The Clark invulnerability argument.

[poskonig]

Many Clark supporters posit their candidate is preferable when compared to other candidates. This set of candidates does not only include Dean obviously, but Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, et cetera. Advocates theorize Clark and would be less vulnerable to smears, would be able to run a better campaign head to head against Junior, and would seem more acceptable on "issues" to swing voters.

Invulnerability to smears in a competitive, political environment is a strongly counterintuitive notion. The weaker hypothesis states that while Clark can be smeared, the smears will not resound as strongly, given Clark's biography. The GOP, however, can do several things to Clark that they cannot do to other candidates. The first strategy is very potent. The GOP will run footage of Clark praising Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the gang in the middle of the summer. Not only would this make many centrists question his motivation, it drives a huuueeege wedge in the Democratic base, illustrated by Republicans forcing the issue when Clark entered the race. Another strategy includes finding conservative generals who do not think highly of Clark and have them diss him while pretending to be objective or neutral in the matter. Then there is the Republican given -- slime Clark with the notion that he is crazy and unstable, and distort stuff about his military service -- being "fired," almost starting WW3, innuendo about Waco, et cetera.

Secondly, fighting back against smear campaigns takes money and organization. A nice bio doesn't do anything with limited funds. Conversely, a candidate with a crappy bio and a bunch of waffles can get away with a lot more when (s)he has funds to back it up. Clark clearly isn't the superior candidate from this angle.

Lastly, people say Clark is palatable to the public on the "issues" while other candidates are not. The key issue here is the Iraq War -- Kerry has a similar tax policy, Lieberman promotes tax cuts and "family values," and so forth. However, if the Iraq War was that important of an issue, Democrats should vote for a war supporter like Gephardt or Lieberman. The argument that people are intensely for the war but will change their minds at the drop of their hat when they see someone with shiny metals is implausible, especially in context of the attacks that will be lobbed against him in the first paragraph, in addition to the inability to fight back illustrated in the second.

While Clark is a candidate I can support if nominated, the invulernability argument is one I cannot allow to pass uncontested. A defense of the candidate should be made on policy and character grounds. If Clark is a superior candidate, as his friends claim, this should not be a problem.

[jmaier]

1. LOL

Uncontested!

It's contested around here, dialykos and elsewhere constantly. But thanks for starting up another fiery thread.

[RageAgainstTheirMachine]

2. anecdotal evidence

I personally know at least 10 moderates/republicans who are not politically active at all who say they would vote Democratic for the first time if Clark were the nominee. I was born and raised in the gun belt of western Pennsylvania, and these same (some are right wingers) who smeared Clinton, Gore, and now Dean say they have the utmost respect for Wes Clark. The fact of the matter is, most people are not political junkies, like us. They do not research candidates. They see a 4 star General up against Bush. I believe only Clark can defeat Bush, win us congressional seats and unite this country after the election.

[JVS]

47. Hey, I had respect for McCain, but I wouldn't have voted for him.

[shivaji]

61. Why I can not vote for Clark

When asked about outsourcing of computer software jobs outside of country, Clark said (paraphrasing) "Let the software jobs go to India, we will do something else here". That statement showed me how uninformed Clark is about this whole issue. It also shows his lack of political skills. I am scared shitless if this political novice goes against the Rove propaganda machine.

Dean is head and shoulders above Clark in many many ways, too long to list here.

[dfong63]

63. i'm with you on that one

when Clark said, "let them do the software in India," that was the last straw for me, for just the reasons you cited.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Jobs to India?

I would be amused, if this weren't so serious, to think that anyone would seriously think that Clark was personally bequeathing the software industry to India as some kind of Royal decree. I heard the statement in the earlier debate you are talking about. It wasn't "a position" he was taking, it was a phrase thrown into the start of an answer to a question Clark was asked. Clark then went on to say he would do essentially everything anyone can do to protect that industry. He defends intellectual property rights, he wants to take away corporate incentives to outsource jobs, and he will introduce incentives for companies to create American jobs. He is also on record saying we need to examine how many high tech work permits should be granted foreign workers to take jobs here in the States in the software industry. And he will strongly support funding of research into new technologies, and all new technologies will need new software.

Yes Clark literally said "Let India do the software", but that was ad hoc defiant rhetoric, off the cuff in reply to a question, about America's innate ability to stay ahead of the technological curve with cutting edge innovations that can not be matched anywhere else on Earth. I will grant that it was a poor choice of words, for political reasons, as is evidenced by your reaction to them. Clark's point, and he has elaborated on this elsewhere, is that in todays world one can sit anywhere, in almost any nation, and log onto the internet with a personal computer. You don't need an interstate highway system to transport software to an ocean port where it can be loaded onto container ships. Access to education is becoming more universal due to the web. Everyone learns English. Even if no American company ever hires another employee in India to write software, a German or British or INDIAN company still will hire Indians to write software, and they will be cheaper workers than Americans. If we keep our research base strong enough, however, American's may be the only people with the vision to anticipate the evolving nature of the software that will be needed far into the 21st Century. We will make the break throughs, but we can't stop people in Ireland and Singapore and India from grinding out practical software applications. That isn't Clark's fault. HE did not create the vast pay differentials that exist between third world countries and the United States.

