I would like to propose a CIVIL Dean/Clark dichotomy discussion

[Sagan]

I fully realize, of course, that my caveat will in all likelihood severely limit the number or responses.

I see a dichotomy in the Dean / Clark debate. As someone who likes both of these candidates very much, it puts me in something of a bind.

Here it is, how I see it:

Dean has exhibited the capability and potential to raise a BUNCH of money. Conceivably, almost as much as the Chimp. Anyone who does not think this is a factor can use the "starry eyed dreamer" exit at this time.

Clark, on the other hand, has pledged to use public funds which limits him to approximately $40 million versus Chimpy's $200 million plus. That's a 4 to 1 spending advantage for the Chimp. That's huge.

On the other other hand, Clark has quite a few qualifications that really hurt the Chimp where it counts, i.e. the war on terrah, national security, military, etc.

It's far too simplistic (and not necessarily true) to say that Clark is the better candidate but Dean the better organizer / fundraiser, but I feel that this dichotomy will be big deal with Dem primary voters as they struggle to make their decisions on who to vote for.

What do the sages of DU think of this?

[CMT]

1. that would be nice.

eom.

[Toucano]

2. Good Luck!

These things seem to ebb and flow, so maybe someday! :)

[wryter2000]

3. Admirable thread

I think your analysis is pretty much right on. I think we're going to need Clark's expertise to get out of Iraq, for sure. But I don't think anyone who can't spend as much as * on the campaign has a chance of winning.

I'll certainly be happy to back either of them.

[ignatiusr]

4. Clarity

I have to admit, I'm not 100% clear on what the "public funds" implications are. Is $40 million the limit for the entire election season, primary and general included, or does it only apply to the primary season? Your comparison to Bush's funds, 40 million to 200 million, seemed to suggest that it applied to the general election as well. I was under the impression that it only applied to the primaries.

In response to Dean's fundraising ability compared to Clark's- Dean does have the advantage, but Clark does very well in this category as well. He's expected to raise 12 million or more this quarter, and the only reason he didn't opt out of public financing was because he came into the race so late, and couldn't hope to raise that much money in that small amount of time. If he had had the time that Dean and Kerry were given to raise money, he would have also most likely opted out.

And, if the $40 million is only the limit for the primaries, which is what I'm assuming, then my answer to the fundraising question would be this: Dean is so successful at raising money because he has been able to tap into the liberal anger at the president and claim it almost exclusively for himself. The majority of the core liberals out there who despise President Bush are donating to Dean, and that's why he's making so much money. But, if Dean doesn't win the nomination, it's not as if these liberals are going to scatter and forget about the general election. They will still be there, and, although they may have initially hoped that Dean would win the nomination, they will rally behind our Democrat. So I don't think that the fact that Dean is raising large amounts of money now means that he will be the only candidate capable of doing so in the general election. Regardless of who the candidate is, even if it isn't their top choice, I think everyone will support him passionately, both physically and financially, because the root of everyone's passion is the desire to oust President Bush from office.

[sangh0]

6. Excellent post!

The $40million limit is for the primaries alone.

[Sagan]

7. that is good information

If that is true, then what is the limit for the general election?

[democratreformed]

9. It was my impression

that the 40 million and public financing option recently in the news applied only to the primaries at this point also. Would someone please correct us if we are wrong?

[mastein]

10. Funding

You are correct the $40 million applies to spending before the convention. After the convention candidates can spend $80 million each and still keep public funding.

Public funding is paid for by the line on your 1040 tax form. Check if you want $3 to goto. . . .

[CWebster]

14. No it isn't

it is just as important to me--if not more so, that we reestablish a strong Democratic identity and presence in our political landscape to lessen the liklihood of this absolute idiot, Bush, from calling the shots WITHOUT QUESTION. It is the anger of the Democratic base that carries Dean---that is OUR anger at our own player's performances. And the moe clark strays off script the more he reveals that he is just another DLC corporate hack.

no way.

[Julien Sorel]

19. 45 million.

And there's the Soros money. Plus, Clark has the advantage of being a political blank slate. What's there to attack? The Republicans won't be able to stoop to the insane DU level of war criminal allegations and the like (which attacks regretably say more about some of the people here than Clark), so they really don't have much of a target. Clark is the most smear-proof candidate the Democrats have, and he's already demonstrated he knows how to deal with them quickly and lethally.

