We came so far and we came so close but it is still business as usual.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Well, as many of you know I am a fairly fervent Clark supporter, and have been fairly quiet around here of late. What I am referring to in the title of this thread, however, is not just about Wesley Clark and his failed candidacy. It's about changing the way important decisions are made in this country. It's been an amazing year, hasn't it?

I see no point in speaking ill about the two leading Democratic contenders left fighting for the nomination. Neither of them excites or inspires me, and neither man fundamentally challenges the way disagreements between powerful interests in this country are resolved. Kerry and Edwards differ somewhat from each other, and they both differ more significantly from Bush/Cheney. All these differences have degrees of meaning. The difference between a Kerry or Edwards Presidency and four more years of Bush is sufficiently important to motivate me to organize for the Democratic Party in the General Election. I know I will be thrilled if either of these men defeat Bush in November. But I am left sorrowful over how we fell short of something potentially historic. The way I see it, there were three candidates of real interest fighting for the Democratic Party nomination: Dean, Clark, and Kucinich. This is my take on what could have been and why it isn't. Obviously I will skip over tons of details and make opinionated leaps of faith while doing so.

For the longest time, in a knee jerk kind of way, I held the opinion that Kucinich couldn't win the nomination, let alone the Fall Election. I believed he would never win enough backing, or raise enough money, to become viable as a major candidate in the crowded field he was running in. Very recently I revised my thinking regarding Dennis. I remembered how what it looked like well over a year ago, when both Dean and Kucinich were relatively little know opponents of the gathering Iraq war. Dean emerged from that near oblivion to become a major candidate. I now suppose that Kucinich might possibly have made that difficult leap also. However Dean succeeded in making that leap by tapping into a huge Army of volunteers, who were able to help him raise tens of millions of dollars. How Dean pulled that off is an amazing story that books will be certainly be written on. My revised thinking on Kucinich is as follows. Both men were marginalized with an uphill battle to be taken seriously. The odds against either man pulling that off were quite long. When Dean managed to gather significant forward momentum he did so by tapping into most of the grass roots energy then available to fuel a powerful insurgency candidacy.

Why Dean and not Kucinich? A good question that I won't address. My point is simply that Dean won the race for that available slot. It might have been different for Kucinich had Dean not run the campaign that he did. When Dean took off Dennis wasn't left with a big enough grass roots base to draw from to overcome the traditional advantages that mainstream candidates routinely start out with. So there is one what if. What if Dean hadn't moved left and thrown in his lot with grass roots activists? Would Kucinich have been significantly stronger? Premise Number One; Dean significantly hurt Kucinich.

I think Dean came extremely close to locking up the nomination early, and as ambivalent as I am about saying this, I think it was Wesley Clark who kept that from happening. By December it seemed that every campaign other than Dean's and Clark's was dead in the water. Kerry was falling toward single digits nationally and was slipping further behind in New Hampshire. Edwards was plain stuck in low single digits. Lieberman was a dud. Gerhardt never really interested anyone beyond his hard core Union base, and there was no reason to think that would change. He was struggling against Dean in Iowa. Dean kept piling up money and everyone else was struggling to raise it. Except for Wesley Clark. Despite having been written off for dead by the media weeks before, Clark actually started rising in polls again. He got onto a lot of media interview shows and actually did well on them. He started connecting with people in New Hampshire. Most important though, Clark showed that he could raise big money, the kind needed to wage a long hard fought campaign against Dean. Clark dampened the sense of inevitability about a Dean victory just enough to slow down Dean's bandwagon when it was poised to achieve break away momentum. More politicians like New Jersey's Governor would likely have thrown in with Dean after Gores endorsement, had none of the other candidates shown any ability at that critical moment to compete effectively with Dean. Clark did, which kept some players on the fence, and the race still open, which gave Dean's opponents and the media additional time to tear into his vulnerabilities. Premise Number Two: Clark significantly hurt Dean.

The conventional wisdom was that Clark's campaign was organized around the premise that Dean was his primary opponent for the nomination, and that it fizzled when Dean began his collapse and Kerry became the front runner. I think that is only partially true. Obviously Clark positioned himself to compete with Dean as his primary opponent, all the candidates to varying degrees did that while Dean was on top, but I don't think Dean's quick "collapse" doomed Clark. I think Gephardt's total collapse doomed Clark, and I don't hear anyone talk about this. Gephardt was supposed to finish first or second in Iowa, but he came in a distant fourth, well behind Dean. Very few Gephardt voters switched to Dean, they switched to Kerry and Edwards. It was the combination of the Dean collapse AND the even larger Gephardt collapse that allowed Kerry and Edwards to roll up such impressive numbers in Iowa which established their much talked about momentum.

