Why I switched to Clark. One Man's Story

[copithorne]

I just made a contribution to the Clark campaign. I wanted to take the opportunity to write a little bit about why I came to support Wesley Clark's candidacy. I'll provide an anecdote of a Clark supporter.

I adore(d) Bill CLinton. I thought Al Gore would have made a great president. I have been apalled by the presidency of George Bush. I loathe the war in Iraq. I can't bring to mind any other policy in the history of the United States that is as stupid and damaging as starting a war in Iraq has been.

I also regard Bush's tax cuts as craven theft of trillions of dollars from future generations of Americans, including my three year old son. This is a crime which should outrage every person with integrity.

First and foremost I am looking for a Democratic candidate for president with the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. I was dismayed to see so many candidates support the war, or vote for it or be equivocal about such a monumental blunder. These men lacked the leadership qualities I would want in a President.

At the beginning of this year I became a supporter of Howard Dean. I sent money to his campaign. I love(d) Howard Dean. In a country in which everyone had seemed to go insane the man was speaking the truth and I drank him up as a thirsty man drinks water.

I was amazed by the Dean Meetups. It floored me that the Dean campaign could have groups meet 10 months ahead of the primary without any money from headquarters and involve people in working for the campaign. I was amazed that the Dean campaign empowered me to write letters in my own voice supporting Howard Dean. It was energizing, empowering, even exhilirating. I thought it was a new dimension to the political life of our nation. And I thought that if you hadn't attended a Dean Meetup you wouldn’t know that the Dean campaign had captured lightning in a bottle and they were going to win the nomination.

I am proud to have supported Howard Dean and have no regrets. I think my support helped move the Democratic party into forthright opposition to this insane war and it ushered in a new way of doing politics in this country.

Why do I switch to supporting Wesley Clark? I am concerned that the balance of political power in this country is held by people who vote without much comprehension of public policy. What a lot of people vote for is not a president but a father figure. On this score, Wesley Clark is the most gifted politician I’ve ever seen. I find his presence on television profoundly compelling, even mesmerizing. He is the most reassuring man I’ve ever seen. When I watch him, this sense of relaxation comes up from my body that says: if this man were in charge of things, I would be safe.

Howard Dean’s policies would make people safer. But voters who are not thinking about public policy, they will have to overcome anxiety that Howard Dean, as their national daddy, will get angry with them or judge them. Al Gore was an order of magnitude more intelligent than George Bush, had far better policy proposals. But I think there was an element to his approach that led people who don’t think about policy to fear that he would judge them as not being smart enough.

I think Howard Dean could win against George Bush by running against George Bush as scary, erratic, drunken daddy. But Howard Dean is a more polarizing figure than Wesley Clark. Now I blame Republicans for the polarization of American politics. They have become a toxic force that borrows power from a fascist playbook. I don’t think that Democrats should back down from this polarization or play nice. But it isn’t in our interest to turn up the volume on this polarization. We need to both defeat Republicans AND find ways to turn down the heat on the political divide facing this country. Wesley Clark is the man who can do that.

Another way of looking at this is that the candidate who wins in 2004 is going to have to provide the American people with an understanding of the meaning of September 11th. George Bush has constructed the meaning of September 11th as a threat to us which we will respond to by attacking the enemies out there. Wesley Clark has the fatherly gravitas to reassure the American people that even though we were attacked we need to move beyond responding out of fear. I think it would be harder for Howard Dean to carry that message.

I’ll go out on a limb with a prediction, too. Our primary is a race between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark; the other candidates are just hanging on for the ride. Howard Dean will outpoll the other candidates, with Clark coming in second, but the other candidates will throw their support and delegates to Clark and he’ll win the nomination. Clark will select Howard Dean as his Vice-President to unify the party. Clark/Dean beats Bush/Cheney with ease.

I’d like Clark to select Dean as the Vice-President. Howard Dean can be unleashed to do what he does so well which is excoriate the Bush administration. Also, we Democrats NEED the passion, energy and commitment of Howard Dean’s supporters. One thing I hope to see in Wesley Clark is him working to strengthen the Democratic Party and win Congress. He can signal that by choosing a good partisan Democrat as his running mate.

I love all the candidates and I love all the Democrats who are passionate about ending George Bush’s presidency. Let’s do it.

[Options Remain]

1. A nice scenario

I could get behind that.