Clark has specifically pledged that when he becomes President all software purchased by the United Staes Government that has direct or indirect relationship to our countries security will be purchased from domestic sources. He fullly expects that it may be more expensive than some software available coming out of India or China or wherever. Clark points out though that it will be easier to protect against back door traps in the software that might compromis our National Security if we are buying from American firms. There are some other things a President can do around the margins, relating to trade agreements that uphold minimal worker rights and the like. But even if Indian workers are given a 50% raise to cover expanded health care and retirement benefits or whatever, they still will be cheaper than American workers to hire, and many will be skilled enough to write software. Again, even if American firms completely stop "outsourcing" jobs to India, a German firm could, or a British one, or an Indian firm could hire locally and then SELL the finished product to American consumers cheaply. No President had absolute power. Clark has his eyes open, and he wants this country to plan for the future, not just complain about it. Don't blame the messenger.

[JVS]

66. His statement is reminiscent of "Let them eat cake"

Gephardt wouldn't be willing to let that happen, why should we tolerate it from Clark?

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Dennis and Gephardt

take the strongest "protectionist" stands, and I am not saying that in a negative sense. Everyone else has overall similar positions. Are you campaigning for one of those men?

[JVS]

71. I hope for Kucinich but see that as unlikely

Dean is my second choice.
Gephardt is my 3rd

[Scoopie]

76. Why didn't your read the explanation above?

Instead of continuing on with the meme that Clark said that and meant it?
Seriously, you've missed the point entirely and are trying to find ways to discredit Clark, who has the most COMPLETE position paper on how to keep jobs in America, save Kucinich!
Dean doesn't keep up here!

[HFishbine]

72. Dean Leads PA: only candidate who keeps Bush under 50%

Pennsylvania, huh? Dean leads all democratic contenders in PA with 28% in the latest Quinnipiac University poll. Lieberman is in second at 17%. Clark is in single digits.

Dean is the only candidate to hold Bush to under 50% in a head-to-head match up against Bush. (Bush 49% v Dean 43%).

As for that republican support of which you speak, Dean and Clark both garner 10% of republicans in a head-to-head match up against Bush. Dean garners more support from independents (49%) and democrats (75%) than Clark, the highest of all dem canididates in both categories.

[Democrats unite]

3. Why post about Clark supporters?

You are either for Clark or against Clark.

If I do a post about Dean, it's about Dean not his supporters.

Would do you good to post about Deans strengths, not about Clark supporters (although I do like the attention).

[SahaleArm]

4. Praising the administration before 9/11 is not a convincing argument...

And not convincing from a political standpoint, the Republicans will run on the 9/11 changed everything platform to justify what they have done. That is directly attackable by all Democrats, some with more gravity than others. World war III and waco will only mean anything to the looniest of loonies, not exactly the kind of voters that would turn to Democrats, and not swing voters. If all Republicans can attack Clark on is fringe issues, partison cheapshots, and the Clinton association, I'll take it.

The money issue I won't dismiss because it will be a problem for every candidate. The Republican machine can out-fundraise every Democrat 2-1 if they wanted to, even Dean. On MTP Tom Delay threw an uppercut at Clark and Dean. The Clark campaign publicly called him on his Chicken-Hawkishness, the Dean campaign kept quiet, what does that tell you about fighting back?

Do I think he is invulnerable? No, but I do think he has the best positive-to-negative ratio of any of the candidates come general election. And no that's not the prime reason I support him;).

[Cheswick2.0]

68. praising the BFEE is the biggest issue for Clark

It will keep the left home on election day and it gives the Republicans plenty of ammo. "Vote for Bush, Clark says we are lucky to have him in office".

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. See post #38

I doubt the left will stay home on Election day, or at least the percentage of them who do will be relatively small, and the real Left, beyond the progressive populist center left, is a relatively small voting bloc to begin with. If Dean gets the nomination, watch him run towards the center.

[thinkahead]

5. while I disagree with them

several of my friends who lean a little further left than I do abhor the idea of having a general with no political history or Democratic Party background suddenly being the standard bearer for the party. I think having Clark on the ticket (as VP) would be great to eliminate some of the unreasonably perceived weakness Dean's opponents say he has on foreign policy.

My particular beef with CLark is that he seems to be being propped up - as the anti-anti-establishment candidate who also happens to be anti-establishment. I agree he has a stellar resume, and a great sense of humor, but his lack of party history, and the vagueness with which he has approached answering some direct questions leaves me wondering if I am ready to swallow him as the party leader.

[pocoloco]

6. "If Clark is a superior candidate, as his friends claim, this should

not be a problem."

He is and it ain't!

[CWebster]

7. A really well-composed, well-thought out post

reflecting genuine insight that should not be treated as flamebait.

[Eric J in MN]

8. The Republicans will smear any candidate, but

The Republicans will smear any candidate, but an argument of:

don't vote for Clark because he praised Bush

will resonate less than:
don't vote for Dean because he's a liberal from Vermont.

[thinkahead]

9. he didn't just praise Bush

he praised a pretty much the whole mis-administration

[Donna Zen]

54. Please take the time to read the entire speech.

It is an outline for a foreign policy that is a 180 degrees flip from where the junta would lead us.

Many people, including those some of those or all of those running, supported Afghanistan.

Trying to explain why you would ridicule a man for saying something nice about you will make a rather ineffective ad. Unless of course you feel you didn't deserve it.

If the campaign was smart, they would run it before the creeps got the chance.

Clark can put them of the defensive while taking the offensive position.

[CWebster]

10. Not for Democrats,

it won't.

[Justice]

36. For Those Democrats Who Supported The War, It Will

There were lots of Democrats (had to be 20% of the support) who supported the Iraq war. Those Democrats believed Bush on WMD and feel dupped by the adminstration. They will see Clark as someone who also changed his view post 9/11.