[Eloriel]

32. On the contrary

Clark is the MOST vulnerable. That's been demonstrated here at DU over and over. So much to "smear" him with he's a liability to the party.

Eloriel

[Bertrand]

43. No

First of all, DU doesnt represent anything accept the ideological fringe of american mainstream politics for the most part, so that isnt even an issue.

Secondly, your avatar is that of a serial flip-flopping, admitted Draft Dodger who is running on a tax and spend platform while having zero foreign policy experience going into the first presidential election in the post-911 era. For Clark to be called the most vulnerable, which isnt even backed up by the polls which show him ( along with Kerry) as the best candidates against Bush, by a Dean supporter is laughable.

[Julien Sorel]

44. Really?

You're welcome to enumerate the smears. Especially the ones that would play out on national television in front of a largely sane audience. The only smears that continue to be propagated here are propagated by nut cases, and most people ignore them, as witnessed by the DU polls here, where Clark always does well despite the ultra-leftist cache of this place.

Of course, somehow you never get back to actually defend the little substanceless stink bombs you drop, so I'm talking to air.

[Patriot_Spear]

5. I have nothing against Clark...

But I prefer the leadership of Dean.

[mastein]

8. "History" of the candidates

I see a clear difference in the teams surrounding the candidates as much as I see the true policy differences (and quite often they are related.

I see Clark's people as Clinton's old people, as a result his policies quite often mirror the policies of former Pres. Clinton. They tend to be center-left and designed to appeal to "cross-over" voters.

I see Dean as a "mad-as-hell" Democrat. He reflects the anger that many in the party have toward Gephardt, Daschle, et. al. for their perceived rolling over on big issues, including the war and for not meeting the right's fire with fire. (Note for example the speech patterns of Mr. Daschle vs. Rick Santorum) He is to the left of Clark on the social issues but both are fairly tight with a buck. Fiscally, I believe Dean is closer to the late Paul Tsongas than to Clinton.

[democratreformed]

17. What do you mean by Clinton people?

If you are referring to campaign people, that is one thing.

If you are referring to supporters from the public, I have to point out that I am an exception to that. I did not particularly like Bill Clinton as governor of the state of Arkansas. He was okay and certainly much better that that dastardly Republican Frank White who was also a governor here during my liftime. To be honest, I was not enthusiastic about his run for President because I thought he would embarass our state. I voted for him b/c he was the Democrat, but was never overly impressed with him per se.

[mikehiggins]

11. No dichotomy, IMHO

Dean is a weak candidate whose campaign has been based on the anger of a segment of the population. When matched up shoulder to shoulder with Bush I do not see any particular reason why the majority of Americans will choose to vote for Dean rather than Bush.

The main advantage Dean has is the fact that he was the first to stand up and raise hell over the war and the rest. Other than that, what does he carry with him? What does he bring to the table that is acceptable and attractive to the general public?

Dean has been the governor of a state, and all of that, but so what? He has been defined by his strident opposition to Bush; his public persona consists of his being the anti-Bush. When the general public has to go into the voting booth a Dean/Bush election will be little more than a referendum on how people think Bush has been doing his job. There is nothing about Dean to persuade voters to turn TO him for leadership, only AGAINST Bush. In uncertain times like these that is not a winning scenario.

I'll stop there since that should be enough to enrage Slinkerwink and the others enough to call down their wrath on my head. I don't intend to start listing why I think Clark has the authority to convince voters to look TO him to do the President's job better than Bush. I'll just go to another point.

This election will see the rise of center/left apolitical groups that will flood the airwaves with ads and commentary spelling out in great detail the failures and shortcomings of the Bush League. Any advantage Bush has in fundraising will be largely offset by MoveOn and MeetUps and all the rest. The potential is there for a seachange in American politics, and it all will start with the overthrow of the Bush administration.

But we need to put forth a President who can lead that change, and Doctor Dean, IMHO, isn't the man for the job.

We'll see shortly if others agree with me when the votes are counted.

[CWebster]

18. Don't underestimate that anger

It is the stuff of revolutions. It is not "weakness" or false civility--it is genuine.

