Why I'm sticking with Dean....for now

[ludwigb]

Hi DUers. Here is my current take on Dean and "electability". What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter from John Judis set off a debate in the blogosphere earlier this week.

....The only thing I'm semi-certain about is Dean's lack of electability in November. I think it is because I lived through the McGovern campaign, as did some of those ex-Clinton people who have tried to pump up Clark. The similarities grow with every day. Not just the insurgent voter enthusiasm, the new ways of fundraising, and the bevy of flummoxed opponents, but also the economy (artificially stimulated by Nixon through the Fed and by Bush through the dollar just in time for election year) and the war (raging, but bound to quiet some by election time, and to raise prospects of peace). The economy deprives the Democrat of the issue that would allow him to attract working class votes; the war splits the Democrats, but not the Republicans. True, there are more "Starbucks" voters now than in 1972, but on the other side Bush is far more popular than Nixon was. Nixon was actually trailing Muskie in polls, which is why he thought he needed all the dirty tricks. I fear a cataclysm in the fall if the Democrats nominate Dean. Unfortunately, the alternatives are only slightly better.

Atrios fired back that Judis was being ridiculous.

There's no polling data to indicate that Dean is any more or less "electable" than any of the other frontrunners. Most of what Judis writes about is about the circumstances surrounding the election, which every candidate will be faced with, and the rest seems to be highlighting Dean's real strengths. Judis may have a valid argument (though currently unexpressed) about why Dean's strengths are overhyped, but there's nothing in there to indicate why Dean would be worse than the other Dem candidates.

Other than the fundraising, which, you know, is a good thing, all the candidates will face the war and economy issues. Judis has made an argument why no Dem can win. If a million roses bloom in Baghdad and the economy is booming, there's a reasonable chance he's right - but I have no idea why this is an issue specific to Dean. Or any other candidate.

Then Calpundit chimed in.

So while I realize that obsessing about Dean's electability can become a self-fulfilling prophecy — and it's also the fastest way I know to start a comment war — I have to say it: I think Dean is unelectable. Without going into tedious detail, just try to imagine that it's April and the $200 million attack machine has geared up. And think about what the ads are going to look like, especially to moderates who aren't true believers in the Dean phenomenon already. (Go ahead: use your imagination. And try to be brutally realistic.) To me, they look devastating. I know it's not fair, but this election isn't going to have anything to do with fairness.

Of the liberal pundits who oppose Dean, Judis is the most convincing to me because I know he's an intelligent and experienced pundit and he knows how to play upon my fears. That the U.S. simply isn't ready for a "straight up" politician like Dean, that the liberal white-collar coalition necessary to elect someone like him just isn't there yet. That Dean won't be able to appeal to Southerners, military types, and macho guys. That Dean will be easily caricatured as "arrogant", "hot-headed", and "self-righteous" (a meme the Republican punditry have already picked up). That Dean is another (gasp) McGovern.

Voting in a primary shouldn't be a philosophical statement. It ought to be a strategic decision, encompassing a variety of factors. For me the chief factor, but not the only factor, is nominating the candidate with the best chance of defeating Bush. It is certainly possible that some of the other candidates (I'm thinking especially of Clark, but also Edwards, Gephardt and Kerry) are actually more electable, but have they proven this in a convincing way? That is, through the way people respond to their leadership, and not merely through their biographies? Certainly Clark has the biography, but what else has he got? I think he isn't going to beat Bush if he fails to give people clear reasons to vote for him--a problem Dean doesn't have.

I don't particuarly dislike any of the Democratic candidates. All of the them share my values to some extent. But I think that Dean comes the closest to my worldview. From my perspective, Dean is either strong or the strongest on the main issues (healthcare, balancing the budget, the environment, education, foreign policy) and he demonstrated principle and toughness when he opposed the war, at a time when most of his current opponents were praising it. While Kerry and Clark will likely be savaged by the Republicans for waffling on the war, Dean's principled opposition may well be easier to defend against the Republican media machine. Furthermore, Dean has proven that he can generate serious enthusaism and raise a ton of money, which certainly makes him more likely to beat Bush.

Obviously, I personally like Dean as much as or more than any of the other candidates and this influences my thinking. Yes, I admit that many of the things I dislike about Clark (for example his past Republicanism) actually make him a stronger candidate in the eyes of the general electorate, and the similar things can be said for Kerry, Edwards, Liebermann and Gephardt. Total objectivity is impossible here. And with every unfair and/or desperate attack on Dean, my emotional identification with Dean increases.

Still, I try my best to be objective. I do have my doubts about Dean, and the fact that smart people like Marshall, Chait, Judis, and Drum believe Dean is unelectable doesn't sit well with me. Still, what the pundits think is becoming less important with each passing day. Every day Dean solidifies his lead, I am more inclined to believe he is the best man to take on Bush, due to the fact that he has the passion, the message, and increasingly the money and organization necessary to do the job. To my mind, Dean's success goes a long way toward disproving accusations of unelectability. At the very least, Dean's success highlights the relative weakness of his opponents.

For me, the rise of Dean is actually a welcome development. I happen to be one of thousands of Democrats who would be prouder to campaign for Dean than for any other candidate. Is that narcissism? Maybe. But it's not something I can simply discount and still feel good about myself. I advocate strategic voting, but strategic voting doesn't necessarily mean abandoning one's ideals.

