Clarkies! Input sought!

[Gringo]

It is a given that Clark is a first-in-his-class West Point Grad, Rhodes scholar, distinguished military man, and undoubtedly qualified in terms of sheer competence. He has at least a decent amount of charisma about him.

How, though, do you suppose he will draw sufficient numbers of core liberal democrats and doves, people who are leery of his lack of a history of fighting for progressive causes, and who have doubts about his participation in the NATO bombing of Kosovo, which some have characterized as a war crime?

This is a serious question. If you lose the liberal base chasing after the "swing voter", you will lose the general election.

Has Clark done or said anything to address those concerns?

I've done my best to avoid flame-baiting rhetoric here. No doubt, I'll get flamed anyway. I do hope, however that there are some serious responses.

[Kahuna]

1. He's leading in the national polls and doing well in state polls..

Can't you just acknowledge that people like him inspite of how you feel?

He's even beating bush in some polls. Isn't that the objective? If "liberals" want to sit this one out that's their choice. I am confident that Clark will motivate the black base, moderates and republicans who are sick of bushco. According to the polls, there are enough votes from these groups for Clark to be the BEST positioned of all candidates to win in '04.

BTW, I do understand the reservations of the liberal wing. But I also understand that with the bushies in office, desperate times call for desperate measures. If Clark is the best Democratic candidate to deliver the silver bullet, I'm going to continue to back him 100%.

[Maddy McCall]

3. I am a liberal and I DON'T intend to sit it out...

and any liberal who intends to if Clark is the nominee has NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN after Bush is reelected. They can bear the blame for the misery of four more years of Bushshit.

[Kahuna]

7. See my edited post above..

I do understand the reservations of the lefties. But I feel we need to fight fire with fire. Clark has already effectively removed the only plus that bush had going for him as a "wartime president." Bush has been nullified already. That's a good thing. Not a bad thing.

[Gringo]

10. I will vote for Clark in a second if he is the nominee.

But I know more than a few who would sit it out, I'm looking for compelling arguments to change their minds.

[Kahuna]

13. As time goes on and they get a chance to see and hear

him, I'm sure that all but the most hard cases will do the right thing. Remember Gringo. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. Instead of concentrating your efforts on hard cases, work on the easier cases. It takes less time and energy. And it's less frustrating.

[janekat]

52. but everybody reads these posts - NOT just the person you respond

to. It's important when we see a mis-truth being spoken - to nip it in the bud.

[ShaneGR]

69. Here's a compelling argument

Four more years of Bush. And try reading up on the guy and watching the debates.

That's what I would say.

[janekat]

32. Clark vs Dean: Have you actually LOOKED at his stand on issues?

He is quite liberal. You, my friend are prejudiced and biased against anyone who is in the military. You need to think long and hard about that.

THIS is some of Clarks' stands on the issues. NOW where does YOUR candidate stand on the issues?:

Wesley Clark:
http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm#War_+_Peace
Clark would consider cutting defense spending if elected, he said. "We are trapped in .....an endless occupation" of Iraq".

"We've found many times in our experience that it's best to use force only as a last resort."



If your candidate is Howard Dean - this is HIS stand:

"Dean... has announced his support for a policy in which Washington will decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and will reserve for itself the right to forcefully disarm those who do not voluntarily disarm by U.S. dictate. In this crucial regard Dean's position is in close accordance with the Bush doctrine of coercive disarmament and preventive war."
http://www.kucinichdeancompare.com/

[Gringo]

36. No anti-military prejudice here.

Don't inject YOUR anti-liberal prejudice here by assuming that. You'll not find one statement by me impugning Clark for being in the military. I have no opinion on the Kosovo thing - some others do.

[janekat]

45. "anti-Liberal"????

where do you get that? Please explain why you've chosen to give me that label...

[Gringo]

50. Because

You are obviously assuming that someone to the left of you who doesn't automatically fall in behind Clark is anti-military (There is certainly nothing anti-military in anything I wrote to give you that idea).

I don't have long hair, smoke dope or wear Birkenstocks, and I serve in the Navy myself.

