A Clark Supporter's Thoughts on Dean

[WillyBrandt]

Hi. I'm WillyBrandt. You might know me from such posts as "The Wesley Clark Word of the Day," and numerous other messages supporting Clark.

I just wanted to share some thoughts on Dean I've had. I don't think he's our best candidate; I think Wes Clark is. But he is a very good one, and I have no doubt that he would make a superb President. My only worry is that phantom word, "electability."

The question for me is, if Dean is elected, which political reality will prevail in the 2004 elections?

There is the one that we're all familiar with. The one of empty atmopsherics, where issues are on page A14, and sex scandals are above the fold. The one where Bush repeats "terra" incessantly. The one where we have a lapdog press, a spinless opposition party, a relentlessly ideological GOP (that silences its own moderates), etc, etc. You know the routine. I'm deeply afraid that if Dean's campaign for the presidency is played within this sorry realm, that he will have problems transcending the smears to make clear the facts, and will have a press that cares more about political gossip than the reality of politics on the lives of people. This game is rigged against us: not only is there a right-wing bias in the media, and a right wing infrastructure devoted to destroying us; but the very nature of the playing field is stacked against intelligent discourse. Do you remember in 1992 when we had a semi-smart national conversation about Health Care, about whether single payer was better than a more GOP-market-oriented approach (remember when Bush I had to pretend to support something like universal health care!?) Can you imagine anything like that occuring today? It's all a game show. It's reality TV with real consequences. It's a joke to the whores, but it's blood to the nation and the world.

Can Dean win on this field? I deeply doubt it. And I suspect many Dean supporters do, too.

But there is another political field, one which Dean (and Joe Trippi), have played a huge part in bringing about. This is the world of MeetUps, of MoveOn, of the huge network of blogs that are pro-Dean and pro-Clark, of the rabid partisans (such as myself) who post on DU. This is the field of Democratic rejuvination, of beating the media by both bypassing and becoming the media. This is not the world of hackish political consultants: it's a building again of progressive politics, not only to match what the GOP already has (think tanks, talk radio), but to build what they don't have (MeetUps, MoveOn, etc.). This is, I am absolutely certain, the future of our party. Coupled with Demographic trends in our favor, what Dean, MoveOn, and to a lesser extent the Clark Draft and campaign, have wrought, we're laying the groundwork for a new Democratic majority. And, more importantly, we're creating the germ of a new progressive movement, analogous to that in the teens 20s and the New Deal in the 30s.

Dean, more than any other candidate, understands that this is the future of our politics. It is on this field that he can beat Bush: by having more manpower, enthusiasm, and possibly even money than the chimp. When people on the ground are discussing issues, atmospherics and whorishness lose their former force.

But--and here is my worry--which political reality will prevail in 2004? We're not deaing with Dole, we're dealing with Dubya, a horrible right wing radical who is destroying our nation. I'm worried that the long term gains that Dean and others are ushering in won't be here in time to the extend we need to beat Bush in 2004. With this nut in power, there's no sense is losing now to win later (To twist Keynes: In the Short Run, We're all Dead.)

My feeling is that this new progressivism is still in its infancy, and won't be enough to stop the mature Right-Wing nut movement in 2004. In 2008 maybe. In 2006 congressional races maybe. But unfortunately, we've got to play a rigged game in 2004 to win, before we can actually change the rules ourselves.

That's why I think Clark/Dean is the perfect ticket. Clark can beat the GOP at their own game, while Dean can change the game altogether (in preparation for 2012, and for midterm matches along the way... there are also lots of other worthy facets to the ticket I won't go into...)

If Dean defeats Clark in the primaries, I hope to high hell I'm wrong. I hope that not only will Dean do better in the whorish current game than I expect; I hope, too, that the new progressivism will grow up and grow strong in time to beat Bush.

If that comes to pass, then every time I see a Dean supporter saying "I told you so," I'll give them a hug.

P.S. I suspect that BartCop, MediaWhoresOnline.com, and other virulently anti-Bush sites support Clark partly for reasons as the above. They want Bush out more than anything, and Clark is not only an excellent candidate for this election, he's an excellent replacement.

[Padraig18]

1. One of Dean's major strengths has been..

... his refusal to let his opponents 'make the rules', or 'define' him. I have no doubt that he will continue this same strategy, if nominated.

good post. :hi:

[WillyBrandt]

2. That's where I have my hope for Dean

I'm just worried that it won't work in the propagandistic 2004 General Election, where people aren't as politically aware as they are in the primaries.

[Padraig18]

3. It may not work.

But I have a true hope that it will. :)

[WillyBrandt]

4. Here's for hoping!

I tell you, the best thing about Dean as President would be how much vituperation would come from the Right. With Clark, I think they'd be a bit speechless--what would they say?--but with Dean, they'd have veins bursting...

[Padraig18]

6. Yeah. LOL!

And he'd give back as good as he got, which I would find SOOOOO refreshing, after years of 'we surrender' Democrats! :)

[WillyBrandt]

8. Yes, that's another thing

Dean would trash talk on the Republicans every second of every day. Like Truman.

[Padraig18]

11. "I don't give them hell, ...

... I just tell the truth about them, and they THINK it's hell!"

:dem:

[neverforget]

50. Hope is not a plan. We need more than hope to beat the Bushistas.

[KaraokeKarlton]

15. Dean makes people aware by doing things like this:

www.bushtax.com

[WillyBrandt]

16. Is that enough?

Really, is that enough? Most people are politically apathetic, going of the vaguest of feelings and inputs.