[Toucano]

12. That's true.

Sad as it is, the polls indicate people "like" Bush.

Clark's "He's an okay guy, he's just in over his head!" approach will be better received than another candidate's "Bush sucks!"

Once the press starts asking questions (or debates, if there are any), Clark will clearly outshine Bush to anyone but the ultra-conservative. Bush cannot handle the press.

We've seen Clark take on the challenges of Tweety and that other Faux News "reporter". He doesn't let them get away with their smears.

Remember when Tweety kept firing questions to confuse issues? Clark said, 'let me answer your first question' and proceeded to do so. Other candidates could become befuddled by these methods and look bad. Bush can't answer a single question without "uhm...err...I...What's the difference?"

[JVS]

49. explain how please

[gulliver]

11. Clark makes Bush vulnerable.

With Clark, we can go on offense. That should not be forgotten, because it is critical. A lot of the places where you note Clark lacks vulnerability are in fact places where Clark can not only defend himself but can attack Bush. He is unique in that respect among the candidates.

Clark has bona fides that even the opposition can't fail to respect. And intangibles like charisma, communicating a sense of honesty, fidelity, geniune love of country and "philanthropy" in general? Clark has those in spades too.

Clark is a gift to the Democratic Party. He's exactly what the party, the country, and the world need right now.

[Toucano]

13. Well put, gulliver.

He's exactly what the party, the country, and the world need right now.

[thinkahead]

14. a gift to the Democratic Party

from whom? The Republican party? The military? Fact is we really haven't looked this gift-horse in the mouth.

I hope you are right. He's certainly been all over the map, literally and figuratively.

[Toucano]

16. Go ahead

and look in the mouth. And listen to what's coming out of it. :) The "Republican plant" theory was discredited long ago.

[jmaier]

17. I see you made it over

to this thread also -- welcome to a Clark party!

[thinkahead]

26. thanks for having me over!

:hi:

[Scoopie]

77. Thought the Dems were the "tent" party

as in, everyone's welcome. Except, of course, 4-Star, progressive-thinking Generals who can keep the Democratic Party from loosing it's rear in the general election.
Seriously, that's how you sound.

[CWebster]

18. Well, some might embrace the idea that the Democratic party

should look Rightward for a role model. But then the point of the original post is lost on those dazzled by the general's credentials while failing to see how that entire image can be shattered with top military brass continually smearing him from every angle as an unstable opportunist.

[Toucano]

19. Which issues is Clark "righward" on? n/t

[mikehiggins]

32. Some time ago I read some posts here that Stormin Norman

was a beloved General and he was blasting Clark so there was no hope.

Then the beloved General was presented with a golden opportunity to take another shot at Clark by one of the slugs on TV and you know what? He backed away like a rocket.

The only, the sole and only people on record as questioning Clark's character are General Shelton and some guy on trial for war crimes in the Hague. Even Bill Cohen, who helped orchestrate the plot against Clark after Kosovo, point blank refuses to even comment on the issue, even when pressed to by yet another news reporter. Bill and Norman know they have no dog in this fight. Shelton made a remark at a speaking engagement and made not a comment since.

Even Mike Jackson, the British general who coined the famous "WWIII" remark has pointed out that things like that are often said in the heat of conflict when opposing views are being argued. He made a lot less of it than just about anyone else involved.

So who is left? Practically everyone with a direct relationship with Clark has signed an evaluation at one time or another praising him, including SHelton and Cohen and Colin Powell. Others, who didn't advance so speedily criticise him for doing so. That'll go over really well with the general voting public.

Let's keep one thing in mind. There are not a lot of four star generals. Its a rather selective and exclusive club, even more so than Skull and Bones. Members very rarely attack other members, and when they do, they hear about it from their peers very quickly.

Why get that much grief defending a bozo like Bush? I don't see it happening. Drudge, Rush, Rielly, all that lot? Simple answer: where were you when I was getting my ass shot off in Viet Nam. Even the dittoheads aren't anxious to have to handle that one.

eom

[Justice]

41. Thank You. Excellent Insight.

[Justice]

40. This Is Where It Becomes Clear That The Insight

in the original post was lost on some people. The poster did not speak of Clark as being "right" or "rightward"

I only see one person at the moment trying (with emphasis on trying) to shatter Clark continually by smearing him from every angle as an unstable opportunist.

[frustrated_lefty]

15. Clark is far from invulnerable.

If he gets the nod, he will be backstabbed from every direction, he will be smeared no matter his stance. He is safe from this so far because he is so far back from the lead.

[Insurance_Analyst]

20. Where to start? Let's see...

As far as the positive comments on Rumsfeld, et al goes, that can be explainded by the fact that it was prior to the war and there was no reason to think that the administration was incapable of doing a good job for the country. Clark was just trying to be a uniter and supporter of our country's leaders at the time!

Secondly, as for "the generals" coming out against Clark, keep in mind that Schwarzkopf is already backpeddling, Shelton is in an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney, and Cohen (a republican) is on record as saying what a magnificent job Clark did in the Balkans! Cohen is also backpeddling on the firing issue. Alan Murray grilled him pretty good on Capital Report last week. The Democrats can be offensive on this issue as well. The generals seem jealous to me! wink wink wink

Third, the crazy stuff won't work. He's a Rhoades Scholar and successful businessman.

Fourth, he'll have plenty of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and organization if he gets the nomination. Many people badly want Bush to lose regardless of who the nominee is and the web provides a mechanism for the nominee to raise millions with pledges of $25 to $100!!!

