Why Clark bothers me. (Not a flame)

[Armstead]

I have tried to give Wesley Clark a chance, and I like him better than I used to. On Hardball and a few other venues, he allowed more of his personal side come out, and he's obviously a very decent guy, engaging, has a sene of humor but is also tough as nails and a quiet fighter.

I also see the potential advantages to an ex-military guy who is not a knee-jerk hawk running against Bush.

And if he is the nominee, I will support him without any qualms, as he is light-years better than Bush.

So why can't I get more enthusiastic about him? Because despite the attractive packaging, I think on economic issues, he's another centrist corporate Democrat of the kind that has made the Democratic Party irrelevant.

His answer to the disasters of our free trade policies, for example? More of those empty platitudes about the need for "training" and new industries to replace those outmoded old manufacturing jobs.

We need someone who will stand up to the Corporate Government we now have and tell the trusth about it. The status quo is not working for people, and it is stealing our democracy. That isn't "left right." That is simply reality.

IMO, Kucinich and Sharpton are the only ones who are REALLY telling the truth, and offering real answers to the mess we're in. Mosley Braun is doing it too in sime respects, especially on health care. But alas, in the real world, none of them has a chance.

In my view, Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman are only acknowledging the fringes of our problems as lip service. Gephardt gets it more, but he is politics as usual. I can happily support any of them as the nominee, on the ABB theory.

In the battle of the remaining two "outsiders," Clark and Dean, I get more of a sense that Dean understands what's going on. Dean is -- I realize -- is ultimately as moderate and centrist as the rest of them. But at least he understands the feelings of many -- from moderates to more liberal and progressive types -- that the issue of Corporate Power really is problem that must be addressed. And he has tapped into that grass roots anger at the status quo to become a major candidate despite everything that has been thrown against him.

I realize Dean's stump phrase "You've got the power" is a poiltical phrase. But in this case, that really is what his campaign is about.

Clark, on the otehr hand, seems to be supportive of the status quo economically and structurally. And the status quo is the problem.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Clark is Cool

Props for at least giving him a chance. I'd say go to a town hall meeting when you get time. Oh and read his book. Also, you'll have to admit when it comes to foreign policy, no other democrat (or republican) is qualified to hold his jock. On the domestic front, he has a masters in economics so the tools are all there - if he has to cram to bring himself up to speed, he will. But he does have your best interests in mind. Peace.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Masters in economics? So what!

Milton Friedman holds a PhD in Economics, but he is one of the LAST people I would want dictating the general direction of economic policy. Ditto for Stanley Fischer (former #2 at the IMF).

Just because he holds an economics degree doesn't mean he necessarily understands the impact of market fundamentalism on the plight of workers and the economic well-being of the nation as a whole. Judging by his amorphous responses when questioned about "free trade", I'm not overly encouraged that he grasps those issues.

And the fact that he has Bob Rubin as his top economic advisor just sends chills down my spine, to be quite honest. Rubin's a disaster whose primary and only motivation for anything he proposes is to boost the financial community -- no matter the consequences, long-term, to anyone else.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I hate to say this...

but I will anyway.

The masters in economics means little. Remember Gramm, the whore of the banking industry who assisted in the S&L takedown? He had a PhD in economics.

On the other hand, I think Clark does have a good handle on the reality of international economic issues, and can easily get up to speed on domestic ones.

Campaign rhetoric never impresses me. I just assume the "policy positions" and promises are simply sales pitches, and none of them could get all of their programs through even if they tried.

I'm more interested in what drives them toward those positions, and Clark seems to have a handle on where the economy needs to be strengthened, and which trade issues are the important ones.

[mmonk]

2. not quite for the status quo

but thanks for giving him a chance. If you get a chance, go to his website and download the pdf files he has on economic issues to see what you think.

[Code_Name_D]

22. I have seen these files

The stratigies he posts are based on dated and flawd consepts of economics. He is a supply sider, and his idea of helping the man out of work, is to give the emplyeree a subsidy.

[mmonk]

32. If he were a supply sider

he'd have no problem with current policy which he most certainly does. He would not be for a progressive tax system (which he is) if he were a supply sider. He is against all the tax breaks for corporations that take their jobs overseas. He is for tough environmental regulations which supply siders are not for. Can you read well?

[HuckleB]

3. Why "Why Candidate X bothers me" or "Why I wont vote for X" threads

drive me nuts!

Mostly because they say very little that can't be said of every candidate, and secondly because they're so redundant, and thirdly because all we're doing now is beating ourselves up. Bush will have to do nothing to our nominee but blow and he'll fall over after the beating he has gotten from his fellow Dems.

There is another way of discussion. I've seen it. It's been a while, but I have seen it.

[Armstead]

5. That's what I'm trying to do here

Maybe "bother" was the wrong choice of words for the headline. The post was not intended to "bash" Clark, as I also tried to make clear in the headline.

Overall I was simply trying to explain my views, in a reasonable and balanced manner.

[Myra]

6. And they're generally stealth flames.

While assuring us they're not flames.
No, they're just politely tearing down one candidate
and building up another.