[KaraokeKarlton]

28. That's only one example

If Dean gets the nomination it's going to be a landslide, but it will be a landslide WIN for Dean. As soon as the general election begins, more people will be paying attention. This man has the ability to show people the connection between what Bush is doing and how it affects them directly in a very bad way. He does this in a way they not only can understand but in a way they can't miss. He'll continue to campaign the same way he has for the primaries...visiting several states most days speaking to people, answering questions and getting his message out. His style is not boring, dull and sleep inducing. He makes it interesting and he's very easy to listen to. He's far more dynamic than Bush could ever be. He will devastate Bush if he is the nominee. I have never been more certain of anything in my life. I am a swing voter, by the way. Dean will speak to the people who are apolitical and set a fire under their butts to get them out to vote against Bush.

[WillyBrandt]

29. Can his message make it through to the political sleepwalkers

who constitute 75+% of the electorate, each of whom pay about 10 seconds actually thinking about what is going on with the nation?

I'm worried that it's still all an image and atmospherics game in 2004, and Clark can win that cheap game more readily.

Again, I hope you're right.

[KaraokeKarlton]

35. Absolutely, and I think he's probably the only one who can

He's already doing this, actually. This is where his style really makes a difference. You can't stop listening to him talk once you start listening. I saw this with my own toddler. She has no interest in politics, obviously. But when I tune in to Dean speaking while she's in the room, she immediately stops what she's doing and watches/listens to him. If he can have that effect on a 3 year old just imagine how much of an impact he can have on people who actually understand what he's saying.

[w13rd0]

38. Yes...

...I've met quite a few sleepwalkers who notice my Dean buttons. They don't really follow politics, but they've seen enough to say, "That guy has some energetic people behind him, people I like, thus..."

[thinkahead]

52. One thing is to not worry

so much about what you see on the TV. These folks never get it right. Ever. They are highly paid to speculate before a national audience, and I can barely point to a single one of them being right on the money.

The Dean campaign and yes, to a lesser extent now the Clark campaign are the only ones using the new medium of the internet to it's full potential. And as outsiders, they are the only ones with the ability to do so. As Frank Rick pointed out in his New York Times Article today, more people use Napster than voted in the last election.

There are a great deal of unknowns out there - and I think this is one of the main fears people have of the Dean campaign... they just don't understand it - and therefore see it as a threat.

Howard Dean can and will be a great President. We are building a new Party - I do wish we could do it together rather than so fitfully, but we are kidding ourselves if we don't think it needs to be done. There is absoultely no reason the Clinton/Clark - Dean/Gore camps can't come together and take back the country from Dubya. We cannot be afraid to take the fight to them - but especially, we cannot be afraid of our own grassroots strength.

[WillyBrandt]

54. One thing...

I don't give a shit about pundit predictions. They're idiots: that's not spooking me out.

I'm worried about whether Dean will be Gored (in a bad way, not endorsement wise!)

But you're right--that's the thing with the Dean campaign. I don't know where it will go. I could see it as a brilliant victory or a brilliant failure. (To use GOP analogies, think Reagan versus Goldwater. The latter had a long, last impact that helped conservatives.)

Like I said, I'm just not sure how this will play out. I'm a Clark partisan, and so think he's the better candidate and all that, but I will say one thing: If Dean does get the nod, I'll make sure to work that my worries do not come true.

[KittyWampus]

14. But Dean Has No ONE Definition

Dean's Record as Govenor was Right of Center. He was DLC and I can't recall that he's renounced his DLC membership nor his participation in moving the Country to the Right.

Dean's Rhetoric as Candidate is soemwhat Left of Center.

Dean's actual Policies are Centrist

Dean moved to the Left on a host of Issues upon entering the race.

So does having these three "Dean Realities" help or hurt in the Primary and more importantly in the General?

Just because someone taps into the Internet Potential in running for office doesn't mean ANYTHING about how they will govern. The US will NOT be run by Direct Democracy. We are a Republic.

And pandering to the Disgruntled Progressive Constituency doesn't mean that a candidate will continue to pander to them once elected.

[Scott Lee]

75. Now tell me again how its a BAD thing to change your mind?

You accuse Dean of membership in the DLC, then of governing from the center, then of moving to the left to run for president.

What exactly is the problem in any of that?

You show me someone who's never changed their views and behavior based upon growth or new information, and I'll show you someone either dead, braindead (conservative) or a cardboard cutout. It is continuously amusing to me to watch the histrionics of the Dean opponents, trying to upbraid Dean for *gasp* changing....on ANYTHING.

Newsflash: The ability to grow and change is the essence of liberalism. Don't you know that?

[dobak]

65. Unfortunately, the media has defined him and the rules are already set...

For millions of Americans, Dean is a liberal. For those millions, enough said.

I agree with this thread 100%. Dean is a great man who has brought a lot of enthusiasm and has developed a new way to play politics.

I just don't think it is ready to change things within the next couple years. This is a movement in it's infancy.

If Dean does win the nomination, but loses the election (I think he could win the election), then this new way of politics will possibly die with him. Politicians will think it failed and may go back to the old way, which happens to be stacked against us.

[VolcanoJen]

5. That was an excellent post, WillyBrandt.

It's refreshing to see intelligent debate, and an abscence of provocative name-calling and what-not, in terms of the Clark-Dean headbutting.

Your post was thoughfully written, and it also happens to be one I'm entirely in agreement with.

Thanks for that. :-)

- Jennifer

[robbedvoter]

7. First of all, I agree with Clark that the VP on the ballot is not that

important for electability.
Secondly, when asked what he was looking in a VP. Clark said "a man" "A woman" - his wife interjected - " a man or a woman who puts service to the country above personal interests.
From this point on, I cannot say anything positive so, I'll stop.

