Defeatists, Defeatism, and the horse they rode in on...

[jeter]

I am sick to death of these defeatist posts here on DU. I have tried to ignore them but they are just there. Always there. Never a moments peace. Because they are always there.

They are usually started by Clark supporters, unfortunately. I say unfortunately, because I actually like and admire Wesley Clark. I think he would make an excellent President.

But his supporters here do him a major disservice. For starters, they have no faith in their own candidate. That is why they feel it necessary to attack Howard Dean. Because they see Dean as being strong. And their own Clark as being weak. The only way offset this disadvantage is not to build Clark up to Deans status. But to bring Dean's down to their own.

There was a time when I was torn between Clark and Dean. Because both opposed the war. Both are strong. Have their limitations, sure. But both also have a number of strengths. I still see the Dean/Clark ticket as the strongest. But the entire rationale for Clark's candidacy - right from the beginning - was that he could easily defeat George W. Bush. That is why most initially supported him. I suspect that is why most still support him.

It's not about his accomplishments. His vision for the country or world. Not about his platform or anything. It is the fact that they think that Clark could win. Therefore, Clark is their man.

But a funny thing happened. That belief never carried over to any tangible method of measuring the success or failure of candidates. Sure, it is true that some polls show Clark doing better. Usually, by about 2 to 4%. Others show him at par with the other "mainstream" Democratic candidates. Others still show him behind, even the much maligned and hated Howard "Dukakis-Goldwater-McGovern-or any other candidate that lost by a lot" Dean.

So the whole rationale for his candidacy fell apart. So posts here at DU then became less about building up Clark and more about bringing down Dean. It was no longer that "Clark CAN win." It became "Dean WILL lose." Even though, to this day there is no evidence of this. Other than what FOX news has to say. Contrary to popular belief here, the next election will not be decided by the South. It will be decided by independants.

According to Pew Research Polls, and others. For the first time there is an even split among Dems, GOP and Inds. 33% to 33% to 33%. This weeks Time Magazine, and the most recent Pew Research Poll also show that the GOP and Democrats have never been as polarized as they are today. 90% of GOP think Bush is great. 90% of Dems believe he is a turd. 90% of GOP think the war and everything else we have been dealt with is great. 90% of Dems think it is bad. The key, is the independant. The independant voter will be gold in 2004. That same Pew Research Poll also showed that the trend of independants is going our way. And has been for several years now. There was a pause to be sure after September 11. But that bounce is dead now. Independants more and more agree with us on: the war, the economy, health care, the deficit, the debt, education and even foreign policy. They see the Bush Administration as increasingly going in the wrong direction.

So the true question, if anyone is serious about analysis. Is which candidate appeals to independant voters. Where and why. The answer to that question is not certain. But Howard Dean is the one making the case to them. He is the one trying to appeal to them. Not by pandering. But by addressing their issues in a reasonable way. Much like the way Clinton did in 1992. The Clark strategy of sounding like Dean while his supporters simutaneously attack him do nothing to get us where we want to go. That is why I don't support Clark. Not because he doesn't have the potential to be great. But because he isn't acting very great. He is acting desperate. And it is obvious.

Why should I support a desperate candidate? Especially one, who's supporters obviously don't have enough faith in to espouse his virtues. Selecting instead to attack his opponents. That, is what this election comes down to me.

[childslibrarian]

1. How is he desperate on CNN, Letterman, 60 Minutes II, Tim Russert...

This is a flame....I don't think you judge a candidate by whether people on this discussion board make you mad, but by the candidate himself...
That said, I see a Dean/Clark, Clark/Dean ticket as being very strong--sort of a Spock, Kirk thing. The problem is these candidates need to team up for the sake of the country and put their egos aside..is it possible?

[PSU84]

2. I don't think you understand

Clark or his supporters at all.

There are only 2 things about (some) Dean supporters that bother (some) Clark supporters.

1. They don't see that Clark is a better candidate.
2. They don't understand that while Dean is sure to lose to Bush, Clark can beat him.

I am a Clark supporter. I know not a single Clark supporter who believes that Dean can win the general election. That's why we are troubled that the media have anointed Dean the presumptive candidate.

Dean would lose an election that the Democratic Party absolutely must win for the good of this country. That's all there is to it. Other than the fact that he is obviously the wrong candidate for the Democratic Party in 2004, I don't give a rat's ass about Dr. Dean.

I just want to beat Bush. I have a lot of company.

[wryter2000]

3. And a perfect example

And a perfect example of why you shouldn't judge a candidate by his supporters. I still like Clark despite sentiments like these.

[PSU84]

6. Which sentiment

don't you like? That Clark is a better candidate or that he can win and Dean can't?

Don't like people saying Dean can't win? Well, sorry but that's what the distribution of electoral votes leads me to believe.

As for Dean himself, except for his palpable arrogance, his air of smug superiority, his short temper, and his condescending attitude to all who disagree with him, I'm sure he's a swell guy.

"Politics is a blood sport." - Bill Clinton to Wesley Clark, July 2003.

[Rose Siding]

10. What other elections has Clark won?

You know, as practice.

I've seen Clark snap at a Fox news reader, but when did Dean lose his temper? Do you have an example in mind? The rest of your *opinion* is subjective and I disagree.

[kaitykaity]

9. Now you know a Clark supporter who

thinks Dean can win against Bush. (Talk about sweeping
generalizations.)

Dean spoke aloud my anger at the Bogus POTUS long before
the pink tutu Democrats could stick their fingers up to see
which way the public opinion polls were blowing.

Except I support Clark, too. I like Dean as the #1 and
really want the General for the #2. That ticket would cream
the BFEE, IMHO.