Dean isn't perfect. Clark and the other candidates still have time to prove themselves and Dean could still prove himself not up to the job. I for one still have an open mind. But soon it will be time for Democrats to make a desicion and get on with the task of replacing Bush. I'm certainly inching closer to Dean.

[w4rma]

1. Gov. Dean and Sen. McGovern are not at all alike unless one is afraid of …

… grassroots support.

Dean has taken McGovern's populism, Truman's firey straight-talking, Carter's ethics, Clinton's ability to connect and Gore's intellect and wisdom. Dean is the combination of some of the best qualities of many past Democratic candidates.

Dean Is the New McCain …
And the new Carter, and Goldwater, and McGovern, and Reagan …
By Julia Turner
Posted Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 3:48 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086718/

Also, unlike McGovern's low budget campaign of an army of young volunteers, Dean's campaign is well funded. In fact Dean's is the best funded of any of the Democratic candidates.

Unlike McGovern, Dean neither served in the armed forces nor was a U.S. Senator.

Unlike McGovern, Dean is a centrist. McGovern was a liberal Goldwater, IMHO. Dean is a passionate centrist.

…
Dean has a slight edge in the East and South. In the West, Clark enjoys 22% compared to Dean’s 17%. In the East, Dean (18%) is followed by Lieberman (15%) and Gephardt (11%), and Kerry trails with just 8%. Dean is the leader in the South with 13%, followed by an 8% tie of Edwards, Lieberman, and Sharpton. Gephardt has a slight lead on Dean in the Central-Great Lakes area, 16% - 15%.

Democrats favor Dean with 16%, followed by Clark (13%), Lieberman (10%), and Gephardt (9%), while Independents like Dean (13%), Gephardt (11%), Lieberman (6%), and Clark (5%).

Whites favor Dean (17%), followed by Gephardt (11%) and Lieberman (9%), while African-Americans support Sharpton (14%) over Dean (11%). Hispanics give a slight edge (19%) to Clark over Dean (18%).

Men favor Dean first (16%), followed by Clark (13%) and Gephardt and Lieberman (9% each). Women like Dean best (15%), followed by Gephardt and Lieberman, both at 9%.

Dean’s appeal seems to miss those under 30 years of age, who give 16% each to Sharpton and Clark, compared to Dean and Edwards at 4% each. Those ages 30-49 like Dean best (16%), with Kerry and Lieberman tied at 11%.

Likely Democratic primary voters ages 50-64 favor Dean (18%), Gephardt (12%) and Clark (11%), while Seniors (ages 65+) are divided in their support of Clark and Dean at 14% each, followed by Gephardt and Lieberman at 12%.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=755
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=715968

White House 2004: General Election
http://pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm


Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean (L) comes to the aid of a supporter who appeared to be having a seizure outside a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, November 15, 2003. The man began to have a seizure in front of a van carrying the media and then fell to the ground. Dean walked over from his van and rendered aid to the man. REUTERS/John Gress
Reuters - Nov 15 4:18 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=717015

[w4rma]

14. Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

TO: Moore Information Clients & Friends

FROM: Hans Kaiser & Bob Moore

RE: Election 2004: Why Dean Can Win, September 2003

A recent article by David Brooks left readers with the distinct impression that Republican pollsters are all of the opinion that Howard Dean cannot possibly beat George Bush. We regret that he didn’t check with us first, as it is our belief that Dean has the potential to be a formidable candidate who could give the President a very difficult race.

The conventional wisdom that has some Republicans giddy about a potential Dean candidacy is not only misguided, it is counterproductive. Writing off a candidate like Dean by selectively sorting statistical gobble-de-gook and mixing it into a broth of “empirical” sociological evidence ignores the political realities of our time.
…
The difference between Howard Dean and the rest of the Democrat candidates is that Dean comes across as a true believer to the base but he will not appear threatening to folks in the middle. More than any other candidate in the field, he will be able to present himself as one who cares about people (doctor), who balances budgets (governor), and who appears well grounded while looking presidential. To be sure, he doesn’t look that way to the GOP base, but that has no bearing on the election, because they will never vote for him anyway. He can appeal to the middle and Republicans can ignore his candidacy at our peril. We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover.

Howard Dean’s appeal is closer to Ronald Reagan’s than any other Democrat running today. Granted, that’s not saying much with this field, but there are similarities here. The Democrat party used to chuckle about Reagan and his gaffes which they believed would marginalize him to the far right dustbin of history. But when his opponents tried to attack him for some of his more outlandish statements, the folks in the middle simply ignored them. Voters in the middle looked to the bigger picture where they saw a man of conviction who cared about them and had solutions for their problems. Howard Dean has the potential to offer a similar type candidacy.
…
http://www.moore-info.com/Poll_Updates/2004%20Election%20%20Why%20Dean%20can%20win%20Sept%2003.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_reinhard/index.ssf?/base/editorial/106829671744920.xml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=709103

[Larkspur]

2. If the other candidates can't defeat Dean, then they won't be able to

defeat Bush.

Dean's campaign is more broad based than his critics think and that will be their undoing.

I'm a 42 year old, white, single, and child-free woman. I consider myself a moderate liberal and I never get polled, yet I make a very good salary as a software engineer, and I use it to help Gov. Dean.