[thinkahead]

21. well

"there was no reason to think that the administration was incapable of doing a good job for the country"

If Clark really felt that way there is absolutely no reason he should be leading our party. I think everyone (including my grandmother) knew how bad this Administration would be for the country. I'm all for bipartisanship, but knowing this administrations background - how could any Democrat have had faith in how good they would be for the country? That's what got all the other establishment Dem's in trouble - playing right into Bush's, going along with him - and helping achieve this aura of invincibility.

[Insurance_Analyst]

25. I think we had to give Bush a chance because

if Dean, Clark, Gep, or Kerry gets the nomination think how bad the repubs would treat the president-ELECT? Of course, the right-wing pundits won't give him a chance, but the politicians have to be statesmen. There is work that needs to get done!

The ridiculous partisanship has to stop somewhere!

[thinkahead]

29. they will treat us badly

no matter what - it's frustrating that some folks don't realize that.

Republicans do not play nice. When Al Gore gave his heart-wrenching concession speech, they were already planting the seeds of how to smear the outgoing Clinton. Remember vandalism-gate, and the Marc Rich pardon? They wasted no time, and they will behave this way no matter what. They continue like this to this day.

I would agree partisanship has got to stop, but we'll have to get the Republicans out - and sweep congress in order to kick it down a notch. The establishment (or establishment-backed) Dem's are not going to get it done. They've proven that already. That's why I will vote for Dean.

[Insurance_Analyst]

35. Did you see Clark on MTP about 2 weeks before the war started?

That was a guy that cares very deeply about this country! I have no doubt that Clark wants Dubya gone.

Clark is the best candidate on paper and he is becoming more adroit as a politician!

[thinkahead]

43. Presidents aren't made on paper

just ask professional baseball Team owner George W. Bush. It's so much more than resume that matters.

[Insurance_Analyst]

45. Image is key...

and Clark's image would definitely be more appealing than Dean's to a common American (just my opinion)! Dean probably does have great policies, but that won't get him elected.

Gore was a huge wonk, had the best economic record of any politician in history, but he played right into the IMAGE that the republicans had painted of him.

Remember the debates? I voted for Gore (and Clinton twice btw), but I must say in each debate Gore was a different person. It was the image issue that beat Gore.

Clark has the image of a self-made man, a four-star general, very intelligent, successful businessman!!!

Dean is a doctor (very good), who came from a well-to-do background (hard to see how that helps him against Bush) and supported gay marriage and abortion rights. The only other thing an average voter will probably hear is that Dean "wants to raise YOUR taxes."

I'm not attacking your guy. I'm just trying to help us understand each other and the vulnerabilities our common adversary will exploit!

[Cheswick2.0]

74. NO, partisanship has to start!

Democrats need to be more partisan. We elect them to fight for our values, not to go along with corruption so rank you can smell it.
Good Grief, what is wrong with partisanship? Bush was a walking disaster and most of us knew it long before he ever took office. Why was Clark not swift enough to realize that fact? Why did so many democrat fail to see it?
Robert Byrd is far from being liberal, he is one of the least partisan members of congress to this point, but he could see the truth about bush and his agenda. Why was he one of so few willing to be partisan when it was absolutely imperative to be so?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmaier]

23. more

ad hominemitis, going on here I see.

[Toucano]

27. Let's see if this works.

R-h-o-d-e-s S-c-h-o-l-a-r, Rhodes Scholar.

Convinced yet? LOL :)

[retyred]

28. I wouldn't go there unless your intention was to look laughable

"You might be more convincing" if you could spell: "Rhodes schollar."

Rhodes Scholar not Rhodes schollar.

On edit: LOL


retyred in fla
“good night paul, wherever you are”
So I read this book

[Insurance_Analyst]

39. Are you

Will Pitt by chance?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikehiggins]

24. Invulnerable? Not at all.

The point is not that Clark is invulnerable at all. There will undoubtedly be smear campaigns, unless every right winger in America gets hit by lightning at exactly the same instant. What we maintain is that the smears against Clark will be of a nature that can be turned on the attackers.

Ignoring the attacks that the other candidates will undoubtedly sustain if one of them is the front runner, just look at the ones you mentioned. Is it likely that there will be a large number of democrats inspired to stay home, or vote Republican by these kinds of attacks? Only if they are totally loony. There is a good body of evidence to suggest that the proverbial ham sandwich could get a Democratic vote this time around. Clark should have no problem.

When it comes to attracting disgruntled Republican voters, attacking Clark becomes something similar to unAmerican. He is, after all, a decorated Vet, etc., etc., which buys him a certain amount of credibilty among the populace that other Democrats do not possess. The widespread response to attacks on an American hero among the traditionalist right wing is generally WTF, not blind acceptance.

The issues that motivate the right are not the ones that motivate DU posters, as a rule. Clark almost caused WWIII by standing up to the godless Russkies? Give him another medal.

As to other generals criticising a member of the club, there maybe some willing to do that. More likely, though, the fadeaway that Stormin Norman pulled, along with Clark's true nemesis, Bill Cohen, is a better indication of what will occur. You haven't heard a peep out of General Shelton lately, have you? Even General Jackson, the man who made the famous WWIII remark, said in his own book that such things were common in the heat of debate over serious issues, and not to be taken alltogether seriously.

Videos of Clark praising the neos? They let us down and turned away from the real war against anti-terrorism, the fight against al Queda. It was with heavy heart that General Clark found himself realising that the cabal in Washington was a more serious danger to this nation than even our enemies overseas.

