Political disconnect

[sandnsea]

Clark and Hillary. Why? How do centrists gain so much support on a board that supposedly hates centrists? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4806726

[globalvillage]

1. I see the Clarkies are out in force tonight.

As always.
I don't know. There was a Biden supporter, too, which is weird. Nothing against the man, but Biden? for Pres? I don't think so.
I posted my opinion, although I wish the '08 posts would disappear until after '06.

[politicasista]

2. I do too.

I have been saying this out in GDP, but it always falls on deaf ears.

[sandnsea]

3. Obsession, boredom, disruption..

who knows, probably a bit of all 3.

[sandnsea]

4. My husband finally gave up on him

I kept telling him Biden was a cornflake. He would only hear the pontificating Biden, he never really followed the actual votes. Somewhere along the line he picked up that article from last year, where Biden said Kerry hadn't taken his advise on the tape. That put it all in perspective for him, thank god. I was so tired of hearing, what about Biden.

Now it's "watch that Barack Obama". I will, while I work to get the only person in the country qualified to be in the White House, IN The White House. ;)

[paulk]

5. I still think someone's juicing these polls somehow

Clark always wins in a landslide - yet, I don't see that kind of support in general for him, especially out here in the real world. A lot of people I talk to don't even know who he is...

I like Clark - he's one of the few from the last election I could have supported with enthusiasm if Kerry hadn't been the nominee.

There does seem to be a major disconnect, though, doesn't there...
He's pretty much a moderate at best - supposedly talked into running by Bill Clinton, Mr. DLC himself... Kind of wierd he has that kind of support on this board.

[globalvillage]

6. Clark confuses me.

What's the attraction? Seriously. Not that I don't like him, I guess I just can't figure out his appeal.
Has he really done anything that he would be considered viable, or is it all image?

[Island Blue]

7. I asked that very same question

when I was a newbie on this board and a Clarkie entered JK Group space to let my ass have it! I was really surprised that that happened because I thought I was safe to ask such a question in here, but I wasn't on that particular night. It was right at the beginning of the summer when pro-Clark (and anti-Kerry) activity was particularly high in GD-P.

I still don't really know the answers to you're questions by the way.

[paulk]

9. I think the attraction for a lot of the internet set

is that they think he's the anti-war candidate. Same reason so many on the anti-war left liked Howard Dean. Never mind that he governed Vermont as a solid centrist who was mostly despised by the left there.

Of course, neither had to vote on the IWR - so they both got a pass there. Even though Clark said he would have voted for it if he'd been in the Senate.


Clark, to me at least, is kind of a poor man's John Kerry. He's very good on foreign policy, IMO - with more of a hands on, in the field view of it's implementation. Kerry's view is more from the policy making perspective - although his Vietnam experiences add a dimension.
I thought a Kerry/Clark ticket would have been ideal. I felt foreign policy/national security was what the election was going to turn on.

Clark has no domestic experience other than teaching economics at West Point (I think)...

Clark can be a very good speaker in a one on one situation. Not so good in the primary debates. He comes across as well spoken and extremely intelligent - one of the reasons I like Kerry, too. :)

[sandnsea]

11. Two years ago isn't now

That's what is weird about the anti-war thing, he's more behind this war now than alot of Dems. I don't get how he and Kerry can have similar positions on Iraq, and Clark is anti-war and Kerry is stay the course. Even though I think Kerry would be more inclined to stabilize and leave than Clark.

What happened in this country that so many people can delude themselves into believing things that are just not true.

[Mass]

12. Simple, Clark did not have to vote in 2002, Kerry had

You've got people here who still think that Clark would have voted NO even if he said publicly he agreed with Kerry's position.

In addition, Clark has been very vocal recently (even if it is always by email to his supporters), while Kerry has been fairly silent on the subject.

A perfect example about confusing being loud and being efficient.

This said, in the people that could run in 08, Clark is by far one of my favorite (the other one being Feingold) after Kerry.

I would bet that Kerry and Clark have the same position on Iraq (and always have) put it in a way it can stay by itself and leave. The issue is how to do that.