[HuckleB]

9. Yup.

You're on the money there.

[Cha]

24. I've seen flames on DU and that ain't

no flame. Since when does a genuine concern = ?

Since no one can take an itty bitty criticism...that's when.

[Armstead]

13. I don't do stealth flames

If I'm gonna flame, I flame openly (but I attempt to be polite too).

[kentuck]

4. He's a "cookie cutter' copy of Clinton on economic issues....

in my opinion..

[TrueAmerican]

7. Great, a Booming Economy

A surplus. Unemployment low. ETC.

[IrateCitizen]

10. If you can create another technologically-driven bubble, yes.

But the chances of that re-occurring are slim and none.

[BootinUp]

14. Chances will be be better with the right plan

Do you mean in the next year, 4 years, 10 years? If our chances of being the world's technological leader are slim to none then what country should I be preparing to move to?

We need to invest in technology as a matter of policy to stay make sure we stay on the leading edge. At the same time we need to have incentives to keep jobs here.

The democratic party was never the protectionist trade party as far as I know. There needs to be the proper balance and I always thought that was where Clinton's administration did such a good job.

[IrateCitizen]

15. There's a huge difference between investing and a bubble

What really drove the surpluses of the Clinton years was the bubble. Toward the end, that bubble finally started to spill over in gains in wages for the first time in many years.

That's not to bash some of the Clinton policies, because there were several good ones. But its unrelenting promotion of "free trade" at the expense of workers livelihoods of the environment -- along with its championing of financial liberalization at the behest of Bob Rubin as Treasury Secretary, were all big mistakes, IMHO. They were indicative of a group of people that were just too caught up in the excitement of a speculative stock market boom to realize that some of their policies would turn out to be disastrous in the long run.

Don't know about you, but I wouldn't care to repeat that.

[Armstead]

19. Clinton was a disaster regarding trade

That was his achilles heel, IMO.

The "free trade" policies he and otehr centrists have pushed is nothing but the domestic conservative Republican agenda expanded into international terms.

We can't compete with countries like China or India or Korea or poor deeloping nations on those terms. We need to be more aggressive about asserting our interests, and also making sure that international trade benefits the populations of otehr nations too.

The neo-liberal corporate "free trade" agenda is the wrong direction for that.

[KoKo]

35. The cheap Chinese goods started flowing under Poppy, and they gushed

during Clinton. As our wages went down, we could buy more. And we've bought and bought and bought. Our credit cards are to the max. It was all so "inexpensive," why not.

Many here don't remember how expensive clothing and gift items were when they were "Made in America." We had less clothes and doo dads because they cost more. Now with a nicely made $5.00 Sweatshirt and $10.00 jeans from Target or Walmart we can go EVERYWHERE! There's so much we can buy and it's all so cheap. We need to build a "mini-mansion" just to hold all that cheap stuff we've bought! But, hey, interest rates are low. And, if I can't do the "mini-mansion" because of my debt, then I can at least "re-finance" my appreciated value in my old house to pay my credit card once in awhile.

Also, do any of you know we don't make furniture in NC, anymore? We IMPORT IT! From China. A whole industry just gone. I live in NC so I know about this.

[Armstead]

11. In my opinion too

"Clintonomics" depended for their political success on the force of personality of Clinton.

Obviously it was more fiscally responsible, and brought economic growth in the 90's.

But it assumes the same basic fallacy that GOP corporate conservatism does. That "economic growth" by the traditional measurements is automatically beneficial.

But that is a disaster if the actual benefits of it are concentrated at the top. And when it ignores the larger systemic problems going on below the facade of "booms" and recessions.

Those underlying problems are what we have to address. "More training" and "new industries" may be a part of the solutions, but they are spitting in the wind if the bigger issues of Wealth and Power are not taken on.

[KoKo]

16. I agree with you on this. I think what many here don't see about Dean is

the anger towards the Democratic Party in general for offering platitudes about our economy. "A Chicken in Every Pot" isn't going to work with those of us who see the Corporate Cronyism, the Enrons, the Mutual Funds, Hedge Funds, Off Shore tax Havens, the De-Regulation of everything which needs Government Oversite to prevent the abuse of the Powerful over those whom they serve.

Gore is supporting Dean in his effort to "Re-Make the Democratic Party."
That's a quote from Gore's speech in support of Dean. Re-Make the Democratic Party. That's what Dean has tapped into.

Many also forget that Dean realizes Florida was a "Selection." Kucinich gets it, but just hasn't been able to get over whatever it is people think a President should look like.

Dean's appeal is the "Governor." With the disilussionment of many of us with how our Congress has acted, it's hard for some of us to not to want someone outside the Beltway mentality. I felt that about Carter, unfortunately he was trashed from the minute he came into office like Clinton. Still, we need those "outside the Beltway" candidates to come in and clean out things every once in awhile. There's more to clean out every time, but I would trust Dean to at least recognize the anger of us "shut out Democrats" over Clark (who does seem a decent, caring man) but whose whole experience has been with the military and not with domestic problems.