During the course of this campaign, I've befriended grandparents and senior citizens from Vermont, who are enthusiastic about helping their former governor unseat Bush, who they despise. I've met pro-Dean elderly ladies on the way home form the Dean rally in Boston. These women have never donated to or participated in a political election, other than voting, before now. I've also talked with moderate Republicans who voted for Bush in 2000 but fear where he's taking our nation now and they want change. These people never get polled either.

Like these other citizens I've met this year, I'm one of those stealthy voters, who never gets registered in the polls, but I do show up to vote on Election Day to vote in the most important poll of the year. And I think in 2004, we'll see people who have never voted or haven't voted in a long time come to the polls on election day to vote for Howard Dean.

[Speck Tater]

3. "President Dean"

Get used to hearing it. Get used to saying it. It's inevitable.

[dd123]

4. Dean is the only candidate that can reframe the debate

I loved these paragraphs from TAP:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/11/tomasky-m-11-14.html

"I think most pundits have gotten Dean wrong, and continue to miss the point, for one simple reason: They think too much about ideology. Political writers seek ideological explanations first. It's understandable; it's how we think. So, Dean's success must be about his opposition to the war.

Obviously true in part. But it actually explains little about Dean's somersault over his competitors. It has become apparent in recent weeks -- to pundits and to Deaniacs -- that Dean is no flaming liberal at all. He's pro-Second Amendment. Gephardt has whacked him, with some justification, on Medicare. Dean has spoken openly of courting voters who like the Confederate flag. Finally, he broke what is arguably the cardinal rule of effete political liberalism by opting out of the campaign-finance system.

And yet, none of these revelations has furrowed the brow of the Deaniacs one whit. And they haven't because Dean's appeal is not chiefly ideological.

He's the only one of the Democratic nine who is what sports commentators would call an "impact player." He understands how to make an impact on people. He thinks big. He saunters into battle without fear -- and sometimes with less judgment than one might prefer, but even that helps make him interesting. Notice how he managed to prevent his refusal to accept public financing from turning him into a plaything of the fat-cats, instead converting it into yet another glorious manifestation of his ingenuity and his sacred connection to the people.

See him with a crowd and it's not hard to glean the basis of that connection. At the endorsement event, his speech (pretty much his standard stump speech) was about American history, the political culture today and, most of all, the people in the room. Scarcely two sentences were devoted to himself. In an age when Clinton-imitating pols ache to cull the life-shaping events from their past to establish the perfect bio, Dean does none of that. The impact he has on people when he speaks to them is bio enough. "

[cyclezealot]

7. Why Dean.

Should Dean get the nomination, I probably will vote for Dean;but my heart will be with nader.My wife says she will vote for Nader.
My question to you uncritical Dean supporters. I am not carried away with his red hot rhetoric..Bush bashing does not impress me should the issues that motivate me are not addressed.
A Dean administration will do NOTHing to address my concerns for Health Care and bad trade deals causing the de-industrilization.You might argue his case; but you will not convince me! You might believe in his rhetoric but you will not convince me. I will probably vote for Dean..But active work and financial sacrifice, He will have to address my issues before I will lift a finger.
So convince me he will make America better if you want my energy.
Kucinich is 100% right. Negotiating with the WTO is will not change a thing. It is disingenious to claim such. We have given up our sovereignty to a world body composed of international congolemerates.Negotiating with them is useless.. So convince me!
DOn't give me that BUsh is a despot crap..Maybe we have it coming to teach the American public not to be apothetic. Besides the economy will continue to go to hell.Wrap that one on Bush not Dean..

[stickdog]

8. Dean is far better than Bush on EVERY ISSUE you mention.

Go ahead and throw away your vote, though.

Dean's campaign is driven by his Meet Up activists.

We've already changed his mind on NAFTA, bringing home our troops in Iraq and several other issues.

Get on Dean's blog. Argue your points. You CAN make a difference in Dean's real grassroots campaign. Dean's contributors are regular people like us; we are the ones he'll be beholden to.

If that doesn't at least give you and your wife hope, what in the world ever will?

[ludwigb]

13. Good point

On points where Dean's platform seems weak, the Dean organization allows for debate and compromise. I agree that Dean's more nuanced position on Nafta is an outcome of this, and I think better positions on issues where I differ with Dean (like the Middle East conflict and on the question of middle class taxes) can be debated and fleshed out as well. The innovations introduced by Dean's campaign are indeed a radical contribution to democratic practice--the world may not yet be ready for it, but that shouldn't stop us.

As Jonathan Cohen has observed, the Meet-Up phenomenon is something the punditocracy has failed to understand. As someone above presciently mentioned, the pundits only seem able to think about ideology, rather than the actual contours of the Dean Meet-Up movement.

[cyclezealot]

17. He will have to earn my energy.

My wife will not vote for Dean; I probably will.
He can be convinced to come around on my issues,I will become more energetic.....All I know my two vital issues that motivate me; his debate performance does nothing for me so far....
His medical plan will continue to have our employers fleeced by insurance companies and I do not trust his flip flopping on NAFTA.
We have lost our autonomy to WTO. Nothing else but Kucinich's actions will change the present reality.
I have to work to 65 to have medical coverage then a new Democratic Administration is a miserable failure to my primary issues. That alone will keep me apathetic.
Dean said you want 'significant change in our medical system,I am not your guy'...Attributed to 'Dean is No Wellstone' article in the Nation.
That is my number one issue. He will have to earn my energy. And lots of others. I predict Dean will not stop a Green response. Sorry. I should not have to influence my Democratic nominee to come around;I expect him to already be in my camp.
We marched against Bush's war and oppose this atrocity. But still prefer Gephardt over Dean. He is honest about domestic issues. We will try to shame Gephardt over Iraq. Kucinich is already 100% there on the real issues that make life in America a struggle

[stickdog]

21. What you are saying is that you want fast food democracy instead

of real democracy.