All of which, of course, assumes that one wins a campaign by defending against outrageous criticisms. Clark has already shown how that is handled, the famous "well, that is wrong, but while we're on the subject, why does Bush want more nuclear weapons when nobody in the Pentagon thinks they are at all necessary?" Answering criticism is allowing people to frame the debate. You don't win by fighting the other man's fight.

So why can't the other democrats do the same thing? Well, for one thing they all have a much LONGER record of issues to be attacked on, much of which is ambiguous, to say the least. Clark is a consummate outsider but someone very conversant with how things are done in the real world, as opposed to those who reside within the Beltway.

Second, they haven't demonstrated any ability or willingness to do so. I know at least one of the candidate's supporters will be likely to go ballistic at this suggestion, but there is effective attack and ineffective attack. This is where Clarks credentials come into play the most. Clark's claim is not that the safety and security of the US population is not the premier concern of the President, but that he can do that specific job much better than the buffoon in the White House. Years on committees in Congress or terms served in a state house don't make that argument convincingly. The American voter has seen that before, heard that before, often from the same people now saying it again. They haven't heard from General Clark before, but they do know how to add.

Three years of failed policies as compared to 34 years of public service. Do some of Clarks associates not like him? Most Americans know what that is all about without having to have it spelled out for them. They can spell envy easily, and relate it to their own lives even more easily.

Anyway, I'm sorry to bother you guys with all this, especially since I've been plugging for an end to this kind of thread. We're a little over three weeks before the first votes are cast. Threads like this are interesting sometimes, on the rare occasion something new comes up, but generally speaking, by this time in the game, its all over but the counting.

So, Clark is not invulnerable but he's better positioned to attack Bush's actions in a crucial area than the rest of the candidates.

And he's ready to kick the shit out of the GOP.

[jmaier]

30. What Mike said.

Brilliant post, mike. That is actually how weak these sorts of attacks on Clark will look in the GE. The only place they resonate strongly is here -- and places like here. Middle of the road (politically speaking) voters are going to tend to give Clark a bye on the usual Dem problem of "being weak on defense."

Between Dean and Clark, we have an interesting set of options. We can nominate someone who has run a remarkable, unconventional campaign and that will cause the Rethugs some headaches. OR, we can choose to run an equally excellent candidate who is unconventional HIMSELF.

The usual Rethug attack lines are going to be harder to pigeonhole Wes Clark into and that issue trumps, imo, the characteristics of the Dean campaign. Of course, ideally I'd like to have both attributes in our favor. :-)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. Thanks for your insightful post

I wasn't going to post here because it seemed to be degenerating, but your thoughtful analysis has inspired me. My main concern for General Clark is that I fear that the Rethugs will, indeed, stoop so low as to malign a deocrated Viet Nam vet. Look what they did to Max Cleland in Georgia. I am also afraid that they will use the General's intellectual ability against him-"He did well in school, like Clinton did!" or "Everybody knows that smart people are crazy!" I'm not trying to be funny. I've heard comments like this before, and have found I have to hide what little intellectualism I have because of them.

Lastly, the thing that frets me most is that the press seems to be ignoring Clark's wonderful comments that are exposing the chickenhawks for what they are. I listen to NPR during the day at work (only one in the office, so no one can object), and I've yet to hear them even mention the wonderful comments Clark has made, much less actually look into the facts behind his statements. If NPR doesn't cover it, will the TV networks? I'm hoping that this will change come the general election (whoever is nominated), but I'm not sure.

btw, I'm a Dean supporter but am very impressed with what Clark is doing lately. I want the message about this lying administration to get out--but how can we do this?

[thinkahead]

33. I appreciate your argument

and there are many valid points - especially Clark's record of service. Americans appreciate that.

I feel exactly the same about Howard Dean, who left the family business (Wall Street) to become a doctor. He developed a certain pragmatism as such - and has carried it with him into a life of public service - and figuring out ways not to just talk about problems, but to solve them. Howard Dean gets things done - and America is hungry for that. Dean has an excellent record in this regard - and in matters of taking the fight to Bush - Dean is second to none. He absolutely does not let Bush frame the debate, which they are trying desperatley to do. And if you look at Dean's policy positions, and plans for the country, they are rock solid, at least from my perspective.

I agree all of our candidates have vulnerabilities - I guess it just boils down to who has the most mobilized support, and the best, most concise message in the end.

[Scoopie]

78. But the concise message that

Dean espouses is, pretty much, "Bush sucks."
And, I'm sorry, but that's not going to win the election. Most people don't believe he sucks. They think, like Clark pointed out, that he's "a good guy in over his head."
I know we don't feel that way, but I know plenty of independents and disgruntled Republicans who do. They would vote for Clark, but not Dean.

[Justice]

34. I Will Accept At Face Value

That your post is a honest expression of thoughts and not flamebait. I see one respondent to your post who often works hard to post negatively about Clark, and thus far the posts (although there are multiple posts by this person, are restrained so far)

Here is my reaction.

There are few people naive enough to believe that any democratic candidate will be more or less vulnerable to unfounded smears by the RW. Certainly what we saw happen to John McCain and to Max Cleland were examples of really horrific smears by the RW. Some candidates may have some "low lying fruit" to pick and smear that is of a nature and type that is more apt to gain headlines. But bottom line, the RW will do anything to anybody. I expect that the RW will be out in full force against the democratic nominee.

So, in my view, it is more about the response. Both the substantive response and the way in which the response is given. The ability to deliver the response in a particular way, the ability to stand up and challenge the smear head on. And the willingness to do so (which is where I think ultimately Cleland and McCain had trouble).

