Does Clark Signaling his 2008 Intentions Now Hurt the Dems for 2006?

[Tom Rinaldo]

That seems to be a thread of concern that runs through a lot of the Clark related posts today. Can we discuss this one calmly? I think so. The concern seems to be that by Clark telling his supporters that he has an interest in running in 2008 (there was no formal announcement or commitment to run made) that the aftermath will weaken ongoing activities to reform and rebuild the Democratic Party. Further there is some concern that a focus on winning Democratic victories nationally and/or locally in 2006 will likewise suffer as a result of what Clark did last night. This seems like a good theme for discussion. I have my own opinions on it, but I will keep them out of the header post.

[FourStarDemocrat]

1. It won't hurt in my opinion...

I believe that many things can be undertaken by the Democrats at the same time. There is no mandate for other leading democrats to endorse him. Grassroots work, building the party up from the local level will not be detracted from because Clark is signaling his intentions to his supporters. It was because of Clark's '04 candidacy in fact that I and many other Clark supporters began to involve themselves in local politics, and contribute to house and senate candidates. I think it's all a good thing, and Clark does offer a cohesive message to Democrats.

[yebrent]

4. yea. I never gave money to other democrats...

until I gave to Clark first. The Clark primary was my first entry into the political activism, and it didn't stop with Clark pulling out. I think he understands that building up a strong army behind him will lift up the party.

I feel the need to get more involved in groups other than Clark groups, so I can be there and have an influence when they are making their decisions on who to back in 2008.

[yebrent]

2. I think it depends on what Clark does now though 2006.

If he brings in his supporters to help in key races, then I think it is a good move. Even if he is doing this for selfish reasons, (which I don't believe), then the wise move would be to help as many allies win in 2006 as possible. This would greatly strengthen his support from key dems and show the national democratic party what he and his people can get accomplished.

If he does little to help with 2006 races, then yes it will hurt. But I have a very difficult time believing that he won't help, especially after all he did to support others in 2004 after he was knocked out of the race.

[sharonking21]

3. Clark is a positive, not a negative

His keeping us supporters informed of his interest does nothing to harm anyone. We all know that many others are already "informally" running. To see my description of one such effort, see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1728935&mesg_id=1729256

The more discussion in communities throughout the nation of our various Democratic leaders and of the issues we hold dear, the better.

I feel that statements saying otherwise are disingenuous.

[Clarkie1]

5. It's all about hope.

Clark gives a lot of people hope for the future of the Democratic Party and hope for the future of America.

That hope will feed on inself and lead to more support for candidates in 06', and for democratic issues and causes.

Clark was the first person running for political office to ever inspire me to become actively involved in a campaign. As a result, I became active in my local congressional race to unseat a Republican incumbent, which is something I never may have never done if Clark hadn't been the catalyst for more active political involvement.

Honestly if it wasn't for Clark and what he is doing right now, I'd be far more pessimistic about the future of this country and the future of the Democratic Party.

Action requires hope.

[yebrent]

7. Here here!

What an excellent way to describe the Clark effect.

[x_y_no]

9. "Action requires hope."

Exactly!

I had pretty much given up the fight (I'd vote, but that's all) when Clark entered the fray. Now, even though by any objective standard things are worse, I've got hope again.

If the anti-Clark folks around here can't appreciate that, tough s---.

[cestpaspossible]

6. Is there an actual quote of what he said?

I think all I have seen are paraphrasings, which have not all agreed with each other. But clearly most of the people making those reports seemed to think from what he said - he's running.

Absent a real quote, I'll just say this. The right answer to the question at this point is to leave the question open but to only really speak about more immediate goals.

[x_y_no]

10. It seems to me the whole basis of this furor ...

is that instead of his stock answer of "I'm ruling nothing out" which we've been hearing for months, he said something about taking our (Clark supporter's) advice.

Since everybody knows what our advice would be ... :-)


But in point of fact, he *is* doing exactly what you say.