[jsouza]

30. Clark is dead on arrival, sorry to say

Because of all the videotaped speeches he gave praising the Bush administration. He praised W, Powell, Rice, Rummy, et al. About the only one he didn't heap the praise on was Rove!

I saw multiple examples of this on Meet the Press.

Can you imagine the general election with Clark on the ticket in VP or Pres? We'd see $250 million in TV ads showing Clark endorsing Bush! Clark has slit his own throat. He CAN'T be the nominee.

[WillyBrandt]

31. That's just the point: that's the best they can do

And guess what, that reflects most people's opinions. "We thought they'd be OK, but then something bad happened..."

This is a pretty weak smear as far as these things. The least of our worries.

Dead on Arrival? That makes no sense to me. Did you think about what you're saying? Have you considered the counterfactual--all the Dean smear pieces Bush will air?

[jsouza]

32. No, this is

This is really serious. You won't find any of the other candidates - even Lieberman - giving ringing endorsements of Shrub et al like Clark has.

It's a HUGE issue. He can't say "I was wrong" "I was duped" enough times to counter the visual impact of his videotaped public statements.

C'mon - this guy is a non-starter as a result. It's a fact of life. A child could discredit Clark nationally after providing that much ammunition to the GOP...

[MoonRiver]

47. He can say HE CHANGED HIS MIND

when he saw how radical, farrightwing, and vile this administration is. Someone who turns from one ideology to another is usually a truer believer than those who are long term members of a party. Clark has total credibility, imo. Republicans voters with serious doubts about shrub will embrace Clark and say 'if the General can vote Dem so can I'. Democrats will know he's the real thing cause he defied the rightwing powers that be and got shafted (look at what happened to him when he refused to accept genocide in Bosnia/Kosovo). Clark has always put public service above personal gain. He was drafted into running for president despite the fact that his wife had huge reservations, and he was well on the way to become a very wealthy man. This has been a pattern throughout his life, and I deeply respect him for it.

[Scott Lee]

76. Yes, he can. Will he?

That will determine largely how much of a "liberal" he actually is.

[5thGenDemocrat]

60. Baloney

My dad was a Republican and he would've voted for Clark over Bush. Maybe 30 percent of the voting public are Republicans and another 30 percent are Democrats. The rest are independent. Clark's voting record will echo a lot of their own.
We might care (or we might not) about that at DU (welcome, BTW). The big world out there doesn't.
John
This is a small pond here (what -- 36,000 posters ever?). I try not to extrapolate a big picture from it.

[ferg]

9. Great post.

You've hit the main issue of the election on the head.

I disagree the Clark would be any better than Dean if the Heathers (the Republican press) takes control again.

If the Heathers are in charge, then it doesn't matter who we've got as a candidate. The Republican press will roll over the candidate.

Both Dean and Clark have been about equally effective fighting the Heathers on their own turf.

But Dean/Trippi also have the grassroots and Clark doesn't have nearly their mastery of it. The response of the Deanies to the attacks is freaking out the media and the GOP. Where Dean has an advantage is framing the debate to his own advantage.

[WillyBrandt]

13. Yes, but Clark's persona exposes so much of the GOP fraud

I don't deny Dean's fighting spirit--It's one of the things I would count on.

But electability really isn't a phantom. Its meaning varies, but Clark is (I'll say it again), a Southern Four-Star General, the Supreme Allied Commander, who voted GOP many years ago, but has been a loyal Democrat for at least 15 years. Whoa, mamma!

Media whorishness hasn't been sufficient to fully cloud the clusterfuck in Iraq. Facts sometimes come through.

Clark's advantage is that he makes such an obvious lie to GOP claims. I'm just worried Dean is easier to caricature.

Wait: Is that the plane that this election will be fought? Which candidate the whores will find easiest to mock?

Yes. Unfortunately.

[ferg]

53. The Heathers would crucify Clark's persona

It's not enough to say: look at Clark! He's a Southern Four-Star General! He's invulnerable! That's Maginot Line thinking.

Look at what they did to Cleland (of course, Dibold might have helped there.) Also look at what they did to Gore. Gore is a freaking boy scout and the Heathers' story was Gore is a liar. So Clark's persona isn't going to protect him.

That's not an argument against Clark. It's just that "Southern Four-Star General" is not a campaign.

The main advantage of Clark isn't his background, it's the fact that he's not afraid to confront the media whores and their Republican masters. That sets him apart from Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards.

Of the "serious" candidates, only Clark and Dean fight back. Only those two understand what's going on politically. That fighting back is why Clark's a decent candidate, not his magic shield.

[FubarFly]

18. We didn't lose because of the Heathers

we lost because we mishandled the fight in Florida.

People keep forgetting that even with the extreme media skewering, Gore won the popular vote.

[WillyBrandt]

20. There are a lot of reasons we lost

(1) The heathers. (Go to dailyhowler.com for your daily antitode)
(2) The hateful, anti-progressive, conceited Green Party
(3) Mishandled Florida
(4) Scrubbed voter rolls
(5) Joe Lieberman sucked
(6) GOP rank dishonesty
.
.
.
and many more

[FubarFly]

22. It's true.

But the point remains, Bush, despite media assertions to the contrary, was never the popular choice. He still isn't. I think a lot of Democrats have been adversely affected by the propaganda and the hype. This is why we need a candidate who can energize the Democratic voting majority. I believe several of our candidates can do this- including Clark.

[ferg]

55. we've lost more than Florida because of the Heathers

Not just the Florida recount, but also the Patriot act, Bush's tax cut for the rich, the damn Iraq war, the Enron/Cheney screwing of California, the damn medicare battle.