What candidate with a realistic chance at winning has a better platform or organization than Dean?

[cyclezealot]

26. No.

Fast food democracy..? you have one chance to effect change every four years. Fast food democracy. What is that. Democracy is a shallow word in America when the media is a bought and sold commodity and it is not owned by the people. It will only allow issues to be presented that its owners allow to be heard.
I want A National health care plan,presidential elections is the one chance every four years.. Can't do it when a presidential election if taking place, certainly will happen any other time.
Once every four years, I am not gonna blow that chance for change on someone who is afraid to fight for the public.
I understand Dean said,'Single payer is the best solution, but I will not waste my time on something that is not possible.'
Due to this Congress owned by the lobbyists. Not a good enough leader for my tastes.. I call that a sell out.

[stickdog]

27. It's called realism -- a concept you seem to have difficulty with. (nt)

[cyclezealot]

34. Well, then might as well just drop out.

If realism means giving up on ideals that makes life better in the US, then I might just as well just drop out, let my voters registration expire, and watch "The Nanny," along with my wife.

[vdeputy]

5. Dean would have a problem

defeating George Bush because I don't believe the people of America will vote to elect someone with absolutely no foreign policy experience at this particular time in our history. Back when Clinton ran, yes, we were thinking the Cold War was over and domestic policy was the major priority. I don't think people feel that way now and I believe the majority of voters will look to someone who can assure them they have the knowledge and experience in foreign policy affairs to keep us safe. This is especially true of independents and republicans unhappy with Bush. Nothing against Dean....I just think his lack of experience in this area is a killer.

[stickdog]

9. Yeah. All of the other candidates proved their foreign policy worth

by dragging us into Iraq for no reason, right?

[Upfront]

6. Choice Was Easy

Heard Dean speak against Bush* over a year ago, and knew he had it. He will beat Bush* badly. Dean will be our next President.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. I started by backing Dean

but I moved on to Clark and I have no doubt now that I am backing not only the Democrat most likely to defeat Bush, but also the man who will be the President this country needs at this point in its history. It isn't a pragmatic choice for me, I believe it is the right choice period. I am not a moderate Democrat. I have been a life long radical working through opposition movemnents rather than electoral politics. Starting with the Civil Rights movement, then opposing the Viet Nam War, fighting nuclear power, organizing against US policy in Central America, Boycott of apartheid in South Africa etc. etc. I still like Howard Dean, and I will work for him if he wins the nomination. But I think General Clark, through experience, temperment, ability, and historical circumstances, is the man best positioned to lead this nation out of the extremely dangerous situation we now find ourselves in, bot domestically and internationally.

I remember when Eugene McCarthy opposed Lyndon Johnson in NH, forcing Johnson not to seek another term as President. And I remember the gratitude the anti war movement felt towards him, and the respect. But Bobby Kennedy was the man who would have actually defeated Nixon had he lived, and pulled the fractured nation together, reinventing America in the process, binding old racial wounds and preventing the divisions that subsequently developed between prototype yuppie liberals and working class Democrats, which ultimately fractured the party and played itself out through the Humphrey and McGovern camps. I think of Dean and Clark somewhat the way I saw McCarthy and Kennedy then. Clark is the leader America will accept. He is the one who can face down the Republican phony patriot opposition and command the respect of a broad cross section of America, which will empower him to make the fundemental change in course this country desperately needs.

I have seen Wesley Clark speak to small crowds twice in person. It is remarkable to hear him speak freely without notes on a broad range of crucial and complex issues. I trust him, I really do. He actually quotes the Federalist Papers and is passionate about preserving our Democracy. He frames dissent not as an American right, but as an obligation of free citizens to speak out against their government when they feel it is going wrong, in times of peace or war. His love of country is like MY love of country, it's akin to Woody Guthries "This Land is your land" much more so than the Star Spangled Banner (though I'm sure Wes is comfortable standing at attention throughout the latter lol).

I want Wes Clark as President to get us out of the mess we are in in the world, he has the training, experience, and even the contacts to do it. He believes strongly in the United Nations. He understands that international good will is an important strategic asset. I want Clark to redefine Patriotism so that wanting this country to live up to its potential and promise is no longer quickly labled as near treasonous. After a life time serving his nation in the military, he is the man who can do that best. Clark understands the Military Industrial complex from first hand observation, and he opposes it. He refused to cash in by signing up with some military contractor when he retired from the Army.