[sandnsea]

13. Vocally supportive on Iraq

How can one bash Kerry as "stay the course" and praise Clark, that's where I go a little dingy on the subject. Clark supports the whole democracy in Iraq as necessary to the region, Kerry had said stability has got to be the primary goal. He also seems to have indicated that there is a point of no return on Iraq, when patching it up and leaving would be the only sensible thing to do. I don't think Clark would ever consider that, career army couldn't entertain anything along the lines of "losing". That's my perception, maybe I haven't read enough of what he's said.

[karynnj]

8. Reading one of the Clark threads,

I was amazed that one MA person who has repeatedly knocked Kerry because he is DLC and she won't ever vote that way again and he's not liberal enough - is crazy about Clark. I actually think if there was a DLC stop Dean person it was Clark.

He entered the race at Clinton's urging when Dean was riding high in fall 2003. The press comments were that he was perfect. One point they made was that his background eliminated Kerry's distinction as a veteran. He immediately got the support of many Clinton people.

I liked the comments of one person on a thread earlier this week who pointed out that there were no specifics in his plan. I didn't add a comment as I've written way too many pro-Kerry ones and so far that thread didn't have any bash Kerry statements.

It seems that it may be a case of seeing what you want. Clark has no political record and so they are basing it only on his speeches. They bash Kerry for votes taken years ago, but give Clark a pass on voting for Nixon and Reagan. I would like to know more of which wars, declared and otherwise he was involved in. (Mainly did he know about the Contras and did he support our backing these right wing thugs.)

With Clinton - I'm not sure where she really fits on the political spectrum - she's done a good job keeping things vague. A very political person I know pointed out to me that it may be that the MSM opts to cover her more in terms of "will Hillary run" and it is their fault that neither of us could accurately list her positions on key issues. I think the happiness here is that she was the first to call for an independent investigation of Katrina. They didn't expect this of her - so they are happy. (The fact that is there is no risk in this - everyone wants this looked into. Kerry asked for the investigation on WMDII that is political dynamite and got less credit - largely because he was expected to do it. It is notable that Hillary didn't sign Kerry's. )

[Mass]

15. I dont think this is the issue with her (if we are talking about the same

person), but you're right, this DLC fight is just stupid. Cant they just judge people on what they vote or what they propose?

[TayTay]

10. It is a disconnect. And it's also a case of wanting ...

what you can't have. Everyone wants a perfect candidate, someone who is just what they have been waiting for to arrive and 'save the day.' But they have taken the human out of the equation. The minute that perfect fantasy person speaks or casts a real vote, they become disillusioned with them and yearn for the next guy. It's really very childish and insulting in a way. It's also a bit puzzling for a group of people who self-identify as 'reality-based.' How can such people be so blind to their own actions and interior motivations? That has always frustrated and puzzled me. It's so inhuman and unrealistic.

The cynics are also puzzling. Cynicism so often masks a sense of being hurt and the fear of being hurt again. Cynics pretend that they have 'been around the block' with pols and now have enough 'body armor' on to not fall in love again, because 'they only let you down.' This is so childish and incomplete a view. They really need to 'go around the block' again and gain some perspective. Not everyone in public office is trying to screw with people's head. There are good people out there who are doing the best they can with the hands that have been dealt them. And the cynicism prevents people from truly seeing this and appreciating both the effort and the cost of that effort. I don't understand this type of shallow and pretend intellectualism. It's pretty senseless. Liberals are supposed to be for the people but some liberals are romantics in the worst sense of the word. When the reality doesn't match the fantasy, they get mad and feel betrayed. These people are intuitively blind and I don't get them. At all.

I actually felt bad for Dean at certain points in his campaign. Had he been elected, he would have disappointed his most ardent followers. There was no way that the real Dean could ever live up to 'fantasy' Dean. The fact that he lost feeds this lost romanticism that has no basis in reality. Again, I don't understand people who choose a senseless and unsupportable fantasy over a much more interesting, human and intricate reality. It's like choosing to have a hot dog, instead of ordering the fillet mignon when both are available to you. Senseless and intuitively blind.

[Mass]

14. I think the issue is not centrist or not.

It is whether you are a Bush hater or not in your speeches. They would like Lieberman if he was slamming Bush, whether he supports Iraq or not.

It is obvious when you see them react to Clinton. If he says something that looks strong and seems to attack Bush, he becomes a heroe. When he says something that sounds more moderate, he becomes a traitor. But he is still the same man, and they see him as two different people.