Kerry would have emerged strong in either case, simply by coming in first, but Edwards needed his very strong showing to feed his media backed surge. As it was, Clark still came in third AHEAD of Edwards in New Hampshire. Had Clark come in a more convincing third, Clark would have left New Hampshire with momentum rather than technically remaining barely still in the race, which is the way the media played those NH results. If Gephardt had not totally collapsed in Iowa, had he finished with even 15 to 20 percent of the vote there, which is still far less than anyone was predicting, it would have dulled Edwards surge by robbing him of votes, and to a lesser extent Kerry's win would not have been as impressive Clark's strategy was essentially sound, he could have weathered Dean alone hemorrhaging votes to Kerry and Edwards in Iowa, or Gephardt alone imploding, but it is always hard to prepare for the perfect storm.

Still Clark had one other chance, and here is where Dean hurt Clark. Dean's strategy once his campaign caught fire, despite public statements to the contrary, was to score a decisive and quick knock out. Coming in a distant third in Iowa was a disaster for Dean, even before "I have a scream" was relentlessly spun against him. Followed by a mediocre at best second place finish in New Hampshire, Dean's campaign was unravelling fast, with no prospects for a respectable showing the following week either. The money was gone. Had Dean done something similar to what Clark did after coming in third in Tennessee, had Dean conceded that the race had slipped away from him and withdrawn at that point, Clark could have cornered enough of the Anti War vote to perhaps win Tennessee or come in closer at the least. Clark would have picked up many Dean voters in Wisconsin and might have won that State, where Clark was always much stronger than Edwards. We could have had a real outsider running against Kerry in the finals. Premise Number Three: Dean prolonging his campaign those extra two or three weeks significantly hurt Clark.

I for one don't believe that Dean ran to hurt Kucinich, or that Clark ran to hurt Dean, or that Dean tried to hurt Clark by not leaving the race earlier than he did. Each of those men, and their supporters, believed they were the best man for the job. I suppose many Dean supporters liked Kucinich but backed Dean partially because they thought Dean's record as Governor of Vermont made him more electable in the General Election. I suppose many Clark supporters liked Dean but backed Clark partially because they thought Clark's military record made him more electable than Dean in the General Election. And I suppose many Kerry voters chose him over all of our guys partially because they thought his record as a seasoned politician with military experience made him more electable than anyone else in the General Election.

Anyway, those are a few of the thoughts I've been mulling over. There are many more, including some about the present and future, but this is enough for one night's work.

[DenverDem]

1. An eloquent and insightful take on where we are now.

Meet the old boss.
(Essentially)Same as the old boss.

Still supporting the man who would make a difference, Dennis K.

[bearfartinthewoods]

49. we didn't come close at all

you think it's A COINCIDENCE that boston was chosen for the convention?

[democratreformed]

2. Great analysis, Tom, IMO. I am glad you're back. I always enjoyed

reading your posts. Thanks.

[dionysus]

3. wow

well thought out post. thanks.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. If Kerry is God...

...anybody have the address for the Church of Satan? :eyes:

[BL_Zebub]

42. Better than that, I can give you the address of Satan himself

or should I say, myself? :evilgrin:

[revcarol]

5. Tentative corollaries to your analysis:

1) the party has no place for the grass roots except for votes and money.
2) the party has no place for the grass roots except for votes and money.

3)!!Bizness as usual means big bizness as usual. No major change in trade policies, no breakup of the media, no offending big bizness by making them pay a fair share of taxes,mustn't offend the insurance or pharma companies too much, in short, big bizness as usual.

[KoKo]

7. I enjoyed reading Tom's analysis and your comments "revcarol."

I won't comment more, because I'm still sorting it all out in my own mind.

[union_maid]

10. Activism should be smart and tenacious

Those issues aren't going to get sorted just by who occupies the Oval Office. Putting a Democrat in is a start. It allows for possibilties. Public demand..unrelenting majority demand over a period of years is what can make them happen. Nothing short of that is going to work. Now, as a nation we have the attention span of a gnat, so that's not easy, but it has to happen and that's what grassroots are good for, much more so than national electoral politics. We need a lean and pointed set of objectives and grassroots organization for the issues and then the issues have to be taken to the people and to sympathetic media. Demand side, not supply side marketing of causes is what will carry the day. You can't just insist that politicians support career-ending, unpopular causes. If they're worthy enough, most of them can be popularized. You have to choose your causes for that. We've been talking about outsourcing of jobs for a while now, but it's only recently that the media caught on and now it's a hot issue, as it should be.