During the 2000 election, Gore assumed the media was reasonably fair, and after the conventions, they would stop the silly games and report honestly and accurately. I don't know when he (and we) realized how corrupt they had become, but it was so late in the campaign that it would have been hard to correct for it.

Many elected Democrats are still suckered by the corrupt media. (Feinstein comes to mind.)

Gore, Dean, and Clark now understand what's going on. DU, the Howler, MWO, Atrios, and the other liberal sites know what's goin on. (Kerry, Gephardt, the DLC, Feinstein, etc are still clueless.)

That knowledge makes 2004 a very different campaign from 2000. Before 2000, you could reasonably believe the media would be relatively fair in its coverage. Hindsight is 20/20. Now we know that the media is utterly corrupt and they will attack any Democratic candidate using whatever lies work in their focus groups.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I think that many have come to the conclusion

that Clark has the best chance against Bush....not Dean.

Remind you that billionaire George Soros is saying Clark as well...Which means that Soros influence is about to be felt.

Same with Hillary Clinton and her Foreign policy speech...I believe there was a big hint there.

We will soon see much more clearly what's in the cards for Democrats...and I hope it will be good Clark and the American people news.

OBJECTS ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR

[Padraig18]

12. Soros has said no such thing.

That's simply specualtion on your part.

[KittyWampus]

17. Agreed. The Heritage Rag Put Out That Rumor Re: Soros/Clark

I don't know if Soros will out and out "endorse" one candidate.

My thoughts is that he will support the Democratic Party.

[Jai4WKC08]

33. This is a rumor?

I'll admit Novak is not the most reliable source (to say the least) but it sure sounds plausible to me.

Soros Doubts
Robert Novak (archive)
December 20, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Left-wing billionaire investor George Soros, who appeared to support Howard Dean for president, now is privately expressing doubts about the Democratic Party's front-runner.

In conversations with political friends, Soros confided he has become alarmed by Dean's recent performance and wonders whether the former Vermont governor is capable of defeating George W. Bush. In one such chat, Soros suggested he is interested in retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

Soros has made clear his visceral opposition to President Bush and his passionate desire to find somebody who can defeat him for a second term. The financier has pledged $10 million to America Coming Together (ACT) and $2.5 million to MoveOn.org -- both anti-Bush organizations.

[Padraig18]

46. My response was to this post, by Frenchie4Clark

"I think that many have come to the conclusion


that Clark has the best chance against Bush....not Dean.

Remind you that billionaire George Soros is saying Clark as well...Which means that Soros influence is about to be felt."

Soros did not, even according to Novak, 'come to the conclusion that Clark has the best chance against Bush.... not Dean." That' was simply F4C's 'spin' on it.

[Orangepeel]

19. I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion

I don't believe that any Democrat can win in your first political reality.

Half the media is bought and paid for and the other half repeats the crap pushed by the first half out of laziness or pressure. * will have more money than any Democratic candidate. A non-insignificant number of voters will give any incumbant the benefit of the doubt, unless they are out of a job. And, most ominously, republicans will lie about our candidate whoever that is. If you think they can't demonize Clark as soft on terror, you're in denial (ask Max Cleland). They'll also paint him as a hundred other things under the sun, regardless of how far fetched they seem (ask John McCain). So it might take a $million more to demonize Clark than it would to demonize Dean. So what? They can get that million easily.

IMO, your second political reality is our only hope. That's one of the main reasons I support Dean (I also think he'll make the best president, but that's a question separate from electibility).

[WillyBrandt]

21. Clark's a fighter, too

More of a political fighter than McCain or Cleland, to be frank. Moreover, I deeply doubt there can be a Cleland redux. Bush has lost his shine, and we're more organized and fighting nwo.

There is, believe it or not, some truth (however distorted) that gets through the heathers.

Clark makes Bush look ridiculous, in a way that Dean does not. Yes, a sorry way to choose a candidate, but there it is.

Remember, that Clark will not enter the race against Bush without playing on the second field either. He's got some strong grassroots support (not like Dean), and will instantly get a TON more if he gets the nomination.

[mzmolly]

24. Ooh I disagree...

Clark makes Bush look ridiculous, in a way that Dean does not.

Unless Bush is wearing his flight suit to the debate. Clark loses track of the question(s) in debates and interviews.

[WillyBrandt]

27. That's not true

Clark immediately takes GOP issues away.

He IS military. He can make fun of Bush's military stunts, including the flight suit. He sounds southern, and is southern. He exposes the Wizard of Oz instantly as all illusion and pretension.

And Clark does better than Dean in debate. Moreover, you seriously think that the Presidency will be determined by which candidate of ours has the most clean debate responses?

Are you serious? We're nowhere near that level of political maturity as a nation.

[mikehiggins]

37. Orange, I think a lot of people miss one real point regarding demonisation

Clark is a demon.

That's what people like about him.

[mzmolly]

23. I think your forgetting a few things...

Nader will most assuredly run if Clark is the nominee. Dean has the ability to bring us all together and he is doing that. The polls showing Dean in the lead aren't even factoring in all the people Dean has brought into the political process.

Dean appeals to Greens/former Republicans and new voters.

In fact I live in MN where Jesse Ventura *who was losing in the polls* won the nomination handilly because they didn't know what to expect with all the people who never voted before.

Dean is it folks. And the Republicans know it.

[WillyBrandt]

25. "The polls showing Dean..."

"The polls showing Dean in the lead aren't even factoring in all the people Dean has brought into the political process."

This is a nonissue for the 2004 election. Moreover, it has a bit of logical incoherence in it. It'd be like a mutual fund saying, "Our returns do not fully reflect how much cool stuffed we learned about finance this year."

