Clark on KPCC Los Angeles NOW! Summary of very short interview

[Gloria]

used as jumping off point for discussion of what Party has to do....


http://www.scpr.org/#

[Gloria]

1. He's following Ron Brownstein who discussed the Dem Party...

Clark saying it takes more than a message. Needs a complete apparatus.

Describes the misinformation of the GOP message machine. Outshouts the Dems.

Look at the airwaves. Fairness in Media Act. Spread of talk radio, consolidation of radio stations. Lots of Americans not hearing both sides of the issues.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Talks about the GOP apparatus....

and slime machine of disinformation.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Short but information packed.....

He refused to put down the Democratic party....but instead he promoted it and stated that our message is not getting out....that we are a National Defense party, a full service party, but the Republicans have a one up on the messaging apparatus.

[Gloria]

3. Array of issues about the party...can't change the outcomes by

only having one point of emphasis...need message machine, modern fund raising, mail, internet.
Need a good think tank or two or three just like the Republicans have.


Party is going to make Americans understand what they stand for...full service party...not so much where they are on the political spectrum...don't want to leave people behind. Promoting the general welfare (Constitution); common defense; govt has important role in improving the lives of every American...

[FrenchieCat]

5. Zogby coming on the show now with negativity on the Democratic Party....

Won't mention the fact that the media pushes for the Republicans' message and that the GOP has an entire apparatus 0n their talking points.

His final analysis is that no one wants to know what Democrats have to say.....folks are tuning the Democrats out, because they don't know what they stand for.

Democrats have been "out in the desert" for 2 elections now.

Zogby now pushing Hillary....saying Democrats need to take a page out of Hillary's playbook.

[Donna Zen]

7. Zogby: the proof in the pudding.

Add to Wes Clark's list of means of getting our message out, a pollster or 10 in the party's backroom.

There was a time, not so long ago, that Zogby's sampling was very, very suspect. I suspect, it still is.

[Clark2008]

37. Well, as I keep saying... I know no one in the real world who supports

Hillary, yet she keeps winning all these polls.

Who are they interviewing?

It certainly isn't the Democrats I know and work with locally.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Joe Trippi was on and mentioned the GOP messaging apparatus too...

Democrats were the reactives in past decades, but now, they are on the defensive.

Trippi.....the Republicans have the new ideas....Democrats are pushing old ideas....nothing new and fresh.

[Cha]

38. trippi's an Idiot..what can I say?

repukes don't have any "ideas"..they just smear and lie..

Democrats are the ones who are innovative and have done the most for our Country and have won the most wars and the best on defense.

rove/bush/cheney/rice were Asleep leading up to and on 9/11.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Now DLC leader (Killgore?)

talking about how great Hillary is. :eyes:

[Jai4WKC08]

26. Vilsack is the new DLC leader, isn't he?

Took over from Bayh, if I recall correctly.

But some guy from the DLC was on, and yeah, he was pushing the move to the center message.

My impression of Trippi (I didn't get to hear him uninterupted) was the traditional, let's stay solidly to the left and energize the base.

I don't think any of 'em "get it" like Clark does. It's not about shifting left or right on the spectrum, but speaking out strongly and without shame or fear about what the principles that Democrats stand for and believe in.

[Cha]

39. Yeah, Clark is refreshing

like that.

[Adelante]

9. About ideology

Clark said it's not about the political spectrum, left/centrist, but what we stand for in terms of our basic beliefs. Dems promote the common defense and the general welfare, don't believe government can stand aside and leave people behind, and government's most important role is to improve the lives of all Americans.

[Skwmom]

34. Clark is right that it's not about a stupid label. n/m

[Kahuna]

48. Amen. That's what makes me a Clark Democrat...

I've been saying the same thing forever. Labels are boring, pretentious and nobody knows what they mean. :shrug: They do nothing to enhance the debate. They just add unnecessary menutia to the mix.

[madfloridian]

10. During a week in which the DNC has been on the offense....this comes.

It is a little obvious.

[madfloridian]

11. Oh, before I get jumped on...

I refer to all of them....telling the party what to do when it is already doing it.