The issues haven't been as crystal clear as they are now for 30 years. It sounds as though Dean and maybe some Clark people are going to try to do this and that together with kicking some Republicans out of office, whether it be for Democrats or, on the more local level, other progressive parties and we might see some progress. We just have to stop eating our own and hang together, the way the right has done.

[Armstead]

8. Good analysis

In hindsight, if there had been just one "real person" candidate as an alternative to the business-as-usual crowd, it might have been a lot closer.

[RainDog]

9. I favored Dean

even though he was more conservative than he was ever presented...and even though Kucinich has lots of good things to say, I would have never supported him as my choice in the primary because of one simple reason-

I want to beat Bush, and Kucinich would have been slashed and burned by Bush simply over the very stupid, but very real issue in America of machismo.

I'm a female, and I detest Ahnuld b.s. But I know it matters a lot to certain people in this society, and Kucinich cannot get past that.

As far as this campaign for president-

There is one simple but also THE most important issue the dem should address (by presenting a PRO-active attack on the problem, and by noting Bush's failure to lead the nation on this issue...

and that is Peak Oil.

The dem candidate can simply lay out the truth that Bush is too indebted to the oil industry to put their profits before the well being of all the people of this nation on THE most important issue we face as a people, and as a planet.

Tackling this issue is the answer to combating terrorism, to embracing the traditional values of this nation, embodied in local communities working together, in families, rather than consumerism, providing the focus for our energies.

We need jobs in this country, and we need people to fill the jobs required to move into a 21st century energy policy, where local communities generate their own electricity, eat the produce from their local farmers, teach each other how to live with the seasons of the earth, and the seaons of life, as all, from the youngest to the oldest, are embraced and treated with dignity and compassion.

It is time for us to get out of the business of other nation's business, and tend to our own house.

It is time to admit that the rest of the world is begging the United States to take the lead, the responsiblity as the world's superpower, to stop the insanity of unchecked pollution, as if, by ignoring these issues they will go away.

The threat of terrorism didn't go away when Bush refused to heed the warnings of 11 nations about a threat of attack on our own shores.

We cannot, again, afford to ignore the real danger to our nation by unchecked greed and a gross irresponsiblity for the fate of this earth and the citizens of this nation.

We need a national response, created at the local level, to develop "Freedom fuels" to free us from our dependence on foreign oil, and to create a safe and sustainable future for our children.

George Bush will not take this responsibility. Instead, he will continue to lie and tell the American people that another "saddam" has nukes, rather than face the real problems this nation must address.

If you want to stay stuck in the past with the fossils of the fuel barons, then you vote for Bush.

If you want to create a future for your children, then you vote for...Kerry...I say, since he's the annointed.

And then, the dem has to back this up with real action.

Deficits which create a future, a new infrastructure are good deficits.

Deficits which let the rich cheat, steal and lie to the middle class must stop immediately.

...and I know that no one will say this, but this is the truth...

the oil companies already know that gas will be 100 dollars a barrel in the near rather than distant future, but they and Bush won't tell you to conserve, because they want your money.

hybrid cars.
VAT on hummers and other "my penis is tiny so my car must be huge" sorts of unnecessary gas guzzlers.
hemp is not a drug and it is as of this moment legal to grow for paper, oils, biomass, clothing, furniture, and more.
tax credits for installing solar, wind, and other alt energy sources to fuel your home...
tax credits for water recyling systems, ditto for composting toilets, and other technologies, both high and low, which conserve water or allow it to be recycled.
funding for alt energy studies and implementations in the same way that the funded the "race to the moon" in the sixties. This time it's a race to update our "technology" to match the reality of the end of the fossil fuel era and the beginning to the earth fuels era.

[Kathleen04]

11. One thing that I still haven't sorted out

is why Dick Gephardt imploded so badly.

The thing that I've heard bantered about the most is that by going negative on each other, Dean and Gephardt essentially turned off the voters of Iowa and took each other out. This makes sense on the surface, but Dean and Gephardt both sunk like rocks in the polls about 3 days before the caucus and they had been going negative on each other for an extended period of time before that.

The voters could have decided they didn't want to back Gephardt again after they had backed him in 1988 and he went on to win only 2 other states. But, if this were the case, how did he garner so much early support this time around?

I can honestly understand why people would have second thoughts about Dean. And Dean supporters, that's not intended as a swipe at Dean or anything. But, remember the magazine covers from that time, Newsweek had one with the headline "Doubts about Dean". Dean was volatile and unpredictable which was part of his appeal but also gave way to second thoughts. But if one had second thoughts about Dean, it seems like logically they would have turned to a "Stop Dean", Dick Gephardt. Gephardt was a "safe" candidate with alot of experience..alot like Senator Kerry, in a way.