Ultimately, I believe that Clark will be able to respond better than any other democratic candidate. Why? In part because his background is unconventional for a presidential candidate - he comes from humble roots, he stood on his own to get into West Point (he could have gone anywhere), he became a Rhodes Scholar, went to Oxford, he served his country in Vietnam, he was wounded, he rose thru the ranks in the Army while caring about people, families, healthcare. His work in Kosovo saved lives without losing US lives. He was recognized by countries around the world for this work.

Clark's biography is unique. He doesn't fit the mold. Where you see problems, I see responses that are powerful.

In my view, if the GOP runs footage of Clark praising Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the gang - the response is 9/11 changed everything. The RWs did not react appropriately. You need to get out. In 2000 people joked about Bush*'s lack of foreign policy - like we'd never need it, life was good - what was the problem.

I don't see centrists questioning his motivation, I see centrists who supported the war because they believed that the office of the presidency and the secretary of state wouldn't lie to them about WMD.
These people are angry, and somewhat humiliated for being duped. I see people saying - that is right, I wasn't wrong to believe in the presidency and rely on him telling the truth - these guys lied. People don't want to think they were stupid - they want to blame someone else for their mistake.

I believe Clark appeals to swing voters who voted for Bush* in 2000 for certain particular reasons - perhaps fiscal responsibility, perhaps smaller government, perhaps strength on domestic policy, perhaps because of the perceived notion that Bush* was an honorable man.

I don't see a huuueeege wedge in the Democratic base. I don't see a very solid Democratic base, I see splintering in lots of different directions but with a core that focuses on ABB. But I do see a guy that speaks to seniors, children, women, vets and gays etc.

Clark has dealt pretty effectively with his record by releasing his service records showing those who praised him. He makes no bones about his loss to understand Shelton's comments. He says politics is the reason for Shelton's comments. Shelton made a remark about Clark -but he has been humiliated by having a war criminal use his remark against Clark. Don't think that encourages other generals to come out of the closet. Clark is also able to point to Shelton and Cohen's glowing comments at the time the command changed hands. And yes, there is that little matter of a few dozen medals and awards from countries about the world, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Hard to explain that away.

Yes, there will be Republican slime, (although there are some on DU that would give these guys a run for the their money). The best way to deal with this slime is for all the democrats to get behind Clark if he is the nominee and work every day to dispel and ferret out the slime. But we both know that won't happen, because there will be some who are sore about losing the nomination, and they won't step up and help right the wrong. I'd do it for Dean, or any other nominee. I do it today for Clinton, but there are some that won't.

I am sorry, it is pretty darn amazing to read "Secondly, fighting back against smear campaigns takes money and organization. A nice bio doesn't do anything with limited funds. Conversely, a candidate with a crappy bio and a bunch of waffles can get away with a lot more when (s)he has funds to back it up. Clark clearly isn't the superior candidate from this angle." The day I support a candidate because they have the most money is the day I change my party registration to republican. I refuse to pick my candidate based on money, particularly if he or she is crappy and waffles.

I don't think the issue is whether or not you supported the war frankly. I believe Bill Clinton's statement - elections are more about the future than the past. People supported the war because they were told WMD. We can be self righteous and say, you idiot there was never WMD you were an idiot. Or we can say, you were deceived, how wrong, how outrageous, reckless and wrong. And then move on to how the hell are we going to get out of Iraq. Clark has a policy and a plan to get us out. People will want to hear that. He knows details and has ideas that the other candidates don't even know about, let alone can express.

I don't understand your last point about Clark's palatabilty on the issues. I do think it is more credible for a 4 star general to say the war was wrong than a governor of Vermont, or a senator or a congressman. I just do.

I don't make the argument that Clark is invulnerable. I know what the RW will do - anything, say anything. But I do think Clark has the best chance against Bush* That is why I support him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. So much to write, so little time

First things first. Anyone who thinks anyone is "invulnerable" is stupid, and most Clark supporters I know are far from being stupid. Do I think Clark is less vulnerable than the other Democratic candidates? Yes I do. Second, the corollary; Bush also is not invulnerable. I also believe Clark makes Bush much more vulnerable than does any of the other Democratic Party candidates.

As for Clark's prior positive statements about key Republicans, the Republicans have a whole library full of sound bites of various important Democrats saying positive things about the Republican foreign policy team. These date to three periods. The first one is specific to Colin Powell; he was getting praised up the wazoo in the mid 90's by everyone with vocal cords. The second period dates to shortly after W's inauguration, when a bunch of Democrats tried to take the high road and held out an olive branch to Bush to put the devisivness of 2000 behind us. Most of the confirmaton hearings in the Senate back then were love fests full of lavish praise. The third period dates to after 9/11 when "the country unified behind our Commander in Chief", and it continued with an encore when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Unlike other elected Democratics, it is totally true to context that Clark would take a non partisan stance towards America's civilian leadership during a time of war. Clark was not in politics then. He took the same stance that the vast majority of America's electorate took. And that is exactly what Clark says about it. He thought the Bush Administration had enough experience that they would essentially hold to the same fundamental bipartisan thrust of American Foreign Policy that had been pursued under Presidents of both parties for decades. He wished them success because their success meant America' success.

