Who is the best Democrat to beat Bush?

[coloradodem2005]

I know that everybody is concerned about the photo op that Bush staged. I keep thinking, especially since Hilary went to Afghanistan and Iraq, that some of our candidates, should do that.

That is beside the point though. Many believe that we cannot win no matter what. This photo op strengthens this belief. Who can counter this and turn the tide against Bush? Who can use everything he has done wrong to beat him?

[carpe diem]

1. I posted this on another thread...

I was just watching the President's "surprise" visit to the troops in Iraq. The reaction from the troops and the media coverage of it shows exactly where the battle for the White House is going to be fought next year. Those images are going to replace the "flight suit" photo-op as THE ad to be played over and over again throughout the campaign. It's not going to be about jobs, not health care, not the economy, not even medicare or prescription drugs (even though we have given them a big stick to beat us over the head with... and they will).

The war on terrorism and national security are going to be the battleground for this election and there is not one thing that we can do about it. It is not going to be possible, while the country is at war, and we have over 100,000 troops on the ground in a shooting gallery, to change or redefine the argument. "It's the economy, stupid" or some similar catchy phrase will not be able to withstand the kinds of images we just saw of George Bush in Iraq. And the media will co-operate fully in getting these images out there for the White House. This was perfectly played pr: slow news day, most Americans are at home watching t.v. This is going to be replayed HUNDREDS of times and all the pundits and talking heads are going to be harping about this for the next several days, weeks, possibly even longer. They will get much mileage out of this.

This is why we have to nominate someone like Wesley Clark. This is going to be an incredibly difficult election for the Democrats to win, I don't care who we nominate. However, unless we want to go ahead and concede the 2004 election and probably every congressional race for the next 4 yrs., we HAVE to put forward someone who can fight George Bush in the area where he is perceived to be the strongest. With all due respect to Howard Dean and the other folks running, they cannot go up against what we just saw on television and beat George Bush. You will see that video and others like it throughout the Republican convention in September of next year, anniversary of 9/11 and so on. A quarter of a billion dollars to fill the airwaves with those images in the weeks and months just before election day.

With Wes Clark, there is certainly no guarantee of anything. We could still lose the election "big time". But, if the democratic party cannot see that a four-star general w/ 34 yrs of military leadership under his belt under his belt, is THE BEST CHANCE we have to go up against an incumbent WARTIME president and have a real shot at winning, we deserve to lose and lose badly. We have to get over ourselves just a little and look at the bigger, longer-term picture beyond our particular pet issues and concerns. We need some order and discipline and a willingness to compromise and sacrifice a little bit here and there if we want to have a real chance at reclaiming the political landscape from those currently in power.

I am not someone who usually gets into politics and following campaigns beyond voting. But this year, not until General Clark got into the race did I think that we had a chance in hell of winning this election. I have donated money to a political campaign for the first time in my life. I follow this race like the future of the republic depends on it. And for the first time in my life, I truly believe that it does. What frustrates me most is that I can see this so clearly but I don't think that enough people who consider themselves Democrats see it to keep us from nominating someone who is going to get his ass handed to him in the general election. It's not going to be the specifics of a particular policy or the details of some issue paper. It's going to be who can make people feel safe and who can touch people's hearts. Even I was moved when I saw the coverage of Bush's visit, and I CANNOT STAND HIM!!

Some people thought General Clark's tv ad was kind of sappy, and I admit I was one, but that kind of stuff moves people and inspires them. That is what we need to be able to do if we are going to have any chance at winning this thing. I hope, if nothing else, the result of today's pr coup by the White House, is that the Democrats realize that we have to have a nominee who can actually go toe to toe against a wartime president and it is NOT Howard Dean or any of the others. If we blow the opportunity to put Wes Clark on the ballot this year, we deserve what we get.

[Skwmom]

4. I agree that even with Clark it won't be easy BUT

at least we will have a fightning chance and we won't do more harm than good (to the Democratic Party).