And the truth is, Clark will make it much more difficult for the Republicans to win the next Presidential election. Yes there are sufficient states that Dean can actually win that can make him President, but he will have to win virtually all of them to do so. And the Republicans know full well which states Dean can be competitive in and where he doesn't stand much of a prayor. Thus they will concentrate their campaign exclusively in the states Dean has a chance of winning. When Gore ran the Republicans had to divert some resources into the south, since Gore was from Tennessee and Clinton had carried some southern states. This time if Dean is the nominee they will throw those resources into Ohio and Michigan and Washington, and New Mexico etc. instead. Clark would keep them honest. He can pull votes in the South as a southerner and military man, especially if security issues are up in the election. Clark would almost certainly carry Arkansaw which would have given the election to Gore had he won it. The Republicans will not be able to take large parts of the South, like Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana for granted running against Clark. They may still win most of them, but Bush will have to actually run a campaign there to do so, making it harder for them to win Democratic leaning states elsewhere.

And Clark is developing into a feisty and strong campaigner. He is not afraid to take on Bush directly, which has always been a strength of Deans. Again, I am not one to knock Dean. He brings a lot to the plate for the Democrats. But take another close look at the General.

[ludwigb]

11. Wow!

You should be writing for the Clark campaign! You make a very strong case--one that I'll have to think about.

I admire Clark's intellect and credentials. I think he'd be the best Veep for Dean.

Maybe what I need to really feel enthusiaism for Clark is a bold policy proposal that sets him apart from the other canidates and shows some guts. I know he's no Kennedy--he's a plain-spoken man. But to convince me Clark has got to demonstrate that he is bent on beating Bush and will not stop fighting until he does. He's got to seem sincere enough to convince the American people that we really do need a change.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. setting him apart

Actually Clark is not exactly plain spoken, though he is very direct. He's quite eloquent but has not fully mastered sound bites yet, which is really like learning another language for someone who is not trained to speak in them. Clark is nothing if not bright however. He's already multi lingual, he's starting to get sound bites down.

You raised three "concerns", the need for a "bold" policy proposal that would set Clark apart, a demonstration that Clark is bent on beating Bush and will not stop fighting untill he does, and the Clark's ability to seem sincere to the public about the need for a change.

Regarding Clark's determination and willingness to fight you can do one or both of two things. First, Read more of what Clark has to say on his own web site as opposed to waiting for tidbits of his positions to break through the talking head boycott of taking him seriously that Clark has endured recently. Clark backers suspect that owners of mainstream media have a script imposed to marginalize Clark, talking up other (non Dean) candidates even when Clark is beating them in the polls, but that's a whole other discussion.

The other thing to do is look at the way Clark has lived his life. He does not stop fighting, ever. There is ample evidence of that. First, going way back, he kept commanding his troops in Viet Nam after being shot 3 times and refused to be evacuated until the battle turned in favor of his troops. Going back even further, in High School his swim team made it to the State finals but was about to be disqualified from a Relay race because one member of the team could not compete. Clark insisted on swimming two legs in the relay race and his team won the championship.

More recently he made some serious enemies in the Pentagon when he refused to be toned down about his concerns about the ethnic cleansing taking place in Europe in the former Yugoslavia and Serbia, at a time when the prevailing military strategy was to keep American powder dry for fighting in the Mid East or Korea, not to be distracted by ethnic skirmishes in the Balkins. Clark was right and he did not back down. More recently Clark lost a lot of personal long term friends in the military when he started taking on Bush publically, I've heard him talk about that.

The off hand comment that I heard Clark make during a free ranging interview on New Hampshire Public Radio that absolutely blew me away concerned a direct comparison he made to this time in America and the last years of the Roman Republic before it turned into the Roman Empire. The interviewer was startled also, to which Clark responded "well what would you call it when during a disputed election to determin the U.S. Presidency in Florida, howling partisan mobs were unleashed to pound on the glass of the building to intimidate election officials who were trying to recount the votes?" (or something to that effect, it isn't a direct quote). He went on to make include a couple of other examples including the Texas Congressional Seat reapportionment and another example I forget at the moment.

Regarding bold policy iniiiatives I honestly think that is a red herring. All of the proposals made by the currrent Democratic party candidates seem bold compared to the radical right new course set by Bush. The Democratic agenda represents a bold change for America, period (Thank God). Clark has some fine positions, on education, the environment, taxation, jobs, health care, a womens right to choose, affirmative action etc. Boldnmess isn't the problem for Democrats, Clark has policies, Dean has policies, Kerry and Edwards have policies etc. They differ by degrees but they all have much more in common than what differentiates them from one another. All of those policies will undergo subsequent tweaking and changes before they might ultimately are passed into law. Pieces from one plan will get grafted onto another, assumoing the Democrats win. That's how it usually works. The real problem is implementation, not imagination. We have to retake the White House and hopefully Congress to make any changes whatsoever.

What sets Clark apart is his outsider status from politics as usual, something he and Dean share to an extent, and Clark's impressive national security credentials. What also sets him apart from most is his keen intellect (number one in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, Masters from Oxford in Politics, Philosophy, and Economy etc.) Clark is a straight shooter talking about issues of substance, which certainly sets him apart from Bush. He has also maintained a refreshing high tone throughout his campaign, refusing to get causght up in petty and manipulative "gotcha" attacks against fellow Democrats. More and more, people are noticing and approving of that.

[ludwigb]

15. hmmm...

Like I said you make a wonderful case and I appreciate you taking the time to convince me. I will definitely give him a serious 2nd look and check out his website. And I can say Clark has replaced Edwards as my #2 (partially because of the demonstrated civility that you correctly note, partially because I have come to believe he is stronger than Edwards and would make a better Veep for Dean in any case). But just so you don't think I'm a total idiot, let me give you the reasons I haven't embraced him previously.

1. His praise of Dubya in the past and the fact that as a mature educated adult he voted for Reagan and Bush in the past. I know he's a military guy and military guys think differently (perhaps not so ideologically as us), but these votes still make me doubt his core values (especially after that MA at Oxford!). I also think Bush will be able to use Clark's praise of his policies to his advantage and paint Clark as an opportunist who is just now embracing partisan politics. Yeah, that is my biggest worry.....

2. The critical early campaign mistakes, especially on the IWR vote. Made him seem too green to effectively fight the Rove machine and relatively easy to attack as indesicive.

3. The bad press coming out of organs like TNR (in a recent example, J. Chait takes Clark to task for supporting an Anti-Flag Burning amendment). Your accusations of media disinformation may be true and I will consider them. The likes of TNR may have their own reasons for spinning Clark in a bad light--they certainly are spinning Dean as badly as possible.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I appreciate your openess

Your concerns are not empty. I've weighed them for myself but still feel quite comfortable backing Clark. Perhaps we'll pick up this thread further at a later date, don't want to be seen as tryng to dominate the discussion with an endless pro Clark spiel. Nice discussing with you, good luck.

[FrenchieCat]

23. But did you know?

That 1. Dean signed legislation into law in Vermont supporting the same ideals as the Flag burning amendment:

Joe Conanson writes on 11/14/03-Around that time, Dean rather pompously declared that politicians should declare their positions on the flag issue before voters went to the polls in 2002. That requirement didn't apply to Dean himself, as he "coyly" told the Rutland Herald, because he wasn't on the ballot that year. So now that he is running for president, the candidate who prides himself in speaking bluntly should explain the limits of his support for the First Amendment -- in plain English."
<8:22 a.m. PST, Nov. 14, 2003>
Article links
the Hill revealed: http://www.thehill.com/story.asp?id=139
first night: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=crowley111303
brokered: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2002/journal/SJ010116.htm
coyly: http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/38411


JOURNAL OF THE VERMONT SENATE
________________

Tuesday, January 16, 2001

The Senate was called to order by the President.

Devotional Exercises

Devotional exercises were conducted by the Reverend Wayne Jones of Northfield.

Pledge of Allegiance

The President then led the members of the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Bills Introduced
The following communications from the Governor were read and referred:

J.R.S. 9. Joint resolution in opposition to the desecration of the United States Flag.

Whereas, the flag of the United States is one of the greatest symbols of our nation, and

Whereas, this symbol represents the defining principles of our country, and

Whereas, these ideals also include the democratic principles of individual freedom enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution, especially by those amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights, and

Whereas, Americans have placed their lives in harm’s way and, in hundreds of thousands of cases, have sacrificed their lives defending these principles, and

Whereas, their willingness to sacrifice their lives in defense of these cherished principles demonstrates one of the purest and most commendable forms of patriotism, and

Whereas, these patriots have focused on the flag as the ultimate symbol for which they and their families have sacrificed, and

Whereas, the flag serves important ceremonial functions at public gatherings, funerals, celebrations of patriotic holidays, parades and countless other gatherings, and

Whereas, respect for the flag and the various protocols attendant thereto (such as proper display, proper folding, saluting, et cetera) serves as the first introduction, for many young Americans, to the concept of patriotism, and

Whereas, therefore, we, the American people, accord our flag a unique position of respect, love and admiration, and recognize the importance of providing dignity and honor to this symbol, now therefore be it

RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

That the General Assembly expresses its respect, love and admiration for our United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly expresses its condemnation of all acts of flag desecration, and similar displays of disrespect for the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the General Assembly respectfully urges the Congress of the United States to take whatever legislative action it deems necessary and appropriate to honor and safeguard the United States Flag, and be it further

RESOLVED: That the Secretary of State transmit copies of this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate and all members of the Vermont Congressional delegation.

Thereupon, the President, in his discretion, treated the joint resolution as a bill and referred it to the Committee on Judiciary.

Joint Resolution Adopted in Concurrence

J.R.H. 15.

Joint House resolution entitled:

Joint resolution in memory of former Representative Maud-Ann Durgin.

Having been placed on the Calendar for action, was taken up.

Thereupon, the pending question, Shall the joint resolution be adopted in concurrence? was decided in the affirmative.

Adjournment

[FrenchieCat]

24. Also,

In reference to Clark's vote on Nixon and Reagan; the realism of our situation should not be missed:
www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3 Take a listen

In addition, of all the praises to Bush were 1. In reference to his foreign policy team and how it related to Europe.
on reading clark's lincoln day speech:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065
here is the full paragraph of contention:
------------------
You see, in the Cold War we were defensive. We were trying to protect our country from communism. Well guess what, it's over. Communism lost. Now we've got to go out there and finish the job and help people live the way they want to live. We've got to let them be all they can be. They want what we have. We've got some challenges ahead in that kind of strategy. We're going to be active, we're going to be forward engaged. But if you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
----------------------
notice he says he is glad to have them in office for the challenges ahead in EUROPE!