Dean called out the ones who voted for CAFTA. We expected this.

The party is building a message machine as we speak, the party is going on the offensive as we speak, and the DLC is going bonkers.

Trippi should know better by now.

[Adelante]

12. Did you listen to it?

Don't assume Wes Clark is *not* speaking the party line. He's very involved with the Dem messaging project. I don't know if you are including him in your "DLC is going bonkers" mention, I can't tell. If he is, then what did he say that offends you? Since you "refer to all of them."

[CarolNYC]

13. I was wondering this also...

I can't quite understand exactly what you're trying to say here, mad....Did you hear the show?

If not, it should be archived here shortly...
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/index.shtml

I'd suggest listening to it and then forming opinions...have you heard it or you're just commenting what's written here in this thread?

Thanks!

[madfloridian]

14. Brownstein, Kilgore, Trippi, Zogby, Clark.

Why are they choosing today to give lectures to the party which has stated they are building these things as we speak?

I think they need to know what is going on in the party before they start talking.

And I don't want us to be a "national security" party. That is playing on fears that most people are over.

Look, since I don't care for Clark, there is never anything I will do right in the eyes of you guys. I quit trying a long time ago.

I think that combination above is a little much this week. The DNC was in enemy territory last week on the offense big time. Today these guy lecture about going on the offense. It is tiresome.

And when did Brownstein start speaking for Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I think that a question was asked.....by the interviewer....

And I agreed with Wes that we need to be building a message apparatus...and we are. It ain't started all that much yet, but we understand that it needs to be done. I also agree with his take that the Democratic party is a party that stands for a whole lot of things...which he listed (I don't know how that's going on the defense, but ok).

Wes said that we are a full service party...and I also agree with that. (although some of us don't act like National Defense is even an issue...doh).

In reference to Trippi...I didn't like the fact that he said that Democrats only have old ideas....and that the GOP wins cause it has New ideas.

Brownstein doesn't speak for me...but I will say that compared to other pundit heads, he's not as far off as others.

Killgore is in outerspace, but he's still a Democrat pushing Hillary's message.

[CarolNYC]

17. Again, I ask....

Did you hear the show?

If not, please listen tot he archive.

Thanks!

[CarolNYC]

18. Also, I'm thinking all of these guys didn't get together

and decide to force Larry Mantle to have them on all together to start lecturing the Party.

I'm thinking there's a good chance Air Talk wanted to put together an hour on the future of the Democratic Party and, for whatever reason, these were the guests they lined up for that hour, no?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

21. No, actually the DLC has been speaking for the party.

Many of us are trying to change that. I am sorry you think of me that way, but I don't see how I can change your views without giving up what I believe.

I was critical of all of them going on air and trying to define the Future of the Democratic Party in the same week or so that the DLC is trying to define the Future of the Democratic Party.

Also the same time that NDN is trying to define the Future of the Democratic Party.

Everyone gets to define it their own way.

I don't see what you gain by saying I dragged Wesley Clark into the mess, I criticized all of them.....is that my right?

I was told here at DU yesterday by a person that I am the reason so many left DU. That is baloney, and I am tired of getting the flak.

I could fix it by saying I supported Wes Clark, but I don't. Guess that makes me your nemesis forever.

[CarolNYC]

22. Does your not answering the question

about whether you heard the show or not mean you didn't hear it?

Again, I'll suggest that you listen to the archive before getting all hot and bothered....That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request...but then, perhaps, you're not interested in being reasonable...go figure. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

23. What have I said that is unreasonable?

Please clarify. I said everyone had a right to define the party, but it does bother me that they are not at all aware that what they are saying should be done is being done. I think they should know what is going on in the party before speaking out.

What is unreasonable about that?

I feel kind of bad I am so hated here, but not enough bad to change my views.

I really don't worry about it any more. I just do what I see needs to be done at a given time. We donate, we work hard.

[CarolNYC]

24. I think it's reasonable to actually listen to something

before you tear it apart...and that's all I'll say on this subject because it's gettng really ridiculous now.