[oasis]

5. great post. Welcome to DU.

[Jerseycoa]

23. Beauty

Nicely written and makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for this.

[Bombtrack]

2. Edwards or Clark

we can't win without 270 electoral votes, and they are the only 2 who come in with a wide open battlefield

Kerry could also beat Bush, and other than Lieberman who we've known for a year wasn't winning the nom, they're the candidates who won't exascerbate the dem parties biggest problem, being the tax-raising party.

Dean and Gephardt saying they would raise middle class taxes is no less dooming than Mondales proclamation 20 years before.

[Demobrat]

3. Dean.

He's the only one who can GOTV .

[Bombtrack]

9. We could annex canada and we still would be 100 electoral votes short

The case can be made that Gephardt is a lousier general election candidate, but other than that, he's the worst choice of the serious candidates by a wide, wide margin.

Even Kucinich doesn't want to raise middle class taxes.

[Lars39]

6. A breathing one is all it would take with a free press and honest election

:)

[snrfmaster]

7. Dean and Clark

Dean and Clark can win it together.

I think the CIA and Pentagon are sick of Bush, the pentagon warned that Iraq would turn into a quagmire. And the CIA warned against it, they don't want some idiot going to war against their advice. Come on, the CIA published that report so (in their words) "Bush would actually hear about it"..we all know if it had been sent to the whitehouse Rove would have buried it.
When you lose the support of the CIA, and the pentagon they can bury you. All it takes is one report saying Iraq was wrong, or that Bush has strengthened the terrorists and he's out of there.

Dean has ties to the the CIA (his brother was rumored to be CIA) so they'd like him, and he'd listen to them and not think he knows best.

Clark has great ties to the CIA and the Pentagon, both of them would prefer someone who knew his way around the world to some village idiot believing you can stop terrorism by killing civilians.

I'm starting to wonder if Bush can win, most people I know believe that Bush is a bad president, convince EVERYONE you know to vote, the majority of the US doesn't like him and we can't lose. Unless Diebold helps out.

Hes lost the favor of the south once they realize hes against letting the assault weapons bill sunset,and that hes ruined the constitution.

He's lost the favor of the north because people there are more awake to politics. If we actually get together, convince all our friends, all our neighbors, all our family to vote we can't lose.

Dean and Clark can win the south, they love the constitution there, and guns, and Jesus etc. Dean and Clark are christian, Dean is against more gun control (Bush backtracked on his promise to let the AWB sunset which pissed off all the gun nuts i know), Dean and Clark want to limit the patriot act....If they make a fuss about the constitution, bush's lies, broken promises etc and the fact theyre not pro-gun control they will take the south. and they're almost guaranteed to take the north.


thats what i think anyway

[Jerseycoa]

18. Slur

>Dean has ties to the the CIA (his brother was rumored to be CIA) so they'd like him, and he'd listen to them and not think he knows best.


This is a rumor, not a fact. It sets Dean supporters off into the stratosphere and we don't have a prayer of a sensible thread. If you have proof of something against Charles Dean, you should post a link to it, if you feel you must. I wouldn't, though, because it's a cheap shot, no matter what. Just my advice and deepest wishes. I'm new here, too, but I already see that if we don't stop trashing each other's campaigns on shaky ground like this, we have no hope for 2004.

[madrchsod]

25. this is the only

ticket that could win..i`d take clark for president to take care of the global problems and dean for domestic problems

[sleipnir]

8. JFK

Sorry, it's true, no Dem alive today can beat Bush alone.

[roughsatori]

10. I support Kucinich but believe Dean would get out the Dem voters

across the spectrum by a bigger margin then any other candidate. He is too centrist for my tastes--but his strength is that he is able to motivate many leftists as well as moderate Dems (I know that infuriates some Clark and Kerry supporters, but it is a real strength of Dean's.) And though I find him historically too moderate, I admire him for being among the first to speak out with anger against Shrub. It seems like our other candidates waited until it was safe. (That of course does not include Kucinich and Sharpton who were outspoken too--but the candidates who are generally considered more viable were pretty tame until Dean got the attention and approval for his statements against Bush*.)