He made no major misteps that I can remember and I still don't understand why the Union vote didn't come through for him...

[Tim_in_HK]

15. Without getting too much into the thick of things . . .

Regarding Dean and Gep in Iowa, I have two things to say: (1) it can take a while for the accumulated 'negativity' to be felt by people (ergo, the polls) and (2) Kerry ran very effective and well-received ads in Iowa . . .

So, the Dean/Gep attacks may have had a two-pronged affect . . . they eroded the support of each of their supporters, and the people influenced by those ads (both those who decided to stop supporting Dean and decided to stop supporting Gep) may have been just as influenced by Kerry's ads. So the net drop in both Dean and Gep could have largely gone to to Kerry (and obviously Edwards as well). This is off the top of my head, but could help explain what happened, and I think also fits into Tom's analysis as well.

Regarding why Gep garnered such early support, the unions may have had something to do with that. The unions could have been politicking for Gephardt early and for a long while, and so Gep had a strong base of 'supporters,' although it was evidently pretty soft.
This was proven true when others started to campaign more aggressively there.

And I'm sure that at the end of the day as the caucus approached, what you said influenced people as well . . . 'we supported this guy in '88 and he went nowhere. Why support him again?'

Also, not to knock Gephardt, but he really is not that great of a campaigner, in my opinion. I could see how people who went to hear him speak may have walked away unimpressed. And Kerry was a very good campaigner in Iowa, with the vets, firefighters, etc.

And also shows the waning influence of the leadership of unions in getting their members to support desired candidates.

Anyway, quick analysis. I'm probably painting with too wide a brush and forgetting lots o'important details.

In the end, all us Clark supports can wish is that Clark had campaigned in Iowa. Things may indeed have turned out differently.

-edit- spelling and clarifications

[democratreformed]

16. One forgotten Kerry item: the Kennedy effect

I am inexperienced, so I am not sure how much effect it had, but have always felt like it had some.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. You're getting me all depressed again.

I really think that one of the biggest factors was simply his getting into the race so late in the game. If he hadn't been a political neophyte, or had already had a solid organization in place it wouldn't have been such a problem. He needed to learn the basics of campaigning and he made some early and costly errors.

He was an amazingly quick study, but he just didn't give himself enough time. I keep thinking how different it might have been if he had only gotten in 3 months earlier. He could have put together a much better organization, he could have gotten his early mistakes out of the way before people started paying attention, he could have learned how to handle the debate format better. He could have competed in Iowa and who knows...

The spark and excitement has really gone out of it for me as well. I'm also less than optimistic about our chances in November although I pray that I'm wrong.

Anyway, it's nice to see you back here, and I hope you will keep posting.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I agree with all your points

An earlier run might have made a huge difference for Clark. I was just pointing out how close things came to working out differently just playing the ball as it lay. I will, I am sure, get increasingly excited at the idea of actually beating Bush. I think Kerry will be the nominee and I think he has a fighting chance.

I am working myself back into posting more often. The sense of urgency that helped drive me, the effort to get Clark over the top, faded for me. But the reality is the situation we all face in this country remains just as urgent, and the need to change the ways in which power is concentrated is if anything more urgent than ever. So we have work to do. I will remain in Clark's camp personally but honor all Democrats seeking to re enfranchise the average American.

[Donna Zen]

18. Unless we learn from recent history,

we are bound to repeat it. Call us "grassroots" but in many respects we are an extention of a political phenomina that began with the Nader run, grew with the internet, and was forced into action by a Democratic Party who neglected are requests to be heard. Without critiquing the candidates who stood up either because 1) they felt as we did 2) they were already on their feet and thus able to hear 3) we asked them to, three candidates were two too many.

Not everything went wrong, but the outcome is less than satisfactory and will surely find us making the same mistakes again unless we seriously change our naive approach to politics. The Democratic Party is once again ignoring our issues, and returned to the echo chamber of the mutual admiration society. We can change this situation; we must change this situation, because if we fail, we will walk this road again.

Lessons learned:

1. No matter whose campaign you supported: we do have power
2. There is a information-lag between what is going on out here,
and what the Democratic party thinks is going on.
3. The internet can be democracy's friend
4. We are not there yet.

_______

1. Thousands of us came to together in various camps with the hope on achieving change within our country while working through the existing system. IMHO, the next set of moves need to include the question: why. What did we hope to achieve? Various candidates had various messages; however, those messages clearly overlapped. Yes, even Joe's message contained a very good healthcare proposal. That said, we have learned that collectively we are far stronger than we are as individuals, and we have agreed upon goals. Now is the time to focus that power. I would suggest that calls for goal setting both philosophically and logistically.