[cestpaspossible]

11. So no, no actual quote. I wonder what he said.

[x_y_no]

12. Doubt there'll be a transcript ...

Maybe somebody there videotaped it and will post it. I'll keep my eyes peeled.

[Zhade]

8. I think it may hinder Clark supporters' efforts a bit, yes.

Overall, hard to say if it'll be a problem. I personally think it's WAY too early for ANYONE to announce, but that's just me.

[kevsand]

23. How would it hinder Clark supporters?

I don't think I follow the logic there. You're absolutely right about it being too early for anyone to make a formal announcement. From the accounts, this was more of a wink and a nod to the loyalists. Maybe a little more honest than most career politicians, but that's okay too...

[crispini]

13. I don't think it will hurt at all.

From my narrow myopic point of view as a grassroots activist, the work that needs to be done goes like this:

- recruit precinct chairs in every precinct
- train them
- build a precinct level organization in each precinct
- have an active blockwalking, phonebanking, GOTV group of neighbors in every single freaking precinct by 2006 that are ready to shake the tree to get every Democrat to the polls.
- and teach them enough Lakoff so they can talk to their friends and neighbors intelligently and start swinging them back our way.

IMO, that's the REAL work that needs to be done, and every single one of us activists needs to be doing it, no matter who the heck is running in 06 or 08.

[Pepperbelly]

14. Why would it hinder?

I am beginning to suspect that Wesley really, really, really wants to be President. I am not surprised. From the time I was very small, my Mom would keep me filled in on Wesley ... West Point, Army, Vietnam, his wounding, Rhodes scholar, lieutenant, captain, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, general, SACNATO. So it doesn't surprise me. I was kind of rooting for him to retire, kick back, and enjoy life. Plus, I know what a good person he is and know how much he will be villified, first by his fellow Democrats and then by the gops. He knows that as well.

Oh well ... it looks like he's in for the long haul.

Okay. What you can expect is this. He will have carefully considered the project and has developed a way of getting from point A to Z. In so doing, he knows that a strong party is absolutely necessary for achieving the objective, the Presidency. I suspect what you'll see is a Democratic Party that will benefit from Wesley between now and 2006.

[x_y_no]

15. I'm kind of baffled by the idea ...

that one can't do both at the same time. In fact, to the extent this gets Wes more media attention, it helps his efforts to promote the party for the midterm election.

[Sparkly]

17. Are we sharing brainwaves?

We posted pretty much the same thing at the same time... :tinfoilhat:

[x_y_no]

18. LOL!

Great minds, don't you know. :-)

[Sparkly]

16. This signal and a focus on 2006 aren't mutually exclusive

Just as Clark sent emails rallying support for various Congressional candidates in 2004, I've no doubt he'll do the same for 2006. Increasing his own visibility is *good* for the party all the way around, imho.

[leyton]

19. I doubt that he'll suck up much resources, attention, or money

three years out. I'd imagine that what he is doing right now is getting his name out there to the activists; lining up staff who will come to work with him after 2006; and meeting precinct chairs in the early primary states. It's not like the media will be on a Clarkfest for the next two years either - and just as well for everybody!

[Totally Committed]

20. What makes you think a Democrat...

speaking tough on issues like National Security and Red State "Values" isn't going to help the canidates in 2006?

The Democrats speaking with any sort of courage or moral authority are few enough and far enough between. The more, the better... Maybe people will start voting for this Party again once they see a couple of backbones amongst us.

After the last primary, I vowed never to donate another cent to the DNC until it got fixed, bigtime. I haven't seen enough fixing to change that yet, so I donate to individual candidates and their PACs. WesPAC, Barbara Boxer and her PAC, and Charlie Rangel will be the only beneficiaries of my now modest donating power in the near future. If and when Conyers and those who are working the voter fraud issue need my assistance, they, too, will get it.

I am no longer assisting a Party that has done nothing but work against my interests, and lose bigtime to those who do actual harm to me and my family over and over. So, anything Wes does or decides to do in the future gets my support, as will any candidates running in 2006 who are running a smart campaign, and are comitted to winning.