[Skwmom]

13. His ability to motivate is going to plummet once Rove is

finished with him. I know gung ho Deanies who have turned away in disgust once they got a closer look at the man.

[Eloriel]

15. Is that why his numbers keep rising?

I hate to say this, but you post so many things about Dean that are patently untrue -- not just "spun," but demonstrably untrue, that you have no credibility whatsoever on the subject.

Or maybe the former "gung ho Deanies" you speak of were like those who come here and feign former Dean supporter status.

In any case, you'd be far better off to limit your "campaigning" to throwing out some positive spin on the lackluster candidate(s) you support.

Eloriel

[FrenchieCat]

29. Dean's numbers keep

rising because the media has propped him up and has made his name a household word. But few people have looked at Dean closely and asked themselves the real question, can Dean really beat George Bush...and if so how? Energy and money is something that the Republican party has much of. Who says that whatever money Dean raises, Bush won't raise twice as much...to date Dean as raised 25-30 million, Bush has raised over 100 million. To rely on money and a media that is propping up Dean to think he will win this election is a "fool's folly"......

A dangerous gamble, my friends...if the number one goal is to actually get the job done. I'm in this to win.....the General election. The nomination is secondary.

Dean is not the best man for the job, no matter how you look at it; upside down, right side up and inside out. Facts are facts....this election will be about national security, terrorism, 9/11 and war.

Dean just doesn't have what it takes in that department.

He may have been criticizing Bush a long time ago.....but that doesn't equal being qualify to actually take over the job.

Pie in the sky means none in your plate......

[shanti]

24. yeah

and i know gung ho deanies, who are still.....GUNG HO DEANIES! :grr:

[blm]

11. Whichever one the mediawhores dump on the most.

Like they did Gore.

The easiest one for Bush to beat? The one the mediawhores focus on the most.

[KittyWampus]

12. Clark Has The Full Arsenal To Use Against Junior

Clark served as an executive in the military- can beat * with AWOL stick
Clark has sterling Foreign Policy experience- can bash * as a slave to incompetent advisors
Clark has his military records out in public- can confront * with his own sealed records

Clark comes from the South, has a non partisan past, has charisma in spades, doesn't appear haughty

Clark appears moderate yet is the most Left leaning candidate second only to Dennis Kucinich.

Clark has studied Economics

Clark has a great record of commanding bases where he:

improved race relations
addressed problems with spousal abuse
worked for better education

[Indiana_Dem]

19. Exactly. He's the only one.

Secondly Kerry.
I LOVE Kucinich but he will not win the mainstream being totally anti-war.

[Piperay]

37. Agree...

definietly Clark. If we have any chance at all Clark is the one and the only one who can do it. :thumbsup:

[tabasco]

14. With little doubt, IMO, Clark.

Then Kerry.

[Racenut20]

26. My apologies to our gay friends and members, BUT

If you are over 25 or so, you know exactly what is going to be said all over the South & Much of the midwest or plains states, if you try and elect Dean.

"Dean ??? He's that thar feller from some big city up north that thinks we oughta let tha *****s get married and have babys, yuk yuk"

[annxburns]

27. I am really depressed today ....

...

I talked to a good friend last night. She is in her 50's, she votes Democratic most of the time but she voted for Bush in 2000 because she could not stand Gore. She still likes Bush! She said she would consider voting for someone like Clark (I think she may have been humoring me) but her sum up of Bush is "I think he is a decent, good man and he is just in a bad situation". (AAARGHHHH)

Then today I was with my family and Bush's little stunt came on. Seemed like everyone except me and my uncle was touched by his little PR move. You watch, the good economic numbers and this - Bush will be up to 56 percent approval next week.

Face it, the Republicans have all three branches of government, Bush has 200 million dollars for re-election, the repubs just won key governorships, and Bush - for all he has done - still has 50 percent of people approving of him. The economy will improve next year, and we are probably going to cut and run in Iraq as soon as possible (we will leave a mess, but hey, when has Bush taken responsibility for anything?). And the democrats will very likely nominate a former governor of a small northeastern state who is advocating raising taxes, who has signed a civil-union bill, and who realistically will have to cede the southern states from the start. Oh and he, by his own admission, is somewhat abrasive.

The only silver lining I see is the truth is starting to come out. Not on cable TV, but in other venues, and while the rate of the truth coming out will probably not be enough to keep Bush from being re-elected, four more years of this and neo-conservatism will be completely discredited and destroyed. At least it is something to look forward to.

[LastTime2BeFree]

16. Hillary?

Does she not poll better than all the above?

[Dr Fate]

22. I dont know, does she? Link?

???

[Duder]

17. Howard Dean

Has the support, resources and political savvy to keep the race from being defined by Rove.

[Indiana_Dem]

21. I'll vote for him if he makes it but they'll eat him alive.n/t

[Pastiche423]

20. Dean

[OneBlueSky]

28. assuming Gore is unavailable, it's probably Clark . . .

In fact, I believe that most people supporting Clark are doing so because they perceive that he has the best shot at beating Bush. People who understand what's happening to this country also understand that a second Bush term could very well mean the end of this country as we know it. What they want is the person who has the best chance of winning, as long as his record and positions are at least moderately acceptable. That person may well be Clark, primarily because he can go head-to-head with Bush on defense issues. Clark isn't perfect by any means, and I do have my reservations . . . but he may be "good enough."

Is that a compromise? You bet it is. Do I like Howard Dean and admire what he's accomplished? Absolutely. Do I think he can win in the general election against Bush? I'm sorry to say that I don't. Bush will paint him into a liberal corner and hang everything from lack of foreign policy experience to gay marriage around his neck . . . and reinforce the message with $100 million of television buys during the World Series and the opening of the NFL season. My big issue is ending corporate governance, and Dean's recent pronouncements about re-regulating industry gave me great hope. And the fact that Clark denounced Dean for this tells me that, on this issue, Clark doesn't get it and will have to be educated. That's why this is such a quandry for me . . . I like Dean better, but I strongly believe that Clark has a better chance against Bush -- maybe the ONLY chance.

Bottom line: nothing is more important that removing Bush from office. Nothing in my lifetime or yours has ever been more important than removing Bush from office. Right now, our chances of doing so are slim -- he controls the Congress, the media, even the voting machines, and he'll have at least twice as much money to spend as the Democrats. So although we might be more in tune with a Kucinich or a Dean, we have to take a cold, hard, dispassionate look at reality and nominate the candidate who has the best chance of accomplishing this objective. Right now, that candidate is probably Clark. I'm still not committed to him or to any candidate, but this is how I see things at this point in time.

[FrenchieCat]

30. I believe that you've got this one right....

Clark really is the only one, if we have any common sense to put up against Bush.....

otherwise, we deserve what we get...and it won't be pretty, AT ALL!

[NicRic]

41. I agree Clark best ,since no Gore in race!

Now if the Dems really wanted both barrels loaded,so to say .I believe a Gore/Clark ticket would have cleaned bushes clock. I agree strongly that Dean ,though he has showed talent ,will not win ,and another 4 years of bush is unacceptable !

[DrFunkenstein]

31. Kerry And Clark (Edwards VP)

Clark's lack of domestic experience worries me, but he seems to be an upstanding guy and has the necessary foreign policy chops.

Kerry is the full package. He is one of the few people in modern times that I feel could have gone toe-to-toe with the Founding Fathers.

[Carolina]

32. keep Kerry in the Senate

Despite his commendable past record, he's not presidential; he's become "handled" and politically cautious. He didn't have the courage of his convictions to stick around and cast a vote on the Medicare bill. He talked the good talk but didn't go on the record with a vote that could potentially be used against him. What a wuss. He cannot spin enough about his IWR vote. He doesn't resonate with people, and it doesn't look as if he'll win (place or even show) in any primaries coming up shortly.