[FrenchieCat]

25. Furthermore

The Clark campaign has already said they will make a commercial using those videos during the General election against Bush. You will see Clark saying nice things about Bush team, then asking what went wrong. Then you see Iraq, people in unemployment line, Corporate CEOs doing the walk with handcuffs.....

voice over Clark sais: "Many of us thought we could trust George Bush and hoped that he would do the best for our nation. But in looking back at the last 3.5 years, we see an obvious pattern.

We need real leadership. A leader that will bring respect back to America with a President that can do what's right for America.

George Bush, you've had your change....now the American people deserve better."

NOW THAT'S A COMMERCIAL!

[ludwigb]

29. That sounds effective and may very well work...

But it could backfire. Bush will campaign as a "man of his word" who kept his promises, while Clark played the role of the opportunist. We'll see.

In any case thanks for the links. I've been hostile to Michael Moore ever since his support for Nader 2000, but I agree with the points he makes.

[hilzoy]

33. IWR

About Clark's position on the IWR: I think it's important to separate three questions.

(1) What did Clark think (back in the fall of 2002) about going to war with Iraq? Here he has been completely consistent. Saddam is bad: he's horrible to Iraqis, he's a threat to regional stability, he flouts UN resolutions, and he probably has weapons of mass destruction. We need to do something about him. But this something shouldn't be going to war, at least not before other alternatives have been exhausted, which they haven't. We should try to put in place a system of more intrusive inspections, and sanctions more directly targeted against Saddam Hussein's regime and its military. Whatever we do, we should build an international coalition for it, and we should not allow it to divert us from Afghanistan and the war on terror, which are more important now. Going to war unilaterally would be a disaster.

(2) Should Congress pass a resolution of some sort? If so, what should it be like? Here again, he's been completely consistent. Congress should pass a resolution expressing, in principle, its willingness to use force against Iraq, but this resolution should require the President to come back to Congress before using force. This would give the President leverage in trying to forge a diplomatic solution to the problems outlined above, but would not give him a blank check to do whatever he wanted. It would also get much more support in Congress, and would for this reason be better as leverage than the resolution the Congress actually passed.

(3) Would he have voted for or against the resolution Congress actually had to vote on? As I see it, his view is: the reason to vote for it was that at that point it looked as though Colin Powell had won out over Wolfowitz, and thus as though the President might actually try working through the UN. This resolution would have given him leverage in trying to craft an international consensus about how to deal with Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the alternative was not e.g. having no resolution be introduced at all; it was having it fail, which would have undercut any efforts to create such a consensus. (It's worth noting in this context that one of the things that made the Kosovo campaign much more difficult than it had to be was that Clinton had publicly ruled out the use of ground troops early on, which gave Milosevic the idea that he could just withstand the NATO bombardment and survive. I cannot imagine that this parallel did not occur to Clark.) On the other hand, voting for the resolution gave Bush the authority to go to war essentially at will, which was clearly a bad thing. This is why Clark supported a resolution that would not have given Bush this authority. But that wasn't the resolution anyone had to vote on.

Here is the flipflop: on the first day of his campaign he said he wasn't comfortable answering the question, but that he would probably have voted for it. (I read an account of this by one of the reporters who was there, which unfortunately I didn't save, which made it clear that he was actually trying to answer the question honestly: to put himself in the position of a Senator, knowing only what he knew at the time, etc.) The next day, and ever since, he said he would have voted against, though he usually says "I would never have voted for war", which is clearly true, though (for the reasons just detailed) not the same as 'I would not have voted for the IWR at the time.' To me, his 'flip-flop' on #3 is far less important than his consistency on #1 and 2.

Sources: testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html
Before the senate Armed Services Committee: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/sasc-092302.htm
Column in Time 10/02: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

[ludwigb]

38. Well...

It's not that I don't understand. I find these arguments intellectually acceptable. I just disagree. I think sending a strong message to strengthen the president's negotiating hand and voting to authorize force ought to be two different things. I would have been more comfortable with Kerry's (and other Democrats) vote if the resolution had required more of Bush--more commitment to a real coalition, more requirements for evidence, coming back to Congress for final authorization.... Yes, all these requirements tie Bush's hands to some extent, but it is a sacrifice worth making for the sake of safety and international relations--under any president! The seperation of powers makes goverment more complicated and less streamlined, but also more morally accountable.

Ultimately, this "there was one resolution and I had to choose yes or no" line is unacceptable--if you don't think the resolution is a good idea, then you shouldn't vote for it. The kind of overly strategic and morally deficent thinking that produces the opposite answer is what the American people are tired of. The alternative is not "no resolution at all"--every congressman has the right to express the conditions under which they would support such a resolution.

I think Clark understands all this, but he ought to admit he was wrong to advise people to vote for IWR, if he hasn't already.

[hilzoy]

39. Well again...

I completely agree that giving Bush leverage for the UN and voting to authorize force should be different things. So did Clark. He described the resolution he would have liked, and it wasn't the resolution that was actually presented. (That was one of the reasons I posted in the first place: to say that these are distinct questions, and the one Clark has been inconsistent on is to me clearly the least important. If at some point he had said 'Hey, I favor unilateral military action that wrecks our alliances, and I also think that not bothering to have a realistic plan for what to do after Saddam's government falls', that would be a much bigger problem.) I also would not have voted for the resolution had I been in Congress.