And, I see my donations to WesPAC -- giving a voice to Wes's courageous message -- as part of that assistance.

TC

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Well I think this will only energize Clark supporters to get more involved

in the entire Democratic Party. Clark will continue what he has done from the moment he declared in 2003. He will ask supporters to help to elect Democrats all over the country. And he will continue to do so himself. And knowing Clark supporters, they will rise to that call.

In only a few months last time Clark built up an active Meet Up following that was well short of Dean's, who had started earlier of course, but was far larger than that for any other Democrat. I think this will perk up Clark's Meet Up base now, for example, also. And once more people are meeting more people will get involved with other Democrats locally on other issues and candidates as well.

My experience in the real flesh and blood world is that no matter who we all support most, activists quickly find common ground to work together on. Clark energizing his base will flow energy toward the local Democratic Parties, and there common ground will be forged.

[Totally Committed]

22. Yes, energizing ...

it is that. And, I found this especially true: "Clark energizing his base will flow energy toward the local Democratic Parties, and there common ground will be forged."

Thanks. You are always a voice of reason.

TC

[Clarkie1]

24. Precisely. n/t

[Clark2008]

25. Why would it?

I think grassroots, while growing from the bottom up, is spurred from the top down.
Clark is still a draw, particularly in the South and Southwest and in New York and California. His unofficial announcement to gather support before a run would only help the 2006 candidates if he makes appearances with them.
For example, if a Democrat candidate in Texas has Clark stumping for him, the rewards of the draw of someone of national prominence would only produce a win-win for the candidate and Clark. It would provide a bigger draw from the locals and more local and regional media interest (the national media will still be too busy screaming "Hillary - '08" to pay attention). But, since people trust their local media more than the national media, that's a plus, too.
The only concern I see is coming from folks who have a vested interest in NOT seeing Clark run, for whatever reason.

[dogman]

26. Isn't Clark energizing a gathering of Clark supporters suspicious?

NO!

[Totally Committed]

27. I offer this:

http://www.raisingkaine.com/blog/?p=154

Other Democrats seem to be picking up his gauntlet and running with it just fine!

TC

[Clark2008]

30. Just left this fellow a message

Sounds like a good candidate for Va. governor, too.

(FWIW, Virginia law forbids governors from holding consecutive terms, so the state gets a new governor every four years. Of course, Warner could run again for the gubernatorial term following this four years.)

[autorank]

33. Kaine is great! He's going to whip some ass. Bit nastiness coming

out about Kilgore. He's a bottom feeder who will be doomed when the campaign heats up and people find out more about him. Plus, Kaine is from Southwest VA, which is a good demographic for a Democrat. Warner won by a brilliant strategy of cultivating this part of the state for a couple of years prior to the actual campaign. It paid off. If a Democrat is compatitive there, he/she wins.

[RAF]

28. why the heck would it?

Honestly, I find some of the discussions started here simply bizarre. WOW

Perhaps a few have way too much time on their hands.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I don't think it does, but I've read posts by others who disagree

They don't seem to be posting here now though. It feels strange to try to make their arguments for them. Some I think thought now other National Dems would accelerate their decision making which would draw money and attention away from Congressional and local candidates. Others thought by having Presidential politics coming into focus this early, people would be distracted from issue oriented struggles and/or broad based Party building efforts.

I may not have represented those views well since they are not mine.

[madfloridian]

35. Tom, it will be a distraction.

It will take resources financially because others will now have to start revving up and building their coffers.

But you know the worst part? There has been no healing time from the primaries, that time in between where people can get their thoughts together.

That is already today leading to divisiveness among the usual suspects. Every board is like this today. I saw someone called a liar, and worse at MyDD because they criticized a person posting about Clark. There is more going on.

Just as most of us were trying to put aside differences here comes the announcement. It is too early emotionally, it is too early for the party to benefit. It is going to cause even more dissension.