2. The Democratic party has caught on very well to the concept that we are "out." here; the problem is they see us as a cash-cow rather than people-individuals--who have demands, are not satisfied with the status quo, and who feel that the government on both sides of the aisle is no longer working in the American people's best interest. Again, we must define ourselves and our interests, because they are not going to do it for us. If we are unable to do so, then we should expect to be invited to participate in an astro-turf movement where the goals that we wish to achieve remain nebulous and the rewards for collective actions benefit the few. If we want to change the status quo, then organizing as a force outside the system but willing to work on the system's behalf when the party or factions within the party are willing to champion our cause(s), needs to be realized.

One example: It is vital to a democracy to have an informed citizenery and constructive, open dialogue. (I hope that you agree, so I'll assume you do.) Currently, the media with the help of both parties is moving us away from that bedrock ideal through infotainment and mergers. As we all know, sometimes they just "make shit up." A simple move such as demanding that media spend time on the issues rather than the "horse-race" during any campaign does not require much lobbying power but it does demand a "voice." A unified Democratic party voice. OTOH, stopping and reversing the current course of media mergers, while difficult, is also necessary, and can be achieved if we force the issue and frame it as a "democratic" ideal. On this issue we will find support in surprizing places.

3. The internet, which often publishes pure-crap, can be used as an organizing tool. We can: eblock, form writer's groups, raise money, lobby etc. If we are under an umbrella organized by an individual(s) then we may become driven by an agenda rather than our goals. Therefore, it is apparent to me that we need to take several actions: One, we need to define an agreed upon set of goals (#1). Two, we need to organize outside of the party, although not necessarily in conflict with the party, to create a "grassroots" identity that can be offered up when the powers that be are in agreement with our goals. (This is happening at Wes Clark Democrats: an organizing tool that has nothing to do with Clark the man, but much to do with his inspiration to "lift ourselves up.")And finally, as a body of individuals decide what it is we can do, and are willing to do through this mighty tool. Florynce Kennedy once said: "I know we're termites. But if all the termites got together, the house would fall down."

I think we would be wise to both attend to Ms. Kennedy's notion, and to avoid entering the "termite hotel."

4. We have caught the attention of the Democratic party; however, in the end, I would suggest that while attention is a good thing, it was not our goal. We came together orginally because of a stolen election and now we face BBV. How many people in the party are actually listening to us? How many people in the party care what we think? How many people in the party consider us "kooks?" How many people in the party would offer us Trojan Horses vs take action our behalf?

No my friends, we are not there yet. So the question now is "how do we get there?" I would suggest: #1, #2, #3. From observing the comments like Will's current thread, this one, many of us are circling the issue of continuing and creating more effective grassroots cyber politics. I invite anyone to add to, subtract from, and hammer out proposals such as mine. I believe we are on to something; I believe it is critical that we develop into an effective force for change; I believe there are great minds in this and other forums ready with the skills waiting to do this. And most of all, I believe if we fail to do this, we will lose our democracy. I am here to help in an effort to change that course of events.

If we dream individually, our dream remains a dream. If we dream in critical mass, our dream becomes reality.

[stuzzy]

14. I liked Clark a lot...

But I think he was a tool used to sap votes from Dean. Encouraged by the Clinton's to run, yet never endorsed by them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I understand your position

Like I said, I believe that Clark hurt Dean. By now I am ever so firmly of the belief that virtually every career politician has layers of overt and covert agendas behind every single move that they make, and Clinton certainly qualifies in that regard. It is the nature of the game, of interlocking shifting alliances and loyalties and constant positioning to never be left with the short end of the stick. I'm sure you believe that Gore had multiple agendas also, or at the very least that many of those who fell into line behind Dean after Gore's endorsement did.

All of the candidates are grown ups. They know that each and every time they gain prominent backing it is not always because those new backers are personally smitten with their personal charm, wisdom, or integrity. If you spurn the support of all but your true believers, you can never get elected President in this system in this country.

For me the question never was why are those who are backing Clark backing him, it was why am I backing him? In my thread opening post I tried to make the case that Kucinich, Dean, and Clark all, at least at one time, had a valid reason to think they could really win the nomination. By definition that means that none of them were "spoilers", or to put it another way, none of them were Naders. I chose Clark over Dean for two reasons. Ultimately the most important is that I came to truly admire the man, his vision, his priorities, his ability, and his commitment to America. I thought he would make a great President. The other is that I always have and still do think that this year a Democratic Party candidate with substantial foreign policy experience, and ideally military service also, will be much better able to defeat Bush than one without that. Obviously that point can be argued, and I am NOT saying that I would back any Vet over a good man like Dean simply because a Vet served and Dean didn't. In Clark, however, I felt I did not have to compromise.