The "segment of the population" you dismiss is the Democratic base who is motivated to vote in the primary.

If you can't see a diffenece between Bush and Dean than maybe you are in the wrong party and I am not so sure that the rest of the country wouldn't prefer a change.

Dean has been an effective governor, re-elected repeatedly, who actually accomplished goals rather than mouthing the rhetoric and didn't suddenly register Democrat after years of stumping for, voting for and praising the worst, the very worst elements of the Right, as the General did.

[JNelson6563]

25. at least they didn't say "focus group"

Let us think about those Dems who have disregarded that particular segment, the apparently dispensible base, and look at where they are today.

I'm glad Dean values what the angry segment has to say.

Anger has been the end of many a despotic regime. These who look down their nose at a little anger reveal more than they think.

Julie

[ultrafoil]

27. I see dumb people.

I really, really am not trolling, but this is important, your ideals are nice, and I'm sure you've worked for them, but if WE lose, all will be lost, America will be lost, and then what?

Pick up the pieces?

Again?

[ultrafoil]

20. Well said.

"Dean is a weak candidate whose campaign has been based on the anger of a segment of the population. When matched up shoulder to shoulder with Bush I do not see any particular reason why the majority of Americans will choose to vote for Dean rather than Bush."

>Anger

I do underestimate that anger, all, let's face it, anger is not attractive.

[killbotfactory]

28. What part of Dean's message is anger?

Wanting to reduce child abuse? Universal health insurance? Rebuilding our community? Balancing the budget? Wanting a foreign policy consistent with American values? Using trade as a tool to help raise the living conditions of other countries? Not being ashamed of holding democratic ideals?

Or is it just because he doesn't have the charisma of a ficus plant like most of our other candidates that he gets labelled as "all anger"?

[killbotfactory]

22. Why would people vote for Dean?

Balanced Budgets: People don't like politicians throwing their money away and running up massive defecits.

Health Care: It sucks in this country and Bush is incapable of doing any goddamned thing to help out.

Charisma: He sounds like a normal person, and doesn't try to sugar-coat every position he takes or shamelessly panders to people. He's not afraid to disagree with people to their face. Doesn't use polls to decide his positions. People respect that.

National Security: He's willing to point out that Bush is full of crap when it comes to the "war on terror" in Iraq. And was doing so when it wasn't "safe" to criticize our "popular wartime President".

Success by Six: Reducing child abuse dramatically through common sense policies like this one will be popular. Cheap, effective, and easy to do.

He also has a message of rebuilding our communities. It's not good enough to want success for yourself, you should want success for your neighbor, Tired of being divided, putting the power in the hands of regular people, etc. That's hope.

And if you are not angry about the direction of the country, then you have no business running for the democratic nomination.

[Eloriel]

36. Your analysis shows that you haven;'t gone any farther

than DLC talking points. Haven't even, apparently, bothered to look at his policies at all.

Those of you who fall prey to the know-nothing pundits' banterings are certainly going to be surprised.

Eloriel

[mikehiggins]

45. Not talking points, E.

I've been at this game for a long, long time and I know how hard it is to unseat an incumbent President, especially in wartime. Anger used to play well on the tube, but not in the voting booth.

If LBJ hadn't pulled out of the race he would likely have won again.

Nixon won twice, despite the national anger over VietNam.

Ronald Reagan was elected twice, and he was as pernicious a character as we have ever seen in this country.

Jimmy Carter would likely have been a two termer if he hadn't been such a downer, and if the Iran hostage fiasco hadn't discredited his administration.

George Bush lost but if Ross Perot hadn't run Popi would have garnered a second term easily.

Bill Clinton was hounded and pounded and chased all throughout his first term, and was reelected regardless. He only got a shot in the first place because most of the top Dems passed on the run, figuring Popi couldn't be beaten after winning the Gulf War.

And now Dubya. Once you step outside of the "base" that may yet give Dean the shot, things are entirely different.

Yes, he's a POS of the first water but when push comes to shove, and there is no third party insurgent drawing votes away from him, what is there about Dean that will get the actual voters to pull down the lever for him rather than the Action Figure in Charge?

Sure, we all know people who are disgusted and outraged and filled with righteous indignation. That's nice. We also know people who make us crazy because they buy Bush's bull or don't even know who's running against him in the first place.