TearForger

[glarius]

2. I enjoyed reading your well thought out remarks...and there's another

important point in General Clark's favour, IMO...He said very early on in his candidacy that he is appalled by Bush's alienation of former allies and would work to repair relations...As one of those former allies (Canada) this impresses me greatly....Our trade etc.. is effected by the vindictiveness of the Bush people....Clark is a man with a global outlook....Send Bush back to his ranch, where he belongs....:)

[dfong63]

3. an inexperienced, untested, recent convert to the dem party -

... and you think people "trust" him as a father figure? that's the same kind of thinking that elected Reagan, and Hitler. i want no part of it.

I’ll go out on a limb with a prediction, too. Our primary is a race between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark; the other candidates are just hanging on for the ride. Howard Dean will outpoll the other candidates, with Clark coming in second, but the other candidates will throw their support and delegates to Clark and he’ll win the nomination.

i doubt it'll happen, but if it does it'll be a complete disgrace to the democratic party. if that happens, maybe they'll also take the opportunity to change their name to something more honest, like the "autocratic" party.

[Catch22Dem]

8. You're not seriously

Trying to draw comparisons between Clark and Hitler are you? You and I both know that's inaccurate and unfair!

[copithorne]

12. Thanks for all your comments

and you think people "trust" him as a father figure? that's the same kind of thinking that elected Reagan, and Hitler. i want no part of it.

I'm saying that people assess candidates as a father figure in every election. It's an alternate way of looking at candidiates. It is an unacknowledged but crucial component of what a president and candidate does.

i doubt it'll happen, but if it does it'll be a complete disgrace to the democratic party. if that happens, maybe they'll also take the opportunity to change their name to something more honest, like the "autocratic" party.

You need 50% of the delegates to win. This year the primary rules have been standardized so that everyone getting 15% of the vote in a congressional district gets delegates and the primary season will go by very fast so that we may not get the ordinary shakedown to two candidates that we have gotten in past years. I think it is more likely this year that a candidate will have to cut a deal with another candidate to get to 50%. Maybe Howard Dean will cut that deal and tab the number three candidate as his VP to put him over the top. I think it's possible that Bill Clinton might work the telephones to broker a deal.

Would people be upset if Howard Dean gets more votes than anyone else but then is offered the VP slot? I expect Howard Dean himself would urge his supporters to get on board in that situation and that would be enough.

[Egnever]

24. Yes I would be upset

IUt would mirror the florida selection too closely. I think it would cause people to stay home in protest and destroy any shot the democrats have of taking the white house if your scenario of dean getting the most votes then being brokered out came to pass.

It would be a disaster for dems. Too many people would take it as thier votes not counting yet again.

[madfloridian]

4. You lost me with "national daddy" LOL

SNIP..."Howard Dean’s policies would make people safer. But voters who are not thinking about public policy, they will have to overcome anxiety that Howard Dean, as their national daddy, will get angry with them or judge them. Al Gore was an order of magnitude more intelligent than George Bush, had far better policy proposals. But I think there was an element to his approach that led people who don’t think about policy to fear that he would judge them as not being smart enough."

I am sorry to be rude, but that statement is just too far out.

[copithorne]

13. Thanks

Your guess is as good as mine.

I don't understand it myself. Al Gore was uniquely qualified to be president. He had experience in exactly the issues that faced us. He is as smart as they come.

Instead, enough voters chose someone who has failed at everything he has ever tried and couldn't speak an grammatical English sentence if he didn't read it off a cue card.

If I'm hiring a person for a job, I'm going to hire the smartest, most qualified candidate. But then, I'm secure about my intelligence. I think it is a good thing to have an intelligent president.

Now some voters have policy convictions that would lead them to choose the less intelligent president who shared those convictions. Other voters were swayed by the babbling media whores who told them that Al Gore was dishonest.

I think there is also a force in which people prefer a dumber president because they are insecure about their intelligence and having a smart president activates that insecurity.

[Jack_Dawson]

5. Welcome, My Son

I have nothing against Howard Dean. I think the guy showed balls beyond belief by speaking out against the war during a time when it was unpopular to do so.

But...he can't win. Let's be honest. He really is a polarizing figure and the republicans will make a mess out of him - deserved or not.

The simple fact is: Wesley Clark can pull republican votes - Dean cannot. That in and of itself is why the republican hype machine is going out of its way to prop up Dean's "insurmountable lead" and completely ignoring Clark's candidacy. "Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away." But he isn't. Even with the media blackout, he's leading in all southern states, and most national polls.

I like Howard Dean. I'd like to meet Howard Dean someday. But I have an even greater desire to throw Bush out on his ass. Go Clark.