If the people brought in aren't reflected in the polls, then it does not matter for this election. (For later ones, they might start--to continue the finance analogy--bearing interest...)

[mzmolly]

26. Huh? It mattered in Minnesota, and last time I checked voting mattered.

;) In addition, what's illogical is saying the guys losing the Democratic nomination handilly are going to be more appealing to the voters. Sorry, doesn't work for me.

[Upfront]

34. It Is Simple Willie.

All Clark has to do is make his case and win the vote. Same for all the rest, you have to convence the people your the one, and get them to vote for you. Could be wrong but I don't see anyone beating Dean, including B###. Nice post, very thoughtfull, but get real. To run for President you need to win the nomination. The rethugs have plenty of crap to use against any of our candidates. I hope you don't think that isn't true, because it is. It would be nice if we would quit gutting each other for the rethugs pleasure.

[WillyBrandt]

36. Let me get this straight

You're saying that we should choose Dean as the nominee, because Dean is obviously going to win the nomination? Get real?

What are you saying?

And I never denied that the GOP has plenty to use against any candidate. The question is how much impact will the smears have against a given candidate. I just happen to think that in this election, Clark is a bit more bulletproof. Not perfectly so, just more so.

[mzmolly]

70. I dont think Clark is more bulletproof at all.

that's simply your opinion. There are some pretty scarry things in Clarks skeleton closet. We have yet to openly examine them.

[mikehiggins]

39. It is not a very good idea to let Ralph Nader decide our candidate

If he enters the race because Dean is denied the nomination, what then? Do you expect hordes of Dean followers to abandon the Party and go work for Nader? Will they be able to convince themselves that they might somehow win the election, like the Perotistas convinced themselvse?

Or will they insure another 4 years of Bush?

Nader is a hollow shell of what was once a person who cared about this country. Trying to hold this party ransom because he wants one person to be our candidate is political terrorism, and should be dealt with as such.

[mzmolly]

42. I certainly won't let Nader, nor will I let Rove by chanting "Dean can't

win." Nader won't enter if Dean wins the nomination, because many Nader voters are with Dean.

The Nader factor is a 'consideration' worth 'considering' given the close election we had last time 'round.

[mikehiggins]

49. I wasn't aware that Karl Rove said Dean can't win

I thought the GOP line was that Dean was the most dangerous candidate from their point of view?

Of course, they did seem to laugh a bit afterwards but that might just have been them thinking about something funny that happened to them on the way to work that day.

[rumguy]

40. Absolutely well said

There is a new movement afoot to end this repug nightmare, and DU is ground zero...

As for Dean's electability, I honestly don't know...but I do think Clark may be more electable.

As you say the media created "reality" in 2004 will be tough...Dean supporters think their candidate can cut through it with straight talk and grass roots support, not to mention a lot of money. I hope they're right, I want to believe they're right...

[Egnever]

41. Great post!

I think that the new progresivism is plenty strong to carry us to victory and has every chance of doing so.

The ground support shown allready is impressive.

Heres something interesting. I just went to a Dean core meeting in my state recently were we just got the lists for Nevada from the Dean campaign. The list for Nevada... a swing state is over 3000 names strong. That is impressive. 1200 of wich have contributed to the campaign. It is reasonable to expect that most of the people who donated allready would be willing to do something in suport of getting rid of shrub in some form. That translates to 1200 people allready on the ground here in a swing state ready to go.

Acording to people a lot more politicaly active than I have ever been that kind of support with contact info is unheard of at this point in a political season. This is what will win us the presidency. Nothing else.

The media will continue to whore for bush. The only way to combat this is to have people out there ripping the propaganda apart. We wont win unless we have this IMHO.

Dean has allready proven his willingness to take the fight to Bush, he allready has an impressive list of issues he has called bush on.

This is how we will win.

Clark is doing well and I agree in the area of national security he is the clear winner. However thats where I see his winning ending. Theres a long way to go till november national security isnt even the most important issue to voters now in the heat of things it may not even be on the radar come november next year. Putting all of our support on clark because he is a military guy in and of itself is letting Bush frame the argument.

Dean on the other hand got into this race because of domestic issues not the war. The war just happened and because of his stance it helped get him attention. But it is not why he entered the race and its not what his platform was initialy about. Dean wipes the floor with Clark IMHO on domestic issues.

Having clark as a vp would inoculate Dean as a security concern while alowing him to take bush to task on everything else. I dont see how the reverse works. Dean could as president call on clark for all things military and no one would blink an eye. On the other hand Clark calling on dean to do everything not military as president would not work.

Should Clark win the nod I dont think that Dean would be a good choice as a VP. It would make deanies happy but thats it. I think that a Clark ticket would be more balanced by a Washington insider to facilitate working with congress. Say Clark/Kerry or Ghep..


If what you are looking for is a cure for Iraq I think wesley is the guy to vote for. I just hapen to think we have a lot more to worry about than this war wich really should be easy to deal with.

I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out how to solve a lot of our security issues. A little more negotiating and a little less threatening should do the trick in most instances. Throw in a little bit of looking to the future ionstead of just the short term and we should be just fine.

Anyway it was a great post and my long winded rambling reply doesnt do it justice, but there it is anyway.

[WillyBrandt]

43. Great Reply--and why I like Dean as VP

Dean would make a great VP. Making the Deanies happy is actually no small things. They've done a lot, and, man they deserve a reward.

Moreover, we get two "outsiders". And you can always hire some flunky to advise you on dealing with congress.

We'd have a united party. We'd have all the most rabid partisans in one tent. Lots and lots of cash.