[janekat]

53. Someone who falls to the left of me is pretty darn liberal....

You obviously don't know much about me. AND you obviously haven't read the Clark issues site. I would suggest that you read it because you do not seem to be very informed about him or about a lot of the issues. I have made it my business to read up on the major candiates and know their stance on the issues.

Have You?

If you want to post anything about Clark or other candidates I would suggest that you start reading about the ISSUES - because I will call you on it.
http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[maha]

57. This may not apply to you, but

I think there are some who have a knee-jerk antipathy toward Clark because he was a career soldier.

[Gringo]

68. OMG! I'M A LIAR!

I said "I don't have long hair, smoke dope or wear Birkenstocks, and I serve in the Navy myself."

I meant to say "I don't have long hair, smoke dope or wear Birkenstocks, and I SERVED in the Navy myself.

It's been 13 years ago now, got out JUST BEFORE the last Bush's fraudulent Iraq war.

Sorry.

[boxster]

42. I have a theory or two on the comparitive viewpoints of Dean and Clark

on the issues. Sorry for getting off on a tangent, however:

1) It seems to be very convenient for the Dean camp and others to ignore the fact that Dean and Clark are very close fundamentally when you look at their stances on the issues. It's much easier to brand Clark as a Republican if you just flat-out ignore Clark's statements and positions to the contrary.

2) Or they just assume Clark's a liar and don't believe any of Clark's statements regarding those liberal stances on the issues. They assume he's lying about his beliefs, which naturally leads to branding him as a covert Republican.

[janekat]

43. It is really Dean who is the covert Republican and phoney

and they're falling for it hook, line and sinker. They just don't pay any attention.

I'm beginning to think we have our OWN set of sheeples....

[boxster]

56. That might be a bit of a stretch.

I try not to project Dean's supporters' views and actions onto Dean himself, though I've had some difficulty in doing so. I'm trying to stay somewhat objective, though I have lapses. :)

Dean, to me, is a little bit of an enigma. I don't think he's likely a Repub in hiding, but he has moved around a little politically in recent years. For '04, he seemed to be running pretty much as a liberal (a charge he now seems to deny), but his policies in Vermont tended to be fairly moderate with the obvious exception of a few larger liberal stances, such as the civil unions bill.

I think Dean's decision to jump on the "Clark is a Repub" bandwagon might be a mistake, considering the obvious information available to the contrary, and frankly, it looks a little desperate or defensive. Obviously, the inference of his statement is that Dean himself is a liberal. I think that his record shows him closer to the middle than he may be portraying now.

Honestly, I was one of those people now labeled "naive" by the hardcore Dean supporters (and some Clark supporters, to be fair) who thought Clark and Dean would make a good team (apparently, so did Dean, since they met and allegedly discussed it - you'd now think that by listening to Dean and his supporters that that meeting never happened).

It's possible they still will, but it appears that the Dean short-term plan is to paint Clark as a Repub, as his supporters have been doing pretty much since (before?) day one. That's disappointing as it may prove to negate the possibility that the two strongest candidates would be on the same ticket, especially in light of the fact that a little research would lead him to the conclusion that Clark is pretty liberal.

Unless, of course, he assumes that Clark is lying about all of the issues. If that is the case, there isn't much that can be done to convince him otherwise.

[bluefire2000]

63. I think that sums it up pretty well n/t

[JVS]

64. The presidency is too important to just take someone's word at face value

People believing that Bush was a "Compassionate conservative" cost us in the last election. I don't mean to call Clark a liar, but he doesn't have any record to back up statements that he makes.

[bhunt70]

67. ...

Good post, I wish more people would look at his stances and past his uniform, and I am by no means a military loving guy.

[Eloriel]

49. I'm sorry, you've somehow gotten it backwards

It's up to the CANDIDATE to appeal to voters -- they aren't owed anything. Just having a very very recently and hastily attached "D" by their names is no guarantee of electability. If Clark or anyone else wants the base's vote, they'll have to apply for it, work for it, earn it, won't they?

