for years. They started out at the bottom and worked their way up to being ready to run for president. They have experience and they understand the problems we face and have some knowledge of what has and hasn't worked in the past. They understand what governing entails.

I also have a problem with the fact that he doesn't remember whether he voted for Reagan. (I was 10 years old during the 1980 election and I certainly remember that I would not have voted for the man. Even at 10 I knew bullshit when I smelled it.) I have a problem that he supported the Rethugs up until recently. If he really wants to prove to me that he has had a change of heart then he should start at the bottom like all new Dems and work his way up. Work for candidates. Run for lower offices. Show me some party loyalty and some willingness to become a real contributing member. Then we'll see about getting to be the standard bearer.

Clark may be a hell of a guy and he may end up being our nominee - in which case you know I'll vote for him in the general election. I'm a whore too - ABB. But I don't have to like it.

DV

[bloom]

138. He hasn't stood the time test

Bush has said what people want to hear, also, and then done whatever he wanted.

Sure these are good things:

- He supports affirmative action
- He wants to roll back the tax cuts
- He supports a woman's right to choose
- He wants to fix the nonsense of the Patriot Act



But I don't necessarily trust him to not be saying what we want to hear just to get elected. His change to the Democrats was too recent. I think he should play a different role.

__________________________________________________

P.S. I think you are overestimating Bush*.

[dfong63]

183. bingo

But I don't necessarily trust him to not be saying what we want to hear just to get elected. His change to the Democrats was too recent. I think he should play a different role.

bingo. if Clark wants to "serve his country one more time", there are plenty of other offices he can run for, and plenty of other roles he can play to help the dems win.

[LeahMira]

148. In a better world...

Which is going to happen when?

I'll probably vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who that candidate is. I just wonder why such a rush to compromise here. I wonder if we really believe in ideals or if we are caught up in the idea that ideals aren't "realistic" or that they don't have any appeal.

I wonder if we are buying into the idea that Michael Lerner has discussed:
"But there is another voice inside almost everyone: a voice that speaks in the name of our parents and teachers and the larger society, which tells us that these desires are "unrealistic" because the world is actually structured in accord with a ruthless struggle for power and money, and that if we don't develop the skills and personality traits to succeed in this struggle, we'll get screwed over by others who are ruthlessly pursuing their own self-interest. Cooperation and love, they are taught, are beautiful ideals best left to the church, synagogue, or mosque, but in the real world we will encounter people driven by self-seeking needs and we had better do the same."

I do think that we are at a watershed time in our national history, and as my mama always reminded me, "If you don't have time to do the job well now, how on earth are you going to find the time to do it over later?"

I really think that it's time to build a better world now.

[Clark Can WIN]

164. How dare you make any sense Will!

This is no longer the place for pragmatic or reasonable argument.

Thanks for the cartoons.

[VelmaD]

168. Just wondering if everyone is having fun...

beating up on Will while he's not here to respond or defend himself.

So much for my theory that he eggs his threads on. Seems like we're all doing a perfectly good job of keeping this fight going without him. ;-)

[Crewleader]

169. I believe we have to win this one too William....

none of us can afford another four years of Bush..DAMN STRAIGHT!!!

[Cha]

173. Yeah! I Believe we have to Win this one, too! And I personally

think we Can Win with Dean! "Damn Straight" is Right! :D

[Aristus]

174. One of the most frequently levelled accusations against Clark

is his lack of political experience. While I agree with that fact on the surface of it, one has to look at it from another point of view in order to judge just how lacking inpolitical experience Clark is. By the time a man has acheived the rank of four-star General, he has rubbed shoulders with ambassadors, diplomats, leaders of foreign nations, served the civil leadership of the US in many capacities, and has also attained, through the War College, the Command and General Staff College and other career schools offered by the Army, the military equivalent of a PhD.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a position held by Colin Powell, is as much a political office as a military assignment. Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, which Clark was for a while, is also a heavily political job. So I assert that Clark does have the necessarily political skills to be a great VP. Now, when it comes to policymaking, yeah, he's a little soft in that area, but I'm sure Dean can bring him up to speed in that regard. So, let's all stop bickering and just enjoy the misadministration's efforts to tear down the two likeliest candidates.

Bush: "Dean? He jes' a two-term state gubbner!"

Aide: (aside) "Sir......"

Bush: "Nev'rmahnd! Now, Clark ain't got no 'spirrience. He jes' a four-star Jin'ruhl."

Aide: (aside) "Sir, Eisenhower........"

Bush: "Nev'rmahnd!"

:-)

[VelmaD]

177. I won't deny...

that being a general and NATO commander are "political" jobs. However, he was not elected to be NATO commander now was he. That's my issue. He's never put himself and his issues out before the electorate and he's never had to deal with domestic policy issues to any great extent. And that's important because we have big issues here at home and we don't need an amateur dealing with them.

Jus tmy 2 cents.
DV

[Aristus]

178. Good points, all of them.

I'm not saying that being SAC NATO instantly qualifies him to be President. What I meant was, the post no doubt gave him the ins and outs of political maneuvering, chicanery,and double-dealing, as well as the less sinister nuts and bolts of politics; who to shake hands with, who to snub, who to suck off as the occasion arises. Backroom deals and how to make them. Sub-rosa policy initiatives, who your REAL enemies are, and on and on. To expect because he has not held elective office that he is like a lamb to KKKarl Rove's slaughter, is inaccurate and pessimistic.

[VelmaD]

179. I imagine you're right...

about not being a complete babe-in-the-woods. I hope the junta underestimates him and he kicks them in the nuts.

I suppose I'm not the person to argue this point with you 'cause my issue isn't that he has no "political" experience...it's that he's never run for office before or tried to govern.

[Aristus]

180. OKay. Well, that's the big Inargueable.

He never HAS run for office. No arguement here. It's worth pointing out that Governor of Texas is largely a ceremonial post, and most of what B*sh did during his two terms was play video poker and take lots of naps. We've seen how dangerously incompetant his is. A bright, capable guy like Clark can overcome his lack of elective experience, in my opinion.

[VelmaD]

181. He did other things too...

like throw out the first pitch at Ranger games and let himself be trotted out periodically to be the poster boy for various and sundry bad rethug legislation.

You are absolutely right about the TX gov being purely ceremonial. (Like the president of the galaxy - his job is to deflect attention away from those in power.) I brought this exact same argument up to people when he first ran for governor - that he had never even been elected dog-catcher and were gonna turn our state over to him. *sigh* People are idiots.

At least they can't use Clark's lack of experience against him given Bush's.

[ElementaryPenguin]

185. You're 100% correct, Will!! Many Repukes I know want to vote for Clark!

And the BFEE/PNAC Mob is scared shitless of him!!! Karl Rove simply has no answer for Clark/Dean!!!