Dean, I'm sure, would take the VP nod. (What else is he going to do? Clark has reached the top of the military profession; Dean has higher to go in politics).

[Egnever]

44. Thanks

I agree wholeheartedly that if we could get both of them on the same ticket all we do is win. But when it comes to after the deal is done and we have the whitehouse back, which I believe we will have be it Dean Clark or whover else. Thats when I start to wory about a Clark/Dean ticket.

Two outsiders is apealing but I am not sure how effective it is come time for working with congress. Sure you can gert advisors but in the long run there is nothing like having those old ties to work with. Kerry for example has been in and arround these folks for years you can not discount the efect these conections would have in pushing policy. I dont trust Kerry to make policy for me but his conections when pushing a policy I agreed with would be invaluable as a vp.

Dean/Clark works I think, only because Dean is unafraid to push hard for what he believes in. You have seen plenty of instances of this in the many attack posts on him. He will in my opinion use the bully pulpit like no president we have seen recently to push his agenda and push hard. I dont know if clark would choose to use it in the same way. I havent yet seen enough of that fire in him on anything other than Iraq.

While I cant discount the efectiveness of the merging of the two campaigns I dont think Clark/Dean would be as efective in the white house as a Clark/Senator/Congressman.

Believe me as a Dean supporter I want Dean in the white house. I just dont think he makes an efective VP for Clark once there. I think Dean leads by fighting for what he believes in I am not sure he would be as efective if he were fighting for someone elses. I dont know that the passion that makes him so effective would be there in that case and without it he becomes just another politician.

[MoonRiver]

45. Wonderful post, Willie!

You clearly articulate my concerns about Dean. I sincerely hope that we are wrong, but I, for one, am simply not willing to take the chance. I also truly admire General Clark. So my heartfelt support for Clark the candidate, plus a belief that he has the best chance of beating *, makes it a no-brainer that he should be our nominee.

I'll certainly vote, and even work, for a Dean victory (so much is at stake after all) but my fear is that the Dem base alone won't be enough to turn this evil tide with Dean as our candidate.

[Myra]

80. Definitely have to second that

Wonderful post.

[dfong63]

48. there's zero evidence that clark is any more electable than dean.

clark has zero track record in civilian politics, zero record of getting elected. the presidency is too important to hand over to a guy with no track record of accountability to the voters.

[WillyBrandt]

51. Thanks for your reply!

It's great when we've got more than empty sloganeering to work this!

[arendt]

56. Willy: Thanx for wanting Dean "inside the tent...

pissing out, instead of outside the tent pissing in"

Hey, mods - its a word for word quote from LBJ! Please don't
bust me for it.

This thread is the kind of gentlemanly discussion that liberals need
to remember. If we behave like thugs to our fellow Dems, we
simply legitimize the bad behavior that the GOP and the Media
Whores have foisted upon our democracy.

First, I currently support Dean. I have stated I will support the
nominee (except Lieberman). I have no problem with any of
the candidates, but I have lots of problems with just about
everyone's more extreme supporters on this board.

Now, to content.

1. Media vulnerability

I don't think that Clark being a general does anything but
increase the dollar cost of smearing him, vis-a-vis Dean.
Clark has all kinds of easily exploitable prior behavior.

The MW's trotted out the "I wasn't going to let him start WW3"
quote from some fellow officer as soon as Clark's name was
floated. You can bet there are lots of other GENERALS who
still hate his guts and vote GOP. The military is full of cliques,
and you get to the top by being in the right clique. With Rummy
running the Pentagon, the PNAC is the right clique.

I agree with the earlier poster who pointed out the smear job
on John McCain - the longest-held POW in Viet Nam and a
third-generation Annapolis graduate and admiral.

The GOP smear machine can smear ANYBODY. What counts
is that the victim must fight back. We have seen that Dean at
least tries to fight back. So far, the media have not even sparred
with Clark. I reserve judgement on Clark's media savvy until
his campaign takes a hit at least 50% as hard as the hammering
Dean has taken since the Saddam/Gore "a left, and a right, and
another left....).

2. Foreign affairs versus domestic affairs

Again, how does Clark look any different than Bush if he wants
to stick it out in Iraq? If he says that the whole mission is valid?

The problem for all Dems is that they are terrified of being accused
of "treason" if they don't kiss Bush's butt on one war or the other,
if they don't vote for more, more, more Pentagon pork.

If I'm supposed to choose Clark over Dean because of some
foreign policy PLATFORM, as opposed to some IMAGE of Clark
as a level-headed FP expert, what is so different about Clark
vs Bush? Now, Dean is definitely different, and it takes guts to
be different. Dean is getting hammered for it.

My take is that the macho vote LOVES WAR, and it can't be
taken from the GOP by any war-related issue. To the extent
that Clark will have credibility, it will be in that he is a warrior.

As an pro-peace person, it sticks in my throat to say that only
a Johnny-come-lately general can win in the face of the worst
president in history.

I think that DOMESTIC issues are the only way to get the macho
idiots to stop yammering about the war. They are thoroughly
propagandized about the war in Iraq and cannot be reasoned with.
They think Saddam was involved in 911, not PNAC. They think our
guys want to be there, and our officers go around saying
"ready to kill more Germans, soldier" (Opening line from Kubrick's
WW1 movie "Paths of Glory "- which is still banned in France).

But, if you say: did you know we spent $1 Billion on a fruitless
search for WMDs? They get mad. If you say: do you know parents
are forced to buy body armor for their kids in Iraq because the
government can't ship stuff to them from places like Kosovo,
where it isn't needed, the veterans stop yammering. If you ask
them, do you think any of the 3 Million jobs we sent to India
are coming back, they say "not many". If you ask them how they
liked Bush charging his tax cut for the rich to their CHILDREN,
they are speechless. Then, when you explain the scam, you
can see the rusty wheels trying to turn.