Sorry to disappoint you but I don't hate you and I can't imagine there's anything you could write here that would make me hate you. I don't even dislike you. I'm just ask that you listen to the show. Perhaps if you heard it, you'd react differently. I usually try to at least have some familiarity with the thing I'm criticizing before criticizing it. Obviously, your mileage does vary...

Peace and be well, OK?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

28. Let's not get insulting. Many have chips on their shoulders.

DNC efforts are posted all over this forum a lot of the time. Many do it. They have hired political directors in 25 states already, well ahead of time.

This week there were many signs that they are going on the offensive and fighting back hard. Also some words were spoken against the ones who voted for CAFTA, and that they would be talked to.

I think you can figure out yourself that progress is being made.

Everyone has a right to try to define that party. But, the DLC is still in control for now. Many are trying to change that.

I get a little tired of being blasted here, but I guess that it is ok. Another meme about me....almost like talking points. Chip on shoulder.

[Texas_Kat]

29. Ah but you're wrong.

"The DLC is still in control for now"

The DLC would LIKE to be in control. The DLC wants everyone to THINK they're in control.

The DLC is fighting to stay alive. The re-genesis of grassroots politics has confused them and they are not prepared to effectively deal with dissident voices like those at DU.

If they were really in control, they wouldn't be making as many noises (and preparing to run so many candidates in 08) as apparently they intend to.

Right now, there is NO ONE in control of the Democratic party. There's not any single person or cohesive group of people even in 'charge.' To his credit, Howard Dean is making a concerted effort, but he has a long way to go. If you don't appreciate articulate surrogates that would like to help that effort, I suppose you can ignore them, or criticize them for making points that the Democratic party needs to hear.

We'll see (if the DNC ever 'hires' anyone in Texas), whether they hire the same old 'hack' political consultants or not. Till then, I'm reserving judgement (in Dean's favor) on his effort to rebuild the party.

[madfloridian]

31. Texas just got 4 political directors.

Most states have been getting 3. That is where Dean was most of last week.

I don't care who makes comments about fixing the party. I really don't. They have a right to go on radio and tv and discuss the Future of the Democratic Party. That is their right.

I think you should know your state just got 4 people hired.

[Texas_Kat]

36. Link please?

Because I actually know most of the Democratic activists in Texas.

It will be interesting to see who they are. No announcement on the DNC site, no announcement on the Texas Democratic Party site.

Where is this information published?

[madfloridian]

43. I heard it, but I saw it at the Plainview Daily Herald.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14991839&BRD=517&PAG=461&dept_id=473182&rfi=8

I found the link for you.

It looks like it was a good session there. Real grassroots training. I am sorry you did not believe me. I should have put the link to begin with, but I had not saved it.

[Texas_Kat]

44. Thanks for the link

As usual, the state Democratic party doesn't keep its membership up-to-date. We'll see how the news goes over with the splintered Hispanic groups in Texas. Hopefully it won't cause a range war.

[madfloridian]

46. Well, if that is not suitable for them, have them contact the DNC.

Guess the hispanics don't work together any better than the rest of us. It is splinters them, then shame.

Florida has not gotten anything yet, send the guys hired to us.

[Texas_Kat]

47. Maybe we could trade personnel

At least then the 'new hires' wouldn't come with their own luggage .... er uh, baggage.

Still keeping my fingers crossed for some effective staff.

[madfloridian]

33. Oh, and your state party gets to choose them.

So sorry, you can't blame the DNC for that.

Actually there is a reason to have the DNC chair. In years where we lose everything, someone is at the helm.

Sorry, but I get tired of all this stuff directed at me for expressing opinions.

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Congratulations on hi-jacking the thread

This one was about what Clark had to say about the party. And he said nothing at all to imply that the DNC isn't working on what he said needs doing.

Nor did he say anything about the DLC. And since he's not part of the DLC, I don't see why you mention them in just about every one of your posts. I do think it's a little bit paranoid to say "the DLC is in control," but I guess you have a right to that opinion. I just don't know why you mention them at all.