Eloriel

[JVS]

60. I cannot believe how infrequently that fact is remembered here. Thanks

[Maddy McCall]

2. The way I see it...

and I am a leftist Democrat, is that it would be shooting off one's own foot to vote for anyone BUT the democratic candidate who will face bush.

What are the alternatives???

Vote for Bush???

Vote for the Green candidate?


Either of the two alternatives would cripple chances to rebuild after the destruction Bush has wrought for the past three years. Is this really the time to teach te Democratic Party a lesson?

We are in a crisis situation, and we need to get Bush and his buddies out of office.

This isn't about Clark, it is about Democratic coherence in 2004 for the sole purpose of removing the pretender from office.

[Kahuna]

9. Right. It's not about Clark, Dean, Kerry or Edwards. It's about

removing bushco. PERIOD.

[DeathvadeR]

20. So you can go back to your pretend little democracy?

One where nothing seems to change?? One where we switch into passive mode?? This won't save the grace of our nation.

[Maddy McCall]

23. But four more years of Bush will....Riiiiiight...nt

[Kahuna]

31. To quote Rev. Al.. (and the Godfather of Soul)

You talking loud, but you ain't saying nothing.

[janekat]

37. And who's going to change things - It ain't going to be Dean...

Maybe Kuchinich but it sure as HELL is not going to be Dean. Ask anybody from Vermont or anyone who has become familiar with Dean's ACTUAL policies:

"Many single-issue activists who work on Middle East peace, gun control and drug policy reform — including some who say they were initially attracted to Dean — are becoming increasingly vocal in opposing him. Some are speaking about a "reassessment" on the left and warn darkly that Dean's stands are already costing him support among core Democrats.

"Howard Dean could be the worst of both worlds for progressives," said Norman Solomon, a columnist and figure on the left on the West Coast. "He's not a true progressive, but he's been tarred as being this kind of Birkenstock leftist. What's the payoff here?"
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.08.22/news3a.html

[placton]

4. Simple!

Dennie the K is clearly the most liberal candidate. Now that he has turned pro-choice, he's the best out there on issues.

But, he's not electable. Spare me the rhetoric.

We have a moral duty to elect a Democrat - or we may lose our country (further?) to the nightmare of fascism.

There are several electable Dems - I am a Kerry supporter.

But Clark may just be the most electable. Yeah he ain't perfect, but then look at what happened when the Greens took a walk in 2000.

[Julien Sorel]

5. I think his appeal to the 'cold cowards' of the country

outweighs any doves he'll be scaring away.

[JVS]

61. What are "cold cowards"?

Never heard the phrase before.

[Gringo]

70. "COLD COWARDS" is a distortion...

I described the sentiment driving so many otherwise good dems to rush in & support Wes Clark prematurely as a sort of "cold cowardice" - a fear that by nominating a more democratic candidate we would lose, so let's run to the war hero with no political record.

I never called any person(s) a coward. It's simply a description of the zeitgeist I'm feeling. It must be pretty catchy, because I'm hearing it all over the place.

[bamademo]

6. No Flame here...

...I believe the Kosovo thing has already been addressed but I don't have a link handy. I remember core liberals being upset at Clinton's stand on execution when he was governer of Arkansas but they voted for him anyway. If Clark gets the nomination, I think most people will vote for him including conservatives. At this point people want anybody but Bush in 04.

[Gringo]

12. Well, I'm a lot less bothered

By executing people who are (mostly) guilty of heinous crimes than I am by bombing civilian neighborhoods.

I personally don't feel that Kosovo was as cut-and-dried "wrong" as was the Iraq invasion. There are many who are bothered by it, though.

[SWPAdem]

8. The same principle applies to the "liberal" candidates

If they can only hold the base, but not appeal to independents, they cannot win the general election, either. One can only hope that all of us will keep our eye on the prize, which is removing Bush from office. None of us can afford to indulge in being sore losers whenever the candidate is chosen. Whatever my personal preference is, I will be pulling the Democratic lever come Nov '04, the ONLY vote my conscience will allow.