This election is about LOOTING. The looting of our government,
the trashing of our middle class, the plundering of our Constitutional
rights. That's the war that's important.

If I heard Clark talk more about that, and do less reminding people
of his easily-counterspun military past and coziness with the PNAC,
I'd be more excited about his chances.

3. Hell, they're all pro-business one way or another. I want a fighter.

That leaves me with Dean or Clark. Each of their camps can smear the
other with "he did X for business/GOP". Great, lets do the GOP's work for
them.

I want to hear some good ATTACKS AGAINST THE GOP, not
against other Dems. He who hits the GOP hardest and takes
a hit and swings back hard - that's who gets my vote.

arendt

edit: clarify, remove junk

[Jerseycoa]

68. Clark does not say this but the opposite

"Again, how does Clark look any different than Bush if he wants
to stick it out in Iraq? If he says that the whole mission is valid?"

He has said maybe one hundred times the whole mission in Iraq is INvalid.

He says that we went in there, we blew up their country, we centered the war on terror (wrongfully) there, and now we have to use a sensible exit strategy or leave behind another failed state.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/

[arendt]

72. Thanx for the pointer. I stand (somewhat) corrected

Yes, Clark differs from Bush.

But, quotiing directly from your link:

"Our mission is to create a secure, stable Iraq with a representative government."

Excuse me, but who voted for that mission. The whole invasion
was a fraud. The occupation has so polarized the country as to
make it potentially un-federatable, with the Kurds, Shias, and
Sunnis going their separate ways.

Who signed me up to pay for fixing that mess?

Who says we can't just turn it over to the UN? This kind of stuff
is the UN's raison d'etre.

Why is he insisting on keeping the US/NATO at the forefront of this?
Why does he say the UN can't work? That is CONTINUING THE
BUSH destruction of the UN.

Yeah, he's not completely Bush. But he refuses to admit that
we really have no business in the country; that other Arab and
Moslem states are the only people who have the street cred
to sort this out.

Leaving masses of Western troops there without UN overall
control (i.e., just bringing in NATO) is not going to make the
Arabs feel any less COLONIZED. Remember, it was the
Brits and the French who ran the Middle East for fifty years.

Nice try, but no touchdown

arendt

[BootinUp]

73. What if

He actually brings in some help from Arab countries? What if he is the kind of diplomat that can do that? What if we do basically bail from the mess like you suggest? Is that what all the Iraqis want? Besides he clearly says that responsibility would be transferred to a non-US authority, just that US troops would still be required but in a reduced footprint.

I think that we have to restore our image as the good guys, and that doesn't happen by just saying "we give". Otherwise it continues to impact us with other countries in the future.

[BootinUp]

57. That was a very thought provoking post...thanks

I agree that the dynamic of politics is changing due to the internet. What will be interesting is how the Republicans deal with the challenge in coming years.

[rjbrooks]

58. Clark's Electability

Clark is no doubt a smart charismatic candidate, however, I would be very very reluctant to vote for a career military person for president. I definitely believe he would serve the country well in a cabinet position but not president. My basis for this position is from being in the military and seeing first hand how the military top brass are programmed. They believe there is a military resolution to all situations.

[Myra]

59. Totally kickworthy

Thanks WillyBrandt.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

61. Yes - Clark/Dean would be unbeatable. I also like Clark/Kucinich

hope it happens. I'm not that crazy about Dean anymore but I have to admit that it would be an absolutely unbeatable ticket. Dean can run the next time around and win.... He's a young guy.

[LiberalBushFan]

63. clark/dean wouldn't be so bad

I think I could come to trust Dean after he's been hanging out with Clark for 8 years!

[absyntheNsugar]

62. Excellent Post!

I do give Joe Trippi a little more credit tho. Like I've said, I think Clark can beat Bush hands down. I think Dean can beat him too, but he will need a lot more work.

[shivaji]

64. With Dean outpolling Clark by 2.5 to 1, how come Clark supporters

outnumber 2.5 to 1 on DU?

Something is out of proportion here. Please shed light.

[WillyBrandt]

66. Excepting a very few

DU people are intelligent, good looking, and way above average both within the Party and certainly overall.

The rest follows :)

[Bucky]

79. I wanna say more engaged, more alert, more strategically minded

But probably we're just a case of statistical clustering.

[WillyBrandt]

67. Final self-congratulatory kick

[quaker bill]

69. Another point of view

Is It Time to Believe?
Bill Clinton rebuilt the Democratic Party in crucial ways. But Howard Dean is rebuilding it in a way Clinton missed. Party insiders would do well to make their peace with it.

By Michael Tomasky

As Democrats in Iowa and beyond prepare to start voting, we can look back and identify four distinct phases of this nascent presidential campaign: the early, we-get-to-know-them phase; the preliminary nuts-and-bolts phase, concerned with which candidate hired which professionals; the money-chase phase; and, most recently, the first winnowing phase, when observers felt they finally knew enough about the play of things to start making predictions.

These phases have had their distinct characteristics, but they have one thing in common: In each of them, Howard Dean was prematurely and mistakenly written off. In phase one he was too abrasive; in phase two he'd hired second-raters; in phase three he couldn't possibly raise big money; and in the last phase he'd peaked too early. The reality, instead, is that he and campaign manager Joe Trippi have run a dazzlingly brilliant and innovative campaign. Al Gore's imprimatur or no, he could still be "stopped"—other candidates in the field have positive attributes, and voters haven't cast a ballot yet. But Dean just seems to get stronger every week, challenging not only the laws of politics but of Isaac Newton himself. Why?

