Looks like Clark is looking to 2008 (Last Nights Chicago Reception)

[Quixote1818]

This was sent to me by e-mail by a fellow Clarkie


A second-hand account of last nite's Chicago reception.


From a friend who saw Clark in Chicago:

Wes was fantastic.

There's no doubt in my mind he's looking to 2008.
Although he didn't come right out and declare it, he
made a few Freudian slips like "The party I want to
lead," and "the country I want to lead", etc.

He was surprisingly candid about his own campaign's
failings, and even took a couple of shots at the
management of Kerry-Edwards team. ("When I went to bed
on election night, I had heard John Edwards say they
were gonna make sure every vote in Ohio was counted. I
thought that sounded like a good idea. But then a few
hours later, they conceded. I didn't understand it.")

Shared a couple amusing anecdotes about his dealings
with Newt Gingrich and that Focus on the Family
asshole James Dobson (who was, according to Clark,
"like a Nazi". Direct quote.)

All in all, I was pretty impressed. His main theme
seemed to be that Democrats need to get over their
circular firing squad mentality, stop arguing with
each other over the minutia of policy and focus on the
Big Picture: regaining control of our country. He said
arguing over the details of candidates' respective
health care plans, for example, is counter-productive
as the end result of every Democrat's plan should be
universal health care. Quit splitting hairs and hit
the big themes.

He's obviously learned a lot from his time on the
trail. Compared to the other two times I was able to
see him in person, he appeared looser and more
confident in what he was doing. He acknowledged that
some of his campaign staff had handcuffed him during
the primary cuz they didn't really know him or what he
was about. He said his mistake was to trust their
guidance instead of following his own instincts. He
said he wouldn't make that error again.

He then took some questions and issued an early
heads-up on the Administration's plans on Iran. Said
we can expect a massive troop pullout of Iraq by the
end of this summer so Bush can launch an Iran
offensive next summer. Just in time for the 2006
congressional races. He said everyone should be wary
of this trap.

He also said the administration is making a huge error
in how it's dealing with China. He said that's where
our real long-term foreign policy challenges are.

All in all, it was a great little reception. My friend
Matt brought a pal of his who definitely leans right,
and he came away impressed with Clark. Said even
though he may disagree with his politics, he could see
his strengths as a leader, and that Clark's message of
unity was inspiring.

And that's about all you can ask for.

[Auntie Bush]

1. Thanks, that was a nice report.

"And that's about all you can ask for."

Well, all I can ask for is for Clark to be our president!

That's not asking too much...is it?

"He said he wouldn't make that error again." That sure sounds like he's planning on running! :bounce:

[aeolian]

2. Go, Clark, Go!

Give 'em Hell, General!

:patriot:

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. "like a Nazi"...LOL...that's our Wes!

He was surprisingly candid about his own campaign's
failings, and even took a couple of shots at the
management of Kerry-Edwards team. ("When I went to bed
on election night, I had heard John Edwards say they
were gonna make sure every vote in Ohio was counted. I
thought that sounded like a good idea. But then a few
hours later, they conceded. I didn't understand it.")

Me either, Wes and I still don't. Go get 'em General!

[returnable]

11. Clarification

I shouldn't have put that Ohio anecdote in quotes, cuz those weren't his exact words. I was paraphrasing (this recap was originally a casual email I sent to a friend, so I wasn't intending it to be an official transcript.) But that's basically what he said - he was surprised they conceded so quickly.

But he most definitely said Dobson "was like a Nazi." That stuck with me even through several pints :hi:

[KittyWampus]

4. Thanks For The Report. I'd Be Inclined To Support Wes Again, Though

I'm also leaving my mind open for other candidates.

2006 is most important.

[Gold Metal Flake]

5. Go. Go. Go.

(hope) (hope) (hope)

[Avalux]

6. Thanks. Clark is a fast learner

if he does run in 2008 - he won't make the same mistakes. He will be quite formidable. I can't wait! :applause:

[AP]

7. Arguing over minutia in competing health care plans doesn't sound...

...like anything I remember really having a big influence on the outcome of the election last November.

While I agree that the Democrats have a problem in that they tend to think that making an argument about why people should vote for them means presenting a laundry list of policy positions (if that's what Clark is getting at), I do think that explaining to people why and how Democrats progressive values manifest themselves in their various policy positions, including health care plans, is the key to taking back "control" of government (and I assume that's what Clark means by "hitting the big points").

So arguments about differences in policy positions during the primaries that are framed in terms of showing how the difference shows what each candidate stands for is fine with me.

That didn't really happen either, except in Wisconsin when the issue was free trade. That was the high point of the primary season if you ask me. They weren't debating minutia, but they were fitting policy positions into a bigger argument about what each candidate stood for, and the public had a brief moment where they started to understand progressive frames for seeing the world.

That was good.

[returnable]

9. You hit on it...

"While I agree that the Democrats have a problem in that they tend to think that making an argument about why people should vote for them means presenting a laundry list of policy positions..."

That's what he was getting at. Sometimes Dems get bogged down in wonkery.

And, sure, during the primaries candidates need to distinguish themselves by highlighting policy differences, but far too often comparatively minor differences lead to huge schisms.

You only need to witness the primary wars STILL being fought on these boards to see that in action.

[AP]

16. The policies are important, but they need to be framed by an over-

arching, unifying theory of why one is a progressive.

What's wrong is the Democrats only provide the laundry list and not the framework. They should give the framework and then fill it out with the policy.

This second-hand recap of Clark's speech doesn't give enough detail about what Clark was saying. Does he mean hit the high point of the policy positions without debating the details? (I think that's what they're already doing.) Or does he mean only provide the overarching framework and stop talking about individual policies like health care?

I still think the most can be gained by talking about the individual policies and explaining to people how they fit into the overarching framework, and they should be doing that during the primaries and during the general election.

For example, rightwingers know that they're against abortion, against stem-cell research, against welfare, against progressive taxation, against gay-marriage, against gun control, for the death penalty, for war, for free-markets, etc. etc. -- they know all their policy positions. But more importantly, they know the overarching framework that allows them to understand why they're for all those policies and they know who some of these seemingly contradictory positions fit together, and when the next policy issue comes down, they know how it resonates with everything else in which they believe.

Democrats don't know how their policies fit together and they don't know what the overarching theme is, and new policy issues don't resonate in the same way that they do for Republicans, and therein lies the Democrats' problems.

As far as the primaries went, I don't see how wonkery separated the candidates. We had the anti-war candidates and the yes-IWR voters, and we had the distinguished, experienced, and composed candidates and the firebrand candidates, and the new-faces. We had the candidates who straddled a lot of divisions, and candidates who were too much of one thing or the other, and their respective policies had little to do with why voters picked one over the other. (There was almost no policy coverage at all during the primaries, except when it had to do with the Iraq invasion, and every media study I've seen confirms this.)

The laundry-list approach was a feature of the general election. It was like, "environment:check box, women's rights: check box, military experience: check box, prosecution of white collar crime: check box, etc." Most of that is designed just to make various liberal single-issue groups happy. But how in the world does that explain to everyone else why it's important to vote for Democrats? It doesn't.

[returnable]

17. Well, first off...

...it isn't a second-hand recap. It's my first-hand account. I was there, and I wrote this originally as an email to a friend who couldn't attend the function. So you're right in that I oversimplified what Clark was saying - I wish I had thought to record the event for further clarification, but I didn't.

I think what you wrote here...

"Democrats don't know how their policies fit together and they don't know what the overarching theme is, and new policy issues don't resonate in the same way that they do for Republicans, and therein lies the Democrats' problems."

and in your conclusion...

"The laundry-list approach was a feature of the general election. It was like, "environment:check box, women's rights: check box, military experience: check box, prosecution of white collar crime: check box, etc." Most of that is designed just to make various liberal single-issue groups happy. But how in the world does that explain to everyone else why it's important to vote for Democrats? It doesn't."


...kinda summarizes what Clark was talking about on this point.

He most certainly wasn't saying particular issues (like health care) shouldn't be discussed or debated, and I apologize if that's how it was interpreted. (With the heath care point, I think he meant as Democrats, we all already recognize the need for health care coverage for everyone. The challenge is to get that point across to swing voters.)

In short, his message, at least to my ears, was the same one Howard Dean and others have been hammering on since the election: the party needs to do a much better job framing its issues so that the platform resonates with more voters.