[Girlfriday]

11. I think we have to worry less about the ultra-left.....

...than the centrists or even disillusioned righties. I think Clark apeals more to those two groups and has a better chance to capture them. I just think Clark is the most electable and that is our ultimate goal, right? I want to make it clear though that I will vote for ANYONE BUT BUSH!

[underpants]

14. Not to take them for granted but who are the far left going to vote for?

A third party candidate? and let the W Junta stay in power? I don't think so.

[Gringo]

17. That sounds like a big "F-U" to the left.

"We're gonna nominate ANOTHER center-right candidate, this time one with no political record. If you don't like it you can go waste your vote on the greens"

That's why the lib base is so disaffected and doesn't turn out. They are sick of being treated like the embarrassing old hippie uncle.

[Julien Sorel]

27. You're indulging in wife-beating accusations again.

Just who is this 'center-right' candidate to whom you are referring?

[Tinoire]

44. Sure sounds like that

One huge "Fuck You".

I have a feeling it's going to be another surprise to the same DLC that has lost us the last 2 elections when the Left reacts very badly to this because there aren't enough swing voters to cover the lost Left.

[underpants]

54. No no no

What I meant was that I think everyone agrees that we need to get W&Co. out of office. Much like Perot did in '92 splitting "our" vote would be disasterous.

I meant that we are all on the same page and that if elected whoever it is will need to address the demands of all, at least they will listen to all sides. Are you being listened to by W?

[JVS]

62. You betcha. Why do you think there have been so many flamewars lately?

The emergence of Clark as a candidate has brought the front of the Dem-Green war right into a space between the leftist and rightist Democrats.

[Gringo]

15. Well, I guess that's why I've settled for Dean thus far...

He isn't as left as I'd like, but he talks tough against BushCo, and hasn't flip-flopped on issues like many others. I think he appeals to the swing voter AND is acceptable enough to the core lib base to get them to the polls.

Sorry, but I'm still wary of a Clark nomination.

[SWPAdem]

25. It's your right to be wary of Clark

I have similar misgivings about Dean. What counts is whether you put ousting Bush over ideological purity. That is an question that you have yet to answer. As someone else said, those that will not support the eventual candidate, will not have the right to complain if Bush wins. Retaking our country and returning the Democratic party to it's roots won't happen overnight and we cannot even take the first step until we own the WH and at least, half of the Congress.

[Skwmom]

48. Dean hasn't flip-flopped on issues?

I think I'd do a little more research on your candidate.

[fjc]

16. Rev Sharpton...

turned to Gen. Clark during the last debate and replied to the charge that Clark was not a real Democrat by saying that Clark should not let his colleagues on the stage that night make him feel unwelcomed to the party. He went on to say that he would rather have a real Democrat join the party in the last 8 or so days than a host of Democrats who have been acting like Republicans their whole career. I think that is the kind of reply Gen. Clark should make, that is, if he wants to return the attack in kind. I think he should emphasize over and again his message about a "new patriotism" grounded in dissent, which is really the old patriotism, but so many seem to have forgotten that, if they ever understood it to begin with. I think he should get his story straight about his views on the war, and like Dean, again and again attack not only the grounds for it, but the way it was carried out, on the basis of shoddy and fabricated intelligence and with no genuine international support. I think he should focus again and again on how high and how often the Bush administration raised its middle finger to the rest of the world, leading now to a situation in which we cannot hope either to rebuild Iraq or leave it either. This could then be the ground for hitting this pre-emptive policy of Bush's particularly hard.

From here he can address the fact that we have in the short span of two years moved from a 500 billion dollar surplus to an equal deficit, largely because of the war on Iraq, and its all now good money after bad. He then needs to come up with a tax policy that is more than just rescinding Bush's gross tax cuts, and a plan for creating jobs as well as stopping the job hemorage to other countries.

That's just off the top of my head. Let me add that I'm giving right now to both the Dean and the Clark campaigns.

[Gringo]

19. Nice post.

Sharpton's comments were clearly about giving Clark the benefit of the doubt, which I agree with. I don't want to see the man unfairly bashed either. If he follows the course you describe, he will have my enthusiastic support next Nov.

[vi5]

18. And if you lose the swing voter by chasing after the base....

Then it means nothing as well.