Next November, we will all troop willingly into the booth and vote ABB but what about the rest of the country?

You seem to think that the Doctor is in. I think the General will carry the day. If you were to poll the general population as to that question, what would be the result?

I do not see anything in Dean so engaging that numbers of Repubs and indys will be anymore likely to vote for him that for Bush. I see Clark in a position to build on the ABB and yellow dog voters by giving the disgruntled conservatives and middle of the roaders the ability to vote for someone who stands for duty and service and values they treasure and support.

So, to me, Clark is more electable than any of the Democratic contenders.

And, to me, that is all that matters at the end of the day.

[mitchum]

46. A very wise and thoughtful analysis...

but don't expect the ahistorical contingent to be swayed by historical examples

[Hep]

12. Not about money or influence

I would have been satisfied had Dean taken the matching funds.

The thing is, winning an election is still about votes. The D candidate has the backing of the DLC, the DNC, and folks like moveon.org. And those folks can spend as much as they want. So the money thing can be worked out.

This is about votes. And I think most of the D candidates have what it takes to win this election. You know, it just can't get a whole lot worse than 2000, and now we have more people mobilized on behalf of ABB than we did in favor of Gore at his peak.

I'm a adamant Dean supporter, but I'll vote for any D, and most people here agree with the latter philosophy. We have to get out the vote no matter what. We can win this.

[tnlefty]

13. I'm no sage and I'm not certain of the discussion you're trying to start

I think that the spending gap that Clark has accepted may very well be a problem.

Three of my Bushbot relatives have expressed interest in Clark for the reasons that you mentioned and my mother has mentioned his economics background as well.

I try to loudly make the point that Dean's money is coming from folks like me and lots of us as opposed to a few, wealthy corporate a*^holes and I mention Kenny Boy as often as I can. I can only hope that anyone who is interested in Clark will remember this when he doesn't have the funds to run ads to counter the attacks from Bush*, Rove and crew.

I was talking to my Mom a few days ago and she mentioned Clark and I stated that I was glad to see that he had taken up for himself well during the MTP interview. I also mentioned the Russert quote that 'integrity is for paupers' along with reminding her of how the Bush*/Rove smear machine had made McCain out to be some sort of creature worse than Frankenstein prior to the SC primaries, and of the treatment of Max Cleland at the hands of this bunch. She seemed disgusted with those reminders.

If Clark is the nominee I'll vote for him even though I currently support Dean. In the meantime I try to be careful about what I say around folks who may be shopping for someone other than Smirk*.

[salin]

15. here, here.

Big picture thinking - esp on the last part. Bush voters who are growing uneasy... first need to mentally make the break to a candidate who is not bush and not a repub. Go with where their interests lie. If that candidate does not become the nominee - it is likely that the shift in party allegiance, has paved the way for the person to consider the nominee with a serious eye. Bad mouthing other dem candidates, to those who may just be contemplating moving away from bush - is, imo, counterproductive. Could just shove them back to bush.

[Scott Lee]

16. The differences are deeper than that.

Dean has garnered a reputation as one helluvah fundraiser and organizer, which is well deserved. But that does not define the man nor his run.

First and foremost I see Dean as fearless spoiler. He stands clearly as a man who wants to overturn the way things have been done in the Democratic Party, to redefine and affirm party core principles and most of all to stop apologizing for holding to them. He is, without a doubt, a revolutionary of a kind.

Clark has moxy, which I like (anyone who wants a primer on how to slam dunk the rightwing mediawhores needs to watch his dustup with that Fox news moron), but there are questions that always stand in the way of my support for him as the nominee.

He is a militarist. How will this bode in the future with the "war on terror"? Will he be quick to the gun, or will he be more restrained?

Where are his ideologies, really? I see in Clark a man who ran to catch the Democratic bus only as it was pulling away from the station. He has so far said alot of attractive things: pro marriage rights for gays, agressive on AIDS research and treatment, critical of the Iraq war, pro union, etc...but as I live and breathe I can't stand here and tell you that I'm entirely convinced of the sincerity of all these claims.

Mind you, I'm not calling Clark a liar. I think he's a good guy. But I have to get past these nagging sincerity issues with him. Dean, regardless of the flatulent carping on him by the usual suspects here on DU, never leaves me with the impression that he doesn't mean what he says. Bush-holes supporters always laud him as a man of conviction and "moral clarity". Dean has this plus the one thing that Bush is missing - brains and an intent much nearer to my priorities.

[ignatiusr]

21. Response to uneasiness

Scott, your questions are valid. But as far as the militarist problem, if you look at Clark's statements, I think he's tried to make it very clear that he is no way "trigger-happy." He has stated time and time again that the military should be our absolute last resort, and that we should begin a new sentiment in our foreign policy, one that focuses on dialogue and diplomacy rather than resorting to war. He's also suggested that defense spending is too high, and he wouldn't be afraid to cut it.

Also, about the "catching the Democratic bus" problem. I really don't think that's true, although I know a lot of people have been uneasy about it. People have gone over this many, many times, but the bottom line is, Clark has voted Democratic in the national election for over a decade. He voted for Gore in 2000, before he ever knew that he would be drawn into presidential politics. I'm very confident that he's a Democrat, presidential canidate or not.

[democratreformed]

23. In February of 2003, Clark said force should be used only as a last resort

Link: http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5632

Excerpts from speech before the CFR
"But most of the terrorists are not in those locations. They're mostly in countries that are allied with us and we're not going to drop bombs on those countries and we're not going to send in special forces, raiding teams. There it's a law enforcement problem and here's the great opportunity for us: why can't we take an institution like NATO and broaden it beyond its purely military functionality and let it help us harmonize the international war on terror? That means a common definition of what terrorism is. It means standardizing the elements of proof. It means agreeing on the rules of evidence and what it takes to prove the crime of terrorism."
SNIP

"Somehow, we have to make sure the right side of Islam comes out on top. We have a secret weapon in this country. We have the American Islamic community. And we should be empowering them and encouraging them to speak out. They're part of us. They came here because they wanted the same things in America that everybody wants. They came here for freedom, for equality, for opportunity, to have their children live in a better world and have a better life. We've got to help them as they speak out inside Islam. They are us."
SNIP

"And what are we talking about here? Number one, we're a country that doesn't draw sharp lines about who's with us and who's against us. We're a country that sought to enlarge the sphere of democracy and freedom. We support our allies. We reinforce those abroad who share our values. We're looking for friends out there because it makes every American safer at home and abroad when this country is respected"
SNIP

"And finally, we've got to understand that in America foreign policy, force is the last resort. Yes, you may have to use it. You may even have to use it preemptively. But the use of force is not the guiding principle of American foreign policy. Military might is not the guiding foreign policy principle. Our principle is that disputes and problems should be resolved peacefully if at all possible. If we take these three principles and put them together, we can use them to shape American foreign policy in the world. We can use them to address the crucial issues we're facing today in Iraq, in North Korea, in dealing with Al Qaeda. We can use them to make an American foreign policy and American strategy in a new century that makes all Americans safer at home and abroad. Thank you."

[CWebster]

26. really?

"We have a secret weapon in this country. We have the American Islamic community. And we should be empowering them and encouraging them to speak out."

So, what is Wesley's position on Israel? Ain't talking about it much, is he? Although apparently he did let the meme--"Israel has the right to defend itself", slip out. Do you suppose our friends in the Islamic community are paying attention?

[sangh0]

24. I could say the same about Bush*

Bush* has a well-deserved rep as a good fundraiser and organizaer. Bush is also a fearless spoiler (of our nation), and he clearly wants to overturn the way things have been done in the Democratic Party, and he wants to redefine and affirm his party's core principles and he's not about to apoligize for any of his positions. Bush* is also, without a doubt of anykind, a revolutionary.

[Scott Lee]

41. Read the top of the thread, and try your post again.

.

[darkstar]

29. One of the dicotomies I see

are the good cop/bad cop tags that are attaching to these two candidates. (Dean fans, don't despair; I mean that as a metphor for impassioned vs gentle demanors, anger vs patriotism, etc. that we expressed every day here on this site.)

The thing is that unlike specific policy stakeouts, these emotional identifiers are not either/or propositions.

Let's say a sister/brother dies in work negligence accident. You can feel grief, anger, duty to right the wrong (patriotism), compassion for your neice and nephwew, etc. all at the same time.