But what I do see in every one of your posts, mf, is YOU YOU YOU. Get over yourself. This is not about you.
:tinfoilhat:

[madfloridian]

32. Yeh, I have been told to "get over myself" "get the chip off"

Pretty much the same statements, with a few added in like how I drive people away.

Sorry you think I hijacked it because I expressed an opinion.

[madfloridian]

51. Actually the thread mentioned the others as well.

Please find where I was critical of Clark. And actually I don't think I said he was part of the DLC, though I did hear that Al From thinks highly of him for national security reasons. I have the article somewhere.

I simply expressed an opinion about how many people were expressing an opinion about the party's future.

I posted a bunch of links below. I think it is sort of overkill to keep telling me to "get over myself" "it is not about me" ...and the usual.

Actually as I said below, I was going to say Clark did ok but I got tired of all the negative comments putting me down. I think they are overboard.

[Clark2008]

40. Just answer the question!!

Did you listen to the show??

[madfloridian]

25. What is my little club? "The DNC is NOT just for your little club."

Is this not divisive? Define "my little club." I have a little club?

[Donna Zen]

20. Seize the day!

The interviewer chose the topic and then asked the question of wide spectrum of people who would share an opinion.

Brownstein, doesn't speak for me, but he is a political reporter.

Clark, who defends the message, and points out the inequities between the message machinery.

Zogby, disses the Dems as having nothing to say but promotes Hillary.

Killgrore, promotes the DLC and Hillary.

Trippi, blames the machine and the stance of the Dem. reaction.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now, how would someone come away with the idea that these folks chose to participate in an interview to undermine the DNC when the interviewer and the shows producer chose the subject?

Two of those interviewed dissed the party, which is no surprise, since they both promoted Hillary.

Clark, who has defended the party every time he is asked any question along these lines, did so again today. No bayhing from Clark. I cannot for a moment wrap my mind around a suggestion that this stance is meant to be undermining and militaristic. The response that somehow my mystification merits a shrug and an "I won't waste my breath talking to you" completes the "mind boggling."

[Gloria]

15. One plus for Clark today: he didn't pull a "Bayh" i.e., he didn't

denigrate any Dem message...in the "Dems have a problem with crediblity on national security" which Bayh did.

Clark kept it broad and positive about the Democratic message and spent a lot of his 3 minutes talking about mechanisms about getting it out and got a dig in about the Fairness doctrine and media consolidation. Which the public needs to hear about and more often, just as Gore mentioned it on Leno last week.

[Cha]

41. And Clark sticks up for

Dems..i.e. Michael Moore and, yes, Dean. I really like that!

[CarolNYC]

42. I finally got a chance to listen to it...

It's now archived here:
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/index.shtml

Hour 2 of the 8/8 show.

This is a great summation of Clark's piece on the show. I do like that he will not say that the Democrats need to change their "message" or that the Democrats have to figure out what they stand for. He seems to truly believe that the Democrats just need to stand firm and get their message out there and heard and people will like what they hear.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. Well, sounds like it was really good

(Clark's part anyway), even if a bit too short. I'm glad it was archived. Bookmarking so I can listen to it later.:)

[madfloridian]

45. "The Future of the Democratic Party" a few of many links.

Perhaps this will explain why it is so hard to define us....everyone is trying. I mean everyone. All of these articles have the topic "the future of the democratic party"....as that was my search term.

I mean good grief how does a party come together with all these views. I did not really include anything from the DLC site. These are just random searches.

AND I would have said earlier that I thought Clark's remarks were sensible, but I get very tired of being jumped on with both feet....so I got stubborn. I mean, come on here. I am not your enemy. Stop with the talking points on me like "chip on the shoulder", "get over yourself", and "it is not about you." They are getting old.

Here are just a very few of the links I found. My husband and I decided to "fall in line" behind the DNC and continue to work with the DFA, that is our decision. Others may go other paths, form other groups. That is their right.