That being said, I don't think that what I was describing is 'overly strategic and morally deficient thinking'. Voting for the resolution did, in fact, have something to be said for it, namely that had Bush actually decided to use the leverage it gave him to push for more serious UN inspections, that might actually have worked without requiring a war. Voting against the resolution likewise had something to be said against it: namely, that it would more or less have foreclosed this option. As I said, my read on the conversation in which, after some reluctance about answering the question at all, he said he would probably have voted for it is that he was, oddly enough, trying to answer it honestly: i.e., trying to say how he would have answered it given what he knew at the time. And at the time, it wasn't entirely nutty to hope that Powell's approach had prevailed. (I didn't think so, but neither did I think that the people who did were insane.) And if Powell's approach had prevailed, voting against the resolution would have prevented diplomacy from working.

But my main point was just this: the most important question was whether we should go to war in anything like the way in which we did (where 'anything like' means: not after having given inspections and diplomacy every chance to work and seen them fail, as part of a broad international coalition, and adequate planning.) Here Clark has been consistent, and he didn't just think these thoughts in the privacy of his own home, he advocated for them. The second most important question is: what sort of resolution would he have wanted? The least important question is, how would he have voted on the actual IWR? He gave different answers only on the last of these, and to say this is not to say that he flipflopped "on the war".

[hilzoy]

31. Bold proposal

#1: "I also propose creating an agency that will bring the same skill to solving the problems of poverty, disease, and ethnic conflict that we have brought to the challenge of warfare. We should be using our great capacities to prevent conflicts early so we don't need to use force later. That means drawing on the skills that now exist across the federal government.

This new agency should have a budget for real research and development, real planning, and the ability to draw on the US national civilian reserves which I proposed last month. This agency will give us a power to engage that we don't have right now. Because we don't need a new strategy of preemptive force as much as we need a new capability for preemptive engagement.

It serves our interests to make sure that Afghanistan is never again a haven for Al Qaeda; to make sure the fallen states of Africa don't become breeding grounds for terrorists; to make sure the scourge of AIDS doesn't reverse political and economic gains in the developing world. America should be the best in the world in addressing and reversing the causes of human misery, and we should be known and admired for it." http://clark04.com/speeches/009/

(One might think that this proposal is sort of like Kucinich's 'Dept. of Peace', but as I read Kucinich's proposal -- and I might be wrong here -- it's more about replacing violence as a paradigm/mode of conflict resolution, whereas Clark's is about international aid and 'reversing the causes of human misery', albeit with an eye towards preventing conflicts.)

#2: The Civilian Reserve: see http://clark04.com/speeches/005/ . The detailed proposal is in the second half, but the whole speech is worth reading, since it goes over one of Clark's main (underreported) themes, which is his attempt to take back patriotism from the far right.

His environmental views are also surprisingly strong: see http://clark04.com/issues/environment/ and http://www.enviros4clark.com/lcv.shtml .

[killbotfactory]

18. All dems will get smeared by the 200 million

What the hell makes Dean so special that he won't be able to fight back?

Dean's probably the only one who can raise enough money to do it adequately.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I'm just plain tired

that Dean acts like he's got a f*cking siamese twin attached at his hip called Wes Clark for VP.

Voters that are going to vote for Dean thinking they are getting Clark are Suckers!

[unfrigginreal]

20. LOL

Just how many conspiracy theories do you have for why Clark isn't catching on?

[SahaleArm]

30. Dean Spin.

One moment I'm talking about how Clark leads SC, and the next Deanies are claiming I'm slamming their candidate (see any general discussion thread)? I could be talking about Voyager leaving the solar system and I'd get the same response. A little creepy.

[killbotfactory]

22. If people want Clark they'll vote for him

The same goes for every other candidate.

[no name no slogan]

28. It's NOT about the money

Let's take a look at the most recent presidential election in 2000:

Bush spent= $193,000,000.
Gore spent= $132,000,000
Nader spent= $8,000,000
(link: http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/index/AllCands.htm)

And who won? GORE DID with 51 million votes. Bush got 50 million votes, although he spent $60mil more than Gore!

So why do so many people keep repeating the false "it's all about the money" mantra? Gore got 51 million votes in 2000, and spent $61 million LESS than Dubya.

We don't NEED the same kind of money Bushco has raised. A majority of Americans ALREADY support the Democrats-- the only reason Gore didn't get in was because of the Florida debacle. When are we, as Democrats, going to FACE THE TRUTH?

Trying to beat the Republicans at their own game is a losing proposition: one that will lead us right back down the road of defeat that we've been on the last 20 years.

Play by their rules, lose by their rules.

[helleborient]

37. I agree with most of this, but...

The last time around Bush didn't have the power of incumbency behind him.

Defeating an incumbent president is more difficult...and does likely take more money.

[Larkspur]

32. What about Dean's $200 million ad blitz versus Bush's

Judis misses the point that Dean and his supporters are already gearing up for the Repuke blitz next year with their own. It's the Dems trailing Dean, who've got blinders on.

And unlike, Bush the Squander, Dean is a miser with his and our money. Even if Dean doesn't raise the same amount as Bush, Dean will get more bang for his buck because Dean is shrewder and his supporters more enthusiastic than Bush's.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Isn't it premature....

I mean only 16% of Dems would vote for him.....that leaves 84%!

[slinkerwink]

36. wtf?

:wtf: where did this "alleged" information come from?