[Rose Siding]

6. A national daddy?

Huh?

"When I watch him, this sense of relaxation comes up from my body that says: if this man were in charge of things, I would be safe."

You even realize that "we Democrats NEED the passion, energy and commitment..."!

How does your dependence on someone else for safety and relaxation lead to anything but apathy?

No wonder nothing ever changes.

[copithorne]

14. Thanks

My experience is that things change a great deal.

Under Bill Clinton we were able to accomplish a great deal and make a lot of constructive change.

Under George Bush this nation is being destroyed. A half trillion dollar deficit is a big change from a 200 billion surplus. War is a big change from peace.

So, I am dependent. When Bill Clinton was in office, I was proud of this country. With George Bush occupying the White House, I feel unsafe. I feel anxious. I am preoccupied with disdain for the man.

And I think that swing voters are fairly apathetic. I mean how apathetic do you have to be to be an adult and not know whether you are a Democrat or a Republican?

[Renew Deal]

7. I whole heartedly agree

I could add so much to this but all I want to add is about the debates. The best matchup I could see is:

Clark vs. Bush
Dean vs. Cheney

I don't think that the other way is as good or goo for us. We would see Clark smack Cheney around, but Dean can do that too. CLark matches up better vs. Bush.

[Metrix]

9. The best way to defeat George Bush is to portray him

as a lifelong spoiled, AWOL screw-up, and to contrast him with the Democratic candidate. Unfortunately you compare him to draft-deferred Howard Dean on the ski slopes of Aspen with the other trust fund babies, and Bush comes out looking better. Dean would be slaughtered in the general election. Whatever message he has isn't going to get out beyond the followers he has amassed so far.

[copithorne]

15. I wouldn't go that far.

I don't underestimate Howard Dean that way. He's run a brilliant campaign so far and I expect he could continue to do so.

How many times was Bill Clinton, the comeback kid, counted out in the 2002 election? Time and time again.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. Not Sure I Agree With You on the Father Figure Stuff

At least not entirely. But I am in 100% agreement with you on this prediction:

I’ll go out on a limb with a prediction, too. Our primary is a race between Howard Dean and Wesley Clark; the other candidates are just hanging on for the ride. Howard Dean will outpoll the other candidates, with Clark coming in second, but the other candidates will throw their support and delegates to Clark and he’ll win the nomination. Clark will select Howard Dean as his Vice-President to unify the party. Clark/Dean beats Bush/Cheney with ease.

I’d like Clark to select Dean as the Vice-President. Howard Dean can be unleashed to do what he does so well which is excoriate the Bush administration. Also, we Democrats NEED the passion, energy and commitment of Howard Dean’s supporters. One thing I hope to see in Wesley Clark is him working to strengthen the Democratic Party and win Congress. He can signal that by choosing a good partisan Democrat as his running mate.

DTH

[sandnsea]

11. Speaking out against the war, amazing

Being a commentator on CNN and discussing the pros and cons of a war, then taking only the cons to use as a basis, is not speaking out against the war. Kerry was at the Citadel and did the exact same thing, expressed the exact same reservations even as he cast a vote. Expressed them again in January and again when Bush launched his war. Nobody ever wants to talk about Clark and Dean and their comments that Saddam had weapons or the UN needed to act or what they suggested to do about it. Just forget that little detail. Nobody ever wants to talk about the Iraqi people being hurt because of the sanctions and how that contributed to the anger in the ME. Forget all of the circumstances that led to that vote, and the fact that Clark and Dean can pretend anything they want about that vote, forget all of that. Just wrap your heads around an idealistic notion that you're voting for the anti-war candidate. Pat yourself on the back, write a check and change America. Right.

[copithorne]

16. Just in my experience...

I love John Kerry and I'm thankful for his work in the Senate.

My view is that supporting that resolution was wrong. I opposed that resolution. I think facts on the ground have confirmed that it was the wrong choice. John Kerry would have better understood his job if he had contained the threat of George Bush rather than contained the (now we know non-existent) threat of Saddam Hussein.

I looked for Kerry to explain that vote, but I never heard a satisfying explanation. To me, he still sounds like he is saying that the war in Iraq was the right policy, poorly executed.

I don't agree with that. I think the war in Iraq was the wrong policy. I agree with Wesley Clark when he calls it a "historical blunder."

But if you oppose the war and are expressing that by supporting John Kerry, more power to you! Keep up the good fight!