The case can be argued that Clark supporters were right in thinking that a National Security credentialed candidate was important this year, and that Democratic Party primary voters are responding to exactly that thinking by backing Kerry early and strongly. I thought Clark could carry our values and priorities into the White House. He came close to getting the nomination in my opinion. So did Dean, regardless of the revisionist political history that the pundits are already so busy writing.

[stuzzy]

45. I'm not bitter about it

I agree with you about the levels of agendas and such, and yes, I'm quite positive Gore had his own agenda, just as the I'm sure the Clintons do.

I really liked Clark, he was my number 2 guy behind Dean. The only reason I didn't switch is because I'm a loyal kind of guy and Dean had captured my heart first. There were times though when I saw Clark speak though when I was right on the edge.

Come November, I will vote for Kerry. I won't be terribly happy about it, but I will do it. However, I have my doubts that he is going to win. I think the Clintons agenda is to lose this year again, and have the way cleared for Hillary's ascendancy in 2008. I think the people pulling the strings are betting on Kerry losing.

Or I could be a loony conspiracy theorist.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yep. Back to the lesser of two evils.

Good thing more indies and third party voters are anxious to get $hrub out, or we'd have a repeat of 2000.

[sangh0]

21. So are you for the greater of two evils?

Just wondering

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Nah, I'll vote lesser of two evils, just this one time

to piss $hrubby off.

Can't wait til we get some decent election reform in this country, though. This voting "game" is getting really, really old.

[stuzzy]

46. hehe

So true

[Scott Lee]

33. I'm sick of being presented with two grades of evil.

Time to jettison that shit.

[sangh0]

44. It's time to jettison you

Oh wait! We already have

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=132514

[Crunchy Frog]

47. Oh no!

Good bye Scott, I'm going to miss you. You were annoying but you added some spice to the place.:-(

Hope you have a good life in the real world, and do something constructive with that outrage of yours. Good luck!:hi:

[BL_Zebub]

43. I AM the greatest of all evils!

So vote for me :evilgrin:

[Adelante]

20. Let's do something practical

Hurt the GOP. It feels good. :smoke:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x415104

Sorry to interrupt, Tom. :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. That's not an interruption, girl! (term used with much affection lol)

That's the work, the hope and the salvation! lol. Count me onboard. I'll be there physically soon, I'm working through a backlog of thoughts and catching up on some stuff, but I am thrilled by what is coming together. See you soon at wesclarkdemocrats.com

[Adelante]

34. Ahh

:pals:

[kher-heb]

24. 10 paragraphs?

You could have ended it at "Well, as many of you know I am a fairly fervent Clark supporter, and have been fairly quiet around here of late."

The rest is just blah blah blah...

[democratreformed]

25. And just when I thought it was safe.... to think people could not get any

more rude...

[DancingBear]

29. If that <insert expletive here> poster is a DK supporter

I'll eat my hat.

[Adelante]

31. DK supporters

are generally polite and thoughtful in their posts, so you may be right.

[Auntie Bush]

40. You don't have to eat your hat.

That (*****) doesn't have a star after his/her name...probably a troll...at least they sure sound like one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. blah blah blah thanks for the kick n/t

[democratreformed]

27. Your reply was better than mine

Na na na na!! Hehe.

[jansu]

30. WRITE ON!!!! I like blah, blah, blah.... when it is as thoughtful as this!

Rather have that, than someone posting Blah Blah Blah....which shows that they don't have a thoughtful cell in their brain! Really enjoyed and was very thankful for some thoughtful and thought provoking message on these boards. Write on!

[chocolateeater]

28. Thank you for such an interesting and thoughtful post.

I think the moral of the story is, if we in the grassroots can work together, no matter who we have supported in the past, then we can change the party so it better serves the interests of the people who actually live here.

[Scott Lee]

32. The assassination of Dean is another bit of evidence

to the truth of your views. Yes, we are once again eaten alive by the Business As Usual syllabus. Bland and useless solutions from a bland and useless losing party. What was different this time is that I have never before witnessed a candidate's own party mechanism coalescing with the press and the opposition to take said candidate down. This is not only a new and rancid twist on the corruption of the system, but proof that Dean was a true threat to the powers that be and the "way things are done".

The silver lining of that cloud is that the movement goes on, and now organizes to fetter out the appeasers, quislings and duncils from the local offices on up. So be of cheer. We didn't win this time, but we are learning how to next time.

[jansu]

36. Yes, I am focusing on the local and state areas of this party. also.

We need to change it from the ground up, after all, that is where the grassroots are most powerful! I hope to live long enough, to see my country and party back on the side of Human Rights.