Here is something I posted on another thread, slightly edited, about a TV ad Clark could run regarding his prior praise of Bush's team:

It is a perfect set up for Clark. Look, it is true that that tape hurt Clark running as a newly introduced Democrat in Democratic primaries. I f Clark wins the nomination however, he will represent the Democratic Party, and will be reaching out to all voters. During the General Election I think Clark might well use that tape himself. There might be a few second clip of the scene at the Little Rock Fund Raiser. It would fade and Clark would be facing the camera, and he might say something like, "Remember what America was like in the weeks and months following 9/11? I certainly do. We were united as a people. We gave our full support to our President as Commander in Chief. I know I did. We wished him well in the fight against terror. Americans rallied to George Bush because we expected him to fullfill the promise he made to the American people, to go after Osama Bin Ladin, to bring the terrorists who attacked our nation to justice. George Bush had an experienced team to lean on. But when policy disputes broke out among them, when Secratary Powell was resisted in his efforts to enlist the world community in our common cause, Bush needed to make the tough calls, and the calls he made were the worng ones. That's why I am running for President. I'm Wes Clark, and I approve of this message."

The point is Clark took the same journey of Discovery about the ineptness of the Bush Administration as the American public did. It resonates with them. The key differences are, 1) Clark broke ranks early and hard because 2) Clark actually knows what he is talking about with forein affairs and security issues. And the thing is, when people listen to Clark talk on those subjects, they get that. They know that he is not just reading a speechified version of a policy paper written by a candidates foreign affairs advisor. They know Clark has been there, and unlike Bush, he really knows what he is talking about.

OK, this post is long enough. I'll do another one later picking up where this one leaves off.

[Insurance_Analyst]

42. Great post...

Do you think that the anger of Dean supporters clouds their judgment sometimes? I think Clark is a great guy, but what I look most about him is that I think he matches up better than the others against Bush.

Clark was a self-made man (humble beginnings), a great student (this time around I think the American people could appreciate having the smartest kid in class (literally) as the POTUS, which was not the case in 2000), and an incredible record of LEADERSHIP and achievement as an adult.

Dean had a much more privileged background and doesn't have a lick of foreign policy experience. He was the first candidate to really publicly criticize Bush about the war (outside of DK of course), but beyond that there really isn't much there in my opinion.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

44. Much of This Thread Makes Me Proud to Be a Clark Supporter

So many AWESOME answers!

:bounce:

DTH

[Insurance_Analyst]

46. Why did you become a hawk?

I see (FINALLY) how Bush wants to eradicate terror by getting rid of state-sponsored terror. However, why he went for Iraq is too suspicious. It seems personal to me.

The wiser target for eradicating state-sponsored terror would have been the Saudi's. If he was genuinely serious about his plan that is who he should've gone after. I think that would possibly be a good plan. However, I always keep in mind that his and the PNAC's plan may have two major flaws. The USA doesn't have the wallet or the bodies to implement the plan globally the way it should probably be implemented.

[copithorne]

50. More than the resume

It isn't the just resume that will make smearing Wesley Clark difficult. To me, the guy has a presence that is uncommonly commanding, dignified, and reassuring.

I think he's a rare candidate and even though we have a lot of great candidates in the race, I hope Democrats can seize the opportunity to present him to the country.

[Insurance_Analyst]

52. Yes, but those accomplishments (on his resume) are what...

give him the presence you eloquently described!

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. While the issue WAS the Iraq War

It will BE America's overall security in a dangerous world. Sure it most likely will still be a mess in Iraq, and on that point alone Bush deserves to be fired for squandering 150 Billion dollars and for allowing Al Queda to regroup. But it will not be enough for the Democratic Party candidate to argue that he was right about Iraq when others were wrong. Yeah, that counts, whoever it is can score some points with that one. But Americans will be nervously looking forward more so than glancing back. And what if the news from Iraq is actually "hopeful" for a few weeks in October?

Instinctively Americans trust Republicans to handle foreign policy. Maybe it is because Democrats are seen as worrying about people all the time, always a nice card to play with domestic issues, but not so much with foreign ones. Americans call central casting and ask for some tough looking Republican type to protect America from its enemies, unless they don't see any enemies around. Then they might relax and vote Democratic.

We now have the good fortune of having a Democratic Presidential Candidate who has more credibility on security issues than an incumbent Republican President. AND he is at the very worse moderate, but far more frequently progressive, on the full range of domestic issues. Democrats know how to take on Republicans around Domestic issues. If Clark is the nominee there are many voices in our Democratic Choir who can back him up there. One of them will be his Vice Presidential candidate, and there is a wealth of talent for Clark to choose from. But no one can take it to old Chickenhawk George like Wes can and will. Whether the issue of the moment is still Iraq, or has become North Korea, or Pakistan, of the Sudan, Clark is up to speed on the global picture and the American people will sense that immediately. It will give them the confidence they need to vote Democratic in 2004.

[Insurance_Analyst]

51. Wow...that is the kind of post that could sway some Dean supporters!

[JVS]

53. good post

[JVS]

59. Oops. I meant to address the last post to the thread header.

[Justice]

57. Elections Are More About The Future Than The Past

I totally agree with your post, Tom. Thanks.

[thinkahead]

62. We don't have to have a general

to instill confidence in our foreign policy. I understand this is Clark's main selling point, but the fact is Americans trust a strong leader, period. Whether he wears a uniform or not, it's the person that makes the difference. Personally the General seems a bit too over-rehearsed - he seems more like a candidate Republicans would put up because he speaks in generalities (I've seen him not answer a question for over 3 minutes) and just tries to look good doing it.