Personally I've grown weary of my fellow dems as referring to "the base...the base...the base" over and over and over again, when in reality they simply mean by and large, white middle class liberal activists. I don't dispute that they are part of the base. That is what I am and I consider myself part of the democratic base. But so are african americans....so are hispanics.....so are unions....so are lawyers. And as of now, no candidate has any substantial number of support among any of those other groups. Until that person does, then nobody can say that they are appealing to "the base" with any degree of honesty.

The fact that Clark is leading among likely voters to me is much more of a teling sign than someone having more meetup numbers or more money in the bank.

I'm not a Clark supporter but anyone who dismisses him is at this point being extremely short sighted.

[Gringo]

21. If I was dismissing him, this thread wouldn't be here. n/t

[fjc]

22. The minority base...

Yes, I agree. A big part of the base is minorities. The Democratic Party, starting under Clinton I think, has begun to abandon that part of its base by moving toward the proverbial center, which really only means moving to the right.

[vi5]

24. That makes the assumption that minorities are....

liberal, leftist, and anti-war. I don't think they can be painted with that broad of a brush.

Clinton was a centrist like no other and his appeal amongst minority voters was unparalleled.

[fjc]

26. That was Clinton's appeal...

I think, and it flowed largely from his monumental charm. I was addressing more the movement of the Party under the DNC. I don't think this move has really worked for the Party, although it worked for Clinton.

[vi5]

28. I think what it does is recognize that there are a number of concerns...

For minorities and not all of them fall under traditionally liberal or leftist banners.

[Kahuna]

35. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Ever ask a black person or other minority ..

what they want? Here's your chance.

[vi5]

38. Uh...I'm confused....are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

My point is that lumping all minorities or ethnic groups into one large category of thinking a particular way (anti war, pro affirmative action, etc.) is dismissive and condescending. And to assume that the dovish at all costs left speaks for all minorities and their once and needs is ridiculously arrogant.

[Kahuna]

41. Agreeing!

:7

[Kahuna]

34. Absolutely. If VI's argument is true, how does he explain..

blacks turning out for Clinton and Gore in record numbers? Duh.

[Kahuna]

33. They say the "base." But they never intend the..

black base. The liberal base never tries to network with the black base to see what we want. Then wonder why we don't take them seriously. They have jammed too many loser candidates down our throats.

[RandomUser]

29. There will always be a range

No matter how left you go, there will always be someone even further to the left who will not vote for you. No matter how much to the center or rightward you go, there will always be someone even further to the right. There are probably even people left of Kucinich who will not vote for him.

Given that premise, you do the best you can. I believe Clark is that man. In the general election, I will vote for the Dem nominee, whoever he ends up being. In the primary, I will vote for Clark, because I believe he stands the best chance and is the best person for the job. But even if he didn't stand a good chance, I would vote for Clark in the primary anyway. I suppose I feel about him the way diehard Kucinich supporters feel about Kucinich. Clark's issues and ideas and vision jive with mine. I'm not supporting him just to get on the bandwagon. His broad appeal and electability is a plus, but not the sole reason I support him. I support him because his stance on most issues are the same as mine. Not exactly the same, since there's no one candidate who has issues I don't agree with, but Clark is the one who comes closest to where I am on the political spectrum. Pro-Choice, Pro-environment, etc.

I think that Clark will be able to capture a Liberal base. I consider myself a liberal, not a Far Left liberal, but a liberal on the Left. And I have no problem with Clark. The image of him being republican-lite is unwarranted and not true. He's certainly further to the left than Lieberman, a tad to the left of Dean, and but not as far left as Kucinich, which is just right for my personal political comfort zone. So even if Clark had the lowest chance of winning, I would vote for him in the primary, and whoever the dem nom is in the general. Just as Kucinich supporters would vote for Kucinich even though they don't think he would win the primary. The fact that Clark has the greatest chance of winning the general election by a landslide is just a happy bonus, not the deciding factor for me.

I think Clark will be able to overcome those on the far left and any "doves" if they just give him a chance. He will have the liberal base behind him if he wins the nomination. This goes for any of the candidates, except maybe Lieberman.