[jpgray]

33. My candidate!!!!!

Not really, but that's the only answer you'll get. :)

[sandnsea]

34. This is NOTHING

The President visited the troops. Big whoop. It's HIS JOB. This only heightens that he did this to them in the first place. He flies in for a 2 hour photo-op and won't give them what they need on a day to day basis and won't support them when they get home. This doesn't help him in any way.

[ima_sinnic]

39. I absolutely agree

why are we letting ourselves be intimidated by a phony yellow-belly chickenhawk 2-hour photo-op? Any Dem candidate with half a brain should be able to capitalize on that as the meaningless gesture it was. In fact, it would make a good centerpiece for an ad on just how unconcerned BushCo really IS with the welfare of the troops. Afraid to show his face in Baghdad? The "sacrifice" of a well-guarded plane journey and quick speech at a previously unannounced location? Bottom line: Bush is willing to make a cushy trip to Baghdad Airport to have his photo taken holding a turkey platter for 2 hours while our troops are risking their lives as prime targets of what amounts to a civil war, that he himself started. If he had real guts, he'd show his face in the country whose "liberation" he's supposedly so concerned about. He'd also be in the forefront fighting for decent pay and benefits for both the troops and the veterans. There is no end to the negative spin that could be put on this, to the Dem candidate's benefit.

[TexasMexican]

35. Dean.

He has the supporters and the money.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. The Emperors New Flight Suit

I'm in the Clark camp. I moved there because I wanted to win in 2004, and now I'm also there because I want the best man elected President. I've come to admire the decency and courage of Wes Clark. Here is a post I put on a diffferent thread where I was explaining what I think we Democrats are up against in opposing the contemporary corporate Republican Machine:

I had been looking for a Democratic candidate who would finally be able to reframe the dynamics of all of the public debates that the Republicans have managed to ever so finely script in their favor over the years since Reagan came to power. The Republicans have in essence taken out patent pending notices on most of the key American buzz words, and images, in our idealized collective consciousness, much as corporations have in recent year laid legal claim on everyday expressions (like "Fair and Balanced"!) Suddenly Republicans seemed to "own" them, and the rest of us were only "Renters".

Either Democrats had to find a narrow and shrill vocabulary from the fringes of public discourse to lay claim to for their own, or they had to "borrow" Republican identified terminology. Republicans had seized the middle ground, the high ground always sought after in military campaigns, the strategic vantage point over America's identity. You know, I still remember how it felt when I lost my share of ownership in the American Flag during the protests against the Viet Nam War. It wasn't immediate, but the more those I opposed clung to it, the less I could relate to that flag, and before I realized it I had for all practical purposes surrendered it. I have felt awkward and conflicted around our flag ever since then, and somewhat distrustful of those who didn't feel as conflicted as I do.

Decency, values, patriotism, valor, strength, faith, families, all of these terms and concepts increasingly have taken on a Republican slant. Even the colors, Red, White, and Blue used in proximity to each other. One can almost see the copyright symbol next to each word; "Used with the expressed consent of the Republican National Committee". Democrats using those terms and symbols inevitably sounded "Republican Light". Sometimes of course they were, but other times they just looked like poor gringos trying to speak Spanish and butchering the language, how embarrassing.

Periodically I would half heartedly protest to my radical friends that this country has much to be ashamed of true, but much to be proud of also. I would cite our revolutionary history, I would point out our multi cultural traditions, and more than likely I would be reminded in turn of the betrayals of our Revolutionary traditions, and the failings of our multi cultural society. While all the while the Republicans banished all doubt: This is the greatest country on Earth. Love it or leave it.