The DNC has to be the party right now, as their is no official leader other than that group. The DLC declares itself one, but it is not.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1208-38.htm

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/02/debate-future-of-democratic-party.html

http://www.logosjournal.com/owens_election.htm

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2004/12/22/212597.html

http://www.joetrippi.com/node/view/827

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/030802_demparty.html

http://www.democrats.com/node/1582

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/democratic-party_11-18.html

http://growth-strategies.com/subpages/articles/035.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0209-03.htm

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/01-02/608.html

http://dragonballyee.blogs.com/philly/2005/01/sen_kennedy_on_.html

http://www.nebraskademocrats.org/blog/114/future-of-the-democratic-party-circa-2010

[Totally Committed]

49. Well, I have to say,

this thread certainly morphed into one nearly unrecognizeable since I was here last. Whether it is out of stubborness, pride, embarrassment, or whatever, the whole metamorphosis seems to hinge on one yet unanswered question, "Did you listen to the interview?"

This could have been an informative (and informed?) discussion about the actual interview. There were so many points brought up, so many prejudices displayed (Zogby's lean toward the GOP, for instance), so many good (and not-so-good) comments made by all that were interviewed, and actual ideas (good or bad, depending on where one stood within the Party at the moment) that could have been discussed.

Instead this reads like a one-sided, semi-paranoic referendum on the Howard Dean Stewardship of the Party to date. The misperception being, it seems, that it was that very stewardship that was being attacked just by having this interview in the first place. And, it is a misperception that could easily have been avoided if one had, indeed, listened to this interview.

Not everyone who particpates in an interview about the direction of the DNC is automatically attacking Howard Dean.

Not all interviews about the direction of the DNC are necessarily critical of Howard Dean.

Not everyone who feels the need to discuss the direction of the DNC here, or on any other board, is necessarily out to attack Howard Dean.

This interview, if anything, underscored Dean's outspoken and strong leadership to date, and Wes's message of Party Unity supported Dean's very, very well. But, you wouldn't know that if one didn't listen to the interview, and just came in swinging blindly at anything or anyone who did, and then became defensive about it. It would then become a thread about that person and her/his misperceptions, as this did. And that serves no one well.

We, as a Party, need to be able to have these discussions about policy and direction. They will only be effective if they are not taken so personally. This thread proves that. We need to take advantage of these opportunities whenever we can.

Unless this was a purposeful thread hi-jacking, what a waste of the potential for an informed debate. Sad.

[madfloridian]

50. Everyone can define the party. I am not embarrassed at all.

Last I heard anyone who wants to define the Future of the Democrats certainly has that right. I could write an essay on it as well. Look at the links of people who are in articles using the words "The Future of the Democratic Party." This is only the first page or two, and I think all of these are different.

But last I heard, I have a right to say what I think about things. I don't know when that changed. I think it is rather laughable to have Ron Brownstein defining us. Zogby goes with the wind, could be right or left depending on the weather. Trippi has ulterior motives. Kilgore is fine sometimes, but he does run the official DLC blog. So what can I say?

If you don't think I have a right to express my views on the Future of the Democratic Party, and to express my views on what others say....that is a shame. I am not at all embarrassed at anything I have said on this thread.

Personally I did not take it personally at all. A few others seem to have done so, which is their right. I have presented my case pretty fairly. I never thought it was an attack on anyone, I just expressed my views.

(ON EDIT...I copied the links from my post above, and I just noticed some don't work....I would have to go and repost them all. But you get the drift by reading the post just above you.)
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1208-38.htm

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/02/debate-future-of-dem...

http://www.logosjournal.com/owens_election.htm

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2004/12/22/212...

http://www.joetrippi.com/node/view/827

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/030802_demparty.h...

http://www.democrats.com/node/1582

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/demo...

http://growth-strategies.com/subpages/articles/035.html

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0209-03.htm

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/01-02/608.html

http://dragonballyee.blogs.com/philly/2005/01/sen_kenne...

http://www.nebraskademocrats.org/blog/114/future-of-the...

[Sparkly]

52. Just heard it -- thanks!

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/index.shtml

Bottom of the page; Clark starts about 15 minutes in.

He explains we don't need to change the party's stances, but just to improve our "message machine" to compete. When people just act in their own interests, it doesn't promote the common good, and government has a role to play in lifting all people up. He also mentions loss of fairness in the media.