[dogman]

23. What he said is very much like what you are saying.

"The laundry-list approach was a feature of the general election. It was like, "environment:check box, women's rights: check box, military experience: check box, prosecution of white collar crime: check box, etc." Most of that is designed just to make various liberal single-issue groups happy. But how in the world does that explain to everyone else why it's important to vote for Democrats? It doesn't."
He said when he meets with groups they go down the line and identify their special interests. He was not talking about the Primaries where Dems debate each other on the issues but in the General Election where we know where the Dem Party stands. If we did not get mired in the details but play on a broader plane and give the people a sense of leadership and security to do what is right for America as a whole. If we box ourselves in with details the box gets smaller and has less appeal to the broader public.

[NewJeffCT]

10. I think he was trying to say...

I like Clark, but I'm not a big Clarkie or Deanite or anybody else...

But, I agree with his premise.

Sometimes Democrats/liberals/progressives tend to want somebody 100% ideologically pure and they lose out on a better candidate who may be 'only' 70 or 80 or 90% pure.

I tend to score even more liberal than the average DUer in those "How liberal are you?" online tests and am generally among the more liberal. However, I would rather work on regaining control of the House & Senate and then start working on ideological purity rather than vice versa, even if that meant re-electing Lieberman in 2006 or electing a pro-life Democrat to the Senate in PA or RI next year.

Just regaining control of Congress and all the committees means that our Congressional leaders - Pelosi & Reid - control the agenda and not Rev. Dobson, I mean, Tom DeLay & Bill Frist. We could have a real 9/11 commission, a special counsel to investigate the Bush war lies, pass a minimum wage hike and have Bush veto it gives us ammo for 2008, etc.

[returnable]

12. Bingo

:hi:

[returnable]

8. Heh. I wrote that. Glad to see it's making the rounds

It was a cool night :hi:

[joanski0]

13. Thank you. I love General Clark.

He did tell us to save our 2004 buttons and signs.

[Quixote1818]

18. That's wild!!!! It was sent to me by

glennho1@aol We connected a long time ago somehow through e-mail and have continued on each others e-mail lists. I don't remember how we connected but it was through working for Clark. Perhaps you are on my e-mail list as well?

[Sparkly]

21. Thank you, returnable!! "Dobson -- like a Nazi" made my night.

Nothing like hearing the truth stated fearlessly. Thanks for writing the report!

[Chicago1]

14. Marching into Iran in the Spring of 2006???????? I DON'T THINK SO!!

I don't think he's going to be in office next spring (b/c of all of the criminal evidence which will result in his IMPEACHMENT) so I'm not going to worry about this. There's is AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE of criminal activity including the Selection in Ohio in Nov of 2004. Soooo, I don't think the Bush regime will be in office next year to bomb Iran.


Waiting for the IMPEACHMENT WHILE THE SCANDNALS KEEP UNFOLDING
America's Work Stories
http://usaworkstories.blogspot.com
[e-mail]

[Jai4WKC08]

24. Wake up and smell the coffee

Bush could be caught on video by Fox News raping an 10yo boy on the steps of the Capitol and the House we have now wouldn't impeach him. Nor would the 30-40% of voters who are die-hard Repubs care.

There has been "an enormous amount of evidence" against Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors for a couple years now. Far worse than anything Nixon or any other president even dreamed of doing. It hasn't hurt Bush yet and it won't hurt him for the rest of his term of office. I only hope the history books will tell what really happened, but history has an unfortunate tendancy to be written by the winners.

[RAF]

15. Clark in 2008!

:bounce: :kick: :bounce: :kick: :bounce:

[Sparkly]

19. He'll be there in 2008!!

And I'll be right behind him, writing even MORE letters and raising even MORE money and doing everything else I can to support him all the way!!

(Not that we're completely waiting -- got the bumperstickers, got the T-shirts, and talk about the issues and his potential at every opportunity. And although you can't always see it on DU, Husb2Sparkly, aka "Stinky the Clown," is quite a vocal advocate for the General irl.)

[Adelante]

20. Right with you, Sparkly, and Stinky, too!!

:pals:

[FrenchieCat]

22. You know you can count me in.....

Thanks Returnable. Didn't know that was you. Kwel!