Why? Because every time one of us says something good about what Dean is doing as chair, or when he gets in the news....many not all, start pouncing. Because I refuse to play the game, say ok I love your guy, I am a major target. I do not love your guy, I should not be judged on that. I can be a good person and not care for him.

Dean is doing a good job trying to bring a very diverse party together. Those of us who supported him are now working locally and supporting DFA and the DNC. We do not give a flying damn about 08 yet.

We are working for the party, posting Dean events and activities. On the whole....and I will be eaten alive for this....many Clark supporters are strictly for Clark, party be damned. They just do not seem to be that interested. At CCN we see attacks this early on Edwards, serious ones. On Hilary, serious ones. And of course Dean. Oh, and Feingold, gloating that his divorce will hurt him and give Clark more of a chance. This is just dangerous to the party.

This is not helping. It hurt when Dean lost but we got over it and we are concentrating on 06. Many of your group simply are not...they are concentration on Clark. Most of us are open-minded about the candidates now, but the internet organized blast today was not wise.

The internet is filled with this today. It is not a pretty site.

[tishaLA]

38. Of course you're focusing on a small minority of people

Just as there is a small minority of people who label every DNC event a "Dean" event. Many, if not most, vocal supporters of Clark are involved with the Democratic Party at the local and state levels and are not particularly interested in doing anything to castigate other candidates, like saying that their non-announcements are not wise.

We would be wise to realize that most people can work hard at more than one goal--that we can have candidates we prefer while we work for the overall good of the party. It's what most people do most of the time. FWIW, there is a deep irony that I don't know what's going on at CCN while those who "do not love" Clark do. I guess that means even more than two things are simultaneously possible.

[Radical Activist]

31. It will have no effect. Clark isn't a major figure for '06.

I know Clark is popular on DU, but he isn't a big enough of a figure to have any significant effect on the '06 election one way or another. We should keep that in perspective.

[Clarkie1]

36. Well that post revealed alot.

Cheifly that you care more about dissing someone you disagree with than working with ALL Democrats to help the party.

I'd be rolling on the floor laughing except it's tragic when any Democrat cares more about other Democrats agreeing with their perspective than finding encouragement in what ALL our major Democratic leaders are doing for the party.

To call Clark a "minor figure" at this point is either childish pouting on your part or a complete, willful blindness to reality. I'm not sure which.

In any case, I'm sorry the reality of the grassroots enthusiasm and energy Clark brings to the party is not to your liking.

[Radical Activist]

41. Hey, its true.

You may like Clark a lot. He might even be the nominee in '08. But what is he bringing to the table in '06? He has no elected office and no position in the party. His importance on DU is highly inflated in relation to his importance in the real world for '06.

How is having a fourth place finisher in a Presidential primary who has never held office supposed to help someone running for Congress or US Senate? He could hold some fundraisers and help candidates raise money, but that's the extent of his usefulness. There are a lot of other people out there who can do that. That doesn't make Clark anything exceptional in '06. Al Franken would probably draw a bigger crowd for a fundraiser than Clark. Its not a matter of bashing Clark. I'm simply facing political reality.

[Clarkie1]

42. He is and will continue to help the Party's image nationally.

He is bringing national security credentials to the table in a way that no one else can. If you don't think having a 4-star General with Clark's reputation endorsing a candidate in a red state is going to help, then I guess we just disagree.

[Radical Activist]

44. Sure, endorsements help.

But if big endorsements won elections then we both know that Dean would have won the Democratic nomination since had the most big endorsements by far. An endorsement from Clark can help, but it will have no more than a small effect on any given race. Yes, he can help with fundraisers, but so can a lot of other people. None of these things make Clark more than another minor figure in the '06 election.

I realize it may be difficult for you to accept that since Clark is obviously a very important person to you personally, but it takes more than four stars to be a political player. Any objective observer would have to admit that someone like Al Franken will have a bigger impact on the '06 elections that Clark. If Clark were running for Governor of Arkansas he would be much more significant in real world politics.