Much of Dean's appeal is his straightforward frank discussion of the facts. It scares the hell out of the establishment and the pundits - but as you can see it works. Dean isn't afraid to say something people won't like - and this is a breath of fresh air for those of us who have been waiting for a candidate like this for a long, long time. It will take someone like this to solve the enormous problems we face in the country and around the world.

As you feel strongly about your candidate - so do I feel about mine -I believe Howard Dean could be one of the great Presidents - the fact so many insiders are scared of him tends to confirm this for me.

[John_H]

55. I hope nobody thinks Clark is in vulnerable. That would be as dumb as

denying that Dean is far more vulnerable to likely GOP strategy than Clark. I'll be honest and admit Clark is vulnerable on some issues. Dean supporters should be honest and admit that Dean is the most vulnerable on the BIG issue--national security.

[Donna Zen]

56. Enough

Secondly, fighting back against smear campaigns takes money and organization. A nice bio doesn't do anything with limited funds. Conversely, a candidate with a crappy bio and a bunch of waffles can get away with a lot more when (s)he has funds to back it up. Clark clearly isn't the superior candidate from this angle.

Clinton says we will never have more money than the repubs., but then we don't need it. All we need enough, because we are right on the issues.

The key issue here is the Iraq War -- Kerry has a similar tax policy, Lieberman promotes tax cuts and "family values," and so forth. However, if the Iraq War was that important of an issue, Democrats should vote for a war supporter like Gephardt or Lieberman. The argument that people are intensely for the war but will change their minds at the drop of their hat when they see someone with shiny metals is implausible, especially in context of the attacks that will be lobbed against him in the first paragraph, in addition to the inability to fight back illustrated in the second.

Clark has been completely consistent on the Iraq war. In fact when one reads his entire body of work, you will begin to wonder if the man has a crystal ball. The war was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Clark is a strategist, and saw clearly where the danger of terrorism was, and what would happen in Iraq. If you took the time to write this post, you should make the time to search the entire record. There are several good sources of the complete body of Clark's work, but I would start with his House testimony. All of it, not just the out of contex snips that serve the purposes of DU.

Finally, as for your friends who hate the idea of a Four Star General. Do you really think that those of us who want to see this man elected are any less liberal? In fact, are liberals not the very people who are willingly to listen and consider people for who they are beyond sterotypes?

Wesley Clark is saying things that are so far beyond what the other candidates are saying that the vision is one that liberals have been waiting to hear: Strengthening the UN, changing the dynamics in the ME, creating a web of international institutions to move the world toward dialogue as opposed to war, developing new technologies, reducing the use of oil and the resulting the polution, creating a department within the US government to aid other countries so that we not only talk about our values we live them, demanding paper trails for voting machines, suspending the Patriot Act, funding education and dumping NCLB, providing grants for the first two years of a college education, reducing the Defense budget by sweeping out the waste fraud and abuse, and there is more, much more. Because at its core this election is about the true meaning of Constitutional democracy, not just this crap we've had thrown at us for years. Are you ready for reasoned dialogue?

The question for me is not whether Clark can be elected, it is how soon can I move him into the White House. Can that happen? He is viewed as a non-partisan, smart, and moderate southerner. Get him elected and you will be in for the greatest muckraking, progressive ride of your life.

Please take the time to listen to him and read his vast body of written work. Then read what people other Bob Novak and General Shelton hav to say. Go and see him. I think that you, and hopefully your friends will come away as surprised and blown away as I did.

All patriot, no act.

[dfong63]

64. Clark has NOT been consistent on IWR

one day he says he would have voted for it, then he says he would have voted against it, then he says he's not sure. right after the fall of Baghdad he was practically creaming himself congratulating Bush and Blair for their tremendous victory.

no thanks.

[oasis]

58. Clark's supporters will be his mainstay. I have seen them grow in their

confidence and their commitment. They wouldn't have a tough time of it selling their guy to fence sitters.

[Leilani]

60. What A Great Discussion!

Filled with indepth thoughts & positions.

As a Clark supporter, I would like to add the following:
The 2000 Census shows there are 26,549,704 American Veterans...
26+ million. Add to each vet 1 or 2 people who vote concerning
military & vet issues.

Howard Dean is a good man, but this is not his constituency; it
belongs to Wes Clark. Vets are mad as hell at their treatment by
this administration. Also, families of current military are looking for someone to be their advocate, & who better than a General who's
been there & done that.

Current soldiers are going into Iraq with inadequate body armor;
lousy supply line from Halliburton, wrong vehicles, lousy medical
care for Guard & Reservists.

And they know they have been lied to; Wes Clark will be the answer
to their problems, & they will trust him.

[TexasSissy]

67. No one is unvulnerable. And I have not seen Clark supporters

posit that theory, as a group. I haven't even seen an individual poster posit that theory.

Sounds to me that if that theory were posited, they would have been saying that Clark is less vulnerable to smears, not INvulnerable to smears.

You yourself in your post, which you call an "invulnerability argument," actually states that supporters have posited a theory of LESS vulnerability.

I hadn't thought about this before. I will give it some thought. It's possible that it's correct that he is less vulnerable. But it's possible he's not. I don't know that that's a critical issue, though, since there are plenty of statements to smear about to go around to all the candidates, incl. Bush.

[RetroLounge]

73. I like the way Clark fights back at the Media

and the White House.

While I am voting for Dean in the Primary, if Clark wins, he will have all my support in the General Election (no pun intended).

I have some issues with Clark. But nothing that would prevent him from being a good President or my supporting him.

I just feel better about Dean.

[ibegurpard]

75. Kick

Good points. This has been a major stumbling block for me as well.