I want the issue of Corporate Crime and De-regulation Addressed. It's the most serious it's been since America's "Gilded Age." Our country cries out for this to be addressed. I think Dean has the best chance of attempting this. And, those who think that the "War Resolution" is the only reason some here support Dean, just don't "get it." It's the whole package.

[billbuckhead]

18. dEAN'S GOVERNOR OF A COUNTY

Vermont only has 610,000 almost all white people.

[HuckleB]

20. So?

Sorry, but that's just a goofy, "I'll say anything to bash Dean," type of statement. It's got no substance.

[Cha]

28. Vermont is Not a "county"...but I'm sure the

People of The Great State of Vermont could tell you that.

[PVnRT]

29. So obviously Dean's a racist

:eyes: Do you ever have anything to add, or just random one-line, baseless attacks?

[KoKo]

30. Ummmm, he grew up on Long Island, NY. That's hardly "under a potato

truck."

[Armstead]

21. I agree with you KoKo

You said that really well.

[CWebster]

17. Everyday I post this

"The retired Army general, in the harshest assessment of a rival to date, said Dean's plan to re-regulate U.S. businesses is a major departure from Clinton, who strongly backed deregulation of energy and telecommunications markets.

"The results in the '90s spoke for themselves," Clark said at a brief news conference in which he referred to Clinton by name six times. "Regulation is not going to get our economy moving again. It failed in the past, it will fail again."

Dean, the former Vermont governor, said Tuesday that if elected president, he would move to re-regulate business sectors such as utilities and media companies to restore faith after corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.

Responding to Clark's criticism, Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright said Wednesday, "Under the Bush administration, the balance of power has shifted against the American people and toward greedy pharmaceutical companies, powerful energy corporations and media monopolies. If Democrats are not concerned with protecting consumers, workers and the average American, then they are truly out of touch."

Dean staked out a traditional Democratic position that was largely abandoned by Clinton and the new Democrats, who tried to build a coalition of labor and business in the 1990s. While appealing to the liberal base that he energized with his war opposition and support for civil unions for gays, Dean opened himself to criticism of class warfare from Republican and Democratic rivals.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-11-19-clark-dean_x.htm

And everyday the eyes glaze over more.

[IrateCitizen]

23. The important thing is that it's a POLICY issue first

Thanks for posting it. And I am one of those who thinks that the deregulation of the 1990's was a complete and utter DISASTER -- at least for everyone except the corporate fat cats who made out like bandits.

It was done with no sort of plan, no sort of control -- it was more like a third-world asset auction than anything else. The results have been quite predictable -- and here Clark is saying that it's a SUCCESS STORY?

Does not compute. Does not compute.

[Cha]

26. Good to know.

[KoKo]

31. CWebster, thank you for re-posting. That's the difference. Plain as day!

That's the split. It's not just about the IWR vote. It's about the "foundations" of our parties.

[Eloriel]

37. Thanks for posting it again -- I hadn't seen it.

And MY eyes didn't glaze over. ;-)

[Jerseycoa]

25. POOP

[Bread and Circus]

27. Well thought out post

[Eloriel]

33. Dean's stump phrase is

something he means emphatically. It's not just a slogan -- it's about getting people involved and participating in THEIR govt again. He understands very well that without the participation (not just support) of all those who are involved in his campaign, he'd be nowhere. He understnads very well that having people involved again (participants, not consumers) is essential to all we hold dear, and to taking back the country ftom special interests, thugs and fascists.

Absolutely NOT empty rhetoric.

"As Howard Dean has said, no one will change America for you; the power to change our country rests in your hands."

[KoKo]

40. NPR interviewed the NC blogger who runs Dean's blog and the former

lawyer who set up the website for the blog. I didn't get their names because I was on the road and just heard snips.

However the discussion was about empowering people locally to band together for political cause (in this case Dean and why he was successful at it) and how money and networking for the first time could be done without a structure i.e. "Party Insider Structure."

That's what Dean's supporters have done. They've bypassed "THE MACHINE." That's what makes the Roves nervous. This "New Structure" could "outfox the fox."

The show is repeated tonight at 8:00 p.m. est, for those who are interested. I think this is what's important about Dean for those of us who feel our Dem Party left us for "roadkill" in Florida in 2000.

[Walt Starr]

34. Poop

:hurts:

[Armstead]

36. Poop twice?

Walt you need to be more original

[KoKo]

38. Walt! Have you lost your mind? Is this a new campaign? POOP?

:crazy:

[KoKo]

39. Kick because this interesting, reasoned post doesn't deserve to POOP OUT!

:kick:

[John_H]

41. I agree he should move left on economic issues but if you look at Deans

record, not his rhetoric, you'll see he's every bit as "moderate" as Clark.

In fact the reason I switched is that Dean abandoned his record to win the nomination, which makes him unelectable in the General.

Clatk, on the other hand, has the national seciroty status to kill bush. If he reuns left on the economy he'll energize the base. Talk about the perfect candidate.