(snip)

This is where Howard Dean comes in. If one thinks of the Democratic Party as rebuilding itself after its disastrous 1980s, then Dean—or more appropriately, "Deanism"—is a new and potentially more powerful stage of the rebuilding process. Clinton rebuilt (forgive the Marxist terminology, but it happens to fit) the superstructure. Dean is rebuilding the base. "If Clinton modernized the message," says Simon Rosenberg, the most prominent centrist Democrat who's enthusiastic about Dean, "then Dean is rebuilding the party. In the '90s party, it was, 'Write us a big check.' Regular people were left out of that equation. Now, through new technology, we're getting them back in."

There's a tricky thing about this rebuilding stage, though: It excludes party insiders. It has nothing to do with Washington. It's no wonder that Democratic insiders, so accustomed to having complete ownership of a process like a party primary campaign, should dislike Dean and even fear him: He has stolen the process right out of their hands. He is not "of" them in any way, shape or form. In fact, his accumulating successes merely serve to emphasize their irrelevance to this rebuilding stage. No wonder they should take a kind of emotional comfort in writing him off as the new George McGovern; it's much easier to dismiss a thorny thing than to come to terms with it.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/1/tomasky-m.html

The whole article makes an interesting read. I recommend it.

[WillyBrandt]

71. Already read it--it is a great article

But it doesn't contradict my basic worry. Will "Deanism"--or "Newer Democrats"--or whatever its termed--be sufficiently mature and powerful to win the election in 2004?

A lot of exciting changes are occuring, nearly all for the better. But we've got to win an election in the meanwhile...

[milkyway]

74. I had the same concerns, but decided on Dean a few weeks ago...

I like Wes Clark a lot, but people are vastly underestimating Howard Dean. I agree with KaraokeKarlton--Dean is a tremendous speaker. Not only is he energetic and direct, but his vocal tone is just right: alive and dynamic, but not shrill. He's got the pipes of a great sports announcer. While many politicians' speeches are sleep-inducing, I could listen to Howard Dean for hours.

Most people do not know hardly anything about Dean at all, and what little they know has been filtered through the corporate media. But the more people get to know him, the more they like him. The voters in New Hampshire and Iowa are very politically savvy and they know the candidates very well, and Dean keeps increasing his lead in the polls in those states.

Also, Dean's populist ideas will go over very well with voters. Al Gore began doing much better in the polls in 2000 when he started portraying himself as protecting the people against corporate special interests (and how right he turned out to be!). He was a sitting Vice President, and not an exciting speaker, talking about vague special interests--yet it was very effective. Dean is truly outside the Beltway establishment, a dynamic and inspiring speaker, with Halliburton, Enron, etc. as clearly defined targets. I expect that when many people get to hear him and know him better, many moderates will find him appealing. And he's bulletproof against two typical repug smears against Dems: he's fiscally responsible, and he's not a wimp (repugs are already making a mistake by portraying him as temperamental and angry; voters will not elect a perceived wimp for President).

Also, Dean has run one of the great campaigns of our lifetime. There is no reason to think that if Dean wins the nomination, all of sudden he and Trippi will become stupid. While I would be supporting Wes Clark if Dean weren't in the race, he has not run a strong campaign. He was too slow to get in, unprepared once he did, and not doing anything innovative that hasn't already been done by Dean. His campaign strategy has been mediocre at best. If Dean wins the nomination easily, then he is the one that deserved to win and that would do the best against Bush.

I share your concern that Dean will not be able to transform the party in time to win in 2004. It is absolutely imperative that if and when it becomes clear that Dean will be the nominee, the other candidates drop out of the race and give the party time to coalesce around the Dean campaign (possibly in February). His campaign is an entirely new thing, and it will take time to merge the two cultures of the Dean campaign and the Dem establishment. The party cannot still be deciding who the nominee is into the summer. Here's the big question: is the number one priority of the Dem party establishment to beat George Bush in 2004, or is it to hold on to their grip on power within the party?

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

[Myra]

77. Did Bartcop publish his reasons for endorsing Clark?

I haven't seen them, tho' I've looked.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

78. Hi. My name is RiF.

You might know me from my eloquent posts on...well forget about that, let's go right to electability.

Which political field will come to fruition?

Both.

It's a crapshoot, pal. Vote your conscience in the primaries and then vote against Chimp.

[Larkspur]

81. This Dean supporter says that a ticket headed by Clark will fail

Clark is a neophyte on the civilian political front. He's already made tactical errors in his first Prez nomination run

-- entering late, which prevented him from creating or at least having the potential to put a campaign organization in every state.

-- having an anemic announcement speech. Clark was super hyped by the media and he continues to fail to meet that hype.

-- fumbling the anti-war remark at his entrance into the race. This fumble cost him whatever hope he had of cracking Dean's solid support base, the anti-Iraq war supporters.

-- failing to register as a Democrat in Arkansas BEFORE entering the race. This furthered the suspicions that Clark is a doppleganger for the Repukes.

-- pulling out of Iowa and making a big deal that Iowa was not that important. This push the endorsement of very active union AFSCME to Dean, Clark's #1 competitor.

-- taking FEC matching funds. This will leave Clark vunerable to Bush's attacks from March to August. And this again was caused by his late entry which delayed his fundraising ability.

Because of these tactical mistakes, Clark is handicapped against Bush already. Dean is not and Dean has more passion and more passionate supporters against Bush than Clark. Dean also has a solid record as a fiscally responsible elected Democrat who balanced state budgets and still provided healthcare for his citizens. Clark only has economic theories and his military experience does not transfer over well to the civilian sphere.