America did not invent Human Right, Human Rights invented America!

[PurityOfEssence]

35. The season of dashed hopes

Thanks, that was very well said and expressive of much of the true spirit of hope that gets lost in much of the hubbub.

Truly, it's been as manic depressive season for many supporters, as things look good, only to fall apart. The dynamics are generally easier to see in retrospect, but many of these were well foretold, and that makes the pill of the payoff doubly hard to swallow.

Each candidate has had altruistic supporters thrilled by the seeming possibility of reaching the prize, and yet the thing still goes on.

As the waters still, hopefully we will learn and apply the true lessons of the various experiences; inevitably we shall to a degree, but emotion and partisanship will rewrite history even as it's barely in its first draft. Ours is a big, messy and compromised party, but to many of us, it's home. May we all approach it with the reflection and constructiveness that you have.

Obviously, I disagree with your contention about the three, but the underpinning of the argument is undeniably valid. Compromise is an essential element of politics--indeed, almost a definition of it--and for that reason, many were and are understandably angry at the establishment. To run against the establishment is dicey at best, and no one was treated to a more brutal lesson on the subject than Dean.

More than anything else, your post shows modulation and qualification, two traits woefully lacking in this black and white dialog we force upon a grey world.

[JNelson6563]

37. It is my firm belief

that if Dean wasn't doing as well as he was, Clark wouldn't have gotten in the race. I believe Clark was persuaded to run and I don't mean by a bunch of regular folks who e-mailed him. I think they played into it though, as in reinforcing what power players were saying.

I heard one insightful thing from Bill right-wing-whore Schneider on CNN during this campaign cycle and it was this:

Wesley Clark is like a spare tire to the Democratic party. When they need him he's all important to them, when they don't need him they put him back in the trunk and forget about him.

I think they felt they needed Clark to stop Dean. If only Geppy woulda cut his deal with Kerry earlier than he did Clark and his supporters may have been spared a wild ride with a disappointing ending.

Just my .0125

Julie

On edit: Good to see you Tom, I wondered about you. Hope it's all good in your world. :hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Julie we respectfully disagree, with the emphasis on respectfully.

I am not disagreeing with you about the possible role of the Democratic establishment, that is highly plausible to me. And I don't find fault with Schneider's specific comments either, though I think the Party will never completely forget about Clark as long as Bush is reigning as a War President.

I think Clark himself believed that Dean did not have the needed international experience to be the right President for these times. I think it is more likely that Clark would not have agreed to run had Kerry been running stronger at that time. I think Clark's primary motivation for running was what he saw being done to our Armed Forces, how their lives were being endangered by chickenhawks for a partisan political advantage, and to further an ideologically driven (PNAC) agenda that Clark saw as reckless and fundamentally wrong for America's National Security. Clark believed that he was the best man to take on Bush and team regarding all that, and I have to agree with Clark on that.

Clark is actually a pretty straight forward guy. When he said any of the Democrats running would do a better job at foreign policy than Bush, I think he meant it, at least in regards to Dean. Clark knew that Dean would seek wiser counsel and not be beholden to a ideological military agenda. But Clark knows war and command decision making, and he thought it best that the guy at the top of the chain of command be seasoned in that role. And he thought the public would demand that this year from anyone trying to replace Bush. If one assumes (and many don't of course) that Clark was right about that, a Dean nomination would not have stopped Bush from getting four more years.

Members of the Party Establishment may have been pushing Clark for their own reasons, but Clark decided to run for his own. And I don't for a minute believe that the Draft Clark movement played a small role in his decision. Many of the Dean supporters at DU have spent time around Howard Dean, and know a bit about him as a man. That personal knowledge of what makes Dean tick I am sure went a long way toward reassuring many that Dean's move to the left from a prior centrist record was not just a cynical political ploy, though many outside his campaign harbored those suspicions. It is the same with Clark. Those who got to know Clark personally came to understand the sincerity of his true motivations, and knew that Clark was profoundly moved by the heartfelt outpouring of support for him to enter the race. Clark saw it as his personal duty to step forward when he did, to answer that call. He never stopped talking about it, he always was deeply honored by that draft movement and did everything in his power to live up to the expectations that we placed on him.

Clark has the heart of an idealist and the eye of a realist. You don't command troops in war without the latter. He would not have entered the race, given all the handicaps of late entry, low name recognition, no money, no staff, and newness to the Democratic Party, had he not known that he could leverage some powerful support to give him a chance at victory. Establishment figures may have tried to use Clark for their own ends, but Clark was doing exactly the same in reverse. Progressive activists like me who backed Clark didn't do so because of the DLC, we did it despite it, and we did so gladly. The fact that the Establishment wavered so quickly in their support of Clark says two things to me. One, they saw Clark as a lesser evil than Dean, because they feared Dean would lose to Bush and because Dean was a maverick outside of their control. Two, they saw Clark as an evil nonetheless, someone who could beat Bush but who was still a maverick outside of their control.

[Adelante]

39. Man, it's good to have you back at DU

We need you, Tom. :)

[JNelson6563]

41. Your disagreement smacks of agreement

Funny how that works sometimes. haha

Keep working for cahnge and remember, things are simpler than they appear. :toast:

Julie

[Donna Zen]

50. Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Two, they saw Clark as an evil nonetheless, someone who could beat Bush but who was still a maverick outside of their control.

Clark said things that sent alarms bells ringing off the wall. First, early on and repeatedly he said that he would cut the defense budget and provide a stronger defense. He elaborates upon this in "Winning Modern War," and explains how the corrupted system works. A new and needed weapon gets passed, but the old system it is replacing is a pet of a congress critter looking after the pork in their district. Not only does the old weapon stay put, it gets an increase in funding. This practice is sos for both sides of the aisle. Both sides use it to keep getting elected. A decision by a four star general turned POTUS to do a line by line cleaning of the military budget must turned their blood cold, not to say the temperature on K-Street. He said, "We will cut the spending by taking out the waste, fraud and abuse. And we will start with the budget that I know best--"the make-want buget."

Second, at the end of the Heinecker town meeting, Clark told a questioner that he would roll back the media ownership to 1987 standards. Do we wonder why even today, after Clark has suspended his campaign, when CNN scrolls the current delegate count, Clark's name is not included. Dean's is.

For all of the repeating of the meme, "he's bad on the stump" or "he's a poor campaigner" why did Elizabeth Drew not only refer to Clark as eloquent, but says she has not experienced the energy in a room at a Clark rally since RFK? Drew has seen them all, and she surely knows. One Dean supporter who went to a Clark town meeting wrote that he didn't know what made him get in line to shake Clark's hand; he just had to touch him.

The powers that be knew that if Wesley Clark ever got out of the box, he had the ability to talk to the American people; he had the authority to convince the American people of what needed to be changed. And yes, they would never be able to control him. Honor, Duty, Country....that is what controls Wesley Clark. And that is not business as usual.

[BootinUp]

53. I just hope we can take another run at this thing n/t

[BootinUp]

48. Tom, let it go bud

This post basically tells me you are still upset over Clarks early withdrawal. This is a nice analysis here, but it is not necessary to understand every little thing that happened. For me, it is enough to know that Clark was a real outsider, a great American, and that he WILL play a role in our government in the future. Clark and his supporters have nothing to be ashamed of.

:toast:

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Nah, I'm disappointed in reality but not upset by Clark withdrawing early.

Clark made the right move doing so under the circumstances. He saw exactly what was coming down and quickly made the perfect adjustment. I certainly don't think Clark or any of his supporters have anything to be ashamed of. I do though think that it is always valuable to understand why and how something important plays out the way that it does. I also think that it is important for the backers of Clark, Dean and Kucinich to hold onto the realization of how totally possible it was for us to get someone nominated that many of us could have been relatively excited about, whichever of the three men it might have been.

Once Kerry is further along on his way to being coroneted I predict revisionist politics will proclaim that Kucinich never ever was a real candidate, that Clark sounded good on paper only but simply could not cut it as a candidate, and that Dean was essentially a hyped happening phenomena that melted once the public started to take the Presidential race seriously, kind of like the NASDAQ tech stock bubble that popped. The lesson we will be fed is stick with the tried and true seasoned and reputable politicians, and don't get intoxicated over some grass roots driven fresh faced faddish outsider. And that will be a lesson meant to lull us back into compliance.

[BootinUp]

52. It was intersesting

to see how many Dean supporters, expressed an acceptance to Clark, after the post-Iowa speech controversy for Dean. I realized at that point the possibility for a future movement with Dean and Clark supporters.

I read about Kucinich back in July, I thought he was my candidate for awhile. I was shocked to learn he was only polling at 1 percent. But you are hitting the nail on the head by including him in the outsider movement.

Hopefully, the next time we have the opportunity, we can pull Clark, Dean and Kucinich supporters together, to really rock the boat, so to speak.

cheers.

[Donna Zen]

54. The time to act is now

IMHO this must be about what we want....we don't need a man, we need a plan.

Voting for or even actively supporting the eventual nominee does not negate the need to organize the cyber-roots. We can be a force for good...well, if we ever stopped arguing.