[jfenway]

47. Hey RA!

Do I need to come around and smack you again?! :P

I actually don't have any beef with what you said (not necessarily agree with it either, but you are entitled to your opinions), except the last sentence.

The Governor of Arkansas is not the only path to Democratic enlightenment. It's a dead horse - stop beating it.

And stop framing everything you say as "object", "fact", or "reality". I am not buying it. It's your opinion only - one that I do begrudgingly respect.

J.

[Crunchy Frog]

32. I just watched the video of the event

and what I saw was Wes strongly committed to strengthening the Democratic party and its message, and strongly committed to working to help get Dems elected in 2006 and get his supporters mobilized to work for '06.

In short, I saw a Wes who is very interested in working to reform and rebuild the Democratic Party, and sharpening and focusing its message. Not one who is at all interested in hindering that process. Indeed, for him to hinder that process would be to severely undercut his own chances at a presidential run.

I think that most or all of the people who are thinking about running in '08 know that they have to demonstrate major committment and contributions to the party if they are to have a shot. I'm seeing alot of activity from alot of '08 hopefuls and I think it's all good.


Edit: I wanted to add something specific about his statement about the necessity for Democrats to defend Democrats. I think that in itself is a very positive contribution to the party.

[MontecitoDem]

34. I was there

It was a great party. He replayed some earlier messages of his about "family values" meaning good healthcare, education, clean air and water, protecting our civil liberties. He spoke about supporting the new GI Bill of Rights and asked us all to (1) donate to WesPac (2) Spread the word on the GI Bill of Rights and other issues highlighted at WesPac.

He also asked us to get our local organizations up and running. Everyone already knew he is planning to run. Of course plans change. Candidates prepare to run for many months, even years before they "officially announce."

Not sure why all the hubbub. We were all psyched by his speech and happily all accompanied him to the "Main" dinner with Howard Dean.

All the major dems who spoke at the convention - Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Dean - talked about how we own the values issue and about the importance of national security. We had a tight message from the national level.

Things are coming together and we are on the right path, I believe. I was so very proud to be a Democrat!

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Thank you for that first hand account.

I think there's alot of unwarranted hysteria around here right now, and alot of projection, and imagining of conflicts and slights that just don't exist in the real world. Thanks for bringing the subject back down to Earth.

[AntiCoup2K4]

39. I think it definitely distracts from 2006.

Even if Clark goes out now and talks about why we need to elect Democrats to Congress, it's going to be interpreted as "Oh he's just saying that because he's running for President".

2006 should be the message right now. Not ANY candidate for '08.

[jfenway]

40. Yeah right...

At least Clark has the guts to step up to the plate and state his intentions.

Now, let's get back to your regularly scheduled program of "Is Clinton/Edwards/Kery/Feingold/etc. going to run in 2008?".

J.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Burrrrrbbbbbbbbbbbbb

that was the buzzer saying....wrong answer!

Hillary '08 is all that we hear about now from those damn pundits, not Election 2006.

National Defense and values are still issues for Democrats runnning in 2006, or didn't you know? We've got the Social Security issue working for us finally, but even the rumblings on that, I am hearing, is that Democrats are going to start compromising.

Naw....Clark indicating the likelyhood that he will run only helps his supporters get excited and energized for 2006. Even if, in some cases, the support is done indirectly via donations to WESPac, it's still all good. WESPac will provide Clark with what he needs to go around the country supporting Dem candidates that need supporting. There are many Dem activists out there active in the party now, because of Wes Clark. Many candidates, especially in the South and Southwest want Wes Clark standing next to them....and it will be done.

[Boo Boo]

45. Depends.

The "Clark announced" meme has the potential to serve as a distraction. OTOH, I think that he was really trying to rally the troops, to get the support he needs to be an effective leader within the Party.

I think Clark is focused on '06. Focused on the present.

[jfenway]

46. The only distraction..

is from whether Hilary is going to run or not.

Agreed about the rest.

J.