Dear mr Krugman

[robbedvoter]

article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/16/opinion/16KRUG.html?ex=1074834000&en=573c9657f5d55da6&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Dear Mr Krugman

I am glad that you now know that my candidate gets it.
Those of us who drafted him in this race figured this out since the time he was doing commentary on CNN - that's why we chose him.
So, here we were, his very energized base, pledging to contribute small donations even before our candidate jumped in the race - adding up to 1 million dollars. All pledges have been honored, btw.
And here we still are, writing to newspapers, knocking doors in New Hampshire and raising money in small donations and being largely ignored not just by the media but by people like Al Gore who insist Dean is the only candidate with a grassroots movement.
Maybe you'll come and visit us sometime at forclark.com. We truly do exist.
Of course, I happen to think a few more things are necessary besides getting it and a strong energized base.
One thing being, addressing more than your strong energized base. A candidate who plays only to the converted will eventually have only them as a base.
Blasting the democrats in Washington, the ones in the DLC, the opponents, the ones not defending you from the opponents will alienate one's potential base and shrink the existing one.
A candidate like mine who finds the common denominator among different voters (i.e - the need to replace Bush) will expand his base in spite of the media silence and end up making news, gaining in polls and winning.
Cutting taxes have been also known to work better than raising them.
So, I think the middle of the electorate is necessary for a victory and can be won over by the truth, provided a candidate actually believes in it, rather than spews back what the internet showed him people want to hear.

"Are you a republican in sheep's closing?"
Clark: I never thought of Democrats as sheep"

[BootinUp]

1. Nice article

Krugman is one of the few respectable voices we have in major media right now.

[quaker bill]

2. Interesting reading of the article

I read it as welcoming Wes Clark to the movement.

While I support Howard Dean, I agree with Krugman that the more options people have to support a serious candidate who is willing to call this administration out, the better.

I think you will find that your characterization of the Dean campaign is rather inaccurate as the race proceeds.

I have been to the meetups and I can assure you that Dean reaches well beyond the 'liberal base' much talked about in the media. In fact, most of my friends in the 'liberal base' are working for Kucinich. A few are supporting Wes.

Most of the people I have met at the Dean meetups have never been involved in politics before. Some did not even vote in 2000, some voted for Bush*, others for Gore. The media has truly missed the mark on this one.

Despite all the negative press of late the Dean campaign continues to grow. I speculate that this is happening because when it seemed Dean was unstoppable by media accounts say +/- 8 weeks ago, folks didn't think they needed to be directly involved this early for him to win. All of a sudden, it seems like a race to the finish, and the number of volunteers grew by 40 percent locally in January and the pace of signups has increased nationwide.

I think regardless of who wins, having a hotly contested race for who is the strongest Bush* critic will do both camps good, and in the long haul improve the chances that a Democrat will win in 2004.

[Crewleader]

3. Good article by Krugman

and also answering his article robbedvoter...:hi: