I used to like Clark, but not so much anymore...

[edzontar]

Why?

Because the recent flood of threads posted by self-proclaimed Clark supporters ruminating on the "unelectable" and "doomed" candidacy of Dean is starting to turn me off. Big time.

I believe that this line of argument is not only annoying and offensive, but also serves the long-term interests of Bush and the GOP.

It is an argument that is easily hijacked and exploited by freepers, disruptors and dirty-tricksters, as we have seen with the "Stop Dean Movement" threads, for example.

Hopefully this trend will die down soon, and we shall have a chance to debate the relative merits of the candidates on their own terms.

Then I shall be reminded once again of Gen. Clark's many good qualities.

Let us not forget the ultimate goal is to defeat Bush and return this country to its original owners--the American people.

Hopefully we shall see more unity (and useful debate) in 2004.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[AP]

2. People have been talking about Dean's electability forever.

[Scott Lee]

6. Who, in particular? And please post the sources.

Every time I see the fingers start pointing, I wonder outloud if this is more strawman stuff.

[edzontar]

9. I don't want, or need, to point them out....

There are any number of them active on this forum right now--anyone can find them in about ten seconds.

Also, I don't want to attack individuals, but rather wish to address a general trend..this trend is so self-evident that it requires no "proof" or specific finger-pointing to verify its existence.

Regarding the other point: Yes, I DO recognize that "Dean's Electability" has been an issue for a while--(thank you, Ted Koppel, etc.)--and it is even a valid one--but the point has been magnified to absurdity in many of the threads we have seen here.

My concern is that this specific line of argument can be (and probably already IS being) exploited by our real enemies.

[Scott Lee]

30. Sorry, that question was directed to AP

Well AP, can you point us out the litany of "only Dean is electable" threads you claim exist?

[janx]

110. Absolutely. I've seen it at work on this board--people who are

against Dean being used by freepers and disruptors, and even agreeing wholeheartedly with them. I don't know how the mods can begin to keep it all straight.

[Atman]

17. Well, actually...from 9-28-03

From my own pseudo-blog...

"I'm not afraid to say that I am not particularly comfortable sending a country doctor to slog into Bush's turd pile, getting the hang of all this strategery mumbo-jumbo while troops who have ten times more military experience than he does continue to get picked off in endless guerilla attacks."

http://www.rmcgcreative.com/comics/nby/nbyarch_03/nby_20032609.htm#Anchor-1ststory-49575

[Scott Lee]

111. OK that's one (and a self written source).....anything else?

[Cheswick2.0]

48. only by people trying to get other nominees elected

I am really worried about Edwards electability. I think he looks like a boy scout and people will think he is only half baked (needs more time in the oven). I think if Edwards were nominated people on the left would go green because edwards is repuke lite.

[madaboutharry]

3. I don't think that Gen. Clark

is calling up DU'ers and telling them to post "Dean is unelectable" threads on this site. I agree it has gotten a bit out of hand around here at times, but the candidates don't have anything to do with it.

[JNelson6563]

58. Yes but we must remember

if we choose to speak on behalf of our candidate anywhere (on-line or the real world), like it or not, we are a reflection of that candidate. If you act offensively and you've associated yourself with a certain candidate, it is likely when the offense is recalled so will be the candidate's name.

Julie

[Scott Lee]

4. It's gotten progressively worse over the last week or so

Enough to make you wonder what's really up. Here's what I think is up, in a nutshell.

Dean is winning.

That's it. And for some odd reason, some Clark supporters think that flameouts against Dean supporters are magically going to change that course, or garner a mass of new Clark converts.

Of course, that's not going to happen. Do you want to break the news to them, or should I?

[edzontar]

16. Well, it is obviously not working on ME...

And I guess we have already told them!!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I agree with you about the front runner dynamic

Dean is winning, which of course is not the same thing as Dean has already won, but his being the favorite does effect the dynamics of all campaigning, and the likelyhood that any concerns one might have about Dean would be raised now. To state what may be obvious, I see no point in bringing up the concerns I might have about Al Sharpton winning the nomination, because I don't see much possibility of that.

I state for the record that I sincerely do believe that Clark is more likely to beat Bush should he be the Democratic nominee than Dean is. I'm sorry if you don't like reading someone state that, but it is my honestly held opinion, and I think it is a relevent question for consideration and debate, since whether or not we maximize our chances to win in November through our choice of candidate is not a trivial tangental question. Having said that, I neither believe nor have I ever stated that I think Dean is unelectable. I plan to work on his campaign should he get the nomination and I don't think it would be a waste of my time to do so.

Dean supporters sometimes forget that often they have been the ones who argue most strenuosly that "only Dean is electable". They just use different arguments than the Clark people use, or some supporters of other candidates use. The arguments I have heard most usually involve the unique and wonderful grassroots movement that Dean and only Dean has behind him that no one else can match, which will be the only force that can counter Bush's money. Right after that I hear how Dean's wonderful fundraising will allow him and only him to mount a campaign robust enough to offset all of the money Bush has raised. I also hear that because everyone else (accept Clark I suppose) is tied to Washington under Bush, they have been discredited and now only Dean can energize the Democratic base and thus only Dean is electable.

I don't begrudge Dean or Dean supporters making those arguments. Give it your best shot. But this who is more electable stuff has been going on for quite awhile and Dean's camp have been active players. It goes back to some of the classic "energize the base" vs. "reach out to swing voters" debates we all know and love so well. It is not these arguments being made that bother me sometimes, it is the smears being thrown at everyone.

[edzontar]

24. Thanks for the sensible reply....

This is what a fair and useful debate might look like.

[CWebster]

66. opinion vs fact

"I state for the record that I sincerely do believe that Clark is more likely to beat Bush should he be the Democratic nominee than Dean is."\

OTH

Dean has raised much more money than the others and has a broader grassroots movement, which Clark supporters have openly anticipated as transferring to Clark as soon as everyone realizes how unelectible Dean is. LOL. Sorry, Tom, but that amuses me.

[sendero]

67. thank you...

... for stating a position without making ridiculous statements like "John is unelectable".

People who say things like that go on my moron list immediately. Nobody knows the future, just like an unexpected turnover in a football game can lead to a result the "experts" did not predict, a single political event can irreparably change a candicacy for good or ill.

There is nothing wrong with stating, as you have, your opinion about how a candidate will do in the wider race - I'm interested in those opinions so long as they come with reasonable explanation.

But the board has filled up with nonsense the last few weeks that frankly leaves me wondering. Do you have an influx of professional disruptors here, or is the average Dem as big a lowlife as the average Repug when it comes to honest debate?

Because statements like "John is unelectable" is not debate, it is pure propaganda.

[edzontar]

70. I took the "Edwards is unelectable" post as a satire...

The point seemed to be, to me at least, that you could post something like this about any one of the candidates.

Obviously I consider posts of this type against ANY of them to be stupid, Freeper and GOP-serving disruption.

[shivaji]

108. Just by saying so does not make it so...

I have seen posts time and again saying Clark is more electable than Dean. And the main reason Clark is perceived as stronger on war against terrorism. But IMHO this is hypothesis without sound basis.

Let us examine actual details....Bush is ALSO PERCEIVED as strong on war against terrorism. In fact more so than Clark. Don't ever forget our esteemed president Truman's wise advice: "when given a choice between a real republican and a republican lite, they (right of center voters) will vote the republican everytime". I have no doubt Clark will be perceived as the strongest against terrorism AMONGST DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. Sorry, do not see a significant advantage.

On the other hand Clark has many weaknesses in comparison to Dean. I am deathly afraid of Rove running commercials in October simply showing video's Clark's speeches praising the heck out of Bush, Rummy, Condi and the gang. No need to make a long winded commercial, since most voters have short attention span. Upon relentless running of this commercial, what do you think our base voters will think? They will be DE-ENERGIZED and CONFUSED. No amount of long winded rebuttal by the hopelessly funds mismatched Clark campaign can fight off the powerful visual images.

Rove has no such ammunition available on Dean.

And then there is the Dean record...NEVER LOST AN ELECTION, WON SIX SO FAR; ONLY CANDIDATE WITH EXECUTIVE POLITICAL EXPERIENCE; MOST QUALIFIED TO INSTITUTE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE WITH HIS MEDICAL BACKGROUND; ENDORSEMENT BY HIGHEST RANKING DEMOCRAT etc.

Clark is also vulnerable in GE by being pro-Iraq war as a CNN analyst and then waffling his position. Clark's ill advised statement regarding oursourcing of jobs "Let software jobs go to India, we will find something else to do", which clearly shows lack of political experience.

Dean is much more likely to energize our base than Clark. Dean clearly has a better shot at defeating Bush than Clark.

[SahaleArm]

27. So is this retaliation?

:) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=27518

[windansea]

5. we're not all Clark supporters

and there are real reasons why we think Dean is a poor choice against Bush


WashPost/ABC
12/20/03
-----------------------------------Bush--55-----------Dean----37

Past national polls, which asked more head-to-head questions, showed repeatedly that Dean fares much worse against Bush than Senator John Kerry or General Wesley Clark.

WashPost/ABC
11/02/03
-----------------------------------Bush--54-----------Dean----39
-----------------------------------Bush--51-----------Clark----40
-----------------------------------Bush--50-----------Kerry----44

USAT/CNN/Gallup
9/21/03
-----------------------------------Bush--49-----------Dean----46
-----------------------------------Bush--46-----------Clark----49
-----------------------------------Bush--47-----------Kerry----48

Dean’s lack of military and foreign policy experience is at least vaguely understood by the public at large. “ …when asked in the poll whether they trusted the president or Dean more to handle national security and the war on terrorism, 67 percent said Bush and 21 percent Dean. “

[Scott Lee]

7. Do you think that Clark and Kerry will be the first CoPresidential

nominees? You do realize that at some point it gets down to one, not two, people?

Also, how come neither Clark nor Kerry can garner the public support and fund monies that Dean can? Doesn't this rub against your "Dean can't win against Bush" claim by showing that Clark and Kerry have a worse time of it?

[JVS]

15. CLARK CAN LOSE BY SLIGHTLY LESS and the difference might be within the MOE

What a resounding mandate of the people to nominate this man, even though his polls numbers in the primary process, by which the nominee is chosen, are far behind Dean's.

[bearfartinthewoods]

103. resounding mandate of the people to nominate this man????WTF?

i think you are getting a little carried away here.

[terryg11]

8. shouldn't let his supporters here affect your feelings

I doubt he's asking them to do that for him. It's a little crazy now with everyone working for their person, I've just learned to look past the negative rhetoric

[edzontar]

11. You are no doubt correct....but I wonder

Do you think some of these more zealous supporters might be neophytes--attracted to politics for the first time by Clark's candidacy, but not committed to the party as a whole, in the long run?

This thought has crossed my mind...but I have no idea what the demographics of Clark's support might be.

Have we any statistics?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

69. I have no statistics

but I can tell you I am a long time registered Independent voter and neophyte to the trenches of political campaigning.

Having said that, I have been shocked by the amount of vitrol and party infighting that goes on.

You ask about committment to a party...most Independents don't commit to parties that's why they're called independent LOL.

It is evident to me that the Democratic supporters of various candidates have done the same as I. They are zealous for the candidate that comes closest to their particular views on issues or gives them the highest level of comfort, or a bit of both. And that is what this primary process is all about.

Both the Dean & the Clark campaign have drawn many new people into the process...that is good.

What isn't good, if they happen upon DU, is the bashing matches that go on here and on the candidates individual blogs.

The sad part is that human nature, being what it is, causes each of us to jump to the defense of our candidate when spurious attacks come from other camps. In that process, in the heat of the moment, we often do exactly what we accuse others of doing, neophyte or not.

I would ask the original poster, and others to make a valiant attempt to look not at the trash that we supporters sometimes spew, but rather look more to how the candidate conducts him/herself in regards to their opposition...and even more importantly, look at the positions, the demeanor, and the forward looking vision of the candidate. It's the candidate, not the supporters, that we will be voting on. :-)

[edzontar]

72. Well said, and thanks....

I certainly did not intend to bash Gen. Clark, or his more effective supporters.

I only wanted to express my frustration at the nonsense that has started to dominate these threads.

Thanks again for your sage comments.

[oasis]

10. Clark could withdraw tommorow and Dean's "electabilty" would not change.

The facts about Dr. Dean are out there for all to see whether you're a Democrat or Republican.

[edzontar]

12. But much of what you call "facts" are speculation...

We are talking about 11 months from now...politics can be very unpredictable.

Also, we should remember that these threads also present Clark as our "only hope," but provide very little evidence that he would do any better in the long run than Dean.

[oasis]

18. I've seen many links to sources which show many inconsistancies

and flip flops in Dean's positions on issues.

In addition, Dr. Dean has characterized Bill Clinton's DLC as being the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party".

He can't piss off Dems and then expect them to rally around him.

[edzontar]

21. Sorry, but it is the same with Clark...

Like the whole praise of Bush and Rummy business, or the votes for Reagan in two prez. elections.

I am willing personally to look beyond that as far as Clark is concerned...but I'd like to see some comparable fairness from some of the other camps.

[oasis]

25. early on praise of the Bush Admistration shows that Clark was willing to

be fair and give them chance to govern without partisan criticism. That is very much to the General's credit.

[edzontar]

28. Perhaps. Anyway that is a good way to frame it.

Personally, I was never willing to give Bush or his goons even five minutes of the benefit of the doubt.

Well, maybe for a few days after 9/11, despite Bush's poor performance with the caterpillar book and hiding on Air Force One.

But we have all had the misfortune to see how all THAT worked out.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. he gets no credit for that from me

I wouldn't give bush a chance. I would rather nominate someone who feels the same.

[Andromeda]

112. Give me more partisan criticism of Bush...

I don't want my candidate to be fair to Bush. I want my candidate to point out Bush's failures not pat him on the back for his attempts. Give the General credit for his courage in the battlefield but not for condoning the bombing of a country that was no imminent threat to the United States.

Give me a candidate who will stand up to the Chimp-in-chief and say "You were wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally and I take back any praise I gave you." Was he afraid that would make him seem inconsistent?

Dean didn't take it back when he said Bush was wrong for handling Iraq the way he did. He wouldn't have gone in without the help of our allies.

[BootinUp]

115. Just a friendly comment

You must not be familiar with Gen. Clark's efforts to point out Bush's wrong headed policies. In Sept of 2002, Clark testified before both Houses of Congress, advising a multi-lateral UN approach and downplaying Iraq as a threat.

As a CNN commentator, Clark repeatedly questioned the policy before we went in. At the same time he was a news commentator and some have taken his statements out of context. But a look at the full record makes it clear.

In May/June Clark made the rounds of the news shows, and pretty much blasted Bush for taking us into Iraq.

In October or November this year, Clark went on Fox News and blasted the President over Iraq, when Fox questioned his patriotism with some leading questions Clark took it the talking head in what is now known as the smackdown video.

If you need links to any of this info let me know. As far as taking back praise, he has done that. If you can view video online, check out the Fox News video at
http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html

[Scott Lee]

31. So what? do you want Bush out or do you want a Saint?

I'm getting weary of all the "he's not consistent" moans (which is almost always subjective). Lets get past it. Any one of us can put a candidates words under a microscope and find prblems till the end of time. What in hell for?

I've got an election to win - how about you?

[Cheswick2.0]

49. your opinion is not fact

suprise!

[oasis]

107. Dr.Dean's positives are a plus, his negatives a minus. Are those facts?

[neuvocat]

13. How sad.

You can't actually make a solid decision on who to support (or not) using your own reasons, but apparently choose instead to use people's posts instead.

[edzontar]

19. No--I have already made my No. 1 decision.

For Dean.

And Clark was my no. 2 choice until the past several days.

I may come back--but am rather annoyed and turned off right now.

And I can assure you, I am not alone.

[bitchkitty]

55. No, you are not -

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Lisa0825]

14. I have been a Dean-1, Clark-2 person since I started reading up on Clark

during the draft movement. It has really taken a lot of effort for me to seperate my feelings about some Clark supporters from Clark himself. I realize you could reverse the names and make this a statement about Dean supporters, but I think the anti-Dean venom has been getting stronger in recent weeks. In addition to the mudslinging here, almost ALL the trolls we get on the Dean blog are Clark supporters (or posing as such). Just as I say here, when people say how horrible Dean supporters are, that the worst of them are probably just trolls trying to turn us against each other, I believe the same about the worst Clark trolls I see. But it is hard to reassure myself of that sometimes. One lovely troll has been posting DU threads at the Dean blog lately. Thanksfully we blogsters are pretty good about handling the trolls... sometimes it makes for a fun evening, impersonating them or tormenting them by other means. :evilgrin:

I can't wait for the primaries to be over, to have the nominee, so we can all just buckle down and start fighting TOGETHER instead of against each other.

[w13rd0]

23. Yeah....it's gotten more venemous...

...and I've seen the "Clark supporter" trolls on the Dean blog. And yes, some could be neophytes newly introduced into the political process, much the same charge has been levelled against some Dean supporters, and will no doubt be said again. I just don't much care for it, and choose not to pollute my beautiful mind with it (lol, sorry, had to do it). I applaud any candidate willing and eager to bash Bush.

[NashVegas]

105. Easy Way to Spot One

When you see someone with a low-post count AND they are all over a thread, working it, keeping the flames going. OTOH, there are a number of high-posters who do that.

Most people, when they jump into a discussion space, whether it's usenet or web, don't set out to "own" a topic. Someone who is willing to put that much energy into controlling a thread has an agenda at worst, a massive ego at best. They go straight into my killfile.

[edzontar]

26. Thanks--Yes, This too shall pass....

I think the main thing is be vigilant that our own contests do not provide too many tempting and fruitful openings for freeper tricksters, which is almost certainly happening these days.

[John_H]

22. OK. Here's the obvious, easy truth.

Poll after poll shows that Americans agree with Dems on nearly every social issue. So any Dem can win, right? Not this year.

The above fact is EXACTLY why the media and 200 million GOP bucks are going to try to make the election about national security, fighting evildoers etc.

Isn't it plainly obvious that if we run a candidate that takes away the National security ruse we allow our built in supremecy on every other issue to take effect?

I'm sorry you're sick of hearing it, but nobody has anything against howard dean as a man or a dem. But you've got to undertand that the people who believe we win if we take away Roves issue will not let it go unsaid.

[tbeatty]

33. Don't underestimate ....

Bush is president after 8 years of peace and prosperity. Before 9/11. "Supremacy of every other issue" is not a guarantee.

[Lobo_13]

34. And that strategy would ultimately turn out to be catastrophic

On a couple of levels. First, National Security is not going to be, and has NEVER been the deciding factor in elections. No matter how much you wish it to be so. People are more concerned about their job prospects than they are about whether a terrorist is going to blow them up.

Deal with that.

Second, you don't think that the 200 mil that you alluded to won't be fully utilized to paint Clark in whatever manner they see fit? No amount of truth or righteousness that may surround Clark will matter a hill of beans if he doesn't have the means to get it out there. You think that John Q. Public is going to think the guy is A-OK after $155 mil worth of ads that will smear him in every which way? They could call him whatever they want for four months and he wouldn't be able to say one word about it. He took the public financing and is going to have to abide by the $45 mil spending limit until July. The primaries are going to eat that up in no time. If you think that somehow little angels are going to visit everyone in America and tell them that he's a good guy, that's your business. Me, I'll deal in reality.

[John_H]

88. Deanial doesn't become someone who takes politics seriously

There's never been a post 9-11 presidential election, and BTW, 44, 52, 68, and 72 were all about national security--and so was '80 if you believe the October Surprise was the deciding factor. This one is going to be more so. Nice try, though.

Sure Rove will use the dough to attack Clark--but not on the big issue of the campaign. Can't do it. They also can't play clips of him lying about his governor's record like they can Dean.

It's just way obvious: are we going to run a guy who gets killed the main issue of the race or a guy who can win? Bandwagon or victory, folks.

[Lobo_13]

116. There's someone here that's in denial and it ain't me.

There's never been a post 9-11 presidential election, and BTW, 44, 52, 68, and 72 were all about national security--and so was '80 if you believe the October Surprise was the deciding factor.

You're right, this is the first election since then. But to make a categorical, dogmatic claim that it is going to somehow drastically change the electorate is a bit premature. We won't know the political effect it had until well after this election. Basing your campaign on something you can't know is foolish.

1944 - We were in the middle of an ACTUAL war and the people re-elected a former Governor from New England who had no previous military experience before WWII.

1952 - Eisenhower was elected on an extreme load of popularity from WWII.

1968 - The loser was a freaky liberal that scared the bejeezus out of everyone.

1972 - The beginning of the modern dirty tricks political campaign, coupled with an incredibly bad Democratic campaign.

1980 - The Jimmy Carter malaise. There was alot going on at the time that contributed to Reagan.

Now, don't misunderstand me when I say that National Security won't be an issue. What I'm saying is that it won't be THE issue. To pretend that it would be is a recipe for disaster. But then again, Hillary wants to run in '08, so she would of course put up a guy who could do a good job of losing and prove to the military-philes that domestic issues are the most important thing.

Sure Rove will use the dough to attack Clark--but not on the big issue of the campaign. Can't do it.

Two words: Max Cleland.

Do you seriously believe this? With a $155 mil money advantage Rove is going to run ads that smear him from now until November. It has nothing to do with truth, he'll say anything and everything he has to. By July, to 75% of the country, Clark will be a baby killer, terrorist sympathizer who commits treason on a regular basis, whether it's true or not. I am puzzled as to why otherwise reasonable people hold onto this fantasy that somehow everyone is just going to KNOW that Clark is an okay guy. He has positioned himself to do nothing more than sit there and take it for four months. Are you going to rely on the media to tell the truth? To clear up every misconception that is introduced to the public? This media? Get real.

It's just way obvious: are we going to run a guy who gets killed the main issue of the race or a guy who can win?

Which is why I support Dean, because he can win.

[HFishbine]

64. Logic Flaw

JohnH,

I repsect the opinion you've formulated, but it seems to me that it relies on a falacy. Perhpas you can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll accept for the sake of argument, 100% accuracy in your predictive powers, and that next year, the media and the GOP will attempt to frame the campaign around national security. I'll also dismiss, for this discussion, the fact that the Dean campaign has demonstrated success in subverting traditional media through the Internet and Dean's prowess in being able to fight back against incorrect preconceptions and media misdirection.

Where I run up against a logic flaw is that you presuppose that we need to "take away the National security ruse." Yet, it seems to me, that what Clark supporters propose is not that the ruse be taken away at all, or that it even be exposed as a ruse, but rather that we buy into it whole heartedly; that rather than expose manufactured fear as cynical manipulation intended to advance certain political and corporate interests, that we accept it and play on Rove's court.

It seems as if the argument you advance is that Clark is best equiped to play Bush's game. It seems to suggest that we should just acknowledge and accept what we anticipate will be the Bush game plan and counter by launching a candidate who can best operate WITHIN the Bush paridigm. Instead of taking away the "national security" issue, we would give the Bush lies credibility but offer a candidate who is even more appealing than Bush if those lies are believed . Democrats have become leery, with good reason, of letting the repukes frame the debate. Am I missing something?

[BootinUp]

73. Americans want to feel safe

They want a steady competent hand at the helm, directing the war on terror. I believe most Americans see the sillyness of Bush himself with his "evildoers" arguments, and those that haven't, will after listening to a more intelligent discussion of the terrorist issue. The media has done a poor job in presenting reasoned debate on the merits of Bushes War on Terror. It will be up to our candidate to do it. It will be the major issue, because it dominates the news all the time.

I don't want to minimize the economy as an issue, but I don't agree with John that the dems win all the polls on the economy. We don't. It takes someone with the skills of Clinton to win over America on the economy, otherwise its a 50/50 split.

edited for spelling

[John_H]

90. Sure. It's easy.

No need to rely on my predictive powers or logic--both my predictions are already happening. Read the papers.

I wish I could accept Dean's supernatural powers to circumvent the media in a general presidential election for the sake of argument, but I just can't.

Here's my logic: Clark takes away the attacks. Bye bye. Rove won't even try them. Can't. That creates a lot of dead air space. What do we fill it with, I wonder? Dean wins, none of this dead space. On CiCi, on Timmy, on Tweety, on Wolfie. On Candy, on Paula on Tucker, and Novack. M

My argument makes sense to me, especially when in the minds of the swing voter say "I trust them both on the safety thing. Now what about the other issues?"

As I've said numerous times, I'll work 24/7 to prove myself wrong but in this time, in this election, Dean's going to get killed. Think about it. Four more ytears of George W. Bush. Think about it.

[HFishbine]

93. You perpetuate the unsubstantiated assumption

I orginally questioned. Simply asserting "Clark takes away the attacks," does not make it so.

Rove will have plenty of fodder if Clark is the nominee:

[BootinUp]

95. Those smears have run their course

And are more damaging in the primary than in the GE IMHO.

They are all out of context and can and have been explained.

[HFishbine]

99. So sayteh Jim

;)

[Demobrat]

29. I don't like Clark and think "Clark Can Win"

is a campaign theme, nothing more, but I also think that you are selling yourself short if you let the Clark supporters on this board influence your thinking. Learn about the man for yourself. You may not like what you learn, but at least you'll know you weren't influenced by the venom of his bitter supporters.

[mikehiggins]

56. "bitter supporters"?

How bitter?

Clark supporters tend to be the most upbeat folks around. They are generally (no pun) ready to support just about any Democrat candidate against Bush, even the proverbial Ham Sandwich. They are supporting a candidate they feel is superior in just about every way BUT they know that lots of things determine an election, not just qualifications.

And yet we believe, one way or another, that Clark will be the Democratic nominee when this is all over. We have no cause for bitterness; we have a superior candidate and there hasn't been a single vote cast as yet.

Still, it may be that Clark will lose the nomination to Dean (at the end of the day, by the way, I do not believe that for a minute) or Kerry or Gephardt--nobody seems to be talking about Dick lately, which surprises me--and if he does we're prepared to fall back to our fortified position, i.e., anybody but Bush.

Any democratic candidate will be an improvement, even Joe2004, so no matter what we'll be out there working ABB.

We just want the best possible candidate leading the charge and right now we figure that is Clark. Your opinion may vary.

I have met several vehement Dean supporters in person, by the way, who are very clear that it is their way or the highway. Based on that personal, anecdotal, experience I do feel some concern about what might happen if Dean loses or gets snookered at the Convention.

There is no likelihood that a professional politician who has been a democrat from the very beginning of his career would ever seriously consider an independent run (on the other side of the aisle, even McCain didn't do that and he was savaged even more bitterly than Dean has ever encountered) but it does seem possible to me that his backers might sit on their hands, in large numbers, if he doesn't get the nod.

That's my opinion and I assume, if he doesn't get the nomination, Dean will do his best to lead his supporters in helping Ham Sandwich beat Bush. In such a scenario, his ability to do so would be a major test of his leadership ability.

[Scott Lee]

100. Oh, yes indeed

"Clark supporters tend to be the most upbeat folks around. "


I wish that were the case here at DU, mike. Recently we've seen a flood (or rather a few with multiple identities) of Clark supporters that have engaged in nothing but bitter, ugly personal attacks on Dean and his wife. I wouldn't call that behavior "upbeat", would you?

[tbeatty]

32. Control of the DNC

is really what's at stake. Dean isn't a Clintonite. Clark and McAuliffe (and maybe even Lieberman) have ties to Clinton and that particular machinery in the DNC. I think if you want to find who is whispering "Dean is unelectable" within the Democratic party, you need to look for Clinton. Hillary wants to run on '08 and needs the party apparatus to fund her. If Dean wins the nomination in '04, he will put his own people in charge of the DNC. This will shut Hillary out.

[edzontar]

35. You may be right--I have heard this somewhere before...

From this line of logic, Gore seems to have thrown in with Dean to cast his own lot with the Dean movement.

Do you think they (Clintons, DNC-DLC, etc.) would actually WANT us to lose if Dean were the nominee?

That seems awful cold.

[tbeatty]

38. Not sure about that....

But I would think the triangulation strategy of old would be used.

Already you see Hillary being "hawkish" on Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if Clintonites throw the Dean left to the wolves in an attempt to capture more center votes in '08.

Could go two ways:
1). Clintons take one for the party and work to get Dean/Clark ticket so they at least retain control of some party apparatus. If Dean/Clark loses, Hillary is set up for '08. If they win, Clintons have some control over administration but white house bid is shot.

2). Clintons work against Dean through the Dem convention. Eventually uniting behind Dean in lukewarm endorsement and guaranteeing his defeat as a way to show that Old Democrat is dead. New Democrats emerge again after crushing defeat at polls and Clintons still retain power.

If I were betting, I'd pick #2.

[mikehiggins]

59. I choose door 3

Somehow the establishment among the Democratic party leadership finds a way to slip the dirk to Dean, and slide the nomination to either Clark or Kerry.

If either man wins the Clintons, et al, are guaranteed the cat seat in the party hierarchy for the forseeable future, and Gore will be either cast into the outer darkness or forced to come back with his tail between his legs.

If elected, I don't see Clark running for a second term, which works out just fine for Hillary. A Clark/Graham ticket would seem to run against the conventional wisdom but even after one term as VP Graham would be seen as the Walter Brimley of the Democratic Party. Everyone would love him, but nobody wants Grandpa to head the ticket in 2008.

It all depends on denying Dean the nomination so I think things are going to get much hotter as the votes get counted, not cooler.

[White Mountain]

36. EXACTLY

If Clinton/McAuliffe would support the leader rather than pursue self interests. Bush wouold be in trouble. I am wary of recent conversions from a Bush praiser to a Bush basher.

General Clarke brings General Confusion.

[Ebbhead]

37. I am more wary of Rove’s…

“Brwhaaaahaahaa....Dean!”

Clark is a wildcard in their scheme. Don’t let the self-proclaimed supporters influence you. BUSH 2004 = ARMAGEDDON!!! You are nothing more than their propa "sheeple" if that's the case.

Hey, Clark is my first choice, followed by Dean as my second .......But, sadly, if the so-called "actives" had their way, your decision would've already been set. I would love nothing more than to have Dean or Clark kick some *'s booty, but.........

Go with your gut, not necessarily with the 'peer pressure' or what not, dude....

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Ebbhead]

41. but you know that....

.... all of this from your (so noble, I wish it was other) DK supporter with no vested interest in either, other than if I must make a choice of another candidate, it will be someone who is independent of the Clintonite DLC and might buck the DNC and give the democratic party an identity other than right-center. And preferably someone who could draw the disenchanted from the social moderate fiscal conservative element of the republican party. With that and some exit polls and ballot integrity the democrats could win.....

oh, oh, oh...do I seem redundant....Oh lord, I've hijacked this thread.....God, how pathetic can you people get?

[Rainbows]

43. You are right, You are redundant ...

As the reasoning behind Dean unelectability was covered with my opinions and stated reasons, which is a topic of the original post. And because the electability reasoning and opinion was not to your preference, I am pathetic? Hijacked?, I think all mentioned had to do with the issue between the two, Clark and Dean. Beyond flaming, what have you offered?

[KaraokeKarlton]

40. Clark used to be my second choice

I actually used to like the guy a lot...not as much as Dean, but a lot still. Thanks to some of his more volatile supporters on here, I can't even stand watching him talk or hearing his voice on TV. I'm immediately tuning him out because the second he appears I immediately am reminded of some of those huge graphics with his face or name on it beneath some of the most hateful verbage I've ever seen. It's a HUGE turnoff. Now Clark is at number 8 on my list, just above Kerry. I even like Lieberman better than Clark, and I know it's because of those supporters on here who behave very, very badly. :shrug:

[Ebbhead]

42. I felt the same way.....

..about a lot of other candidates....


But then I see George W. Bush.

Clark is my first choice. Dean is my second. Because 'some' of my first supporters are "behaving badly" you are willingly to relinquish the crown is disheartening....

Please remember who the ENEMY is....W!!!

[w13rd0]

44. "some of my first supporters"?

are you General Clark?

[KaraokeKarlton]

82. Well, you're assuming Clark is going to win, and I disagree

I support Dean. Dean is leading in just about every poll out there. Those polls don't even include all the new voters he's got supporting him. Those folks don't get polled.

I did think Clark would be a good VP choice or perfect for Secretary of Defense, but when I see some of Clarks supporters claim that Dean "needs" Clark and how Clark isn't going to "save" Dean, I've gotten a very negative impression of him being in the administration at all. Those who use Clark graphics while attacking Dean are very bad for Clark's campaign. If they do this on other forums they are really going to hurt Clark as I think they've managed to do here.

Lieberman isn't anywhere near the top of my list. He's at number 6, just above Gpehardt, Clark and Kerry. I prefer Dean first, then Edwards, Braun, Kucinich and Sharpton.

[mikehiggins]

60. Graphics?

Whatever are you talking about?

Links?

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Yes, there was

a certain Clark supporter who used an extremely vile graphic of Dean in his sig line for a while. The admins had to make a new rule, I think because of this one poster. Can't link to anything because it's no longer there (besides, I wouldn't know how), but it definitely happened.

[KaraokeKarlton]

85. I'm talking about people with Clark graphics in their signatures and icon

by their name who attack my ex Governor. Some use large Clark graphics in their signatures while they post some very hateful and nasty things about Dean. Now everytime I see a Clark graphic I get a very negative feeling before I even see what's written. I honestly can't stomach seeing or hearing their candidate because I'm so disgusted by much of what I've read in posts with those graphics.

[jmaier]

102. I'm just curious

Do you get a similar visceral negative reaction to your own candidate when you see his avatar or pro-sig lines associated with an ugly post directed at another candidate or do you simply self-edit those out?

[KaraokeKarlton]

104. I've been a supporter of Dean for over a decade

He was my governor. I already know what kind of a leader he is, which is why I support him. Perhaps if I were someone who wasn't that familiar with him it might affect my opinion of him, but I already knew about him. Also, most of the comments I see coming from Dean supporters are in defense of Dean or responding to the attacks on Dean.

See, I didn't really know much about Clark when some of his supporters turned me off to him. I still don't. I have no interest in finding out more, either, because I just can't bring myself to even listen to him because his face reminds me of those nasty attack posts. Sorry if you don't like what I'm saying, but it's the truth. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. I keep Dean high on my list

Despite my anger at the ways SOME of Dean's supporters attack Clark, I keeep that seperate. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time respecting a decision making process that ranks the perceived "misbehavior" of some of a candidates supporters as more important in determining who might be President of the United States than the behaviior, ideals, and positions of the people who are actually running for the office. I understand where your emotions come from of course, but I try to keep my anger restrained and focused on the dialogue that offends me.

Can you imagine, in some science fiction universe, if you managed to get Joe Lieberman elected through your personal vote, and he backed invading Syria or something, and you could have had Clark who would have gotten us out of Iraq, and your explanation was "well, something Tom Rinaldo said on a bulletin board about Dean really pissed me off."

[KaraokeKarlton]

86. People can't just turn off their feelings, you know

Maybe you should get further by discouraging other Clark supporters from behaving so badly. I lived under Howard Dean's leadership for over a decade. I know what's true about him and what's not true. I strongly dislike seeing lies posted about my state and my governor. When I log on and the bulk of the first page of posts consist of threads full of falsehoods about my state and ex governor posted by a few rabid Clark supporters it makes it really difficult to have any positive feelings about Clark. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's how I feel and it's not going to change as long as that behavior continues.

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. Just saw your post

I was off doing exactly what you suggest. Tried posting once to the "Dean is like Cheney" flame bait thread but it got locked, then it was briefly reopened and I thankfully got one message in, got a reply, and before I could post again it was locked again.

The guy tried to tell me not to shoot the messenger and I drafted a reply that said, Yes, I would shoot any messenger of mine who insisted on waving their raised third finger in the face of the intended recipreants while they were delivering it.

Maybe you stay off of Pro Clark threads the way I usually stay off of Pro Dean threads. I already have an opinion on Dean, it is predominantly positive but I like Clark more. I know I will work for Dean if he is the nominee, so I see no point in going over to mess up good feelings on a Pro Dean thread. Hence maybe I miss some anti-Dean stuff posted on them. But if you have stayed off of Pro Clark threads then you likely have missed the really viscious anti Clark stuff that some pro Dean posters insert on them like clock work. This is a two way problem and I refuse to engage in a never ending Hatfield vs. the McCoys feud. I'm sorry if some Clark supporters act like jerks. I hope you're sorry if some Dean supporters act like jerks. Let's agree not to vote for any of those jerks, and leave the candidates out of it.

[KaraokeKarlton]

106. Well, I don't come here nearly as much as I used to

It's like swimming in a shit-filled toilet bowl lately. I honestly don't know much about Clark, so I can't say I'd even like him if all of his supporters behaved well. I do have a hard time trusting him after hearing how he complimented the Bush administration. Maybe at some point I will get over the negative feelings I have right now. I recall a time when Dean supporters were perfectly content to just post positive things about Dean. Then some anti-Dean people decided to piss all over every positive thread that got posted. I know that if the hijacking of positive Dean threads by the anti-Dean folks were to stop, Dean supporters would be happy as clams discussing their own candidate. I'm sure there would be a couple of negative people, but I try to put those people on ignore. I don't put all the negative anti Dean people on ignore because I feel it's important to debunk the false information many of them like to post.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. I can really sympathise edzontar

because I feel exactly the same way...about Dean.

Dean started as my first choice, and has continued to be my second choice, however I find myself being increasingly turned off of him by some of the incredibly vile things that Dean supporters have said about Clark over and over and over, as well as the tendency of some Dean supporters to crash Clark threads and piss all over the place. If the Dean supporters feel so secure about their candidate's nomination, then why do they feel the need to do this? :shrug:

And it began on this board the second that Clark announced his candidacy. I was astounded at the avalanche of venom directed against him at that time (I'm a long time lurker). In fact, I think that was the reason that the first set of civility rules had to be instituted. So please remember, it goes both ways.

Nevertheless, if Dean gets the nomination I will swallow all of the disgust that I have absorbed from some of his supporters on this board, and do the mature and responsible thing: work my ass off to get the chimp out of the White House.

[edzontar]

52. I haven't seen too much of what you describe.

But I tended to avoid the candidate threads until recently.

I used to go I/P a lot, but that is REALLY a dungeon of despair, so I came here for a "beak."

Whatever transpired in the past, the recent trend is Dean bashing, and especially the posting of multiple threads that tend to swamp the forum with "we are doomed with Dean" messages.

Much of this seems to come from the Clark camp--although a few frustrated Kerry and Kucinich supporters have contributed too.

Its funny, and a little sad, because Dean, Clark, Kerry Kucinich are (or were) pretty much my favored candidates.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Thanks for responding

You're a brave soul to go into I/P, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I think we all tend to be more aware of the attacks on our own candidates than attacks on others. I agree that there has recently been a surge in attacks on Dean. For the record, I think that all this flaming is absolutely vile and pointless. I think it should be possible to discuss real issues of concern without it completely degenerating into flame war hell, but that doesn't look very likely at this point.

I'd like to take a break from this place, but I have a hard time tearing myself away, kind of like watching a train wreck. Just try to keep in mind that this place is not the candidates.

I do think that we should not allow the behavior of a small number of extremely vocal and obnoxious people to determine who we are or are not willing to support. We can't afford to lose sight of the real goal which is getting rid of *. :)

[edzontar]

62. Agreed. In the end, we must all pull together.

And you know, sometimes I wonder if some of what I am railing against has been hijacked or otherwise promoted by some some less than honest operatives from the "other side of the fence"?

If WE can recognize that this stuff is counterproductive and hurtful, maybe THEY can too.

[Crunchy Frog]

65. To a certain extent, I think it's

just the nature of internet boards to get like this. I think alot of what is going on is due to there being more than one candidate that people feel passionately committed to. I also think people are more passionate about this election, just because so many of us feel it's the most important one of our lifetimes, and are truly terrified of what another 4 years of * will do to this country.

There probably are a few people deliberately stirring up shit, but I think the majority of it comes from otherwise reasonable people who have simply gotten carried away.

It would be nice if cooler heads would try to prevail, but at this point it looks like a losing battle. :shrug:

[edzontar]

68. Maybe next year...

We can only hope.

[jumptheshadow]

46. An argument easily hijacked by freepers, etc?

No, Dean's weakness as a presidential candidate, in comparision to more than one of his other Democratic competitors, is glaringly obvious. The Republicans are diabolical at going for the jugular. They have Dean's weaknesses all figured out.

Dean even whined about Democrats criticizing him and giving Republicans fodder the other day. What garbage. Dean has been routinely trashing his Democratic colleagues since Day One. He has divided this party so thoroughly and gratuitously that he has virtually handed the election to the Republicans on a platter.

If Dean wins the nomination and then loses the presidency it will be his own fault for polarizing the Democratic base. It will be because he was a weak candidate in the first place.

I have a lot of friends who are Dean supporters. They are reasonable people and we like and respect each other. However, I am quite certain that if I directed them to this board they would be dismayed by the "Cancel the Primaries, Stifle the Debate" tone of the shriller, less mature Dean supporters here.

[edzontar]

53. When I have posted remarks like like this, I was poking fun....

At the "we are inevitably doomed" soothsaying scenarios posted by Clark supporters.

None of them seemed to notice that it was a joke, despite the use of ridiculous lines.

Oh well, humor is definitely at a premium here lately..that is for sure...

[eileen_d]

47. Just remember... It's Only An Internet Message Board

It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board
It's Only An Internet Message Board

[jumptheshadow]

51. LOL, you're right, Eileen

Time to bake some bread and bring it over to one of my friends who supports Dean.