You ask:
"How, though, do you suppose he will draw sufficient numbers of core liberal democrats and doves, people who are leery of his lack of a history of fighting for progressive causes, and who have doubts about his participation in the NATO bombing of Kosovo, which some have characterized as a war crime?"

My answer -- by educating them. Once the smear campaigns stop and people actual pay attention to the plans he rolls out and examines him, they'll come to like him.

Here's a challenge for you, view this video and then see how you think of him:

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/idrive/project/c04/c04092603_clark.rm

That is from his NH townhall meeting last friday. It is generally agreed that Clark is at his finest there -- that includes the debates, the DNC dinner, and every single interview he's been on. Watch that video and you'll understand. Last friday, there was a huge thread on DU about it, people who were skeptical saw it and understood him and liked him, even if they weren't sure if they'd vote for him. Anyone who saw it then recognized all the character assassinations threads and articles for what they were. Either he's the best actor ever and should go to hollywood, or he's the real thing.

Watch it. It has everything from unscripted questions, to explanations of his motives, to a crying woman abused by the military. He actually apologized and assumed responsibility for her. It's one impressive meeting that shows what he can do. He makes me proud to be a democrat.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. 1. Truth 2. Peace 3. Populism

1. Truth: Clark is good at getting to the point without a lot of bullshit talk. Let him admit "I'm going to need money from the movers and shakers in order to win" and "both parties are too influenced by corporate money". Clark can get away with this better than most. Clark should start talking about the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX because other people are. Let him take the lead. Eisenhower did.

2. Peace: Who better than a military general to stop war and promote peace? Who knows the conflicts in the world better than Clark? Who better to talk about how bad war really is than Clark? Clark needs to be the reincarnation of Smedley Butler. Read Eisenhower's speeches again.

3. Populism: Clark needs to call corporations that move headquarters overseas to avoid taxes "traitors". Clark needs to say the rich have too much power. Clark needs to say that "free trade agreements" are unacceptable without labor and environmental protections. Clark needs to emphasize the "rot at the top" and he needs to acknowledge that the military has the same problem as the corporations and government and academia do. Clark needs to talk about JOBS and OUTSOURCING and H1B/L1 visas.

Mostly, Clark should just TELL THE TRUTH and NOT sound like just another politican. If Clark starts telling us his candidacy is about "bringing people together" or "moving forward" or worse, some half-assed military slogans like "Marching forward to take America back" he'll sound just like a militaristic Dean and they won't like it.


Oh and 4 hire me as a campaign director, you're going to need it. You have no idea how thick-headed leftists are *and* how absolutely terrified they are of men with guns :)

[Red_Storm]

39. I'm thinking along the same lines as other DU'ers ........

too much damage has been caused by the Bush Junta....the country can not take another 4 years of his destructive policies.....so if i have to hold my nose and vote for a democrat I don't like... I WILL do just that.......comprises will have to be made..


NO BUSH IN 2004

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

55. well Clark has to win the primary full of liberal Dems first

before he ever has a chance to go after Bush. I think Clark can win the general with one arm tied behind his back, but I'm not so sure he can win the Democratic primary. Maybe Clark will be happy with a VP spot?

[janekat]

40. Clark Supporters: We need to start outlining HIS issues. Read up!

He is very Progressive. He is unfairly being "slandered" and slimed by those who have an AGENDA. We need to start posting threads outlining his policies on the different issues:

Please - I beg of all of you read up on his issues and start SPREADING it around. This candidate has the best chance of beating Bush. He can also get away with his progressive policies because he is a General and a military man.


Clarks Issues:

http://www.issues2000.org/Wesley_Clark.htm

[Gringo]

46. I will go read it now. n/t

[janekat]

47. psst. Gringo

Please help bump up this thread up because it's actually a thread about Clark on the issues:

THIS Dem candidate is much too liberal to win:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=447233

[boxster]

58. As I mentioned in another response, it's much easier

to ignore the fact that proof exists to the contrary and yell "Clark is a Republican" at every opportunity.