[TLM]

13. Straight from Clark's blog to DU threads....

http://blog.forclark.com/story/2003/11/29/18927/121

[MasonJar]

4. Dean and Clark

That rant about Clark was not justified. Actually I like both Dean and Clark. I believe together they are twice as strong. Those who support Clark do not do it for one reason only. Clark is not only brilliant, he is also not afraid to tell it like it is. The same could certainly be said for Dean. Clark is so compassionate that he teared up when speaking about the children who died in Bosnia/Kosovo. He is sincere and he has great ideas. Dean has run a great campaign; he is energizing new vaters. Please no more bashing each other and our favorite Dems. Let's pull together. This country may literally not be able to survive 4 more years of Stump/Whistleass.

[childslibrarian]

5. You said it well!

Your response is exactly what I'm talking about--overlook egos--pull together. Thanks!

[Rose Siding]

7. Well said jeter

I've observed some of the same things.

The pundits are running with a similar rationale but they've been wrong about everything so far. At the recent summit, Trippi nailed it pretty good:

They’re so afraid of losing they’ve forgotten what it takes to win.

The other side owns the damn place, and they broke it. They own the store, our economy’s a mess, there’s no jobs, the foreign policy is a mess, people have doubts about where the country is going. Any time you have that and you’re the change agent, the change agent will win every time. Look at 1994, when they threw all our guys out. When our party becomes the agent of change we will win it all, especially when we have 2 million people fighting Bush even, and reload to help our challengers.

Do that and we take the whole thing. We are building this to make the party competitive in a way it’s never been competiive in the last 23 years.

There are a lot of doubters out there, but they’re doubting a lot less today.

Every four years a bunch of guys come out saying look at me, ain’t I amazing? Howard Dean says something totally different. He says look at you, aren’t you amazing?

This stuff is bound to rattle cages. The stakes are crazy huge.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. "For the first time there is an an even split among Dems, GOPS, and Inds."

That's an awful development and cause for despair.....

If the Dems could could count on anything since the New Deal they could count on the fact that they had a healthy lead over the R's in party registration and identification.


Now that's gone....

[Rose Siding]

11. Only half of America votes

Don't despair. We can get them if we give them cause.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Other Polls Have Confirmed The Pew Poll...

It sucks not being the majority part anymore....

It's bad enough we don't con't control diddly squat now as many people say they are Pukes as Dems...

It has nothing to do with defeatism and everything to do with reality....

If the doc tells you have inoperable and terminal cancer are you going to throw a party...

[jeter]

14. Who is inoperable though?

That's the problem with many of the "Dean can't win" sentiment.

These people are trying to recreate the "New Deal Coalition" (Northern cities and southern states), but the reality of the situation is that we have gained in many other places. There is still large potential for growth. We have not completely lost the south, but at the same time we have to accept that the "solid south" no longer applies to the Democratic Party. This isn't meant to cause dispair. It's meant as a reality check. But that said, it is important to read what I wrote concerning independants. That is the key. The key to victory in 2004 and beyond. The key to making us the majority party again. Many former Democrats in the south have abandonned us. The DLC strategy for a dozen years now has been to try to modify our positions (even to the point of supporting things we outright oppose) and smile about it - just so we win back people who don't even like us very much.

I disagree with this strategy. Again, i'm not writing off the whole south. But we have to appeal to a new group of people - independants - and not get sidetracked by geographic politics. That is what has caused us so much problems.

That appeal can lead us to victory elsewhere. In states like NH, OH, MO, AZ, NV, CO, MT, KS, and others where we don't have a history of winning, but where we can win nonetheless. We have to get away from Dean = Northeast, Clark = South, therefore Clark is electable and Dean is not. Because that is Defeatist. And counterproductive.

That was the point of my post. I praised Clark. I hope that Clark will join the Dean Team. But, I just see many Clark supporters (note I said MANY) here repeating the same old DLC line that has led us to defeat so many times.

Other than Clark's southern credentials. What else makes him more electable than Dean? They have virtually all the same positions.

We have to think outside the box.

[BigBigBear]

16. Well

what you call 'defeatist', some of us would call 'realistic'.

Here's thinking outside the box:

1) I don't hear any strategies (from anyone, not just Dean supporters) about how the Democrats can compete in the South. Do I think Dean will make a difference in LA, MS, AL, SC? Force Rove to spend money there? At this point, no. Clark and Edwards are the only southerners - Edwards dosn't have a real chance of getting the nomination. Clark does.

2) ...for that matter, compete in the inland West. I live in Colorado - it's depressing to live in a state that, barring a miracle, is a Republican lockdown. I don't think I saw a single presidential TV ad in 2000. THAT's a lock. Colorado has a military-sympathetic population. Even if he couldn't take CO, Clark could force Rove to spend here, and contest.

3) If the only national winning issue for the Republicans is National Security (and we already know they control the airwaves), who's better qualified to take them on? A four star general or a doctor from Vermont?

Look, I like Dean. I think he's smart and passionate. His followers are True Believers.

But I think some of his supporters are applying the dynamics of a preseason Democrat primary to a general election, and that's what I find troubling. I personally think that the Republicans are dying to run against Dean - and scared of Clark.

I can't think of anything in politics since I worked for George McGovern as a teenager in MA I'd rather be proven wrong on, but we (and the country) cannot four more years of this cockroach.

[MIMStigator]

15. Dean is only stronger in primary, Clark in general election

So which is more important? the primary or the general election?

[opihimoimoi]

17. Strength in numbers. They should all join forces to defeat Bush

There has to be a way to do this.

Fragmented, we will have poor odds.