Bill Clinton was a brilliant man, and a brilliant politician, with a warm outgoing personality. But I think he won because, yes the economy sucked at the time and that always helps the insurgents, but mostly because the Republicans let down their guard with Bush I. They were cocky after Dessert Storm. They indulged themselves in intra mural blood baths, and weren't pounding all the scripted notes in unison. They learned a lot from that loss and they went out and recruited the best front man money could buy them in Bush the Junior, the designated "compassionate conservative". Today's Republican Party (the predominate machine, leaving out a few decent mavericks from this overall characterization) have roots in 1984 the year, and 1984 the book. They have perfected New Speak. War is Peace. Division is Unity. Greed is Charity.

How can we win the public debate when the very language that must be used has been thoroughly rigged against us? I ultimately came to believe we might still win with Wes Clark. He is a Republican's worse nightmare, the genuine item, the embodiment of their own rhetoric, and suddenly the King is shown to be a pretender. It is the story of the Emperors new flight suit.

All I needed to be convinced to back Wes Clark this year was a close look at him as a man, is he sincere or is he a sham, that's what I wanted to know. I admit it, specific policies were less important to me for this election than in any other I can remember. Yeah I still care about policies, I have some bottom line litmus test issues, and Clark passes easily. I've studied Clark, I've looked at his career. I've met Clark, and I personally like and respect Clark. But what it keeps coming back to for me, the image that keeps coming up is this. When Bush and Clark finally stand across from each other in those Debates prior to the 2004 election, the Emperor will be naked for the world to see.

[Padraig18]

38. FWIW

My great-uncle is a precinct captain in Chicago, and we were discussing this very yesterday after the news broke about *'s 'impromptu' visit to Iraq; he says that in his contacts with ordinary Dem voters, he is beginning to hear more and more often that our ticket should be Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean in '04, if we want to credibly challenge *. He doesn't remember ever having talked to people this early on who were already thinking strategically about the election, and is surprised to discover it.

[murielm99]

40. I have been out getting signatures

on my precinct committeeman petition. Lots of Democrats in my precinct are older, retired people. They, too, are thinking strategically. Amazing, isn't it? I am very surprised by how many of them support Dean. I thought originally that he was a college kids' candidate.

Most of the people I have spoken with are lukewarm about Clark, but they will vote for him if he gets the nomination.

I am in a rural area. About 35% of the people here vote Democrat, and that is a big improvement over what it was when I moved here twenty-five years ago.

Countywide, Gore received a large number of votes. He did not carry this county, but I remember his percentage being high for a Democrat. Most of the independents, and many repubs voted for Gore here. Of course, he IS the president.

[artr2]

42. And while you Clarkies are having your he's so great circle -

jerk about your candidate is there are over 100,000 of us Deanies out talking to our neighbors, flyering and manning booths talking about our candidate. We know who the best candidate is and we are out daily walking the walk & talking the talk. So all you other than Dean supporters sit in front of your PC's and flame fest each other and have oodles of intellectual masturbation getting a thread going about how wonderful your candidate is, there is an army of Dean supporters who are out working hard for their man to be elected

[tinanator]

43. that's not very nice

I held down a Kucinich table at the local Democratic awards dinner. One ex-army guy for Clark was there, and four or five Dean supporters at the Dean table. I like to think that all Americans (and humans worldwide) were created equal. But that dull look in the eyes of Dean supporters and the unsophisticated comments at the dining table we shared kinda fits in with the juvenile post you make here. Oh, if only the Kucinich crowd was a little dumber, we'd line up behind the "electable" one, too. I guess?
My guess is Dean supporters are C-SPAN junkies who cant see the manipulations on C-SPAN's programming. That was certainly the case with one of the Dean tribes comments at mealtime. I for one, won't let these LCD candidate backers run roughshod over what remains of our hopes for a representative democracy. And Clark? Isnt his slogan "Bombs Away!"?
Well, the folks I work with are TRULY opposed to Bush AND his policies. We will do what it takes to overcome the corporate blackout of Kucinich, with lots of high powered, high profile help. It may even help that so many others are transfixed by phony polls and circle jerks like the previous post, clearly forgetting the one, true rule of electoral politics.