Clark, Dean and the Outsider/Reformer role

[andym]

Hi,
I like both Clark and Dean. They are both competing as the outsider and/or reformer role. They both have compelling grass roots support. The are in direct competition. They are quite different in personality and how they reached their progressive viewpoints. Dean is the intense, outspoken reformer who rallies the true believers like a prophet. Clark is the Atticus Finch type, more quiet, but willing to speak out against injustice just the same and deserving of respect.

SO far the attacks on both candidates by proponents of the other are laughable, exemplifed by Dean changed his positions 180 degrees, and Clark is really a mole of Karl Rove. I tune in here for the amusement. I seriously wonder about the analytical skills and world view of some of the posters here. But I am most worried how some have really taken up the Karl Rove/Lee Atwater methods. These techniques should be run out of politics and this should be one of the first "reforms" that should be taken up by all the demo candidates and their supporters. The way to do that is to not engage yourself, but to shed light on the manipulation as it happens.

That said, I am posting this as an experiment to see if and how quickly this post would deteriorate into one-sided attacks on one of the candidates. One of the ways you can detect an attack, is that the message is as one-sided as a legal brief, or more impressively like Marc Anthony's speech in Julius Ceaser, it begins by
first praising how honorable X is, but then goes on to attack them.

Andy

[rogerashton]

1. I come to bury Republicans, not to praise them.

eom

[WoodrowFan]

2. Good Point

I read somewhere that true believers are harsher on heretics than on infidels, those who strayed form the path are viewed as worse than those who were never on it. Some of the most vicious posters seem to only attack fellow Democrats, even though they deny they are Democrats. I wish they'd use that energy vs. the repuks for a change.


Clark/Dean in 2004!

[Eloriel]

3. Analyze This

First: One of the ways you can detect an attack, is that the message is as one-sided as a legal brief...

What a bunch of hooey that is. Do you really think that's true? It amazes me when people pick up simply false ideas which, as in this case, are designed to blunt criticism. Insisting that an argument be "two-sided" to make it valid or worth considering is just ridiculous. Or at least I'm certainly not going to hypocritically pretend that I like both candidates. I don't like Clark at all. I know where he comes from, and AFAIC, it ain't pretty.

Clark has been put in the race specifically to stop Dean, by other Democrats. And it's NOT because Dean is unelectable - it's precisely because he IS electable AND the movement that has formed around him, which is intent on "taking back our country" from ALL the special interests and putting it in the hands, for the first time in a very long while, of The People.

He's raising his money from small donors -- people like you and me. He's running a grassroots, Open Source iterative Presidential Campaign in which he and his campaign listen carefully, respond and adopt the ideas of his supporters -- people like you and me. He's not bought, he's not handled, he's free and able to respond to The People. He is revitalizing the democratic process itself, and it's very scary for some who do not want to let go of THEIR power (which isn't The People's Power).

So he has become unbelievably dangerous for those who do NOT want to let go of their power and influence -- the DNC, the DLC, and people like the Clintons.

I should've paid attention when Bill Clinton said a few weeks ago that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark." I should've listend when Hillary gave a glowing review of Clark to a reporter, but said, "but this isn't an endorsement, I can't endorse anyone." I should've paid attention when Howard Fineman wrote a column about the Stop Dean effort in the party. But when Clark finally announced and then shortly thereafter I heard him spouting some DLC talking points, and THEN it was revealed that not only was Clinton "encouraging him to run," but a bunch of ex-Clinton aides and campaign workers had joined his campaign, I got it.

Watch too for Hillary to enter the race -- and yeah, I realize the Rightwing has said that, but the Leftwing hasn't denounced it. There have been a lot of hints. An article someone wrote some time back about how the Clintons have been busy, busy fundraising and "building things." Some coy remarks by Bill about Hillary and it's her decision. Remember too a recent remark that he thought the people of New York would "forgive her" if she didn't keep her promise to serve out her Senate term. I hope it doesn't happen, but it's not imposible.

Bill Clinton does NOT have the right to pick our nominee for us, especially when he's thwarting the will of the people to do so. I have been increasingly "over" the Clintons (and Bill IS the only Republican I ever voted for), but this little move clinches it for me. He is NOT a friend of democracy, AFIC, or The People. And he needs to get the hell out of this primary race. Period.

Eloriel