[indigo32]

17. I too switched from Dean to Clark

I think what you have to say has some very valid points...People, for the most part, aren't electing policies for President. All the same, Wesley says many things regarding national policy that I find reassuring.

[Egnever]

18. Nice write up

It seems to come down to clark being a general.

I agree with you that the american public as a whole votes on perception. And they are easily led to percieve clark will make them safe. His instant standing in the polls when he first entered the race shows pretty clearly that people are looking for some kind of assurance that the next president will ensure a strong america defensively.

however in the end I think the desire to get bush out will outwheigh almost everything else this election.

There are just too many areas where GWB is dangerous to our society. I truely believe the man is a ticking time bomb waiting to be set off. There are just too many things that can be brought to light on this man for him to be able to survive it.

I like Wesley Clark and I keep watching him to see what I would get with him besides the gold stars. He is getting better with his message and I think you are right in the end it will come down to him and Dean.

So far though the only thing I have seen from clark is the "Be all you can be" campaign. I realize the majority of his life has centered arround the military but I dont want america to become the army. He needs to start answering question without constant referances to the military for me to copnsider him a serious presidential candidate.

The military isnt really the greatest model of a perfect society. Veterans benifits are a mess, a large portion of the military is below the poverty line, ongoing issues with gay rights, the list goes on.

I am not trying to say clark is responsible for these deficiencies but I certainly dont think the army model fits america very well.

So far I dont see a lot of depth to Clark and I cant look back into his record really to see if its there and that bothers me.

In the end I think it will come down to exactly what you referance here though.It will be a dean clark race in the end I think clark will draw a lot of people who are concerned more about thier saftey than anything else while Dean will draw more of the people that are worried about domestic issues.

It should be interesting to see wich contingent ends up being larger.

I do think a Dean/Clark ticket ensures us the white house. The other way arround though I dont think is as strong.

I am not trying to bash Clark here. I think he is a strong candidate and could make a decent president. Certainly way better than bush.
I will be satisfied if he becomes the nominee and vote for him hapily largely because I do think he is an inteligent man and will not be easily manipulated by a biased staff.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Welcome!

From the dark side, to the Clark side.

Only priority is to get Bush out of our House. Period, comma and Exclamation Point! No Question!

[copithorne]

20. Nice comments Egnever

What I am describing as Clark's main strength is not his resume. It's a personal quality of leadership that I see in him. When he talks, he has a magnetic quality of command that is reassuring on a gut level.

When Howard Dean talks, I hear a man speaking the truth. If I had my way, that would be enough. I know from experience that it sometimes isn't.

I think that a lot of people in this country were very frightened by what happened on 9/11. And a primitive response to anxiety is to split the world into good and bad -- to find enemies. A lot of people have trouble functioning without an enemy.

It's no accident that after communism fell, the Republican party really got going on identifying "liberals" as the enemy. And now we've got another "enemy" -- radical Islam. Republicans already have a thirrd of the country whom they have conditioned to see "liberals" as the enemy. And the Republicans will try to get the other 20% by saying that Democrats won't be tough enough on the other enemy -- Radical Islam.

This insanity leaves us on the brink of fascism.

I think Wesley Clark is the man of the hour who can lead and unite this country in this anxious time.

[FrenchieCat]

21. and don't forget

There are four Democratic Senate seats that we may lose if we put the wrong candidate up against George Bush.
These four seats are all located in the South.

Zell Miller - Georgia
John Edwards - N.Carolina
John Hollings - S. Carolina
Bob Graham - Florida
There is a rumor that John Breaux may also retire. Since the LA Govenor's race has now been won by a Democrat, he has mentioned that he will decide within the next couple of months. So in adding that Southern Senate seat, we come up to five:
John Breaux - Louisiana

Currently we have 48 Democrats in the senate, and 1 Independent.

General Wes Clark is the only candidate, that has the military and Foreign policy experience needed to handle the wars that we are currently involved in, and is also a southerner.

If we lose any or all of these Senate seats, we can kiss what's left of our 2 party system goodbye for a long, long time. President Bush will be able to do whatever he likes, and we won't be able to do a doggone thing about it.

Many Dean supporters make the arguments that the general election can be won without the South. Yea, OK, you bet!

If Democrats can't see the problem with that logic, then prepare for massive exodus to Canada and Mexico the day after the election.

These are the cold hard facts. Period - even an exclamation point!

[LibertyorDeath]

22. Clark&Dean I think I hear Rove shitting himself

[Kahuna]

23. In short. Clark has the "warm and fuzzy" quotient..

I agree.