In the "liberals are angry thread" someone wrote, roughly, that "you don't pull your punhces in a fight. A couple of things: 1) That is true; but 2) You want to have more than one punch in your arsenal; and 3) We are in a schoolyard fight, yes, but the nation is gathered round watching, i.e we are fighting for votes avery bit as much as we are against BushCo.

I would suggest that candidates not allow themselves to be pigeonholed by the media and cetainly not reinforce these feeling tones once popularly identified. As per the thread--i.e., confined to Clark and Dean--Dean could readily keep his firebrand image but at the same time display, say, grief for what the country has become and Clark could add a little bit of fire and brimstone to the patriotic gentleman image.

IMHO, it whould happen now, before these stereotypes have the chance to further "set" in the public mind.

Just my inlation adjusted 2 cents worth....

[democratreformed]

31. Very good analysis

without making judgements, IMO.

[Think Globally]

30. Why would people vote for Clark...

...With Dubya on the ballot?

Seriously, when I look at Clark, I don't get it. Military experience at that level will only appeal to Bush voters. Generals are used to giving orders and they make poor presidents. He's on record supporting Bush and Republicans only a couple years ago. I'm not impressed by his record and on the issues I don't see any meaningful difference from Dub. He 's just running against Dub but after the election, then what? I don't care what letter is next to his name. No way could I sell out my principles to vote for him. At least with Dub people see REPUBLICANS ruining the country.

I'm not excited about "Buckshot" Dean and his NRA membership card, but at least he sort of presents something different to vote for. He has some good ideas and at least it's a start. Maybe we could put some NRA money to work on our side for a change.

The fact that Dennis Kucinich isn't even suggested in this discussion speaks volumes. Honestly, give me something to vote FOR! Party identity is important! The last elections have had Democrats staying home in record numbers. Why? Because the Democratic Party hasn't put up anyone who reflects their values! It's the same tired old insiders year after year. Nominate someone who stands for what people really believe, and they'll come out and send Dub back to Texas.

[Justice]

33. Lots of People Would Vote For Clark

seriously, why don't you read about Clark and his positions first before you post. If you don't see any meaningful difference from Dubya, then obviously you haven't taken ANY time to hear what Clark has to say.

[HoosierClarkie]

34. Practice saying your name think globally. n/t

[Walt Starr]

35. I only hold one thing against Clark

He wants to ship my job to India, at least he said so in so many words.

If not for that statement, he would be my number one choice today. Because of that, I have to go with Dean, at least for now. He may piss me off more than Clark tonight since he's on Tweety's show.

[Justice]

37. Not What Clark Said Exactly

That is what happens when people only hear sound bites.

Clark recognized that software jobs were already in India -- the trend, the rush, the fact has already occurred.

Clark was recognizing that now that the cat is out of the bag, we (Americans) need to develop new technologies in America - focus on the next big thing. He is not leaving you out of that

Clark also said that he would put in place incentives to keep jobs in America -- tax incentives. So maybe the tax incentives will bring some software jobs back -- maybe the tax incentives will keep jobs from the new technologies here.

Look, jobs went to India not because of the cost but because of time -- in the Internet boom - companies wanted to develop 24/7 - when the bust happened, people realized India was cheaper.

Dean is not guaranteeing you anything on jobs - software or otherwise. At least Clark has some ideas on the issue and is honest about it.

[Eloriel]

38. I don't think Clark had any idea what decimation of the

middle class that little remark involved. I've personally been hysterical about the IT job hemoragghing to India. Clark has no clue.

Eloriel

[Myra]

39. Money is undeniability of huge importance but also a mental trap

A wise DU'er (wish I could recall who) warned
not to habitually link most money raised with "winner."

You're right that it's starry eyed not to think it matters.
But if that's the sole criteria, then Bush is unbeatable.
Period. And the Pugs will always be unbeatable. Period.

[creativelcro]

42. it's a trap when you sell your soul to get it

otherwise it's a necessary tool...

[mmonk]

40. That would be interesting

because Dean used to be high on my like list. That is until all the attacks from Dean people on the board. It's starting to make me negative about him. Civil discourse would work in Dean's favor from my standpoint as a Clark supporter. However, we'll see.