If Dean's supporters, for example, accepted that Clark is pretty liberal, it removes a very easy answer to everything - he's a Republican - and it makes it more difficult for them to demonstrate differences between the two candidates. It's a very easy cop-out, because it pretty much answers any query. Being a Republican in hiding trumps all other issues in their minds.

What they don't seem to understand is that Clark is the only "major" candidate that can GET AWAY WITH running as a progressive liberal (with the probable exception of Kerry) and have any chance of winning. I, too, have traditional liberal beliefs on the issues, but I'm also a realist. We have to counter the 50% of America that still thinks Bush is a good leader, militarily and otherwise.

He already has Bush trumped on the Commander-in-Chief role, and he also counters his Democratic opponents very well on the "liberal" scale. Because of his military experience, Clark can be very, very socially liberal and still not get labeled as a left-wing wacko. So, instead, he's labeled a right-wing operative. It's ridiculous, but a very easy response to type out on DU and stamp out in sound bytes in the media.

It's actually kind of funny, if you think about it. I realize that this is serious, serious business and that it represents the future of America, but the irrationality of the theory that Clark is a Rove operative should be obvious to anyone. It probably really is obvious to even hardcore anti-Clarks, but they chose not to acknowledge that because it's easier to be irrational.

[OKNancy]

51. Concerns, if you are serious

If Clark does win the nomination, doubters with have to ..this is corny..open their hearts and ears..to what Clark is saying. I hear it now, but supporters of other candidates aren't quite tuned in just yet. I hadn't chosen a candidate when Clark entered so it was easier for me to make my decision than for others who might have already given money or time to another campaign.

By the time of the general election, Clark will be a lot more seasoned. I'm sure he won't speak as a raving lefty, but if you listen closly, he is very much the idealist.

Others have mention the so-called base...it's not just left activists, it's Unions and African-Americans, and working women. That is the base of the party.

[boxster]

59. I agree - he is very much an idealist, but in a way,

he's almost the only one who can get away with that. Because of his military experience, he can be very socially liberal without being labeled as a left-wing nut. Other than Kerry, he's really the only candidate likely to win the primary that can do that.

He counters Bush on the Commander-in-Chief stuff, yet he seems to be socially liberal on many of the traditional Democrat issues.

Interestingly enough, he's been accused of the exact opposite - being a right-wing nut - which to me seems kind of goofy or, at the least, irrational. The assumption, of course, is that he's lying about his stances on the issues.

And, I agree - people are going to have to open up to the possibility that a career military guy can also be socially conscious. That seems like a contradiction to a lot of people. I'm optimistic that he is the real deal, because he could certainly make some positive changes if his ideas became policy. The next month or two should give us a pretty good picture of who he really is.

[Capn Sunshine]

65. My Take as a Dean worker

I am disturbed by Gen. Clarks traditional old school campaigning. His playing to the swing voter is a dead end and is part of the problem in American Politics. He must energize the core, and the previous non voter If we as democrats continue to play the swing voter two step we are not going to effect the change we long for. I was hoping Clarks candidacy would be more oreiented towards bringing in this overwhelming new base of voters that would seal an election without pandering to sometime republican squishies.

His candidacy seemed off to a good start, emulating the Dean internet model, but then he abruptly abandoned this for moving to the right and instructing his troops to abandon the internet that got him here.

As an outsider and clearly non Clark sycophant,, I see numerous areas that indicate the campaign is in disarray ; primary among them is an incomplete website. Who's in charge up there?

Clark has excellent attributes as a candidate and the overwhelming wonking from his organization at this point is obscuring and drowning out any message he has.

So, those of you paid guys posting here; earn your money , grab this campaign by the cajones and go after it. Stop splashing in the shallow end and join the Dean campaign in the deep water.

Oh, and raise some money ok? Good luck to you all.

[SWPAdem]

66. My only paid job is in a hospital

What about you?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. he's right

Clark's campaign is stumbling, and as an early unofficial member of the Draft Clark movement, I hope he gets things going again quickly.

If Clark isn't a populist, he has no chance in the primary and less of one in the general.