[Cheswick2.0]

54. yup... and a few of Clarks supporters are my favorite people here

They are also long time members who tend not to use the smear tactics against Dean that other Clark supporters indulge in.

[jonnyblitz]

57. He's ok. n/t

[floridaguy]

74. Sometimes the truth hurts, but is necessary

By not asking the more difficult questions and questioning the fitness of the Democratic candidate, we would be doing our party a disservice. Politics and political discussions are not a place for being thin-skinned or coddled. Obviously, we should be civil to one another, and the DU staff does a fantastic job of balancing our chance to passionately discuss the issues and be respectful to our fellow members.

Please don't try to tell me what I can and can not say. That sounds all too familiar nowadays.

We must put our best candidate up against Bush.

Wesley Clark is that candidate.

[edzontar]

75. We can over this forever....but guess what...

I can't even hear you anymore....

[LiberalBushFan]

76. your title is misleading

It makes it seem like you were a Clark supporter turned off by other Clark supporters saying Dean is unelectable, then it turns out you're a Dean supporter who was turned off from Clark because someone criticized "your candidate." That's the attitude of most Dean supporters, so you're not unique as your title would suggest.

[edzontar]

77. Sorry if I misled you..it is a fine point, though

As my responses indicate, I actually still do "like" Clark, so in that sense I was even more misleading

My own view is that Clark would make an excelent VP for Dean, or that he would be the best second choice for the nomination.

Does this clarify things?

[meow mix]

78. clarify things?

yep.
it also explains the tears. so sad! =)

[edzontar]

81. Huh? I am attempting to address a serious point as clearly as I can...

Your post makes no sense.

[meow mix]

84. thats ok

makes sense to me...
"clark supporters are serving bush so i dont like them"

thats basically the message i get out of that pile.
so cry me a friggen river =)

[edzontar]

87. Confused.

Please speak more clearly--I see no reason to cry, by the way.

[November 2004]

79. Faulty reasoning

You said "Because the recent flood of threads posted by self-proclaimed Clark supporters ruminating on the "unelectable" and "doomed" candidacy of Dean is starting to turn me off. Big time."

Do not be swayed the supporters of a candidate. Just avoid those threads and look to the candidates.

Okay?


:hi:

:kick:

[edzontar]

80. (NYT) Bush strategist: Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us".

------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 26, 2003

Check this from the NYT, which goes to support some of the points I have been making

(note that most of the peace is yet another atack on Dean, ut the quote is what is interesting)

"December 26, 2003
Bush Advisers, With Eye on Dean, Formulate '04 Plans
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON


President Bush's campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush's aides say.

Some advisers to Mr. Bush, increasingly convinced that Dr. Dean will become their opponent next fall, are pushing to begin a drive to undercut him even before a Democratic nominee becomes clear. But others said the more likely plan would be to hold back until after the Democratic contest had effectively ended, probably no later than March.

As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him. "




http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/politics/campaigns/26REPU.html?ei=5062&en=f70dde43205be535&ex=1073019600&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

[BootinUp]

83. I've been mostly staying out

of the negative tilted threads, but then there's no one to talk to. :)

I guess I'll make a quick point, Dean is responsible for the image he projects. He is trying to win the primary by energizing the more active democrats. Whether the RW does it or some of the other candidates, he will have to pay some price either now or in the general election. This is our process, we have to go through it to get the best candidate. Let the best man win the nomination, I will support him/her.

[w4rma]

92. You are also responsible, albeit to a ***MUCH*** lesser extent. (n/t)

[kerry-is-my-prez]

89. Supporters of ALL of the candidates are saying that....

there's a wide swath of people saying that.

[edzontar]

91. Mostly Clark supporters here, lately....

Though some of them attempt to deliver their flamebait wearing sheep's clothing (Stop Dean Movement, etc.)

[Southsideirish]

109. Clark people all over DU with highly provocative & venomous posts

These nasties have turned me off!

[mmonk]

96. I see alot of

Clark is a republican, Clark is a war criminal, Clark is a neocon, etc. threads, many from Dean supporters, but I don't dislike Dean because of those flame threads. We are all on the same side in defeating bush. Don't let it affect how you feel about Clark if there are things you like about him.

[edzontar]

98. There has been some horrible anti-Clark flamebait here today...

And I want you all to know that i condemn it with equal fervor.

How low can we get?

I guess we are finding out.

[BootinUp]

101. it'll all be over before long

I just don't see how it can be avoided really. People are very emotional about politics right now. This campaign has had a drastic effect on the rules here and caused them to split the GD forum. This is politics. But we will come together to defeat dubya!

[batman]

97. this meme is trickling down from the clark campaign

clark said it himself in a salon interview

your right on track edzontar

[robbedvoter]

113. The horror! A candidate who thinks he can win! Unacceptable!

BTW, that Salon title was jazzed up a little - to get your goat by the writer. Not a direct quote. But, yeah, he does say he is the best equiped to beat W - and I love to hear him say that. The chutzpa! I mean he's not even from Vermont!
here's a paragraph from a GQ article so you can dislike me(him) even more:


"He's running for president, and he is not used to losing.  And if he gets the nomination, he'll go up and down this country and beat on President Bush like a drum.  He'll do 2,000 yards every morning; he'll rappel down any cliff he needs to; he will shake off any small-arms fire as if it were a swarm of gnats.  And he'll get better at the game each and every day.
He hates to lose.  And he doesn't run from fights.
And even if he's never played the game, he's never a beginner at anything.
Dismissed."

[Padraig18]

114. Gen. Clark has been my #2 for quite some time.

Despite some of the incredibly lame flame-bait posts and absolutely VICIOUS attack threads on Gov. Dean posted by a very few of his more 'zealous' supporters, he remains so.

[Crunchy Frog]

117. Thank you for being able

to keep your feelings about the candidate separate from your feelings about some of his more obnoxious supporters.

I'm with you, Dean remains my second choice despite the really vile things that a few of his supporters have been saying about Clark and his supporters.